ID
stringlengths 11
14
| claim
stringlengths 6
376
| posted
stringlengths 10
10
| sci_digest
sequencelengths 0
3
| justification
stringlengths 356
46.2k
| issues
sequencelengths 1
15
| image_data
listlengths 0
34
| label
stringclasses 3
values | evidence
stringlengths 20
35.3k
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FMD_train_794 | Bush Salutes Birdwell | 12/27/2001 | [
"During a hospital visit, did President George W. Bush salute an Army officer who had been badly injured during the terrorist attack on the Pentagon?"
] | Claim: During a hospital visit, President George W. Bush saluted an Army officer who had been badly injured during the September 11 terrorist attack on the Pentagon. . Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2001] As you may know, the President and Mrs. Bush visited the Washington Burn Center on Friday 14 September. Among those they visited was LTC Brian Birdwell, who was badly burned in the Pentagon attack. Mrs. Bush went into Brian's room, spoke to him for about a minute, all the time as if they had been long acquaintances. She then turned to Brian's wife Mel, who at this time had been at the hospital for probably 2 1/2 days, and apparently, according to Mel herself, was dirty, grimy and had blood on her shirt. Mrs. Bush hugged Mel for what Mel said seemed like an eternity, just as if Mel were one of her closest family members. Mrs. Bush then told Brian and Mel that there was "someone" there to see him. The President then walked in, stood by Brian's bedside, asked Brian how he was doing, told him that he was very proud of them both and that they were his heroes. The President then saluted Brian. Now, at this point in time, Brian is bandaged up pretty well. His hands are burned very badly as well as the back of him from the head down. His movements were very restricted. Upon seeing the President saluting him, Brian began to slowly return the salute, taking, from the accounts so far, about 15-20 seconds to get his hand up to his head. During all of this, 15-20 seconds, President Bush never moved, never dropped his salute. The President dropped his salute only when Brian was finished with his, and then gave Mel a huge hug for what also probably seemed like an eternity. Pray for our leadership. Thank God for what we are, have, and will be. As a note to those of you who might not be familiar with military protocol, the subordinate normally initiates a salute and will hold it until the superior officer returns the salute. In the above incident, President Bush acted in the role of the subordinate to show his respect and high regard for the injured man. Origins: Glurge should always be taken with a grain of salt, and given previous fabrications such as The Evangelical Prez and Keep the Change glurge involving President Bush and military or religious matters should call for a few extra grains. We're happy to report that this item requires no seasoning at all, however. The Evangelical Prez Keep the Change Lieutenant Colonel Brian Birdwell, an Army officer a few months short of his 40th birthday, was just leaving a Pentagon restroom on the morning of September 11 when hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 was slammed into the building by terrorists. Lt. Col. Birdwell was badly injured by the ensuing explosion and fire; fortunately, he collapsed under a hallway sprinkler, which helped douse the flames engulfing his prone body before rescuers pulled him from the collapsed section of the Pentagon. Birdwell ended up in the burn treatment center at Washington Hospital Center with smoke-damaged lungs and burns over nearly half his body. A couple of days later, as reported by several news outlets, Birdwell received an unexpected visit from his commander-in-chief, the President of the United States of America, who offered him the honor of a salute: Not long after Sept. 11, Birdwell had met the president. He was awake for President Bush's visit, as it turned out and aware enough to strain to return the salute the president had offered. He lifted his badly burned hand toward his injured forehead. When he could not quite reach it, he tried to bend his body toward his hand. The president's eyes filled with tears. Bush held firm until the wounded soldier let go.2 Two days later, Birdwell got a visit from his boss President Bush, commander-in-chief of the armed forces. "The president comes in and he says, 'Col. Birdwell,' and he salutes," [wife] Mel Birdwell recalled. "And Brian attempts to return the salute, and the president sees that he's returning the salute and he stands there and holds his salute with tears in his eyes."1 Birdwell's older brother, Wade, also confirmed the story via e-mail: I cannot tell you how grateful and truly proud I am that when Brian started to return that salute, despite his wounds, the president held his salute firmly and thereby permitted my brother the honor of demonstrating his and the true character of so very many others of our fighting men and women. Indeed, you should know that it was this very character that likely saved Brian's life in the first place. As Brian crawled through the fire, certain brave men and women pulled him from the carnage, carried him out to the parking lot, then into the adjoining street." After months of treatment and therapy, Lt. Col. Birdwell, who was awarded the Purple Heart, was able to leave the hospital to attend Thanksgiving Day services at his church in Springfield, Virginia, and to begin making trips home. Last updated: 22 February 2007 Sources: 1. Aiken, Johnathan. "A Pentagon Survivor's Story." CNN.com. 15 December 2001. 2. St. George, Donna. "Hope Breathes Beneath Wounds." The Washington Post. 2 December 2001 (p. A1). | [
"returns"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1knBZIzLXO69vSvO7y1m5PBBNLREi6ML6",
"image_caption": null
}
] | True | should always be taken with a grain of salt, and given previous fabrications such as The Evangelical Prez and Keep the Change glurge involving President Bush and military or religious matters should call for a few extra grains. We're happy to report that this item requires no seasoning at all, however. |
FMD_train_1762 | Macy's sent a letter to Rick Perry requesting that he reject the equal pay bill. | 11/25/2013 | [] | A reader forwarded anemailto us in which state Rep. Senfronia Thompson urged a boycott of Macys department stores on the day after Thanksgiving 2013. The fact that Macy's doesn't support equal pay for women should stop you from shopping there on Black Friday, the Houston Democrat wrote, saying that her equal-pay proposal cleared the Legislature earlier this year, but then Macy's sent a letter to Rick Perry urging him to veto the law, which he ultimately did. Thompsons House Bill950was among 24 bills PerryvetoedJune 14, 2013. It would have created state law similar to 2009s federal Lilly Ledbetter Act, which gave plaintiffs more time to sue over pay discrimination in federal courts. AnAug. 6, 2013,news storyin theHouston Chroniclereported that Texas Retailers Association members including Macys and Krogers had written Perry in May asking him to kill the legislation because, they said, it would lead to open-ended litigation and duplicate federal law. Thompson spokeswoman Milda Mora told us by phone that the representative learned of the letters from theHouston Chroniclereporter in August and checked with the governors office, which provided her with copies that Moraemailedto us. One written on Macys letterhead (clickhereor scroll down to view it) concluded, The federal requirements under Lilly Ledbetter are unnecessary and would be harmful to Texas employers. We urge you to veto this legislation. Macys spokeswoman Bethany Charlton confirmed that her company sent the May 31, 2013, letter, which was signed by a company vice president. By email, Charlton said the company absolutely supports equal pay for equal work among men and women but believes existing laws provide strong remedies for discrimination. Perrys logic was similar: House Bill 950 duplicates federal law, which already allows employees who feel they have been discriminated against through compensation to file a claim with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, said his June 14, 2013,veto statement. Progress Texas, the pro-Democratic organization that distributed Thompsons email and is organizing theboycott,disputesPerrys statement that the bill would have duplicated federal law, saying that the Ledbetter protections need to be codified in state law for them to apply to cases in state courts. The groups executive director, Ed Espinoza, told us by email that his group launched a boycott of Macys and other retailers when the news broke in August. An Aug. 7, 2013,Chroniclenews blog postsaid Thompson took part in that boycott also, canceling a planned appearance at a Macys store to mark the states annual sales-tax holiday. Mora said that Thompson, who was quoted in an Aug. 9, 2013 Texas Public Radionews storyas saying she had previously been a card-packing member of Macys, but had not shopped there since the letters became public. Our ruling Thompson said Macy's sent a letter to Rick Perry urging him to veto her equal pay measure. As the Houston newspaper reported, Macys wrote the governor May 31, 2013, saying We urge you to veto this legislation. The claim is True. TRUE The statement is accurate and theres nothing significant missing. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. | [
"Income",
"Legal Issues",
"Workers",
"Texas"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1UUTP87SJq242qRTbQC9jIQ1nZexKamaZ",
"image_caption": ""
}
] | True | A reader forwarded anemailto us in which state Rep. Senfronia Thompson urged a boycott of Macys department stores on the day after Thanksgiving 2013.Thompsons House Bill950was among 24 bills PerryvetoedJune 14, 2013. It would have created state law similar to 2009s federal Lilly Ledbetter Act, which gave plaintiffs more time to sue over pay discrimination in federal courts.AnAug. 6, 2013,news storyin theHouston Chroniclereported that Texas Retailers Association members including Macys and Krogers had written Perry in May asking him to kill the legislation because, they said, it would lead to open-ended litigation and duplicate federal law.Thompson spokeswoman Milda Mora told us by phone that the representative learned of the letters from theHouston Chroniclereporter in August and checked with the governors office, which provided her with copies that Moraemailedto us.One written on Macys letterhead (clickhereor scroll down to view it) concluded, The federal requirements under Lilly Ledbetter are unnecessary and would be harmful to Texas employers. We urge you to veto this legislation.Perrys logic was similar: House Bill 950 duplicates federal law, which already allows employees who feel they have been discriminated against through compensation to file a claim with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, said his June 14, 2013,veto statement.Progress Texas, the pro-Democratic organization that distributed Thompsons email and is organizing theboycott,disputesPerrys statement that the bill would have duplicated federal law, saying that the Ledbetter protections need to be codified in state law for them to apply to cases in state courts.The groups executive director, Ed Espinoza, told us by email that his group launched a boycott of Macys and other retailers when the news broke in August. An Aug. 7, 2013,Chroniclenews blog postsaid Thompson took part in that boycott also, canceling a planned appearance at a Macys store to mark the states annual sales-tax holiday.Mora said that Thompson, who was quoted in an Aug. 9, 2013 Texas Public Radionews storyas saying she had previously been a card-packing member of Macys, but had not shopped there since the letters became public.Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. |
FMD_train_623 | Is This a 1950s Women's Magazine Ad for a Handgun to Shoot 'Depraved Creeps'? | 08/06/2018 | [
"A vintage women's magazine advertisement for a Colt Cobra revolver for use against 'that strange, depraved creep who won't leave you alone' is a recent fabrication."
] | "Smart gals know what it takes to be confident around a masher," reads a vintage-looking magazine that has been making the social media rounds since mid-2017. What does it take to be confident, according to this print advertisement? A .38 caliber Colt Cobra snub-nose revolver "for that strange, depraved creep who won't leave you alone." Here's an example of the ad via Twitter: For that strange depraved creep who won't leave you alone #advertisement pic.twitter.com/tnnTT5HFCH PANTHERA ? (@Panthera156) March 28, 2018. The copy continues with its pitch as follows: Some lunkheads just won't go away. You change your schedule, you wear a hat, you even try the old false beard gag, but no, he's still there, breathing through his mouth, leering at your bosom with those droopy, lifeless fish eyes. Face it, girls, there are times when subterfuge isn't enough—you may need to take fast action, FAST! That's why a girl couldn't find a finer new friend than the Colt Cobra .38 Snub Nose. You'll enjoy the modern styling as you draw it from your purse. You'll sense the velvet smoothness of the action as you cock the hammer. You'll appreciate the crispness of the trigger pull, designed with your long nails in mind, as you fire again and again. Although the overall appearance of the ad is convincing at first glance, the closer one looks, the more preposterous its content reveals itself to be. The image is a parody of 1950s advertising, but a number of inconsistencies and anachronisms stand out. The magazine named in the lower right-hand corner, supposedly called "Ladies Life & Household," never existed (or if it did, every trace of it has been expunged from modern records). The handgun's finish is described as "Colt's beautiful pacifier blue"—an obvious satirical reference to 1950s gender role stereotypes (if Colt ever manufactured a "pacifier blue" firearm, no examples of it exist today). The pistol shown in the illustration, allegedly a Colt Cobra .38 (the same kind of revolver Jack Ruby used to kill JFK assassin Lee Harvey Oswald in 1963), appears to be a different model altogether. The image matches up fairly closely to one we found in a mid-1970s ad for a Colt Detective Special (third series, introduced in 1973). And what about that leering creep? The face of the "mouth-breathing lunkhead" with "droopy, lifeless fish eyes," who serves as the villain of the tableau, shows unmistakable signs of digital tampering. It isn't just the eyes that droop: From all of the above, it makes sense to suppose that there was an existing scanned image, most likely of another vintage ad, that served as a template for the Colt Cobra parody. A reverse-image search provided instant confirmation that this is the case—the Colt Cobra ad is a reworking of a full-page advertisement for Gleem Toothpaste that appeared on page 110 of Life magazine on 11 February 1957. Image credit: SenseiAlan / Flickr Trask, Mike. "From Jack Ruby to Las Vegas: A Gun's Trajectory." Las Vegas Sun. 11 March 2008. | [
"credit"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1ZZm2gbGiFpmN88DWEm3Omnsiv0asnX6d",
"image_caption": null
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1JMezJQ4Ti-D_C0vw4FgXz0N8O9qbBHF1",
"image_caption": null
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1y0xdv9nlLxEj85YBF65fOsgmgy2HmlVp",
"image_caption": null
}
] | False | "Smart gals know what it takes to be confident around a masher," reads a vintage-looking magazine as making the social media rounds since mid-2017.For that strange depraved creep who wont leave you alone #advertisement pic.twitter.com/tnnTT5HFCH PANTHERA ? (@Panthera156) March 28, 2018The pistol shown in the illustration, allegedly a Colt Cobra .38 (the same kind of revolver Jack Ruby used to kill JFK assassin Lee Harvey Oswald in 1963), appears to be a different model altogether. The image matches up fairly closely to one we found in a mid-1970s ad for a Colt Detective Special (third series, introduced in 1973):From all of the above it makes sense to suppose that there was an existing scanned image, most likely of another vintage ad, that served as a template for the Colt Cobra parody. A reverse-image search provided instant confirmation that that is the case the Colt Cobra ad is a reworking of a full-page advertisement for Gleem Toothpaste that appeared on page 110 of Life magazine on 11 February 1957:Image credit: SenseiAlan / Flickr |
FMD_train_754 | Wreaths at Arlington Cemetery | 10/08/2006 | [
"Photograph shows holiday wreaths laid at headstones in Arlington National Cemetery."
] | The photograph displayed above is a Christmas-season picture of graves at Arlington National Cemetery, the final resting place of men and women who served the United States in the military and in the government. Every December since 1992, volunteers have laid wreaths donated by the Worcester Wreath Company of Harrington, Maine, at the headstones of thousands of America's honored dead: Arlington Example: [Collected via e-mail, November 2005] I had never heard of this. I have only visited in the summer months. I wonder why the press hasn't enlightened the public about it? Arlington National Cemetery Rest easy, sleep well my brothers.Know the line has held, your job is done.Rest easy, sleep well.Others have taken up where you fell, the line has held.Peace, peace, and farewell... Readers may be interested to know that these wreaths some 5,000 are donated by the Worcester Wreath Co. of Harrington, Maine. The owner, Merrill Worcester, not only provides the wreaths, but covers the trucking expense as well. He's done this since 1992. A wonderful guy. Also, most years, groups of Maine school kids combine an educational trip to DC with this event to help out. Making this even more remarkable is the fact that Harrington is in one the poorest parts of the state. Morrill Worcester initially brought 4,000 surplus wreaths from the holiday decoration company he owns to adorn gravesites at Arlington in 1992. Every year since then he has set aside several thousand wreaths especially for that purpose, driving to Arlington in December with a trailer full of decorations and dozens of volunteers to distribute them throughout the cemetery. As Mr. Worcester told an Air Force reporter in 2005: We couldn't do anything in this country if it wasn't for the people who gave their lives to protect us. It's a great honor to be able to come here and pay our respects.That first year, there were just a few of us, and it took us five or six hours to get them placed. This year, we had extra help and got done in about an hour. One question we're commonly asked is how the Arlington Wreath Project determines where to place their wreaths, since Arlington National Cemetery encompasses many more graves than the number of wreaths distributed each year. Major Wayne Merritt, a co-director of the Project, told us that the director of the cemetery selects the location for each year's wreath-laying, and the Project's plan is to cover all the areas of the park over a number of years. The answer to another common question is provided in Wreaths Across America's FAQ: "Prior to the wreath-laying ceremonies, cemetery administrative personnel give participants specific instructions regarding placement of wreaths. In most state/national cemeteries, participants are instructed to place wreaths only on graves bearing the Christian cross or nondenominational graves." FAQ In 2007, the Worcester family, along with veterans and other groups and individuals who had helped with their annual Christmas wreath ceremony in Arlington, formed Wreaths Across America, a non-profit organization, to continue and expand the effort to place memorial wreaths at more than 230 State and National Cemeteries and Veterans Monuments across the United States. This project receives no government funding, with the cost of the program being paid for by individual wreath sponsors and corporate donors. Wreaths Across America On 10 December 2011, 15,000 volunteers laid 90,000 wreaths on headstones at Arlington National Cemetery. Photographs of the 2011 wreath-laying ceremony can be viewed on the Washington Post web site. Washington Post The clip displayed below is a seven-minute video of past wreath-laying ceremonies put together by Worcester Wreath to show what the Arlington Wreath Project and Wreaths Across America is all about: Alcindor, Yamiche. Thousands of Wreath-Layers Carry Out Arlington Tradition.
The Washington Post. 13 December 2009. Buzanowski, J. G. Airmen, Civilians Lay Wreaths at Arlington.
Air Force Print News. 19 December 2005. Crudele, Bethany. Volunteers Lay Wreaths at Arlington in Holiday Tribute to Fallen Veterans.
CNN. 12 December 2009. Salas, Randy. Web Search: Wreaths for the Fallen.
[Minneapolis] Star Tribune. 9 November 2006. | [
"profit"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1J-Keuy8n3CcF30zY1sVQwlk3HKUi9dkL",
"image_caption": null
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=16NyLIMgvRVaEYIbzFYxwu9gDlzZNs5rp",
"image_caption": null
}
] | True | The photograph displayed above is a Christmas-season picture of graves at Arlington National Cemetery, the final resting place of men and women who served the United States in the military and in the government. Every December since 1992, volunteers have laid wreaths donated by the Worcester Wreath Company of Harrington, Maine, at the headstones of thousands of America's honored dead:The answer to another common question is provided in Wreaths Across America's FAQ: "Prior to the wreath-laying ceremonies, cemetery administrative personnel give participants specific instructions regarding placement of wreaths. In most state/national cemeteries, participants are instructed to place wreaths only on graves bearing the Christian cross or nondenominational graves."In 2007, the Worcester family, along with veterans and other groups and individuals who had helped with their annual Christmas wreath ceremony in Arlington, formed Wreaths Across America, a non-profit organization, to continue and expand the effort to place memorial wreaths at more than 230 State and National Cemeteries and Veterans Monuments across the United States. This project receives no government funding, with the cost of the program being paid for by individual wreath sponsors and corporate donors.On 10 December 2011, 15,000 volunteers laid 90,000 wreaths on headstones at Arlington National Cemetery. Photographs of the 2011 wreath-laying ceremony can be viewed on the Washington Post web site. |
FMD_train_134 | Did Macron Scold Biden at NATO Summit? | 06/18/2021 | [
"Single photographs can be misinterpreted easily. "
] | In June 2021, world leaders from dozens of countries met in Brussels for the 31st formal meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). U.S. President Joe Biden held a number of bilateral meetings and news conferences during the event. While several world leaders made remarks praising the American president, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson described Biden as "a big breath of fresh air," and French President Emmanuel Macron stated it was "great to have a U.S. president who's part of the club." However, some Biden critics focused on a single image from the multi-day trip that they claimed showed Macron "scolding" the U.S. president. This is a genuine image of Biden and Macron. However, the claim that Macron was "scolding" Biden is based purely on speculation. A single photograph is rarely enough to tell the entire story of an interaction. In fact, we have covered multiple instances in which single photographs were misrepresented and shared with misleading or fabricated context. In May 2017, for example, an image of Pope Francis "frowning" with former President Donald Trump was shared alongside an image of the pope "smiling" with former President Barack Obama. These photographs were both real, but they only captured a single moment from each president's meeting with the pope and did not accurately depict his mood during these meetings. We found other images that showed the pope smiling with Trump and frowning with Obama. This tactic of cherry-picking a single image to create a misleading narrative was also at play when users shared the image that supposedly showed Macron "scolding" Biden. Although one could share this "scolding" image along with claims that Biden was "bullied" by European leaders, one could also share other photographs (such as the one at the top of this page) to claim that Biden was best buds with Macron. This image of Macron "scolding" Biden is available via Getty Images. The caption states that the two leaders were having a discussion before the start of the NATO summit: "US President Joe Biden (R) and French President Emmanuel Macron (L) have a conversation ahead of the NATO summit at the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) headquarters in Brussels, on June 14, 2021." We did not find video showing the specific moment captured in this photograph, but we did find some footage of Biden and Macron talking before the start of the NATO summit. You can catch a glimpse of Biden and Macron speaking at the 3:08-minute mark of the following video. You can't hear what they are saying to one another, but it doesn't appear that this is a heated conversation. Reporting from the NATO summit also made no mention of unusual tensions between the two world leaders. In fact, it was quite the opposite. Reuters reported that the United States is back as a cooperative leader of the free world under President Joe Biden, illustrating the relief felt by many key U.S. | [
"share"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1yKuT2DTWWT2XHMuGGkwChw3wpe7rlY1V",
"image_caption": null
}
] | False | In June 2021, world leaders from dozens of countries met in Brussels for the 31st formal meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). U.S. President Joe Biden held a number of bilateral meetings and news conferences during the event, and although a number of world leaders made remarks praising the American president British Prime Minister Boris Johnson said Biden was "a big breath of fresh air," and French President Emmanuel Macron said it was "great to have a U.S. president whos part of the club" some Biden critics focused on a single image from the multi-day trip that they claimed showed Macron "scolding" the U.S. president:A single photograph is rarely enough to tell the entire story of an interaction. In fact, we've covered multiple instances in which single photographs were misrepresented and shared with misleading or fabricated context. In May 2017, for example, an image of Pope Francis "frowning" with former President Donald Trump was shared alongside an image of the pope "smiling" with former President Barack Obama. These photographs were both real, but they only showed a single moment from each president's meeting with the pope and did not accurately depict his mood during these meetings. We found other images that showed the pope smiling with Trump and frowning with Obama.This image of Macron "scolding" Biden is available via Getty Images. The caption states that the two leaders were having a discussion before the start of the NATO summit:Reuters reported:Biden and Macron shared several moments together in June 2021. We found several images of them laughing together and even walking arm in arm. Reporting from the event also indicated that Macron's attitude toward the new U.S. president was generally positive. Here's a video of Biden and Macron during a meeting a few days before the NATO summit: |
FMD_train_340 | Is Biden Proposing a 3% Federal Property Tax? | 10/27/2020 | [
"The Democratic presidential candidate has not proposed a 3% property tax."
] | During the 2020 U.S. presidential campaign, social media postings repeatedly warned readers that Democratic candidate Joe Biden was planning to impose a 3% federal tax on the value of homes, in addition to any property taxes homeowners were already paying. However, this warning about a Biden-backed federal property tax was unfounded. Property taxes in the U.S. are set and collected at the state, county, and city levels, and the announced Biden Tax Plan includes nothing that could be construed as imposing an additional federal property tax on privately owned homes. The Tax Foundation, an independent tax policy nonprofit, summarizes the Biden tax plan as including the following primary elements applicable to individuals (rather than businesses): it imposes a 12.4 percent Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (Social Security) payroll tax on income earned above $400,000, evenly split between employers and employees. This would create a donut hole in the current Social Security payroll tax, where wages between $137,700, the current wage cap, and $400,000 are not taxed. It reverts the top individual income tax rate for taxable incomes above $400,000 from 37 percent under current law to the pre-Tax Cuts and Jobs Act level of 39.6 percent. It taxes long-term capital gains and qualified dividends at the ordinary income tax rate of 39.6 percent on income above $1 million and eliminates the step-up in basis for capital gains taxation. It caps the tax benefit of itemized deductions to 28 percent of value for those earning more than $400,000, which means that taxpayers earning above that income threshold with tax rates higher than 28 percent would face limited itemized deductions. It restores the Pease limitation on itemized deductions for taxable incomes above $400,000. It phases out the qualified business income deduction (Section 199A) for filers with taxable income above $400,000. It expands the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) for childless workers aged 65 and older and provides renewable-energy-related tax credits to individuals. It expands the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit (CDCTC) from a maximum of $3,000 in qualified expenses to $8,000 ($16,000 for multiple dependents) and increases the maximum reimbursement rate from 35 percent to 50 percent. For 2021 and as long as economic conditions require, it increases the Child Tax Credit (CTC) from a maximum value of $2,000 to $3,000 for children 17 or younger, while providing a $600 bonus credit for children under 6. The CTC would also be made fully refundable, removing the $2,500 reimbursement threshold and 15 percent phase-in rate. It reestablishes the First-Time Homebuyers Tax Credit, which was originally created during the Great Recession to help the housing market. Biden's homebuyers credit would provide up to $15,000 for first-time homebuyers. It expands the estate and gift tax by restoring the rate and exemption to 2009 levels. Similar analyses of Biden's tax plan by other entities include no mention of a federal property tax. | [
"income"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1lxjDNMaEKjIBy7dLfSu2pMRdJ1QgXkYG",
"image_caption": null
}
] | False | However, this warning about a Biden-backed federal property tax was specious. Property taxes in the U.S. are set and collected at the state, county, and city levels, and the announced Biden Tax Plan includes nothing that could be remotely construed as imposing an additional federal property tax on privately-owned homes.The Tax Foundation, an independent tax policy nonprofit, summarizes the Biden tax plan as including the following primary elements applicable to individuals (rather than businesses):Similar analysis of Biden's tax plan by other entities include no mention of a federal property tax. |
FMD_train_1181 | Catholic Services in Jeopardy During Government Shutdown | 10/05/2013 | [
"Are Catholic priests barred from conducting religious services on U.S. military bases during the federal government shutdown?"
] | Claim: Catholic priests may not conduct religious services on U.S. military bases during the federal government shutdown. Contract priests are prohibited from conducting religious functions on U.S. military bases during the federal government shutdown. Example: [Collected via e-mail, September 2013] Did President Obama really order that military priests be arrested for saying the Mass during the government shutdown? Origins: One of the many issues affecting both the public and government workers during the federal government shutdown of October 2013 is the Antideficiency Act, a piece of legislation originally passed in 1870 that prohibits the federal government from incurring any monetary obligations for which Congress has not appropriated funds. Under the terms of that legislation, federal employees may not perform their job duties during a government shutdown (except for certain legally exempted activities, such as "emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property") even if they volunteer to do so on an unpaid basis. Federal workers who violate the Antideficiency Act may be subject to disciplinary action (such as suspension or job termination), fines, and imprisonment. The application of the Antideficiency Act is open to a fair amount of interpretation, however. For example, does it violate the terms of the Antideficiency Act for federal workers to check their cell phones or e-mail for work-related messages during the government shutdown, even if they don't act on those messages? Executive branch departments have had to review and decide what government activities they believe may or may not be allowed during the shutdown without running afoul of the Antideficiency Act. Due to a confluence of circumstances, one group affected by the Antideficiency Act is some Catholic priests. Due to a chronic shortage of active duty Catholic military chaplains in the U.S. armed forces, the Department of Defense has had to hire about 234 priests from outside the military (variously known as contract priests, GS priests, or non-active duty priests) to perform Catholic services and other religious functions on U.S. military bases. Although active duty military personnel (including chaplains) are exempt from the Antideficiency Act, government contract workers are not, so contract priests may not perform religious services or otherwise minister to Catholics on U.S. military bases during the government shutdown, even on a volunteer basis. Therefore, a subset of Catholic military personnel who are stationed at bases that have no active duty Catholic chaplains and are instead being staffed by contract priests will have to go elsewhere for religious services during the shutdown. If they wish to attend Mass or take part in a baptism, for example, they will have to go to local churches or other off-base locations for those functions. (U.S. military personnel stationed in some parts of the world may not be able to find local English-speaking priests, or any priests at all, however.) It isn't true that "President Obama ordered that military priests be arrested for saying the Mass during the government shutdown." As explained above, the issue with contract priests in the military was created by the intersection of the Antideficiency Act and a shortage of active duty Catholic military chaplains, two factors that have neither been instigated by nor are under the control of President Obama. Although imprisonment is technically one of the potential punishments spelled out in the law for federal workers who violate the Antideficiency Act, President Obama has not ordered that penalty to be applied to contract priests or any other federal employees, and that penalty is unlikely to be applied to anyone except for the most egregious violations. Update: On 5 October 2013, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a measure (by a 400 to 1 vote) in favor of allowing military chaplains to minister on Sunday without violating the Antideficiency Act. The Senate has not yet taken up the bill. Last updated: 5 October 2013. | [
"funds"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://clergy.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/christ-the-high-priest-icon.jpg",
"image_caption": null
}
] | True | Origins: One of the many issues affecting both the public and government workers during the federal government shutdown of October 2013 is the Antideficiency Act, a piece of legislation originally passed back in 1870 that prohibits the federal government from incurring any monetary obligations for which Congress has not appropriated funds. Under the terms of that legislation, federal employees may not perform their job duties during a government shutdown (save for certain legally exempted activities, such as "emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property") even if they volunteer to do so on an unpaid basis, and federal workers who violate the Antideficiency Act may be subject to disciplinary action (such as suspension or job termination), fines, and imprisonment. |
FMD_train_1457 | Did Fauci Fund 'Gain of Function' Research, Thereby Causing COVID-19 Pandemic? | 05/20/2021 | [
"Statements made by Fox News host Tucker Carlson furthered theories that a manipulated virus spilled over from a lab in Wuhan, China."
