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

[Flatbush Zombies]

Iraqs best option would be for them to break up into 3 states because of the religious fractions and tensions. This fighting had been going on since the beginning of time. Saddam had them in check until we invaded and forced a democracy on them and now it seems nothing can get done. I think the Bush admin should have done a little more research on Iraq and its history before throwing their goi together and thinking it would work.

[dontlop]

look on this link at the us dollar .. its the only currency that stays on 1.00000 forever .. it is what every currency is pegged against .

 

just put the united states on this exchange rate chart fromthe un http://www.unjspf.org/UNJSPF_Web/page.jsp?page=FullExchangeRts

a monetary unit is a dollar .. is a monetary unit . it isnt pegged and will never be . but every other country in the world is not a monetary unit .. only the dollar is

 

well i should say only the dollar is pegged to the monetary system and no other country is . they all can change . but the dollar is always one unit of exchange

Edited March 2, 2013 by dontlop

[MyLadiesDaddy]

look on this link at the us dollar .. its the only currency that stays on 1.00000 forever .. it is what every currency is pegged against .

 

just put the united states on this exchange rate chart fromthe un http://www.unjspf.org/UNJSPF_Web/page.jsp?page=FullExchangeRts

a monetary unit is a dollar .. is a monetary unit . it isnt pegged and will never be . but every other country in the world is not a monetary unit .. only the dollar is

 

I like that, but I'd bet ya that will change in the next 4yrs. Sorry to say.

[dontlop]

I like that, but I'd bet ya that will change in the next 4yrs. Sorry to say.

the dolar will always be 1 monetary unit .. the exchange rates from all the other countrys  will ,, can .. and do change .. against the dollars value .. but one monetary unit always equals 1 dollar ...

[boomer113189]

Iraq will most likely RV at a 1 to 1 but that after they exchange are dinar at 1000 to 1 which that would get us all 1 new dinar for every 1000 old dinars we all hold  whice will leave us with a 1 to 1 becasue the new dinar will be worth 1 dollar

[dontlop]

right now the iraqi dinar is .00086 monetary units .. or 1/.00086 th of one monetary unit

[MyLadiesDaddy]

the dolar will always be 1 monetary unit .. the exchange rates from all the other countrys  will ,, can .. and do change .. against the dollars value .. but one monetary unit always equals 1 dollar ...

 

Going above my pay grade again   so what exactly happens when

 

we as a nation loose our credit rating?

[dontlop]

Iraq will most likely RV at a 1 to 1 but that after they exchange are dinar at 1000 to 1 which that would get us all 1 new dinar for every 1000 old dinars we all hold  whice will leave us with a 1 to 1 becasue the new dinar will be worth 1 dollar

i doubt that . thats like saying the united states could get by with 500 billion dollars in its m2 .. when we have a gdp of 14 million ..

 

neither can iraq get by on 70 billion and have a 140 billion govt budget .. and a private sector on top of that  with reserves and bank savings of the citizens ..if every iraqi citizem had 2000 dollars worth of dinars  in savings .. iraq would have no money  for anything . it would all be in savings in a coffee can.. and no money  circulating

[Flatbush Zombies]

The united states GDP is 15.4 TRILLION

[dontlop]

Going above my pay grade again   so what exactly happens when

 

we as a nation loose our credit rating?

we got a long ways to go .. we are still triple a credit rating . it will take a long time to completely ruin our credit .... as long as we pay our interest . our credit rating remains ..the s& p is getting sued right now from the federal govt for lowering our credit ratings  last year ..

 

the united states has never missed a payment ..

 

the s& p said they lowered our credit rating because congress was debating to much .. they cant watch every countrys govt  and base their credit rating on congressional debates .. credit is based on your ability to pay//..

 

 if  i was arguing with my wife  about how to pay my bills ..do i get a reduced  credit rating ? .. they should only be concerned in if i make my payments or not .. and not be concerned  if i argue with my wife or not

Edited March 2, 2013 by dontlop

[chess]

Its true how the only ones claiming there are no dinars on the streets are the gurus.....but yet if you actually talk to people who are over there or who have served over there recently, they tell a completely different story. People dont believe the gurus on the RV everyday knowing its nonsense, but they will believe the gurus when they say there are no more dinar on the streets.....funny.....

 

......now THAT IS good psychology!

[MyLadiesDaddy]

we got a long ways to go .. we are still triple a credit rating . it will take a long time to completely ruin our credit .... as long as we pay our interest . our credit rating remains ..the s& p is getting sued right now from the federal govt for lowering our credit ratings  last year ..

