text:
Used 2013 Toyota Yaris For Sale Near Me

There are no vehicles within 100 miles of Please modify your search criteria.

2013 Toyota Yaris Overview

Perfect for city dwellers desiring economical reliability, the Toyota Yaris offers its’ namesake’s strengths in a subcompact size. After debuting a full-redesign in 2012, the hatchback arrives with little changed for 2013 besides a standard USB port and Bluetooth on the base model.

The Yaris comes in one body-style but offers two versions: a 3-door hatchback (offered in L and LE trims) and a 5-door hatchback (offered in L, LE and SE trims). With very similar interior/exterior dimensions between the two, the key advantage held by the 5-door is in rear passengers having an individual point of entry/exit rather than needing to squeeze past the front seats.

Plus the top-level SE trim is only available on the 5-door body-style. Still, all styles and trims seat five passengers and are powered by the same 1.5L 4-cylinder engine. A four-speed automatic is the sole transmission equipped on the 5-door L as well as both versions of the LE. However, that same automatic is an option on the 3-door L and 5-door SE, which receive a manual transmission as standard. When equipped with the automatic, the Yaris powertrain gets up to 30/36 mpg city/highway. Bumping highway mileage up to 37 mpg, the five-speed manual transmission is also better at highway speeds where the four-speed automatic fails to find the engine’s power-band. Inside the Yaris, passengers will find a modern cabin filled with standard features but a good amount of plastic as well. Nevertheless, it is quite spacious for a subcompact and fits adults comfortably in the rear seats.

First introduced to the American market in 2007, the Yaris (and similar subcompacts) had been a rarity, yet now has its’ hands full within this rapidly growing segment. Though the 2012 redesign was greatly needed, it did not do enough to put the tiny Toyota at the top-of-the-class. Competitors like the Chevrolet Sonic and Mazda2 come with exciting performance yet a similarly spacious interior cabin as the Toyota. On the other hand, the Yaris does have more standard equipment and a lower base price than either the Sonic or Mazda2. A model that is not speedy but offers fuel-efficiency plus some upscale features as well is the refreshed Hyundai Accent. The Kia Rio is available as a hatchback or sedan and - unlike the Yaris - has an optional infotainment system.

While not the most refined subcompact, Toyota understands the priorities of economy-car shoppers, and this Yaris is proof.

Best Toyota Deals & Must-Know Advice In April

Toyota is no longer offering its complimentary first-month lease payment in April. However, mos leases still remain strong values relative to MSRP. For example, the 2021 Corolla... View All Toyota Lease Deals

Find more information on Toyota vehicles

Toyota Yaris By Year


Content-Type: application/http; msgtype=response

WARC-Identified-Payload-Type: text/html

WARC-Type: response

text:
Simple, smart banking to make your life easier

The journey to kickstarting a brilliant business idea or saving for a trip of a lifetime starts here.

Proving it’s possible

Financial services shouldn’t get in the way of life, they should enrich it. We've built on 15 years of success to continue to create the UK’s most seamless banking experience. From introducing the first UK prepaid card to being the first non-bank to offer a current account, we’ve been offering innovative products to 1.6 million customers long before the new guys showed up.

Now we're a bank we have created our best ever accounts that take you and your business seriously for the long run.

An outstanding track record

Customers onboarded

Total payments processed to date

Leading the fintech revolution before 'fintech' was a thing. You can rely on Cashplus Bank to stick around with profits for eight years running.

Ingenious products, simply delivered

We haven’t just talked big, we’ve spent over a decade building a suite of digital services, offering instant online application decisions and real-time account information, perfect for an online, on-demand generation.

From our award-winning instant bank accounts, to business expense cards, to travel currency cards, we have a tailored solution, with ground breaking features, to help businesses and individuals make their money work harder for them.

For startups struggling to get a financial foothold, and consumers looking to build or re-build their credit rating, Cashplus can provide a cashflow boost with our unique instant credit solutions and credit cards. And we’re the only UK bank with a solution that helps stop Direct Debits getting rejected and purchases being declined.

For people who agree ‘no’ is not an option and now is never too soon

For entrepreneurs boldly setting up a new venture, savvy online shoppers protective of their personal details and wages, and anyone looking for a bank that's bothered about small business, Cashplus is the first choice.

For over 100,000 small to medium businesses, the journey to entrepreneurship has started with Cashplus. 40% came to us after they were declined by a High Street bank. The rest were mostly drawn by our guaranteed instant account opening, once the business and personal details are verified, and for our integration into accounting software for easy cashflow management and tax preparation.

