After years of borrowing too much money and issuing too many bonds, Puerto Rico filed for a modified form of bankruptcy protection last Wednesday. Its status as a territory of the United States prevented it from seeking better alternatives for government financing than it would have had as either the 51st State or as an independent nation. For years, Congress would not act to make the territory into a State or agree to accept its independence and so it has languished in limbo until now it is at the point where it is drowning under debt it cannot possibly hope to repay. A little background on the debt situation may be found here; that article is from last year but a more current one is available here.
In other news, in advance of Sally Yate's testimony today, it's being reported by multiple sources that Obama PERSONALLY warned Trump not to keep Flynn for National Security Adviser. Even after everything this cretin did to him, he was STILL trying to save Trump from himself. Now, of course, the Trump team is admitting this conversation took place, and (what do you know, as I've been saying for months) they are brushing it off as Obama making he comment in "jest". Because EVERYTHING can now be dismissed this way, even when you are trying to claim what someone ELSE meant. As if Barack Obama was going to joke about that. And even if he thought he was, what's the punchline?? "Don't hire Michael Flynn, hahahaha isn't that funny"??
So here is the story Trump is trying to spin on Flynn: Obama fired Flynn, Trump took him on as one of his closest campaign advisers, Obama warned Trump about the Russian connections and told Trump to steer clear for his own good, Trump hired him as National Security Adviser ANYWAY, and less than a month later, he was forced to resign (not fired) when the shit hit the fan. Trump's take?? That this is Obama's fault. Absolutely unreal.
After years of borrowing too much money and issuing too many bonds, Puerto Rico filed for a modified form of bankruptcy protection last Wednesday. Its status as a territory of the United States prevented it from seeking better alternatives for government financing than it would have had as either the 51st State or as an independent nation. For years, Congress would not act to make the territory into a State or agree to accept its independence and so it has languished in limbo until now it is at the point where it is drowning under debt it cannot possibly hope to repay. A little background on the debt situation may be found here; that article is from last year but a more current one is available here.
Why's Puerto Rico in debt? Is it because they are lazy and addicted to government handouts? Um, no why would you think that? Quit watching Fox News.
The 1917 Jones Act requires everybody in Puerto Rico to buy goods from a ship that was built in a U.S. shipyard with an American crew. This law was made in order for American companies to profit from Puerto Rico and it's working perhaps a little too well.
This limit to the free market prevents ships from China or Russia or anywhere from selling their goods directly to Puerto Rico and drives up costs and has led to their crippling debt. As a US territory without the rights of a US state, they can only do so much about things and they are stuck paying more for goods.
@smeagolheart I don't watch Fox News and I don't think Puerto Rico is addicted to government handouts. Which part of my previous post gave that impression? That New York Times article I cited (the first one) specifically states the bonds which Puerto Rico has issued in recent years.
In case I didn't make it clear, I *like* Puerto Rico and I have stated many times (well, over on my other board) that Puerto Rico should have been made a State or allowed to go independent a long time ago. Their status as territory is part of what kept their financing options limited and has helped lead to its current position--Congress has allowed the economic abuse of Puerto Rico to go on for decades.
The official classification of "territory" might as well be called "colony" and is something we should no longer be doing.
@smeagolheart I don't watch Fox News and I don't think Puerto Rico is addicted to government handouts. Which part of my previous post gave that impression? That New York Times article I cited (the first one) specifically states the bonds which Puerto Rico has issued in recent years.
In case I didn't make it clear, I *like* Puerto Rico and I have stated many times (well, over on my other board) that Puerto Rico should have been made a State or allowed to go independent a long time ago. Their status as territory is part of what kept their financing options limited and has helped lead to its current position--Congress has allowed the economic abuse of Puerto Rico to go on for decades.
The official classification of "territory" might as well be called "colony" and is something we should no longer be doing.
My post was not directed to you, but to general readers here.
