Suffice it say, it doesn't look good.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/29/business/dealbook/puerto-ricos-governor-says-islands-debts-are-not-payable.html?_r=0
QuotePuerto Rico's Governor Says Island's Debts Are 'Not Payable'
By MICHAEL CORKERY and MARY WILLIAMS WALSHJUNE 28, 2015
Puerto Rico's governor, saying he needs to pull the island out of a "death spiral," has concluded that the commonwealth cannot pay its roughly $72 billion in debts, an admission that will probably have wide-reaching financial repercussions.
The governor, Alejandro García Padilla, and senior members of his staff said in an interview last week that they would probably seek significant concessions from as many as all of the island's creditors, which could include deferring some debt payments for as long as five years or extending the timetable for repayment.
"The debt is not payable," Mr. García Padilla said. "There is no other option. I would love to have an easier option. This is not politics, this is math."
It is a startling admission from the governor of an island of 3.6 million people, which has piled on more municipal bond debt per capita than any American state.
A broad restructuring by Puerto Rico sets the stage for an unprecedented test of the United States municipal bond market, which cities and states rely on to pay for their most basic needs, like road construction and public hospitals.
That market has already been shaken by municipal bankruptcies in Detroit; Stockton, Calif.; and elsewhere, which undercut assumptions that local governments in the United States would always pay back their debt.
Puerto Rico's bonds have a face value roughly eight times that of Detroit's bonds. Its call for debt relief on such a vast scale could raise borrowing costs for other local governments as investors become more wary of lending.
Perhaps more important, much of Puerto Rico's debt is widely held by individual investors on the United States mainland, in mutual funds or other investment accounts, and they may not be aware of it.
Puerto Rico, as a commonwealth, does not have the option of bankruptcy. A default on its debts would most likely leave the island, its creditors and its residents in a legal and financial limbo that, like the debt crisis in Greece, could take years to sort out.
Still, Mr. García Padilla said that his government could not continue to borrow money to address budget deficits while asking its residents, already struggling with high rates of poverty and crime, to shoulder most of the burden through tax increases and pension cuts.
He said creditors must now "share the sacrifices" that he has imposed on the island's residents.
"If they don't come to the table, it will be bad for them," said Mr. García Padilla, who plans to speak about the fiscal crisis in a televised address to Puerto Rico residents on Monday evening. "What will happen is that our economy will get into a worse situation and we'll have less money to pay them. They will be shooting themselves in the foot."
With some creditors, the restructuring process is already underway. Late last week, Puerto Rico officials and creditors of the island's electric power authority were close to a deal that would avoid a default on a $416 million payment due on Wednesday.
With other payment deadlines looming, Mr. García Padilla and his staff said they would begin looking for possible concessions on all forms of government debt.
The central government must set aside about $93 million each month to pay its general obligation bonds — a crucial action in Puerto Rico because its constitution requires such bonds to be paid before any other expense. No American state has restructured its general obligation debt in living memory.
The government's Public Finance Corporation, which has issued bonds to finance budget deficits in the past, owes $94 million on July 15. The Government Development Bank — the commonwealth's fiscal agent — must repay $140 million of bond principal by Aug. 1.
"My administration is doing everything not to default," Mr. García Padilla said. "But we have to make the economy grow," he added. "If not, we will be in a death spiral."
A proposed debt exchange, where creditors would replace their current debt with new bonds with terms more favorable to Puerto Rico, signals a significant shift for Mr. García Padilla, a member of the Popular Democratic Party, who was elected in 2012. His party is aligned with the Democrats on the mainland and favors maintaining the island's legal status as a commonwealth.
He said that when he took office, he tried to balance the fiscal situation through austerity measures and fresh borrowing. But he saw that the island was caught in a vicious circle where it borrowed to balance the budget, raised the debt and had an even bigger budget deficit the next year.
Residents began leaving for the mainland in droves, and Puerto Rico's credit was downgraded to junk, making borrowing extremely expensive.
Only a few months ago, the administration was considering borrowing as much as an additional $2.9 billion, which would be paid for by a fuel tax.
But recently, Mr. García Padilla's team has been laying the groundwork for more drastic action. The governor commissioned a study of the financial situation by former officials at the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Concluding that the debt load is unsustainable, the report suggests a bond exchange, with the new bonds carrying "a longer/lower debt service profile," according to a confidential copy reviewed by The New York Times. The García Padilla administration plans to make the report public on Monday.
"There is no U.S. precedent for anything of this scale or scope," according to the report, one of whose writers was Anne O. Krueger, a former chief economist at the World Bank and currently a research professor at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University.
The "Krueger Report," as it is being called, also seems aimed at the Obama administration and Congress, both of which have taken a largely hands-off approach to Puerto Rico's fiscal problems. United States Treasury officials, however, have been advising the island's government in recent months amid the worsening fiscal situation.
In June, Puerto Rico hired Steven W. Rhodes, the retired federal judge who oversaw Detroit's bankruptcy case, as an adviser. The government is also consulting with a group of bankers from Citigroup who advised Detroit on a $1.5 billion debt exchange with certain creditors.
In Washington, the García Padilla administration has been pushing for a bill that would allow the island's public corporations, like its electrical power authority and water agency, to declare bankruptcy. Of Puerto Rico's $72 billion in bonds, roughly $25 billion were issued by the public corporations.
Some officials and advisers say Congress needs to go further and permit Puerto Rico's central government to file for bankruptcy — or risk chaos.
"There are way too many creditors and way too many kinds of debt," Mr. Rhodes said in an interview. "They need Chapter 9 for the whole commonwealth."
Hedge funds holding billions of dollars of the island's bonds at steep discounts are frustrated that the government has not seemed willing to reach a deal to borrow more money from them.
"We want to be a part of the solution to the commonwealth's fiscal challenges," a group of investment firms, including Centerbridge Partners and Monarch Alternative Capital, wrote in a letter last week.
An aide to the governor said the hedge funds' debt proposal was too onerous. And the deal would only postpone Puerto Rico's inevitable reckoning.
"It will kick the can," Mr. García Padilla said. "I am not kicking the can."
Sounds like a good reason, like Greece, to kick them out of the American Union. :P
This is what they get for using the US dollar, they should be using pieces of eight or doubloons.
Why did they choose to fuck up their economy?
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 29, 2015, 03:18:24 AM
Sounds like a good reason, like Greece, to kick them out of the American Union. :P
Just like we kicked out Detroit?
Bring in the austerity and the IMF. It worked wonders for Greece.
In the worst case you can always give it back to Spain :menace:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 29, 2015, 04:18:51 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 29, 2015, 03:18:24 AM
Sounds like a good reason, like Greece, to kick them out of the American Union. :P
Just like we kicked out Detroit?
You might as well have, not like you're ever going to use it again.
Quote from: Archy on June 29, 2015, 05:48:39 AM
Bring in the austerity and the IMF. It worked wonders for Greece.
:lol:
Read in another article that the 200,000 Puerto Ricans have fled to the mainland since 2010. You have to go back before I was born to see numbers like that.
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 29, 2015, 03:18:24 AM
Sounds like a good reason, like Greece, to kick them out of the American Union. :P
Time for decolonization and freedom!
Beaners. :rolleyes:
Yeah Tim, let's make these guys a state :lol:
Quote from: derspiess on June 29, 2015, 09:54:14 AM
Yeah Tim, let's make these guys a state :lol:
They'll fit right in -_-
But seriously: the territories need to become/join states or GTFO. Stupid territories muddling our system of government.
