711bet download apk
Every Attack Makes Us Stronger: Gautam Adani's First Reaction on US Indictment
As early as the 19th century, Propaganda of the Deed (POTD) was identified by Carlos Pisacane as a major action — sometimes violent, that is deemed necessary to bring about societal change. A decade ago, Americans received a major dose of POTD from ISIS using social media channels to promote its videos of beheadings and other atrocities. Most recently, Americans watched the video of the shooting of the health care insurance executive on the news and in social media feeds — multiple times. POTD might be at play in the killing of the United Health Care executive. Social media has been flooded with complaints about health care insurers rejecting claims sometimes with AI at the helm since the murder. These discussions of individual and systemic health care failures were previously carried on in person. But the action of the accused Luigi Mangione may have kicked open the door for a reevaluation of the for-profit model for health care in this country that has private insurers reaping billions of dollars. Prior to this violent event, discussion of medically-induced bankruptcies and deaths because of untreated serious illnesses rarely made it into the mainstream media. Social media have changed traditional communication channels, often leaving behind the talking heads on network and streaming news offerings. Is it possible to expand the Affordable Care Act to offer coverage to more Americans? Is it possible that Medicare for all could be an option in America while leaving concierge medical coverage available to those who can afford it? Senator Bernie Sanders has championed single-payer, “Medicare-for-all” national health insurance program with “No networks, no premiums, no deductibles, no copays, no surprise bills.” Sanders says that more than 30 million American don’t have healthcare coverage and many of those that do are often underinsured. Sanders said that medical bills are the No. 1 cause of bankruptcies in our country. “The patchwork system of private for-profit insurers has led to an extremely bloated administrative bureaucracy, costing $812 billion per year ($2,696 per insured person) and consuming 34.2% of total health care spending,” according to the Medicare for All Act introduced by Sen. Sanders and Representatives Pramila Jayapal and Debbie Dingell to the 2023-24 U.S. Congress. The bill had 112 original cosponsors in the House and 14 original cosponsors in the Senate. Yet, the Medicare-for-all bill was read into the record twice and languished in committee. Will citizens awakened by this tragic Propaganda of the Deed call their representatives and senators and demand action? Given that even “Spondylolisthesis,” Mangione’s obscure back condition is trending in Google searches, this POTD may impact Americans deeply. Will they protest the outrageous profits insurers make while denying coverage for life-saving care and drugs and driving many into bankruptcy? We can only hope this tragic POTD triggers a conversation as Americans deserve better from their representatives and health care insurers. Dr. Darlene Natale is an assistant professor of in the Department of Mass Communication at the University of North Carolina at Pembroke. BE AN OPINION SHAPER: If you can express an opinion in 800 words or fewer — once every three months — you probably have what it takes to be a Robesonian Opinion Shaper. Contact Executive Editor David Kennard at dkennard@robesonian.com.
