Datasets:

amanrangapur

/

Fin-Fact

like 6

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-shareholder-capitalism/

Did Biden Call for an 'End to Shareholder Capitalism'?

Dan MacGuill

08/06/2020

In the summer of 2020, multiple readers asked Snopes to investigate claims that former U.S. Vice President and presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden had called for an end to "shareholder capitalism." In July and August, Facebook users shared posts that contained the following text: users shared posts "Biden wants to end Shareholder Capitalism...that's your 401[k]...your pensions...your retirement...are you voting for that?" Another social media meme suggested that Biden's proposals would result in the destruction or liquidation of 401(k) pension savings: Those memes did not accurately reflect remarks made by Biden in July 2020 on the subject of "shareholder capitalism." At a July 9 event in Dunmore, Pennsylvania, Biden gave a relatively conventional stump speech, hitting on several familiar themes his working-class upbringing in nearby Scranton, the values he inherited from his family, and his vision for an American economy that, according to him, places less emphasis on corporate profit, and a greater emphasis on rewarding hard work and smaller-scale entrepreneurship, especially in the context of the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic, which devastated some smaller businesses and left millions unemployed. As part of this broader "Wall Street versus Main Street" theme, Biden said the following (emphasis added): theme Enough is enough, it's time reverse the priorities in this country. It's time to help small businesses, middle-class folks, manage their way through a pandemic, and let's help millions of would-be entrepreneurs get out from under their debts so they can start businesses. And it's time corporate America paid their fair share of taxes...The days of Amazon paying nothing in federal income tax will be over. Let's make sure that workers have a power, and the voice. It's way past time to put an end to the era of shareholder capitalism the idea [that] the only responsibility a corporation has is to its shareholders. That's simply not true, it's an absolute farce. They have responsibility to their workers, their community, to their country. That isn't [a] new or radical notion. These are basic values and principles that helped build this nation in the first instance. Now the challenge is to take these fundamental values, and apply them to the new economy we have to build in the years ahead..." Biden did not propose dissolving the stock market, or prohibiting the public trading of companies, or shareholder investment and dividend. In saying "It's way past time to put an end to the era of shareholder capitalism," Biden was taking a position in a long-running ethical debate between "shareholder" and "stakeholder" theories. One academic has helpfully summed up that philosophical conflict as follows: summed up Shareholder theory asserts that shareholders advance capital to a companys managers, who are supposed to spend corporate funds only in ways that have been authorized by the shareholders. As Milton Friedman wrote, "There is one and only one social responsibility of business to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it engages in open and free competition, without deception or fraud." wrote On the other hand, stakeholder theory asserts that managers have a duty to both the corporations shareholders and "individuals and constituencies that contribute, either voluntarily or involuntarily, to [a companys] wealth-creating capacity and activities, and who are therefore its potential beneficiaries and/or risk bearers." Although there is some debate regarding which stakeholders deserve consideration, a widely accepted interpretation refers to shareholders, customers, employees, suppliers and the local community. In the short video below, philosopher and professor of business administration R. Edward Freeman arguably the primary advocate for stakeholder theory outlines the approach: Biden characterized the era of shareholder capitalism as one in which the following idea holds sway "[that] the only responsibility a corporation has is to its shareholders." His rejection of that principle was classic stakeholder theory: "That's simply not true, it's an absolute farce. They [companies] have responsibility to their workers, their community, to their country." We asked the Biden campaign for details on any specific proposals the former vice president had, or how exactly he envisioned an end to "the era of shareholder capitalism," but we did not receive a response in time for publication. Although those details were not available, it's clear that Biden was not calling for the abolition of shareholding itself. Rather, he proposed bringing an end to the era of shareholder capitalism, meaning an end to the predominance of that particular ethical approach and a new gravitation towards the stakeholder-driven approach, a position that, whether or not one agrees with its tenets, has in recent years become orthodox among progressives, within the Democratic party, and even among business leaders themselves. In 2019, for example, the Business Roundtable an influential group of chief executive officers of some of the largest companies in the United States executed a high-profile shift in its approach, writing: writing "Since 1978, Business Roundtable has periodically issued Principles of Corporate Governance that include language on the purpose of a corporation. Each version of that document issued since 1997 has stated that corporations exist principally to serve their shareholders. It has become clear that this language on corporate purpose does not accurately describe the ways in which we and our fellow CEOs endeavor every day to create value for all our stakeholders, whose long-term interests are inseparable." What Biden called for in his Dunmore speech was therefore, as he rightly said, not a "new or radical notion." It was not an end to the stock market nor the ability of individuals to buy and sell shares, and therefore it was not a proposal that would cause pensions to evaporate, as several Facebook memes falsely claimed. Corporate Finance Institute. "Main St. vs Wall Street: The Mutual Dependence and Conflicts Between the Two." 7 July 2020. Smith, H. Jeff. "The Shareholders vs Stakeholders Debate." The Sloan Management Review, Massachussetts Institute of Technology." 15 July 2003. Friedman, Milton. "The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits." The New York Times. 13 September 1970. Business Roundtable. "Statement on the Purpose of a Corporation." 19 August 2019.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kushner-oscar-covid/

Does Jared Kushner's brother own a business associated with COVID-19 testing?

Alex Kasprak

03/16/2020

Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO Compared to the output of most other developed countries, the United States' ability to test for COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus, has been extremely limited. This reality has led to rumors that President Donald Trump's administration, or some of its members, have a financial interest in promoting specific tests as opposed to others that would be more widely available or more easily distributed. more widely available One claim that has emerged in this vein came from a report by Raw Story that asserted "the Kushner family is trying to cash in on the pandemic that could kill millions of us." The basis for this claim concerns the health insurance startup Oscar co-founded by Jared Kushners brother, Joshua Kushner. Jared Kushner is the son-in-law of and special adviser to Trump. report On March 13, 2020, Oscar announced that it would be launching a testing-center locator for COVID-19: announced Today, Oscar, a tech-driven health insurance company, launched the first testing center locator for COVID-19 in the U.S., featuring more than 100 centers today. It is accessible to the general public and more testing centers are being added every day. However, the details of Oscar's testing locator have been described incorrectly in several viral social media posts alleging profiteering from the Kushners during the coronavirus pandemic. A well-shared post by a user named "Boston Judy," for example, asserted that "we didn't have testing because the Trump family circle wanted to wait till they could make a profit." well-shared post Even if this assertion had merit, the actions Oscar took merely help locate unaffiliated testing centers. As an insurance company, Oscar does not manufacture, perform, analyze, or sell any actual COVID-19 test. Further, the test-center locator that Oscar developed is open to the general public and is not limited to people who get insurance through Oscar. Once a user has taken a short survey, the locator will provide the closest locations for testing in areas in which they operate. While the service also acts as a promotion for the company, it can serve as a testing center locator for any interested party. open "Boston Judy" later clarified that Oscar was not producing tests, but that the company would get to "bill the feds for evaluating people for COVID and referring them to a testing center if they meet the criteria [for testing]." While the legislation that would allow for such a reimbursement likely will include a fund for covering the cost of these tests, the legislation has not yet been finalized, and it's unclear that it would really be a windfall for Oscar, either. On March 13, 2020, U.S. House Democrats and the White House reached a deal on a package of legislation that included a requirement that insurance companies cover the full cost of COVID-19 with no cost sharing. As described by the Brookings Institute, this legislation, if and when it is passed by the Senate and signed by the president: described Would offer financial support to state governments by temporarily increasing the share of Medicaid spending financed by the federal government, require almost all forms of health insurance to cover COVID-19 testing without cost-sharing, and create mechanisms to pay for COVID-19 testing for uninsured people. In other words, while the government will likely be subsidizing insurance companies like Oscar, they are doing so to cover losses incurred by the requirement for full reimbursement to members. These laws, and the federal reimbursement they would authorize, would apply to any health insurance company in America, not only Oscar. would apply Joshua Kushner co-founded Oscar in 2012. His venture capital firm, Thrive Capital, holds a significant ownership share. According to financial-disclosure forms released by Jared Kushner and his wife, Ivanka Trump, covering the year 2018, the couple owned and received profit from shares of Thrive: co-founded financial- disclosure This document also appears to assert that the couple divested from Thrive during the 2018 financial year: Under federal law, executive branch employees are eligible to defer paying capital gains taxes on investments sold to comply with conflict of interest requirements. To take advantage of this benefit, the employees must obtain a Certificate of Divestiture from the Office of Government Ethics prior to selling the asset. Jared Kushner received a certificate of divestiture for, among other things, four Thrive-associated funds in February 2017. federal law selling the asset in February 2017 In a narrow legal sense, this removed the conflict of interest associated with his financial ownership in his brothers companies, according to Virginia Canter, who serves as chief ethics counsel for the nonpartisan Center for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), which also provided us with Kushners Certificate of Divestiture. But, she told us, his divestment does little to alter the appearance of a conflict of interest or reduce the risk of potential corruption, especially if he is using his public office to promote the private interests of his brother or giving him preferential access. The similarities between the Trump Administrations announcement of a website designed to locate COVID-19 testing centers and the website released by Oscar have been a source of speculation about undue access on Joshua Kushners part. source speculation That being said, the assertion that the Kushners as a family are involved in the business of COVID-19 testing is not entirely accurate. The company's coronavirus response so far is limited to an online form that allows users to find a testing location if their symptoms call for it. Health insurance companies are likely to be reimbursed for covering the cost of COVID-19 testing once legislation is passed, but this would apply to all insurance providers, not just Oscar. For these reasons, we rank the truth of this claim as a "Mixture." Kenen, Joanne. "How Testing Failures Allowed Coronavirus to Sweep the U.S." Politico. 6 March 2020. Okeson, Sarah. "Heres How the Kushner Family Is Cashing in on the Coronavirus." Raw Story. 15 March 2020. Oscar Health. Oscar Launches First Testing Center Locator for COVID-19." Accessed 13 March 2020. Okeson, Sarah. "Heres How the Kushner Family Is Cashing in on the Coronavirus." Raw Story. 15 March 2020. Fiedler, Matthew, et al. "What are the Health Coverage Provisions in the House Coronavirus Bill?" Brookings Institute. 13 March 2020. Bertoni, Steven. "Oscar Health Gets $400 Million And A $2.7 Billion Valuation from Fidelity." Forbes. 22 February 2016. U.S. Office of Government Ethics. "Jared Kushner Executive Branch Personnel Public Financial Disclosure Report (OGE Form 278e) - 2018." Accessed 16 March 2020. U.S. Office of Government Ethics. "Ivanka Trump Executive Branch Personnel Public Financial Disclosure Report (OGE Form 278e) - 2018." Accessed 16 March 2020. Update [18 March 2020]: Updated to include documentation of Kushner's Certificate of Divestment and added comments from Virginia Canter.

neutral

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/mar/05/dan-patrick/dan-patrick-errs-saying-texas-will-end-fiscal-year/

Texas this fiscal year will have more money in reserve than the other 49 states combined.

W. Gardner Selby

03/04/2015

Texas state government can afford tax cuts and targeted investments and will still have billions of dollars left over, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick told Austin radio station KLBJ AM. In the Feb. 25, 2015 interview,which we caught online, Patrick said: We are in the best financial shape of any state in the country. Well have about $11 billion or so in our rainy day fund by the end of our fiscal year. Thats more money in reserve than the other 49 states combined. This fiscal year runs through August 2015. Could it be that Texas will have more money in its rainy day fund than all other states combined? We emailed Patricks office to seek the basis of his statement and to gauge if he was trying to make an uncheckable predictionrather than a flat factual statement. We also looked for the latest information on each states expected fiscal-year-end reserves. The Texas state comptroller, Glenn Hegar, issued his two-yearstate revenue forecastin January 2015. Hegar said the states rainy day fund will have a balance of nearly $8.5 billion when fiscal 2015 ends Aug. 31, 2015. Hegar projected the fund to grow to $9.8 billion a year later and to $11 billion through August 2017. Per Patricks statement, then, all the other states together should be expecting to end their 2015 fiscal years with less than $8.5 billion, combined. Texas, Alaska outpace other states An online search led us to afall 2014 reportby the National Association of State Budget Officers initially making us think Patrick was onto something. In the report,The Fiscal Survey of States, a section headlined Year-End Balances said that generally, states have made progress rebuilding budgetary reserves since revenues plummeted during the Great Recession of 2009-10. State budgets passed into law for the 2015 fiscal year show reserve balances nationally totaling $53.1 billion, the report said. And, the report said, a disproportionate share of state budget reserves are concentrated in Alaska and Texas, which account for $20.6 billion or 38.8 percent of states reported total balances in fiscal 2015. Pew official For more perspective, we sought guidance from the Pew Charitable Trusts, which in July 2014 issued areporton how states might build rainy day funds. By email, spokeswoman Sarah Leiseca passed along analyst Brenna Erfords conclusion--drawing onFiscal 50, a Pew interactive breaking out the fiscal status of each state--that Patrick got it wrong. At the moment, per Pew, Texas has $10.3 billion in reserve funds (rainy day funds plus ending balances) providing enough for state government to operate for 79.1 days. The only state with more reserve funds currently is Alaska, with $13.3 billion, providing enough for the state to operate for 181.9 days, Erford said. SOURCE: Online interactive,Fiscal 50, Pew Charitable Trusts (chart received in an email from Sarah Leiseca, communications officer, Pew Charitable Trusts, attributing information to research by Brenna Erford, manager, state budget policy team, Pew Charitable Trusts, Feb. 26, 2015). Going forward, Erford noted, the NASBO fall 2014 report indicates Texas projecting a reserve balance of about $8 billion through the end of the 2015 fiscal year, which would run second to the projected year-end reserves for Alaska, $11.4 billion. According to these data, the sum total of reserves in California, New York, Ohio, Massachusetts, Florida, and Indiana, is greater than Texas reserves, providing clear evidence, Alaska withstanding, that Texas reserves are not more than the other 49 states combined, Erford said. NASBO charts With a nudge fromMichael Leachman, a state budget expert at the Washington, D.C.-based Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, we spotted charts in the NASBO report indicating the 50 states together in fall 2014 were projecting 2015 fiscal-year-end reserves, meaning regular balances plus rainy day fund set-asides, of about $53 billion--with Texas accounting for $10.7 billion of that and Alaska $10 billion and other states all together projecting nearly $32 billion in ending reserves. An adjoining chart indicates Texas ending fiscal 2015 with $8 billion in its rainy day fund alone compared to other states together winding up with about $34 billion in such funds. Texas appears to have bigger balances than many states. But its predicted totals dont dwarf all other states projected savings combined. Patrick: Unintentional error After we looked over the charts, Patricks office told us Patrick made an unintentional error in the radio interview. By email, spokesman Alejandro Garcia said Patrick takes pride in the state stockpiling reserves, but hed meant to talk up jobs created in Texas versus jobs created in all other states combined as he ad-libbed the comment. Our ruling Patrick said Texas this year will have more money in reserve than the other 49 states combined. On our inquiry, Patrick acknowledged this was a misstatement. Indeed, what he celebrated turned out to be incorrect and ridiculous. Pants on Fire! PANTS ON FIRE The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.

false

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/apr/30/steve-crisafulli/crisafulli-says-257000-would-be-forced-medicaid-un/

If we choose Obamacare expansion, 600,000 will lose eligibility for their subsidies, of which 257,000 would be forced into Medicaid.

Joshua Gillin

04/30/2015

Even before the Florida House adjourned early, Speaker Steve Crisafulli laid blame for the sessions budget impasse clearly on Medicaid expansion. In an essayprinted by theTampa Bay Times, Crisafulli wrote the Senate had partnered with the Obama administration to demand the expansion. But the House believed the move would drag people into a costly system that didnt work. Under federal law, other low-income Floridians have access to health care subsidies to buy private insurance for less than the average cost of a wireless phone bill, said Crisafulli, R-Merritt Island. In fact, if we choose Obamacare expansion, 600,000 will lose eligibility for their subsidies, of which 257,000 would be forced into Medicaid. Estimates say the expansion would cover more than 800,000 people, many of whom are currently uninsured. We wondered where Crisafulli was getting his numbers. Playing percentages This subject can make heads spin pretty easily, so before we begin, lets review a few basics about the Affordable Care Act. The laws intent was to expand coverage to the uninsured through two different ways. The first was to give subsidies to people who needed help to buy insurance through HealthCare.gov or a new state marketplace. The second way was to expand Medicaid, a state-federal insurance program for the very poor. Medicaid expansion ended up being optional for the states, thanks to a 2012 Supreme Court ruling. This is what the Florida House and Senate are arguing about. The Senate wants to expand Medicaid so that recipients end up buying heavily subsidized insurance. The House doesnt want to expand Medicaid at all. Crisafullis numbers are based on how many Floridians would qualify for the expansion, which would be extended to all adults up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level (100 percent is currently$11,770 for an individual and $24,250 for a family of four). Technically the calculation is actually 133 percent under the law, but a 5 percent deduction is added on top of that. If a state doesnt expand Medicaid, people who make 100 to 400 percent of the poverty level can get subsidies to buy insurance in a marketplace. These are the subsidies Crisafulli is talking about. But if you qualify for Medicaid, youre not eligible for help paying premiums. His argument is that if the state extends the program, the people between 100 and 133 percent of the federal poverty level (hes not citing the full 138, youll note) will lose their subsidies to buy policies, and the House simply wont let that happen. Crisafulli is using 2015-16 fiscal year estimates by the Florida Office of Economic and Demographic Research, which we examined ourselves. That projection says there are about 609,000 people in the 100 to 133 percent of poverty level range, and a little more than 351,000 of them have insurance of some kind. They get it through employers, Medicare or some other form of government assistance program, or buy insurance on their own (subsidized or not). Those people could enroll in Medicaid if they wanted to. More than 257,000 have no insurance at all, and these are the ones Crisafulli is saying will be forced into Medicaid. His office confirmed he meant they will be left without subsidies and will not make enough money to buy policies, so Medicaid will be their only option. What it means The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and health policy experts largely agreed the numbers were plausible, but there are some points they said Crisafulli is sidestepping. Foremost is the idea that 257,000 people would be forced to join the program. There is no law that says you have to use Medicaid if you qualify, and not everyone who is currently eligible enrolls. Ben Sommers, a health policy and economics professor at Harvard, said its pretty tough for Crisafulli to imply those quarter-million people would be upset by suddenly qualifying for Medicaid. Giving uninsured people Medicaid is pretty popular among uninsured people, Sommers said. There arent any public opinion surveys Ive seen in which low-income adults dont generally support the Medicaid expansion. Crisafulli neglects to mention there are many Floridians who right nowdont qualify for either Medicaid or federal subsidies, an estimated 669,000 people whose income is below 100 percent of federal poverty level. Those uninsured Floridians account for 18 percent of all Americans in the so-called coverage gap -- second only to Texas. They would all benefit from Medicaid expansion by gaining coverage. Finally, Crisafulli is arguing that expanding Medicaid under Obamacare would unfairly take away subsidies that Floridians need to buy their own insurance. Those subsidies are a feature of the very same Affordable Care Act he criticizes. Our ruling Crisafulli said, If we choose Obamacare expansion, 600,000 will lose eligibility for their subsidies, of which 257,000 would be forced into Medicaid. Crisafulli is using incendiary language to describe state projections about Medicaid expansion. The state estimates that about 609,000 Floridians would lose access to subsidies to buy insurance under an expansion. About 257,000 of those people would be uninsured, likely because theyre too poor to buy their own. The rest could enroll in Medicaid if they wanted to. So his numbers can be considered accurate. But experts tell us saying those people would beforcedinto the program isnt accurate. Many of the very poor would likely see becoming eligible for Medicaid as a benefit. We rate the statement Mostly True.

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/freedom-convoy-guinness/

Did 50,000 'Freedom Convoy' Trucks Set Guinness World Record?

Dan Evon

01/27/2022

In January 2022, a number of trucks participated in a convoy across Canada in protest of the country's requirement for cross-border truckers to be vaccinated for COVID-19. As videos of the so-called "freedom convoy" spread on social media, so did a number of claims concerning just how many trucks were participating in this event. These claims ranged from a few hundred to more than 50,000. Some even claimed that the freedom convoy had set a Guinness World Record for the world's largest truck convoy. country's requirement for cross-border truckers to be vaccinated for COVID-19 As of this writing, the freedom convoy has not earned a place in the Guinness World Records book. Furthermore, the claim that this convoy involved 50,000 trucks appears to be a gross exaggeration that goes against all available evidence. The largest truck convoy on record was set in November 2020 in Cairo, Egypt. That convoy involved 480 trucks and stretched 7.5 km (4.6 miles). Guinness writes: Guinness writes The largest parade of trucks consisted of 480 trucks and is achieved by Tahya Misr Fund (Egypt), in Cairo, Egypt, on 20 November 2020. With a length of 7.5 km, Tahya Misr Fund was able to organize a parade of 480 trucks, amid the harsh weather and heavy rain, breaking the Guinness World Records title for the largest parade of trucks, which was achieved 16 years ago in the Netherlands with a parade size of 416 trucks, thus the Tahya Misr Fund became the ne record holder. This Guinness World Records entry provides a data point that makes us skeptical of the 50,000 truck claim. If a 500 truck convoy stretched 7.5 km, a 50,000 truck convoy would stretch 750 km (about 460 miles). We have seen no evidence to support the idea that the freedom convoy is anywhere near 460 miles long. So just how many trucks participated in this freedom convoy? There's no official count for the number of trucks participating in this convoy. Estimates are also difficult because this big rig convoy also includes a number of cars and other smaller vehicles. Furthermore, the "freedom convoy" has been a multiple-day event and some trucks may only be participating for a portion of the journey. These variables make it difficult to estimate just how many trucks are participating. We reached out to the Canadian Trucking Alliance for more information and we will update this article if more information is made available. Many Canadian news outlets have used the word "hundreds" to quantify the number of trucks in this convoy. The CBC, for example, reported: "Hundreds of truckers set off from British Columbia to Ottawa on Sunday to protest a federal vaccine mandate despite the urging of the country's largest trucking federation to comply." reported Adrian Ghobrial, a reporter for the Toronto news outlet City News, said that while thousands of people have come out to watch and support the truckers as they drive by, he was skeptical that the convoy consisted of more than 100 trucks: David Akin, the chief global correspondent with Global News, cited a report from the Ontario Provincial Police that 113 trucks (as well as 276 personal vehicles) were recorded coming into Thunder Bay from Winnipeg. On social media, the estimate of trucks involved in this convoy has grown by the tweet. A post from Fox News host Sean Hannity, for example, claimed that the freedom convoy consisted of 10,000 trucks. Others claimed that this number was in excess of 50,000 trucks. freedom convoy consisted of 10,000 trucks The claim that 50,000 trucks are participating in this convoy appears to have originated with one of the protest's organizers. The organizers may not be the most reliable source for this figure, however, as they have reason to inflate these numbers. originated with one of the protest's organizers The number also seems implausible due to what we know about the trucking industry in Canada. According to the Canadian Trucking Alliance, the cross-border vaccine mandate would impact about 15% (or about 16,000) of the country's truckers. If the 50,000 truck claim is to be believed, that would mean that not only would every one of those 16,000 truckers have to participate in the event, but they'd also need to be joined by 34,000 additional trucks who weren't impacted by the mandate. Canadian Trucking Alliance The Canadian Trucking Alliance said in a statement that the "the vast majority of the Canadian trucking industry is vaccinated with the overall industry vaccination rate among truck drivers closely mirroring that of the general public. Accordingly, most of our nations hard-working truck drivers are continuing to move cross-border and domestic freight to ensure our economy continues to function." statement Canada Police Fear Violence at Trucker Vaccine Protest. ABC News, https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/canada-police-fear-violence-trucker-vaccine-protest-82497084. Accessed 27 Jan. 2022. Canadian Trucking Alliance Statement to Those Engaged in Road/Border Protests - Canadian Trucking Alliance. https://cantruck.ca/canadian-trucking-alliance-statement-to-those-engaged-in-road-border-protests/. Accessed 27 Jan. 2022. Hundreds of Truckers Headed to Ottawa in Freedom Rally Convoy against Vaccine Mandate | CBC News. CBC, https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/freedom-rally-bc-jan-23-1.6324942. Accessed 27 Jan. 2022. Largest Parade of Trucks. Guinness World Records, https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/largest-truck-convoy. Accessed 27 Jan. 2022.

false

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/sep/26/andrew-koenig/first-cut-missouri-income-tax-over-100-years/

The bill that I carried cutting MOs income tax for 1st time in over 100 years will start its 1st phase in jan 1 2018. #moleg @Eric_Schmitt

Katelyn Brown

09/26/2017

Taxes have been a hot topic in the political world lately. President Donald Trump has been calling for reduction of corporate taxes. This is something he talked about when visiting Missouri in August. However, income tax is a hot button topic in Missouri as well. State Sen. Andrew Koenig, R-Manchester, boasted on Twitter that a law he helped pass would be the first cut to Missouri income tax in over a century. The bill that I carried cutting MOs income tax for 1st time in over 100 years will start its 1st phase in jan 1 2018, the senator tweeted on Aug. 30, 2017, with the hashtag moleg and tagging Missouri State Treasurer Eric Schmitt. Over a century? This seemed a little bit out there. When Koenigs office did not answer our inquiry, we started digging for ourselves. Koenig was referring to Senate Bill 509 from 2014. Koenig was the House handler for the bill, as a state representative at the time. What does the now law actually do to income tax though? Simply put, income tax rates will decrease by a tenth of a percent every year until the top tax rate is a half of a percent lower, or 5.5 percent instead of the current 6 percent. There will also be an increase in income tax deductibles for business income until it reaches 25 percent. To trigger the start of the law, the states gross income had to exceed income in one of the three previous years by $150 million. That happened in the last fiscal year, so now the bill will go into effect on Jan. 1, 2018. The prospect of decreasing income tax is appealing for taxpayers, but is this really the first time it is happening in over a century? We talked to Anne Rottman, the library administrator at the Missouri Legislative Library, about the last time Missouri saw a reduction in income taxes. I dont think there ever has been a cut, she said. It turns out, shes right. Missouri income tax was established in 1917. This tax was for a half of a percent annually on individuals income. Income tax saw revisions throughout the years. Graduated tax brackets were created in 1939 and have not been changed since 1972. The limit for deduction for federal income taxes was created in 1993. There were various other revisions and adjustments as well. However, none of these were decreases in the tax levied. For a century, tax law has been growing into what income tax looks like today. Why has there always been an increase and never a decrease? No idea why this approach took so long, said Joseph Haslag, an economics professor at MU. Others seem to be stumped as well. The half-percentage reduction of the tax rate per year gives the state legislature some time to adjust to having less revenue for the budget. Meanwhile, theres a more immediate impact for individuals: Tax brackets will now be adjusted annually based on percent increase in inflation. However, when it comes to the economy overall, it isnt as exciting as it sounds, Haslag said. For a revenue-test state like Missouri, the tax cut reduction will have small, very small, positive effect on Missouris economic growth, Haslag said. And while Koenig is correct that the states income rate has never decreased, its important to note that the legislature has enacted many income tax deductions that have the same effect of lowering someones state income tax bill. Beginning in 2016, for example, 100 percent of a military pension income became exempt from Missouri state tax. The state also created a new deduction for people from Missouri who relocated a business to Missouri. Koenig said that Senate Bill 509 would cut Missouri income tax for the first time in over 100 years. The truth of the matter is Missouri income tax has never been cut. Income tax laws were put in place in 1917. This was 100 years ago exactly. Its not over 100 years, but Koenig was pretty close. Its worth noting, however, that Missouri has created a long list of deductions that could reduce a persons state income tax bill without having to decrease the overall tax rate. Koenigs statement is accurate but needs that clarifying information. That meets our definition of Mostly True.

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ice-arrest-los-angeles-mayor/

Did Immigration Enforcement Agents Arrest the Mayor of Los Angeles?

Snopes Staff

12/26/2019

On Nov. 26, Taters Gonna Tate published an article positing that the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) had arrested the mayor of Los Angeles. article "ICE Arrests LA Mayor for Harboring Fugitives Through Sanctuary City." Weve all been wondering when this would happen and why wasnt this done from the start. But we shouldnt dwell. Justice is finally being done. Josiah Barron, the celebrated mayor of Los Angeles County, was led away from his office in handcuffs today by ICE agents and charged with harboring fugitives from the law with his decision to provide undocumented immigrants with refuge under his Sanctuary City designation. The arrest followed Barrons order to the citys police to not cooperate with ICE by reporting illegal aliens in their custody. ICE demanded the criminals be handed over but they were denied. This item was not a factual recounting of real-life events. The article originated with a website that describes its output as being humorous or satirical in nature, as follows: describes "Tatersgonnatate.com is a subsidiary of the Americas Last Line of Defense network of parody, satire, and tomfoolery ... Everything on this website is fiction. It is not a lie and it is not fake news because it is not real. If you believe that it is real, you should have your head examined. Any similarities between this sites pure fantasy and actual people, places, and events are purely coincidental and all images should be considered altered and satirical." The fake story was widely shared in late December after America's Last Line of Defense (ALLOD) re-promoted it on Facebook on Dec. 24. Although the article bore disclaimers that labelled it "satire," many readers mistook it for serious news, as demonstrated by a series of earnest comments on the ALLOD Facebook page: For background, here is why we sometimes write about satire and humor. why TatersGonnaTate.com. "ICE Arrests LA Mayor for Harboring Fugitives Through Sanctuary City." 26 November 2019.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/channing-tatum-rumor/

Did Channing Tatum Come Out as Gay?

David Mikkelson

05/28/2015

On 28 May 2015, a news-like link began to circulate on Facebook claiming popular actor Channing Tatum came out as gay. The link's headline stated "Channing Tatum comes out as Gay," and the preview text read "Channing Tatum comes out as Gay following a number of rumours": While the rumor was briefly popular on sites like Twitter and Facebook among Tatum's fans, it was generated by the site Feednewz.com. Feednewz.com is not a news site; rather, its primary purpose is the generation of user-submitted links that appear to be news stories. As with a similar viral hoax involving EastEnders actor Danny Dyer, the Channing Tatum hoax spread atypically far for a FeedNewz.com link due to user interest in the fabricated claim. Danny Dyer Claims like the one about Tatum often spread due to a compelling headline alone. Readers who clicked through to the appended link were greeted with the following image revealing the prank: Channing Tatum did not reveal any new information about his sexuality, and he remained married to actress Jenna Dewan until they separated in March 2018. Jenna Dewan

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/scam-amazon-free-airpods-raffle/

Is Amazon Giving Away Free AirPods in a Raffle?

Nur Ibrahim

04/24/2021

If you received a text message purportedly from Amazon, chances are you are one of many and it is a scam. Over March and April 2021, many Snopes readers told us they received messages on their phones claiming they had won an AirPod or another device in a raffle. One of our editors also received the message, which said: Amazon: Congratulations Bond, you came second in this weeks Amazon pods raffle! Follow this link to [...] She did not follow that link, however, because this appeared right away to be a scam. Indeed, the link did not connect to an official Amazon webpage. According to Amazon, all of its web pages normally follow the same format, ending in amazon.com, for example: pay.amazon.com or aws.amazon.com. Any link that is an IP address or a random string of numbers should be automatically suspicious. Amazon The Better Business Bureau (BBB) alerted users to this scam back in March. It warned that if you get a text message from a range of unknown numbers and with a suspicious link for collecting your item: alerted users Dont click! The text message is not from Amazon and it is the latest in a long list of impersonation scams that have been happening since the start of the pandemic, often using Amazons brand. The bogus raffle and suspicious link are part of a con used to trick people into visiting a phishing website, where they unwittingly share account credentials as well as personal and financial information with fraudsters. According to Amazon, any customer who receives a questionable email, text or call from a person impersonating Amazon or an Amazon employee should report them to Amazon customer service. Amazon investigates these complaints and will take action, if warranted. You can submit suspicious information to [email protected]. Amazon also offers a page to help identify if an email, text or phone call is really from Amazon. BBB also included a screenshot of a message similar to the one received by our editor, except the recipient was told that they came third in the raffle. When our editor reported the number that texted her to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), it recommended a number of tips to block spam messages. The tips can be read here. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) here Given that the link to collecting the so-called prize does not direct us to an official Amazon website, and it could potentially share your private information, we rate this claim a Scam.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/education-oregon/

Did Oregon Officials Say 'Showing Work' in Math Class Is White Supremacism?

Jessica Lee

02/22/2021

In early 2021, Snopes became aware of online reports that alleged the Oregon Department of Education (ODE) said the practice of students documenting how they answer math problems perpetuated white supremacism. Among web pages circulating the claim was a Feb. 15 article on conservative commentator Ben Shapiro's media website, The Daily Wire. It read: Feb. 15 article A mathematics guide sent out to Oregon schools tells educators that asking students to show their work in math class is a form of white supremacy. [...] Examples of classroom actions that allegedly perpetuate white supremacy include asking students to show their work, focusing on getting the right answer, tracking student success, and grading students. A separate web page by Fox News titled, "Oregon promotes teacher program that seeks to undo 'racism in mathematics'," also made the assertion, while users of social media sites including Twitter and Reddit debated the accuracy of such reports, or circulated their allegations about the state department's instructions to educators as fact. web page Reddit We learned the rumor's source was a Feb. 5 newsletter from ODE to math teachers across the state that included links to additional teaching resources. See the below-displayed screenshot of a portion of the public bulletin, of which Snopes confirmed the authenticity via ODE's Director of Communications Mark Siegel. Feb. 5 newsletter In other words, a portion of the ODE-sponsored newsletter promoted a virtual learning seminar designed by an outside entity Pathway to Equitable Math Instruction that aimed to equip middle school math teachers with ideas to curb documented performance gaps between white and English-speaking students and all other students, according to the bulletin and our correspondence with Siegel. Pathway to Equitable Math Instruction documented The Oregon newsletter included links to the home page of the so-called "Pathway to Equitable Math Instruction" project (on which we elaborate below), as well as to register for the course. Siegel said in an email to Snopes: home page "The materials contained in the [newsletter] are drawn from both internal and external sources and inclusion of external materials does not necessarily indicate Oregon Department of Education endorsement." More than 30 people from agencies across California and other states such as San Diego State University, the Los Angeles County of Education and UnboundEd (a hub of training resources for teachers) designed the ODE-advertised project "Pathway to Equitable Math Instruction," according to an online pamphlet listing collaborators. UnboundEd online pamphlet In addition to the online teaching classes featured in the ODE newsletter, the initiative's website hosts several PDFs to which middle school teachers anywhere can refer if they are interested in working toward the project's goal: dismantling racism in math classes. One such report, totaling 82 pages, stated more than halfway through: initiative's website In other words, a resource on the website for "Pathway to Equitable Math Instruction," which ODE called a partner in the newsletter, indeed stated that "white supremacy culture shows up in math classrooms" when educators require students to show their work because the mandate does not necessarily help students process information. Instead, the PDF encouraged teachers to offer a variety of ways for students to demonstrate their question-answering process, including via verbal discussions or multimedia projects that don't use written words or numbers. We reached out to several of the project's collaborators for their comment on the The Daily Wire and Fox News' framing of the above-described advice for middle school math teachers, and we heard back from Joanne Rossi Becker, a math and statistics professor at San Jose State University. Becker said while she did not author the report she served as a reviewer of its materials the recommendation aimed to encourage educators to allow students to explain their thinking in ways other than writing, such as through conversations, graphs, or videos. "Overall, the document is well done and has cogent recommendations for teachers and other educators to ameliorate implicit bias and racism," Becker wrote in an email to Snopes. To be clear, while the ODE newsletter promoted a course designed by the project to eliminate racial and language gaps in teaching, as well as a link to a homepage, it did not include a link to or mention the above-displayed PDF, specifically. Siegel told Snopes: ODE did not directly instruct educators in terms of specific instructional practices, rather an optional resource was shared to support teacher conversations to examine their actions, beliefs, and values around teaching mathematics. The department is supportive of conversations in the larger context identifying beliefs and practices that perpetuate educational harm on Black, Latinx, and multilingual students, denying them full access to the world of mathematics. The authors of this resource described this larger idea using the term white supremacy. The term 'showing the work' in this resource refers to a single approach identified by the teacher. Although a single answer may be expected, students could arrive at correct answers using a variety of approaches such as grouping physical objects (legos, blocks), diagrams of problems, writing it out, video explanations, and spreadsheets. Put another way, the department said it supports the project's goal to help students of color and multilingual students do better in math class, as well as its recommendation to allow classes a variety of ways to explain how they solve problems. "Neither ODE nor the course has made claims that math content itself is racist," Siegel wrote. "The system of mathematics education, including policy, graduation requirements, standards, instruction, course sequences, and assessments, must be evaluated through an equity stance to disrupt inequitable outcomes we currently experience." In sum, it's true a project designed by dozens of school administrators and scholars said expanding options for math students to explain their processes for answering questions could help close racial and language gaps in teaching, addressing existing "white supremacy culture." But it was false to frame that recommendation as a mandatory directive from ODE to teachers, or to suggest the department itself said the standard idea of "showing work" is a form of white supremacy. For those reasons, we rate this claim a "Mixture" of truth and misleading information.

neutral

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-china-virus-atlanta-shooting/

Did Trump Refer to 'China Virus' on Fox the Night Asian Women Were Killed in Atlanta?

Jessica Lee

03/17/2021

Around 5 p.m. EDT on March 16, 2021, a 21-year-old white man allegedly shot and killed eight people -- six of whom were Asian women -- at three Atlanta-area spas. The investigation into the mass shooting remained ongoing, as of this report. allegedly shot and killed investigation As word of the tragedy spread online, however, people flooded social media with messages of sympathy for the deceased. Many posts classified them as unknowing victims of the country's increasing xenophobia, given a surge of attacks against Asian Americans that coincided with the COVID-19 outbreak in the U.S, or pervasive violence against women. surge of attacks Among such posters was Aaron Rupar, a journalist at Vox. A couple of hours after the incident, for instance, he blamed former U.S. President Donald Trump's characterization of the coronavirus as a reason for growing hate crimes against Asian Americans, and tweeted: Vox tweeted "[I] don't think it's a coincidence that Trump spent the better part of a year using a virus as a slur against Chinese people while hate crimes against Asian Americans spiked by 150 percent." Rupar was referring to Trump's repeated insistence on calling the coronavirus the "Chinese virus" -- going against widely accepted public health guidelines that warn against titling disease outbreaks after nations or regions of the world to eliminate stigmatization -- and 2020 hate crime statistics in 16 U.S. cities compiled by the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University. repeated insistence guidelines 2020 hate crime statistics About 20 minutes later, Rupar added: The underlying claim was true as authorities in the Atlanta area embarked on a manhunt to catch the suspect on the evening of March 16, Trump referred to the coronavirus as the "China virus" on Fox News. a manhunt to catch the suspect But let this be clear: No evidence explicitly connected the former president's use of the term on national television with the tragedy unfolding simultaneously in Georgia. Furthermore, it was unclear whether he was even aware of the mass shooting when he said "China virus" while talking about unrelated matters -- specifically, his presidential administration's approach to the American economy. The interviewer did not ask him about the Atlanta-are shooting. Here's what happened: Between roughly 6 p.m. and 8:30 p.m. EDT, according to The Associated Press, the victims' bodies were reported inside massage parlors, and authorities arrested the suspected gunman -- Robert Aaron Long, of Woodstock, Georgia -- as he was driving on the interstate. Meanwhile, at 7 p.m. EDT, Trump called in for a phone interview with Fox News' Maria Bartiromo, a recording of which Snopes obtained via the media outlet's website and is displayed below. Maria Bartiromo Throughout much of the interview, the former president lambasted his successor's approach to immigration, criticized election security, and took credit for the ongoing efforts to provide COVID-19 vaccinations to every American willing to get one. Then, at approximately the 5-minute mark, he said: immigration COVID-19 [The economy] was recovering under my administration -- twice. We got it to a level that the world has never seen before. We were the envy of the world and then when we got hit by the, as I call it, 'the China virus' -- COVID -- it obviously went down along with every other economy. And then we were the first to get it back up. You can watch the segment here:

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/largest-stock-drops-trump/

Did the 8 Largest Single-Day Stock Drops Occur Under Trump?

David Mikkelson

02/28/2020

In February 2020, as fears surrounding the outbreak of a new coronavirus and a potential pandemic triggered the worst one-day drop in U.S. stocks since 2011, a chart began circulating via social media purportedly showing the "8 Largest Dow Jones Drops in American History." one-day drop What was notable about the chart was that all of the listed stock market drops had supposedly occurred during the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump: The chart was accurate as far as it went, replicating information from the Wikipedia "List of largest daily changes in the Dow Jones Industrial Average" page about the greatest single-day drops in the Dow: page However, this chart only displayed net (or absolute) losses in the Dow, and obviously a drop of 1,000 points when the average stands at 25,000 is far less severe than a drop of 1,000 points when the average stands at only 5,000. As we detailed in another article, a chart of the largest single-day percentage (or relative) changes in the Dow shows that none of the top 10 single-day percentage drops in that stock index has occurred during the Trump administration: article Biggest one-day percentage stock index losses (Sources: The Wall Street Journal's Market Data and Yahoo! Finance's downloadable Dow Jones data) Market Data data The largest single-day percentage drop in the Dow took place on Oct. 19, 1987 a day commonly known as Black Monday when the Dow fell 508 points for a loss of 22.6% of its value. Black Monday Wikipedia. "List of Largest Daily Changes in the Dow Jones Industrial Average." Accessed 28 February 2020. Wikipedia. "Black Monday (1987)." Accessed 28 February 2020. Associated Press. "Virus Anxiety Triggers Biggest 1-Day Market Drop Since 2011." Snopes.com. 28 February 2020. MacGuill, Dan. "Does the Dow Jones Do Worse Under Republican Presidents?" Snopes.com. 8 February 2018.

neutral

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/us-millionaires-stimulus-checks/

Can American millionaires receive $1.7 million in COVID-19 stimulus funds?

Jessica Lee

04/21/2020

Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO Responding to an unprecedented disruption to the U.S. economy caused by the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic, U.S. President Donald Trump on March 27, 2020, approved a $2.2 trillion stimulus package called the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act. approved CARES Aiming to provide direct payments to Americans, the relief package authorized the U.S. Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to send $1,200 checks to low- and middle-class workers. The legislation also boosted funding for unemployment benefits, set aside billions of dollars for loans to help small businesses, and increased health care spending by $100 billion, among other provisions. $1,200 checks But the bill included an additional benefit for wealthy Americans, per national media headlines in mid-April: Over 43,000 U.S. Millionaires will get stimulus averaging $1.6 million each" (New York Post) and "How Some Rich Americans Are Getting Checks Averaging $1.7 million" (Forbes). Snopes received numerous reader inquiries about the veracity of those reports. Over 43,000 U.S. Millionaires will get stimulus averaging $1.6 million each How Some Rich Americans Are Getting Checks Averaging $1.7 million" The claim is multi-pronged: that millionaires and other Americans received the same type of stimulus checks, termed "Economic Impact Payments"; that those payments were higher for millionaires than for other workers; and that the economic benefits for the country's wealthiest residents averaged $1.7 million each under the CARES Act. other Americans The coronavirus relief package authorized the federal government to send: For single tax filers with higher annual salaries but less than $99,000 the federal government is reducing the stimulus checks by $5 for each $100 above the $75,000 threshold (similar math goes for payments to families). Yet here is evidence that proves part of the above claim false, in the words of the IRS: "Tax filers with adjusted gross income up to $75,000 for individuals and up to $150,000 for married couples filing joint returns will receive the full payment" which does not exceed the amounts of $1,200 for individuals, $2,400 for joint claims, and $500 per qualifying child. That means only in this hypothetical situation a family had 3,400 qualifying children could an American receive a stimulus check of $1.7 million. Here's language verbatim from the CARES Act: However, the latter part of the claim that millionaires could reap an average of $1.7 million in financial gains under the CARES Act is less definite. The answer begins with understanding pre-CARES Act tax code. In 2017, the federal government established new limitations on how much money owners of so-called "pass-through" businesses can deduct as losses against their "nonbusiness" income to minimize their tax liability. Under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, owners of such businesses entities where profits flow through to owners and are not subject to corporate income taxes could deduct a maximum of $250,000 in losses individually ($500,000 for couples) to offset taxable income from other sources, such as capital gains. Two Democratic Congressmen Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Rep. Llloyd Doggett of Texas have explained the rule like this: pass-through" Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, have explained If one spouse owns a company that had a $5 million loss in 2018 and the other spouse made $5 million from stock market investments, this limitation meant that the couples taxable income was $4.5 million (not zero, if the loss were allowed to fully cancel out the income). The other $4.5 million in losses, however, could be carried forward to use in future years. Provisions in the CARES Act temporarily suspended that limitation until the start of 2021, according to an analysis of legislative records by Snopes. In other words, the IRS is legally obligated to count excess losses from businesses that it otherwise wouldnt have and provide them with "the same treatment as if the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act had not been enacted," according to attorneys with the international law firm Foley and Lardner. Foley and Lardner Additionally, the provisions change the timeline of the 2017 law and allow for the new standard to retroactively apply, enabling businesses to report losses in 2018 and 2019 against the past five years. Those taxpayers, however, would likely need to amend their 2018 and 2019 tax returns if they have already been filed to see any changes, according to the tax consulting firm Calvetti Ferguson. Calvetti Ferguson And since the modification under the CARES Act only applies until Dec. 31, 2020, the 2017 law will kick in the following year. Here's how that change to tax code is relevant to the claim: Americans who earn $1 million or more will benefit the most from the temporary suspension on the deduction limit, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan congressional body the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT). In early April 2020, Whitehouse and Doggett requested the committee to research "the distributional effects" of the provision within the CARES Act. Later, the commissions chief of staff, Thomas Barthold, shared its findings in a letter to the congressmen, including the caveat: Joint Committee on Taxation in a letter There is, of course, a great deal of uncertainty about the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, and how those economic effects will translate into business losses for individuals. The revenue estimate represents our best effort to give Congress useful information about the potential scale of revenue changes associated with this provision. The letter included the following table, showing what class of Americans will receive what percentage of benefits from the amendment to the 2017 tax law: The table shows almost 82% of the provision's benefits will go toward about 43,000 Americans who earn $1 million or more annually. Put another way, hedge-fund investors and owners of real estate businesses are "far and away" the two prime beneficiaries of the change to the 2017 tax law, Steve Rosenthal, a tax expert at the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, told The Washington Post. The JCT also found that suspending the limitation for "pass-through" businesses will cost taxpayers about $90 billion in 2020 alone, the Post reported. Tax Policy Center The Washington Post Using those numbers, you can do back-of-the-napkin math to estimate the amount of money the country's wealthiest population could reduce from their tax burden as a result of the change (82% of $90 billion): about $73.8 billion. Then, if you divide that total by the estimated number of impacted Americans who earn $1 million or more (43,000), you end up with an average of $1,716,279 or about $1.7 million each. "If you take the reports calculations at face value, that means that, on average, each of the eligible taxpayers would get a windfall of ~$1.7 million! Forbes contributor Shahar Ziv wrote. Clearly not all of those earning only $1 million will receive a $1.7 million tax cut; however, just as some may receive less than the $1.7 million, some may benefit much more." In sum, given that U.S. millionaires won't receive stimulus payments based on their income under the CARES Act but rather the Act's provisions enable those Americans to take advantage of a temporary tax relief potentially to the tune of $1.7 million on average we rate this claim as a "Mixture" of true and false information. Arnell, Michael and Teachout, Eric. CARES Act Income Tax Implications." Calvetti Ferguson. 31 March 2020. Brown, Lee. Over 43,000 U.S. millionaires will get stimulus averaging $1.6 million each. New York Post. 16 April 2020. Cochrane, Emily and Fandos, Nicholas. Senate Approves $2 Trillion Stimulus After Bipartisan Deal. The New York Times. 25 March 2020. H.R.748 CARES Act. All Actions H.R.748 116th Congress (2019-2020). Congress.gov. Accessed 20 April 2020. Internal Revenue Service. "Economic impact payments: What you need to know". Accessed 20 April 2020. May, Ashley and Weisblat, David. CARES Act -- Summary of Tax Provision. Foley & Lardner LLP. Accessed 20 April 2020. H.R.748 CARES Act. All Actions H.R.748 116th Congress (2019-2020). Congress.gov. Accessed 20 April 2020. Stein, Jeff. Tax change in coronavirus package overwhelmingly benefits millionaires, congressional body finds. The Washington Post. 14 April 2020. Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Congress.gov. Accessed 20 April 2020. The White House. Remarks by President Trump at Signing of H.R. 748, The CARES Act. 27 March 2020. Ziv, Shahar. How Some Rich Americans Are Getting Stimulus Checks Averaging $1.7 Million. Forbes. 14 April 2020.

neutral

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/jimmy-carter-eye-injury/

Did Jimmy Carter participate in the building of low-cost housing despite encountering difficulties from an eye injury?

Jessica Lee

04/14/2022

For years, liberal social media users have shared photographs or videos supposedly depicting former U.S. President Jimmy Carter doing woodworking with what appears to be an eye injury, apparently to emphasize that his alleged age and medical history hadn't stopped him from volunteering. One Twitter user, for example, posted the below-displayed meme about the 39th president in April 2022: videos posted A reverse-image search of the meme revealed numerous instances in which internet users promoted this underlying claim: that Carter, at age 95, fell, received stitches and then the following day helped build houses for Habitat for Humanity a Christian nonprofit that helps low-income families build homes and pay their mortgages. revealed numerous instances Christian nonprofit [See also: Why Do the Bidens Look Giant in Photo With Carters?] Why Do the Bidens Look Giant in Photo With Carters? The claim was true though the incident had occurred more than two years ago, as of this writing. On Oct. 7, 2019, The Associated Press published the photographs featured in the meme, writing: writing NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) With a bandage above his left eye and a large, red welt below it, former President Jimmy Carter was greeted by a cheering crowd Monday morning as he prepared to help build a home with Habitat for Humanity in Nashville. Habitat for Humanity Carter fell at home on Sunday, requiring 14 stiches, but he did not let his injuries keep him from participating in his 36th building project with the nonprofit Christian housing organization. He turned 95 last Tuesday, becoming the first U.S. president to reach that milestone. The newspaper reported that he and his wife, former First Lady Rosalyn Carter, worked that day on building corbels, a type of support bracket, for a home. CNN also reported on the public appearance, including the following quote from the former president in its Oct. 8, 2019, story: I fell down and hit my forehead on a sharp edge and had to go to the hospital. And they took 14 stitches in my forehead and my eye is black, as youve noticed, he said. But I had a No. 1 priority and that was to come to Nashville and build houses. CNN also reported According to the nonprofit's website, the couple formed a partnership with Habitat for Humanity in the 1980s, and they have rallied "thousands of volunteers and even celebrities" to join the organization's cause since then. However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and 2021, Habitat for Humanity paused its so-called "Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter Work Project," a reoccurring event during which the couple fundraises to build a grouping of homes somewhere. nonprofit's website 1980s Interested in presidential trivia? We recently combed our archives to compile exclusive stories regarding presidents pets, drinking, alleged extramarital affairs, purported after-death hauntings of the White House and more. They are listed in order of presidential term here, and include the following nuggets of information about Carter: presidents pets drinking extramarital affairs purported after-death hauntings here Yes, Carter once helped contain a potentially dangerous accident at a nuclear reactor in Canada. He and his wife, Rosalynn, are the longest-married couple in presidential history. Carter indeed published an open letter entitled Losing My Religion for Equality. Carter Work Project. Habitat for Humanity, https://www.habitat.org/volunteer/build-events/carter-work-project. Accessed 14 Apr. 2022. Despite Fall, Former President Carter Helps Build Home. AP NEWS, 7 Oct. 2019, https://apnews.com/article/9ef214c0b3c748b6b32fa40a70ff6624. Ahmed, Elizabeth Wolfe, Saeed. Despite 14 Stitches and a Black Eye, Jimmy Carter Is Back Building Homes. CNN, 8 Oct. 2019, https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/08/us/carter-building-houses-after-stitches-falling-trnd/index.html.

true

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2007/aug/01/hillary-clinton/an-accurate-summary-of-economic-stats/

Corporate profits are up, CEO pay is up, but average wages of Americans are flat.

Bill Adair

08/01/2007

Corporate profits have been rising. The Commerce Department reported that corporate profits from current production increased 21.4 percent in 2006 and were up 12.5 percent in 2005. CEO pay has also gone up. A Forbes report in May 2007 said chief executives of the nation's 500 largest companies got a 38 percent raise in 2006, on top of a 6 percent hike in 2005 and a 54 percent raise in 2004. And Clinton is right that average wages have been flat. Adjusted for inflation, median family income has been flat since 2001, hovering around $54,000, according to government statistics.

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/collapsing-currency/

Has there been a suggestion that H.R. 2847 contains a provision indicating the downfall of the U.S. dollar on July 1, 2014?

