Thread: Iraq/Dinar News. 09/05 to 01/14/07

Originally Posted by lonelyintexas

Ward,
How you been. Yes I too am in the 1.48 camp. The magnitude of all the good news lately is enough to make me believe we are almost to end of our ride. Especially since the auctions have stopped.
LIT

I agree LIT! I find the fact that the auctions have stopped to be a VERY good sign. Add to it no proof of the 10,000 dinars being passed out and the CBI down and not reporting a current exchange rate and I think we've got ourselves a TRIFECTA!

Originally Posted by shotgunsusie

yes, as the numbers REDUCING on the dinar side is actually the dinar INCREASING in value.

thats what i was saying

Well as I stated 12 million posts ago, (yesterday) i had asked a contact to check on a few things going on across the pond.

10K handout- Nope, not done yet, at least with his workers.
Black-out- No Info
Reval- Not as of yet

His interesting comment was that most of his workers are asking the cost, here in Canada for some major high priced items. Cars, Houses, boats, and computor products. He said most have never asked even once before and now 3/4's of his crew are asking. when asked why they just shrudge. That is the partial crew that are showing up during this holiday.

He's a pretty straight guy, but I think my ethusiasum has him asking alot more questions.

Any of the smarter posters then me want some questions asked? He will try and get answers for us, but you have to remeber his job comes first and not our questions. Hope this helps alittle.

Originally Posted by ozizoz

Oz strikes again . . .

I just emailed GW Bush and CCed to the Republican National Committee . . .

Dear Mr President

In my hands I have two absentee ballots for the November 7th mid-term elections. One ballot votes for EVERY Republican candidate, the other for EVERY Democrat. If I dont see Iraq issue a currency revaluation by November 1, 2006, I am mailing my Democratic Ballot and encouraging everyone I know, and everyone on all of the Forums on the Internet to do the same. The ball is in your court . . .

Signed "Patriotically Yours" Rob G***** (my real name )

I can't say what I would like without getting banned here so let the smilies do it for me

Originally Posted by wciappetta

Nawhhh the PM is just doing what most folks in his position do, rendering a comment for public comsumption. Just consider the company he was keeping at that moment. Al-Sadr on the other hand has more Iraqi flesh dangling from his teeth than all the bullets of the coalition.

Imo this guy needs to vanish....

Imagine the behind the doors politics that have gone on to see this maniac alive. It boggles the mind why this monster (to some-he is a hero!) is allowed to be the force behind the causes of so much Iraqi blood being spilled. The average Iraqi guy is a decent man being ruled by forces way out of his control. The dinar will reval. But there is so much blood now I am for the first time thinking---NEXT WEEK!!!!

I got this from a friend. Don't shoot the messenger!

by Al Martin

Bushonian Budget Deficits: The Great Lie of Bushonomics -- Why the Bush Regime Doesn’t Mind Losing the Election

(10-16-06) The temerity of the Bush Cheney Regime jumped to another level last week when the regime touted the U.S. Treasury’s release of the final budget deficit for 2006. The United States fiscal year runs from September 30 to September 30. The Treasury then announced that the total Bushonian budget deficit for 2006 came in at $223 billion, and that was about $31 billion less than the most recent projections. George Bush, in a public address last Wednesday, touted the fact that the regime had met yet another one of its promises: to cut the budget deficit in half before it left office. This is so laughable because people forget that it was this regime which inherited a fiscal surplus, from which the budget deficit was created to begin with. Bush actually tried to play some revisionist history and intimated that the budget deficits were the fault of the preceding regime, despite the fact he inherited a $158-billion fiscal surplus.

Of course, the unwashed would hail this, but even some of the people in the Rose Garden and media audience (there was a lot of financial media there, which Bush hates because they ask real questions) actually laughed openly when he said that we have cut the budget deficits in half as we promised to do -- considering it was his Regime that created the deficits in the first place.

What is so disingenuous about this, as Dick Cheney pointed out in an interview last Wednesday night – although this was “good news,” only 18% of the American people even understand this. So you keep it simple, stupid, for the people, as in -- Hey, we cut the budget deficit in half. That’s good news and that’s all you have to know.

What is so fraudulent is that the Bush Cheney Regime is engaged in the same kind of Bushonomics that the Reagan Bush and Bush Quayle Regimes engaged in – simply a pattern of fraud against the nation that, in 1993, the then-incoming Clinton Regime had seriously wanted to indict George Bush Sr. for gross malfeasance and financial fraud against the American people.