 

the united stateshas never missed a payment ..

 

the s& p said they lowered our credit rating because congress was debating to much .. they cant watch every countrys govt  and base their credit rating on congressional debates .. credit is based on your ability to pay//..

 

 i i was arguing with my wife  about how to pay my bills ..do i get a reduced  credit rating ? .. they should only be concerned in if i make my payments otr not .. and not be concerned  if i argue with my wife or not

 

Well I heard on Fox News that S & P's argument is that they, and all 

 

credit companies, only give there opinion and therefor it is a useless 

 

lawsuit. Also yes we do pay our interest, but again according to Fox before 

 

Obama leaves office, if he leaves office, we wont be able to continue to do so.

 

Surely you don't think America can continue to go down the road we are now 

 

and everything will be fine. 

[keepmwlknfny]

Keep, not sure I understand your  link. As far as I can see at it's 

 

lowest before the war it was .29 cents. Surely you would like that 

 

now right?

It was worth far less actually.....at one point it was around 3500 to 1.....the point I was trying to make is that the value of the dinar didnt drop overnight....it was a matter of 10 years or so

i doubt that . thats like saying the united states could get by with 500 billion dollars in its m2 .. when we have a gdp of 14 million ..

 

neither can iraq get by on 70 billion and have a 140 billion govt budget .. and a private sector on top of that  with reserves and bank savings of the citizens ..if every iraqi citizem had 2000 dollars worth of dinars  in savings .. iraq would have no money  for anything . it would all be in savings in a coffee can.. and no money  circulating

What do you mean? They dont run the budget from the money supply......the budget is paid for by the oil revenues coming in......so why would it matter if they only had 70 billion for an M2?

[Flatbush Zombies]

Well I heard on Fox News that S & P's argument is that they, and all 

 

credit companies, only give there opinion and therefor it is a useless 

 

lawsuit. Also yes we do pay our interest, but again according to Fox before 

 

Obama leaves office, if he leaves office, we wont be able to continue to do so.

 

Surely you don't think America can continue to go down the road we are now 

 

and everything will be fine. 

I'm not trying to be mean or rude but you should really stay away from fox news. They are a cancer to our society. Really all televised media is. Obama had actually lowered our deficit. A lot of people get debt and deficit confused.

For the record, last year, over President Obama's first four years, the deficit shrunk by about $300 billion. This year, the deficit is projected to be about $600 billion smaller than when the president took office. We are, in reality, currently seeing the fastest deficit reduction in several generations.

And yet, 90% of Americans don't believe the demonstrable, incontrovertible, entirely objective truth. It's worth pondering why.

Public ignorance on this scale is, to my mind, understandable given the political conversation. Literally every day, Republican officials proclaim that the deficit is spiraling out of control, threatening the fate of Western Civilization As We Know It. The media often fails to play a constructive role, with news organizations playing along, telling the public that the deficit is necessarily a bad thing, and that policymakers have a responsibility to address it immediately.

Indeed, for the typical American news consumer, I imagine there's an assumption that comes alongside the fiscal debate: "The deficit must be getting bigger in a hurry, otherwise it'd be stupid for Washington to invest so much time and energy on this issue, instead of other pressing matters."

But the facts are the facts, even if only 6% of the country is aware of them.

The federal budget deficit in 2013 is projected to be $845 billion, the first time the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has forecast a deficit below $1 trillion under President Obama.

The reduction in the budget deficit comes after Congress approved higher tax rates on households with annual income above $450,000.

The CBO also projects the deficit will shrink again next year to $430 billion.

Why is this politically significant? For one thing, congressional Republicans said raising taxes on the wealthy would not improve the nation's finances, and it appears we now have even more evidence to the contrary. They also seem to enjoy complaining about "trillion-dollar deficits every year," and will have to drop the line from their repertoire.

What's more, it appears the deficit will have been cut nearly in half -- both in real terms and as a percentage of GDP -- since President Obama inherited a massive budget shortfall from the Bush/Cheney administration.

Of course, there's also the matter of the fiscal debate -- as GOP lawmakers continue to insist Washington take the deficit seriously, and adopt austerity measures intended to close the budget shortfall in a hurry, we're reminded today that the deficit is already shrinking.