David Mikkelson

04/14/2014

Claim: The U.S. dollar will officially collapse after 1 July 2014 due to the implementation of H.R. 2847. Examples: [Collected via e-mail, April 2014] On this date, U.S. House of Representatives Bill "H.R. 2847" goes into effect. It will usher in the true collapse of the U.S. dollar, and will make millions of Americans poorer, overnight. You now have just several months to prepare ... Origins: This item about the passage of H.R. 2847 causing the U.S. dollar to collapse as of 1 July 2014 is another example financial scarelore put out in conjunction with an investment come-on, in this case an ominous sales pitch put out by the folks at Stansberry & Associates Investment Research LLC. come-on This latest panic piece is offered in a Stansberry & Associates presentation featuring a number of scary-sounding statements about how we in the U.S. are soon to experience a "near-complete shutdown of the American economy," will see "the savings of millions wiped out," will be living under the imposition of martial law by the federal government, and will be struggling in the aftermath of a number of other apocalyptic financial scenarios. presentation And according to Stansberry & Associates, this remarkable, radical collapse of the United States monetary system and "our normal way of life" is going into effect in a mere matter of months (just like a similar recent conspiracy scare about the federal government's plan to eliminate 16 states from the U.S. in the very near future). 16 states But wait ... all one needs in order to avoid suffering from this devastating national calamity, one that will collapse our entire monetary system and spell doom for the American way of life, is a little information. Information that can be yours if you'll just shell out $149 for a one-year subscription to Stansberry's Investment Advisory newsletter. Or, as one wry commentator put it: subscription In other words, if a financial company spews a bunch of stuff that sounds sufficiently alarming, and then promotes its product as something that will help protect people against this horribly scary thing, it might be able to lure gullible folks into believing that a "fairly easy and inexpensive to protect themselves" against losing their money is for them to send their money to that company instead. And, unfortunately, such schemes work often enough to keep these types of schemers in business. So what is this all really about? H.R. 2847, also known as the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act (or HIRE), was a Congressional bill passed into law in March 2010 that sought to provide payroll tax breaks and incentives for businesses to hire unemployed workers. A section of that bill, the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (known as FATCA), sought to eliminate the non-compliance of U.S. taxpayers who hold foreign accounts by requiring those taxpayers (including those living outside the U.S.) to report certain foreign accounts and offshore assets to the government, and by requiring foreign financial institutions to report information about the ownership of overseas assets held by U.S. taxpayers to the government: HIRE FATCA The problem originates in U.S. government efforts to prevent future offshore-banking tax scams like the UBS one in 2009. To keep better track of the flow of assets owned by U.S. citizens, Fatca requires bankers in other countries to send the IRS information about transactions by any of their customers who are Americans. Similarly, U.S. banks have to report to the IRS info on their non-U.S.-citizen customers, so the IRS can send it on to their home countries. You can understand the motivation behind the rule. It's a big connected world economy, huge sums can be transferred anywhere in an instant, and much as INTERPOL or the World Health Organization have a legitimate interest in sharing data, so too might taxing authorities. In principle, everyone should pay his or her fair share, somewhere. As noted on the American Citizens Abroad web site: American Citizens Abroad Starting July 1, 2014, FATCA will require FFIs to provide annual reports to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on the name and address of each U.S. client, as well as the largest account balance in the year and total debits and credits of any account owned by a U.S. person. If an institution does not comply, the U.S. will impose a 30% withholding tax on all its transactions concerning U.S. securities, including the proceeds of sale of securities. In addition, FATCA requires any foreign company not listed on a stock exchange or any foreign partnership which has 10% U.S. ownership to report to the IRS the names and tax I.D. number (TIN) of any U.S. owner. FATCA also requires U.S. citizens and green card holders who have foreign financial assets in excess of $50,000 (higher for those who are bona-fide residents abroad) to complete a new Form 8938 to be filed with the 1040 tax return, starting with fiscal year 2011. FATCA has been the subject of criticisms on a number of fronts (which the Treasury Department has attempted to counter in its own "Myth vs. FACTA" write-up), among them that the costs of implementing it may outstrip the additional revenues it will bring in, that it may prompt "capital flight" in the form of foreign financial institutions divesting themselves of U.S. assets, that foreign relations may be strained by the U.S. requiring foreign governments to gather and report (at their own expense) information on U.S. citizens, and that the law may make it difficult or impossible for U.S. citizens living and/or working abroad to open accounts in foreign banks: criticisms Myth vs. FACTA But casting such a wide net is producing unintended consequences for some Americans who faithfully pay their taxes from afar. Banks around the world are suddenly rejecting Americans as clients or customers, because they don't want the reporting and bureaucratic hassles, plus the potential exposure to draconian penalties. Non-Americans are pulling their assets out of U.S. banks. I get emails every day from American expats who say they are facing all kinds of problems bringing their long-standing foreign-based banking life into compliance with this new law. Some of them say they're getting ready to renounce their citizenship. Over the years I've had accounts with banks in England, Japan, Malaysia, China, and now Australia when living or working in those places, and I'm wondering what I have to worry about to make sure the remaining ones "comply." "I have always filed my U.S. taxes just as I am supposed to," says Brian Dublin, 47, an American businessman now based in Zug, Switzerland, who has lived overseas for many years, including stints in Russia. "However, as a result of FATCA, in the past year I have been kicked out of a Swiss bank that said, 'Hey, we love you, but we won't work with Americans.' I have also been kicked out of a Swiss pension fund. They told me they don't want any Americans in the fund. They don't want to work on behalf of the IRS," he says. "And on top of that, I spend many hours and many dollars each year filing U.S. taxes when I sometimes turn out to have zero liability for that year because I have paid a lot of tax somewhere else," Dublin adds. Dublin, a New York City native, says he will be eligible for Swiss nationality in the next few years and that if the situation has not dramatically changed he will give serious consideration to renouncing his U.S. citizenship. Writing in the New American, Alex Newman argued the more dire side of FATCA, speculating that it could potentially result in a large-scale movement by foreign investors to pull out of U.S. assets and markets: Estimates suggest there is currently more than $21 trillion of foreign capital invested in American assets and markets, with about $10 trillion of that in the stock market. However, that could change as FATCA enforcement begins later this year possibly quickly. The Japanese Bankers Association, the European Banking Federation, the Institute of International Bankers, and others, for example, have all openly warned in recent years that some of their members could decide to ditch U.S. assets and markets in response to FATCA. Luxembourg Bankers' Association CEO Jean-Jacques Rommes, speaking to Democrats Abroad, warned that the best way for banks to lower compliance risks was simply to reduce the amount of American assets they hold. "In other words, divest from the US market, in general," he explained, as summarized by the Luxembourg Bankers' Association. Multiple reports have suggested that small and medium-sized firms, unable to bear the compliance costs or the crippling withholding taxes, would be especially likely to ditch American markets. "On the institutional side, the cost of becoming FATCA compliant may be prohibitive for some foreign institutions, and therefore they will divest from their American holdings," explained Douglas Goldstein, author of The Expatriate's Guide to Handling Money and Taxes and director of Profile Investment Services Ltd. Indeed, compliance costs borne by the private sector are expected to dwarf the amount of additional U.S. tax revenue perhaps by hundreds of times. Goldstein explained: "Faced with the choice between paying to implement the new rules or divesting from U.S.-based assets, smaller foreign banks that can't afford to shoulder these costs may choose the latter," Goldstein added. "After all, there are plenty of promising new markets in which to invest." Needless to say, if foreign institutions started fleeing U.S. markets, the economic damage would be massive potentially apocalyptic, especially considering U.S. trade deficits and Americas outsized reliance on foreign investment and outside credit just to function. The full implementation of FATCA may, as some critics have maintained, ultimately prove more harmful to U.S. business interests and U.S. citizens living and working abroad than its benefits will merit. But no credible source that isn't an investment firm trying to scare potential customers into forking over money for a newsletter subscription is seriously maintaining that a law passed five years ago will collapse the entire U.S. economic system, destroy the American way of life, and lead to the imposition of martial law. Last updated: 23 March 2015 Fallows, James. "Fatca: The Menace You'll Hear About in 2012." The Atlantic. 31 December 2011. Graffy, Colleen. "How to Lose Friends, Citizens and Influence." The Wall Street Journal. 17 July 2013. Hjelmgaard, Kim. "Americans Abroad Find Citizenship Too Taxing to Keep." USA Today. 8 March 2014. Newman, Alex. "The Dark Road: The Worst Tax Law You've Never Heard About." The New American. 8 April 2014.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/when-a-writer-falls-in-love-with-you/

When a Writer Falls in Love with You

David Mikkelson

02/10/2015

Claim: The viral quote "If a writer falls in love with you, you can never die" was written by Canadian rapper Drake. Example: [Collected via Twitter, January 2015] If a Writer Falls in Love with you, You shall Never Die #ReadSomewhere #ReadSomewhere Gaonka6hhora (@Gaonka6hhora) February 9, 2015 February 9, 2015 Origins: In January 2015, Canadian musician Aubrey Drake Graham, better known in his persona as the rapper Drake,incorrectly attributed a viral Tumblr quote about a writer's falling in love to Mustafa the Poet when he posted the meme to his Instagram page: @mustafathepoet @mustafathepoet A photo posted by champagnepapi (@champagnepapi) on Jan 14, 2015 at 9:11pm PST Hundreds of thousands of viewers liked the photo, and many who saw the above-displayed Instagram post believed it was written by Drake, while others noticed the musician's attempt to credit the original author and praised Mustafa the Poet for penning the viral phrase. But the phrase "If a writer falls in love with you, you can never die" was written neither by Drake nor by Mustafa the Poet. The true author is Mik Everett, who first published the quote back in 2011 on her blog: Mik Everett blog Lots of things might happen. That's the thing about writers. They're unpredictable. They might bring you eggs in bed for breakfast, or they might all but ignore you for days. They might bring you eggs in bed at three in the morning. Or they might wake you up for sex at three in the morning. Or make love at four in the afternoon. They might not sleep at all. Or they might sleep right through the alarm and forget to get you up for work. Or call you home from work to kill a spider. Or refuse to speak to you after finding out you've never seen To Kill a Mockingbird. Or spend the last of the rent money on five kinds of soap. Or sell your textbooks for cash halfway through the semester. Or leave you love notes in your pockets. Or wash you pants with Post-It notes in the pockets so your laundry comes out covered in bits of wet paper. They might cry if the Post-It notes are unread all over your pants. Its an unpredictable life. But what happens if a writer falls in love with you? This is a little more predictable. You will find your hemp necklace with the glass mushroom pendant around the neck of someone at a bus stop in a short story. Your favorite shoes will mysteriously disappear, and show up in a poem. The watch you always wear, the watch you own but never wear, the fact that you've never worn a watch: they suddenly belong to characters you've never known. And yet they're you. They're not you; they're someone else entirely, but they toss their hair like you. They use the same colloquialisms as you. They scratch their nose when they lie like you. Sometimes they will be narrators; sometimes protagonists, sometimes villains. Sometimes they will be nobodies, an unimportant, static prop. This might amuse you at first. Or confuse you. You might be bewildered when books turn into mirrors. You might try to see yourself how your beloved writer sees you when you read a poem about someone who has your middle name or prose about someone who has never seen To Kill a Mockingbird. These poems and novels and short stories, they will scatter into the wind. You will wonder if you're wandering through the pages of some story you've never even read. There's no way to know. And no way to erase it. Even if you leave, a part of you will always be left behind. If a writer falls in love with you, you can never die. Vibe NY Mag On 23 January 2015, Mik Everett took to her website to express her frustrations with being a virally famous, yet unknown, author. A portion of Everett's article is republished below: website Last Monday, I woke up to something weirder than I could possibly imagine. I woke up to find that Drake had posted a quote by me on Instagram. And that he'd credited the quote to another author. There is no Thought Catalogue article entitled What to Do If a Famous Rapper Steals Your Quote. There is no Buzzfeed article on how to cope with the rabid fans of a rockstar insisting that you've stolen from him. To the best of my knowledge, this isn't a very common problem to have. Sure, I've heard of academic and artistic plagiarism before, usually involving two high-profile, Entertainment News celebrities. But I'm not a celebrity. I've sold, like, two hundred copies of each of my books. I live well below the poverty line. I'm a regular person who said something kinda catchy once on the internet, and lots of people liked it. And Drake liked it. I am so disconnected from that quote and the people who use it; I am simultaneously on the outside looking in on the very idea of fame, and in the very middle of it. To be clear here, nobody broke any laws. Drake did not take credit for the quote. He attempted to cite the quote, like we all learned how to do in middle school. He just cited the wrong poet. That poet (he goes by Mustafa) did give me appropriate credit for the quote, eventually. After Drake had re-posted the quote and attributed it to Mustafa, I think it kinda blew up in his face and people started hounding him to give me credit. And he did add my name in. But on the internet, that doesn't matter. Everyone else is still attributing the quote to Mustafa. And there's no way to fix it. Just try messaging Drake on Instagram. On one hand, it's not that big of a deal. The quote has been used several million times on the internet, and is rarely credited to me. On the other hand, I would really, really, really like to make a living as an author. And in our day and age, there are no more camera-shy Thomas Pynchons. To be a financially successful author is inextricable from being a famous author. We hope this helps Mik Everett garner some of the recognition she deserves. Last updated: 10 February 2015

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/covid-relief-funds-us-uk/

Is the meme offering a precise comparison of COVID relief funds between the United States and other nations?

Nur Ibrahim

12/11/2020

Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO As the COVID-19 pandemic ravaged the global economy in 2020, resulting in growing unemployment, governments scrambled to support people and businesses to varying degrees, announcing a range of stimulus relief funds meant to help struggling businesses and furloughed employees. By December 2020, lawmakers in the U.S. were also running out of time to pass another major coronavirus relief package. ravaged running out of time A meme began circulating in late 2020 that compared the U.S. governments stimulus checks -- given to a significant portion of the U.S. population -- to coronavirus relief funds deployed around the world. The meme effectively argued that the U.S. was not giving enough money to support workers compared with other countries. We broke down the numbers below and learned that, while the numbers are largely accurate, the meme was comparing apples to oranges. Below are the respective stimulus relief funds being provided to populations around the world, particularly across Europe, Australia, and the U.K. In March 2020, the Australian government outlined a plan to subsidize the wages of 6 million people in order to keep them in their jobs. The plan would pay employees at any company that saw a 30% reduction in revenue around $1,500 Australian dollars (the equivalent of $928 U.S. dollars according to Reuters) every two weeks. March 2020 outlined pay Reuters This calculation would amount to $1,856 U.S. dollars per month. But according to conversion rates calculated by Newsweek in April, the relief check amounted to around $1,993 per month. Based on current conversion rates calculated on Google Finance, this same amount would now be more than $2,200 every four weeks. Newsweek Australia also had a number of other social security measures including one-off Economic Support Payments of AU$750 in April and July 2020 to qualifying recipients. Economic Support Payments The Canadian government provides $500 Canadian dollars per week for up to 26 weeks for workers who stopped working or had their income reduced by at least 50% due to COVID-19. Based on current conversion rates on Google, this amounts to around $1,565 U.S. dollars per month. The meme presumably pulled their data from Newsweek's April 2020 story, which calculated the amount as being $1,433 U.S. dollars per month at that time. provides Newsweek Overall, the Canadian government aims to spend up to $75 billion U.S. dollars in emergency aid and economic stimulus to assist members of their population who are struggling financially. Measures include boosting child benefit payments, wage subsidies for small businesses, and tax relief measures. Overall The Danish government will cover up to 75% of employee salaries in private companies as long as those companies agree to not fire people. According to Flemming Larsen, a professor at the Center for Labor Market Research at Denmarks Aalborg University, this would amount to up to $3,288 per month (roughly based on the conversion rate at the time of the interview), which lines up with the number in the meme. For hourly workers who qualify, the government would cover 90% of their wages. Flemming Larsen hourly workers The deal, which was struck between the government and trade unions, covers companies who have to lay off at least 30% of their staff, or 50 staff or more. But this particular form of coverage does not support the self-employed and other vulnerable groups. deal self-employed According to The Guardian, more than 12 million people in France are covered by a partial unemployment scheme that covers 70% of salaries when companies are forced to reduce or suspend work, which is up to 6,927 euros per month (which according to Newsweeks calculations in April were $7,575 U.S. dollars, but around $8,400 today). Employees previously on minimum wage receive 100% coverage of their salaries. The Guardian $7,575 U.S. dollars The French government is also giving paid leave to parents who cannot work from home and who are responsible for children younger than 16. paid leave The German scheme covers 10 million workers according to The Guardian, paying up to 67% of net wages lost due to shorter hours, to a maximum of 6,700 euros per month (again, $7,326.78 U.S. dollars in April according to Newsweek, but $8,125 today) for employees with children and 60% for those without children. The Guardian $7,326.78 The budget also includes a 50 billion euro program to help the self-employed and small businesses threatened with bankruptcy, giving them direct payments of up to 15,000 euros (more than $18,000). Irelands temporary wage subsidy scheme allows affected companies to recoup up to 70% of their net income up to 21,400 euros until May. After May 4, 2020, the scheme became more generous, paying an 85% subsidy up to the same amount. temporary wage subsidy After May 4, employees would be given a maximum of 350 euros per week if they earned less than or equal to 412 euros per week, and they would receive a maximum of 410 euros per week if they earned between 500 and 586 euros per week. 410 euros amounted to $448.36 U.S. dollars per week according to Newsweek in April, which matches up with the memes calculation of $1793.44. Today that amounts to around $1,987. May 4 Newsweek The Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme reimburses companies for 80% of their gross salaries up to 2,500 pounds per month (which amounts to around $3,300 U.S. dollars today, and according to Newsweek was $3,084 in April). As of August, some workers were able to return to their jobs part-time, and in November the government extended the scheme until March 31, 2021. Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme Newsweek November The U.S. government did indeed give many qualifying people a one-time stimulus relief check of $1,200, which on the surface appears to be to a small fraction of what these other countries appear to be giving workers who are unemployed or in danger of being furloughed. This check was given to individual taxpayers who made less than $75,000 in adjusted gross income in 2018. They would receive between $600 and $1,200 with the highest earners getting the maximum payment. one-time given But this meme did not account for the overall stimulus package, including unemployment benefits and additional funds granted for dependents. The data from other countries showcased relief funds for helping the unemployed or preventing lay-offs, so the numbers were comparing two totally different items. The CARES Act, a $2 trillion dollar relief bill that was passed in March 2020, increased unemployment benefits and added $600 dollars per week from the federal government on top of whatever base amount workers received from their state. The legislation also added 13 weeks of unemployment insurance. However, many of the provisions from this expired in July. The Families First Coronavirus Response Act also expanded paid family and medical leave options for some workers. A new relief bill is being debated by congress, with Republicans and Democrats disagreeing over how much stimulus the U.S. economy needs. CARES Act Families First Coronavirus Response Act debated Given that the numbers cited in the meme compare very different stimulus packages around the world, with a range of complex provisions, to a one-time payment in the U.S. that does not reflect the full stimulus relief package, we rate this claim a Mixture.

neutral

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-biggest-tax-increase/

Is Biden implying that there might be the biggest tax hike ever in the United States?

Jessica Lee

10/15/2020

Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here During his 2020 presidential campaign, U.S. President Donald Trump on multiple occasions claimed his Democratic opponent Joe Biden would impose the "biggest tax increase in history" if voters elected him. In an August interview on Fox News, for instance, Trump said of Democrats: said They want to tax $4 trillion, going to be the biggest tax increase in history by far. It will triple up records, and they're big taxers. It's just something that won't work. We'll have you will see a depression, the likes of which you have never seen. In the following weeks, he reiterated the claim that "you are going to have the tax increase of your life" if Biden wins the 2020 election in social media posts and during campaign events, without explaining who would bear the brunt of the alleged hike. Trump tweeted on Oct. 5: tweeted Below is an analysis of Biden's tax proposal assessing whether it would indeed raise taxes by an amount never seen before in modern U.S. history, and who would most feel its impact. According to his campaign website, Biden ran for president on the promise that he would change multiple aspects of the country's tax system specifically in regards to individual income and payroll taxes, business taxes, and tax expenditures. campaign website promise The proposed changes would repeal aspects of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which the Trump administration and Republicans framed as a solution to fuel economic growth ,and Democrats saw as a gift to the country's richest individuals and large corporations at the expense of low-to-middle-class Americans. 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act Specifically, Biden's tax plan would roll back the act's income tax reductions for the country's top bracket of taxpayers, as well as expand that category to include Americans with incomes over $400,000 annually, rather than just those who earn more than $518,400. $518,400 His proposal would also require that group of top earners to limit deductions and pay an additional Social Security payroll tax, per an analysis by Howard Gleckman, a senior fellow with the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. Millionaires and billionaires would be subject to taxes on long-term capital gains at ordinary not preferential income tax rates. analysis long-term capital gains Additionally, Biden's plan would increase the top tax rate for corporations from 21% to 28% and impose a 15% minimum tax on companies' book income, according to his campaign website. It would also reduce tax subsidies for commercial real estate and fossil fuels and incentivize renewable energy investments, among other changes. All of that said, the country's richest taxpayers and corporations would cover the majority of Biden's proposed tax increases not average Americans both in dollar amounts and as a share of their incomes. But let's look at the anticipated impact at a granular level. All income levels would face some sort of tax burden in 2021 under Biden's plan (we explain more below), though the highest-income households would pay higher income taxes directly and see substantially larger increases than anyone else. Gleckman made the following estimations: His plan would raise taxes on households in the top 1% of the income distribution (those with income more than $837,000) by an average of about $299,000. [...] By contrast, taxpayers in the middle-income quintile (those with income between $52,000 and $93,000) would experience an average tax increase of just $260. [...] Taxpayers in the bottom quintile (those with income less than $26,000) would see an average tax increase of only $30. That added burden on low- and middle-income households representing about 2% of the proposed change would be an indirect result of employers shifting the cost of the higher corporate tax rate to some workers. Corporations on a grand scale would slightly lower wages and investment income, which would, on average, more than offset the effects of Biden's new tax credits, the center concluded. Alicyn McLeod, a tax adviser and writer for Accounting Today, said in October 2020: Accounting Today Bidens proposal is primarily motivated by fairness. Many U.S. taxpayers are concerned that large corporations arent paying their fair share. While understandable, this position ignores the belief among many tax and economic policy experts that a significant portion of corporate taxes are ultimately paid by workers, shareholders, and consumers as opposed to companies themselves. In sum, the overwhelming majority of Americans those who earn $400,000 or less annually would not see their taxes increase as a direct result of Biden's tax proposal, and the top 1% earners would shoulder the brunt of his proposed hike. But low-to-middle-class workers would see slightly lower investment returns and wages as a result of corporate tax increases, according to economists' analysis including a a budgetary model by the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. budgetary model Biden's plan would raise about $3.38 trillion in additional tax revenue over 10 years, according to the university's model. Concurrently, per Gleckman's analysis, that would amount to an increase in federal revenue by about 1.5% of the country's gross domestic product (GDP). GDP is the economy's total output of goods and services, and economists rely on it greatly to measure the economy's health and how fiscal or regulatory policies could impact it not raw dollar amounts that don't consider inflation and population changes. To determine the legitimacy of Trump's claim, we considered federal tax proposals and their impact on GDP over decades. Of almost two dozen congressional tax bills that increased federal tax revenues between 1940 and 2012, for example, the five largest tax increases raised annual revenue between 1.33% and 5.04% of GDP, according to a 2013 compilation of such records by the U.S. Department of Treasury. the U.S. Department of Treasury The following table compiled by the Tax Foundation, another independent public policy think tank, showed where Biden's plan would stand in comparison to those other proposals: Tax Foundation According to those findings, Biden's tax proposal, if enacted by Congress, would amount to the fifth-largest tax increase since the 1940s not the biggest hike in modern U.S. history. Biden-Harris. "Tale Of Two Tax Policies: Trump Rewards Wealth, Biden Rewards Work." Accessed 15 October 2020. Adamczyk, Alicia. "Here's Who Would Pay More Under Joe Biden's Tax Plan." CNBC. 7 October 2020. Penn Wharton University of Pennsylvania. "PWBM Analysis of The Biden Platform." 14 September 2020. DePietro, Andrew. "Here's How Much The Top 5% Earns In America's Largest Cities." Forbes. 30 June 2019. McLeod, Alicyn. "Trump vs. Biden: Whose Tax Plan Makes For Good Tax Law?" AccountingToday. 14 October 2020. Frank, Robert. "Biden Defines $400,000 a Year as 'Wealthy': Here's What That Buys In A Big City." CNBC. 6 October 2020. Wilson, Garrett, and Erica York. "Reviewing Joe Biden's Tax Vision." Tax Foundation. 20 August 2020. Fordham, Evie. "Trump Tells 'Mornings with Maria' Biden Presidency Would Bring 'Biggest Tax Increase In History'." FoxBusiness. 13 August 2020. Wilson, Garrett and Erica York. "Placing Joe Biden's Tax Increases In Historical Context." Tax Foundation. 3 September 2020. Mermin, Gordon, et. al. "An Analysis of Former Vice President Biden's Tax Proposals." Tax Policy Center. 5 March 2020.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/massachusetts-license-renewal/

Has the state of Massachusetts stopped sending out notices for renewing driver's licenses by mail?

David Mikkelson

11/04/2008

Claim: Massachusetts is no longer mailing notifications for driver's license renewals. Status: True. Example: [Collected via e-mail, November 2008] This is just a heads up to everyone. Effective immediately the Registry of Motor Vehicles will no longer be mailing out License renewal applications or reminders to renew your driver's license. It is now the drivers responsibility to know when their license is expiring and renew it on there own. This may be a surprise to all of you and it should be, there has been no public information sent out about these changes. Fortunately enough we received the info in one of our trade publications. This idea could change in the future but as of right now it's a huge cost savings and they plan to run with it. Below is a blurb from the publications. Mailings Eliminated The RMV will no longer mail out the following materials to customers: License renewal noticesMass ID renewal noticesLicense reinstatement letters: Letter sent to a licensed customer when his/her license is reinstated,provided that the license is still active Letter sent to an unlicensed customer when his/her right to operate isreinstatedRegistration reinstatement letters: Letter sent to a person or corporation whose suspended registration hasbeen reinstated Letter sent to a person or corporation whose revoked registration has beenreinstatedVehicle Inspection reminder letters for vehicles that are overdue for inspectionInspector license renewal notices7D license renewal noticesDriver's Education CertificatesJunior Operator Brochures for parents (still available in branches)Change of address labels (customers can create their own) I am just passing this along, my suggestion is to pull out your license and some how set suspense to yourself to make sure you renew it. This is just a heads up so that no one gets pulled over and car impounded because they didn't realize they hadn't renewed their license. Origins: We're used to seeing certain types of notices arrive in our mailboxes regularly aside from monthly credit card statements and water/gas/electricity bills, every year or two the mail brings us income tax forms, voter materials for upcoming elections, automobile registration renewals, etc. One common type of mailing won't be arriving in mailboxes of Massachusetts residents any more, however: renewal notification for about-to-expire driver's licenses. As of 3 November 2008, the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles (RMV) will no longer be sending out notices to residents reminding them to renew their driver's licenses. Statewide cuts and spending controls announced by Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick in October 2008 slashed $2 million from the RMV's budget, so the RMV has eliminated mailing license renewal reminders and other courtesy notices in an effort to save money (in this case an estimated $800,000): Governor Deval Patrick said that he will eliminate 1,000 jobs from state government and slash the budget by more than $1 billion, reacting to the national economic crisis with sweeping cuts that his administration called the worst single round of midyear budget rollbacks in state history. The reductions will be spread across almost all sectors of state government, biting deeply into state university campuses and community colleges, the state's health insurance programs, and dozens of social service programs from assistance for at-risk teens to services for the mentally ill and the elderly. The cuts range from a hit of nearly $300 million on healthcare spending to the elimination of letters to residents simply reminding them to get their driver's licenses renewed. As noted in a "Message from Registrar Kaprielian on RMV Budget Cuts" displayed on the Massachusetts RMV web site: RMV Like many businesses across the Commonwealth, the RMV is working to squeeze every penny of savings from our budget in the wake of a drastic downturn in the state's economy. To weather this financial storm, the RMV is adopting operational changes that, we believe, will minimize the impact on customer service in our branches. RMV MAILINGSThe RMV will eliminate courtesy notices that are sent to customers for the following services: License and Mass ID renewal noticesVehicle Inspection reminder letters for vehicles that are overdue for inspectionInspector license renewal notices7D license renewal noticesDriver's Education CertificatesJunior Operator Brochures for parentsChange of address labels For now, at least, it's incumbent upon residents of that commonwealth to be aware when their licenses are due to expire and to initiate the renewal process on their own in a timely fashion. Last updated: 4 November 2008 Sources: Viser, Matt. "Patrick to Cut 1,000 Jobs from State Payroll." The Boston Globe. 16 October 2008.

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/netflix-scam/

Is Netflix Giving Away Free 1-Year Subscriptions Due to COVID-19?

Bethania Palma

12/06/2020

Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO Since the start of the COVID-19 coronavirus in the United States in March 2020, a scam has been circulating on the internet falsely informing viewers that streaming giant Netflix was offering a free one-year subscription due to the pandemic. scam Here's an example of the scam we found circulating on Twitter, with the user's name cropped out for privacy reasons: The text of the scam read, "Due to the CoronaVirus pandemic worldwide, Netflix is giving some free pass for their platform during the period of isolation. Run on the site cause it will end quick!" The post also included a link, which we cropped out because it is likely a phishing site. phishing Netflix is making no such offer, and in fact as of October 2020, it no longer even offered temporary free trials for potential subscribers. no longer In other Netflix-related scams, members of the public reported receiving emails and text messages from scammers posing as Netflix representatives, telling them they need to update their accounts. The company stated it wouldn't seek personal information, like banking or credit card numbers, in texts or emails. scams stated

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/shane-patrick-boyle-died-after-starting-a-gofundme-campaign-for-insulin/

Did Shane Patrick Boyle pass away due to his illness following successful fundraising for insulin via a crowdfunding campaign?

Dan Evon

11/27/2017

In February 2017, Shane Patrick Boyle started a GoFundMe campaign to raise money for "a month of insulin." A few weeks later, he died after developing diabetic ketoacidosis. Although several local outlets reported on Boyle's death at the time, it wasn't until November 2017 that Boyle's story reached many readers, thanks in part to a Facebook post from United States Sen. Bernie Sanders linking to an article in The Nation about the rising cost of insulin: several local outlets reported post The Nation We cannot call ourselves a great country as long our young people are literally dying because they cannot afford life-saving medication. This young man, Shane Patrick Boyle, died on March 18 after his GoFundMe campaign to pay for insulin came up $50 short. Something has got to change. Our job is to stand up to the greed of the pharmaceutical industry and enact policies that make prescription drugs affordable for everyonenot ones that make the CEOs of the pharmaceutical industry rich. In addition to highlighting the sad circumstances surrounding Boyle's death, The Nation also pointed to Alec Raeshawn Smith, a 26-year-old who died in June after he lost his insurance and started to ration his insulin: died Alec Raeshawn Smith, age 26, was found dead in his apartment on June 27. He was rationing his insulin after he aged out of his parents insurance coverage. The sad fact is more people would be alive today if insulin was affordable for all Americans. The deaths of Smith and Boyle and their reported struggles with health insurance were met with skepticism by some readers. Others encountered this news on social media, where it was shared with incomplete or incorrect information. For instance, comedian David Anthony conflated the deaths of these two individuals when he wrote that a 26-year-old had started a GoFundMe to get insulin: For the rest of my life I will never forget a 26 year old started a gofundme to get insulin, didnt get the amount he needed and died rationing his not costly medicine. Just before Thanksgiving. Dave Anthony (@daveanthony) November 24, 2017 November 24, 2017 Alec Raeshawn Smith was 26 years old at the time of his death; however, we have not been able to find anything to indicate that he had set up a GoFundMe campaign to raise money for insulin. (A fundraiser was set up after his death to cover funeral costs.) Shane Patrick Boyle, on the other hand, was older when he died, and he did set up a fundraiser for medication. fundraiser Smith passed away on 27 June 2017. In his obituary, his family asked for donations to the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation, and encouraged everyone to sign a petition for affordable health care: obituary In lieu of flowers memorial donations may be given to Juvenile Diabetes Foundation, www.jdrf.org. We would also like to encourage everyone to go to www.jdrf.org and sign the Coverage 2 Control petition which will provide affordability, choice and coverage for people with Diabetes. www.jdrf.org www.jdrf.org Boyle died of the same treatable complication that killed Smith: diabetic ketoacidosis. Before his death on 18 March 2017, he set up a GoFundMe campaign to raise money for one month of insulin: The only archived version of this campaign is from 23 March 2017, five days after Boyle's death. Although this copy shows that Boyle had raised $1,590 of a $750 goal, it appears that the majority of this money was raised after his passing. (All eight comments were posted in the days following Boyle's death and the visible donations, more than $200, were posted within a day of its archival date.) Ted Closson, a comic book artist and friend of Boyle's, wrote that Boyle was "$50 shy of his goal" for over two weeks: wrote A second GoFundMe campaign to raise money for a memorial for Boyle and his mother also suggests that the fundraiser was short of the $750 goal at the time of Boyle's passing (emphasis ours): campaign The world lost a wonderful man due to complications of type 1 diabetes. My cousin, Shane Boyle, put everything into taking care of his ailing mother at the expense of his own needs. Shane's mother, Judy Boyle, passed away on March 11th and we lost Shane to diabetes exactly a week later on March 18th. After his death, we learned that Shane lost his prescription benefits when he moved to Mena, Arkansas to care for his mom. We found a GoFundMe where he was trying to raise $750 to get just one more month of insulin and supplies. Unfortunately, he didn't get help in time. Shane died because he was trying to stretch out his life saving insulin to make it last longer. Shane was working hard to take care of his mother's funeral arrangements when he died. Her service had to be cancelled because of the unexpected financial burden of losing two family members in a week's time. I am hoping we can raise the funds for a combined funeral service for Shane and Judy Boyle. If we can raise more than is needed for the service, any remaining funds would go to a charity that provides insulin to diabetics like Shane. We don't want other families to suffer the pain of losing a loved one because they couldn't afford medications. Thank you for any help you can provide, even if all you can offer is a kind message or sharing a special memory. Vice also mentioned the circumstances surrounding Boyle's death in a story about the rising price of insulin. rising Long before Boyle launched a fundraising campaign, he worried about a Trump presidency's effects on the price of insulin. Immediately after the election, on 9 November 2016, Boyle wrote on Facebook (emphasis ours): wrote Facebook Last night/ this morning, I was so depressed I did not want to live in this world anymore (and as a type one diabetic, I honestly don't know how long I will live if I lose access to affordable healthcare). Today, I feel more optimistic, not because I think everything is going to be okay, but because I have seen so many of your posts, recognizing the fight that is ahead, and talking about organizing, not just sitting back and complaining or planning for the next election. Higgs, Micaela. "The High Price of Insulin Is Literally Killing People." Tonic. 5 April 2017. Elliot, James. "Alex Azar, Trumps HHS Pick, Has Already Been a Disaster for People With Diabetes." The Nation. 21 November 2017. Closson, Ted. "A GoFundMe Campaign Is Not Health Insurance." The Nib. 25 May 2017. Glass Tire. "RIP Shane Patrick Boyle, Founder of Zine Fest Houston." 20 March 2017.

true

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2011/nov/18/joe-biden/biden-says-middle-income-earners-lost-ground-reces/

The median income of a middle class family went down $2,100 from 2001 to 2007.

Maryalice Gill

11/18/2011

Vice President Joe Biden visited a New Hampshire university Oct. 20, 2011, to promote President Barack Obamas American Jobs Act before an audience whom he called the 9/11 generation.Speaking to a full house inside Plymouth State Universitys lecture hall, Biden talked about the need to restore the middle class and to bring jobs back to America. He said middle-income-earning Americans have been under siege, long before the economic recession hit.In the previous decade, before the current recession, the middle class was getting killed, said Biden. During that period between 2001-07, productivity of American workers was up 20 percent, but median income of the middle class dropped by $2,100 during this time.Did the median of middle-income households really take a $2,100 hit before the economy hit the fan? We looked into Bidens claim to find out.First we contacted Bidens staff to find out which figures they were using to come to the $2,100 decrease in the median income for middle-class households.Tobin Marcus, Bidens deputy economic policy adviser, told us the vice president was referring to real median household income for working age households. Were looking at the core wage-earning households as opposed to retirees, Marcus said.Working age households aretypically consideredhouses headed by someone between the ages of 25 and 54, and the median income was chosen to represent middle income wage earners.Bidens office cited the Census Bureaus Annual Social and Economic Supplement to the Current Population Surveys for year-ending data for2000and2007.They said they compared inflation-adjusted numbers, using the annual average increase column of theBureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index.We took a look at their numbers, and their calculations checked out.To be sure, we contacted Dennis Delay, an economist with the New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies and a New Hampshire State Forecast Manager for the New England Economic Partnership.He confirmed the calculations Bidens campaign provided.I looked at the data sources, and they appear to be correct, and the data calculated correctly, Delay said.Delay then pointed us toa report by the Economic Policy Institutewhich used the same data. From 2000-07, the Institute said the real median income of working age households fell from $61,574 in 2000 to $59,460 in 2007a decrease of $2,114.The White House Task Force on the Middle Classcited a weak labor market and anemic job growth of the 2000s among some of the problems that contributed to the approximately 3.4 percent decline in the median of middle class incomes over the seven years leading up to the economic recession.Clearly median inflation adjusted income fell much faster during the recession (2007 to present), Delay said. But the fall in that indicator during a period of economic expansion (2000 to 2007) is very troubling. I dont believe any other period of economic expansion saw a commensurate decline in median inflation adjusted income.Our ruling:Vice President Biden said the median income of the middle class dropped by $2,100 from 2001-07, and the numbers check out. We rate Bidens claim True.

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/second-covid-stimulus-foreign-aid/

Was foreign aid included in the second COVID-19 stimulus package?

Bethania Palma

12/23/2020

Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO A massive federal spending bill passed by United States Congress on Dec. 21, 2020, was almost 5,600 pages long, so there was plenty for everyone to debate. But social media was full of misleading outrage takes, framing the legislation as a COVID-19 stimulus package that doled out foreign aid unrelated to the pandemic. In fact, what Congress passed was a $2.3 trillion spending bill that funds the U.S. government through the 2021 fiscal year. The bill includes a $900 billion coronavirus relief package not the other way around. But many framed the story in reverse, claiming that Congress had passed a coronavirus relief package and opportunistically included foreign aid and other unrelated items. For example, conservative bloggers Diamond and Silk tweeted, "what does 10M dollars going to Pakistan for gender programs have to do with [coronavirus] relief for Americans?" Many other social media users posted the following meme: tweeted Claims that Congress jammed foreign aid and museum funding into coronavirus economic relief are misleading. It's more accurate to say Congress passed a $2.3 trillion omnibus spending bill funding the entirety of the U.S. government, including foreign aid programs, national museum funding, and also a coronavirus relief package. funding For example, the $10 million in aid to Pakistan for "gender programs" is slated under U.S. State Department funding in the omnibus bill, along with a number of other foreign aid programs, The way the meme above presents the $600 stimulus payments is also misleading because it juxtaposes the sum total of aid for various countries and institutions included in the spending bill, alongside individual payments to Americans included in the coronavirus relief package. The coronavirus relief package includes $600 stimulus checks, which will be paid out to most Americans, but the total cost of these checks and other aid to Americans adds up to $900 billion. It's also misleading to state that the only benefit included in the bill for Americans is a check for $600. Although the amounts of financial assistance were less than what was provided in first stimulus package in March 2020, the coronavirus relief package includes expansion of unemployment benefits, another round of small business loans, as well as rent, utilities, and food assistance along with $600 stimulus checks. includes Legislators complained they didn't have time to properly review the massive document before voting on it. Some legislators said the price tag for the legislative package was too big, while others said relief provided to Americans struggling with economic fallout from the pandemic didn't go far enough. complained On the evening of Dec. 22, 2020, the day after Congress passed the spending package, U.S. President Donald Trump made a statement echoing these internet claims, raising doubts that he would sign the legislation after the White House had already indicated he would. Among other statements, Trump said he wanted stimulus checks to be $2,000 instead of $600, which U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she agreed with. statement agreed The bill comes nine months after the CARES Act stimulus package was signed in March 2020, as well as months of partisan haggling between Republicans, who wanted a more limited package, and Democrats, who had pushed for a bigger bill. It also comes amid a surge of reported COVID-19 cases amid the holiday season. More than 322,000 Americans have died from the pandemic as of this writing. nine months died

neutral

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/iphone-namedrop-warning/

Is iPhone AirDrop Feature 'NameDrop' Dangerous, as Facebook Posts Claim?

Jordan Liles

11/27/2023

In late November 2023, Facebook users shared variations of a viral warning about a relatively new iPhone feature called NameDrop, also known as "Bringing Devices Together." The posts hinted that NameDrop, dubbed by Apple as "a new AirDrop experience," was dangerous, and said that users needed to take action to protect their privacy and security. Multiple U.S. police department Facebook pages also shared the warnings, which perhaps was one of the reasons that we received so many reader emails about this rumor. U.S. police department Facebook pages We reviewed multiple versions of the same warning about NameDrop on iPhone devices. One such warning read as follows: warning IMPORTANT PRIVACY UPDATE: If you have an iPhone and have done the recent iOS 17 update, they have set a new feature called NameDrop defaulted to ON. This feature allows the sharing of your contact info just by bringing your phones close together. While you do need to accept the transfer, if you would prefer to shut this off go to: Settings, General, AirDrop, Bringing Devices Together. Change to OFF. PARENTS: You may consider changing these settings after the update on your childrens phones, also, to help keep them safe as well! Despite the virality of these warnings, here's the truth: These posts are based on a misunderstanding of how the NameDrop feature works with an iPhone, just like so many other technological scares that in past years were also virally shared on Facebook. Barring the possibility of any future security holes being uncovered by users, the NameDrop feature was designed with multiple layers of protection. NameDrop is a feature that allows two users to hold their iPhone devices very close to each other in order to share a phone number or email address. This also works with an iPhone and an Apple Watch or two Apple Watches. NameDrop Basically, instead of asking a friend for their contact details or handing your device to a friend to have them input their information, NameDrop allows this exchange of basic data to happen in a much easier, yet still secure, manner. The feature was first included in the software update known as iOS 17. It released in September 2023 after being announced in June. iOS 17 announced Apple says that, for NameDrop to work, users' devices must be "within a few centimeters" of each other to initiate the first step of the process. Also, both users must be signed into iCloud. Users can then select if they want to share their phone number or email address and must tap a "Share" button to complete the exchange of one of the two pieces of basic contact data. To be clear, no contact information is automatically shared when two devices are brought together without a user taking action. Further, NameDrop does not work unless the devices are already unlocked. Think of the following scenario: You sit down in a cozy coffee shop with your phone in your purse or on the table. Another customer is sitting several tables away. That other customer isn't going to be able to initiate the NameDrop feature on your phone because the devices are further apart than the "within a few centimeters" of proximity specified by Apple. Even if that other customer walks by and bumps into the purse or your phone on the table, if your phone is locked with a passcode or other security feature, they couldn't even begin initiating the NameDrop feature. Further, even if your phone is unlocked, you would still have to tap some buttons in order for the person to receive your contact details. In other words, there are multiple layers of security that were implemented for the NameDrop feature that are meant to protect users. The only way a person could misuse the NameDrop feature on your phone is if they take your unlocked phone away from you without your permission and initiate the sharing of contact information. However, this does not make the NameDrop feature unsafe. It simply means that you need to not allow strangers to take your unlocked phone away from you. All of the data we've detailed above led us to our rating of False, meaning that, as the authoritative tech blog Wired.com put it in the headline of their article, "No, You Dont Need to Turn Off Apples NameDrop Feature in iOS 17." article If users, including parents, still wish to turn off the NameDrop feature, simply navigate on an iPhone to "Settings," "General" and then "AirDrop." To disable NameDrop, toggle the "Bringing Devices Together" feature to off. This screenshot shows NameDrop ("Bringing Devices Together") enabled. Parents can learn more about parental controls for Apple devices on the company's website. website Apple Announces Powerful New Privacy and Security Features. Apple Newsroom, 5 June 2023, https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2023/06/apple-announces-powerful-new-privacy-and-security-features/. Combs, Mary-Elisabeth. Heres Everything to Know About NameDrop on iPhone. CNET, 31 Oct. 2023, https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/heres-everything-to-know-about-namedrop-on-iphone/. Hardwick, Tim. iOS 17: How to Share Contact Details With NameDrop. MacRumors, 14 Sept. 2023, https://www.macrumors.com/how-to/ios-share-contact-details-with-namedrop/. iOS 17. Apple, https://www.apple.com/ios/ios-17/. Rogers, Reece. No, You Dont Need to Turn Off Apples NameDrop Feature in iOS 17. Wired, 27 Nov. 2023,https://www.wired.com/story/apple-iphone-namedrop-ios17/. Use NameDrop on iPhone to Share Your Contact Info. Apple Support, https://support.apple.com/guide/iphone/namedrop-iphone-share-contact-info-iph1b6c664b7/ios.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-dont-separate-mommy-protest-sign-real/

Is an 'Obama Don't Separate Me From My Mommy' Protest Sign Real?

Dan Evon

06/21/2018

As news broke in June 2018 that children were being separated from their families by immigration agents as they crossed into the United States from Mexico, an intense round of whataboutism ensued as the usual bots, paid trolls, unpaid trolls, and useful idiots took the opportunity to claim that President Barack Obama did the same thing during his time in office (he didn't). One piece of "evidence" supporting this argument was a photograph of a group of protesters holding a sign reading "Obama Don't Separate Me From My Mommy." whataboutism he didn't This image was frequently shared along with statements claiming that it destroyed "the liberal narrative," and that Obama, too, had kept children in cages after separating them from their mothers: statements This is indeed a genuine photograph that was taken during the Obama era in 2014. However, there major differences between the immigration policy at the center of the pictured protest and the child detention centers that were at the center of public outrage in June 2018. In a nutshell: Families were separated under President Barack Obama as the result of deportation of undocumented people from the United States. Families were separated under President Donald Trump as parents and children were put into different detention facilities after they crossed the border to ask for asylum in the United States. Obama was referred to by some border activists as the "Deporter-in-Chief" during his time in office, as he deported more people from the United States (thanks in part, but not completely, to a change in definition) than any other president in modern history. Many of these deportations resulted in families being separated, because children born in the United States were allowed to stay in the country but their parents were forced to leave. deported definition A June 2014 article published by the American Civil Liberties Union criticized Obama, saying that he was not living up to the promises he made on immigration during the 2008 campaign, and that deportation was still separating children from their parents under his watch: criticized During the 2008 campaign, Senator Barack Obama seemed to understand their pain and promised to fix our broken immigration system. He promised to enact comprehensive immigration reform and create a pathway to citizenship for the millions of hardworking people who labor for little money at often thankless jobs to make their children's lives and for that matter our lives a little bit easier. He pledged to no longer separate children from their parents. Today 4 million children call an undocumented immigrant mom or dad. Children who hug their parents extra tight before they leave for work for fear they'll never see them again. The viral photograph was taken by Associated Press photographer Jose Luis Magana on 2 August 2014 as demonstrators asked Obama to modify his deportation policies. Associated Press Obama attempted to mitigate the issue a few months later when he announced the "Immigration Accountability Executive Action plan. One of the central points of the plan was to focus on felons rather than families; another was to provide undocumented immigrants already living in the United States a chance to avoid deportation by passing a background check and paying taxes. Immigration Accountability Executive Action plan This photograph shows a group of protesters urging President Barack Obama to modify his policies in order to ease deportations that result in family separations. The sign does not refer to children that were taken away from their parents and placed in detention centers. Timm, Jane. "Fact check: Did Obama Administration Separate Families?." NBC News. 19 June 2018. Bichir, Demian. "Exiled: The Obama Administration's Horrifying Deportation Record." ACLU. 10 June 2014.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/1956-republican-platform/

It is essential to regularly review the 1956 Republican Platform.

David Mikkelson

10/23/2014

A few weeks before the 2012 U.S. presidential election, a meme began to circulate on social media suggesting the 1956 Republican platform included policies that would more closely match those of progressives in later years: meme The tenets listed in the 1956 Republican platform graphic certainly deviate from many of the GOP's current party lines, but were the following cited planks notably different six decades ago? It's difficult to make a direct comparison for a few reasons. One is that the Republican Party's national platform is not necessarily the same as the issues espoused by individual candidates at the federal, state, or local levels. In recent years, the advent of social media has enabled candidates and political organizations to push individually important agendas that may not hew to the party's overall national platform. Another issue is defining what the party's platform is at any given time. The most recent available Republican Party platform dated to 2012, during the campaign of Mitt Romney. Not all issues addressed in the graphic above were directly mentioned or comparably referenced in the 2012 platform, and individual Republican Party members who have made statements about platform issues since then do not necessarily speak for the GOP at large. The image displayed above first points to assistance for "low-income communities," language that does not specifically appear in the 1956 Republican platform. Under the heading of "Labor," the original document supported (to a degree) several of the positions summarized in the graphic in respect to minimum wage laws, unemployment assistance, and equal pay irrespective of gender: platform The Eisenhower Administration will continue to fight for dynamic and progressive programs which, among other things, will:Stimulate improved job safety of our workers, through assistance to the States, employees and employers; Continue and further perfect its programs of assistance to the millions of workers with special employment problems, such as older workers, handicapped workers, members of minority groups, and migratory workers; Strengthen and improve the Federal-State Employment Service and improve the effectiveness of the unemployment insurance system; Protect by law, the assets of employee welfare and benefit plans so that workers who are the beneficiaries can be assured of their rightful benefits; Assure equal pay for equal work regardless of Sex; Clarify and strengthen the eight-hour laws for the benefit of workers who are subject to federal wage standards on Federal and Federally-assisted construction, and maintain and continue the vigorous administration of the Federal prevailing minimum wage law for public supply contracts; Extend the protection of the Federal minimum wage laws to as many more workers as is possible and practicable; Continue to fight for the elimination of discrimination in employment because of race, creed, color, national origin, ancestry or sex; Provide assistance to improve the economic conditions of areas faced with persistent and substantial unemployment. The quoted portion did not specify expanded access to unemployment insurance benefits. However, the introduction addressed matters of expanding that benefit, as well as Social Security and even health care. The word "Protect" did not appear in that bit, but it did state: We are proud of and shall continue our far-reaching and sound advances in matters of basic human needs expansion of social security broadened coverage in unemployment insurance improved housing and better health protection for all our people. We are determined that our government remain warmly responsive to the urgent social and economic problems of our people.We shall continue to seek extension and perfection of a sound social security system. On the matter of supporting and encouraging labor unions, the 1956 Republican platform stated that "workers have benefited by the progress which has been made in carrying out the programs and principles set forth in the 1952 Republican platform ... workers have gained and unions have grown in strength and responsibility, and have increased their membership by 2 millions." It pledged to: Revise and improve the Taft-Hartley Act so as to protect more effectively the rights of labor unions, management, the individual worker, and the public. The protection of the right of workers to organize into unions and to bargain collectively is the firm and permanent policy of the Eisenhower Administration. In 1954, 1955 and again in 1956, President Eisenhower recommended constructive amendments to this Act. The Democrats in Congress have consistently blocked these needed changes by parliamentary maneuvers. The Republican Party pledges itself to overhaul and improve the Taft-Hartley Act along the lines of these recommendations. By contrast, the 2012 Republican Party platform said of workers, unemployment insurance, and worker protections that: platform The best jobs program is economic growth. We do not offer yet another made-in-Washington package of subsidies and spending to create temporary or artificial jobs. We want much more than that. We want a roaring job market to match a roaring economy. Instead, what this Administration has given us is 42 consecutive months of unemployment above 8 percent, the longest period of high unemployment since the Great Depression. Republicans will pursue free market policies that are the surest way to boost employment and create job growth and economic prosperity for all.In all the sections that follow, as well as elsewhere in this platform, we explain what must be done to achieve that goal. The tax system must be simplified. Government spending and regulation must be reined in. American companies must be more competitive in the world market, and we must be aggressive in promoting U.S. products abroad and securing open markets for them. A federal-State-private partnership must invest in the nation's infrastructure: roads, bridges, airports, ports, and water systems, among others. Federal training programs have to be overhauled and made relevant for the workplace of the twenty-first century. Potential employers need certainty and predictability for their hiring decisions, and the team of a Republican President and Congress will create the confidence that will get Americans back to work. Unions were also addressed in the 2012 platform in a somewhat different manner: We will restore the rule of law to labor law by blocking "card check," enacting the Secret Ballot Protection Act, enforcing the Hobbs Act against labor violence, and passing the Raise Act to allow all workers to receive well-earned raises without the approval of their union representative. We demand an end to the Project Labor Agreements; and we call for repeal of the Davis-Bacon Act, which costs the taxpayers billions of dollars annually in artificially high wages on government projects. We support the right of States to enact Right-to-Work laws and encourage them to do so to promote greater economic liberty. Ultimately, we support the enactment of a National Right-to-Work law to promote worker freedom and to promote greater economic liberty. We will aggressively enforce the recent decision by the Supreme Court barring the use of union dues for political purposes without the consent of the worker. Republicans in 1956 appeared markedly softer on matters of immigration and asylum, as their platform explained: The Republican Party supports an immigration policy which is in keeping with the traditions of America in providing a haven for oppressed peoples, and which is based on equality of treatment, freedom from implications of discrimination between racial, nationality and religious groups, and flexible enough to conform to changing needs and conditions.In that concept, this Republican Administration sponsored the Refugee Relief Act to provide asylum for thousands of refugees, expellees and displaced persons, and undertook in the face of Democrat opposition to correct the inequities in existing law and to bring our immigration policies in line with the dynamic needs of the country and principles of equity and justice. We believe also that the Congress should consider the extension of the Refugee Relief Act of 1953 in resolving this difficult refugee problem which resulted from world conflict. To all this we give our wholehearted support. In 2012, the GOP platform was slightly more stringent: We recognize that for most of those seeking entry into this country, the lack of respect for the rule of law in their homelands has meant economic exploitation and political oppression by corrupt elites. In this country, the rule of law guarantees equal treatment to every individual, including more than one million immigrants to whom we grant permanent residence every year. That is why we oppose any form of amnesty for those who, by intentionally violating the law, disadvantage those who have obeyed it. Granting amnesty only rewards and encourages more law breaking. We support the mandatory use of the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (S.A.V.E.) program an internet-based system that verifies the lawful presence of applicants prior to the granting of any State or federal government entitlements or IRS refunds. We insist upon enforcement at the workplace through verification systems so that jobs can be available to all legal workers. Use of the E-verify program an internet-based system that verifies the employment authorization and identity of employees must be made mandatory nationwide. State enforcement efforts in the workplace must be welcomed, not attacked. When Americans need jobs, it is absolutely essential that we protect them from illegal labor in the workplace. In addition, it is why we demand tough penalties for those who practice identity theft, deal in fraudulent documents, and traffic in human beings. It is why we support Republican legislation to give the Department of Homeland Security long-term detention authority to keep dangerous but undeportable aliens off our streets, expedite expulsion of criminal aliens, and make gang membership a deportable offense. Social Security warranted a few mentions in the 2012 platform, most notably in this portion: For much of the last century, an opposing view has dominated public policy where we have witnessed the expansion, centralization, and bureaucracy in an entitlement society. Government has lumbered on, stifling innovation, with no incentive for fundamental change, through antiquated programs begun generations ago and now ill-suited to present needs and future requirements. As a result, today's taxpayers - and future generations - face massive indebtedness, while Congressional Democrats and the current Administration block every attempt to turn things around. This man-made log-jam - the so-called stalemate in Washington - particularly affects the government's three largest programs, which have become central to the lives of untold millions of Americans: Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Among the remaining points of the graphic, gender pay discrepancy was not directly referenced in the 2012 platform. While the two platforms from 1956 and 2012 may appear starkly different when compared side-by-side, one must also keep in mind that the Republican Party tenets referenced in this meme predate many of the issues American voters now feel are central to their lives 60 years on.

neutral

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/google-phonebook/

Google PhoneBook

David Mikkelson

03/12/2002

Claim: Entering a phone number into the Google search engine can produce a home address and a map with directions to that address. . Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2002] Beware the New Google Feature! www.google.com Type your home telephone number into Google's search bar & click the search button . . . MapQuest returns with a physical location of your phone number. People could use this feature to locate your home address, and receive explicit directions on how to get there from anywhere in the country. You can remove your name off this database To do this: Type in your full phone number using dashes like this:555-123-4567. If your number appears in the mapping database, an icon resembling a telephone will appear to left of the entry on the results page. Click on this icon and it will take you to a page containing a description of the service, and a link to request your number be removed! Recheck your phone # to be sure it has been removed. Also, if you have children, please check their phone # too! This is another example of invasion of privacy, isn't it? Origins: The gist of the message quoted above is true: Typing a phone number into the popular Google search engine can produce a display like the following: Google Here we entered a phone number (805-495-9897) and were presented with a display showing the name and address of the person to whom that number is assigned, as well as two links (Yahoo! Maps and Mapquest) which will produce maps and driving directions for that address. (The information we used for our display belongs to a friend who has since moved to another state, so we're not giving away anyone's valid personal information here.) Clicking on the telephone icon will take the user to an informational page about the Google Phonebook feature, which includes a link to a form one can use to request that his personal information be removed from this feature. form As to the issue of whether this Google feature is a shocking "invasion of privacy," there are a few points to keep in mind: This feature is not "new" the PhoneBook service has been offered by Google for several years now. This feature does not work for every phone number. Some classes of phone numbers, such as unpublished phone numbers (i.e., numbers belonging to customers who have requested that their local phone service providers not publish their numbers in printed phone directories or make them available through directory assistance), will not display. The information displayed is compiled from a number of publicly accessible sources and is not unique to Google. There are many other web sources through which users can look up the same information. Google has simply combined two different services readily available on a number of different web sites: reverse phone directory look-ups and mapping/driving directions services. Even without Google, it's a simple feat for any moderately knowledgeable web user to plug a phone number into a reverse phone directory web site to find the name and address corresponding to that number, then use an on-line service such as Mapquest to obtain directions to that address. Mapquest In short, the Google PhoneBook feature may be troubling to those who value their privacy, but it's a symptom and not a cause. The larger issue is that many entities we deal with in daily life who are privy to our personal information can make that information available to sources that compile databases which services such as Google PhoneBook use. The public has been making privacy gains through the implementation of laws such as those requiring credit bureaus, phone companies, and motor vehicle bureaus to offer "opt-out" features which provide customers with means to restrict the distribution of their personal information, but until that larger issue is completely eliminated, trying to keep one's personal information off the web is akin to engaging in a perpetual game of "Wack-a-Mole": it provides momentary satisfaction but otherwise accomplishes little. credit bureaus phone companies motor vehicle Last updated: 21 February 2005

true

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2014/mar/20/wendy-davis/wendy-davis-drawing-outdated-survey-slightly-overs/

The disparity in income between males and females in Texas remains at 18%, as women earn only 82% of what men make.