] | During a May 10, 2021, airing of his Fox News show, host Tucker Carlson claimed that National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Anthony Fauci helped provide funding for "gain of function" research at a facility in Wuhan, China, that (supposedly) led to the COVID-19 pandemic. Tucker Carlson During that broadcast of Tucker Carlson Tonight, Carlson cited an opinion piece regarding the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic that was written by Nicolas Wade. In a nutshell, Wade argued without substantiated evidence that gain of function experiments (we'll explain what those are later) that were prohibited in the U.S. continued at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), which ultimately led to the creation of SARS-CoV-2. And because the Wuhan-based institute was not properly regulated, Wade argued, the novel coronavirus was likely to have infected a researcher who would ultimately become the source of the pandemic. cited opinion piece The 13-minute segment began with Carlson criticizing Jeffrey Zeints, U.S. President Joe Bidens appointed official to oversee the COVID-19 response efforts. Carlson then suggested that Fauci said Americans can expect to wear masks indefinitely. (We fact-checked that, too. Fauci did not say that.) fact-checked that The question is why is he doing that? Maybe he likes it, thats possible. But you gotta think at least part of Tony Faucis authoritarian germ hysteria is a cover for something else, Carlson continued. Could it be that Tony Fauci is trying to divert attention from himself and his own personal role in the COVID-19 pandemic? Now, what do we mean by that? Thats when Carlson pivoted to The origin of COVID: Did people or nature open Pandoras box at Wuhan? Wade's opinion piece not a scientific study as was suggested published by the nonprofit science organization Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, a reputable group that publishes free-access scientific information concerning science and global security issues. Wade is a controversial science writer whose recent theories on race have been generally disputed by researchers around the world. Wade was a former staff writer for the Science Times section of The New York Times up until 2012 and he authored the controversial book, A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History. He has been described by researchers at Georgetown University as a sad saga of a former international reporter turned laughing stock. The origin of COVID: Did people or nature open Pandoras box at Wuhan? Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists disputed controversial book described By and large, Carlson hyperbolized and generalized Wades main points in his piece, stretching the key takeaways to suggest that the article explains where this virus almost certainly came from. Carlson furthered that Wade makes it clear that more than any other single American, Tony Fauci is responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic by laying out a nearly insurmountably large amount of evidence that the virus originated in the WIV. This evidence included conducting experiments funded by American tax dollars to make bat viruses infectious to humans approved and directed by Tony Fauci, argued Carlson. We'll take a closer look at what Wade actually wrote below. As is usual with these sorts of allegations, there is a mixture of half-truths peppered in an alarmist claim meant to incite an emotional response. First, it is important to note that Wade wrote in his opinion piece that of the two theories he believed were plausible, so far neither has direct evidence proving its validity. Each depends on a set of reasonable conjectures but so far lacks proof. So I have only clues, not conclusions, to offer. But those clues point in a specific direction. And having inferred that direction, Im going to delineate some of the strands in this tangled skein of disaster, he wrote. After the Carlson video aired, questions surrounding gain of function research were brought to a Senate health committee hearing on May 11 when Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) clashed with Fauci over whether funding from the NIH was used at WIV, suggesting that this might have contributed to the lab leak hypothesis a controversial theory that virus-related experiments accidentally spilled over into the public sphere. https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4962333/senator-paul-dr-fauci-clash-research-funding-wuhan-lab We have not funded gain of function research on this virus in the Wuhan Institute of Virology. No matter how many times you say it, it didnt happen, said Fauci. Wade and later Carlson also argued that gain of function research funded by the NIH was the likely source of a laboratory leak a hypothesis that has been contested by the broader scientific community time and again. Since SARS-CoV-2 was first named in January 2020 and subsequently declared a pandemic, conspiracy theorists have peddled notions that the virus was made in a lab and intentionally released as a biological weapon despite rigorous scientific research proving otherwise. conspiracy theorists peddled notions made in a lab biological weapon rigorous scientific research First and foremost, it is true that WIV was one of many research facilities around the world dedicated to the study of coronaviruses. Coronaviruses are one of the most common viruses and were at the center of the SARS 2001 and MERS 2012 epidemics, prompting efforts led by the NIH and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and NIH to better understand their potential for a pandemic. Research conducted at the Wuhan Institute of virology was partially funded by NIH. Public Domain Public Domain One form of research conducted at these labs includes the gain of function research. These are experiments to increase the transmissibility or virulence of pathogens to make them more infectious to humans in order to help improve understanding of disease-causing agents and how they interact with humans, as well as their potential to cause a pandemic. In other words, scientists manipulate the genetic code of viruses to change certain elements, making them either more or less dangerous to better understand how they work. But in 2014, the Obama administration called for a pause on funding of such experiments, SARS and MERS viruses in particular, and launched a government-led investigation into the risks and benefits of such research. An ethical analysis white paper written by Professor Michael Selgelid and produced by the NIH Office of Science Policy and published in the journal, Science and Engineering Ethics in 2016 argued that gain of function research poses risks regarding biosecurity and biosafety. Using this guidance, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services developed a framework for guiding funding decisions about the gain of function research, and under the recommendation of experts, the NIH lifted its pause. ethical analysis white paper Science and Engineering Ethics developed lifted And it is true that WIV is located miles from where the first COVID-19 outbreak was detected and that the facility previously received funding from the NIH via the EcoHealth Alliance Inc., a research organization based in New York City, as was reported on the agencys website. But such international cooperation is not unusual, and funding to the lab was also provided through European, Asian, and African organizations as well as the World Health Organization and the European Virus Archive goes global. WIV website To support its work, EcoHealth made subawards to the WIV and other institutions based in East Asia where coronaviruses tend to emerge and are prevalent. A subaward is made when the primary grant recipient (in this case, EcoHealth Alliance Inc.) seeks another organization to carry out part of the grantees research project. In this case, NIH said that it did not establish the terms of the award and that EcoHealth was directly accountable for the performance of the project. In an email to Snopes, EcoHealth Alliance communications manager Robert Kessler said that the organization has neither contributed to nor participated in gain-of-function research. The research proposed in the grant application sought to understand how bat coronaviruses evolve naturally in the environment to become transmissible to the human population, Jennifer Routh, a spokesperson for the NIH, told Snopes. This included studying viral diversity in bat reservoirs, surveying people who work in live animal markets or other jobs with high exposure to wildlife for evidence of bat-coronavirus infection, and analyzing data to predict which newly discovered viruses pose the greatest threat to human health. The application did not propose research to enhance any coronavirus to be more transmissible or virulent, added Routh. The application was subjected to rigorous peer review and was judged to be a high priority, given how SARS-CoV had already emerged in this bat population. To support its work, EcoHealth made sub-awards to WIV and other institutions based in East Asia where coronaviruses tend to emerge and are prevalent. And according to NIH, funds that go to sub-awardees (EcoHealth Alliance) from the primary grantee (NIH) must support the research activities that were approved and funded in the grant, which did not include gain of function research. On May 19, Dr. Francis Collins with the NIH issued the below statement, which the agency forwarded to Snopes: statement Based on outbreaks of coronaviruses caused by animal to human transmissions such as in Asia in 2003 that caused Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), and in Saudi Arabia in 2012 that caused Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), NIH and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) have for many years supported grants to learn more about viruses lurking in bats and other mammals that have the potential to spill over to humans and cause widespread disease. However, neither NIH nor NIAID have ever approved any grant that would have supported gain-of-function research on coronaviruses that would have increased their transmissibility or lethality for humans. NIH strongly supports the need for further investigation by the World Health Organization (WHO) into the origins of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus. SARS MERS The 2014 funding pause pertained to a subset of gain-of-function research that could reasonably be anticipated to confer attributes to influenza, MERS, or SARS viruses such that the virus would have enhanced pathogenicity or transmissibility in mammals via the respiratory route. Following the initiation of the pause, this grant was reviewed again and determined by experts to fall outside the scope of the funding pause. funding pause But on Oct. 20, Republicans with the congressional group U.S. House Oversight Committee tweeted a letter written by Lawrence Tabak, principal deputy director of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), confirming that EcoHealth had conducted gain of function research at the WIV. The letter was directed to committee ranking member James Comer, R-Ky. Oct. 20 The letter was reported by several publications, including The New York Post, Fox News, and The New York Times. In it, Tabak said that published genomic data demonstrate that the bat coronaviruses studied under the NIH grant to EcoHealth Alliance, INC. and subaward to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) are not and could not have become SARS-CoV-2, referencing an analysis attached to the letter that was not included in the tweet. (Snopes contacted the DHHS to receive a copy of the letter and the referenced analysis but did not receive a reply at the time of this update. We will include a copy of the report when and if we receive it.) The New York Post Fox News The New York Times The letter was also said to contain the fifth and final progress report for Grand R01AI1 10964, which was awarded to EcoHealth Alliance, Inc. and included data from a research project conducted during the 2018-19 grant period using bat coronavirus genome sequences already existing in nature. The progress report was submitted to the NIH in August 2021 as part of NIH compliance enforcement efforts, and it shows that EcoHealth Alliance violated terms of the grant by failing to report a bat experiment that made mice sicker: violated The limited experiment described in the final progress report provided by EcoHealth Alliance was testing if spike proteins from naturally occurring bat coronaviruses circulating in China were capable of binding to the human ACE2 receptor in a mouse model. All other aspects of the mice, including the immune system, remained unchanged. In this limited experiment, laboratory mice were infected with the SHC014 WIV1 bat coronavirus. As sometimes occurs in science, this was an unexpected result of the research as opposed to something that the researchers set out to do. Regardless, the viruses being studied under this grant were genetically very distant from SARS-CoV-2. Coronaviruses, especially those found in bats, have been studied around the world due to their prevalence in the natural world and ability to infect across species. In fact, there are hundreds of coronaviruses, most of which circulate among animals and some of which can jump to humans in what is called a spillover event. Following the SARS and MERS outbreaks of 2002 and 2012 respectively, the NIAID identified coronaviruses as a priority for researchers to investigate, including how these viruses originate and cause disease, as well as to develop animal study models for new treatments and potential vaccines. studied SHC014 is a SARS-like coronavirus that infects horseshoe bats that has previously been studied by researchers in mouse models to determine the risk of a SARS-CoV reemergence of infection risk from viruses that naturally circulate in bat populations. During the pandemic, the human ACE2 receptor saw renewed interest by the research community for its role as the entry point for SARS-CoV-2 infection. SHC014 previously been studied interest In short, the letter by Tabak stated that mice genetically altered to contain the ACE2 receptor were used as testers to determine whether SHC014 would bind to the receptor. And because the laboratory mice became sicker, it is likely that the virus successfully bound. In July 2021, the NIH published a media kit that described its research involving enhanced potential pandemic pathogens (PPPs), which are those that show potential in infecting human populations. Research involving PPPs is required to undergo additional scrutiny when it comes to funding, but at the time of the grant proposal, EcoHealth Alliances research did not meet the requirements for further review because it was not shown that these bat coronaviruses could infect humans. published However, grant language allowed for a second review out of an abundance of caution pending results to determine whether the research should be reevaluated or new biosafety measures be enacted EcoHealth failed to report this finding right away, as was required by the terms of the grant, wrote Tabak. EcoHealth is being notified that they have five days from today [Oct. 20] to submit to NIH any and all unpublished data from the experiments and work conducted under this review. A joint World Health Organization-China study on the origins of COVID-19 published in March 2019 said that transmission of the virus from bats to humans through another animal is the most likely scenario and that a lab leak is extremely unlikely. However, the NIH told Snopes that it strongly supports the need for further investigation by the World Health Organization (WHO) into the origins of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus. said Working with a cross-regional coalition of 13 countries, we urge the WHO to begin the second phase of their study without delay, wrote Collins. cross-regional coalition of 13 countries In short, gain of function research is permitted under certain conditions, and some evidence suggests that such experimentation may have occurred in the past at WIV. At the time of this writing, it appears that experiments to manipulate a coronavirus resulted from research conducted by EcoHealth Alliance during the 2018-19 grant period, but there is not yet conclusive evidence to suggest outright that the virus mutated to SARS-CoV-2, or that it spilled over into the surrounding area. Snopes will update this article once further information into the investigation is provided by EcoHealth Alliance and NIH. Until then, we left this claim rating as "Unproven. Sources Andersen, Kristian G., et al. The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2. Nature Medicine, vol. 26, no. 4, Apr. 2020, pp. 45052. www.nature.com, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-0820-9. Archive, View Author, and Get author RSS feed. NIH Admits US Funded Gain-of-Function in Wuhan despite Faucis Denials. New York Post, 21 Oct. 2021, https://nypost.com/2021/10/21/nih-admits-us-funded-gain-of-function-in-wuhan-despite-faucis-repeated-denials/. Brief Introduction----Wuhan Institute of Virology. https://english.whiov.cas.cn/Research2016/Brief_Introduction2017/. Accessed 22 Oct. 2021.COVID-19 Is a Serious Threat ... But So Are Memes Claiming Its NOT. Snopes.Com, https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/04/07/woman-who-called-pandemic-a-hoax/. Accessed 22 Oct. 2021. Creitz, Charles. Rand Paul Blasts Anthony Fauci after NIH Admits Gain-of-Function Funding. Fox News, 21 Oct. 2021, https://www.foxnews.com/media/rand-paul-anthony-fauci-nih-gain-function-funding. Did Fauci Say Americans Can Expect to Wear Masks Indefinitely? Snopes.Com, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fauci-wear-masks-indefinitely/. Accessed 22 Oct. 2021. Geneticists Decry Book on Race and Evolution. https://www.science.org/content/article/geneticists-decry-book-race-and-evolution. Accessed 22 Oct. 2021. Joint Statement on the WHO-Convened COVID-19 Origins Study. United States Department of State, https://www.state.gov/joint-statement-on-the-who-convened-covid-19-origins-study/. Accessed 22 Oct. 2021. Misinformation on Coronavirus Is Proving Highly Contagious. Snopes.Com, https://www.snopes.com/ap/2020/07/30/misinformation-on-coronavirus-is-proving-highly-contagious/. Accessed 22 Oct. 2021. Moving on from Nicholas Wade to Continuing Concerns about Scientific Racism | Bioethics Research Library. https://bioethics.georgetown.edu/2014/08/moving-on-from-nicholas-wade-to-continuing-concerns-about-scientific-racism/. Accessed 22 Oct. 2021. NIH Lifts Funding Pause on Gain-of-Function Research. National Institutes of Health (NIH), 18 Dec. 2017, https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/who-we-are/nih-director/statements/nih-lifts-funding-pause-gain-function-research. NIH Says Grantee Failed to Report Experiment in Wuhan That Created a Bat Virus That Made Mice Sicker. https://www.science.org/content/article/nih-says-grantee-failed-report-experiment-wuhan-created-bat-virus-made-mice-sicker. Accessed 22 Oct. 2021. Partnerships----Wuhan Institute of Virology. https://english.whiov.cas.cn/International_Cooperation2016/Partnerships/. Accessed 22 Oct. 2021.Research Involving Enhanced Potential Pandemic Pathogens. National Institutes of Health (NIH), 8 July 2021, https://www.nih.gov/news-events/research-involving-potential-pandemic-pathogens. Samavati, Lobelia, and Bruce D. Uhal. ACE2, Much More Than Just a Receptor for SARS-COV-2. Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology, vol. 10, 2020, p. 317. Frontiers, https://doi.org/10.3389/fcimb.2020.00317. Selgelid, Michael J. Gain-of-Function Research: Ethical Analysis. Science and Engineering Ethics, vol. 22, no. 4, Aug. 2016, pp. 92364. Springer Link, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9810-1. Statement on Funding Pause on Certain Types of Gain-of-Function Research. National Institutes of Health (NIH), 20 Jan. 2015, https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/who-we-are/nih-director/statements/statement-funding-pause-certain-types-gain-function-research. Statement on Misinformation about NIH Support of Specific Gain-of-Function Research. National Institutes of Health (NIH), 19 May 2021, https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/who-we-are/nih-director/statements/statement-misinformation-about-nih-support-specific-gain-function-research. Tang, X. C., et al. Prevalence and Genetic Diversity of Coronaviruses in Bats from China. Journal of Virology, vol. 80, no. 15, Aug. 2006, pp. 748190. PubMed Central, https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.00697-06. The Origin of COVID: Did People or Nature Open Pandoras Box at Wuhan? Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 5 May 2021, https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-people-or-nature-open-pandoras-box-at-wuhan/. Tucker Carlson Fact Checks and News from Snopes.Com. Snopes.Com, https://www.snopes.com/tag/tucker-carlson/. Accessed 22 Oct. 2021. UCL. Problematical Theories. UCL Division of Biosciences, 13 Feb. 2019, https://www.ucl.ac.uk/biosciences/departments/genetics-evolution-and-environment/research/molecular-and-cultural-evolution-lab/debunking-genetic-astrology/problematical-theories. Was the COVID-19 Pandemic Planned in Rockefellers Operation Lockstep? Snopes.Com, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/rockefeller-operation-lockstep/. Accessed 22 Oct. 2021. WHO Report: COVID Likely 1st Jumped Into Humans from Animals. Snopes.Com, https://www.snopes.com/ap/2021/03/29/who-report-covid-likely-1st-jumped-into-humans-from-animals/. Accessed 22 Oct. 2021. Why You Shouldnt Fall for the COVID-19 Bioweapon Conspiracy Theory. Snopes.Com, https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/04/01/covid-19-bioweapon/. Accessed 22 Oct. 2021. Zimmer, Carl, and Benjamin Mueller. Bat Research Group Failed to Submit Virus Studies Promptly, N.I.H. Says. The New York Times, 21 Oct. 2021. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/21/science/bats-covid-lab-leak-nih.html. Update [May 20, 2021]: This article was updated to include statements from the NIH. Update [May 25, 2021]: This article was updated to include additional comments from the NIH and EcoHealth Alliance. Update [May 28, 2021]: This article was updated to include clarification on NIH grant-awarding processes. Update [Oct. 22, 2021]: Article was updated to include new findings established by the House Oversight Committee and a change in rating from Unproven to Research in Progress pending the results of a NIH-led investigation. | [
"funds"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=16tXwQv1cFxqlDuaiO02es8PWZYns6hZg",
"image_caption": null
}
] | NEI | During a May 10, 2021, airing of his Fox News show, host Tucker Carlson claimed that National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Anthony Fauci helped provide funding for "gain of function" research at a facility in Wuhan, China, that (supposedly) led to the COVID-19 pandemic.During that broadcast of Tucker Carlson Tonight, Carlson cited an opinion piece regarding the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic that was written by Nicolas Wade. In a nutshell, Wade argued without substantiated evidence that gain of function experiments (we'll explain what those are later) that were prohibited in the U.S. continued at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), which ultimately led to the creation of SARS-CoV-2. And because the Wuhan-based institute was not properly regulated, Wade argued, the novel coronavirus was likely to have infected a researcher who would ultimately become the source of the pandemic.The 13-minute segment began with Carlson criticizing Jeffrey Zeints, U.S. President Joe Bidens appointed official to oversee the COVID-19 response efforts. Carlson then suggested that Fauci said Americans can expect to wear masks indefinitely. (We fact-checked that, too. Fauci did not say that.)Thats when Carlson pivoted to The origin of COVID: Did people or nature open Pandoras box at Wuhan? Wade's opinion piece not a scientific study as was suggested published by the nonprofit science organization Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, a reputable group that publishes free-access scientific information concerning science and global security issues. Wade is a controversial science writer whose recent theories on race have been generally disputed by researchers around the world. Wade was a former staff writer for the Science Times section of The New York Times up until 2012 and he authored the controversial book, A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History. He has been described by researchers at Georgetown University as a sad saga of a former international reporter turned laughing stock.Wade and later Carlson also argued that gain of function research funded by the NIH was the likely source of a laboratory leak a hypothesis that has been contested by the broader scientific community time and again. Since SARS-CoV-2 was first named in January 2020 and subsequently declared a pandemic, conspiracy theorists have peddled notions that the virus was made in a lab and intentionally released as a biological weapon despite rigorous scientific research proving otherwise. Research conducted at the Wuhan Institute of virology was partially funded by NIH. Public DomainAn ethical analysis white paper written by Professor Michael Selgelid and produced by the NIH Office of Science Policy and published in the journal, Science and Engineering Ethics in 2016 argued that gain of function research poses risks regarding biosecurity and biosafety. Using this guidance, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services developed a framework for guiding funding decisions about the gain of function research, and under the recommendation of experts, the NIH lifted its pause.And it is true that WIV is located miles from where the first COVID-19 outbreak was detected and that the facility previously received funding from the NIH via the EcoHealth Alliance Inc., a research organization based in New York City, as was reported on the agencys website. But such international cooperation is not unusual, and funding to the lab was also provided through European, Asian, and African organizations as well as the World Health Organization and the European Virus Archive goes global. On May 19, Dr. Francis Collins with the NIH issued the below statement, which the agency forwarded to Snopes:Based on outbreaks of coronaviruses caused by animal to human transmissions such as in Asia in 2003 that caused Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), and in Saudi Arabia in 2012 that caused Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), NIH and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) have for many years supported grants to learn more about viruses lurking in bats and other mammals that have the potential to spill over to humans and cause widespread disease. However, neither NIH nor NIAID have ever approved any grant that would have supported gain-of-function research on coronaviruses that would have increased their transmissibility or lethality for humans. NIH strongly supports the need for further investigation by the World Health Organization (WHO) into the origins of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus.The 2014 funding pause pertained to a subset of gain-of-function research that could reasonably be anticipated to confer attributes to influenza, MERS, or SARS viruses such that the virus would have enhanced pathogenicity or transmissibility in mammals via the respiratory route. Following the initiation of the pause, this grant was reviewed again and determined by experts to fall outside the scope of the funding pause.But on Oct. 20, Republicans with the congressional group U.S. House Oversight Committee tweeted a letter written by Lawrence Tabak, principal deputy director of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), confirming that EcoHealth had conducted gain of function research at the WIV. The letter was directed to committee ranking member James Comer, R-Ky.The letter was reported by several publications, including The New York Post, Fox News, and The New York Times. In it, Tabak said that published genomic data demonstrate that the bat coronaviruses studied under the NIH grant to EcoHealth Alliance, INC. and subaward to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) are not and could not have become SARS-CoV-2, referencing an analysis attached to the letter that was not included in the tweet. (Snopes contacted the DHHS to receive a copy of the letter and the referenced analysis but did not receive a reply at the time of this update. We will include a copy of the report when and if we receive it.)The letter was also said to contain the fifth and final progress report for Grand R01AI1 10964, which was awarded to EcoHealth Alliance, Inc. and included data from a research project conducted during the 2018-19 grant period using bat coronavirus genome sequences already existing in nature. The progress report was submitted to the NIH in August 2021 as part of NIH compliance enforcement efforts, and it shows that EcoHealth Alliance violated terms of the grant by failing to report a bat experiment that made mice sicker:Coronaviruses, especially those found in bats, have been studied around the world due to their prevalence in the natural world and ability to infect across species. In fact, there are hundreds of coronaviruses, most of which circulate among animals and some of which can jump to humans in what is called a spillover event. Following the SARS and MERS outbreaks of 2002 and 2012 respectively, the NIAID identified coronaviruses as a priority for researchers to investigate, including how these viruses originate and cause disease, as well as to develop animal study models for new treatments and potential vaccines.SHC014 is a SARS-like coronavirus that infects horseshoe bats that has previously been studied by researchers in mouse models to determine the risk of a SARS-CoV reemergence of infection risk from viruses that naturally circulate in bat populations. During the pandemic, the human ACE2 receptor saw renewed interest by the research community for its role as the entry point for SARS-CoV-2 infection.In July 2021, the NIH published a media kit that described its research involving enhanced potential pandemic pathogens (PPPs), which are those that show potential in infecting human populations. Research involving PPPs is required to undergo additional scrutiny when it comes to funding, but at the time of the grant proposal, EcoHealth Alliances research did not meet the requirements for further review because it was not shown that these bat coronaviruses could infect humans.A joint World Health Organization-China study on the origins of COVID-19 published in March 2019 said that transmission of the virus from bats to humans through another animal is the most likely scenario and that a lab leak is extremely unlikely. However, the NIH told Snopes that it strongly supports the need for further investigation by the World Health Organization (WHO) into the origins of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus.Working with a cross-regional coalition of 13 countries, we urge the WHO to begin the second phase of their study without delay, wrote Collins. |
FMD_train_1810 | Free $1,000 Best Buy Gift Card Scam | 04/30/2012 | [
"Best Buy is distributing free $1,000 gift cards to users who click an online link?"
] | Claim: Best Buy is distributing free $1,000 gift cards to users who click an online link. Examples: [Collected via e-mail, April 2012] Your entry last month has won!! Go to [URL elided] and enter your winning code: 3333 to claim your free $1,000 Best Buy gift card! [Collected via e-mail, October 2012] Your entry last month has won! Go to [URL elided] and enter your winning code 5555 to claim your FREE $1,000 Best Buy gift card within 24 hours. Origins: In October 2012, a scam purporting to offer free $1,000 Best Buy gift cards to those who accessed a provided link and then entered a "winning code" spread via cell phone text message. It was a reprise of a March 2012 scam that invoked the name of the same retailer to lure the unwary. Those who attempted to claim the enticing freebie were then led to a web page (which was not operated or sponsored by the electronics retailer Best Buy) that asked them to certify they were U.S. residents over the age of 18 and had agreed to the privacy policy and terms and conditions of the site they had been sent to. The latter stated: This Gift Redemption Program is an independent rewards program for consumers and is not affiliated with, sponsored by, or endorsed by any of the listed products or retailers. Trademarks, service marks, logos, and/or domain names (including, without limitation, the individual names of products and retailers) are the property of their respective owners. THE FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS. SEE TERMS & CONDITIONS FOR COMPLETE DETAILS. Members are being accepted subject to the following Program Requirements: 1) Must be a legal U.S. resident; 2) must be at least 18 years old; 3) must have a valid email and shipping address; 4) Eligible members can receive the incentive gift package by completing two reward offers from each of the Silver and Gold reward offer page options and nine reward offers from the Platinum reward offer page options and referring 3 friends to do the same. Various types of reward offers are available. Completion of reward offers most often requires a purchase or filing a credit application and being accepted for a financial product such as a credit card or consumer loan. Those still in hot pursuit of the promised $1,000 gift cards were then asked to provide their names, mailing addresses, e-mail addresses, cell phone numbers, and dates of birth, or were taken directly to web pages that required them to select a number of "free" offers. As always, it was just a con meant to trick the credulous into divulging their personal information and signing up for expensive services. The Better Business Bureau provides this advice on avoiding being victimized by such scams: If you receive a questionable or unsolicited text message, check the URL or phone number for free on the Better Business Bureau website. Most financial institutions, utilities, or other businesses will not communicate with you via text message. If you do not recognize the website or phone number being sent to you, don't visit or call it. Don't e-mail or text personal and financial information. Review your credit card and bank statements to make sure there are no unauthorized charges. Other recent scams of similar construction include: $50 or $100 Starbucks gift cards [October 2011] Starbucks, $25 Tim Hortons gift cards [October 2011] Tim Hortons, Apple iPods, iPhones, or MacBooks in memory of Steve Jobs [October 2011] Apple, $1,000 Costco gift cards [December 2011] Costco, $1,000 Walmart gift cards [March 2012] Walmart, and a pair of JetBlue air travel tickets [April 2012] JetBlue. Last updated: 5 October 2012. | [
"loan"
] | [] | NEI | As always, it was just a con meant to trick the credulous into divulging their personal information and signing up for expensive services. The Better Business Bureau provides this advice on avoiding being victimized by such scams:If you receive a questionable or unsolicited text message, check the URL or phone number for free on the Better Business Bureau website.Other recent scams of similar construction include: $50 or $100 Starbucks gift cards [October 2011] $25 Tim Hortons gift cards [October 2011] Apple iPods, iPhones, or MacBooks in memory of Steve Jobs [October 2011] $1,000 Costco gift cards [December 2011] $1,000 Walmart gift cards [March 2012] Pair of JetBlue air travel tickets [April 2012] |
FMD_train_389 | Be cautious of fraudulent schemes promising a '$3,600 Stimulus for Homeowners'. | 12/07/2021 | [
"It might not be a good sign when the bottom of a brand new website displays a list of \"disclaimers\" in small print addressed to \"Facebook reviewers and 3rd party fact checkers.\""
] | We advise all readers, as well as their friends and family, to beware of Facebook ads that promise a "stimulus" or "savings" for homeowners in amounts such as $3,600, $3,700, $3,712, $3,800, or other similar figures. The posts featured pictures of U.S. President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, and members of Congress, among others. Some ads also mentioned the term "mortgage refinance stimulus." The ads gave the impression that Biden and the U.S. government had approved a plan to provide $3,600, $3,700, $3,712, $3,800, or similar amounts as "stimulus" or "savings" in the form of check payments to help homeowners. The pictures and text resembled the previous COVID-19 economic impact payments and child tax credit payments that Americans became familiar with in 2020 and 2021. Those genuine payments came directly from the Internal Revenue Service. However, there is no federal plan to distribute $3,600, $3,700, $3,712, or $3,800 "stimulus" or "savings" checks to homeowners. Facebook users who clicked on the ads were directed to websites that were not operated by the government. From there, they all appeared to lead to a central page: GovHomePrograms.com. This website included a brief survey that asked questions about finances, home value, and mortgage status. The forms also requested a name, email address, phone number, and mailing address. We filled out the forms and were then led to one or more lenders that could assist future homeowners in buying a house or current homeowners in refinancing a mortgage. There was no evidence that the Facebook ads led to a way for homeowners to obtain a $3,600, $3,700, $3,712, or $3,800 "stimulus" or "savings" payment from the government. According to GovHomePrograms.com's terms of service and privacy policy pages, its parent company was RateMarketplace.com. Plateau Data Services, LLC was also mentioned in the documentation. One page led to EnhancedRefiNow.com instead of GovHomePrograms.com. Its parent company appeared to be LMB Mortgage Services, Inc., also known as LowerMyBills.com. As of December 2021, at least eight Facebook pages named American Savings Tips, Wise American Solution, Clever American Choices, New American Community, US Relief, StraightFix, Homeowners of America, and Our Best American Life had spent around $200,000 on advertising since late October to promote the ads. One of the biggest spenders was Wise American Solution, which had spent nearly $60,000 alone in early December, as of Dec. 13. In other words, millions of Facebook users had been served the ads from these pages on Facebook or Instagram. The American Savings Tips Facebook page spent nearly $60,000 on ads between Oct. 27 and Dec. 7. It also misleadingly displayed a picture of a U.S. Treasury check for $3,600. The Facebook pages and their corresponding websites were all brand new and were created in either October or November 2021. Another page named Helpers Today also pushed similar ads about a "stimulus" or "savings" for homeowners. Several hours after we started investigating Clever American Choices, its Facebook page became unavailable. It's unclear why this happened within those few hours and not at any time in previous weeks. According to its advertising information, Clever American Choices was "deleted" after violating Facebook's advertising policies. It had spent at least $45,209 on Facebook ads between Nov. 21 and Dec. 7. The other pages also showed advertising violations. After we clicked on one of the Facebook ads and landed on a website, we noticed this message at the bottom: "THIS IS AN ADVERTORIAL AND NOT AN ACTUAL NEWS ARTICLE, BLOG, OR CONSUMER PROTECTION UPDATE." We also found a list of "disclaimers" in small print spaced far below the end of most of the body of the page that was meant "for Facebook reviewers and 3rd party fact checkers." One of the lines attempted to clarify why words like "government" and "Biden" were used in the copy: "Government," "Biden," "New Administration," "Relief" - assume multiple citations below from the following article: "Biden's $10 billion in financial assistance is expected to be available in 2022." It's true that the Biden administration previously created a Homeowners Assistance Fund meant to "provide states with $10 billion to help struggling homeowners catch up on their mortgage payments and utility costs." It's also true that the assistance was still being distributed by various states as of November 2021. But nowhere in this plan did we find anything about a $3,600, $3,700, $3,712, or $3,800 "stimulus" or "savings" plan for homeowners in the same way that past stimulus checks worked, as the Facebook ads appeared to suggest. One of the posts on Clever American Choices originally read: "This was featured on FoxNews [sic] last night. All I did was enter my zip and now I'm getting $3,600 back in savings. It was free to check, Just Enter Zip!" A seemingly endless number of Facebook users then submitted their ZIP codes in the comments under the ads instead of on the resulting website, perhaps believing this would lead to them being contacted to receive a $3,600 check. Not only did this ad show a fake "Homeowner Relief Card," but members of former U.S. President Donald Trump's Cabinet can be seen sitting in the photograph captured in Congress. Aside from the ZIP code comments, the remarks with the most likes caught our eye. For example, a user named Jackie said: "This was featured in CNN yesterday so I guess I could try it since my neighbors already got theirs." Other ads mentioned C-SPAN. We found no record of CNN, Fox News, or C-SPAN recently broadcasting news of a specific $3,600, $3,700, $3,712, or $3,800 "stimulus" or "savings" for homeowners. Also, no one's "neighbors already got" a $3,600 stimulus check payment, because they don't exist. These comments likely convinced quite a few people to give away their personal information. Ben commented: "Wow! I've never seen anything like this before! Thank god that I saw it today so I can signup." Matt remarked: "Heard about this program form [sic] my neighbor. They got the check yesterday so I tried it and received a notification that my check will be here this week!" We also saw the same names making the same comments in multiple ads. It's unclear if these people worked for the websites or companies that were affiliated with the posts. We reached out to the Better Business Bureau and AARP for comment on these ads and websites. The BBB responded and told us that this is what they would refer to as a classic "government imposter scam." A BBB spokesperson told us: "Without further research, it's hard to tell if this is just a way to get homeowners to apply for refinancing, or if the motive is fraud. Consumers are being asked to share personally identifiable information (PII), and that's a huge red flag because it is everything needed for identity theft. The fact that the domains are new is another red flag. BBB advises consumers never to share personal information with someone who has solicited them, whether through email, social media ad, text, etc., but to carefully vet any new company that needs PII." In a study, the BBB found that these sorts of scams increased in 2020 and 2021 with the COVID-19 pandemic. They also sent over a page about government grant scams and a scam alert about stimulus checks. We also heard from Kathy Stokes, director of fraud prevention for the AARP Fraud Watch Network. In an email, Stokes told us: "It is safe to say that ads that pitch free money from the government are government grant scams and the internet, particularly Facebook, is teeming with them. Sometimes you'll see your Facebook friends share the information, claim they got money from a grant, and encourage you to get your free money, too. Often that means the friend's Facebook account has been hacked. Whether it is a scammer or an actual company, you should report the ads to the FTC. These sites often ask for you to share your personal information, which can be dangerous for the person entering it." In sum, the Facebook ads that promised a "stimulus" or "savings" for homeowners simply appeared to be a way to route future homeowners to lenders or to show current homeowners where they could refinance their mortgages. With guidance from the BBB and AARP on identifying this as a "government imposter scam" or "government grant scam," we have rated this story accordingly with the "Scam" rating. The rating for this fact check was changed from "False" to "Scam" after we received guidance in a response from the Better Business Bureau and AARP. We also added several more Facebook pages and updated the advertising dollar figure to be around $200,000. | [
"credit"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1jCdLvY0uIIxapfbzlcto74kmWXvd-7f7",
"image_caption": null
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=10r5hy_nc2TANogBIhSUkUjbDParfIhum",
"image_caption": null
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1EfZLKjDm63aI9lSjlRBZlht-V5Z39yaS",
"image_caption": null
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1Fi7RwN6wfMvl1kTwDqhYKJAeZwG2XQzp",
"image_caption": null
}
] | False | Examples of some of the Facebook ads.The ads gave the appearance that Biden and the U.S. government voted through a plan to provide $3,600, $3,700, $3,712, $3,800, or another similar amount of money as a "stimulus" or "savings" in the form of check payments to help homeowners. The pictures and text perhaps looked and felt similar to the previous COVID-19 economic impact payments and child tax credit payments that Americans became familiar with in 2020 and 2021. Those genuine payments came directly from the Internal Revenue Service.Facebook users who clicked on the ads were led to websites that were not operated by the government. From there, they all appeared to lead to a central page: GovHomePrograms.com. This website included a brief survey that asked questions about finances, home value, and mortgage status. The forms also asked for a name, email address, phone number, and mailing address.According to GovHomePrograms.com's terms of service and privacy policy pages, its parent company was RateMarketplace.com. Plateau Data Services, LLC was also mentioned in the documentation.One page led to EnhancedRefiNow.com instead of GovHomePrograms.com. Its parent company appeared to be LMB Mortgage Services, Inc., also known as LowerMyBills.com.As of December 2021, at least eight Facebook pages named American Savings Tips, Wise American Solution, Clever American Choices, New American Community, US Relief, StraightFix, Homeowners of America, and Our Best American Life had spent around $200,000 on advertising since late October to promote the ads. One of the biggest spenders was Wise American Solution, which had spent nearly $60,000 alone in early December, as of Dec. 13. The American Savings Tips Facebook page spent nearly $60,000 on ads between Oct. 27 and Dec. 7. It also misleadingly showed a picture of a U.S. Treasury check for $3,600.The Facebook pages and their corresponding websites were all brand new and were created in either October or November 2021. Another page named Helpers Today also pushed similar ads about a "stimulus" or "savings" for homeowners.Several hours after we started investigating Clever American Choices, its Facebook page became unavailable. It's unclear why this happened within those few hours and not at any time in previous weeks. According to its advertising information, Clever American Choices was "deleted" after violating Facebook's advertising policies. It had spent at least $45,209 on Facebook ads between Nov. 21 and Dec. 7. The other pages also showed advertising violations.After we clicked on one of the Facebook ads and landed on a website, we noticed this message at the bottom: "THIS IS AN ADVERTORIAL AND NOT AN ACTUAL NEWS ARTICLE, BLOG, OR CONSUMER PROTECTION UPDATE."https://finance.yahoo.com/news/biden-signed-10-billion-mortgage-133000243.htmlIt's true that the Biden administration previously created a Homeowners Assistance Fund that's meant to "provide states with $10 billion to help struggling homeowners catch up on their mortgage payments and utility costs." It's also true that the assistance was still being given out by various states as of November 2021. But nowhere in this plan did we find anything about a $3,600, $3,700, $3,712, or $3,800 "stimulus" or "savings" plan for homeowners in the same way that past stimulus checks worked, as the Facebook ads appeared to hint at.One of the posts on Clever American Choices originally read: "This was featured on FoxNews [sic] last night. All I did was enter my zip and now I'm getting $3,600 back in savings. It was free to check, Just Enter Zip!" Not only did this ad show a fake "Homeowner Relief Card," but members of former U.S. President Donald Trump's Cabinet can be seen sitting in the photograph captured in Congress. These comments likely convinced quite a few people to give away their personal information.In a study, the BBB found that these sorts of scams increased in 2020 and 2021 with the COVID-19 pandemic. They also sent over a page about government grant scams and a scam alert about stimulus checks.We also heard from Kathy Stokes, director of fraud prevention for the AARP Fraud Watch Network. In an email, Stokes told us: "It is safe to say that ads that pitch free money from the government are government grant scams and the internet, particularly Facebook, is teeming with them. Sometimes youll see your Facebook friends share the information, claim they got money from a grant, and encourage you to get your free money, too. Often that means the friends Facebook account has been hacked. Whether it is a scammer or an actual company, you should report the ads to the FTC. These sites often ask for you to share your personal information, which can be dangerous for the person entering it." |
FMD_train_1246 | Says Scott Walker is proposing to add 485 employees in the category of supervisor and management to his Department of Administration. | 03/01/2017 | [] | Wisconsin DemocratKathleen Vinehout, who is considering a run for governor in 2018, is sounding alarm bells about the state budget proposed by Republican Gov.Scott Walker-- who appears to be preparing to runfor a third term. In a Feb. 20, 2017interview, the state senator from Alma was asked by Wisconsin Public Radio talk show host Joy Cardin abouta columnshe had written about Walkers 2017-19 spending plan, which was released a couple of weeks earlier. The column highlighted what Vinehout -- who ran unsuccessfully for the Democratic nomination to run against Walker in the 2012 gubernatorial recall election -- described as little known details about the budget. Cardin wanted to know why there would be a large increase in the number of people working for the Department of Administration. Thats a department, whose secretary is appointed by Walker, that works closely with the governors office. Vinehout replied by saying 485 positions would be added to the department in the category of supervisor and management, although in many cases, they would be people transferred from other departments. It really kind of takes the whole heart of state government -- especially as money flows in and out of agencies, and puts it into the Department of Administration, she added. Leaving aside Vinehouts view of the impact of the move, lets check whether Walker is proposing to add 485 positions in the category of supervisor and management to his Department of Administration. The numbers The major functions of theDepartment of Administrationinclude helping the governor develop and implement the state budget and supporting other state agencies with centralized purchasing and financial management.The department alsocoordinates telecommunications, energy, and land use planning and community development, and it regulates racing, charitable gaming and Indian gaming. Walkers budget, which must be approved by the Legislature, would increase the departments positions in both years of the budget. The new total for the department would be 1,149 positions -- an increase of 485. And those positions are listed under the heading of supervision and management. But Bob Lang, director of the nonpartisan state Legislative Fiscal Bureau, gave us some context about the 485: The majority of positions are held by existing employees who work for other agencies; these are not new state government positions. The majority would continue to physically work in those agencies, such as the Department of Natural Resources, but would become employees of the Department of Administration. Despite the designation in the budget document as supervision and management, the vast majority would not be supervisors or managers -- rather they are involved in the supervision and management of human resource activities such as employee recruitment and assistance, training, and payroll and benefits. Walker saysthe primary aim is to assign various administrative functions to a single entity, allowing individual agencies to focus on their core business missions and avoid redundant efforts on services that can be offered most effectively from a central entity. But its also true that if the Legislature goes along with Walkers plan, those employees would be more directly under his control. Our rating In sounding alarms about Walkers budget, Vinehout says the governor is proposing to add 485 positions in the category of supervisor and management to his Department of Administration. Vinehout is correct on the number and, technically, they are in the category of supervisor and management. But while they are involved in the supervision and management of human resource activities, the vast majority are not actually in supervisory or management positions. For a statement that is accurate but needs clarification, our rating is Mostly True. | [
"Labor",
"State Budget",
"Wisconsin"
] | [] | True | Wisconsin DemocratKathleen Vinehout, who is considering a run for governor in 2018, is sounding alarm bells about the state budget proposed by Republican Gov.Scott Walker-- who appears to be preparing to runfor a third term.In a Feb. 20, 2017interview, the state senator from Alma was asked by Wisconsin Public Radio talk show host Joy Cardin abouta columnshe had written about Walkers 2017-19 spending plan, which was released a couple of weeks earlier.The major functions of theDepartment of Administrationinclude helping the governor develop and implement the state budget and supporting other state agencies with centralized purchasing and financial management.The department alsocoordinates telecommunications, energy, and land use planning and community development, and it regulates racing, charitable gaming and Indian gaming.Walkers budget, which must be approved by the Legislature, would increase the departments positions in both years of the budget. The new total for the department would be 1,149 positions -- an increase of 485. And those positions are listed under the heading of supervision and management.Walker saysthe primary aim is to assign various administrative functions to a single entity, allowing individual agencies to focus on their core business missions and avoid redundant efforts on services that can be offered most effectively from a central entity. |
FMD_train_946 | Did George Orwell Say This About Societies That 'Drift From the Truth'? | 09/20/2021 | [
"Not everything \"Orwellian\" in its tone is Orwellian in its origins. "
] | In August and September 2021, an old quotation attributed to the English novelist George Orwell re-emerged on social media. For example, on September 5, the Scottish historian William Dalrymple posted a widely shared tweet: "The further a society drifts from the truth, the more they will hate those that speak it." In reality, Orwell never wrote or uttered those words, even though they have a broadly Orwellian ring to them. Rather, that maxim was first written by a conservative writer in 2009 but has been almost universally misattributed to Orwell in the intervening 12 years. The bogus Orwell quotation has appeared in countless social media posts and opinion columns in recent years, with various small tweaks. Former U.S. Senator Jeff Flake, an Arizona Republican who railed against former President Donald Trump before leaving the Senate in 2019, included it in a Washington Post column in May and in a Senate speech back in January 2018. In February 2019, former FBI Director James Comey also used it to criticize Trump, but the quote has also been favored by conservatives and by supporters of whistleblowers Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning. In 2012, rapper Soulja Boy posted a version of the same quote on Twitter. However, the earliest version we could find, and apparently the original, came in a May 6, 2009, column by the conservative writer Selwyn Duke on the right-leaning website RenewAmerica.com. Duke's column railed against what he presented as political correctness and left-wing censorship and contained several Orwellian references, including his use of the phrase "today's 1984 Britain" and the line "telling the truth is a revolutionary act." (To add irony upon irony, the true provenance of that quotation is unclear.) In conclusion, Duke wrote, "The further a society drifts from Truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." Several years later, Duke himself firmly asserted authorship of the line, writing, "You can imagine my surprise when I learned people were quoting it and that Orwell was taking credit for it." Snopes was unable to find any earlier version of the quotation than Duke's, despite consulting a newspaper archive that stretches back far beyond Orwell's lifetime. As a result, we are satisfied not only that the quote did not originate with Orwell but also that its original author was indeed most likely Duke. | [
"credit"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=14aZMtQUNEkoNa3cpp0-FukdHAm4HmwcQ",
"image_caption": null
}
] | False | The bogus Orwell quotation has appeared in countless social media posts and opinion columns in recent years, with various small tweaks. Former U.S. Sen. Jeff Flake, an Arizona Republican who railed against former President Donald Trump before leaving the Senate in 2019, included it in a Washington Post column in May, and in a Senate speech back in January 2018.In February 2019, former FBI Director James Comey also used it to criticize Trump, but the quote has also been favored by conservatives, and by supporters of whistleblowers Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning. In 2012, rapper Soulja Boy posted a version of the same quote on Twitter.However, the earliest version we could find, and apparently the original, came in a May 6, 2009, column by the conservative writer Selwyn Duke, on the right-leaning website RenewAmerica.com. Duke's column railed against what he presented as political correctness and left-wing censorship and contained several Orwellian references, including his use of the phrase "today's 1984 Britain," and his use of the line "telling the truth is a revolutionary act." (To add irony upon irony, the true provenance of that quotation is unclear, and Orwell almost certainly did not come up with it). Several years later, Duke himself firmly asserted authorship of the line, writing, "You can imagine my surprise when I learned people were quoting it and that Orwell was taking credit for it." |
FMD_train_885 | The federal tax code has loopholes that are giving incentives for companies that are shipping jobs overseas. | 10/08/2012 | [] | President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have sparred over tax policy for many months. They have argued about the treatment of the middle class, small businesses, and whether the Bush-era tax cuts should be extended for the wealthiest 2 percent. The first presidential debate sparked discussion on a different point—the taxes paid by companies doing business overseas. So far, this topic has not played a prominent role in the campaign, although American-based multinational firms have a significant stake in the outcome. By one conservative estimate, this part of the tax code is worth $30 billion a year. During the debate, Obama tried to score points on Romney by highlighting the tax breaks companies receive when they move jobs overseas. When it comes to our tax code, Gov. Romney and I both agree that our corporate tax rate is too high, so I want to lower it, particularly for manufacturing, taking it down to 25 percent. But I also want to close those loopholes that provide incentives for companies that are shipping jobs overseas. I want to provide tax breaks for companies that are investing here in the United States. Romney responded, "The idea that you get a break for shipping jobs overseas is simply not the case." In this fact-check, we'll examine the president's statement and ask if there are tax incentives for companies that set up foreign operations. In the narrowest sense possible, Romney's rebuttal is accurate. There is no clause in the tax code that rewards a company when it relocates production beyond U.S. borders. However, if a plant moves at all, whether it's from Ohio to Tennessee or Ohio to Malaysia, it is eligible for deductions. "There is certainly a tax break for U.S. companies that move operations or people abroad," said Gary McGill, director of the Fisher School of Accounting at the University of Florida. "It is simply a business expense like any other legitimate expense." Richard Harvey, a former partner at the accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers and now at Villanova School of Law, went even further. "A company would be arguably negligent if they did not claim the deductions," Harvey said. In addition, the current tax law allows a tax deduction for the costs of shutting down a U.S. operation. But both tax experts said the moving expenses were trivial compared to the hefty tax savings that companies can realize after they move their operations. There are two provisions in the code that allow them to shelter income from the IRS. Tax break #1: Keeping profits overseas. When an American firm opens a foreign division, it typically sets up a separate company that does not pay U.S. taxes. "That foreign subsidiary is a new entity, organized and created in a foreign country," said McGill, "and is responsible for its own taxes." Profits earned by the subsidiary need not show up on the parent company's tax return. The subsidiary pays taxes in the country where it's located. Those rates are often lower than in the U.S., where the corporate rate is 35 percent. So long as profits remain overseas, U.S. taxes are deferred. The company can declare that none of that money will return to the U.S. McGill, along with colleagues Edmund Outslay and Michael Donohoe, analyzed the public financial statements of Apple and other high-tech companies such as Google and IBM. With Apple, they found the company had built up $23.4 billion in earnings that the company said would stay overseas permanently. And for good reason: Apple was paying an effective tax rate overseas of 1.2 percent on those profits. Tax break #2: Selling to yourself. An American firm with a global network of subsidiaries has another way to trim its tax bill. All of those companies can buy and sell among themselves. It's perfectly legal and very lucrative. Take the example of Google. In just one quarter, the owner of the world's most popular search engine had nearly $2.8 billion in net income, and over half of that came from outside the U.S. That would put Google in good shape regardless, but the foreign earnings would be especially valuable. In 2009, the company's foreign tax rate was 2.4 percent, reported Bloomberg News. Google helped keep its taxes low by licensing its algorithms and other digital innovations to an Irish subsidiary, which then sold advertising around the world. The Irish tax rate on that income was 4 percent. But Google was able to drive its tax bill even lower by creating Google Ireland Holdings, based in Bermuda, where the tax rate is 0.6 percent. The Irish subsidiary sheltered its income by paying royalties to the subsidiary based in Bermuda. These transactions are supposed to cost the same as if they were conducted at arm's length. Harvey, the former PricewaterhouseCoopers partner, said they are anything but. "It is relatively clear most U.S. multinational corporations are aggressively shifting taxable income to low-tax jurisdictions," Harvey said. "I believe that anyone who thinks the IRS can effectively enforce the arm's-length standard is an eternal optimist—or delusional." Tallying the cost. Harvey said the tax tools that multinationals can use give them a competitive advantage over domestic firms. He points to the work of Martin Sullivan, chief economist at Tax Analysts, a nonprofit news service. Sullivan told the House Ways and Means Committee that the tax revenues lost through deferral and transfer pricing were worth between $30 billion and $60 billion a year. Sullivan also noted that American firms with international operations had shed American jobs while increasing their overseas employment. Between 1999 and 2008, U.S. multinational corporations cut their domestic employment by 1.9 million. Over the same period, U.S. multinationals increased their employment overseas by 2.4 million, Sullivan said. But the picture is more complicated than it might seem. There is strong debate over the role that tax rates play in those job shifts. Some analysts, including Harvey, believe the real drivers could be lower wage rates and proximity to important markets around the globe. However, regardless of the initial motivation, once companies make the move, in Sullivan's words, "a toehold of real investment allows a truckload of profit to follow." Our ruling. President Obama said there are loopholes that provide incentives for companies that are shipping jobs overseas. Independent analysts agree that firms with international operations can take advantage of tax loopholes that domestic firms cannot. The value of these loopholes is in the billions. Such tax laws might not be the deciding factor for companies to locate in foreign countries, but they make that choice more lucrative. We rate the statement True. | [
"National",
"Debates",
"Jobs",
"Taxes"
] | [] | True | President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have sparred over tax policy for many months. They have argued over the treatment of the middle class, small businesses and whether the Bush-era tax cuts should be extended for the wealthiest 2 percent. The first presidential debate sparked debate on a different point -- the taxes paid by companies doing business overseas.So far, this topic has not played a prominent role in the campaign, although American-based multinational firms have a huge stake in the outcome. By one conservative estimate, this part of the tax code is worth $30 billion a year.During the debate, Obama tried to score points on Romney by highlighting the tax breaks companies get when they move jobs overseas.When it comes to our tax code, Gov. Romney and I both agree that our corporate tax rate is too high, so I want to lower it, particularly for manufacturing, taking it down to 25 percent. But I also want to close those loopholes that are giving incentives for companies that are shipping jobs overseas. I want to provide tax breaks for companies that are investing here in the United States.Romney responded, The idea that you get a break for shipping jobs overseas is simply not the case.In this fact-check, we'll examine the presidents statement and ask if there are tax incentives for companies that set up foreign operations.In the narrowest sense possible, Romneys rebuttal is accurate. There is no clause in the tax code that rewards a company when it relocates production beyond U.S. borders. But if a plant moves at all, whether its from Ohio to Tennessee or Ohio to Malaysia, it is eligible for deductions.There is certainly a tax break for U.S. companies that move operations or people abroad, said Gary McGill, director of the Fisher School of Accounting at the University of Florida. It is simply a business expense like any other legitimate expense.Richard Harvey, a former partner at the accounting firm Pricewaterhouse Coopers and now at Villanova School of Law, went even further.A company would be arguably negligent if they did not claim the deductions, Harvey said. In addition, the current tax law would allow a tax deduction for the costs of shutting down a U.S. operation.But both tax experts said the moving expenses were trivial compared to the hefty tax savings that companies can realize after they move their operations. There are two provisions in the code that allow them to shelter income from the IRS.Tax break #1: Keeping profits overseasWhen an American firm opens a foreign division, it typically sets up a separate company that does not pay U.S. taxes.That foreign subsidiary is a new entity, organized and created in a foreign country, said McGill. And responsible for its own taxes. Profits earned by the subsidiary need not show up on the parent companys tax return.The subsidiary pays taxes in the country where it's located. Those rates are often lower than in the U.S., where the corporate rate is 35 percent. So long as profits remain overseas, U.S. taxes are deferred.The company can declare that none of that money will return to the U.S.McGill, along with colleagues Edmund Outslay and Michael Donohoe, picked apart the public financial statements of Apple and other high-tech companies such as Google and IBM. With Apple, they found the company had built up $23.4 billion in earnings the company said would stay overseas permanently. And for good reason: Apple was paying an effective tax rate overseas of 1.2 percent on those profits.Tax break #2: Selling to yourselfAn American firm with a global network of subsidiaries has another way to trim its tax bill. All of those companies can buy and sell among themselves. Its perfectly legal and very lucrative. Take the example of Google.In just one quarter, the owner of the worlds most popular search engine had nearly $2.8 billion in net income and over half of that came from outside the U.S. That would put Google in good shape regardless, but the foreign earnings would be especially valuable. In 2009, the companys foreign tax rate was 2.4 percent, reportedBloomberg News.Google helped keep its taxes low by licensing its algorithms and other digital wizardry to an Irish subsidiary which then sold advertising around the world. The Irish tax rate on that income was 4 percent. But Google was able to drive its tax bill even lower by creating Google Ireland Holdings based in Bermuda where the tax rate is 0.6 percent. The Irish subsidiary sheltered its income by paying royalties to the subsidiary based in Bermuda.These transactions are supposed to cost the same as if they were conducted at arms length. Harvey, the former Pricewaterhouse Coopers partner, said they are anything but.It is relatively clear most U.S. multinational corporations are aggressively shifting taxable income to low-tax jurisdictions, Harvey said. I believe that anyone who believes the IRS can effectively enforce the arms-length standard is an eternal optimist or delusional.Tallying the costHarvey said the tax tools that multinationals can use give them a competitive advantage over domestic firms. He points to the work of Martin Sullivan, chief economist at Tax Analysts, a nonprofit news service. Sullivan told the House Ways and Means Committee that the tax revenues lost through deferral and transfer pricing were worth between $30 billion to $60 billion a year.Sullivan also noted that American firms with international operations had shed American jobs while increasing their overseas employment.Between 1999 and 2008, U.S. multinational corporations cut their domestic employment by 1.9 million. Over the same period U.S. multinationals increased their employment overseas by 2.4 million, Sullivan said.But the picture is more complicated than that might seem. There is strong debate over the role that tax rates play in those job shifts. Some analysts, including Harvey, believe the real drivers could be lower wage rates and being closer to important markets around the globe.However, regardless of the initial motivation, once companies make the move, in Sullivans words, a toehold of real investment allows a truckload of profit to follow.Our rulingPresident Obama said there are loopholes that are giving incentives for companies that are shipping jobs overseas.Independent analysts agree that firms with international operations can take advantage of tax loopholes that domestic firms can not. The value of these is in the billions. Such tax laws might not be the deciding factor for companies to locate in foreign countries, but they make that choice more lucrative.We rate the statement True. |
FMD_train_670 | Did Trump Say 'Laziness Is a Trait in Blacks; No Black President Again Any Time Soon'? | 08/08/2016 | [
"A meme created the impression that Donald Trump claimed that there wouldn't be a black president again any time soon because 'laziness is a trait in blacks.'"
