Login to view embedded media And she runs a news organization? wTF

You lost...we won...cry harder!! Keep crying and obstructing right up to the midterms so you can get some more of the same, Loser 0boma! >

Several Republican senators have expressed concern about President-elect Donald Trump’s union-friendly pick to run the Labor Department, setting up a potentially contentious confirmation bid for Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer (R-Oregon).

Get a curated selection of 10 of our best stories in your inbox every weekend.

“She’s one of them. She’s pro-union,” Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Alabama) said in an interview on Tuesday. He said his office has received a lot of calls from businesses objecting to her nomination. “She checks all the boxes for the left.”

Chavez-DeRemer’s selection is a nod toward the growing populist wing of the GOP, which helped peel away working-class voters from the Democratic Party in November. But her selection is also fueling tension among more traditional Republicans with long-standing ties to business trade groups.

A handful of Democratic senators said they liked the moderate Republican who has embraced pro-union legislation, meaning she may secure a nomination with Democratic support.




End of carousel
Chavez-DeRemer, 56, lost her reelection race in November. She has served on bipartisan congressional caucuses. But she is best known on Capitol Hill for being one of only three GOP lawmakers who co-sponsored legislation that would have significantly expanded labor rights, including measures that increased penalties for employer labor law violations, expanded union eligibility and eliminated right-to-work laws that allow workers to opt out of union dues.
🏛️
Follow Politics
Business groups railed against the legislation — the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, known as the PRO Act. The Senate didn’t take it up on the floor.

“I was an opponent of the Pro Act,” Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) said of Chavez-DeRemer’s selection on Tuesday. “The right-to-work laws we instituted in Kentucky have been good for our economy … So I’m not a big fan of that position.”


The heightened scrutiny could develop into opposition from GOP lawmakers, although some Republicans said they are waiting to weigh in.
Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-Louisiana), who will next year chair the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee overseeing the Labor Secretary nomination, was among the first to voice concern last month. “I need to know more, because she’s pro-union and I’m from a right-to-work state,” Cassidy told The Post on Tuesday.

“I was a union member when I was in high school and college,” said Sen. Rick Scott (R-Florida) said in an interview. “But I haven’t met with her yet.”
Even as some trade groups congratulated Chavez-DeRemer, they have also made clear their opposition to a pro-union agenda.
“IFA looks forward to ensuring the job-killing PRO Act and Biden-era joint employer standard have no place in the incoming administration,” said Matt Haller, chief executive of the International Franchise Association, a lobbying group for fast food owners and operators, in a statement.


Yet in Chavez-DeRemer, Trump’s transition team signaled they felt confident they had selected a candidate who could straddle the divide between employers and labor.

“Lori’s strong support from both the Business and Labor communities will ensure that the Labor Department can unite Americans of all backgrounds behind our Agenda for unprecedented National Success,” Trump said in a statement.




Business leaders had favored Andrew Puzder, former CEO of CKE Restaurants, parent company of Carl’s Jr. and Hardee’s, who was also under consideration for the job, according to labor policymakers.
Chavez-DeRemer, however, benefited from a lobbying campaign from the Teamsters union. The union did not endorse for president for the first time in decades. And its president addressed the Republican National Convention, sending shock waves through the labor movement and among Democrats.



Some Senate Democrats have signaled they are open to Chavez-DeRemer’s nomination. On Tuesday, Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pennsylvania) told The Post, “She seems to be an incredibly strong prolabor choice.”
Fetterman cautioned that Trump’s pick could drive more union members away from the Democratic Party, calling her “a strategic and a smart play to co-opt even more of those out of our traditional base.”
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) also chimed in, writing in a post on the social media platform X that: “It’s a big deal that she’s one of the few Republicans who has endorsed the PRO Act.”
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont), one of organized labor’s biggest champions in the Senate, declined to comment.

If confirmed, Chavez-DeRemer would be responsible for overseeing the federal enforcement of minimum wage and overtime laws, child labor regulations and workplace health and safety rules.


It’s not clear how much Chavez-DeRemer’s pro-union legislation support would carry over in a Trump administration, said Janice R. Fine, a professor and director of the Workplace Justice Lab at Rutgers University.
“What we don’t know and what I don’t think we can know is what her attitude will be about really important basic labor laws — like minimum wage, overtime, health and safety,” Fine said.
While unions see a potential ally in Chavez-DeRemer, they also expressed concern whether she whether her views would swing right as a member of the Trump administration.