W. Gardner Selby

03/20/2014

Texas women are paid less than men, Wendy Davis stresses. In a March 10, 2014,tweet, the Democratic gubernatorial nominee pointed out that her Republican opponent, Attorney General Greg Abbott, passed up a chance to say whether he would have vetoed a Davis-sponsored measure related to ensuring equal pay for Texas women that didnt make it into law. Davis, a Fort Worth state senator, wrote: While@GregAbbott_TXdodges questions on the Texas Equal Pay Act, women are still paid 82 cents for every dollar a man earns in Texas. Well leave it to Abbott and Davis to debate the 2013 measure vetoed by Gov. Rick Perry. But we wondered: Are Texas women still paid 82 cents for every dollar earned by a man? We found that pay gaps persist, though comparisons can be dicey. Comparing women and men doing 'same' job In August 2013, werated as Mostly Falsea related Davis claim: Texas women make an average of $8,355 less per year than men doing the very same job. Thats not necessarily correct for individuals doing the same job. In 2010, $8,355 was the general gap between median salaries of full-time working Texas men and women, according to federal estimates, and the 2012 gap was nearly $500 less than that. Significantly, the research cited by Davis did not drill down to salaries for men and women doing the same jobs. In contrast, 2013 survey results indicated a $2,000 gap between the median pay for Texas men and women with comparable professional experiences holding the same or similar jobs. Annual U.S. Census Bureau surveys But Davis recent 82 cents claim wasnt specific to people doing the same jobs. Responding to our request for back-up information, Davis spokeswoman Rebecca Acua pointed us to an April 2013fact sheetfrom the National Partnership for Women & Families, an advocacy group for workplace fairness and other issues. The sheet opens: In Texas, on average, a woman who holds a full-time job is paid $35,301 per year while a man who holds a full-time job is paid $43,160 per year. This means that women in Texas are paid 82 cents for every dollar paid to men, amounting to a yearly gap of $7,859 between men and women who work full time in the state. That statement is footnoted to the one-year American Community Survey undertaken in 2011 by the U.S Census Bureau and abureau chartindicating median earnings in the past 12 months by sex by work experience for residents 16 and older. These aligned with the partnerships fact sheet. Latest available estimate Kliner pointed out, too, that comparable results based on the2012 ACSwere posted online by the bureau in September 2013. The 2012 estimates indicate that median earnings for Texas men who worked full time year-round in the past 12 months were $44,802; for Texas women meeting these criteria, median earnings were $35,453 or 79 cents for every dollar earned by men who worked full time. Because Davis said women still earned 82 cents for every dollar earned by men, we calculated the comparable figure for previous years, according to the bureaus surveys. We found the comparable figure to be 80 cents in2006,2009and2010, 79 cents in2007and 78 cents in2008. Separately, we downloaded a bureau chart showing slightly different estimated median earnings for full-time male and female civilian workers in Texas based on the bureaus 2012 survey. Theresulting chartindicated a median wage for full-time working men of--$45,166 for men, $35,518 for women. By this metric, we calculated, civilian full-time female workers in Texas earned an estimated 79 cents for each dollar earned by full-time male workers. In 2011, a bureauchartsuggests, the comparable figure was 81 cents. Kliner told us the partnership relies on bureau estimates not limited to civilian workers because it believes that delivers a more complete view of the workforce. It is also the chart that has been used historically, so it allows for comparisons over time, she wrote. Upshot: The latest available estimate is that Texas women working full time earned 79 cents for every dollar earned by such men in 2012. That was a penny better than in one of the previous six years, the same or a penny less than the result in four of the years and three cents less than the 82 cents estimated for 2011 and relied upon by Davis. Experts note caveats Experts we queried agreed with our math while offering caveats. By email, Lloyd Potter, the state demographer, pointed out that any focus on earnings for full-time workers leaves out part-time workers. Women, he wrote, are more likely to be employed part-time. Still, Potter said, if we just looked at part-time workers, again, youd probably find women earn less. In our 2013 fact check, we noted theres a range of how many hours full-time workers log, and men are more likely than women to be on the job for 41 hours or more per week, according to theBureau of Labor Statistics. Because more men work overtime,that should translate into higher earnings for them -- because they are paid more, or because their longer hours lead to more job success -- and contribute to the wage gap. Though more nuanced analysis shows that job differences explain much of the pay gap, experts agree that much of it still cannot be accounted for. Thats where sexism comes in, some say. Finally, Potter said, the differential quoted probably is not adjusted for educational attainment or work experience. It is not. If it were, wed probably find the differential would shrink (toward equality) as women tend to have less work experience than men though educational attainment is fairly comparable among adults across sex. Austin economist Stuart Greenfield similarly said by email: In the aggregate, Sen. Davis statement is absolutely, positively correct, though he said that when one controls for work experience, education, and other factors, the earnings differential is reduced. National comparisons Greenfield also pointed out a Dec. 2, 2013, Bureau of Labor Statisticspress releasesummarizing median-pay changes among full-time workers over the years: In Texas, the ratio of womens to mens earnings trended upward from 1997 to 2004. It then fluctuated from 2005 to 2009 before climbing to a series high of 85.6 percent in 2010. However, in the last two years the Texas womens to mens earnings ratio has declined 6.0 percentage points to its lowest level since 2001. According to the 2012 survey results, Texas women fared better compared to men in their state than women in 24 states. Arizona placed first; women working full time earned 87 cents for every dollar earned by men. (For more than a decade, the graph indicates, Texas women fared better than their male counterparts in the state compared to women versus men in the nation as a whole, though conditions dipped in Texas compared to the nation in 2011 and 2012. We asked Cheryl Abbot, a regional economist for the Bureau of Labor Statistics, to speak to why this was so. See herreply here.) Jennifer Lee, a researcher for the left-leaning Center for Public Policy Priorities, which focuses on programs serving low-income Texans, said of the 79-cent pay difference estimate suggested by the 2012 survey: This is how the wage gap is usually calculated. If you expand who youre looking at to include all employed individuals (whether or not they work full-time or year-round), women earn 71 cents for every dollar that a man earns, Lee said by email. Lee reminded us of a February 2007 paper by Cornell University labor economists Francine Blau and Lawrence Kahn,The Gender Pay Gap: Have Women Gone Far Enough?The paper states that 53 percent of the gender wage gap stems from variation in job, industry and union status between the genders. According to the paper, major reasons for such wage gaps include: Occupational and industry category (49% of the reason) Lee said that many women are concentrated in particular occupations. Occupations that are heavily female, such as health care support or personal care and service occupations, tend to pay low wages, she said. For example, home health aides in Texas, who are largely female, earn on average $17,430 per year, Lee said, while women also represent 63% of workers earning minimum-wage or less in Texas. When you break down earnings data by occupation, she said, this gap persists in almost all occupations. Labor Force Experience (10.5%) A portion of the gap is explained by factors related to work experience, such as interruptions in work for child care, Lee said. Unexplained (41%) Lee said a large portion of the gap is unexplained by womens choices. This could be because of conscious or unconscious biases (research shows this is particularly acute against mothers), Lee wrote, while other research shows that different attitudes around wage negotiations may contribute to the gender wage gap. Lee added: A lot of people see occupational choices and time off from work as womens choices. And while this is true, I think its important to realize that the choices we make are heavily influenced by the environment in which we make choices, the choices that are available, and how those choices are presented. So while its true that more women work in low-wage jobs, there may be reasons why women dont choose to work in some higher-wage occupations. Similarly, mothers may choose to take time off work to care for young children, but perhaps they wouldnt if child care were more available or affordable. Our ruling Davis said that Texas women are still paid 82 cents for every dollar a man earns in the state. Her figure, based on a 2011 federal survey, reflects median earnings for adults who worked full time in the past 12 months, leaving out part-time workers. Its also outdated in that according to the latest available survey, taken in 2012, Texas women earned 79 cents for every dollar earned by men (again working full time in the past 12 months), less than what Davis said. We rate this claim as Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/shark-tank-weight-loss-scam/

Stay away from the weight loss scheme advertised on 'Shark Tank' that inaccurately guarantees '50lbs in 61 Days.'

Jordan Liles

06/30/2021

For years, readers have received unsolicited email messages about a weight loss product that purportedly appeared on the "Shark Tank" television show. Clicking the link in the email led to a product called Keto Burn. We previously reported about a similar scam involving a similarly-named product: Keto Fit. show reported The emails for Keto Burn were designed to look like a Fox News article, even though they appeared to have no affiliation with Fox News. This article did not come from Fox News. It was fake. It appears that a person or company used the Fox News logo without the company's permission. After clicking the link in the email, users were led through a number of questionable redirects, meaning that they were bounced from website to website before landing on a final page. On that final page was another misleading story on a website called Live Intelligence Outreach. The headline read: "50lbs in 61 Days: New No-Exercise Skinny Pill Melts Belly Fat. Why Every Judge On Shark Tank Backed This Product!" another misleading story The article showed a screenshot that appeared to be from a Fox News Channel television show. This fake screenshot appeared on a Keto Burn pitch website. However, this was also fake. This did not air on the Fox News Channel. One dead giveaway is that the font in the lower-third area looks amateurish. The email for the Keto Burn weight loss product claimed to come from "ABC - Shark Tank" and mentioned "Inc Magazine: Shark Tank Shocker." Clicking the link in the email led to a page that claimed: "It was the most-watched episode in 'Shark Tank' history when sisters Anna and Samantha Martin won over the 'Shark Tank' panel." page However, we found no such episode. People named Anna and Samantha Martin never appeared on the show. The scam article also claimed: "The pair are the first contestants in the shows long duration to ever receive a standing ovation and offers of investment from all panel members. The sisters said they celebrated the success with champagne and cake when the episode wrapped." The story then displayed a picture of "Shark Tank" personalities with a cake, purportedly celebrating after an episode about a weight loss product. This photograph has nothing to do with weight loss products. However, this picture had nothing to do with weight loss products and simply showed "Shark Tank" celebrating its 100th episode. This was confirmed on the Getty Images website. The celebration had nothing to do with Anna and Samantha Martin, Keto Burn, or any other weight loss offerings. Getty Images website In addition to "Shark Tank," the Keto Burn weight loss website also claimed the product was covered by The New York Times, "Today," O, The Oprah Magazine, People's Stylewatch, and Redbook. These publisher logos were misleading. However, we searched the content of all five publishers and did not find any coverage of a product called Keto Burn. This was highly misleading. In sum, a scam involving unsolicited emails, "Shark Tank," and a Keto Burn weight loss product led to an article that misled readers. We recommend readers delete such emails and avoid following links to such websites.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ivana-trump-golf-club-burial/

Ivana Trump was laid to rest at the Trump National Golf Club.

Nur Ibrahim

08/01/2022

Former U.S. President Donald Trumps first wife, Ivana Trump, was laid to rest at the Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey, based on media reports and photographs taken of the site. laid to rest New York Post reporters visited the golf club and photographed Ivana Trumps grave. Their report included a number of shots from different angles, including one revealing a wooded area near the site.A source told the New York Post that Ivana was buried not too far from the club house. According to the report, she was buried in a place that was not visible to golfers as they tee off for a round of golf. The small section of the club where she was buried is below the backside of the first tee. New York Post wooded area source A number of memes consisting of edited versions of those photographs went viral in late July 2022, with one in particular getting tens of thousands of likes and comments on Instagram. The image posted by Instagram account homegrownterrorists showed a golf cart rolling past what appeared to be Ivana Trump's gravesite. homegrownterrorists It's clear that this photograph is fake when it's compared to the pictures published in the New York Post article. The gravesite has been inserted into a wider shot of a golf cart on a golf course fairway. Unlike the Post's photographs, the manipulated image doesnt show a wooded area immediately adjacent to the grave. New York Post article A separate rumor speculates that Trump used the burial site for tax break purposes. Indeed, the New Jersey tax code does exempt cemetery land from all taxes, rates, and assessments. Potentially, her grave could save the property from paying a significant sum in a state with high tax rates. According to the code, a cemetery company is exempt from paying real property taxes, income taxes, sales and use taxes, business taxes, and inheritance taxes; cemetery trust funds are also exempt from taxes. tax code code Trump has expressed his desire to be buried at the New Jersey golf course for years. His company even described it as his favorite property in a 2014 filing with the state. A 2017 Washington Post report revealed how he had been trying to convince local authorities to let him build cemeteries at the golf course since 2007. After numerous attempts, two of his plans were approved around 2017, but construction for them had not begun. The 2017 report said that the Trump Organization still needed to apply for state approval to make the land a public cemetery. Washington Post However, Ivana Trump is the first known family member to be buried at the Bedminster golf club. Brooke Harrington, a sociology professor at Dartmouth and tax researcher, pointed out that the tax code has no stipulation for a minimum number of human remains needed for the tax breaks to apply. known Brooke Harrington tax code Documents published by ProPublica show that the Trump Family Trust had sought to designate a property in nearby Hackettstown, New Jersey, as a non-profit cemetery company. ProPublica However, this was not the first time Trump had been accused of trying to reduce his taxes on the property by varying its use. A 2016 Wall Street Journal report found that the golf club benefited from a farmland tax break because part of the land was designated for agricultural purposes specifically for hay production and a small herd of goats. The Huffington Post reported in 2019 that he had saved around $88,000 that year. Wall Street Journal Huffington Post New Jersey laws state a landowner must have no less than five acres of farmland actively devoted to an agricultural or horticultural use for the two years immediately preceding the tax year being applied for and meet specific minimum gross income requirements based on the productivity of the land. New Jersey laws A representative for the Trump Organization told Fortune magazine that the links being drawn between Ivana Trump's gravesite and tax laws were truly evil. Fortune While it is unknown if the choice of this location for her grave had any connection to taxes, the Trump family has a history of seeking ways to reduce tax bills. Furthermore, given the photographs, and an acknowledgement from a Trump representative regarding the location of her grave while denying the rumors connecting it to tax laws, we rate the overall claim as True. "Cemeteries, Funerals & New Jersey Taxes." New Jersey Division of Taxes, https://www.state.nj.us/treasury/taxation/pdf/pubs/sales/anj22.pdf. Accessed 1 Aug. 2022. "Department of Agriculture | Soil Evaluation Mapping Tool." Nj.gov. https://www.nj.gov/agriculture/home/farmers/farmlandassessment.html. Accessed 1 Aug. 2022. Fahrenthold, David A. The Mystery of Donald Trump and the New Jersey Cemetery. Washington Post, 10 Mar. 2017. www.washingtonpost.com, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-mystery-of-donald-trump-and-the-new-jersey-cemetery/2017/03/10/7823f63c-facb-11e6-bf01-d47f8cf9b643_story.html. Accessed 1 Aug. 2022. Helmore, Edward. Will Ivana Help Donald Trump with Tax Breaks from beyond the Grave? The Guardian, 31 July 2022. The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jul/31/donald-ivana-trump-cemetery-golf-course-taxes. Accessed 1 Aug. 2022. How Trumps Goats Likely Save Him $88,000 A Year. HuffPost UK, 15 Aug. 2019, https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-golf-goats_n_5d546ebce4b08385506719f1. Accessed 1 Aug. 2022. Photos Show Ivana Trumps Grave at Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, NJ. New York Post, 28 July 2022, https://nypost.com/2022/07/28/photos-show-ivana-trumps-grave-at-trump-national-golf-club-in-bedminster-nj/. Accessed 1 Aug. 2022. Roberts, Ken Schwencke, Mike Tigas, Sisi Wei, Alec Glassford, Andrea Suozzo, Brandon. Trump Family Trust - Nonprofit Explorer. ProPublica, 9 May 2013, https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/465718872. Accessed 1 Aug. 2022. Rubin, Richard. Goat Herd Helps Trump Lower Tax Bite. Wall Street Journal, 20 Apr. 2016. www.wsj.com, https://www.wsj.com/articles/goat-herd-helps-trump-lower-tax-bite-1461191607. Accessed 1 Aug. 2022. Will Ivana Trumps Burial at Donalds Golf Club Give the Former President a Tax Break? Fortune, https://fortune.com/2022/08/01/does-donald-trump-get-tax-break-by-burying-ivana-trump-at-trump-national-golf-club/. Accessed 1 Aug. 2022.

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/military-spent-1-billion/

Did the Military Spend $1 Billion on This 'New Vehicle'?

Jordan Liles

12/02/2020

Since 2017, an imposing military-style vehicle with a giant rolling ball on its front has been featured in online advertisements and YouTube thumbnails. An advertisement created by the website Yeah Motor, which was hosted by the advertising platform Taboola, showed the image of the vehicle with the words: "The Military Spent $1 Billion on This New Vehicle, And Here's The First Look." Readers who clicked the advertisement were led to a 52-page slideshow on Yeah Motor, where the image of the ball vehicle did not appear. This method of drawing in readers with clickbait to a slideshow with multiple pages is known as advertising arbitrage. With arbitrage, the goal is to make more money on the ads displayed during the slideshow than it costs to place the ads that drive readers to the story in the first place. 52-page slideshow The MAD LAB YouTube channel also featured the image in a thumbnail for the video, "Best Off-Road Vehicles of All Time." video However, the vehicle doesn't show up in the 12-minute video. The MAD LAB YouTube channel turned off the ability to like or dislike the video where viewers can click a thumbs-up or thumbs-down icon which is unique to this video in particular. The feature was perhaps disabled because of the large number of dislikes the video was receiving for failing to deliver on the promise in the thumbnail. Other videos on the channel allowed the liking and disliking of videos. The image is also featured on several other YouTube videos: The military did not spend $1 billion on this "new vehicle" because it's not real. Concept artist Camille Kuo created the impressive artwork, although her signature appeared to be removed via Photoshop. The original "track ball" artwork with the signature is available on her ArtStation page: Camille Kuo https://www.artstation.com/artwork/PVxDy Kuo, who is from Taipei, Taiwan, told us that her artwork is available on image-licensing websites, which allows anyone who can pay the licensing fee the ability to use the artwork for commercial purposes. "That's why you see they are being used commercially without giving me credit," Kuo said. However, it's unclear if all of the advertisers and YouTube users that featured her artwork in thumbnails properly obtained licenses. For this piece, "track ball," I emphasized the importance of being a tank without having traditional tank wheels. It can massively mash whatever comes through at the bottom, making pancakes. All of the work is done in Photoshop using the industry of concept art techniques called Photobash and 3DKitbash. She told us that it took around two to three hours to create, although "the process of concepting the design takes the longest." Kuo's other work can be viewed on her ArtStation page. her ArtStation page Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising "arbitrage." The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads. submit ads to us

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-and-obama-by-the-numbers/

Does the data provided in this meme accurately reflect the numerical comparison between Trump and Obama?

Dan Evon

08/13/2018

An image purportedly reproducing a CNN graphic comparing Presidents Trump and Obama "by the numbers" -- with the former seemingly recording a significantly higher job approval rating than his predecessor -- received a viral push on 8 August 2018, when Donald Trump, Jr. shared it with his 1.2 million followers on Instagram: However, the image was a doctored version of a graphic that was originally used during a CNN fact-checking segment regarding a tweet posted by President Trump about his approval numbers: Presidential Approval numbers are very good - strong economy, military and just about everything else. Better numbers than Obama at this point, by far. We are winning on just about every front and for that reason there will not be a Blue Wave, but there might be a Red Wave! Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 5, 2018 August 5, 2018 CNN's John King fact checked this tweet by comparing Presidents Obama and Trump "by the numbers" from around the same point of times in their presidencies. The image posted by Trump Jr. showed his father with a 50% job approval rating, but the genuine graphic aired by CNN showed President Trump's approval rating at only 40%. Here's the original segment from CNN: A side-by-side comparison clearly shows how a "50%" was digitally edited (quite poorly) in place of the "40%" number in the original graphic: The job approval statistics used by CNN for this graphic were taken from Gallup. According to that polling company, which samples presidential approval ratings every week, President Trump had never held a 50% approval writing up to the point of the CNN segment. Gallup. Donald Trump, Jr. later removed the doctored image from his Instagram page. An expanded version of the chart began making the rounds in September 2018 in the form of a meme shared by Turning Point USA, a conservative group whose stated mission is "to identify, educate, train, and organize students to promote the principles of freedom, free markets, and limited government." shared stated Apart from repeating the inaccurate "50 percent" approval rating for Trump and substituting year-to-date federal deficit figures with first-year-in-office totals for both Trump and Obama, the Turning Point USA chart faithfully copies the information provided in the August CNN segment. As CNN correspondent John King pointed out in that segment, the numbers reflect favorably on Trump. In terms of comparing Trump to Obama, however, the meme omits important contextual information. First, the figures cited were snapshots of a particular point in each president's administration. They didn't reflect longer-term fluctuations and trends. Second, unlike Trump, Obama entered office in the midst of a devastating economic collapse. Trump inherited an economy that was already strong and growing. It's meaningless to compare the two without taking these factors into account. Unemployment rate: As stated in the meme, the unemployment rate in July 2018 was 3.9 percent, as compared to 9.4 percent at the same point in Obama's first term in office (July 2010). But that number fell during 2011 as the economy began to recover, and, apart from minor fluctuations, fell steadily every year thereafter. By December 2016 (Obama's last full month in office) the unemployment rate was down to 4.7 percent and still falling, as illustrated in this U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics graph: rate Jobs added: According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, total non-farm employment in the U.S. grew from 145.7 million in January 2017 to almost 149 million in June 2018 -- an increase of approximately 3.2 million jobs. The same source reported that by the exact same point in Obama's first term, the economy had lost some 3.5 million jobs since January 2009 (.6 million more than was claimed by CNN and the Turning Point USA meme). But, again, the recession was underway, and the economy had already shed nearly 3.6 million jobs during the 12 months before Obama took office. The employment rate began to improve in 2011 and did so steadily throughout the rest of Obama's two terms: employment First year deficit: The Congressional Budget Office reported in March 2018 that the federal deficit stood at $665 billion (equivalent to 3.5 percent of the Gross Domestic Product) at the end of 2017, Trump's first year in office. At the end of Obama's first year, 2009, the deficit was $1.4 trillion (9.9 percent of GDP, the highest deficit as a share of GDP since 1945). It was mostly attributable to spending on the stimulus package meant to rescue the U.S. economy from the recession. Deficit spending didn't remain that high throughout Obama's tenure, however. In fact, the deficit during each of the last three years of his term of office ($485 billion in 2014, $438 billion in 2015, and $585 in 2016) was lower than the 2017 deficit, as well as the projected $833 billion deficit for 2018. reported $1.4 trillion deficit GDP growth: The growth rate of the Gross Domestic Product reflects the health of the economy in terms of the value of all goods and services produced in a given time period. As of the end of the second quarter of 2018, the rate of GDP growth was 4.2 percent (revised upward from 4.1 percent), as compared to a rate of 1.6 percent in the second quarter of 2010, Obama's second year in office. The quarterly GDP growth rate can be volatile, however. It reached or surpassed the 4 percent mark on four separate occasions during the Obama administration, including hitting a high point of 5.2 percent in the third quarter of 2014: 1.6 percent source: tradingeconomics.com tradingeconomics.com Changes in economic indicators are a valid way of evaluating the effectiveness of presidents and their policies, but, as in the examples above, when they are taken out of context and oversimplified they can be more misleading than enlightening. Amadeo, Kimberly. "U.S. GDP by Year Compared to Recessions and Events: The Strange Ups and Downs of the U.S. Economy Since 1929." The Balance. 2 August 2018. Gstalter, Morgan. "Trump Jr. Falsely Claims That GDP Growth Never Passed 2 Percent Under Obama." 27 July 2018. Nance-Nash, Sheryl. "Revision of Second Quarter GDP Shows Slowing Economy." ABC News. 27 August 2010. Selk, Avi. "Trumps Approval Hits 50 Percent In a Doctored Poll Graphic Shared by His Son." The Washington Post. 10 August 2018. Congressional Budget Office. "The Federal Budget in 2017: An Infographic." 5 March 2018. Congressional Budget Office. "Federal Budget Deficit Totals $1.4 Trillion in Fiscal Year 2009." 6 November 2009. CNN. "MAGIC WALL: Trump vs. Obama, By the Numbers." 6 August 2018. NPR. "GDP Is Up 4.1 Percent: What That Means." 27 July 2018. Trading Economics. "United States GDP Growth Rate - 1947-2018." Accessed 17 September 2018. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. "Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey." Accessed 17 September 2018. U.S. Department of Treasury. "Monthly Treasury Statement of Receipts and Outlays of the United States Government." 12 July 2018. Update [17 September 2018]: Added analysis of expanded Facebook meme circulating on September 2018.

neutral

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/alexa-orders-dollhouse-and-cookies/

Did Amazon's Alexa Order Unwanted Dollhouses for a Little Girl and TV Viewers?

Kim LaCapria

02/06/2017

In early 2017 several news outlets reported on a story that owners of Amazon's Alexa digital assistant device owners were "left out of pocket" after a 6-year-old girl named Brooke Neitzel inadvertently triggered one into placing an order for an expensive dollhouse, and a news report on the incident triggered a plague of automated, unwanted dollhouse ordering: reported [In January 2017] it was reported that an Amazon Echo in Dallas, Texas, had ordered a $170 dollhouse after six-year-old Brooke Neitzel asked: 'Can you play dollhouse with me and get me a dollhouse?' Although the little girl apparently meant it as a rhetorical question the device saw it as a command and ordered a KidKraft Sparkle mansion dollhouse, as well as four pounds of sugar cookies. But to make matters worse many Amazon Echoes apparently picked up on TV anchor Jim Patton's words in the report: 'I love the little girl saying "Alexa ordered me a dollhouse".' Viewers at home were then left stunned when their own Amazon Echoes picked up the voice requests in the report and ordered dolls houses too. As voice-command purchasing is enabled as a default on the Alexa devices, viewers found it had mistaken the show for their command and bought the toy. According to that report, a Texas kindergartner's request for Alexa to "play dollhouse" with her and "get [her] a dollhouse" resulted in her family's being charged for an order for a top-dollar toy. And when the family's tale was reported by a San Diego news station, "stunned" viewers also became the recipients of unwanted dollhouses simply because an anchor repeated the same phrase, which their own Amazon Echo/Alexa devices picked up on and transformed into orders. In one interview, Neitzel's mother Megan provided the Alexa log showing that her daughter had asked the device "Can you play dollhouse with me and get me a dollhouse?" But the embedded video of the log suggested that instead of confirming a dollhouse order, Alexa had responded, "Sorry, I couldn't find the answer to your question": interview We attempted to replicate the circumstances of the purported inadvertent order and were unable to do so. When asked "can you play dollhouse with me and get me a dollhouse?" our, Alexa responded with "now shuffling songs by Bauhaus." Asking "Alexa, can you get me a dollhouse?" returned "hmm ... Im not sure what you meant by that question." "Alexa, can you play dollhouse with me? returned ... heres a sample of 'Dollhouse Sounds' by Dollhouse Incorporated. Alexa, can you get me a dollhouse? was answered by I wasnt able to understand the question I heard." No permutation of "[c]an you play dollhouse with me and get me a dollhouse?" we tried resulted in a prompt to confirm a dollhouse order in any of our experiments conducted with two separate Alexa-enabled devices. The only potential purchase-triggering word appeared to be "order," after which it was necessary to confirm or decline the transaction (which we did at least three times and did not accidentally order any dollhouses). An Amazon spokesperson told us in response to our inquiry that ordering items through Alexa is a multi-step process that requires confirmation: You must ask Alexa to order a product and then confirm the purchase with a yes response to purchase via voice. If you asked Alexa to order something on accident, simply say no when asked to confirm. You can also manage your shopping settings in the Alexa app, such as turning off voice purchasing or requiring a confirmation code before every order. Additionally, orders you place for physical products are eligible for free returns. This conforms to our own experience: we couldn't induce Alexa into ordering anything without its first showing us the item, displaying a price, and asking us for verbal confirmation. We also couldn't get Alexa to order two items at once, as supposedly happened with the dollhouse and cookies Alexa always processed multiple items separately no matter how we tried to join them, displaying a price and requiring a verbal confirmation for each item. We also could find no confirmation (outside of anecdotal repetition) that a spate of unwanted dollhouse orders followed in the wake of San Diego newscaster Jim Patton's report on the story. Perhaps the television audio of that newscast might have woken up some viewers' Alexas, but those viewers would still have had to confirm any potential dollhouse purchases by responding 'yes' to Alexa's request for purchase confirmation. We have yet to locate any of the "viewers at home left stunned" as their Alexa devices foisted undesired $165 toys upon them. CBS News. "6-Year-Old Orders $160 Dollhouse, 4 Pounds of Cookies with Amazon's Echo Dot." 5 January 2017.

neutral

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/net-worth/

Barack Obama's Net Worth

David Mikkelson

10/16/2012

Claim: Barack Obama's net worth increased over $10 million from 2008 to 2012. UNDETERMINED Example: [Collected via e-mail, October 2012] Seen on Facebook: Tea party's photo of President Obama on a golf cart purporting his net worth 12/31/07 and 12/31/11 Origins: This graphic claiming that Barack Obama's net worth had increased from $1.3 million at the end of 2007 to over $11.4 million by the end of 2011 was widely circulated in October 2012. It's fair to say the Obamas' net worth has increased significantly during the time Barack Obama has been President, but fixing a specific dollar amount to that increase is difficult: net worth figures for politicians are typically derived from analyzing financial disclosure forms, a method which leaves room for a good deal of interpretation. financial disclosure Certainly the dollar figures displayed in the above graphic were not just pulled out of thin air: CNN/Money did peg Barack Obama's net worth at $1.3 million in 2007, and some sources (such as this Associated Press article) stated his net worth in mid-2012 to be around $11.8 million. CNN/Money Associated Press Other sources vary widely regarding the latter figure, however. In mid-2012 Forbes estimated the Obamas' net worth to be $5.7 million (down slightly from the previous year), OpenSecrets.org put the figure somewhere in the broad range of "$1,566,014 to $7,764,999," and other sources listed similarly broad range estimates such as "somewhere between $2.6 million and nearly $8.3 million." Forbes OpenSecrets.org other sources The Forbes report noted why the online version of its article included a considerably lower estimation of the Obamas' net worth than the print version of its article had: The current issue of Forbes magazine values the Obamas at a shared net worth of nearly $9 million, based on the May 16, 2011 financial disclosure, the most up-to-date as of press time. The day after our issue went to press, Obama released his new financial disclosure form, showing that: 1) the Obamas have taken money out of treasurys; 2) book money is decreasing; and 3) the family still owes on its mortgage, disclosed for the first time. The latest disclosure also gave new information on the familys college savings plans, which allowed us to refine our valuation and bring the sum down. The above valuation takes all this into account. Last updated: 16 October 2012

true

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/jun/09/anonymous-activist/austin-yard-signs-suggest-office-tower-project-cou/

500 percent more traffic here?

W. Gardner Selby

06/09/2015

A chunk of residential Northwest Austin has bridled at the prospect of a low-rise office park becoming much more. Our attention was drawn to yard signs suggesting the towering redevelopment at the southwest corner of Spicewood Springs Road and MoPac Boulevard (Loop 1) would quintuple area traffic. Dallas-based Spire Realty Group LPseeks a zoning changeto build up Austin Oaks, an office complex with 12 buildings of two to three stories each. In a version of its proposal made public in 2014, Spire said that on the parts of the site closer to MoPac, it wanted to build two office buildings of 17 stories each, though those plans have since been trimmed to 10-story buildings or so, according toSteve Drenner, an Austin lawyer representing Spire in its zoning case. Initial plans, also since modified per Drenner, called for up to 610 apartments and townhomes in the three- to five-story buildings, plus retail and restaurant space. The soonest construction was planned to start was around 2020, after existing office leases expire. The 500% signs dont reveal any group or person as the originator or sponsor. By phone, Ann Denkler, a volunteer witha coalitionopposing the redevelopment, told us the group did not create them. City 'unable to verify' traffic impact We reached out to city officials at first, wondering what data were available. By email, spokeswoman Sylvia Arzola told us: The project and the traffic impact analysis are currently under review. At this time we are unable to verify the traffic impact until a full evaluation of the project and accompanying mitigation is provided by the developer. Meanwhile, we found something close to the 500 percent claim in a September 2014 presentation by Jim Duncan of Austin, a city planner by profession. Duncan said he developed the presentation at the urging of a neighborhood friend and based his traffic projection on an engineering report written by another firm at the developers request. That report, Duncan said, indicated daily car trips near the proposed Austin Oaks Planned Use Development would increase from 4,118 to 23,804 once the expansion was finished--a 478 percent uptick. We turned back to Arzola, who agreed by email it looks like the traffic figures indeed came from the developers consultants study. However, she noted, a fresh traffic analysis was released in May 2015 based on the developer changing what it seeks to build. Duncan said hed heard the revision talk and for that reason, he said, his calculation of the potential 478 percent increase in daily car trips near the project would likely be outflanked. Im sure the number is lower now, Duncan said. Traffic impact studies Arzola emailed us two traffic studies for the project, dated a year apart, and another city official, Bryan Golden, emailed us excerpts from a study completed in August 2014 (which looked to us like the one Duncan relied on). Each study presents predicted unadjusted daily trips in the area should the project be built out with predicted increases ranging from more than 300 percent to more than 480 percent. Generally, unadjusted daily trips means daily car trips in an area, a city official told us, without reductions accounting for trips internal to a development, say, or trips there on city buses. An unadjusted count rolls in trips expected due to existing developments plus the additional trips expected once the project is finished, Bryan Golden told us by email. The projections are generated by an engineering industry calculator, Golden said. The initial June 26, 2014, traffic impact analysis was completed by a professional engineer, Bobak J. Tehrany, for Bury-AUS, Inc. That analysis, of 14 nearby intersections and 11 proposed driveways, said the redevelopment on completion in 2031 would generate an additional 20,736 unadjusted daily trips by car compared to some 4,248 daily trips attributed to the existing office complex which breaks out to an eventual 488 percent increase. With the redevelopment, Tehrany wrote, all but two of the nearby intersections would need improvements. That is, he said, the maximum desirable volumes are currently being exceeded along the roadway segments which were evaluated, though he also said that doesnt mean the roadways had exceeded their respective capacities. The Aug. 19, 2014, traffic impact analysis--taking into account a nearby intersection the city wanted to add to the analysis, Amanda Swor of Drenners firm told us by email--suggested the project would result in nearly 19,700 additional unadjusted daily car trips, up 478 percent from 4,118 of late. We didnt get a fix on why the count of current-day traffic went down. Most recently, the May 22, 2015, traffic impact analysis filed on behalf of the developers states: Based on the proposed land use intensities, it is anticipated that the development will generate a total of 19,819 unadjusted daily trips; however, due to the existing office land uses, the proposed redevelopment is anticipated to generate a net increase of 15,701 unadjusted daily trips. This is taking into consideration the trips which already exist on the roadway network due to the existing development. That is, once the development is done, nearby traffic would be up 381 percent from the 4,118 daily car trips of late. Developer's advocate says traffic likely to increase less By phone, Drenner pointed out the May 2015 analysis includes a chart suggesting that once adjustments are made to account for car trips internal to the development, there would actually be a 332 percent increase in traffic. He said this latest analysis was based on Spires modified development planhalving the number of residential units and reducing retail uses filed with the city April 30, 2015. Drenner said, too, the developers are suggesting $1.5 million in spending to improve nearby streets and creation of a fund that would accumulate money for area road improvements. Next, we wondered how much traffic near the site would increase if the developers added nothing. Denkler and Golden counseled that analysts assume a 2 percent annual increase in car trips. At our request, Golden calculated the 4,118 current unadjusted daily car trips would escalate 37 percent to 5,653 in 2031--again, provided theres no expansion on the site. Our ruling Yard signs posted in opposition to a proposed Northwest Austin redevelopment say: 500 percent more traffic? Traffic studies filed in 2014 based on the developers original proposal support the 500-percent figure, yet the developer later submitted a revised plan and its May 2015 traffic analysis suggests at most a 381 percent increase in daily car trips, still a substantial spike. Perhaps the project and predicted traffic effects will continue to change. For now, taking into account the information available when the signs were made, we rate the claim Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/delta-air-lines-scams-500-for-1-dollar/

Delta Air Lines Scams Promise '$500 Gift Card for $1' and '$100 Reward'

Jordan Liles

05/22/2023

In May 2023, a reader informed us by email of a scam appearing in Facebook and Instagram ads that claimed Delta Air Lines was holding a promotion to give away $500 gift cards for $1 each. On the same day, we reviewed a second "Delta Airlines Online Shopper" scam in an email from an address ending in asahi.com that promised a "$100 reward" or gift card, simply for taking a survey. Needless to say, these were not legitimate giveaways, nor were they offered by Delta Air Lines. Always remember with online offers that if they seem too good to be true, they probably are. Worse, they are likely to be phishing scams that can result in both privacy and monetary losses for victims. First, Delta Air Lines was not giving away $500 gift cards for $1 each. Even something as small as $5 gift cards for $1 each would make little sense, as it would be putting Delta or other airlines in the position of losing money to the throngs who would buy up the cards. The scam ads read as follows: Elevate your travel experience with Delta! We're giving you an extraordinary opportunity to fuel your dreams of exploration. For only $1, you can get a $500 gift card - a limited time offer that's too good to pass up. It's time to see why Delta isn't just an airline, it's the Delta difference. Apply now and book your next Delta journey today! The paid ads on Facebook and Instagram led to a fake survey onduwucuu.info. After filling out the survey, the scam led users towb.giftgiveaways.xyz where they were asked to fill out personal information and a credit card number. As for the email scam that promised $100 Delta Air Lines "rewards" or gift cards for taking a survey, the messages were often coming from "ozdxuofbqh.asahi.com via loi5sir.classyield.site." Clicking the link in the message led to a strangely-labeled "Hitech Research" website onignitesurge.org. The page instructed users to take a survey and then pick a "free" offer on gadgetspromodeals.com or other websites. However, these "free" offers came with monthly subscription fees that were hidden in the terms and conditions. Nowhere on these pages did we find a box for customers to check to indicate that they agreed to the fine print that appeared on another page. The domain name giftgiveaways.xyz was last registered on May 15, just seven days before we looked into the "$500 gift cards for $1" scam. Meanwhile, ignitesurge.org, the website associated with the $100 Delta Air Lines "reward" email scam, was last registered on April 5. Newly-registered domain names are often a big red flag associated with scams. We advise all readers to do their due diligence before giving their credit card number to a website they've never heard of. Scammers often hide subscription fees in terms and conditions and purposely do not mention these fees anywhere on the product checkout pages. Contact your credit card company immediately if you believe you have given your credit card number to scammers. Delta Air Lines hosts a page about the scams they've seen over the years, including gift card promotional websites: page Over the years, Delta has received reports of attempts by parties not affiliated with us to fraudulently gather customer information in a number of ways including: fraudulent emails, social media sites, postcards, Gift Card promotional websites claiming to be from Delta Air Lines and letters or prize notifications promising free travel. These messages were not sent by Delta Air Lines. We do not market to our customers this way, but individuals or groups intending to gather and use your personal data for their gain can be inventive in their approach often adding messages to generate a sense of urgency so you take action. Scammers know that airfare can be quite pricey. By pushing fake offers for cheaper airline tickets, they attempt to scam the masses with their fraudulent schemes. If readers encounter offers in the future that seem suspicious, we recommend contacting the airline company directly to ask questions. For further reading n the realm of "way too good to be true," we once covered anotherscam that claimed Delta Air Lines was giving away first-class air travel tickets and $10,000 in cash. scam "Protect Your Data." Delta Air Lines, https://www.delta.com/us/en/legal/privacy-and-security/protect-your-data.

false

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2010/aug/11/kevin-boyce/ohio-treasurer-kevin-boyce-twice-cut-his-own-pay/

Ive even cut my own salary -- twice.

Joe Guillen

08/11/2010

Elected officials pay can be a sensitive topic with taxpayers, especially in todays economic climate. So its no surprise Ohio Treasurer Kevin Boyce, who is running in November to keep his job, is bragging about cutting his salary.Boyce talked about his six-figure earnings in a YouTube video released by his office. Presented as a preview of the offices forthcoming annual financial report, the production feels more like a tribute to Boyces performance as treasurer aimed directly at voters.Ive even cut my salary -- twice, said Boyce, a Democrat and former Columbus city councilman.Boyce was appointed Treasurer in late 2008. Richard Cordray left a vacancy when he took the state attorney generals job in the wake of Marc Danns resignation.Annual salaries for the states elected officials are set in state law, which lawmakers can amend to increase or decrease pay. The treasurers salary has been set at $109,986 since 2008.In June 2009, Boyce sent a memo to the state Department of Administrative Services saying he was taking a pay cut that would reduce his gross salary that year to $107,874. The pay cut, effective July 1, 2009, was the equivalent of taking five unpaid furlough days, a cost-saving measure that has been forced upon many state employees.In the same memo, Boyce authorized an extension of the reduction for all of 2010. This years pay cut is the equivalent of 10 unpaid furlough days, according to the administrative services department.Boyces gross salary this year will be $105,757.Boyce lumped both cuts -- each about 2 percent -- in the same memo, but he effectively trimmed his salary twice. Had he not extended the cut into 2010, his pay wouldve jumped back up to $109,986, a spokeswoman for the administrative services department said.We find Boyces statement True. Comment on this item.

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/children-detention-center-trump/

Do Photos Show Children at Detention Center Under Trump's Watch?

Dan Evon

06/25/2019

In June 2019, a variety of news outlets published reports detailing the horrid conditions at immigrant detention centers along the United States' southern border. The Associated Press, for instance, quoted a lawyer named Warren Binford, who visited a facility in Texas and spoke to some of the immigrant children detained within, saying that the kids were living in "inhumane conditions." ABC News obtained a medical declaration that likened these detention centers to torture facilities. Associated Press ABC News As outrage from these reports grew online, actress Nancy Lee Grahn posted a set of photographs that supposedly documented these conditions and accused the Trump administration of forcing children to "sleep on cement floor with an aluminum blanket & lights on all night": Nancy Lee Grahn While the text of Grahn's tweet accurately reflects recent news reports, the photographs she used to illustrate her point were not taken during U.S. President Donald Trump's administration. These photographs are actually still images from a surveillance camera at a Border Patrol holding facility in Tucson, Ariz., in August 2015. The images were released as part of a lawsuit brought by the American Immigration Council and the American Civil Liberties Union against U.S. Customs and Border Protection concerning the conditions at the agency's temporary holding facilities. lawsuit Here's an excerpt from an NPR report: NPR The holding cells were designed to be used for temporary holding a period of hours. The American Immigration Council analyzed Border Patrol data and concluded that from September 2014 to August 2015, two-thirds of immigrants detained in Border Patrol facilities in the Southwest were held for more than 24 hours, and tens of thousands of people were held for more than three days. Photos of the cells show people crowded together in concrete cells. Several images show prisoners sitting or sleeping on bare floors with no mats available to them even when there are unused mats in empty cells. While these photographs were taken during the Obama administration, the conditions described in Grahn's tweet still apply to the detention facilities operating under Trump. Physician Dolly Lucio Sevier was granted access to a detention center after a flu outbreak sent five infants to the neonatal intensive care unit. In a medical declaration obtained by ABC News, Sevier compared the conditions to a "torture facility" and wrote that minors were dealing with "extreme cold temperatures, lights on 24 hours a day, no adequate access to medical care, basic sanitation, water, or adequate food." ABC News Binford, a law professor, told NPR: "They are worse than actual prison conditions. It is inhumane. It's nothing that I ever imagined seeing in the United States of America." NPR The second part of Grahn's tweet mentions "Sarah Fabian" and claims that companies are making $750 day to detain immigrant children. Fabian is a Department of Justice lawyer who attempted to defend the conditions at detention centers during a June 2019 Court of Appeals hearing. According to the Washington Post: defend The government went to federal court this week to argue that it shouldnt be required to give detained migrant children toothbrushes, soap, towels, showers or even half a nights sleep inside Border Patrol detention facilities. The position bewildered a panel of three judges in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit on Tuesday, who questioned whether government lawyers sincerely believed they could describe the temporary detention facilities as safe and sanitary if children werent provided adequate toiletries and sleeping conditions. One circuit judge said it struck him as inconceivable." [...] The government was in court to appeal a 2017 ruling finding that child migrants and their parents were detained in dirty, crowded, bitingly cold conditions inside U.S. Customs and Border Protection facilities along the southern border. Migrants are first taken to those facilities after they are apprehended at the border. [...] U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee had found that migrants in Rio Grande Valley facilities were hungry, with some eating only sandwiches of two pieces of dry bread and one slice of ham. They were thirsty, with up to 20 migrants sharing the same cup to drink from the water cooler. They were embarrassed to use a toilet in front of 50 other people and they couldnt take a shower or brush their teeth or even wash their hands with soap and dry them with a towel, the judge found. At night, they couldnt sleep. The lights were left on, as they shivered beneath an aluminum blanket on the concrete floor, the judge found. Gee ruled in June 2017 that these Obama-era conditions violated a 1997 settlement agreement requiring that immigrant children in the governments custody be housed in safe and sanitary conditions, and that the government maintain concern for the particular vulnerability of minors. But the Trump administration protested. The 1997 consent decree, known as the Flores Settlement Agreement, didnt say anything about providing a toothbrush, towels, dry clothing, soap, or even sleep, the administration has argued. Grahn's claim that companies make $750 "a kid a day to torture them" relates to the fact that some immigration detention centers are owned and operated by private for-profit companies. Reuters reported in February 2019 that while it costs about $250 per day to hold a child at a permanent detention center, the cost can triple at temporary, privately owned, for-profit facilities such as the "Homestead Temporary Shelter for Unaccompanied Children": Reuters As the government seeks to rapidly expand the sites capacity, it has waived a federal requirement at Homestead meant to ensure children receive sufficient health care. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which cares for the children, previously required Homestead to maintain a clinician-to-child ratio of 1 to 12 to provide mental health services, according to a November 2018 report. But that requirement has been relaxed to 1 to 20, a Homestead program director said on Wednesday. The facility sits on federal property, and unlike established childrens shelters, such as smaller group or foster homes that hold migrant children across the country, is not governed by state child welfare regulations designed to protect youngsters from harm. [...] About 35 miles south of Miami, the facility is run by Comprehensive Health Services, Inc., a private, for-profit company with a growing line of business in housing immigrant children. In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission last year, the firms parent company, Caliburn International Corp., noted President Donald Trumps immigration policies were driving significant growth. It costs approximately $250 per day to house a migrant child at a standard, permanent shelter, said Mark Weber, an HHS spokesman. But at an influx facility like Homestead, the cost is triple that - around $750 per day. It is covered by American taxpayers. To sum up: Viral photographs supposedly documenting the conditions at immigration detention facilities under the Trump administration were actually taken in 2015 during Obama's tenure. The poor conditions at these Obama-era centers have continued or worsened under Trump. Flynn, Meagan. "Detained Migrant Children Got No Toothbrush, No Soap, No Sleep. Its No Problem, Government Argues." Washington Post. 21 June 2019. Torbati, Yeganeh; Cooke, Kristina. "First Stop for Migrant Kids: For-Profit Detention Center." Reuters. 14 February 2019. Domonoske, Camila. "Surveillance Stills From Border Patrol Facilities Show Crowded, Trash-Filled Cells." NPR. 19 August 2016. Gonzales, Richard. "Obama Immigrant Detention Policies Under Fire." NPR. 12 June 2015. Marhsall, Serena; Zak, Lana; Metz, Jennifer. "Doctor Compares Conditions for Unaccompanied Children at Immigrant Holding Centers to 'Torture Facilities.'" ABC News. 23 June 2019. PBS News Hour. "A Firsthand Report of 'Inhumane Conditions' at a Migrant Childrens Detention Facility." 21 June 2019. PBS News Hour. "A Firsthand Report of 'Inhumane Conditions' at a Migrant Childrens Detention Facility." 21 June 2019.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/churchill-on-islam/

Winston Churchill on Islam

David Mikkelson

01/08/2015

Claim: Winston Churchill wrote about the "dreadful curses of Mohammedanism" in his 1899 book The River Wars. Example: [Collected via e-mail, January 2015] Origins: An obscure quote attributed to British statesman Winston Churchill has been circulating on the Internet since at least May 2013, when Missouri State Representative Rick Stream sent an e-mail to his colleagues warning about the dangers of Islam. That e-mail cited a passage said to have been taken from a speech by Churchill, as reproduced in his 1899 book The River War: An Historical Account of the Reconquest of the Soudan: He was a brave young soldier, a brilliant journalist, an extraordinary politician and statesman, a great war leader and Prime Minister, to whom the Western world must be forever in his debt. He was a prophet in his own time; He died on 24 January 1965, at the grand old age of 90 and, after a lifetime of service to his country, was accorded a State funeral. How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome. The above-quoted passage did appear in The River War when it was first published as a two-volume set in 1899, but the selection was removed when the book was condensed into one volume and republished in 1902. While the one-volume abridged edition of The River War is still readily available, as of January 2015 the original two-volume 1899 version is much harder to find, a condition which may have led to confusion about the origins of the quote in question. However, the Churchill Centre has confirmed these words were indeed written by Winston Churchill. confirmed The passage as reproduced on the Internet typically incorporates one small omission, though: it elides Churchill's praise of "Moslems" as "brave and loyal soldiers" and covers the gap by combining the remaining part of the sentence with the previous one: Last updated: 8 January 2015

true

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2018/mar/15/donald-trump/trump-botches-japanese-bowling-ball-test/

In Japan, they take a bowling ball from 20 feet up in the air and they drop it on the hood of the car. And if the hood dents, then the car doesn't qualify...It's horrible, the way we're treated.

