Why I believe it will RV @ $1 to $1

[Goodlife]

ok i re read your question .. it does make more sense to me the second time around ... how about this for an answer ..

 

if i  take outa loan for 50 million dinars right now from a bank.. to buy a little home  worth about 45,000 dollars .. but thats about 50 million dinars  right now ..so the bank gives me the loan... then next week they rv and the dinar is worth a dollar each ..does that mean i owe that bank 50 million dollars for that little house ?..

 

The simple answer is no. The loan is an asset of the lender and assets cannot change in value.(real terms) through currency changes. Only 'cash items' in a set of accounts are influenced by currency changes.

However if you borrowed IQD and purchased a house in the US with the borowings then you would be in the doo big time if they rvd at 1:1 as the liability would far exceed the value of the asset if you tried to repay the loan with the sale of the house in the US

[magawatt]

There was a rumor of a deal where the US gov could redeem IDQ for discounted Iraqi oil and that would cover US expenses for the RV on the front end and taxes would cover the back end.

Maybe even better than the platinum coin?

[sandstorm]

I totally disagree. i stopped reading after number 2. Number one and two are so severely flawed...there was no need to continue.

so you think....that just because they want a strong currency.....then snap it is? I want to be the best baseball player ever....doesnt mean its gonna happen. Every entity wants to be the best. thats the political rhetoric...your calcualating as a guarantee.

number two. Most dinar is gone from iraq? Totally false. the money supply continues to grow. just look at the cbis front page. a 10% growth in m2! How is that a reduction? Once again...i think you dont understand the cycle at auction. just where o where does the dollars come from...that the cbi sells? Thats right they had to put out mucho dinar to........ever have usd in the first place. the mof sells dollars to the cbi...and guess what the cbi gives the mof......equivalent amounts in dinar to pay the budget. iraq operates in dinars.

[tedro]

WOW, 152 great comments so far.  Good job by Capt Wingnut to start all of this. Participants all seem to be of high IQ with well educated factual comments, responses and discussion skills. A really good educational read overall.  Assumably each and every commentor and/or responder own a fair share of Iraqi Dinar..........since I also own a significant amount of IQD I THANK each and every one of you for confirming a high comfort level that we as owners of IQD are on the right path for significant financial gain......."soon".  

[cardealing4life]

WOW, 152 great comments so far.  Good job by Capt Wingnut to start all of this. Participants all seem to be of high IQ with well educated factual comments, responses and discussion skills. A really good educational read overall.  Assumably each and every commentor and/or responder own a fair share of Iraqi Dinar..........since I also own a significant amount of IQD I THANK each and every one of you for confirming a high comfort level that we as owners of IQD are on the right path for significant financial gain......."soon".  

 

I agree 100% I am relatively new to this game compared to everyone else but this has helped me greatly.......all I can say is let's go RV!!!!!!

[srdedeaux]

     _{Great Post, This is just what we need a psychologist to explain exactly how to cope with all the wealth that's going too be manifested via the RV..................!}      

[new york kevin]

Well my fellow Dinarians, this has been a refreshing article. Yes Sir, great food for thought. I like the whole presentation. Also, yes there will be inflation brought on by the actions of the U.S. Treasury on how they have been allowing the Central Banks just print more dollars that are chasing a fixed and finite value. By holding onto the IQD to buy Iraqi oil and issuing us electronically printed dollars, this will expotentially worsen that very same inflation vehicle. That is why we will need to cashout wisely, not immediately, wisely. Before we touch a dinar or dollar we must meet with the Tax & Trust Attorney, the CPA, and the CFP to set up vehicles of investment that will allow our new found wealth to not only last but grow also, inorder to ride out the inflationary period and be standing on our own when we grow out of this next/coming round of inflation.That is standing a holding onto a bunch of cash. These folk will allow us to actually retire at an early age. Face it, anyone can blow $1 to $10 million or more, in a short time period. Waking up, after its all gone, to find yourself having sunken to the lowest of low points in your life.

[MillieChatham]

This has been an excellent thread and I have enjoyed it immensely.

I am interested in the varying opinions of our country and where its headed, but I think we should also be mindful of where we have come from.

We have, I believe, the most remarkable country in every respect for the last 5,000 years. As we seem to fuss and squabble we continue to evolve and change - as our very wise founding fathers hoped. They put in separation of church and state for a very simple reason - beware -BEWARE - of any sect or religion that says it is the only Way, for therein lies tyranny. This means any religion.

I have had family members in almost every war for the last almost 250 years, from the French and Indian wars, Revolutionary War, war of 1812 Mexican American War, American Civil War, Spanish American War, WWI, WW2 and Vietnam.

Whenever I leave this country to travel or go on Mission trips with my church I am constanly reminded of what a remarkable Republic we have.

And when I return home I am thrilled that I am a proud citizen of the USA.

Are we perfect? Absolutely not. Have we ever been? Heavens NO. Will we ever be? No, we are human.

But think about the potential with an RV and the good that each of us has the potential of creating! What can each of us do to make the world a better place?

