This goes back PRECISELY to my PRIMARY POINT
I've been making in all of my posts. Let me re-iterate it one more time since people seem to keep missing it again and again and instead misrepresenting what I'm actually saying and what I'm actually arguing by taking my statements to be literal examples of my belief as opposed to actions being done for an illustrative purpose....
Economic facts are just that...facts. However, how one comes to those facts are built upon subjective choices with regards to the context in which those facts are generated. Do you look at pure deficit numbers or do you look at deficit as a % of GDP? Do you compare the numbers under Obama only to his own term or to previous terms as well? Do you judge a the deficit over a President's tenure based on its highest and lowest point, it's average, or simply it's starting and end point? Do you give more weight on the deficit to the President, Congress, or split between both in some fashion? Do you adjust for inflation or do you not? Do you take into account the context of how and why a deficit went up and how and why it may be going down outside? Do you trust projections at all, and if so how far forward do you trust them? Do you attribute 2009 to George Bush, as typically you do since the Budget would normally be executed prior to the new President? Or do you attribute it at least in part to Obama, since that year was atypical and the budget wasn't actually passed under Bush but months into the Obama administration?
I can go on and on, but I believe you should get my point there. There are a PLETHORA of ways a person can come at an issue to generate the "facts" they wish to shout. Which is absolutely fine and acceptable, as long as one actually acknowledges and realizes that they don't have a monopoly on facts...and that their opinions based off those facts aren't actually objective truth...because ultimately their "facts" themselves are based on subjective choices as to how they were generated.
My comments regarding how I view Obama on the deficit was based on the OPs subjective choice of going with straight deficit numbers, and with respect to that I stated that I agreed with a positive assertion for Obama using the OPs subjective means of measurement (looking only at his tenure). I also stated that if you change the frame of reference, comparing it to more recent history broadly as opposed to just comparing it to the worst portion of time that happened to fall near the start of Obama's presidency, that I would view him in a more negative fashion. Undoubtably, if you change the other subjective choices the OP made, like changing from straight deficit to % of GDP, my opinion would change yet again because the factors being judged change.
WHICH WAS EXACTLY MY PRIMARY POINT
My issue was not with people suggesting Obama's done well with the economy. My issue isn't with people suggesting they've been unhappy with it either. My issue has been with those acting as if there is only one
way to possibly view this particular economic issue and only one
seemingly objective conclussion to be drawn from it simply because of "facts"....which completely ignoring that said facts are simply products of numerous subjective decisions and are not in and of themselves the absolute means of measurement of the issue.