It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
"Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911
The reality is Obama has never presided over a American economy minus his training wheels like a " big boy President ".
The perpetual QE and pumping plus massive spending.
I'm fair so when his policies minus the massive liquidity, minus the massive spending, produces SUBSTANTIAL growth, and that includes NET Jobs gains high enough to keep up and SURPASS Population increases then I'll give him some credit.
Otherwise Barry will be relgated to what he's been for the last 5 years, peddling along with allot of help and a HUGE helment. you know to cover the ears ?
( NSA is going to nab me for that one, they'll ignore all of the other highly critical post I'm responsible for, but their kicking down my door for the ear thing.)
A president disconected, with very destructive Fiscal and Monetary policies on auto pilot.
That's what government likes to call a 'dynamic budget'. Basically, whatever they damn well please to spend.
Building block or stumbling block.... choose.
Spending fluctuates with the circumstances of the present. The reduction in spending cited in the month of June included a decrease in student loans, an expenditure that can fluctuate greatly from month to month. According to your definition an increase in that category that pushed cumulative outlays past the projections for the month by say, 1 billion dollars, would not be considered a surplus even if revenue exceeded that figure by tenfold. It's an inapplicable and absurd definition.