phlove 777 Chargers’ leading rusher J.K. Dobbins sidelined by sprained knee

Gaetz’ Bad Boy image finally catches up with himGrey Market Labs announces $8M Series A funding led by Capri Ventures to accelerate growth of its Replica Platform - First of its kind "Secure Environment as a Service"By JOSH BOAK WASHINGTON (AP) — Donald Trump loved to use tariffs on foreign goods during his first presidency. But their impact was barely noticeable in the overall economy, even if their aftershocks were clear in specific industries. The data show they never fully delivered on his promised factory jobs. Nor did they provoke the avalanche of inflation that critics feared. This time, though, his tariff threats might be different . The president-elect is talking about going much bigger — on a potential scale that creates more uncertainty about whether he’ll do what he says and what the consequences could be. “There’s going to be a lot more tariffs, I mean, he’s pretty clear,” said Michael Stumo, the CEO of Coalition for a Prosperous America, a group that has supported import taxes to help domestic manufacturing. The president-elect posted on social media Monday that on his first day in office he would impose 25% tariffs on all goods imported from Mexico and Canada until those countries satisfactorily stop illegal immigration and the flow of illegal drugs such as fentanyl into the United States. Those tariffs could essentially blow up the North American trade pact that Trump’s team negotiated during his initial term. Chinese imports would face additional tariffs of 10% until Beijing cracks down on the production of materials used in making fentanyl, Trump posted. Business groups were quick to warn about rapidly escalating inflation , while Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said she would counter the move with tariffs on U.S. products. House Democrats put together legislation to strip a president’s ability to unilaterally apply tariffs this drastic, warning that they would likely lead to higher prices for autos, shoes, housing and groceries. Sheinbaum said Wednesday that her administration is already working up a list of possible retaliatory tariffs “if the situation comes to that.” “The economy department is preparing it,” Sheinbaum said. “If there are tariffs, Mexico would increase tariffs, it is a technical task about what would also benefit Mexico,” she said, suggesting her country would impose targeted import duties on U.S. goods in sensitive areas. House Democrats on Tuesday introduced a bill that would require congressional approval for a president to impose tariffs due to claims of a national emergency, a largely symbolic action given Republicans’ coming control of both the House and Senate. “This legislation would enable Congress to limit this sweeping emergency authority and put in place the necessary Congressional oversight before any president – Democrat or Republican – could indiscriminately raise costs on the American people through tariffs,” said Rep. Suzan DelBene, D-Wash. But for Trump, tariffs are now a tested tool that seems less politically controversial even if the mandate he received in November’s election largely involved restraining inflation. The tariffs he imposed on China in his first term were continued by President Joe Biden, a Democrat who even expanded tariffs and restrictions on the world’s second largest economy. Biden administration officials looked at removing Trump’s tariffs in order to bring down inflationary pressures, only to find they were unlikely to help significantly. Tariffs were “so new and unique that it freaked everybody out in 2017,” said Stumo, but they were ultimately somewhat modest. Trump imposed tariffs on solar panels and washing machines at the start of 2018, moves that might have pushed up prices in those sectors even though they also overlapped with plans to open washing machine plants in Tennessee and South Carolina. His administration also levied tariffs on steel and aluminum, including against allies. He then increased tariffs on China, leading to a trade conflict and a limited 2020 agreement that failed to produce the promised Chinese purchases of U.S. goods. Still, the dispute changed relations with China as more U.S. companies looked for alternative suppliers in other countries. Economic research also found the United States may have sacrificed some of its “soft power” as the Chinese population began to watch fewer American movies. The Federal Reserve kept inflation roughly on target, but factory construction spending never jumped in a way that suggested a lasting gain in manufacturing jobs. Separate economic research found the tariff war with China did nothing economically for the communities hurt by offshoring, but it did help Trump and Republicans in those communities politically. When Trump first became president in 2017, the federal government collected $34.6 billion in customs, duties and fees. That sum more than doubled under Trump to $70.8 billion in 2019, according to Office of Management and Budget records. While that sum might seem meaningful, it was relatively small compared to the overall economy. America’s gross domestic product is now $29.3 trillion, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The total tariffs collected in the United States would equal less than 0.3% of GDP. The new tariffs being floated by Trump now are dramatically larger and there could be far more significant impacts. If Mexico, Canada, and China faced the additional tariffs proposed by Trump on all goods imported to the United States, that could be roughly equal to $266 billion in tax collections, a number that does not assume any disruptions in trade or retaliatory moves by other countries. The cost of those taxes would likely be borne by U.S. families, importers and domestic and foreign companies in the form of higher prices or lower profits. Former Biden administration officials said they worried that companies could piggyback on Trump’s tariffs — if they’re imposed — as a rationale to raise their prices, just as many companies after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 boosted food and energy costs and gave several major companies the space to raise prices, according to their own earnings calls with investors. But what Trump didn’t really spell out is what might cause him to back down on tariffs and declare a victory. What he is creating instead with his tariff threats is a sense of uncertainty as companies and countries await the details to figure out what all of this could mean. “We know the key economic policy priorities of the incoming Trump administration, but we don’t know how or when they will be addressed,” said Greg Daco, chief U.S. economist at EY-Parthenon. AP writer Mark Stevenson contributed to this report from Mexico City.

