iwin.com online games

Mexico has been taking a bashing lately for allegedly serving as a conduit for Chinese parts and products into North America, and officials here are afraid a re-elected Donald Trump or politically struggling Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau could try to leave their country out of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada free trade agreement. Mexico’s ruling Morena party is so afraid of losing the trade deal that President Claudia Sheinbaum said Friday the government has gone on a campaign to get companies to replace Chinese parts with locally made ones. “We have a plan with the aim of substituting these imports that come from China, and producing the majority of them in Mexico, either with Mexican companies or primarily North American companies,” Sheinbaum said. While Sheinbaum claimed Mexico had been working on that effort since t he 2021 global supply chain crisis — when factories around the world were stalled by a lack of parts and particularly computer chips from Asia — it appears to be an uphill battle. Even the United States has faced big challenges in moving chip production back home despite billions in subsidies and incentives. Mexico gained tens of thousands of jobs when U.S. and foreign automakers moved their plants to Mexico under the free trade pact to take advantage of much lower wages. But the idea that Chinese parts — or even whole cars — could be piggybacking on that arrangement to further hollow out the U.S. auto industry has enraged some people north of the border. So Mexico is scrambling with private companies to get them to move parts production here. “Next year, God willing, we are going to start making microchips in Mexico,” Mexican Economy Secretary Marcelo Ebrard said on Thursday. “Of course they’re not yet the most advanced chips, but we are going to start producing them here.” Mexico’s nationalistic ruling party, which is normally very resistant to being seen as bending to U.S. demands, is scrambling in other ways, too. The ruling party is in the process of eliminating a half-dozen independent regulatory and oversight agencies that were established by former presidents. That includes the anti-monopoly, transparency and energy regulatory bodies. Together with reforms that will make all judges stand for election in Mexico, that has sparked concern in the U.S. and Canada. Countries are required under the agreement to have some independent agencies, in part to protect foreign investors. For example, they could prevent a government from approving a monopoly for a state-owned company that could force competitors out of the market. So ruling-party legislators are actually re-writing the proposed laws to exactly mimic the minimum accepted requirements under the trade accord. “What is being done is to create a reform so that its almost exactly equal to what exists in the United States, so we can clear that up,” Ebrard said. It’s all part of a very legalistic defense of the trade accord, signed in 2018 and approved in 2019. Mexico hopes the rules of the agreement would prevent the U.S. or Canada from simply walking away when the trade pact comes up for review in 2026. Experts agree, saying that totally abandoning the accord is unlikely. Gabriela Siller, director of economic analysis of the financial group Banco Base notes that if a country is dissatisfied with the trade agreement during the periodic reviews, like in 2026, there is a clause in the pact that says they can ask for a review each year to work out a solution, and keep doing that for a decade while the agreement remains in force. “That is, they wouldn’t be able to get out until 2036,” Siller said. “I think they will play hardball with Mexico in the 2026 review.” Like any marriage, when the pact no longer works for one party, it may still drag on for years but it’s death by a thousand cuts. C.J. Mahoney. who served as deputy U.S. trade representative in Trump’s first administration, said in a talk for the Texas-based Baker Institute in September that the United States probably wouldn’t end the trade agreement. But with growingly vocal critics of the pact it could hold up renewing it for years. “The costs of not renewing immediately are actually quite relatively low,” Mahoney said. “I think the inclination to just kick the can down the road will be pretty strong.” Because many companies won’t make big investments in production facilities without certainty, that could be a serious if not fatal blow to the pact. How much does Mexico actually buy from China? Mexican officials say they have fewer imports of Chinese parts and products than the United States does. But given the enormous size difference between the two countries’ economies, it is a true but weak argument. In July, the U.S. imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum shipped from Mexico that were made elsewhere, in an attempt to stop China from avoiding import taxes by routing goods through Mexico. It includes a 25% tariff on steel not melted or poured in Mexico and a 10% tariff on aluminum. Sen. Sherrod Brown, an Ohio Democrat, has called for stopping Mexican steel imports, saying “the alarming rise in Chinese steel and aluminum coming into the country through Mexico ... is unsustainable and a threat to American jobs, as well as our economy and national security.” In the end, Mexico may be forced to crack down on Chinese imports, but it won’t be easy. “Reducing the dependence on Chinese imports is not going to be achieved in the short or medium term,” said José María Ramos, a professor of public administration at the Colegio de la Frontera Norte in Tijuana.iwin.com online games 。