And how was it waylaid? Bill Clinton wanted to indict President George Bush Sr. for gross malfeasance against the American people for the practice of Bushonomics, which is fraud. It’s just another word for fraud against the people. You may remember the story -- it was then Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan in March-April of `93 that talked Clinton out of it, because Clinton and his people, like then-Presidential counsel Abner Mikva – were very enthralled with Alan Greenspan and really hung on his every word.

Greenspan, in a March 1993 meeting, put the kibosh on this idea and told Clinton not to indict George Bush because, in essence -- if you did, then you would have to tell the people the truth about Bushonomics and what the previous 12 years had done to the nation.

Clinton would have to explain twelve years of waste, fraud, abuse, graft, corruption and malfeasance and what it had cost the United States.

At a time, in the first quarter of 1993, because of Bushonomics, the nation’s banks, insurance companies and brokerage firms had become severely undercapitalized.

Indeed, the five big U.S. Treasury agencies, as they are called – Ginnie Mae, Sallie Mae, Vinnie Mae, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – had a negative capital base.

What Greenspan pointed out was that, if you tell the people the truth about what has happened, about the fiscal deterioration of the United States that has occurred in the previous 12 years, there would be a massive loss of confidence trade.

Then it would be entirely possible that the United States would collapse as a First World economic power -- specifically because institutional and government capital bases were so severely depleted after 12 years of fraud.

People should also remember the April 1993 dateline interview with Barbara Walters where Alan Greenspan got around the edges of this.

Greenspan’s words were -- The nation cannot afford any more Bushes.

And Barbara Walters asked him what he meant. Greenspan said that, if a Bushonian regime should be re-ensconced into power instead of a Clinton regime it could not generate sufficient fiscal surpluses to pay down enough debt and to lower the debt-to-GDP ratio, then it is likely that the ensuing Bushonian Regime would ultimately cause the collapse of the United States. This is precisely what the General Accounting Office now predicts. And the American people refused to listen.

US citizens were told. There was plenty of public pronouncements. The problem is that they’re too stupid to understand.

The fear, ignorance, prejudice and intolerance brigade and the naive flag-waving crowd will invariably put political and socio-religious issues ahead of economic issues because those are the issues that the unwashed, and those of the lower-intelligence Republicans (remember Gallup Harris used these words to describe viewers of FOX) understand.

That’s why on Fox News you don’t hear a lot of economics -- because they know that lower-intelligence Republicans that Bushonian regimes depend on are much more interested in flag-waving than they are trying to understand the difference between governmental red and black ink, which means nothing to them.

To get back to the present, this regime is practicing exactly the same form of Bushonomics as was practiced before. The deficits are shrinking. Yes, part of that is because tax income, and tax revenue to government, is rising. That is true. But that’s only half of the story.

The other half of the story is that increasingly the regime is putting war, i.e. defense-related expenditures ‘off budget.’

The same dangerous practice and, indeed, the very heart of Bushonomics is to create a so-called double set of books.

Is this like Enron taking their losses and putting them in limited partnerships offshore? Is there a parallel there?

Of course, there’s a parallel. This is what Enron did, and others like Long-Term Capital – another hedge fund debacle. Enron wasn’t the first to form offshore corporations to transfer liabilities to that offshore corporation, and then attempt to disguise, or hide those liabilities through a set of false books, which is effectively what Bushonomics is doing with the United States government. Except, here, it is the entire nation that is at risk, not a single corporation.

The Bush Cheney Regime has now placed $100 billion per annum in Iraqi and Afghani and other domestic-security-related spending off-budget. That’s what these endless special appropriations are about that the regime keeps proffering in Congress. What do you think a special appropriation is? It is an off-budget. It doesn’t deepen the red ink. These are financed the same way everything is financed through the sale of U.S. Treasury instruments.

What’s new is they’re creating a whole new X-factor that was created principally from 1984 to 1990. That’s when the Reagan Bush & Bush Quayle Regime wisely discontinued the practice of keeping a double set of books. They knew, had they not done so, it was entirely possible that the economy of the United States could have collapsed prior to the Bush Quayle Regime’s tenure expiring. They originally had intended on getting re-elected in 1992. But that was made impossible. That’s why George Bush and Company didn’t even make a real effort to get him elected in 1992. The extent of the fiscal deterioration that had been caused in the previous 12 years was such that they knew that, with another Bushonian regime, everybody would expect Bushonomics to continue. Bushonomics in 1992 could not have continued for another four years. The economy of the United States would have collapsed.