Sole Traders

For plumbers, taxi drivers, market traders, pub landlords… (we could go on), the Cashplus Business Bank Account is the first choice, with no credit or trading history, or time consuming branch visits required.

With the help of over 650 leading accountancy, company formation and sharing economy partners, as well as through our direct links with Companies House, we can get an account opened in as little as 4 minutes, for the 660,000 new Limited companies formed per year.

Our account opening speed has saved thousands of contractors, caught off guard by the HMRC requirement to have a business account set up to receive their payments.

There are 8+ million British consumers sick and tired of the barriers that make everyday banking a chore. For those rejected by the banks or think the banks should be doing better, our debit and credit services aren’t just an alternative but a leap forwards in design, delivery and functionality. So we’re now the primary bank for 30% of our customers – a 200% increase in the last 3 years.

A name you can trust

Cashplus holds memberships with Mastercard, UK Finance and the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) with their accounts protected up to £85,000.

Terms and Conditions apply, including applicants being resident in the UK & aged 18+ and, if relevant, businesses being based in the UK.

For full website terms including information on Cashplus Bank, Mastercard and use of Trademarks, please see our full legal disclosures at

Advanced Payment Solutions Limited (APS) provides credit facilities subject to approval and affordability, and where accounts continue to meet APS credit criteria. APS is authorised by the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the PRA. Our Firm Reference Number (FRN) is 671140.

♦Calls to 03 numbers cost no more than a national rate call to a 01 or 02 number and will count towards inclusive minutes in the same way as 01 and 02 calls. Calls may be recorded.

warcinfo:
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2021-21
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for May 2021
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-81.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.18 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.2-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/


WARC-Identified-Payload-Type: application/xhtml+xml

text:
West Kelowna

Most development on Westside over next 20 years will take place on WFN lands, says report

WFN to lead on building

Most of the growth of the Central Okanagan's Westside over the next two decades is expected to occur overwhelmingly on the land of the Westbank First Nations.

According to a report that went before the Regional District of the Central Okanagan this week, 79 per cent of the of the housing units expected to be constructed on the Westside between now and 2038 will be on WFN land.

The bulk of the 3,622 units of housing expected to be constructed will be multi-family units, with just 372 single detached homes forecast.

Over the 20 year period ending in 2038, WFN housing is expected to grow at three per cent a year.

Within West Kelowna city limits just 934 dwelling units, with 324 single detached and 610 multifamily units are expected to be built by 2038. That's an expected growth rate of just 0.36 per cent a year, in line with the pace of growth in the past five years.

Eighty-six per cent of the commercial floor area, 51 per cent of industrial and 57 per cent of institutional floor area is also expected to be built on WFN lands in the same time period.

All that growth means the Westbank First Nations will be paying for a larger portion of the operations of the Westside Wastewater treatment plant.

In 2016, just 16.5 per cent of the wastewater flowing to the plant originated from WFN lands, a ratio that grew to 24.6 per cent in 2020.

The City of West Kelowna was responsible for just under 68 per cent of flows in 2020, while Peachland output 7.8 per cent. As a result, the regional district is proposing a $52,000 increase in WFN contributions for the plant in 2021 and corresponding reduction by West Kelowna and Peachland.

More West Kelowna News


text:
Please upgrade your web browser
You’re using a browser that we don’t support. To get the best experience using our site, we recommend you upgrade to a newer browser – please see our supported browsers list.

Chengdu Shuangliu International Airport lounges

Chengdu International First Class Lounge

Alcoholic drinks are only available to passengers aged 18 years and over.
Location:Next to gate 101 (Above Chengdu duty free shop)
Opening hours:24 hours daily

Exclusive lounge features

Take advantage of all the benefits at this airport lounge.
  • Food and drink

    Food and drink

    A selection of food

    Drinks (alcoholic / non-alcoholic)

  • Productivity

  • Additional features

    Additional features

    Newspapers and magazines

    Shower facilities

Lounges at the Hong Kong International Airport

Our home city has some of the finest lounges for our passengers to enjoy. Take a look to see where you could relax on your next trip.

Discover our Hong Kong lounges


text:
Foreign policy is a difficult business.
May 30, 2014 • Commentary
This article appeared in Forbes on May 30, 2014.

President Barack Obama enjoyed one of the prerogatives of his office when he spoke at West Point. There may be no better setting for a speech on foreign policy. But it wasn’t easy to defend the incoherent mess representing his administration’s dealings with the world.