(The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts.) Robert C. Donnelly , Gonzaga University (THE CONVERSATION) Former President Jimmy Carter, who died on Dec. 29, 2024, at age 100 at his home in Plains, Georgia, was a dark horse Democratic presidential candidate with little national recognition when he beat Republican incumbent Gerald Ford in 1976. The introspective former peanut farmer pledged a new era of honesty and forthrightness at home and abroad, a promise that resonated with voters eager for change following the Watergate scandal and the Vietnam War. His presidency, however, lasted only one term before Ronald Reagan defeated him. Since then, scholars have debated – and often maligned – Carter’s legacy, especially his foreign policy efforts that revolved around human rights. Critics have described Carter’s foreign policies as “ineffectual” and “hopelessly muddled ,” and their formulation demonstrated “weakness and indecision.” As a historian researching Carter’s foreign policy initiatives , I conclude his overseas policies were far more effective than critics have claimed. A Soviet strategy The criticism of Carter’s foreign policies seems particularly mistaken when it comes to the Cold War, a period defined by decades of hostility, mutual distrust and arms buildup after World War II between the U.S. and Russia, then known as the Soviet Union or Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). By the late 1970s, the Soviet Union’s economy and global influence were weakening. With the counsel of National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, a Soviet expert , Carter exploited these weaknesses. During his presidency, Carter insisted nations provide basic freedoms for their people – a moral weapon against which repressive leaders could not defend. Carter soon openly criticized the Soviets for denying Russian Jews their basic civil rights , a violation of human rights protections outlined in the diplomatic agreement called the Helsinki Accords . Carter’s team underscored these violations in arms control talks. The CIA flooded the USSR with books and articles to incite human rights activism. And Carter publicly supported Russian dissidents – including pro-democracy activist Andrei Sakharov – who were fighting an ideological war against socialist leaders. Carter adviser Stuart Eizenstat argues that the administration attacked the Soviets “in their most vulnerable spot – mistreatment of their own citizens.” This proved effective in sparking Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev’s social and political reforms of the late 1980s, best known by the Russian word “glasnost ,” or “openness.” The Afghan invasion In December 1979, the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in response to the assassination of the Soviet-backed Afghan leader, Nur Mohammad Taraki. The invasion effectively ended an existing détente between the U.S. and USSR. Beginning in July 1979, the U.S. was providing advice and nonlethal supplies to the mujahideen rebelling against the Soviet-backed regime. After the invasion, National Security Advisor Brzezinski advised Carter to respond aggressively to it. So the CIA and U.S. allies delivered weapons to the mujahideen, a program later expanded under Reagan. Carter’s move effectively engaged the Soviets in a proxy war that began to bleed the Soviet Union. By providing the rebels with modern weapons, the U.S. was “giving to the USSR its Vietnam war,” according to Brzezinski : a progressively expensive war, a strain on the socialist economy and an erosion of their authority abroad. Carter also imposed an embargo on U.S. grain sales to the Soviets in 1980. Agriculture was the USSR’s greatest economic weakness since the 1960s. The country’s unfavorable weather and climate contributed to successive poor growing seasons, and their heavy industrial development left the agricultural sector underfunded . Economist Elizabeth Clayton concluded in 1985 that Carter’s embargo was effective in exacerbating this weakness. Census data compiled between 1959 and 1979 show that 54 million people were added to the Soviet population. Clayton estimates that 2 to 3 million more people were added in each subsequent year. The Soviets were overwhelmed by the population boom and struggled to feed their people. At the same time, Clayton found that monthly wages increased, which led to an increased demand for meat. But by 1985, there was a meat shortage in the USSR. Why? Carter’s grain embargo, although ended by Reagan in 1981, had a lasting impact on livestock feed that resulted in Russian farmers decreasing livestock production . The embargo also forced the Soviets to pay premium prices for grain from other countries, nearly 25 percent above market prices . For years, Soviet leaders promised better diets and health , but now their people