The dinar belongs to Iraq. I want the best for Iraq's future. I want them to be stable and happy. I want the Iraqi people to be productive. I very much want to travel to Iraq - part of the birthplace of civilization is there, some of the most valuable architectural sites in the world. The Hanging Gardens of Babylon, the Zigurat at Ur - I was an art major- so I mourn over the fighting..

When ever you doubt what a remarkable country we have, check out Kate Smith on utube singing "God Bless America".

Cheers

.

[keepmwlknfny]

There was a rumor of a deal where the US gov could redeem IDQ for discounted Iraqi oil and that would cover US expenses for the RV on the front end and taxes would cover the back end.

Maybe even better than the platinum coin?

Our govt doesnt buy oil though.....

 

And why would Iraq take a hit on their only source of income just so that the US can pay off us speculators billions?

[BJinMontreal]

Our govt doesnt buy oil though.....

 

And why would Iraq take a hit on their only source of income just so that the US can pay off us speculators billions?

 

Doesn't buy oil ????  r-i-g-h-t !!!

 

February 25, 2013 8:04 pm

US oil imports from Middle East increase

By Ajay Makan in London

The US was more reliant on the Middle East for its oil imports last year, underscoring the critical importance of the politically unstable region for the country despite thegrowing energy independence its shale gas revolution is bringing.

That domestic production boom has triggered intense debate over whether the US would still guard the world’s critical sea lanes, such as the Strait of Hormuz in two decades’ time – or whether China, whose dependence on Middle Eastern crude imports is rapidly rising, would replace it.

•  
•  
•  
•  

More

ON THIS STORY

• Bill Richardson Shale falls short for US security
• Lex US well-placed for shale revolution
• Comment Shale oil, Washington and the Middle East
• US to be world’s top energy producer
• Flares take shine off shale boom

ON THIS TOPIC

• China becomes world’s top oil importer
• Nick Butler Oil demand could peak within five years
• Brazil in refinery talks with Sinopec
• Vitol says oil will be steady for the year

IN COMMODITIES

• UK natural gas prices reach seven-year high
• Delays in Brazil threaten soyabean supply
• Tax rise in Indian gold imports averted
• US oil output highest in two decades

However, recent oil import trends from the Gulf region suggest why the US might continue to play a critical security role in the region. While domestic productionincreased the most in 150 years last year, Washington will confirm later this week that oil imports from the Gulf region continued to rise.

By the end of November the US had already imported more than 450m barrels of crude from Saudi Arabia, more than it imported from Riyadh in the whole of 2009, 2010 or 2011, according to figures from the US energy department. For the first time since 2003, Saudi imports accounted for more than 15 per cent of total US oil imports. The Gulf as a whole accounted for more than 25 per cent, a nine-year high.

Other Gulf exporters are also seeing unusually strong US demand. By the end of November, Kuwait had shipped more oil to the US than in any year since 1998. Analysts are expecting annual figures to be released later this week to confirm the trend seen up to November.

New extraction techniques – most notably hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, and horizontal drilling – have unlocked huge hydrocarbon resources in the US previously thought unrecoverable, raising expectations that over time US dependence on Middle East oil will drop.

These developments triggered debate about the long-term commitment of Washington to security in the Gulf, where the US Fifth Fleet has operated since 1995.

At an oil industry conference in London last week, Christof Rühl, chief economist at BP, raised the prospect of a US president, “15 years from now, seeing a problem in the Middle East and saying: ‘That’s no skin off my nose. I need very little oil and . . . I get it from Canada and Mexico.”

But at another conference earlier this year, Carlos Pascual, co-ordinator for international energy affairs at the US state department, highlighted that oil was a global fungible commodity, saying Washington would remain involved in Middle Eastern oil security. “When there is instability or insecurity in any part of the world, it drives up the global prices of those commodities.”

Oil produced in shale fields like the Bakken in North Dakota and the Eagle Ford in Texas is of a light high-quality variety. But Gulf oil is still vital for the US because many US refineries are set up to process heavier crude oils. So while imports of light crudes from countries such as Nigeria have fallen dramatically, demand for Gulf crudes has not.

An expansion of the Motiva refinery in Texas has provided a fillip to US demand for Saudi oil. Motiva, which is now the largest refinery in the US by capacity, is jointly owned by Royal Dutch Shell and the Saudi national oil company, Saudi Aramco.

Part of Motiva’s expanded plant was temporarily shut down for repairs in the second half of 2012, but is expected to restart imminently.

Although oil imports from the Middle East have been rising, overall US demand for crude oil has declined slightly since 2004 because of a combination of efficiency measures, increasing use of natural gas and the financial crisis.

Imports of Saudi oil were equal to 9.3 per cent of all crude processed by US refineries in the year to November, while imports from the Gulf were equal to more than 14 per cent of the total. Both percentages were the highest since 2008.

[keepmwlknfny]

Doesn't buy oil ????  r-i-g-h-t !!!

 

February 25, 2013 8:04 pm

US oil imports from Middle East increase

By Ajay Makan in London

The US was more reliant on the Middle East for its oil imports last year, underscoring the critical importance of the politically unstable region for the country despite thegrowing energy independence its shale gas revolution is bringing.

