Is my math corect????

Here is an earlier post:

22/09/2011 16:17


Budget talks expected for Sunday


Erbil, Sept. 22 (AKnews) – The Iraqi Council of Ministers is expected to start the discussion over Iraq's 2012 budget this Sunday.

The Iraqi government is trying to pass the budget bill prior to the start of the fiscal. The 2011 budget was not passed until February 2011, due to ongoing political disputes.

“We will try to discuss the 2012 budget bill before the end of this year and pass it,” said Najeeba Najeeb, a Kurdish member of parliament.

The draft law calculates 2012's budget to be 131 trillion IQD ($119 billion USD), the largest budget in the country's history. In 2011, Iraq's budget was only 92 trillion IQD ($79 billion USD).

The budget has been based on the sales of an expected oil export of 2.6 million barrels of oil per day (bopd), including 150,000 bopd from the Kurdistan Region.


http://aknews.com/en/aknews/2/263194/

If the draft law for the 2012 budget is calculated to be 131 trillion IQD (equating to be 119 billion USD), then that calculation is based on the exchange rate being 1100.84 versus the 1170 rate we are seeing now.

Am I missing something??????

_________________
"WHEN THE POWER OF LOVE OVERCOMES THE LOVE OF POWER, THE WORLD WILL KNOW PEACE"

Then we're in trouble.....1100 exchange rate versus 1170....

I can't belive no one caught this....COMMENTS?????????

hhammer wrote:
If the draft law for the 2012 budget is calculated to be 131 trillion IQD (equating to be 119 billion USD), then that calculation is based on the exchange rate being 1100.84 versus the 1170 rate we are seeing now.

Am I missing something??????

After I ran the #'s to find the rate, this is what I got for that rate -


0.0009084 +/-

131,000,000,000,000.00 (IQD) x 0.0009084 = $119,000,400,000.00 (USD)

This means to me, they did not figure any "RV" to come up with these numbers... :pale: :pale: :pale: :pale: :pale: :pale: :pale:

ProDinar wrote:

hhammer wrote:
If the draft law for the 2012 budget is calculated to be 131 trillion IQD (equating to be 119 billion USD), then that calculation is based on the exchange rate being 1100.84 versus the 1170 rate we are seeing now.

Am I missing something??????

After I ran the #'s to find the rate, this is what I got for that rate -


0.0009084 +/-

131,000,000,000,000.00 (IQD) x 0.0009084 = $119,000,400,000.00 (USD)

This means to me, they did not figure any "RV" to come up with these numbers... :pale: :pale: :pale: :pale: :pale: :pale: :pale:

Pro Dinar: Your math is absolutely correct, and it verifies what hhammer offered. However, the question that still has not been answered is this: Why does the 2012 budget use an existing currency rate for budgetary purposes when it "seems" the RV is close to happening? A new value for the dinar would certainly have some effect on some calculations somewhere down the pipeline, but what effect would it have and where? Based on the answer of Ray T, the two (RV and budget) have nothing to do with each other. I just don't get it. Does anybody know the answer?

Thanks ProDinar......exactly my point. It amazes me no one else caught this. Three replies on this topic when there should be 300. To me this states that the Iraqi budget is being planned for 2012 without any RV. How do you base an annual budget based on essentially the same rate we're seeing now, and still have people posting intel about an RV within hours or days???

Has this been overlooked by the forum, or just ignored?

I hope I'm wrong in my inference. If I stand to be corrected, please do so. I am simply seeking a factual answer to clarify this.

hhammer wrote:Thanks ProDinar......exactly my point. It amazes me no one else caught this. Three replies on this topic when there should be 300. To me this states that the Iraqi budget is being planned for 2012 without any RV. How do you base an annual budget based on essentially the same rate we're seeing now, and still have people posting intel about an RV within hours or days???

Has this been overlooked by the forum, or just ignored?