had less food. The embargo battered a weak socialist economy and created another layer of instability for the growing population. The Olympic boycott In 1980, Carter pushed further to punish the Soviets. He convinced the U.S. Olympic Committee to refrain from competing in the upcoming Moscow Olympics while the Soviets repressed their people and occupied Afghanistan. Carter not only promoted a boycott, but he also embargoed U.S. technology and other goods needed to produce the Olympics. He also stopped NBC from paying the final US$20 million owed to the USSR to broadcast the Olympics. China, Germany, Canada and Japan – superpowers of sport – also participated in the boycott. Historian Allen Guttmann said, “The USSR lost a significant amount of international legitimacy on the Olympic question.” Dissidents relayed to Carter that the boycott was another jab at Soviet leadership. And in America, public opinion supported Carter’s bold move – 73% of Americans favored the boycott . The Carter doctrine In his 1980 State of the Union address, Carter revealed an aggressive Cold War military plan. He declared a “ Carter doctrine ,” which said that the Soviets’ attempt to gain control of Afghanistan, and possibly the region, was regarded as a threat to U.S. interests. And Carter was prepared to meet the threat with “ military force .” Carter also announced in his speech a five-year spending initiative to modernize and strengthen the military because he recognized the post-Vietnam military cuts weakened the U.S. against the USSR. Ronald Reagan argued during the 1980 presidential campaign that, “Jimmy Carter risks our national security – our credibility – and damages American purposes by sending timid and even contradictory signals to the Soviet Union.” Carter’s policy was based on “weakness and illusion” and should be replaced “with one founded on improved military strength,” Reagan criticized. In 1985, however, President Reagan publicly acknowledged that his predecessor demonstrated great timing in modernizing and strengthening the nation’s forces, which further increased economic and diplomatic pressure on the Soviets. Reagan admitted that he felt “very bad” for misstating Carter’s policies and record on defense. Carter is most lauded today for his post-presidency activism , public service and defending human rights. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002 for such efforts. But that praise leaves out a significant portion of Carter’s presidential accomplishments. His foreign policy, emphasizing human rights, was a key instrument in dismantling the power of the Soviet Union. This is an updated version of a story that was originally published on May 2, 2019. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article here: https://theconversation.com/jimmy-carters-lasting-cold-war-legacy-his-human-rights-focus-helped-dismantle-the-soviet-union-113994 .TMT Farm’s Christmas Lights Display opens to public Thanksgiving night

Sean 'Diddy' Combs' third bid to be released on bail won't be decided until next week

Median sale prices for single and multi-family homes remain at or near historic levels in Colorado — and 2024 is likely to be no exception. Despite some relief from what is expected to be an ongoing series of cuts to the federal interest rate , which affect mortgage payments, housing costs could be as high as ever for new homebuyers next year. A November report from the National Association of Realtors shows that, nationally, first-time homebuyers make up just 24% of the buying demographic — a historic low . At the same time, homebuyers have never been older. “The U.S. housing market is split into two groups: first-time buyers struggling to enter the market and current homeowners buying with cash,” said Jessica Lautz, the association’s deputy chief economist and vice president of research, in a statement. “First-time buyers face high home prices, high mortgage interest rates and limited inventory, making them a decade older with significantly higher incomes than previous generations of buyers,” Lautz continued. “Meanwhile, current homeowners can more easily make housing trades using built-up housing equity for cash purchases or large down payments on dream homes.” In Colorado, mountain towns remain some of the most expensive markets in the state with median home prices reaching into the multimillions. Compared to 2023, median sale prices in Eagle, Summit, Grand, Pitkin, Routt and Garfield counties are all up so far this year, according to the most recent data from the Colorado Association of Realtors . While price points range across different regions, all have seen costs driven up in recent years due to the COVID-19 pandemic and a subsequent explosion in property values. But before that, home prices had risen at a much more gradual rate. Longtime Vail-area Realtor Mike Budd remembers a time when roughly two-thirds of all homes in his region sold for under $1 million. “That began to erode as we were coming through and out of COVID so that, effectively in 2024, it was getting to represent about 30% of the transactions,” Budd said. But while the pandemic exacerbated high costs, housing in resort areas has long been less attainable than in the state’s more urban markets. Industry