Délmagyar logó

2018. 03. 24. szombat - Gábor, Karina -4°C | 7°C Még több cikk.

Végre vízummentesen utazhatunk Amerikába

George W. Bush ünnepélyesen bejelentette, hogy újabb hét ország – köztük Magyarország – polgáraira is kiterjesztik a vízummentes beutazás lehetőségét az Egyesült Államokba. A bejelentés ellenére továbbra sem lehet tudni, hogy pontosan mikortól utazhatnak vízum nélkül a magyarok.
Magyarország, Csehország, Észtország, Lettország, Litvánia és Szlovákia, valamint Dél-Korea egy hónapon belül csatlakozhat a vízummentességi programhoz, amelynek jelenleg 27, többségében nyugat-európai állam a tagja. A bejelentés ellenére továbbra sem lehet tudni, hogy pontosan mikortól utazhatnak vízum nélkül a magyarok, a legvalószínűbb, hogy november közepétől-végétől.

„Ezek az országok immár teljesítik azokat a feltételeket, amelyek az amerikai vízummentességi programba való bekerüléshez szükségesek" – emlékeztetett az amerikai elnök a Fehér Ház rózsakertjében tartott ünnepségen, amelyen gratulált az érintett nagyköveteknek.

April H. Foley, az Egyesült Államok budapesti nagykövete (balra) és Göncz Kinga külügyminiszter pezsgőspohárral a kezükben ünnepelnek
April H. Foley, az Egyesült Államok budapesti nagykövete (balra) és Göncz Kinga külügyminiszter pezsgőspohárral a kezükben ünnepelnek

„A vasfüggöny utolsó darabját vágtuk át" – reagál a bejelentésre Göncz Kinga külügyminiszter. „Közös értékeket vallunk az Egyesült Államokkal, ezért nagyon fontos lépés, hogy vízum nélkül utazhatnak ennek a hét országnak az állampolgárai" – hangsúlyozta a miniszter az amerikai nagykövetségen rendezett fogadáson.

A Bush-adminisztráció a vízumkényszer eltörlésével az Egyesült Államok szoros szövetségeseit „jutalmazza", de például Lengyelország még nem tudott bekerülni a csoportba, mivel nem tudta teljesíteni a feltételeket.

A vízummentességet a hagyományos, kék útlevelekkel nem lehet élvezni, mert csak az elektronikus változatot fogadják el.

Olvasóink írták

57 hozzászólás
  • 57. Toni69 2008. október 19. 19:24
    „En mar ki is jottem, itt vagyok , szerencsessen megerkeztem. Mindenkit puszilok!”
  • 56. Lemba 2008. október 19. 09:01
    „O az aki benne volt az ENRON osszeomlasaban.

    Ilyen patkanyoknak adni , akarmilyen dijat, egy szegyene az emberisegnek. Ezek miatt kell milliardoknak ehezni. Ezt kellene latni mar a nigrok-nak az USA-ban is.
    Ezek miatt pusztulnak mint a csotanyok.

    Ez America Toma Hawk!

    Paul Robin Krugman (pronounced /´k?u?m?n/; born February 28, 1953) is a Nobel Prize-winning American economist, columnist, author, and intellectual.[1] He is professor of economics and international affairs at Princeton University, and is also a columnist for The New York Times, having written a twice weekly op-ed column for the newspaper since 2000.