Jon Greenberg

03/15/2018

President Donald Trump often speaks of how other countries treat American products unfairly. At a private fundraising event in Missouri, Trump singled out a particular practice in Japan. It's called the bowling ball test. Do you know what that is? Trump said, according to a recording obtained by theWashington Post.That's where they take a bowling ball from 20 feet up in the air, and they drop it on the hood of the car. And if the hood dents, then the car doesn't qualify. Well, guess what, the roof dented a little bit, and they said, nope, this car doesn't qualify. It's horrible, the way we're treated. It's horrible. TheWashington Postnoted, It was unclear what he was talking about. So we wanted to look into it. We asked the White House press office what Trump had in mind and got no comment. In her regular press briefing, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Trump was just joking. However, we found something that loosely fits what he described. There are no bowling balls, and no 20-foot drop. But Japans National Agency for Automotive Safety and Victim Aid does whats called apedestrian head protection performance test. Its designed to measure the force someones head would absorb if a car hit them. This involves firing a carefully calibrated hemisphere-shaped device (so, more like half of a bowling ball) at the hood and windshield. The device records the force. Heres a graphic from the agencys website: Note that the largest head impactor is 4.5 kilograms, or about 10 pounds. So, the details about a bowling ball, the weight and the height of the drop are all wrong. But those details aside, Trump also got the purpose and nature of the test totally wrong. When he said, If the hood dents, then the car doesn't qualify, that would be a test of the strength of the hood. In contrast, the test is all about a persons head and the force it has to absorb in an accident. Its the complete opposite, said Sean Kane, president of Safety Research and Strategy, a private firm that studies vehicle and consumer product safety. In fact, the more a hood dents or flexes, the better it is for the head of the unlucky pedestrian. Its akin to any other type of crash, Kane said. You look at cars today, and the impact damage to cars is much greater. Theres a lot of crush, but thats to absorb the energy and keep it away from people. Abiomedical engineering dissertationfrom Wayne State University made the same point: To lower head injury criterion, two main principles are necessary: provision of sufficient deformation space and provision of a low stiffness of the impacted vehicle body parts. However, Trump got one element correct. American cars sold in Japan, at least all models made this decade, have to meet the Japanese safety standard. So Trump was correct that this is a hurdle for American car makers. Its worth noting that Europe has a similar standard. Inthe early 2000s, the problem of cars hitting pedestrians was worse in Europe and Japan than in the United States. In Japan, for example, 27 percent of all traffic fatalities were pedestrians hit by cars. In the United States, it was 13 percent. The head impact test is a standardized test and has been there for many years, said Pankaj Mallick, professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Michigan-Dearborn. Our car companies are very much aware of this, but at this time, there are no National Highway Traffic Safety Administration requirements to do this test for qualification of a car hood. Kane noted that the United States stands out for having lower safety standards than Europe and Japan. If U.S. car makers wanted to make safer cars, they could sell them in both markets, he said. If they dont, thats a business decision. Trump said that in Japan, they take a bowling ball from 20 feet up in the air and they drop it on the hood of the car. And if the hood dents, then the car doesn't qualify. American cars must meet a Japanese standard. But Trump mangled the highly controlled process, which does not involve a bowling ball dropped from 20 feet. Where Trump really goes astray is on the purpose of the test; he has it backward. Its not about seeing if the hood is strong. The more a hood gives way, the better it is for the head of a pedestrian. Trumps understanding of the test is so far off the mark, we rate this claim False.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fox-news-vindman-statement/

Was Fox News Removed From 'Armed Forces Radio' Over Vindman Segment?

Dan Evon

11/22/2019

On Nov. 21, 2019, a rumor started to circulate on social media that the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) had removed Fox News from "Armed Forces Radio" over the network's coverage of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman's testimony during the House Intelligence Committee's impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump: circulate No, Fox News has not been removed from "Armed Forces Radio," a misnomer of the American Forces Network Radio (AFN). Navy Capt. Bill Speaks, a Pentagon spokesperson, confirmed to the Associated Press that this rumor was false: Associated Press "We have not cancelled Fox News from American Forces Network programming, either on our radio or TV services." A spokesperson for American Forces Network Radio told us via email: American Forces Network (AFN) Radio has and continues to air FOX radio newscasts and features on many of our radio services. AFN Radio rotates top of the hour radio newscasts between FOX, Associated Press, ABC, CBS and Westwood One radio. While Fox News was not removed from America Forces Network Radio, the network truly was criticized for how it covered Vindman's testimony. Vindman's lawyer sent a letter to Fox News asking it to retract an Oct. 28 segment that aired on Laura Ingraham's prime-time show, "The Ingraham Angle." On the show, guest John Yoo, a former deputy assistant U.S. attorney general, appeared to suggest that Vindman was guilty of espionage. letter Newsweek reported: reported A law firm representing Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman sent Fox News a warning letter on Wednesday asking for the retraction and correction of a segment on Laura Ingraham's show which suggested the colonel might be guilty of espionage. "We are compelled to write because of a deeply flawed and erroneous Fox News segment that first aired on October 28, 2019, the gist of which has since been republished countless times, including by the President of the United States to his 66.9 million Twitter followers." The segment on The Ingraham Angle featured a panel with lawyer John Yoo, a former Deputy Assistant U.S. Attorney General and current U.C. Berkeley law professor, and legal scholar, Alan Dershowitz. In an exchange with Yoo, Ingraham remarked on something she read about about the colonel, the New York Times reports. "Here we have a U.S. national security official who is advising Ukraine, while working inside the White House, apparently against the president's interest, and usually, they spoke in English," said Ingraham. "Isn't that kind of an interesting angle on this story?" "I find that astounding and, you know, some people might call that espionage," responded Yoo. Fox News released a statement saying that "Yoo was responsible for his own sentiments": As a guest on FOX News, John Yoo was responsible for his own sentiments and he has subsequently done interviews to clarify what he meant. Yoo also wrote an op-ed for USA Today on Nov. 1, 2019, in which he claimed that he was talking about Ukraine, not Vindman specifically, and that he has "no reason to question Vindmans patriotism or loyalty to the United States." USA Today Vindman's lawyers also addressed Yoo's Op-Ed in their complaint, writing: writing "On November 1, 2019, Mr. Yoo published an op-ed in USA Today regarding his appearance on Fox News several days earlier. In the Yoo op-ed, Mr. Yoo stated, contrary to fact, that "I didn't call Alexander Vindman a spy." But of course, he did - Mr. Yoo's statement on Fox News expressly accused LTC Vindman of "espionage" and was universally understood to have done so. it is why Mr. Yoo wrote an op-ed seeking to rewrite recorded fact; it is why he begins his op-ed, "I really stepped in it this week." What Mr. Yoo "stepped in" was a lie. Darcy, Oliver. "Lawyer for Impeachment Witness Lt. Col Vindman Demands Fox News Retract 'False and Defamatory' Segment." CNN. 21 November 2019. Associated Press. "Fox News Was Not Removed From Armed Forces Radio Over Vindman Testimony." 21 November 2019. Yoo, John. "John Yoo: No, I Didn't Call Alexander Vindman a Spy. But Ukraine Did Engage in Espionage." USA Today. 1 November 2019.

false

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/jan/16/kevin-flynn/ri-planner-kevin-flynn-nothing-rhodemap-ri-plan-ta/

Theres nothing in the [RhodeMap RI] plan that takes away local government control and local zoning control.

Katie Mulvaney

01/16/2015

The RhodeMap RI long-term economic development plan continues to spark controversy throughout Rhode Island. This week, Republican legislators saidthey would submit legislationto free municipalities from having to incorporate it in their local planning. That follows comments House Speaker Nicholas Mattiellomade in December to radio station WPRO-AM. Mattiello said, the plan is never going to come before the House or the Senate in its totality and were never going to vote on it. The controversy started in mid-September with the release of a 200-page draft of the plan, which is meant to guide efforts to improve the states economy. During meetings that sometimes descended into shouting matches, critics said that if RhodeMap RI were implemented, local cities and towns would be relinquishing control to the federal government on affordable housing and land-use issues because the plan was paid for, in part, by a $1.9 million U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development grant. Supporters said there's nothing in the plan that would infringe on individual property rights or local control over zoning. Because the debate is likely to continue in the coming months, we decided to examine a statement made late last year by Kevin M. Flynn, associate director for planning for the state Division of Planning, who oversaw the plans development. Addressing concerns about ceding municipal control,Flynn told EcoRI News,theres nothing in the plan that takes away local government control and local zoning control. We asked Flynnhow he backed up his statement. While we waited for a response, we read through the RhodeMap RI plan, and found nothing to indicate a threat to local control, suggesting Flynns statement was accurate. But things got more complicated when we looked at other documents, including the Planning Divisions grant application, the grant agreement, and HUDs description of the Sustainable Regional Planning Grant Program, the source of the $1.9 million. According to HUD, the program is intended to support planning efforts that integrate land use, economic and workforce development, transportation and infrastructure investments. It also aims to enable local and state planners to consider such issues as energy use, climate change, public health and social equity in economic planning. Agencies that apply for such grants must agree to generate plans aimed at producing, among other objectives, equitable land use planning that furthers the federal Fair Housing Act and complies with other civil rights laws. And those agencies must agree to analyze and overcome barriers to housing discrimination -- in HUDs words, to affirmatively further fair housing. Critics view those provisions with alarm, saying they essentially give the federal government license to override state and local government control. They point to a long-running legal dispute involving New Yorks Westchester County as Exhibit A. More on that in a moment. When Flynn got back to us, he referred us to Article XIII of the Rhode Island Constitution, which empowers cities and towns to adopt and amend their charters, and enact and amend local land use laws. He also cited state zoning enabling legislation, which delegates zoning authority to cities and towns. A plan is simply that. A plan, Flynn said. A plan has no power to modify constitutional or statutory law. The economic development plan could never supercede state law, he said. That is a basic tenet of our jurisprudence. Looking for more impartial views,we reached out to more than 10 national housing law experts. The four who responded agreed that communities do not cede zoning control when they accept HUD grants. But they had some caveats. For example, Brian Gilmore, an associate professor and director of the Housing Clinic at Michigan State University College of Law, said, I wouldnt say theyve ceded total control. I would say they have obligations. Robert G. Schwemm, a professor at the University of Kentucky College of Law, said much the same thing. Its illegal to use local zoning power to maintain segregation, Schwemm said. However, HUD has no direct power over local zoning authority, Schwemm said. HUD could deny the grant or take back money, but thats a remote possibility, he said. The idea of a fund cutoff is virtually unheard of, because historically, the Fair Housing Act has been enforced weakly. Theyre doing more than has been done in the past, he said of the Obama administration. HUDs Annual Report on Fair Housing 2012-2013 showed that the agency received 495 analyses by cities and towns examining fair housing choice. Of those, HUD took enforcement action in five instances. Heres why Westchester County is important. In 2006, a housing advocacy group sued the county in federal court, arguing that it had defrauded taxpayers by accepting $50 million in HUD grant money while failing to remove barriers to fair housing as required by its agreement with HUD. HUD later became a plaintiff in the suit. A judge ultimately agreed with the plaintiffs, and a landmark settlement was reached requiring the county to spend $50 million to build or acquire 750 affordable-housing units in communities that were more than 90 percent white. Now, the county and HUD are fighting over whether the county has complied with the settlement and whether it must amend its zoning ordinances to do so. The county has lost at least $20 million in HUD grants so far. We contacted the county for its take on HUD grants and local control. The experience in Westchester has been caveat emptor, said Ned McCormack, Westchester communications director and senior adviser to County Executive Robert P. Astorino, using the Latin phrase for buyer beware. Once you take any money from HUD, your interpretation of what is expected in return and their interpretation vary widely. Our ruling Kevin M. Flynn said nothing in the RhodeMap RI plan takes away local government control and local zoning control. Technically, there is nothing in the plans language that appears to compromise local zoning law or control. But his statement doesnt acknowledge the strings attached to the HUD grant. In accepting the $1.9 million from HUD to develop the plan, the state agreed to, among other things, expand housing opportunities for underserved populations on the basis of race, ethnicity, or economic status and, thus, is obligated to do so. In fact, HUD has taken legal action against grant recipients such as Westchester County that, in its view, failed to live up to its agreement. Its rare, but it has happened. For the record, in December, 26 Rhode Island cities and towns were awarded nearly $5.3 million in HUD grants through the Community Development Block Grant program On balance, we rate Flynns claim is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context, our definition of Half True. (Correction: Article XIII of the Rhode Island Constitution spells out home rule for cities and towns. The article number was incorrect in the original version of this item.)

neutral

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2014/apr/15/virginia-foxx/it-takes-americans-61-billion-hours-prepare-their-/

Americans spend 6.1 billion hours a year on tax preparation.

Tim Ryan

04/15/2014

Tax day has come around again, and with it a startling claim about the amount of time Americans spend doing their taxes each year. According to U.S. Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., it takes United States taxpayers a total of 6.1 billion hours to file their taxes. That adds up to more than 695,000 years. 6.1 Billion hours a year, just to figure out how much money the government is going to take, she said ina post on Twitter. We had to check to see if this number could possibly be accurate. According to Foxxs office, the number comes from the Taxpayer Advocate Services 2013 report to Congress, which tackled the issue of the complexity of the U.S. tax code. In 2012, the National Taxpayer Advocate has designated the complexity of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) as one of the most serious problems facing taxpayers, the report reads. The existing code, by our count, has reached nearly four million words and imposes unconscionable burden on taxpayers. Our analysis of IRS data indicates that individuals and businesses spend about 6.1 billion hours a year complying with tax-filing requirements. Its important to note that the report comes to the number by calculating the estimated combined time businesses and individuals spend filing taxes, not just that of private citizens. The Taxpayer Advocate Service is an independent group within the Internal Revenue Service that is tasked with helping taxpayers resolve problems with the IRS and recommend changes that will prevent the problems. The number was calculated by multiplying the number of times each type of tax form was filed in 2010 by the amount of time the IRS estimates it takes to complete each form, according to Ken Drexler, a media relations officer at the Taxpayer Advocate Service. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 requires federal agencies to estimate the amount of time it takes to fill out a given piece of paperwork. Its the best number you can come up with, but its not necessarily a number you would take to the bank, Drexler said, noting it would take longer for someone unfamiliar with a form to complete it than someone who has done so many times before. Accountants and tax professionals, for example, could fill out the forms faster than an average filer. In other words, the estimate might have flaws, but it is the best guess as to the time it takes for businesses and individuals to fill out tax paperwork. In a2011 report, the Laffer Center for Supply Side Economics further broke down the 6.1 billion hour figure, finding that individuals spend 3.16 billion of those hours filling out tax forms, while businesses clock in at 2.94 billion hours. The estimate has remained the same since 2010. In 2009, the Taxpayer Advocate Service concluded Americans spent a whopping 7.6 billion hours completing the forms. Our ruling Foxx said, 6.1 billion hours a year, just to figure out how much money the government is going to take. The number came from the Taxpayer Advocate Services 2013 report to Congress, which stated that individuals and businesses spent 6.1 billion hours preparing their taxes. Its important to note that the figure is an estimate. It comes from taking the number of tax forms filed in the last year and multiplying it by the IRSs estimate of the time it takes to prepare the forms. Foxxs larger point, that it takes a very long time for Americans to comply with filing their federal taxes, is accurate. The number is an estimate, but its from a credible, independent report. We rate this statement True.

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cellphones-homeland-security/

Facebook Posts About Homeland Security Memos and 'Hacked' Cellphones Are Misleading

Jordan Liles

03/28/2022

In late March 2022, we looked into two viral and false Facebook posts that were copied and pasted by countless users. One of the posts, which was also purportedly received as a text message alert, claimed that "cellphones are being hacked" to steal banking information. The misleading copypasta post said that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security warned U.S. citizens to "keep your fuel topped off," to gather cash and food, and to plan for the uncertainties surrounding the potential global impact of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Facebook copypasta U.S. Department of Homeland Security Russia's invasion Ukraine The first message appeared to warn of a potential Russian cyberattack and read as follows: Russian FYI"Please be aware,Just received this:ALERTCellphones Are Being Hacked!You Get Called And Get Asked If You've Been Vaccinated Or Not. Then You're Told To Press 1 Or 2 As An Answer And Boom All Your Banking Information Is Accessed. People Are Loosing Money. Please Alert Them Not To Respond!Also, homeland security says because of what's going on with Ukraine, keep your fuel topped off and store up some cash in case ATMs get hacked and credit card systems are unavailable. We know it's possible since the fuel lines were hacked once before recently. So glad God provides for his own. Just do our part and keep praying. PASS it on" The second viral message did not mention cellphones but did keep the Homeland Security part. It added lines about keeping "basic food," "emergency preparedness supplies," and a "family emergency plan" all ready to go: SHARING#ShareThis: Received this as a text this morning. From the Office of Homeland Security that encouraged us to take the following precautions:- Have basic food and emergency preparedness supplies available.- Have some cash on-hand in case ATM's or credit card readers are unavailable.- Do not allow your vehicles to get low on fuel.- Ensure that you have a family emergency plan.They said, "we have no information to suggest a specific credible cyber threat against the US Homeland", but stressed "it is our responsibility to be prepared" because "Russia has significant offensive cyber capabilities". They said "we are mindful of the potential for the Russian government to consider escalating its destabilizing actions in ways that may impact others outside of Ukraine." ?Pass on There's some truth to these two viral posts. At the same time, they're also quite misleading. We've been publishing debunkings of similarly scary-sounding yet harmless Facebook posts for many years. publishing debunkings Facebook posts As for the first post, we found no evidence that pressing a single digit on a mobile phone after receiving a call could release "all your banking information" to be "hacked" and stolen. Such a result, if it happened, would amount to some kind of fantasy or magic that doesn't have a possibility of happening in reality. fantasy magic Source: Facebook As for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security claims in both posts, these also were fairly misleading. Homeland Security did not issue a memo or any guidance to all U.S. citizens to "keep your fuel topped off" or to "store up some cash" due to the war in Ukraine. U.S. Department of Homeland Security Ukraine Source: Facebook The quotes at the end of the second post came from an interview with U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and a letter from the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). an interview a letter The partial truth of these posts was that CISA did issue some guidance to federal agencies and organizations to be prepared for a cyberattack during the conflict in Ukraine. An initiative, dubbed "Shields Up," specifically provided recommendations for agencies and organizations, not all citizens, to beef up security and to "plan for the worst." did issue some guidance Ukraine The Hill reported that this guidance for federal employees and workers at organizations did include keeping fuel topped off and having extra food, cash, and other supplies ready as part of a "personal and professional preparedness" plan. However, again, this wasn't meant for all U.S. citizens. reported On the website Ready.gov, which is officially operated by Homeland Security, the department published a page for all citizens about how to be prepared for a cyberattack. Nowhere on the page did it say anything about storing up "basic food," "emergency preparedness supplies," or a "family emergency plan." (Some of these components are mentioned for other disasters such as the event of a nuclear explosion, however.) Ready.gov page nuclear explosion KHOU previously published a debunking of the first viral post that mentioned, "cellphones are being hacked." The outlet reported that it had received the following statement from a spokesperson for the department: "The Department of Homeland Security did not send this text message alert." published We reached out to the department to independently confirm the statement sent to KHOU and to find out if it had anything else to add. This story will be updated if we receive further information.

neutral

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/lyft-free-ride-job-interview/

Does Lyft Provide Free Rides to Job Interviews?

Dan MacGuill

02/12/2021

In February 2021, social media users enthusiastically shared a tweet that outlined a program purportedly run by the ride-hailing company Lyft that allows users to avail themselves of a free ride to a job interview, should they need it. The tweet, attributed to Twitter user @ThaOriginalKaee, read as follows: So Lyft has a new program that will pick you up and take you to a job interview for free, and if you get hired they will give you up to three weeks of free rides until you get paid. There have been times in my life this would have been a game changer. If you need help here's help. That Twitter account has since been suspended, but the tweet was authentic, based on several screenshots showing various "retweet" and "like" counts. The tweet was also originally published in October 2019. For reasons that are not clear, it enjoyed a resurgence in popularity in January and February 2021, as illustrated by the following screenshot, which shows just a selection of Facebook posts from the first two months of the year: suspended several screenshots showing various Facebook posts The post was largely accurate. Lyft does indeed run an initiative called the "Jobs Access Program" that gives some users the opportunity to get free rides to job interviews and training and, if they become employed, free transportation to and from their new job for the first three weeks. However, the service is not available to everyone. Lyft runs the jobs access program in just 20 cities across the United States and Canada, and it is primarily targeted at individuals who have historically experienced difficulties in gaining employment, such as veterans and persons with disabilities. In February 2021, many social media users shared @ThaOriginalKaee's viral tweet, which described the initiative as "new." However, most screenshots of that tweet had the date cut off, meaning many readers will have mistakenly understood Lyft's initiative to be a new one. While that was true at the time the tweet was originally published in October 2019, it wasn't "new" in 2021. Lyft launched the jobs access program in October 2019, announcing it had partnered with non-profit groups including United Way, Goodwill, the National Down Syndrome Society, and the USO (United Service Organizations). The news release associated with the launch explained the initiative, as follows: news release ... Were excited to announce Lyfts Jobs Access Program, a new initiative that aims to close short-term transportation gaps related to employment access and job training. For the unemployed, reliable transportation to a job interview or to the first few weeks of work can mean the difference between successful, long-term employment and lost opportunities. So weve partnered with several leading national and local organizations dedicated to workforce development in order to deliver free or discounted rides to people making their way through the employment pipeline. Lyfts Jobs Access Program will focus on three key interventions in the employment pipeline that are critical to individual success, and where transportation can play a major role: We are focused on communities that stand to benefit most from short-term transportation support, ranging from veterans to individuals with disabilities. At the time the initiative was launched, Lyft stated that it was available in 35 cities. However, the company's website now lists only 20 cities and states in which the jobs access program is operational. As of February 2021, they are: Atlanta; Austin; Baltimore; Boston; Chicago; Denver; Houston; Los Angeles; Minneapolis; New Jersey; New York; Oakland; Philadelphia; San Diego; San Francisco; Seattle; Tacoma; Toronto; Ottowa; Washington, D.C. now lists In December 2020, Lyft stated that in the 14 months since it was launched the jobs access program had facilitated more than 30,000 free rides for individuals. stated While it wasn't immediately clear what exact criteria and restrictions applied to the way in which United Way, Goodwill, and other charities distribute free ride credits to applicants, the program is clearly designed to prioritize individuals with the most acute need of assistance in accessing transportation in order to enter, or re-enter, the workforce. There is also an application process, whereby would-be users submit their name, contact details, and some basic information about themselves and, according to Lyft's website, can expect to receive a response within a week. website So a program does exist whereby Lyft, in partnership with several non-profit organizations, provides free rides to and from job interviews, training, and for the first three weeks of a beneficiary's new employment. However, the initiative has several limitations, namely: It's restricted to 20 cities in the United States and Canada; targeted to communities and individuals who have historically experienced difficulty in finding employment; and involves a relatively slow application process, meaning a user can't simply open up the Lyft app on their phone and spontaneously demand a free ride to a job interview on an ad hoc basis. Taking these facts into consideration, we are issuing a rating of "true"

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/jason-lewis-dress-code/

Did Congressman Jason Lewis Call for a Dress Code for American Women?

Bethania Palma

07/30/2018

In late July 2018, Facebook users circulated a meme bearing the image of U.S. Rep. Jason Lewis (R-Minnesota) with text stating that he had "called for a dress code for American women": The meme referenced comments Lewis made in 2012, five years before he assumed office, when his primary occupation was hosting the syndicated talk radio program "The Jason Lewis Show." Those comments resurfaced on 18 July 2018, when CNN published excerpts from Lewis' former radio program (which ended in 2014) in the lead-up to Lewis's bid for reelection in the 2018 November midterms. excerpts In recordings from March 2012 released by CNN, Lewis "repeatedly expressed disbelief that people could no longer refer to women as 'sluts'," even if those women were sexually active or dressed provocatively: "Well, the thing is, can we call anybody a slut? This is what begs the question. Take "Sandra Fluke out of it, take Rush [Limbaugh] out of it for a moment ... Does a woman now have the right to behave and I know there's a double standard between the way men chase women and running and running around you know, I'm not going to get there, but you know what I'm talking about. But it used to be that women were held to a little bit of a higher standard. We required modesty from women. Now, are we beyond those days where a woman can behave as a slut, but you can't call her a slut?" Sandra Fluke "Now Limbaugh's reasoning was, look, if you're demanding that the taxpayers pay for your contraception, you must use a lot of them and therefore, ergo, you're very sexually active and in the old days, what we used to call people who were in college or even graduate school who were sexually active, we called them sluts." "But have we really got to the point where you can't refer to Madonna as a slut without being sued? I mean, Madonna has had a series of lovers, as have many in Hollywood. Now in the old days, what did we call this? Madonna dresses up in these sorts of prostitute-like outfits on stage, and she goes there and she sings and she shows half of her body. What did we call those people? 30 years ago? 40 years ago? 50 years ago? You can't do that today, it's too politically incorrect?" Lewis was referring to a then-current controversy over comments made by fellow conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh, who had termed Sandra Fluke, then a law student at Georgetown University, a "slut" and a "prostitute" for speaking before a House committee in support of mandatory insurance coverage for contraceptives. speaking Although Lewis may have been, in a very broad sense, suggesting a "dress code" for women by criticizing figures such as Madonna for "running around [in] slutty outfits" and making statements such as "Only we can tell our young women, 'don't look like some slut and you won't get hit on,'" we found no instance of his advocating the imposition of a mandatory (i.e., legislatively established) mode of dress for women. We reached out to Lewis's spokespeople and received no response, but Lewis campaign spokeswoman Becky Alery told CNN that Lewis's comments as a radio host were old news: "This has all been litigated before, and as Congressman Lewis has said time and time again, it was his job to be provocative while on the radio." Kaczynski, Andrew. "A GOP Congressman Once Lamented Not Being Able to Call Women 'Sluts' Anymore." CNN. 18 July 2018. Brodey, Sam. "There Are New Recordings from Jason Lewis Lightning-Rod Past as a Talk Radio Host. Will It Matter This Time?" MinnPost. 26 July 2018. Cottle, Michelle. "Meet Minnesota's Mini-Trump." The Atlantic. 12 August 2016. DeBonis, Mike. "Paul Ryan Backs Rep. Jason Lewis, Who Faces Drumbeat of Revelations from His Talk-Radio Career." The Washington Post. 27 July 2018.

neutral

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/carl-sagans-foreboding-of-an-america/

Is This Carl Sagan's 'Foreboding of an America'?

Alex Kasprak

01/23/2017

Amid talk of alternative facts and a post-truth world that dominated the news directly after the inauguration of President Donald Trump on 20 January 2017, a quote from astrophysicist and science communicator Carl Sagan emerged as a viral meme: This is the excerpt from the passage containing that quote which was shared most frequently: excerpt Science is more than a body of knowledge; it is a way of thinking. I have a foreboding of an America in my childrens or grandchildrens time when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the key manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and whats true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness. This excerpt was taken from Sagans 1995 book The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. In a May 1997 review of that work, Smithsonian magazine described Sagan's motivation for writing it: "In The Demon-Haunted World, the late astronomer Carl Sagan writes in defense of science and reason in a world he sees as darkened by ignorance, superstition, pseudoscience, deceitful advertising and mindless television." review Sagan, for his part, described the book as "a personal statement, reflecting my lifelong love affair with science." described The discussion of a loss of manufacturing jobs, an inability for public officials to grasp issues, and increasing distrust in science led many to assert that Sagan was predicting our current political and scientific climate although, as Matt Novak articulated in a piece for Gizmodo, its often easy to view predictions of the future in a way that biases one's reading of the them: articulated Now, its important to remember that the accuracy of predictions is often a Rorschach test. An interpretation of a particular predictions accuracy usually says a lot about the people interpreting them and their own hopes or fears for the future. And honestly, some of Sagans concerns sound rather quaint. If you continue reading, the chapter goes on to talk about how the most popular videocassette rental was Dumb and Dumber, and how Beavis and Butthead was incredibly popular on TV. This, of course, was 1995, but theres not much new to this way of thinking each generation thinks that the next generations media is toxic and vapid and worthless. Relevancy of the movie Dumb and Dumber notwithstanding, themes regarding the erosion of trust in favor of one's own deeply entrenched views appear repeatedly in the book. For example: One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If weve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. Were no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. Its simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that weve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back. Whether or not 2017 was the fulfillment of a Carl Sagan nightmare is a subjective matter, but the proffered description of that nightmare was authentic. Sagan, Carl. The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. Random House, 1995. ISBN 0-345-40946-9. Trachtman, Paul. Review of 'The Demon-Haunted World', 'Einstein, History, and Other Passions', 'The End of Science. Smithsonian. May 1997. Novak, Matt. Yes, The Eerie Carl Sagan Prediction That's Going Viral Is Real. Paleofuture. 23 January 2017.

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ivanka-trump-coffins-trademark/

Is the assertion true that Ivanka Trump has a trademark for coffins in China?

Dan Evon

04/14/2020

In April 2020, as the global death toll from the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic surpassed 100,000, social media users started to post messages about how Ivanka Trump, U.S. President Donald Trump's daughter and newly appointed member of the White House's council to reopen America, had a trademark in China on coffins: pandemic messages While some shared this claim as if it were a "fun fact," others made a more direct connection between her company's trademark on coffins in China to the rising death toll from the COVID-19 pandemic: According to multiple news reports, the first daughter's company, Ivanka Trump Marks LLC, was truly awarded a trademark on coffins in China. However, this occurred in 2018, long before COVID-19 started to spread around the globe. The Associated Press reported in May 2018 that her company had been awarded 13 trademarks in China over three months. These trademarks covered a variety of products, including baby blankets, coffee, perfume, and coffins: reported 13 trademarks Ivanka Trumps brand continues to win foreign trademarks in China and the Philippines, adding to questions about conflicts of interest at the White House, The Associated Press has found. On Sunday, China granted the first daughters company final approval for its 13th trademark in the last three months, trademark office records show. Over the same period, the Chinese government has granted Ivanka Trumps company provisional approval for another eight trademarks, which can be finalized if no objections are raised during a three-month comment period. Taken together, the trademarks could allow her brand to market a lifetimes worth of products in China, from baby blankets to coffins, and a host of things in between, including perfume, makeup, bowls, mirrors, furniture, books, coffee, chocolate and honey. Ivanka Trump stepped back from management of her brand and placed its assets in a family-run trust, but she continues to profit from the business. When users in April 2020 re-shared news stories about her trademarks amidst the global pandemic, many insinuated she would be capitalizing off of people's deaths, and that people in China would be required to purchase a Trump coffin. But that's not the case. This confusion appears to be based on the conflation of the terms "trademark" and "patent." With a trademark, Ivanka Trump has the opportunity to sell products (in this case a coffin) bearing her company's name. A trademark does not give Trump's company any sort of exclusive deal to sell coffins in China. Other companies can still manufacturer and sell coffins just as always. patent Australia's ABC News noted that companies sometimes file for a trademark as part of a "defensive" strategy to prevent competitors from squatting on a brand's name: ABC News Companies register for trademarks for a variety of reasons. They can be a sign of corporate ambition, but in many countries, like China, where trademark squatting is rampant, companies also file defensively, to block copycats from grabbing legal rights to a brand's name. This appears to be the strategy of Ivanka Trump's company. Abigail Klem, the president of the Ivanka Trump brand, said in a May 2018 statement that these trademarks were obtained during the "normal course of business." Klem also noted that trademark infringement was rampant, and that the company was trying to protect its brand: statement The brand has filed, updated, and rigorously protected its international trademarks over the past several years in the normal course of business, especially in regions where trademark infringement is rampant. ... We have recently seen a surge in trademark filings by unrelated third parties trying to capitalize on the name and it is our responsibility to diligently protect our trademark. It should also be noted that, as Snopes reported in 2019, Ivanka Trump was not running the company at the time that these trademarks were obtained. Ivanka stepped down from day-to-day operations in 2017 and announced that the company was closing down the following year: reported Ivanka Trump said in a statement announcing the closure: statement "After 17 months in Washington, I do not know when or if I will ever return to the business, but I do know that my focus for the foreseeable future will be the work I am doing here in Washington. So making this decision now is the only fair outcome for my team and partners." While Ivanka Trump may have not had a hand in obtaining these trademarks, the government transparency advocacy group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) cautioned that these trademarks could still represent a conflict of interest in the future. CREW wrote: wrote Ivanka announced the immediate closure of her brand in July 2018, citing her official government responsibilities in Washington, DC. However, her trademarks remain a potential conflict of interest as she continues to work on policy in the White House and meet with foreign leaders. To sum up: Ivanka Trump's company obtained several trademarks in China in 2018 that covered a wide range of products, including baby blankets, perfume, and coffins. This trademark gives the company the opportunity to sell Trump-branded coffins and prevents other companies from using the Trump brand to sell their own coffins. As of this writing, we've seen no reporting that Ivanka Trump's company (which she no longer operates) plans to manufacture or sell coffins in China. Higgins, Tucker. "Ivanka Trumps Chinese Trademarks Raise Questions About Potential Conflicts of Interest." CNBC 29 May 2018. Associated Press. "Ivanka Trump Wins 13 New Trademarks From China in 3 Months." 28 May 2018. ABC News. "Ivanka Trump's Chinese Trademarks on Products From Baby Blankets to Coffins Raise Corruption Concerns." 28 May 2018. Palma, Bethania. "Did China Grant a Trademark to Ivanka Trump for Voting Machines?" Snopes.com. 9 October 2019. Zhang, Caroline. "Ivanka Trum's Business Wins Approval for 16 New Chinese Trademarks Despite Shutting Down." Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. 5 November 2018.

neutral

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/home-on-the-million-dollar-range/

Do these houses belong to John Kerry?

David Mikkelson

04/01/2004

[Collected on the Internet, 2004] John Kerry, man of the common folk . . . he understands your pain, really . . trust him--dah, yeah--right! The many homes of Democrat Presidential candiate John F. Kerry. Fox Chapel, Pennsylvania (Assessed value: $3.7 million) Ketchum, Idaho ski getaway/vacation home (Assessed value: $4.9 million) Washington, D.C - Georgetown area (Assessed value: $4.7 million) Nantucket, MA waterfront retreat on Brant Point (Assessed value: $9.2 million) Boston, Massachusetts - Beacon Hill home (Assessed value: $6.9) Total assessed value of all five homes = $29.4 million. . . . and he sold this estate in Italy to activist actor George Clooney, just before announcing his candidacy for president. I guess he thought it might not look right to the common man. ($7.8 million) Other foreign property ownership by John Kerry is unknown... because he denied repeated requests for this information. Please e-mail this information to all your friends, family and contacts. Class warfare is not right, but neither is being a hypocrite. This man wants to be our president, while claiming that he relates to Joe-6-pack and the common man. He wants to raise income taxes on the rich, well, guess what? He won't pay those taxes because he is already rich! He wants to make it harder for you to get rich by raising taxes on your income! Talk about snobbery and protecting his "class." Please e-mail to at least 5 people. It's certainly no secret to anyone familiar with the U.S. political scene that Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts has a net worth of several million dollars, and that his wife, Teresa, could accurately be described as "super wealthy." Mrs. Teresa Heinz Kerry was previously married for 25 years to the late Henry John Heinz III, a member of the founding family of the H.J. Heinz Company, and after his death in a 1991 plane crash she inherited a Heinz family fortune estimated at over $500 million. H.J. Heinz John and/or Teresa Kerry do own several valuable properties in the U.S., including: A five-story, twelve-room brownstone townhouse (with six fireplaces, a rooftop deck, and an elevator) in Boston's Beacon Hill. This home is John Kerry's main residence and was assessed at a value of $6.6 million in 2003 A nine-room colonial home on a 90-acre family farm in Fox Chapel near Pittsburgh. This home is Teresa Kerry's longtime residence, where she lived while was married to John Heinz and where she raised her three children. It is valued at $3.7 million. A ski/vacation home located near the banks of the Big Wood River in Ketchum, Idaho, fashioned from a reassembled barn originally built in England in 1485 and brought to Idaho by Teresa Heinz Kerry's late husband. It was purchased for $4.9 million in 1988. A three-story, five-bedroom waterfront estate near the Brant Point Lighthouse in Nantucket's harbor, where John and Teresa Kerry were married in 1995. The beachfront property is valued at $9.1 million. A 23-room townhouse in the Georgetown section of Washington, D.C., valued at $4.7 million. The aggregate value of these five homes is roughly $29 million, but the claim that John Kerry "owns" all of these properties is problematic. John and Teresa Kerry signed a prenuptial agreement and have kept their premarital assets separate. The Boston townhouse (which John Kerry mortgaged in 2003 to finance his presidential bid) is the only one of these homes that they own as a couple; the other four belonged to Teresa before her 1995 marriage to John Kerry, and some of them are even still listed under the name of her late husband. Also, according to the London Times, the Italian villa bought by actor George Clooney was sold a year before John Kerry announced his intention to seek the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination, and it was owned not by John or Teresa Kerry, but by Mrs. Drue Heinz, a relative of Teresa's through her marriage to John Heinz: The Hollywood star George Clooney has parted company with his long-time agent in a dispute over the purchase of a historic 5m Italian villa. Clooney is reported to have been "incensed" when he discovered that Michael Gruber, who steered his career from the television medical drama ER to box office hits such as The Perfect Storm, had discussed a 175,000 fee for helping to arrange for the star to buy the house from Drue Heinz, the philanthropist. The widow of Jack Heinz, grandson of the American entrepreneur who first bottled 57 varieties of pickle, Heinz lives in Ascot, Berkshire, but in recent years she had turned the Villa Oleandra on Lake Como, north of Milan, into a writers' sanctuary. Nathaniel Hawthorne, author of the American classic The Scarlet Letter, stayed there in the 1850s. Family illnesses persuaded Heinz to sell the villa, situated in the village of Laglio, where the neighbours include Donatella Versace, the fashion designer. DePaulo, Lisa. "Taming Teresa." Elle. June 2003. Fee, Gayle and Laura Raposa. "Crocodile Tears at Fleet If Dems Move Bash." The Boston Herald. 19 March 2004 (p. 20). Harlow, John. "Angry Clooney Cuts Loose from Agent Who Steered Him to Film Stardom." The [London] Times. 27 October 2002 (p. 29). Kasindorf, Martin. "Kerry Hits the Slopes, Fires Back After Bush's Criticism." USA Today. 20 March 2004. Noah, Timothy. "Does Teresa Heinz Trust John Kerry?" Slate. 2 December 2003. Reston, Maeve. "Teresa Heinz Kerry Speaks Her Mind, But in N.H., It's Not Hurting Husband." Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. 30 November 2003. Silberman, Ellen J. and Jack Meyers. "Kerry Loan Twice As Nice." The Boston Herald. 25 Feburary 2004. Associated Press.. "Five Kerry Homes Valued at Nearly $33M." USA Today. 22 March 2004.

neutral

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/twilight-saga-moonlight-glow/

Is This a Poster for a New 'Twilight' Movie?

Kim LaCapria

08/17/2015

On 14 August 2015, a Facebook user shared what appeared to be a movie poster for a film called Twilight Saga: Moonlight Glow (Part 1) (embedded above). Subsequently that post was shared hundreds of thousands of times, followed by rumors about a soon-to-be-released Twilight sequel. shared Example: I have been seeing pictures posted on social media about a new twilight saga coming in Nov, of 2015 called twilight moonlight glow but when I search it on the web I can't find any info about this movie. Is this a hoax? However, a closer look at the image revealed that the poster was clearly not the harbinger of new Twilight sequels (which would certainly not be a surprise to fans, were the projects legitimate): As the detail illustrates, the date of the film was rendered in a style most commonly seen outside the United States (day/month/year), whereas official Twilight movie posters utilize an American format (month/date/year, as seen here, here, and here). Under the date, a URL led to a DeviantArt user's page, which revealed that the circulating Twilight saga "Moonlight Glow" poster was a creative work of fan tribute and not an official promotional graphic. here here here revealed Moreover, fan interest in a new entry to the series has remained strong enough to warrant significant entertainment news coverage (of which there was none supporting the rumor). The books on which the films were based ended at the same juncture as their cinematic counterparts, so no additional book story lines exist for further Twilight adaptations involving the characters of Edward and Bella Cullen. Although author Stephenie Meyer originally planned a novel presenting the events of the series from Edward's perspective (titled Midnight Sun), that project was scrapped after unfinished drafts of the book were leaked online. story lines Finally, rumors of a different November 2015 Twilight sequel (purportedly the third part of the films' final installment, Breaking Dawn, Part 3) had previously circulated. Those claims were junk news, similarly spread by hopeful fans, and not related to any new projects attached to the franchise. Twilight sequel

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bush-cull-fact-check/

A search of bushes and a verification check.

Kim LaCapria

06/21/2015

FACT CHECK: Area social media meme's "5 Things You Should Know About Jeb Bush" factually accurate? Claim: A social media meme accurately detailsfive aspectsof Jeb Bush's record on women's issues. trueExample: [Collected via e-mail, June 2015]Facebook post citing "evils" committed by Jeb Bush - only 15.5 months togo with this.... Claim: A social media meme accurately detailsfive aspectsof Jeb Bush's record on women's issues. true Example: [Collected via e-mail, June 2015]Facebook post citing "evils" committed by Jeb Bush - only 15.5 months togo with this.... Origins: On 15 June 2015 the women's rights-focused group Ultraviolet published the above-displayed image, addressing the record of Republican presidential hopeful Jeb Bush, to their Facebook page. After many viewers questioned the veracity of the claims made about Bush and his record on women's issues, the post was edited to include supporting citations for its entries; but earlierversions of the post continued to circulate without it. published The numbered claims and their attendant backgrounds are as follows: Appointed a guardian for the fetus of a rape victim. This statement stemmed from a 2003 case involving a 22-year-old, severely developmentally disabled Florida woman who had been living in state-supervised facilities for most of her life. She had become pregnant after being raped while living in a group home and had no family to make decisions on her behalf;and (even though neither the woman herself nor anyone caring for her had sought to abort the fetus) Governor Bush stepped in and asked the court to intervene in this "uniquely troubling situation" and appoint a representative to protect the fetus's rights:Religious groups praised the governor's actions."If a guardian is appointed, there would be a clear recognition that there is a human being occupying that womb," said Brian Fahling, senior trial lawyer for the American Family Association's Center for Law and Policy. "The governor has the constitutional duty to uphold the right to life."The Christian Coalition of Florida issued a statement in support of Mr. Bush. "The appropriate thing to do is allow the child an opportunity at life and prosecute the criminal who raped the helpless woman."Critics say the governor's actions are intended to keep the issue in the courts until the woman is in the third trimester of her pregnancy and can no longer obtain an abortion."Our take on this is that this woman's needs, her desires and her interests need to take precedence," said Bebe Anderson, a lawyer with the Center for Reproductive Rights, an advocacy group. "If she is incompetent, someone else should represent her and her interests alone and make that decision for her."The critics also accuse Mr. Bush, a Republican, of trying to set a precedent in establishing legal protection for fetuses and of using the case to win political points with conservative groups.The governor said in his statement, "While others may interpret this case in light of their own positions, we see it as the singular tragedy it is, and remain focused on serving the best interests of this particular victim and her unborn child." This statement stemmed from a 2003 case involving a 22-year-old, severely developmentally disabled Florida woman who had been living in state-supervised facilities for most of her life. She had become pregnant after being raped while living in a group home and had no family to make decisions on her behalf;and (even though neither the woman herself nor anyone caring for her had sought to abort the fetus) Governor Bush stepped in and asked the court to intervene in this "uniquely troubling situation" and appoint a representative to protect the fetus's rights:Religious groups praised the governor's actions. "If a guardian is appointed, there would be a clear recognition that there is a human being occupying that womb," said Brian Fahling, senior trial lawyer for the American Family Association's Center for Law and Policy. "The governor has the constitutional duty to uphold the right to life." The Christian Coalition of Florida issued a statement in support of Mr. Bush. "The appropriate thing to do is allow the child an opportunity at life and prosecute the criminal who raped the helpless woman." Critics say the governor's actions are intended to keep the issue in the courts until the woman is in the third trimester of her pregnancy and can no longer obtain an abortion. "Our take on this is that this woman's needs, her desires and her interests need to take precedence," said Bebe Anderson, a lawyer with the Center for Reproductive Rights, an advocacy group. "If she is incompetent, someone else should represent her and her interests alone and make that decision for her." The critics also accuse Mr. Bush, a Republican, of trying to set a precedent in establishing legal protection for fetuses and of using the case to win political points with conservative groups. The governor said in his statement, "While others may interpret this case in light of their own positions, we see it as the singular tragedy it is, and remain focused on serving the best interests of this particular victim and her unborn child." The statement originated with the Florida Adoption Act of 2001 (more commonly known as "Bill 141" or the "Scarlet Letter" law), which overhauled the state's adoption regulations with the stated goal of trying to "provide greater finality once the adoption is approved, and to avoid circumstances where future challenges to the adoption disrupt the life of the child." The bill was inspired, in part, by the three-year fight over Baby Emily, whose father, a convicted rapist, had contested her adoption. (The Florida Supreme Court ruled in favor of Emily's adoptive parents in 1995.) The law required that any woman who was planning to put her infant up for adoption but did not know the identity of the child's father first had to run newspaper advertisements once a week for a month in the community where the child might have been conceived disclosing their names, ages, height, hair and eye color, race and weight, the child's name and birthplace, a description of the possible father, and details of the dates and places of sexual encounters that might have produced the child. Advocates of the bill maintained that it protected the rights of men who may not have known they had fathered children and that it would "minimize last-minute challenges from a biological father, as well as challenges a father might bring after an adoption has been made legal," while critics contended that it was "draconian and humiliating," and that Governor Bush's failure to veto the bill indicated he supporting the "shaming" of women for their sexual activity. Although Jeb Bush had previously lamented the lack of social stigma for having children outside of marriage (writing in his 1995 book Profiles in Character that "one of the reasons more young women are giving birth out of wedlock and more young men are walking away from their paternal obligations is that there is no longer a stigma attached to this behavior, no reason to feel shame"), he did not fully approve of Bill 141 and said that the state should not be "stigmatizing women":Gov. Jeb Bush [has] noted numerous problems with it. Officials in the governor's office say he supports an alternative way of protecting fathers' rights one already in use in many other states. Called fathers' registries, this system permits men who believe they may have fathered a child to place their names on a confidential list, which must be checked during adoption proceedings. "We should be making adoption easier, not more difficult, and not stigmatizing women who are trying to do the right thing," Bush spokeswoman Elizabeth Hirst told reporters in Tallahassee. Gov. Bush also stated in a letter to Secretary of State Katherine Harris that he felt the bill put too much responsibility on the birth mother to locate the father, and while he did not veto the "Scarlet Letter" bill, neither did he sign it: He passively allowed it to become law in the expectation that legislators would revise the section requiring the publication of women's sexual histories"House Bill 141 does have its deficiencies," he wrote. "Foremost, in its effort to strike the appropriate balance between rights and responsibilities, there is a shortage of responsibility on behalf of the birth father that could be corrected by requiring some proactive conduct on his part." letter In fact, immediately after he let the Florida Adoption Act become law, Bush was advocating for fixes to it. The Florida House almost immediately passed a law that Bush considered a "better alternative." It cut back on women's reporting requirements and established a paternity registry, for example. These were state-maintained databases that allowed a man to register if he believed he may have fathered a child. Then, if that child were ever put up for adoption, the father would have been notified and he could have a say in the proceedings. Governor Bush repealed the "Scarlet Letter" law in May 2003, signing a replacement measure that instituted the paternity registry mentioned above. The repeal had become something of a moot issue by then, however, as an appeals court had ruled the previous month that it was unconstitutional for the state to require women and underage girls to disclose their sexual histories, even in cases of consensual sex. Hired a staffer who called women "sluts." The claim that Jeb Bush hired a staffer who called women "sluts" is true in a literal sense, although the staffer's employment by Bush was very short-lived, as he immediately left his position after the controversy about some of his several-year-old Tweets hit the news.This brouhaha originated with Jeb Bush's temporary hiring in February 2015 of Hipster.com co-founder Ethan Czahor as his Chief Technology Officer, in charge of handling the preparations for Bush's presidential run. Almost immediately after the hiring was announced, Czahor's Twitter history was dissected and shared by various media outlets. Among their findings were a handful of tweets published by Czahor in 2009 and 2010 in which he made insensitive remarks about women and used the word "sluts" in reference to them. A Bush spokesman quickly characterized the comments as "inappropriate" and indicated that Czahor had been directed to promptly delete them.One day later, Czahor resigned from his newly-assigned position and apologized for his previous remarks. Said low-income women should "get their lifetogether and find a husband." As is often the case with political memes, sometimes the basic assertions check out but are misleading or inaccurate due to a lack of context. So while it's true that Jeb Bush made a statement that resembled the one quoted above, it has been reproduced without any relevant contextual information.The controversial quote was one Bush uttered during the 1994 Florida gubernatorial campaign; and the thrust of his statement was that hefavored setting a two-year limit on welfare benefits, requiring recipients after that period to find work or other assistance on their own:"If people are mentally and physically able to work, they should be able to do so within a two-year period. They should be able to get their life together, find a husband, find a job, find other alternatives in terms of private charity or a combination of all three." The claim that Jeb Bush hired a staffer who called women "sluts" is true in a literal sense, although the staffer's employment by Bush was very short-lived, as he immediately left his position after the controversy about some of his several-year-old Tweets hit the news. This brouhaha originated with Jeb Bush's temporary hiring in February 2015 of Hipster.com co-founder Ethan Czahor as his Chief Technology Officer, in charge of handling the preparations for Bush's presidential run. Almost immediately after the hiring was announced, Czahor's Twitter history was dissected and shared by various media outlets. Among their findings were a handful of tweets published by Czahor in 2009 and 2010 in which he made insensitive remarks about women and used the word "sluts" in reference to them. A Bush spokesman quickly characterized the comments as "inappropriate" and indicated that Czahor had been directed to promptly delete them. One day later, Czahor resigned from his newly-assigned position and apologized for his previous remarks. Said low-income women should "get their lifetogether and find a husband." As is often the case with political memes, sometimes the basic assertions check out but are misleading or inaccurate due to a lack of context. So while it's true that Jeb Bush made a statement that resembled the one quoted above, it has been reproduced without any relevant contextual information.The controversial quote was one Bush uttered during the 1994 Florida gubernatorial campaign; and the thrust of his statement was that hefavored setting a two-year limit on welfare benefits, requiring recipients after that period to find work or other assistance on their own:"If people are mentally and physically able to work, they should be able to do so within a two-year period. They should be able to get their life together, find a husband, find a job, find other alternatives in terms of private charity or a combination of all three." As is often the case with political memes, sometimes the basic assertions check out but are misleading or inaccurate due to a lack of context. So while it's true that Jeb Bush made a statement that resembled the one quoted above, it has been reproduced without any relevant contextual information. The controversial quote was one Bush uttered during the 1994 Florida gubernatorial campaign; and the thrust of his statement was that hefavored setting a two-year limit on welfare benefits, requiring recipients after that period to find work or other assistance on their own:"If people are mentally and physically able to work, they should be able to do so within a two-year period. They should be able to get their life together, find a husband, find a job, find other alternatives in terms of private charity or a combination of all three." Although a generous interpretation of this statement might be to say that Jeb Bush was simply enumerating the several possibilities that (female) welfare recipients could avail themselves of after the expiration of their benefits, he made it clear later that he felt unmarried women were a significant contribution to the welfare problem:Bush did not deny making the statement. In fact, he repeated that marriage is one way along with finding a job and help from private charities for women to get off welfare. Marriage, Bush said, "is one of many options, and if people are honest about the welfare system we have today, how you get on welfare is not having a husband in the house." In support of this claim, Ultraviolet cited an April 2015Salon article, which in turn referenced an interview Bush gave to Focus on the Family on 13 April 2015. During the course of that interview, Bush lauded Florida's role as an outlier in funding "crisis pregnancy centers" (CPCs) during his tenure as governor:We were the only state, I believe, to have funded with state monies crisis pregnancy centers to provide counselors so that these not-for-profits that in many cases aren't as well funded as many others, could act on their mission, which is to provide broader support, but the actual counseling was done, you know, paid for by the state. It was a godsend for these crisis pregnancy centers and a lot of babies' lives were saved and a lot of families got the joy of being able to bring a child up in their home. article interview CPCs While Jeb Bush was governor of Florida, the state funded crisis pregnancy centers through the sales of 'Choose Life' specialty license plates (under legislation signed into law by Bush in 1999) and through the creation of the Florida Pregnancy Support Services Program (which was introduced by Bush in 2005):The Florida Pregnancy Support Services Program was introduced by Gov. Jeb Bush in 2005 to increase visibility for the state's non-abortion counseling options and stem its rising abortion rate. The $4 million launch established a toll-free hotline 1-866-673-HOPE to point pregnant women in the direction of their nearest non-abortion, nonprofit option, and also provide grants to those organizations for counseling, prenatal support and adoption. The money is only available to organizations that make no mention at all of abortion. It can go to religious organizations, and it supplements the $800,000 the centers receive yearly from the state's "Choose Life" license plates and whatever federal funds come in. Florida was not alone in that regard, however: several other states, including Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Texas, approved state funding of crisis pregnancy centers during the same timeframe. Moreover, between 2001 and 2006 over $60 million in federal funds were given to crisis pregnancy centers, in large part through abstinence-only programs initiated during the administration of Jeb's brother, President George W. Bush. Last updated: 21 June 2015 Originally published: 21 June 2015 Sources: Canedy, Dana. "Gov. Jeb Bush to Seek Guardian for Fetus of Rape Victim." The New York Times. 15 May 2003. Canedy, Dana. "Florida 'Scarlet Letter' Law Is Repealed by Gov. Bush." The New York Times. 31 May 2003. Dahlburg, John-Thor. "Florida Wants All the Details from Mothers in Adoption Notices." Los Angeles Times. 21 August 2002. Dahlburg, John-Thor. "Florida Ends 'Scarlet Letter' Adoption Law." Los Angeles Times. 31 May 2003. Manes, Billy. "Immaculate Deception." Orlando Weekly. 26 February 2009. Griffin, Michael. "Smith Rips Bush's 'Find a Husband' Tip for Women on Welfare." Orlando Sentinel. 7 September 1994. Hongo, Hudson. "New Jeb Bush Hire Deletes Comments About Sluts, Gays from Twitter." Gawker. 9 February 2015. Kaczynski, Andrew. "Jeb Bush Chief Technology Officer Resigns After Deleting Old Tweets About 'Sluts.'" BuzzFeed. 10 February 2015. Kurtzleben, Danielle. "Jeb Bush and Florida's 'Scarlet Letter Law,' Explained." NPR. 10June 2015. McDonough, Katie. "Jeb's Abortion Nightmare." Salon. 14 April 2015. Miller, Zeke J. "Jeb Bush Hires Co-Founder of Hipster.com." Time. 9 February 2015. Simon, Stephanie. "States Fund Antiabortion Advice." Los Angeles Times. 11 February 2007.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/blm-flyer-enemy-of-people/

Is there a flyer from the Black Lives Matter movement that labels white people as the 'adversary'?