The problem is not that the president had no successes to defend—he has resisted persistent neoconservative demands for multiple new wars and interventions. But President Obama almost always rushed to the inconsistent middle ground, entangling the U.S. unnecessarily without committing enough to achieve even his limited ends. Experience demonstrates that Uncle Sam rarely succeeds at being a little bit pregnant. When it comes to military action, chastity more often is the best strategy.

Despite sharp criticism of his speech on the right, Barak Obama got a lot right. For instance, the constant complaint by uber‐hawks that the world is dangerous misses the fact that the world is not that dangerous for the U.S. During the Cold War American school children were trained to get under their desks in response to a Soviet missile launch. Military strategists debated how to stop Soviet armored divisions from pouring through Germany’s Fulda Gap. The two superpowers tested and prodded one another in bloody proxy wars in Afghanistan, Angola, Korea, Nicaragua, Vietnam, and elsewhere. Washington and Moscow risked nuclear war over Cuba.

That world is gone. The U.S. dominates the globe. Noted the president: “by most measures, America has rarely been stronger relative to the rest of the world. Those who argue otherwise—who suggest that America is in decline, or has seen its global leadership slip away—are either misreading history or engaged in partisan politics. Think about it. Our military has no peer. The odds of a direct threat against us by any nation are low, and do not come close to the dangers we faced during the Cold War.”

Yet Barack Obama failed to confront the obvious implication of this fact: why does America spend so much on “defense” when it has so little to defend against? In fact, the Department of Defense has little to do with protecting America and far more to do with imposing Washington’s wishes, aspirations, and even whims on the rest of the world. To the extent “defense” is involved, it is primarily defense of others, most obviously prosperous and populous allies in Asia and Europe, which have become the international equivalent of welfare queens.

The president does point to “new dangers.” However, some result from Washington’s promiscuous interference in other nations’ affairs. Most affect allied nations far more than America.

For instance, President Obama cited terrorism, the most serious ongoing security threat to the U.S. However, terrorists do not target Americans because we are so free, but because our government bombs, invades, occupies, and otherwise intervenes all over the globe. This is not to justify, but to understand. Similar has been the experience of Russia, Israel, Pakistan, Iraq, Sri Lanka, India, and other nations which have been attacked by terrorists for reasons other than their liberality. Terrorism typically is a weapon in an ongoing political conflict—awful, immoral, unjustified, but predictable. Thus, the more Washington intervenes, the more it exposes its citizens to terrorist threats. Terrorism is a cost of global hegemony and promiscuous intervention.

The president warned that Moscow’s aggressive actions have unnerved “capitals in Europe”—which he failed to acknowledge has a collective GDP and population bigger than America’s and much bigger than Russia’s. Barack Obama cited China’s growing economy and “military reach” which “worries its neighbors.” But Beijing has neither the ability nor desire to battle America. Why should Washington defend China ’s neighbors’ territorial claims? Wouldn’t it make more sense for China’s neighbors to develop the means to defend those claims themselves?

As was inevitable, President Obama attacked the straw man of “isolationism,” even though it’s hard to find a true isolationist in Washington. What the president calls isolationists are those who view military action as a last resort, and who believe that the mere fact there might be consequences of events abroad, whether the civil war in Syria or Russian absorption of Crimea, does not justify U.S. military action.

Indeed, the president inadvertently articulated an argument for nonintervention. He noted: “I believe we have a real stake—an abiding self-interest—in making sure our children grow up in a world where school‐girls are not kidnapped; where individuals aren’t slaughtered because of tribe or faith or political beliefs. I believe that the world of greater freedom and tolerance is not only a moral imperative—it also helps keep us safe.”

These are wonderful ideals and worth pursuing if practicable and at reasonable cost. But as Barack Obama noted in his next sentence: “to say that we have an interest in pursuing peace and freedom beyond our borders is not to say that every problem has a military solution.” Which is precisely the point of those who argue against intervening in Nigeria to rescue kidnapped school girls, intervening in Syria, to halt a civil war, and intervening all over the world to promote freedom and tolerance.

President Obama’s strongest criticism was reserved for neoconservatives who had hectored him at every turn demanding more wars and threats of war. Their philosophy can be summarized as: “Circle the globe. Find interesting people. Kill them.” The president pointed out that “Since World War II, some of our most costly mistakes came not from our restraint, but from our willingness to rush into military adventures—without thinking through the consequences; without building international support and legitimacy for our action, or leveling with the American people about the sacrifice required.” In fact, that describes almost all of Washington’s military recent misadventures.