    Krugman is well known in academia for his work in trade theory. His best known work provides a model in which firms and countries produce and trade because of economies of scale. He was a critic of the "New Economy" of the late 1990s. Krugman also criticized the fixed exchange rates in East and Southeast Asia, and Thailand´s economic policies before the 1997 East Asian financial crisis. Just before the 1998 Russian financial crisis, he also criticized investors such as Long-Term Capital Management whose profits depended on the maintenance of fixed exchange rates. Krugman is generally considered a neo-Keynesian economist,[2] with his views outlined in his books such as Peddling Prosperity. Krugman´s International Economics: Theory and Policy (currently in its eighth edition) is a standard textbook on international economics without calculus, renowned among economists for its explanations of currency crises and New Trade Theory., October 2008 . In 1991, he was awarded the John Bates Clark Medal by the American Economic Association. According to IDEAS/RePEc, he is among the 50 most influential economists in the world today.[3] In 2008, he became the twelfth person who had won the John Bates Clark Medal to also be awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences.[4]
    Krugman is generally considered a political liberal or progressive. He is an ardent critic of the George W. Bush administration and its foreign and domestic policy. Unlike many economic pundits, he is also regarded as an important scholarly contributor by his peers.[5][6] He has written over 200 scholarly papers and 20 books--some academic, and some written for the layperson.[7]
    Krugman was born into a Jewish family and grew up on Long Island, and majored in economics (though his initial interest was in history) as an undergraduate at Yale University. He earned a Ph.D. from MIT in 1977 and taught at Yale, MIT, UC Berkeley, the London School of Economics, and Stanford University before joining the faculty of Princeton University, where he has been since 2000. He is married to Robin Wells, a fellow professor at Princeton, his second marriage;[8] he has no children from either.[9] From 1982 to 1983, he spent a year working at the Reagan White House as a staff member of the Council of Economic Advisers. He is also a member of the international economic body, the Group of Thirty.
    When Bill Clinton came into office in 1993, some believe that he considered Krugman for a leading post; Krugman says he was flown out for a meeting in Arkansas. Newsweek reported in 1996 that "Krugman´s outspokenness [was] the main reason the Clinton administration didn´t offer him a job."[citation needed] Krugman says he would not have been interested in such a job; he told Newsweek, "I´m temperamentally unsuited for that kind of role. You have to be very good at people skills, biting your tongue when people say silly things."[10] Instead he continued to write journalism for wider audiences, first for Fortune and Slate, later for The Harvard Business Review, Foreign Policy, The Economist, Harper´s, and Washington Monthly. Krugman said that to answer what he called Pop Internationalism, "I would have to write essays for non-economists that were clear, effective, and entertaining."[citation needed]
    In the early 1990s, he helped popularize the argument made by Laurence Lau and Alwyn Young, among others, that the growth of economies in East Asia was not the result of new and original economic models, but rather increased capital and labor inputs, which did not result in an increase in total factor productivity. His prediction was that future economic growth in East Asia would slow as it became more difficult to generate economic growth from increasing inputs.
    In the 1990s, Krugman´s focus was on what can be described as policy economics, which he attempted to explain to the general audience in such works as Peddling Prosperity and columns attacking what he described as "policy entrepreneurs" who were focused single-mindedly on particular solutions, which they proposed as solving every conceivable crisis. He was critical of industrial policy (an approach Clinton later dropped under the influence of Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers) and argued in favor of free trade. (He writes on p. xxvi of his book The Great Unraveling that "I still have the angry letter Ralph Nader sent me when I criticized his attacks on globalization.")
    Krugman was one of many economists to serve as a consultant for an advisory board for Enron; he did this in 1999, being paid $37,500[11] before New York Times rules required him to resign when he took a job as a columnist in 2000. He stated later the consulting was to "[offer] Enron executives briefings on economic and political issues" and that it had required him to "spend four days in Houston."[11]
    However, when the story of Enron´s corporate scandals broke, critics accused him of having a conflict of interest and the job of having been a bribe to control media coverage, charges he denies forcefully. He points out that in columns written before and after the scandal, he disclosed his past Enron relationship when he wrote about the company.[11][12] He also was critical of the company: he was one of the first writers to argue that deregulation of the California energy market had led to market-manipulation by energy companies (in a column in the New York Times on December 10, 2000 called "California Screaming"); Enron was the largest in this market; he criticized it directly in August 17, 2001. He writes in The Great Unraveling (p. 26) that
    I was no more perceptive than anyone else; during the bull market years [of the late 1990s] some people did send me letters claiming that major corporations were cooking their books, but - to my great regret - I ignored them. However, when Enron - the most celebrated company of its time, lauded as the very model of a modern business enterprise - blew up, I immediately saw the implications: if such a famous and celebrated company could have been a Ponzi scheme, it was very unlikely that the rest of U.S. business was squeaky clean. In fact, it quickly became clear, the bubble years were both the cause and effect of an epidemic of corporate malfeasance.