For the record, I still think it's a mistake to assume that shrinking deficits are good news. There's a competing school of thought -- which I'm sympathetic to -- that suggests the deficit is currently too small, and that given economic conditions, interest rates, and the current yield of Treasuries, we should be borrowing far more and investing that money in job creation.

But at least as far as the establishment conversation goes, we should at least have a fiscal debate based on facts -- and the facts are that the deficit is shrinking in a hurry.

We are still adding to the debt but at a much lower rate. Here's what spiked our debt: 2 wars, Medicare part D, stimulus, bush tax cuts, TARP....all under the bush admin.

[boomer113189]

i doubt that . thats like saying the united states could get by with 500 billion dollars in its m2 .. when we have a gdp of 14 million ..

 

neither can iraq get by on 70 billion and have a 140 billion govt budget .. and a private sector on top of that  with reserves and bank savings of the citizens ..if every iraqi citizem had 2000 dollars worth of dinars  in savings .. iraq would have no money  for anything . it would all be in savings in a coffee can.. and no money  circulating

http://goo.gl/ZCOCg read this   the deletion of zeros will contribute to reduce the size of the inflation and reduce the size of the money supply in the market of 26 trillion Iraqi dinars to nearly 25 billion dinars

Edited March 2, 2013 by boomer113189

[Flatbush Zombies]

Treasury Department Reports $3 Billion Budget Surplus In January, Shrinking Deficit

WASHINGTON — The federal government reported a rare surplus for January and is on track to run the lowest annual deficit since President Barack Obama took office.

The Treasury Department said Tuesday that the government took in a surplus of $2.9 billion in January, helped by nearly $9 billion more in Social Security taxes. Last month Congress and the White House allowed a temporary cut in Social Security taxes to expire.

The monthly surplus was the first since September.

Through the first four months of the 2013 budget year, the deficit has grown $290.4 billion. That's nearly $60 billion lower than the same period a year ago.

Revenue through those four months is 12.4 percent higher compared with the same period last year, while spending has grown only 3.5 percent.

The budget year began on Oct. 1.

The Congressional Budget Office forecasts that the deficit will total $845 billion when the budget year ends on Sept. 30. If correct, that would be first time the government has run annual deficit below $1 trillion since 2008.

The deficit is the amount the government must borrow when its expenses exceed its revenue. Each month's deficit is volatile and can be affected by calendar quirks that shift government spending or revenue from one month to another.

The annual deficit is projected to be smaller this year because the government is collecting more revenue this year, mainly because of faster job growth and higher taxes.

At the same time, the government is spending less on some programs. That's in part because of spending cuts that were enacted under a 2011 agreement to raise the federal borrowing limit. Also, the improved economy has reduced demand for unemployment benefits and some other government programs.

Last year, the economy grew at a modest 2.2 percent and generated an average of about 180,000 jobs a month. Stronger job growth is forecast for this year – an average of more than 200,000 a month, some economists say. More jobs mean more income, which generates more tax revenue for the government.

Another factor in a smaller expected deficit is higher taxes for some Americans this year. When Congress and the White House reached a deal in January to avert the fiscal cliff, they allowed taxes to rise on individuals earning at least $400,000 a year and couples earning $450,000. That is expected to raise $620 billion in revenue over the next decade.

And the agreement allowed a 2 percentage point cut in the Social Security tax to expire, thereby raising taxes on nearly everyone who earns a paycheck. This year's higher Social Security tax is projected to raise about $10 billion more a month in revenue.

The additional revenue is likely to slow the deficit's growth for the rest of the budget year. The deficit will also likely shrink in April, when the government collects much of its income-tax revenue. Last year, the government reported a surplus of $59 billion for April. A stronger economy could make this year's April surplus even larger.

Economists are also optimistic that this year's deficit could be smaller than $1 trillion. But much depends on negotiations in Washington over the next few weeks. On March 1, $85 billion in spending cuts are scheduled to take effect unless Congress and the White House reach a deal to avert them.

Cooper Howes, an economist at Barclays, said that if the full amount of reductions take place, that could trim overall economic growth by about one-half percentage point.

The CBO is projecting even smaller annual deficits of $616 billion in 2014 and $459 billion in 2015. But as more baby boomers retire and claim Medicare and Social Security, deficits would likely rise again. The implementation of the 2010 health care law would also widen deficits. The CBO forecasts that deficits could near $1 trillion again by 2023.

Republicans and President Barack Obama agree on the need for a plan to contain the deficits. But they are at odds over the details. Republicans want to trim growth in Social Security and Medicare spending but oppose any further tax increases.