Dan Evon

06/15/2020

In the spring of 2020, as protests against racial injustice and police brutality swept across the U.S. following the death of a Black man in police custody, online trolls started to spread racist propaganda in an attempt to smear the Black Lives Matter movement. Generally speaking, these posts made inflammatory and violent claims, then falsely attributed them to BLM. For example, one such hoax held that BLM protesters were going to "assassinate white families." hoax In June 2020, Snopes came across yet another flyer falsely attributed to Black Lives Matter that labeled white men, women, and children as "the enemy": But this is not a genuine flyer issued or endorsed by Black Lives Matter. This is a piece of racist propaganda that was created in an apparent attempt to smear BLM and heighten racial tensions. It isn't clear who created this fake poster. The earliest posting that we could find was from June 11, 2020, from a Twitter account devoted to QAnon, a wide-ranging and far-right conspiracy theory based almost entirely on anonymous social media posts that claim a deep state plot exists against President Donald Trump. From there, it was shared to the Russian site Aftershock.news; an All Lives Matter account; and an account adorned with British flags, where it received thousands of retweets. QAnon Aftershock.news All Lives Matter account While we've found several accounts sharing this flyer along with messages denigrating Black Lives Matter, we've yet to see any accounts connected to the Black Lives Matter movement sharing this flyer in earnest. In addition to the fact that this flyer originated with posters critical of BLM and not with BLM accounts spreading this message in earnest the statements on this flyer are also contrary to the positions of the Black Lives Matter movement. Nowhere on the Black Lives Matter website are white people identified as "enemies," and the website is void of any calls to violence against white people. BLM has also not called for "re-education camps," for "Black power" to run the government, or for white people to stop dating outside their race. The official Black Lives Matter website has put out a list of "demands," but that list has practically nothing in common with the viral hoax shown above. The official list from Black Lives Matter calls for an end to systematic racism and for the national defunding of police: Black Lives Matter We call for an end to the systemic racism that allows this culture of corruption to go unchecked and our lives to be taken. We call for a national defunding of police. We demand investment in our communities and the resources to ensure Black people not only survive, but thrive. If youre with us, add your name to the petition right now and help us spread the word. The "demands" on the hoax flyer did not originate with BLM. The items on this list are examples of what someone who is unfamiliar with the Black Lives Matter movement may fear are central tenets of this group. When a similar fake flyer was found in England, a local BLM activist told Scotland's Evening Telegraph: Evening Telegraph Joy Gansh, a local BLM activist, believes the display was created by people trying to discredit the movement. She said: Things like that, after what happened with the George Floyd mural being defaced, I think thats something that a white supremacist would put up to discredit us. Nobody that Ive seen advocating for the BLM movement would think that that is appropriate. My personal opinion is that this is people being framed. This is a way to make us seem in the wrong. The art student, who plans to organise a BLM march in Dundee soon, believes that white supremacists are using false posters to encourage violence. People that hold those kinds of beliefs arent part of this movement, she added. "This seems like a way to stop us in our tracks and make us seem violent so they can come back with violence. We arent here for violence, were just here for justice and equality in all aspects of life. This fake flyer, as well as similar items, have been pushed on internet forums such as 4chan in an explicit attempt to smear the Black Lives Matter movement. In one post, for example, a 4chan poster states that "people are falling for this [hoax flyer], let's kick it into overdrive." In another thread, users exchange various fake BLM posters and encourage each other to share them. In another thread, a user gives instructions on how to make and spread this racist propaganda: 4chan smear thread thread The only thing maintaining the completely bizarre state of affairs the USA and the world is in right now is the fact that some white people still think they can be on the "right side of history" by kneeling for the Noseberg-controlled BLM movement. We can destroy their whole plan. Make propaganda posters and spread them around. If enough whites realize that blacks will never ever feel that anything is "enough", they'll abandon the movement. It'll crash and burn. Asarch, Steven. "Is The 'Go Bald For Black Lives Matter' Movement Real?" Newsweek. 5 June 2020. Breland, Ali. "Alt-Right Trolls Are Trying to Sabotage Black Lives Matter Chatrooms." Mother Jones. 8 June 2020. Bell, Matteo. "Outrage at Posters in Dundee Calling for Police, MPs and White People to be Killed." Evening Telegraph. 12 June 2020. CORRECTION [17 June 2020]: The original article misstated the date of publication of this image on the Russian site Aftershock.news. This image was posted to that site on June 12, not June 6, as originally stated.

false

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/oct/31/mike-parson/parsons-mostly-right-about-big-growth-small-busine/

Wages are on the rise in fact we were the top small-business wage growth state in the nation.

Joe Noser

10/31/2019

During his recent election announcement for governor of Missouri, Mike Parson trumpeted a strong economy in the state, taking particular care to highlight increases in small-business wages. With record lows in unemployment, more people are going back to work in Missouri, Parson said Sept. 8. Wages are on the rise in fact we were the top small-business wage growth state in the nation. Does the governors comment check out? We wanted to investigate. A spokesperson for Parsons campaign cited an April 2019 article from St. Louis Business Journal that used numbers from an April 2019 report from Paychex/IHS Market Small Business Employment Watch to show Missouri ranked first in the country in hourly wage growth for small businesses. At $25.55 per hour, Missouri small business wages were up 3.48%, or 86 cents, that month. The Show-Me State finished first ahead of California, New York, Arizona and Illinois in small-business wage growth. According to the Small Business Employment Watchs September report, Missouri now ranks third in the country in hourly wage growth increase at 3.38% (New York is second at 3.53% and Illinois is first at 4.11%). If assessing for weekly wage growth rise, Missouri is second at 3.83%. Illinois comes in at 3.84%, just .01% better than Missouri. Overall, Missouri has been a top-five small business wage growth state (by weekly earnings) every month this year, according to Paychexs analysis. So what is Paychex, and how does it calculate its data for the Small Business Employment Watch? Paychex is a human resources and payroll company with over 600,000 clients nationwide. According to a media spokesperson for the company, it uses up-to-date, aggregated payroll data from approximately 350,000 of Paychex's small business clients with fewer than 50 workers to keep its data current. All businesses whose wage data is included in the report must have run payroll for the month that the data is being compiled and the three months prior. According to a Paychex spokesperson, the sample includes millions of small-business workers. How many small-business workers are there in Missouri and in the United States? It depends what you consider a small business. Paychex defines a small business as a firm with fewer than 50 workers, but the U.S. Small Business Administration defines small businesses as firms with less than 500 workers. According to the SBAs 2019 profile for the state of Missouri, there are 1.2 million small business employees in the state of Missouri alone, and 58.9 million in the country. In other words, while Paychex represents a significant portion of small businesses, its not the whole pie. The company itself claims to work with one in 12 private sector employees. Parson said, Wages are on the rise in fact we were the top small business wage growth state in the nation. This statement is backed by statistics from Paychex that showed it to be true for the month of April, although Missouri fell behind in later months. Since it cant be proven that Paychex takes a representative sample, and its the only indicator Parson cites, we rate this comment as Mostly True.

true

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2013/feb/19/eric-cantor/cantor-says-states-are-spending-more-medicaid-publ/

Collectively states are spending more on Medicaid than they do on K-12 education.

Nancy Madsen

02/19/2013

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-7th, is urging lawmakers to make Medicaid more flexible, effective and cheaper for states to run.Under the Medicaid system the rules are set in Washington, but much of the bills are paid in our state capitals, he said during his Feb. 5 Make Life Workspeechat a conservative think tank in Washington Collectively states are spending more on Medicaid than they do on K-12 education.We looked into the claim that states are paying more for Medicaid than public education. Cantors staff told us the information came from areport, published by the National Association of State Budget Officers last fall, that tallied where states get and spend their money.The study found that states planned to spend a total $1.7 trillion in fiscal 2012. Of the sum, 39.8 percent would come from general fund moneys that are collected through statewide taxes, 31.2 percent from federal grants and the remaining 29 percent from other state funds and bonds.Medicaid, which provides health care for the poor, was expected to be the most expensive item in the collective state budgets. States were projected to spend $406 billion on the service, or 23.9 percent of their total budgets. Elementary and secondary education came in second, drawing $336 billion, or 19.8 percent of total expenses.But theres a catch to these figures: The federal government provides states with about 56 percent of what they spend on Medicaid, according to NASBO report. So Cantor is including as state expenses about $228 billion that Uncle Sam sends to the states for Medicaid.The picture changes if we simply examine the portions of Medicaid and public education that states pay out of their general funds. Public schools rise to the top of the expense list, drawing an expected $235 billion last fiscal year, or 34.7 percent of all general fund spending. Medicaid falls to a distant No. 2, receiving an estimated $133 billion, or 19.6 percent of general fund outlays.Experts we spoke to didnt express a preference for one accounting method or the other.We include both methods in our report, said Stacy Mazer, senior staff associate at NASBO. One reason weve been using total funds is that some states define their funds differently. And one of the other issues is that even though its not all your money, youre still administering it.Tracy Gordon, a fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution, said most health care industry analysts use a total figure cited by Cantor, but note that it includes federal dollars.Arturo Perez, a fiscal analyst with the National Conference of State Legislatures, said his organization tracks states general fund spending and considers K-12 education to be the greatest recipient of state money.Our rulingCantor said states are spending more on Medicaid than on education. His statement is correct, although it should be noted that a substantial portion of the dollars states are spending on Medicaid come from the federal government.We rate Cantors statement True.

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/wikileaks-exposes-clinton-assassination-of-antonin-scalia/

WikiLeaks Exposes Clinton Assassination of Antonin Scalia?

Kim LaCapria

10/14/2016

On 13 October 2016, the web site RedStateWatcher reported that e-mail published by WikiLeaks revealed U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia had been assassinated by Hillary Clinton operatives: reported Antonin Scalia For Trump's sake, please share this to get the word out. The corruption is immense! We need Trump elected to save our country! According to new WikiLeaks emails, three days before Justice Scalia died this email was sent, using the term "wetworks" exclusively used in Military meaning "assassination". The item referenced a leaked e-mail sent on 9 February 2016, four days before Justice Scalia was found dead in his room at a Texas ranch. E-mail in that chain was presented in reverse chronological order (with the most recent reply first) sender John Podesta initiated the chain at 4:36 PM, and recipient Steve Elmendorf responded at 8:56 PM: e-mail Steve Elmendorf From: John Podesta [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2016 4:36 PM To: Steve Elmendorf <[email protected]>Subject: Thanks Didn't think wet works meant pool parties at the Vineyard. From:[email protected]: [email protected]: 2016-02-09 20:56Subject: RE: Thanks I am all in Sounds like it will be a bad nite , we all need to buckle up and double down Based on Wikipedia's definition of the term, RedStateWatcher claimed that the "wet works" phrase used in the otherwise vague e-mail was incontrovertible proof it referenced a literal assassination: definition Claims that Scalia was assassinated were not novel, as within a day of his death conspiracy theories about the manner in which he died swept social media. And the newly-leaked document was contemporaneous to Scalia's sudden passing, heightening concern about the use of the term "wet work" (or "wetwork"). assassinated However, dictionaries present a broader picture of the term and its applied uses: uses In fact, the term had then-recently been used euphemistically, to describe Chelsea Clinton's campaign trail attacks on her mother's Democratic primary opponent, Bernie Sanders: euphemistically Conservative websites gleefully denounced Chelsea the attack dog. Democrats, meanwhile, wrung their hands over why she of all people would be dispatched to do this kind of wet work. (As strategist Brad Bannon told The Hill, This makes Chelsea just another political player in the arena, and if I was Chelsea, thats not where Id want to be.) And a media bored to sobs with the Democratic primary leapt on the episode like ducks on a June bug. Commentators mused endlessly about why the Clinton camp had taken this route and what it meant. (Consensus: nothing good.) Bernie Sanders was repeatedly invited to respond. Bloombergs Mark Halperin might have sounded a smidge melodramatic when he asserted, I have covered the Clintons since 1991. It takes a lot to surprise me, and I am stunned watching Chelsea Clinton go on the attack. Stunned. Never seen anything like it. In media coverage, "wet work[s]" was being used to describe deliberately obtained unflattering coverage of an opponent. And on the same day that the e-mails supposedly describing an assassination plot were sent, Alex Seitz-Wald penned an article for MSNBC that described Bernie Sanders as a regular attendee of luxurious fundraisers, particularly in Martha's Vineyard. The piece also reported both Bill and Hillary Clinton as performing the same sort of "wet work" as Chelsea Clinton: article The Sanders campaign is all about smashing the alleged stranglehold corporate power has on politics, and the candidate himself frequently touts that his insurgent run is funded by small donations, not wealthy people or outside groups. Its been an effective message, and one pro-Clinton forces have tried to muddy by calling attention to Sanders ties to the DSCC [Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee], which is financed in large part by industry PACs. The DSCC used its financial and political power to bolster Sanders and urge Democrats not to challenge him in his 2006 Senate bid, and spent close to $200,000 through various means to aid his election. Bill Clinton said this week that he practically fell out of my chair when he read reports that Sanders had attended the DSCCs summer donor retreats on Marthas Vineyard, and Hillary Clinton said Sanders took Wall Street cash not directly, but through the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. The Sanders campaign fired back by calling the charge disturbing, dishonest and beyond preposterous, noting the DSCC also receives small donations and is hardly exclusively funded by Wall Street. Although MSNBC published the piece on 9 February 2016, the topic of Sanders' DSCC retreats was the subject of e-mails dated 6 and 7 February 2016. In that chain, campaign associates looked to have discovered a photograph of Sanders at such a retreat and brainstormed ways in which to get a member of the press to cover his attendance at a February 2016 DSCC fundraiser (the e-mail appeared to have an appended image of Sanders titled IMG_0692.JPG). subject e-mails Rearranged in chronological order, the chain demonstrated Hillary Clinton's staffers planning how best to attack her opponent with retreat image and information about the lavish fundraisers: On Feb 6, 2016 9:47 PM, "Tina Flournoy" <[email protected]> wrote:Bernie at the DSCC retreatOn Saturday, February 6, 2016, Brian Fallon <[email protected]> wrote:OmgOn Feb 6, 2016 9:58 PM, "John Podesta" <[email protected] wrote> wrote:Can we tweet?On Feb 6, 2016, at 7:02 PM, Brian Fallon <[email protected]> wrote:I think we shd give to NY postFrom:[email protected]: [email protected]: 2016-02-07 01:09 Subject:Re: IMG_0692.JPGDSCC event in edgartown last July. Getting exact dateOn Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 10:18 PM, Tina Flournoy <[email protected]> wrote:Will send briefing for the event with attendeesFrom:[email protected]: [email protected]: 2016-02-07 16:18Subject: Re: IMG_0692.JPGThank you. We are on this Tina Flournoy stated Sanders attended a DSCC event in July 2015, and on the date of the "wet work" e-mail (to which Podesta was also party) Seitz-Wald wrote: During his 10 years on the Senate, Bernie Sanders has been a regular presence at luxurious Democratic fundraising retreats, according to more than a half-dozen lobbyists, donors and former Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee staff members with whom he attended the events. Sanders most recently appeared at one last July, shortly after he announced his presidential run. Sanders connection to the DSCC has become a issue in his heated primary contest with front-runner Hillary Clinton, who has struggled to explain her close ties to Wall Street and the large speaking fees shes been paid by Goldman Sachs and other banks. Sanders has made Clintons relationships with the financial industry a key point of contrast on the campaign trail. On 13 February 2016, Clinton campaign operatives e-mailed about continuing to use the fundraisers as a smear: e-mailed We have gamed out this hit and don't think it works on debate stage (see Milwaukee debate as example). But hit him all the time on being at DSCC retreats on Martha's Vineyard with lobbyists every year. Finding that it harder for him. Rearranged into the context of Antonin Scalia's death, the use of the term "wet work" was presumed by many to mean literal assassination. But e-mails between staffers just prior to the 9 February 2016 document revealed planning for a coordinated effort to plant a negative story about Sanders in the press in the days prior to the 9 February 2016 e-mail and article. On the date Podesta discussed "wet work" with Elmendorf, MSNBC published the coverage sought by Clinton's staffers on 6 and 7 February 2016. As such, the most likely victim of the "wet work" was not Scalia, but Sanders. Cottle, Michelle. "Chelsea Clinton Grows Up." The Atlantic. 19 January 2016. Seitz-Wald, Alex. "Bernie Sanders a Regular at High-Dollar Donor Retreats." MSNBC. 9 February 2016.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/does-welcome-sign-kansas-city-typo/

Does a 'Welcome to Kansas City' Sign Contain an Unfortunate Typo?

Dan Evon

05/08/2018

The phrase "you had one job!" is frequently used to note humorous instances when a relatively small mistake (such as a spelling error) results in a bigger or embarrassing problem. (We've all been there.) The "You Had One Job" Twitter account has posted scores of examples of this meme. On 7 May 2018, it shared an amusing image that supposedly shows a "Welcome to Kansas City" sign which mistakenly spelled the word "annually" as "anally," delighting 12-year-olds and those who share their humor everywhere: shared Unfortunately for fans of amusing typos, this misspelling wasn't the result of careless proofreading or the handiwork of a disgruntled employee, but rather an enterprising prankster with a gift for digital editing. The @VisitKC Twitter account posted an image showing the original sign, and remarked that the photograph had been doctored: @VisitKC remarked Other images showing the same sign from different angles were also posted online: sign Gish, Sarah. "No Butts About It: Viral Photo of Visit KC Tourism Sign Is a Prank." The Kansas City Star. 7 May 2018.

false

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2011/aug/04/jennifer-granholm/jennifer-granholm-says-massive-government-cuts-mic/

I cut more as a percentage out of government than any state in the country this past decade. And where is Michigan in terms of its economic growth? Cutting did not result in economic growth.

Louis Jacobson

08/04/2011

During theJuly 31, 2011, edition of NBCsMeet the Press, Jennifer Granholm -- a Democrat who served as governor of Michigan from 2003 to 2011 -- was asked to bring her own experience to bear on the debate over the federal debt ceiling.Clearly the entitlement question has to be addressed, Granholm said, referring to the rising cost of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, which is a major contributor to the growing federal debt.However, Granholm told host David Gregory that she was skeptical about whether such cuts would be a boon for the economy at large.I can tell you, David, I cut more as a percentage out of government than any state in the country this past decade, Granholm said. And where is Michigan in terms of its economic growth? Cutting did not result in economic growth. What results in growth is making sure you've got a good business climate for businesses to grow and prosper. And so we've got to cut where we can in order to invest where we must in order to grow the economy. And it's that investment side that I worry that those who are affiliated with the tea party or who are on the far right don't realize that other countries are co-investing with businesses in order to create jobs in their countries.If we do nothing more than just cut, she continued, that will continue to accelerate the lack of growth in (gross domestic product). So we've got to realize that the strategy here must be very specific. Yes, you've got to reform entitlements, but you've got reform entitlements and invest in order to grow because the quickest way to take down your deficit is through growth.We wondered about three elements of Granholms comments: whether she cut more as a percentage out of government than any state in the country this past decade, how poor Michigans economic growth has been over the same period and whether spending cuts to state government hampered economic growth. (Separately, were looking at a comment from the same show by Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho, in which he accused Granholm of supporting the highest tax increases in the history of Michigan, which helped push unemployment from 6.8 percent to 15.3 percent. )Well take up the three claims in order.Did Michigan cut more from its government than any state in the country?To answer this question, we turned toThe Fiscal Survey of States, a twice-annual publication of the National Association of State Budget Officers that offers fiscal data for the 50 states going back to 1979.We determined that the most appropriate data to use were figures for annual expenditures from the 50 states general funds. Well acknowledge up front that this is not the only measure that could be used to compare how much state governments have been cut. In fact, Michigans state revenues flow into two accounts, the general fund and the school-aid fund, and the numbers we looked at only take into account the general fund. However, fiscal experts told us that the general fund offers a reasonable yardstick for state spending, and it also turned out to be the same measurement Granholm used, according to a spokeswoman. (Then theres the eternal statisticians lament: When comparing all 50 states across a period of nearly a decade, you take the statistics you can get. )We calculated the change in general fund expenditures for all 50 states between fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2010 -- the closest approximation we could get to the start and end dates of Granholms tenure.And by this measure, Granholm is right. Every state but two saw their general-fund expenditures increase over that period (without taking inflation into account). The two that didnt? Georgia, which saw its general fund expenditures fall by $54 million over that period, and Michigan, which saw its general fund expenditures fall by more than $1 billion. If theyd been adjusted for inflation, the decrease would be even more severe.Using another measure, Carole Polan, a spokeswoman for Granholm, added that from 2000 to 2008, the number of state employees fell by about 11,000 -- a 17 percent decline. That was a more rapid decline than in private employment, which fell in the state by 12 percent over the same period, Polan said.Well address the causes of these declines in a moment, but for now, we can say that by this measure, Granholm is right that spending on government declined faster in Michigan than in any other state between 2003 and 2010.How poor was Michigans economic growth during Granholms tenure?To answer this question, we looked at gross domestic product data for Michigan as published by the U.S. Commerce Departments Bureau of Economic Analysis. (Just as the bureau calculates the national gross domestic product, it does the same for individual states.) Once again, we compared Michigans GDP for 2003 and 2010.By this measure too, Michigan performed worst in the nation. Its gross domestic product rose by 6 percent over that period (again, not adjusted for inflation). That may sound okay, but its not. Its only about one-third the rate of the next worst-performing state -- Ohio, at 17 percent growth. And its less than one-fifth of the increase of the nation as a whole, which was 31 percent.So where economic growth is concerned, Granholm is right again: Michigans performance during her tenure was uniquely poor among the 50 states.Did spending cuts to state government hamper Michigans economic growth?The cuts to government almost certainly hampered Michigans economy. But experts say that they werent the primary cause of the states poor economic performance.Long-term troubles in the automotive industry, the national recession and raising taxes on businesses and individuals were all partially to blame, said Patrick L. Anderson, an economic analyst in East Lansing, Mich., who wrote a report released by Granholm's successor elected in 2010, Republican Rick Snyder.Charles Ballard, an economist at Michigan State University and author ofMichigan's Economic Future: A New Look, added that even before the national economic crisis of 2008, the auto industry limped along for much of the decade, with General Motors, Ford and Chrysler losing market share steadily. In Michigan, we dont have Honda plants -- we have GM, Ford and Chrysler plants. Two of those companies went into bankruptcy. For better or for worse, we are home to the portions of the industry that did the worst.Meanwhile, Ballard added that Michigans tax structure -- which doesnt tax most services or Internet sales and mail-order -- exacerbated the fiscal impact of these economic problems.If the sectors that arent taxed are growing faster than those that are, the sales tax applies to an ever-shrinking portion of the economy, Ballard said. So if you put the tax law on autopilot, the portion of your economy going to tax revenues shrinks every year.In fact, Michigans revenues peaked in 2000 and are not projected to return to peak until 2020, said Arturo Perez, a state budget analyst with the National Conference of State Legislatures. No other state has had a similar revenue situation.Given this backdrop, a more appropriate way of thinking about it is that a poor economy in Michigan caused a drop in state tax revenue, which in turn forced Granholm to cut government services -- not the other way around. Declining tax revenue is a much more urgent factor for state governments than for the federal government, since most states are constrained from using deficit spending. (Michigan is one, though unavoidable deficits may be resolved in the next fiscal year.) This means that tax revenues play a more direct role in determining spending levels than they do at the federal level.The plain fact is that state economic growth rates are in the short run linked to the demand for products that are produced in the state -- products like autos in Michigan, oil in Texas, sunny vacations in Florida and gambling holidays in Nevada, said Gary Burtless, an economist with the centrist-to-liberal Brookings Institution. Demand for these products can have booms and busts that are completely unrelated to a states typical tax rate or spending level. In the short run, when demand for a states products plummets, its state tax revenues fall, forcing the state to trim state spending or increase state tax rates. Our ruling Theres strong evidence supporting two of Granholms statistical claims -- that government spending has fallen faster in Michigan than in any other state, and that the states economic performance has been especially poor compared to other states.However, in theMeet the Pressinterview, Granholm was trying to use her experience as a governor to make a larger point about how cutting government did not result in economic growth. She's probably correct that government cuts hampered her state's recovery, at least in the short term, but Michigans experience over the last decade suggests that the reverse is an even bigger factor -- that is, poor economic growth hurts tax revenues and, in turn, forces government cuts. This doesnt mean that Granholms point is inaccurate, but in trying to apply a state lesson to a federal problem, shes ignored a key factor in how state fiscal policy works. On balance, we rate her statement Mostly True.

true

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2012/jan/06/bob-mcdonnell/gov-bob-mcdonnell-says-hes-proposed-record-contrib/

Says hes proposed the largest employer contribution to the Virginia Retirement System in history.

Sean Gorman

01/06/2012

Gov. Bob McDonnell has proposed spending an additional $2.2 billion on state employee and teacher pensions during a two-year budget period that will begin July 1.The governor, in presenting his biennial budget plan to the General Assemblys money committees on Dec. 19,saidhis pension proposal, if approved, would be the largest employer contribution to the Virginia Retirement System in history.We wondered whether the total $2.21 billion infusion over two budget years would truly be historic.Since taking office in 2010, McDonnell has made a number of proposals to reform the Virginia Retirement System, which is an estimated $19.9 billion short of the assets needed to pay its projected pension liabilities over the next 85 years. But the governor also added to VRSs woes early in his term by convincing the legislature to divert $620 million in scheduled pension contributions to balance the states general fund, which pays for education, public safety and health programs.Under McDonnells new proposal, Virginia would pay roughly $600 million for state employee pensions during the 2013-14 budget years. Another $1.6 billion would be contributed to teacher retirement funds, with local governments picking up $1 billion of the sum and the state government paying $600 million.Tucker Martin, McDonnells director of communications, told us the governors claim that the $2.21 billion total contributions would be historic was based on VRS data.The VRS figures show the largest employer contribution to date came in the 2007-08 biennial budget when total state and local contributions were $1.72 billion. Thats lower than McDonnells proposal.The retirement system started in 1942, but VRS doesnt have records of employer contributions before 1973.Jeanne Chenault, a VRS spokeswoman, said the number of teachers and state employees before 1973 would have been lower, so its unlikely that contribution amounts would have exceeded 1973 levels.The VRS data shows annual contribution amounts without adjusting for inflation. So we did that work ourselves to see McDonnells claim could survive another test.It did. Even when adjusting for inflation, the 2007-08 contributions were still the high-water mark for employer contributions to the pension system, coming in at just more than $1.8 billion in current dollars. McDonnells proposal eclipses that.Our Ruling:The governor said his proposed $2.21 billion employer contribution for state worker and teacher pensions would be the largest in VRS history.For as far back as the data goes, the governors statement is correct even when adjusting for inflation.We rate the claim True.

true

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2012/jun/18/george-allen/george-allen-says-he-froze-college-tuition-when-he/

Before I was governor, tuition was skyrocketing and we stopped that. We capped and then we froze college tuition.

Sean Gorman

06/18/2012

U.S. Senate candidate George Allen says he put the brakes on rising college costs when he was governor from 1994 to 1998.Before I was governor, tuition was skyrocketing, and we stopped that, Allen said in a May 25 debate between four candidates seeking the GOP Senate nomination. We capped, and then we froze college tuition.Allen won the Republican primary on June 12 and will face Democrat Tim Kaine this fall. They are seeking to replace Democrat Jim Webb, who is not seeking a second Senate term.We wondered if the Allen administration really did put a lid on tuition. Allen, while making this claim, shared credit with the Democratic-controlled legislature that served with him.Dan Allen, a senior adviser to the campaign, pointed us to aJuly 2011 reportfrom the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia.The study said that during the early 1990s, colleges and universities increased tuitions by double digits annually to compensate for state funding cuts made by the General Assembly and then-Gov. Doug Wilder to help balance the budget during a recession.Wilder, in his final budget proposal made during an improving economy in December 1993, urged the General Assembly to cap tuition and instructional fee increases for in-state students at 5 percent during the 1994-95 school year and 4 percent during 1995-96.Allen, who took office in January 1994, successfully urged the General Assembly go a step further and cap the increases at 3 percent during each of the next two school years.In 1996, as SCHEV notes, Allen and the General Assembly froze tuition and instructional fees entirely. The action did not apply to a number of other mandatory college costs, such as fees for athletic programs, health services and campus transportation. Lawmakers eased some of the burden on colleges by appropriating an additional $200 million for higher education.The Richmond Times-Dispatch in January 1998 reported that a strong economy during Allens term allowed him to finance the tuition freeze. State tax revenues grew by about 45 percent during his tenure.Allen, in his farewell budget, recommended freezing tuition through 2000. His successor, Republican Jim Gilmore, rolled back tuition and instructional fees by 20 percent for in-state students.When Allen arrived in the governors mansion during the 1993-94 academic year, the average tuition and instructional fees for full time, in-state undergraduate students at four-year colleges was $2,518,according to SCHEVs historical tables.That rose to $2,717 in the 1995-1996 academic year and stayed at that level through 1997-1998, the last academic year of Allens term.Using inflation-adjusted figures based on 1992 dollars, the report shows the amount of tuition and instructional fees went from $2,383 in the 1993-94 academic year down to $2,320 in 1997-98. Even when other mandatory fees that were not subject freeze are added in, the college costs remained flat after being adjusted for inflation.Costs at two-year colleges showed the same trend: in-state tuition and instructional fees at those institutions were basically flat during Allens term.Our rulingAllen said that, as governor, he stopped soaring tuition costs by implementing a tuition freeze.Allen and the General Assembly did impose a freeze after tuition had risen sharply during the early 1990s recession. Allen had leeway to cap tuitions because a healthy economy during his term allowed lawmakers to increase state appropriations to colleges and universities.We rate Allens claim True.

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/israel-military-palestine-treasure/

Did Israel Destroy the Palestine National Library, the Azhar Library, and the 'National Cultural Center'?

Dan Evon

05/13/2019

In May 2019, a set of images supposedly showing the Palestine "National Cultural Center" before and after it was destroyed by Israel Defense Forces (IDF) went viral on social media, along with the claim that the IDF had also destroyed the National Palestine Library and the Azhar Library: Many social media users presented these images as if they were recent, even comparing them to the fire that had broken out at Notre Dame Cathedral a few weeks prior: recent Notre Dame Cathedral The photographs used in this meme were real, but they were not taken recently, and the accompanying information was inaccurate or misleading. These photographs show the Said al-Mishal Centre (not the "National Cultural Center") in Gaza that was destroyed during an air strike on 9 August 2018 at the end of a "round of escalation" between the militant group Hamas and the IDF. Here's how the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center summed up the events that eventually led to the Centre's destruction: destroyed Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center On August 8 and 9, 2018, there was a fifth round of escalation between Hamas and the IDF. Hamas and the other terrorist organizations fired about 180 rockets and mortar shells at Israeli territory. The IDF responded with extensive attacks on Hamas infrastructure and assets. During and between the rounds of escalation (end of May to August 9, 2018), more than 610 rockets and mortar shells were fired from the Gaza Strip at Israeli territory. At the same time, contacts have been held to reach an agreement between the sides, mediated by Egypt and the UN envoy to the Middle East, so far without result. The Israeli military maintained that the Said al-Mishal Centre was targeted because it was being "used by the Hamas terror organisations interior security forces for military purposes." But Sameer al-Mishal, director general of the Centre, disputed this assertion, and the Palestinian Performing Arts Network released a statement claiming that the IDF was attacking the culture of Palestine: The centre was a symbol of Palestinian cultural heritage and was purposefully targeted by the Israeli occupation because art and culture reinforce and strengthen Palestinian national and cultural identity." Palestinian Performing Arts Network While we were able to find a number of reports concerning the destruction of the Said al-Mishal Centre in August 2018, as well as several images showing the aftermath of that attack (including the image featured on the right-hand side of this meme), our search for news reports about the destruction of the Palestine National Library were less successful. number reports destruction aftermath The claim that Israel destroyed the "Palestine National Library" likely refers to a July 2018 bombing at a Hamas training facility in Gaza. YnetNews reported that the five-story, unfinished building, which sat on a network of tunnels, had originally been planned as a national library: reported The Hamas training facility in Gaza that the IAF attacked on Saturday was meant to be the "Palestinian national library," the IDF said. The facility, located next to the Sheikh Zayed mosque, is an unfinished and abandoned five-story building in the al-Shati refugee camp, which was meant to be used for public or government services for the Palestinians, or at the very least for housing. Instead, the IDF said it has been used for years as an urban warfare training facility for Hamas, and in recent months Hamas has also been using it to drill survival in the tunnels. A tunnel was dug under the building, which connects to Hamas's massive underground tunnel network in the strip. While this building may have been intended at one time to house a "Palestinian National Library," the edifice apparently never operated in this function. Again, it's unclear exactly what facility this meme is referring to as the "Azhar" library. Our best guess is that it is referencing the Al-Azhar University - Gaza (AUG). Library of Faculty of Agriculture: While that library is still standing as of this writing, one of its branches was severely damaged by "Israeli aggression on the Gaza Strip in 2009": Library of Faculty of Agriculture: Library of Faculty of Agriculture: It contains a huge collection of materials in Agricultural and Animal Sciences essential for students in the Faculty of Agriculture. Al Azhar University - Gaza (AUG) has the only faculty specialized in Agriculture in the Gaza Strip. However, the library was severely damaged during the Israeli aggression on the Gaza Strip in 2009. The total destruction of the library forced the university administration to join what was left from it in the central library in a hall named Faculty of Agriculture hall. We were unable to find many additional details about this attack. A contemporary article from the New Humanitarian didn't mention the library specifically, but it did report that Al-Azhar University - Gaza was damaged during an attack in 2009, and that thousands of students were unable to return to school due to "issues related to war": New Humanitarian Al-Azhar, Gazas second largest university, generally seen as pro-Fatah (the political faction associated with Mahmoud Abbas in the West Bank) was hit on the same day. Three thousand of the 20,000 registered students could not return this semester due to issues related to the war, said public relations officer at Al-Azhar University Sameh Hassanin, who also said there had been a 20 percent increase in the number of students unable to afford fees since the offensive ended. There is also a library at Al-Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt, but we found no reports concerning the destruction of that library. library Zitun, Yoav. "The 'National Library' That Turned Into a Training Facility." YnetNews. 15 July 2018. Kennedy, Rachel. "Israeli Airstrikes Flatten Cultural Centre in Gaza Strip as Hamas Seeks Truce." EuroNews. 10 August 2018. The Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center. "The Fifth Round of Escalation Between Israel and Hamas, August 8-9, 2018." 9 August 2018. Balousha, Hazem; Holmes, Oliver. "'Our Memories Have Vanished:' The Palestinian Theatre Destroyed in a Bomb Strike." The Guardian. 22 August 2018. Update [3 June 2019]: Added information concerning a branch of the Al-Azhar University - Gaza (AUG) that was severely damaged in 2009.

false

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2018/aug/02/blog-posting/how-trump-state-permitted-3-d-printed-gun/

Says Donald Trump contradicted his own administration when he said the decision to allow blueprints for 3D-printed guns to be distributed doesnt seem to make much sense.

Bill McCarthy

08/02/2018

A federal judgeissueda temporary restraining order to block the online publication of blueprints outlining how to create untraceable and undetectable 3D-printed firearms. The blueprints were originally scheduled for an Aug. 1 release after a government settlement ended five years of litigation. But word of the release prompted panic as legislators and officials scrambled to block the action. Before the federal judges ruling, at least 21 attorneys general filed suit to stop the blueprints from going live. As conversation heated up, President Donald Trump weighed in onTwitter. I am looking into 3-D Plastic Guns being sold to the public, he said. Already spoke to NRA, doesnt seem to make much sense! I am looking into 3-D Plastic Guns being sold to the public. Already spoke to NRA, doesnt seem to make much sense! Politicians and pundits jumped at the presidents words as proof that he was unfamiliar with a decision from his own administration. Trump: My own administrations latest decision doesnt seem to make much sense! said a July 31headlinefrom Addicting Info, a liberal website. This story was flagged as part of Facebooks efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about ourpartnershipwith Facebook.) Trumps last-minute statement gave us pause, too, so we decided to look at the settlement. Was the Trump administration or Trump actually behind it? The White House did not respond to a request for comment (though Trump's press secretary said later that he did not get a chance to weigh in). So we searched elsewhere for our answer. On May 5, 2013, Defense Distributeduploadedblueprints online that could be used to make a working 3D-printed gun called The Liberator, as well as a 53-secondvideoof founder Cody Wilson firing one. Wilson soon received aletterfrom the Obama administrations State Department demanding that he remove the files from the internet. The letter said the technical data amounted to an illegal gun export in violation of theArms Export Control ActandInternational Traffic in Arms Regulations, because it could be accessed in countries where the United States does not sell weapons. The State Department instructed Wilson to take down the files until he applied for specific approval of the guns multiple components. By that point, the blueprints had already been downloaded 100,000 times. In response, Wilson filed alawsuitagainst the State Department with the help of Second Amendment Foundation, a guns-rights organization, in which he sought a preliminary injunction to allow continued publication of the gun files online. Under both the Obama and Trump administrations, the government stuck by its assertion that the technical data constituted an illegal gun export. Wilson countered that the governments intervention violated his First Amendment right to free speech. Ultimately, district and appeals courts both rejected Wilsons injunction request. But as the case turned to the First Amendment claim, the government made an unexpected settlement offer. With thesettlement, reached in June and announced July 10, the government waived the relevant export restrictions and allowed Wilson to post the blueprints online as early as Aug. 1. Specifically, the State Departmentannouncedthat it was in the interest of the security and foreign policy of the United States to temporarily modify theU.S. Munitions Listto exclude the technical data for the 3-D-printed guns. Defense-related items on the munitions list face tight restrictions, because they offer a critical military or intelligence advantage to the United States. The U.S. Commerce Department manages a separate export list with fewer restrictions. It is not clear what role Trump or the White House played in the settlement decision, though White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanderssaid during an Aug. 1 press briefing that the Department of Justice instructed the State Department to settle without White House approval. The State Department has said that its role in this issue relates solely to regulation of exports of certain types of firearms and any related technical data. But the move to shift the 3D-printed guns technical data outside of the State Departments purview was not without precedent. The governments decision came amid a longstanding but relatively behind-the-scenes administrative project started under the Obama administration and known as export control reform to restructure the regulations governing exports of weapons and technologies. Just as the litigation against Wilson can be traced back to the Obama years, so, too, can the export control changes that may have opened the door for the State Departments settlement. Beginning in 2009, the Obama administrationlaunchedan overhaul of export control in order to refine regulations for items that were subject to both the State Departments International Traffic in Arms Regulations and the Commerce Departments Export Administration Regulations. The goal of the reform was to streamline export controls by transferring commercially available items such as consumer guns off the USML and onto the less restrictive Commerce Control List. The State Department began reviewing the munitions list, sifting through each category and removing items that were not considered military-sensitive. By 2016, it had finished reviewing all but threecategories: firearms, ammunition and artillery. However, reform of those final categories stalled before it could become policy. Aproposed rulewould have handed jurisdiction of commercial firearms export controls to the Commerce Department in 2012, but it was delayed following the Sandy Hook school shooting. That proposed rule did notregainmomentum until 2018, under Trump. On May 24, the Departments ofStateandCommercesimultaneously publishedproposalsin the Federal Register to amend the final three categories of the munitions list. The proposed revisions would keep military-grade weapons under State Department jurisdiction and place commercially available firearms under the purview or the Commerce Department. According to theNew York Times, these proposals strongly resemble the Obama administrations 2012 version. CNNreportedthat the government is currently reviewing them. This may explain the State Departments sudden decision to settle its case with Wilson. By recommending that commercial firearm exports move under Commerce Department oversight, the May 24 proposals would likely free Wilsons blueprints from the International Traffic in Arms Regulations that previously restricted them. My guess is that it was somehow wrapped up in the movement of items from the (U.S. Munitions List) to the (Commerce Control List), said Rachel Stohl, managing director at the Stimson Center and an expert in the international arms trade. If you deregulate the weapons themselves, it would follow that the technical specs could be deregulated as well. Stohl added that the settlement was unexpected and the State and Commerce Departments have been less than forthcoming on these details. For his part, Wilson has agreed to refrain from posting his blueprints for at least another month while the multi-state lawsuit travels through the courts. A headline suggested that the government settlement that would have made 3D-printable guns available for download was actually a Trump administration decision, and that Trump said that didn't make much sense. We could not independently determine the extent of Trumps involvement, although Sanders said the president was not afforded the opportunity to approve of the settlement decision. But the State Department under Trump did initiate the settlement after previously taking steps to clear a path for it. However, the Obama administrations export control reform made those steps possible, and it is not far-fetched to consider the Trump administrations move a continuation of that initiative. We rate this statement Mostly True.

true

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/jan/30/ted-cruz/ted-cruz-says-top-1-percent-earn-more-national-inc/

Today the top 1 percent earn a higher share of our national income than any year since 1928.

Alex Wilts

01/30/2015

Barack Obama and U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, lately have aired similar concerns about the future of working-class Americans, though they differ over what to do. In hisJanuary 2015 State of the Union address, the Democratic president said he wants towork with Congress to offer free community college to students while creating other education, child care and retirement savings programs to help the middle class. Funding, hes proposed, would come from a $320 billion tax increase on the nations highest earners and financial institutions including investment banks. After Obamas speech, Cruz told Fox News he was disappointed with Obamas goals to increase government spending and taxes, which he described as hurting hardworking Americans. Then Cruz said the countrys rich and powerful have gotten fat and happy on Obamas watch. Today the top 1 percent earn a higher share of our national income than any year since 1928, Cruz said. Take that, Mister President! And was Cruz right? Cruz cites West Coast economist By email, Cruz spokesman Phil Novack indicated Cruz does not agree with Obama, who said in his speech he wants to reduce the top 1 percents after-tax income. Novack said Cruz, rather than increase taxes on the wealthy, believes the only way to jumpstart the economyis by championing pro-growth policies like energy development and aflatter, simpler tax structure. And, Novack said, Cruz drew his comparison to 1928 froma reportby the Pew Research Center citing research byEmmanuel Saez, a University of California, Berkeley economics professor who studies wealth and income inequality. Saez helps steer theWorld Top Incomes Database, sponsored by the Paris School of Economics, a research center and conglomerate of French universities offering graduate degrees and post-graduate fellowships in economics. The database, in place since 2011, shows the distribution of top incomes for more than 20 countries using data from millions of tax returns collected over about 100 years. By email, Saez said he and economists includingThomas Pikettybuilt the database from sources including public-use files of individual tax returns. The public-use micro-files are blurred to preserve each payers confidentiality, Saez said. A closer look To check on changes over time for ourselves, we built a chart fromthe database. The resulting data, covering 1913, the earliest checkable year, to 2012, shows 1928 and 2012 to be the top two years where the top 1 percent of the richest Americans (the richest of the rich)earned the greatest share of the nations income, whichthe government breaks downinto 15 categories including wages, salaries and self-employment income plus income from dividends and interest. In 1928, the top 1 percentof earners, then comprised of about 1.2 million residents, together held 19.6 percent of the nations income. In 2008, the year Obama was elected president, the top 1 percent possessed nearly 18 percent. The 1 percent collectively saw its share of the nations income escalate nearly 5 percent through the first three years of Obamas presidency. And in his fourth year, 2012, the 1 percent (nearly 314 million residents) controlled 19.34 percent. According to the database, that was the greatest share these wealthiest Americans had held since 1928, as Cruz said.(No. 3 goes to 1927, when the top 1 percent had 18.7 percent of U.S. income.) Top 15 years the richest American taxpayers had the greatest share of U.S. income 1913 through 2012 Year Top 1% income share 1928 19.6 2012 19.34 1927 18.68 1916 18.57 1929 18.42 2007 18.33 1914 18.16 2006 18.06 1926 18.01 1913 17.96 2008 17.89 2005 17.68 1936 17.64 1917 17.6 1925 17.6 Source:The World Top Incomes Database, 2011 (accessed Jan. 30, 2015) By email, Saez told usObama and Congress (which shifted to Republican control in his tenure) did little to address wealth inequality up until 2012 as the country recovered from the Great Recession -- which officially lasted from December 2007 to June 2009. In aSept. 3, 2013, report, Saez wrote that in 2012, average real incomes per familyin the top 1 percent of earners nationally increased by 19.6 percent, while average incomes among the rest of us grew1 percent. The report said the entire surge in top 1 percent incomes in 2012 could be a result of income re-timing -- when people hold off on making payments so they can report a higher income to take advantage of lower tax rates. By email, Saez said he expects the top 1 percents income share for 2014 to prove slightly lower than in 2012 as a result of tax increasesapproved by Congress and Obama in 2013raising the nations marginal income-tax rate from 35 to 39.6 percent for married couples earning more than $450,000 annually, starting in 2013. That deal, which also whittled tax deductions for high-earning businesses and individuals, helped the government avoidthe fiscal cliff, a term describing the looming impact of tax cuts initiated by President George W. Bush expiring at the end of 2012 at the same time congressionally mandated spending reductions were due to kick in. Questions about income-inequality research The World Top Incomes Database and Saezs work have become popular sources forpoliticiansto cite when discussing income and wealth inequality. Still, some experts have raised doubts about what goes into the Piketty-Saez inequality measurements. By email, Gary Burtless, an economist with the Brookings Institution, a Washington, D.C., think tank, said the Saez-Piketty data understate income growth by the bottom 99 percent. That is, he noted, Piketty and Saez limit their focus to pre-tax private income including wages, self-employment earnings, dividends, interest, rental payments and, in some cases, capital gains. The result, Burtless said, is the database doesnt consider other sources of income such as Social Security, unemployment benefits, food stamps, government reimbursement of medical bills and untaxed fringe benefits such as employer contributions to health and retirement plans. If we include these income items, the bottom 99 percent of income recipients has enjoyed much faster increases in income than whats shown by Piketty and Saez, Burtless wrote. Burtless suggested the best statistics on U.S. income inequality come from the nonpartisanCongressional Budget Office. That's because CBO constructs 3 measures of income -- gross market income, pretax income (gross market income plus cash and no cash government transfers), and after-tax income (pre-tax income minus federal income, payroll, and excise taxes), Burtless said in his email. CBO data indicates that from 2009 to 2010, the top 1 percents share of income increased from 13.3 percent to 14.9 percent. (To refresh, Piketty and Saez say their research shows the top 1 percents share of income escalating from 16.68 percent to 17.45 percent.) Next, we talked to Robert Litan, another economist with the Brookings Institution, about why income inequality escalated so quickly in Obamas first term. By email, Litan said reasons for the rising share of the top 1 percents income include rising CEO pay relative to workers, extraordinary success of tech entrepreneurs in particular, made possible by Internet + globalization, and successful financiers, especially hedge fund managers. AJune 12, 2014 articleby the liberal Economic Policy Institute also highlights inequality in earnings and compensation between CEOs and typical workers. Burtless and Litan also told us by email Congress and Obama could not have done much to affect the percentage increase of the top 1 percents income based on Piketty-Saez measurements. The Congress and president have a bigger direct impact on after-tax income than on pre-tax income because their decisions directly affect the tax burdens and government transfer payments of families in different positions in the income distribution, Burtless said. Our ruling Cruz said: Today the top 1 percent earn a higher share of our national income than any year since 1928. Cruz accurately recapped calculations of income by respected researchers though this statement fails to note there are some income streams not part of the cited calculations that would tend to help those of us in the bottom 99 percent, relatively speaking. Also, tax changes that took effect in 2013 may slightly be reducing how much of the nations income is held by the top 1 percent. Mark this statement Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.

true

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/apr/01/peter-kinder/peter-kinder-right-about-high-unemployment-minorit/

Youth unemployment in minority communities is about 40 to 45 percent.

Katie Moeller

03/31/2016

Candidates for Missouris GOP gubernatorial nomination have sparred over race relations, MU campus protests and the unrest in Ferguson, Missouri. At a March 17 debate in Columbia, Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder said unemployment was a key cause of the events in Ferguson, saying, Young men were walking around with nothing to do. The reasons for the unrest in Ferguson following the shooting of Michael Brown arent simple, but we wanted to determine whether Kinders numbers for youth unemployment in minority communities were on the money. Youth unemployment in Ferguson and the city of St. Louis Kinders office said the numbers came from a St. Louis Post-Dispatch column in 2014, which said 47 percent of the metro areas African-American men between ages 16 and 24 were unemployed, according to 2012 census numbers. Peter Muesser, professor of labor economics at MU, said the youth jobless rate Kinder cited seemed to be in the correct range. Im seeing Kinders statement as likely reliable because it was based on Census Bureau info, he said. The Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Census Bureau are the best sources when it comes to reliable unemployment statistics. The Census Bureau and the BLS work together, using annual and monthly surveys to define the unemployment rate and other measures of the American population. The Current Population Survey is more in-depth, but the American Community Survey has a bigger sample size, which allows for unemployment estimates from smaller geographical areas like cities and townships. According to the American Community Survey, the youth unemployment rates in 2014 for St. Louis City, Ferguson Township, and Ferguson City were significantly different. Because Kinder specified youth unemployment in minority communities, we looked at the demographic makeup of both St. Louis City and Ferguson. St. Louis has a comparable number of black and white residents. Ferguson has a significantly larger African-American population, with black residents outnumbering white residents by a 2-to-1 margin. The rate of African American unemployment in all age groups is historically twice that of white unemployment across the nation. Youth unemployment is no different nationally, the unemployment rate for African Americans 16-24 is about 20 percent, while the unemployment rate for the same age group of whites is about 10 percent. Our Ruling The Census Bureaus American Community Survey data fits Ferguson into Kinders claim of youth unemployment of about 40 percent to 45 percent in minority communities. Defining which cities, suburbs and townships are minority communities is a matter of debate. But its worth noting that Fergusons youth are not only more unemployed than their peers in St. Louis , they are also significantly more unemployed on average than both white and black 16-24 year-olds across the country. Ferguson was the community in question when Kinder cited the rate of 40 percent to 45 percent of youth unemployment in minority communities and Ferguson does fit into Kinders estimate. We rate Kinders statement as Mostly True.

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/elon-musk-rebranding-twitter/

Is Elon Musk Rebranding Twitter as 'X'?

Izz Scott LaMagdeleine

07/24/2023

In July 2023, we began to receive emails from readers asking if it was true that social media platform Twitter was rebranding to "X." We also found posts repeating the claim on social media platforms like Facebook, Reddit, and TikTok. Facebook Reddit TikTok The claim is true. Twitter owner Elon Musk did rebrand Twitter to X. At the time of writing, Twitter had already begun replacing its famous bird logo with a stylized X. "And soon we shall bid adieu to the twitter brand and, gradually, all the birds," Musk tweeted on July 23, 2023. tweeted And soon we shall bid adieu to the twitter brand and, gradually, all the birds Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 23, 2023 July 23, 2023 Reputable news organizations like the Associated Press (AP), The Verge, NBC News, and CNNall reported on the rebrand. AP reportedthat Musk had founded a startup in 1999 called X.com, which later became PayPal, and that he also calls his son with singer Grimes "X" for short. Associated Press (AP) The Verge NBC News CNN reported which later became PayPal his son with singer Grimes At the time of writing, Twitter's bird logo was still displayed as its logo on the company's web page that discussed branding. "Our logo is our most recognizable asset," the page said. "That's why we're so protective of it." said However, Twitter's sign-up page looked like this: (Twitter) In an article about the replacement of Twitter's bird logo, The Verge wrote: The Verge The bird theming runs deep, and it's not clear that X Corp. (as Twitter has legally been known for months now) will be able to replace it entirely. We've previously written about changes to Twitter's platform, including a false claim that U.S. President Joe Biden's Twitter account had been designated as a business account. false claim About Twitter | Our Logo, Brand Guidelines, and Tweet Tools. https://about.twitter.com/en/who-we-are/brand-toolkit.html. Accessed 24 July 2023. Chan, Kelvin. "Elon Musk Reveals New X Logo to Replace Twitter's Blue Bird." AP News, 24 July 2023, https://apnews.com/article/twitter-x-logo-blue-bird-musk-0689e9a5c3a217afc2fbefeaf0e6d8a8. Da Silva, Chantal. "Twitter Rebrands to 'X' as Elon Musk Loses Iconic Bird Logo." NBC News, 24 July 2023, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/twitter-rebrands-x-elon-musk-loses-iconic-bird-logo-rcna95880. LaMagdeleine, Izz Scott. "Was Biden's Twitter Account Designated for Business?" Snopes, 21 Apr. 2023, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bidens-twitter-account-designated-for-business/. Valinsky, Jordan. "Elon Musk Rebrands Twitter as X | CNN Business." CNN, 24 July 2023, https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/24/tech/twitter-rebrands-x-elon-musk-hnk-intl/index.html. Warren, Tom. "Twitter Is Now X as the Little Blue Bird Disappears." The Verge, 24 July 2023, https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/24/23804973/twitter-x-logo-brand-replacement.

true

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2011/jul/15/barack-obama/barack-obama-said-80-percent-americans-favor-both-/

Eighty percent of the American people support an approach (to federal budget problems) that includes revenues and includes cuts.