experts say it’s difficult to pin down the last time when housing in mountain communities was truly “affordable,” a term they also say is subjective. Within the last 15 years, home affordability peaked statewide in 2012, according to a housing affordability index study by the Colorado Association of Realtors . The index measures whether or not a typical family earns enough income to qualify for a mortgage loan on a typical home — nationally and regionally — based on recent price and income data. Median for-sale prices were also at the lowest level in 2012, hovering at around $200,000 for a single-family property and below $150,000 for a multifamily unit, such as a townhouse or condo. Industry experts attribute the trend to two main factors: a bump in housing supply and the 2007-08 Great Recession. In the years leading up to the recession, the High Country was home to several construction companies building market-rate starter homes, leading to enough inventory to keep prices moderate for working residents. “There was a building boom going on back then. ... It was a very, very vibrant time,” said Colorado Association of Realtors President Dana Cottrell. “That kind of competition was there, and it’s so different from what we have now.” Budd said the state and its mountain communities were seeing years of extremely robust economic growth, “and houses were selling like popcorn.” Budd added, “We ran into a lot of people, particularly at the lower pricing spectrum, who’d been able to procure mortgages with low interest rates and low down payments.” But those low-cost homes also meant low equity. Amid the economic tumult of the Great Recession, many of those homeowners were left unable to afford their mortgages and were ultimately foreclosed on. It led to an influx of depreciated properties on the market — and buyers with the means to do so quickly capitalized. “We were seeing dramatic price reductions ... so people were able to procure homes, and that drove the pricing up quickly,” Budd said. “That was not a traditional economic reaction, it was just a window of time where we had all this product.” After a gradual decrease from 2010 to 2012, median home prices began to rise again statewide, according to Colorado Association of Realtors data. At the same time, new construction slowed dramatically and housing inventory failed to keep up with demand . As of last year, the United States was projected to be in a housing deficit of between 4 million to 7 million homes, according to a Pew study . Part of the decline is attributed to the recession, which decimated construction jobs. In mountain areas particularly, the cost of labor and materials has only risen while available land continues to shrink . “So the cost of land has also skyrocketed, so that makes creating true affordable housing a much more difficult task,” Budd said. The pandemic further changed the landscape when a deluge of remote workers left urban centers and flocked to mountain towns with cash on hand to buy. Prices quickly soared . From 2022 to 2023, residential property valuations in mountain resort counties increased anywhere from 63% to 92%, according to state data . Typical economics of supply and demand were flipped upside down. Even with a recent increase in homes on the market, prices continue to climb due to demand for vacation homes from affluent buyers. In some resort areas, around half of all transactions are in cash. “I think the resort communities have differentiated themselves more than ever from what’s going on in the state as a whole,” Budd said. Should another catastrophe like the Great Recession hit, it’s unlikely it would have the same impacts on the housing market as before. The reason, according to Budd, is that current resort area homeowners have banked far more equity in their high-valued homes compared to the average homeowner in 2008-09 — meaning they’d likely be able to weather the economic storm. Without foreclosures, those homes wouldn’t suddenly emerge on the market for a bargain price. The demographic of buyers who are struggling to become homeowners would also be the ones most affected by a recession. “Jobs are so important to real estate, and when an economic situation happens where it affects jobs ... then it’s not affordable because people don’t have jobs that are paying enough to afford the lower prices,” Cottrell said. Market-rate home prices in mountain towns are all but certain to remain high relative to the rest of the state, driven in part by the sheer demand from cash buyers. Still, Cottrell believes the single greatest factor that could soften market-rate prices remains increased supply, a challenge when the cost of construction remains high and available land low. While inventory has risen in several resort markets over the past year, housing stock is still historically low. Nationally, transactions slowed last year to the lowest point since 1995, and buyers are seeking more concessions from sellers to help offset the escalating costs of mortgage payments, insurance and homeowners association fees . “Yes we have more homes, but we still don’t have a ton of homes,” Cottrell said. “So until that inventory-buyer ratio changes, we’re going to see prices stay steady or even rise a bit.”

