Walmart is selling a 'perfect' $60 retractable car charger for just $19, and shoppers say it's 'very effective'
Walmart is selling a 'perfect' $60 retractable car charger for just $19, and shoppers say it's 'very effective' originally appeared on Autoblog.
Autoblog aims to feature only the best products and services. If you buy something via one of our links, we may earn a commission.
There's no worse feeling than getting into your car and realizing your phone isn't fully charged. If you have a long journey ahead of you or are simply headed to work, you need a quick fix when it comes to giving your phone a full charge.
Right now, you can grab the Nexpow Retractable Car Charger for just $19 at Walmart. With an original price of $60, this universally compatible charger provides you with the cables and ports needed to charge most of your devices.
This charger comes with a USB-C and lightning built-in retractable cables, C-type cables, and an additional A-type port and C-type port. These cables and ports allow you to charge everything from smartphones and tablets to laptops, wireless headphones, and gaming controllers. The 180-degree adjustable cable is a little over two feet long and retracts back inside the charger when not in use so you don't have to worry about stray cables all over your console.
"Very effective charger," wrote one shopper. "We bought this for a three week RV trip, in order to use the cigarette lighter slot to charge multiple devices while driving. It's a mini charging station and it was perfect for our needs. I liked the fact that it had various plug-in and cord types as we (like many) have various devices requiring various plug-ins."
To start using this charger, all you have to do is stick it into the cigarette lighter slot in your vehicle. It is made with overcharging, over current, over voltage, temperature control, and short circuit protection so it won't damage your devices or their batteries. Plus, it features a voltage display that allows you to monitor the charge of each device.
Another customer loves its ease of use writing, "A handy power supply. This two-charger set is ideal. There are now two: one for my vehicle and one for my spouse. The connections connect effortlessly, and the charging process for my phone was completed expeditiously."Reviews also say this charger is "very sturdy," and "charges quickly."
Keep your devices fully charged and ready for action with this retractable car charger. For just $19 you can make sure your smartphone and other electronics are juiced up for whatever is on your agenda.
Walmart is selling a 'perfect' $60 retractable car charger for just $19, and shoppers say it's 'very effective' first appeared on Autoblog on Jul 9, 2025
This story was originally reported by Autoblog on Jul 9, 2025, where it first appeared.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Triumphant in trade talks, Trump and his tariffs still face a challenge in federal court
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump has been getting his way on trade, strong-arming the European Union, Japan and other partners to accept once unthinkably high taxes on their exports to the United States. But his radical overhaul of American trade policy, in which he's bypassed Congress to slam big tariffs on most of the world's economies, has not gone unchallenged. He's facing at least seven lawsuits charging that he's overstepped his authority. The plaintiffs want his biggest, boldest tariffs thrown out. And they won Round One. In May, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade, a specialized federal court in New York, ruled that Trump exceeded his powers when he declared a national emergency to plaster taxes — tariffs — on imports from almost every country in the world. In reaching its decision, the court combined two challenges — one by five businesses and one by 12 U.S. states — into a single case. Now it goes on to Round Two. On Thursday, the 11 judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, which typically specializes in patent law, are scheduled to hear oral arguments from the Trump administration and from the states and businesses that want his sweeping import taxes struck down. That court earlier allowed the federal government to continue collecting Trump's tariffs as the case works its way through the judicial system. The issues are so weighty — involving the president's power to bypass Congress and impose taxes with huge economic consequences in the United States and abroad — that the case is widely expected to reach the U.S. Supreme Court, regardless of what the appeals court decides. Trump is an unabashed fan of tariffs. He sees the import taxes as an all-purpose economic tool that can bring manufacturing back to the United States, protect American industries, raise revenue to pay for the massive tax cuts in his 'One Big Beautiful Bill,'' pressure countries into bending to his will, even end wars. The