Barack Obama set forth his criteria for use of the military. “When our core interests demand it,” he said. But what are those interests? “When our people are threatened,” yes. “When our livelihood is at stake,” not so obvious. Economic convenience and expense are different from economic prosperity and survival. “When the security of our allies is in danger,” no.

The purpose of alliances should be to advance U.S. security, not subsidize countries which prefer to let a superpower defend them. Washington should not hand out security guarantees like hotels leave chocolates on guest pillows. America should go to war in response to a threat to allies only when it also poses a threat to vital U.S. security interests which cannot be resolved by the allied state.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization illustrates the problem. President Obama lauded NATO’s past role, in a Cold War world which has disappeared, and said “we are now working with NATO allies to meet new missions—within Europe, where our Eastern allies must be reassured; and also beyond Europe’s borders, where our allies must pull their weight.” However, concocting new missions for an organization which fulfilled its purpose brings to mind Public Choice economics, and the institutional incentive for self‐preservation, irrespective of circumstance. NATO was created to prevent Soviet domination of Eurasia. The alliance succeeded. Completely.

There is no reason now to add reassuring Eastern European states to Washington’s long list of international duties. The Soviet Union has dissolved. The Warsaw Pact has disappeared. The Europeans have recovered from World War II. If the Eastern Europeans must be reassured, then that job should go to a European continent which has united and collectively surpassed America in wealth and population. Basic economic incentives and human nature ensure that the Europeans will never carry their own weight so long as Washington insists on doing the job for them.

The president rightly emphasized the importance of empowering other nations to combat terrorism. But his most detailed example, Afghanistan, was a poor one. Washington has spent more than a dozen years nation‐building, trying to create a competent, honest, efficient, democratic, and strong central government in Kabul to govern the rest of the country. That’s a worthy but not particularly realistic goal, and certainly not one worth thousands of American lives and hundreds of billions of U.S. dollars. In fact, nation‐building hasn’t worked well anywhere, including in Haiti, Iraq, and Somalia. Far less costly would be ensuring that all combatants in a conflict like Afghanistan understand that cooperating with al‐Qaeda or other terrorist bands would be the one sure means of bringing Washington back, with terrible results for those in power.

President Obama offered a high opinion of international institutions, such as the United Nations, not warranted by past experience. He argued that so‐called foreign aid is “part of what makes us strong,” despite the long and tortured history of government‐to‐government financial transfers which have subsidized both collectivism and authoritarianism. And in calling for support for democracy he ignored Washington’s flagrant, consistent, and embarrassing hypocrisy. For instance, he said: “In Egypt, we acknowledge that our relationship is anchored in security interests—from the peace treaty with Israel, to shared efforts against violent extremism. So we have not cut off cooperation with the new government. But we can and will persistently press for the reforms that the Egyptian people have demanded.”

The president was deceiving himself if that’s what he believed Washington to be doing. For three decades succeeding U.S. administrations subsidized a brutal dictatorship which tortured its citizens, looted its country, and persecuted its religious minorities. When the government of President Hosni Mubarak tottered the Obama administration first supported him, then advocated his negotiated departure. After he was ousted the U.S. endorsed the Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohammed Morsi, Egypt’s first elected president.

When the latter was overthrown in a coup Washington refused to admit the obvious, that a coup had occurred, and follow the law, which required cutting off aid. Since then Secretary of State John Kerry has declared the military regime to be restoring democracy even as it was shooting down hundreds of protestors, imprisoning tens of thousands of demonstrators, journalists, students, and others, abusing and torturing those detained, and sentencing hundreds of people to death in mass Soviet‐style trials. Along the way the administration resumed shipment of military equipment and provision of military aid.

Far better than such unprincipled “cooperation” would be nonengagement. Washington should stop making demands which will be ignored, issuing pronouncements which will be dismissed, and handing over cash which will be misused. Where there is no good option the U.S. should choose none of the above.

The president closed with a call for global leadership and an ability to “see the world as it should be—a place where the aspirations of individual human beings matter.” Indeed. But real leadership requires discretion, humility, prudence, judgment, wisdom, and much more in pursuing that dream. The ultimate folly is the belief that people are infinitely malleable, that Americans have been anointed to shape and mold humanity against its will, and that there is nothing which cannot be achieved through a few bombing runs, an occasional invasion, and a thorough military occupation. Real leadership means being prepared not to get involved. Real leadership means not being flattered into war by other states proclaiming America’s indispensability in solving their problems. Real leadership means allowing, indeed, expecting, others to take control of their own destinies.