Malik Nabers says calling the Giants 'soft' was wrong but he doesn't regret speaking out
DENVER (AP) — Amid renewed interest in the killing of JonBenet Ramsey triggered in part by a new Netflix documentary, police in Boulder, Colorado, refuted assertions this week that there is viable evidence and leads about the 1996 killing of the 6-year-old girl that they are not pursuing. JonBenet Ramsey, who competed in beauty pageants, was found dead in the basement of her family’s home in the college town of Boulder the day after Christmas in 1996. Her body was found several hours after her mother called 911 to say her daughter was missing and a ransom note had been left behind. The details of the crime and video footage of JonBenet competing in pageants propelled the case into one of the highest-profile mysteries in the United States. The police comments came as part of their annual update on the investigation, a month before the 28th anniversary of JonBenet’s killing. Police said they released it a little earlier due to the increased attention on the case, apparently referring to the three-part Netflix series “Cold Case: Who Killed JonBenet Ramsey.” In a video statement, Boulder Police Chief Steve Redfearn said the department welcomes news coverage and documentaries about the killing of JonBenet, who would have been 34 this year, as a way to generate possible new leads. He said the department is committed to solving the case but needs to be careful about what it shares about the investigation to protect a possible future prosecution. “What I can tell you though, is we have thoroughly investigated multiple people as suspects throughout the years and we continue to be open-minded about what occurred as we investigate the tips that come into detectives," he said. The Netflix documentary focuses on the mistakes made by police and the “media circus” surrounding the case. JonBenet was bludgeoned and strangled. Her death was ruled a homicide, but nobody was ever prosecuted. Police were widely criticized for mishandling the early investigation into her death amid speculation that her family was responsible. However, a prosecutor cleared her parents, John and Patsy Ramsey, and brother Burke in 2008 based on new DNA evidence from JonBenet's clothing that pointed to the involvement of an “unexplained third party” in her slaying. The announcement by former district attorney Mary Lacy came two years after Patsy Ramsey died of cancer. Lacy called the Ramseys “victims of this crime.” John Ramsey has continued to speak out for the case to be solved. In 2022, he supported an online petition asking Colorado’s governor to intervene in the investigation by putting an outside agency in charge of DNA testing in the case. In the Netflix documentary, he said he has been advocating for several items that have not been prepared for DNA testing to be tested and for other items to be retested. He said the results should be put through a genealogy database. In recent years, investigators have identified suspects in unsolved cases by comparing DNA profiles from crime scenes and to DNA testing results shared online by people researching their family trees. In 2021, police said in their annual update that DNA hadn’t been ruled out to help solve the case, and in 2022 noted that some evidence could be “consumed” if DNA testing is done on it. Last year, police said they convened a panel of outside experts to review the investigation to give recommendations and determine if updated technologies or forensic testing might produce new leads. In the latest update, Redfearn said that review had ended but that police continue to work through and evaluate a “lengthy list of recommendations” from the panel. Amy Beth Hanson contributed to this report from Helena, Montana.No. 21 Arizona State on the rise in Kenny Dillingham's second season as coach
Arkansas DE Landon Jackson carted off field and taken to hospital with neck injuryHow Trump’s bet on voters electing him managed to silence some of his legal woesMany of us are anxiously awaiting the return of President Donald Trump to the White House, as some look to the future with hope and others despair. If Trump’s previous four years in office are a preview of what’s to come, my prediction is that much of his campaign agenda won’t be enacted. Before you write an angry letter to the editor labeling me a liberal Trump-hater, realize that most presidents promise sweeping changes on the campaign trail, but deliver few of those vows when they enter the Oval Office. That’s somewhat the beauty of our republic – a complex system that requires cooperation at multiple levels for legislation to be approved. Trump will return with a Republican-controlled Senate and House. But Trump, like President Barack Obama before him, enjoyed party control of congress during his first two years in office. Some of Trump’s 2016 campaign promises, such as building a border wall and ending the Affordable Care Act, never came to fruition despite the Republican majority in 2017-2018. You