Northwest Wealth Management LLC increased its holdings in shares of NVIDIA Co. ( NASDAQ:NVDA – Free Report ) by 0.8% during the 3rd quarter, according to the company in its most recent 13F filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The fund owned 32,631 shares of the computer hardware maker’s stock after buying an additional 246 shares during the quarter. NVIDIA accounts for about 0.9% of Northwest Wealth Management LLC’s portfolio, making the stock its 27th largest position. Northwest Wealth Management LLC’s holdings in NVIDIA were worth $3,963,000 as of its most recent SEC filing. A number of other institutional investors also recently bought and sold shares of NVDA. Legal & General Group Plc increased its stake in shares of NVIDIA by 884.0% in the second quarter. Legal & General Group Plc now owns 213,127,959 shares of the computer hardware maker’s stock worth $26,329,751,000 after acquiring an additional 191,469,114 shares during the period. Bank of New York Mellon Corp boosted its position in NVIDIA by 854.1% in the 2nd quarter. Bank of New York Mellon Corp now owns 182,622,629 shares of the computer hardware maker’s stock worth $22,561,200,000 after purchasing an additional 163,482,580 shares in the last quarter. Ameriprise Financial Inc. lifted its stake in shares of NVIDIA by 870.3% in the 2nd quarter. Ameriprise Financial Inc. now owns 102,422,225 shares of the computer hardware maker’s stock valued at $12,658,922,000 after purchasing an additional 91,867,031 shares during the period. Dimensional Fund Advisors LP raised its position in shares of NVIDIA by 1,123.2% in the second quarter. Dimensional Fund Advisors LP now owns 92,039,713 shares of the computer hardware maker’s stock worth $11,371,255,000 after acquiring an additional 84,515,429 shares during the period. Finally, Massachusetts Financial Services Co. MA increased its position in shares of NVIDIA by 808.6% in the second quarter. Massachusetts Financial Services Co. MA now owns 82,689,605 shares of the computer hardware maker’s stock valued at $10,215,474,000 after buying an additional 73,589,208 shares in the last quarter. 65.27% of the stock is currently owned by institutional investors and hedge funds. Insider Activity at NVIDIA In other NVIDIA news, Director Tench Coxe sold 1,000,000 shares of the business’s stock in a transaction on Monday, December 16th. The stock was sold at an average price of $131.26, for a total transaction of $131,260,000.00. Following the completion of the transaction, the director now owns 28,671,360 shares in the company, valued at approximately $3,763,402,713.60. The trade was a 3.37 % decrease in their position. The sale was disclosed in a legal filing with the SEC, which can be accessed through this link . Also, Director Mark A. Stevens sold 125,000 shares of the company’s stock in a transaction that occurred on Thursday, October 3rd. The stock was sold at an average price of $122.61, for a total value of $15,326,250.00. Following the completion of the sale, the director now owns 8,255,117 shares of the company’s stock, valued at $1,012,159,895.37. This trade represents a 1.49 % decrease in their ownership of the stock. The disclosure for this sale can be found here . Insiders have sold 1,351,886 shares of company stock valued at $176,825,650 over the last ninety days. Corporate insiders own 4.23% of the company’s stock. NVIDIA Trading Down 2.1 % NVIDIA ( NASDAQ:NVDA – Get Free Report ) last announced its quarterly earnings data on Wednesday, November 20th. The computer hardware maker reported $0.81 EPS for the quarter, beating analysts’ consensus estimates of $0.69 by $0.12. NVIDIA had a return on equity of 114.83% and a net margin of 55.69%. The business had revenue of $35.08 billion during the quarter, compared to the consensus estimate of $33.15 billion. During the same quarter in the previous year, the business earned $0.38 earnings per share. The business’s revenue for the quarter was up 93.6% on a year-over-year basis. On average, research analysts predict that NVIDIA Co. will post 2.78 earnings per share for the current fiscal year. NVIDIA Dividend Announcement The firm also recently declared a quarterly dividend, which was paid on Friday, December 27th. Investors of record on Thursday, December 5th were issued a $0.01 dividend. This represents a $0.04 dividend on an annualized basis and a yield of 0.03%. The ex-dividend date of this dividend was Thursday, December 5th. NVIDIA’s dividend payout ratio is currently 1.57%. Analyst Upgrades and Downgrades A number of brokerages have recently issued reports on NVDA. Wells Fargo & Company lifted their price target on NVIDIA from $165.00 to $185.00 and gave the stock an “overweight” rating in a research note on Thursday, November 21st. Loop Capital reaffirmed a “buy” rating and issued a $175.00 target price on shares of NVIDIA in a research note on Wednesday, November 20th. Rosenblatt Securities reaffirmed a “buy” rating and set a $200.00 target price on shares of NVIDIA in a research note on Monday, November 18th. Barclays raised their target price on NVIDIA from $145.00 to $160.00 and gave the stock an “overweight” rating in a research note on Thursday, November 21st. Finally, TD Cowen raised their price objective on NVIDIA from $165.00 to $175.00 and gave the stock a “buy” rating in a research report on Thursday, November 21st. Four research analysts have rated the stock with a hold rating, thirty-nine have given a buy rating and one has given a strong buy rating to the company. Based on data from MarketBeat, the stock has an average rating of “Moderate Buy” and a consensus target price of $164.15. Get Our Latest Report on NVIDIA NVIDIA Company Profile ( Free Report ) NVIDIA