The principal fraud that is being committed here is the same that had been committed in the 1980's: hiding defense-related expenditures. This regime’s hiding about $100 billion a year. Off-budget financing is effectively hiding it, because the U.S. Treasury instruments being sold aren’t recorded in the same fashion.

Remember what former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, who got punished by being sent on a trip to West Africa with the rock star Bono, and then was pushed out of office for telling the American people the truth about this regime and the debt it was creating, and how the U.S. Treasury actually could not any longer calculate what the actual total national debt was, or exactly how many U.S. Treasury instruments were outstanding.

How scary do you want it to get?

You remember the flap that was created in 2004 when Paul O’Neill said that the regime had attempted to suppress the March 2001 U.S. Treasury report, the 20-year debt review report, which mentioned that the U.S. Treasury thought that the total national debt of the United States may be as much as $44 trillion, and that in 1980 the then-incoming Reagan Bush regime had inherited an actual national debt of only 1.5 trillion, and that, further, the aggregate national debt had actually fallen by $6 trillion from 1993 to 2000.

It didn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out who it was that was creating the debt.

Now we are way past the living-on-borrowed-time scenario. This is final desperation. The two principal areas of fraud are: Attempting to disguise the total amount of money that’s being spent on foreign military campaigns, which are nothing more than a diversion.

Also, the regime, immediately when it came to power in 2001, has returned to the dangerous Bushonian practice of counting so-called current Social Security surpluses as general revenue, which are about $120 billion per annum, instead of using them to retire multi-trillion dollar Social Security deficit that was accrued in the 1980s.

Remember, the Clinton regime stopped that practice and actually used the $120 billion per annum so-called ‘current Social Security payment surplus’ to pay down the trillions in Social Security debt that had been accumulated in the 1980's.

Meanwhile the Bush Cheney Regime has returned to the dangerous fiscal practice of counting so-called current Social Security revenues as general income -- thus helping to obfuscate the actual size of Bushonian budget deficits, as was done in the 1980's and early `90's.

Therefore, to arrive at what Bushonian budget deficits actually are, you have to add back in approximately $100 billion per annum that is being spent on Iraq, Afghanistan and other military adventures as well as domestic security spending, which is being hidden off-budget or off the books.

All the billions of dollars in spending for the resurrection and expansion of the CILF project, the go-ahead on the new construction of PDF, or political detention facilities in the United States -- this is all spending that is being effectively hidden.

Therefore, to arrive at what the deficits really are, or in other words, to convert BFLAP (Bushonian Fantasy-Land Accounting Principles) back into GAAP, or Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, one must take the budget deficit as stated and add into that about $100 billion per annum that’s being financed ‘off budget’ for various military and military-related expenditures, plus the $120 billion per annum in Social Security surpluses, which are unlawfully being now counted, once again, as general revenue.

So you have to add at least $220 billion to Bushonian budget deficits to even come up with anything close to a real figure. And that’s only close to a real figure. The reason why it is impossible to know exactly what Bushonian budget deficits are is because it is impossible to know exactly what the actual debt-to-gross-domestic-product ratio of the United States is because of the trillions in so-called “stealth debt,” to use former Treasury Secretary O’Neill’s words, that was created by the Reagan Bush and Bush Quayle regimes, principally from 1984 to 1990.

You don’t actually know how much money the United States is spending to service debt anymore.

This can be likened to a Black Hole of financial fraud and debt. Because, since the instruments were never recorded as having been lawfully issued and are simply being rolled over and absorbed, you don’t know exactly what the debt-to-gross-domestic-product ratio of the nation actually is.

You do not actually know the percentage of government revenues that the Bush Cheney regime is spending to service debt. That’s part of the whole reason that you hide debt, so you can hide that number from the people.

The reason why you want to do that is not necessarily -- are you concerned about the people wearing their hats as voters? No, because they don’t understand it. What you are concerned about is people wearing their hats as investors, should they ever lose confidence in the U.S. economy.