That domestic production boom has triggered intense debate over whether the US would still guard the world’s critical sea lanes, such as the Strait of Hormuz in two decades’ time – or whether China, whose dependence on Middle Eastern crude imports is rapidly rising, would replace it.

•  
•  
•  
•  

More

ON THIS STORY

• Bill Richardson Shale falls short for US security
• Lex US well-placed for shale revolution
• Comment Shale oil, Washington and the Middle East
• US to be world’s top energy producer
• Flares take shine off shale boom

ON THIS TOPIC

• China becomes world’s top oil importer
• Nick Butler Oil demand could peak within five years
• Brazil in refinery talks with Sinopec
• Vitol says oil will be steady for the year

IN COMMODITIES

• UK natural gas prices reach seven-year high
• Delays in Brazil threaten soyabean supply
• Tax rise in Indian gold imports averted
• US oil output highest in two decades

However, recent oil import trends from the Gulf region suggest why the US might continue to play a critical security role in the region. While domestic productionincreased the most in 150 years last year, Washington will confirm later this week that oil imports from the Gulf region continued to rise.

By the end of November the US had already imported more than 450m barrels of crude from Saudi Arabia, more than it imported from Riyadh in the whole of 2009, 2010 or 2011, according to figures from the US energy department. For the first time since 2003, Saudi imports accounted for more than 15 per cent of total US oil imports. The Gulf as a whole accounted for more than 25 per cent, a nine-year high.

Other Gulf exporters are also seeing unusually strong US demand. By the end of November, Kuwait had shipped more oil to the US than in any year since 1998. Analysts are expecting annual figures to be released later this week to confirm the trend seen up to November.

New extraction techniques – most notably hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, and horizontal drilling – have unlocked huge hydrocarbon resources in the US previously thought unrecoverable, raising expectations that over time US dependence on Middle East oil will drop.

These developments triggered debate about the long-term commitment of Washington to security in the Gulf, where the US Fifth Fleet has operated since 1995.

At an oil industry conference in London last week, Christof Rühl, chief economist at BP, raised the prospect of a US president, “15 years from now, seeing a problem in the Middle East and saying: ‘That’s no skin off my nose. I need very little oil and . . . I get it from Canada and Mexico.”

But at another conference earlier this year, Carlos Pascual, co-ordinator for international energy affairs at the US state department, highlighted that oil was a global fungible commodity, saying Washington would remain involved in Middle Eastern oil security. “When there is instability or insecurity in any part of the world, it drives up the global prices of those commodities.”

Oil produced in shale fields like the Bakken in North Dakota and the Eagle Ford in Texas is of a light high-quality variety. But Gulf oil is still vital for the US because many US refineries are set up to process heavier crude oils. So while imports of light crudes from countries such as Nigeria have fallen dramatically, demand for Gulf crudes has not.

An expansion of the Motiva refinery in Texas has provided a fillip to US demand for Saudi oil. Motiva, which is now the largest refinery in the US by capacity, is jointly owned by Royal Dutch Shell and the Saudi national oil company, Saudi Aramco.

Part of Motiva’s expanded plant was temporarily shut down for repairs in the second half of 2012, but is expected to restart imminently.

Although oil imports from the Middle East have been rising, overall US demand for crude oil has declined slightly since 2004 because of a combination of efficiency measures, increasing use of natural gas and the financial crisis.

Imports of Saudi oil were equal to 9.3 per cent of all crude processed by US refineries in the year to November, while imports from the Gulf were equal to more than 14 per cent of the total. Both percentages were the highest since 2008.

The US govt does not buy oil to sell to us......The US does as a whole, because of the companies that buy it, do receive oil.....the govt does not.....

[BJinMontreal]

I stand corrected, I didn't see the gov't part of your response.

[Darin]

Our govt doesnt buy oil though.....

 

And why would Iraq take a hit on their only source of income just so that the US can pay off us speculators billions?

 

While I agree with you that the govt wouldn't buy the oil, as it would be done via oil companies

 

But let's play the "what if" game.

 

What if the GOI really did sell their oil in dinars.... That would raise the value of the currency.

Now the value of their currency is higher, it is also higher in demand. It puts the wealth into the peoples hands and creates a higher standard of living.

Instead of using oil sales to the people, they're selling oil in dinars to back the currency at a higher value to basically give to the people.

 

The GOI can than create a taxation system to tax the people to help meet a budget... The currency is backed by oil, and the currency represents the people, therefore the oil exports helps the people of Iraq. The currency speculators on the sidelines would also benefit, but I wonder what % of speculators hold compared to what is actually within Iraq.

 

In this type of situation, nay-sayers normally say that there is "too much" held by speculators outside of Iraq.

 

Ironically enough, if I were to argue upon a R/D and how those same amount of dinars were to suddenly cash in, suddenly that speculated amount of iraqi dinar speculators drop. The nay-sayers have a way to change details to back their negative beliefs.

 

What we do NOT know, is how much is held outside of Iraq. When I say outside of Iraq, I am including outside the borders. We can get a general idea, but really how much is it?

 

How much is hard currency is held by individuals like you, myself, and other posters here.

How much is held by currency dealers.

How much is held by banks..