] | An Internet meme circulating in August 2016 paired two racially charged statements previously attributed separately to Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump. While neither attribution was new, the conjunction of the two statements created the impression that Trump must have opined at some point that no black person would be President of the United States again any time soon because "laziness is a trait in blacks." There is a public record of Donald Trump having stated, more or less, that no black person would be president again any time soon because of the poor performance of his predecessor in the White House, Barack Obama. When called upon to explain the statement in a 2 August 2015 interview with Jonathan Karl on ABC News' This Week, Trump offered: "Well, I think he's been a very poor president. I think he has done a very poor job as president. We have $18 trillion right now in debt and going up rapidly." Karl then asked, "But what did you mean?" Trump continued, "Wait a minute. The world is... we don't have victories anymore. China is killing us on trade. Mexico's killing us at the border and also killing us on trade. Mexico's doing unbelievably against us in trade. You look at what's going on with Japan. You look at what's going on with Vietnam. You look at Saudi Arabia, which makes $1 billion a day, and we defend them. We get nothing." Karl responded, "I understand your critique. But why do you say that means we won't see another black president for generations?" Trump replied, "Because I think that he has set a very poor standard. I think that he has set a very low bar, and I think it's a shame for the African American people. And by the way, he has done nothing for African Americans. You look at what's gone on with their income levels. You look at what's gone on with their youth. I thought that he would be a great cheerleader for this country. I thought he'd do a fabulous job for the African American citizens of this country." A source attributing the statement "Laziness is a trait in blacks" to Donald Trump dates back to the early 1990s. It should be noted, however, that this source was a book written by a disgruntled former employee of Trump Plaza Hotel & Casino, John R. O'Donnell, and neither the statement nor the sentiment behind it has been corroborated elsewhere. As one might expect, O'Donnell's account, Trumped!, paints an unflattering portrait of its subject overall but offers this anecdote specifically as evidence of Trump's low opinion of the African Americans in his employ: "What do you think of him?" Donald asked. I said I was familiar with his abilities, and he had shortcomings. "To be honest, I don't think he's the best we can have," I said. "I'd like to see him either come up to speed, where he can help me a lot more, or maybe there's something else he can do." Instantly, Donald was enthused. "Yeah, I never liked the guy. I don't think he knows what the fuck he's doing. My accountants up in New York are always complaining about him. He's not responsive. And isn't it funny, I've got black accountants at Trump Castle and at Trump Plaza. Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day. Those are the kind of people I want counting my money. Nobody else." I couldn't believe I was hearing this. But Donald went on, "Besides that, I've got to tell you something else. I think that the guy is lazy. And it's probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It's not anything they can control.... Don't you agree?" He looked at me square in the eye and waited for my reply. "Donald, you really shouldn't say things like that to me or anybody else," I said. "That is not the kind of image you want to project. We shouldn't even be having this conversation, even if it's the way you feel." "Yeah, you're right," he said. "If anybody ever heard me say that... holy shit... I'd be in a lot of trouble. But I have to tell you, that's the way I feel." Although Trump didn't deny any of O'Donnell's specific allegations in a subsequent (1997) Playboy magazine interview—"The stuff O'Donnell wrote about me is probably true," Trump said at the time—he vehemently denied O'Donnell's account of the conversation when asked about it during a 24 October 1999 interview with Tim Russert on Meet the Press: "I never said it. I don't even know... I hardly know this guy. He was running one of my casinos for a short period of time. He was fired; we fired him because he wasn't doing a very good job. He wrote this nasty book. He made up stuff. This is like Jon Lovitz on 'Saturday Night Live,' the liar. 'I went to Harvard. Yeah, I went to Harvard.' This guy, I hardly know him. He made up this quote. I've heard the quote before, and it's nonsense." Russert pressed, "You've never said anything like that?" Trump replied, "I've never said anything like it, ever." As the Washington Post noted, it is, at best, a secondhand quote from a private conversation, written down years after the fact, and should be viewed "with some skepticism." | [
"debt"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1nwf64tH9EVTDadGv44ikvTnR0S6yD2WL",
"image_caption": null
}
] | NEI | When called upon to explain the statement in a 2 August 2015 interview with Jonathan Karl on ABC News' This Week, Trump offered:A source attributing the statement "Laziness is a trait in blacks" to Donald Trump dates to the early 1990s. It should be noted, however, that that source was a book written by a disgruntled former employee of Trump Plaza Hotel & Casino, John R. O'Donnell, and neither the statement nor the sentiment behind it has been corroborated elsewhere.Although Trump didn't deny any of O'Donnell's specific allegations in a subsequent (1997)Playboy magazine interview -- "The stuff ODonnell wrote about me is probably true," Trump said at the time -- he vehemently denied O'Donnell's account of the conversation when asked about it during a 24 October 1999 interview with Tim Russert on Meet the Press:As the Washington Post noted, it is, at best, a secondhand quote from a private conversation, written down years after the fact, and should be viewed "with some skepticism." |
FMD_train_671 | Only 20 colleges and universities have athletic departments with revenue exceeding expenses. | 12/22/2014 | [] | At the end of his 24-year congressional career, Rep. Jim Moran Jr. is returning to his athletic roots. Moran, D-8th, is the son and namesake of Jim Moran Sr., who played professional football with the Boston Redskins in the mid 1930s. The congressman, himself, played football at the College of the Holy Cross in the mid 1960s. Moran, who retires Jan. 3, introduced legislation this fall that would create a commission to look into the policies of the NCAA after myriad college sports scandals. The resolution calls for the panel to make recommendations to improve the interaction of athletics and academics on campuses. That includes examining the graduation rates of student athletes, rules restricting athletes abilities to earn money, and the wherewithal of universities to finance broad athletic programs. We have a system now where in 40 states, the highest-paid public employee is the state universitys head football or basketball coach, and yet only 20 schools in the Football Bowl Subdivision have athletic departments with revenue exceeding expenses, Moran said in a Facebook post. We rated Morans statement about coaches pay as Mostly True. Now, well look at his claim that only 20 athletic departments at the nations largest universities are making a profit. Lets start with a definition of the Football Bowl Subdivision -- the term Moran used to qualify his statement. There are1,083colleges and universities competing in sports that fall under the NCAAs governance. They are grouped into three divisions, that are defined by athletic scholarship rules and the amount of money the schools spend on sports. For example, Division I schools -- which are typically large -- can offer many full athletic scholarships, Division II schools can offer partial athletic scholarships and Division III schools are not allowed to offer sports scholarships. There are 346 Division I schools. Of them, 123 are classified as members of the Football Bowl Subdivision, the top tier of sports competition. These are colleges and universities that are eligible to compete in bowl games and have average attendance of at least 15,000 at their home games. So Moran is generally talking about the athletic department finances at large universities that field football teams. Morans spokesman, Thomas Scanlon, said the congressmans claim was based on anNCAA studyon Division I athletic department budgets that was released in April. The report says, A total of 20 athletics programs in the FBS reported positive net revenues for the 2013 fiscal year. The study deals in broad statistics and does not identify schools that are in the black or the red. Only two sports were profitable at FBS schools, according to the report. Football programs netted a median profit of slightly more than $3 million and mens basketball netted a median $340,000. But the profits at most schools quickly vanished after paying for a long list of other intercollegiate teams, all of which lose money. The median loss among of athletic departments was $11.6 million. Here are some other findings from the NCAA report: According to the report, all athletic departments outside of the FBS operate in the red. In other words, only 20 of the 1,083 college sports programs in the nation are profitable. Our ruling Moran said only 20 FBS schools generate more money from athletics than they spend. We rate his statement True. | [
"Education",
"Sports",
"State Budget",
"Virginia"
] | [] | True | There are1,083colleges and universities competing in sports that fall under the NCAAs governance. They are grouped into three divisions, that are defined by athletic scholarship rules and the amount of money the schools spend on sports. For example, Division I schools -- which are typically large -- can offer many full athletic scholarships, Division II schools can offer partial athletic scholarships and Division III schools are not allowed to offer sports scholarships.Morans spokesman, Thomas Scanlon, said the congressmans claim was based on anNCAA studyon Division I athletic department budgets that was released in April. The report says, A total of 20 athletics programs in the FBS reported positive net revenues for the 2013 fiscal year. The study deals in broad statistics and does not identify schools that are in the black or the red. |
FMD_train_1825 | Was Michael Moore Accused of Sexual Harassment? | 10/23/2017 | [
"A questionable \"satire\" site fabricated a Fox News report about the progressive filmmaker's harassing a 16-year-old girl."
] | Numerous allegations of sexual harassment have been made against former film executive Harvey Weinstein recently, which may be why "satirical" web site Freedom Junkshun was inspired to publish a story on 17 October 2017 that painted documentarian Michael Moore in a similar light. According to the site: Fox News reported Monday: While filming anti-gun movie Bowling for Columbine Sarah Slater, who was 16 at the time and on set as an extra, says Moore walked up to her and made multiple passes. "I rejected him every time but he wouldnt take no for an answer, Slater tells Fox. He had me change into this really short skirt and he would just stare. At the end of the day, I was at a vending machine and felt a hand sliding up my thigh." In reality, Fox News reported no such thing. Freedom Junkshun is a long-standing publisher of false information. The site includes this disclaimer: publisher We believe that there is nothing more precious than the mind of an aging conservative. Here we gather a boatload of bullhonkey, works of pure satirical fiction, to give the fist-shakers of the world a reason to hate. Reality is often in the eye of the beholder. You wont find any of it here. Join the fun in the comments on our Facebook page where you too can watch David Hasselhoff running over someones poodle magically transformed into a crime against humanity by Barack Obama or yet another murder the Clintons got away with. However, that did not stop conservative social media users from trying to pass the story off as legitimate: As is commonplace, other websitesConservative Columns, The Star Chronicle, USA First Information, and Defense Patriotregurgitated the fake story without including a "satirical" disclaimer of their own. In reality, Moore criticized Weinstein in a Facebook post on 13 October 2017, saying: saying: I have intervened on more than one occasion and I have fired men who sexually harass women. Harvey Weinstein knew better than to behave inappropriately toward women in my presence. I'm guessing successful sociopaths like him who get away with it for years are very, very careful not to let the kind of men who would stop them dead cold ever get a glimpse of who they really are. I don't live in Weinstein's Hollywood world and I make documentaries, so I can't speak to the culture he created and seemed to thrive in. I AM the only director that I know of who's actually taken Weinstein to court (for being a thief, which requires a different set of sociopathic skills, but, like sexual harassment, you can probably find them at a few Hollywood studios). All of us (men) must share the responsibility for allowing a society to exist where women do not feel safe. A society where, when they are abused, they are not able to tell their stories without fear of retribution and shame. A society that badgers, blames or scoffs at women when they tell their stories. Or how they tell their stories. Or "how long" it took them. They carry a burden that most of us (men) never have to experience. If you can't empathize with that or understand what they are dealing with, then maybe you're part of the problem. We contacted Moore seeking comment on Freedom Junkshun's "story." Weinstein, the former co-founder of Miramax and the Weinstein Company, has been accused by more than 60 women of sexually harassment or assault in the wake of reports by both the New York Times and the New Yorker this month, detailing a pattern of alleged abuse. both and He was subsequently fired from the Weinstein Company as well as expelled from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Police in London and Los Angeles have opened investigations regarding Weinstein, while New York State Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman is reviewing whether Weinstein committed civil rights violations. London Angeles reviewing Kantor, Jodi and Megan Twohey. "Harvey Weinstein Paid Off Sexual Harassment Accusers for Decades."
The New York Times. 5 October 2017. Farrow, Ronan. "From Aggressive Overtures to Sexual Assault: Harvey Weinstein's Accusers Tell Their Stories."
The New Yorker. 10 October 2017. Lartey, Jamiles and Kevin Rawlinson. "Harvey Weinstein: Police in New York and London Investigating Allegations."
The Guardian. 12 October 2017. Winton, Richard and Victoria Kim. "Investigation Launched After Actress Tells LAPD She Was Raped by Harvey Weinstein."
Los Angeles Times. 19 October 2017. Twohey, Megan. "Weinstein Company Faces Civil Rights Inquiry by New York Attorney General."
The New York Times. 23 October 2017. | [
"share"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1XQGL1WUTOd7b7oLZvnRCuJXt8N8Dwxhp",
"image_caption": null
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1fA_zyiixp1n1suNADprxRaD7aN2WmE9X",
"image_caption": null
}
] | False | In reality, Fox News reported no such thing. Freedom Junkshun is a long-standing publisher of false information. The site includes this disclaimer:In reality, Moore criticized Weinstein in a Facebook post on 13 October 2017, saying:Weinstein, the former co-founder of Miramax and the Weinstein Company, has been accused by more than 60 women of sexually harassment or assault in the wake of reports by both the New York Times and the New Yorker this month, detailing a pattern of alleged abuse.He was subsequently fired from the Weinstein Company as well as expelled from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Police in London and Los Angeles have opened investigations regarding Weinstein, while New York State Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman is reviewing whether Weinstein committed civil rights violations. |
FMD_train_365 | It wasnt all women that lost jobs (in the December jobs report), it was mostly Black and Latina women. In fact, white women gained employment. | 01/15/2021 | [
"There was a net loss in jobs from November to December.",
"Bureau of Labor Statistics data indicate that while women overall lost jobs, men overall gained jobs nationally., A separate Bureau of Labor Statistics survey indicates the number of employed white women increased, while the number of employed Hispanic or Latina women and Black women decreased."
] | When the Bureau of Labor Statistics issued its latest job numbers, the Jan. 8, 2021, release revealed a jaw-dropping statistic: from November to December, the U.S. economy lost 140,000 jobs. Then came another shocking detail: only women lost jobs as a group. On Jan. 9, 2021, Wisconsin Treasurer Sarah Godlewski tweeted a link to a CNN article about the job losses among women, commenting, "This headline is hiding something from you. It wasn't all women that lost jobs; it was mostly Black and Latina women. In fact, white women gained employment. Any response we have to this pandemic and economy must also address structural inequality." When asked for a source, Godlewski's office pointed to the CNN article, dated Jan. 8, that she retweeted. That article noted that the U.S. economy lost 140,000 jobs overall, with women losing 156,000 jobs while men gained 16,000 jobs. Her office also highlighted this paragraph in the article: "Black and Latina women disproportionately work in some of the hardest-hit sectors during the pandemic, often in roles that lack paid sick leave and the ability to work from home. As schools and daycares closed, many were forced to make hard trade-offs between work and parenting. Those sectors are less likely to have flexibility, so when employers are inflexible or women can't come to work because of caregiving responsibilities, they have to exit the workforce," said Nicole C. Mason, president and CEO of the Institute for Women's Policy Research. We conducted our own check of the BLS numbers, and the preliminary November and December figures reflect what was in the CNN article. However, Godlewski's claim specifically addressed the difference in outcomes for Black and Latina women, as groups, compared to white women. The BLS conducted a separate survey known as the Current Population Survey, which measures employment for Black, Hispanic or Latina, and white women ages 20 and older. This data was part of the Jan. 8 release of the December jobs numbers. Participating households responded to the survey in the week of Dec. 6. That data, which is not seasonally adjusted, indicates that the number of employed Black women decreased by 82,000 from November to December, and the number of Hispanic or Latina women employed decreased by 31,000. Meanwhile, the number of employed white women increased by 106,000 during the same time span. The overall number of women in the labor force has been fluctuating since the March-to-April numbers, which marked the first full impact of the pandemic. There was a decrease from July to September. Laura Dresser, an economist with the Center on Wisconsin Strategy at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, noted that prior economic declines were led by male-dominated fields, such as construction and manufacturing. The pandemic-driven decline, she said, has strongly affected areas such as the restaurant and education industries, which employ a high number of women workers. "And those jobs are low-wage jobs," Dresser said. "They're held disproportionately by women. They're held disproportionately by people of color." With a link to a news article, Godlewski claimed, "It wasn't all women that lost jobs; it was mostly Black and Latina women. In fact, white women gained employment." Federal statistics show that, as a group, women accounted for all of the job loss from November to December. What's more, the number of employed white women increased during that time frame, while the numbers for Black and Hispanic or Latina women fell. We rate this claim True. | [
"Economy",
"Jobs",
"Women",
"Wisconsin"
] | [] | True | When asked for a source, Godlewskis office pointed tothe CNN article, dated Jan. 8, that she retweeted. That article noted the U.S. economy lost 140,000 jobs overall, with women losing 156,000 jobs, while men gained 16,000 jobs.Black and Latina women disproportionately work in some of the hardest-hit sectors in the pandemic, often in roles thatlack paid sick leaveand the ability to work from home. As schools and day cares closed, many were forced to make hard trade-offs between work and parenting. Those sectors are less likely to have flexibility, so when employers are inflexible or women can't come to work because of caregiving responsibilities they have to exit the workforce, said Nicole C. Mason, president and CEO of the Institute for Womens Policy Research.Laura Dresser, an economist with the Center on Wisconsin Strategy at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said prior economic declines were led by male-dominated fields, such as construction and manufacturing. The pandemic-driven decline, she said, has strongly affected areas such as the restaurant and education industries with a high number of women workers. |
FMD_train_1137 | Did a Shark Attack on a Missouri Highway? | 12/30/2015 | [
"A creative photograph depicting a shark attacking a motorist on a Missouri highway went viral in December 2015."
] | On 28 December 2015, an image purportedly showing a shark attacking two motorists stranded on a flooded Missouri highway started going viral on Facebook: Before we examine the origins of the above-displayed image, let's take a moment to judge the authenticity of the photograph based on simple common sense. The man in the above-displayed picture is standing in about thigh-high water, and since the average male in the United States is about5 foot 9, we can reasonably assume that the water is no more than a fewfeet deep. The rest of the lane is visible in the upper left-hand corner of the image, so it appears that this flood only affected a small portion of the roadway. Also, Missouri is a landlocked state in the central U.S. far from any ocean, so any flood waters in that area would likely be fresh water and not salt water. All of these factors make the pictured site a highly unlikely habitat for the ocean-going great white shark species. average In fact, a larger version of the image clearly shows that entire road is not flooded: The text accompanying the image alleges that the incident took place in Missouri, a Midwestern state located about 400 miles north of the Gulf of Mexico: While that is not an impossible distance for a great white shark to travel, it is highly implausible that a large sea creature such as a shark would be able to traverse a fresh water river all the way from the ocean up toMissouri. (A story earlier this year about a bull shark caught in the Missouri River turned out to bean April Fool's joke.) story The Facebook post also mentions that the shark attack victims pictured were recent recipients of Mark Zuckerberg's alleged $4.5 million giveaway. This is another indication that the photograph is a jape, since the claim that the founder of Facebook was giving away money to random people on Facebook was itself a hoax. money While Bill Tennison scored a viral hit in December 2015 when he claimed that a motorist was attacked by a shark on a flooded highway in Missouri, he wasn't the first person to sharethis fake photograph. This image has been circulatingonline since at least 2000 and has been attached to flood waters in Ireland, Houston, Englandand New Orleans. Ireland Houston England New Orleans Also, as many commenters have pointed out, the license plates, road signs, and cars seen in the image indicate the pictured road is more likely located somewhere in the United Kingdom than Missouri. Update: We received the following comment on 31 December 2015 from Stephen Rushbrook. Rushbrook This was taken by Computer game Artist Russell Hughes when he was working for Stainless Games back at our farmhouse offices in the Isle of Wight That spot is infamous for flooding. So on that stormy day we were all by the roadside laughing at those who didn't know how to drive through a flood. Later (after the pub, blacksmiths arms just up the road) he turned his photo into this. He then sent it to the company. It escaped when Matt Edmunds sent it to his friend at Reuters. It then became 'news picture of the day' and that was that. Within the day we were getting emails from our friends from round the world saying have you seen this ? Btw it was taken here Dropped pinnear The Middle Rd, Newport, Isle of Wight PO30 4HPhttps://goo.gl/maps/noY1ehkSvcS2 https://goo.gl/maps/noY1ehkSvcS2 | [
"share"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=13Af4E7_5RU1zyRPveZQy1B-LasbB92-F",
"image_caption": null
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1-wEbxlNFRfLKcCgApQYFhF-_ydjHAkHB",
"image_caption": null
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1FCAVjvZkjuCRBE9X4avHphA_xPyzCUe4",
"image_caption": null
}
] | False | The man in the above-displayed picture is standing in about thigh-high water, and since the average male in the United States is about5 foot 9, we can reasonably assume that the water is no more than a fewfeet deep. The rest of the lane is visible in the upper left-hand corner of the image, so it appears that this flood only affected a small portion of the roadway. Also, Missouri is a landlocked state in the central U.S. far from any ocean, so any flood waters in that area would likely be fresh water and not salt water. All of these factors make the pictured site a highly unlikely habitat for the ocean-going great white shark species.While that is not an impossible distance for a great white shark to travel, it is highly implausible that a large sea creature such as a shark would be able to traverse a fresh water river all the way from the ocean up toMissouri. (A story earlier this year about a bull shark caught in the Missouri River turned out to bean April Fool's joke.)The Facebook post also mentions that the shark attack victims pictured were recent recipients of Mark Zuckerberg's alleged $4.5 million giveaway. This is another indication that the photograph is a jape, since the claim that the founder of Facebook was giving away money to random people on Facebook was itself a hoax.While Bill Tennison scored a viral hit in December 2015 when he claimed that a motorist was attacked by a shark on a flooded highway in Missouri, he wasn't the first person to sharethis fake photograph. This image has been circulatingonline since at least 2000 and has been attached to flood waters in Ireland, Houston, Englandand New Orleans.Update: We received the following comment on 31 December 2015 from Stephen Rushbrook.Dropped pinnear The Middle Rd, Newport, Isle of Wight PO30 4HPhttps://goo.gl/maps/noY1ehkSvcS2 |
FMD_train_1290 | Indeed, the IRS instructed taxpayers to report stolen possessions and illicit earnings. | 12/30/2021 | [
"But there's a loophole to get out of declaring on stolen goods. "
] | Criminals, beware. Just because you got away with an illegal activity doesn't mean the IRS isn't going to come after your earnings. That's because just ahead of the 2021 tax season, the IRS released guidelines that required taxpayers to claim items they have stolen, as well as earnings from illegal activities. The claim made headlines in publications that joked potential criminals were running out of time to return stolen goods to avoid paying taxes on them. It went viral when the financial Twitter account @litquidity took to social media to remind taxpayers that tax season is around the corner. And it's true. Publication 17, which contains the IRS's general rules for filing federal income tax returns, lists illegal activities under "other income," categorized as self-employment activity, which must be reported to the federal tax agency. "Income from illegal activities, such as money from dealing illegal drugs, must be included in your income on Schedule 1 (Form 1040), line 8z, or on Schedule C (Form 1040) if from your self-employment activity," read the 2021 IRS guidelines. The guidelines also require that those who steal property must report the fair market value as income in the year that the item was stolen. Of course, one can avoid paying taxes on such items as long as the person returns them to the individual they were stolen from in the first place. The handy regulations also list how to report embezzled funds, note that bribes are considered nondeductible expenses, and state that kickbacks, side commissions, and push money must also be included in Schedule 1 (Form 1040), line 8z, or on Schedule C (Form 1040) if from self-employment activity. It's not just items or earnings obtained through illegal activities. That watch you found in the gym locker room? Yep, it's taxable. If you find and keep property that doesn't belong to you that has been lost or abandoned (treasure trove), it's taxable to you at its fair market value in the first year it's your undisputed possession, noted the IRS. Snopes spoke with an accountant who said that while the reporting requirements themselves aren't new, there was previously a separate form specifically for reporting illegal activity income. It's unclear to what extent people actually used the form in the past. It's not exactly clear whether law enforcement will be given information about individuals who report income from illegal activities. What is clear is that anyone under the age of 65 who made more than $12,550 in 2021 is required to file by April 18, 2022. | [
"taxes"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1U1YMlOw3WW7EUnyHalbeKUECezJrAQTr",
"image_caption": null
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1ja3P5_ntXGZ89AzVb4kCi0bIaPANKDyS",
"image_caption": null
}
] | True | The claim made headlines in publications that joked potential criminals were running out of time to return stolen goods to avoid paying taxes on them. And went viral when the financial Twitter account @litquidity took to social media to remind taxpayers that tax szn is around the corner. And its true. Publication 17, which contains the IRS general rules for filing federal income tax returns, lists illegal activities under other income categorized as self-employment activity required to be reported to the federal tax agency. Screengrab/IRS Publication 17 Screengrab/IRS Publication 17 |
FMD_train_664 | Was an FDNY Firefighter's Helmet Worn on 9/11 Stolen? | 04/12/2019 | [
"Firefighter Michael O'Connell has received two replica helmets and numerous messages of support since his 2015 plea went viral, but his original helmet has not been returned. "
] | On June 2, 2015, New York firefighter Michael O'Connell took to Facebook to ask social media users for help in locating a helmet that had been stolen from his house a few years earlier. O'Connell posted a photograph of his son with the helmet and explained that he had worn it throughout his FDNY career, including during 9/11 and its aftermath. He wrote, "This was my FDNY helmet I wore my entire career, including 9/11/01. It was stolen from my home a while back. I know it's a long shot, but if enough people share, maybe it turns up or is sent back so I can keep it in my family! Thanks!" The NYC Wire Fire Facebook page helped spread O'Connell's message by resharing his post with the caption, "In case anyone comes across this ... maybe the thief is stupid enough to try to sell it on eBay." Within a week, the message reportedly reached more than 8 million people and had been reshared hundreds of thousands of times. Unfortunately, despite the wide dissemination of this Facebook post, it did not result in the return of O'Connell's FDNY helmet. On June 24, 2015, a few weeks after the Facebook post went viral, AM New York reported that while O'Connell had not been reunited with his helmet, he did receive an outpouring of support from the community and two replica helmets from "good Samaritans hoping to soothe the sting" of his loss. Retired firefighter Michael O'Connell's social media campaign to retrieve his stolen FDNY helmet had garnered him the next best thing—two replicas, thanks to some good Samaritans. "There are still amazing people in this world!" O'Connell said. O'Connell, 39, recently turned to Facebook to track down the significant memento that he wore at Ground Zero following 9/11 and hoped to leave to his three children. What came back instead were two painstakingly created replica helmets from good Samaritans hoping to soothe the sting of his loss and an avalanche of human kindness and compassion. "I'm taking the good out of this story, not the bad," said O'Connell, who was forced to retire from the FDNY after being diagnosed with sarcoidosis, an inflammatory disease that attacks the lungs and lymphatic system, in 2007. "We live in an amazing world. So many people are willing to help. I hope people recognize this more than all the hate out there," he said. Although this FDNY firefighter's message was originally posted in June 2015, social media users have continued to share his plea on Facebook over the ensuing years. In April 2019, for example, a screenshot of O'Connell's message that was posted by the Ramsey, New Jersey Volunteer Fire Department racked up more than 600,000 shares. When viewers learned that this message was nearly four years old by the time they encountered it in April 2019, they were left wondering if O'Connell had ever been reunited with his firefighter helmet. Unfortunately, that was not the case. O'Connell told us in April 2019, "I appreciate everyone's support in this matter. Unfortunately, my helmet was never returned! Hoping that it will make its way back home one day as I am a retired firefighter who has fallen sick due to my work on September 11th, and this was the helmet that I wore that day and throughout my career!" | [
"loss"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1VVfjuIATZ6BTvIic_c6piDoBM3o04ixz",
"image_caption": null
}
] | True | On 2 June 2015, New York firefighter Michael O'Connell took to Facebook to ask social media users for help in locating a helmet that had been stolen from his house a few years prior. O'Connell posted a photograph of his son with the helmet and explained that he had worn it throughout his FDNY career, including during 9/11 and its aftermath:The NYC Wire Fire Facebook page helped spread O'Connell's message by resharing his post with the caption, "In case anyone comes across this ... maybe the thief is stupid enough to try to sell on eBay." Within a week, the message reportedly reached more than 8 million people and had been reshared hundreds of thousands of times. Unfortunately, despite the wide dissemination of this Facebook post, it did not result in the return of O'Connell's FDNY helmet.AM New York reported on 24 June 2015, a few weeks after the Facebook post went viral, that while O'Connell had not been reunited with his helmet, he did receive an outpouring of support from the community and two replica helmets from "good Samaritans hoping to sooth the sting" of his loss:Although this FDNY firefighter's message was originally posted in June 2015, social media users have continued to share his plea on Facebook over the ensuing years. In April 2019, for example, a screenshot of O'Connell's message that was posted by the "Ramsey, New Jersey Volunteer Fire Department" racked up more than 600,000 shares. |
FMD_train_1597 | Black Like Ike? | 11/25/2015 | [
"President Dwight D. Eisenhower's racial background has sparked a number of long-circulating rumors, but there's no compelling evidence behind such claims."
] | In 2015, a number of social media posts and email forwards made their way to Snopes HQ: This has been on Facebook since at least August 2015, claiming Eisenhower's mother was of mixed ancestry (using offensive term "mulatto"). A brief review of some sources turned up no evidence, though her family was mixed generations before. Strictly speaking, this would not make her a "mulatto" woman as claimed. There is a post on facebook that says Dwight Eisenhower's (34th President)mother was a mulatto named Ida Stover. Ida Stover is his mother but was she a mulatto? There for Obama is not the first Black president. Was shemulato? Hey did you guys know our 34th President Dwight Eisenhower's mother was "mulatto" #FunFact #FunFact spicy mayo (@wo0ski) August 28, 2015 August 28, 2015 On 27 August 2015 a Facebook user shared the above-reproduced image, claiming that the mother of President Dwight D. Eisenhower was an "orphaned mulatto woman named Ida Stover." Although the claim was novel to many social media users, questions about Eisenhower's racial background were not: for example, an 8 January 2004New York Times article titled "Surprises in the Family Tree" examined why the topic of race and ancestry is sometimes complicated across American history: shared article "Most of the workers in colonial America in the 17th and early 18th centuries were indentured servants, white and black," said Dr. John B. Boles, a professor of history at Rice University in Houston and the editor of "The Blackwell Companion to the American South" (2001). Since there was not a clear distinction between slavery and servitude at the time, he said, "biracial camaraderie" often resulted in children. The idea that blacks were property did not harden until around 1715 with the rise of the tobacco economy, by which time there was a small but growing population of free families of color. Dr. Boles estimated that by 1860 there were 250,000 free black or mixed-race individuals The article only briefly mentioned Eisenhower and Stover, in a manner that referenced the rumor without providing conclusivedetail: It is incontrovertible that America is a multiracial society, from the founding father Alexander Hamilton (the son of a mixed-race woman from the British West Indies) to Essie Mae Washington-Williams, 78, a retired schoolteacher, who, the late Senator Strom Thurmond's family [has] acknowledged, is his daughter. And for decades there have been questions about the possible mixed-race ancestry of Ida Stover, Dwight D. Eisenhower's mother. According to that article, there were merely "questions" about Stover's racial ancestry (which had lingered for "decades," seemingly without answer). Wikipedia also addresses the rumor on a page titled "African-American heritage of United States presidents," where Eisenhower is listed under presidents with unverified claims of African ancestry, alongsideThomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Warren G. Harding, and Calvin Coolidge. The page is prefaced with a note that the claims originated primarily with "amateur historians," were not "verified by reliable sources in peer-reviewed publications," and that "[m]ainline historians do not support these claims": Wikipedia The academic consensus of historians is that no president other than Obama has had recent (from the colonial period in U.S. history or after) African ancestry; it rejects claims to the contrary. TheTimes' 2004 article was published well before the candidacy of Barack Obama, but rumors of Eisenhower's purported African roots predictably surfaced alongsideObama's then-burgeoning campaign. A 5 February 2008 Pittsburgh-Post Gazette article emphasized that such claims were not considered credible by historians and geneologists: article In addition to Jefferson, the books, magazines and newspaper articles found on the Web name five other U.S. presidents who may have had black ancestry, but never publicly acknowledged it: Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge and Dwight D. Eisenhower.Van Hall, associate professor of history at the University of Pittsburgh, said it is unlikely that most of the men on the list had black ancestry because historians know their genealogy pretty well. While he concedes he hasn't researched the issue, Larry Glasco, also an associate professor of history at Pitt, is also skeptical of the stories. "I would guess if [the stories] were really true we'd have heard a lot more about them," Dr. Glasco said. "There would have been a lot more written about them in professional research literature." Another portion of that 2008 article notedthat the claimsshould be simpleto resolve, given recent advances in genetic mapping technology: [Russell Riley, presidential scholar at the University of Virginia's Miller Center of Public Affairs] said with today's DNA mapping techniques it would be easy to prove or disprove these claims. There was no such thing as DNA mapping when the late historian J.A. Rogers wrote his book, "Five Black Presidents," self-published in 1965, which serves as the basis for most of the more recently published works on the subject. The set of larger rumors (mentioning but not focusing on Eisenhower) were addressed again byNPR in a June 2008 segment titled "Has America Already Had a Black President?" which primarily explored the reasons behind (and not the credibility of) such rumors. The election of President Obama predictably reinvigorated the rumors, and a 5 November 2008Emporia Gazette article described the claims ascomprising mostly visual evidence (i.e., photographs of Ida Stover) and gaps in her family tree: addressed article The rumor was his dad was mixed, coming out of Africa, [Emporia State University sociology professor Nate] Terrell said. "But his mother, Ida (Elizabeth) Stover Eisenhower, was mulatto. And when I show people pictures of her they say, 'Oh well, we can tell. Just by looking at mom, we can tell she was mixed.'" The photograph reputed to be of Eisenhowers mother and father was published by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, in conjunction with several articles run on the subject of black presidents. Although [Dr. Leroy] Vaughn does not assert that Eisenhower was of mixed ancestry, his 2006 book, "Black People and Their Place in World History" states there may have been five black U.S. Presidents, according to the online news, The Daily Voice, Black America's Daily News Source. Elsewhere on the internet, an undated page on the web site FrenchCreoles.com presented the same shallow reasoning: that Ida Stover visually appeared to be biracial, and her ancestry was not well-documented. Moreover, the site asserted that one family name (Link, which is not an uncommon surname) was common among both white and black families: page While the more "mainstream" historians remain skeptical, these type of allegations garner the most interest among African Americans primarily because they recognize all the possibilities of truth in the assertions. Most all seem to agree that our nation's 34th president Dwight Eisenhower and Warren G. Harding, our 29th U.S. president, are the most likely candidates. It is said that Eisenhower's mother, Ida Elizabeth Stover Eisenhower was a woman of color. Something about a mysterious maternal grandfather who carried the surname of Link, and there being only two Links families in the Virginia town they originated in a black one and a white one. And something about interviews conducted with elderly area blacks during the 1950's who long remembered the references to Eisenhower's mother as "that black Links gal". But perhaps the evidence that raised the proverbial eyebrow was the 1885 wedding day photograph of the president's parents which many say is all the evidence they need A site calledRasta Livewire made similar,rumor-based assertions about Ida Stover's racial ancestry: assertions Here's the problem: In Mount Sidney to this day there are both black families and white families with the surname "Link." Many years ago, a black researcher discovered that Ida's mother was from the black Links, a fact washed away in time by two things: 1. Her mother died when she was five years old. 2. She went to live with a white family after. 3. She moved to Kansas while in her teens. 4. She married a white man. While rumors about President Eisenhower's purportedly mixed-race maternal lineage became more popular during and after the election of President Obama, the claims remain unsupported and unsubtantiated. The primary sources for the claim werea 50-year-old self-published book and many decades of repetition, while substantive evidence for the assertion hinged largely on Ida Stover's 1885 wedding photograph (which many viewers believed hinted at a mixed racial lineage) as well as the concurrent existence of black and white families with the surname Link in her hometown during her youth. Neither source was a convincing evidentiary finding, and in the time since the rumors began, the advancement of DNA research has made itfairly easy to resolve such questions. To date, no one has conclusively proved President Eisenhower wasn't part black, but neither has anyone presented any clear evidence affirming he was. | [
"economy"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=18AG2kow29MxPpG_j4DzVsiV9SIezdIMQ",
"image_caption": null
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1jqMw7NjXKYH3XWM-WLjhKERnJR_LvPcB",
"image_caption": null
}
] | NEI | Hey did you guys know our 34th President Dwight Eisenhower's mother was "mulatto" #FunFact spicy mayo (@wo0ski) August 28, 2015On 27 August 2015 a Facebook user shared the above-reproduced image, claiming that the mother of President Dwight D. Eisenhower was an "orphaned mulatto woman named Ida Stover." Although the claim was novel to many social media users, questions about Eisenhower's racial background were not: for example, an 8 January 2004New York Times article titled "Surprises in the Family Tree" examined why the topic of race and ancestry is sometimes complicated across American history:According to that article, there were merely "questions" about Stover's racial ancestry (which had lingered for "decades," seemingly without answer). Wikipedia also addresses the rumor on a page titled "African-American heritage of United States presidents," where Eisenhower is listed under presidents with unverified claims of African ancestry, alongsideThomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Warren G. Harding, and Calvin Coolidge. The page is prefaced with a note that the claims originated primarily with "amateur historians," were not "verified by reliable sources in peer-reviewed publications," and that "[m]ainline historians do not support these claims":TheTimes' 2004 article was published well before the candidacy of Barack Obama, but rumors of Eisenhower's purported African roots predictably surfaced alongsideObama's then-burgeoning campaign. A 5 February 2008 Pittsburgh-Post Gazette article emphasized that such claims were not considered credible by historians and geneologists:The set of larger rumors (mentioning but not focusing on Eisenhower) were addressed again byNPR in a June 2008 segment titled "Has America Already Had a Black President?" which primarily explored the reasons behind (and not the credibility of) such rumors. The election of President Obama predictably reinvigorated the rumors, and a 5 November 2008Emporia Gazette article described the claims ascomprising mostly visual evidence (i.e., photographs of Ida Stover) and gaps in her family tree:Elsewhere on the internet, an undated page on the web site FrenchCreoles.com presented the same shallow reasoning: that Ida Stover visually appeared to be biracial, and her ancestry was not well-documented. Moreover, the site asserted that one family name (Link, which is not an uncommon surname) was common among both white and black families:A site calledRasta Livewire made similar,rumor-based assertions about Ida Stover's racial ancestry: |
FMD_train_291 | Did Fox News Use an Image of Patti LaBelle During Their Aretha Franklin Tribute? | 08/17/2018 | [
"Fox News accidentally included a photograph of singer Patti LaBelle instead of Aretha Franklin as they reported on the latter's passing."