When the average right winger hears about Puerto Rico being in debt what does that person assume? "Lazy, handouts!" etc etc etc. I was adding details that some folks may not know about the why it was in debt. Some people reading about that issue, not necessarily yourself @Mathsorcerer , would hear about Puerto Rico's debt and automatically assume x, y, z, so I was having a bit of fun with those expectations.
So yeah the place is in debt and it's not really their fault that they are having trouble fixing this issue since the USA has rules that handicap the place and isn't doing anything about that. Something should be done, either set them free, take them in to be a real state. It might help lifting that 1917 law but then some multinational corporations might lose a few bucks so fat chance for that happening with the current "all business all the way" regime.
To be fair though, the people of PR have voted to maintain the status quo every time it came up for a vote until 2012. The 2012 referendum was the first time a majority voted to end commonwealth status. In July, they'll vote on whether they want statehood or independence. The question is, will the Republicans respect the vote? Every president since Reagan has come out in favor of changing PR's status, most saying the people should decide though the Republicans favored statehood. But with the Trump/Republican "f--- the people" attitude, who knows what's going to happen.
Puerto Rico's problems are of their own making, they borrowed too heavily and outpaced their economy which wasn't growing and can't even pay the interest on their loans.
They got bailed out before which didn't solve anything.
Sally Yates made the Republicans trying to obfuscate the issue about Michael Flynn look like absolute fools today. She was a good two feet smarter than all of them. But more importantly, it revealed a very important point (that many of us already knew): the White House, despite being warned by both the outgoing President, certain members of the transition team, and directly by the Attorney General that Flynn was subject to Russian blackmail because of his lies, would have have been perfectly happy keeping him in that post as the National Security Adviser if it hadn't have been for the press reports that revealed he had lied to Mike Pence (though what Pence actually knew and what he is pretending to know is now also in serious question). Again, why act like this if there is nothing to hide?? Why would the White House reach out to GOP Senators this morning trying to prevent Yates from testifying?? At a certain point, the actions and reactions of the Trump White House in regards to these Russian ties tell you 85% of what you need to know. Innocent people don't act this way.
Sally Yates made the Republicans trying to obfuscate the issue about Michael Flynn look like absolute fools today. She was a good two feet smarter than all of them. But more importantly, it revealed a very important point (that many of us already knew): the White House, despite being warned by both the outgoing President, certain members of the transition team, and directly by the Attorney General that Flynn was subject to Russian blackmail because of his lies, would have have been perfectly happy keeping him in that post as the National Security Adviser if it hadn't have been for the press reports that revealed he had lied to Mike Pence (though what Pence actually knew and what he is pretending to know is now also in serious question). Again, why act like this if there is nothing to hide?? Why would the White House reach out to GOP Senators this morning trying to prevent Yates from testifying?? At a certain point, the actions and reactions of the Trump White House in regards to these Russian ties tell you 85% of what you need to know. Innocent people don't act this way.
“The idea of the President of the Untied States essentially threatening a witness, he’s basically accusing her of leaking, we have never had that before,” said legal analyst and former federal prosecutor Jeffrey Toobin said on CNN this morning.
Under 18 U.S. Code § 1512, witness tampering is a felony punishable by twenty years in prison:
Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
Sally Yates made the Republicans trying to obfuscate the issue about Michael Flynn look like absolute fools today. She was a good two feet smarter than all of them. But more importantly, it revealed a very important point (that many of us already knew): the White House, despite being warned by both the outgoing President, certain members of the transition team, and directly by the Attorney General that Flynn was subject to Russian blackmail because of his lies, would have have been perfectly happy keeping him in that post as the National Security Adviser if it hadn't have been for the press reports that revealed he had lied to Mike Pence (though what Pence actually knew and what he is pretending to know is now also in serious question). Again, why act like this if there is nothing to hide?? Why would the White House reach out to GOP Senators this morning trying to prevent Yates from testifying?? At a certain point, the actions and reactions of the Trump White House in regards to these Russian ties tell you 85% of what you need to know. Innocent people don't act this way.
“The idea of the President of the Untied States essentially threatening a witness, he’s basically accusing her of leaking, we have never had that before,” said legal analyst and former federal prosecutor Jeffrey Toobin said on CNN this morning.