 

Does that really add up to be a large sum? We may never know.

 

But we are the people who would exchange for USD upon any significant raise in value.. If that be true, what type of impact would be do to their reserves?

[pudge]

Exactky.....well stated.

Don't forget that corporate profits are at an all time high while wages remain low. Also the Dow is at its highest since 2007. If Obama is a socialist, he's a pretty crappy one lol. He has made wall street and CEOs RICH!!!! But I guess since FOX and all the other hateful conservative media labels him a socialist then he is.

I also will never understand while they scream SOCIALIST at President Obama with hate that they worship the biggest socialist of all time.......JESUS CHRIST! I guess they forgot that Jesus was a huge socialist but I guess it's ok since it's Jesus.

Obama works for wall street and is far from a socialist. Get a clue and start thinking for yourselves and stop believing propaganda. As Hamm said, they want you fighting with each other as both parties laugh at you for your ignorance.

 

 

You are not well-read nor educated on these topics nor have you watched FOX News or read the Bible.  No one on FOX News but Hannity, has ever called Obama a socialist.   Given Obama's background and list of socialist/communist associates and mentors like Saul Alinsky (Rules for Radicals) and  Bill Ayers (terrorsit and America hater) can you not see how anyone might surmise that?  Of course he wants a more egalitarian and/or socialist country but thank God we have a house and Senate and the rule of law.

 

You need to get educated on what Socialism/Communism, Fascism really are.  They are all from the same family with different approaches to coalice State control.  This Corporate ranting on the left is just liberal babble.  Obama is in bed with corporations who do his bidding on social issues.(See Starbucks, Google, Costco etc.)  In exchange they get tax loopholes (see solar companies and automakers) and get to wipe out smaller competition from the market.  The marriage of corporations and government is a phenoma of the left not the right.  A true conservative does not want business and government to mix yet we are called Fascist?  A complete rewrite of history there by the socialist press and Acedemia.  How many corporate commercials do you see adverstising their green sympathies and diversity?  All the time.  You never see it from the other side.  Look at Germany and Italy of the 1930's.  Same thing going on here.

 

A good read of Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism would do you some good.

 

Jesus Christ was not a socialist.  Do you know Jesus?  I doubt it.  You only use him for your propaganda.  Very dangerous indeed.          

Edited March 5, 2013 by pudge

[pudge]

"There is no fundamental journalism anymore EXCEPT on FOX."

 

Your quote. I have taught journalism in universities. You people always amaze me.

You have no valid argument - only details.

Answer this:   Why does FOX violate the number one rule of journalism? The don't separate opinion from straight reporting.

They are one in the same on FOX.

 

Answer me why this is "Fundamental Journalism"

 

(Google "principals of Cronkite journalism" in the 60's and then answer) Pudge, I am afraid you have no blessed idea what you are talking about.

 

You taught 'journalism' in college?  Well that answers everything and I rest my case.  You have no chance at being objective then.  To say that "They don't separate opinion from straight reporting" can only mean you've never watched FOX which is so typical of liberals.  Are you implying that MSNBC separates opinion from fact.  You didn't read my instructional manual for you then on FOX programming nor the multitude of examples where the media purposely ignored news stories that would hurt the liberal cause and make up stories to hurt conservatives (George W's reserve record for example which caused the retirement of Rather at CBS).

 

Hannity says straight up he is an opinion show and that he IS biased.  What part of that can you not understand? From Amercia's newsroom at 9am until O'reilly at 5pm it is straight up news reporting.  And that's the rub, they are just reporting.  But even the opinion shows are loaded with liberal guests for counterpoint.  Besides that FOX employs as commentators a boatload of liberals such as Bob Beckel, Kyrsten Powers, Juan WIlliams, Geraldo Rivera and a host of others.  I mean liberals are on FOX News 12 hours a day bashing conservatives.

 

Tell me, how many conservatives are on the major networks as commentators.  Joe Scarboroagh at MSNBC? Any others?  That's what I thought.  All networks but Fox violate all jouranlism rules by making up and/or slanting news to their own politiacl agenda.  How can you argue this when 86% of all journalists and broadcasters vote Democrat?  Fox News and talk radio came into existence to counter weight an established media that went sharply left starting in the mid 60's. Being biased is not the problem with the networks, it's claiming that they are not. 

 

I understand it's uncomfartable for you to hear real news and opinion shows you don't agree with but that's the society we are supposed to live in being an Amercian. And don't get my started on Cronkite. You hold him up as an example of unbiased journalism?  You've got to be kidding.  Total liberal hack.  Read on! 

 

A new biography of legendary CBS Evening News anchor Walter Cronkite reveals some amazing facts about Cronkite's liberal bias and various transgressions of journalistic ethics which expose the falsity of the establishment media's carefully-crafted image of neutrality.

As Jonathan S. Tobin wrote for Commentary, the revelations about Cronkite undermine “the mainstream media’s myth about its own impartiality” before the birth of Fox News. If you believe the self-described mainstream media, it is Fox News which is irredeemably biased and not themselves:

"The days when national news was the dominion of three networks and a few major newspapers is portrayed as Eden before the fall, an era when partisanship of the kind that is now both familiar and expected was unknown. A key element to this fairy tale is the idea that the journalistic icons of the time, like CBS’s Walter Cronkite, were Olympian figures who would never stoop to play favorites or inject ideology into the news," Tobin writes.