] | On 16 August 2018, Aretha Franklin, the iconic Grammy Award-winning singer known as the "Queen of Soul," passed away at the age of 76. As fans took to social media to share their memories of the late soul singer, many of them noticed a curious graphic that had been shared by the official Fox News Twitter account. The news network used the same graphic in their television broadcast about Franklin's death. This graphic was of particular interest because while the foreground picture is that of Aretha Franklin, the woman in the green jacket seen in the background is not the Queen of Soul. That is actually an image of singer Patti LaBelle performing at the "Women of Soul: In Performance at the White House" concert in 2014. Zachary Pleat (@zpleat) shared a video on Twitter on August 16, 2018. Jessica Santostefano, Vice President of the Media Desk at Fox News, issued an apology for the mistake. She stated, "We sincerely apologize to Aretha Franklin's family and friends. Our intention was to honor the icon using a secondary image of her performing with Patti LaBelle in the full-screen graphic, but the image of Ms. Franklin was obscured in that process, which we deeply regret." LaBelle and Franklin both performed at a 2014 White House concert, but the network's explanation for the error seemed questionable to some viewers because Franklin didn't appear at all in the photograph of LaBelle that formed the basis of the graphic. The original photograph, which was taken during LaBelle's performance of "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" by Reuters photographer Jonathan Ernst, can be seen below. | [
"interest"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1aVaeCdJUrDY0Oc3jAjoqZpQrqneitsVl",
"image_caption": null
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4ZEm07tWIWSNGNTU88DZOJCm0pxy-yl",
"image_caption": null
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1BeOaTTvJM9XdvXznccDSdgG3P6sFBDEq",
"image_caption": null
}
] | True | On 16 August 2018, Aretha Franklin, the iconic Grammy Award-winning singer known as the "Queen of Soul," passed away at the age of 76. As fans took to social media to share their memories of the late soul singer, many of them noticed a curious graphic that had been shared by the official Fox News Twitter account:The news network used the same graphic in their television broadcast about Franklin's death:This graphic was of particular interest because while the foreground picture is that of Aretha Franklin, the woman in the green jacket seen in the background is not the Queen of Soul. That is actually an image of singer Patti LaBelle performing at the "Women of Soul: In Performance at the White House concert in 2014:Yep here's video pic.twitter.com/IIkMDuKB7e Zachary Pleat (@zpleat) August 16, 2018Jessica Santostefano, Vice President -- Media Desk at Fox News, issued an apology for the mistake:LaBelle and Franklin both performed at a 2014 White House concert, but the network's explanation for the error seemed questionable to some viewers because Franklin didn't appear at all in the photograph of LaBelle that formed the basis of the graphic. The original photograph, which was taken during LaBelle's performance of "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" by Reuters photograph Jonathan Ernst, can be seen below: |
FMD_train_779 | Was the Moon Landing Faked by Stanley Kubrick? | 12/11/2015 | [
"Various edits of this infamous 'interview' have been circulating for years. "
] | On 10 December 2015, the website YourNewsWire.com published a video purportedly showing acclaimed film director Stanley Kubrick, who helmed such groundbreaking films as Dr. Strangelove, 2001: A Space Odyssey, and A Clockwork Orange, confessing to having helped NASA fake the Apollo program moon landings. A stunning new video has emerged 15 years after Stanley Kubrick's death in which he allegedly admits that the NASA moon landings were faked. Filmmaker T. Patrick Murray interviewed Kubrick three days before his death in March 1999. He was forced to sign an 88-page NDA to keep the contents of the interview a secret for 15 years. Below is a transcript from the interview with Stanley Kubrick, in which the director admits on camera that "the moon landings ALL were faked, and that I was the person who filmed it." In the interview, the alleged Stanley Kubrick figure confesses:
Kubrick: I perpetrated a huge fraud on the American public, which I am now about to detail, involving the United States government and NASA, that the moon landings were faked, that the moon landings ALL were faked, and that I was the person who filmed it.
Murray: Ok. (laughs) What are you talking ... You're serious. Ok.
Kubrick: I'm serious. Dead serious. Yes, it was fake.
Murray: Why are you telling the world? Why does the world need to know that the moon landings aren't real and you faked them?
Kubrick: I consider them to be my masterpiece.
Murray: And you can't take credit, or even talk about ...
Kubrick: Well, I am now ...
Murray: So, you can't talk to Roger Ebert about it. Does that frustrate you? Why did they have to fake it? Why would they have to do that?
Kubrick: Because it is impossible to get there ... 2001 was very ambitious, but that's not to say that faking the moon landing was not ambitious. But I learned things from making 2001, and that's why I got this gig in the first place.
Murray: That makes sense.
Kubrick: Well, it was easy for me because I didn't think a whole lot about the morality of it. But I could see that Neil [Armstrong] was bothered by it.
This video has been circulating online since at least August 2015 and is one of several clips purportedly showing Kubrick talking about his alleged involvement in faking the U.S. moon landings. While there are various edits of this infamous (and fake) interview circulating on YouTube, the videos all originated with a new film from T. Patrick Murray titled Shooting Kubrick. Murray claimed on the Shooting Kubrick website that he was granted unprecedented access to interview the director in May 1999, which would have been quite an impressive feat since Kubrick had passed away two months earlier. Although the date could be a simple typographical error, that was not the only questionable aspect of the interview. The man being interviewed simply doesn't look or sound like Stanley Kubrick when compared to a video of the real Kubrick accepting the D.W. Griffith Award in 1997. Furthermore, unedited versions of the interview contain hints that the "Stanley Kubrick" in the video is an actor. In a since-deleted clip, the interviewer called his subject "Tom" and instructed him on how to tell the next part of his story: "You don't say he said anything. You say what he says. Tom, I'm giving you directions. You don't have to imitate him (Richard Nixon). You're not reporting it. You're repeating it ... We're doing exposition here. That's how we're going to sneak it in." A spokesman for Kubrick's widow also proclaimed that "[t]he interview is a lie, Stanley Kubrick has never been interviewed by T. Patrick Murray; the whole story is made up, fraudulent, and untrue." T. Patrick Murray has not admitted that his interview with Stanley Kubrick is a hoax, but he certainly is banking on the mystery's driving interest in his project. | [
"banking"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1ys-Bk-K8dRyvD3jQBuly5ILgtcra31Ze",
"image_caption": null
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1L7NhvuoFnfn6HEEtH0sHuiMtQWztlWoP",
"image_caption": null
}
] | False | On 10 December 2015, the web site YourNewsWire.com published a video purportedly showing film acclaimed director Stanley Kubrick, who helmed such groundbreaking films as Dr. Strangelove, 2001: A Space Odyssey, and A Clockwork Orange, confessing to having helped NASA fake the Apollo program moon landings:This video has been circulating online since at least August 2015 and is one of several clips purportedly showing Kubrick talking about his alleged involvement in faking the U.S. moon landings. While there are various edits of this infamous (and fake) interview circulating on YouTube, the videos all originated with a new film from T. Patrick Murray titled Shooting Kubrick.Murray claimed on the Shooting Kubrick web site that he was granted unprecedented access to interview the director in May 1999, which would have been quite an impressive feat since Kubrick had passed away two months earlier:Although the date could be a simple typographical error, that was not the only questionable aspect of the interview. The man being interviewed simply doesn't look or sound like Stanley Kubrick when compared to a video of the real Kubrick accepting the D.W. Griffith Award in 1997: |
FMD_train_252 | Did Sen. Cotton Say Slavery Was a 'Necessary Evil'? | 07/29/2020 | [
"The Republican senator faced backlash after he criticized a school curriculum on slavery. "
] | A new school curriculum based on The New York Times' The 1619 Project faced opposition from U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton in July 2020, after he called it racially divisive and revisionist. based As the U.S. grappled with its history of racism amidst police custody killings of Black people in 2020, The 1619 Project, an ongoing initiative named for the year that the first slave ship arrived on American shores, became the center of a debate. The educational curriculum was launched alongside The New York Times Magazine's August 2019 special issue and aims to "reframe the country's history by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of Black Americans at the very center of our national narrative." Partnering with the Pulitzer Center, the curriculum is freely available online and is being used by teachers across the country. It includes essays, poems, photographs, and fiction from contributors, and was praised for its examination of slavery's impact on the present day. The 1619 Project launched special issue aims curriculum praised As Cotton launched an attack on the initiative by introducing legislation that would prevent the use of federal funds to spread the optional curriculum in classrooms, Snopes readers asked us if in his criticism of the project he had actually called slavery a necessary evil. launched He did use those words. But he also claimed his meaning was misinterpreted. In an interview with the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Cotton said [emphasis ours]: Arkansas Democrat-Gazette We have to study the history of slavery and its role and impact on the development of our country because otherwise we cant understand our country. As the Founding Fathers said, it was the necessary evil upon which the union was built, but the union was built in a way, as Lincoln said, to put slavery on the course to its ultimate extinction. Later, Cotton took to Twitter and appeared to clarify that he himself wasnt backing the idea of slavery being a "necessary evil": Twitter Although Cotton claimed he was citing the views of the founding fathers, there did not appear to be a record of them saying this exact phrase, according to CNN. But historians argued that some of the founding fathers believed slavery to be necessary, and more believed it to be evil, while others reported there was little overlap between the two perspectives. did not appear CNN historians argued others reported But Nikole Hannah-Jones, writer and creator of The 1619 Project pushed back on his characterization of his own words and the views of the founding fathers, citing historian Joshua Rothman who categorically stated that slavery was a choice defended or accepted by white Americans for generations. Hannah-Jones argued that Cottons use of the word as denoted agreement with the statement. She also said that the curriculum was meant to be "supplementary" and was not intended to "supplant U.S. history curriculum." pushed back citing supplementary In summary, given that Cotton himself defended and clarified his use of the phrase "necessary evil," we rate this claim as Correct attribution. Foran, Clare. "GOP Sen. Tom Cotton Pitches Bill to Prohibit Use of Federal Funds to Teach 1619 Project."
CNN. 24 July 2020. Jesuthasan, Meerabelle. "The 1619 Project Sparks Dialogue and Reflection in Schools Nationwide."
Pulitzer Center. 20 December 2019. Lockwood, Frank E. "Bill by Sen. Tom Cotton Targets Curriculum on Slavery."
Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. 26 July 2020. Porter, Tom. "GOP Sen. Tom Cotton Called Slavery a 'Necessary Evil' in an Attack on a New York Times Project Exploring America's History of Racism."
Business Insider. 27 July 2020. Pulitzer Center. "The 1619 Project Curriculum."
Accessed 29 July 2020. The New York Times. "The 1619 Project."
14 August 2019. Zurcher, Anthony. "US Senator Tom Cotton Defends Slavery Remarks."
BBC News. 27 July 2020. | [
"funds"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1c2Vq9bIgqSFCGeYXeSaPMXmHfg2Isf4X",
"image_caption": null
}
] | True | A new school curriculum based on The New York Times' The 1619 Project faced opposition from U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton in July 2020, after he called it racially divisive and revisionist.As the U.S. grappled with its history of racism amidst police custody killings of Black people in 2020, The 1619 Project, an ongoing initiative named for the year that the first slave ship arrived on American shores, became the center of a debate. The educational curriculum was launched alongside The New York Times Magazine's August 2019 special issue and aims to "reframe the country's history by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of Black Americans at the very center of our national narrative." Partnering with the Pulitzer Center, the curriculum is freely available online and is being used by teachers across the country. It includes essays, poems, photographs, and fiction from contributors, and was praised for its examination of slavery's impact on the present day.As Cotton launched an attack on the initiative by introducing legislation that would prevent the use of federal funds to spread the optional curriculum in classrooms, Snopes readers asked us if in his criticism of the project he had actually called slavery a necessary evil.In an interview with the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Cotton said [emphasis ours]:Later, Cotton took to Twitter and appeared to clarify that he himself wasnt backing the idea of slavery being a "necessary evil":Although Cotton claimed he was citing the views of the founding fathers, there did not appear to be a record of them saying this exact phrase, according to CNN. But historians argued that some of the founding fathers believed slavery to be necessary, and more believed it to be evil, while others reported there was little overlap between the two perspectives.But Nikole Hannah-Jones, writer and creator of The 1619 Project pushed back on his characterization of his own words and the views of the founding fathers, citing historian Joshua Rothman who categorically stated that slavery was a choice defended or accepted by white Americans for generations. Hannah-Jones argued that Cottons use of the word as denoted agreement with the statement. She also said that the curriculum was meant to be "supplementary" and was not intended to "supplant U.S. history curriculum." |
FMD_train_1243 | U.S. unemployment among people ages 16 to 24 is 18.4 percent, which is a 60-year high. | 10/10/2011 | [] | Activists participating inOccupy Wall Street, a movement that protests greed, corporate influence and unemployment, began camping out in New Yorks financial district in September 2011 and have spawnedsimilardemonstrationsaround the country.Supporters include the left-leaning political advocacy groupMoveOn.organdRuss Feingold, the former Democratic U.S. senator from Wisconsin, whosaidaccountability for corporate greed is long overdue.As part of what is being billed as aninternational protest, local offshoots of the Occupy Wall Streetplanto demonstrate in Milwaukee, Madison and Appleton on Oct. 15, 2011.On Oct. 4, 2011, Wisconsin Public Radio hostJoyCardindiscussedthe demonstrations withMatthew Rothschild, editor and publisher of The Progressive. The 102-year-old Madison magazinecallsitselfone of the leading voices for peace and social justice in this country.When Cardin asked Rothschild why younger people are leading the demonstrations, he said: The unemployment rate for people between the ages of 16 and 24 in this country is 18.4 percent, which is a 60-year high.Is the rate for younger workers that high?Unemployment has been a major issue since the start of the recession in December 2007 -- and not just for people in their late teens and early 20s.The U.S. Department of Laborreported, for example, that in December 2009, unemployment reached a record 7.2 percent among people ages 55 and over and that people in that age group spent an average of 35 weeks out of work -- considerably more than the average of 23 weeks for unemployed people ages 16 to 24.In making his claim about younger workers, Rothschild told us he was quoting an April 2011reportfrom theEconomic Policy Institute.It said: In 2010, the unemployment rate for workers age 16-24 was 18.4 percent the worst on record in the 60 years that this data has been tracked.So, although Rothschild said the current rate of unemployment among people ages 16 to 24 is at a 60-year high, he was referring to the annual rate for 2010.The Economic Policy Institute is a liberal-leaning Washington, D.C. think tank thatsaysit seeks to broaden discussions about economic policy to include the needs of low- and middle-income workers.Its report -- which urges substantial additional stimulus spending by the federal government to create jobs for younger workers -- says the unemployment statistics came from theU.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The bureau is the federal governments statistics keeper on unemployment.We queried the Bureau of Labor Statistics database to create achartshowing the monthly and annual unemployment rates for people ages 16 to 24 from 1948 through August 2011.We found that the Economic Policy Institute report was correct: Unemployment among people ages 16 to 24 was 18.4 percent in 2010; and that rate is higher than any annual rate dating back to when statistics were first kept in 1948. Thats more than 60 years.The next-highest annual rates, each exceeding 17 percent, were posted in 1982, 1983 and 2009.In each of the first eight months of 2011, however, the rate has been below the 2010 mark of 18.4 percent.Unemployment among people ages 16 to 24 was 17.7 percent in August 2011, the most recent month for which statistics are available. And the year-to-date average is 17.6 percent.So, the rate is lower today than it was for 2010 as a whole, though only eight months of 2011 are accounted for. We dont know, of course, how the year will end up.Our conclusionRothschild said unemployment among people ages 16 to 24 is 18.4 percent, which is a 60-year high. The 18.4 percent is correct as the average rate for 2010, and that average annual rate is the highest in more than 60 years. More recent figures, however, show the unemployment rate among people ages 16 to 24 has dipped below 18 percent in 2011, at least through August.We rate Rothschilds statement Mostly True. | [
"Jobs",
"Occupy Wall Street",
"Workers",
"Wisconsin"
] | [] | True | Activists participating inOccupy Wall Street, a movement that protests greed, corporate influence and unemployment, began camping out in New Yorks financial district in September 2011 and have spawnedsimilardemonstrationsaround the country.Supporters include the left-leaning political advocacy groupMoveOn.organdRuss Feingold, the former Democratic U.S. senator from Wisconsin, whosaidaccountability for corporate greed is long overdue.As part of what is being billed as aninternational protest, local offshoots of the Occupy Wall Streetplanto demonstrate in Milwaukee, Madison and Appleton on Oct. 15, 2011.On Oct. 4, 2011, Wisconsin Public Radio hostJoyCardindiscussedthe demonstrations withMatthew Rothschild, editor and publisher of The Progressive. The 102-year-old Madison magazinecallsitselfone of the leading voices for peace and social justice in this country.When Cardin asked Rothschild why younger people are leading the demonstrations, he said: The unemployment rate for people between the ages of 16 and 24 in this country is 18.4 percent, which is a 60-year high.Is the rate for younger workers that high?Unemployment has been a major issue since the start of the recession in December 2007 -- and not just for people in their late teens and early 20s.The U.S. Department of Laborreported, for example, that in December 2009, unemployment reached a record 7.2 percent among people ages 55 and over and that people in that age group spent an average of 35 weeks out of work -- considerably more than the average of 23 weeks for unemployed people ages 16 to 24.In making his claim about younger workers, Rothschild told us he was quoting an April 2011reportfrom theEconomic Policy Institute.It said: In 2010, the unemployment rate for workers age 16-24 was 18.4 percent the worst on record in the 60 years that this data has been tracked.So, although Rothschild said the current rate of unemployment among people ages 16 to 24 is at a 60-year high, he was referring to the annual rate for 2010.The Economic Policy Institute is a liberal-leaning Washington, D.C. think tank thatsaysit seeks to broaden discussions about economic policy to include the needs of low- and middle-income workers.Its report -- which urges substantial additional stimulus spending by the federal government to create jobs for younger workers -- says the unemployment statistics came from theU.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The bureau is the federal governments statistics keeper on unemployment.We queried the Bureau of Labor Statistics database to create achartshowing the monthly and annual unemployment rates for people ages 16 to 24 from 1948 through August 2011.We found that the Economic Policy Institute report was correct: Unemployment among people ages 16 to 24 was 18.4 percent in 2010; and that rate is higher than any annual rate dating back to when statistics were first kept in 1948. Thats more than 60 years.The next-highest annual rates, each exceeding 17 percent, were posted in 1982, 1983 and 2009.In each of the first eight months of 2011, however, the rate has been below the 2010 mark of 18.4 percent.Unemployment among people ages 16 to 24 was 17.7 percent in August 2011, the most recent month for which statistics are available. And the year-to-date average is 17.6 percent.So, the rate is lower today than it was for 2010 as a whole, though only eight months of 2011 are accounted for. We dont know, of course, how the year will end up.Our conclusionRothschild said unemployment among people ages 16 to 24 is 18.4 percent, which is a 60-year high. The 18.4 percent is correct as the average rate for 2010, and that average annual rate is the highest in more than 60 years. More recent figures, however, show the unemployment rate among people ages 16 to 24 has dipped below 18 percent in 2011, at least through August.We rate Rothschilds statement Mostly True. |
FMD_train_842 | Did Travis Kelce Post Expletive About Trump on X? | 02/13/2024 | [
"The Kansas City Chiefs football player allegedly criticized the former president's comments on NATO."
] | On Feb. 12, 2024, a screenshot claimed to show a post from Travis Kelce's official X account that said, "How about this: I'll keep playing American football and Donald Trump can keep sucking Russian d***." The screenshotted post was an apparent response to former U.S. President Donald Trump suggesting that he had once threatened to encourage Russia to attack "delinquent" NATO allies. screenshot suggesting Shared by X account @FaithRubPol, the screenshot had the caption, "Travis Kelce SLAMS Trump over his NATO comments." (Screenshot via X) The above screenshot is fake and was shared by an account that describes itself as satirical in nature. As such, we rate it as "Labeled Satire." describes The X account @FaithRubPol's description states: "Most of the images we share are parodies." The screenshot also has the label "Parody by Back Rub." description We also found no evidence on Kelce's official account that he ever made such a statement. Furthermore, the account handle in the screenshot does not belong to Kelce. Kelce's real X account is @tkelce, while the screenshot shows the handle @tkelpe. @tkelce During a campaign rally on Feb. 10, 2024, Trump generated controversy when he said he would "encourage" Russia to attack "delinquent" NATO member states. He suggested he would not abide by the alliance's collective-defense clause which states that if an ally is attacked it is considered an attack on all members if that ally was not meeting defense spending obligations. said He cited a conversation from his time as president with an unnamed world leader: cited One of the presidents of a big country stood up and said, "Well, sir, if we don't pay and we're attacked by Russia, will you protect us?" I said, "You didn't pay, you're delinquent?" He said, "Yes, let's say that happened." "No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You gotta pay. You gotta pay your bills." In sum, the above post is satirical in nature and completely fake. For background, here iswhywe sometimes write about satire/humor. why Haberman, Maggie, and Jonathan Swan. "G.O.P. Officials, Once Critical, Stand by Trump After NATO Comments." The New York Times, 12 Feb. 2024. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/12/us/politics/trump-nato-republicans.html.Accessed 13 Feb. 2024. Knutson, Jacob. "How Trump's NATO Comments Escalate His Disdain for America's Allies." Axios, 12 Feb. 2024, https://www.axios.com/2024/02/12/trump-nato-history. Accessed 13 Feb. 2024.
| [
"share"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=10R0sIgLnc1VFzksMtWoVokBi0iiYoC5i",
"image_caption": null
}
] | False | On Feb. 12, 2024, a screenshot claimed to show a post from Travis Kelce's official X account that said, "How about this: I'll keep playing American football and Donald Trump can keep sucking Russian d***." The screenshotted post was an apparent response to former U.S. President Donald Trump suggesting that he had once threatened to encourage Russia to attack "delinquent" NATO allies.The above screenshot is fake and was shared by an account that describes itself as satirical in nature. As such, we rate it as "Labeled Satire."The X account @FaithRubPol's description states: "Most of the images we share are parodies." The screenshot also has the label "Parody by Back Rub."We also found no evidence on Kelce's official account that he ever made such a statement. Furthermore, the account handle in the screenshot does not belong to Kelce. Kelce's real X account is @tkelce, while the screenshot shows the handle @tkelpe.During a campaign rally on Feb. 10, 2024, Trump generated controversy when he said he would "encourage" Russia to attack "delinquent" NATO member states. He suggested he would not abide by the alliance's collective-defense clause which states that if an ally is attacked it is considered an attack on all members if that ally was not meeting defense spending obligations.He cited a conversation from his time as president with an unnamed world leader:For background, here iswhywe sometimes write about satire/humor. |
FMD_train_1946 | Says Paul Ryan voted for two wars that were unpaid for, voted for the Bush tax cuts that were unpaid for, voted for the prescription drug bill that cost as much as my health care bill -- but wasn't paid for. | 04/27/2011 | [] | In closed-doorremarks to campaignsupporterson April 14, 2011, President Barack Obama looked back in frustration at lengthy negotiations with Republicans over funding to keep the federal government operating.Obama opined, as aCBS News onlinestoryreported, that he expects Republicans to continue using the budget process to enact their political agenda under the guise of cutting spending.The president singled out U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., the House Budget Committee chairman who has authored a long-term deficit-reduction plan.When Paul Ryan says his priority is to make sure, you know, he's just being America's accountant, trying to be responsible ...This is the same guy who voted for two wars that were unpaid for, voted for the Bush tax cuts that were unpaid for, voted for the prescription drug bill that cost as much as my health care bill -- but wasn't paid for, Obama told his supporters. So it's not on the level.In making the remark, Obama pointed to several big-ticket items approved during the Bush administration while Ryan was in Congress -- ones he says have helped drive the nations record deficits.Given the prominence of the protagonists and the timeliness of the comments, we decided to take a look at Obamas critique of Ryan.With the words, Obama is offering an opinion about how Ryan has framed his budget-cutting efforts. We cant fact-check the presidents opinion about Ryans message. But we can focus on the factual assertions, and try to put them into some context.We started with the White House, which declined to comment, saying the presidents remarks spoke for themselves.Lets look at the votes.There is no dispute Ryan voted forAfghanistanandIraqwarfunding; for themajor taxcutsenacted under President George W. Bush in 2001 and2003(andextended in 2010); and for the new Medicare prescription drug benefitcreated in 2003.All were big-ticket items.But Obama goes a step further to assert that all were unpaid for. Thats Washington parlance for bills not offset by corresponding spending cuts or tax increases elsewhere in the federal budget.Budget experts we consulted and the historical record confirm there were no direct offsets built into those bills.Obamas claim on the prescription drug bill was slightly different -- that it wasnt paid for and cost as much as my health care bill.Lets break this into two parts.Obama appears to refer to the gross outlays needed for the two landmark bills.For the Medicare prescription drug bill, passed in 2003 and effective in 2006, we found a range of cost estimates for 10 years: $395 billion to $720 billion. Theofficial Congressional Budget Officeestimatewas the low end.That was at the time. Now, government estimates show the original cost projections were too high, perhaps by as much as 40 percent, said Jon Gabel, senior fellow in health care research at the National Opinion Research Center.Obamas health reform bill -- thePatient Protection and Affordable Care Act-- was pricier, with estimates in the$800 billion to $1.4 trillion range. Ryan and Republicans opposed the bill.But the two measures were passed seven years apart, so inflation may be a factor.Paul Van de Water, a former Congressional Budget Office official who is now a senior fellow with the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, did an inflation-adjusted comparison and found the Medicare bill is probably two-thirds or three-quarters the cost of the Obama health care measure.That is, Obamas health care bill is still hundreds of millions of dollars more costly than the Medicare drug bill.So the president was off in equating the gross cost of the bills.On the offset question, the Medicare prescription drug bill, however, indisputably added to the federal deficit. It was not offset by new revenue or other spending cuts.In contrast, theofficial governmentestimateof the 2010 health care laws impact said it would actually reduce the deficit, in part because of the new taxes it enacts to help offset the cost of expanding health coverage.The source for that is the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.TheCBOs estimate is hardly undisputed-- Ryan, other Republican leaders and various budget analysts haveargued that the CBOs report was skewed by questionableassumptionsgiven to it by the Obama administration. They contend the law would actually add to the deficit.Nevertheless, we -- and Congress -- have used CBO estimates as the gold standard on such matters. So Obama has a pretty firm leg to stand on in saying his health bill was paid for while the Medicare bill was not.That covers the details behind the presidents remarks. In this case, its important to put them into their proper context. We consulted several experts and sought Ryans take.Ryan was asked in arecentinterviewabout Obamas citing the Medicare drug program, the two wars and the Bush tax cuts as major drivers of the deficit.He disagreed: We still had these enormous, building, unfunded liabilities, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security -- I mean, the big drivers of our debt.His office sent us a defense of his votes on war funding, quotinghis budget plan: Like all categories of government spending, defense spending should be executed with greater efficiency and accountability. But responsible budgeting must never lose sight of the fact that the first responsibility of the federal government is to provide for the defense of the nation.On the Bush tax cuts, Ryan aides said the congressman believes that we have deficits because Washington spends too much, not because Americans are taxed too little. He says the tax cuts helped fuel economic growth and bring in more tax revenue.Indeed, in December, Obama himself backeda compromise with Republicans, including Ryan,that extended the Bush tax cuts.Bottom line: Ryan has voted for massive new spending and so has the president, said Tad DeHaven, a budget analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute.Iraq war costs have topped $1 trillion, said Scott Lilly, former staff director for the House Appropriations Committee and now a research fellow at the left-leaning Center for American Progress. Neither Bushs war effort in Afghanistan nor Obamas escalation there has been paid for, both analysts noted.In April, bothObamaandRyanunveiled long-term deficit reduction plans in the neighborhood of $4 trillion over a decade or more.So where does this leave us?The president cherry-picked a handful of votes in an effort to show that Ryan is not pristine on the subject of the deficit.Obama got it right on Ryans support for the big-ticket bills, including war funding, Medicare prescription drugs and the Bush tax cuts. He was also on target in saying that none was offset or paid for by spending cuts or tax increases. Thats the main part of his claim.He was off the mark in asserting that one of the bills -- Medicare prescription drugs -- was as costly as his 2010 health care reform bill.That puts him at Mostly True. | [
"Afghanistan",
"Deficit",
"Federal Budget",
"Health Care",
"Iraq",
"Taxes",
"Wisconsin"
] | [] | True | In closed-doorremarks to campaignsupporterson April 14, 2011, President Barack Obama looked back in frustration at lengthy negotiations with Republicans over funding to keep the federal government operating.Obama opined, as aCBS News onlinestoryreported, that he expects Republicans to continue using the budget process to enact their political agenda under the guise of cutting spending.The president singled out U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., the House Budget Committee chairman who has authored a long-term deficit-reduction plan.When Paul Ryan says his priority is to make sure, you know, he's just being America's accountant, trying to be responsible ...This is the same guy who voted for two wars that were unpaid for, voted for the Bush tax cuts that were unpaid for, voted for the prescription drug bill that cost as much as my health care bill -- but wasn't paid for, Obama told his supporters. So it's not on the level.In making the remark, Obama pointed to several big-ticket items approved during the Bush administration while Ryan was in Congress -- ones he says have helped drive the nations record deficits.Given the prominence of the protagonists and the timeliness of the comments, we decided to take a look at Obamas critique of Ryan.With the words, Obama is offering an opinion about how Ryan has framed his budget-cutting efforts. We cant fact-check the presidents opinion about Ryans message. But we can focus on the factual assertions, and try to put them into some context.We started with the White House, which declined to comment, saying the presidents remarks spoke for themselves.Lets look at the votes.There is no dispute Ryan voted forAfghanistanandIraqwarfunding; for themajor taxcutsenacted under President George W. Bush in 2001 and2003(andextended in 2010); and for the new Medicare prescription drug benefitcreated in 2003.All were big-ticket items.But Obama goes a step further to assert that all were unpaid for. Thats Washington parlance for bills not offset by corresponding spending cuts or tax increases elsewhere in the federal budget.Budget experts we consulted and the historical record confirm there were no direct offsets built into those bills.Obamas claim on the prescription drug bill was slightly different -- that it wasnt paid for and cost as much as my health care bill.Lets break this into two parts.Obama appears to refer to the gross outlays needed for the two landmark bills.For the Medicare prescription drug bill, passed in 2003 and effective in 2006, we found a range of cost estimates for 10 years: $395 billion to $720 billion. Theofficial Congressional Budget Officeestimatewas the low end.That was at the time. Now, government estimates show the original cost projections were too high, perhaps by as much as 40 percent, said Jon Gabel, senior fellow in health care research at the National Opinion Research Center.Obamas health reform bill -- thePatient Protection and Affordable Care Act-- was pricier, with estimates in the$800 billion to $1.4 trillion range. Ryan and Republicans opposed the bill.But the two measures were passed seven years apart, so inflation may be a factor.Paul Van de Water, a former Congressional Budget Office official who is now a senior fellow with the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, did an inflation-adjusted comparison and found the Medicare bill is probably two-thirds or three-quarters the cost of the Obama health care measure.That is, Obamas health care bill is still hundreds of millions of dollars more costly than the Medicare drug bill.So the president was off in equating the gross cost of the bills.On the offset question, the Medicare prescription drug bill, however, indisputably added to the federal deficit. It was not offset by new revenue or other spending cuts.In contrast, theofficial governmentestimateof the 2010 health care laws impact said it would actually reduce the deficit, in part because of the new taxes it enacts to help offset the cost of expanding health coverage.The source for that is the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.TheCBOs estimate is hardly undisputed-- Ryan, other Republican leaders and various budget analysts haveargued that the CBOs report was skewed by questionableassumptionsgiven to it by the Obama administration. They contend the law would actually add to the deficit.Nevertheless, we -- and Congress -- have used CBO estimates as the gold standard on such matters. So Obama has a pretty firm leg to stand on in saying his health bill was paid for while the Medicare bill was not.That covers the details behind the presidents remarks. In this case, its important to put them into their proper context. We consulted several experts and sought Ryans take.Ryan was asked in arecentinterviewabout Obamas citing the Medicare drug program, the two wars and the Bush tax cuts as major drivers of the deficit.He disagreed: We still had these enormous, building, unfunded liabilities, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security -- I mean, the big drivers of our debt.His office sent us a defense of his votes on war funding, quotinghis budget plan: Like all categories of government spending, defense spending should be executed with greater efficiency and accountability. But responsible budgeting must never lose sight of the fact that the first responsibility of the federal government is to provide for the defense of the nation.On the Bush tax cuts, Ryan aides said the congressman believes that we have deficits because Washington spends too much, not because Americans are taxed too little. He says the tax cuts helped fuel economic growth and bring in more tax revenue.Indeed, in December, Obama himself backeda compromise with Republicans, including Ryan,that extended the Bush tax cuts.Bottom line: Ryan has voted for massive new spending and so has the president, said Tad DeHaven, a budget analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute.Iraq war costs have topped $1 trillion, said Scott Lilly, former staff director for the House Appropriations Committee and now a research fellow at the left-leaning Center for American Progress. Neither Bushs war effort in Afghanistan nor Obamas escalation there has been paid for, both analysts noted.In April, bothObamaandRyanunveiled long-term deficit reduction plans in the neighborhood of $4 trillion over a decade or more.So where does this leave us?The president cherry-picked a handful of votes in an effort to show that Ryan is not pristine on the subject of the deficit.Obama got it right on Ryans support for the big-ticket bills, including war funding, Medicare prescription drugs and the Bush tax cuts. He was also on target in saying that none was offset or paid for by spending cuts or tax increases. Thats the main part of his claim.He was off the mark in asserting that one of the bills -- Medicare prescription drugs -- was as costly as his 2010 health care reform bill.That puts him at Mostly True. |
FMD_train_434 | Wisconsin is below the national average in wage growth and job growth. | 11/28/2014 | [] | Five days after Scott Walker won re-election by a five-point margin, inciting speculation about whether hell run for president in 2016, the Republican governor appeared on NBCs Meet the Press. Several minutes into the Nov. 9, 2014show, Walker was asked by host Chuck Todd about Wisconsins economic record and whether it is something that translates nationally. Walker responded with statistics about how jobs have increased during his first term and unemployment has decreased. (He also went on tomake a number of claimsthat weve previously fact-checked). Todd interjected by returning to the national perspectiveand making a claim of his own. But Ive got to show you, he told Walker, as agraphic with figuresappeared on the screen, compared to the national average, when it comes to wage growth, it's below the national average, Wisconsin is. When it comes to job growth, it's below the national average. How Wisconsin's economy compares nationally could bear on Walkers viability as a presidential contender, a prospecthe has readily encouraged. So lets check both sets of figures. Federal statistics The graphic that flashed on the screen cited figures from the latest U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages report, which compared March 2013 to March 2014. On job growth, the Meet the Press graphic said Wisconsins rate from increased 1 percent, less than the national average of 1.7 percent. The so-called QCEW numbers are considered the most accurate source for jobs numbers, but lag behind real time by six to nine months. The graphic quoted the figures accurately, according to anews releasefrom the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Walkers office didnt dispute this part of Todds claim, but said most states had job growth during the period that was at or below the national average. The graphic also accurately cited the average changes in wage growth from March 2013 to March 2014 -- 2.9 percent in Wisconsin, which was behind the national average of 3.8 percent. It doesnt affect the accuracy of Todds statement, but we decided to use theBureau of Labor Statistics databaseto take a longer view on both job and wage growth to see how Wisconsin and the United States have compared during Walkers nearly four years as governor. The quarterly time frames dont match up precisely with Walkers time in office because, as we noted, there is a lag of several months in reporting the figures. But when compared March 2011 to March 2014, and December 2010 to December 2013, the results were essentially the same: Wisconsin has lagged the national average on job growth, but was slightly higher on wage growth. Our rating Citing statistics for the most recent year, Todd said Wisconsin is below the national average in wage growth and job growth. The latest federal figures, comparing March 2013 to March 2014, show Wisconsins job growth rate at 1 percent, below the national average of 1.7 percent, and its wage growth rate at 2.9 percent, behind the national average of 3.8 percent. We rate Todds statement True. | [
"Economy",
"Income",
"Jobs",
"Workers",
"Wisconsin"
] | [] | True | Several minutes into the Nov. 9, 2014show, Walker was asked by host Chuck Todd about Wisconsins economic record and whether it is something that translates nationally.Walker responded with statistics about how jobs have increased during his first term and unemployment has decreased. (He also went on tomake a number of claimsthat weve previously fact-checked).But Ive got to show you, he told Walker, as agraphic with figuresappeared on the screen, compared to the national average, when it comes to wage growth, it's below the national average, Wisconsin is. When it comes to job growth, it's below the national average.How Wisconsin's economy compares nationally could bear on Walkers viability as a presidential contender, a prospecthe has readily encouraged.The graphic quoted the figures accurately, according to anews releasefrom the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.It doesnt affect the accuracy of Todds statement, but we decided to use theBureau of Labor Statistics databaseto take a longer view on both job and wage growth to see how Wisconsin and the United States have compared during Walkers nearly four years as governor. |
FMD_train_1797 | Kraft Macaroni & Cheese Made with GMO Wheat? | 05/31/2013 | [
"Rumor: Kraft Macaroni & Cheese products carry a warning label due to their use of GMO wheat."
