Discussion in 'Economics, Business, and Taxes' started by resident_evil, Aug 24, 2013.
^ Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, the Communist Manifesto ^
Who defines communism?
Marx never practiced communism. However, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao did.
Thus, Realpolitik:3 :: Theory:0
Marx spent decades of his life engaging in communist politics, that is, advocating for the working class. Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao spent decades engaging in anti-communist politics, in rejecting the working-class internationalism practiced by Marx. Stalin and Mao both killed literally millions of people because they were communists in the Marx/Trotsky/P'eng Shu-Tse tradition, and they were rewarded for doing so with alliances with leading capitalist politicians such as Hitler, Churchill, Roosevelt, and Chiang Kai-shek.
It's terrible that you missed the point, but I'm interested in the links between the pseudo-commies and the capitalist oligarchs?
Stalin was only able to take power from Lenin/Trotsky with the help of funding from capitalists such as Armand Hammer. The capitalist powers of the world, which had imposed a complete international embargo against the Soviet Union in Lenin's time, resumed normal trade relations after Stalin took power, and allowed Stalin to join the League of Nations. Around the same time, the Chinese Communist Party under Mao's direction was allowed to join the Kuomintang. Stalin (like Mao) had strong formal alliances with various capitalist governments, most notably Roosevelt with whom he coordinated at several high-level meetings such as at Potsdam and Yalta.
Unfortunately, I don't have time to go through the entire article. I found enough factual problems in the first couple of paragraphs that I gave up on the rest of the article.
Social Security has been off-budget since 1990, before Clinton took office. I think Clinton had 1 balanced budget not 3 or 4 as claimed by the article. I would be interested in how the one year in which he didn't have a deficit created an increase in public debt.
The article is quoting budget figures that do not conform with the budget process. While I am curious, I am not going to go through the entire article to see whether the writer has a point.
The writer doesn't get to the real drivers of the Clinton 'suprlus'. Short-term capital gains created by the bubble, the Roth IRA rules, and Y2K work.
Clinton had NO balanced budgets when the whole picture is examined. When viewing only the on budget side of the equation and you don't address the new liabilities occurring because new debt, which is not simultaneously accounted, the on budget side had a minor surplus whereas the off budget had greater debt added to the trust funds. It is an accounting convention which overlooks accounts payable. The only way to easily determine what true net surpluses and deficits are is to subtract total national debt at the beginning of a period (fiscal year) from the total national debt at the end of the period. This site gives us the means to determine what that debt is, http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/current and this site shows us why http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/resources/faq/faq_publicdebt.htm#DebtOwner
What is the difference between the debt and the deficit?
The deficit is the fiscal year difference between what the United States Government (Government) takes in from taxes and other revenues, called receipts, and the amount of money the Government spends, called outlays. The items included in the deficit are considered either on-budget or off-budget.
You can think of the total debt as accumulated deficits plus accumulated off-budget surpluses. The on-budget deficits require the U.S. Treasury to borrow money to raise cash needed to keep the Government operating. We borrow the money by selling securities like Treasury bills, notes, bonds and savings bonds to the public.
The Treasury securities issued to the public and to the Government Trust Funds (Intragovernmental Holdings) then become part of the total debt.
The problem with these various redkookian efforts at shouting down Clinton, is that when we apply THEIR own creative accounting to the annual budgets of Reagan, Old George, and Li'l George, it just make THEIR deficits that much the worse!
As an interesting aside....Clinton's first two annual surpluses were arrived at by including those years' Social Security Fund's surpluses. But of course, Reagan/George/George's DEFICITS were reduced by adding in the Social Security surpluses as well.
BUT.....Clinton's second two annual surpluses came about withOUT taking advantage of those years' Social Secuirty fund's surpluses.
Whatever.....we can debate 'til the cows come home, as to whether or not under the same "rules" applied to Reagan/George/George, Clinton actually ran "surpluses". But, we can't debate the fact that his fiscal "performance" was umpteen times greater than those of Reagan and the Bush Boys.
Yes, total debt increased under everyone preceding and including Clinton.
Go to this link http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/current and you too can generate the following chart:
FiscalYear, YearEnding, National Debt, Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion
You're too godamned simple for words.
You're too thieving for words.
Separate names with a comma.