Therein lies the Great Reason. The great reason is to maintain confidence in the U.S. economy, and hence U.S. capital markets, until the very last hurrah.

What the Bush Cheney Regime is now practicing is the endgame of Bushonomics. (We’ve said this before, but it bears saying again.)

All of its economic policies, even what George Bush said last Wednesday about making capital gains tax cuts permanent, about making tax cuts permanent for those earning more than $300,000 a year, to make tax cuts permanent for those who have a net worth above $5 million – all of the regime’s economic policies now are designed to consolidate all the remaining wealth that can be consolidated into the hands of the top 10% of the nation, as Comptroller General Walker points out, before it all falls apart.

What I found interesting are comments that Utah Senator Orrin Hatch made last week, when they asked him about Senator John Warner not running for President. I think this really tells you what Bushonomics and the Bushonian Cabal is all about, when Hatch says that it is necessary to build an elite and to concentrate wealth in the hands of an elite who have the brains to run things when the going gets tough. Hatch was trying to defend Bushonomics.

In other words you need an authoritarian elite that’s going to keep the trains running, so to speak. That’s how you build an authoritarian elite in the United States, in a capitalist country, is through wealth consolidation in the end of the cycle, by changes in laws, concentrating power within the executive branch, which has certainly happened under this regime.

Remember, with the USA PATRIOT Acts et al., more power has been shifted from the traditional legislative branches of government into the hands of the executive branch.

More power has been shifted from the people to the executive branch – more specifically, directly to the President – than has any such power shift cumulatively undertaken in the past 200 years of the nation.

The United States is becoming a “strongman” government – in the banana republic south of the border definition.

How closely are we and Bushonomics modeled to the form of government used in South American countries, which, in the post WWII environment, has always been supported by the Bushonian Cabal.

Argentina is an excellent example -- where economic policy was designed to create an elite, an elite which was also found with extraordinarily wealthy military officers. Then gradual changes in the law to make Argentina more dictatorial, then an outright imposition of a dictatorship.

The only reason dictatorship has been maintained intermittently in Argentina, or could be maintained, is because of wealth consolidation. Wealth consolidation means power consolidation.

In the United States, this is dangerous nonsense. And unfortunately the Bush Cheney regime, like their Bushonian and Reaganesque predecessors, will never be held to account for the fraud they have committed, even under the assumption that there are lawful elections in 2008, under the further assumption that the government changes political parties, which I don’t think it takes a rocket scientist to know that would happen.

One day people will wake up scratching their heads and go, “How did the United States turn into a Third World nation? But that’s still not until the end of the decade 2010 and the beginning of the next decade. Assuming what I’ve just said comes to pass, then in January 2009, the then-incoming Democratic regime finds itself in exactly the same position that the then-incoming Clinton Gore regime found itself in 2000 -- that Bushonomics has within it a self-protection mechanism.

In other words if you try to indict anybody for gross malfeasance against the United States, or against the people of the United States, you have to tell them all of the truth. If you tell them all of the truth, massive loss of confidence would ensue in U.S. capital marketplaces. And the next stop after that, economic collapse.

Therefore the Democrats, like it or not, have to maintain the lie.

The Democrats then should do what the Republicans did in 1992. And I don’t think they should even run anyone seriously, or they shouldn’t make a serious effort. They should force the regime to do what it really doesn’t want to do, and that is: remain in power.

Obviously it couldn’t be a Bush regime, but a Cheney Something regime. If you could force the Republican Party to stay in power another term, then the collapse that is coming will happen on their watch, something that they’re desperate to avoid.

They know that if there is a Democratic incoming regime, they’ll be out of Iraq in a New York minute. So you can say anything you want; it doesn’t make any difference.

But the Bush Cheney Cabal is in the best position -- because they don’t want to be in power after 2008. They are so powerful now that they have de facto control of the United States. It doesn’t make any difference if they’re in political office or not. It never has since the end of the Second World War made that much of a difference. They still control.

The only reason they ever sought political office was to change economic policy in such a way as to further enhance the Cabal’s wealth and, hence, power.

That’s the thing that Americans, in their unmitigated naiveté, don’t understand.

They look at Republicans and Democrats as their football team versus the opposing team. That’s nonsense. It doesn’t make any difference if the Bushonian Cabal is in power or not politically because they still control.