Under 18 U.S. Code § 1512, witness tampering is a felony punishable by twenty years in prison:
Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
Though it's impossible to imagine anything will ACTUALLY come of this particular aspect, I'm glad you brought it up. Trump conducts himself like a mafioso thug, which is unsurprising considering he would have had to cross paths countless time in the 70s and 80s with the New York Crime Families who controlled nearly every aspect of construction in the city.
Now with the pleasantries aside... Since people here are talking about "5 years" I wonder how much more Islamic migration and Islamic Terror attacks will occur in France over the next 5 years? Maybe Macron's own words of "France has no culture" will actually come to fruition 5 years from now?
Somewhere around 4-6 million French are Muslim. 25% of French youth are Muslim - only slightly less than the number who are Christian.
Regarding that as a "problem" rather than "a fact of the French identity" is never, ever going to work.
Liberté, égalité, fraternité. It's a beautiful motto; occasionally they could even live up to it.
(Oh, and maybe France could also stop getting involved in dirty African wars to prop up their pretensions to colonial influence, that'd help.)
Now with the pleasantries aside... Since people here are talking about "5 years" I wonder how much more Islamic migration and Islamic Terror attacks will occur in France over the next 5 years? Maybe Macron's own words of "France has no culture" will actually come to fruition 5 years from now?
Somewhere around 4-6 million French are Muslim. 25% of French youth are Muslim - only slightly less than the number who are Christian.
Regarding that as a "problem" rather than "a fact of the French identity" is never, ever going to work.
Liberté, égalité, fraternité. It's a beautiful motto; occasionally they could even live up to it.
(Oh, and maybe France could also stop getting involved in dirty African wars to prop up their pretensions to colonial influence, that'd help.)
Also, unlike America, France doesn't piss their pants and scapegoat an entire religion when inevitable terrorist attacks happen. They band together and are out in the streets hours later in solidarity, as one. Here?? For a day after the Boston Marathon bombing the entire city was basically under martial law because of two people in a city of over half a million people. And regardless, the VAST majority of the French people rejected being slaves to terrorist actions yesterday. LePen wants France to live in fear. They refused.
In terms of 'Muslim population', History shows us its happened before. Spain was, after all, conquered by Muslims for 200 years, Although History won't give us any nice conclusion since the result was the Reconquista.
There is a great danger that virtually no one has talked about.
One thing to remember is that We haven't faced the true cultural shift. Cultural shifts happen drastically by generations, Virtually all adult generations now still live under the mindset of the culture and conditions of the 1970's-1990's.
Economic prosperity, largely cultural homogeneous (Mostly white westerners). This is why our generations struggle and can't solve these problems, Because our mindset is stuck in the 'good times'.
Now think, What happens when the young generations that grow up with terrorism as a daily threat and various immigration issues such as rape epidemic on women become adults?
The next generations when they grow up are going to be extremely anti-immigrant (At least from the Middle-East) and virulently anti-Islamic, it's actually very likely there will be breakdown of society in Europe with cultural groups clustering and isolating themselves from each other.
Virtually across the board in Europe and by huge margins the majority is against the policy of mass muslim immigration. It is of no economic benefit to the people and only detriment to their societies. Just seems to be one of the things their leaders want them to have whether they like it or not. I guess if you are worried you might lose hold on power, just import as many possible voters as you can and pretend the consequences don't exist.
and check the post above your last one... "It's all puerto rico's fault!"
Address my post or not at all, Don't try to sick other people on me because you lack the courage.
Puerto Rico had a ridiculous amount of help from Congress, since Congress barred anyone from taxing their bonds for 100 years, Which spurred Puerto Rico to borrow heavily over 100 years.
Because of this, Puerto Rico largely focused on foreign company investment (ie Tax evasion) rather then build up their own economy. In fact this was very favorable early on to Puerto Rico as they gained a ridiculous amount of investment by corporations (Which no one else got).
In succession, in order to balance their budget, They borrowed to short-term pay off expenses which only made their debt grow.
