New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus - An oldie but a goodie

EatTheRich

President
No, when they'd set up trying to sound reasonable to as many proletariat as possible before they went full commie on the bourgeoisie.
In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole?

The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.

They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.

They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.

The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.

The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.

The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.

The theoretical conclusions of the Communists are in no way based on ideas or principles that have been invented, or discovered, by this or that would-be universal reformer.

They merely express, in general terms, actual relations springing from an existing class struggle, from a historical movement going on under our very eyes. The abolition of existing property relations is not at all a distinctive feature of communism.

All property relations in the past have continually been subject to historical change consequent upon the change in historical conditions.

The French Revolution, for example, abolished feudal property in favour of bourgeois property.

The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.

In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.
^ Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, the Communist Manifesto ^
 

EatTheRich

President
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.
 
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?
 

EatTheRich

President
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.
 

Joe Economist

Council Member
I believe this is some great insight into our financial travails going back to the roots. Something many people need to know when commenting on today's fiscal issues:

http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16



http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16
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.
 

dnsmith

Council Member
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.​
 

fairsheet

Senator
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.
 
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
 

fairsheet

Senator
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.
 
Top