likely recall the famous “thumbs down” vote by the late Republican Sen. John McCain, which essentially killed Trump’s effort to overhaul Obama’s signature health care plan. Trump’s populist rhetoric makes him a great candidate on the campaign trail. Whether it’s the truth or a lie, Trump tells his followers what they want to hear. But his ability to translate that talk into meaningful legislation that’s backed by congress, including members of his own party, has been subpar. And we’re already seeing signs that his next administration will face similar challenges. Trump’s initial pick for attorney general, Matt Gaetz, was defeated by Senate Republicans before hearings ever began. While the victor of the election certainly has the right to propose picks for his cabinet, even Republicans balked at the idea of appointing a man accused of sexual assault and misconduct to the attorney general post. While cabinet picks aren’t legislation, the block of Gaetz shows that Trump still has to play ball with members of his own party to get his way. And frankly, some Republicans are likely to disagree with some of the key aspects of his agenda. “Eliminate the Department of Education” has become the “Defund the Police” of 2024-25. In both cases, a group has issues with certain aspects of an established system. In both cases, eliminating that system is nonsensical and unlikely to happen. They’re catchy phrases that invoke emotional reactions, especially on the campaign trail, but they’re not realistic. This is where the true statement that “All Politics is Local” comes into effect. If federal funding and oversight from the Department of Education is eliminated, state and local officials will be responsible for such programs. How many angry phone calls do you think your state representative or school board member will receive when parents find out money has been slashed for special education, or that after-school programs have been eliminated. The truth of the matter is that states like Indiana and Kentucky greatly depend on federal funding, and if that money goes away, it has to be made up somewhere. That somewhere is your wallet. You, the taxpayer, fund the local, state and federal government. You, the taxpayer, will either have to pay more for local and state departments to pick up the slack left behind by the elimination of the Department of Education, or be prepared to see teachers laid off and schools closed. While some may not care, enough do, and attacking education has been the death of many a politician’s political career. What’s more likely to happen, Trump will ask congress to make major cuts to the Department of Education, those will get whittled down and, if some sort of bill is passed, it will not result in the elimination of the federal department. Trump will likely take executive action on immigration, but if he goes too far, business leaders will quickly show who actually runs the country. Removing people who are here illegally that have committed crimes in our country is one thing, but deporting workers and others who are helping our economy as employees and consumers is quite another thing. Trump can greatly influence such issues through his own actions, or inactions. He notoriously ridiculed anyone who opposed him during his first administration, blasting Democrats, former presidents and even members of his own party almost hourly on social media. He actually showed more restraint during the 2024 campaign, but how long will that last? Democrats will of course vote against most of his ideas, but if there are Republicans on the fence and he goes after them, that could spell disaster for his campaign promises.
Davenport council denies tax incentives for proposed riverfront hotel in DavenportATLANTA (AP) — Jimmy Carter, the peanut farmer who won the presidency in the wake of the Watergate scandal and Vietnam War, endured humbling defeat after one tumultuous term and then redefined life after the White House as a global humanitarian, has died. He was 100 years old. The longest-lived American president died on Sunday, roughly 22 months after entering hospice care , at his home in the small town of Plains, Georgia, where he and his wife, Rosalynn, who died at 96 in November 2023 , spent most of their lives, The Carter Center said. “Our founder, former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, passed away this afternoon in Plains, Georgia,” the center said on the social media platform X. It added in a statement that he died peacefully, surrounded by his family. As reaction poured in from around the world, President Joe Biden mourned Carter’s death, saying the world lost an “extraordinary leader, statesman and humanitarian” and he lost a dear friend. Biden cited Carter’s work to eradicate disease, forge peace, advance civil and human rights, promote free and fair elections and house the homeless as an example for others. “To all of the young people in this nation and for anyone in search of what it means to live a life of purpose and