“Lori Chavez-DeRemer has built a pro-labor record in Congress,” the AFL-CIO, the country’s largest labor federation, said in a statement. “But Donald Trump is the President-elect of the United States — not Rep. Chavez-DeRemer — and it remains to be seen what she will be permitted to do as Secretary of Labor in an administration with a dramatically anti-worker agenda.”

...how do you excuse away the violent daily moves of 6-7%. Is that how a reserve currency acts?

Getting that tie today must have really felt like something special.

Good God... and I thought being a Dolphins fan was pathetic.

Serving the Quad City area since 1940, Ross' was a great local spot for breakfast 24 hours per day.
Founded by Harold Ross, Harold's family ran the business throughout it all.
Multiple Presidential candidates and sitting presidents have eaten there including: Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich.

It was the home of the magic mountain.
That culinary climb features a slice of grilled Texas toast covered in loose ground beef and piled with a mountain of French fries or hash browns and smothered with cheddar cheese sauce.

I have an iPhone and Apple Watch but have always been curious about the watches offered by Samsung and Pixel.

I noticed recently that you can get a new, older Galaxy Watch4 on eBay for well within my toy budget. So I grabbed one just to play with it. I got the 46mm Classic with LTE for $83. The 40mm version is just $72.

Thought I'd mention it in case anyone else had some itchy money in their toy budget. And also in case some here have good tips on how to get the most out of these watches.

Note to iPhone folks: these don't play nice with iPhones. I have an older Android phone (Motorola) that I use mainly for audiobooks, so not a problem.

Here's a link to the smaller one. Same seller has the bigger one, too. I have no affiliation.

In 4 seasons (through 2022), Anthony has earned $3,760,040.



Login to view embedded media

“[Rep. Adam Schiff] won’t tell you that he just voted to send $100 billion to foreign countries. We have a $35 trillion national debt in America.”
— Richard Grenell, former U.S. ambassador to Germany, in a social media post, April 20

Cut through the 2024 election noise. Get The Campaign Moment newsletter.

As the House on Saturday approved long-stalled aid packages for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan, one of the top contenders to be secretary of state in a second Trump administration posted that lawmakers had voted to “send $100 billion to foreign countries.” His jab was a common talking point among opponents of the bill.

The implication is that foreign aid is just a no-strings-attached gift. It isn’t. About two-thirds of foreign assistance is spent via U.S.-based entities, according to the Congressional Research Service. For instance, food aid must be purchased in the United States and by law must be shipped on U.S. carriers. Except for some aid given to Israel, all military aid must be used to purchase U.S. military equipment and training.


ADVERTISING


Since these bills — for Ukraine, for Israel and the Pacific region — are mostly about military aid, that means they are really jobs programs in the United States, which in turn bolsters the U.S. economy. The Senate approved the spending package on Tuesday and President Biden signed it into law on Wednesday. Let’s explore.

The Facts​

The full package was estimated to cost $95.25 billion. But information provided by the White House budget office and a detailed review of the bill shows that nearly 80 percent went either to weapons manufacturers in the United States to replenish stocks or supply weapons or to fund Defense Department operations in the United States and overseas (including the training of Ukrainian soldiers).

Just over $20 billion was reserved for humanitarian or economic assistance, which, as noted above, can often require that the funds go to U.S.-based organizations. About $8 billion of this amount is reserved to assist the Ukrainian government, including $50 million to address food shortages. Another $5.6 billion is for general international disaster assistance and $3.5 billion for refugee assistance.


While previous Ukraine-related bills provided funds to help the government maintain old-age pensions, this bill prohibits the direct payments for pension support. Indeed, the bill calls on Biden to negotiate an agreement with Ukraine to repay economic support, though 50 percent of the debt could be waived after Nov. 15 with congressional notification, with the remaining 50 percent able to be waived after Jan. 1, 2026.

Follow Election 2024
As is often the case with appropriations bills, there are different ways to run the numbers. To look at the package another way, about $60 billion will support Ukraine, $14 billion will support Israel and about $8 billion is directed to help countries in the Indo-Pacific region, especially Taiwan. Another $9 billion is for humanitarian assistance in conflict zones (including beyond Ukraine and Gaza) and $2.5 billion would support Central Command operations. Nearly $500 million is for refugee resettlement of Ukrainians in the United States.