Quote from: derspiess on June 29, 2015, 09:54:14 AM
Yeah Tim, let's make these guys a state :lol:
Kansas is well on its way to bankruptcy as well. You want to kick them out?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 29, 2015, 10:01:29 AM
Kansas is well on its way to bankruptcy as well. You want to kick them out?
:shifty:
But seriously no. The Big 12 needs Kansas.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 29, 2015, 10:01:29 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 29, 2015, 09:54:14 AM
Yeah Tim, let's make these guys a state :lol:
Kansas is well on its way to bankruptcy as well. You want to kick them out?
They're already in so we can't really de-state them. Plus what Valmy said.
Quote from: Valmy on June 29, 2015, 10:02:59 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 29, 2015, 10:01:29 AM
Kansas is well on its way to bankruptcy as well. You want to kick them out?
:shifty:
But seriously no. The Big 12 needs Kansas.
Texas needs an easy win against their football team.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 29, 2015, 10:01:29 AM
Kansas is well on its way to bankruptcy as well.
Did you read this in Slate or a real place?
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 29, 2015, 10:19:40 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 29, 2015, 10:02:59 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 29, 2015, 10:01:29 AM
Kansas is well on its way to bankruptcy as well. You want to kick them out?
:shifty:
But seriously no. The Big 12 needs Kansas.
Texas needs an easy win against their football team.
A win always cancelled out by a humiliating butt kicking from Kansas State :(
I'm conflicted, my normal languish response would be to nuke them from orbit, but then Mom would not be able to mail me good coffee all the time if I nuke them right? :(
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 29, 2015, 04:18:51 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 29, 2015, 03:18:24 AM
Sounds like a good reason, like Greece, to kick them out of the American Union. :P
Just like we kicked out Detroit?
We should trade Detroit for Vancouver. :shifty:
Quote from: lustindarkness on June 29, 2015, 10:36:25 AM
I'm conflicted, my normal languish response would be to nuke them from orbit, but then Mom would not be able to mail me good coffee all the time if I nuke them right? :(
No. The coffee is gonna be awesome.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 29, 2015, 10:01:29 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 29, 2015, 09:54:14 AM
Yeah Tim, let's make these guys a state :lol:
Kansas is well on its way to bankruptcy as well. You want to kick them out?
Can't it be divided by their neighbour states? Problem solved. No state no problel ;)
Quote from: Liep on June 29, 2015, 05:54:33 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 29, 2015, 04:18:51 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 29, 2015, 03:18:24 AM
Sounds like a good reason, like Greece, to kick them out of the American Union. :P
Just like we kicked out Detroit?
You might as well have, not like you're ever going to use it again.
Why not?
Quote from: Valmy on June 29, 2015, 10:02:59 AM
:shifty:
But seriously no. The Big 12 needs Kansas.
It can be an international conference
Quote from: Valmy on June 29, 2015, 09:56:11 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 29, 2015, 09:54:14 AM
Yeah Tim, let's make these guys a state :lol:
They'll fit right in -_-
But seriously: the territories need to become/join states or GTFO. Stupid territories muddling our system of government.
We gotta keep Guam...I've known many a HOTT lady from Guam (and the military would like to keep it, too).
The one Guamanian I've met was nothing to write home about.
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 29, 2015, 07:41:51 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 29, 2015, 09:56:11 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 29, 2015, 09:54:14 AM
Yeah Tim, let's make these guys a state :lol:
They'll fit right in -_-
But seriously: the territories need to become/join states or GTFO. Stupid territories muddling our system of government.
We gotta keep Guam...I've known many a HOTT lady from Guam (and the military would like to keep it, too).
By that logic we would have to keep PR also. ;)
By that logic, we should be conquering most of the planet.
Quote from: lustindarkness on June 29, 2015, 08:18:18 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 29, 2015, 07:41:51 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 29, 2015, 09:56:11 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 29, 2015, 09:54:14 AM
Yeah Tim, let's make these guys a state :lol:
They'll fit right in -_-
But seriously: the territories need to become/join states or GTFO. Stupid territories muddling our system of government.
We gotta keep Guam...I've known many a HOTT lady from Guam (and the military would like to keep it, too).
By that logic we would have to keep PR also. ;)
They don't seem as crazy as the Latina ladies. :P
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 29, 2015, 08:44:19 PM
Quote from: lustindarkness on June 29, 2015, 08:18:18 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 29, 2015, 07:41:51 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 29, 2015, 09:56:11 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 29, 2015, 09:54:14 AM
Yeah Tim, let's make these guys a state :lol:
They'll fit right in -_-
But seriously: the territories need to become/join states or GTFO. Stupid territories muddling our system of government.
We gotta keep Guam...I've known many a HOTT lady from Guam (and the military would like to keep it, too).
By that logic we would have to keep PR also. ;)
They don't seem as crazy as the Latina ladies. :P
I don't know about women in Guam, but the Ricans sure are crazy. :)
I'm still worried about Guam tipping over.
I hope they tell them to go fuck themselves.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/28/hedge-funds-puerto-rico-close-schools-fire-teachers-pay-us-back
Quote
Hedge funds tell Puerto Rico: lay off teachers and close schools to pay us back
Report commissioned by 34 hedge funds says government had been 'massively overspending on education' despite spending only 79% of US average per pupil
Rupert Neate in New York
Tuesday 28 July 2015 12.00 BST
Billionaire hedge fund managers have called on Puerto Rico to lay off teachers and close schools so that the island can pay them back the billions it owes.
The hedge funds called for Puerto Rico to avoid financial default – and repay its debts – by collecting more taxes, selling $4bn worth of public buildings and drastically cutting public spending, particularly on education.
The group of 34 hedge funds hired former International Monetary Fund (IMF) economists to come up with a solution to Puerto Rico's debt crisis after the island's governor declared its $72bn debt "unpayable" – paving the way for bankruptcy.
The funds are "distressed debt" specialists, also known as vulture funds, and several have also sought to make money out of crises in Greece and Argentina, the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the near collapse of Co-op Bank in the UK.
The report, entitled For Puerto Rico, There is a Better Way, said Puerto Rico could save itself from default if it improves tax collection and drastically cuts back on public spending.
It accused the island, where 56% of children live in poverty, of spending too much on education even though the government has already closed down almost 100 schools so far this year.
The report, by Jose Fajgenbaum, Jorge Guzmán and Claudio Loser – all former IMF economists who now work for Centennial Group, said Puerto Rico had increased education spending by $1.4bn over the past decade while enrolment had declined by about 25% as hundreds of thousands of families fled to the US mainland in an effort to escape poverty.
Puerto Rico has actively courted billionaires and hedge fund investors as it has struggled with its mounting debts. It sold hundreds of millions worth of debt to vulture funds last year.
Fajgenbaum told the Guardian that the Puerto Rico government had been "massively overspending on education". He said spending had increased by 39% to $4.8bn over the last decade while attendance had fallen from more than 765,000 to 573,000.
He declined to state by how much the government should cut spending, but said: "The real expense per student has increased enormously without increasing the quality of education. It's for the government to decide [how much to cut spending by], but you don't want to waste government resources. There has to be efficiencies. It is more important to establish a position for growth."
Puerto Rico's current education spending works out at $8,400 per student, below the US national average of $10,667.
Víctor Suárez, chief of staff to Puerto Rico's governor Alejandro García Padilla, said: "The simple fact remains that extreme austerity [alone] is not a viable solution for an economy already on its knees."
Luis Gallardo, majority municipal legislator for Aguas Buenas, said the hedge fund-commissioned report was a "typically IMF recipe for radical austerity".