meaning – the good life – study Jimmy Carter, a man of principle, faith, and humility,” Biden said in a statement. Biden spoke later Sunday evening about Carter, calling it a “sad day” but one that “brings back an incredible amount of good memories.” “I’ve been hanging out with Jimmy Carter for over 50 years,” Biden said in his remarks. He recalled the former president being a comfort to him and his wife Jill when their son Beau died in 2015 of cancer. The president remarked how cancer was a common bond between their families, with Carter himself having cancer later in his life. “Jimmy knew the ravages of the disease too well,” said Biden, who scheduled a state funeral in Washington, D.C., for Carter on Jan. 9. Biden also declared Jan. 9 as a National Day of Mourning across the nation and ordered U.S. flags to fly at half-staff for 30 days from Sunday. Businessman, Navy officer, evangelist, politician, negotiator, author, woodworker, citizen of the world — Carter forged a path that still challenges political assumptions and stands out among the 45 men who reached the nation’s highest office. The 39th president leveraged his ambition with a keen intellect, deep religious faith and prodigious work ethic, conducting diplomatic missions into his 80s and building houses for the poor well into his 90s. “My faith demands — this is not optional — my faith demands that I do whatever I can, wherever I am, whenever I can, for as long as I can, with whatever I have to try to make a difference,” Carter once said. A moderate Democrat, Carter entered the 1976 presidential race as a little-known Georgia governor with a broad smile, outspoken Baptist mores and technocratic plans reflecting his education as an engineer. His no-frills campaign depended on public financing, and his promise not to deceive the American people resonated after Richard Nixon’s disgrace and U.S. defeat in southeast Asia. “If I ever lie to you, if I ever make a misleading statement, don’t vote for me. I would not deserve to be your president,” Carter repeated before narrowly beating Republican incumbent Gerald Ford, who had lost popularity pardoning Nixon. Carter governed amid Cold War pressures, turbulent oil markets and social upheaval over racism, women’s rights and America’s global role. His most acclaimed achievement in office was a Mideast peace deal that he brokered by keeping Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin at the bargaining table for 13 days in 1978. That Camp David experience inspired the post-presidential center where Carter would establish so much of his legacy. Yet Carter’s electoral coalition splintered under double-digit inflation, gasoline lines and the 444-day hostage crisis in Iran. His bleakest hour came when eight Americans died in a failed hostage rescue in April 1980, helping to ensure his landslide defeat to Republican Ronald Reagan. Carter acknowledged in his 2020 “White House Diary” that he could be “micromanaging” and “excessively autocratic,” complicating dealings with Congress and the federal bureaucracy. He also turned a cold shoulder to Washington’s news media and lobbyists, not fully appreciating their influence on his political fortunes. “It didn’t take us long to realize that the underestimation existed, but by that time we were not able to repair the mistake,” Carter told historians in 1982, suggesting that he had “an inherent incompatibility” with Washington insiders. Carter insisted his overall approach was sound and that he achieved his primary objectives — to “protect our nation’s security and interests peacefully” and “enhance human rights here and abroad” — even if he fell spectacularly short of a second term. Ignominious defeat, though, allowed for renewal. The Carters founded The Carter Center in 1982 as a first-of-its-kind base of operations, asserting themselves as international peacemakers and champions of democracy, public health and human rights. “I was not interested in just building a museum or storing my White House records and memorabilia,” Carter wrote in a memoir published after his 90th birthday. “I wanted a place where we could work.” That work included easing nuclear tensions in North and South Korea, helping to avert a U.S. invasion of Haiti and negotiating cease-fires in Bosnia and Sudan. By 2022, The Carter Center had declared at least 113 elections in Latin America, Asia and Africa to be free or fraudulent. Recently, the center began monitoring U.S. elections as well. Carter’s stubborn self-assuredness and even self-righteousness proved effective once he was unencumbered by the Washington order, sometimes to the point of frustrating his successors . He went “where others are not treading,” he said, to places like Ethiopia, Liberia and North Korea, where he secured the release of an American who had wandered across the border in 2010. “I can say what I like. I can meet whom I want. I can take on projects that please me and reject the ones that don’t,” Carter said. He announced an arms-reduction-for-aid deal with