The political power is simply tangential. (That’s one reason they didn’t make a real effort in `92.) They will only stay in power long enough to change economic policy in order to enhance the trickle-up wealth effect economy, which is what they’re all about...

When the fiscal deterioration has gotten to such a point that they know that, if their continuing practice of Bushonomics were to remain for another four years, another term in power, the United States would collapse as a First World economic power, then they turn it over to the Democrats again and let them be the fiscally prudent ones.

You will even see, as you did in `93 and `94, Republican support for this. Because they know the more fiscally prudent a Democratic regime is going to be, the less popular they’re going to be because the American people don’t understand what fiscal prudence is from a hole in the wall.

So let the Democrats at least take the political heat, generate some black ink, pay down a little debt -- just enough so that a Bushonian regime can come back in afterwards and, once again, rape and pillage.

And that’s the truth – but who will believe it?

* AL MARTIN is an independent economic-political analyst with 25 years of experience as a trader on NYMEX, CME, CBOT and CFTC. As a former contributor to the Presidential Council of Economic Advisors, Al Martin is considered to be a source of independent analysis for financially sophisticated and market savvy investors.

After working as a broker on Wall Street, Al Martin was involved in the so-called "Iran Contra" Affair as a fundraiser for the Bush Cabal from the covert side of government aka the US Shadow Government.

His memoir, "The Conspirators: Secrets of an Iran Contra Insider," ( Al Martin Raw: Political, Economic & Financial Intelligence) provides an unprecedented look at the frauds of the Bush Cabal during the Iran Contra era. His weekly column, "Behind the Scenes in the Beltway," is published weekly on Al Martin Raw.com, which also publishes a bimonthly newsletter called "Whistleblower Gazette."

Al Martin's new website "Insider Intelligence" ( Insider Intelligence) will provide a long term macro-view of world markets and how they are affected by backroom realpolitik.

Of course, with enough dinars and a good reval...

Originally Posted by greatstuff

I got this from a friend. Don't shoot the messenger!




Of course, with enough dinars and a good reval...

believe me bush has plenty of dinar in the fed reserve along with all the gop having their own share of piles im sure. same thing was done with kuwait and clinton and the dems.

Transcript of a Press Briefing by David Hawley, Assistant Director, External Relations Department

Transcript of a Press Briefing by David Hawley
Assistant Director, External Relations Department
International Monetary Fund
Washington DC
Thursday, October 19, 2006


View a Webcast of the press briefing

MR. HAWLEY: Hello, ladies and gentlemen. I am David Hawley, Assistant Director in the IMF's External Relations Department, and welcome to those of you in the room and those of you on the online Media Briefing Center to this, one of our regular briefings for the media. As usual, the briefing is under embargo, and the embargo is 11:00 a.m. Washington time; that is 1500 GMT.

Those of you on the Media Briefing Center may wish to submit your questions now, so that we get a good chance to answer them. I have one or two questions already.

Before I take your questions, I would like to make one or two announcements.

The IMF will launch its Regional Economic Outlook for the Western Hemisphere in Mexico City on November the 2nd during the 11th Annual Conference of the Latin American and Caribbean Economic Association, or LACEA. The event will be held at the Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo. More details of this event will be made available nearer the time, but I can tell you today that Anoop Singh, the Director of the Western Hemisphere Department, will present the report, together with a panel of eminent Latin American economists including Ilan Goldfjan, a former central bank director in Brazil, and Mauricio Cardenas, the incoming President of LACEA, and Alejandro Werner, the head of the Economic Planning Office at Mexico's Finance Ministry.

Later today, the IMF will be opening for public comment the revisions to the IMF's Code of Good Practices on Fiscal Transparency, which has been updated and broadened to reflect recent practices in this field. As you know, fiscal transparency makes a major contribution to the cause of good governance and can lead to better informed public debate about the design and results of fiscal policy. Persons interested in commenting on the code are encouraged to visit the IMF's web site, IMF.org, where a survey will be available. The revised code will be open for comments until November the 17th.

Finally, let me announce a forthcoming visit to South Africa and Mali by John Lipsky, the IMF's First Deputy Managing Director. Mr. Lipsky will visit South Africa from November the 5th to November the 7th, and he will be in Mali from November the 8th to the 10th. This is Mr. Lipsky's first visit to Sub-Saharan Africa since becoming the First Deputy Managing Director on September the 1st.