Obama has said he is willing to consider cuts in the growth of entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security. But he argues that a balanced approach will require further tax increases on the highest earners.

Obama's presidency has coincided with four straight $1 trillion-plus deficits.

The gaps reached a record $1.41 trillion in budget year 2009, which began four months before Obama took office. That deficit was due largely to the worst recession since the Great Depression. Tax revenue plummeted. And the government spent more on stimulus programs.

The budget gaps in 2010 and 2011 were slightly lower than the 2009 deficit as a gradually strengthening economy generated more tax revenue.

President George W. Bush also ran annual deficits through most of his two terms in office after he won approval for broad tax cuts and launched wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The last time the government ran an annual surplus was in 2001.

BY THE WAY, I DON'T PICK PARTY LINES...I STICK WITH THE FACTS!

[dontlop]

if the united states owes china 1 trilion dollars .. and they want it .. we dont and wont say to bad and defualt .. the way our country is set up .. we would devalue our dollar by printing up that  one trillion dollars .. and pay china .... yes our dollar would lose 10% of its value .. but china would get paid .. and china loses 10% of its value..by getting paid back in 1 trillion dollars worth 10% less .. so they dont push for that ..the country work with each other . except in times of war ..like when everyone called in their debts on sadam hussien all at the same time  when he invaded kuwait ..his debt to gdp was destroyed  when they put sanctions on him and called in his debts ..right now saddam still has debts . debts in dinars ..and if those dinars were to rv .. iraq would be responsible for those  debts still in dinars . a currency code change could change that ..with a new currency and exchange period .. this link shows the iraq currency code changes  over the last 12 years .. http://www.exxun.com/afd_hy/Iraq/ec_currency_code.html  ... im not sure what the limit is for exchange in iraq .. when kuwait changed its currency after saddam stole a bunch of kuwait dinars .. the kuwait cbi laws stated that the old dinars would be exchanged for 10 years at the cash window of the kuwait cbi .. it was there law .. after that the old kuwait dinar was  no longer good for nothing ..  the iqd became the nid .. in 2004 .. 10 years will be on january 22 2014.. since the  currency code change on january 22  2004 .. as shown on the link i provided .

Edited March 2, 2013 by dontlop

[MyLadiesDaddy]

OMG. You didn't just go there.    

 

I'll bet you believe Obama when he's running around the country like 

 

chicken little yelling the sky is falling over the sequester. You do realize that 

 

the sequester was his law. At this point we, you and I, can only agree on one 

 

thing. All media is controlled. Your president will achieve his goal, the destruction

 

of the Christian nation known as America. And the Muslim world will probably 

 

raise there brother to the level of Imam. But you wont like it in the end and you 

 

​will probably still be blaming us gun and bible totting Christian conservatives

 

for his planed destruction.   

if the united states owes china 1 trilion dollars .. and they want it .. we dont and wont say to bad and defualt .. the way our country is set up .. we would devalue our dollar by printing up that  one trillion dollars .. and pay china .... yes our dollar would lose 10% of its value .. but china would get paid .. and china loses 10% of its value..by getting paid back in 1 trillion dollars worth 10% less .. so they dont push for that

Read more: http://dinarvets.com/forums/index.php?/topic/142702-why-i-believe-it-will-rv-1-to-1/page-4#ixzz2MPMaNtvp

 

 

That makes allot of sense. But something in me says were not 

 

going to be able to continue as is. The entire world is breaking their

 

backs to help Iraq all the while they hate us. Not a very good position to

 

be in.  

[chess]

I don't see it.  Even if it did RV 1 to 1 in Iraq, which would have no effect on the buying power of the citizens there, what would compel any financial institution or exchange to take in 1 Dinar for 1 US Dollar.  Just because the CBI says so?  I could be naive but this is the thing that has always baffled me about this whole frenzy.  How does a country just come out and make a bold proclamation that their currency is now worth a thousand times more than it was yesterday and is on par with the currency of the largest, most powerful, economic nation in the world?  Is it just to make Dinarians rich?  

 

Just doesn't make sense.  

 

 

............WELLLL,  'TIS TOO BAD THAT YOU MIGHT JUST MAKE SENSE!  TOO MANY OF US, PERHAPS, HAVE OUR HEADS BURIED IN THE IRAQI SAND!

[Flatbush Zombies]

OMG. You didn't just go there.    