North Korea without clearing the details with Bill Clinton’s White House. He openly criticized President George W. Bush for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. He also criticized America’s approach to Israel with his 2006 book “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.” And he repeatedly countered U.S. administrations by insisting North Korea should be included in international affairs, a position that most aligned Carter with Republican President Donald Trump. Among the center’s many public health initiatives, Carter vowed to eradicate the guinea worm parasite during his lifetime, and nearly achieved it: Cases dropped from millions in the 1980s to nearly a handful. With hardhats and hammers, the Carters also built homes with Habitat for Humanity. The Nobel committee’s 2002 Peace Prize cites his “untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development.” Carter should have won it alongside Sadat and Begin in 1978, the chairman added. Carter accepted the recognition saying there was more work to be done. “The world is now, in many ways, a more dangerous place,” he said. “The greater ease of travel and communication has not been matched by equal understanding and mutual respect.” Carter’s globetrotting took him to remote villages where he met little “Jimmy Carters,” so named by admiring parents. But he spent most of his days in the same one-story Plains house — expanded and guarded by Secret Service agents — where they lived before he became governor. He regularly taught Sunday School lessons at Maranatha Baptist Church until his mobility declined and the coronavirus pandemic raged. Those sessions drew visitors from around the world to the small sanctuary where Carter will receive his final send-off after a state funeral at Washington’s National Cathedral. The common assessment that he was a better ex-president than president rankled Carter and his allies. His prolific post-presidency gave him a brand above politics, particularly for Americans too young to witness him in office. But Carter also lived long enough to see biographers and historians reassess his White House years more generously. His record includes the deregulation of key industries, reduction of U.S. dependence on foreign oil, cautious management of the national debt and notable legislation on the environment, education and mental health. He focused on human rights in foreign policy, pressuring dictators to release thousands of political prisoners . He acknowledged America’s historical imperialism, pardoned Vietnam War draft evaders and relinquished control of the Panama Canal. He normalized relations with China. “I am not nominating Jimmy Carter for a place on Mount Rushmore,” Stuart Eizenstat, Carter’s domestic policy director, wrote in a 2018 book. “He was not a great president” but also not the “hapless and weak” caricature voters rejected in 1980, Eizenstat said. Rather, Carter was “good and productive” and “delivered results, many of which were realized only after he left office.” Madeleine Albright, a national security staffer for Carter and Clinton’s secretary of state, wrote in Eizenstat’s forward that Carter was “consequential and successful” and expressed hope that “perceptions will continue to evolve” about his presidency. “Our country was lucky to have him as our leader,” said Albright, who died in 2022. Story continues below video Jonathan Alter, who penned a comprehensive Carter biography published in 2020, said in an interview that Carter should be remembered for “an epic American life” spanning from a humble start in a home with no electricity or indoor plumbing through decades on the world stage across two centuries. “He will likely go down as one of the most misunderstood and underestimated figures in American history,” Alter told The Associated Press. James Earl Carter Jr. was born Oct. 1, 1924, in Plains and spent his early years in nearby Archery. His family was a minority in the mostly Black community, decades before the civil rights movement played out at the dawn of Carter’s political career. Carter, who campaigned as a moderate on race relations but governed more progressively, talked often of the influence of his Black caregivers and playmates but also noted his advantages: His land-owning father sat atop Archery’s tenant-farming system and owned a main street grocery. His mother, Lillian , would become a staple of his political campaigns. Seeking to broaden his world beyond Plains and its population of fewer than 1,000 — then and now — Carter won an appointment to the U.S. Naval Academy, graduating in 1946. That same year he married Rosalynn Smith, another Plains native, a decision he considered more important than any he made as head of state. She shared his desire to see the world, sacrificing college to support his Navy career. Carter climbed in rank to lieutenant, but then his father was diagnosed with cancer, so the submarine officer set aside his ambitions of admiralty and moved the family back to Plains. His