In South Africa, he will discuss policies for strengthening the financial sector in Africa and its contribution to growth and development at a seminar with finance ministers and Central Bank officials from South Africa and several countries in the region. The seminar will be in Pretoria on November the 7th, and it is jointly organized by the IMF and the U.K.'s Department for International Development, DFID. It will be attended, in addition to those officials I have mentioned, by regional financial sector representatives and senior officials from the World Bank Group. Mr. Lipsky will also meet with the South African authorities and with private sector, labor, and civil society representatives.

In Mali, he will attend a seminar jointly sponsored by the IMF and the French Development Agency, Agence Française de Développement, on scaling up and promoting growth in the West African Economic and Monetary Union. Like the event in South Africa, this will be a regional conference on this occasion in Bamako on November the 10th, and it will be attended by finance ministers from the WAEMU region in addition to private sector representatives, NGOs, donors, and the media. He will also meet the Malian authorities and legislatures and visit in the country and travel in the country including to projects that have benefited from debt relief under HIPC initiative.

He will have media availability in both countries, and we will give you more details of that closer to the time.

On the subject of Mr. Lipsky, I will do a brief advertisement. He gave a wide-ranging interview to the IMF survey -- it was published earlier this week -- and he discussed a range of institutional issues facing the IMF. You might find it worth a look. It is also available on the IMF web site.

With those announcements, I am happy to take questions. I will start, if I may -- I see Leslie raising her finger -- with one from the Media Briefing Center.

I have a question on a reaction to the rating announcement on Italy, and I will respond that, in general, we have no comments on rating agency decisions, but I would note that in the medium term, as we have said before, the authorities in Italy should commit to a credible path of debt and deficit reduction based on durable expenditure-reducing measures.

The same questioner asks: What is your evaluation of the Italian Government's draft budget? We have not yet had the opportunity to examine the budget in detail, nor to discuss this 2007 draft budget with the authorities. We, however, look forward to doing so during the Article IV which is scheduled for November. We continue to believe that adjustments should be based on structural reforms covering key expenditure areas.

Thank you. I can now take a question in the room.

QUESTIONER: Staying in the same area, this is about Turkey. An IMF mission has been there, and they are saying that Turkey's spending is too high and want it reduced. How close have you come to an agreement in Turkey on any of this? In general, how did the mission go?

MR. HAWLEY: The mission has not yet concluded. There is, as you say, a mission which is in Turkey for the fifth review of the standby, and it will conclude its discussions on October the 20th, tomorrow. Talks have focused primarily on fiscal policy, and in this area, progress has been made. The authorities have drawn up a 2007 budget consistent with a public sector primary surplus of 6.5 percent of GNP and are putting in place safeguards to contain government expenditures this year and next. This is a positive step, but there are a number of other policy issues to be discussed. As always, any understandings between the mission and the authorities, the Turkish authorities in this case, are subject to review and endorsement by the IMF's Management and Executive Board. At the moment, that is, I am afraid, all I have got on the Turkey mission.

QUESTIONER: Regarding the Regional Economic Outlook that came out the other day for the Middle East, there were numbers there on Iraq, projecting growth of 14.4 percent next year after growth of 4 percent this year, though throughout the report it speaks of nothing really going well for the Iraq economy. Is this kind of a guess, hoping that things stabilize, or what goes into that 14.4 percent growth estimate?

MR. HAWLEY: I am afraid I have got nothing specific to add to what was in the REO comment on Iraq. The best I can do is to offer to have someone come back to you with more detail on the thinking behind that projection.

[The growth forecast for 2007 will depend on Iraq's ability to generate investment amounting to some 30 percent of GDP in total. To the extent that the investment cannot be undertaken, growth will be lower. As Box 3 of the latest Regional Economic Outlook notes, significant challenges remain for Iraq in pursuing its program of economic stabilization and reform.]

QUESTIONER: David, do you have an exact day when the paper on the IMF quotas and vote performance is going to go to the Board?

MR. HAWLEY: As Masood Ahmed, I believe, in the last briefing a couple of weeks ago said, the timeline for the developments on the further work on the quota and voice package has not yet been firmly set. I can repeat what he said, that with the discussion of the work program in the Executive Board which will be I guess in the middle of next month, we should have a clearer idea of the timeline, and perhaps at that point we can give you more on that issue.