] | Claim: Kraft Macaroni & Cheese products carry a warning label due to their use of GMO wheat. Example: [Collected via e-mail, May 2013] On Facebook, there is a claim that Kraft Mac and cheese imported from the UK had to have a warning label stating that the product may adversely effect activity and attention in children and that it is made from genetically modified wheat. However the claim is unclear as to whether the issue is due to the modified wheat. Origins: In May 2013, an image of an ingredients labels from a package of Kraft brand Mac & Cheese imported to the UK from the U.S. was circulated widely via social media: This image, originally posted to Facebook (without the added text) by Flo Wrightson Cross, who bought the pictured package at a Tesco store in Ponders End, was of particular interest because the "Allergen Information" section of the ingredients label cautioned that "This product may have adverse effect on activity and attention in children" and included a GMO (genetically-modified organism) declaration stating "Made from genetically modified wheat" (may contain GMO)." Flo Wrightson Cross That wording was touted as seemingly confirming the convictions of critics of GMO foods, demonstrating that Kraft uses "illegal GMO wheat" (genetically modified wheat is not currently authorized for planting or commercial sale in any country) and that the government (in the UK, at least, if not yet in the U.S.) has acknowledged the dangers of GMO foods and requires them to be labeled in a way indicating their potential harm to children. However, the legitimacy of the "GMO Declaration" section of the pictured label was highly suspect, if not outright nonsensical. Since GMO wheat is neither legal to grow or sell anywhere, how could Kraft have obtained a supply of that substance to use in manufacturing their Mac & Cheese? And why would Kraft furtively create an illegal product and then openly label it in a way that proclaimed it was illegal? Suspicions about the legitimacy of the label were confirmed by Kraft Foods, who told us that the label did not originate with them and was inaccurate, as neither their Mac & Cheese nor any other Kraft food product contained GMO wheat: Genetically engineered wheat is not available for commercial use. We do not use GE wheat in Mac & Cheese or any other Kraft product. So anyone who is saying or implying there is GE wheat in Kraft Mac & Cheese or any other Kraft product is wrong. We don't export Mac & Cheese to the UK and have no authorized distributor there. The company that has applied this sticker is not authorized by Kraft to sell our products. They are not a customer of Kraft. They are getting the product from someone else and reselling our product in the UK. We're continuing to investigate, but because we are not dealing with authorized distributors of our products, we may not get to the bottom of this issue anytime soon. Additionally, even if the label shown here were genuine, the commonly suggested interpretation of it would still be inaccurate. European Union regulations require foodstuffs containing GMOs to be clearly labeled as "genetically modified" or "produced from genetically modified [ingredients]," but those regulations do not require such products to be tagged with a warning that they "may have an adverse effect on activity and attention in children." That wording is specific to a different European Union regulation implemented in 2010, one which requires foods containing certain artificial colorings to bear such a warning due to a possible connection between the consumption of those substances and ADHD symptoms in children. regulations regulation colorings The appearance of the statement "may have an adverse effect on activity and attention in children" on food packaging, therefore,does not reference the putative presence any GMO substances in that product, but rather its inclusion of synthetic food dyes. Food products sold in the U.S. are not required to bear similar labels, as U.S. federal regulatory agencies maintain there is currently insufficient evidence that GMO foods or synthetic dyes pose any health risks to consumers. Although Kraft Macaroni & Cheese products have included the synthetic dyes E102 and E110 (known in the U.S. as Yellow No. 5 and Yellow No. 6), used to impart a bright orange coloring to food, in October 2013 the company announced they would removing those dyes from some of their macaroni and cheese varieties: E102 E110 announced Kraft says it plans to remove artificial dyes from three macaroni and cheese varieties that come in kid-friendly shapes, a move that comes as people increasingly reach for foods they feel are natural. The change doesn't affect Kraft's plain elbow-shaped macaroni and cheese with "original flavor." Kraft's new recipes, which begin shipping early [in 2014], will be for its macaroni and cheese varieties that come in the SpongeBob Squarepants, Halloween and winter shapes. Two new shapes will also be added. Triona Schmelter, Kraft Food Group Inc.'s vice president of marketing for meals, said the company was looking to improve the nutritional profiles of the three macaroni and cheese varieties more broadly. The new recipes will also add whole grains and reduce the amount of sodium and saturated fat, she said. She declined to specify whether Kraft would eventually make similar changes to its other macaroni and cheese lines. But she noted the company already offers options that only use natural colors, such as several of its "Homestyle" varieties. "We'll continue to make improvement where we can," Schmelter said, noting that the company tries to cater to evolving customer preferences. Last updated: 18 March 2015 | [
"interest"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1ZqjfJz-Ew3y4whRbiJgPdsN65G46U7M6",
"image_caption": null
}
] | False | This image, originally posted to Facebook (without the added text) by Flo Wrightson Cross, who bought the pictured package at a Tesco store in Ponders End, was of particular interest because the "Allergen Information" section of the ingredients label cautioned that "This product may have adverse effect on activity and attention in children" and included a GMO (genetically-modified organism) declaration stating "Made from genetically modified wheat" (may contain GMO)." Additionally, even if the label shown here were genuine, the commonly suggested interpretation of it would still be inaccurate. European Union regulations require foodstuffs containing GMOs to be clearly labeled as "genetically modified" or "produced from genetically modified [ingredients]," but those regulations do not require such products to be tagged with a warning that they "may have an adverse effect on activity and attention in children." That wording is specific to a different European Union regulation implemented in 2010, one which requires foods containing certain artificial colorings to bear such a warning due to a possible connection between the consumption of those substances and ADHD symptoms in children.Although Kraft Macaroni & Cheese products have included the synthetic dyes E102 and E110 (known in the U.S. as Yellow No. 5 and Yellow No. 6), used to impart a bright orange coloring to food, in October 2013 the company announced they would removing those dyes from some of their macaroni and cheese varieties: |
FMD_train_70 | IRS Form Scam | 05/12/2002 | [
"Are con artists circulating letters demanding the completion of fake IRS forms that would arm them with all the information necessary to steal the identities and empty the bank accounts of those who f"
] | Con artists are circulating letters demanding the completion of fake IRS forms that would provide them with all the information necessary to steal the identities and empty the bank accounts of those who fall for this ruse. The IRS issued a warning about an identity theft scam that uses a phony form and an official-looking letter from a bank. The letter states that the bank is updating its records to exempt the taxpayer from reporting interest income or having tax withheld at 31 percent on the interest paid on the taxpayer's account. The letter asks that customers submit the enclosed phony Form W-9095. This is a scam; there is no IRS Form W-9095. This is merely an attempt to gain personal information from unsuspecting taxpayers. The Internal Revenue Service is sounding the alarm about a fraudulent scheme that uses fictitious bank correspondence and IRS forms to trick taxpayers into disclosing personal and bank account information. Con artists use the information to steal the taxpayer's identity and bank account deposits. Reports of the scam have surfaced from coast to coast, and dozens of victims have been identified. In the scam, a letter is sent out claiming to be from the taxpayer's bank. It states that the "bank" is updating its records to exempt the taxpayer from reporting interest or having tax withheld on interest paid on bank accounts or other financial dealings. Legally, banks must report interest to the IRS, and taxpayers must include it as income. The scam "bank" correspondence encloses a phony IRS form for personal and financial data. The letter urges the recipient to fax the completed form to a specific number within seven days or risk losing the reporting and withholding exemption, resulting in a 31 percent withholding on the account's interest. The scheme promoters then use the faxed information to impersonate the taxpayer and gain access to the taxpayer's finances. One such phony form is labeled "W-9095, Application Form for Certificate Status/Ownership for Withholding Tax." It requests personal data frequently used to prove identity, such as a passport number and mother's maiden name. It also asks for sensitive financial data such as bank account numbers, passwords, and PIN numbers. The fictitious W-9095 appears to mimic the genuine IRS Form W-9, "Request for Taxpayer Identification Number and Certification." The only personal information a genuine W-9 requests is the name, address, and Social Security number or employer identification number of the taxpayer. In December 2008, the Canada Revenue Agency (Canada's tax department, formerly Revenue Canada) issued a warning about a similar scheme targeting Canadian taxpayers.
In April 2002, a new ruse designed to trick victims into giving out personal information that could lead to identity theft was unleashed on the unsuspecting throughout the USA. It arrived in the form of fake Internal Revenue Service forms that appeared to have been mailed by taxpayers' banks. Here's how the scam worked: An account holder would receive a letter on bank stationery requesting information for the purpose of reporting earnings to the Internal Revenue Service. Attached to the letter would be a fake IRS form identified as W-9095. The phony document was based on a valid IRS form called a W-9 and thus would look somewhat familiar to those accustomed to dealing with IRS forms. Those less familiar with tax forms would still be taken in by the ruse because the phony request for detailed information appeared genuine. The letter would say the recipient must return the completed form by fax within seven days or the government would withhold 31% of the interest on their bank accounts. The enticing prospect of keeping one-third of the taxpayer's earned interest out of the government's hands, combined with the urgency of having to act quickly (within seven days, remember), would imbue this combination of promise and threat with an untold power to persuade, likely temporarily blinding the victim to what was really going on. The real form (the W-9) doesn't ask for account numbers, but the bogus form (the W-9095) does. It also asks for marital status, place of birth, parents' names, bank account number, passport information, work history, and passwords; in other words, just about everything a con artist would need to financially impersonate the victim. Similar fake forms were labeled W-88BEN and W-8888. (Banks use a legitimate W-88BEN to confirm non-U.S. customers can remain exempt from tax reporting requirements, but the real W-88BEN does not ask for the depth of taxpayer information that the fake one did.) There's no way of telling how many people have fallen for this trick or what the provision of their private information has cost them in cold hard currency, but it doesn't take much imagination to picture what use any halfway skilled swindler could put such information to. Armed with all the completed forms, it would be child's play to empty bank accounts and apply for charge cards and loans in the victim's name. This con has the potential to be highly effective because little about it looks out of place or obviously wrong. People trust their banks (they leave their money there, after all), so letters from such bastions of trust asking recipients to complete yet another tax form won't be greeted with skepticism, especially when those letters also contain the news that doing so is eminently beneficial to the account holders. Likewise, that an IRS form would ask for everything short of shoe size wouldn't strike many as unusual. About the only part of the transaction that might raise an eyebrow is the insistence that the completed forms be faxed to the IRS rather than returned by mail. Yet once again, in a world now accustomed to the notion that personal tax returns can be e-filed with taxpayers' signatures faxed in support of the electronically transferred returns, faxing doesn't seem terribly out of place. It always pays to be wary. Make the time to call your bank when asked for such information, even if it appears to be the IRS doing the asking. Better to waste five minutes on the phone convincing your bank that you're an idiot than to keep those five minutes to yourself and prove that you are. Those who have received questionable documents that purported to be from the IRS or who have completed such forms and faxed them off should call 1-800-829-0433, the IRS hotline. They should also contact the various credit bureaus to alert them that their identities might have been stolen and to be on the lookout for newly acquired charge cards under their name. | [
"income"
] | [] | False | Variations: In December 2008, the Canada Revenue Agency (Canada's tax department, formerly Revenue Canada) issued a warning about a similar scheme being run on Canadian taxpayers. 2002 Alerts (Controller of the Currency Administrator of National Banks) |
FMD_train_1617 | Is This a Photograph of Women 'Screaming Through Their Vaginas' to Protest Trump? | 06/28/2018 | [
"A long-circulating image from an art project became attached to an unrelated backstory about purportedly disgruntled anti-Trump protesters in June 2018."
] | On 27 June 2018, the Facebook page Uncle Sam's Misguided Children shared the photograph reproduced below, purportedly showing women "screaming" at United States President Donald Trump, but somehow through their vaginas. The text on the image read: "Not a joke. They gathered to scream at Trump through their vaginas. These are the people who want to control the government and teach your kids." Predictably, no documentary information was presented to support the claim, and Facebook users were both expected to and did take the explanation at face value. However, a reverse image search indicated that the image had been circulating since at least February 2016, well before President Donald Trump was elected. A number of backstories were previously attributed to the photograph. In February 2018, YouTube videos and blogs claimed that the images showed "a new trend" known as "raising your skirt for diversity." I follow a few accounts on Instagram that post hilarious feminist content (or, I suppose, anti-feminist content), and on one of those accounts today, I came across this: [Image]. Obviously, I had to investigate to see if Raising The Skirt is an actual thing, which is what led me to the source link. And you guys, their About page is positively insane. It says, in big bold letters across the top, "Reclaim your c*nt. Reclaim our c*nt," only without the polite asterisks. The feminists of the world have officially outdone themselves. They've now launched a new project dubbed "Raising the Skirt," which calls on women to perform a shocking act in public. Case in point: Some of the more enthusiastic social justice warriors of the feminist movement have begun a project called "Raising the Skirt," aimed at "celebrating the diversity of vaginas." This is not a drill. There are actual women gathering with the sole purpose of raising their skirts, exposing their most intimate parts to complete strangers. And they call it a celebration. At that point, the photograph was at least two years old and had circulated once again on Reddit in July 2017. Originally reported articles about the "new feminist trend" of skirt-raising dated back to September 2015 but did not include the photograph seen above. "Raising the Skirt" by artist Nicola Canavan explores women's relationships with their genitals in her series of portraits of everyday women, as they share the beauty of their bodies while exploring their relationships with their vaginas and what they symbolize to them. A photograph labeled as "feminists ... screaming through their vaginas" at President Trump was taken in or before February 2016 and was later attributed to artist Nicola Canavan's "Raising the Skirt" series of portraits. Canavan's work was not a "feminist trend," but rather a photography project undertaken on a relatively small scale. We contacted Canavan, who confirmed that this is one of her images. Further, we found no evidence that either skirt-raising or vagina-screaming had become a popular activity for any reason. Sinclair, Leah. "This Artist Is Pushing For Recognition Of Vagina Diversity." Dazed. 15 September 2015. Chicks on the Right. "Raising Your Skirt To Celebrate Vagina Diversity Is a Thing Now." 20 February 2018. Mad World News. "Disgusting Feminists Launch 'Raise the Skirt' Project, Want Women To Do SICK Act in Public." 20 February 2018. Raising The Skirt. "About." Accessed 27 June 2018. | [
"share"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=17jczGwpuosIv2Vd7gE1BaFWkCGvj_OpY",
"image_caption": null
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1p8womdWyTyHzS4rWAJ4Iz5OuXyb7hoer",
"image_caption": null
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1HkUmTVaPMVaNtxehJSemdlKrNPsK8dKJ",
"image_caption": null
}
] | False | On 27 June 2018 the Facebook page Uncle Sam's Misguided Children shared the photograph reproduced below, purportedly showing women "screaming" at United States President Donald Trump, but somehow through their vaginas:A number of backstories were previously attributed to the photograph. In February 2018, YouTube videos and blogs claimed that the images showed "a new trend" known as "raising your skirt for diversity":At that point, the photograph was at least two years old, and had circulated once again on Reddit in July 2017:Originally reported articles about the "new feminist trend" of skirt-raising dated back to September 2015, but did not include the photograph seen above: |
FMD_train_1557 | Christopher Reeve Birthday Greeting | 09/23/2002 | [
"Can you trigger a $1 donation to paralysis research by sending a birthday greeting to actor Christopher Reeve?"
] | Claim: In 2002 you could trigger a $1 donation to paralysis research by sending a birthday greeting to actor Christopher Reeve. . Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2002] Please forward this email to your friends and encourage them to sign Christopher Reeve's birthday card at https://www.christopherreeve.org. For every signed birthday card, an anonymous donor will contribute $1 to the Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation. Help support CRPF and Christopher by telling your friends! Together we can raise even more money for paralysis research. Origins: Most everyone familiar with actor Christopher Reeve (most famous for his portrayal of comic book superhero Superman in a series of four films between 1978 and 1987) knows that he had been paralyzed from the shoulders down since being thrown from a horse in a 1995 accident. Reeve fell on his head, fracturing his first and second cervical vertebrae and damaging the nerve fibers of his spinal cord just below the brain stem; the injury left him a quadriplegic, dependent upon a ventilator to breathe and a power wheelchair for movement. Christopher Reeve Superman Reeve (who died in 2004) again came into the news in 2002 with the announcement of some small but extraordinary improvements in his condition. Although doctors believed he had permanently lost all instantaneous and voluntary motor control and sensation below the shoulders, Reeve was able to move his right wrist and the fingers of his left hand, straighten his arms and legs and move them around in a swimming pool, breathe on his own for up to two hours without the aid of a respirator, and had regained the ability to distinguish between hot and cold and up to two-thirds of a normal sense of touch. For the years prior to the improvements noted in 2002, Reeve had also devoted a good deal of his time and effort to raising funds for research to develop treatments and cures for paralysis caused by spinal cord injury and other central nervous system disorders and for programs aimed at improving the quality of life for people living with disabilities, causes he supported as Chairman of the Board of the Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation (CRPF). CRPF In honor of Christopher Reeve's 50th birthday celebration on 25 September 2002, the CRPF web site offered visitors a chance to send virtual birthday greetings to the actor. An anonymous donor offered to contribute $1 to the CRPF for every birthday greeting sent. birthday greetings The usual question is: "Is this for real?" The CRPF wouldn't provide us with details of who was funding the birthday greeting donations (that's what "anonymous" is all about, after all), but there's no reason to believe this program was anything other than what it claimed to be. Participants didn't need to provide anything other than their names and addresses, and for the cynical who believed this was just another address-harvesting scheme, the CRPF's privacy policy promised that they "will not disclose your e-mail address or any other contact information you have provided." (For the ultra-cynical, we point out that you can always lie to the computer; it won't know the difference.) privacy policy Last updated: 8 October 2007 Sources: Kluger, Jeffrey. "Against All the Odds." Time. 16 September 2002. Talan, Jamie. "Reeve's 'Exciting' Progress Lifts Hopes." Newsday. 24 September 2002. | [
"funds"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1r45Xwl2akIsxqAFXPNyOzOyphI0ol3Uo",
"image_caption": null
}
] | True | Origins: Most everyone familiar with actor Christopher Reeve (most famous for his portrayal of comic book superhero Superman in a series of four films between 1978 and 1987) knows that he had been paralyzed from the shoulders down since being thrown from a horse in a 1995 accident. Reeve fell on his head, fracturing his first and second cervical vertebrae and damaging the nerve fibers of his spinal cord just below the brain stem; the injury left him a quadriplegic, dependent upon a ventilator to breathe and a power wheelchair for movement. For the years prior to the improvements noted in 2002, Reeve had also devoted a good deal of his time and effort to raising funds for research to develop treatments and cures for paralysis caused by spinal cord injury and other central nervous system disorders and for programs aimed at improving the quality of life for people living with disabilities, causes he supported as Chairman of the Board of the Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation (CRPF).In honor of Christopher Reeve's 50th birthday celebration on 25 September 2002, the CRPF web site offered visitors a chance to send virtual birthday greetings to the actor. An anonymous donor offered to contribute $1 to the CRPF for every birthday greeting sent. The usual question is: "Is this for real?" The CRPF wouldn't provide us with details of who was funding the birthday greeting donations (that's what "anonymous" is all about, after all), but there's no reason to believe this program was anything other than what it claimed to be. Participants didn't need to provide anything other than their names and addresses, and for the cynical who believed this was just another address-harvesting scheme, the CRPF's privacy policy promised that they "will not disclose your e-mail address or any other contact information you have provided." (For the ultra-cynical, we point out that you can always lie to the computer; it won't know the difference.) |
FMD_train_831 | (Retail) milk has gone up 7.5% since this time last year. The price farmers are paid has dropped 23%. | 05/15/2020 | [
"This post oversimplifies the system a bit, since only about 30% of milk produced in the U.S. is sold in liquid form., But the numbers cited here are close to the latest national data., Payments to farmers have dropped because those are determined through a complex system that incorporates geography, commodity prices and how the milk is used., And retail milk prices have steadily risen since the start of 2019."
] | The coronavirus pandemic has been especially unkind to the already staggering dairy industry. Plunging demand from restaurants and schools and an inability to quickly shift processing to meet new categories of demand has left farmers dumping milk on a massive scale. But at least milk prices are going up, right? Thats not exactly a help, one dairy farmer said in a widely-shared Facebook post. The price consumers pay at retail for a gallon of milk has gone up 7.5% since this time last year, Pennsylvania farmer Greg Hemsarth said in aMay 2, 2020, postthat was shared more than 3,500 times. The price farmers are paid has dropped 23%. Figure that one out. This post was flagged as part of Facebooks efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about ourpartnership with Facebook). Are farmers really getting paid less even as retail milk prices go up? Lets dive into the data behind this dairy dichotomy. For starters, connecting any pair of dots to explain milk pricing is tricky. This post referenced liquid milk prices, but only 30% of the milk produced in the U.S. is actually sold in liquid form, said Michael Nepveux, an economist with the American Farm Bureau Federation. While we may see fluid milk flying off grocery shelves and wonder why farmers are having to dump milk, it must be remembered that many of these other products rely heavily on the foodservice and restaurant sector, he said. And farmers pricing is part of a system that is complex to say the least. RELATED:Are bottling limitations on liquid milk to blame for milk dumping? Nepveux spent nearly 2,000 words and a handful of charts detailing how pricing works ina primer the Farm Bureauposted in June 2019. It started this way: Theres an old adage in the dairy industry that only five people in the world know how milk is priced in the U.S. and four of them are dead. Milk payments to farmers are influenced by commodity prices, geography and whether the milk is being used for liquid sales, yogurt, cheese, butter, etc. We started with Hemsarth himself. Though the numbers in the post are stated generally, he told PolitiFact Wisconsin he was actually referring only to his own observations. Hemsarth was comparing the price of milk at a grocer in Bloomsburg, Penn., to a picture he took of the milk case a year prior. And he was looking at payments he received for milk he sold compared to a year ago. Given the generic wording and wide sharing of this post, most readers likely assumed it referenced some broader dataset, at either the state or national level. So lets check those datapoints. National data shows the trend Hemsarth highlighted isnt confined to his corner of the world. Prices paid to farmers have dropped even as retail prices rose. The retail price for a gallon of milk averaged $3.27 in April, according to thelatest datafrom the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Thats up 9.6% from the April 2019 mark ($2.98). Data provided by Dairy Management Inc., a group funded by farmers to help increase sales of dairy products, shows a nearly identical comparison. They reported a national average of $3.11 as of mid-April, compared to $2.83 a year prior. Thats an increase of 9.9%. A state-level breakdown showed a year-over-year increase in all but one state. The largest jump was in Ohio more than 28%. Pennsylvania prices increased 9.5%, and Wisconsin was up 8.7%. So, on that part of the equation, the post was in the ballpark actually understating the magnitude of the retail increase nationally. On the farm payment side, Hemsarth reported a milk payment drop of 23%. The Farm Bureau, using U.S. Department of Agriculture data, reported a 21.1% drop in the price paid to farmers in May 2020 compared to May 2019. Nepveux said that is based on Class 1 fluid milk, the highest valued class of milk. A month earlier, in April, farmers were seeing payments 5.6% higher than the year prior. May is the first month where 2020 was lower than that month in 2019, though prices have fallen each month since December. May milk prices dropped because the formula relies heavily on commodity prices, and those dropped sharply in April, Nepveux said. A viral Facebook post said retail milk prices are up 7.5% from last year while the price paid to farmers dropped 23%. The farmer who provided these numbers was just referencing payments for the milk he sold and prices at a local grocer, but the trends are in line with what we see nationally. Nationwide, retail milk prices in April were up nearly 10% from the prior year, while the price paid to farmers dropped sharply in May to about 21% below the prior year. The comparison oversimplifies things a bit, since the majority of milk produced in the U.S. isnt sold in liquid form. And the specific numbers arent exactly right. But the general point is. We rate this Mostly True. | [
"Economy",
"Wisconsin"
] | [] | True | The price consumers pay at retail for a gallon of milk has gone up 7.5% since this time last year, Pennsylvania farmer Greg Hemsarth said in aMay 2, 2020, postthat was shared more than 3,500 times. The price farmers are paid has dropped 23%. Figure that one out.This post was flagged as part of Facebooks efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about ourpartnership with Facebook).RELATED:Are bottling limitations on liquid milk to blame for milk dumping?Nepveux spent nearly 2,000 words and a handful of charts detailing how pricing works ina primer the Farm Bureauposted in June 2019. It started this way: Theres an old adage in the dairy industry that only five people in the world know how milk is priced in the U.S. and four of them are dead.The retail price for a gallon of milk averaged $3.27 in April, according to thelatest datafrom the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Thats up 9.6% from the April 2019 mark ($2.98). |
FMD_train_81 | Bills Passed by Paul Ryan | 08/16/2012 | [
"Paul Ryan has sponsored two Congressional bills that have been passed into law?"
] | Claim: Paul Ryan has sponsored two Congressional bills that have been passed into law. Examples: [Collected via e-mail, August 2012] Is it true or false that Paul Ryan managed to get only 2 bills passed during his 13 years in the House of Representatives? If true, what were they? Rumor is one of them was to name a post office after himself. In his 13 years in Congress, Paul Ryan got only two bills passed. One was to change the name of the post office in his home town. Origins: In August 2012 Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney tapped as his vice presidential running mate Congressman Paul Ryan, who has represented Wisconsin's 1st district in Congress since 1999. That selection focused attention on the legislative record of Ryan, including the number of bills he sponsored that had been passed into law. According to the Library of Congress' THOMAS legislative THOMAS information source, Rep. Ryan in his Congressional career has been the primary sponsor of two bills that have been passed and enacted as law: a 2000 bill to name a United States Postal Service facility in his hometown of Janesville, Wisconsin, and a 2004 bill to modify the excise taxes on arrows used as archery equipment. (In the former case, the bill did not name a USPS building after Ryan himself, as mentioned in one of the examples reproduced above, but after Les Aspin, a Democratic Congressman who for twenty-two years represented the same Wisconsin district that Ryan currently does.) During his tenure in Congress Rep. Ryan has also sponsored 73 bills that were not passed and signed on as co-sponsor of another 975 bills. name arrows In general, several thousand bills are introduced in every Congress, but only about 5% of them roughly an average of one per Congressmember per term are eventually passed into law. introduced Last updated: 16 August 2012 | [
"taxes"
] | [] | False | According to the Library of Congress' THOMAS legislative information source, Rep. Ryan in his Congressional career has been the primary sponsor of two bills that have been passed and enacted as law: a 2000 bill to name a United States Postal Service facility in his hometown of Janesville, Wisconsin, and a 2004 bill to modify the excise taxes on arrows used as archery equipment. (In the former case, the bill did not name a USPS building after Ryan himself, as mentioned in one of the examples reproduced above, but after Les Aspin, a Democratic Congressman who for twenty-two years represented the same Wisconsin district that Ryan currently does.) During his tenure in Congress Rep. Ryan has also sponsored 73 bills that were not passed and signed on as co-sponsor of another 975 bills.In general, several thousand bills are introduced in every Congress, but only about 5% of them roughly an average of one per Congressmember per term are eventually passed into law. |
FMD_train_704 | CDC Vaccination Profile | 12/01/2009 | [
"E-mail solicits recipients to create CDC Vaccination Profiles."
] | Phishing bait: E-mail solicits recipients to create CDC Vaccination Profiles. Example: [Collected via e-mail, November 2009] CDC [[email protected]] You have received this e-mail because of the launching of State Vaccination H1N1 Program. You need to create your personal H1N1 (swine flu) Vaccination Profile on the cdc.gov website. The Vaccination is not obligatory, but every person that has reached the age of 18 has to have his personal Vaccination Profile on the cdc.gov site. This profile has to be created both for the vaccinated people and the not-vaccinated ones. This profile is used for the registering system of vaccinated and not-vaccinated people. Create your Personal H1N1 Vaccination Profile using the link: create personal profile Origins: Swine flu is currently a strong concern among many people, especially with the vaccine's being difficult to obtain in many places. Therefore, an e-mail like the one displayed above (which was spammed to many recipients in December 2009), seemingly originating with the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and informing readers that they must go to the CDC's web site to create a "Personal H1N1 Vaccination Profile," was bound to catch people's attention. However, this message is just a phishing lure and did not originate with the CDC: That organization does not send out unsolicited e-mail, there is no requirement that everyone under 18 register a personal vaccination profile with the CDC, and the return address on the messages uses an apparently non-existent domain (cdcdelivery.gov). Clicking through on the "create personal profile" link provided takes the user to a phony CDC look-alike site within the .IM (Isle of Man) domain, which offers a page that includes a "Download Archive" link which (if clicked) triggers an executable file: Activating that file results in the installation of malwarewhich gives scammers access to the user's computer: malware The link provided in the email takes you to a very convincing imitation of a CDC web page where you are given a temporary ID and a link to your "vaccination profile." The link is in fact to an executable file that contains a copy of a Trojan most commonly identified as Zbot. This Trojan once installed on your PC, this Trojan will create a security-free gateway on your system and will proceed to download and install additional malware without your authorization. It also enables a remote hacker to take complete control of your computer. This malware can log your typed keystrokes and send confidential personal and financial data (including banking information, credit card numbers, and website passwords) to a remote hacker. The CDC has posted a notice on its web site advising that: notice CDC has received reports of fraudulent emails (phishing) referencing a CDC sponsored State Vaccination Program. The messages request that users must create a personal H1N1 (swine flu) Vaccination Profile on the cdc.gov website. The message then states that anyone that has reached the age of 18 has to have his/her personal Vaccination Profile on the cdc.gov site. The CDC has NOT implemented a state vaccination program requiring registration on www.cdc.gov. Users that click on the email are at risk of having malicious code installed on their system. Last updated: 1 December 2009 | [
"credit"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=14d2EhqQLK5MtsSGPlThXIjwcpDuoKQVu",
"image_caption": null
}
] | False | Activating that file results in the installation of malwarewhich gives scammers access to the user's computer:The CDC has posted a notice on its web site advising that: |
FMD_train_802 | Did Congress allocate $50 billion in 2006 specifically for the development of border fencing? | 01/16/2019 | [
"When some leading Democrats voted for the Secure Fence Act, were they agreeing to 10 times more funding than President Donald Trump requested for his border wall in 2018?"
] | 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, and Obama was supposed to oversee its construction? Where is the money?" A 12 January post on the website of conspiracy theorist Jeff Rense contained this graphic version of the meme. The figure of $50 billion was especially significant because it was a far greater sum than the $5 billion for border wall construction that President Trump demanded be included in the 2019 federal budget, 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. 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. 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. Some Democrats supported the bill, while others did not. 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. 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. 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." 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 wasn't 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. That's right. Barack Obama and Chuck Schumer voted for ten 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." 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: "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: "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. 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: 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. 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: "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. | [
"inflation"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1eP4CVrOKGGh5Zdo3BtABmxzYwPfLOKWi",
"image_caption": null
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1fx63Hu_-WYcYl7mWKN_BoiXauWLsQIPA",
"image_caption": null
}
] | False | A 12 January post on the website of the conspiracy theorist Jeff Rense contained this graphic version of the meme:The "$50 billion" message was shared widely on Twitter and Facebook, prompting inquiries from readers about its veracity.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: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.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.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.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":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."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:In January 2007, the Migration Policy Institute cited a report by the Congressional Research Service as its source for the $50 billion figure, writing: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: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: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.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: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. |
FMD_train_1912 | Tiny House Giveaway Scam | 09/06/2016 | [
"Multiple like-farming Facebook pages have lured users with the false promise of tiny house giveaways."
] | In September 2016, Facebook pages (including "Mobile Trend" and "Lady Trend") purportedly kicked off tiny house giveaway contests: Mobile Trend Lady Trend As with all like-farming Facebook scams, the purported tiny house contests adhered to a simple format: users were instructed to like a separate page, like the original post, and share the post on their own Facebook timelines (thereby validating its legitimacy and enticing others to do the same). Although the tiny houses purportedly up for grabs appeared visually different in various posts, the instructions for "winning" them were virtually identical. The first clue these tiny house giveaways were not legitimate were the images of the homes used in the Facebook posts. The red "tiny house" was a Getty stock photo commonly pinned to Pinterest (and unlikely to be a contest prize), and the second was likewise a stock photograph of a tiny house: Moreover, neither page was linked with any major home improvement company or other commercial entity (e.g., Home Depot, HGTV, or a real estate firm) one might imagine would offer up a free tiny house in exchange for social media advertising. Were any legitimate company to engage in such a giveaway, their incentive would be exposure, yet no attendant promotional return on advertising investment was evident in these Facebook giveaway claims. The manner in which users were lured was similar to scams involving Costco, Kroger and Amazon gift cards, but the six-figure jackpot attached to some of the tiny house scams proved a far more difficult-to-resist enticement for some users, advancing the hoax more quickly than those which linked out to sketchy signup pages. The contests bore all the hallmarks of standard "like farming" gambits, intended to quickly build and sell popular Facebook pages to the highest bidder. Costco Kroger Amazon like farming Even if the page creators intended only to build an audience, participation in the scam created an environment amenable to scammers of the same ilk seeking to exploit users' desires and needs to pump and dump a relatively new Facebook page. A large audience could also be exploited by scammers' mining varying levels of personal data from those who have liked pages of dubious origin. Facebook users enmired in like and share fake giveaways not only unwittingly help spammers litter the social network with scams, they may also risk being exposed to malware, clickjacking, or other unpleasantries (such as finding their names and identities endorsing a scam, hate page, or other undesirable activity). Legitimate product giveaways, particularly of high-value merchandise, are exceptionally rare and are almost always conducted through the official channels of major brands and related large companies. | [
"investment"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1XbK7j1aje7iK1pLHkRvMIyqzTu8P3dSD",
"image_caption": null
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1nxtmbNdBwEFDATHcvKyDpKDVp3ny_Z15",
"image_caption": null
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1FHwDbhBg4idJtTGaMq_Ip5VhxFNNhMEF",
"image_caption": null
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1UVMlh0eVscSzH8hbeJHkYIVC47tvwxBO",
"image_caption": null
}
] | False | In September 2016, Facebook pages (including "Mobile Trend" and "Lady Trend") purportedly kicked off tiny house giveaway contests:The manner in which users were lured was similar to scams involving Costco, Kroger and Amazon gift cards, but the six-figure jackpot attached to some of the tiny house scams proved a far more difficult-to-resist enticement for some users, advancing the hoax more quickly than those which linked out to sketchy signup pages. The contests bore all the hallmarks of standard "like farming" gambits, intended to quickly build and sell popular Facebook pages to the highest bidder. |
FMD_train_1689 | The top one-tenth of 1 percent of Americans own almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent. | 07/29/2015 | [] | A month after launching his long-shot bid for the White House, a 73-year-old senator from Vermont appeared in Madison before perhaps the largest gathering for any candidate to that point in the 2016 campaign. Bernie Sanderscalled fora political revolution against greed and took jabs at Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, a contender on the GOP side of the field. Cheering him on was an Alliant Energy Center crowd that his aides estimated atnearly10,000people. At one point during his hourlongspeechon July 1, 2015, Sanders said: The issue of wealth and income inequality, to my mind, is the great moral issue of our time. It is the great economic issue of our time and it is the great political issue of our time. Let me be as clear as I can be: There is something profoundly wrong when today, the top one-tenth of 1 percent own almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent. Wealth inequality is sure to be an issue Sanders emphasizes as he challenges Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. So, does the top one-tenth of 1 percent of Americans own almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent? Previous claims Two of our most-clicked fact checks have found significant gaps in wealth in the United States. Filmmaker Michael Moore -- also speaking in Madison, during the height of protests against Walker over his collective bargaining reforms in 2011 -- said 400 Americans have more wealth than half of all Americans combined. Our rating wasTrue. As of 2010, the net worth of the Forbes 400 -- $1.37 trillion -- exceeded that of the poorest 60 percent of U.S. households. We alsorated Truea2013statement by the liberal One Wisconsin Now advocacy group, which said the wealth of the Wal-Mart Walton family equalled the wealth of the bottom 42 percent of Americans combined. The wealth of Sam Waltons heirs, we found, was $89.5 billion -- equal to the bottom 42 percent of American families. A note about those fact checks, in terms of helping explain the wealth gap: Many Americans make a good income, have some savings and investments, and own a nice home; they also have debt, for a mortgage, credit cards and other bills. Some people would still have a pretty healthy bottom line, but still have a negative net worth. Meanwhile, so far in 2015, PolitiFact National has given Sanders aMostly Truefor saying income equality in the U.S. is the widest since the 1920s; and aMostly Truefor saying 99 percent of all new income is going to the top 1 percent. Now to his new claim, which is about wealth, rather than income. Sanders evidence To back Sanders statement, his Senate office cited anews articlefrom The Guardian newspaper. The headline on the article, which reported on awealth inequality studyreleased in October 2014, matched Sanders claim nearly word for word. The study was done for the National Bureau of Economic Research, a nonpartisanorganizationin Cambridge, Mass. It is perhaps best known as the arbiter for determining whether the U.S. economy isin recession. The authors of the study were economistsEmmanuel Saezof the University of California, Berkeley, andGabriel Zucmanof the London School of Economics. Using tax records, they made estimates for 2012 on wealth -- that is, the value of all assets, such as a home, and savings and retirement accounts, minus all debts, such as mortgages and credit card balances. The major finding, in terms of Sanders claim: The top 0.1 percent was composed of 160,000 families with average wealth of $72.8 million. All told, they owned 22 percent of the nations wealth. Meanwhile, the bottom 90 percent -- 144 million families with average wealth of $84,000 -- owned only 22.8 percent of the wealth. In other words, the top 0.1 percent and the bottom 90 percent of U.S. households own virtually the same share of all the nation's wealth. Wealth is getting more concentrated in the United States, the researchers observed, but this phenomenon largely owes to the spectacular dynamics of fortunes of dozens and hundreds of million dollars, and much less to the growth in fortunes of a few million dollars. Inequality within rich families is increasing. Two other prominent economists --Thomas Pikettyof the Paris School of Economics andEdward Wolffof New York University -- told us that the study makes solid estimates about wealth inequality. Wolff said he was not aware of another study that examined the wealth of the top 0.1 percent. But some fault the findings to some degree. Another view Richard Burkhauser, a professor of policy analysis at Cornell University, told us that Saez and Zucman are very well respected economists, but that he has a major complaint about their study: it excludes Social Security. To ignore it as they do grossly understates the wealth held by Americans in the bottom 99 percent of the population, Burkhauser said. Another criticism is the study that it doesn't take into account changes in tax laws. Daniel Mitchell, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, pointed us to an article one of his colleagues wrote in the Wall Street Journal. It said, for example, that changes in tax laws in the 1980s and 90s skew any increase in wealth inequality by requiring more capital income of high-income taxpayers be reported on individual returns, while excluding most capital income of middle-income savers and homeowners. Mitchell told us: Even if one makes the heroic assumption that the data is completely accurate, our friends on the left take these numbers and want people to believe that the wealth of the top 1 percent (or top 10 percent, or top .01 percent, etc) comes at the expense of the rest of us. This is generally nonsense. People such as Bill Gates become rich because they generate real value for others. There is no fixed pie. Our rating Sanders said the top one-tenth of 1 percent of Americans own almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent. His claim repeats a finding from a study by two internationally known economists that were supported by two other major economists we contacted. But the study has been criticized, for example, for not including Social Security in the wealth calculations. For a claim that is accurate but needs additional information, a rating is Mostly True. | [
"Economy",
"Income",
"Retirement",
"Social Security",
"Wealth",
"Wisconsin"
] | [] | True | Bernie Sanderscalled fora political revolution against greed and took jabs at Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, a contender on the GOP side of the field. Cheering him on was an Alliant Energy Center crowd that his aides estimated atnearly10,000people.At one point during his hourlongspeechon July 1, 2015, Sanders said:Filmmaker Michael Moore -- also speaking in Madison, during the height of protests against Walker over his collective bargaining reforms in 2011 -- said 400 Americans have more wealth than half of all Americans combined. Our rating wasTrue. As of 2010, the net worth of the Forbes 400 -- $1.37 trillion -- exceeded that of the poorest 60 percent of U.S. households.We alsorated Truea2013statement by the liberal One Wisconsin Now advocacy group, which said the wealth of the Wal-Mart Walton family equalled the wealth of the bottom 42 percent of Americans combined. The wealth of Sam Waltons heirs, we found, was $89.5 billion -- equal to the bottom 42 percent of American families.Meanwhile, so far in 2015, PolitiFact National has given Sanders aMostly Truefor saying income equality in the U.S. is the widest since the 1920s; and aMostly Truefor saying 99 percent of all new income is going to the top 1 percent.To back Sanders statement, his Senate office cited anews articlefrom The Guardian newspaper. The headline on the article, which reported on awealth inequality studyreleased in October 2014, matched Sanders claim nearly word for word.The study was done for the National Bureau of Economic Research, a nonpartisanorganizationin Cambridge, Mass. It is perhaps best known as the arbiter for determining whether the U.S. economy isin recession.The authors of the study were economistsEmmanuel Saezof the University of California, Berkeley, andGabriel Zucmanof the London School of Economics. Using tax records, they made estimates for 2012 on wealth -- that is, the value of all assets, such as a home, and savings and retirement accounts, minus all debts, such as mortgages and credit card balances.Two other prominent economists --Thomas Pikettyof the Paris School of Economics andEdward Wolffof New York University -- told us that the study makes solid estimates about wealth inequality. Wolff said he was not aware of another study that examined the wealth of the top 0.1 percent.Richard Burkhauser, a professor of policy analysis at Cornell University, told us that Saez and Zucman are very well respected economists, but that he has a major complaint about their study: it excludes Social Security. To ignore it as they do grossly understates the wealth held by Americans in the bottom 99 percent of the population, Burkhauser said. |
FMD_train_1038 | We have more women living in poverty in this state than almost anywhere else. | 02/27/2014 | [] | El Paso lawyer Maxey Scherr, who seeks the Democratic U.S. Senate nomination, described the Obamacare law as vital to the health of millions of Texans in an interview with progressive Houston blogger Charles Kuffner. We have more women living in poverty in this state than almost anywhere else, Scherr said in the interview, which Kuffnerrecorded and placed onlineFeb. 4, 2014. We do? By email, Scherr campaign spokesman Victor Reyes told us Scherr based her conclusion on state rankings inTexas on the Brink,a March 2013 report by the Legislative Study Group, a Texas House caucus chaired by Rep. Garnet Coleman, D-Houston. According to the report, Texas ranks fourth nationally in the percentage of women living in poverty, a conclusion attributed in a footnote toinformation sorted bythe Urban Institute and Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured. We clicked online to the Kaiser information and came up with a chart indicating that in 2011-12, 23 percent of Texas women were living in poverty, tying the state with California and Arizona for the fourth-highest rate nationally. According to the chart (see below), 24 percent of women in Hawaii were living in poverty; 26 percent of women in Arkansas, Louisiana and New Mexico; and 27 percent in Mississippi. Source: Web page,Adult Poverty Rate by Gender,State Health Facts, the Henry J. Kaiser Foundation (accessed Feb. 13, 2014) A Kaiserexplanatory notesays the women-in-poverty percentages reflect the share of female adults aged 19-64 with incomes less than 100 percent of the federal poverty level. For a family of four in every state but Alaska and Hawaii, that poverty level was $22,350 in 2011 and $23,050 in 2012, according to the note. This information also can be sorted by the number of women in poverty in each state. By this metric, Texas--with nearly 1.8 million women in poverty--trailed only California, with 2.7 million women in poverty (see below). Source: Web page,Adult Poverty Rate by Gender,State Health Facts, the Henry J. Kaiser Foundation (accessed Feb. 13, 2014) Next, we wondered if the presented rates and rankings were up to date. Nope: By email, Jennifer Lee, a researcher for the Austin-based Center for Public Policy Priorities, which advocates for programs serving the poor, sent us achartshe built using the latest estimates from the American Community Survey for 2012 as overseen by the U.S. Census Bureau. According to the 2012 estimates, 17.8 percent of Texas women aged 18-64 lived in poverty that year. Fourteen states had more women in poverty: Mississippi, Louisiana, New Mexico, Arkansas, Kentucky, Alabama, West Virginia, Arizona, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, North Carolina, Oregon and Michigan, according to the chart. But rounding these percentages leaves Texas tied for fifth--with Ohio, Montana, Florida and Oklahoma--with 18 percent of women in poverty, the chart indicates. Mississippi, ranked No. 1, was alone with 25 percent of women in poverty. In raw numbers, California led the nation with 2 million women in poverty, according to the chart, followed by Texas (1.4 million) and Florida and New York (1 million each). Lee said: Poverty is consistently higher for females than for men across the country. There are a lot of causes of this, but one is that many women work in historically underpaid jobs. Women who must raise children alone are especially vulnerable. Our ruling Scherr said more women live in poverty in Texas than almost anywhere else. In raw numbers, California in 2012 had the most women in poverty followed by Texas. But poverty rate is a more reasonable yardstick to compare states. The rounded Texas rate--indicating about 18 percent of its women aged 18-64 lived in poverty in 2012--tied the state for fifth with some other states. Breaking out each state's rate to tenths of percentage points, though, shows 14 states with a greater share of women in poverty than Texas. We rate this claim, which could have been more precise, 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. | [
"Economy",
"Population",
"Poverty",
"Texas"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=16bbls2rC4s2qv0LOICaifbbGBRfnjBG4",
"image_caption": "MOSTLY TRUE"
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1DAm077k8h-fJEP0ErNskguOv78EGQznY",
"image_caption": " The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information."