    His first column on the epidemic was published in The New York Times on February 1, 2002 with the title, "Two, Three, Many?"
    Since January 2000, Krugman has contributed a twice-weekly column to the Op-Ed page of the New York Times, which has made him, in the words of the Washington Monthly, "the most important political columnist in America... he is almost alone in analyzing the most important story in politics in recent years -- the seamless melding of corporate, class, and political party interests at which the Bush administration excels."[13] In 2007, he began supplementing his Times column with a blog. In introducing it, he wrote, "Many of the posts will be supplements to my regular columns; I´ll be using this space to present the kind of information I can´t provide on the printed page - especially charts and tables, which are crucial to the way I think about most of the issues I write about."[14][15]
    In September, 2003, Krugman published a collection of his columns under the title, The Great Unraveling. Taken as a whole, it was a scathing attack on the Bush´s administration´s economic and foreign policies. His main argument was that the large deficits generated by the Bush administration--generated by decreasing taxes, increasing public spending, and fighting a war in Iraq -- were in the long run unsustainable, and would eventually generate a major economic crisis. The book was a best-seller.[16][17][18]
    In 2007, Krugman published The Conscience of a Liberal. The book is a history of wealth and income gaps in the US in the 20th century. The book documents that the gap between rich and poor declined greatly in mid-century, then widened in the last two decades to levels higher than those in the Gilded Age of the 1920s. Most economists (including Krugman) have regarded the late-20th-century divergence as resulting largely from changes in technology and trade, but Krugman writes that government policies had played a much greater role both in reducing the gap in the 1930s through 1970s and in widening it in the 1980s through the present. He rebuked the Bush administration for policies that currently widen the gap between the rich and poor. Krugman proposed a "new New Deal", which included placing more emphasis on social and medical programs and less on national defense.[19] The book was praised in outlets such as the New York Review of Books,[20] but it was attacked by such organizations as the libertarian Von Mises institute, where it was argued to be overly political and virtually without ideologically-sympathetic economic content.[21]
    In 2008, in midst of the subprime mortgage crisis in the US, Krugman predicted that housing prices would drop 25% overall and up to 50% in locations such as Miami or Los Angeles.[22]
    Krugman was awarded the Nobel Prize in economics for his pioneering work on the New Trade Theory. The prize committee, in its scientific summary of Krugman´s contributions, wrote "By having integrated economies of scale into explicit general equilibrium models, Paul Krugman has deepened our understanding of the determinants of trade and the location of economic activity."[23]This award is the last of the six prizes and is not one of the original Nobels, but was created in 1968 by the Swedish central bank in Alfred Nobel´s memory. Mr. Krugman was the only winner of the award, which includes a prize of about $1.4 million.[24]

    It has been suggested that some of the information in this article´s Criticism or Controversy section(s) be merged into other sections to achieve a more neutral presentation. (Discuss)