Puerto Rico was always going to fall over, 30 years ago Congress forbade them from declaring bankruptcy and gave them monetary aid (ie. Bailouts) as did Obama if i recall.
So to sum up Puerto Rico was given special tax exemption from 1917 that no one else had, Their Government began to issue Bonds without restraint for 100 years in tandem to encourage corporate investment (Since corps could avoid taxes), They were bailed out a few times by Congress and they still kept borrowing needlessly.
So yes, their Government is completely at fault for their monetary mismanagement.
If your going to talk about external causes, then the only significant one was the Democratic Party and Bill Clinton, Because they phased out the tax exemptions over 10 years which made companies leave. And since they never invested in propping up their own economy or industries, They were left barren.
Virtually across the board in Europe and by huge margins the majority is against the policy of mass muslim immigration. It is of no economic benefit to the people and only detriment to their societies. Just seems to be one of the things their leaders want them to have whether they like it or not. I guess if you are worried you might lose hold on power, just import as many possible voters as you can and pretend the consequences don't exist.
Yeah, where have I heard this argument before. It just so happened that the exact number of votes Trump lost the popular vote by is MAGICALLY the exact number of illegal immigrants he claimed voted in the last election, every single solitary one of them for the same candidate, mind you. This despite not a scintilla of evidence backing it up. Now LePen apparently lost by over 10 MILLION votes because of Muslims.
The main reason why Government and politicians encourage mass immigration is because it gives corporations access to low-skilled workers.
The sentiment is no different in the tech sector where employee's don't like off-shoring (as it threatens their jobs) but corporations love off-shoring because its cheaper labor.
Virtually across the board in Europe and by huge margins the majority is against the policy of mass muslim immigration. It is of no economic benefit to the people and only detriment to their societies. Just seems to be one of the things their leaders want them to have whether they like it or not. I guess if you are worried you might lose hold on power, just import as many possible voters as you can and pretend the consequences don't exist.
Ironically enough many British voters believed that Brexit would help to reduce the numbers of people coming from Iraq, when in fact of course ending the free movement of Europeans will do nothing of the sort. As negotiations with India have already shown, if Britain wants new trade deals it may have to compromise on immigration. And Britain *needs* new trade deals now.
There's some evidence that the economic effect of, for example, Syrian migrants to Germany has already been quite positive. Particularly when you look at the effects on Germany's demography, which will yield benefits for future decades. Not being open to long term immigration means dealing with Japan syndrome, where exploiting student visas from China etc. and building robots can only stave off the timebomb of a demography and stagnation for so long...
It's an interesting question which sorts of policies should be decided via public poll, as opposed to conglomerations of corporate interests. Of course the framing of the question can sometimes be decisive, how different would those results have been if Asian or gay or unskilled had been substituted for Muslim I wonder? It's also the case that opposition is often most vehement in areas which are relatively untouched by immigration. Areas which have frequent contact with minorities tend to be far more tolerant as the magic of propinquity does its work. (I've done some research on this.)
There are powerful institutional interests and elite groupings at work on both sides of this debate however, both for and against open borders. Shaping economic models so they can be of benefit to everyone is extremely difficult. This is even more true when dealing with democratic norms, liberal trade regimes, and nationalist governments. It's no mystery that advocates for progressive policies can sometimes sound rather scathing with regard to democratic norms, or that populists have such difficulty in articulating coherent economic policies. No-one is really willing to admit the crushing trade-offs involved...
The cause of population decline has very little to do with immigration, and mostly caused by more women entering the workforce and so simply having less children in general.
This is long recognized, and a declining population isn't bad either (unless you believe over-population is fine) in fact i think societies should plan how to handle a decline in population as a opportunity.
Immigrant 'groups' (ie cultural groups which tend to go along with geography) are not all the same either, Asians have been long known as fairly industrious and least problematic ethnic immigrants.
And it is somewhat incorrect to state immigrant interaction necessarily means more tolerance, It simply depends on what type of interaction occur's.