60 percent will not leave our shores​

Nearly $57 billion — about 60 percent — is never leaving the United States. Instead, these funds are being invested with weapons manufacturers located in dozens of states. (So far, according to the Pentagon, manufacturers in all but 11 states have received Ukraine-related weapons contracts.)



About $24.5 billion is for stock replenishment for weapons given to Ukraine, Israel and other countries, such as 155mm ammunition rounds. The United States has been providing defense items to Ukraine and Israel via presidential drawdown authority, under which Biden can authorize the immediate transfer of articles and services from U.S. stocks. Now, those stocks will be rebuilt, meaning U.S. weapons factories will be working nonstop.
Nearly $14 billion will pay for purchase of advanced weapons systems for Ukraine, such as the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System, a light multiple rocket launcher built by Lockheed Martin in Arkansas.
Another $1.6 billion will be to replenish U.S. military stocks that are located in Israel, including artillery shells and missiles. These are pre-positioned for U.S. military use, but also available for Israel if necessary.



Nearly $5 billion is to expand military production capacity to manage the needs to Ukraine, Israel and other countries. For instance, the production rate of 155mm-caliber artillery shells was about 10,000 a month, and the administration wants to boost that to 1 million a year — a substantial increase that will include buying additional casing, explosive charges, warheads and fuses.
More than $7 billion — half directed to Israel — is for a State Department program called Foreign Military Financing, under which U.S. grants or loans are provided to countries to buy U.S. military equipment. (The bill also amends that program’s loan authority provided in a previous Ukraine law to allow for up to $8 billion in direct loans and $8 billion loan guarantees for NATO and major non-NATO allies to buy U.S. military equipment.)
Nearly $3.3 billion will be used to boost production of submarines, such as Virginia-class submarines, from an average of 1.3 per year to two per year. Each Virginia-class submarine costs about $4.3 billion.



Finally, the bill provided $1.6 billion to build additional missile defense systems for Israel.

19 percent will go to the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence​

The bill has nearly $18 billion for defense spending to help the Pentagon and intelligence services fund the cost of managing the fallout from a war in Ukraine and the war between Israel and Gaza. The bill both replenishes money that already has been spent and money that will be needed for the rest of the year, officials said. The bill specifically references $2.4 billion for U.S. Central Command, which overseas operations in the Middle East, $1.9 billion for additional maintenance, and $2.4 billion for combat expenditures and other spending, including at U.S. bases in the United States. But money for intelligence activities is classified, so it is not possible to provide a detailed breakdown of all the spending.

21 percent will mostly go to aid and diplomacy​

This line item includes the $8 billion to assist the Ukrainian government, $5.6 billion is for general international disaster assistance, and $3.5 billion for refugee assistance. The bill has many other smaller spending categories, such as additional money for the State Department to bolster diplomatic efforts in the Middle East and increased funds for inspectors general.

Allies are refilling their shopping carts here​

An underappreciated aspect of the Russian war in Ukraine is how NATO allies have also spent significant funds buying advanced U.S. weapons to replace materiel they have given to Ukraine. Finland, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands and Poland have flooded U.S. manufacturers with orders since the war started. For instance, Poland gave 250 older tanks to Ukraine and then signed more than $6 billion in deals to buy nearly 370 Abrams tanks (made in Ohio). Warsaw also gave Ukraine Soviet-made attack helicopters and in turn signed a $12 billion deal to replace them with Apache helicopters (made in Arizona).



Between 2019 and 2023, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the percentage of arms purchases from U.S. companies has spiked to these percentages: the Netherlands (99 percent), Italy (89 percent), Norway (89 percent), Britain (89 percent), Denmark (70 percent), Germany (63 percent) and Poland (45 percent).
Grenell did not respond to a request for comment.

The Pinocchio Test​

The one thing Grenell got right is that the bill cost nearly $100 billion. It was emergency spending and thus not paid for with offsetting revenue, which if you are a deficit hawk may be troubling.
But it’s highly misleading to say these funds are going to foreign countries. Nearly 80 percent will be spent on weapons made in the United States or by the U.S. military. This spending may be for the benefit of foreign countries — such as Ukraine in its war against Russia — but the money is mostly being used to create jobs in the United States.

Three Pinocchios​

(About our rating scale)

So . . . Israel has been attacking UNIFIL positions in southern Lebanon. What do you think about that?