Rockymtnhi

Must be a fake article. Especially with that false comment about the dinar dropping 3 zeros in 2015.

Because of horrific hyperinflation they switched to the dollar in 2009 but kept running out of them. Since they couldn't do an RV they have started introducing this new currency RTGS equal to 2.5X the dollar. We'll see how it goes.

Zimbabwe introduces RTGS dollar to solve currency problem 26 February 2019

Yep, the stories are endless.

Sounds like another banker story. Can't reveal anything but trust me.

Those Amazon prices are crazy. Bet they are not selling many at those inflated numbers.

290Billion / 240Million = 1208

You're forgetting you're dividing billions by millions not billions by billions. Sorry it's not 1.2.

Well said. Total agreement. MAGA

I got the feeling Scooter, with all his crazy elaborate graphs and conf calls was being paid by Dinartrade. Once the law suits started he stopped pumping then disappeared.

Makes no difference how long you've been here and whether those know you. That woman's death was tragic and in my opinion no sarcasm was appropriate. The dog that killed her should be hunted down and given an appropriate ending.

You made me throw up in my mouth after reading what you said. You must not mean that. If I could I would hunt that dog down and put him threw a wood chipper. Slowly.

It's not what I believe it's a matter of record. Iraq's annual oil revenue is approx $100B dollars. It varies with the price of oil of course but it's in that neighborhood. It's not $100B dinar. That's nothing.

Nope, dollars not dinar. Their annual oil revenue is aprox $100B dollars, not dinar. So again, a $1000/yr a family would not be insignificant.

If total oil revenue is $100B/yr and there are 10M adults then $10B(10%) divided by 10M people is $1000/yr. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think that would be significant for each family.

Yes, agree with you completely. And as an aside if the Clinton's had gotten their way they would have busted the system much sooner than the '08 collapse with their schemes. But both parties are not to be trusted. No one went to jail from the '08 fraudulent mortgage loan fiasco induced collapse and Bush, Obumer, Paulsen, Fed chair Bernake/Greenspan stole almost a Trillion of tax payers dollars to prop up the wall street elites and banks so they could keep their jobs, private jets, Hampton estates, yachts etc. And since then they have passed laws that will allow them to confiscate our bank accounts(bail in) to help repair the damage coming from the next collapse as was done to the citizens of Cyprus in '12. However there won't be near enough money available to fix the next one. Just the derivatives alone will crush us. Let's hope we don't see the next one in our lifetime because the illegal Fed will print so much money that we will look like Zimbabwe or Wiemar Germany in the past. In Germany people burned wheel barrow loads of money in the winter to stay warm. Anyway, not a fun topic. Protect yourself as best you can.