}
] | True | We have more women living in poverty in this state than almost anywhere else, Scherr said in the interview, which Kuffnerrecorded and placed onlineFeb. 4, 2014.By email, Scherr campaign spokesman Victor Reyes told us Scherr based her conclusion on state rankings inTexas on the Brink,a March 2013 report by the Legislative Study Group, a Texas House caucus chaired by Rep. Garnet Coleman, D-Houston. According to the report, Texas ranks fourth nationally in the percentage of women living in poverty, a conclusion attributed in a footnote toinformation sorted bythe Urban Institute and Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured.Source: Web page,Adult Poverty Rate by Gender,State Health Facts, the Henry J. Kaiser Foundation (accessed Feb. 13, 2014)A Kaiserexplanatory notesays the women-in-poverty percentages reflect the share of female adults aged 19-64 with incomes less than 100 percent of the federal poverty level. For a family of four in every state but Alaska and Hawaii, that poverty level was $22,350 in 2011 and $23,050 in 2012, according to the note.Source: Web page,Adult Poverty Rate by Gender,State Health Facts, the Henry J. Kaiser Foundation (accessed Feb. 13, 2014)Nope: By email, Jennifer Lee, a researcher for the Austin-based Center for Public Policy Priorities, which advocates for programs serving the poor, sent us achartshe built using the latest estimates from the American Community Survey for 2012 as overseen by the U.S. Census Bureau.Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. |
FMD_train_468 | Scam involving a $150 anniversary coupon from Lowe's | 05/21/2015 | [
"Don't believe what you see. It's easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization."
] | In late 2019, social media users began seeing posts touting that "LOWES has announced that everyone who shares this link will be sent a $150 coupon for its anniversary TODAY ONLY": This coupon offer was fake, just another iteration of similar scams that have made the online rounds several times before. In May 2015, a fraudulent offer for $100 Lowe's coupons started circulating on Facebook. The message linked Facebook users to a fraudulent web site adorned with the Lowe's logo, and instructed them to follow a simple set of instructions: Scams like these require users to pass the fake coupon on to their Facebook friends, which widens the pool of potential victims. Next, they direct people to fill out a simple survey, which seems like a harmless task but is used to coax sensitive information such as email addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth and credit card numbers out of victims. Finally, users who complete the survey will never receive a free Lowe's gift card but instead will likely sign up for difficult-to-cancel "Reward Offers" or have their personal information used for nefarious purposes. The Better Business Bureau provides these three tips to identify scams on Facebook: Facebook 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. 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. Lowe's also posted a warning about this scam on their Facebook page: Facebook In April 2017, two years after we first debunked the initial coupon scam, a new version of it appeared, taking in unsuspecting Facebookers yet again: Those who clicked on this image on Facebook were taken to a page with a dubious URL& (in this case, https://www.lowes.com-holdit.us/?sfpzbJt) and asked to take a simple survey and then to "like" and "share" the page: Needless to say, anyone who attempted to redeem these coupons at Lowe's will be unsuccessful (and probably a little embarrassed), and if they have followed the online instructions, they have set themselves and their friends on social media up for, at best, a like-farming scam. A simple racket, certainly, but an effective one. scam | [
"share"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1azSB0wodc_hXZnKrgT4sCW74iFQtCPKw",
"image_caption": null
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1TzMVhO22SLk7rRBu58hC6m-aT30hxEcV",
"image_caption": null
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1SUWpQGnzUBBe-F2KN8CRyExiIuU1bGsJ",
"image_caption": null
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1olDSPnHoev70vRyPLBlnnylpI8w20suO",
"image_caption": null
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1ZpixyWiVrAhzN_yqDgZ4WxE9QRvW-Kzu",
"image_caption": null
}
] | False | The Better Business Bureau provides these three tips to identify scams on Facebook:Lowe's also posted a warning about this scam on their Facebook page:Needless to say, anyone who attempted to redeem these coupons at Lowe's will be unsuccessful (and probably a little embarrassed), and if they have followed the online instructions, they have set themselves and their friends on social media up for, at best, a like-farming scam. A simple racket, certainly, but an effective one. |
FMD_train_1501 | Does This Image Show a Peaceful Meeting of a Lion and a Zebra at a Watering Hole? | 07/31/2018 | [
"Food and drink, all in the same place!"
] | Lions and zebras generally do not coexist completely peacefully in the wild. Photographs and videos of these animals together on the plains of Africa frequently depict stalking, hunting, chasing, fighting, and, of course, eating behaviors. This is likely why an image purportedly showing a lion and zebra sharing a moment of peace together at a watering hole is often shared with comments such as "unbelievable but true!" This image has been circulated with various captions over the years, including "It's not eating time," "Alex and Marty" (a reference to the animated zebra-lion friendship in the movie Madagascar), "National Geographic: Behind the Scenes," and "Morning Sam" (a reference to an old cartoon in which Ralph E. Wolf and Sam Sheepdog put their feud on hold when they clock out of work for the day). However, this picture is not an accurate representation of a lion and a zebra enjoying a moment at a watering hole. It was digitally created for a 2010 advertisement for Traveler's Insurance. The general concept of the advertisement was that while animals would normally be skittish at a watering hole (as predators might be nearby), Traveler's Insurance could "take the scary out of life" so that customers might enjoy the world in peace. The description for the advertisement via Coloribus states: "This commercial featuring baboons, lions, zebras, crocodiles, vultures, and all sorts of other animals getting along famously at what would normally be a very dangerous watering hole, is the first spot in the new 'Take the scary out of life' campaign from Travelers Insurance." The viral image may appear genuine when viewed on its own, but in the context of the commercial (where it can be glimpsed around the 10-second mark), it becomes clear that the representation was created with the aid of digital editing. Not only is this image fabricated, but the idea that watering holes serve as neutral safe spaces for thirsty animals does not seem to be supported by much evidence. This notion most likely originated with, or at least was popularized by, a passage from Rudyard Kipling's The Second Jungle Book, in which he described a "water truce" during a severe drought: "By the Law of the Jungle it is death to kill at the drinking-places when once the Water Truce has been declared. The reason for this is that drinking comes before eating. Everyone in the Jungle can scramble along somehow when only game is scarce; but water is water, and when there is but one source of supply, all hunting stops while the Jungle People go there for their needs. In good seasons, when water was plentiful, those who came down to drink at the Waingunga or anywhere else, for that matter, did so at the risk of their lives, and that risk made no small part of the fascination of the night's doings." This water truce played a part in Disney's live-action remake of The Jungle Book, released in 2016. Lions sometimes do not attack typical prey animals for various reasons (e.g., they are severely outnumbered; they cannot match the speed of the prey without first sneaking up on it), but if a lion is hungry, the concept of a waterhole "truce" will not stop it. A 2013 study about the predatory habits of a group of lions in Zimbabwe's Hwange National Park found that the felines frequently hunted near watering holes, especially when resources were scarce, as such sites are frequented by a variety of prey. The study noted, "Lion kills were located in a preferentially selected zone around artificial waterholes, suggesting that these scarce resources form passive traps for ungulate prey. Lions are stalk-and-ambush hunters that use vegetative cover for concealment during hunting and are known to ambush prey in habitats surrounding high-prey abundance areas. In the Hwange ecosystem, lion habitat selection and movements are driven by waterholes, and lions appear to rotate their hunting behavior between these different hunting grounds. Water sources are also considered crucial in lion habitat selection in the Serengeti and are thought to act as passive traps for ungulates in the Kruger ecosystem. Contrary to our predictions, areas close to waterholes were highly selected for kills regardless of seasonal conditions." | [
"insurance"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1hO9maRkjkkMMwOgHoZE1N7iZ4HXWDW4Z",
"image_caption": null
}
] | False | This image has been shared with a variety of captions over the years, such as "It's not eating time," "Alex and Marty" (a reference to the animated zebra-lion friendship in the movie Madagascar), "National Geographic: Behind the Scenes," and "Morning Sam" (a reference to an old cartoon in which Ralph E. Wolf and Sam Sheepdog put their feud on hold when they clock out of work for the day):Here's the description for the advertisement via Coloribus:Not only is this image a fabricated one, but the idea that watering holes serve as neutral safe-spaces for thirsty animals doesn't appear to be backed by much evidence. This idea most likely originated with, or at least was popularized by, a passage from Rudyard Kipling's The Second Jungle Book in which he described a "water truce" during a severe drought:A 2013 study about the predatory habits of a group of lions in Zimbabwe's Hwange National Park found that the felines frequently hunted near watering holes, especially when resources were scarce, as such sites are frequented by a variety of prey: |
FMD_train_1126 | Are Asylum Seekers Paid More Than Social Security Recipients? | 07/31/2007 | [
"Claims that the federal government provides a much greater monthly allowance to refugees than to retirees are old and inaccurate."
] | Some political issues, it seems, are so emotionally charged that proponents of one side or another will promulgate anything that reflects their viewpoint, no matter how irrelevant, inapplicable, outdated, or erroneous it might be. The ongoing debate over U.S. immigration policy is one such issue, and for years, claims about asylum seekers and refugees settled in the U.S. receiving financial assistance from the federal government that amounts to almost double the stipends provided to American retirees have been widely disseminated online: Pensioners should apply as refugees! It is interesting that the federal government provides a single refugee with a monthly allowance of $1,890.00, and each can also get an additional $580.00 in social assistance for a total of $2,470.00. This compares very well to a single pensioner who, after contributing to the growth and development of America for 40 to 50 years, can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012.00 in old age pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement. Maybe our pensioners should apply as refugees! Let's send this to all Americans, so we can all be upset, and maybe we can get the refugees cut back to $1,012.00 and the pensioners to $2,470.00 and enjoy some of the money we were forced to submit to the government over the last 40 or 50 years. Please forward this to every American to expose what our elected politicians have been doing over the past 11 years to the over-taxed American. SEND THIS TO EVERY AMERICAN TAXPAYER YOU KNOW. Virtually everything claimed in the textual example above is wrong: the information is fifteen years old, it was originally about government policy in Canada and not the U.S. (someone merely substituted the word 'American' for 'Canadian' throughout the text), and it wasn't true (about either Canada or the U.S.) when it was written and still isn't true now. The "pensioners vs. refugees" brouhaha began back in March 2004 when the Toronto Star published an article about plans for Canada to work in conjunction with the United Nations to settle asylum-seekers from a Somali refugee camp in some smaller Canadian cities (outside the usual immigrant magnet communities of Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver). As the Star's ombudsman later explained, a single paragraph in the midst of the article was somewhat ambiguous about the amount of financial assistance the Canadian government would be providing to these refugees: Halfway through the 1,500-word article, unforeseen trouble was lurking. In paragraph 16, the story said single refugees are eligible for $1,890 from Ottawa as a "start-up allowance, along with a $580 monthly social assistance, depending on how soon the person is able to find employment." In addition, they get "a night lamp, a table, a chair, and a single bed from the government," the story said. In painful hindsight, those details could have been clearer. Actually, the $1,890 "start-up allowance," including a $580 monthly social assistance cheque from Ottawa, was a one-time payment for basic household needs such as furnishings, pots, and linens. The furniture is used. Unfortunately, one Star reader who misunderstood the issue set loose an e-mail polemic about refugee entitlement without waiting for clarification, and the author of a follow-up letter to the editor published in the Star repeated the erroneous claim that the African refugees would be collecting monthly government allowances nearly double those provided to pensioners: In quick order, two things happened after the article ran. First, a reader sent a nasty e-mail to the reporter. Among other things, it said charity begins at home and Canada should not "roll out the welcome mat" for refugees. The e-mailer assumed—erroneously—that the refugees would collect $2,470 a month. They'd be better off than Canadian pensioners. More worrisome, the polemicist sent his rant to 100 recipients, some of whom likely spread the word to wider audiences. Ah, the wonders of the Internet! Alarmed by the e-mail, reporter Keung tried to contact the sender. It was too late. Having spread the misinformation, the e-mailer already had changed his address. At the same time, a second development occurred. The Star ran a letter to the editor that said the $2,470 "compares very well to a single pensioner who, after contributing to the growth and development of Canada for 40 years, can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012 in old age pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement." "Maybe our pensioners should apply as refugees?" reasoned the writer. In short order, e-mail forwards like the following began winging their way into the inboxes of thousands of Canadians (and a good many Americans to boot): Only in Canada. Do not apply for your old age pension. Apply to be a refugee. It is interesting that the federal government provides a single refugee with a monthly allowance of $1,890.00, and each can get an additional $580.00 in social assistance for a total of $2,470.00. This compares very well to a single pensioner who, after contributing to the growth and development of Canada for 40 or 50 years, can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012.00 in old age pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement. Maybe our pensioners should apply as refugees! Let's send this thought to as many Canadians as we can, and maybe we can get the refugees cut back to $1,012.00 and the pensioners up to $2,470.00, so they can enjoy the money they were forced to submit to the Canadian government for those 40 to 50 years. Please forward this to every Canadian you know. By November 2004, the Star noted that: It [has] become increasingly clear a disturbing urban myth has been born. Various offices at the Star have been getting e-mails from around the world, usually one or two a week. Many quote from the erroneous letter to the editor, expressing varying degrees of curiosity, dismay, envy, or anger. "Let's send this to all Canadians," one e-mail roared, "so we can all be upset and maybe we can get the refugees cut back to $1,012 and the pensioners up to $2,470 and enjoy some of the money we were forced to submit to the government over the last 40 or 50 years." Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) attempted to set the record straight about the amounts of financial assistance from the federal government provided to refugees vs. pensioners: CIC Refugees don't receive more financial assistance from the federal government than Canadian pensioners. In [a letter to the Toronto Star], a one-time, start-up payment provided to some refugees in Canada was mistaken for an ongoing, monthly payment. Unfortunately, although the newspaper published a clarification, the misleading information had already spread widely over e-mail and the internet. In truth, about three-quarters of refugees receive financial assistance from the federal government for a limited time and at levels lower than Canadian pensioners. They are known as government-assisted refugees. We have to remember that many of these people are fleeing from unimaginable hardship and have lived in refugee camps for several years. Others are victims of trauma or torture in their home countries. Many arrive with little more than a few personal belongings, if that. Canada has a humanitarian role to accept refugees and help them start their new lives here. For this reason, government-assisted refugees get a one-time payment of up to $1,095 from the federal government to cover essentials—basic, start-up needs like food, furniture, and clothing. They also receive a temporary monthly allowance for food and shelter that is based on provincial social assistance rates. In Ontario, for example, a single refugee would receive $592 per month. This assistance is temporary—lasting only for one year or until they can find a job, whichever comes first. This short-term support for refugees is a far cry from the lifetime benefits for Canada's seniors. The Old Age Security (OAS) program, for example, provides people who have lived in Canada for at least 10 years with a pension at age 65. The Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) is an additional monthly benefit for low-income pensioners. The Canada Pension Plan (CPP), or Quebec Pension Plan (QPP) for people in Quebec, pays a monthly retirement pension to people who have worked and contributed to the plan over their career. In July 2006, Canadian seniors received an average of $463.20 in OAS benefits and $472.79 in CPP retirement benefits ($388.94 in QPP). Lower-income OAS recipients also qualified for an average of an additional $361.94 in GIS benefits. In 2015 and 2016, the same statements began once again circulating around social media, this time focusing on refugees coming from Syria. The claims were getting so widely spread that the Canadian government once again addressed it on the CIC website, saying: CIC No. Refugees do not get more financial help from the federal government than Canadian pensioners do. A widely circulated email makes this false claim. The email mistakenly includes the one-time start-up payment as part of the monthly payment. The amount of monthly financial support that government-assisted refugees get is based on provincial social assistance rates. It is the minimum amount needed to cover only the most basic food and shelter needs. Many refugees selected for resettlement to Canada have been forced to flee their country because of extreme hardship. Some may have been living in refugee camps for many years. When they arrive in Canada, they must start their lives again in a country very different from their own. In keeping with Canada's proud humanitarian traditions, individuals and families get immediate and essential services and support to help them become established in Canada. It's worth noting that in Canada, much of the financial assistance is in the form of loans, which refugees have to pay back with interest. Also, as of January 2016, the alleged monthly allowances of these imaginary pensioners, no matter which country they are supposed to be living in, have not changed in more than a decade. In January 2010, some e-mailed versions of this item were prefaced with the following introduction: From a Florida ER doctor: Today I had a 25-year-old with 8 kids—that's right 8, all illegal anchor babies—and she had the nicest nails, cell phone, handbag, clothing, etc. She makes about $1,500 monthly for each; you do the math. I used to say, "We are the dumbest nation on earth." Now I must say and sadly admit: WE are the dumbest people on earth (that includes ME) for we elected the idiot ideologues who have passed the bills that allow this. Sorry, but we need a revolution. If the illegal immigrant is over 65, they can apply for SSI and Medicaid and get more than a woman on Social Security, who worked from 1944 until 2004. She is only getting $791 per month because she was born in 1924 and there's a 'catch 22' (notch) for her. It is interesting that the Federal Government provides a single refugee with a monthly allowance of $1,890. Each can also obtain an additional $580 in Social Assistance, for a total of $2,470 a month. This compares to a single pensioner who, after contributing to the growth and development of America for 40 to 50 years, can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012 in Old Age Pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement. Maybe our pensioners should apply as refugees! Consider sending this to all your American friends, so we can all be upset and maybe get the refugees cut back to $1,012 and the pensioners up to $2,470. Then we can enjoy some of the money we were forced to submit to the government over the last 40, 50, or 60 years. PLEASE SHOW THIS TO EVERY AMERICAN TAXPAYER YOU KNOW. In September 2017, an April 2016 Facebook iteration of the rumor shared by Dan Shea began circulating once again. As of 13 September 2017, it had been shared well more than a quarter of a million times: Dan Shea Keung, Nicholas. "New Refugee Plan Eyes Small Cities." The Toronto Star. 11 March 2004 (p. A1). Sellar, Don. "Can We Dispel This Urban Myth?" The Toronto Star. 27 November 2004 (p. H6). The Toronto Star. "Pay Pensioners Same as Refugees?" 12 March 2004 (p. A23). | [
"loan"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1Iod6SWoN8PqbxGo8Dz96JlIVCibwLbDG",
"image_caption": null
}
] | False | Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) attempted to set the record straight about the amounts of financial assistance from the federal government provided to refugees vs. pensioners:In 2015 and 2016, the same statements began once again circulating around social media, this time focusing on refugees coming from Syria. The claims were getting so widely spread that the Canadian government once again addressed it on the CIC web site, saying:It's worth noting that in Canada, much of the financial assistance is in the form of loans, which refugees have to pay back with interest. Also, as of January 2016, the alleged monthly allowances of these imaginary pensioners, no matter which country they are supposed to be living in, have not changed in more than a decade.In September 2017, an April 2016 Facebook iteration of the rumor shared by Dan Shea began circulating once again. As of 13 September 2017, it had been shared well more than a quarter of a million times: |
FMD_train_1784 | Government Officials Versus Celebrities | 03/20/2003 | [
"Essay compares education and career experience of government officials and celebrities."
] | Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2003] The Hollywood group is at it again. Holding anti-war rallies, screaming about the Bush Administration, running ads in major newspapers, defaming the President and his Cabinet every chance they get, to anyone and everyone who will listen. They publicly defile them and call them names like "stupid," "morons," and "idiots." Jessica Lange went so far as to tell a crowd in Spain that she hates President Bush and is embarrassed to be an American. So, just how ignorant are these people who are running the country? Let's look at the biographies of these "stupid," "ignorant," "moronic" leaders, and then at the celebrities who are castigating them: President George W. Bush: Received a Bachelors Degree from Yale University and an MBA from Harvard Business School. He served as an F-102 pilot for the Texas Air National Guard. He began his career in the oil and gas business in Midland in 1975 and worked in the energy industry until 1986. He was elected Governor on November 8, 1994, with 53.5 percent of the vote. In a historic reelection victory, he became the first Texas Governor to be elected to consecutive four-year terms on November 3, 1998, winning 68.6 percent of the vote. In 1998 Governor Bush won 49 percent of the Hispanic vote, 27 percent of the African-American vote, 27 percent of Democrats and 65 percent of women. He won more Texas counties, 240 of 254, than any modern Republican other that Richard Nixon in 1972 and is the first Republican gubernatorial candidate to win the heavily Hispanic and Democratic border counties of El Paso, Cameron and Hidalgo. Vice President Dick Cheney earned a B.A. in 1965 and a M.A. in 1966, both in political science. Two years later, he won an American Political Science Association congressional fellowship. One of Vice President Cheney's primary duties is to share with individuals, members of Congress and foreign leaders, President Bush's vision to strengthen our economy, secure our homeland and win the War on Terrorism. In his official role as President of the Senate, Vice President Cheney regularly goes to Capitol Hill to meet with Senators and members of the House of Representatives to work on the Administration's legislative goals. In his travels as Vice President, he has seen first hand the great demands the war on terrorism is placing on the men and women of our military, and he is proud of the tremendous job they are doing for the United States of America. Secretary of State Colin Powell was educated in the New York City public schools, graduating from the City College of New York (CCNY), where he earned a Bachelor's Degree in geology. He also participated in ROTC at CCNY and received a commission as an Army second lieutenant upon graduation in June 1958. His further academic achievements include a Master of Business Administration Degree from George Washington University. Secretary Powell is the recipient of numerous U.S. and foreign military awards and decorations. Secretary Powell's civilian awards include two Presidential Medals of Freedom, the President's Citizens Medal, the Congressional Gold Medal, the Secretary of State Distinguished Service Medal, and the Secretary of Energy Distinguished Service Medal. Several schools and other institutions have been named in his honor and he holds honorary degrees from universities and colleges across the country. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld: attended Princeton University on Scholarship (AB, 1954) and served in the U.S. Navy (1954-57) as a Naval aviator; Congressional Assistant to Rep. Robert Griffin (R-MI), 1957-59; U.S. Representative, Illinois, 1962-69; Assistant to the President, Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity, Director of the Cost of Living Council, 1969-74; U.S. Ambassador to NATO, 1973-74; head of Presidential Transition Team, 1974; Assistant to the President, Director of White House Office of Operations, White House Chief of Staff, 1974-77; Secretary of Defense, 1975-77. Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge was raised in a working class family in veterans' public housing in Erie. He earned a scholarship to Harvard, graduating with honors in 1967. After his first year at The Dickinson School of Law, he was drafted into the U.S. Army, where he served as an infantry staff sergeant in Vietnam, earning the Bronze Star for Valor. After returning to Pennsylvania, he earned his Law Degree and was in private practice before becoming Assistant District Attorney in Erie County. He was elected to Congress in 1982. He was the first enlisted Vietnam combat veteran elected to the U.S. House, and was overwhelmingly reelected six times. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice earned her Bachelor's Degree in Political Science, Cum Laude and Phi Beta Kappa, from the University of Denver in 1974; her Master's from the University of Notre Dame in 1975; and her Ph.D. from the Graduate School of International Studies at the University of Denver in 1981. (Note: Rice enrolled at the University of Denver at the age of 15, graduating at 19 with a Bachelor's Degree in Political Science (Cum Laude). She earned a Master's Degree at the University of Notre Dame and a Doctorate from the University of Denver's Graduate School of International Studies. Both of her advanced degrees are also in Political Science.) She is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and has been awarded Honorary Doctorates from Morehouse College in 1991, the University of Alabama in 1994, and the University of Notre Dame in 1995. At Stanford, she has been a member of the Center for International Security and Arms Control, a Senior Fellow of the Institute for International Studies, and a Fellow (by courtesy) of the Hoover Institution. Her books include Germany Unified and Europe Transformed (1995) with Philip Zelikow, The Gorbachev Era (1986) with Alexander Dallin, and Uncertain Allegiance: The Soviet Union and the Czechoslovak Army (1984). She also has written numerous articles on Soviet and East European foreign and defense policy, and has addressed audiences in settings ranging from the U.S. Ambassador's Residence in Moscow to the Commonwealth Club to the 1992 and 2000 Republican National Conventions. From 1989 through March 1991, the period of German reunification and the final days of the Soviet Union, she served in the Bush Administration as Director, and then Senior Director, of Soviet and East European Affairs in the National Security Council, and a Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. In 1986, while an international affairs fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations, she served as Special Assistant to the Director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In 1997, she served on the Federal Advisory Committee on Gender Integrated Training in the Military. She was a member of the boards of directors for the Chevron Corporation, the Charles Schwab Corporation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the University of Notre Dame, the International Advisory Council of J.P. Morgan and the San Francisco Symphony Board of Governors. She was a Founding Board member of the Center for a New Generation, an educational support fund for schools in East Palo Alto and East Menlo Park, California and was Vice President of the Boys and Girls Club of the Peninsula. In addition, her past board service has encompassed such organizations as Transamerica Corporation, Hewlett Packard, the Carnegie Corporation, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, The Rand Corporation, the National Council for Soviet and East European Studies, the Mid-Peninsula Urban Coalition and KQED, public broadcasting for San Francisco. Born November 14, 1954 in Birmingham, Alabama, she earned her bachelor's degree in political science, cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa, from the University of Denver in 1974; her Master's from the University of Notre Dame in 1975; and her Ph.D. from the Graduate School of International Studies at the University of Denver in 1981. She is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and has been awarded Honorary Doctorates from Morehouse College in 1991, the University of Alabama in 1994, and the University of Notre Dame in 1995. She resides in Washington, D.C. So who are these celebrities? What is their education? What is their experience in affairs of State or in National Security? While I will defend to the death their right to express their opinions, I think that if they are going to call into question the intelligence of our leaders, we should also have all the facts on their educations and background: Barbra Streisand: Completed high schoolCareer: Singing and acting Cher: Dropped out of school in 9th grade.Career: Singing and acting Martin Sheen: Flunked exam to enter University of Dayton.Career: Acting Jessica Lange: Dropped out college mid-freshman year.Career: Acting Alec Baldwin: Dropped out of George Washington U. after scandalCareer: Acting Julia Roberts: Completed high schoolCareer: Acting Sean Penn: Completed High schoolCareer: Acting Susan Sarandon: Degree in Drama from Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C.Career: Acting Ed Asner: Completed High schoolCareer: Acting George Clooney: Dropped out of University of KentuckyCareer: Acting Michael Moore: Dropped out first year University of Michigan.Career: Movie Director Sarah Jessica Parker: Completed High SchoolCareer: Acting Jennifer Anniston: Completed High SchoolCareer: Acting Mike Farrell: Completed High schoolCareer: Acting Janeane Garofelo: Dropped out of College.Career: Stand up comedienne Larry Hagman: Attended Bard College for one year.Career: Acting While comparing the education and experience of these two groups, we should also remember that President Bush and his cabinet are briefed daily, even hourly, on the War on Terror and threats to our security. They are privy to information gathered around the world concerning the Middle East, the threats to America, the intentions of terrorists and terrorist-supporting governments. They are in constant communication with the CIA, the FBI, Interpol, NATO, The United Nations, our own military, and that of our allies around the world. We cannot simply believe that we have full knowledge of the threats because we watch CNN!! We cannot believe that we are in any way as informed as our leaders. These celebrities have no intelligence-gathering agents, no fact-finding groups, no insight into the minds of those who would destroy our country. They only have a deep seated hatred for all things Republican. By nature, and no one knows quite why, the Hollywood elitists detest Conservative views and anything that supports or uplifts the United States of America. The silence was deafening from the Left when Bill Clinton bombed a pharmaceutical factory outside of Khartoum, or when he attacked the Bosnian Serbs in 1995 and 1999. He bombed Serbia itself to get Slobodan Milosevic out of Kosovo, and not a single peace rally was held. When our Rangers were ambushed in Somalia and 18 young American lives were lost, not a peep was heard from Hollywood. Yet now, after our nation has been attacked on its own soil, after 3,000 Americans were killed by freedom-hating terrorists while going about their routine lives, they want to hold rallies against the war. Why the change? Because an honest, God-fearing Republican sits in the White House. Another irony is that in 1987, when Ronald Reagan was in office, the Hollywood group aligned themselves with disarmament groups like SANE, FREEZE and PEACE ACTION, urging our own government to disarm and freeze the manufacturing of any further nuclear weapons, in order to promote world peace. It is curious that now, even after we have heard all the evidence that Saddam Hussein has chemical, biological and is very close to obtaining nuclear weapons, their is no cry from this group for HIM to disarm. They believe we should leave him alone in his quest for these weapons of mass destruction, even though it is certain that these deadly weapons will eventually be used against us in our own cities. So why the hype out of Hollywood? Could these celebrities believe that since they draw such astronomical salaries, they are entitled to also determine the course of our Nation? That they can make viable decisions concerning war and peace? Did Michael Moore have the backing of the Nation when he recently thanked France, on our behalf, for being a "good enough friend to tell us we were wrong"? I know for certain he was not speaking for me. Does Sean Penn fancy himself a Diplomat, in going to Iraq when we are just weeks away from war? Does he believe that his High School Diploma gives him the knowledge (and the right) to go to a country that is controlled by a maniacal dictator, and speak on behalf of the American people? Or is it the fact that he pulls in more money per year than the average American worker will see in a lifetime? Does his bank account give him clout? The ultimate irony is that many of these celebrities have made a shambles of their own lives, with drug abuse, alcoholism, numerous marriages and divorces, scrapes with the law, publicized temper tantrums, etc. How dare they pretend to know what is best for an entire nation! What is even more bizarre is how many people in this country will listen and accept their views, simply because they liked them in a certain movie, or have fond memories of an old television sitcom! It is time for us, as citizens of the United States, to educate ourselves about the world around us. If future generations are going to enjoy the freedoms that our forefathers bequeathed us, if they are ever to know peace in their own country and their world, to live without fear of terrorism striking in their own cities, we must assure that this nation remains strong. We must make certain that those who would destroy us are made aware of the severe consequences that will befall them. Yes, it is a wonderful dream to sit down with dictators and terrorists and join hands, singing Cumbaya and talking of world peace. But it is not real. We did not stop Adolf Hitler from taking over the entire continent of Europe by simply talking to him. We sent our best and brightest, with the strength and determination that this Country is known for, and defeated the Nazi regime. President John F. Kennedy did not stop the Soviet ships from unloading their nuclear missiles in Cuba in 1962 with mere words. He stopped them with action, and threat of immediate war if the ships did not turn around. We did not end the Cold War with conferences. It ended with the strong belief of President Ronald Reagan... PEACE through STRENGTH. Origins: Thefactual information presented here is not difficult to verify, as biographies detailing the educational and professional qualifications of our high-ranking government officials are readily available from a number of on-line sources: President George W. Bush President George W. Bush Vice-President Dick Cheney Vice-President Dick Cheney Secretary of State Colin Powell Secretary of State Colin Powell Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld Homeland Security Advisor Tom Ridge Homeland Security Advisor Tom Ridge National Security Advisor Dr. Condoleezza Rice National Security Advisor Dr. Condoleezza Rice Verifying the educational accomplishments of film stars is less easy: Barbra Streisand had already embarked on a show business career by the time she was a teenager and did not attend college. Barbra Streisand Cher left home at age sixteen to pursue an acting career and did not finish high school. Cher Martin Sheen did fail his college entrance exam for the University of Dayton but maintains that he did so on purpose so that he could pursue an acting career over the objections of his disapproving father. Martin Sheen Jessica Lange studied art at the University of Minnesota but left school before the completion of her freshman year. Jessica Lange Alec Baldwin spent three years studying political science at George Washington University before switching to New York University's drama department to pursue an acting career, and he eventually returned to NYU and received a BFA degree in Drama in 1993. (Could not find any information about a "scandal" prompting his departure from George Washington University.) Alec Baldwin Julia Roberts moved to New York after finishing high school to pursue an acting career and did not attend college. Julia Roberts Sean Penn joined the Los Angeles Repertory Theater after finishing high school and did not attend college. Sean Penn Susan Sarandon graduated from Catholic University in Washington, DC, with a degree in Drama. Susan Sarandon Ed Asner enrolled at the University of Chicago, but his education was interrupted by an Army hitch; after his discharge he embarked on an acting career and did not return to college to complete a degree. Ed Asner George Clooney studied Broadcast Journalism at Northern Kentucky University but left school before completing a degree. George Clooney Michael Moore briefly attended the University of Michigan at Flint before leaving school. Michael Moore Sarah Jessica Parker was already a professional performer before starting high school and did not attend college after graduating. Sarah Jessica Parker Jennifer Aniston graduated from New York's High School of Performing Arts and pursued an acting career without attending college Jennifer Aniston Mike Farrell joined the Marines after finishing high school and afterwards embarked upon an acting career without attending college. Mike Farrell Janeane Garofalo studied history at Providence College in Rhode Island. There is conflicting information about whether she completed her degree or left school during her senior year; most biographies indicate the former. Janeane Garofalo Larry Hagman attended Bard College in Anandale-on-the-Hudson for one year before leaving school and pursuing an acting career. Larry Hagman As to the point of this piece, it's safe to say that those who hold high positions in federal government generally have more formal education and more on-the-job experience in politics and government than film actors do, that they are privy to a large amount of information the general public does not have access to, and that they are therefore better qualified to make important policy decisions than the average actor. The question posed by the title "Who's smarter?" isn't so easily answered. Graduating college or holding elected office exposes people to new ideas and concepts and imbues them with practical experience, but those paths don't necessarily make people "smarter," nor is treading those paths necessary for one to become a competent politician or political analyst. Some very highly regarded U.S. presidents had little or no formal education (Abraham Lincoln), did not attend college (Harry Truman), or had no previous experience holding elective office (Dwight Eisenhower), and one (Ronald Reagan) even began his career as a film actor. On the other hand, some very well-educated and intelligent men with experience in governmental administration who served as chief executive of the U.S. (Herbert Hoover, Jimmy Carter) frequently show up on rosters of "worst U.S. presidents." Last updated: 14 October 2007 <!-- Sources: Dowdell, Kitty. "Seniors Should Be Ashamed." The [Cleveland] Plain Dealer. 24 September 1996 (p. B8).--> | [
"economy"
] | [] | NEI | President George W. Bush Vice-President Dick Cheney Secretary of State Colin Powell Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld Homeland Security Advisor Tom Ridge National Security Advisor Dr. Condoleezza Rice Barbra Streisand had already embarked on a show business career by the time she was a teenager and did not attend college. Cher left home at age sixteen to pursue an acting career and did not finish high school.Martin Sheen did fail his college entrance exam for the University of Dayton but maintains that he did so on purpose so that he could pursue an acting career over the objections of his disapproving father.Jessica Lange studied art at the University of Minnesota but left school before the completion of her freshman year.Alec Baldwin spent three years studying political science at George Washington University before switching to New York University's drama department to pursue an acting career, and he eventually returned to NYU and received a BFA degree in Drama in 1993. (Could not find any information about a "scandal" prompting his departure from George Washington University.)Julia Roberts moved to New York after finishing high school to pursue an acting career and did not attend college.Sean Penn joined the Los Angeles Repertory Theater after finishing high school and did not attend college.Susan Sarandon graduated from Catholic University in Washington, DC, with a degree in Drama.Ed Asner enrolled at the University of Chicago, but his education was interrupted by an Army hitch; after his discharge he embarked on an acting career and did not return to college to complete a degree.George Clooney studied Broadcast Journalism at Northern Kentucky University but left school before completing a degree.Michael Moore briefly attended the University of Michigan at Flint before leaving school.Sarah Jessica Parker was already a professional performer before starting high school and did not attend college after graduating.Jennifer Aniston graduated from New York's High School of Performing Arts and pursued an acting career without attending collegeMike Farrell joined the Marines after finishing high school and afterwards embarked upon an acting career without attending college.Janeane Garofalo studied history at Providence College in Rhode Island. There is conflicting information about whether she completed her degree or left school during her senior year; most biographies indicate the former.Larry Hagman attended Bard College in Anandale-on-the-Hudson for one year before leaving school and pursuing an acting career. |
FMD_train_1507 | Was Jared Kushner Responsible for Removing Tweets Once Information About Trump's Taxes Emerged? | 09/28/2020 | [
"It's decidedly difficult to remove something that never existed. "
] | Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but misinformation continues to spread. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. On Sept. 27, 2020, The New York Times published a report after obtaining several years of U.S. President Donald Trump's tax returns. As news broke that Trump had paid just $750 in federal income tax in 2016 and 2017, and had not paid federal income taxes in 10 of the past 15 years, in addition to the fact that he took an approximate $70,000 deduction for hairstyling during "The Apprentice," and that he has more than $300 million worth of loans coming due, a rumor began to circulate on social media that White House senior adviser Jared Kushner had quietly deleted all of his tweets from his Twitter account. This rumor is false. Kushner did not delete all of his tweets following the NYT article about Trump's taxes. The above-displayed tweet contains a genuine screenshot of the @JaredKushner Twitter account. This account has been online since 2009, but it has been used sparingly by its owner. Archived pages show that this account posted three messages back in March 2011, none of which were related to taxes, but then remained inactive for at least three years. The few messages that were posted to this account were deleted sometime between 2014 and 2016, and no new messages have been posted since then. In other words, Kushner did not wipe his Twitter account clean on the evening of Sept. 27 after the NYT published a story about his father-in-law's taxes. This account rarely posts tweets, and the three tweets that were shared to the account in 2011 (again, none of which were related to taxes) were deleted years ago. This isn't the first time that someone has stumbled across Kushner's Twitter account in the aftermath of a controversy, noticed that it was barren, and then incorrectly assumed that Kushner had recently scrubbed it clean. In October 2017, shortly after Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III revealed charges against former Trump presidential campaign chair Paul Manafort and two other campaign officials, social media users noted that Kushner's Twitter account was suspiciously void of content and falsely claimed that he had recently deleted all of his tweets. A few months later, when it was reported that Mueller may have interviewed Kushner in the course of his investigation into Russia's meddling in the 2016 presidential election, this false rumor circulated on social media again. The @JaredKushner account has been devoid of content since at least 2016. Claims that he recently deleted his tweets in the wake of breaking news stories are false. | [
"taxes"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=16ABXdIKtjzkIimYMFMYt8vQ5FNLasuPr",
"image_caption": null
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1b3rDDl5JY_vQqlom1ZjOj38hQ1MxjHic",
"image_caption": null
}
] | False | 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.On Sept. 27, 2020, The New York Times published a report after obtaining several years of U.S. President Donald Trump's tax returns.As news broke that Trump had paid just $750 in federal income tax in 2016 and 2017 no federal income taxes in 10 of the past 15 years in addition to the fact that he took an approximate $70,000 deduction for hairstyling during "The Apprentice," and that he has more than $300 million worth of loans coming due, a rumor started to circulate on social media that White House senior adviser Jared Kushner had quietly deleted all of his tweets from his Twitter account:The above-displayed tweet contains a genuine screenshot of the @JaredKushner Twitter account. This account has been online since 2009, but it has been used sparingly by its owner. Archived pages show that this account posted three messages back in March 2011 none of which was related to taxes but was then inactive for at least three years. The few messages that were posted to this account were deleted sometime between 2014 and 2016, and no new messages have been posted since then. This isn't the first time that someone has stumbled across Kushner's Twitter account in the aftermath of a controversy, noticed that it was barren, and then incorrectly assumed that Kushner had recently scrubbed it clean. In October 2017, shortly after Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III revealed charges against former Trump presidential campaign chair Paul Manafort and two other campaign officials, social media users noted then that Kushner's Twitter account was suspiciously void of content, and falsely claimed that he had recently deleted all of his tweets.A few months later, when it was reported that Mueller may have interviewed Kushner in the course of his investigation into Russia's meddling in the 2016 presidential election, this false rumor again was circulated on social media: |
FMD_train_428 | Did Stalin Pluck a Live Chicken as a Lesson to His Followers? | 05/04/2020 | [
"A common tale expresses the thought that a dictator can do anything he wants to \"the people,\" so long as the people believe he is the source of their survival."