"They are proposing teacher layoffs, cuts in higher education and health benefits, as well as increased taxes. These proposals have been a disaster for Latin America and would be so for Puerto Rico. Sure, Puerto Rico could pay its debt, but at what cost? We are literally cutting off our own limbs just to stay afloat.
"The Puerto Rican government has already closed down almost 100 schools this year and reconfigured 500 more, as well has having closed down 60 the year prior. I am not sure what else they are expecting. If they expect us to lay off teachers or cut their already-low salaries, they are out of their minds.
"These guys need to chill out and give Puerto Rico some breathing space."
Gallardo said it was shocking that the hedge funds "expect teachers, students and workers to absorb the hit, and they are not willing to budge themselves".
The hedge fund-commissioned report comes after former IMF official Anne Krueger said, in a report commissioned by the Puerto Rican government, that the island's crisis could be solved but only if the bondholders, including the hedge funds, accepted a significant debt restructuring.
The funds, which include New York-based Fir Tree Partners, Davidson Kempner Capital Management and Aurelius Capital, are known as the Ad Hoc Group of Puerto Rico and hold $5.2bn of Puerto Rico bonds.
Fir Tree Partners, which is named after its multibillionaire founder Jeff Tannenbaum (which means fir tree in German), made a lot of money by betting on complex debt securities in the 2008 financial crisis, and from the Greek and Argentinian debt crises.
Aurelius Capital, which is run by billionaire Mark Brodsky, sued Argentina for repayment of debts and forced the Co-op to give up control of its troubled bank. The company was also one of the investors that initially objected to Detroit's bankruptcy plans.
Fajgenbaum and Loser said the hedge funds did not influence the content of their report, and declined to state how much money they were paid for their work.
Presumably if Puerto Rico can tell its creditors to go fuck themselves, it already has. There must be reasons why it cannot do so. A guess would be that Puerto Rico still runs deficits, and if it defaults now, it will have to make painful adjustments to balance the budget immediately.
Who owns Puerto Rico's debt anyway? Is there a possibility that some of the debt is held by local residents? In that case, defaulting on the loans means locals take a cut in their savings and investments as well.
If mono was a lesser person- a more 'despicable' person, if you will, he'd be salivating over the prospect of puerto rican hardships like our intrepid reporter is continually seeing in every auspice and augury a coming Chinese disaster.
Claudio Loser was my old uber-boss at the Western Hemisphere Department.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 29, 2015, 06:46:27 AM
Claudio Loser was my old uber-boss at the Western Hemisphere Department.
Ooh, don't just leave it at that, give us some inside information.
Not unless you start putting a hard return after quotes. :contract:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 29, 2015, 07:20:22 AM
Not unless you start putting a hard return after quotes. :contract:
It's a deal.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 29, 2015, 08:27:00 PM
By that logic, we should be conquering most of the planet.
Now, this is a plan I like...
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 29, 2015, 07:33:25 AM
It's a deal.
Argentinian Jew, slight hunchback, real nice guy. Got the boot around the time Argentina went tits up.
Maybe Puerto Rico should host the Olympics :hmm:
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 29, 2015, 03:18:24 AM
Sounds like a good reason, like Greece, to kick them out of the American Union. :P
They either accept statehood or independence by Jingo!
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 29, 2015, 10:01:29 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 29, 2015, 09:54:14 AM
Yeah Tim, let's make these guys a state :lol:
Kansas is well on its way to bankruptcy as well. You want to kick them out?
Kansas just needs to stop paying severance to Charlie Weis, and it will be fine.
Quote from: derspiess on July 29, 2015, 02:38:20 PM
Maybe Puerto Rico should host the Olympics :hmm:
Winter Olympics.
Quote from: Monoriu on July 29, 2015, 03:47:52 AM
Who owns Puerto Rico's debt anyway? Is there a possibility that some of the debt is held by local residents? In that case, defaulting on the loans means locals take a cut in their savings and investments as well.
A lot of it is owned by bond funds and hedge funds; barring some rather extreme allocations the effect on those funds should not be too severe.
A good chunk is owned by PR residents - they will clearly suffer is there is a haircut or default, but that would be a welfare problem not a systemic financial problem.
Greece is not a useful comparison.
1. Reintroduce slavery
2. Sell Ricans to the highest bidder
3. Profit! Or at least, debts paid.
:)
Quote from: Malthus on July 30, 2015, 01:21:35 PM
1. Reintroduce slavery
2. Sell Ricans to the highest bidder
3. Profit! Or at least, debts paid.
:)
Then require each of the slave buyers to take place in a real life game of Puerto Rico and turn that into a reality show. We'll pay off the US National Debt as well.
Rican slaves? Do you know how lazy we are? Now sex slaves is a different matter.
Quote from: lustindarkness on July 30, 2015, 01:51:32 PM
Rican slaves? Do you know how lazy we are? Now sex slaves is a different matter.
The plan can be adapted. :hmm:
Quote from: lustindarkness on July 30, 2015, 01:51:32 PM
Rican slaves? Do you know how lazy we are? Now sex slaves is a different matter.
Lazy, selfish lovers are awesome. :rolleyes:
How about applying free market principles to fix their economy?
Oh no, we cannot have that.
Quote from: Siege on July 31, 2015, 02:15:49 PM
How about applying free market principles to fix their economy?
Oh no, we cannot have that.
Elaborate.
The free market principle was to kill the phara subsidy, which tanked the PR economy and accelerated the brutal brain drain problem.
The rest of the free market principle would be to eliminate the too-high minimum wage and cut the overgenerous welfare payments.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 02, 2015, 11:54:24 AM
The rest of the free market principle would be to eliminate the too-high minimum wage and cut the overgenerous welfare payments.
Austerity! :mad:
Quote from: Ancient Demon on August 02, 2015, 11:56:11 AM
Austerity! :mad:
Strictly speaking, the minimum wage would be "structural reform" and not austerity per se. :nerd:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 02, 2015, 11:54:24 AM
The rest of the free market principle would be to eliminate the too-high minimum wage.
Even if that was correct, that's not something Puerto Rico can do it, it's covered by the Federal minimum isn't it?
Not responding without a hard return.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 02, 2015, 07:56:00 PM
Not responding without a hard return.
Fixed.
Anyways, looks like they're going to miss a $58 million dollar payment to a credit union.
Localities are allowed to request a waiver on federal minimum wage. American Samoa did.
Puerto Rico is now in default on the PFC bonds.
More defaults :(
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/31/business/dealbook/puerto-rico-says-it-will-default-on-some-bonds.html
QuotePuerto Rico Says It Will Default on Some Bonds
By MARY WILLIAMS WALSHDEC. 30, 2015
Puerto Rico will default on nearly $174 million in principal and interest payments on bonds on Friday, the first day of 2016, the governor said on Wednesday, increasing the likelihood that the island will face lawsuits from an array of creditors.
In a briefing for journalists, Gov. Alejandro García Padilla said only some of the payments would be halted immediately. They include $35.9 million due to holders of bonds issued by its Infrastructure Financing Authority, and $1.4 million due to holders of its Public Finance Corporation's bonds.
In a stark example of the financial version of musical chairs that has been playing out on the island in recent months, the government will divert a total of $174 million from lower-grade bonds to pay holders of the legally protected general obligation bonds. That diversion, known as a "clawback," technically amounts to a default even though some of those creditors will not see a difference in their payments on Jan. 1.
General obligation bonds have a top priority under Puerto Rico's Constitution, and defaulting on them outside an official bankruptcy proceeding could set off a constitutional crisis, making the island's problems even worse than they already are.
As a result of the shuffle, the general obligation bondholders will receive on Friday the entire $328.7 million they are owed, said the governor, who referred to those top-ranked bondholders as participants in "vulture funds."