No, Bill Clinton Didn’t Balance the Budget Stephen Moore is director of fiscal policy studies at the Cato Institute. By Stephen Moore October 8, 1998 Let us establish one point definitively: Bill Clinton didn’t balance the budget. Yes, he was there when it happened. But the record shows that was about the extent of his contribution. Many in the media have flubbed this story. The New York Times on October 1st said, “Clinton balances the budget.” Others have praised George Bush. Political analyst Bill Schneider declared on CNN that Bush is one of “the real heroes” for his willingness to raise taxes — and never mind read my lips. (Once upon a time, lying was something that was considered wrong in Washington, but under the last two presidents our standards have dropped.) In any case, crediting George Bush for the end of the deficit requires some nifty logical somersaults, since the deficit hit its Mount Everest peak of $290 billion in St. George’s last year in office. And 1993 — the year of the giant Clinton tax hike — was not the turning point in the deficit wars, either. In fact, in 1995, two years after that tax hike, the budget baseline submitted by the president’s own Office of Management and Budget and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicted $200 billion deficits for as far as the eye could see. The figure shows the Clinton deficit baseline. What changed this bleak outlook? Newt Gingrich and company — for all their faults — have received virtually no credit for balancing the budget. Yet today’s surplus is, in part, a byproduct of the GOP’s single-minded crusade to end 30 years of red ink. Arguably, Gingrich’s finest hour as Speaker came in March 1995 when he rallied the entire Republican House caucus behind the idea of eliminating the deficit within seven years. Skeptics said it could not be done in seven years. The GOP did it in four. Now let us contrast this with the Clinton fiscal record. Recall that it was the Clinton White House that fought Republicans every inch of the way in balancing the budget in 1995. When Republicans proposed their own balanced-budget plan, the White House waged a shameless Mediscare campaign to torpedo the plan — a campaign that the Washington Post slammed as “pure demagoguery.” It was Bill Clinton who, during the big budget fight in 1995, had to submit not one, not two, but five budgets until he begrudgingly matched the GOP’s balanced-budget plan. In fact, during the height of the budget wars in the summer of 1995, the Clinton administration admitted that “balancing the budget is not one of our top priorities.” And lest we forget, it was Bill Clinton and his wife who tried to engineer a federal takeover of the health care system — a plan that would have sent the government’s finances into the stratosphere. Tom Delay was right: for Clinton to take credit for the balanced budget is like Chicago Cubs pitcher Steve Trachsel taking credit for delivering the pitch to Mark McGuire that he hit out of the park for his 62nd home run. The figure shows that the actual cumulative budget deficit from 1994 to 1998 was almost $600 billion below the Clintonomics baseline. Part of the explanation for the balanced budget is that Republicans in Congress had the common sense to reject the most reckless features of Clintonomics. Just this year, Bill Clinton’s budget proposed more than $100 billion in new social spending — proposals that were mostly tossed overboard. It’s funny, but back in January the White House didn’t seem too concerned about saving the surplus for “shoring up Social Security.” Now for the bad news for GOP partisans. The federal budget has not been balanced by any Republican spending reductions. Uncle Sam now spends $150 billion more than in 1995. Over the past 10 years, the defense budget, adjusted for inflation, has been cut $100 billion, but domestic spending has risen by $300 billion. We have a balanced budget today that is mostly a result of 1) an exceptionally strong economy that is creating gobs of new tax revenues and 2) a shrinking military budget. Social spending is still soaring and now costs more than $1 trillion. Is this the kind of balanced budget that fiscal conservatives want? A budget with no deficit, but that funds the biggest government ever? So the budget is balanced, but now comes the harder part: cutting the budget. Bill Clinton has laid down a marker in the political debate with his “save Social Security first,” gambit. That theme should be turned against him and his government expansionist agenda. Congress should respond: No new government programs until we have fixed Social Security. This means no IMF bailouts. No new day care subsidies. No extending Medicare coverage to 55-year-olds. (Honestly, if Clinton has his way, it won’t be long till teenagers are eligible for Medicare.) The budget surpluses over the next five years could easily exceed $500 billion. Leaving all of that extra money lying around within the grasp of vote-buying politicians is an invitation to financial mischief. If Congress and the president use the surpluses to fund a new spending spree, we may find that surpluses are more a curse than a blessing. Who Really Balanced the Budget Federal Deficits (Billions $) Clinton Baseline* Actual 1994 $203 $203 1995 175 164 1996 205 107 1997 210 22 1998 210 +60 * Congressional Budget Office forecast, April 1995.

We're fed up with it over here too but they still get away with passing laws to protect themselves for fraud, corruption, murder, rape, pedophilia, illegal trusts, etc, etc. We now know the FBI and the AG are corrupt protecting the Clinton's from their long list of criminal doings and BO ordered spying on Trump. The fake dossier used to con the judges to start the made up Russian collusion Mueller investigation. Stroczk, Page criminal FBI agents. The list is endless. We have found out our government is as corrupt as any banana republic. Go Trump! Drain the swamp and jail the bstrds.

Excellent point Pres Trump. Stop paying to protect Germany and every other EU country.