Angie Drobnic Holan

07/15/2011

As President Barack Obama and Republicans in Congress continued their high-stakes stand-off over raising the debt ceiling and other budget issues, Obama held a press conference to press his case that he's a reasonable guy. One of the main points of contention is whether an agreement should include tax increases of any kind, such as closing tax loopholes or tax increases on the wealthy. Republicans oppose raising taxes.During a press conference on July 15, 2011, Obama was asked if the negotiations would be going better if he had started making his case to the public months ago, pushing a proposal that included tax increases and spending cuts. Obama rejected the premise. You have 80 percent of the American people who support a balanced approach. Eighty percent of the American people support an approach that includes revenues and includes cuts. So the notion that somehow the American people aren't sold is not the problem, he said. The problem is members of Congress are dug in ideologically into various positions because they boxed themselves in with previous statements. We won't weigh in on Obama's diagnosis of being dug in, but we were interested in the poll numbers on whether the public supports a balanced approach or not.The most recent poll we found largely supported Obama's statement. A Gallup poll conducted July 7-10, 2011 posed the question this way:As you may know, Congress can reduce the federal budget deficit by cutting spending, raising taxes, or a combination of the two. Ideally, how would you prefer to see Congress attempt to reduce the federal budget deficit: only with spending cuts, mostly with spending cuts, equally with spending cuts and tax increases, mostly with tax increases, or only with tax increases?The answer only spending cuts got 20 percent. The other answers were mostly spending cuts, 30 percent; equal spending cuts and tax increases, 32 percent; mostly tax increases, 7 percent; only tax increases, 4 percent; unsure/other, 6 percent.We'll note that Obama counted in his favor people who favored only tax increases or who weren't sure, so he wasn't completely accurate. If you deduct those groups, only 70 percent support the balanced approach. But the poll did support his overall point.Other polls also showed support for Obama's statement, but not quite at an 80-percent level.A poll from Quinnipiac University conducted July 5-11, 2011, asked: Do you think any agreement to raise the national debt ceiling should include only spending cuts, or should it also include an increase in taxes for the wealthy and corporations?In this case, 67 percent favored including tax increases, while 25 percent favored spending cuts only. Another 8 percent were unsure.In June, a Reuters/Ipsos poll found that most people, 46 percent, favored a combination of cuts and tax increases, compared with 26 percent who said cuts alone and 13 percent who said raise taxes. An ABC/Washington Postpoll from April found the number was higher, at 59 percent. We reviewed polls and consulted experts a few weeks ago for a fact-check onwhether people support tax increasesor not. Karlyn Bowman, a senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute who studies polls on taxation, told us polls usually show support for balanced approaches, particularly if people don't have to pay the higher taxes themselves. Generally, combinations of tax hikes and spending cuts are most popular. It seems fair to most people. Spending cuts are favored in the abstract. Tax hikes are favored as long as they don't affect me. Generally, people don't think anybody should have to pay more than a quarter of their income in total taxes, she said. Finally, a few other cautions on poll numbers.Pollsters have long noted that when you ask questions with different wording, you get different results. All the polls we looked at phrased the question slightly differently.A few recent polls also suggested that people find the whole debt ceiling debate confusing, or they aren't following it very closely. A Pew Research Center/Washington Postpoll from May asked people how well they felt they understood what would happen if the government does not raise the federal debt limit; 47 percent said not too well or not at all well. And the July Gallup poll found that 42 percent of respondents were following the issue not too closely or not at all. Getting back to Obama's statement, he said, You have 80 percent of the American people who support a balanced approach. Eighty percent of the American people support an approach that includes revenues and includes cuts. Even the best poll doesn't show support quite that high -- he would more accurately have accounted for the small numbers that support only tax increases or were unsure, putting the number at 70 percent. But his overall point is correct that polls show most Americans support a balanced approach when given a choice between cutting spending or raising taxes. So we rate his statement Mostly True.

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nordstrom-card-survey-scam/

Nordstrom Gift Card Survey Scam

Kim LaCapria

02/03/2016

In early February 2016, social mediausers began sharing various versions of the above link,claiming that the retailer Nordstrom was offering a $200 gift card to Facebook users who "referred three friends" to the promotion. The embedded links pointed to a URL that was typically some variation on nordstrom.egiftcards.co, and not hosted on the official Nordstrom website.Userswho attempted to complete the steps andclaim the Nordstrom gift cardwere directed to well-designed (but still illegitimate)page withthe following instructions: To Celebrate Valentines Day Get a Nordstrom $200 Gift Card Simply Invite 3 Friends to Get Your Gift CardAfter 3 Friends Click Your Link.Get Your Gift Card Instantly! The landing page in question didn't resemble other popular Facebook coupon scams. However, it did display a rapidly decreasing number of "available gift cards" suggesting users should comply urgently or miss out: Coupon and gift card scams appear frequentlyon Facebook; Kohl's,Costco, Home Depot, Lowe's, Kroger, Best Buy, Macy's, Olive Garden, Publix, Target, Wegmans, and Walmartwere among popular retailers impersonated byscammersseeking personal information from social media users. Kohl's Costco Home Depot Lowe's Kroger Best Buy Macy's Olive Garden Publix Target Wegmans Walmart scammers On 3 February 2016, a Nordstrom representative responded to our inquiry about the circulating gift card scam: You're correct, this is a fraudulent promotion as it is not affiliated with Nordstrom and we are not sponsoring any giveaways of gift cards. We recommend not clicking the link or entering any personal information. Our team is actively working to make customers aware of the situation and apologize for any confusion. A July 2014 Better Business Bureauarticleadvisedsocial media userson how to avoid survey and coupon scams: article Don't believe what you see. It's easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender. Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure there's a link to their privacy policy. When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organization's real website may have further information. Watch out for a reward that's too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions.

false

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2018/jan/17/edward-cox/unemployment-inching-almost-every-county-outside-n/

Of all the 62 counties in New York state, all of them, unemployment is going up except for the five counties of New York City.

Dan Clark

01/17/2018

New York Republican State Committee Chairman Edward F. Cox claimed the unemployment rate is rising in upstate counties, something Republicans intend to remind voters about in the 2018 race for governor. Of all the 62 counties in New York state, all of them, unemployment is going up except for the five counties of New York City, Coxsaidin a radio interview. The claim is in direct contrast to a rosier picture of the economy painted by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo. The governor touted a decline in unemployment statewide during his State of the State address this month. Every region has seen a drop in unemployment and underemployment, Cuomo said. Is Cox right that unemployment is up everywhere outside New York City? Coxs numbers Cox based his claim on a press release on unemployment from the state Department of Labor, his spokesperson said. The release showed the jobless rate for the states 15 metro areas in November 2016 and November 2017, the latest data released by the department. The release does not break down unemployment by county, though it links to that data. Albany, Schenectady and Troy are all counted as one area even though the cities are in different counties. Each of the 14 metro areas outside New York City had a higher unemployment rate in November 2017 than the year before, the data showed. The rural parts of the state, lumped into one category, also had a higher unemployment rate. The New York City metro area was the only place where unemployment went down. A short-term rise in unemployment isn't always bad news. As was the case inMassachusettslast year, a higher unemployment rate could mean more people have decided to enter a growing workforce, but have not landed a job yet. All but five of the state's metro areas added private sector jobs last year. The labor force, meanwhile, increased in all but two counties in New York state. Unemployment by county The state Department of Labor also tracks the unemployment rate for each county. Our analysis of the data shows Cox is mostly correct in his claim, with a few exceptions. The unemployment rate in Lewis County decreased from 6.1 percent in November 2016 to 5.9 percent a year later. The countys labor force and the number of people working increased during that time. Seneca and Clinton counties saw no change in unemployment during that time. The labor force and the number of people employed increased in those counties as well. Unemployment in every other county outside New York City went up between November 2016 and November 2017. Unemployment in each of New York Citys five boroughs went down. The rates for each county and metro area are not seasonally adjusted. That means they dont adjust the data for major shifts in employment during retail holidays seasons, or construction in the summer. A market analyst from the state Department of Labor said the agency does not calculate seasonally adjusted numbers at the county level. Since 2011 While unemployment has inched up in most counties outside New York City recently, the trend has been very different since Cuomo took office in 2011. The unemployment rate is lower in every county since Cuomo took office in 2011, according to state data. Hamilton County, which recorded the largest one-year increase in unemployment in 2017, still has a lower unemployment rate than it did in 2011. Other counties, like Clinton and Columbia, now have an unemployment rate less than half of what it was when Cuomo took office. Someanalystsbelieve drops in unemployment upstate have been inflated by a shrinking population. Monroe County had more than 13,000 fewer people in the labor force in November 2017 than January 2011, for example. During that time, the countys unemployment rate decreased from 8.3 percent to 5.1 percent. Our ruling Of all the 62 counties in New York state, all of them, unemployment is going up except for the five counties of New York City, Cox said. Cox was comparing unemployment figures between November 2017 and November 2016. The figures showed unemployment up in almost every county outside New York City. One county had a lower rate, and two other counties had no change in their unemployment rates. We rate his claim Mostly True.

true

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2013/jul/07/barbara-buono/barbara-buono-claims-state-spending-was-lower-fy20/

Says spending in the fiscal 2009 budget was lower than spending in the fiscal 2014 budget

Caryn Shinske

07/07/2013

Chris Christie has spent months hammering home how high New Jerseys spending was when his gubernatorial challenger Barbara Buono chaired a Senate budget panel a few years ago. Now Buono, a Democratic state senator from Metuchen, is taking her shot at spending under Christie. Buono made her move at a June 26 Senate budget hearing when she spoke against Christies $32.9 billion budget for fiscal year 2014. The Legislature approved the plan that afternoon and Christie signed it two days later. Buono noted in her speech that the fiscal year 2009 budget crafted on her watch, when she chaired the Senates Budget and Appropriations Committee, spent less than whats been approved for fiscal year 2014. We wondered if that was true, especially since Christie has frequently criticized spending levels when Buono helmed the budget panel, particularly for fiscal year 2008. But in this case, Buonos claim about higher spending in Christies just-approved budget is accurate. Lets review the numbers. Patrick Giordano, Buonos chief of staff, said in an e-mail that Buonos figures were confirmed by the nonpartisan Office of Legislative Services. We reviewed an e-mail sent by David J. Rosen, the OLS budget and finance officer, to Giordano, and then confirmed the data separately with Rosen. The result? Spending in the fiscal year 2009 appropriations act was $32.86 billion, compared with $32.97 billion for the fiscal year 2014 spending plan, Rosen wrote to Giordano. Thats a difference of $108,491,000 or one-third of 1 percent. So, Buonos claim is correct: spending for the fiscal year 2014 budget is higher than fiscal year 2009. For context, lets also look at spending under the fiscal year 2008 budget the other spending plan that Buono helped craft during her chairmanship of the Senate budget panel. Buono referenced both budgets during her speech on the Senate floor. Former Gov. Jon Corzine had final approval of the fiscal years 2008 and 2009 budgets. Now lets look at spending for every fiscal year since 2008: FISCAL YEAR TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS FY2008 $33.47 billion FY2009 $32.86 billion FY2010 $28.99 billion FY2011 $28.36 billion FY2012 $29.69 billion FY2013 $31.65 billion FY2014 $32.97 billion Sources: New Jersey Office of Legislative Services Summary Of Appropriations Acts for fiscal years 2008-2014 So state spending dropped from fiscal year 2008 to 2009, but state spending has increased in each of Christies budgets. Its worth noting that the recession had a major impact on decreased spending from 2008 to 20009. The National Bureau of Economic Research has defined the recession as beginning in December 2007 and ending in June 2009. New Jersey Senate Republicans spokesman Ben Sparks did not respond to our request for comment. Our ruling Buono said during a speech on the Senate floor about the fiscal year 2014 budget that its spending level is higher than spending under the fiscal year 2009 budget. Buono chaired the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee when the 2009 plan was drafted and ultimately approved by Corzine. The OLS confirmed Buonos claim, noting that spending for fiscal year 2009 was $32.86 billion, compared with $32.97 billion for fiscal year 2014. We rate Buonos claim True. To comment on this story, go toNJ.com.

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/target-transgender-bathroom-policy/

Target Transgender Bathroom Policy

Kim LaCapria

04/20/2016

Public debate aroundtransgender individuals and bathroomusehit a fever pitch in April 2016, largely due to the controversial passage of HB 2(otherwise known as the "bathroom bill") in North Carolina. On 19 April 2016, Target released a statement confirming a new policy abouttransgender customers and bathrooms: bathroom HB 2 bathroom bill statement Continuing to Stand for Inclusivity Recent debate around proposed laws in several states has reignited a national conversation around inclusivity. So earlier this week, we reiterated with our team members where Target stands and how our beliefs are brought to life in how we serve our guests. Inclusivity is a core belief at Target. Its something we celebrate. We stand for equality and equity, and strive to make our guests and team members feel accepted, respected and welcomed in our stores and workplaces every day. We believe that everyoneevery team member, every guest, and every communitydeserves to be protected from discrimination, and treated equally. Consistent with this belief, Target supports the federal Equality Act, which provides protections to LGBT individuals, and opposes action that enables discrimination. In our stores, we demonstrate our commitment to an inclusive experience in many ways. Most relevant for the conversations currently underway, we welcome transgender team members and guests to use the restroom or fitting room facility that corresponds with their gender identity. Bathroomcontroversies weren't new in April 2016, but HB2, which was by far the highest profilelegislation of that nature,provoked a huge response across the country.Target was not thefirst large and well-known entity to clarify its policy abouttransgender bathroom use, and the brand responded to some feedback on Twitter: controversies first @Kusau Everyone is welcome at Target. @Kusau Target (@Target) April 20, 2016 April 20, 2016 Not all of the public's response was positive. Target's Facebook page was flooded with critical responses similar to the (heavilysatirized) commentsthat appeared when the chain announced gender-neutral toy aisles: satirized gender-neutral toy Some misinformation also circulated about the development. The web site The Political Insider reportedthat the retailer released the statement under pressure from the President and LGBT groups: reported Target just caved to pressure from the Obama administration and liberal activists. They have announced that any transgendered person can use the bathroom in their stores, according to the gender they associate with. Now in Target stores, men are allowed to use the restroom next to your daughter. Once called perverted, this is now a civil right. No information we could find substantiated the claim that Target was pressured to institute the chain-wide policy, and no retailers of a similar size and scope have reported any organized pushto enact similar policies.While HB2 isan enforceable law, Target's bathroom policy issimply a brand's policy decision based on its own ethics andbelief structure. It istrue that Target announced on 19 April 2016 that transgender shoppers and staffers werewelcome to use the bathroom that best matchedtheir gender identities. However, neither President Obama nor any groups appeared to have forced the retailer's hand in issuing the policy, and no "transgender bathrooms" were included in the details of the announcement.

neutral

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/prepare-for-war-wisconsin/

Does Website for Wisconsin Republicans Say 'Prepare for War'?

Jessica Lee

01/12/2021

On Jan. 12, 2021, news reports surfaced alleging a web page for Wisconsin's St. Croix County Republican Party told supporters to "prepare for war" despite urging from the state party to remove the message and the deadly insurrection by supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump at the U.S. Capitol the previous week. web page U.S. Capitol The reports were true. As of this report, the homepage for the local Republican group in northwestern Wisconsin read, "Si vis pacem, para bellum" the Latin adage, "if you want peace, prepare for war." Then, underneath that heading, the page said in English: If you want peace, prepare for war. The phrase, originally coined in the 4th or 5th century, embodies the concept conveyed in earlier works such as Plato's "Nomoi", and carries with it a modern day interpretation of "Peace Through Strength", a cornerstone of conservative beliefs. Welcome to the digital battlefield. The message also perpetuated the conspiracy theory that "Democrats in concert with the Marxist left and a complicit mass media" were running a coordinated scheme to undermine conservative Americans and try to overturn Trump's 2016 presidential win, without providing proof to support the claims. The page also alleged Trump's political opponents colluded in an illegal scheme to block him from serving another presidential term, though numerous court battles and reviews by election security experts proved that did not happen. Rather, President-elect Joe Biden defeated Trump under election laws outlined in the Constitution and federal and state statutes: He received at least 270 electoral votes. (See here for all of our fact-checking content related to 2020 voter fraud claims.) received at least See here for all of our fact-checking content related to 2020 voter fraud claims After those false claims, the St. Croix Republican Party's homepage said Trump radically changed the party, and that "patriots need to continue the fight" and "stand and be counted as a conservative warrior" to uphold the Constitution and remove "leftist tyrants" from elected positions in Wisconsin. According to online archives of the URL, stcroixrepubblican.org, the website at one point called for "eliminating" those political opponents instead of removing them. online archives The St. Croix County partys chairman, John Kraft, told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that the homepage included the phrase "prepare for war" before the deadly insurrection in defiance of Biden's presidential win on Jan. 6. He did not say when, exactly, the page was first posted, and did not respond to the local newspaper's question about whether he thought about taking down the message after the attack by right-wing extremists. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Kraft told the newspaper he "can't help what twisted inferences local Democrats choose to attribute to it." On Jan. 9, Kraft said on his Facebook page that its never been clearer that we are absolutely at war with the left," according to The Associated Press. The Associated Press A representative of the group did not respond to Snopes' request for an interview for this report, though we will post updates when, or if, someone returns our message. According to Wisconsin Republican Chairman Andrew Hitt, the state party does not control the local parties, and it asked St. Croix County Republicans to remove the call to "prepare for war" before the violent insurrection, though he did not specify a date for the request. He told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: "Especially in light of recent events, it's an ill-chosen phrase to express their sentiments," Hitt said. "We suggested at an earlier date they remove this, but they declined to take our advice."

true

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2011/may/06/herb-kohl/sen-herb-kohl-says-hes-never-done-any-negative-cam/

Ive been through four campaigns and have not done any negative campaigning.

Dave Umhoefer

05/06/2011

Twenty-three years into his Senate tenure, Wisconsins Herb Kohl hasnt announced whether he will seek another six-year term in 2012.But as Republicansstep up their criticismof him, Kohl is making crystal clear his disdain for the kind of rough-and-tumble campaign environment that almost surely would be part of another campaign.Compared to his last couple races when Kohl used his massive personal fortune to vanquish underfunded opponents with soft-sell TV ads, it would be a new environment for the senator who owns the Milwaukee Bucks and built the Kohls department and grocery store chains.Inremarks to reportersin Madison on April 28, 2011, Kohl ruminated about the state of todays campaigns. He said people dont like anybody in public life because of venomous attacks and sniping among congressional members, something he said he engages in hardly at all.Then he got specific: Ive been through four campaigns and have not done any negative campaigning. And I dont get into any personal jousts with other people in public life. But thats just my style.So has Kohl really avoided any negative campaigning?Thats quite a claim in this age of mud-slinging and aggressive campaign tactics. We decided to check it out.Of course, it would be impossible to track down every campaign statement Kohl made since 1988 and copies of decades-old TV ads. So we focused our look-back to media descriptions of TV ads, debates and the candidates strategies in his four races. We also talked to the people who should know best: several of his former opponents or their aides, Kohls campaign staff, and a longtime political reporter.Kohl has of course benefited from negative attacks launched by groups supporting his campaigns, but he spoke only of his own campaigns conduct, so well limit our review to that.One more note before we begin: Because there is no universally accepted definition of what constitutes negative campaigning, we asked Team Kohl what exactly he meant by his claim.Sen. Kohl has said that he believes campaigning is about telling the people of Wisconsin what hes done and what he plans to do, not tearing down his opponent or telling people not to vote for them, Kohl press secretary Lynn Becker said. He has not been deliberately malicious or factually dishonest in his campaigns or while serving in public office.Indeed, his two most recent opponents said there was no negative campaigning in their contests -- and had high praise for Kohl.He never did anything negative in his campaign. Hell have the job as long as he wants the job, said John Gillespie, founder of Rawhide Boys Ranch, who lost to Kohl in 2000.Say hi to Herb if you talk to him. Tell him I owe him a dinner, said Robert Lorge, Kohls 2006 rival.Fair enough. Those were landslide wins.What about the earlier contests?1988:Kohl was a surprise entrant in the Democratic primary, winning the nomination comfortably over former Gov. Tony Earl, Ed Garvey and Doug La Follette. Hefrustrated hisrivalsby limiting his debate participation and spending millions on TV ads.At the time,Earls media consultant David Axelrod chargedthat Kohls popular slogan -- Nobodys Senator But Yours -- was an implicit negative attack. It implied that candidates who -- unlike Kohl -- have to raise most of their campaign money are beholden to donors, said Axelrod, who later went on to help a guy named Barack Obama get elected president.Earlattacked Kohl as uninformed and error-prone, prompting Kohl campaign aide Bill Christofferson to call Earl desperate and guilty of misrepresentation.Insiders on both sides agree that Kohl ran no attack ads in the primary -- and none in the very tight general election that saw Republican state legislator Susan Engeleiterclose the gap to just a fewpointswith a series of ads targeting Kohl in the closing weeks.Engeleiter herself told us she has nothing but positive recollections of a pretty cordial campaign. She also praised Kohls dealing with her when she later was confirmed as administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration.La Follette and Garvey say today that they wouldnt call Kohls primary race negative. Regarding Kohls slogan, La Follette agreed with Kohl aide Christofferson, who said: Herb Kohl was talking about himself, not anyone else, when he promised to be 'nobody's senator but yours. 'Indeed, Kohl explicitly used his positive campaign ads as a selling point, and called his victory a blow against negative campaigning.1994:In his first re-election campaign, Kohl wasted little timeaggressively portraying Republican opponent Robert Welch, a state lawmaker from Redgranite, as an extreme conservative and flip-flopper. At an early debate, he cited Welchs no-exceptions stance against abortion and his vow never to vote for a tax hike as extreme. According to media accounts, he did not explain the flip-flop charge.Afterwards, Welch told reporters Kohl was nastier than I expected.Later, after Welch attempted to tie Kohl to President Clinton, Kohl launched arare TV ad that focused on an opponentby name. Another followed. The ads accused Welch of distorting Kohls record. One said that fellow Republicans had criticized Welchs tactics -- something deemed misleading in aMilwaukee Journal fact check.The exchange led Welch to accuse Kohl of running a multimillion dollar mudslinging campaign. Kohl said it was Welch who went negative.The rhetoric heated up. At one point in the race, after Welch accused Kohl of religion bashing, Kohl spokesman Jeffrey Gillis said that Welch's attack again shows that he'll say or do anything to get elected.So, that seems like quite a bit of snarling.Looking back, though, Welchs campaign manager Mike Maxwell doesnt have strong opinions about the back and forth.I dont know that Kohl was particularly negative through that election, he told us. He didnt recall the distort ad that Kohl ran. He did say that some might consider the extreme charge a negative attack.Kohl, Maxwell recalled, just had overwhelming resources and then he signed (Bucks first round draft choice Glenn Robinson) six days before the election. (We could not reach Welch for comment).Kenneth Lamke, a Milwaukee Sentinel reporter who covered the 1994 race, offered the strongest opinion we heard on whether Kohl went negative against Welch. He says yes.Lamke said the extreme charge by Kohl was within bounds but uncharacteristic of Herb. Lamke viewed the attack as unprovoked and an exaggeration; Gillis, the Kohl aide, said it was a response to the drumbeat of criticism of Kohl during the Republican primary. Lamke, we should note, asked us to describe his personal politics as leans Republican.We asked several political scientists to characterize the language of the Kohl ad. They reacted cautiously because we could not provide the ad itself, just direct quotes from it in media accounts. That makes it impossible to fully judge the tone. Vanderbilt professor John Geer, an author of a much-cited book on negative campaigning, said it sounded like a tame response ad -- not the kind of classic negative ad the public doesnt like. Darrell West, of the Brookings Institution, agreed. UW-Madisons Ken Goldstein said Kohls ad met the academic research definition of negative because it focused on Welch, not Kohl. The test of whether it was unfair is whether it was accurate, he said. So Kohls campaigns have been remarkably low-confrontation affairs, with the most notable exception being 1994, the first -- and perhaps only -- time Kohl aired TV spots going after an opponent.So how does Kohl fare on his statement that he has never campaigned negatively?Clearly, Kohl has spent the vast bulk of his time and money on upbeat, positive ads. Even his opponents agree strongly with that -- one even wants to buy him dinner.The only ad that pops up as arguably negative is the 1994 distort spot against Welch. It drew some critical attention, but is viewed as a pretty tame response ad. Beyond that, Kohls campaigns have engaged in some labeling and name calling. And Kohls aggressive 1994 portrayal of Welch as an extremist was arguably negative.Kohl is mostly on target here, with some minor exceptions.Mostly True.

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-401k-tax/

Is Biden considering a proposal to tax income generated from 401(k) accounts?

David Mikkelson

10/28/2020

During the 2020 U.S. presidential campaign cycle, social media users circulated a meme claiming that Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden had announced he intended to tax 401(k) plan retirement accounts: However, the published Biden campaign plan for addressing savings and retirement issues makes no mention of taxing 401(k) accounts, nor could we locate any speech or other public statement by Biden in which he suggested imposing a tax on such accounts. Biden campaign plan Biden did unveil a tax plan that called for "equalizing the tax benefits of retirement plans." Key to that plan was the fact that currently, contributions workers make to retirement plans such as 401(k)s consist of pretax dollars, which reduces those workers' taxable income and thus their income tax liability: reduces Right now you can deduct your contributions to your 401(k) plan right off the top of your income. So far as the IRS is concerned, the money is invisible for this years calculations. Make $200,000 and contribute the maximum $19,500 to your 401(k), and as far as Uncle Sam (and your state) are concerned, you didnt make $200,000 this year, you only made $181,500. But, Biden contended, this type of tax benefit is skewed in favor of higher-income families: The more tax you pay, the more [your 401(k) contribution] saves you. If you have to pay the top, 37% federal tax rate on every extra dollar you earn, deducting that money from your tax return saves you $7,215 in income taxes. But if youre only paying 10% federal tax on each extra dollar you earn, deducting $19,500 would save you just $1,950. Therefore, Biden has proposed to equalize these benefits across the income spectrum by providing taxpayers with an approximately 26% refundable tax credit in place of the deductions they currently get for contributing to retirement plans: The current tax benefits for retirement savings are based on the concept of deferral, whereby savers get to exclude their retirement contributions from tax, see their savings grow tax-free, and then pay taxes when they withdraw money from their account. This system provides upper-income families with a much stronger tax break for saving and a limited benefit for middle-class and other workers with lower earnings. The Biden Plan will equalize benefits across the income scale, so that low- and middle-income workers will also get a tax break when they put money away for retirement. The Tax Foundation independent tax policy organization explained this plan thusly: Tax Foundation Biden proposes converting the current deductibility of traditional retirement contributions into matching refundable tax credits for 401(k)s, individual retirement accounts (IRAs), and other types of traditional retirement vehicles, such as SIMPLE accounts. Bidens proposal would eliminate deductible traditional contributions and instead provide a 26 percent refundable tax credit for each $1 contributed. The tax credit would be deposited into the taxpayers retirement account as a matching contribution. Existing contribution limits would remain, and Roth-style tax treatment would be unaffected. Is it accurate to assert that Joe Biden said "he's going to tax your 401(k)"? Not really, since the Democratic presidential candidate hasn't proposed taxing the amount of money people contribute to or maintain in their retirement accounts, nor to eliminate the tax reductions workers realize by paying some of their earnings into those plans. But Biden's proposal would likely have the effect, in the words of MarketWatch, of "subsidizing retirement savings for those earning less by raising taxes on everyone else." MarketWatch Mermin, Gordon B. An Analysis of Former Vice President Bidens Tax Proposals." Tax Policy Center. 5 March 2020. Mercado, Darla. "Biden Calls for an Overhaul of 401(k) Tax Breaks. What It Means for You." CNBC. 22 September 2020. Watson, Garrett. "Bidens Proposal Would Shift the Distribution of Retirement Tax Benefits." Tax Foundation. 26 August 2020. Arends, Brett. "Opinion: Will Bidens 401(k) Plan Help You or Hurt You?" MarketWatch. 15 September 2020.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/promotional-booklet/

Was it asserted by Obama's literary representative that he was born in Kenya?

David Mikkelson

05/18/2012

In May 2012 the web site Breitbart published a copy of a promotional booklet produced in 1991 by the literary agency Acton & Dystel showcasing their roster of writers, among whom was a young man named Barack Obama. This booklet was of particular interest because it included a brief biographical sketch which described the future President as having been born in Kenya: Barack Obama, the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii. The son of an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister, he attended Columbia University and worked as a financial journalist and editor for Business International Corporation. He served as project coordinator in Harlem for the New York Public Interest Research Group, and was Executive Director of the Developing Communities Project in Chicago's South Side. His commitment to social and racial issues will be evident in his first book, Journeys in Black and White. Is this booklet evidence that Barack Obama was actually born in Kenya? Not even the site that published it made that claim, noting in a disclaimer that: Andrew Breitbart was never a "Birther," and Breitbart News is a site that has never advocated the narrative of "Birtherism." In fact, Andrew believed, as we do, that President Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, on August 4, 1961. ... [W]e discovered, and now present, the booklet described below one that includes a marketing pitch for a forthcoming book by a then-young, otherwise unknown former president of the Harvard Law Review. It is evidence not of the President's foreign origin, but that Barack Obama's public persona has perhaps been presented differently at different times. The editor of the biographical text about Barack Obama which was included in the booklet maintained that the mention of Kenya was an error on her part and was not based on any information provided to her by Obama himself: Miriam Goderich edited the text of the bio; she is now a partner at the Dystel & Goderich agency, which lists Obama as one of its current clients. "You're undoubtedly aware of the brouhaha stirred up by Breitbart about the erroneous statement in a client list Acton & Dystel published in 1991 (for circulation within the publishing industry only) that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. This was nothing more than a fact checking error by me an agency assistant at the time," Goderich wrote. "There was never any information given to us by Obama in any of his correspondence or other communications suggesting in any way that he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii. I hope you can communicate to your readers that this was a simple mistake and nothing more." A New York Times article about Barack Obama published in 1990, a year before the Acton & Dystel promotional booklet was issued, correctly identified his birthplace as Hawaii. article A variant of this item paired the image shown above with the statement "Big Oops! Harvard Law Review did not cleanse its 1991 yearbook which states he was born in Kenya." As noted above, the biographical sketch pictured above was put out by a literacy agency; it was not part of any yearbook published by Harvard. Butterfield, Fox. "First Black Elected to Head Harvard's Law Review." The New York Times. 6 February 1990. Stableford, Dylan. "'Obama's Literary Agent Misidentified His Birthplace in 1991." ABC News. 18 May 2012. Taranto, James. "Counterfeit Kenyan." The Wall Street Journal. 18 May 2012.

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/social-security-changes/

Is this roster of modifications made to Social Security throughout the years authentic?

David Mikkelson

10/29/2005

The Social Security system has been a contentious political issue ever since it was proposed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt and implemented in 1935. Arguments regarding how the system should be used, administered, and funded and even whether it should exist at all have been the subject of debate for many decades now: Examples: [Collected via e-mail, October 2005] SOCIAL SECURITY:Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised: 1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary, 2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program, 3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year, 4.) That the money the participants put into the independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and, 5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income. Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to "put away," you may be interested in the following: Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent "Trust" fund and put it into the General fund so that Congress could spend it? A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratically-controlled House and Senate. Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding? A: The Democratic Party. Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities? A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the "tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the U.S. Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants? MY FAVORITE :A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive SSI Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it! Then, after doing all this lying and thieving and violation of the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away! And the worst part about it is, uninformed citizens believe it! Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during this 2004 election year! Variations: A version of this piece circulated via e-mail in 2005 opened with the following introduction: Dear Friends:Many years ago in Seattle, two wonderful neighbors, Elliott and Patty Roosevelt came to my home to swim on a regular basis. They were a great couple full of laughter and stories that today I continue to marvel at. Both are now deceased, but their stories remain. During the years of our friendship we had many, many discussions about his parents (President Franklin D. and Eleanor Roosevelt) and how his father and mother never intended for the Social Security and Welfare programs to turn out the way they are today. Elliott used to say that if his mother returned to earth and saw what the politicians had done to their programs she would have burned all of them in hell. Here is a story I received today regarding the Social Security Program and I immediately thought of Elliott's comments. Hope you will read this and think about it. In this vein, the above-quoted item seeks to enumerate (and assign blame for) alterations to Social Security that have supposedly betrayed the intent of the system as originally conceived back in the 1930s. Most of the entries contained therein, however, are inaccurate regarding what changes were made and/or who was responsible for making them: . . . participation in the Program would be completely voluntary There was no provision in the Social Security Act of 1935 (nor has there ever been any provision) for the payment of Social Security payroll taxes (now commonly known as FICA, from an acronym for the Federal Insurance Contributions Act) to be voluntary. Since the inception of the Social Security program, the law has required that payroll taxes for persons working at jobs covered by Social Security "shall be collected by the employer of the taxpayer by deducting the amount of the tax from the wages as and when paid." FICA It is true that Social Security provisions originally applied only to "workers in commerce and industry (except railroads) under age 65 in the continental United States, Alaska and Hawaii, and on American vessels," and thus those who worked in fields not designated as "commerce and industry" (e.g., government workers, farm workers, doctors, lawyers) neither paid into the Social Security fund nor received benefits from it. Nearly all of those exemptions have been since phased out: applied . . . participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program Social Security taxes were never limited to the first $1,400 of annual income, nor was there any provision in the Social Security Act of 1935 to permanently fix the tax rate at 1%. The Social Security Act of 1935 set the original rate at 1% of the first $3,000 of annual income, with provisions to gradually increase that rate to 3% over the next twelve years: increase 1) With respect to employment during the calendar years 1937, 1938, and 1939, the rate shall be 1 per centum.(2) With respect to employment during the calendar years 1940, 1941, and 1942, the rate shall 1 1/2 per centum.(3) With respect to employment during the calendar years 1943, 1944, and 1945, the rate shall be 2 per centum.(4) With respect to employment during the calendar years 1946, 1947, and 1948, the rate shall be 2 1/2 per centum.(5) With respect to employment after December 31, 1948, the rate shall be 3 per centum. These figures have been adjusted many times over the years. Under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act, as of 2005 participants pay 6.2% of the first $90,000 of their income (with their employers contributing a like sum) into what is commonly known as OASDI (from an acronym for Old Age Survivors and Disability Insurance, the official name of the basic retirement benefits portion of the Social Security program). . . . the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year The original Social Security Act of 1935 specifically stated that Social Security payroll taxes were not to be allowed as income tax deductions: For the purposes of the income tax imposed by Title I of the Revenue Act of 1934 or by any Act of Congress in substitution therefor, the tax imposed by section 801 shall not be allowed as a deduction to the taxpayer in computing his net income for the year in which such tax is deducted from his wages. Social Security payroll taxes have never been deductible from income for tax purposes, either when the program was originally instituted or at any time since. . . . the money the participants put into the independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program The Social Security Trust Fund was established in 1939 to receive monies collected for Social Security through payroll taxes. The monies in this fund are managed by the Department of the Treasury; they are not, nor have they ever been, put into the "general operating fund." However, whether the Social Security Trust Fund can truly be said to be "independent" is problematic. The Social Security Act specifies that the monies in the fund may only "be invested in securities backed by the full faith and credit of the Federal government," such as treasury bills, treasury notes, and treasury bonds, as well as special issue bonds. So, essentially, the government can "invest" Social Security funds by lending them to itself, then spending that money on programs not related to Social Security (e.g., defense, foreign aid, education). The government "pays back" this money when the Social Security program redeems the bonds, but critics of the program contend Social Security will eventually fall into deficit by 2018, and the Treasury won't have the necessary cash on hand to redeem the bonds and pay back the fund. As the Social Security and Medicare Trustees themselves noted in their 2005 Annual Report: Annual Report In 2005 the Social Security tax income surplus is estimated to be more than offset by the shortfall in tax and premium income for Medicare, resulting in a small overall cash shortfall that must be covered by transfers from general fund revenues. The combined shortfall is projected to grow each year such that by 2017 net revenue flows from the general fund to the trust funds will total $515 billion, or 2.3 percent of GDP. Since neither the interest paid on the Treasury bonds held in the HI [Hospital Insurance] and OASDI Trust Funds, nor their redemption, provides any net new income to the Treasury, the full amount of the required Treasury payments to these trust funds must be financed by some combination of increased taxation, increased Federal borrowing and debt, or a reduction in other government expenditures. Thus, these payments along with the 75 percent general fund revenue contributions to SMI will add greatly to pressures on Federal general fund revenues much sooner than is generally appreciated. A somewhat dated but detailed article about how the Social Security trust funds are invested can be found here. here . . . the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income It is true that Social Security benefits were not originally considered taxable income. However, that status was not due to any promise or act on the part of President Roosevelt, nor was it specified in the Social Security Act (or any other law); it was the result of a series of rulings by the Treasury Department in 1938 and 1941 that excluded Social Security benefits from federal income taxation. Those rulings were overriden by amendments to the Social Security act enacted in 1983. rulings amendments Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent "Trust" fund and put it into the General fund so that Congress could spend it?A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratically-controlled House and Senate. As noted above, the monies paid into the Social Security trust have never been "put into the general fund." The requirements for how the Social Security Trust Fund is to be financed and invested have not changed since the fund's inception in 1939. The reference to Lyndon Johnson indicates that someone was probably confused by a change implemented at the end of the Johnson administration (1969) that altered how the fund was accounted for in the federal budget but did not change the actual operations of the fund itself: above altered Beginning in fiscal year 1969, Social Security and other Federal programs that operate through trust funds were counted officially in the budget. This was done administratively by President Johnson. At the time Congress did not have a budget-making process. In 1974 Congress adopted procedures for setting budget goals through passage of annual budget resolutions. Like the budgets prepared by the President, these resolutions were to reflect a "unified" budget that included trust fund programs such as Social Security in the budget totals.Beginning in the late 1970s, Social Security faced financial problems, and over a period of time legislation was enacted to restore the financial health of the program. However, because the Federal budget deficit remained large, interest in reducing Social Security spending continued. This routine consideration of Social Security constraints led to concerns that cuts in Social Security were being proposed for budgetary purposes rather than programmatic ones. In response to this concern, a series of measures were enacted in 1983, 1985, and 1987 making the program a more distinct part of the budget and permitting Congressional floor objections (points of order) to be raised against budget bills containing Social Security changes. This method of accounting for the Social Security Trust Fund in the federal budget was reversed in 1990. Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?A: The Democratic Party. As noted above, Social Security withholding has never been deductible from income for tax purposes. The original Social Security Act of 1935 specifically stated that monies paid into Social Security via payroll taxes were not to be allowed as income tax deductions. above Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?A: The Democratic Party. Prior to 1984, income derived from Social Security benefits was exempt from taxation. Amendments to the Social Security Act passed by Congress in 1983 allowed for 50% of Social Security benefits to be considered taxable income for taxpayers whose total income exceeded specified thresholds. Responsibility for this change cannot fairly be assigned to either political party. The idea originated with a proposal issued by the bipartisan Greenspan Commission, which had been created by President Ronald Reagan, a Republican. The amendments were passed by a House of Representatives in which the Democrats held a clear majority of the seats (296-166), but the proposed amendments received "Yea" votes from members of both parties, and they were signed into law by President Reagan. Greenspan Commission Q: Which political party increased the taxes on Social Security annuities?A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the "tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the U.S. In 1993, Congress passed legislation that increased the percentage of Social Security benefits subject to taxation from 50% to 85%. As with the 1983 amendments to the Social Security Act, this increase applied only to taxpayers whose total income exceeded specified thresholds. This change to Social Security was but one element of the massive Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) introduced in Congress in 1993. OBRA was barely passed by a 218-216 vote in the House of Representatives, with not a single Republican voting in favor of it (although 41 Democrats voted against it). Likewise, the Senate vote on OBRA was deadlocked at 50-50 (again, with not a single Republican voting in favor of it, although 6 Democrats voted against it) until Vice-President Al Gore (a Democrat) cast the deciding "Yea" vote. The bill was signed into law by President Bill Clinton (also a Democrat). OBRA vote vote Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive SSI Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it! No one whether he be a citizen, immigrant, or illegal alien is eligible to collect Social Security benefits unless he (or someone else, such as a parent or spouse) has paid into the system. Someone has confused Social Security itself with Supplemental Security Income (SSI) the latter is a federal welfare program "designed to help aged, blind, and disabled people, who have little or no income" by providing "cash to meet basic needs for food, clothing, and shelter." Immigrants can qualify for SSI benefits under certain conditions, but SSI is financed by general revenues and not Social Security taxes. SSI was not enacted by the administration of President Jimmy Carter (a Democrat); it was created and signed into law in 1972, during the administration of President Richard Nixon (a Republican). benefits SSI Additional information: Riedl, Brian and David John. "Social Security's Fictitious Trust Fund." Knight-Ridder Tribune. 10 November 2004.

neutral

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/jan/28/democratic-national-committee/national-democrats-criticizing-rick-perry-says-tex/

College tuition rates in Texas jumped by 55% since 2003.

W. Gardner Selby

01/28/2015

Democrats criticized Rick Perry for college costs the day the Republican governor gave his valedictory speech to Texas lawmakers. Among the beefs in a Jan. 15, 2015, email blast from the Democratic National Committee: College tuition rates in Texas jumped by 55% since 2003, putting the dream of earning a college degree further out of reach for many Texans. That year should ring a bell; its when Perry and the Republican-controlled Legislatureagreed to deregulate public college tuition, handing control to appointed college and university governing boards. Committee's source We wondered how much tuition ultimately escalated. By email, Miryam Lipper, a committee spokeswoman, pointed out a September 2012news storyin theDallas Morning Newsthat said by the papers analysis, Texas students are paying 55 percent more for tuition and fees at state universities a decade after lawmakers lifted restrictions on costs. The story also said: State officials used to brag about the affordability of college, but the costs have ballooned since 2003, even when inflation is factored in. Updated data Seeking up-to-date information, we reached out to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, where a staff spokeswoman, Kelly Carper Polden, pointed out aFebruary 2014 board documentshe described as the most recent publicly available report on Texas tuition and fees. The document said, in part: From fall 2003 through fall 2013, the statewide average total academic charges for a student taking 15 SCHs at a public university has increased by 104 percent. An SCH is a semester credit-hour. According to the document, the boards calculations were rooted in tuition and fees charged students. Then again, the board said, a student's actual charges may vary based on the student's classification and level of enrollment, the college the student attends within the university, the student's specific personal circumstances, or for other reasons deemed appropriate by the institution. Charts in the board analysis indicate the tuition and fees each year from fall 2003 through fall 2013 for nearly 40 institutions, most of them in the University of Texas or Texas A&M University systems. On average in fall 2003, tuition and fees were $1,934 for 15 semester credit-hours, according to the report. The average in fall 2013 was $3,951, the board said. By phone, Polden confirmed the boards results didnt take inflation into account. So we employed a U.S. Bureau of Labor Statisticsinflation calculatorto estimate that tuition and fees at the states public colleges and universities escalated 61 percent, in real terms, from fall 2003 through fall 2013. But that didnt bring us to the 2014-15 school year. So we asked for comparable charges on average for a student as of fall 2014. By email, Polden said the fall 2014 statewide average for someone taking 15 SCHs was $4,091, lifting the raw average tuition increase since fall 2003 to 112 percent. Adjusted for inflation, we calculated, the increase was 64 percent. UT Austin Separately, we asked the University of Texas at Austin for its fall 2014 charge for that many credit hours. Spokesman Gary Susswein emailed the amount, $4,905, which we compared with the fall 2003 charge for that university of $2,721. Adjusted for inflation, the hike over the years came out to 40 percent. Out of governor's control? Worth mention: After signing tuition deregulation into law, Perry subsequently had no sway over tuition hikes except to appoint higher education governing boards. In recent years too, Perrycalled for $10,000, four-year degree programs and for institutions to freeze tuitionso an entering student would pay the same tab each year while earning a degree. Our ruling The Democratic group, zeroing in on Perry, said Texas college tuition rates increased 55 percent since 2003. That figure is outdated--the increase through fall 2014 was 64 percent--and it's also worth clarifying the governor didn't directly control tuition, though he approved of the 2003 law deregulating rates and appointed ruling public college and university governing boards. We rate the statement Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obfuscatedcare/

Obamacare Architect Jonathan Gruber Hails American 'Stupidity'

David Mikkelson

11/10/2014

Claim: Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber said Obamacare only passed due to the "stupidity" of the American voter and a lack of "transparency," and video footage of his remarks was deleted from the Internet in an attempt to hide it. : Jonathan Gruber said Obamacare only passed due to the "stupidity" of the American voter and a lack of "transparency. UNDETERMINED: Video footage of his remarks was deleted from the Internet in an attempt to hide it. Example: [Collected via Twitter, November 2014] Hey Media, is UPenn pulling the Gruber video where he says ObamaCare passed by Democrats lying to the public a newsworthy event? Just askin' Jonathan Gruber, an Obamacare's architect admitted that lack of transparency/stupidity of electorate helped pass the bill Origins: In November 2014, a 52-second long excerpt from a video of a 2013 conferenceinvolving Jonathan Gruber, a consultant who served as a technical consultant to the Obama administration and Congress during the creation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (also known as the ACA or "Obamacare"), began to circulate on the internet. Gruber made the remarks captured in that excerpt during the 24th Annual Health Economics Conference at the University of Pennsylvania's Leonard Davis Institute (LDI) of Health Economics in October 2013. Gruber's remarks became controversial when video of the conference was posted online thirteen months after the LDI panel on health economics took place. panel Gruber, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor of economics, was speaking at a panel titled "The Role of Economics in Shaping the ACA and How Economics Can Inform Inevitable Mid-Course Corrections." The footage from which the comments originated ran for nearly an hour and covered issues tangential to Obamacare, such as its classification as a tax, subsidies, and how the bill came into law. Gruber's controversial remarks come at around the 18-minute mark in the video shown below: During the portion of the video in question, Gruber said: This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure [the Congressional Budget Office] did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. OK? So it's written to do that. In terms of risk-rated subsidies, if you had a law which said healthy people are going to pay in you made explicit that healthy people pay in and sick people get money it would not have passed. OK? Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to get the thing to pass. Look, I wish ... we could make it all transparent, but I'd rather have this law than not. After video of the conference was put online, Gruber elaborated on what he meant by his attention-garnering remarks and apologized for them, saying that he "spoke inappropriately": elaborated Gruber's comments were part of a broader public conversation between him and economist Mark Pauly on the economics of health care reform. Gruber was responding to a remark by Pauly about financing transparency in the law and the politics surrounding the ACA's individual mandate. The political process, he said, striking a critical tone, resulted in inefficiencies in the law which should be corrected. "In terms of risk-rated subsidies, if you had a law which explicitly said that healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed," he said. "You can't do it politically, you just literally cannot do it. It's not only transparent financing but also transparent spending." In the video, Gruber appeared to be speaking specifically about the political environment in 2010 and its impact on the law's funding mechanisms. Gruber takes a critical stance on some of those outcomes, calling them "irrational." "I wish Mark was right and we could make it all transparent but I'd rather have this law than not," Gruber said. "That involves tradeoffs that we don't prefer as economists but are realistic." Gruber apologized for his comments during an on-air interview with MSNBC's Ronan Farrow. "The comments in the video were made at an academic conference," Gruber said. "I was speaking off the cuff and I basically spoke inappropriately and I regret having made those comments." Although Gruber apologized for the language he used, Gruber said that the larger point he was trying to make centered on the political pressures that shaped the law. He added that those pressures "led to an incomplete law with some typos." "It would have made more sense to do Obamacare the way we did in Massachusetts, which would be to just give people money to offset the cost of their health insurance," Gruber said. "That was politically infeasible and so instead it was done through the tax code." The full video of the 2013 Health Economics Conference was published by PennLDI on YouTube, and when the excerpt video of Gruber's remarks began to circulate online, many viewers assumed the comments to be recent (they were not), and others maintained PennLDI then removed the clip from the Internet due to the political controversy. On the latter point, several Twitter users posted screenshots of a YouTube error page that indicated the source video had been (at least briefly) removed by the University after Gruber's remarks became a focus of attention: recent However, it isn't yet clear whether the PennLDI video was deliberately pulled from the Internet due to the political controversy it created, or whether it was made unavailable at some point after it was initially posted for unrelated reasons (e.g., error, copyright issues, technical problems). It appears the comments made by Gruber entered the stream of social media hot topics when they were spotted and excerpted from the longer PennLDI video by Philadelphia investment adviser Rich Weinstein, then posted to the YouTube channel of the American Commitment 501(c)(4) (i.e., a politically active nonprofit organization), whose Phil Kerpen tweeted: Rich Weinstein American Commitment My wife texts to say the latest Gruber video we posted is lighting up her Facebook feed... excellent... Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) November 10, 2014 My wife texts to say the latest Gruber video we posted is lighting up her Facebook feed... excellent... Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) November 10, 2014 November 10, 2014 The claim that the University of Pennsylvania deliberately tried to scrub the clip from the Internet may also have stemmed from Kerpen or the PAC: Um, hey, University of Pennsylvania: Pulling the Gruber video now really doesn't help your cause. https://t.co/KoW7Kx2WLb Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) November 10, 2014 Um, hey, University of Pennsylvania: Pulling the Gruber video now really doesn't help your cause. https://t.co/KoW7Kx2WLb https://t.co/KoW7Kx2WLb Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) November 10, 2014 November 10, 2014 Last updated: 12 November 2014

neutral

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-christ-billboard-st-louis/

Did a Billboard in Missouri Show President Trump Alongside a Gospel Quote?

Dan MacGuill

11/05/2018

In the final days before the November 2018 elections, social media users in Missouri began posting descriptions and photographs of a billboard that appeared to show President Donald Trump's face accompanied by an excerpt from a well-known Bible verse and a re-working of his 2016 presidential campaign slogan "Make America Great Again": From a friend -- a billboard spotted outside of St Louis. I don't like using the word "heresy," but I think I'll make an exception in this case. pic.twitter.com/FqaPnBXGHT pic.twitter.com/FqaPnBXGHT Diana Butler Bass (@dianabutlerbass) November 4, 2018 November 4, 2018 The images prompted expressions of concern by some Christians that the billboard was associating or likening President Trump to Jesus Christ himself, the "Word made flesh" referenced in the Gospel quotation. In its proper context, Chapter 1, Verse 14 of the Gospel of John reads: reads He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me. And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. The billboard is real, and the photographs of it shared on social media in early November are authentic. The existence of the billboard was verified by St. Louis television station KMOV, which published their own photograph of it, describing the location as being "on Interstate 170 near St. Charles Rock Road," which is around 15 miles north-west of downtown St. Louis, Missouri: KMOV "Make the Gospel Great Again": Large billboard of Trump has St. Louis Co. residents talking https://t.co/l0EDbpWhU2 #KMOV pic.twitter.com/FLIuXd47C9 https://t.co/l0EDbpWhU2 #KMOV pic.twitter.com/FLIuXd47C9 KMOV (@KMOV) November 5, 2018 November 5, 2018 This corroborates the description in Martha Baker's 3 November Facebook post, which stated that the billboard was located "on I-170 (the Innerbelt in St. Louis) between the Rock Road and Page Blvd." Three days before Baker's post, another social media user posted their description of the billboard, expressing their dismay at what they called its "idolatry": This is not a drill. In #STL I just saw a billboard with Trump on it that says, The word made flesh. And Make the gospel great again. I cannot begin to express how livid I am at this level of idolatry. #STL Rev. Momma (@TheRevMomma) October 31, 2018 October 31, 2018 The billboard is undoubtedly real, though it is not yet clear who paid for it and when it was erected. A spokesperson for DDI Media, the St. Louis company which owns the billboard itself, told us they could not share such information. On 5 November, a Facebook page called "Make the Gospel Great Again" (which is no longer available on the social networking web site) claimed responsibility for the billboard: claimed ...We met as a team last night to discuss how much hatred weve received for our efforts to encourage fellow believers in holding fast to the faith. We prayed that the facebook page would be a community for fellow Christians to be encouraged at what God is doing in the world and to find out how they could, like our president, be a part of being Gods presence in making America great. But the hateful comments and mean spiritedness from liberals and atheists drowned out the voices of Christians in this country. These reflect the level of unfair deranged media attacks on the President in general and his supporters. Our billboard IS NOT equating Jesus with President Donald Trump. Salvation comes only from a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, not any man. But God does send his messengers to us, and just as King David liberated the faithful in his day, President Trump is doing this today through his protection of the unborn, defense of our land against foreign invaders and standing up for Israel... The page described its mission statement as follows: "We believe God has given American Christians His earthly messenger - Donald J Trump. We follow his words in faith each day!" statement As far back as 10 October, "Make the Gospel Great Again" posted an image which was almost identical to that ultimately displayed on the St. Louis billboard, and its profile photograph was the same logo which appeared on the billboard (a crucifix with an American flag): posted photograph We sent a list of questions to an email address associated with the "Make the Gospel Great Again" Facebook page, in order to clarify who was behind it, and verify whether there was a link between it and the St. Louis billboard, but we did not receive any response. Zotos, Alexis. "'Make the Gospel Great Again': Large Billboard of Trump Has St. Louis Co. Residents Talking." KMOV. 5 November 2018. Updated [7 November 2018]: Added information about the Facebook page "Make the Gospel Great Again."