 

"But this view is totally false. As media news analyst Howard Kurtz writes in the Daily Beast, a new biography of Cronkite by Douglas Brinkley spills the beans on the godlike anchorman’s unethical practices, including blatant partisanship that would make the conservative talkers on Fox and the liberals on MSNBC blush. It wasn’t Fox that poisoned the well of journalism, as former New York Times editor Bill Keller recently alleged. Fox and other such outlets were brought into existence in an effort to balance a journalistic establishment that was already tilting heavily to the left. The real sin here is not bias or even partisanship but the pretense of fairness that Cronkite exemplified.”

Tobin notes that the new information about Cronkite “gives the lie to the notion that the pre-Fox era was one in which non-partisan fairness ruled the airwaves,” adding that, according to Brinkley's book, “Cronkite’s partisanship against Republicans (especially Barry Goldwater and Richard Nixon) and in favor of liberal Democrats was so open that it must now seem shocking that he was rarely called out about it." 

 

According to the book, during the time he was anchoring the CBS Evening News, Cronkite secretly begged liberal senator Bobby Kennedy to run for president and then later interviewed Kennedy about his plans, never disclosing his private pleadings. That's not all, however, Cronkite planted recording devices inside the Republican Party's convention in 1952 and then later had the audacity to go after president Richard Nixon for Watergate.

 

In 2009, it was revealed that Cronkite, who was open about his bias against U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, was even willing to provide, free-of-charge, a helicopter to ferry Vietnam War critic Edmund Muskie to an anti-war rally.

 

Of course, Cronkite's bias was not a complete secret even back when he was on the air. People who were paying attention could see it. My colleagues here at the Media Research Center even wrote a book, published in 1990 when Cronkite was still working as an analyst for CBS, called And That's the Way It Isn't lampooning Cronkite's smug nightly signoff for his newscast.

People close to Cronkite knew he was liberal, and knew about his ethical lapses. But they covered for him – and were successful in doing so because there was no alternative to the corporate liberal mass media back when Cronkite ruled the airwaves.

 

Even liberal Democrats, though they likely wouldn't have admitted it publicly, realized that Cronkite was a liberal. They even considered nominating him to be the running mate of disastrously liberal presidential candidate George McGovern. The anchor apparently was not asked during the campaign, however, on the fear that he might say no. Asked later if he'd have refused, however, Cronkite said “I'd have accepted in a minute; anything to help end that dreadful war.”

That's the real news in the new Cronkite biography, a story showing how today's media landscape is a vast improvement over the days when three TV networks and a few elite newspapers controlled the news.

Given the facts revealed in Brinkley's book, Cronkite's career simply would not survive today under the scrutiny and withering criticism he would no doubt receive from countless grassroots new-media news outlets and independent bloggers

 

He would have been done in by an army of citizen journalists exposing his biases and ethical lapses through a painstaking vetting of Cronkite's work and liberal connections. The results of those investigations would then spread via social media as countless outraged Americans used Facebook posts and Twitter hashtag games to spread the news that the #TheMostTrustedManInAmerica was just another liberal media deception.

No wonder so many of Cronkite's liberal successors in the legacy media long for the days when a liberal shill as biased as Cronkite wasn't ever widely held to account.

For more reference on some of the outrageous liberal statements said by Cronkite over the years, click here.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2012/05/22/new-bio-reveals-former-cbs-anchor-walter-cronkite-far-more-biased#ixzz2MgM0Ms00

.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2012/05/22/new-bio-reveals-former-cbs-anchor-walter-cronkite-far-more-biased#ixzz2MgLrSyes

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2012/05/22/new-bio-reveals-former-cbs-anchor-walter-cronkite-far-more-biased#ixzz2MgLX1pqL

 

 

 

Who is telling you the President is creating a socialist country?

You mean the same President who bailed out the banks when they collapsed (capitalists)?

 

That President?

 

Do you realize the tax rate on multi-millionaires used to be 90%?

Obama is pushing less than 35%

 

I am afraid you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to socialism.

 

Ok, more education for the supposed educated person.  Do you know what 'marginal' means in the tax code.  Do you know the difference between earned income and taxable income?  The 90% tax rate in the 40's and 50's were on people earning in today's dollars an amount of 2.5 million of TAXABLE income.  Over 99% of Amercians didn't earn that much and those who did were able to write off 54% of the 90% because of excessive deductions.  So when it all comes down to it they were only taxed at 40% on everything over 2.5 million.   

 

Obama is not pushing 35%! He got 39.6% which is what he wanted.  He will never ever want to cut spending or even reduce the amount of annual increases in departments.  How could he.  He wouldn't be a Democrat then and would anger his base.  He did not bail out the banks or the auto industry. George W. did.  Do you not read anything other than the Huffington Post?

 

Please get a little more understanding before you post.  I've wasted enough time on you setting the record straight.