Corporation provides graphics and compute and networking solutions in the United States, Taiwan, China, Hong Kong, and internationally. The Graphics segment offers GeForce GPUs for gaming and PCs, the GeForce NOW game streaming service and related infrastructure, and solutions for gaming platforms; Quadro/NVIDIA RTX GPUs for enterprise workstation graphics; virtual GPU or vGPU software for cloud-based visual and virtual computing; automotive platforms for infotainment systems; and Omniverse software for building and operating metaverse and 3D internet applications. Read More Five stocks we like better than NVIDIA How Investors Can Find the Best Cheap Dividend Stocks S&P 500 ETFs: Expense Ratios That Can Boost Your Long-Term Gains Basic Materials Stocks Investing How AI Implementation Could Help MongoDB Roar Back in 2025 How to Calculate Inflation Rate Hedge Funds Boost Oil Positions: Is a Major Rally on the Horizon? Want to see what other hedge funds are holding NVDA? Visit HoldingsChannel.com to get the latest 13F filings and insider trades for NVIDIA Co. ( NASDAQ:NVDA – Free Report ). Receive News & Ratings for NVIDIA Daily - Enter your email address below to receive a concise daily summary of the latest news and analysts' ratings for NVIDIA and related companies with MarketBeat.com's FREE daily email newsletter .Reaction to the death of former President Jimmy Carter paid tribute to his service to the country and his contributions around the world after his time in the White House. President Joe Biden called Carter "a man of great character and courage, hope and optimism." "With his compassion and moral clarity, he worked to eradicate disease, forge peace, advance civil rights and human rights, promote free and fair elections, house the homeless, and always advocate for the least among us," Biden said in a statement. "He saved, lifted, and changed the lives of people all across the globe." MORE: Jimmy Carter's improbable journey from defeated one-term president to our best ex-president: Analysis Former President Bill Clinton said he and his wife Hillary Clinton "mourn the passing of President Jimmy Carter and give thanks for his long, good life. Guided by his faith, President Carter lived to serve others—until the very end." President-elect Donald Trump said of Carter, "The challenges Jimmy faced as President came at a pivotal time for our country and he did everything in his power to improve the lives of all Americans. For that, we all owe him a debt of gratitude." Former President Barack Obama paid tribute to the former president's honesty, especially in the wake of Watergate saying in a statement that Carter "promised voters that he would always tell the truth. And he did – advocating for the public good, consequences be damned. He believed some things were more important than reelection – things like integrity, respect, and compassion. Because Jimmy Carter believed, as deeply as he believed anything, that we are all created in God’s image." House Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi also recognized the times in which Carter was elected to the White House: "As President, his work to restore integrity to the political arena during a difficult chapter in our history was a testament to his firm faith in the sanctity of the public good, which he always placed above his own," she said in a statement. "After leaving the White House, he carried on his service — leading perhaps the most impactful post-presidency in history." Former President George W. Bush called Carter "a man of deeply held convictions. He was loyal to his family, his community, and his country. President Carter dignified the office. And his efforts to leave behind a better world didn’t end with the presidency. His work with Habitat for Humanity and the Carter Center set an example of service that will inspire Americans for generations." Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said, “President Carter lived a truly American dream. A devoutly religious peanut farmer from small-town Georgia volunteered to serve his country in uniform. He found himself manning cutting-edge submarines hundreds of feet beneath the ocean. He returned home and saved the family farm before feeling drawn to a different sort of public service. And less than 15 years after his first campaign for the state Senate, his fellow Americans elected him leader of the free world." Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer called Carter "one of our most humble and devoted public servants." “President Carter personified the true meaning of leadership through service, through compassion, and through integrity," Schumer said in a statement. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said he was "Thankful for the incredible life, legacy and leadership of President Jimmy Carter," in a post on X. "He was a great man, a great role model and a great humanitarian." MORE: Jimmy Carter's life in pictures House Majority Leader Steve Scalise said Carter "set the standard for post-presidential service through his work with Habitat for Humanity." Clinton's statement summarized Carter's impact: "From his commitment to civil rights as a state senator and governor of Georgia; to his efforts as President to protect our natural resources in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, make energy conservation a national priority, return the Panama Canal to Panama, and secure peace between Egypt and Israel at Camp David; to his post-Presidential efforts at the Carter Center supporting honest elections, advancing peace, combating disease, and promoting democracy; to his and Rosalynn’s devotion and hard work at Habitat for Humanity--he worked tirelessly for a better, fairer world."