There are rich white urban neighborhoods where people will generally say immigrants are fine despite hardly interacting with any, There are poor neighborhoods where there is open gang-warfare between ethnic groups, and the sentiments there is not tolerating.
*necessarily*- no. However I think there is some correlation supported by research in this field. I have done some work on language usage in public space and how people react to other manifestations of cultural diversity. Of course even long established communities can have underlying faultlines which come out in times of crisis / economic stress, so I wouldn't pretend that tolerance = unconditional acceptance.
I agree that a declining population may well be good for the planet and humanity as a whole long term, however managing it & local needs sensibly is just another lovely variable in the beautiful patchwork of interlocking economies / governments / populations we have now. There are good & bad reasons why Britain & India couldn't just agree on that trade deal after all! In the short term economic adjustments due to demographics will often mean economic pain, and this unfortunately can fall disproportionately on social groups which are already disadvantaged rather on more affluent groupings who have the clout to lobby for their own interests. And so it goes...
After years of borrowing too much money and issuing too many bonds, Puerto Rico filed for a modified form of bankruptcy protection last Wednesday. Its status as a territory of the United States prevented it from seeking better alternatives for government financing than it would have had as either the 51st State or as an independent nation. For years, Congress would not act to make the territory into a State or agree to accept its independence and so it has languished in limbo until now it is at the point where it is drowning under debt it cannot possibly hope to repay. A little background on the debt situation may be found here; that article is from last year but a more current one is available here.
Why's Puerto Rico in debt? Is it because they are lazy and addicted to government handouts? Um, no why would you think that? Quit watching Fox News.
The 1917 Jones Act requires everybody in Puerto Rico to buy goods from a ship that was built in a U.S. shipyard with an American crew. This law was made in order for American companies to profit from Puerto Rico and it's working perhaps a little too well.
This limit to the free market prevents ships from China or Russia or anywhere from selling their goods directly to Puerto Rico and drives up costs and has led to their crippling debt. As a US territory without the rights of a US state, they can only do so much about things and they are stuck paying more for goods.
Jones Act is also a PITA for Alaska and Hawaii. Stuff would be LOADS cheaper in Hawaii if it didn't have to go from Asia, past Hawaii, to California, then back from California to Hawaii.
@smeagolheart I don't watch Fox News and I don't think Puerto Rico is addicted to government handouts. Which part of my previous post gave that impression? That New York Times article I cited (the first one) specifically states the bonds which Puerto Rico has issued in recent years.
In case I didn't make it clear, I *like* Puerto Rico and I have stated many times (well, over on my other board) that Puerto Rico should have been made a State or allowed to go independent a long time ago. Their status as territory is part of what kept their financing options limited and has helped lead to its current position--Congress has allowed the economic abuse of Puerto Rico to go on for decades.
The official classification of "territory" might as well be called "colony" and is something we should no longer be doing.
Not just Puerto Rico, but also Guam, American Samoa, and all the other territories. We have American citizens with LITERALLY no representation in American affairs.
Hmm not even sure what happens now, It seems the only recourse is Government intervention or else the entire State everyone has no health coverage.
Bad times for Obamacare, It looks like all that talk of it imploding might turn out to be true.
Are we shocked that Trump has bashed and done all he can to destroy Obamacare that it is not working? It's Trump's fault it's not working. If he supported it instead of trying to undermine it it would work.
Why would an insurance company want to sign up for something that probably won't be around in a week if you listened to the President?
Any failure or implosion of Obamacare is 100% Trump's fault. 100%.
What is depressing to me is the state of sanition in regards to health issues in PR. It is no wonder Zika infected so many there. Many govt. officials do not take into acct. how the issues of public health in one country can have an effect on the rest of the world, esp. given todays fast transit. Even the CDC did not think Ebola would reach the US.