Edited March 5, 2013 by pudge

[Flatbush Zombies]

Jesus wasnt a socialist? So he never wanted to redistribute wealth or heal all the sick? Yes I've read the bible so don't assume you know me. Jesus was for ALL people and wanted everyone equal. Tell me exactly how Jesus wasn't a socialist since you're so well read and more educated than everyone on here lol. Such arrogance on you it's laughable at best.

Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy.[1] "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, or citizen ownership of equity.[2] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.[3] They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets or planning, how management is to be organised within productive institutions, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.[4]

A socialist economic system would consist of a system of production and distribution organized to directly satisfy economic demands and human needs, so that goods and services would be produced directly for use instead of for private profit[5] driven by the accumulation of capital. Accounting would be based on physical quantities, a common physical magnitude, or a direct measure of labour-time in place of financial calculation.[6][7] Distribution would be based on the principle to each according to his contribution.

As a political movement, socialism includes a diverse array of political philosophies, ranging from reformism to revolutionary socialism. Proponents of state socialism advocate the nationalisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange as a strategy for implementing socialism. In contrast, libertarian socialism proposes the traditional view of direct worker's control of the means of production and opposes the use of state power to achieve such an arrangement, opposing both parliamentary politics and state ownership.[citation needed]Democratic socialism seeks to establish socialism through democratic processes and propagate its ideals within the context of a democratic political system.

Modern socialism originated from an 18th-century intellectual and working class political movement that criticised the effects of industrialisation and private property on society. In the early 19th-century, "socialism" referred to any concern for the social problems of capitalism irrespective of the solutions to those problems. However, by the late 19th-century, "socialism" had come to signify opposition to capitalism and advocacy for an alternative system based on some form of social ownership.[8]Marxists expanded further on this, attributing scientific assessment and democratic planning as critical elements of socialism.[9]

[Goldiegirl]

How did this go the direction of Jesus?  I thought this thread was about the revalue of the dinar 1:1

[Flatbush Zombies]

Jesus was the first Socialist, this isn’t really a question, but a statement of fact based upon the New Testament Bible. In fact I find it an interesting phenomenon that those who are most vocal in their rejection of social programs to assist the poor and displaced of our society are the very same who in most cases call themselves the “Moral Majority” and espouse Christian values as the basis of their political stance. Nevertheless, let me return to my proofs of why Jesus was the first Socialist, how I have arrived at this conclusion.

I am going to start with Mark Chapter 10:21-25 21Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” 22At this the man's face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth. 23Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!” 24The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

So here, we have a very good example of Utopian Socialism in action with Jesus telling the wealthy young man the only way to follow him and gain heaven was to give away his great wealth to the poor, in other words redistribution of personal wealth to those with great need from those with great riches. Naturally, this must be very difficult for some to swallow, notice that the young mans face ‘fell’ when told he must give away his wealth to follow Jesus. Here though is our first proof, we must have no personal wealth beyond our needs; Socialism seems to be de rigueur.

Moving on to the next area that might prove my point and which certainly has a few feathers ruffling today; that of health care or in this case Jesus Healing those in need. He certainly didn’t seem to pay much attention to the conventions of the time, like oh say working on the Sabbath, which got him into a few bits of trouble with the powers that be. Nonetheless, heal he did without concern or consideration for pre-existing conditions or whose toes he was stepping on Jesus made his way through the land casting out demons, healing leprosy, epilepsy, and other dastardly illnesses that afflicted the people, he cared not a whit for whether a person was rich or poor, of the ruling class, or the most destitute beggar before the temple he healed them. The Pharisees, although the ruling class within the temple at the time and thus in control of wealth, law, and healing could not prevent him from teaching or healing, even on the Sabbath. There are many examples of this sprinkled throughout the New Testament, here are just a few:

Matthew 4:23, 9:35, 17:14

Mark 7:31, 8:22

John 9:1-41

Now to one of the best proofs and that is found in Matthew 25:31-46: The Parable of the Sheep and the Goats. For those that don’t know this one the key statement is as follows:

41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' 44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ 45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ 46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life”.

Finally, the teachings continued after the death of Jesus, the best example of the Utopian Socialism being the following by James found in 2:1-7:

1My brothers, as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, don't show favoritism. 2Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in. 3If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, "Here's a good seat for you," but say to the poor man, "You stand there" or "Sit on the floor by my feet," 4have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? 5Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? 6But you have insulted the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court? 7Are they not the ones who are slandering the noble name of him to whom you belong?

So now, we circle back around to my original questions; is the current President, Barack Obama a Socialist? I think the answer is that he is not any more a Socialist than any other American is, we simply have a difficult time recognizing ourselves or our economy for what it truly is. The fact is the current economic system has some aspects of Socialism including government regulation of certain industries, provisioning of health insurance for the elderly (Medicare), provisioning of care for the poor at a state level (Welfare, WIC, and Medicaid), taxing authority supported police, fire, and aid (911) are all examples of socialist programs. Each is generally found in countries with mixed economies, that is Socialism and Capitalism are both at work. Thus, my first conclusion Barack Obama is not a Socialist he is not even very far left of the middle; he is a Democrat and that is all he is.