Foreign policy is a difficult business. In practice the administration has been foolish and feckless, often blundering along even when it has made the right decision, such as not to attack Syria.

But the biggest danger that we face is from those who would more efficiently take America in the wrong direction. Give President Obama credit: he has exhibited caution where the neoconservatives demanded conflict. He would have done even better had he forthrightly embraced a policy of more consistent nonintervention.

At West Point, President Obama rightly criticized the uber‐hawks. But more restraint is needed in US foreign policy.

About the Author


text:
A Different Kind of Exploitation

April 19, 2012 • Commentary
This article appeared on The European on April 19, 2012.

A country’s decline begins only when initiative and excellence are no longer valued by society. The US middle class is not exploited by the free market but by the rhetoric of redistribution and fairness that has taken hold in America.

In modem American politics, complaints about “economic inequality” have long been a staple of the Democratic Party. During the Depression, Franklin Roosevelt perfected the complaint, purporting to speak for the “little guy.” Barack Obama today champions the “middle class,” ironically undercutting the complaint — apparently, the “little guy” has moved up. But the unquestioned premise endures: out of fairness, economic inequality is a problem government must address. Really?

We inherited a much narrower sense of equality. Indeed, it’s the premise of our founding document. The Declaration of Independence, rejecting the political inequalities of the Old World, proclaims that “all Men are created equal.” But in so writing, Jefferson meant simply that we all have equal rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” plus the right to secure those rights — the right of self‐rule — through governments whose just powers are grounded in “the consent of the governed.”

If self‐rule is to be enjoyed equally, however, government must be limited. It can pursue neither equality of result nor equality even of opportunity through redistributive schemes — not if people are to be free to pursue happiness as they wish, alone or in association with others. We’re born with equal rights — to pursue happiness, not to happiness. What we do with those rights is up to us. We can be industrious, or not; beneficent, or notindeed, we may be lucky, or not.

That’s freedom: nothing more, nothing less.

Our history, the work of mere humans, has reflected that vision imperfectly, of course. With the· Constitution’s oblique recognition of slavery, made necessary to ensure union, equality got off to a bad start. The Framers knew the institution was inconsistent with their principles. It didn’t die naturally, as they’d hoped, but only after a civil war. Segregation followed in the South, until the 1960s, all of which still colors our conception of equality, often for the worse: affirmative action, for example, treats people unequally in the name of equality.

But slowly, that kind of unequal treatment is receding. Not so with the unequal treatment that flowed from the Progressive Era, as instituted by the New Deal, which has increasingly infused American politics with the idea that government’s role is not simply to secure our rights and provide certain public goods like infrastructure and clean air, but to provide all manner of private goods, like education, retirement security, health care, and housing, all of which requires massive tax and regulatory redistribution, reducing us ineluctably to dependents on, if not servants of the state.

In fact, a recent Heritage Foundation study found that in the first two years of the Obama administration, dependency on the federal government alone rose 23 %, with 67 million Americans now relying on federal programs. To pay for those, the Bureau of Economic Analysis tells us, total government spending has risen from 27 % of GDP in 1960 to 3 7 % today.

That in turn requires more taxes — but, under the modem view, not equal taxation. In fact, the Tax Foundation reports that the “1 %“that Obama and the “occupy” crowd have so demonized pay 37% of federal income taxes, while the share paid by the top 5% of earners rose from 43% in 1986 to nearly 60% in 2008. Meanwhile, the percentage of Americans who pay no or negative federal income taxes has increased from 18.5 % in 1986 to 51 %today. Is that fair? It certainly isn’t the equal treatment that our founding principles plainly require.

But it’s not only equality that suffers when we move from private to public welfareincluding the “corporate welfare” that inevitably arises when those best able to work the redistributive system do so. Over time, the set of incentives that such a system establishes saps the moral fiber of a nation. We can live, mostly, with the envy that accompanies natural inequalities. Inequalities created by government are altogether different. The incentive to “get mine” that such unfairness unleashes has brought us, collectively, to borrowing 40% of what we spend and to a federal debt approaching $16 trillion and growing. That will not be reversed by still more collectivism in the name of equality — or fairness. Obama claims that “We’re all in this together.” We’ll see, come November.

About the Author