Comments
Source: The Devil's Panties
In other news, in advance of Sally Yate's testimony today, it's being reported by multiple sources that Obama PERSONALLY warned Trump not to keep Flynn for National Security Adviser. Even after everything this cretin did to him, he was STILL trying to save Trump from himself. Now, of course, the Trump team is admitting this conversation took place, and (what do you know, as I've been saying for months) they are brushing it off as Obama making he comment in "jest". Because EVERYTHING can now be dismissed this way, even when you are trying to claim what someone ELSE meant. As if Barack Obama was going to joke about that. And even if he thought he was, what's the punchline?? "Don't hire Michael Flynn, hahahaha isn't that funny"??
So here is the story Trump is trying to spin on Flynn: Obama fired Flynn, Trump took him on as one of his closest campaign advisers, Obama warned Trump about the Russian connections and told Trump to steer clear for his own good, Trump hired him as National Security Adviser ANYWAY, and less than a month later, he was forced to resign (not fired) when the shit hit the fan. Trump's take?? That this is Obama's fault. Absolutely unreal.
The 1917 Jones Act requires everybody in Puerto Rico to buy goods from a ship that was built in a U.S. shipyard with an American crew. This law was made in order for American companies to profit from Puerto Rico and it's working perhaps a little too well.
This limit to the free market prevents ships from China or Russia or anywhere from selling their goods directly to Puerto Rico and drives up costs and has led to their crippling debt. As a US territory without the rights of a US state, they can only do so much about things and they are stuck paying more for goods.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/jones-act-holding-puerto-rico-back-debt-crisis/
In case I didn't make it clear, I *like* Puerto Rico and I have stated many times (well, over on my other board) that Puerto Rico should have been made a State or allowed to go independent a long time ago. Their status as territory is part of what kept their financing options limited and has helped lead to its current position--Congress has allowed the economic abuse of Puerto Rico to go on for decades.
The official classification of "territory" might as well be called "colony" and is something we should no longer be doing.
When the average right winger hears about Puerto Rico being in debt what does that person assume? "Lazy, handouts!" etc etc etc. I was adding details that some folks may not know about the why it was in debt. Some people reading about that issue, not necessarily yourself @Mathsorcerer , would hear about Puerto Rico's debt and automatically assume x, y, z, so I was having a bit of fun with those expectations.
So yeah the place is in debt and it's not really their fault that they are having trouble fixing this issue since the USA has rules that handicap the place and isn't doing anything about that. Something should be done, either set them free, take them in to be a real state. It might help lifting that 1917 law but then some multinational corporations might lose a few bucks so fat chance for that happening with the current "all business all the way" regime.
They got bailed out before which didn't solve anything.
Incidentally, were you aware that a decent redesign of the United States flag with 51 stars already exists?
Under 18 U.S. Code § 1512, witness tampering is a felony punishable by twenty years in prison:
Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
Regarding that as a "problem" rather than "a fact of the French identity" is never, ever going to work.
Liberté, égalité, fraternité. It's a beautiful motto; occasionally they could even live up to it.
(Oh, and maybe France could also stop getting involved in dirty African wars to prop up their pretensions to colonial influence, that'd help.)
Spain was, after all, conquered by Muslims for 200 years, Although History won't give us any nice conclusion since the result was the Reconquista.
There is a great danger that virtually no one has talked about.
One thing to remember is that We haven't faced the true cultural shift.
Cultural shifts happen drastically by generations, Virtually all adult generations now still live under the mindset of the culture and conditions of the 1970's-1990's.
Economic prosperity, largely cultural homogeneous (Mostly white westerners).
This is why our generations struggle and can't solve these problems, Because our mindset is stuck in the 'good times'.
Now think, What happens when the young generations that grow up with terrorism as a daily threat and various immigration issues such as rape epidemic on women become adults?
The next generations when they grow up are going to be extremely anti-immigrant (At least from the Middle-East) and virulently anti-Islamic, it's actually very likely there will be breakdown of society in Europe with cultural groups clustering and isolating themselves from each other.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/most-europeans-want-muslim-ban-immigration-control-middle-east-countries-syria-iran-iraq-poll-a7567301.html
Puerto Rico had a ridiculous amount of help from Congress, since Congress barred anyone from taxing their bonds for 100 years, Which spurred Puerto Rico to borrow heavily over 100 years.