] | A common item of interest on social media is a rather gruesome anecdote attributed to Soviet leader Josef Stalin, which describes him purportedly plucking a live chicken in order to demonstrate "how easy it is to govern stupid people": We found no sources for this anecdote that were contemporaneous with Stalin's life (he died in 1953), nor from the next few decades afterwards. The earliest recountings of it seem to date from the early 1990s or late 1980s, which is consistent with the following excerpt from a 1988 New Yorker article that attributes it to the mid-1980s writings of anti-Stalinist Soviet/Kyrgyz author Chingiz Aitmatov: With the new Party line established, editors around the country unleashed an extraordinary torrent of articles damning Stalin. A novelist named Chingiz Aitmatov wrote one of the most powerful. Aitmatov has a distinguished history as an anti-Stalinist. In the early nineteen-eighties, when discipline of all kinds was lax, he managed to get past the censors a novel called "The Day Lasts More Than a Hundred Years," which in elliptical, allegorical ways, attacked the Stalinist legacy, and sold five million copies. Now Aitmatov was free to use language as blunt as he liked. He began with an anecdote: Stalin called together his closest comrades-in-arms. "I understand you're wondering how I govern the people so that every last one of them ... thinks of me as a living god. Now I'll teach you the right attitude toward the people." And he ordered a chicken brought in. He plucked it live, in front of them all, down to the last feather, down to the red flesh, until only the comb was left on its head. "And now watch," he said, and let the chicken go. It could have gone off where it wished, but it went nowhere. It was too hot in the sun and too cold in the shade. The poor bird could only press itself against Stalin's boots. And then he tossed it a crumb of grain, and the bird followed him wherever he went. Otherwise, it would have fallen over from hunger. "That," he told his pupils, "is how you govern our people." Aitmatov appears to be the source of this tale, but as noted in the above New Yorker article and a 2008 Reuters obituary for Aitmatov, he wrote in "elliptical, allegorical ways," and his works "often interwove popular myths and folktales to create allegorical themes populated with down-to-earth characters." Aitmatov acknowledged that of himself as well, writing in the introduction to his novel "The Day Lasts More Than a Hundred Years": obituary As in previous works, here I also draw on legends and myths handed down to us from former generations; together with these, for the first time in my writing career I also use fantasy to form part of the story. But, for me, neither is an end in itself, simply a method of expressing thoughts, a means of identifying and interpreting realities. Given that Aitmatov is the apparent source for this anecdote, that it did not first appear until some 30 years after Stalin's death, and that Aitmatov was known for his use of allegory, most likely the tale is not a literal account of something Stalin did, but rather an illustrative sketch that Aitmatov either invented himself or heard elsewhere and subsequently attributed to Stalin. We therefore rate this claim "Legend." Cullen, Robert. "Letter from Moscow."
The New Yorker. 17 October 1988 (p. 100). Aitmatov, Chingiz. The Day Lasts More than a Hundred Years.
Indiana University Press, 1988. ISBN 0-253-20482-8. Reuters. "Kyrgyz Writer, Perestroika Ally Aitmatov Dies."
10 June 2008. | [
"interest"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1zb0iuImubCyvONIb301X7SlpgFB68M-F",
"image_caption": null
}
] | True | Aitmatov appears to be the source of this tale, but as noted in the above New Yorker article and a 2008 Reuters obituary for Aitmatov, he wrote in "elliptical, allegorical ways," and his works "often interwove popular myths and folktales to create allegorical themes populated with down-to-earth characters." Aitmatov acknowledged that of himself as well, writing in the introduction to his novel "The Day Lasts More Than a Hundred Years": |
FMD_train_1111 | We've cut taxes 50 times and look what has happened to our revenues. They've grown. | 02/04/2016 | [] | Gov. Rick Scotts $1 billion tax-cut request is giving the Florida Legislature plenty to chew on, especially after state economists warned that revenues wont be as high as once thought. Scott wantsa range of cuts, including a reduction in the sales tax on commercial rents and a $770 million break for manufacturers and retailers by getting rid of their corporate income tax. Despite concerns over how the size of his request will affect the budget, Scott was confident the math makes it an easy decision for lawmakers. We have plenty of money to be able to do tax cuts, Scott saidJan. 20, 2016, after state economists warned tax revenues would be less than previously estimated. Let's look at history. We've cut taxes 50 times and look what has happened to our revenues. They've grown. Scott hasused this linerepeatedly inrecent weeks. We wondered whether revenues have continued to grow even as Tallahassee has passed tax changes over recent years. Revenue roundup Scotts line about 50 tax cuts is a talking point that just keeps on growing. We have rated claims about him cutting24 tax cuts,40 tax cuts, andmore than 40 tax cuts,Half True, because Scott counted many small tax changes for specific industries as overall tax cuts. Whats new this time around, in a nutshell, are 16 provisions passed in 2015, most of which were part of a$429 million tax-cut package. The full list is largely comprised of esoteric tax credits (mostly for businesses), changes in unemployment compensation and sales tax holidays. There also was a rate reduction on the Communications Services Tax on cellphone and cable servicethat amounts to about $21 per $100 on a billand a $60,000 cap on taxes for boat repairs. Several of those may help businesses, but really dont often do much for everyday Floridians, especially if they needed to collect unemployment. Many times, local governments may raise taxes to make up for their own lost revenue. In short, its arguable whether all of those qualify as tax cuts, but they did have an impact on how many tax dollars the state brought in. Economists told us, however, that while you can project how much year-over-year revenues may be changed from cuts, its tough to attribute any concrete economic growth to those changes. Because of overall economic growth, tax revenues have been rising since Scott became governor as the state was climbing out of the Great Recession. We surveyed several years of general revenue, which is funded by taxes and fees and can be used by the Legislature for any purpose, alongside the state's rate of economic growth. Fiscal year General revenue Growth rate 2008-09 $21 billion -12.8 percent 2009-10 $21.5 billion 2.4 percent 2010-11 $22.55 billion 4.8 percent 2011-12* $23.6 billion 4.7 percent 2012-13 $25.3 billion 7.2 percent 2013-14 $26.2 billion 3.5 percent 2014-15 $27.7 billion 5.7 percent 2015-16 $28.4 billion 2.1 percent State economist Amy Baker noted that even with Floridas economy growing, that growth rate is currently below the states historical average, and the cumulative effects of prior tax changes are eating into revenues more than expected. State budget forecasters have announced that tax revenues will come in at$400 million less than previously expected. Scotts office has rejected those figures in pursuit of his biggest round of tax cuts, saying the Legislature has plenty of money to play with. But while its apparent that revenues have gone up even as Scotts tax changes have been implemented, experts said its tough to directly link them. They said there are three main reasons Floridas revenues have grown during the nationwide recovery: Population growth, rising property values and overall inflation. More than 1 million people have moved to Florida since 2010, property values are recovering from the housing bust, and inflation makes tax collections go up as costs go up. Basically, more people are paying more taxes on things that cost more. Norton Francis, senior research associate with the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, said that despite being thethird-largest state, the growth rate for Floridas tax revenues has started tolag behind the national average. What you need to look at is, are (tax revenues) growing more than they used to? Norton asked. It could be that its come back as a whole, but its hard to pin that to a tax cut. Our ruling Scott said, We've cut taxes 50 times and look what has happened to our revenues. They've grown. Scott has a debatable definition of tax cuts, but the states tax revenues have increased since he took office. Economists told us it would be difficult to attribute growth specifically to tax changes. The national economic recovery, population growth, higher property values and inflation are the major factors for the states growth. The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. We rate it Mostly True. | [
"State Budget",
"Taxes",
"Florida"
] | [] | True | Scott wantsa range of cuts, including a reduction in the sales tax on commercial rents and a $770 million break for manufacturers and retailers by getting rid of their corporate income tax. Despite concerns over how the size of his request will affect the budget, Scott was confident the math makes it an easy decision for lawmakers.We have plenty of money to be able to do tax cuts, Scott saidJan. 20, 2016, after state economists warned tax revenues would be less than previously estimated. Let's look at history. We've cut taxes 50 times and look what has happened to our revenues. They've grown.Scott hasused this linerepeatedly inrecent weeks. We wondered whether revenues have continued to grow even as Tallahassee has passed tax changes over recent years.Scotts line about 50 tax cuts is a talking point that just keeps on growing. We have rated claims about him cutting24 tax cuts,40 tax cuts, andmore than 40 tax cuts,Half True, because Scott counted many small tax changes for specific industries as overall tax cuts.Whats new this time around, in a nutshell, are 16 provisions passed in 2015, most of which were part of a$429 million tax-cut package. The full list is largely comprised of esoteric tax credits (mostly for businesses), changes in unemployment compensation and sales tax holidays. There also was a rate reduction on the Communications Services Tax on cellphone and cable servicethat amounts to about $21 per $100 on a billand a $60,000 cap on taxes for boat repairs.State budget forecasters have announced that tax revenues will come in at$400 million less than previously expected. Scotts office has rejected those figures in pursuit of his biggest round of tax cuts, saying the Legislature has plenty of money to play with.Norton Francis, senior research associate with the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, said that despite being thethird-largest state, the growth rate for Floridas tax revenues has started tolag behind the national average. |
FMD_train_1564 | The distressing experience of an Alabama mother under the Obamacare healthcare system. | 01/02/2014 | [
"Alabama mom's Obamacare horror story gives America a glimpse of government run healthcare."
] | Claim: Alabama mom's Obamacare horror story gives America a glimpse of government run healthcare. CORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED Example: [Collected on the Internet, December 2013] My family's journey with securing our new insurance under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) started on October 1, 2013. I have decided to write this letter to let the American people know what it has been like for us. We are a family of four, with two little boys' ages seven years old and three years old. My husband and I have had full time jobs for 6 years and 13 years respectively. We have been with the same two companies for those years. We are a middle class family; we own our three bedroom two bath house, we own two cars, and previously provided our own insurance for the four of us. We have coverage through Individual Blue from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama until 12/31/13. Our premiums have been $380.00 a month, which also included dental coverage for all four of us. On October, 1, 2013 we received our letters like other Alabamians about our new premiums and plans for 2014 from Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) of Alabama. When I opened our letter to say I had sticker shock was an understatement. Our premiums for the Blue Saver Silver would now be $753.26. This included the ACA tax but did not include the additional $75.00 we would need to pay in order to keep dental for me and my husband. So we would need to pay total $828.26 to keep health and dental insurance for the four of us. This payment is roughly $64.00 less than what we pay for our mortgage each month. I was outraged that anyone thought we could afford this. Sure we have some savings, but with that price tag we would whittle it down to almost nothing very quickly. I consider savings as a rainy day fund, a start to saving for the kids college, our retirement, etc. I never dreamed in a million years we would need to use it to pay our insurance premiums each month how in the world could this help the economy too? [Rest of article here.] here Origins: The item referenced above, an open detailing one Alabama woman's extreme difficulty and frustration in obtaining ACA-compliant health insurance coverage for her family (including her 7-year-old son with ADHD) was posted under the name of Karri Kinder on 23 December 2013 as the sole entry in a blog and was republished (without additional comment) by the Independent Journal Review on 31 December 2013. blog republished Certainly her experience is not unique in kind, as many residents of Alabama covered by Blue Cross and Blue Shield (BCBS) of Alabama (an insurer who has an 88% share of the state's health insurance market) found out at the end of 2013 that they would be paying much higher premiums for ACA-compliant coverage through BCBS: Doug Hoffman, who works statewide to help people sign up for benefits through the Affordable Care Act, just received a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama notice in the mail to find health insurance rates for his family have doubled. And he's mad at Blue Cross. "I just got my benefits renewal from Blue Cross for next year and they doubled my rate!" he wrote AL.com in an email. "I was paying $675 for a family premium (2 adults, one 22 yo dependent) with a $1,500 deducible. The new rate for a comparable plan is $1,360 with a $3,000 deductible. Basically they have doubled my costs." "It appears as though Blue Cross is taking advantage of the ACA by hiking rates big time," said Hoffman, who is based in Birmingham with Enroll Alabama. Others, who have received the notices from the state's dominant health insurer are mad as well at Obamacare. "Obama thinks that he is making insurance affordable," wrote one reader to the Mobile Press Register Sound Off feature. "I just got a letter from my Blue Cross Blue Shield that if I want to keep their insurance it's going to cost me $300 more a month. I already pay $300 a month now and they're wanting right at $600 a month for this Affordable Care Act." Blue Cross posted an explanation for the rate hikes to its Facebook page, maintaining that several reasons are behind the increased premiums: more taxes and fees, a requirement to rate family members individually, and the elimination of health underwriting and waiting periods for preexisting conditions: explanation The new law requires all health insurance companies in the individual and small group markets to use a consistent rating method called "member level rating." For the individual market, this means each person on an insurance policy will now be rated based on age, whether he or she uses tobacco, and the county in which the policy holder lives. In the past Blue Cross was able to offer one family premium, no matter the size. For family plans, most family members will now be rated individually. Once each person has been rated, the amounts are added together to get a family's premium cost. For children age 20 and younger, the oldest three children will be individually rated and included in the family premium amount. As a result, larger families may experience higher premiums. As Mike Oliver noted in an article for AL.com, the elimination of health underwriting may have a substantial effect on health insurance premiums in that state: article "Alabama has allowed medical underwriting you're going to be quoted a high premium if you have something wrong with you," said Michael Morrisey, director of the University of Alabama at Birmingham Lister Hill Center for Health Policy. "The Affordable Care Act abolishes medical underwriting." This means that those with expensive health problems will likely now jump in and buy coverage because it will be less expensive for them or if they already have coverage their rates will go down. But that also means rates will go up for everyone else as the insurer spreads that new cost around. "The thing that happens when you eliminate underwriting is that you lump dissimilar people together," Morrisey said. "When you combine groups, one group is better off and the other group is worse off" in terms of premium prices. As a policy, the elimination of medical underwriting and preexisting condition clauses helps broaden access to health care coverage and that was the aim of its inclusion in the Affordable Care Act. Reformers say it eliminates insurers from "cherry-picking" and reduces uncompensated care. Karri Kinder subsequently posted followups to her original blog entry about her insurance issue, the update of 4 January 2014 stating that: Karri Kinder blog entry I do have some good news. Because I decided to write my letter and speak out, people stepped up and helped us. We were contacted on January 1, 2014 by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. I was told by the woman I spoke with that she had read my letter and wanted to get her team involved and see what they could do to help us. I recounted to her what was happening and that I had been advised to go ahead and sign me and my husband up for a plan on healthcare.gov. We went with a lower cost plan because it was going to just be the two of us. We had no idea what it was going to cost for the children once we got some answers. So we went with BCBS Blue Value Saver plan. The cost of the plan is $459.19. We qualified for $255.00 in subsidies so the final cost of the plan to us is $204.19 each month. I told the lady that I would cancel that plan if I needed to. What we wanted was to have all of us on one plan like we always have been. She said, "If the kids qualify for All Kids then I am pretty sure they have to go that route or you will have to buy them a plan at the normal rate." So again we were told more than likely we will have to go through All Kids. She took the rest of our information down and said she was getting her team to work on it and would either call us back or All Kids would contact us. Last updated: 4 January 2014 Oliver, Mike. "Blue Cross in Alabama: We Didn't 'Cancel' Health Policies." AL.com. 2 December 2013. Walsh, Alex. "Obamacare, Big Blue, and You." AL.com. 31 December 2013. | [
"insurance"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1uz6IKLfQl0wgvi-404gBdjEHGF4CeEcV",
"image_caption": null
}
] | True | [Rest of article here.]Origins: The item referenced above, an open detailing one Alabama woman's extreme difficulty and frustration in obtaining ACA-compliant health insurance coverage for her family (including her 7-year-old son with ADHD) was posted under the name of Karri Kinder on 23 December 2013 as the sole entry in a blog and was republished (without additional comment) by the Independent Journal Review on 31 December 2013.Blue Cross posted an explanation for the rate hikes to its Facebook page, maintaining that several reasons are behind the increased premiums: more taxes and fees, a requirement to rate family members individually, and the elimination of health underwriting and waiting periods for preexisting conditions:As Mike Oliver noted in an article for AL.com, the elimination of health underwriting may have a substantial effect on health insurance premiums in that state:Karri Kinder subsequently posted followups to her original blog entry about her insurance issue, the update of 4 January 2014 stating that: |
FMD_train_776 | Did the U.S. Government Pay for Mitch McConnell's Polio Care in the 1940s? | 06/23/2017 | [
"Partisan web sites misrepresent the source of funding for the Republican senator's care as an infant in Alabama."
] | On 22 June 2017, the Occupy Democrats Facebook page posted a meme claiming that the United States government paid for Mitch McConnell's care and rehabilitation when the Republican senior senator contracted polio as an infant in the 1940s. meme This claim is contrasted, in the meme, with McConnell's support for the Senate Republican health care plan published that day: plan As a kid, Mitch McConnell had polio, and the government paid for ALL of his care and rehabilitation. Now, as the leader of the Republicans in the Senate, McConnell is taking government-funded care away from tens of millions of Americans. Let that sink in. An article accompanying this meme reports that government-sponsored, publicly funded healthcare saved the young McConnell's life: article Mitch McConnell has been relentlessly working to roll back Medicaid and deprive millions of Americans of government-sponsored healthcare coverage for eight years now. But if it werent for the government, McConnell wouldnt be able to walk at all. Young Mitch came down with a terrible case of polio as a child in Alabama. My mother was, of course, like many mothers of young polio victims, perplexed about what to do, anxious about whether I would be disabled for the rest of my life he admitted in a 2005 interview. But luckily for him, his mother took him 50 miles to the Warm Springs, where President Roosevelt won his own battle with polio and established a polio treatment center that was paid for by the public. President Roosevelt asked the people of America to send in dimes to the White House as part of his March of the Dimes foundation. Over two and a half million dimes were mailed in, and they paid for Mitchs physical therapy and treatment. A Death and Taxes article posted on the same date reports a similar story: article How did Warm springs fund McConnells therapy, you ask? This was two decades before Lyndon Johnson launched federal health coverage by signing into law the creation of Medicare and Medicaid. In the mid-30s, Roosevelt and his law partner Basil OConnor founded the Georgia Warm Springs Foundation and started organizing fundraising balls around the country. By 1938, however, the balls grew less effective and the president needed a new strategy. Using a phrase coined by vaudeville entertainer Eddie Cantor, March of Dimes a spin on the popular newsreel series March of Time Roosevelt founded the March of Dimes foundation and launched a campaign asking the public to mail ten-cent donations to the White House. Within a month, Roosevelt received around 2,680,000 dimes. The campaign continued through WWII. McConnell started visiting Warm Springs in 1944. In other words, he overcame polio with the help of public money allocated by the White House. Mitch McConnell has often told the story of his childhood affliction with polio, and the role of FDR's Warm Springs rehabilitation center in his recovery. In his 2016 memoir The Long Game, McConnell recounted how he was struck with polio at the age of two while staying with his mother in his aunt's home in Five Points, Alabama. memoir It's one of my life's great fortunes that Sister's home was only about sixty miles from Warm Springs, Georgia, where President Franklin D. Roosevelt had established a polio treatment center and where he'd often travel to find relief from the polio that paralyzed him at the age of thirty-nine. My mother took me there every chance she had. The nurses would teach her how to perform exercises meant to rehabilitate my leg while also emphasizing her need to make me believe I could walk, even though I wasn't allowed to. So it's clear that Mitch McConnell did indeed receive significant help primarily in the form of physical therapy and physical therapy training for his mother from the polio rehabilitation center established by Roosevelt at Warm Springs, Georgia. However, neither this particular center nor the care given to McConnell were government-funded. Roosevelt purchased the property at Warm Springs, Georgia and established a center there in 1927, having visited frequently for therapy for his own polio, which he contracted in 1921. He (and others) set up the Warm Springs Foundation, a nonprofit organization that depended on wealthy philanthropists and donations from members of the public. 1927 In 1934, Basil O'Connor (once a partner at Roosevelt's law firm and a close associate of the recently-elected President) began organizing fundraising for the Warm Springs Foundation, set around the President's birthday celebrations each year. Within four years, these birthday balls had raised $1,350,030 for the Warm Springs rehabilitation center (the equivalent of $23.3 million in 2017). equivalent In September 1937, Roosevelt reconstituted the Warm Springs Foundation as the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis (as polio was then widely known); in January 1938, the directors of the foundation launched the first "March of Dimes", a phrase coined by vaudeville star Eddie Cantor who helped promote a nationwide fundraising drive which attracted the support of Hollywood stars as well as charitable middle-class families giving 10 cents each. In six months, the March of Dimes raised $81,073 (which would be about $1.4 million in 2017). In July 1938, the New York Times published a detailed auditor's report, which offered a breakdown of donations and expenditure. report Some aspects of the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis perhaps reflect a more innocent time. For example, the hundreds of thousands of dimes sent by members of the public were processed at the White House and a cheque was given to Roosevelt, who then turned it over to O'Connor for distribution via the Foundation. However, in many ways the operation was a precursor of the professional, almost corporate style of non-profit fundraising and campaigning that has followed since. For example, a large portion of funds raised in 1938 came from attendees at 8,000 Presidential birthday balls throughout the country, labor organizations contributed the equivalent of $760,000, and the Western Union and Postal Telegraph companies wrote off the cost of thousands of birthday greetings sent to the President at 25 cents per message. The following year, charity sporting events were held throughout the country, and badges were distributed to donors as part of an awareness-raising "Give a Dime and Wear a Button" campaign. year Funds raised for the Warm Springs Foundation and National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis were also distributed in the form of research grants to scientists hoping for a breakthrough in the treatment of polio. grants This came to fruition in the 1950s when Dr. Jonas Salk who had received a grant from the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis developed a successful polio vaccine. Jonas Salk The Warm Springs center that helped in Mitch McConnell's recovery was indeed founded by Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was President at the time McConnell was struck by the disease, in 1944. Roosevelt was the driving force behind both the Warm Springs Foundation and its successor, the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis, and used his political office to energetically promote fundraising for polio care and research. The funding came from the kindness and charity of the public, as well as wealthy celebrities and large corporations. However, it was operated as an innovative, nationwide nonprofit organization, not a federal or state agency, and it was not taxpayer or government-funded. The Warm Springs center visited by McConnell remained owned and operated by a nonprofit organization until 1974, when the state of Georgia took it over, making it truly government-run. Since 2014, it has been owned and operated by Augusta University. Augusta University McConnell, Mitch. "The Long Game." (pg 9,10).
Penguin Random House. 31 May 2016. New York Times. "$1,350,030 Raised for Warm Springs."
New York Times Archive. 16 January 1938. New York Times. "Net of $1,021,034 to Paralysis Fund."
New York Times Archive. 7 July 1938. New York Times. "Sport World Aids in Paralysis Drive."
New York Times Archive. 27 December 1938. | [
"profit"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1uKzSUu5PtzJJMlrd8SjcMOT3BQjny9Yx",
"image_caption": null
}
] | False | On 22 June 2017, the Occupy Democrats Facebook page posted a meme claiming that the United States government paid for Mitch McConnell's care and rehabilitation when the Republican senior senator contracted polio as an infant in the 1940s.This claim is contrasted, in the meme, with McConnell's support for the Senate Republican health care plan published that day:An article accompanying this meme reports that government-sponsored, publicly funded healthcare saved the young McConnell's life:A Death and Taxes article posted on the same date reports a similar story: In his 2016 memoir The Long Game, McConnell recounted how he was struck with polio at the age of two while staying with his mother in his aunt's home in Five Points, Alabama. Roosevelt purchased the property at Warm Springs, Georgia and established a center there in 1927, having visited frequently for therapy for his own polio, which he contracted in 1921. He (and others) set up the Warm Springs Foundation, a nonprofit organization that depended on wealthy philanthropists and donations from members of the public. In 1934, Basil O'Connor (once a partner at Roosevelt's law firm and a close associate of the recently-elected President) began organizing fundraising for the Warm Springs Foundation, set around the President's birthday celebrations each year. Within four years, these birthday balls had raised $1,350,030 for the Warm Springs rehabilitation center (the equivalent of $23.3 million in 2017).In six months, the March of Dimes raised $81,073 (which would be about $1.4 million in 2017). In July 1938, the New York Times published a detailed auditor's report, which offered a breakdown of donations and expenditure.For example, a large portion of funds raised in 1938 came from attendees at 8,000 Presidential birthday balls throughout the country, labor organizations contributed the equivalent of $760,000, and the Western Union and Postal Telegraph companies wrote off the cost of thousands of birthday greetings sent to the President at 25 cents per message. The following year, charity sporting events were held throughout the country, and badges were distributed to donors as part of an awareness-raising "Give a Dime and Wear a Button" campaign. Funds raised for the Warm Springs Foundation and National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis were also distributed in the form of research grants to scientists hoping for a breakthrough in the treatment of polio.This came to fruition in the 1950s when Dr. Jonas Salk who had received a grant from the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis developed a successful polio vaccine. However, it was operated as an innovative, nationwide nonprofit organization, not a federal or state agency, and it was not taxpayer or government-funded. The Warm Springs center visited by McConnell remained owned and operated by a nonprofit organization until 1974, when the state of Georgia took it over, making it truly government-run. Since 2014, it has been owned and operated by Augusta University. |
FMD_train_307 | When this campaign began, I said that weve got to end the starvation minimum wage of $7.25, raise it to $15. Secretary Clinton said let's raise it to $12. | 04/15/2016 | [] | Does Hillary Clinton think the federal minimum wage should be $12 an hour or $15? This question produced one of the more heated exchanges in an April 14 Democratic presidential debate between Clinton and her opponent, Sen. Bernie Sanders, starting when Clinton asserted that she has continuously supported the Fight for $15 advocacy campaign. "I have supported the Fight for $15," Clinton said. "I am proud to have the endorsement of most of the unions that have led the Fight for $15." To Sanders, that was news. "I am sure a lot of people are very surprised to learn that you supported raising the minimum wage to 15 bucks an hour," Sanders said. "When this campaign began, I said that we've got to end the starvation minimum wage of $7.25 and raise it to $15. Secretary Clinton said let's raise it to $12." An extended back-and-forth followed. We are putting Sanders' claim on the Truth-O-Meter. He is correct that Clinton's official position is to raise the national minimum wage to $12 as a floor. However, she has also shown support for the Fight for $15 campaign, which pushes for higher minimums in individual states and cities. Here’s what Clinton's website says on that point: "Hillary believes we are long overdue in raising the minimum wage. She has supported raising the federal minimum wage to $12 and believes that we should go further than the federal minimum through state and local efforts, and workers organizing and bargaining for higher wages, such as the Fight for $15 and recent efforts in Los Angeles and New York to raise their minimum wage to $15." In June 2015, early in her campaign, Clinton spoke with a gathering of Fight for $15 members via phone and told them she supported their campaign. "All of you should not have to march in the streets to get a living wage, but thank you for marching in the streets to get that living wage," she said, according to the Washington Post. A few days later, Clinton delivered a campaign kickoff speech in which she called for raising the minimum wage, but she did not specify a number. Her support for the $12 minimum wage proposal seems to have emerged around July 2015, when she praised legislation proposed by Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., arguing that it would be more politically feasible. "Let's not just do it for the sake of having a higher number out there," she said, according to the New York Times. "But let's get behind a proposal that actually has a chance of succeeding." By November, Clinton had started to say plainly that she prefers a $12 federal minimum wage. In the same month, though, she tweeted with the hashtag #FightFor15. What about Sanders? He is correct that he has advocated specifically for a $15 minimum wage since his campaign began. "Let us be honest and acknowledge that millions of Americans are now working for totally inadequate wages," he said as part of his May 2015 announcement. "The current federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour is a starvation wage and must be raised. The minimum wage must become a living wage, which means raising it to $15 an hour over the next few years." A couple of months earlier, in March 2015, he put forward an amendment to eventually raise the minimum wage to $15. He also put forth legislation in July 2015. Our ruling: Sanders said, "When this campaign began, I said that we've got to end the starvation minimum wage of $7.25 and raise it to $15. Secretary Clinton said let's raise it to $12." Since the start of his campaign, Sanders has advocated for a $15 minimum wage. Since early on in her campaign, Clinton has supported the Fight for $15's efforts in individual cities and states. But her official position is that she prefers a $12 federal minimum wage as a floor, allowing cities and states to go further. Sanders has a point that he is calling for a federal minimum wage that would be $3 more an hour than what Clinton says she favors. However, he misses the nuance that Clinton is also supportive of local efforts to raise the minimum wage to $15. We rate his claim Mostly True. | [
"National",
"Economy",
"Income"
] | [] | True | Heres whatClintons website sayson that point:In June 2015, early on in her campaign, Clinton spoke with a gathering ofFight for $15members via phone and told them she supported their campaign.All of you should not have to march in the streets to get a living wage, but thank you for marching in the streets to get that living wage, she said,according to theWashington Post.A few days later, Clinton delivered acampaign kickoff speechin which she called for raising the minimum wage, but she did not specify a number.Lets not just do it for the sake of having a higher number out there, she said, according to theNew York Times. But lets get behind a proposal that actually has a chance of succeeding.By November,Clinton had started to say plainly that she prefers a $12 federal minimum wage. In the same month, though,she tweetedwith the hashtag #FightFor15.Let us be honest and acknowledge that millions of Americans are now working for totally inadequate wages, he said as part of hisMay 2015 announcement. The current federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour is a starvation wage and must be raised. The minimum wage must become a living wage, which means raising it to $15 an hour over the next few years.A couple months earlier, in March 2015,he put forward an amendmentto eventually raise the minimum wage to $15. He also put forth legislation inJuly 2015. |
FMD_train_443 | Did a BLM Organizer Say, 'I Don't Care If Someone Decides to Loot'? | 08/28/2020 | [
"Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot said of the looting, This is not legitimate First Amendment-protected speech ... This was straight-up felony, criminal conduct."
] | After the police shooting of 20-year-old Latrell Allen in Chicago's Englewood community on the afternoon of Aug. 9, 2020, unrest in that city extended through that night and into the early morning hours of the following day, with looters hitting some stores in Chicagos wealthiest shopping district on North Michigan Avenue. Latrell Allen extended The following evening, members of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement held a solidarity rally in that city with some of the people who had been arrested for looting the night before. Shortly after those events, social media users began circulating a meme stemming from that event, quoting a "BLM leader & organizer" named Ariel Atkins as saying, "I don't care if someone decides to loot, because that makes sure that person eats or has clothes. Anything they want to take, they can, because these businesses have insurance": That was an accurate quote, according to Chicago NBC affiliate WMAQ-TV, who reported on the Aug. 10 event: reported Members of Black Lives Matter held a solidarity rally on Monday night [August 10] with the more than 100 individuals who were arrested after a night of looting and unrest in Chicago. The rally was held at the South Loop police station where organizers say those individuals are currently being held in custody. I dont care if someone decides to loot a Gucci or a Macys or a Nike store, because that makes sure that person eats, Ariel Atkins, a BLM organizer, said. That makes sure that person has clothes. Black Lives Matter Chicago organized the rally after overnight unrest throughout the city, with police saying that more than 100 individuals were taken into custody for a variety of offenses, including looting. That is reparations, Atkins said. Anything they wanted to take, they can take it because these businesses have insurance. Atkins said essentially the same thing a few days later, when she was interviewed by Chicago NPR station WBEZ on the subject of "why she supports looting": interviewed A lot of people are really attacking our pages. Theyre like, Oh, you support the looters. And yeah, we do, 100%. Thats reparations. And like however people choose to protest, especially if it was definitely in line with what happened with the shooting, which would be powerful to see people reacting ... without organizers just being like, Were angry and this is what were gonna do. Were gonna take the power back. I feel like these stores, these Macys, these Guccis, the PNC Banks, theyre not here for us. The city puts way more money and investment into spending time and protecting their spaces and making sure that they exist. And yet our people are constantly being pushed out of the city ... Unemployment is incredibly high, like we are in an incredible situation, and the fact that anybody gives a s*** about these businesses over what is happening in this city right now and the pain that people are in and the suffering that is taking place, I dont care. I will support the looters till the end of the day. If thats what they need to do in order to eat, then thats what youve got to do to eat .... The whole idea of criminality is based on racism anyway, because criminality is punishing people for things that they have needed to do to survive or just the way that society has affected them with white supremacist B.S. So its like her deciding what is criminal and what isnt. WMAQ-TV [Chicago]. "Black Lives Matter Holds Rally Supporting Individuals Arrested in Chicago Looting Monday."
10 August 2020. Black, Curtis. &nbps; "Latrell Allen Police Shooting Exposes Gaps in Body Camera and Foot Pursuit Policies."
The Chicago Reporter. 14 August 2020. Yoon-Ji Kang, Esther. "Officers Disrespected Englewood Residents Following Police Shooting, Activists Say."
WBEZ [Chicago]. 10 August 2020. Wildeboer, Rob and Chip Mitchell. "Officers Disrespected Englewood Residents Following Police Shooting, Activists Say."