At a news conference later in the day in San Juan, the island's capital, he accused the general obligation bondholders — who have resisted efforts to cut back their payments — of caring more about their financial interests than the well-being of Puerto Rico's residents.
"We know that our creditors have spent a fortune lobbying against the people of Puerto Rico," Mr. García Padilla said, according to an unofficial English transcript of the event, which was conducted in Spanish. The bondholders, he said, were "willing and anxious to initiate costly and disruptive litigation against the commonwealth, and attempt to attach and seize the little cash left in our accounts to obstruct our ability to provide essential services to our people."
"My administration has the obligation to protect the people of Puerto Rico against the grave consequences of a disruption in essential services and a government shutdown, which would result from a wider default," he added.
Melba Acosta Febo, the head of Puerto Rico's Government Development Bank, told journalists that the clawback of certain bond money was legal in Puerto Rico. She said that the possibility of such a step had been disclosed in the marketing materials for the affected bonds.
The development bank, which orchestrates most of Puerto Rico's debt, issued a statement on Wednesday, saying that it intended to make separate principal and interest payments of about $10 million due on Friday.
In his briefing, the governor said that some of the investors whose bonds are part of the clawback would still receive the full amounts they expected on Friday. That is because Puerto Rico had previously sent enough money to bond trustees to cover the most imminent payments. Once money has been sent to a trustee, it cannot be clawed back.
Even though the bondholders in this group will not feel any immediate difference, their bonds will still be considered in default, Mr. García Padilla said, because their prepaid reserves are now being depleted and the flow of additional funds to the trustees has ceased. That means the number of bondholders who are left unpaid is likely to grow, as more payments are due in the coming months.
Investors in this group include those who hold bonds issued by the Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation Authority, and its Convention Center District Authority.
In a hint at the extremely complex structure of Puerto Rico's total debt, the governor pointed out that not all of the Infrastructure Financing Authority bonds would be in default on Jan. 1 because, much like the general obligation bonds, some of them also carry a governmental guarantee.
In effect, one group of Infrastructure Authority investors — those without the guarantee — are having their money clawed back to pay another group of Infrastructure Authority investors whose bonds are guaranteed. This is something few ordinary investors are likely to have understood when they first decided to invest in Puerto Rico's bonds.
The bonds are widely held across the United States mainland, because they offer better-than-usual tax preferences and a higher yield than most municipal bonds. In the past, Puerto Rican debt was a popular addition to mutual fund portfolios because it increased the overall yield.
When asked how he expected the rising tide of defaults to affect the broad restructuring talks that Puerto Rico has been calling for, Mr. García Padilla said he thought it would make them harder. Some investors will now be forced to make unexpected sacrifices that help other investors, a situation that the governor said could not be good for anyone in the long run.
Mr. García Padilla said that he had been forced to claw back money from the lower-ranked bondholders because the island had practically run out of cash and Congress had so far failed to respond to its pleas for help. He said he needed to save at least some money to keep paying nurses in hospitals, police officers and teachers.
At least two types of Puerto Rican bonds remained outside the line of fire, the governor said. One is a type of bond backed by dedicated sales taxes through the Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corporation, known by its Spanish acronym, Cofina. The other is a type of bond issued by the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority, or Prepa.
For months, Puerto Rican officials have been urging Congress to amend the federal bankruptcy code to eliminate an exclusion that currently bars any branch of the Puerto Rican government from restructuring in Chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy.
The Republican senators who chair the relevant committees have expressed concern for the island's predicament but have said so far that they could not consider such an amendment until more was known about why Puerto Rico had fallen into such distress and what could be done to address the systemic causes. Legislative efforts were expected to resume when Congress returns in January.
The Treasury said in a statement on Wednesday that Puerto Rico's default "demonstrates the gravity of the commonwealth's fiscal crisis and the need for Congress to act now."
The statement continued: "Puerto Rico is at a dead end, shifting funds from one creditor to pay another and diverting money from already-depleted pension funds to pay both current bills and debt service. This increasingly urgent situation demands swift congressional action to give Puerto Rico access to an orderly restructuring regime paired with independent oversight."
Reading that Piketty book has taught me that these problems are only gonna get worse, and growing out of the debt is a fantasy.
Puerto Rico is playing their Trump card.
Quote from: Jaron on December 31, 2015, 06:59:34 PM
Puerto Rico is playing their Trump card.
Congress holds a bigger Trump card. Independence. :ph34r:
It's not looking too good. :(
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-04-25/paul-ryan-s-biggest-test-yet-saving-puerto-rico-from-congress
QuoteRyan's Biggest Test Yet: Saving Puerto Rico From Congress
Billy HouseBilly House
@HouseInSession
April 25, 2016 — 6:00 PM KST Updated on April 26, 2016 — 4:09 AM KST
Speaker has promised action, but a July 1 deadline is looming
House draft bill is running into opposition from all sides
Puerto Rico's complex debt crisis is shaping up as the first true test of Paul Ryan's six-month old speakership.
The Wisconsin Republican has pledged publicly that the U.S. House will find a "responsible" solution to the island's debt crisis. The issue may not factor widely in the November elections, but failure could prove disastrous -- both to Ryan's credibility and in terms of the billions of dollars Congress would need to prop up the island's finances.
Unlike many of his previous challenges, this isn't a mess he can blame on his predecessor. If he can't forge a solution, it also doesn't bode well for Ryan's ability to bring his recalcitrant conservative caucus along on other spending and tax plans, which could be a recipe for the continuing gridlock and peril that ousted John Boehner.
"To me, this is his first high hurdle. This belongs to him. This is his," said Representative Lynn Westmoreland, a Georgia Republican who briefly mulled running for speaker, but ultimately backed Ryan and later decided not to run for re-election this year.
The high stakes explain why Ryan's office has been involved -- often behind the scenes -- from the start. It could also ultimately find him having to strong-arm or bypass fellow conservatives, a move that would also break his promise for a new, bottom-up approach to running the House.
Either way, time is running short. Congress is already blowing through a May 1 debt repayment deadline and Ryan needs to get something through both chambers before July 1 to avoid a likely default by Puerto Rico and a failure that could haunt his tenure. Making matters worse, the island's economy is in tatters, with a high jobless rate, a declining population and concerns about an outbreak of the Zika virus.
Ryan's immediate decision will be how much more time to give Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop of Utah, who Ryan put in charge of the bill, to forge a solution before taking over.
'Bring Order'
Ryan himself has said inaction on Puerto Rico's impending fiscal crisis could have deep ramifications for the U.S. "Our primary responsibility is to protect the American taxpayer and to help bring order to the chaos that will befall Puerto Rico if the status quo continues going in the direction it's going," he told reporters on April 14.
But Ryan and his lieutenants have conceded that congressional action will slip past a May 1 deadline for a $422 million debt repayment by the territory. Next up is a $2 billion payment due on July 1, raising the specter of default on some of the territory's general obligation bonds.
When Ryan was chosen as speaker in October, Republicans had high hopes he could unite a fractured caucus. And he has largely enjoyed positive early reviews from House members, who praise him for returning more power to committees and rank-and-file members.
But Ryan has also had his share of struggles, including missing an April 15 deadline for the House to pass a fiscal 2017 budget. Ryan had said kick-starting the budget process would be part of his promised return to legislative "regular order." His efforts have instead found him wrestling with the same fiscal conservatives in the House Freedom Caucus and others that helped to usher Boehner out the door last fall.
Ryan's Mess
While he can try to pin many of those woes on Boehner, Ryan owns the Puerto Rico problem.