I hope I'm wrong in my inference. If I stand to be corrected, please do so. I am simply seeking a factual answer to clarify this.

This appears to me to be another propaganda piece put out by Iraq. Nothing more.

The RV has to happen for Iraq to have enough money to pay their debts. 119 billion dollars will not do that...

GOD BLESS THE USA

Openmind, did you have a comment to add, or just a Ron Paul plug?

Thanks FREEWAY BILL. I was hoping this was the case. It doesn't make any sense at all, and I have to believe it's smoke and mirrors to keep us all in the dark. Time will tell.

Thanks again.

hhammer wrote:Openmind, did you have a comment to add, or just a Ron Paul plug?

Ron Paul plug is an always. I thought Pro Dinar made sense suggesting Iraq hasnt taken the rv into account for their new budget. PEACE

i dont like those numbers ,thx for the math

hhammer wrote:Thanks ProDinar......exactly my point. It amazes me no one else caught this. Three replies on this topic when there should be 300. To me this states that the Iraqi budget is being planned for 2012 without any RV. How do you base an annual budget based on essentially the same rate we're seeing now, and still have people posting intel about an RV within hours or days???

Has this been overlooked by the forum, or just ignored?

I hope I'm wrong in my inference. If I stand to be corrected, please do so. I am simply seeking a factual answer to clarify this.

I really do hope they plan on re-writing this if/when they do "RV".
On another post from "ScottiG", he claims Shabibi has a "Major Anoucement to make regarding the "RV"(?), this was to be around 10:00pm on 9/22/11 or just before prayers at 5:00am 9/23/11 Iraq time(?).
Lets keep the fingers crossed (exept if they start cramping) & eyes & ears open, hope they are trying to blow smoke up the poop shoot.

I strongly agree with Freeway Bill that this is misinformation or disinformation. Didn't Scooter advocate a position that for the Iraqi budget to balance they woud have to RV somewhere in the range of $3.86? I find no surprise in the proposed budget being couched in terms of the standing rate as opposed to anticipating or even telegraphing a substantial change. They cannot simultaneously de-dollarize and promote the local currency if they couple their intenal budget to the U.S. dollar they are trying to cast aside.

Between the language barrier (try to get 3 translators to agree on what any pblished news or press release really says; let alone means) and the culture of deceit, I believe that the best indicator is the fact that the formal 2011 budget was not adopted and approved until 4 months into the fiscal year and the likely believable statement that the decisionmakers will be meeting Sunday to discusss the 2012 budget. In short, the fat lady hasn't sung. Keep in mind the infamous advice about dealing in that area of the world. "Live like brothers; trade like strangers."

We are still debating chicken or egg questions and the best I am able to do to conserve my sanity is to focus on what they do rather than on what they say. What I find most encouraging is that the parliament is actually getting things accomplished rather than sitting on their hands. Fact is that Iraq did not come to a grinding halt becuase the 2011 budget was not delivered on a silver platter with a big red ribbon before the start of the fiscal year and I do not anticipate a crisis if they are still arguing what and where to spend so long as the government has cash in its coffers, can handle their obligations and can pass temporary spending legislation. Maybe we should be asking whether the budget drives the RV or the RV drives the budget.

At the risk of sounding like a pompus, arrogant jerk, I submit this is an application of the adage "figures don't lie, liars figure." Not that I am accusing anyone of perfidy so much as I am questioning and challenging the assumption that the exchange rate is that closely linked as to be a credible predictor of when and what the CBI may do as compared what and when the parliament will do.

Has anyone actually done an analysis or spreadsheet on all of the infrastructure contracts and the payment terms? I think that would reveal a great deal more information simply because those third-party contractors are not charities and will not perform if they fear non-payment. In that sense, the government will lose credibility, and therefore popular support, if they cannot deliver on promies about jobs, infrastructure, housing, security and sharing of wealth from "hydrocarbons". For all of the manuvering, manipulating and ulterior motives, this has to come to a head sooner rather than later.