    The journalist James Fallows spoke of his "gratuitous spleen," and Clinton commerce secretary Jeffrey Garten complained that "He behaves like someone with a massive chip on his shoulder." [25]
    A November 13, 2003 article in The Economist[26] reads: "A glance through his past columns reveals a growing tendency to attribute all the world´s ills to George Bush...Even his economics is sometimes stretched...Overall, the effect is to give lay readers the illusion that Mr Krugman´s perfectly respectable personal political beliefs can somehow be derived empirically from economic theory."
    In his May 22, 2005 farewell column, New York Times ombudsman Daniel Okrent stated: "Op-Ed columnist Paul Krugman has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults."[27] Okrent did not initially provide specific examples for his view, but a few days later was drawn from retirement into an email back-and-forth with Krugman wherein he listed several specific instances, publicly hosted by the new ombudsman´s column.[28] Okrent´s chief complaint (which may have been prompted by conservative commentator Donald Luskin[29]) was that in a May 2004 column, Krugman inappropriately mixed numbers from the Establishment and Household employment data, without explaining to readers that these two surveys use differing, and incompatible, methods. Krugman, in fact, did not use any Household data. He did provide a number for the necessary monthly job creation in order for employment to pace population growth, which was based on Census data.[30] However, this form of "mixing" data sources is not uncommon (The same methodology is used in numerous government and journalistic documents, including the Bush Administration´s 2004 Economic Report of the President).[31] The administration assumed a slightly lower rate of "adult non-elderly" population growth, but nonetheless came up with a similar number: 110k per month, against Krugman´s 140k.[32][33] Okrent stated he consulted reader mail to identify what he called Krugman´s "mis-hits."[34]
    Krugman´s critics have accused him of employing what they called a "shrill" rhetorical style.[13][35][36] Economist J. Bradford DeLong and other Krugman supporters responded by creating the website Shrillblog.
    Economist Daniel B. Klein published during 2008 a paper in Econ Journal Watch that reviews and criticizes Krugman´s columns for the New York Times. Klein contends that Krugman´s "social-democratic impetus sometimes trumps people´s interests, notably poor people´s interests... Krugman has almost never come out against extant government interventions, even ones that expert economists seem to agree are bad, and especially so for the poor."[37]
    In the 2008 Presidential campaign, Krugman came under criticism from liberal bloggers after he offered repeated criticism of Democratic candidate Barack Obama and his supporters.[38] The Huffington Post[39] and several other progressive blogs[40] particularly criticized one of Krugman´s columns in which he characterized Obama supporters as ´cult-like´, complained that the media had not given Obama sufficient scrutiny, and claimed that a special set of ´Clinton Rules´ applied to the Clintons and not to others like Obama. The bloggers described what they alleged were close ties between Krugman and the Clintons, and wrote that his commentary was lopsided in this regard against Barack Obama. The Times´ entire "Letters to the Editor" column of February 13, 2008 was given over to discussion of Krugman´s controversial column.[41] In his New York Times blog, Krugman scathingly denounced speculations that he had been offered or would accept any position in a Hillary Clinton administration, stating that he is "temperamentally unsuited to politics".[42]”
  • 55. Toma Hawk 2008. október 19. 03:16
    „Tudod kedves "dova"!

    a hatterben mi folyik?

    Senki,sem gondolna!

    Nekünk amerkaiaknak, most kaptam meg a Cod-jat, egy Europara is veszelyes Al- Kaida vezetö "Herztschrittmacher-Cod"--

    azaz a "szivritmus-üzemeltetö-Cod"-jat.

    Ez annyit jelent:

    Ha valamit ez az arab vezer (Hammas) ellenem, USA,Hungary, Europe valamit tervez------

    le allitom a szive müködeset!!!!!!

    Es mi, legyen az CIA, vagy FBI nagyon sokan beszelünk magyarul is!!!”
  • 54. Toma Hawk 2008. október 19. 02:45
    „Tudod Kedves "dova"!

    Amit a külügyminiszternö mondott, az az
    "ember","emberi meltosag","szemelyi jogok", "szemelyi-es vagyoni
    szabadsag", a "szolasszabadsag,sajto-es utazasi szabadsag, a szabad part alkotas-es valasztas szabadsaga. csak röviden!!

    Ezek tömören a mi amerikai ertekeink!!!