U.S. Constitution gives the power to impose taxes — including tariffs — to Congress. But lawmakers have gradually relinquished power over trade policy to the White House. And Trump has made the most of the power vacuum, raising the average U.S. tariff to more than 18%, highest since 1934, according to the Budget Lab at Yale University. At issue in the pending court case is Trump's use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping tariffs without seeking congressional approval or conducting investigations first. Instead, he asserted the authority to declare a national emergency that justified his import taxes. In February, he cited the illegal flow of drugs and immigrants across the U.S. border to slap tariffs on Canada, China and Mexico. Then on April 2 — 'Liberation Day,'' Trump called it — he invoked IEEPA to announce 'reciprocal'' tariffs of up to 50% on countries with which the United States ran trade deficits and a 10% 'baseline'' tariff on almost everybody else. The emergency he cited was America's long-running trade deficit. Trump later suspended the reciprocal tariffs, but they remain a threat: They could be imposed again Friday on countries that do not pre-empt them by reaching trade agreements with the United States or that receive letters from Trump setting their tariff rates himself. The plaintiffs argue that the emergency power laws does not authorize the use of tariffs. They also note that the trade deficit hardly meets the definition of an 'unusual and extraordinary'' threat that would justify declaring an emergency under the law. The United States, after all, has run trade deficits — in which it buys more from foreign countries than it sells them — for 49 straight years and in good times and bad. The Trump administration argues that courts approved President Richard Nixon's emergency use of tariffs in a 1971 economic crisis. The Nixon administration successfully cited its authority under the 1917 Trading With Enemy Act, which preceded and supplied some of the legal language used in IEEPA. In May, the trade court rejected the argument, ruling that Trump's Liberation Day tariffs 'exceed any authority granted to the President'' under the emergency powers law. 'The president doesn't get to use open-ended grants of authority to do what he wants,'' said Reilly Stephens, senior counsel at the Liberty Justice Center, a libertarian legal group that is representing businesses suing the Trump administration over the tariffs. In the case of the drug trafficking and immigration tariffs on Canada, China and Mexico, the trade court ruled that the levies did not meet IEEPA's requirement that they 'deal with'' the problem they were supposed to address. The court challenge does not cover other Trump tariffs, including levies on foreign steel, aluminum and autos that the president imposed after Commerce Department investigations concluded that those imports were threats to U.S. national security. Nor does it include tariffs that Trump imposed on China in his first term — and President Joe Biden kept — after a government investigation concluded that the Chinese used unfair practices to give their own technology firms an edge over rivals from the United States and other Western countries. Paul Wiseman, The Associated Press Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
UBS Lifts PT on QUALCOMM Incorporated (QCOM) to $165 From $145, Keeps a Neutral Rating
QUALCOMM Incorporated (NASDAQ:QCOM) is one of the most undervalued blue chip stocks to buy according to hedge funds. On July 21, UBS raised the firm's price target on QUALCOMM Incorporated (NASDAQ:QCOM) to $165 from $145, keeping a Neutral rating on the shares. A technician testing the latest 5G device, demonstrating the company's commitment to innovation. The firm told investors in a research note that it expects a modest upside bias to the company's Q3 results in a backdrop showing solid signs of tariff-related pull-ins for Android and Apple units in the quarter. However, it also added that it does not expect this momentum to be sustained into the second half of the year as pull-ins usually wane, primarily because the end consumption for smartphones and PC has failed to get any better. QUALCOMM Incorporated (NASDAQ:QCOM) develops and commercializes foundational technologies for the wireless industry, including 3G, 4G, and 5G wireless connectivity and high-performance and low-power computing, including on-device AI. While we acknowledge the potential of QCOM as an investment, we believe certain AI stocks offer greater upside potential and carry less downside risk. If you're looking for an extremely undervalued AI stock that also stands to benefit significantly from Trump-era tariffs and the onshoring trend, see our free report on the best short-term AI stock. READ NEXT: 30 Stocks That Should Double in 3 Years and 11 Hidden AI Stocks to Buy Right Now. Disclosure: None. This article is originally published at Insider Monkey.