 

I'll bet you believe Obama when he's running around the country like 

 

chicken little yelling the sky is falling over the sequester. You do realize that 

 

the sequester was his law. At this point we, you and I, can only agree on one 

 

thing. All media is controlled. Your president will achieve his goal, the destruction

 

of the Christian nation known as America. And the Muslim world will probably 

 

raise there brother to the level of Imam. But you wont like it in the end and you 

 

​will probably still be blaming us gun and bible totting Christian conservatives

 

for his planed destruction.   

The sequester was all political drama. Cuts must be made. This whole argument that Obama is trying to ruin America is ridiculous. You do know how government works right? Did you pay attention in civics class? There's a thing called the house and senate that things go thru. We have the worst congress in HISTORY. if Obama is such a tyrant then why can nothing get done in congress?

Honestly there's really no point in this argument...when people bring up Christian nation and muslim stuff I can't have a serious discussion. I can tell you get all your information from severely conservative websites or media only. Why people pick party lines is beyond me? You're setting yourself up for embarrassment when you disregard facts and listen to nut jobs.

Also, fox news is the least informative "news" outlet out there. There's been 7 different studies done and they are the worst. They always have the least informed viewers.

Don't ignore facts. Obama has lowered our DEFECIT. Facts. Did you ignore the posts above or are you covering your eyes because it goes against your beliefs.

[dontlop]

http://goo.gl/ZCOCg read this   the deletion of zeros will contribute to reduce the size of the inflation and reduce the size of the money supply in the market of 26 trillion Iraqi dinars to nearly 25 billion dinars

i wouldnt base your entire philosiphy off an iraqi news paper article .. i really dont think they are broad casting what they are doing with their curency,, they are all over the place . how does one decide which one of those media outlets are the msnbc or fox news  of iraq .. one day they say one thing the next they say something different .. whos who in iraqi reporting ..  just because they say the cbi said this .. or that ..we see all kinds of political posturing in the united states ..theres no way to verify any of these articles. we are only speculating the possibilities .. nothing is in stone as far as what iraq will do .. and how they will do it .. or what the exchange  rates will end up at

[Flatbush Zombies]

Another study has concluded that people who only watch Fox News are less informed than all other news consumers.

Researchers at Fairleigh Dickinson University updated a study they had conducted in late 2011. That study only sampled respondents from New Jersey, where the university is located. This time, the researchers conducted a nationwide poll.

The poll asked questions about international news (Iran, Egypt, Syria and Greece were included) and domestic affairs (Republican primaries, Congress, unemployment and the Keystone XL pipeline.)

The pollsters found that people were usually able to answer 1.8 out of 4 questions on foreign news, and 1.6 of 5 questions on domestic news, and that people who don't watch any news were able to get 1.22 of the questions on domestic policy right.

As the study explained, though, people who watched only Fox News fared worse:

The largest effect is that of Fox News: all else being equal, someone who watched only Fox News would be expected to answer just 1.04 domestic questions correctly -- a figure which is significantly worse than if they had reported watching no media at all. On the other hand, if they listened only to NPR, they would be expected to answer 1.51 questions correctly; viewers of Sunday morning talk shows fare similarly well. And people watching only "The Daily Show With Jon Stewart" could answer about 1.42 questions correctly.

Other networks also did badly in some sections; MSNBC viewers and Fox News viewers both fared worse in answering international questions than people who watched no news.

People who only listened to NPR or watched Sunday morning talk shows or "The Daily Show" did the best in the study.

[boomer113189]

i wouldnt base your entire philosiphy off an iraqi news paper article .. i really dont think they are broad casting what they are doing with their curency,, they are all over the place . how does one decide which one of those media outlets are the msnbc or fox news  of iraq .. one day they say one thing the next they say something different .. whos who in iraqi reporting ..  just because they say the cbi said this .. or that ..we see all kinds of political posturing in the united states ..theres no way to verify any of these articles. we are only speculating the possibilities .. nothing is in stone as far as what iraq will do .. and how they will do it .. or what the exchange  rates will end up at

iraq has had countless articails out about how they need to reduce there inflation and reduce the money supply this is 1 way of doing

[dontlop]

iraq has had countless articails out about how they need to reduce there inflation and reduce the money supply this is 1 way of doing

i wonder how the united states reduces its inflation .do they reduce its money supply . i do know  iraqi inflation is not a problem any more .. yes they had plenty of those articles back in 2004 and 2005

[boomer113189]

there currency is inflated