I like that plan. Force the other counties to pay up and get current before we contribute another dime. Then only pay our fair share. Can't believe Merkel is still in office after allowing her country to be overrun by well over a million muslims who are wrecking Germany, France, England, Sweden, Netherlands, etc. Go Trump. Stop them from coming here.

With all due respect I'm talking about establishing a verifiable contact in Iraqi gov't or business. Not some no name guy spouting an opinion one time. We need a real connection over there with a name who will carry on an ongoing legitimate conversation about the subject of an RV. We've had tons of people over here weigh in on the subject with their comments, graphs, forecasts, etc but never someone in a position to know in Iraq. Thx.

Interesting article talking about all the countries that removed the zeroes from the face of their bills. In other words a 1000 bill became a 1 bill. It was successful when the country developed a strong stable economy with manufacturing producing exports/imports (trade) internationally recognized and with electronic transfer. 2.2 History and Background of Removing Zeroes from Currencies in the World and in Iran The solution of removing zeroes from national currencies is usually used in the countries in which the national currency has too many zeroes. Since 1960, in 71 cases developing governments have been forced to remove a number of zeroes from their national currencies. Removing zeroes from national currencies was first carried out in Germany and after World War II. Under the economic pressures of World War II and the remained damage, this country experienced a huge inflation that forced economic policy-makers of the country to remove zeroes from deutschmark. During the last 50 years, 19 countries have removed zeroes from their national currencies and 10 countries have done this twice. Zeroes have been shed from national currencies 4 times in Argentina, 5 times in former Yugoslavia, 6 times in Brazil, two times in Bolivia 3 times in Ukraine, Russia, Poland and Belgium, and once in Turkey, Island, Korea, and Ghana. It should be noted that deleting zeroes from national currency can only be effective when it is accompanied by anti-inflation policies and austerity measures in the realm of financial policies, financial regularities of the government as well as attempts to get rid of long-lasting budget deficits and reliance of oil revenues. Otherwise, removing zeroes will soon lose its psychological effect and the zeroes will return with even more strength.

Iran has seen angry protests in recent days, which a senior State Department official on Tuesday attributed to the regime wasting money abroad rather than at home. “Iranians are basically fed up with the regime squandering the nation’s wealth on not particularly productive or enriching adventures abroad,” the official said. Washington has sought to emphasize that the protests are part of rising economic discontent in Iran hoping it will force the government to negotiate a new nuclear deal to avoid sanctions. “There is a level of frustration that people have with regard to the regime activity and behavior, the enrichment of the military and clerical elite and the squeezing out of the life of the economy,” the senior State Department official said. “Iranians are tired of this situation,” the official added. "Looking at the region, Iran supports the Huthis, Iran supports Hezbollah, Iran supports Hamas, and Iran supports the Assad regime," said US Deputy Secretary of State Jonathan Cohen. Iraq is violating a UN Security Council resolution on the Iranian nuclear deal, a UN report said on Thursday. The Secretary-General of the United Nations addressed the report to the Security Council, which contains many details of the violations of the Iranian nuclear agreement. Among the violations committed by Iraq is the participation of Iranian military companies in a military exhibition held in Baghdad on March 10, 2018. Qasem Soleimani's repeated visits to Iraq also contravene UN Security Council Resolution 2231. the Secretary-General of the United Nations criticizes the American withdrawal from the nuclear agreement to which the European Union is still committed. "We will continue to work to strengthen the nuclear agreement so that it can be preserved and ultimately successful," said Dutch delegate to the UN Karl van Ostrom. Iran continues to push the EU to continue to support the nuclear agreement the US cancelled. Thank GOD for Trump. The US and the rest of the world needs to squeeze Iranian leaders into oblivion. The Iranian public has had it.

Iraq shouldn't stop until they hunt down and torture and kill every last one of those ISIS bstrds.

Why does he allow Maliki to roam free?