QUESTIONER: A follow-up: Would you expect that to go before or after the G-20?

MR. HAWLEY: I prefer to wait until we know a little bit more.

Are you talking about the work program, sorry?

QUESTIONER: More the other paper.

MR. HAWLEY: On the other paper, I can't give you any sense, I am afraid, of timing. The work program, I think, will be before the G-20.

QUESTIONER: Following up the question on the Italian budget, two weeks ago, Masood's answer to the same question sounded a little more expanded and positive than your answer right now. Does this mean that you are worried about the debate going on in Italy or is the answer two weeks ago still valid?

MR. HAWLEY: I believe the statement I have just given you represents our current view. I don't want to be drawn into a characterization of the tone of my remarks versus Masood's, but I am not aware that you should be detecting any difference between us.

QUESTIONER: Prior to the meetings, the Managing Director had said there was a possibility that countries would come together at the meetings and discuss another multilateral surveillance program and other areas of interest. Was there any progress on that? Have there been any other programs for surveillance launched or is there anything in discussion?

MR. HAWLEY: This, I take, is a question on the multilateral consultations procedure which, as you know, is underway in the context of the first such procedure, the review of the global imbalances. That work is underway. We have not yet agreed with the membership on what the subject of the second multilateral consultation would be.

QUESTIONER: So you had the bilateral discussions, right? Has there actually been a formal meeting after those bilaterals on the multilateral consultations?

MR. HAWLEY: I am afraid I have got nothing fresh for you today on multilateral consultation.

Do we have any more questions?

In that case, I will draw this briefing to a close. Thank you very much.

A reminder, the embargo is at 11:00.

Thanks a lot, ladies and gentlemen.




IMF EXTERNAL RELATIONS DEPARTMENT
Public Affairs Media Relations
Phone: 202-623-7300 Phone: 202-623-7100
Fax: 202-623-6278 Fax: 202-623-6772

Originally Posted by H2O_Lover

One more question for you all ...... seems iraq had had about 4% growth this year with all the debt forgiveness correct ?

How on earth will the get to 14% growth ?

anyone / everyone ?

ok no ducks but there is this dude

Every big oil company in the WORLD will want to get at that light sweet crude at about a dollar a barrel. Once the American mid terms are over the violence will drop. The fanatics are trying to contol the American senate. Man-politics suck-they keep getting in the way of our REVAL!!They will have 40% growth once the worlds big oil producers go to work!!

Sotaliraq.com

(Voice of Iraq) - 10-20-2006 | This issue was sent to a friend

Front «consensus» proposes to amend 20 articles in the Constitution
Baghdad-Amri as the life-20 / 10 / 06 / /

Deputy front «consensus» Sunni Salim Abdullah told «life» «The draft amendments include the codification of the powers of provinces and granted wider powers to the central government to amend article 122 relating to the amendments, It stipulated not allowed to amend sections I and II only after nine years, the requirement for a referendum or to obtain enough votes in parliament to support the draft amendment to sections ».

He stressed that the draft Front «consensus» includes removing restrictions that obstruct the issue of the constitutional amendment of sections I and II, and the possibility that the amendments after the referendum «without a vote in parliament or vice versa, so that one off requirements on amending sections mentioned and reduce constraints to the amended». «The project includes the modification of more than 20 articles in the permanent constitution. including material relating to the identity of Iraq, dual citizenship and the rights and freedoms set forth in the Constitution, The Personal Status Act, which provided for in article 41 to the articles relating to oil and gas and other forms of wealth in the country ». He said that the constitutional amendments held a tripartite meeting included Iyad al-Samarra'i of the «consensus» Fouad Massoum, the Kurdistan Alliance bloc «» Sheikh Hammam Hammoudi from the coalition bloc «», He pointed out «tentative agreement on holding the first meeting of the beginning of next month, lack of compatibility and reluctance to assume the presidency of the coalition ».

And resolving the dispute Hussein Alvluji nomination for the presidency of the Committee of the Regions, The deputy «» Abbas Bayati coalition that bloc «agreed to pay Hashim Yahya Tai, the deputy in the bloc« consensus »chairmanship of the Non instead of its resigned Zafir Ani», He emphasized that «resolve nomination came after objection coalition« »Alvluji Ali Hussein, as the bloc to nominate Tai ».