[sandstorm]

While I agree with you that the govt wouldn't buy the oil, as it would be done via oil companies

 

But let's play the "what if" game.

 

What if the GOI really did sell their oil in dinars.... That would raise the value of the currency.

Now the value of their currency is higher, it is also higher in demand. It puts the wealth into the peoples hands and creates a higher standard of living.

Instead of using oil sales to the people, they're selling oil in dinars to back the currency at a higher value to basically give to the people.

 

The GOI can than create a taxation system to tax the people to help meet a budget... The currency is backed by oil, and the currency represents the people, therefore the oil exports helps the people of Iraq. The currency speculators on the sidelines would also benefit, but I wonder what % of speculators hold compared to what is actually within Iraq.

 

In this type of situation, nay-sayers normally say that there is "too much" held by speculators outside of Iraq.

 

Ironically enough, if I were to argue upon a R/D and how those same amount of dinars were to suddenly cash in, suddenly that speculated amount of iraqi dinar speculators drop. The nay-sayers have a way to change details to back their negative beliefs.

 

What we do NOT know, is how much is held outside of Iraq. When I say outside of Iraq, I am including outside the borders. We can get a general idea, but really how much is it?

 

How much is hard currency is held by individuals like you, myself, and other posters here.

How much is held by currency dealers.

How much is held by banks..

 

Does that really add up to be a large sum? We may never know.

 

But we are the people who would exchange for USD upon any significant raise in value.. If that be true, what type of impact would be do to their reserves?

iraq is with opec. opec sells oil in dollars. why would the u.s. support using other currencies for oil? They wouldn't

oil is too volatile to used completely for currency backing. the point of a currency is for it to be STABLE..not to generate wealth...increased standard of living. I read a thesis from a harvard student about the dinar. the best situation he came up with....was the dinar backed by 1/10the price of oil +1/3 of the dollar+1/3 of the euro. that seems somewhat viable. iraq will never back their currency by 100% oil.

[Flatbush Zombies]

Peace out pudge....I'm done replying to you. Stick with fox news and your one sided views. Good day.

[pudge]

Jesus wasnt a socialist? So he never wanted to redistribute wealth or heal all the sick? Yes I've read the bible so don't assume you know me. Jesus was for ALL people and wanted everyone equal. Tell me exactly how Jesus wasn't a socialist since you're so well read and more educated than everyone on here lol. Such arrogance on you it's laughable at best.

Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy.[1] "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, or citizen ownership of equity.[2] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.[3] They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets or planning, how management is to be organised within productive institutions, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.[4]

A socialist economic system would consist of a system of production and distribution organized to directly satisfy economic demands and human needs, so that goods and services would be produced directly for use instead of for private profit[5] driven by the accumulation of capital. Accounting would be based on physical quantities, a common physical magnitude, or a direct measure of labour-time in place of financial calculation.[6][7] Distribution would be based on the principle to each according to his contribution.

As a political movement, socialism includes a diverse array of political philosophies, ranging from reformism to revolutionary socialism. Proponents of state socialism advocate the nationalisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange as a strategy for implementing socialism. In contrast, libertarian socialism proposes the traditional view of direct worker's control of the means of production and opposes the use of state power to achieve such an arrangement, opposing both parliamentary politics and state ownership.[citation needed]Democratic socialism seeks to establish socialism through democratic processes and propagate its ideals within the context of a democratic political system.

Modern socialism originated from an 18th-century intellectual and working class political movement that criticised the effects of industrialisation and private property on society. In the early 19th-century, "socialism" referred to any concern for the social problems of capitalism irrespective of the solutions to those problems. However, by the late 19th-century, "socialism" had come to signify opposition to capitalism and advocacy for an alternative system based on some form of social ownership.[8]Marxists expanded further on this, attributing scientific assessment and democratic planning as critical elements of socialism.[9]

 

Your point? About Socialism? What does healing the sick have anything to do about Jesus being a socialist?  Are you warped?  He gave a parable about casting a servant into outer darkness because he buried his money and didn't go out and earn more with it by lending or commerce!  In other words he didn't tell the servant to give it to the poor.  When his disciples were chastising May Magdelene for wiping his feet with expensive oil because she could've given it to the poor Jesus said "The poor you will have always.  Me you have but a little while".  His disciples worked as Jesus did before age thirty and He did not say or teach anything about equality of outcome.  His lessons about giving to their own community as taught in the early Church were indeed communistic but it was by choice and was done to help with the needs of all Christians but it was not forced as the Apostle Peter told Aninias and Saphira.   Jesus never gave money to poor people ever.  Nor did he say governments should.  He taught the Kingdom of Heaven and had little to say about politics other than someday he would rule and reign and no amount of liberals/socialists or communists are going to be able to do anything about it.

 

It's comical the way Hollywood, Academia and the State-approved press do nothing but disparage Christianity on a daily basis then they go out and claim Jesus, whom they persecute, was a socialist.  As if to try and poke the eyes of conservatives.  Such hypocrites.

Edited March 5, 2013 by pudge

[pudge]

Peace out pudge....I'm done replying to you. Stick with fox news and your one sided views. Good day.

