aztec god symbols
None
Trump’s tariffs in his first term did little to alter the economy, but this time could be differentFar-right in strong position as Romania votes in presidential election
Texas A&M-CC takes down Prairie View A&M 109-74
Darnold threw two touchdown passes, Jordan Addison caught eight passes for a career-high 162 yards and a touchdown, and T.J. Hockenson had 114 yards receiving for the Vikings (9-2), who remained one game behind Detroit in the rugged NFC North. Caleb Williams threw for 340 yards and two touchdowns for the Bears (4-7), who lost their fifth straight. Minnesota appeared to have the game in hand, leading 27-16 with 1:56 left after Romo kicked a 26-yard field goal. But the Bears weren’t finished. Deandre Carter made up for a muffed punt that led to a touchdown in the third quarter with a 55-yard kickoff return to the 40. Williams took it from there, capping an eight-play drive with a 1-yard touchdown pass to Keenan Allen. A 2-point conversion pass to DJ Moore made it 27-24 with 22 seconds remaining. The Bears recovered the onside kick and Williams hit Moore over the middle for a 27-yard gain to the 30 before spiking the ball. Cairo Santos made a 48-yard field goal as time expired. Chicago won the coin toss, but Williams was sacked for a 12-yard loss on second down, leading to a three-and-out. The Vikings took over at the 21, and Darnold led a 10-play drive, overcoming a sack and two penalties. Darnold connected with Hockenson for a 29-yard completion that put the ball on the 9. He took a knee and then Romo nailed the winner. AP NFL: https://apnews.com/hub/NFL
Chargers’ leading rusher J.K. Dobbins sidelined by sprained kneeBy 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.An elderly immunocompromised couple choked by second-hand smoke drifting from their neighbour's gate despite a court-ordered distance restriction. A family forced to seal their windows on sweltering days to escape cigaette fumes. These are just some of the realities faced by Singaporeans grappling with second-hand smoke, as highlighted by MP Louis Ng in the Parliament sitting on Nov 12. The New Paper had coffee with the Nee Soon GRC MP to find out more about his renewed call for a ban on smoking at windows and balconies in homes, which has reignited the debate about public health versus individual freedom. “Still following up and still speaking up because second-hand smoke kills!” Mr Ng declared in a recent Instagram post . In a 2022 survey Mr Ng himself conducted of 2,484 HDB and condominium residents, over half of respondents reported children under 14 in their households, while one in three indicated the presence of individuals with respiratory conditions. Alarmingly, 52.7 per cent of those surveyed experienced second-hand smoke intrusion more than three times daily. This starkly contrasts with government data, showing that complaints related to second-hand smoke made up a mere 0.6 per cent of the total feedback the National Environment Agency received in 2023 – a figure that has been steadily declining in recent years. “A couple of weeks ago, the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment explained to Mr Ng that as a result of the measures that they have taken, the number of complaints that are related to second-hand smoke has come down,” said Minister for Culture, Community and Youth Edwin Tong in the Nov 12 Parliament sitting. Mr Tong went on to highlight two cases presented by Mr Ng where Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals (CDRT) orders were either withdrawn after a settlement or found to be unenforceable due to lack of evidence. He argued that existing mechanisms, like mediation through the Community Disputes Management Framework (CDMF), were sufficient. "I am not saying that the problem is not there and I appreciate what Mr Ng has said about the severity of second-hand smoke. But we also need to understand the extent of the problem and what the CDMF is scoped to deal with,” said Mr Tong. “In this case, there are specific mechanisms that MSE has deployed with NEA to deal with second-hand smoke and, at least, from these numbers alone, they do look like there is some improvement and they will continue to work on them.” "You can look at it from different perspectives," Mr Ng said to TNP, pointing to the lack of a dedicated complaint category and a cultural reluctance to confront neighbours. "Being in Singapore, they’d rather just suffer and not complain about their neighbours." He stressed that his proposal is not banning smoking at home. "Please do," he reiterated. "Just don’t smoke at the window and balcony." Mr Ng proposes a three-tiered approach encompassing legislation, public awareness campaigns and enforcement. For enforcement, he proposes leveraging existing technologies like cameras already deployed to address high-rise littering. “The cameras are the last resort,” he clarified, envisioning their use primarily for gathering evidence in cases where a CDRT order is being violated, but the resident is having difficulty proving the breach. This targeted use of surveillance, he argues, minimises privacy concerns while providing a concrete mechanism for holding repeat offenders accountable. "If we can enforce ban on nudity that is visible to neighbours, why can't we enforce this?" Beyond practicalities, Mr Ng underscored the health implications, quoting Ministry of Health data showing a significant number of deaths attributable to second-hand smoke. “More people die from second-hand smoke now than Covid or accidents,” he emphasised. However, online discussions about Mr Ng’s proposal reflect scepticism. Reddit user u/kcinkcinlim commented on a post discussing the proposal: "Say someone is smoking in their living room, and the smoke wafts out the window and into a neighbour's home. How to enforce? If the authorities come knocking, I can say I was in my living room, not by the window." Other netizens shared similar concerns and experiences. Redditor u/furiostar recounted a case where a condo neighbour sued a smoker, resulting in a court order requiring the smoker to maintain a distance from his gate. "Made little difference. The smoke just had to travel a little further to choke all of us." Another user, u/hermansu, questioned the potential unintended consequences of such a ban. "Actually if the rule is implemented, where does it stop then? During hot seasons where there are usually more mosquitoes, one might light coils in the balcony,” wrote the Redditor, pointing to research by the US National Institutes of Health that found that burning one mosquito coil releases the same PM2.5 as 75-137 cigarettes, and formaldehyde equivalent to 51 cigarettes. "So next week ban mosquito coils? Then Hungry Ghost festival burning? And it goes on." There were those, however, who supported the ban. “As someone who used to smoke and would go downstairs to do it, let's face the truth, the whole reason of smoking at windows and balconies is to avoid making your own home smelly,” wrote Reddit user u/coalminer071. “Second-hand hand smoke is a known and proven health hazard, personal rights should never intrude on the rights of another person and worse still subject them to potential health implications.” Despite the challenges, Mr Ng remains undeterred. “Rest assured, at Budget 2025, I will raise it again. I haven't lost. It's just I haven't won yet."
- Previous: aztec axe money worth
- Next: aztec gods information