decision angered Rosalynn, even as she dived into the peanut business alongside her husband. Carter again failed to talk with his wife before his first run for office — he later called it “inconceivable” not to have consulted her on such major life decisions — but this time, she was on board. “My wife is much more political,” Carter told the AP in 2021. He won a state Senate seat in 1962 but wasn’t long for the General Assembly and its back-slapping, deal-cutting ways. He ran for governor in 1966 — losing to arch-segregationist Lester Maddox — and then immediately focused on the next campaign. Carter had spoken out against church segregation as a Baptist deacon and opposed racist “Dixiecrats” as a state senator. Yet as a local school board leader in the 1950s he had not pushed to end school segregation even after the Supreme Court's Brown v. Board of Education decision, despite his private support for integration. And in 1970, Carter ran for governor again as the more conservative Democrat against Carl Sanders, a wealthy businessman Carter mocked as “Cufflinks Carl.” Sanders never forgave him for anonymous, race-baiting flyers, which Carter disavowed. Ultimately, Carter won his races by attracting both Black voters and culturally conservative whites. Once in office, he was more direct. “I say to you quite frankly that the time for racial discrimination is over,” he declared in his 1971 inaugural address, setting a new standard for Southern governors that landed him on the cover of Time magazine. His statehouse initiatives included environmental protection, boosting rural education and overhauling antiquated executive branch structures. He proclaimed Martin Luther King Jr. Day in the slain civil rights leader’s home state. And he decided, as he received presidential candidates in 1972, that they were no more talented than he was. In 1974, he ran Democrats’ national campaign arm. Then he declared his own candidacy for 1976. An Atlanta newspaper responded with the headline: “Jimmy Who?” The Carters and a “Peanut Brigade” of family members and Georgia supporters camped out in Iowa and New Hampshire, establishing both states as presidential proving grounds. His first Senate endorsement: a young first-termer from Delaware named Joe Biden. Yet it was Carter’s ability to navigate America’s complex racial and rural politics that cemented the nomination. He swept the Deep South that November, the last Democrat to do so, as many white Southerners shifted to Republicans in response to civil rights initiatives. A self-declared “born-again Christian,” Carter drew snickers by referring to Scripture in a Playboy magazine interview, saying he “had looked on many women with lust. I’ve committed adultery in my heart many times.” The remarks gave Ford a new foothold and television comedians pounced — including NBC’s new “Saturday Night Live” show. But voters weary of cynicism in politics found it endearing. Carter chose Minnesota Sen. Walter “Fritz” Mondale as his running mate on a “Grits and Fritz” ticket. In office, he elevated the vice presidency and the first lady’s office. Mondale’s governing partnership was a model for influential successors Al Gore, Dick Cheney and Biden. Rosalynn Carter was one of the most involved presidential spouses in history, welcomed into Cabinet meetings and huddles with lawmakers and top aides. The Carters presided with uncommon informality: He used his nickname “Jimmy” even when taking the oath of office, carried his own luggage and tried to silence the Marine Band’s “Hail to the Chief.” They bought their clothes off the rack. Carter wore a cardigan for a White House address, urging Americans to conserve energy by turning down their thermostats. Amy, the youngest of four children, attended District of Columbia public school. Washington’s social and media elite scorned their style. But the larger concern was that “he hated politics,” according to Eizenstat, leaving him nowhere to turn politically once economic turmoil and foreign policy challenges took their toll. Carter partially deregulated the airline, railroad and trucking industries and established the departments of Education and Energy, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. He designated millions of acres of Alaska as national parks or wildlife refuges. He appointed a then-record number of women and nonwhite people to federal posts. He never had a Supreme Court nomination, but he elevated civil rights attorney Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the nation’s second highest court, positioning her for a promotion in 1993. He appointed Paul Volker, the Federal Reserve chairman whose policies would help the economy boom in the 1980s — after Carter left office. He built on Nixon’s opening with China, and though he tolerated autocrats in Asia, pushed Latin America from dictatorships to democracy. But he couldn’t immediately tame inflation or the related energy crisis. And then came Iran. After he admitted the exiled Shah of Iran to the U.S. for medical