It was Ryan who cut the deal with Democrats last December that kept Puerto Rico out of the sweeping omnibus spending bill. In return, Ryan promised to offer a plan by March 31 to deal with the territory's $70 billion debt crisis.
The House Natural Resources Committee did produce a discussion draft, HR. 4900, before the deadline, but efforts to agree on some orderly combination of a federal financial oversight board and a framework for debt restructuring have since stalled. Republicans, Democrats and U.S. Treasury Department officials differ on details, including the scope of the board's powers, how to deal with creditors, and how long creditors should be blocked from suing the island.
This is all playing out amid intense lobbying -- not only by Puerto Rico's government, but also insurers and holders of Puerto Rico bonds, who themselves are split.
'Bailout Scheme'
Some of the loudest objections to the current draft being negotiated by Bishop are coming from House Republicans, including many on the committee itself. Some cast the proposed legislation as a "bailout scheme" -- if not an actual bailout -- something adamantly disputed by Ryan.
Others say that they have to contend with a perception back home that it's a bailout, particularly with groups taking out television ads on the issue.
"Puerto Rico's increasing fiscal problems are the result of mismanagement and unsustainable policies enacted by the local government and under no circumstance will I support a taxpayer-funded bailout of Puerto Rico," said Representative Doug Lamborn of Colorado, a member of the committee, who adds that while the latest version of the bill is not a bailout, he remains opposed because of concerns about how payments to creditors might be prioritized.
Such complaints are contributing to doubts about Ryan's ability to deliver consensus within his own conference. They're also raising questions about Ryan's efforts to restore more legislative decision-making to the committees, as opposed to the speaker imposing his will.
"The underlying governing dynamic that forced John Boehner to depart is still there -- whether on budget or Puerto Rico or any other number of issues coming up," said Representative Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania, co-chairman of a group of House Republican moderates. "That's not a criticism of Paul, by the way. That's just a statement of fact and an acceptance of reality. Face it, we have a number of members who have a very difficult time getting to 'yes,' and that is structural and it does not matter who is speaker."
But Dent said there's "an urgency" and "this one of those issues of governance you got to get done, even if we're going to need Democrats to help us pass the bill."
Bottom-Up Approach
A House leadership aide responded that Ryan's bottom-up push to let the committee do its work may not be as neat and tidy as having the speaker jam the legislation through, but Ryan remains committed to it. The aide also noted that Ryan has always said the bill would require bipartisan support in order to make it through the Senate, and he remains optimistic a bill will be passed.
To boost his cause, Ryan's office has been circulating opinions from some conservative fiscal groups in support of the bill and arguing that it is not a bailout of Puerto Rico, including one from the influential Americans for Tax Reform, founded by Grover Norquist.
"The Oversight Board has the authority to mediate voluntary restructuring between stakeholders, and if (and only if) this breaks down, the board has the authority to facilitate court supervised restructuring. This is NOT chapter 9 bankruptcy," read one statement from the group, which added that any suggestions that this is a bailout are false.
Supportive Democrats
When it comes to Puerto Rico, Ryan has won plaudits from Democrats for his approach.
Representative Luis Gutierrez of Illinois says the speaker has been approachable and collegial in the discussions. But he says that, in retrospect, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Democrats should have pushed harder to include Puerto Rico language in the spending deal last year -- when they had more urgent leverage.
Now, Ryan finds himself pushing a legislative effort and trying to reach a bipartisan deal with fellow Republicans who are skeptical about the bill, which Representative Tom Cole said is gaining a "high profile" in districts in "a very volatile political year."
Advertising Blitz
Some House Republicans are being hit back home with ads from groups that describe the bill as a bailout, which Bishop said has only added to confusion among his constituents.
"All they've heard is that same stupid ad," said Bishop. "It is bizarre that the number one issue in the First District of Utah is Puerto Rico."
"We ought to just legislate and do the best we can," said Cole, who said he believes Ryan will get the bill through.
Ryan, during a news conference Thursday, sounded defensive about the bill's progress. "We made the deadline which was to get the bill introduced by the end of the first quarter," he said, referring to his March 31 promise.
"Now, the Resources committee is working on technical aspects," said Ryan. "I think they are doing very well. We just want to do it right."
https://youtu.be/Tt-mpuR_QHQ
I'm coming to the conclusion that if you stripped all the laugh lines out John Oliver would be much more watchable.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 26, 2016, 12:10:02 AM
I'm coming to the conclusion that if you stripped all the laugh lines out John Oliver would be much more watchable.
It's just personal preference. I find him a lot funnier than Stewart or Colbert ever were.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 26, 2016, 12:10:02 AM
I'm coming to the conclusion that if you stripped all the laugh lines out John Oliver would be much more watchable.
You don't enjoy weird comparisons and country in the wrong place gags? :hmm:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 26, 2016, 12:27:51 AM
You don't enjoy weird comparisons and country in the wrong place gags? :hmm:
I don't enjoy underwritten, oversold punch lines. No matter how meh the line is he always delivers it at 11.
A fair criticism.
A lot of his jokes are telegraphed from a mile away, and a lot are forced, but I find him to be one of the most informative comedy talk show anchors out there. His pieces - at least to me - are very well built and researched, and told in a very entertaining manner. I personally like him a lot and I can certainly look past half a dozen "THIS IS LIKE..." jokes too many.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 26, 2016, 01:03:57 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 26, 2016, 12:27:51 AM
You don't enjoy weird comparisons and country in the wrong place gags? :hmm:
I don't enjoy underwritten, oversold punch lines. No matter how meh the line is he always delivers it at 11.
you seem to be in the minority.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 26, 2016, 03:11:20 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 26, 2016, 01:03:57 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 26, 2016, 12:27:51 AM
You don't enjoy weird comparisons and country in the wrong place gags? :hmm:
I don't enjoy underwritten, oversold punch lines. No matter how meh the line is he always delivers it at 11.
you seem to be in the minority.
I generally agree with Yi on this. I mean, ideologically I think John Oliver is pretty right on and some of his stuff is clever (and it's generally well researched)... but overall, I think the delivery is delivered at 11 a little too consistently to be funny.
Quote from: Jacob on April 26, 2016, 03:46:22 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 26, 2016, 03:11:20 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 26, 2016, 01:03:57 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 26, 2016, 12:27:51 AM
You don't enjoy weird comparisons and country in the wrong place gags? :hmm:
I don't enjoy underwritten, oversold punch lines. No matter how meh the line is he always delivers it at 11.
you seem to be in the minority.
I generally agree with Yi on this. I mean, ideologically I think John Oliver is pretty right on and some of his stuff is clever (and it's generally well researched)... but overall, I think the delivery is delivered at 11 a little too consistently to be funny.
Meh, Monty Python and Benny Hill and Stewart are examples good comedy that established and then followed the same format. If you and Yi were the majority view Oliver wouldn't be on the air.
Benny Hill maybe, but Monty Python could do subtlety. As could Jon Stewart.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 26, 2016, 03:58:10 PM
Benny Hill maybe, but Monty Python could do subtlety. As could Jon Stewart.
In world where Trump could be President, I don't think we should be worrying about being subtle.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 26, 2016, 04:01:15 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 26, 2016, 03:58:10 PM
Benny Hill maybe, but Monty Python could do subtlety. As could Jon Stewart.
In world where Trump could be President, I don't think we should be worrying about being subtle.
I think they were talking about Oliver's comedic qualities, not his political ones. I don't think who might be president will necessarily change the type of humor that I enjoy.
Quote from: frunk on April 26, 2016, 04:07:53 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 26, 2016, 04:01:15 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 26, 2016, 03:58:10 PM
Benny Hill maybe, but Monty Python could do subtlety. As could Jon Stewart.