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bread-and-media-circuses/

Islamic Justice — Boy Punished for Stealing Bread

David Mikkelson

02/28/2006

The above-displayed photographs have been circulating on the Internet since at least 2004, usually in e-mail forwards that set them in one of several Arab/Muslim areas (e.g., Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Palestinian territories) and claim that the boy pictured is being punished under a harsh Sharia law system that imposes a penalty grossly out of proportion to the nature of the crime (i.e., having his arm crushed under a vehicle because he stole a loaf of bread). Sharia These pictures originated with the Iranian news site PeykeIran, who (along with persons who have witnessed similar scenes in other countries) confirmed that what the photographs actually depict is performers hustling money from onlookers by staging a common street act, one in which a subject seemingly allows himself to be run over by a heavy vehicle and then emerges unscathed. This a common act, variations of which are performed by many magicians and accomplished through a variety of means, with no lasting harm done. That the subject is a small boy who grimaces his way through the stunt is all part of the act, intended to elicit sympathy and extra cash from onlookers. (Despite his contorted facial expressions, the boy is not seriously or permanently injured by the process.) PeykeIran It's difficult to make any definitive statement about Sharia/Islamic law since customs and enforcement can vary from region to region, but although the cutting off hands may sometimes be the prescribed maximum penalty for cases of theft under the strictest interpretations of Sharia, Islamic law resources consistently note that such punishments shall not be applied to children who have not yet reached puberty (which is defined as the age of 15 for boys), nor for the theft of small-value items or food by the hungry: penalty puberty food The maximum sentence of any violation of law is not applied in every case. In the robbery and theft cases for example, the maximum penalty of hand-cutting applies after the consideration of many factors such as track record and whether the theft was made for profit. In some cases, such as stealing food because of severe hunger or to prevent death, there may not be a penalty. A person's hand is not amputated when he steals less than the equivalent of 4.374 grams of gold [or] something that is useless. The penalty for the one who steals (when the above conditions are met) is that his/her right arm is amputated. The above photographs do not depict any form of amputation, and it is the child's left arm which goes under the wheels. Moreover, there are no police, judges, religious authorities, or other officials evident in any of the pictures, just a huckster with a hand-held microphone who drums up business and describes the action for the onlookers visible in the background of the first photo. (Also note the blanket placed under the boy's arm: something that is useful for a staged stunt but is unlikely to be provided or allowed by those intent on severely punishing a lawbreaker.) The versions of these photographs circulated via e-mail generally leave out the last pictures of the original series, which show the same boy after the conclusion of the stunt:

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/whataburger-closing-its-doors/

Whataburger Closing Its Doors?

Dan Evon

06/28/2017

A prank Facebook post that appeared to link to an article reporting that the restaurant chain Whataburger was closing its doors appeared in June 2017: However, clicking on the link takes you to a fake news story about the restaurant chain's faux announcement on the prank web site Channel22news.com: fake news story The Texas based food chain is shutting its doors effective April 26 due to numerous reports of food poisoning with high concentrations of salmonella found in meat served in the DFW area during the month of April Anyone who has eaten at Whataburger should be tested for salmonella poisoning. Symptoms can show up as many as three weeks out. I doctors [sic] urge all people who have eaten at these restaurants especially in the Dallas-Fort Worth area to immediately seek medical attention if they have eaten there more than once during past few weeks. The more time youve eaten there the higher likelihood of an infection occurring. Lawsuits have already been filed and Whataburger has decided to shut its doors due to the litigation and payouts that it expects to have to make. Filing bankrupt in a downtown Austin courthouse Wataburger spokesman, Jeff smith said We have taken the advice of our counsel and filed Chapter 7 and have shut our doors. It is unclear what the future holds for the Texas based chain. One thing for certain, Allyson Heffernan is sure to be disappointed! Channel22News is clearly labeled with various disclaimers and carries a "you got owned" meme in its header: We do NOT support FAKE NEWS!!! This is a Prank website that is intended for Fun. Bullying, Violent Threats or posts that Violate Public Order are NOT permitted on this Website. Channel22News, as well as other sites of its ilk, allow users to generate their own fake news stories. These stories are then packaged into social media posts that resemble genuine news items. Because many people share links on social media without actually reading the stories, these "pranks" frequently reach large audiences. other sites without actually reading In response to the prank, Whataburger created a Facebook post of their own: Facebook An article is being circulated stating that Whataburger will be closing all stores. This article is a hoax, and we arent going anywhere. Dewey, Caitlin. "6 in 10 of You Will Share This Link Without Reading it, a New, Depressing Study Says." Washington Post. 16 June 2016.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/arizona-drug-welfare-recipients/

Did Arizona's Drug Testing Program for Welfare Recipients Catch Just One Person?

Arturo Garcia

04/03/2017

An image circulated online criticizes Arizona's drug testing program for social assistance for supposedly spending a whopping $3.6 million to test 87,000 welfare recipients but catching only a single violator: The drug test program, administered by the state Department of Economic Services (DES), allows officials to drug test those who receive cash benefits as part or the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program if they have "reasonable cause" to do so. A January 2017 article by Counter Current News reported that only one person out of 87,000 had been disqualified from the TANF program for failing a drug test under that program, at a cost of $3.6 million to the state. article That claims was based on two sources: a March 2012 USA Today editorial stating that 87,000 people "went through the program" between 2009 and 2012 with only one testing positive, and an American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) report that estimated the cost for each drug test at $42. editorial report However, the underlying source material didn't state that 87,000 people had actually been subjected to drug tests in Arizona that figure reflected the total number of people in the state who were receiving TANF benefits at the time (whether or not they had been tested or presented reasonable cause for testing). And ACLU spokesperson Alexandra Ringe told us the organization planned to take down their report that provided the $42 drug test cost figure because the report was outdated. A DES spokesperson, Misty Kaufman, also told us on 23 March 2017 that under the state program, officials ask TANF recipients to submit to drug testing if DES is notified by "a law enforcement agency, a court, or other governmental entity" that they could be using drugs. A test may also be requested if recipients indicate in statements that they have used illegal drugs within the previous 30 days. Failing the test does not invoke a monetary fine, but it does disqualify otherwise eligible recipients from claiming cash benefits for a year. Since the program went into effect in November 2009, Kaufman said, 49 people had been flagged for drug testing as of 30 June 2016. Twenty-three of those people actually took the tests, which DES said cost a total of $585, or $25.43 per test. Of those 23 people, two had tested positive for drugs through September 2012, and another four since then. However, only three of the six people who failed the test lost their TANF benefits, as the other three positive results were attributed to prescription medications. According to Kaufman, the three valid disqualifications led to recipients' losing a combined $1,816 in benefit monies. Another 26 TANF benefit recipients have declined to take the drug test since the program went into effect, with 20 of them losing benefits in the aggregate sum of $4,155. The benefit period for the other six people had expired before they could incur the cutoff penalty. The National Conference of State Legislatures said in March 2017 that Arizona was one of at least 15 states that passed laws requiring drug tests or drug screenings for people participating in benefit programs. Florida's law, which required that every welfare applicant receive drug testing, was struck down by a federal judge in December 2013, who ruled that it amounted to an illegal search. By that point, 108 of 4,086 people had tested positive for drugs under that state's program. The New York Times noted at the time that the Florida program "cost more money to carry out than it saved." said struck down New York Times On 15 February 2017, the House passed House Joint Resolution 42, which rolled back a 2016 Labor Department rule limiting state-administered drug tests on unemployment insurance applicants to people seeking jobs in fields that already require drug screenings. That measure passed the U.S. Senate on 14 March 2017 and was presented to President Donald Trump on 21 March 2017. passed passed USA Today. "Drug Testing Welfare Applicants Nets Little." 18 March 2012. American Civil Liberties Union. "Drug Testing of Public Assistance Recipients as a Condition of Eligibility." Accessed 3 April 2017. Robles, Francis. "Florida Law on Drug Tests for Welfare Is Struck Down." The New York Times. 31 December 2013. National Conference of State Legislatures. "Drug Testing for Welfare Recipients and Public Assistance." 14 March 2017. Wang, Amy B. "Welfare Recipients Face Drug Tests." The Arizona Republic. 25 November 2009.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/secure-fence-act-50-billion-border/

Did Congress allocate $50 billion in 2006 specifically for the development of border fencing?

Dan MacGuill

01/16/2019

During the U.S. federal government shutdown that began in December 2018, President Donald Trump and many of his supporters blamed Congressional Democrats for the budgetary impasse. As part of that rhetorical battle, Trump and others accused Democrats of hypocrisy and political opportunism, alleging that their current opposition to providing funding for the president's long-promised border wall was in stark contrast to their past support for border security infrastructure. In his 8 January 2019 Oval Office address, President Trump alluded to this notion by taking a swipe at Chuck Schumer, the Democratic Senate Minority leader who, along with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, was scheduled to offer a response to the president's primetime immigration speech: "Senator Chuck Schumer who you will be hearing from later tonight has repeatedly supported a physical barrier in the past, along with many other Democrats. They changed their mind only after I was elected President." In a similar vein, around the beginning of 2019 a widely-shared meme posed a rhetorical question about $50 billion in funding for border infrastructure that was supposedly part of the 2006 Secure Fence Act, implying that Democratic Congressional leaders had somehow been involved in misappropriating the money: "Schumer, Pelosi and the Dems may have wished they had just given POTUS the 5 Billion for the wall ... rather than having to answer this question!!! ... or is this the bigger picture??? Where is the $50 Billion set aside for the 2006 Secure Fence Act? Bush signed it & Obama was supposed to oversee its construction? Where is the money?" A 12 January post on the website of the conspiracy theorist Jeff Rense contained this graphic version of the meme: website The figure of $50 billion was especially significant because it was a far greater sum than the $5 billion for border wall construction which President Trump demanded be included in the 2019 federal budget, and which formed the crux of the partisan standoff and ensuing government shutdown. The "$50 billion" message was shared widely on Twitter and Facebook, prompting inquiries from readers about its veracity. Twitter Facebook In reality, $50 billion was not set aside for border security infrastructure as part of the 2006 Secure Fence Act, and therefore no misappropriation of such funding occurred. One analysis, which predated the Secure Fence Act by seven years, predicted that building and maintaining the type of border fencing provided for in that legislation might cost up to $49 billion over the course of 25 years, but that analysis did not play a significant role in Congressional deliberations before the passing of the Secure Fence Act. The Secure Fence Act was a law introduced by Republican Congressman Peter King of New York in September 2006 and signed by President George W. Bush on 26 October 2006. Among other provisions, the law required the Secretary of Homeland Security to begin (within 18 months) the construction of at least two layers of fencing, along with barriers, cameras, and sensors, along five sections of the United States border with Mexico: law required In the context of the 2018-19 controversy over President Trump's proposed border wall, Republicans made claims about the effectiveness of that border fencing in reducing illegal border crossings into the United States. In a previous fact check, we found such claims to be vague and flawed. fact check Some Democrats supported the bill, and some didn't. In the House of Representatives, the Secure Fence Act passed by 283 votes to 138, with 64 Democrats voting in favor and 131, including Nancy Pelosi, voting against it. passed In the U.S. Senate, the bill passed 80-19. Some 26 Democrats supported it, including future president and vice-president Barack Obama and Joe Biden, 2016 presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, and future Senate Minority leader Chuck Schumer, while 17 Democrats, including future Secretary of State John Kerry and future Senate Majority leader Harry Reid, opposed it. passed The claim that Congress "set aside" $50 billion for border fencing in 2006 appears to have been derived from a 1999 study conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In a 2 January 2019& column for Fox News, Republican U.S. Representative Steve Scalise of Louisiana used the figure in accusing Congressional Democrats of "playing games with America's safety": column The bill before us would certainly do some good. It would authorize some badly needed funding for better fences and better security along our borders that should help stem some of the tide of illegal immigration in this country. No, that statement wasnt made by a Republican. It was a speech given by then-Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois in 2006, when 26 Senate Democrats -- including Obama and Sens. Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer of New York - voted for The Secure Fence Act, which allocated $50 billion over 25 years for 700 miles of fencing along the border. Thats right. Barack Obama and Chuck Schumer voted for 10 times more funding than President Trump is requesting now to secure our border. What has changed Democrats recognition that our southern border needs to be secured? Two words: President Trump. In a 2017 Boston Globe column, Annie Linskey wrote of the Secure Fence Act that "Congress put aside $1.4 billion for the fence, but the whole cost, including maintenance, was pegged at $50 billion over 25 years, according to analyses at the time." column Several articles from early 2007 and 2008 referred to the $50 billion claim. For example, in September 2008, then-Democratic U.S. Representative Silvestre Reyes of Texas wrote in opposition to the border fencing envisioned in the Secure Fence Act: 2007 wrote "With construction expected to exceed $1.2 billion and lifetime maintenance of up to $50 billion, the exorbitant cost of this border fence would be better invested in additional Border Patrol agents, equipment and technology." In January 2007, the Migration Policy Institute cited a report by the Congressional Research Service as its source for the $50 billion figure, writing: cited The 700 miles of double-layer border fencing called for in the Secure Fence Act of [2006] could cost more than $50 billion over 25 years, according to a report by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) ... The report cites a Corps of Engineers study that estimates construction of the fencing would cost about $1.2 to $1.3 million a mile, in addition to costs for labor and for purchasing the required property. Further, the Corps of Engineers estimates that maintenance of the fence over its 25-year lifespan would cost between $16.4 million to $70 million per mile, depending on the frequency and strength of attempts to cross it. The CRS report was dated 21 September 2006: seven days after the House of Representatives passed the Secure Fence Act, and eight days before the Senate did likewise: report Because border fencing is a relatively new and limited phenomenon along the U.S.-Mexico border, there is a dearth of information concerning its overall costs and benefits. The Corps of Engineers study predicted that the costs of constructing a double layer fence consisting of primary fencing and Sandia fencing would range from $1.2 million to $1.3 million a mile. The Corps of Engineers also predicted that the 25 year life cycle cost of the fence would range from $16.4 million to $70 million per mile depending on the amount of damage sustained by the fencing. If significant portions of the border were to be fenced, reducing the areas along which individuals could cross the border, it may stand to reason that the fencing will be subjected to more breaches and other attempts to compromise than the fencing that has already been constructed. This may mean that the costs of maintaining border fencing that is widely deployed in the future will be higher than they have been thus far for the limited deployment. The double-layer fencing envisioned in the Secure Fence Act was expected to stretch for a total of around 700 miles. If the "25-year life cycle cost" of the fence was between $16.4 million and $70 million per mile, that would equate to a 25-year cost of between $11.5 billion and $49 billion. That "worst case" estimate of $49 billion over 25 years is the source of the "$50 billion" claim which was promulgated in 2007 and 2008, and then again in 2017 and 2019, amid the controversy over President Trump's border wall proposals, and Democratic opposition to them. Because the original Corps of Engineers study was seven years old by 2006, the CRS adjusted the original figures presented in the 1999 report for inflation. The Corps of Engineers recommended using landing mat fencing for a primary fence and Sandia fencing for a secondary fence. Those figures were as follows: study The existence of the 1999 Corps of Engineers study shows that, at the time lawmakers voted through the Secure Fence Act in 2006, one analysis from a reliable source included estimates that indicated the 25-year cost of a 700-mile double-layer fence along the southern border (such as that envisioned in the Secure Fence Act) could range from $11.5 billion to $49 billion. Furthermore, a Congressional Research Service report which reiterated those findings was published on 21 September 2006, too late to be taken into consideration by U.S. Representatives, but before their Senate counterparts cast their votes. However, these estimates (the source of the "$50 billion" figure) only appear to have attracted attention and gained traction after the passing of the Secure Fence Act (for example in the January 2007 Migration Policy Institute analysis), rather than beforehand. In a debate about the bill on 29 September 2006, for example, several U.S. Senators offered varying estimates of the likely cost of the fencing envisioned in the Secure Fence Act. None of them mentioned a figure of $50 billion, or even close to that. debate In fact, no member of either house of Congress mentioned either the figure of $50 billion nor the original 1999 Army Corps of Engineers study during any debate about the Secure Fence Act. On 25 September 2006, the Washington Post reported that confusion existed over how much the construction of the fencing would cost, although again, none of the estimates listed in the article came anywhere close to $50 billion: reported The House has passed and the Senate is debating legislation to build 700 miles of fence on the U.S.-Mexico border with no certain idea of how much it would cost. Estimates range from $2 billion, cited by Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., chairman of the appropriations subcommittee for homeland security, to $7 billion, the figure used by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. Homeland Security officials told congressional aides it would cost about $5 billion. The department would not confirm that figure nor address the cost of the 107 miles of fencing already up along the nearly 2,000-mile border. The cost can vary depending on whether the government or a private contractor builds the fence. So while it's true that the Army Corps of Engineers study was publicly available when Congress passed the Secure Fence Act in 2006 and could have proved instructive to the debate around the planned construction of border fencing, no evidence suggests that either document played a part in the considerations or deliberations of lawmakers before they cast their votes. This is worth bearing in mind when evaluating any claim that lawmakers (particularly Democrats now hostile to President Trump's border wall plans) passed the Secure Fence Act despite estimates which placed its 25-year cost at $50 billion. Finally, the more specific claim made in the meme and by Rep. Scalise, that the Secure Fence Act "allocated" or "set aside" $50 billion over 25 years, is false. In fact, the Secure Fence Act did not authorize, allocate or "set aside" any funding. In 2017, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency (CBP) had spent $2.3 billion on building 654 miles of border fencing between 2007 and 2015, and that CBP had projected in 2009 that the cost of maintaining its border fencing for 20 years would be $1 billion. reported U.S. Congress. "Public Law 109-367 -- Secure Fence Act of 2006." 26 October 2006. Kasprak, Alex. "Did Illegal Border Traffic Drop by 90% in Areas Where Physical Barriers Were Expanded?" Snopes.com. 8 January 2019. Scalise, Rep. Steve. "Democrats Need to Stop Playing Games with America's Safety and Fund Border Security Now." Fox News. 2 January 2019. Linskey, Annie. "In 2006, Democrats Were Saying 'Build That Fence!" The Boston Globe. 27 January 2017. The Washington Times. "Fence Advocate Calls Estimates Exaggerated." 16 January 2007. Kariam, Reed. "America's Border Fence." CQ Researcher. 19 September 2008. Gelatt, Julia. "New Congress Takes First Steps Toward Immigration Reform." Migration Policy Institute. 15 January 2007. Nuez-Neto, Blas and Stephen Via. "Border Security: Barriers Along the U.S. International Border." Congressional Research Service. 21 September 2006. Marsh, Dr. Charles P. et al. "Engineering Life-Cycle Cost Comparison Study of Barrier Fencing Systems." U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Construction Engineering Research Laboratories. February 1999. Gamboa, Suzanne. "Questions Remain on Cost of Border Bills." The Washington Post. 25 September 2006. U.S. Government Accountability Office. "Southwest Border Security -- Additional Actions Needed to Better Assess Fencing's Contributions to Operations and Provide Guidance for Identifying Capability Gaps." February 2017.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-border-wall/

Is Biden Admin Restarting Border Wall Construction?

Jessica Lee

04/07/2021

In early April 2021, Snopes readers asked us to investigate rumors that U.S. President Joe Biden's administration was coming around to the idea of a continuous wall between Mexico and the U.S. and considering restarting construction on it. Among entities that highlighted the claim was Charlie Kirk's conservative political group, Turning Point USA. Via statements like the below-displayed Facebook post, the group and other Biden critics attempted to frame the rumor as evidence of the president's alleged hypocrisy; he had promised not to build "another foot of wall" during his 2020 presidential campaign. Charlie Kirk below-displayed Facebook post another foot of wall While it was false to claim the Biden administration had warmed up to the border wall as a solution to immigration problems, it was true that funding was allowed for "limited construction" (via unspecified congressional actions) to occur during the Biden presidency, according to The White House. Below, we lay out evidence for those conclusions. First, the claim surfaced after Biden issued an executive order on Jan. 20 pausing a stream of federal funding toward border-wall construction initiated by former President Donald Trump. Trump had framed the multi-billion-dollar spending as a necessary step to curb illegal border crossings by people fleeing poor living conditions in Central American nations. By contrast, Biden dubbed the concept "a waste of money that diverts attention from genuine threats to our homeland security." executive order dubbed As of Jan. 15, 2021, the government had spent $6.1 billion of the $10.8 billion in work it signed contracts to have done, according to a Senate Democratic aide who spoke on the condition of anonymity to The Associated Press (AP). Around that time, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the agency that oversees border security and operations, said the wall, in total, spanned 771 miles, including vehicle barriers and pedestrian fencing about one-third of the length of the entire border. The Associated Press said Biden's executive order halted "immediately the obligation of funds related to construction of the southern border wall, to the extent permitted by law," and required his administration to determine the cost of cancelling in-process construction contracts and whether the money could be spent elsewhere, according to the order and news reports. news reports Cut to April 5, when the Washington Times, a conservative-leaning news outlet, published an article titled, "EXCLUSIVE: Biden's DHS may restart border wall construction to plug 'gaps'." The reporting was based on notes supposedly documenting a meeting the previous week between Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) employees. article Alejandro Mayorkas It was unclear, based on The Washington Times report, when or under what circumstances the purported meeting took place, as well as how the media outlet obtained the notes. No reputable news outlet -- such as The Associated Press or Reuters -- reported on the alleged conversation about filling in "gaps" at the border wall (aside from Business Insider, which primarily recirculated The Washington Times' reporting). Business Insider According to the purported notes, Mayorkas said CBP leaders have submitted proposals for "different projects" along the border wall because officials supposedly have the opportunity to finish or update certain areas. Here's his full quote in The Washington Times: 'The president has communicated quite clearly his decision that the emergency that triggered the devotion of DOD funds to the construction of the border wall is ended. But that leaves room to make decisions as the administration, as part of the administration, in particular areas of the wall that need renovation, particular projects that need to be finished,' he said. He said those parts include 'gaps,' 'gates,' and areas 'where the wall has been completed but the technology has not been implemented.' Put another way, despite Biden's order to stop pumping emergency dollars into the project, Mayorkas purportedly said an unidentified sum of money could still be used to repair or update certain areas. Such construction could include gates or technology improvements, according to his alleged comments. order It is unclear how, or under what congressional action or work contract, border officials could legally access said funding for the potential construction. We reached out to agencies including the White House and DHS for clarity on that legality, and we did not receive a response. We will update this report when, or if, we do. During daily press briefings on April 6 and 7, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki confirmed previously approved congressional actions set aside funding for "some components of the wall" and "limited construction." Her comments did not explain the nature of that construction, nor when it would take place. Here's the verbatim transcription of her statement on April 6, according to an official White House transcript and C-SPAN video recording of the media event: White House transcript C-SPAN video Wall construction remains paused, to the extent permitted by law. So some has already been funded through a congressional authorization and funding allocation. But as agencies develop for a plan its paused while agencies are developing a plan for the President on the management of the federal funds. When the administration took office, as you referenced, funds had been diverted from congressionally appropriated military construction projects and other appropriated purposes toward building the wall. And wall construction was being challenged in multiple lawsuits and for much of the wall, I should say; not all of it by plaintiffs who allege serious environmental and safety issues. Under those circumstances, federal agencies are continuing to review wall contracts and develop a plan to submit to the President soon. It is it is paused. There is some limited construction that has been funded and allocated for, but it is otherwise paused. The following day, she reiterated the same points, stressing the administration's overall opposition to the border-wall concept, according to C-SPAN and a White House transcript. C-SPAN White House transcript "There are some components of the wall that had already been allocated," she said. "We dont believe the wall is an answer. We have never believed the wall as an answer to addressing the challenges immigration challenges at the border. Theres a review underway of, kind of, where this funding had been allocated and not, but its currently paused and for the most part." Meanwhile, criticism of the Biden administration's alleged participation in border-wall construction surfaced among progressives. U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar, a Minnesota Democrat, tweeted on April 7: "It's shameful and unacceptable for @POTUS to continue the construction of Trump's xenophobic and racist wall." tweeted @POTUS In sum, the nature of the "limited construction" that could still take place on the wall under the Biden administration is unknown -- no evidence showed it would extend the barrier's length. For that reason, and those listed above, we rate this claim a "Mixture" of true and misleading information.

neutral

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bill-belichick-mac-jones/

Did Bill Belichick Shake His Head at Mac Jones' Overthrow?

Jordan Liles

04/01/2021

In late March 2021, a video was shared that showed Bill Belichick shaking his head moments after NFL prospect Mac Jones overthrew a football. The New England Patriots coach was on hand to attend the University of Alabama football team's pro days. In the video, he was standing next to San Francisco 49ers head coach Kyle Shanahan: video The video appeared in articles that were shown to Google Discover users. For example, one story said: "Bill Belichick isn't impressed with Mac Jones throw at Alabama pro day." Another read: "Cameras catch Bill Belichick's reaction to Mac Jones' overthrow at Alabama Pro Day." Several articles appeared to perhaps read minds. We found no indication that Belichick was shaking his head or showing disapproval at a single overthrow by Jones. In the video, it appeared that Shanahan and Belichick were having a conversation. The likely explanation of Belichick's head shake was that he was reacting to something Shanahan said. Four NFL coaches were on hand to watch Jones and other Alabama football prospects. Sean Payton of the New Orleans Saints, Matt Nagy of the Chicago Bears, Shanahan, and Belichick were all in attendance. The Associated Press also reported that Belichick was among a group of five general managers on hand. reported In January 2021, Jones led the Alabama football team to the College Football Playoff national championship. He was also a Heisman Trophy finalist, placing third in the vote count. The team's head coach is Nick Saban. placing third The same Twitter account that hosted the video of Belichick shaking his head also tweeted this video. It showed Jones throwing a deep ball with precision: this video ESPN also shared more videos of the Alabama pro days that showed Jones executing a number of solid plays. more videos The Associated Press published a brief comment from Jones. He appeared to feel confident in his showing in front of Belichick and the other NFL coaches and general managers: published "At Alabama, they told me to sit in the picket and rip it, so that's what I did," Jones said. "That's what you're supposed to do when you're at Alabama." "But when the NFL comes, I'll do whatever they tell me to do. I showed today that I can do everything that they want me to do." Without further evidence that Belichick was showing disapproval at a single throw of the football by a Heisman Trophy finalist who led his team to a national title, we have rated this claim as "Unproven." disapproval

neutral

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/new-american-way-life/

The New American Way of Life

Kim LaCapria

09/01/2015

FACT CHECK: Are the claims made in an e-mail titled "New American Way of Life" accurate? Claim: An e-mail titled "New American Way of Life" accurately describes a generous safety net available to Americans who opt not to work. Examples: [Collected via Facebook and e-mail, August 2015] Do you have any info on this article? I find a lot of it to be wrong, and no sources are cited. From what I understand less than 5% of the population abuses welfare, Pell grants barely cover college tuition and books. Who gets free cell phones? Does a mother of 2 really get $600 a month in food stamps? I've seen this posted 3 times today in my FB feed and feel it needs to be dispelled ------------------------ The Key to Success for Those Who Are Inheriting America in 13 Easy Steps! How to get $75,000 in benefits every year from the US Government for you and your girlfriend? Follow these proven and simple steps. First ... get a girlfriend 1. Don't marry her. 2. Use your mom's address to receive your mail. 3. The guy buys a house. 4. Guy rents out house to his girl girlfriend who has 2 of his kids. 5. Section 8 will pay $900 a month for a 3 bedroom home. 6. Girlfriend signs up for Obamacare so guy doesn't have to pay for family insurance. 7. Being a single mother, Girlfriend gets to go to college for free! 8. Girlfriend gets $600 a month for food stamps 9. Girlfriend gets free cell phone from US Government 10. Girlfriend get free utilities. 11. Guy moves into home but still uses mom's house to receive mail. 12. Girlfriend claims one kid and guy claims one kid on taxes. Now you both get to claim head of household at $1,800 credit. 13. Girlfriend gets disability for being "crazy" or having a "bad back" at $1,800 a month and never has to work again. This plan is perfectly legal and is being executed now by millions of people. A married couple with a stay at home mom yields $0 dollars. An unmarried couple with stay at home mom nets $21,600 disability + $10,800 free housing + $6,000 free obamacare + $6,000 free food + $4,800 free utilities + $6,000 Pell Grant money to spend + $12,000 a year in college tuition free from Pell Grant + $8,800 tax benefit for being a single mother = $75,000 a year in benefits. Any idea why the country is 18 + trillion in debt? Welcome to the new multicultural diverse, fundamentally changed America, thanks to the ever popular and exciting, everyone is entitled to everything world. Origins: The item reproduced above has been circulating online since at least April 2015, and after it was published the Miller County Liberal of to Colquitt, Georgia, on 19 August 2015 it received a boost in popularity due to the implied authority of appearing in print. (Although it was attributed to "John Tabb," an earlier version was credited to "Jeffery Rightmire.") published credited As is often the case with e-mail polemics focused on purported welfare abuse and taxpayer outrage, the "New American Way of Life" offers an implausible, far-fetched scenario to condemn those who use public assistance to make ends meet: polemics welfare abuse taxpayer assistance 1. Don't marry (your girlfriend). 2. Use your mom's address to receive your mail. 3. The guy buys a house. 4. Guy rents out house to his girlfriend who has 2 of his kids. 5. Section 8 will pay $900 a month for a 3 bedroom home. Points 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the forward pertain to the imagined generosity of the housing program colloquially called "Section 8," the U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) assistance program that provides very low-income families with subsidized vouchers they can use towards paying a portion of their monthly rent. Section 8 HUD While Section 8 is frequently derided in the fashion referenced above, it's very difficult to play the system in the manner described due to the low supply versus tremendous demand for housing and vouchers among those in need of it. Applicants typically have to spend years on waiting lists before Section 8 housing becomes available, and in many cases it takes years to even get one's name on a waiting list in the first place. Waiting lists for the program close to new applicants for years at a time on a not-infrequent basis, as a 24 August 2015 article in the Albuquerque Journal reported: close years The waiting list for Section 8 subsidized housing will re-open on Sept. 1, after closing 28 months ago, the Bernalillo County Housing Department announced Friday. But getting onto that waiting list is no assurance that a person will move into Section 8 housing anytime soon. According to Housing Department senior administrative assistant, Craig Smith, the waiting list will re-open with 600 people still on the list, and we expect to add thousands by the time the list is closed back down, though there is no tentative date when that will happen. The wait list was shut down on May 1, 2013, because of sequestering of funds and budget cuts from the federal government, in particular the federal department of Housing and Urban Development, or HUD. So it's extremely unlikely the baby daddy landlord in this hypothetical scenario could simply make a residence available for the Section 8 program and then immediately rent it to the tenant of his choosing. He'd typically have to wait years for his preferred renter (i.e., his girlfriend) to get on a Section 8 waiting list, then more years for her to work her way to the top of the list, before he could double-dip by getting the government to subsidize his girlfriend's paying him rent to live in a house he owns. The baby daddy in this scenario (one who can afford to buy his own house) would probably be far better off financially if he simply lived in the house with his girlfriend, or rented it out to someone other than his girlfriend. 6. Girlfriend signs up for Obamacare so guy doesn't have to pay for family insurance. There is a persistent misperception that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act PPACA 7. Being a single mother, Girlfriend gets to go to college for free! If there is any guaranteed way for a "single mother" to obtain a college education for free, we've yet to locate it. Yes, federal Pell Grants can provide qualifying students with up to almost $6,000 per year towards the cost of attending college (depending upon financial need), but they aren't tied to one's status as a single mother. There are some grants and scholarships available for single parents to both help them afford school while they are in and and help them pay it off once they have graduated, but those types of programs are scant, and very, very few unpartnered mothers could get a free ride to any college on the basis of their status as single parents alone. Pell Grants single parents scant 8. Girlfriend gets $600 a month for food stamps The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, commonly known as "food stamps") is an often criticized assistance program aimed at combating hunger by financially struggling families. Eligibility for SNAP varies based on household size, but the maximum monthly allotment ranges from $194 for a family of one to $1,169 for a family of eight. Each additional family member after that can qualify a household for up to $146 more each month in benefits, or just under $5 per person per day. The household size posited here (a single mother with two children) wouldn't qualify for $600 per month in SNAP benefits. food stamps criticized Eligibility The Department of Agriculture (under which the program operates) estimates a total annual program "loss" of about four percent. Despite widespread belief that the SNAP program is rampantly abused with little oversight, fraud in the program is aggressively investigated and prosecuted where applicable. estimates investigated 9. Girlfriend gets free cell phone from US Government The Lifeline program (commonly known as "Obamaphones," even though the program was actually initiated long before the Barack Obama took office) requires phone service providers to offer monthly discounts on landline or wireless telephone service to eligible low-income consumers. The program does not require those providers to issue "free cell phones" to anyone (although some cellular providers choose to do so at their own expense). Obamaphones 10. Girlfriend get free utilities. Various programs administered at the state level provide low-income families with financial assistance to offset the costs of essential utilities, but often only in emergency situations. utilities emergency 11. Guy moves into home but still uses mom's house to receive mail. One might theoretically do this, but the person who deliberately falsified his residence address in order to live in self-owned housing that he was being paid to rent to another party under the Section 8 program would be committing a crime, not simply taking legitimate and legal advantage of government assistance programs. 12. Girlfriend claims one kid and guy claims one kid on taxes. Now you both get to claim head of household at $1,800 credit. Whether or not taxpayers are setting out to craftily claim tax deductions to which they are not entitled, the IRS's head of household tax filing status indeed entitles the person filing to a higher deduction ($9,250 in 2015 versus $6,300 for taxpayers filing as Single or Married Filing Separately). It's important to bear in mind that that dollar amount is what taxpayers may deduct from their taxable income, and not necessarily an amount that they will receive back in the form of a tax refund. head of household status entitles And of course, if each parent is claiming one of the two children as a dependent, than the mother can't be legally collecting benefits (such as SNAP) for both children. Girlfriend gets disability for being "crazy" or having a "bad back" at $1,800 a month and never has to work again. For starters, one cannot simply declare herself to be mentally ill or have back problems, then sit back and collect disability payments for the rest of her (working) life. Such claims have to be documented by medical professionals as genuinely disabling conditions, and even then those living with disabilities find that securing benefits isn't quite so easy. Presuming the woman in this anecdote is fairly young, she would have to have accrued sufficient work credits to qualify for lifelong disability payments (an unlikely scenario), and then she would still have to meet separate criteria for a qualifying condition (which precludes having earned more than $1,090 per month in that year). The condition under which a person qualifies also must be one that limits ability to do any other work: easy accrued work credits criteria If you cannot do the work you did in the past, we see if you are able to adjust to other work. We consider your medical conditions and your age, education, past work experience and any transferable skills you may have. If you cannot adjust to other work, your claim will be approved. If you can adjust to other work, your claim will be denied. According to data from the agency, more than half of disability claims are denied, and the wait for hearings has increased (partly due to an aging pool of applicants). The anecdotal claimant's purported plundering of disability benefits also conflicts with her concurrent sponging of educational grants, as the usefulness of the latter is negated by the former: A full-time student wouldn't qualify for lifelong disability payments, and college would be unnecessary for the matriarch of a household who intended to remain home for life collecting benefits for her fabricated disability. denied aging This plan is perfectly legal and is being executed now by millions of people. A married couple with a stay at home mom yields $0 dollars. An unmarried couple with stay at home mom nets. $21.600 disability + $10,800 free housing + $6,000 free obamacare +$6,000 free food + $4,800 free utilities + $6,000 Pell Grant money to spend + $12,000 a year in college tuition free from Pell Grant + $8,800 tax benefit for being a single mother = $75,000 a year in benefits. Any idea why the country is 18 + trillion in debt? As the excerpt above concludes, the figures bandied about in the e-mail encompass virtually all programs available to low-income Americans and extrapolates the fictional family described routinely accesses all of them. Some of the benefits described (such as free college for single mothers or free utility programs) don't seem to exist, and several of forms of assistance (such as Section 8 or disability) are not administered in the simplistic manner suggested by this item. Furthermore, while this item asserts that the complex welfare hustling plan described here is "perfectly legal," several aspects of it involve defrauding the system in an expressly prohibited (and largely criminal) fashion. Were any family to hide assets or lie about household income on application forms, they would be subject to severe penalties and prosecution should their perfidy be unraveled. The scheme also rests upon the (fallacious) notion that access to assistance programs is easy to both maintain and retain. fallacious Finally, the causes of the national debt are fairly complex. However, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and Defense broadly account for most government spending. account Last updated: 31 August 2015 Originally published: 31 August 2015

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-5-solution/

5% Downpayment Quote

David Mikkelson

06/18/2010

Claim: Senator Chris Dodd opined that a 5% down payment requirement "would restrict home ownership to only those who can afford it." Example: [Collected via e-mail, May 2010] Democrats Vote Down 5 Percent Rule In a bid to stem taxpayer losses for bad loans guaranteed by federal housing agencies Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn) proposed that borrowers be required to make a 5% down payment in order to qualify. His proposal was rejected 57-42 on a party-line vote because, as Senator Chris Dodd (D-Conn) explained, "passage of such a requirement would restrict home ownership to only those who can afford it." Origins: One factor that fueled the subprime mortgage crisis of the 2000s was easy access given to home loans for those who were poor risks. As these loans almost inevitably failed, mortgage delinquencies and foreclosures not only rose but spiraled dramatically upwards, seriously affecting banking and financial markets around the world. Many people believe a tightening of lending practices would keep similar economic collapses in the housing market from occurring again, with one proposed tightening being the imposition of a five percent down payment requirement upon prospective home buyers. However, not everyone believes such a requirement would be the best way to deal with the issue, which leads us to the fictitious quote reproduced above. Although the debate was real, the quote wasn't it was a fabrication which was penned by John Semmens of Semi-News, an online publication billed as "A Satirical Look at Recent News," and appeared as the final item in his 15 May 2010 column. Other offerings from that column include "Election Officials to Bar Voluntary Showing of ID by Voters" (an item that included the made-up statement of a Wisconsin Election Board official: "Allowing those who have valid IDs to show them would intimidate those without IDs. They might be discouraged from attempting to vote. This would lower turnout and threaten the democratic process") and "Crist Refuses to Return GOP Donations" (which quoted Crist as saying: "Look, my view has always been caveat emptor"). column Semi-News is a satire publication, albeit one which draws upon the news of the day. Senator Bob Corker had proposed an amendment (S.A. 3955) to the Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010 which would have (among other things) instituted a residential mortgage underwriting standard requiring a five percent down payment from prospective home buyers. Democrats did oppose the amendment, with one reason given by Dodd being that it would have disadvantaged home buyers who had good credit and solid incomes but lacked the cash to make required down payments. S.A. 3955 Stability Act Last updated: 20 June 2010

neutral

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/would-you-have-invested/

If given the opportunity, would you have put your money into it?

David Mikkelson

06/17/2006

One of the lessons of the personal computer revolution that began in the 1970s was that tremendous business success was no longer entirely the province of staid, conservatively-dressed, mature adult males with expensive business school educations. As Microsoft, Apple Computer, and hundreds of other technology-driven companies demonstrated, plenty of young, sartorially-questionable, self-taught young people of both sexes could achieve business success on a par with some of the world's oldest and biggest corporations. A photograph of Microsoft staff members in 1978 has been circulated online for many years bearing titles such as "Would you have invested?" It reflects the notion that, back in 1978, not many people might have predicted that a small group of casually-dressed, long-haired youngsters was creating a corporation that would, four decades later, reach an estimated market value of $330 billion, themselves becoming millionaires (and a few even billionaires) in the process. market value In December 1978, Microsoft had just completed its first million-dollar sales year, and the decision was made to decamp from the company's Albuquerque, New Mexico, headquarters and relocate to bigger and better digs in the Pacific Northwest state of Washington. The formal studio photograph displayed above was taken on 7 December 1978, shortly before that move, and captured all but a couple of the current Microsoft staff: To suitably immortalize the Albuquerque years, Bob Greenberg cut a deal with a photo studio for a group portrait on December 7. Pearl Harbor Day in Albuquerque featured a snowstorm, but only Miriam Lubow, who was stranded at home with her kids, and Ric Weiland [Microsoft's second employee], out of town on business, failed to make the sitting. All eleven of the employees in the Albuquerque picture, along with Weiland, were about to make the trip to Seattle. Only Miriam Lubow would stay behind reluctantly. Gates offered to pay for her and her family's move to Seattle, but Miriam's husband demurred: "He said, 'Why are we going to follow this kid to Seattle? It always rains in Seattle.'" On a Concorde flight to Europe, Gates wrote her a thank-you note for her service to Microsoft. As it turned out, she was merely postponing the inevitable. Three years later Miriam would move to the Seattle area and work again for Microsoft, this time focusing more narrowly on a skill she had developed in Albuquerque: getting customers to pay up. (Technically, Microsoft wasn't yet "Microsoft Corporation" at the time this photograph was taken the company was founded as a partnership and officially became a Washington State corporation on 1 July 1981.) As for the identities of the persons pictured, and their lives after Microsoft: Bill Gates (front row, left): William Gates III, the Harvard drop-out who at 18 co-founded (and later served as CEO and Chairman of the Board of) Microsoft, the world's largest software company, hardly needs any introduction. He is regularly ranked as the one of the richest individuals in the world (with an estimated net worth in 2015 of $78 billion); in 2008 he withdrew from Microsoft's day-to-day operations to focus his attention on the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which combats diseases such as polio, malaria, and AIDS. richest withdrew Foundation Andrea Lewis (front row, second from left): Andrea Lewis was a former MITS technical writer and Computer Notes editor hired in 1978 to produce documentation for Microsoft products as the company's first technical writer. She left her day-to-day job at Microsoft in 1983, has since worked as a freelance journalist and fiction writer, and helped create the Richard Hugo House, a literary center in Seattle. She now lives in Seattle with her husband and two children. MITS Richard Hugo House Marla Wood (front row, second from right): Marla Wood (wife of Steve Wood, also pictured above) worked as a bookkeeper and administrative assistant at Microsoft until 1980, when she and her husband left the company (becoming the first of the eleven staff members in the photograph to depart Microsoft), in large part due to a dispute regarding payment of overtime wages: Bill's letter confirming [a $50,000 offer to Steve Ballmer to become his assistant] became a personnel disaster when some disgruntled soul copied it and tacked it on the office bulletin board. Along with his salary, high for Microsoft, Ballmer was to get a 5 to 10 percent cut of the company based on a formula involving the year's revenue growth. It sorely rankled loyalists who had been slaving for the company since the Albuquerque days without so much as a profit-sharing plan to show for it. When it came to clerical help, Gates had been tightfisted beyond the bounds of the law. Overtime had always been paid on a straight-time basis, and though the rules affecting programmers might be debatable, the rules affecting clerical workers were not. Marla Wood and other office staffers had checked into the labor regulations and discovered that they deserved time and a half for overtime currently and retroactively. When Steve Wood approached Gates about it, he agreed to start paying time and a half but insisted that back pay was out of the question. If the secretaries wanted to file a complaint, well, let 'em. They did. When the state notified Gates that the back pay was due, it wasn't long before Marla Wood got the news: Bill comes storming into my office saying he just had a phone call from these people, just livid. This was the one time I was really on the receiving end of one of his rages I mean, just screaming about this and how it was going to ruin his reputation ... This would be on his reports forever and ever ... I was saved by an overseas phone call which he proceeded to take at my desk, whereupon I ran out, went down to Steve's office and said, "I'm quitting. I can't stand it here any more." And he said, "That's all right; I'm seeing a headhunter tomorrow anyway." But before she and her husband departed Microsoft, Marla saw to it that the issue was settled. Although it amounted to only $100 or so for her and as little as $20 for the others, "It was just a matter of principle." Paul Allen (front row, right): Paul Allen, a childhood friend of Bill Gates, co-founded Microsoft with Gates in 1975 and resigned his day-to-day position in 1983 after he was diagnosed with Hodgkin's disease (for which he was successfully treated), although he remained on Microsoft's board of directors until 2000. A variety of post-Microsoft investments, in technology companies and other areas of business (including ownership of the Seattle Seahawks football team and the Portland Trail Blazers basketball team) have helped bring him an estimated net worth of $17 billion. Like Bill Gates, he engages in philanthropic efforts through his chairmanship of the Paul G. Allen Family Foundation. net worth Foundation Bob O'Rear (second row, left): In 1978 programmer Bob O'Rear was, at age 35, the oldest of the Microsoft staff members pictured above, and, as a native Texan, one of only two staffers who did not come from the Pacific Northwest area. He was also one of the best-educated employees, a NASA engineer who held degrees in mathematics and physics. He left the company in 1993 and now runs a cattle ranch in Texas in addition to serving on the boards of a variety of high-tech firms. Bob Greenberg (second row, second from left): Bob Greenberg, who arranged the deal for the studio photograph displayed above, was a programmer Bill Gates knew from his Harvard days, hired in 1977 to help Microsoft create a new version of the BASIC programming language for a new Texas Instruments computer. Greenberg proved invaluable for more than just his technical expertise, lending the fledgling company $7,000 during a financial crunch in mid-1977; although he left Microsoft in 1981, he went from one business juggernaut to another, helping the family business, Coleco, launch the Cabbage Patch Kids marketing craze of the 1980s. He now reportedly develops software for golf courses. Coleco Marc McDonald (second row, second from right): Marc McDonald is generally identified as Microsoft's (then "Micro-Soft") first employee, hired in 1976 to adapt BASIC for the new NCR 7200 machine. (Although a couple of other people had worked for Microsoft on a contract basis, McDonald was the first hiree to draw a regular salary.) Marc left Microsoft in 1984, reportedly disenchanted with the changes wrought by the company's burgeoning growth, and went to work for fellow ex-Microsoft staffer Paul Allen's new company, Asymetrix. In an amusing coincidence, McDonald eventually ended up back at Microsoft when it acquired Design Intelligence, the Seattle-based software company for which he was then working. NCR 7200 acquired Gordon Letwin (second row, right): The initial 1978 meeting between Gordon Letwin and his future employer, Bill Gates, was somewhat contentious, according to the biography Gates: Befitting its role as a haven for soldering-iron types, Heath[kit] was now marketing its own computers, including a Z-80 machine with a homegrown edition of BASIC instead of the Microsoft version. As Bill Gates was attempting to correct this egregious error, he was introduced to a black-haired gnome by the name of Gordon Letwin, who proceeded to chew him out in front of a group of about fifteen people. Letwin, the author of Heath's BASIC, felt his turf was being violated and by the purveyor of an inferior product to boot. Bill Gates nonetheless prevailed, selling Heath his BASIC and FORTRAN for H-DOS, a proprietary operating system Letwin had developed for Heath. But Letwin had instinctively understood how to win the favor of William Henry Gates: Stand up to the guy. By the end of the year Gordon Letwin would come to work for Microsoft and begin work on a BASIC compiler. Among other projects, Gordon served as Microsoft's chief architect for the development of the infamous OS/2 operating system and stayed with the company longer than any of the other staffers pictured above (with the exception of Bill Gates himself), finally leaving in 1993 to escape the day-to-day tech bustle and enjoy life. He has reportedly contributed a substantial portion of the money he acquired during his tenure at Microsoft to various environmental causes. Steve Wood (top row, left): Steve Wood was Microsoft's first married employee, a Stanford graduate with a master's degree who was hired in 1976 to help create a Microsoft version of FORTRAN. Later, when Steve was serving as Microsoft's office manager, his wife Marla joined the company as a clerical worker, eventually taking over all of Microsoft's bookkeeping chores after Miriam Lubow stayed behind when the firm relocated from New Mexico to Washington. Steve and Marla both left Microsoft in 1980 (as detailed above); in 1996, Steve Wood founded Wireless Services Corp. (now SinglePoint), a mobile messaging company. SinglePoint Bob Wallace (top row, center): Bob Wallace joined Microsoft in 1978 after responding to a photocopied ad that Paul Allen had left in the Seattle computer store where he worked. He served as a production manager and software designer until 1983, when he became (like Marc McDonald would the following year) disenchanted with the changes in the company's culture brought about by Microsoft's success and growth: [Paul] Allen's illness and departure coalesced uneasiness within the ranks of the remaining Albuquerquians the core group that had helped establish Microsoft early, had followed their leader to Bellevue, had stuck with the company through some tumultuous years, and now found themselves being middle-managed into oblivion. In March 1983 Bob Wallace, in the best Microsoft tradition, got into a heated dispute with his supervisor over a technical point. The supervisor told him, "there's nothing you can do about it, and you can't talk to Bill about it ... I'm the only one who can talk to Bill." For Wallace, being barred from talking with Bill was not just a shock but an insult. He told his supervisor as much, half expecting Gates to intercede. When it didn't happen, he resigned. In 1983 Bob Wallace started his own company, Quicksoft, which marketed the text-processing program PC-Write, generally touted as being the first (widely-used) shareware program. He sold Quicksoft in 1991, moved to northern California a few years later, and long interested in psychedelic drugs started Mind Books (a bookstore offering literature about psychoactive plants and compounds) and the Promind Foundation (an organization dedicated to supporting scientific research and public education about psychedelics). In 2002, Bob Wallace became the first (and so far the only) one of the eleven Microsoft staffers pictured above to pass away, succumbing to pneumonia at age 53. Jim Lane (top row, right): Jim Lane, who got his start with microcomputers at the Denver-based Digital Group, was hired by Microsoft in late 1978 (shortly before this picture was taken). As a Microsoft project manager, he was a key figure in forging the partnership between Microsoft software and Intel's microprocessors (a relationship symbolized by the development of the term "Wintel"). He left Microsoft in 1985 (reportedly stating that the company had "beat the enthusiasm out of me") to run his own software/consultancy business. Digital Group Wintel Nearly thirty years later, just before Bill Gates stepped down from being involved in the day-to-day operations of Microsoft, the eleven staffers pictured above reunited for another photograph, with office manager Miriam Lubow (who missed the original sitting) taking the place of Bob Wallace (who died in 2002):

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mark-zuckerberg-resignation/

Did Mark Zuckerberg Announce His Resignation from Facebook?

Dan Evon

03/14/2017

In March 2017, an advertisement disguised as a news story appeared to report that Facebook CEO's Mark Zuckerberg was leaving the company in order to sell skin care products. The hoax report was published on the web site GetInkNews.co: story Neither Katy Perry nor any of the other aforementioned celebrities have endorsed this product, and the web site took unrelated images of Zuckerberg and various celebrities (the image of Katy Perry was taken in 2011) to make it seem as if they had endorsed Zuckerberg's skin care line together. 2011 The advertisement also claimed that Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan were giving away free samples of the product (as long as customers paid for shipping and handling): ZUCKERBERG GIVES PRODUCTS AWAY FOR FREE! So, what if you arent rich or famous? Chan and Zuckerberg dont care. After all, they are already worth more than $556 billion. We arent in this to make a fortune, Chan told a friend recently. We already have amassed a fortune. I just want to help people. That is why she is now offering readers the opportunity to experience the joys of younger looking skin for FREE! The only cost to you is a $4.95 shipping and handling fee, so you can try the EcoMaxx Ageless Moisturizer and EcoMaxx Ageless Eye Revitalizer have it delivered right to your front door. Simply click on the link here for ordering details. This a relatively new form of the ubiquitous fake news: an advertisement designed to mimic a genuine news item in order to convince people to buy a skin care product. At the very bottom of this web page, below the comments section, below several links to purchase this product, and below several fake celebrity endorsements, appears a disclaimer: THIS IS AN ADVERTISEMENT AND NOT AN ACTUAL NEWS ARTICLE, BLOG, OR CONSUMER PROTECTION UPDATE This website is not intended to provide medical advice or to take the place of medical advice and treatment from your personal physician. Visitors are advised to consult their own doctors or other qualified health professional regarding the treatment of medical conditions. The author shall not be held liable or responsible for any misunderstanding or misuse of the information contained on this site or for any loss, damage, or injury caused, or alleged to be caused, directly or indirectly by any treatment, action, or application of any food or food source discussed in this website. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration have not evaluated the statements on this website. The information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. MARKETING DISCLOSURE: You should know that the owner of this website has a monetary connection to the product & services advertised and provided. The owner receives payment whenever a qualified lead is referred. All of the information regarding the goods and services mentioned on this website is provided by the owner. ADVERTISING DISCLOSURE: This website is an advertisement and not a news publication. Any photographs of persons used on this site are models. Any photographs of before/after images used on this site are not real and are only used to illustrate the results some may achieve. Many of the articles featured on this site are what is commonly referred to as an advertorial, a combination of advertisement and editorial written in an editorial format as an independent news story. However, unlike an independent news story, an advertorial may promote a particular product or interest. Advertorials take factual information and report it in an editorial format to allow the author, often a company marketing its products, to enhance or explain certain elements to maintain the readers interest. A familiar example is an airline's in-flight magazines that provide editorial reports about travel destinations to which the airline flies. In 2018, the same conceit of Facebook's head announcing that he was stepping down was used as fodder for an April Fool's Day joke: stepping down Last year in June, when Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg gave the company a new mission statement, it was too late for him to try to change how things worked at Facebooks offices. While it wasnt made public, Cambridge Analytica had already used data from millions of users for voter profiling and other purposes. In the wake of the recent data misuse revelation, Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg has resigned from the company. While demands were already being made for his resignation, this has come as a big surprise for many. Zuckerberg publicly informed the world via a post on Facebook. Altus, Celeste. "But Did He Friend Her?" AdWeek. 21 January 2011. Get Ink News. "Mark Zuckerberg Disgusted with Social Media; Set to Leave Facebook Later This Year." Retrieved 13 March 2017.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/us-military-planes-israel/

Does Video Show 'US Military Sending Huge Planes Full of Heavy-Duty Equipment to Israel' in 2023?