treatment, the American Embassy in Tehran was overrun in 1979 by followers of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Negotiations to free the hostages broke down repeatedly ahead of the failed rescue attempt. The same year, Carter signed SALT II, the new strategic arms treaty with Leonid Brezhnev of the Soviet Union, only to pull it back, impose trade sanctions and order a U.S. boycott of the Moscow Olympics after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. Hoping to instill optimism, he delivered what the media dubbed his “malaise” speech, although he didn’t use that word. He declared the nation was suffering “a crisis of confidence.” By then, many Americans had lost confidence in the president, not themselves. Carter campaigned sparingly for reelection because of the hostage crisis, instead sending Rosalynn as Sen. Edward M. Kennedy challenged him for the Democratic nomination. Carter famously said he’d “kick his ass,” but was hobbled by Kennedy as Reagan rallied a broad coalition with “make America great again” appeals and asking voters whether they were “better off than you were four years ago.” Reagan further capitalized on Carter’s lecturing tone, eviscerating him in their lone fall debate with the quip: “There you go again.” Carter lost all but six states and Republicans rolled to a new Senate majority. Carter successfully negotiated the hostages’ freedom after the election, but in one final, bitter turn of events, Tehran waited until hours after Carter left office to let them walk free. At 56, Carter returned to Georgia with “no idea what I would do with the rest of my life.” Four decades after launching The Carter Center, he still talked of unfinished business. “I thought when we got into politics we would have resolved everything,” Carter told the AP in 2021. “But it’s turned out to be much more long-lasting and insidious than I had thought it was. I think in general, the world itself is much more divided than in previous years.” Still, he affirmed what he said when he underwent treatment for a cancer diagnosis in his 10th decade of life. “I’m perfectly at ease with whatever comes,” he said in 2015 . “I’ve had a wonderful life. I’ve had thousands of friends, I’ve had an exciting, adventurous and gratifying existence.” Sanz is a former Associated Press reporter.
WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald Trump has identified what he sees as an all-purpose fix for what ails America: Slap huge new tariffs on foreign goods entering the United States. On Monday, Trump sent shockwaves across the nation's northern and southern borders, vowing sweeping new tariffs on Mexico, Canada, as well as China, as soon as he takes office as part of his effort to crack down on illegal immigration and drugs. In a pair of posts on his Truth Social site Trump railed against an influx of immigrants lacking permanent legal status, even though southern border apprehensions have been hovering near four-year lows. He said he would impose a 25% tax on all products entering the country from Canada and Mexico, and an additional 10% tariff on goods from China, as one of his first executive orders. He said the new tariffs would remain in place “until such time as Drugs, in particular Fentanyl, and all Illegal Aliens stop this Invasion of our Country!” The president-elect asserts that tariffs — basically import taxes — will create more factory jobs, shrink the federal deficit, lower food prices and allow the government to subsidize childcare. Economists are generally skeptical, considering tariffs to be a mostly inefficient way for governments to raise money. They are especially alarmed by Trump’s latest proposed tariffs. Carl B. Weinberg and Rubeela Farooqi, economists with High Frequency Economics said Tuesday that energy, automobiles and food supplies will be particularly hit hard. “Imposing tariffs on trade flows into the United States without first preparing alternative sources for the goods and services affected will raise the price of imported items at once," Weinberg and Farooqi wrote. "Since many of these goods are consumer goods, households will be made poorer.” High Frequency Economics believes the threats are not meant to support new trade policy and are instead a tool to elicit some changes along the borders and for imports from Canada, Mexico and China. Though Vice President Kamala Harris criticized Trump’s tariff threats as unserious during her failed bid for the presidency, the Biden-Harris administration retained the taxes the Trump administration imposed on $360 billion in Chinese goods. And it imposed a 100% tariff on Chinese electric vehicles. Indeed, the United States in recent years has gradually retreated from its post-World War II role of promoting global free trade and lower tariffs. That shift has been a response to the loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs, widely attributed to unfettered trade and an increasingly aggressive China. Tariffs are a tax on imports They are typically charged as a