Because of this, Puerto Rico largely focused on foreign company investment (ie Tax evasion) rather then build up their own economy. In fact this was very favorable early on to Puerto Rico as they gained a ridiculous amount of investment by corporations (Which no one else got).
In succession, in order to balance their budget, They borrowed to short-term pay off expenses which only made their debt grow.
Puerto Rico was always going to fall over, 30 years ago Congress forbade them from declaring bankruptcy and gave them monetary aid (ie. Bailouts) as did Obama if i recall.
So to sum up Puerto Rico was given special tax exemption from 1917 that no one else had, Their Government began to issue Bonds without restraint for 100 years in tandem to encourage corporate investment (Since corps could avoid taxes), They were bailed out a few times by Congress and they still kept borrowing needlessly.
So yes, their Government is completely at fault for their monetary mismanagement.
If your going to talk about external causes, then the only significant one was the Democratic Party and Bill Clinton, Because they phased out the tax exemptions over 10 years which made companies leave.
And since they never invested in propping up their own economy or industries, They were left barren.
The sentiment is no different in the tech sector where employee's don't like off-shoring (as it threatens their jobs) but corporations love off-shoring because its cheaper labor.
There's some evidence that the economic effect of, for example, Syrian migrants to Germany has already been quite positive. Particularly when you look at the effects on Germany's demography, which will yield benefits for future decades. Not being open to long term immigration means dealing with Japan syndrome, where exploiting student visas from China etc. and building robots can only stave off the timebomb of a demography and stagnation for so long...
It's an interesting question which sorts of policies should be decided via public poll, as opposed to conglomerations of corporate interests. Of course the framing of the question can sometimes be decisive, how different would those results have been if Asian or gay or unskilled had been substituted for Muslim I wonder? It's also the case that opposition is often most vehement in areas which are relatively untouched by immigration. Areas which have frequent contact with minorities tend to be far more tolerant as the magic of propinquity does its work. (I've done some research on this.)
There are powerful institutional interests and elite groupings at work on both sides of this debate however, both for and against open borders. Shaping economic models so they can be of benefit to everyone is extremely difficult. This is even more true when dealing with democratic norms, liberal trade regimes, and nationalist governments. It's no mystery that advocates for progressive policies can sometimes sound rather scathing with regard to democratic norms, or that populists have such difficulty in articulating coherent economic policies. No-one is really willing to admit the crushing trade-offs involved...
This is long recognized, and a declining population isn't bad either (unless you believe over-population is fine) in fact i think societies should plan how to handle a decline in population as a opportunity.
Immigrant 'groups' (ie cultural groups which tend to go along with geography) are not all the same either, Asians have been long known as fairly industrious and least problematic ethnic immigrants.
And it is somewhat incorrect to state immigrant interaction necessarily means more tolerance, It simply depends on what type of interaction occur's.
There are rich white urban neighborhoods where people will generally say immigrants are fine despite hardly interacting with any, There are poor neighborhoods where there is open gang-warfare between ethnic groups, and the sentiments there is not tolerating.
I agree that a declining population may well be good for the planet and humanity as a whole long term, however managing it & local needs sensibly is just another lovely variable in the beautiful patchwork of interlocking economies / governments / populations we have now. There are good & bad reasons why Britain & India couldn't just agree on that trade deal after all! In the short term economic adjustments due to demographics will often mean economic pain, and this unfortunately can fall disproportionately on social groups which are already disadvantaged rather on more affluent groupings who have the clout to lobby for their own interests. And so it goes...
Now that Insurer is leaving.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/health/2017/05/03/medica-last-insurer-selling-individual-health-policies-most-iowa-likely-exit/309664001/
Hmm not even sure what happens now, It seems the only recourse is Government intervention or else the entire State everyone has no health coverage.
Bad times for Obamacare, It looks like all that talk of it imploding might turn out to be true.
John Oliver did a good segment on it.
Why would an insurance company want to sign up for something that probably won't be around in a week if you listened to the President?
Any failure or implosion of Obamacare is 100% Trump's fault. 100%.