In world where Trump could be President, I don't think we should be worrying about being subtle.
I think they were talking about Oliver's comedic qualities, not his political ones. I don't think who might be president will necessarily change the type of humor that I enjoy.
Sure, and the criticism is that he does the same schtick. He follows a long successful tradition in that regard.
If the complaint is that his schtick is not subtle enough, I simply say that is a good reflection of today's world.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 26, 2016, 04:15:53 PM
Sure, and the criticism is that he does the same schtick. He follows a long successful tradition in that regard.
If the complaint is that his schtick is not subtle enough, I simply say that is a good reflection of today's world.
The criticism is that his punchlines aren't very funny and playing them up doesn't make them funnier. His show is better researched and more informative than most news programs, the asides are pretty good, but the buildups and jokes don't land. Saying that it reflects the world doesn't make it better, it just means the world is a sadder place.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 26, 2016, 03:58:10 PM
Benny Hill maybe, but Monty Python could do subtlety. As could Jon Stewart.
Benny Hill was a master of the sotto voce winking off color punch line.
I'll take your word. Never seen his show myself.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 26, 2016, 05:16:55 PM
I'll take your word. Never seen his show myself.
Its a classic. But a good example of the same schtick used over and over again.
So, the governor says the island will default Monday. Thanks for nothing Congress. :rolleyes:
The island's population has already fell 9% since 2000, NYC and Miami better start building more housing because that's going to be matched in the next 5 years after this catastrophe.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 30, 2016, 04:29:48 AM
So, the governor says the island will default Monday. Thanks for nothing Congress. :rolleyes:
The island's population has already fell 9% since 2000, NYC and Miami better start building more housing because that's going to be matched in the next 5 years after this catastrophe.
Why build houses in Miami if they're just gonna sink under the ocean in 20 years?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 30, 2016, 04:33:43 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 30, 2016, 04:29:48 AM
So, the governor says the island will default Monday. Thanks for nothing Congress. :rolleyes:
The island's population has already fell 9% since 2000, NYC and Miami better start building more housing because that's going to be matched in the next 5 years after this catastrophe.
Why build houses in Miami if they're just gonna sink under the ocean in 20 years?
Quiet!
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 30, 2016, 04:33:43 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 30, 2016, 04:29:48 AM
So, the governor says the island will default Monday. Thanks for nothing Congress. :rolleyes:
The island's population has already fell 9% since 2000, NYC and Miami better start building more housing because that's going to be matched in the next 5 years after this catastrophe.
Why build houses in Miami if they're just gonna sink under the ocean in 20 years?
Good point. However lots of Puerto Ricans are moving to Florida these days and developers haven't yet got the message on climate change.
They are not moving to Miami, they are moving to Orlando and Tampa.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 26, 2016, 03:58:10 PM
Benny Hill maybe, but Monty Python could do subtlety. As could Jon Stewart.
Indeed. Stewart's nonverbal comedy was probably his best attribute, and Oliver lacks that completely. Monte Python had whole skits that were virtually dialogue-free (though many of those, like the Ministry of Silly Walks, were delivery at 11 without dialogue).
Quote from: Jacob on April 26, 2016, 03:46:22 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 26, 2016, 03:11:20 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 26, 2016, 01:03:57 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 26, 2016, 12:27:51 AM
You don't enjoy weird comparisons and country in the wrong place gags? :hmm:
I don't enjoy underwritten, oversold punch lines. No matter how meh the line is he always delivers it at 11.
you seem to be in the minority.
I generally agree with Yi on this. I mean, ideologically I think John Oliver is pretty right on and some of his stuff is clever (and it's generally well researched)... but overall, I think the delivery is delivered at 11 a little too consistently to be funny.
:yes: I really like John Oliver, and feel he's very humorous, but the criticism is legit.
Congress finally passes a bill, it's a piece of shit, but it's something. <_<
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/06/29/senate-poised-to-act-on-puerto-rico-debt-days-before-debt-cliff/
Quote
Rescue legislation aimed at helping Puerto Rico address its mounting fiscal crisis cleared Congress Wednesday, two days before the U.S. territory is set to default on roughly $2 billion in debt payments.
The bill passed by the Senate on a 68-to-30 vote opens a path for an orderly restructuring of the island's $72 billion in bond debt while creating a new federally appointed fiscal oversight board. It passed the House earlier this month, and President Obama has said he will sign it.
"Obviously, the bill isn't perfect," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Wednesday, before arguing that it "offers Puerto Rico the best chance to return to financial stability and economic growth over the long term so we can help prevent another financial crisis like this in the future."
The passage of the bill — the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act, or PROMESA — was in doubt earlier this week, and, had it failed Wednesday, the anticipated missed payments likely would have roiled credit markets and sparked creditor lawsuits.
The opposition did not fall neatly along party lines. Democrats raised a host of objections to the bill, including over the anti-democratic nature of the oversight board, the relatively arcane restructuring process and a provision that could lower the minimum wage for young workers. Some Republicans, meanwhile, found some provisions unfair to creditors and feared the rescue bill could set a precedent for fiscally troubled states to seek federal intervention.
...
In what ways is it a piece of shit?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 30, 2016, 02:55:26 AM
In what ways is it a piece of shit?
The opening move of Yi-Fu.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 30, 2016, 02:55:26 AM
In what ways is it a piece of shit?
The federal oversight board that makes a mockery of representative government and local autonomy.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 30, 2016, 08:15:31 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 30, 2016, 02:55:26 AM
In what ways is it a piece of shit?
The federal oversight board that makes a mockery of representative government and local autonomy.
So "give us free money with no strings attached" is the demand I guess? My Puerto Rican friends on FB don't like it either but won't say what it is they want.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 30, 2016, 08:15:31 AM
The federal oversight board that makes a mockery of representative government and local autonomy.
Well, to be fair, so does Puerto Rico's status in the Union.
Quote from: derspiess on June 30, 2016, 08:31:41 AM
So "give us free money with no strings attached" is the demand I guess?
You didn't have a problem when the banks did it.
Quote from: derspiess on June 30, 2016, 08:31:41 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 30, 2016, 08:15:31 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 30, 2016, 02:55:26 AM
In what ways is it a piece of shit?
The federal oversight board that makes a mockery of representative government and local autonomy.
So "give us free money with no strings attached" is the demand I guess? My Puerto Rican friends on FB don't like it either but won't say what it is they want.
Statehood.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 30, 2016, 08:37:14 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 30, 2016, 08:31:41 AM
So "give us free money with no strings attached" is the demand I guess?
You didn't have a problem when the banks did it.
The banks had plenty of strings attached actually. Maybe not the right strings...
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 30, 2016, 08:37:14 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 30, 2016, 08:31:41 AM
So "give us free money with no strings attached" is the demand I guess?
You didn't have a problem when the banks did it.
You mis-remember, sir.
Yeah I think Spicey was one of those 'let them all the weak banks fall apart and the strong shall RISE!' types during that crisis.
Quote from: Berkut on June 30, 2016, 08:51:13 AM
The banks had plenty of strings attached actually. Maybe not the right strings...
No shit, right?
"These are not the TARP bonus restrictions you are looking for."
"These are not the TARP bonus restrictions we're looking for."
Quote from: Valmy on June 30, 2016, 08:55:24 AM
Yeah I think Spicey was one of those 'let them all the weak banks fall apart and the strong shall RISE!' types during that crisis.
I was going through my Maya Angelou phase. AND SO I RISE!!!!!!!!