    Van ebben valami kivetnivalo??”
  • 53. dova 2008. október 19. 02:35
    „"Közös értékeket vallunk az Egyesült Államokkal" -Göncz Kinga-

    No, azt hiszem az ügy kapcsán ez végképp kiverte nálam a biztosítékot.
    Elég elszomorító, hogy ennyire majmolunk egy velejéig romlott társadalmat.

    Bizonyára a Zeitgeist című film gondolatai sem a teljes igazság (bár hiszem), de ha csak a fele is az, akkor nem állunk messze a totális elnyomástól/eladósodástól.”
  • 52. Toma Hewk 2008. október 19. 01:22
    „Ha haza az USA-ba utazom, nekem is (ambar ami allampolgar!)
    ki kell töltenem a lapot amit a repülön kapok ,hogy mnnyi penzem van Europaban,a Bankban.


    Attol nem felek, hogy "Ök" majd elveszik!!

    (Ha mar ök at en penzemre lennenek utalva-nagyon nagy szarban (bocs!) lehetnenek!!!)”
  • 51. Toma Hawk 2008. október 19. 01:02
    „Adatvedelem, jogok, stb.-röl.

    En nem egeszen ertem, miert vannak az europaiak az ellen, ha az USA beutazashoz mindent adatokat kerdeznek, ami Europaban meg van tiltva kerdezni?

    (Elnezest a nyelvtanert!)

    De, kerem, ha En egy büntetlen, becsületes, alkotmanyhü polgar, öszinte, normalis ember vagyok.

    mi a szart erdekel engem, hogy Ök, pl. ujlenyomatot, es DSN-
    nyalprobat akarnak venni tölem!!

    Ha en OK vagyok, vehetnek tölem pisi,-kaki-izzadsag-probat is!!!!

    Szarok oda! Azt is elemezhetik!!!

    Miert vagytok ellene Ti Europaiak??!!”
  • 50. Toma Hawk 2008. október 19. 00:23
    „Tisztelt "efje"!

    Es G. W. Bush-t Hitlerrel azonositani?

    Akkor is tiltakoznam, ha nem ami allampolgar lennek!!
    De az vagyok!
    Es szegedi!!!

    Igy csak terroristak nyilatkoznak!!

    Tudod, röviden a "mostani penzügyi valsag"-rol:

    sok-sok magyar varos, köztük Szeged (szülövarosom) is gondolom,
    a lakossag, a polgarmester (Botka ur) is ebben a "nehez penzügyi valsagban", olyan problemaik lennenek, mint Indianapolisnak--

    Indiana State-nek több a bevetel-kiadasa mint Magyarorszagnak!!

    Hogy is mondta Gorbacsov 1990-ben:

    "De jo lenne, ha nekünk azok a problemaink lennenek, mint a
    Nemet Szövetsegi Köztarsasagnak!!"”
  • 49. Toma Hawk 2008. október 18. 23:35
    „"A car which nothing but clean air!"

    Magyarul, szabadon:

    "egy auto, mely a levegöt nem szennyezi!"

    Ugyan-ugyan, kedves efje!
    Ennyire ne bizz a japanokban!!”
  • 48. efje 2008. október 18. 23:26
    „Halasz Petinek sajnos igaza van. Bushnak van olyan mondata is ami Hitlertol szarmazik. Zeitgest part 3. Keresd a youtube-on. Beszarsz mi folyik a vilagban a szinfalak mogott.
    En mar csak a japanokban bizok. Meglesz a vizzel mukodo kocsi nemsoka. A car which produce nothing but clean air. An absurd idea? Today Tomorrow Toyota. Igy vegzodik az uj reklamjuk.
    A temahoz visszaterve nekem se hianyzik a nagykovetsegre menni reggel 8-ra Vasarhelyrol, aztan fagyoskodni kinnt egy csomo szerbbel, hogy legjobb esetben delutan visszamehetek a vizumert.
    A para a belepesnel van mindig, ha nincs miert akkor is.”
  • 47. Toma Hawk 2008. október 18. 22:34
    „Hallo "Suhym"!