Jordan Liles

10/11/2023

On Oct. 11, 2023, a user on X named Matt Wallace (@MattWallace888) posted a video with a caption that claimed it showed the U.S. military "sending huge planes full of heavy-duty equipment to Israel," apparently to be used in its war against Hamas. However, the video in the post showed clips that were at least four years old. In other words, the video had nothing to do with the Israel-Hamas war. post Israel-Hamas war As we previously reported, the account bearing Wallace's name is known for spreading baseless conspiracy theories following massive tragic events. He has even bragged about making money on X based on promoting such false rumors. reported baseless conspiracy theories bragged He was warned not to post this video from Maui, Hawaii, which it turns out is actually an explosion in Macul, Chile, in May. It got 20,000 retweets, 54,000 likes and 10 million views before being Community Noted. He's making money from viral false posts like this. pic.twitter.com/SjtJmNHm0X pic.twitter.com/SjtJmNHm0X Shayan Sardarizadeh (@Shayan86) August 14, 2023 August 14, 2023 The video in question showed a C-5M Super Galaxy taxiing and taking off from a runway. During the taxiing process, several aircraft, possibly CV-22 Osprey and other helicopters, were visible on the ground. The video consisted of three total clips. We traced the first and third clips to a YouTube video that was uploaded on Oct. 5, 2019. It looked to have been recorded on the day before it was uploaded. The number on the side of the airplane appeared to be "7030." YouTube video The second clip in the video showed an airplane with the number "7045." That clip was at least months old, according to another YouTube video that showed the exact same shot at the 4:42 mark. In other words, Wallace's video showed two different aircraft, not one. YouTube video In Wallace's upload of these clips, the shots were mirrored horizontally. This mirroring made the words and numbers appear backwards. Sometimes, misinformation and disinformation purveyors mirror images and videos in order to try to avoid reverse-image search detection. We reached out to Wallace to ask if he was aware that the video was old. We also asked him if he was the person who horizontally mirrored the shots. This story will be updated if we receive answers to our questions. While the video itself was unrelated to the war, the rest of Wallace's post contained genuine reporting from The Associated Press that was published days following Hamas' surprise terrorist attack in Israel. That story read as follows: The Associated Press Hamas' surprise terrorist attack A plane carrying advanced armaments designed to facilitate significant military operations landed Tuesday evening at the Nevatim Airbase in southern Israel, the Israel Defense Forces said. We are grateful for the US backing and assistance to the IDF, and to the State of Israel in general, during this challenging period. Our common enemies know that the cooperation between our militaries is stronger than ever, and is a key part in ensuring regional security and stability, the IDF said in a statement. Further, on Oct. 10, the U.S. Department of Defense published specifics of the kind of equipment being sent to Israel: U.S. Department of Defense [U.S. President Joe] Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris spoke with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu today and Biden assured him that the U.S. response to the events will be swift, decisive and overwhelming. "My team has been in near constant communication with our Israeli partners and partners all across the region and the world from the moment this crisis began," the president said. "We're surging additional military assistance, including ammunition, and interceptors to replenish Iron Dome. We are going to make sure that Israel does not run out of these critical assets to defend its cities and its citizens." For more details about the war, including the most recent death toll figures, we recommend referencing live updates from ABC News, The New York Times and The AP. ABC News The New York Times The AP Al Lawati, Abbas, and Nadeen Ebrahim. Israel Is at War with Hamas. Heres What to Know. CNN, Oct. 9, 2023, https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/09/middleeast/israel-hamas-gaza-war-explained-mime-intl/index.html. C-5M Super Galaxy Takeoff (2019). YouTube, Gung Ho Vids, Oct. 5, 2019, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqY7YVqrytc. Haworth, John, et al. Israel-Gaza Live Updates: 22 Americans among the Dead.ABC News, https://abcnews.go.com/International/live-updates/israel-gaza-hamas/?id=103804516. Kingsley, Patrick, et al. Israel-Hamas War: Israel Agrees to Unity Government as War With Hamas Intensifies.The New York Times, Oct. 11, 2023, https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/10/11/world/israel-news-hamas-war. Liles, Jordan. Biden Did Not Fall Asleep While Meeting with Maui Fire Victims, C-SPAN Video Confirms. Snopes, Aug. 22, 2023, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-asleep-maui-video/. Powered Vertical Takeoff with a Payload of 120 Metric Tons: C-5M Super Galaxy. YouTube, Future Machine Tech, May 4, 2023, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNwHumNej-w. The First Plane Carrying US Armaments Lands in Israel, IDF Says. The Associated Press, Oct. 10, 2023, https://apnews.com/live/israel-hamas-war-live-updates#0000018b-1d0b-d13a-a5af-ffab53b50000. U.S. Flowing Military Supplies to Israel, as Country Battles Hamas Terrorists.U.S. Department of Defense, Oct. 10, 2023, https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3553040/us-flowing-military-supplies-to-israel-as-country-battles-hamas-terrorists/.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/curves/

Curves and organizations supporting the sanctity of life.

Barbara Mikkelson

04/27/2004

Claim: Gary Heavin, founder and CEO of the fitness chain Curves, supports pro-life causes. Status: True. Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2004] Just so you know: Gary Heavin, the founder of the Waco, Texas-based chain of exercise studios called Curves, is a heavy contributor to several organizations allied with Operation Save America, the rather more muscular successor to Operation Rescue, the anti-choice group. The organizations he funds are spreading the lie that abortions lead to an increased risk of breast cancer. Planned Parenthood says its operations in Texas are being threatened by Heavin-funded clinics based on the old therapeutic model "you must carry your child to term." In an article in Christianity Today, Heavin expressed pride in his involvement with anti-choice groups, to which he donates 10 percent of Curves' profits. You may do with this information what you will. Origins: With more than 7,000 fitness and weight loss centers around the globe, Curves is the largest fitness franchise in the world. One in four health clubs in the U.S. is a Curves, a stupendous feat given that the company has only been around since 1992. Yet, for the utterly amazing, consider this: Prior to January 2004, Curves didn't have a national ad campaign. Almost all of its customers found out about the chain through word of mouth. You wouldn't think one exercise club could be that different from any other, but Curves are, and that difference accounts for the success of the chain. Curves exercise clubs are strictly for women. Their stripped-down no-frills look will likely come as a shock to those who have been conditioned to believe proper fitness palaces should be fashioned of glass and gleaming chrome and populated by herds of designer-garbed hard-bodied 20-somethings setting new land speed records on treadmills and exercise bikes. At Curves, there are no lockers or showers, and the clientele is predominently middle-aged and overweight. The equipment members use is set up in a circle. Every 30 seconds those working out are told to move to the next station, which is either another machine that works different muscle groups or a space between two machines where exercisers run or walk in place. A typical Curves workout regimen is 30 minutes a day, three times a week. Because the equipment is hydraulic, it adapts to each user's level of fitness, making these workouts suitable for anyone regardless of physical conditioning. Women like the Curves program for its "30 minutes and you're on your way" aspect, but also for the camaraderie that comes from exercising with others, which appears to be spurred on by the arrangement of the workout stations in a circle. Friendships form. Encouragement is given. A sense of "We're all in this together" pervades. More than 7,000 outlets since 1992. Obviously, they're doing something right. This highly successful chain is the brainchild of Gary Heavin, a Texas businessman who earlier in his life had a 17-location fitness center chain before filing bankruptcy, divorcing, losing custody of his two children, and serving a six-month jail sentence for failure to pay child support. Although a Christian from his teen years, he re-committed his life to Christ while in jail, after which he and his new wife (whom he married just before his incarceration) opened the first Curves in Harlingen, Texas, in 1992. The text of the e-mail quoted above was written by Jon Carroll, a columnist with the San Francisco Chronicle. It appeared in that paper on 20 April 2004. The statements made by Carroll in those three short paragraphs about Gary Heavin, the founder and CEO of Curves, hold water for the most part. Heavin (pronounced "Haven"), is a born-again Christian who is strongly pro-life and, according to an Operation Save America's web site (a pro-life group of a more radical orientation than Operation Rescue, and one that asserts there is a connection between abortion and increased risk of breast cancer), is one of their supporters: Operation Save America Operation Rescue We then contacted Mr. Gary Heavin, Founder and CEO of Curves International. Mr. Heavin is a wealthy man who is a committed Pro-life Christian. He is the premier customer of the bank that sponsors Komen. He graciously returned our phone call and promised to use his influence to convince the bank to give some of the funding to Carenet, so they could take care of the women, instead of Planned Parenthood. Several months passed and, lo and behold, on Tuesday, September 23rd, in the year of our Lord 2003, Carenet, our local CPC, held their annual banquet. It was the most attended, and as far as I was concerned, the best one to date. At the end, a major announcement and press statement was issued for Central Texas. Gary Heavin made a five million dollar grant to Family Practice, Carenet, and McCap. These groups and ministries would receive one million dollars a year for the next five years. Granted, some shortcuts were taken by Jon Carroll in his heads-up about Heavin. If Heavin does support Operation Save America, his "support" is of a non-financial nature. The "article in Christianity Today" was actually published in Today's Christian (formerly Christian Reader), a magazine put out by Christianity Today. Also, the "donates 10 percent of Curves' profits" is a misleading way of saying Heavin gave away that much money in 2003 the wording implies he donates that percentage of Curves' profits on an ongoing basis, yet the source material this information was drawn from speaks only to one particular year (2003), not to any year before it, and not to any plans by Heavin to gift at a similar level in future years. Moreover, the Today's Christian article stated that Heavin donated an amount equal to 10 percent of Curves' profits to "charities," which Jon Carroll has represented solely as "anti-choice groups" though Heavin does financially support pro-life organizations and might well give only to them, he might also donate to other manner of charitable groups as well, with the 10 percent figure representing the total of what he doled out in charitable contributions in 2003 to various causes, both pro-life and otherwise. Ergo, either Carroll mischaracterized or misunderstood what he read, or he based his statement on information outside that Today's Christian article: Servanthood may not be today's normal model for business success, but that hasn't stopped the Heavins. In 2003, the couple gave away $10 million 10 percent of their company's gross revenues and 80 percent of Gary's net income to charities. Heavin matches the first $1,000 that each franchise raises for community causes such as walkathons to benefit pro-life pregnancy-care centers. Such controversial stances have led to criticism, but Heavin is unfazed. "There's nothing healthy about abortion," he says. "I'm not afraid to tell the truth." In a correction published 4 May 2004, The San Francisco Chronicle said: "A Ruth Rosen column Thursday 'What's wrong with curves?' stated that three 'pregnancy crisis centers' that received $5 million from Curves owner Gary Heavin were 'supported by Operation Save America.' The column was referring to Operation Save America's verbal endorsement of the centers, not financial support." On 13 May 2004, The San Francisco Chronicle published a further correction to information contained in both the Rosen and Carroll pieces: Two recent columns contained errors involving contributions made by Gary Heavin, founder and CEO of Curves, the women's fitness chain. Ruth Rosen's April 29 opinion-page column stated that Heavin "has given at least $5 million of his profits to some of the most militant anti-abortion groups in the country." That characterization is not accurate. The column specified that the money went to "three Texas organizations to fund 'pregnancy crisis centers.'" Only one of the recipients, Care Net, operates pregnancy crisis centers that are designed to dissuade pregnant women from having abortions while offering other support services to encourage adoption. Heavin has pledged to give Care Net $1 million over the next five years, according to a Curves spokeswoman. The largest of the pledges $3.75 million over five years goes to the Family Practice Center of McLennan County, which provides a variety of health-care services to Central Texas residents, many of whom are uninsured, according to the Curves spokeswoman. The Catholic-run center does not provide abortions but is not actively involved in the anti-abortion movement, the center's CEO said. The other recipient of Heavin's pledge, $250,000 over five years, was the McLennan County Collaborative Abstinence Project, which promotes sexual abstinence among teens. Its director said that, as a matter of policy, its staff would not discuss abortion when making presentations. The column presented the contributions as a percentage of the company's annual gross revenues. But the Curves spokeswoman said that those pledges, as well as millions of dollars in donations to a wide range of charities, came from Heavin's personal wealth. The column also referred to Heavin's comments in a "recent Christianity Today" article that he "is proud to support these organizations." In fact, the interview was published in the January-February issue of Today's Christian, a magazine affiliated with Christianity Today. In it, Heavin expressed his anti-abortion views but did not talk about his support for any specific organization. In addition, Jon Carroll, in his April 20 Datebook column, erred in referring to Heavin's comments as appearing in "Christianity Today" and by stating that Heavin "donates 10 percent of Curves profits" to "anti-choice groups." He also wrote that Heavin's recipients were allied with Operation Save America, a radical anti-abortion group. As stated in a May 4 clarification on Rosen's column, Operation Save America has praised those recipients on its Web site but does not provide financial support, nor does it have a formal alliance with them. The Chronicle regrets the errors. Gary Heavin is far from the first successful businessman to underwrite reproductive causes Tom Monaghan of Domino's Pizza and Carl Karcher, founder of the California-based hamburger chain Carl's Jr., have been very open and public regarding their support of the pro-life philosophy, just as Warren Buffett, ranked by Forbes magazine as the second-richest man in the world, has been forthcoming about his backing of pro-choice programs. In each instance, these men are acting as private citizens who choose to bestow parts of their fortunes on the causes they believe in, not as officers of their corporations. The money is theirs to do with as they please, just as anyone's paycheck belongs to the person who earns it and stops being the employer's money at the moment it is paid out. That a spendthrift employee might choose to gamble away his earnings doesn't mean the company he works for supports gambling; likewise, that a wealthy man financially supports particular causes doesn't mean the corporation that paid him the money favors those movements. Domino's Pizza Warren Buffett All this is by way of saying that while it's correct to identify Gary Heavin as a patron of pro-life endeavors, it would not be right to point to Curves as a supporter of those same causes. Barbara "cause and effect" Mikkelson Additional information: Curves International web site Last updated: 19 November 2006 Sources: Carroll, Jon. "Jon Carroll." The San Francisco Chronicle. 20 April 2004 (p. E12). Chan, Vera H-C. "Gary Heavin Creates Sanctuaries for Women." San Jose Mercury News. 16 April 2004. Kennedy, John W. "Rolling with the Curves." Today's Christian. January 2004 (p. 30). Lawrence, Elana. "Curves, Without Frills." The Washington Post. 27 May 2003 (p. F1). Reimer, Susan. "The Mature Are Ready to Go Around These Curves." The Baltimore Sun. 8 February 2004 (p. N1). Rosen, Ruth. "What's Wrong With Curves?" The San Francisco Chronicle. 29 April 2004 (p. B9). The San Francisco Chronicle. "Corrections." 4 May 2004 (p. A2). The San Francisco Chronicle. "Corrections." 13 May 2004 (p. A2).

neutral

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/mar/28/john-cornyn/john-cornyn-Texas-Medicaid-spending-counts-state-f/

Last year, Texas allocated nearly one-third of its budget to Medicaid, amounting to one-third of all the state's expenditures.

W. Gardner Selby

03/28/2017

Extolling thehealth care act that Republicans briefly advocatedas an improvement on the Obamacare law, Sen. John Cornyn singled out how much Medicaid costs Texas state government. In March 9, 2017, Senate floor remarks brought to our attention by a reader, the Texas Republican prefaced his claim by saying state and federal governments spend an awful lot of money on Medicaid, the federal-state entitlement program providing health coverage to the poor, especially mothers, children and the disabled, which was launched by Congress in 1965 as part of President Lyndon Johnsons Great Society. Cornyn went on: In Texas, for example, my state spent close to a third of its budget on Medicaid last year, a third of all state spending. We emailed Cornyns office to request his backup, then turned to the authoritative May 2016Fiscal Size-up reportfrom the Legislative Budget Board, which advises state legislators on spending matters. That report, Cornyn spokesman Drew Brandewie shortly advised by email, was the basis of Cornyns claim along with other published accounts of Medicaids share of the two-year budget approved by the 2015 Legislature. According to the report, the 2016-17 Texas budget devoted $61.2 billion in funds from all sources, including state and federal aid, to Medicaid, which lately has had a monthly caseload of 4.1 million residents, up from about 2.1 million in 2002, according to a 2017LBB presentation--and that amount over the two years running through August 2017 accounted for 29.3 percent of $209.1 billion in All Funds appropriations. Federal funds drive Medicaid budgets because by law, the federal share of a states Medicaid expenditures cant be less than 50 percent though the share is refined for each state using a formula comparing the states average per capita income to the national average. In Texas in fiscal 2016, the federal share broke out to about 57 percent,according tothe Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Also, each Texas dollar spent on Medicaid that year was matched by $1.33 in federal aid, the foundation says. We noticed another way to frame the issue in that Cornyn referred to Medicaid accounting for one third of all state spending in 2016. Thats not correct. According to the Fiscal Size-up, the 2016-17 budget allocated $25.2 billion in state general revenue and GR from dedicated accounts meaning state funds to Medicaid. Those billions, we calculated, amounted to 22.1 percent of nearly $114 billion in total GR and GR-D spending in the two-year budget. Separately, we asked the Texas Health and Human Services Commission how much Medicaid absorbs in money budgeted by lawmakers. By email, Christine Mann shared an agency chart showing the escalating share of Medicaid spending in the budget, considering both state and federal aid, from fiscal 2000 through fiscal 2015. Medicaid absorbed about 20 percent of budgeted state and federal funds in 2000, the chart indicate, but its accounted for 25 percent or more of the All Funds budget since 2010. Spending decisions remain Mann also pointed out that exactly how much legislators commit to Medicaid for the budget that runs through August 2017 will depend on actions during the session that ends May 29. As of mid-March 2017, Mann said commission staff expected Medicaid spending to be around $63 billion in state and federal funds. Traditionally, lawmakers adjust for increases in Medicaid caseloads and costs that build up between sessions by signing off on short-term supplemental appropriations. A March 2017LBB documentsummarizes a version of House Bill 2, which proposes additional spending through August 2017. From figures in the document, we calculated that lawmakers could end up authorizing $63.8 billion in spending, both state and federal, on Medicaid, through the 2016-17 biennium; barring changes, that would break out to 29.8 percent of the states total budgeted spending of $214.3 billion. We also sought insight from Oliver Bernstein of the budget-savvy liberal-leaning Center for Public Policy Priorities. Bernstein emailed us slightly different figures for whats likely to be spent on Medicaid through August 2017. He otherwise suggested by email that Medicaids heightened share of total spending traces in part to cuts in state support for public schools and institutions of higher education; when other big items get whittled, Medicaids budgetary significance grows. Our ruling Cornyn said Texas spent close to a third of its budget on Medicaid last year, a third of all state spending. Nearly 30 percent of state plus federal aid in the 2016-17 Texas budget went to Medicaid. About 22 percent of state funds alone was appropriated for Medicaid. We rate this claim Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/michael-bloomberg-donald-trump/

Was it stated by Michael Bloomberg that Donald Trump is a 'con artist' and a 'cheat'?

Dan Evon

09/23/2016

A graphic featuring an image of former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg next to a quote ostensibly uttered by him about Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, referring to the GOP candidate as "con artist" and a "cheat," has been widely circulated on social media: I have known Trump for decades. We have traveled in the same business circles. He is known among other millionaires as a con artist and among business owners as a cheat out to stiff everyone. The text of this image first started circulating in July 2016, shortly after Bloomberg made an appearance at the Democratic National Convention to endorse Hillary Clinton. Bloomberg issued several remarks critical of Donald Trump during his DNC speech, including referring to his candidacy as a "con" and mocking his business acumen, but he did not say the words attributed to him above. circulating A full transcript of Bloomberg's speech can be found here, while the relevant portion has been reproduced below: here I'm a New Yorker, and New Yorkers know a con when we see one! Trump says he'll punish manufacturers that move to Mexico or China, but the clothes he sells are made overseas in low-wage factories. He says he wants to put Americans back to work, but he games the US visa system so he can hire temporary foreign workers at low wages. He says he wants to deport 11 million undocumented people, but he seems to have no problem in hiring them. What'd I miss here?! Truth be told, the richest thing about Donald Trump is his hypocrisy. He wants you to believe that we can solve our biggest problems by deporting Mexicans and shutting out Muslims. He wants you to believe that erecting trade barriers will bring back good jobs. He's wrong on both counts. We can only solve our biggest problems if we come together and embrace the freedoms that our Founding Fathers established right here in Philadelphia, which permitted our ancestors to create the great American exceptionalism that all of us now enjoy. Donald Trump doesn't understand that. Hillary Clinton does. And we can only create good jobs if we make smarter investments in infrastructure and do more to support small businesses. Not stiff them. Donald Trump doesn't understand that. Hillary Clinton does. I understand the appeal of a businessman president. But Trump's business plan is a disaster in the making. He would make it harder for small businesses to compete, do great damage to our economy, threaten the retirement savings of millions of Americans, lead to greater debt and more unemployment, erode our influence in the world, and make our communities less safe. The bottom line is: Trump is a risky, reckless, and radical choice. And we can't afford to make that choice. Nonetheless, some newspapers misquoted Bloomberg and reported that he had referred to Trump as a "con artist": misquoted As Michael Bloomberg said perfectly about Trump during his speech at the Democratic convention in July: Im a New Yorker and I know a con artist when I see one. It was Florida senator Marco Rubio who referred to Trump (more than once) as a "con artist" during the campaign for the Republican nomination: referred We are so excited about what lies ahead for our campaign, Rubio said. You see, just five days ago, we began to unmask the true nature of the front-runner so far in this race. Five days ago, we began to explain to the American people that Donald Trump is a con artist. Two weeks from tonight right here in Florida we are going to send a message loud and clear, Rubio said. We are going to send the message that the party of Lincoln and Reagan and the presidency of the United States will never be held by a con artist.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/clint-eastwood-net-worth/

Did Clint Eastwood's Net Worth Leave His Family 'in Tears'?

Jordan Liles

12/14/2020

Clint Eastwood's Academy Award-winning work includes four Oscars: Best Director and Best Actor in a Leading Role for both 1993's "Unforgiven" and 2004's "Million Dollar Baby." Eastwood's work spans decades, and some of his roles were uncredited. For example, he briefly appeared in 1995's "Casper." Also, since at least September 2020 he appeared uncredited in none other than an online advertisement that read: "Clint Eastwood's Net Worth Left His Family In Tears." appeared an online advertisement Of course, Eastwood had nothing to do with the dubious ad. Further, he was not dead. As of December 2020, Clint Eastwood was alive and filming a new movie during the COVID-19 pandemic. The 90-year-old actor was born on May 31, 1930. filming a new movie The misleading advertisements that falsely claimed Eastwood's net worth "left his family in tears" led readers to a seemingly endless, multi-page story on refinancegold.com. The headline for the slideshow-style article read: "Special Celebs & Their Incredible Net Worth." story Clint Eastwood's name finally appeared on page 225 after readers had clicked "Next" 225 times, right before the end of the story. The page included no mention of his family being left "in tears." Clint Eastwood ~ $375 Million (Photo by Frazer Harrison/Getty Images for AFI) Clint Eastwood is Hollywoods 70s star who has had a long and fruitful acting career in succeeding decades, mostly portraying rough-and-tough characters in Western settings. These days, he is one a highly accomplished director. He is best known for his roles in the Dollars Trilogy and Dirty Harry films. With a $375-million net fortune in his bank account from his long career as an actor, producer and director in show business, he will never need to ask for a loan in his life ever again. We previously covered other misleading net worth advertisements for Alex Trebek, Sean Connery, Jaleel White, and Richard Gere. White and Gere were both still alive. Alex Trebek Sean Connery Jaleel White Richard Gere On the TrustPilot.com reviews website, a user named Paul H. posted a one-star review for refinancegold.com, the website that created the misleading Clint Eastwood advertisement: posted a one-star review Hurtful Misleading Ad to Draw You In Their morally despicable ad to draw you to their website should warn you right off of having anything to do with this company. The hook was:"Clint Eastwood's Net Worth Left His Family in Tears" (accompanied by a pic of Clint looking distraught and at death's door - the sort of pic we could all be caught with at the wrong time of the day). I'm not particularly a fan of Clint Eastwood but as far as I know he's very much alive and not going bankrupt any time soon. I'm sure he doesn't need me to defend him, but this sort of ad is hurtful to those who love him, deceitful and without conscience. Avoid this company like the plague, how far can you trust people who are willing to draw you in with that sort of ad? Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising "arbitrage." The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads. submit ads to us

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/musk-ban-chappelle-booing-video/

Did Elon Musk Ban User Who Posted Video of Musk Being Booed at Chappelle Show?

Jordan Liles

12/12/2022

On Dec. 11, 2022, comedian Dave Chappelle invited new Twitter owner Elon Musk to walk onstage during one of his stand-up performances at the Chase Center in San Francisco. The moment was met with a mix of audience reactions, including boos, cheers, and likely a bit of shouting. The event headlined both Chris Rock and Chappelle in a limited, multi-city tour. Hours after the performance ended, video of Musk's moment onstage was made available online. A Twitter user named@CleoPat48937885posted four tweets with four different videos, according to anarchive.vncapture of the profile. It's unclear if the user recorded the videos, but other tweets on the account did show prior interest in concerts in the San Francisco area, as well as Chappelle. This may very well have meant that the user shot the videos with a phone, as they claimed. archive.vn The clips were later made available on YouTube in two parts. two parts The first tweet from @CleoPat48937885 showed the caption, "Dave chappelle brought up Elon musk up on stage at the chase center. Had to pry the yonder for this ahaha pt 1." first tweet The reference to having to "pry the Yondr" was about pouches that were supposed to secure phones during the performance. The purpose of Yondr pouches is to lock up phones, disabling the ability for people to take pictures and videos. Such pouches often help to keep stand-up comedy material from leaking out before being eventually released as stronger bits in specials. Prior to the show, the official Chase Center Twitter account described the Yondr pouches like this: described After @CleoPat48937885uploaded all four video clips in tweets on Twitter, a Reddit user linked to the first tweet in aposton the r/videos subreddit. post Within either minutes or hours, the Twitter account for@CleoPat48937885 disappeared, which meant that the tweets were no longer available. As of Dec. 12, the account did not show a message that indicated it was "suspended," as had been seen in past years for accounts that had been suspended. Rather, the page for the account only said, "This account doesn't exist." One Reddit user commented, without citing evidence, "The fact that Elon suspended the user over it makes it even more worth sharing." Many other users across social media made the same claim, saying that Musk had suspended or banned@CleoPat48937885, perhaps in order to bury the existence of the videos. commented Another user tweeted, "Elon Musk is deleting accounts that post this video of him being booed for 10 minutes last night at a Dave Chapelle show. He can't delete us all. Retweet while you still can." The tweet received tens of thousands of engagements and was still available hours later. tweeted We haven't yet uncovered evidence that Musk or anyone else at Twitter suspended or banned@CleoPat48937885. It's possible, yes, but there's no data that showed this rumor to be true. Another potential possibility was that the Twitter user saw how the story was blowing up on blogs and social media and feared security officials at Chase Center might be able to identifythe user with video footage from where it was recorded, or through other methods. Basically, we don't know for sure why the account no longer exists. A screenshot of the aforementioned Reddit thread was posted to Twitter with the caption, "They are blocking Twitter users who post the video." However, we found plenty of people who continually posted the videos of Musk onstage with Chappelle whose accounts were not suspended. posted At one point on Dec. 12, the day after the performance, the news was becoming so popular that Chappelle showed up as a trend in the U.S. The trend remained live on the sidebar of the website and, as of this writing, was not being removed or hidden by the platform. Chadwiko. "Elon Musk Got Booed off the Stage at the Dave Chappelle Show in SF Last Night." r/videos on Reddit.com, 12 Dec. 2022, https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/zjutsq/comment/izwkk7w/. @ChaseCenter. Twitter, 11 Dec. 2022, https://twitter.com/ChaseCenter/status/1602023274258366464. "Chris Rock & Dave Chappelle at Chase Center." Chase Center, https://www.chasecenter.com/events/chris-rock-dave-chappelle-20221211. @CleoPat48937885. Twitter, https://twitter.com/CleoPat48937885/. Lehman, Gabe. "Elon Musk Stunned after Mass Booing at Chappelle SF Show." SFGATE, 12 Dec. 2022, https://www.sfgate.com/local/article/dave-chappelle-brings-elon-musk-17648515.php.

neutral

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/sanders-mlk-selma-march/

Bernie Sanders Marched with MLK at Selma?

Dan Evon

01/21/2016

On 20 January 2016, the web site Democratic Underground posted a photograph purportedly showing Bernie Sanders participating in a 1965 civil rights march from Selma to Montgomery (Alabama) with Martin Luther King, Jr. The web site identified the man standing "behind Coretta King, just right of Old Glory in the glasses, white 't' shirt, open collar and dark jacket" as the future United States senator and 2016 Democratic presidential candidate: photograph The man pictured in the above-displayed photograph does bear a resemblance to a young Bernie Sanders, but that similarity isn't sufficient by itself to confirm that Sanders took part in the 1965 Selma to Montgomery march: The above-displayed image was taken on 26 March 1965, and a caption to the photograph provided by licenser Corbis Images identifies Martin Luther King, Jr. along with several other prominent political leaders but makes no mention of Bernie Sanders: caption Dr. Martin Luther King (C) leads thousands of civil rights demonstrators out on the last leg of their Selma to Montgomery 50-mile hike. Others identifiable in the front row include John Davis (2nd from L) of SNCC, King's aide Reverend Ralph Abernathy (3rd from L), Dr. Ralph Bunche (5th from L), Mrs. King (next to her husband) and Reverend Hosea Williams (carrying little girl, R). This photograph has been widely available for decades, but it wasn't until January 2016 that Bernie Sanders' name became associated with a face in the crowd. Although Sanders has stated that he did participate in the landmark "March on Washington" civil rights event of August 1963 (where Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered his iconic "I Have a Dream" speech), we haven't found any record of Sanders' claiming that he was also present at any other civil rights march involving Martin Luther King, Jr: stated speech On the national holiday named for the civil rights leader, Sen. Bernie Sanders called the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., "one of the great leaders in American history." Sanders, then a college student, was in the crowd on The Mall in Washington when King delivered his "I have a dream" speech from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. "We must never forget his heroic efforts to end segregation and racial injustice. It is also important, however, to remember that he fought for a society in which all people had good jobs at good wages and that quality education and health care were available to all. At a time when we have an almost record number of Americans living in poverty, obscene levels of income and wealth inequality and millions working longer hours for lower pay, we still have much to learn from Dr. King's extraordinary life." As Mother Jones noted, Sander's active participation in the Civil Rights movement was "brief and localized" and effectively ended in 1963: noted Civil Rights Sanders' involvement was brief and localized, his sacrifices limited to one arrest for protesting and a bad GPA from neglecting his studies. But Sanders was, in his own right, an active participant in the movement during his three years at the University of Chicago. Although Sanders did attend the 1963 March on Washington, at which Lewis spoke, most of his work was in and around Hyde Park, where he became involved with the campus chapter of CORE [Congress of Racial Equality] shortly after transferring from Brooklyn College in 1961. During Sanders' first year in Chicago, a group of apartment-hunting white and black students had discovered that off-campus buildings owned by the university were refusing to rent to black students, in violation of the school's policies. CORE organized a 15-day sit-in at the administration building, which Sanders helped lead. The protest ended when George Beadle, the university's president, agreed to form a commission to study the school's housing policies. That spring, with Sanders as its chairman, the university chapter of CORE merged with the university chapter of SNCC [Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee]. Sanders announced plans to take the fight to the city of Chicago, and in the fall of 1962 he followed through, organizing picketers at a Howard Johnson in Cicero. Sanders told the Chicago Maroon, the student newspaper, that he wanted to keep the pressure on the restaurant chain after the arrest of 12 CORE demonstrators in North Carolina for trying to eat at a Howard Johnson there. Sanders left his leadership role at the organization not long afterward; his grades suffered so much from his activism that a dean asked him to take some time off from school. But he continued his activism with CORE and SNCC. In August of 1963, not long after returning to Chicago from the March on Washington, Sanders was charged with resisting arrest after protesting segregation at a school on the city's South Side. He was later fined $25, according to the Chicago Tribune. Some have pegged the identity of the face circled above as likely being that of Paul Reese, who looked somewhat like a young Bernie Sanders, participated in civil rights events of the time, and was present at the march pictured here: Paul Reese In short: One more time: that picture is not of Bernie Sanders, who did not march in Selma. His campaign has *confirmed* this. https://t.co/EseJmycaVX https://t.co/EseJmycaVX Joy Reid (@JoyAnnReid) February 12, 2016 February 12, 2016

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/toys-r-us-closing-locations-not-accepting-gift-cards/

Are all Toys R Us stores shutting down and refusing to honor gift cards?

Kim LaCapria

03/14/2018

In mid-March 2018, readers began to ask whether it was true that Toys R Us locations had stopped accepting gift cards as a form of payment as of 11 March 2018: is it true toy retailer, Toys R Us is no longer accepting gift cards after 3/11/18? Many linked to a 10 March 2018 Scotsman.com article about a similar situation, but it focused on Toys R Us locations specifically in the United Kingdom: article Toys R Us have said on their website: Gift cards and vouchers will be honoured until Sunday, 11 March [2018]. There are no refunds for cash value on any gift cards. But customers are encouraged to redeem such vouchers as soon as possible as stores may be subject to closure without notice. News about UK-based locations proved confusing to some readers, and the gift card announcement coincided with matters related to Toys R Us' fiscal solvency in the United States. A post shared to shopping site SlickDeals in March 2018 posited that those in possession of Toys R Us gift cards ought to use them sooner rather than later: locations posited Multiple reports are out there that TRU is going into liquidation bankruptcy next week. If you have gift cards, they'll be trash the moment they announce, most likely. Use those cards this weekend if you don't want them to be worthless. Hold onto receipts if they manage to avoid liquidation, you can just return the items if you didn't have anything much you wanted right now. If not, at least you got something for your paper. Also remember to check your rewards total and use those points/certificates as well! The post referenced a 9 March 2018 CNNMoney article about the closure of UK-based Toys R Us locations, and the state of the retailer's finances in the United States. article On 13 March 2018, CNBC cited reports of a liquidation plan in progress: cited Toys R Us, the iconic U.S. retailer, is in the process of drafting the court motion for its liquidation plan, a source familiar with the situation told CNBC on [13 March 2018]. The retailer could file as soon as the end of [14 March 2018], making the motion official. It will then begin to wind down the storied toy retailer, after more than half a century in business. A liquidation will most likely result in the closing of all of Toys R Us' 800 stores in the U.S. As of midday on 14 March 2018 the web site ToysRUs.com still accepted gift cards as payment, and the site offered customers the option of purchasing physical or virtual versions at checkout: purchasing Although articles speculated that Toys R Us gift cards might soon become worthless in the United States, and UK outlets have stopped accepting them, no definitive information about their future is yet available. speculated In response to our inquiry, a representative for Toys R Us replied: Thanks for asking! Please know that we are not going out of business, but we are making changes to the number of stores we have. In the meantime, our stores are operating as usual and you can also continue to shop online at https://www.toysrus.com and https://www.babiesrus.com. Additionally, our customer registry, credit, warranty and loyalty programs will continue as normal. We will also continue to sell and accept gift cards as always. On 15 March 2018, a representative for Toys R Us said the chain planned to honor gift cards for a 30-day period. However, the Better Business Bureau advised consumers to use the cards "sooner rather than later." said Bomey, Nathan. "Toys 'R' Us Gift Cards Are Good For The Next 30 Days." USA Today. 15 March 2018. Goldman, David. "Toys 'R' Us To Close All Of Its UK Stores." CNNMoney. 14 March 2018. Hirsch, Lauren. "Toys R Us Prepares Plan To Liquidate Its Business." CNBC. 13 March 2018. Jackson, Russell. "Toys R Us Gift Cards No Longer Being Accepted In Stores." The Scotsman. 10 March 2018, LaMonica, Paul. "Toys 'R' Us Could Go Out Of Business. That's Bad News For Lego And Barbie." CNNMoney. 9 March 2018, Peterson, Hayley. "Toys R Us Gift Cards Could Be Useless In A Matter Of Weeks." Business Insider. 13 March 2018, ToysRUs.com. "Gift Cards." Accessed 14 March 2018. Updated 15 March 2018, 9:46 A.M.: Added a statement from a Toys R Us representative. Updated 16 March 2018, 1:39 P.M.: Added confirmation of 30-day expiry made by company representative.

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-created-more-jobs-trump/

Did the final three years of Obama's presidency witness a greater number of jobs being generated compared to the initial three years of Trump's administration?

Dan MacGuill

02/19/2020

In February 2020, we received multiple inquiries from readers about the veracity of social media posts and news articles which claimed that the U.S. economy had added 1.5 million more jobs during former President Barack Obama's final three years in office, than it did during President Donald Trump's first three years. On Feb. 17, Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-New York, tweeted that Obama had "created 1.5 million more jobs in his last 3 years than Donald Trump has in his first 3 years." tweeted Earlier, the left-leaning Democratic Coalition group posted a link to a Yahoo! News article with the headline "Trump's First 3 Years Created 1.5 Million Fewer Jobs Than Obama's Last 3," adding "FACT: New figures from Trumps own Department of Labor show that 6.6 million new jobs were created in the first 36 months of Trumps tenure, compared with 8.1 million in the final 36 months of Obamas a decline of 19% under Trump." posted article That article was itself a republication of a Feb. 10 report published by HuffPost, which read as follows: HuffPost "As President Donald Trump takes the stage at his reelection rally here [Manchester, New Hampshire] Monday and boasts of his economic record, there is one statistic he is likely to omit: He created 1.5 million fewer jobs in his first three years in office than predecessor Barack Obama did in his final three. Newly revised figures from Trumps own Department of Labor show that 6.6 million new jobs were created in the first 36 months of Trumps tenure, compared with 8.1 million in the final 36 months of Obamas a decline of 19% under Trump, according to a HuffPost analysis." The HuffPost article didn't specify the exact metric it used in order to arrive at those numbers, but the standard figure used to gauge jobs growth in the United States is total, seasonally adjusted non-farm payroll employment, which is released every month as part of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) establishment survey, in which BLS collects data from a sample of around 145,000 businesses and government agencies throughout the country. establishment survey When a news headline states that, for example, the economy "added 225,000 Jobs in January," that's typically a reference to seasonally adjusted non-farm payroll employment and it means there were 225,000 more jobs in the United States in January 2020, than there were in December 2019. news headline states Once a year, the BLS revises its employment data after consulting more official figures collected from each state's unemployment insurance agency. This "benchmark" revision process enhances the accuracy of jobs figures and typically results in retrospective adjustments to employment statistics from every month over the preceding 10 years. benchmark That's what happened on Feb. 7, when the BLS released both the preliminary employment figures for January and revised jobs numbers from 2010 through 2019. Those revisions meant that jobs growth in 2018 turned out to be slower than was originally recorded, prompting Slate to report that: released Slate "On Friday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released its latest batch of employment numbers, along with its annual benchmark revisions adjusting its estimates from prior months. Before, the government believed that the U.S. had added 223,000 jobs per month in 2018, the year that the GOPs tax cuts and new, higher spending levels took effect. It has now lowered that estimate to 193,000 per month, a significant drop." For its part, MSNBC wrote that: MSNBC The revisions for 2019 showed that the economy generated nearly 2.1 million jobs last year, which is a pretty good number. The trouble, however, is the job totals from last year were down from the year before, and were actually the lowest since 2011. Or put another way, while Trump spent the year boasting that the U.S. job market was the strongest it's ever been, 2019 saw job growth slow to an eight-year low. What's more, the best year for jobs during Trump's presidency 2.31 million in 2018 fails to reach the job growth in any of the three final years of Barack Obama's presidency. It adds a degree of irony to his rhetorical record: Trump ran for president in 2015 and 2016, telling the nation that the economy was horrible and he'd make it vastly better. But annual job growth totals from both 2015 and 2016 were better than any year of the Republican's tenure, at least so far. Taking this one step further, Trump has now been in office for 36 full months February 2017 through January 2020 and in that time, the economy has created 6.56 million jobs. In the 36 months preceding Trump's presidency February 2014 to January 2017 the economy created 8.08 million jobs. Before we present the figures at the heart of this fact check, it should be noted that as a rule, politicians overstate their influence over the economy when indicators are healthy, and downplay their influence when things are bad. As Neil Irwin wrote for The New York Times, before Trump's inauguration in January 2017: wrote "The reality is that presidents have far less control over the economy than you might imagine. Presidential economic records are highly dependent on the dumb luck of where the nation is in the economic cycle. And the White House has no control over the demographic and technological forces that influence the economy. Even in areas where the president really does have power to shape the economy appointing Federal Reserve governors, steering fiscal and regulatory policy, responding to crises and external shocks the relationship between presidential action and economic outcome is often uncertain and hard to prove." However, Trump himself has repeatedly insisted on tying positive economic indicators like employment growth to his own presidency. So even if we might dispute the premise that presidents should receive unqualified praise or blame when the economy grows or tanks, it's worth checking the numbers involved. After all, if Trump proposes that he is to be thanked for employment growth, his own logic dictates that he should be blamed if that rate of growth is slowing down. insisted In order to measure and compare jobs growth during Obama's final three years in office and jobs growth during Trump's first three, we obtained a data set containing 10 years' worth of monthly non-farm payroll employment figures, which BLS confirmed for Snopes was the most reliable and up-to-date data set available, and took into account the February 2020 benchmark revisions. The spreadsheet can be downloaded here, and the table is shown below: here It's important to note that the monthly employment figures for December 2019 and January 2020 are both still preliminary. The January 2020 figure will be revised in March, and all the monthly figures shown in the table are liable to be further revised in 2021, when BLS conducts its annual benchmark revisions again. There are several potential ways to compare jobs growth under Obama and Trump, depending on where you place the transition between the two administrations. Since Trump was inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2017, there is a case for "starting the clock" in January 2017, but also for starting it in February 2017, since that was his first full month in office. If the purpose of the comparison is to gauge the possible influence of a presidency on employment trends, one could also measure jobs growth starting in November 2016, since that's when Trump was actually elected, or in December 2016, since that was the first full month of what could be described as the "Trump era." Finally, if one wished to use only the most reliable figures available, and exclude the preliminary data from December 2019 and January 2020, one could track jobs growth for just the first 34 months of Trump's presidency (from February 2017 to November 2019), and compare that to the final 34 months of Obama's tenure (from April 2014 to January 2017). The following table takes into account all five methods. Each of them demonstrates that the final three years of Obama's presidency saw significantly superior jobs growth than the first three years of Trump's presidency. As the table shows, Obama's final three years in office saw significantly greater jobs growth than Trump's fist three years did, no matter where the transition between presidencies is placed. Across the first four different methods, the gap averages out at around 1.5 million jobs meaning the claim at the center of this fact check was accurate. Employment has grown during the first three years of Trump's presidency, but at a significantly slower rate than it did towards the end of Obama's tenure across the first four methods used here, jobs growth under Trump has averaged out at around 19% slower than the rate of growth experienced during his predecessor's final three years in office. When we exclude the two months of preliminary data (December 2019 and January 2020) and compare blocks of 34 months each (as opposed to blocks of 36 months), the jobs growth gap is naturally slightly smaller (because the time periods in question are slightly shorter), but the gap in the rate of growth is still significant, with Trump's presidency seeing employment grow 18.2% more slowly than it did during the final 34 months of Obama's time in office. Date, S.V. "Trumps First 3 Years Created 1.5 Million Fewer Jobs Than Obamas Last 3." Yahoo! News. 10 February 2020. Date, S.V. "Trumps First 3 Years Created 1.5 Million Fewer Jobs Than Obamas Last 3." HuffPost. 10 February 2020. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. "Economic News Release -- the Employment Situation, January 2020." 7 February 2020. Weissmann, Jordan. "Trumps Jobs Record Is Weaker Than Everyone Thought." Slate. 7 February 2020. Benen, Steve. "The Nagging Detail About Job Growth Trump Probably Won't Like." MSNBC. 7 February 2020. Irwin, Neil. "Presidents Have Less Power Over the Economy Than You Might Think." The New York Times. 17 January 2017. Boak, Josh; Miller, Zeke. "Trump Claims Credit for Economy, Jobs in New York Speech." The Associated Press. 12 November 2019.

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fireworks-furlough/

Have July 4th Events at Military Installations Been Called Off?

David Mikkelson

07/02/2013

Claim: President Obama has canceled July 4 celebrations at U.S. military bases to save money. OUTDATED Example: [Collected via e-mail, July 2013] Supposedly the president has cancelled 4th of July celebrations for the troops on military bases to save money. Origins: This item about President Obama's having cancelled Independence Day celebrations at U.S. military bases scheduled for 4 July 2013 began circulating a few days before that holiday. It is true that some of the U.S. military bases which typically stage larger July 4 shows cut back or canceled their 4th of July celebrations that year, but those bases individually chose to do so due to budgetary constraints, not because President Obama directed all U.S. bases to skip celebrating Independence Day that year to "save money." The mandatory $85 billion budget cut imposed by sequestration as of March 2013 an outcome for which Congress and the President shared some measure of blame due to their inability to resolve deficit reduction issues affected many federal departments, including the military. Therefore, some U.S. military bases had to make the choice of scrapping annual fireworks shows (which can cost upwards of $100,000) or other Independence Day events in order to allocate funds to more vital areas: sequestration The Fourth of July won't have a patriotic boom in the sky over some military bases because budget cuts and furloughed workers also mean furloughed fireworks. Independence Day celebrations have been canceled at the Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base and at the Army's Fort Bragg, both in North Carolina. The annual July Fourth celebration also has been scrapped at the Marine Corps Logistics Base in Albany, Ga. The reason is money namely the lack of it. The failure in Washington to follow up a 2011 budget pact with additional spending cuts meant $85 billion across-the-board cuts that began in March. Budgets tightened, the military took a major hit and many federal workers absorbed pay cuts through forced furloughs. When the decision was made to forgo fireworks at Camp Lejeune, the commanding general, Brig. Gen. Thomas Gorry, said the cancellation would "ensure that we can mitigate the fiscal challenges we are currently facing." Last year's Independence Day at the base cost about $100,000, including $25,000 for the fireworks. The big issue is paying the overtime to personnel for security, transportation, logistics and safety. Base officials said they couldn't justify paying overtime when federal workers are losing pay while furloughed. Marines and their families at Lejeune will instead be able to participate in some free activities golf, bowling, skeet shooting, archery and movies. Other bases that are canceling ceremonies to mark the nation's birthday: Shaw Air Force Base in South Carolina, where the annual Jammin' July 4th put on by the 20th Fighter Wing at Shaw and local city and county officials has been scrapped. The base plans a smaller "freedom bash" on July 3 with pool games, face painting and bouncy castles. The Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam in Hawaii, which is scaling back by canceling the fireworks and instead hosting a daytime celebration featuring the Pacific Fleet Band and the Air Force Band of the Pacific. New Jersey's Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst. Last updated: 8 June 2015 Kerr, Jennifer C. "A Fourth of July with No Fireworks for Some Military Bases." The Washington Post. 1 July 2013.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/robin-williams-helps-the-homeless/

Did Robin Williams' Contracts Help the Homeless?

Snopes Staff

08/25/2014

In the wake of comedian Robin Williams' death by suicide in August 2014, an item about Williams' supposedly requiring in his work contracts that "the company hiring him also had to hire a certain number of homeless people and put them to work" quickly spread far and wide online: Years ago I learned a very cool thing about Robin Williams, and I couldn't watch a movie of his afterward without thinking of it. I never actually booked Robin Williams for an event, but I came close enough that his office sent over his rider. For those outside of the entertainment industry, a rider lists out an artist's specific personal and technical needs for hosting them for an event- anything from bottled water and their green room to sound and lighting requirements. You can learn a lot about a person from their rider. This is where rocks bands list their requirement for green M&Ms (which is actually a surprisingly smart thing to do). This is also where a famous environmentalist requires a large gas-guzzling private jet to fly to the event city, but then requires an electric or hybrid car to take said environmentalist to the event venue when in view of the public. When I got Robin Williams' rider, I was very surprised by what I found. He actually had a requirement that for every single event or film he did, the company hiring him also had to hire a certain number of homeless people and put them to work. I never watched a Robin Williams movie the same way after that. I'm sure that on his own time and with his own money, he was working with these people in need, but he'd also decided to use his clout as an entertainer to make sure that production companies and event planners also learned the value of giving people a chance to work their way back. I wonder how many production companies continued the practice into their next non-Robin Williams project, as well as how many people got a chance at a job and the pride of earning an income, even temporarily, from his actions. He was a great multiplier of his impact. Let's hope that impact lives on without him. Thanks, Robin Williams -- not just for laughs, but also for a cool example. This account appears to have originated with an article posted by Brian Lord ("A Little Known Robin Williams Story") on 12 August 2014, recounting the author's experience in attempting to hire Williams for an event: Brian Lord I never actually booked Robin Williams for an event, but I came close enough that his office sent over his rider. When I got Robin Williams' rider, I was very surprised by what I found. He actually had a requirement that for every single event or film he did, the company hiring him also had to hire a certain number of homeless people and put them to work. That bit of information took off virally when it was quoted in a Facebook post made on 25 August by a user named "Perry Marshall," whom many readers confused with Penny Marshall, an actress/comedienne who was friends with Robin Williams throughout his life. Facebook As of now this story remains unverified: We've seen no mention or confirmation of it by anyone who ever worked with Robin Williams, nor has anyone to our knowledge produced a copy of a Robin Williams contract bearing the clause in question. The Smoking Gun document leak site long ago posted what may have been a backstage rider from a Robin Williams' appearance in 2002, but it included no reference in its text to a requirement for employing the homeless. backstage rider

neutral

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/internal-robbing-you-service/

Is the IRS Seizing Innocent Americans' Bank Accounts?

David Mikkelson

10/28/2014

Claim: The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is seizing bank accounts from innocent American citizens under civil forfeiture laws. : Civil forfeiture laws enable law enforcement agents and the government to seize the assets of Americans who are neither guilty nor even suspected of any wrongdoing. Civil forfeiture laws are new or exclusive to the IRS. Example: [Collected via e-mail, October 2014] Just read a Facebook post. It was an article regarding the IRS seizing bank accounts of innocent American citizens who have done nothing criminally wrong. Inspite of the problems this has caused individuals the IRS seems relatively unconcerned except they want to collect money for whatever reasons. Is this true? Does the IRS have the right to just take the money of American citizens from their accounts? Are they an acting collections agency for the government now? I found this article a tad disturbing to say the least. Thank you for amy information you might have regarding this article and subject matter. Origins: On 5 October 2014, the issue of civil forfeiture and its effects on American citizens entered the spotlight after HBO host John Oliver addressed the matter at length on his show Last Week Tonight with John Oliver. During the segment, Oliver and guest Jeff Goldblum focused on seemingly arbitrary, unfair, and corrupt civil forfeiture practices allegedly perpetrated by law enforcement agents in a number of jurisdictions. Oliver's civil forfeiture segment sparked a number of conversations about the laws surrounding confiscation of assets under related laws. Then, on 25 October 2014, the New York Times For almost 40 years, Carole Hinders has dished out Mexican specialties at her modest cash-only restaurant. For just as long, she deposited the earnings at a small bank branch a block away until last year, when two tax agents knocked on her door and informed her that they had seized her checking account, almost $33,000. The Internal Revenue Service agents did not accuse Ms. Hinders of money laundering or cheating on her taxes in fact, she has not been charged with any crime. Instead, the money was seized solely because she had deposited less than $10,000 at a time, which they viewed as an attempt to avoid triggering a required government report. Using a law designed to catch drug traffickers, racketeers and terrorists by tracking their cash, the government has gone after run-of-the-mill business owners and wage earners without so much as an allegation that they have committed serious crimes. The government can take the money without ever filing a criminal complaint, and the owners are left to prove they are innocent. Many give up. It seems Hinders' run-in with the IRS was triggered by her practice of keeping deposits under the mandated reporting threshold of $10,000. Deposits that exceed $10,000 must be reported to the government under the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970, but Hinders told the Times that she believed large deposits created unnecessary paperwork for bank employees: Bank Secrecy Act My mom had told me if you keep your deposits under $10,000, the bank avoids paperwork. I didn't actually think it had anything to do with the I.R.S. Former federal prosecutor David Smith, an expert on such seizures, told the paper that the practice of civil forfeiture has shifted to focus on individuals not historically targeted by such laws: They're going after people who are really not criminals. They're middle-class citizens who have never had any trouble with the law. Richard Weber, Chief of Criminal Investigation at the IRS, described the seizures as "structuring" related, referring to suspicion triggered by a large number of deposits near the $10,000 threshold for reporting under the Bank Secrecy Act. In response to sudden interest in the IRS's policies regarding "structuring cases," Weber issued a statement indicating the IRS will curtail its seizure activities in cases where no crime is suspected: statement After a thorough review of our structuring cases over the last year and in order to provide consistency throughout the country (between our field offices and the U.S. attorney offices) regarding our policies, I.R.S.-C.I. will no longer pursue the seizure and forfeiture of funds associated solely with "legal source" structuring cases unless there are exceptional circumstances justifying the seizure and forfeiture and the case has been approved at the director of field operations (D.F.O.) level. While the act of structuring whether the funds are from a legal or illegal source is against the law, I.R.S.-C.I. special agents will use this act as an indicator that further illegal activity may be occurring. This policy update will ensure that C.I. continues to focus our limited investigative resources on identifying and investigating violations within our jurisdiction that closely align with C.I.'s mission and key priorities. The policy involving seizure and forfeiture in "illegal source" structuring cases will remain the same. The IRS is just one of several agencies engaging in civil forfeiture, and Oliver's segment also addressed its application by local and regional law enforcement: Prior to Oliver's segment and the Times' profile, civil forfeiture practices had been extensively profiled in the media: In general, you needn't be found guilty to have your assets claimed by law enforcement; in some states, suspicion on a par with "probable cause" is sufficient. Nor must you be charged with a crime, or even be accused of one. Unlike criminal forfeiture, which requires that a person be convicted of an offense before his or her property is confiscated, civil forfeiture amounts to a lawsuit filed directly against a possession, regardless of its owner's guilt or innocence. One result is the rise of improbable case names such as United States v. One Pearl Necklace and United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins. "The protections our Constitution usually affords are out the window," Louis Rulli, a clinical law professor at the University of Pennsylvania and a leading forfeiture expert, observes. A piece of property does not share the rights of a person. There's no right to an attorney and, in most states, no presumption of innocence. Owners who wish to contest often find that the cost of hiring a lawyer far exceeds the value of their seized goods. Washington, D.C., charges up to twenty-five hundred dollars simply for the right to challenge a police seizure in court, which can take months or even years to resolve. Although the IRS has pledged to restrict its civil forfeiture activity to mainly "illegal source" cases, the practice is not limited to the tax agency and remains legal. Last updated: 28 October 2014 Stillman, Sarah. "Taken." The New Yorker. 12 August 2013.

false