percentage of the price a buyer pays a foreign seller. In the United States, tariffs are collected by Customs and Border Protection agents at 328 ports of entry across the country. The tariff rates range from passenger cars (2.5%) to golf shoes (6%). Tariffs can be lower for countries with which the United States has trade agreements. For example, most goods can move among the United States, Mexico and Canada tariff-free because of Trump’s US-Mexico-Canada trade agreement. There's much misinformation about who actually pays tariffs Trump insists that tariffs are paid for by foreign countries. In fact, its is importers — American companies — that pay tariffs, and the money goes to U.S. Treasury. Those companies, in turn, typically pass their higher costs on to their customers in the form of higher prices. That's why economists say consumers usually end up footing the bill for tariffs. Still, tariffs can hurt foreign countries by making their products pricier and harder to sell abroad. Yang Zhou, an economist at Shanghai’s Fudan University, concluded in a study that Trump’s tariffs on Chinese goods inflicted more than three times as much damage to the Chinese economy as they did to the U.S. economy Tariffs are intended mainly to protect domestic industries By raising the price of imports, tariffs can protect home-grown manufacturers. They may also serve to punish foreign countries for committing unfair trade practices, like subsidizing their exporters or dumping products at unfairly low prices. Before the federal income tax was established in 1913, tariffs were a major revenue driver for the government. From 1790 to 1860, tariffs accounted for 90% of federal revenue, according to Douglas Irwin, a Dartmouth College economist who has studied the history of trade policy. Tariffs fell out of favor as global trade grew after World War II. The government needed vastly bigger revenue streams to finance its operations. In the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, the government is expected to collect $81.4 billion in tariffs and fees. That's a trifle next to the $2.5 trillion that's expected to come from individual income taxes and the $1.7 trillion from Social Security and Medicare taxes. Still, Trump wants to enact a budget policy that resembles what was in place in the 19th century. He has argued that tariffs on farm imports could lower food prices by aiding America’s farmers. In fact, tariffs on imported food products would almost certainly send grocery prices up by reducing choices for consumers and competition for American producers. Tariffs can also be used to pressure other countries on issues that may or may not be related to trade. In 2019, for example, Trump used the threat of tariffs as leverage to persuade Mexico to crack down on waves of Central American migrants crossing Mexican territory on their way to the United States. Trump even sees tariffs as a way to prevent wars. “I can do it with a phone call,’’ he said at an August rally in North Carolina. If another country tries to start a war, he said he’d issue a threat: “We’re going to charge you 100% tariffs. And all of a sudden, the president or prime minister or dictator or whoever the hell is running the country says to me, ‘Sir, we won’t go to war.’ ” Economists generally consider tariffs self-defeating Tariffs raise costs for companies and consumers that rely on imports. They're also likely to provoke retaliation. The European Union, for example, punched back against Trump’s tariffs on steel and aluminum by taxing U.S. products, from bourbon to Harley-Davidson motorcycles. Likewise, China responded to Trump’s trade war by slapping tariffs on American goods, including soybeans and pork in a calculated drive to hurt his supporters in farm country. A study by economists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Zurich, Harvard and the World Bank concluded that Trump’s tariffs failed to restore jobs to the American heartland. The tariffs “neither raised nor lowered U.S. employment’’ where they were supposed to protect jobs, the study found. Despite Trump’s 2018 taxes on imported steel, for example, the number of jobs at U.S. steel plants barely budged: They remained right around 140,000. By comparison, Walmart alone employs 1.6 million people in the United States. Worse, the retaliatory taxes imposed by China and other nations on U.S. goods had “negative employment impacts,’’ especially for farmers, the study found. These retaliatory tariffs were only partly offset by billions in government aid that Trump doled out to farmers. The Trump tariffs also damaged companies that relied on targeted imports. If Trump’s trade war fizzled as policy, though, it succeeded as politics. The study found that support for Trump and Republican congressional candidates rose in areas most exposed to the import tariffs — the industrial Midwest and manufacturing-heavy Southern states like North Carolina and Tennessee.Mohawk Industries Inc. stock remains steady Wednesday, underperforms market