Quote from: Valmy on June 30, 2016, 08:55:24 AM
Yeah I think Spicey was one of those 'let them all the weak banks fall apart and the strong shall RISE!' types during that crisis.
Ah, yes. The "Too Big to Fail" approach. Wonder how that turned out.
QuotePROMESA
They always come up with such "clever" acronyms. :lol:
Quote from: lustindarkness on June 30, 2016, 09:26:40 AM
QuotePROMESA
They always come up with such "clever" acronyms. :lol:
I thought it was a nice touch to make it a Spanish word. It means they love Puerto Rico.
I wonder how many lawmaker man-hours are employed with coming up with these acronyms. I guess we may know the real reason for the hold-up, now.
Quote from: celedhring on June 30, 2016, 09:37:45 AM
I wonder how many lawmaker man-hours are employed with coming up with these acronyms. I guess we may know the real reason for the hold-up, now.
Well they don't spend much time passing or debating legislation these days. So I guess between fund raising sessions they have to do something with their time.
While more condescending than racist, it's certainly a better choice than, say, the Spanish Peoples' Island Credit Act of 2016.
:lol:
Puerto Rico isn't a state, Congress stepping in to bail them out is akin to a State stepping in to bail out a municipality, and when they do so it's standard to have either some sort of fiscal oversight board put in place, or some sort of emergency manager put in place.
Puerto Rico has chosen a status of diminished sovereignty--they could have either statehood or independence if they wanted, they don't.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 30, 2016, 08:37:14 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 30, 2016, 08:31:41 AM
So "give us free money with no strings attached" is the demand I guess?
You didn't have a problem when the banks did it.
That money wasn't free. It was pretty pricey.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 30, 2016, 12:30:09 PM
Puerto Rico isn't a state, Congress stepping in to bail them out is akin to a State stepping in to bail out a municipality, and when they do so it's standard to have either some sort of fiscal oversight board put in place, or some sort of emergency manager put in place.
Puerto Rico has chosen a status of diminished sovereignty--they could have either statehood or independence if they wanted, they don't.
Congress could have chosen to use the result of their last referendum to make it a state, but they did not.
S
Quote from: garbon on June 30, 2016, 03:00:25 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 30, 2016, 12:30:09 PM
Puerto Rico isn't a state, Congress stepping in to bail them out is akin to a State stepping in to bail out a municipality, and when they do so it's standard to have either some sort of fiscal oversight board put in place, or some sort of emergency manager put in place.
Puerto Rico has chosen a status of diminished sovereignty--they could have either statehood or independence if they wanted, they don't.
Congress could have chosen to use the result of their last referendum to make it a state, but they did not.
And Americans are hypocritical for telling Brits that they can't ignore referendums.
No we're not.
The results of the 2012 PR referendum:
46% status quo
33% statehood
18% "free association"
2.9% independence
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 30, 2016, 04:52:24 PM
The results of the 2012 PR referendum:
46% status quo
33% statehood
18% "free association"
2.9% independence
They could chose to look at the 54% who said, no we don't want to keep our current status. There might not be alignment on what it should be changed to, but a majority didn't like what they currently had.
Quote from: garbon on June 30, 2016, 04:58:17 PM
They could chose to look at the 54% who said, no we don't want to keep our current status. There might not be alignment on what it should be changed to, but a majority didn't like what they currently had.
They could also choose to look at the 67% who didn't want statehood, etc, etc.
yeah, the referendum failed to gain majority in favor of statehood. I don't see a problem with the oversight board.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 30, 2016, 05:01:36 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 30, 2016, 04:58:17 PM
They could chose to look at the 54% who said, no we don't want to keep our current status. There might not be alignment on what it should be changed to, but a majority didn't like what they currently had.
They could also choose to look at the 67% who didn't want statehood, etc, etc.
That's why I said Congress could choose to do something about it. :o
Anyway, I don't really see how doing nothing about the situation is better as the majority clearly voted that they wanted something done. Not sure why then following the 46% is the best option.
The PR referendum was poorly structured and discredited by the huge number of people who voted "No" to keeping the current status, but who refused to vote on the options listed for the potential new status.
If PR wants Congress to take statehood seriously they need a simple referendum yes/no on statehood that makes the will of the people known unequivocally. I'd say there is democratic legitimacy to pursuing a new status, but no clear mandate on what that would be (interestingly--similar to the EU situation.)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 30, 2016, 02:54:13 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 30, 2016, 08:37:14 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 30, 2016, 08:31:41 AM
So "give us free money with no strings attached" is the demand I guess?
You didn't have a problem when the banks did it.
That money wasn't free. It was pretty pricey.
That breaks my heart. I'm sure it was a real bitch making it up those difficult weeks, especially after all the record bonuses were paid out.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 30, 2016, 04:52:24 PM
The results of the 2012 PR referendum:
46% status quo
33% statehood
18% "free association"
2.9% independence
By the by, I think this math is incorrect. Wiki notes that while in the first question 828,077 voted status quo, there were 834,191 votes for statehood in 2nd question.
All silly likely, people could answer both questions regardless of answer to Q1, so base of those answering 2nd question was larger than those who voted no to status quo.
Fair math would put votes for statehood slightly larger than votes for status quo - both less than a majority.
Quote from: garbon on June 30, 2016, 05:16:09 PM
By the by, I think this math is incorrect. Wiki notes that while in the first question 828,077 voted status quo, there were 834,191 votes for statehood in 2nd question.
All silly likely, people could answer both questions regardless of answer to Q1, so base of those answering 2nd question was larger than those who voted no to status quo.
Fair math would put votes for statehood slightly larger than votes for status quo - both less than a majority.
You using this link? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rican_status_referendum,_2012
The table at the bottom looks like it was made using Puerto Rican math. The total number of votes on the second part is equal to the total number of votes on the first part. The total on 2 should only be 54% of total 1.
I got my percentages from the table at the top of the link.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 30, 2016, 05:26:21 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 30, 2016, 05:16:09 PM
By the by, I think this math is incorrect. Wiki notes that while in the first question 828,077 voted status quo, there were 834,191 votes for statehood in 2nd question.
All silly likely, people could answer both questions regardless of answer to Q1, so base of those answering 2nd question was larger than those who voted no to status quo.
Fair math would put votes for statehood slightly larger than votes for status quo - both less than a majority.
You using this link? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rican_status_referendum,_2012
The table at the bottom looks like it was made using Puerto Rican math. The total number of votes on the second part is equal to the total number of votes on the first part. The total on 2 should only be 54% of total 1.
I got my percentages from the table at the top of the link.
Yes that's the thing. And like I said, people could answer both. So even if you said you wanted status quo, you could also fill in what you'd choose as a non-territorial option. So ended up more votes for statehood than picked status quo.
Here's the ballot:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pr51st.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F08%2Fballot-2012.jpg&hash=289d52279783d44c945e9f65aef9a9adb15979c8)
Are you basing that solely on that obviously incorrect table at the bottom?
Well for one, I'm basing it on the fact that the ballot text of question two specifically tells voters to answer regardless of how they answered option 1. I'm then also reading the cited text at the top of the page, though I'll admit I didn't check the citations:
Quote970,910 (54.00%) voted "No" on the first question, expressing themselves against maintaining the current political status, and 828,077 (46.00%) voted "Yes", to maintain the current political status. Of those who answered on the second question 834,191 (61.11%) chose statehood, 454,768 (33.34%) chose free association, and 74,895 (5.55%) chose independence.