    Na, a freemailre küldtem egyet!”
  • 46. suhym 2008. október 18. 21:54
    „Toma Hawk!

    Azért nehogy megskalpolj!:)))))))))

    Nem mosópormárka!:))))

    Ha nem, nem. Nem erőszak a disznótor,
    így lehet, hogy lemondtál egy (virtuális) barátságról!:)))))))))”
  • 45. Toma Hawk 2008. október 18. 21:23
    „Kedves "suhym"!

    Nem E-Mail-ezek többet.
    Nick- neved nekem ugy cseng-"suhym"-
    --mint egy nemet mosopormarka!!!

    Tudom, az enyem sem jobb: "indianbalta"!”
  • 44. bespin 2008. október 18. 21:22
    „Bocs Péter, a végéről kimaradt, hogy "a többi gondolatoddal mélyen egyetértek"!”
  • 43. bespin 2008. október 18. 21:06
    „Halasz Peter, az RFID tag alkalmatlan a GPS követésre, működése a GPS-hez hasonlítható, csak nem globális, hanem helyi léptékkel mérve. Leginkább reptereken és kikötőkben alkalmazzák.”
  • 42. bespin 2008. október 18. 20:57
    „Öt évre 6 ezer, 10 évre 10 ezer az ár a chip-es passport-ért!”
  • 41. Pista vagyok 2008. október 18. 20:54
    „"Álmaimban Amerika visssza integet,
    álmaimban Amerika nem mondhat nemet."

    Vééégree!! Mehetünk. Éljen a az anyagi jólét, a pillanatnak élés, az álom...

    Amerika! Amerika! Slurp...slurpp...slurp....”
  • 40. suhym 2008. október 18. 20:35
    „Toma Hawk!

    Nem írtál el valamit, mert kaptam e-mailt a torontói barátomtól a suhym@msn.com címre. Ő meg szerintem véletlenül küldte erre.))
    Maradjunk a suhym@freemail, mert ez biztos!”
  • 39. Toma Hawk 2008. október 18. 20:28

    1942-ben, egy ejszaka felköltöttek Roosewelt elnököt:
    -Elnök Ur!
    A Magyar Kiralysag hadat üzent nekünk!

    -Magyar Kiralysag?
    Ki ott a kiraly??

    -Nincs kiralyuk,Elnok Ur, Horthy ellentengernagy a Kormanyzo!

    -Te jo eg!-mondja Roosewelt,-
    egy egesz hadiflotta van a nyakunkon??

    -Nem Elnök ur!Nincsen hadiflottajuk!

    -Hat akkor területi követelesük van az USA-val szemben??

    -Nem Elnök ur! Romaniaval szemben van területi követelesük!

    -Na es?
    Hadat üzentek Romanianak??

    -Nem Elnök ur!
    Romania a szövetsegesük!!”
  • 38. suhym 2008. október 18. 20:20
    „Toma Hawk!

    Sajnálom. Nem tudom, mi lehetett a hiba?:((
    Akkor légy szíves írj : suhym@ freemail.hu, ez még publikus, amit nyugodt szívvel beírok egy nyilvános fórumra. Ezen szoktam regisztrálni különböző oldalakon. Ez biztosan él!!!!!

    Lehet az a baj, hogy az msn már hotmail? Fogalmam sincs. Én így vagyok a messengeren regisztrálva, és leveleket is kapok néha az msn.com címre, de igazából nem azt használom. Amit ismerősökkel, barátokkal használok, azt nem írom be egy nyilvános fórumra.”
57 hozzászólás


Kövessen minket, kommentelje híreinket a Delmagyar.hu Facebook oldalán!



A címoldal témái

Önnek ajánljuk

Az összes jegy elkelt a budapesti AC/DC koncertre

Két nap alatt elkelt az össze belépő az AC/DC március 23-i budapesti koncertjére. A belépőket szerda… Tovább olvasom