 

You have so little understanding of the Word of God.  That parable of the rich man has nothing to do with socialism or that selling all you have and giving it to the poor is required to go to Heaven.  Notice Joseph of Arimathea and Zacheus nor Matthew were required to do so.  All rich. He gave the parabel to show how hard it is for someone on earth who is materially rich and attached to the things of the world and who doesn't have a proper perspective on wealth, to enter into the Kingdom of God.  He said it right at the end of the parable.  Or did you miss that part?  Jesus, being labeled a socialist is just another attempt by the left to find some reasoning or backup to justify the way they are.  How ironic is it that conservatives far outgive to charity than Liberals do while liberals have more money.  Liberals believe the ultimate act of kindness is voting to take money from someone else to whom it belongs and giving it to someone who it doesn't belong to thereby absolving themselves of having to do anything at all personally. 

 

You need to start listening to Fox to get both sides of all issues.

[Darin]

iraq is with opec. opec sells oil in dollars. why would the u.s. support using other currencies for oil? They wouldn't

oil is too volatile to used completely for currency backing. the point of a currency is for it to be STABLE..not to generate wealth...increased standard of living. I read a thesis from a harvard student about the dinar. the best situation he came up with....was the dinar backed by 1/10the price of oil +1/3 of the dollar+1/3 of the euro. that seems somewhat viable. iraq will never back their currency by 100% oil.

 

Oil is sold in dollars.... And I don't think this will change anytime soon. But, that is what is fun with a "what if" game. An agreement could be made that outside dinars could be traded for USD if the USD is used to purchase oil. Now, they're still technicaly selling their oil in dollars, but they're having an exchange of IQD for USD before hand.

 

Oil is volatile.... Which is never why you would want to take the current market price to back the value. You would want to take a lower value to help back it. It would be less than the value(s) that the GOI uses to back their budget with.

 

I.e., if the budget is using $85/barrel for their budget.. Take an even more conservative number and figure it at $70/barrel. People would say, this would never work because the oil is deemed to be owned by the people. This would still be giving the wealth to the people as it simply would be puttng that wealth into the currency.

 

But this is a "what if" scenario. I highly doubt this is how it would go down but just an idea. The reason it seems good to the people is it puts wealth into the pockets of Citizens holding dinar. The politicians would be on board as they likely hold the most. Since the poor hold very little, they would still be happy as they're value goes up. This allows for a higher standard of living. The GOI can than introduce a stern taxation system to help run the budget in coming years. Most people would find that they're doing quite well and would be happy to pay taxes as they're paying taxes with money they're not used to having.

 

Now, with the higher standard of living, foreign businesses are attracted and looking to provide their goods and services for their own profits. The foreign businesses are taxed as well by the GOI if they are placed on their domestic land. The GOI pulls in additional revenue from taxing foreign companies.

 

If you were a company, lets say a retail store, that had businesses all over the world. If you came to realize that Iraq had given much wealth to their people, you would want to set up shop to provide the goods/services to the people. I know I would, as it can become a win/win situation.

 

Many roadblocks are an issue with this as Baghdad does not make it easy for foreign companies to invest. This isn't necessarily a bad thing at this time because the idea may be to help grow a private sector. But in the scenario I provided, the private sectors would be the first to boom as they're already setup within as foreign companies would take time to get their foot in the door and be set up.

 

A different scenario that I would do in their shoes is funnel a % of the revenue made from oil sales to the CBI reserves. This would help give more value to the currency. This would be a way to give a portion of the oil sales to the people as their currency would rise in value. This would also increase demand for the dinar while helping reduce the dollarization within the company. As the USD is pulled off the street it would also be applied to reserves thus help backing it even more. This is a more long-term drawn out scenario, which could be beneficial for all.

In this scenario, both the wealthy and poor benefit (assuming they both have dinar).

[sandstorm]

If the m2 is 70 trillion.....and we add a 1:1 rv..........there is nothing that can help them.

Thats more than all the countries of the world combined. that world doesnt even exist.

we might as well just skip trillions and play with quadtrillions......because its fantasy at those numbers.

[caz1104]

 

LMAO! You clearly ignored what I said above. All televised media is a JOKE and Fox is the ring leader. You wasted a lot of time typing this out because I don't watch MSNBC or CNN. END OF DISCUSSION.

By the way, republicans after the election were blaming fox news and said that people should not listen to them. Yes, fox news, the drudge report, rush, and beck are cancers to society and sell a product....IT'S CALLED FEAR! All MSM is a joke but Fox takes the cake.

I'm a republican and I did'nt blame fox for the election. Matter of fact I know countless republicans and have never heard any mention same. All media is slanted to some degree and should not be entirely trusted.

 

If the m2 is 70 trillion.....and we add a 1:1 rv..........there is nothing that can help them.

Thats more than all the countries of the world combined. that world doesnt even exist.

we might as well just skip trillions and play with quadtrillions......because its fantasy at those numbers.

 Twenty years ago who would've thought the US would've allowed itself to build up 16 trillion(and counting) in debt,with no end or solution in sight.Who thought the 2nd ammendment would be under attack 5 years ago,........etc So fantasies do come true,thats why the future is so hard to predict. History does'nt guarrantee the future-peace