Famellos leading SYRIZA leadership vote

CHATFIELD, Minn. — Just three months after a nationwide election, voters in Chatfield will return to the ballot box to determine whether to grant their school district $11.03 million for the construction of a new gymnasium. The district’s school board approved the decision to hold a special election during their Nov. 13, 2024, meeting. The election will be held on Feb. 11, 2025. ADVERTISEMENT “The gym we have now is comparable to most modern middle school gyms," Superintendent Ed Harris said. "We severely lack the space to properly serve school and youth programs. There are some things we cannot host due to the small size of the gym.” The new gym would be able to seat 1,000 people and would have “expanded space for wrestling and fitness." A social media post from the district said the plan for the project “was developed based on feedback from community surveys and input from a Community/School Facility Study Group.” Harris said the school board chose not to host the referendum on Nov. 5 because members wanted the question to be “considered upon its own merits.” During a meeting on Oct. 9, School Board talked about the project and whether to put the question before the community. Chair Katie Priebe said it’s important for the school district to be competitive and to be able to provide the kind of environment and options that would make families want to stay in the district. “We’ve been incredibly flexible with space and we do make it work," Priebe said. "Is it at the detriment of our kids a lot? I think sometimes, unfortunately, yes.” The size of the school's existing facilities has meant it has had to extend practices and activities well into the evening since only so many students can be in the gym at once. The board members briefly began talking about extracurricular activities in relation to academics. Harris emphasized the fact that the two realms are intertwined, and that extracurriculars shouldn’t be neglected. ADVERTISEMENT “It is clearly a data-driven fact that the most successful kids are the ones who are most engaged in activities,” Harris said during the October meeting. “To separate activities and academics is an old, tired argument that doesn’t fly.”DUP ministers Peter Robinson and Nigel Dodds were sanctioned in 2000 by Stormont’s leaders over their plan to disrupt the powersharing Executive. Minutes of an Executive meeting from June of that year state further action would be considered “as appropriate” if the DUP went ahead with a threat to rotate its ministers. The minutes are within files which have been declassified at the Public Record Office in Belfast. Devolved powersharing had been restored to Northern Ireland in May 2000 when Ulster Unionist leader David Trimble had received the backing of his party to go back into the Assembly, despite there having been no decommissioning of IRA arms at that point. Then DUP deputy leader Mr Robinson and Mr Dodds took up the offices as ministers for regional development and social development, but refused to attend Executive meetings due to the presence of Sinn Fein ministers. The party also said it would rotate its ministerial posts to prevent other parties from taking them. A minute of an Executive meeting on June 8 said Mr Robinson and Mr Dodds had refused a request from First Minister Mr Trimble and deputy First Minister Seamus Mallon to meet with them “to discuss recent public comments by the DUP concerning their positions as ministers”. The minute records that the Executive endorsed a proposal from the First and deputy First Ministers to write again to the two DUP ministers setting out sanctions against them. It says: “The First Minister and and Deputy First Minister would assume responsibility for representing the Executive Committee on transport matters at the British-Irish Council in place of the Minister for Regional Development. “The Minister for Social Development and the Minister for Regional Development would not be nominated to attend meetings of the Joint Ministerial Committee. “Pending the receipt of satisfactory assurances from DUP Ministers regarding the confidentiality and integrity of Executive Committee business, the Minister for Social Development and Minister for Regional Development would not receive Executive Committee papers as of right. “The First Minister and Deputy First Minister would seek briefing, as appropriate, from officials in the Department for Regional Development and Department for Social Development.” The minute continues: “If the DUP carried out their threat to change the holders of the two Ministerial offices on a frequent basis, the Executive Committee would consider other action as appropriate.” Mr Robinson and Mr Dodds resigned as ministers on June 27 and were replaced by party colleagues Gregory Campbell and Maurice Morrow. A minute from an Executive meeting that day says: “The Executive Committee noted that the Minister for Social Development and Minister for Regional Development would be resigning their posts that afternoon, and expressed concern at the proposed rotation of the ministries held by their Party Members.”