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
We're Lying to Ourselves About Taxes, Spending, and the Debt
Having extended most of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and added even more tax breaks, Congress is once again punting on the central fiscal question of our time: What kind of government do Americans want seriously enough to pay for? Yes, the "Big Beautiful Bill" avoided a massive tax increase and includes pro-growth reforms. It also adds to the debt—by how much is debatable—and that's before we get to the budgetary reckoning of Social Security and Medicare's impending insolvency. Against that backdrop, it's infuriating to see a $9 billion rescission package—one drop in the deficit bucket—met with cries of bloody murder. The same can be said of the apocalyptic discourse surrounding the Big Beautiful Bill's reduction in Medicaid spending. In spite of the cuts, the program is projected to grow drastically over the next 10 years. In fact, the reforms barely scratch the surface considering its enormous growth under former President Joe Biden. Maybe we wouldn't keep operating this way—pretending like minor trims are major reforms while refusing to tackle demographic and entitlement time bombs ticking beneath our feet—if we stayed focused on the question of what, considering the cost, we're willing to pay for. Otherwise, it's too easy to continue committing a generational injustice toward our children and grandchildren. That's because all the benefits and subsidies that we're unwilling to pay for will eventually have to be paid for in the future with higher taxes, inflation, or both. That's morally and economically reprehensible. Admitting we have a problem is hard. Fixing it is even harder, especially when politicians obscure costs and fail to recognize the following realities. First, growing the economy can, of course, be part of the solution. It creates more and better opportunities, raising incomes and tax revenue without raising tax rates—the rising tide that can lift many fiscal boats. But when we're this far underwater, short of a miracle produced by an energy and artificial intelligence revolution, growth alone simply won't be enough. Raising taxes on the rich will fall short too. Despite another round of loud calls to do so, like those now emanating from the New York City mayoral campaign, remember: The federal tax code is already highly progressive. Here's something else that should be common knowledge: Higher tax rates do not automatically translate to more tax revenue. Not even close. Federal revenues have consistently hovered around 17 percent to 18 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) for more than 50 years—through periods of high tax rates, low tax rates, and every combination of deductions, exemptions, and credits in between. This remarkable stability is no fluke. It reflects a basic reality of human behavior: When tax rates go up, people don't simply continue what they've been doing and hand over more money. They work less, take compensation in nontaxable forms, delay selling assets, move to lower-tax jurisdictions, or increase tax-avoidance strategies. Meanwhile, higher rates reduce incentives to invest, hire, and create or expand businesses, slowing growth and undermining the very revenue gains legislators expect. It's why economic literature shows that fiscal-adjustment packages made mostly of tax increases usually fail to reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio. Real-world responses mean that higher tax rates rarely generate what static models predict as we bear the costs of less work, less innovation, and less productivity leading to fewer opportunities for everyone, rich or poor. If the underlying structure of the system doesn't change, no amount of rate fiddling will sustainably result in more than 17-18 percent in tax collections. Political dynamics guarantee further disappointment. When Congress raises taxes on one group, it often turns around and cuts taxes elsewhere to offset the backlash. Then, when the government does manage to collect extra revenue—through windfall-profits taxes, inflation causing taxpayers to creep into higher brackets, or a booming economy—that money rarely goes toward deficit reduction. It gets spent, and then some. It's long past time to shift the conversation away from whether tax cuts should be "paid for." Instead, ask what level of spending we truly want with the money we truly have. I suspect that most people aren't willing to pay the taxes required to fund everything our current government does, and that more would feel this way if they understood our tax-collection limitations. That points toward the need to cut spending on, among other things, corporate welfare, economically distorting subsidies, flashy infrastructure gimmicks, and Social Security and Medicare. Until we align Congress' promises with what we're willing and able to fund, we'll continue down this dangerous path of illusion, denial, and intergenerational theft—as we cope with economic decline. COPYRIGHT 2025 The post We're Lying to Ourselves About Taxes, Spending, and the Debt appeared first on Solve the daily Crossword
