Possible. But what if he didn't have any real dirt on Putin and was just disgruntled.
If that was the case he would not be of any use to Poroshenko in any other way than a way to make Putin look bad.
Not saying either scenario is true, it may well be that Putin was behind this; it's just that people jumping to conclusions without any further evidence, that rubs me in the wrong way.
No, I mean rebels. They're supported by Russia, sure. But these people are former Ukranian citizens, so 'rebels' would be the correct word to describe them.
If you haven't followed this conflict from the start. Some of the eastern province attempted to secede from the Ukrain, directly after the former president was overthrown. The people who did this were at the time Ukranian citizens, so regardless on whether they're supported by Russia, China or the spaghetti monster, the correct word would be rebel.
Either that or there also wasn't any 'south vietnamese' government during the Vietnam police action, which was at the time heavily supported by the US, but just a conflict between North Vietnam and the US.
Beat me to it....
Just don't make it angry, you wouldn't like it if it gets angry.
These regulations will not violate my rights, because I have even stopped considering any travel through the US as a stop-ever.
If the US wants my tourist dollars, they should stop treating their customers like criminals first.
You've put the onus on the wrong part of this text as well. It's crystal clear that this part of the text refers to smuggling of contraband to evade duties ONLY
This emphasis should be on:
goods, wares or for, seized, and merchandise subject to duty
My phone, or any other personal effect for that matter, is not subject to duty. Which means the statement above is by no means a 'free-for-all' for customs officers to inspect my phone.
Not only this, management who introduces this is usually piss-poor at performing themselves and are usually projecting their behaviour on others.
KPIs are to managing people as what paint-by-number is to painting. Having something that resembles a picture after you fill up each marked space with the right colour, does not make you a painter.
Either you're a good manager and you're able to not only get a productive team that is happy to do the work that's thrown at them, all the while keeping in touch with who is and who is not performing optimally, or you're a shitty manager, who needs to synergise his KPIs to leverage employee empowerment, in which case it's more efficient for the company as a whole if that person is assigned to cleaning toilets.
Here's a 2014 report on a company that tried to limit employee bathroom use to 6 minutes per day. http://abcnews.go.com/Business...
Six whole minutes is quite luxurious, we have two minutes a day to empty our catheter bags and we get are only allowed to buy the official company issues bags from the company store at special discount employee rates.
That's not the direct cause. Were there sufficient accommodations for them all the prices would not go up as much. It is the SCARCITY that is created by DEMAND that causes the prices to go up.
That's exactly what I am saying: From my earlier reply: "Because everybody is attempting to use the same limited resources within the very limited area of the area where employment can be found, prices are driven up."
why there are five million people is irrelevant.
No it's not irrelevant, because if you remove the reason for those five million people to be clumped up in one small area, cost of living will go down and disposable income will go up.
They could all be looking for housing in NYC because they like smog and being shoulder to shoulder with their neighbor and have no interest in working in the city and the prices would still be high.
Availability of work is a well known factor for cities to attract people. If people on only receive UBI want to live in the city, they will pay a huge amount on rent. There is a possibility that people spend all their UBI on rent and want to live that way. There will also be a significant group of people who don't want to spend 100% of their income on rent, only live in the city because that's were most of the work is, who will move out to where cost of living is lower.
Uhh, once again, wrong. You add another layer of administration (who should be on the recipient list, who should be removed, who is faking a second or third registration, who doesn't meet the restrictions that any welfare system has to have, etc.) to an existing welfare system
This information is already present with Inland Revenue; every registered tax-payer will receive UBI. The only place where this needs to be maintained is in the IRS database. All information structures maintained by the current (separate) wellfare system, its employees and maintenance on the information system disappear.
(that you can't eliminate because UBI won't cover every situation
UBI is not supposed to cover every situation. It's supposed to promote certain human behaviour. I am not pretending that UBI will solve world hunger or create world peace.
Uh, yeah, moving people out of the cities into the rural areas is moving the problems they have (unemployment, etc) into someone else's backyard. How can you claim that it isn't?
As I mentioned above, even people on just UBI will be consumers of rental accommodation, food and services, this alone will increase economic activity for the existing population of the area where these people move to. How do you think basic economies get started? Demand creates supply. Whether these people are unemployed or not is irrelevant, since they have money to consume the services they need in the areas where cost of living is lower anyway. If these people were unemployed and had no income, yes, they would be a burden; this is not the case.
If you think government is going to get smaller and cost less when you start increasing handouts, you have ignored history.
Something like UBI has NEVER before been done in history. Please point me to an implementation of UBI that has gone completely wrong? Wellfare != UBI.
If people have enough money to start a business when they're living on UBI then it isn't a BASIC income, now is it?