OK, that's as bizarre as fuck.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 30, 2016, 04:52:24 PM
The results of the 2012 PR referendum:
46% status quo
33% statehood
18% "free association"
2.9% independence
Oh if only it was that simple :P
The difference is the US government didn't swear they were going to have this referendum and didn't make a pledge to honor it. But even so I still think they should have been admitted if, indeed, a majority had voted for statehood. I have looked over this vote several times now and I am still not sure.
If it were up to me every single inhabited territory would get a 'Statehood or Independence' vote. Territory status was never intended to be a permanent deal.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 30, 2016, 09:02:43 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 30, 2016, 08:55:24 AM
Yeah I think Spicey was one of those 'let them all the weak banks fall apart and the strong shall RISE!' types during that crisis.
Ah, yes. The "Too Big to Fail" approach. Wonder how that turned out.
:mellow: That's the exact opposite of the Too Big to Fail approach.
Quote from: Valmy on June 30, 2016, 05:54:13 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 30, 2016, 04:52:24 PM
The results of the 2012 PR referendum:
46% status quo
33% statehood
18% "free association"
2.9% independence
Oh if only it was that simple :P
The difference is the US government didn't swear they were going to have this referendum and didn't make a pledge to honor it. But even so I still think they should have been admitted if, indeed, a majority had voted for statehood. I have looked over this vote several times now and I am still not sure.
If it were up to me every single inhabited territory would get a 'Statehood or Independence' vote. Territory status was never intended to be a permanent deal.
Most of them are too small for statehood. The US virgin islands would have to be annexed by Puerto Rico and the Pacific islands by Hawaii for it to make any practical sense.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 30, 2016, 06:36:24 PM
Most of them are too small for statehood. St. Thomas would have to annexed by Puerto Rico and the Pacific islands by Hawaii for it to make any practical sense.
You're a fucking moron.
What a disaster. :(
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/crews-rush-restore-power-blacked-puerto-rico-42268174
QuoteMost Puerto Ricans Face a Second Night Without Electricity
By danica coto, associated press
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico — Sep 22, 2016, 9:45 PM ET
Most Puerto Ricans faced another night of darkness Thursday as crews slowly restored electricity a day after a fire at a power plant caused the aging utility grid to fail and blacked out the entire island of 3.5 million people.
Nearly 370,000 of the 1.5 million homes and businesses served by the power utility had power back by late Thursday. Gov. Alejandro Garcia Padilla said he hoped more than half would be reconnected by Friday morning, adding that public school classes were canceled on Friday.
Garcia, who declared a state of emergency, expressed sympathy for people's frustrations over the outage, which comes amid a decade-long economic crunch that has worn down Puerto Ricans.
"We all want the system to be back online," the governor said. "Let's hold someone responsible for this. Blame me. I'll take the blame."
The power company posted a tweet expressing annoyance over people cursing at its workers, saying such behavior wasn't justified.
Most Puerto Ricans don't have generators, and the many still without power faced another night in darkness and with no air conditioning in the tropical heat. Many likely planned to drag mattresses out to balconies and porches to spend the night outside.
"Puerto Rico is not prepared for something like this," said Celestino Ayala Santiago, who slept in his car Wednesday night so he could have some air conditioning to escape the heat.
As sunset approached, lines formed at ice plants, supermarkets and gas stations, and people crouched around power outlets at generator-powered supermarkets and malls to charge cellphones.
Traffic lights remained out and police officers stood in the streets directing traffic all day, some in heavy downpours across the island. Workers at the main international airport filled out luggage tickets by hand.
"To see everything blacked out, my God," said Virginia Davila, a nurse's assistant who lives on the 11th floor of an apartment building in San Juan.
The governor said at least one person died the first night from exposure to carbon monoxide after setting up a personal generator. A 76-year-old man was taken to the hospital in good condition after spending the night trapped in an elevator at a government building, Garcia said.
Localized power outages are common in Puerto Rico, which has an outdated energy infrastructure, but widespread failures such as this generally have happened only with tropical storms. "This is an apocalypse," Jose Tavela said as he ate at a small cafe in the capital that had a generator.
The Electric Power Authority said it was trying to determine what caused the fire Wednesday afternoon at the Aguirre power plant in the southern town of Salinas. The fire apparently knocked out two transmission lines that serve the broader grid, which tripped circuit breakers that automatically shut down the flow of power as a preventive measure, said Yohari Molina, a spokeswoman for the utility.
The governor wanted that restoring power would be a slow process. "Given that the system is so old, numerous setbacks could occur," he said. "The system is not designed to withstand a failure of this magnitude."
But Garcia rejected suggestions the blackout was caused by maintenance problems that have plagued the utility for years, largely a result of the island's economic and fiscal crisis. He said the switch where the fire happened had been properly maintained.
It was not yet clear how much damage the fire caused or where the power company would obtain the money to repair or buy new equipment. The utility is struggling with a $9 billion debt that it hopes to restructure as it faces numerous corruption allegations. Company officials have said they are seeking revenue to update outdated equipment.
Bankruptcy it is
http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/puerto-rico-declares-bankruptcy-heres-how-it-will-unfold/ar-BBAJvLW?ocid=spartanntp
So what happens now? Send some guys and truck, start repo'ing review mirror PR flags and oversized Tiburon spoilers?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 04, 2017, 01:15:16 PM
So what happens now? Send some guys and truck, start repo'ing review mirror PR flags and oversized Tiburon spoilers?
I think it's fair to say statehood is now off the table. Now Washington gets to decide whether they want to keep that particular albatross around their neck with all the constant fighting about deficits and debt ceiling.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 04, 2017, 01:54:51 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 04, 2017, 01:15:16 PM
So what happens now? Send some guys and truck, start repo'ing review mirror PR flags and oversized Tiburon spoilers?
I think it's fair to say statehood is now off the table. Now Washington gets to decide whether they want to keep that particular albatross around their neck with all the constant fighting about deficits and debt ceiling.
Lol. The island is going to vote for statehood by 60% plus in the upcoming referendum and the next time Dems control the government they are going to nuke the legislative filibuster and force statehood through.
Why would the dems make them a state? Another resource drain seems like a dumb move. Are they even liberal? Latin county are generally socially conservative.
Quote from: HVC on May 04, 2017, 09:00:16 PM
Why would the dems make them a state? Another resource drain seems like a dumb move. Are they even liberal? Latin county are generally socially conservative.
They vote very Democratic in presidential elections.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 04, 2017, 09:03:40 PM
Quote from: HVC on May 04, 2017, 09:00:16 PM
Why would the dems make them a state? Another resource drain seems like a dumb move. Are they even liberal? Latin county are generally socially conservative.
They vote very Democratic in presidential elections.
:yes: Admitting a new state has always been extremely political.
I don't think anyone can stop PR becoming a state now even if they wanted to. It's completely in Puerto Rico's hands.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 05, 2017, 03:14:13 PM
I don't think anyone can stop PR becoming a state now even if they wanted to. It's completely in Puerto Rico's hands.
Huh? Congress would still need to vote to admit.
Didn't they do that decades ago?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 05, 2017, 03:15:15 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 05, 2017, 03:14:13 PM
I don't think anyone can stop PR becoming a state now even if they wanted to. It's completely in Puerto Rico's hands.
Huh? Congress would still need to vote to admit.
And the President to not veto I presume.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 05, 2017, 03:15:45 PM
Didn't they do that decades ago?
I thought they voted to allows the referendum.
You might be right.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 05, 2017, 03:15:45 PM
Didn't they do that decades ago?
Did they? I have no idea.
Two wikis I scanned made it clear legislation is still needed.
I went on vacation to San Juan 3 weeks ago. That city is way better off than Baltimore. Fuck these people.
Yeah, working in the absolute shithole of American urban blight and poverty really brings out the humanitarian in people.