Let's say for example that UBI=$1000/month. Mr. A lives in New York, where rent is $800m, leaving him $200/m for food and services. Mr A moves to Nebraska. UBI is still $1000/month, while rent is $500/m. Food may be somewhat cheaper, services possibly somewhat more expensive; let's assume this will remain $200/m. All of a sudden Mr A. has a disposable income of $300/m. Maybe not enough to finance a manufacturing plant, but definitely a bit more room to save up and start something small if he wants to. Though he might just blow the $300 on other things, which means economic activity in Nebraska now increases by $300/m, because this single person moved there. The thing is that the amount of UBI does not change depending on where one lives, while people should still be free to settle somewhere else. If people who are receiving UBI are bound to one location (e.g. living in New York and not allowed to leave, because they'd otherwise lose UBI), the result would indeed be increase of prices, resulting in inflation. People moving to parts where cost of living is lower is needed to offset any inflationary effects from UBI.
The people who receive UBI are no longer 'victims' or 'free-loaders' if they don't happen to have work. This is irrelevant to the costs of the program.
Irrelevant to the cost yes. People's perception and psychological state when completely dependent on what other people view as charity definitely affects the receiver of said perceived charity (as well as the people who perceive that someone is only able to 'exist' because of their hard work and hard-won tax dollars.
This is how society views them, not what society has to pay to keep the freeloaders fed and clothed.
And you're proving my point right here. Once every tax-payer receives UBI, this stigma will no longer be there. People who are working and paying taxes no longer have to worry about the 'free-loaders' and 'free-loaders' no longer have to worry about being perceived as such, because everyone receives UBI.
Dividing up a population will have polarising effects, that result in an 'us' vs. 'them' mentality. Good for politicians to rile up certain parts of the population to rise to power, not so much for the population in general, regardless whether they are in the 'us' or the 'them' camp.
Finally. This has never been done before; it's a thought experiment that may or may not work, on the other hand the current economic model, along with increasing amounts of automation, will result in increasing parts of the population being out of work. Leaving these people to rot out of sight, means that you're disenfranchising an increasing part of the population. You can build higher walls every year to keep more of the 'rabble' out, but at some point, these people will want some of the wealth available to the people who are still part of the economic process. Possibly not this generation, but this scenario becomes increasingly likely with time. Essentially you have the choice between what essentially amounts to slow genocide and weather the effects of that, which seems to be the road we're on now, or you ensure that everyone participates in the economic model.
I know I prefer the second option.
I don't know that creating a scarcity of affordable housing "in those areas" and thus driving the prices up will be a Good Thing.
The very reason for prices being so high in cities, is because people all want to live in the cities, because that's where employment can be found. Because everybody is attempting to use the same limited resources within the very limited area of the area where employment can be found, prices are driven up. Once people are able to provide for their basic necessities with having to be near a spot where employment can be found, the threshold to move to somewhere with a cheaper cost of living become a lot lower. If the population of the US was more spread out across the entire US, instead of focused on the east and west coasts, prices in those areas would go down. Prices would slightly go up, in areas that don't have large population pressure, but the population pressure would need to go up to levels that are currently present in those places to reach the same price levels. Something which will take considerable time (don't have any ideas yet on what to do when that happens).
In exchange for higher costs of living, you'll get an influx of people with no disposable income
Just the fact that there are more people, results in more economic activity. Houses need to be built, maintained. Roads need to be built. People still eat; more people consuming food leads to higher food production, which in turn leads to more people being hired to help out. You'd be right if these people would not be spending any money in the place they'd be living, this is not the case.
This sounds like a situation of "moved the problem to someone else's backyard"
As I described above, it's not a 'problem' that you're moving to someone else's backyard. These are actually consumers, which will initiate an upwards spiral of economic activity.
"it looks like we care because we're handing out other people's money but we don't actually have to care".
We're handing over 'other people's' money already on welfare as you pointed out. Attaching no strings to the money turns the recipients into free agents, with a low threshold to both move somewhere else or start a business (as there is always a safety-net of UBI if someone fails).
These are hallmarks of existing welfare programs, so what's actually new?
No strings attached means greatly reduced overhead compared to maintaining the 'welfare' structure. The people who receive UBI are no longer 'victims' or 'free-loaders' if they don't happen to have work. Everybody will receive it regardless of whether they make $1 or $1,000,000 a year. Additionally, due to the fact that people will be able to have a safety net if they lose work, they can choose to walk away from abusive employers, without fear of living on the streets. This will force employers to improve working conditions (especially for employees with lower wages) without having to push through any restrictive labour laws..
My only hope is that he will do something that can get him impeached relatively quickly, before too much damage can be done.
Trump has already put a fail-safe in place for that. Unless someone really wants to see Mike Pence as president, they would do their very best to make sure that doesn't happen.
The game of life is a game of boomerangs. Our thoughts, deeds and words return to us sooner or later with astounding accuracy.