WBEZ [Chicago]. 12 August 2020. | [
"insurance"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1kZxsnK_iP1Eix3XpEGWrMuqMzgJKaOaU",
"image_caption": null
}
] | True | After the police shooting of 20-year-old Latrell Allen in Chicago's Englewood community on the afternoon of Aug. 9, 2020, unrest in that city extended through that night and into the early morning hours of the following day, with looters hitting some stores in Chicagos wealthiest shopping district on North Michigan Avenue.That was an accurate quote, according to Chicago NBC affiliate WMAQ-TV, who reported on the Aug. 10 event:Atkins said essentially the same thing a few days later, when she was interviewed by Chicago NPR station WBEZ on the subject of "why she supports looting": |
FMD_train_1095 | Half of all CEOs say that the shutdown and the threat of shutdown set back their plans to hire over the next six months. | 10/21/2013 | [] | After a Senate deal brought the 16-day government shutdown to a close, President Barack Obama wanted to make sure the impact of narrowly avoiding a default wasnt lost on the nation. These last few weeks have inflicted completely unnecessary damage on our economy, he said in apublic addressThursday. As proof, he offered up specific claims including, Half of all CEOs say that the shutdown and the threat of shutdown set back their plans to hire over the next six months. PolitiFact wanted to know whether Obamas CEO statistic was accurate. The White Housepointed us to a recentBusiness Roundtable survey. Fifty percent of responding CEOs indicated that the ongoing disagreement in Washington over the 2014 budget and the debt ceiling is having a negative impact on their plans for hiring additional employees over the next six months, the report reads. On its face, thats in line with what Obama said, but we wanted to see how Business Roundtable acquired their results. They would not disclose their exact question wording to us. Their report notes, Responses were received from 134 member CEOs, 63 percent of the total Business Roundtable membership. Business Roundtables membership tends to be larger companies.Spokeswoman Amanda DeBard told us CEOs are invited based on revenue, industry and market capitalization, soits safe to say the poll responses dont reflect a random sample of U.S. businesses. Since Obama often speaks to the Business Roundtable, we wanted to see what his relationship with the group was like. University of Kansas political science professor Burdett Loomis, who specializes in lobbying, said theres not much of a connection. Many of them have long-term relationships with government (simply because of their size and the governments size), but probably only a handful have any kind of even semi-close relationship with Obama, he said. We ran the poll results by another business group,the National Federation of Independent Businesses. Senior policy analyst Holly Wade said she saw a similar sentiment among the smaller business owners that the federation represents. In September, there were more small business owners that were feeling pessimistic about business conditions six months out, she said. There wasnt much opinion voiced about delaying employment specifically, though. But Wade said that could be because small businesses were already hiring less during the economic recovery compared to bigger corporations. Why would CEOs want to delay hiring? With another possible debt ceiling default looming Feb. 7, University of Maryland finance professor David Kass said its likely that a budget dealwill lead to tighter fiscal policy, which would slow down the economy and cause CEOs to put off hiring decisions for a few months. Another factor that would contribute to CEO anxiety is consumer behavior. While day-to-day spending probably wont change post-shutdown, consumers will likely postpone higher ticket purchases, like homes and cars. On the demand side, theres uncertainty on the consumers part, which in turn will have an impact on CEOs, Kass said. Theyre trying to predict their future sales and what the environment will look like. Its a lose-lose situation for everyone. In any case, Obama is trying to communicate that the shutdown had a significantfinancial impacton the nation, and hes not wrong there. Independent forecasts agree that the shutdown was a setback for the U.S. economy, though they differ on exact figures. Our ruling Obama said 50 percent of CEOs are delaying hiring due to the shutdown, which accurately cites the results of a poll sponsored by the Business Roundtable. The surveys limited sampling, though, means the responses arent necessarily representative of all U.S. businesses. But the idea that the shutdown affects how businesses think about hiring is more broadly applicable. Experts said its reasonable that CEOs would be hesitant to hire, given that uncertainty about government fiscal policy can affect consumer confidence. We rate Obama's claim Mostly True | [
"National",
"Economy",
"Small Business"
] | [] | True | These last few weeks have inflicted completely unnecessary damage on our economy, he said in apublic addressThursday. As proof, he offered up specific claims including, Half of all CEOs say that the shutdown and the threat of shutdown set back their plans to hire over the next six months.The White Housepointed us to a recentBusiness Roundtable survey.In any case, Obama is trying to communicate that the shutdown had a significantfinancial impacton the nation, and hes not wrong there. Independent forecasts agree that the shutdown was a setback for the U.S. economy, though they differ on exact figures. |
FMD_train_1074 | Did Steve Scalise Attend a White Supremacist Convention? | 12/28/2014 | [
"\"Throughout his career in public service, Mr. Scalise has spoken to hundreds of different groups with a broad range of viewpoints.\""
] | On 28 December 2014, the website CenLamar published an article titled "House Majority Whip Steve Scalise Was Reportedly an Honored Guest at 2002 International White Supremacist Convention." According to the site, current House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, then a Louisiana state representative, was a guest speaker at an event hosted by the European-American Unity and Rights Organization (EURO), a group headed by former Klan leader and neo-Nazi David Duke, at the Landmark Best Western Hotel in Metairie, Louisiana, in May 2002. (EURO was a renamed version of Duke's NOFEAR group that advocated fighting for "white civil rights" for "Europeans and Americans wherever they may live.") The dozen years that elapsed between the EURO event in 2002 and the article's publication in 2014 made it markedly difficult to investigate the article's claims. At the time of the convention, much internet-based political discussion occurred solely on message boards, many of which have long since been retired due to inactivity, abandoned, or become otherwise inaccessible for a variety of reasons. Following the article's publication, the claim was circulated and reposted on a number of left-leaning websites. This repetition created the impression that multiple sources were documenting the claim, but the information all pointed back to the same single source: Stormfront.org, a white supremacist message board with a lengthy and notorious history on the web. A 2002 post claiming Scalise attended the EURO conference held in Metairie that year became suddenly notable in late 2014. In that post, the writer stated that EURO's recent national convention held in the greater New Orleans area was a convergence of ideas represented by Americans from diverse geographical regions like California, Texas, New Jersey, and the Carolinas. This indicates that concerns held are pervasive in every sovereign state and republic alike, within an increasingly diminishing view of where America stands on individual liberty for whites. In addition to plans to implement tactical strategies that were discussed, the meeting was productive locally as State Representative Steve Scalise discussed ways to oversee the gross mismanagement of tax revenue or " | [
"funds"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1W6sMlZAwPA7tROo-OyUAg1jg6nGuxPTB",
"image_caption": null
}
] | NEI | On 28 December 2014, the web site CenLamar published an article titled "House Majority Whip Steve Scalise Was Reportedly an Honored Guest at 2002 International White Supremacist Convention." According to the site, current House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, then a Louisiana state representative, was a guest speaker at an event hosted by the European-American Unity and Rights Organization (EURO), a group headed by former Klan leader and neo-Nazi David Duke, at the Landmark Best Western Hotel in Metairie, Louisiana, in May 2002. (EURO was a renamed version of Duke's NOFEAR group that advocated fighting for "white civil rights" for "Europeans and Americans wherever they may live.")A 2002 post claiming Scalise attended the EURO conference held in Metairie that year became suddenly notable in late 2014. In that post, the writer stated:Aside from the single mention by a single user on one internet forum back in 2002, no other record of such an appearance by Scalise emerged. A newsletter of indeterminate origin appearing to be the work of David Duke, EURO's founder, listed the May 2002 event's speakers but did not mention Scalise:Scalise himself also seemingly confirmed that he addressed a EURO group (again without actually stating that he did) in an interview with the New Orleans Time-Picayune, asserting that he didn't remember speaking at the event:Kenny Knight, a longtime associate of David Duke who said he booked space for the 2002 EURO conference, asserted that Scalise didn't actually speak at the EURO conference itself, but rather to a contingent of people (including some EURO attendees) who had gathered earlier in the day prior to the EURO conference kick-off:However, the Times-Picayune then poked holes in a number of Knight's statements, namely his claims that he was not himself a member of EURO, did not line up speakers for the 2002 EURO conference, and was not himself present at the conference:EURO head David Duke himself stated in a Washington Post interview that Scalise had indeed been invited to address the EURO gathering and had accepted that invitation and was present at the conference (although Duke was not himself present at the event and therefore didn't personally witness whatever Scalise may have done there): |
FMD_train_730 | Was Mitch McConnell's polio treatment in the 1940s funded by the U.S. Government? | 06/23/2017 | [
"Partisan web sites misrepresent the source of funding for the Republican senator's care as an infant in Alabama."
] | On 22 June 2017, the Occupy Democrats Facebook page posted a meme claiming that the United States government paid for Mitch McConnell's care and rehabilitation when the Republican senior senator contracted polio as an infant in the 1940s. meme This claim is contrasted, in the meme, with McConnell's support for the Senate Republican health care plan published that day: plan As a kid, Mitch McConnell had polio, and the government paid for ALL of his care and rehabilitation. Now, as the leader of the Republicans in the Senate, McConnell is taking government-funded care away from tens of millions of Americans. Let that sink in. An article accompanying this meme reports that government-sponsored, publicly funded healthcare saved the young McConnell's life: article Mitch McConnell has been relentlessly working to roll back Medicaid and deprive millions of Americans of government-sponsored healthcare coverage for eight years now. But if it werent for the government, McConnell wouldnt be able to walk at all. Young Mitch came down with a terrible case of polio as a child in Alabama. My mother was, of course, like many mothers of young polio victims, perplexed about what to do, anxious about whether I would be disabled for the rest of my life he admitted in a 2005 interview. But luckily for him, his mother took him 50 miles to the Warm Springs, where President Roosevelt won his own battle with polio and established a polio treatment center that was paid for by the public. President Roosevelt asked the people of America to send in dimes to the White House as part of his March of the Dimes foundation. Over two and a half million dimes were mailed in, and they paid for Mitchs physical therapy and treatment. A Death and Taxes article posted on the same date reports a similar story: article How did Warm springs fund McConnells therapy, you ask? This was two decades before Lyndon Johnson launched federal health coverage by signing into law the creation of Medicare and Medicaid. In the mid-30s, Roosevelt and his law partner Basil OConnor founded the Georgia Warm Springs Foundation and started organizing fundraising balls around the country. By 1938, however, the balls grew less effective and the president needed a new strategy. Using a phrase coined by vaudeville entertainer Eddie Cantor, March of Dimes a spin on the popular newsreel series March of Time Roosevelt founded the March of Dimes foundation and launched a campaign asking the public to mail ten-cent donations to the White House. Within a month, Roosevelt received around 2,680,000 dimes. The campaign continued through WWII. McConnell started visiting Warm Springs in 1944. In other words, he overcame polio with the help of public money allocated by the White House. Mitch McConnell has often told the story of his childhood affliction with polio, and the role of FDR's Warm Springs rehabilitation center in his recovery. In his 2016 memoir The Long Game, McConnell recounted how he was struck with polio at the age of two while staying with his mother in his aunt's home in Five Points, Alabama. memoir It's one of my life's great fortunes that Sister's home was only about sixty miles from Warm Springs, Georgia, where President Franklin D. Roosevelt had established a polio treatment center and where he'd often travel to find relief from the polio that paralyzed him at the age of thirty-nine. My mother took me there every chance she had. The nurses would teach her how to perform exercises meant to rehabilitate my leg while also emphasizing her need to make me believe I could walk, even though I wasn't allowed to. So it's clear that Mitch McConnell did indeed receive significant help primarily in the form of physical therapy and physical therapy training for his mother from the polio rehabilitation center established by Roosevelt at Warm Springs, Georgia. However, neither this particular center nor the care given to McConnell were government-funded. Roosevelt purchased the property at Warm Springs, Georgia and established a center there in 1927, having visited frequently for therapy for his own polio, which he contracted in 1921. He (and others) set up the Warm Springs Foundation, a nonprofit organization that depended on wealthy philanthropists and donations from members of the public. 1927 In 1934, Basil O'Connor (once a partner at Roosevelt's law firm and a close associate of the recently-elected President) began organizing fundraising for the Warm Springs Foundation, set around the President's birthday celebrations each year. Within four years, these birthday balls had raised $1,350,030 for the Warm Springs rehabilitation center (the equivalent of $23.3 million in 2017). equivalent In September 1937, Roosevelt reconstituted the Warm Springs Foundation as the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis (as polio was then widely known); in January 1938, the directors of the foundation launched the first "March of Dimes", a phrase coined by vaudeville star Eddie Cantor who helped promote a nationwide fundraising drive which attracted the support of Hollywood stars as well as charitable middle-class families giving 10 cents each. In six months, the March of Dimes raised $81,073 (which would be about $1.4 million in 2017). In July 1938, the New York Times published a detailed auditor's report, which offered a breakdown of donations and expenditure. report Some aspects of the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis perhaps reflect a more innocent time. For example, the hundreds of thousands of dimes sent by members of the public were processed at the White House and a cheque was given to Roosevelt, who then turned it over to O'Connor for distribution via the Foundation. However, in many ways the operation was a precursor of the professional, almost corporate style of non-profit fundraising and campaigning that has followed since. For example, a large portion of funds raised in 1938 came from attendees at 8,000 Presidential birthday balls throughout the country, labor organizations contributed the equivalent of $760,000, and the Western Union and Postal Telegraph companies wrote off the cost of thousands of birthday greetings sent to the President at 25 cents per message. The following year, charity sporting events were held throughout the country, and badges were distributed to donors as part of an awareness-raising "Give a Dime and Wear a Button" campaign. year Funds raised for the Warm Springs Foundation and National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis were also distributed in the form of research grants to scientists hoping for a breakthrough in the treatment of polio. grants This came to fruition in the 1950s when Dr. Jonas Salk who had received a grant from the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis developed a successful polio vaccine. Jonas Salk The Warm Springs center that helped in Mitch McConnell's recovery was indeed founded by Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was President at the time McConnell was struck by the disease, in 1944. Roosevelt was the driving force behind both the Warm Springs Foundation and its successor, the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis, and used his political office to energetically promote fundraising for polio care and research. The funding came from the kindness and charity of the public, as well as wealthy celebrities and large corporations. However, it was operated as an innovative, nationwide nonprofit organization, not a federal or state agency, and it was not taxpayer or government-funded. The Warm Springs center visited by McConnell remained owned and operated by a nonprofit organization until 1974, when the state of Georgia took it over, making it truly government-run. Since 2014, it has been owned and operated by Augusta University. Augusta University McConnell, Mitch. "The Long Game." (pg 9,10).
Penguin Random House. 31 May 2016. New York Times. "$1,350,030 Raised for Warm Springs."
New York Times Archive. 16 January 1938. New York Times. "Net of $1,021,034 to Paralysis Fund."
New York Times Archive. 7 July 1938. New York Times. "Sport World Aids in Paralysis Drive."
New York Times Archive. 27 December 1938. | [
"profit"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1u6x4McJh-0TXvyt6AiT3_WnRNd0uoiaS",
"image_caption": null
}
] | False | On 22 June 2017, the Occupy Democrats Facebook page posted a meme claiming that the United States government paid for Mitch McConnell's care and rehabilitation when the Republican senior senator contracted polio as an infant in the 1940s.This claim is contrasted, in the meme, with McConnell's support for the Senate Republican health care plan published that day:An article accompanying this meme reports that government-sponsored, publicly funded healthcare saved the young McConnell's life:A Death and Taxes article posted on the same date reports a similar story: In his 2016 memoir The Long Game, McConnell recounted how he was struck with polio at the age of two while staying with his mother in his aunt's home in Five Points, Alabama. Roosevelt purchased the property at Warm Springs, Georgia and established a center there in 1927, having visited frequently for therapy for his own polio, which he contracted in 1921. He (and others) set up the Warm Springs Foundation, a nonprofit organization that depended on wealthy philanthropists and donations from members of the public. In 1934, Basil O'Connor (once a partner at Roosevelt's law firm and a close associate of the recently-elected President) began organizing fundraising for the Warm Springs Foundation, set around the President's birthday celebrations each year. Within four years, these birthday balls had raised $1,350,030 for the Warm Springs rehabilitation center (the equivalent of $23.3 million in 2017).In six months, the March of Dimes raised $81,073 (which would be about $1.4 million in 2017). In July 1938, the New York Times published a detailed auditor's report, which offered a breakdown of donations and expenditure.For example, a large portion of funds raised in 1938 came from attendees at 8,000 Presidential birthday balls throughout the country, labor organizations contributed the equivalent of $760,000, and the Western Union and Postal Telegraph companies wrote off the cost of thousands of birthday greetings sent to the President at 25 cents per message. The following year, charity sporting events were held throughout the country, and badges were distributed to donors as part of an awareness-raising "Give a Dime and Wear a Button" campaign. Funds raised for the Warm Springs Foundation and National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis were also distributed in the form of research grants to scientists hoping for a breakthrough in the treatment of polio.This came to fruition in the 1950s when Dr. Jonas Salk who had received a grant from the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis developed a successful polio vaccine. However, it was operated as an innovative, nationwide nonprofit organization, not a federal or state agency, and it was not taxpayer or government-funded. The Warm Springs center visited by McConnell remained owned and operated by a nonprofit organization until 1974, when the state of Georgia took it over, making it truly government-run. Since 2014, it has been owned and operated by Augusta University. |
FMD_train_1263 | Judge David Kithil's stance on the Affordable Care Act | 12/02/2009 | [
"Letter from Judge David Kithil provides line-item criticism of health care reform legislation."
] | Claim: Letter from Judge David Kithil provides accurate line item criticisms of "Obamacare" health care reform legislation. Examples: [Collected via e-mail, November 2009] I have reviewed selected sections of the bill and find it unbelievable that our Congress, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, could come up with a bill loaded with so many wrong-headed elements. We do need to reform the health insurance system in America in order to make coverage affordable and available to everyone. But, how many of us believe our federal government can manage a new program any better than the bankrupt Medicare program or the underfunded Social Security program? Both Republicans and Democrats are equally responsible for the financial mess of those two programs. I am opposed to HB 3200 for a number of reasons. To start with, it is estimated that a federal bureaucracy of more than 150,000 new employees will be required to administer HB3200. That is an unacceptable expansion of a government that is already too intrusive in our lives. If we are going to hire 150,000 new employees, let's put them to work protecting our borders, fighting the massive drug problem and putting more law enforcement/firefighters out there." Other problems I have with this bill include: Page 50/section 152: The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally. Page 58 and 59: The government will have real-time access to an individual's bank account and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts. Page 65/section 164: The plan will be subsidized (by the government) for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations (such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now - ACORN). Page 203/line 14-15: The tax imposed under this section will not be treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their right mind come up with that?) Page 241 and 253: Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the government will set all doctors' fees. Page 272. section 1145: Cancer hospital will ration care according to the patient's age. Page 317 and 321: The government will impose a prohibition on hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception. Page 425, line 4-12: The government mandates advance-care planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend an "end-of-life planning" seminar every five years. Page 429, line 13-25: The government will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order. Finally, it is specifically stated this bill will not apply to members of Congress. Members of Congress are already exempt from the Social Security system and have a well-funded private plan that covers their retirement needs. If they were on our Social Security plan, I believe they would find a very quick "fix" to make the plan financially sound for the future." Honorable David Kithil Marble Falls, Texas. Origins: A number of similar pieces presenting lists of line item criticisms of a pending health care reform bill (H.R. 3200) began circulating on the Internet in mid-2009, and they continue to circulate widely three years later as arguments to oppose the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), commonly known as "Obamacare." The versions of this item that continue to be spread via e-mail forwards and online postings are wrong in nearly every particular, however: Although this list is commonly attributed as originating with a letter sent to Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana by Dr. Stephen E. Fraser, an Indianapolis anesthesiologist, or as a letter sent to the River Cities Tribune by David Kithil, a former county judge in Marble Falls, Texas, it is actually the work of Peter Fleckenstein, who issued Peter Fleckenstein the list as a series of Tweets and posted it to his blog in July 2009. The bill referenced in this list, America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 (H.R. 3200), was never passed by Congress. A completely different bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590), became the basis for what is now known as "Obamacare." Many of the entries in the list are therefore irrelevant and outdated, as they address aspects of health care reform legislation that were never enacted by Congress (particularly the "public option" for a government insurance plan). H.R. 3200 H.R. 3590 Virtually every statement included in this list is exaggerated, misleading, inaccurate, or outright erroneous, as detailed below: The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally. This is false. The PPACA, as enacted, doesn't "provide insurance" to anyone it institutes some regulations on the insurance industry to make medical insurance more broadly available and affordable to Americans, and it requires that Americans enroll in PPACA-qualified medical plans or pay a penalty, but everyone is still responsible for obtaining (and paying for) their own insurance coverage. Moreover, the section of the unpassed HB 3200 bill referenced in the above statement is 152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE, which simply states that "[e]xcept as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations consistent with this Act, all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services." It doesn't explicity grant or authorize government funds for providing illegal immigrants with health care or health insurance, and another section of the bill specifically states that "Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States." The government will have real-time access to an individual's bank account and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts. This is false. The section of HB 3200 referenced here does nothing more than attempt to provide a framework for simplifying the use of electronic payments for health services, emulating the way that many consumers currently use to make a variety of other payments (e.g., utilities, mortgages, credit card balances). The bill simply calls for the secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to set standards for electronic administrative transactions that would "enable electronic funds transfers, in order to allow automated reconciliation with the related health care payment and remittance advice." Nothing in this section grants the government "real-time access to an individual's bank account" or the "authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts." The bill doesn't even require that consumers use an electronic payment system it simply seeks to make that an option for those who want to use it. The plan will be subsidized (by the government) for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations (such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now - ACORN). This statement is misleading, as the section of HB 3200 referenced here is SEC. 164. REINSURANCE PROGRAM FOR RETIREES, which addresses "retirees and ... spouses, surviving spouses and dependents of such retirees" who are covered by "employment-based [health benefit] plans." It does not specifically provide for subsidizing health insurance for "all union members, union retirees and community organizations"; it sets up a new federal reinsurance plan for any retirees and their spouses who are covered by any employer plan, not just those who are covered under plans run by unions or community groups. The reinsurance would be available to any "group health benefits plan that ... is maintained by one or more employers, former employers or employee associations." The tax imposed under this section will not be treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their right mind come up with that?) This statement misleadingly tries to make HB 3200 sound ridiculous by deliberately eliding the end of the statement it quotes. What the bill actually says is that"The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax imposed by this chapter for purposes of determining the amount of any credit under this chapter or for purposes of section 55." Section 55 is a reference to the Alternative Minimum Tax, and the purpose of this portion of the bill is to mitigate the effects that new health care-related taxes would have on persons making over $350,000 a year. Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the government will set all doctors' fees. This is false. The section of the bill referenced here is an updating of the physician fee schedule for Medicare services, which neither states that "all doctors will be paid the same regardless of specialty" nor that the "government will set all doctors' fees." All this section does is slightly revise the formula used for determining how much doctors are reimbursed for providing Medicare services, depending upon which of two categories those services fall under. Cancer hospital will ration care according to the patient's age. This is false. The section referenced here is one which does nothing more than call for a study to determine whether certain classes of hospitals incur higher costs than other hospitals for the cancer-related care they deliver, with the aim of providing "an appropriate adjustment [in payments] "to reflect those higher costs." This section in no way "rations care" provided by "cancer hospitals" based on a patient's age (or any other factor); it simply seeks to pay some hospitals more to compensate for their higher costs in treating cancer patients. The government will impose a prohibition on hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception. This is false. As noted by FactCheck, forbids hospital expansion "only for rural, doctor-owned hospitals that have been given a waiver from the general prohibition on self-referral. It does not apply to hospitals in general. The bill provides for exceptions to even this limited expansion ban." The government mandates advance-care planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend an "end-of-life planning" seminar every five years. This is false. This statement references a much-distorted portion of the bill that would allow for Medicare to cover voluntary counseling sessions for seniors with their doctors to discuss aspects of end-of-life care such as hospice care, DNR orders, life-sustaining treatments, living wills, and the like (a form of counseling not previously covered by Medicare). Nothing about such counseling sessions would be mandatory, for Social Security recipients or anyone else. The government will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order. This is false. The bill does not "specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order." It merely defines an "end-of-life order" (i.e., an order for life-sustaining treatment) as a document "signed and dated by a physician [that] effectively communicates the individual's preferences regarding life sustaining treatment." It is specifically stated this bill will not apply to members of Congress. This is false. HB 3200 did not contain a provision stating that it would "not apply to members of Congress." The bill likely would have had little or no effect on members of Congress because they belong to a class of federal worker who have the benefit of choosing from a variety of subsidized insurance plans offered through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, but the same requirements for obtaining and having health insurance would have applied to them just as much to other citizens. The version of the PPACA that was actually passed did indeed require lawmakers to give up the insurance coverage previously provided to them through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and instead purchase health insurance through the online exchanges that the law created. Variations: A later version of this piece was prefaced with the false claim that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act limits the amount of Medicare coverage provided to those over the age of 75 or 76. This claim is covered in a separate article on this site: separate PLEASE PASS THIS OUTRAGE TO EVERYONE ON YOUR LIST!!! THIS should be readby everyone, especially important to those over 75.......If you areyounger, then it applies to your parents. Your hospital Medicare admittance has just change under Obama Care. Youmust be admitted by your primary Physician in order for Medicare to payfor it! If you are admitted by an emergency room doctor it is treated asoutpatient care where hospital costs are not covered. This is only the tipof the iceberg for Obama Care. Just wait to see what happens in 2013 &2014! Age 76 Today, I went to the Dr. for my monthly B12 shot that I have beengetting for a number of years. The nurse came and got me, got out theneedle filled and ready to go then looked at the computer and got veryquiet and asked if I was prepared to pay for it. I said no that myinsurance takes care of it. She said, that Medicare had turned it down and went to talk to my Dr.about it. 15 minutes later she came back and said, she was sorry but theyhad tried everything they could but Medicare is beginning to turn manythings away for seniors because of the projected Obama Care coming in. Shewas brushing at tears and said, "Someday they too will get old", I am sovery sorry!! Please for the sake of many good people ... be informed please.YOU ARE NOT GOING TO LIKE THIS. Last updated: 11 March 2014 | [
"taxes"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1kAu5eDSShd44DfzXC57IoVnPyKrA7Aqt",
"image_caption": null
}
] | False | Although this list is commonly attributed as originating with a letter sent to Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana by Dr. Stephen E. Fraser, an Indianapolis anesthesiologist, or as a letter sent to the River Cities Tribune by David Kithil, a former county judge in Marble Falls, Texas, it is actually the work of Peter Fleckenstein, who issued The bill referenced in this list, America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 (H.R. 3200), was never passed by Congress. A completely different bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590), became the basis for what is now known as "Obamacare." Many of the entries in the list are therefore irrelevant and outdated, as they address aspects of health care reform legislation that were never enacted by Congress (particularly the "public option" for a government insurance plan).Variations: A later version of this piece was prefaced with the false claim that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act limits the amount of Medicare coverage provided to those over the age of 75 or 76. This claim is covered in a separate article on this site: |
FMD_train_1369 | Does GSA's Approval of Transition Process Mean Trump Conceded Defeat to Biden? | 11/24/2020 | [
"Losing candidates are not required to acknowledge defeat in order for a U.S. presidential transition to begin."
] | Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but misinformation continues to spread. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. On Nov. 23, 2020, U.S. General Services Administrator Emily Murphy, an appointee of President Donald Trump, wrote a letter to President-elect Joe Biden that allowed him to start a formal transition of power. The paperwork, obtained by Snopes and displayed below, was the first formal recognition by Trump's government of a Biden presidency. The document from the head of the General Services Administration (GSA), an executive branch agency that oversees presidential transitions, raised questions about whether it indicated that Trump himself acknowledged defeat to Biden. Concession statements to Americans or phone calls to winning candidates represent an informal step in the country's election process that typically occurs when one candidate secures the majority of electoral votes. Biden reached that milestone, winning key battleground states, including Michigan and Pennsylvania, by comfortable margins weeks before Murphy's letter. However, Trump broke democratic norms by refusing to concede publicly. Instead, the president's campaign filed a barrage of lawsuits in local jurisdictions across the country and accelerated a misinformation campaign online that denied or falsely presented the election results. While legal experts said the litigation did not contain enough evidence to reverse Biden's win, Trump's supporters viewed the effort as a commendable, tough, not-going-to-back-down approach to electoral politics. "It is not a stain on our national honor for a candidate to refuse to concede when there are open and compelling disputes about an electoral outcome," read a Nov. 23 statement by supporters of the Conservative Action Project, an initiative founded by former Attorney General Edwin Meese III. Despite not receiving Trump's concession, Biden filled his Cabinet for the White House, addressing the country under the "Office of the President Elect," and states certified the results of the popular vote in order to begin the process of voting for president through the Electoral College. Cue Murphy's letter on Nov. 23. The document fulfilled the government's obligation under the 1963 Presidential Transition Act to allow presidents-elect and their appointees, aides, and other staff—otherwise known as a transition team—to access millions of federal dollars and set up White House operations before the swearing-in ceremonies that would take place in January after general elections. Murphy submitted the paperwork after election officials in Michigan certified Biden's win there, and a conservative Republican judge in Pennsylvania shot down a Trump campaign lawsuit, The Associated Press reported. Murphy's letter stated: "Because of recent developments involving legal challenges and certifications of election results, I have determined that you may access the post-election resources and services described in Section 3 of the Act upon request. The actual winner of the presidential election will be determined by the electoral process detailed in the Constitution." In short, a member of the Trump administration, Murphy, filed paperwork to change Biden's official title in government systems to "apparent president-elect" and, as a result, granted him new privileges that only someone with that job title in the federal government receives. But it was a misinterpretation of that procedural step to claim Trump had therefore conceded the 2020 presidential race. No constitutional mandate or federal law requires losing presidential candidates to acknowledge defeat for the election's processes to continue. Rather, concession speeches have been an informal tradition that often symbolizes a losing candidate's willingness to help with a peaceful transition between presidencies. In recent days, senior Trump aides, including chief of staff Mark Meadows and | [
"economy"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=11Hpd-484LAX5I_brbKaV_UBa5QzPVXL-",
"image_caption": null
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1OeMvKPWi-HwuhBfwu1v7t56dwUghIZrL",
"image_caption": null
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1ztGFluc_j_6SfqJM6yyG1vKQHRQDBUvP",
"image_caption": null
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1o8X1ryMFnYS6B0u30Bx41Uhpk6H5zhaB",
"image_caption": null
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1xNdcQUP0fTo5IOFMDtgqKG8kVr89pWiV",
"image_caption": null
}
] | False | 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.On Nov. 23, 2020, U.S. General Services Administrator Emily Murphy an appointee of President Donald Trump wrote a letter to President-elect Joe Biden that allowed him to start a formal transition of power. The paperwork, obtained by Snopes and displayed below, was the first formal recognition by Trump's government of a Biden presidency.Concession statements to Americans or phone calls to winning candidates represent an informal step in the country's election process that typically occurs when one candidate secures the majority of electoral votes. Biden reached that milestone winning key battleground states, including Michigan and Pennsylvania, by comfortable margins weeks before Murphy's letter. However, Trump broke democratic norms by refusing to concede publicly.Instead, the president's campaign filed a barrage of lawsuits in local jurisdictions across the country and accelerated a misinformation campaign online that denied or falsely presented the election results. While legal experts said the litigation did not contain enough evidence to reverse Biden's win, Trump's supporters viewed the effort as a commendable, tough, not-going-to-back-down approach to electoral politics."It is not a stain on our national honor for a candidate to refuse to concede when there are open and compelling disputes about an electoral outcome," read a Nov. 23 statement by supporters of the Conservative Action Project, an initiative founded by former Attorney General Edwin Meese III.Despite not receiving Trump's concession, Biden filled his Cabinet for the White House, addressing the country under the "Office of the President Elect," and states certified results of the popular vote in order to begin the process of voting for president through the Electoral College.Cue Murphy's letter on Nov. 23. The document carried out the government's obligation under the 1963 Presidential Transition Act to allow presidents-elect and their appointees, aids, and other staff otherwise known as a transition team to access millions of federal dollars and set up White House operations before swearing-in ceremonies that would take place the January after general elections.Murphy submitted the paperwork after election officials in Michigan certified Biden's win there, and a conservative Republican judge in Pennsylvania shot down a Trump campaign lawsuit, The Associated Press reported.Let us note here: No constitutional mandate or federal law requires losing presidential candidates to acknowledge defeat in order for the election's processes to continue. Rather, concession speeches have been an informal tradition that often symbolized a losing candidate's willingness to help with a peaceful transition between presidencies. The Associated Press reported:Hours after that tweet, Trump called reporters to a White House briefing room. He gave one-minute remarks about the economy and exited the room without taking questions from reporters. As he walked out, journalists shouted questions about his lack of a concession, and the president did not acknowledge them, White House footage of the event showed. |
FMD_train_399 | Who is responsible for the escalation of the debt? | 01/23/2012 | [
"A chart from 2011 compared changes in the U.S. national debt over the last several presidencies."
] | Debt is typically a major campaign issue in elections, from the municipal level all the way up to the office of the President of the United States. Candidates tout their accomplishments in balancing budgets or reducing government debt as examples of fiscal prudence while pointing to increased debts during their opponents' administrations as indicators of profligate and wasteful spending of taxpayers' money. The chart reproduced above, which was posted to the Flickr account of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, attempts to reverse conventional political stereotypes by portraying recent Republican presidents as responsible for significant increases in the national debt, while showing recent Democratic presidents as responsible for much lower increases in the level of debt. As a first step in evaluating this chart, we must determine the applicable definition of "debt." In general, the term "public debt" (or "debt held by the public") refers to money borrowed by the government through the issuance and sale of securities, government bonds, and bills. It includes federal debt held by all investors outside of the federal government, including individuals, corporations, state or local governments, the Federal Reserve banking system, and foreign governments. Another form of debt is "intragovernmental debt" (or "debt held by government accounts"), which refers to money that the government has borrowed from itself, such as when the U.S. government invests money from federal savings programs like Medicare and the Social Security trust fund by purchasing its own treasury securities. A variety of names have been applied to the total of these two forms of debt, including "gross federal debt," "total public debt," and "national debt." Although this chart is labeled as presenting a "percent increase in public debt," it actually uses figures corresponding to the total described as "gross federal debt" above (i.e., a combination of debt held by the public and debt held by government accounts, rather than just the former). We checked the numbers in this chart by using (for pre-1993 years) the U.S. Treasury's Monthly Statement of the Public Debt (MSPD), noting the total debt reported as of January 31 of each relevant year, and (for 1993 onwards) the Treasury's The Debt to the Penny and Who Holds It application, noting the total debt reported as of Inauguration Day of each relevant year. From these records, we gleaned the following information: Ronald Reagan: Took office January 1981. Total debt: $848 billion. Left office January 1989. Total debt: $2,698 billion. Percent change in total debt: +218%. George H.W. Bush: Took office January 1989. Total debt: $2,698 billion. Left office January 20, 1993. Total debt: $4,188 billion. Percent change in total debt: +55%. Bill Clinton: Took office January 20, 1993. Total debt: $4,188 billion. Left office January 20, 2001. Total debt: $5,728 billion. Percent change in total debt: +37%. George W. Bush: Took office January 20, 2001. Total debt: $5,728 billion. Left office January 20, 2009. Total debt: $10,627 billion. Percent change in total debt: +86%. Barack Obama: Took office January 20, 2009. Total debt: $10,627 billion. Total debt (as of the end of April 2011): $14,288 billion. Percent change in total debt: +34%. So, as far as raw numbers go, the chart is reasonably accurate (although our calculations produced a somewhat higher debt increase for Ronald Reagan than reported). That said, we must consider how valuable these numbers are; whether by themselves they present a reasonable comparative measure of presidential fiscal responsibility. In that regard, one could find several aspects to take issue with: The chart isn't a true comparison of equals, as it includes three presidents who served two full terms (Reagan, Clinton, and George W. Bush), a president who served one term (George H.W. Bush), and a president who served half a term (Obama). Obviously, the longer a president holds office, the greater the opportunity for him to influence the debt, and certainly (barring a radical change in current circumstances) the increase reported for Barack Obama would be considerably higher by the time he left office. All presidents come into office with policies and budgets that were put into place by their predecessors in the White House and Congress, and they all pass the same along to their successors when they leave office. Therefore, determining how much of the change in debt that occurs during a given president's administration is actually the result of his actions (rather than the consequence of factors over which he had little or no influence) would require a much more complex analysis than the one presented here. Which is the best measure of debt for this purpose: public debt, intragovernmental debt, or a combination of the two? As noted in the General Accounting Office's FAQ on Federal Debt, they represent rather different concepts: Debt held by the public approximates current federal demand on credit markets. It represents a burden on today's economy, and the interest paid on this debt represents a burden on current taxpayers. Federal borrowing from the public absorbs resources available for private investment and may put upward pressure on interest rates. Further, debt held by the public is the accumulation of what the federal government borrowed in the past and is reported as a liability on the balance sheet of the government's consolidated financial statements. In contrast, debt held by government accounts (intragovernmental debt) and the interest on it represent a claim on future resources. This debt performs largely an internal accounting function. Special federal securities credited to government accounts (primarily trust funds) represent the cumulative surpluses of these accounts that have been lent to the general fund. These transactions net out on the government's consolidated financial statements. Debt issued to government accounts does not affect today's economy and does not currently compete with the private sector for available funds in the credit market. Are plain percentage changes in the national debt level a useful figure, or do they need to be placed in context to have relevance? Some would argue, for example, that the Debt-to-GDP ratio is a better measure of economic health relative to the national debt than raw debt figures alone, and a chart that tracked the change in that ratio over the last several presidencies would paint a significantly different picture of debt levels than the one displayed above. All in all, this is a case of relatively accurate information that is of marginal value due to a lack of proper comparative context. | [
"investment"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1ZFmWJ0NOpLF_ZeKZBcqUZvpgWCgx764_",
"image_caption": null
}
] | True | The chart reproduced above, which was posted to the Flickr account of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, attempted to reverse conventional political stereotypes by portraying recent Republican presidents as responsible for huge increases in the national debt, while showing recent Democratic presidents as responsible for much lower increases in the level of debt. Although this chart is labeled as presenting a "percent increase in public debt," it actually uses figures corresponding to the total described as "gross federal debt" above (i.e., a combination of debt held by the public and debt held by government accounts, rather than just the former). We checked the numbers in this chart by using (for pre-1993 years) the U.S. Treasury's Monthly Statement of the Public Debt (MSPD), noting the total debt reported as of January 31 of each relevant year, and (for 1993 onwards) the Treasury's The Debt to the Penny and Who Holds It application, noting the total debt reported as of Inauguration Day of each relevant year. Which is the best measure of debt for this purpose: public debt, intragovernmental debt, or a combination of the two? As noted in the General Accounting Office's FAQ on Federal Debt, they represent rather different concepts: Are plain percentage changes in the national debt level a useful figure, or do they need to be placed in context to have relevance? Some would argue, for example, that the Debt-to-GDP ratio is a better measure of economic health relative to the national debt than raw debt figures alone, and a chart which tracked the change in that ratio over the last several presidencies would paint a significantly different picture of debt levels than the one displayed above. |
FMD_train_506 | No cost at all. | 10/21/1999 | [
"Man battles a $0.00 charge that won't go away."
] | Claim: Man battles $0.00 charge that won't go away. LEGEND Examples: [Collected via e-mail, 1998] In March 1992, a man living in Newtown near Boston, Massachusetts, received a bill for his unused credit card stating that he owed $0.00. He ignored it and threw it away. In April, he received another bill and threw that one away too. The following month, the credit card company sent him a very nasty note stating they would cancel his card if he didn't send them $0.00 by return mail. He called them, spoke to them, and they said it was a computer error and assured him they would take care of it. The next month, our hero decided it was time to try out the troublesome credit card, figuring that if there were purchases on his account, it would put an end to his ridiculous predicament. However, in the first store where he presented his credit card to pay for his purchases, he found that his card had been canceled. He called the credit card company, who apologized for the computer error once again and said they would take care of it. The next day, he received a bill for $0.00 stating that payment was now overdue. Assuming that, having spoken to the credit card company only the previous day, the latest bill was yet another mistake, he ignored it, trusting that the company would honor their word and resolve the problem. The following month, he received another bill for $0.00, which stated that he had 10 days to pay his account or the company would take steps to recover the debt. Finally giving in, he thought he would play the company at their own game and mailed them a check for $0.00. The computer duly processed his account and returned a statement indicating that he now owed the credit card company nothing at all. A week later, the man's bank called him, asking what he was doing writing a check for $0.00. After a lengthy explanation, the bank replied that the $0.00 check had caused their check processing software to fail. The bank could not process ANY checks from ANY of their customers that day because the check for $0.00 was causing the computer to crash. The following month, the man received a letter from the credit card company claiming that his check had bounced and that he now owed them $0.00, and unless he sent a check by return mail, they would take steps to recover the debt. The man, who had been considering buying his wife a computer for her birthday, bought her a typewriter instead. What a world? (country NSW... (New South Wales.. Australia))... On Thursday, 24 January 2002, Derek Guille broadcast this story on his afternoon program on ABC radio. In March 1999, a man living in Kandos (near Mudgee in NSW) received a bill for his unused gas line stating that he owed $0.00. He ignored it and threw it away. In April, he received another bill and threw that one away too. The following month, the gas company sent him a very nasty note stating they would cancel his gas line if he didn't send them $0.00 by return mail. He called them, spoke to them, and they said it was a computer error and they would take care of it. The following month, he decided it was time to try out the troublesome gas line, figuring that if there was usage on the account, it would put an end to this ridiculous predicament. However, when he went to use the gas, it had been cut off. He called the gas company, who apologized for the computer error once again and said they would take care of it. The next day, he received a bill for $0.00 stating that payment was now overdue. Assuming that, having spoken to them the previous day, the latest bill was yet another mistake, he ignored it, trusting that the company would honor their word and resolve the problem. The next month, he received another bill for $0.00. This bill also stated that he had 10 days to pay his account or the company would have to take steps to recover the debt. Finally, giving in, he thought he would beat the company at their own game and mailed them a check for $0.00. The computer duly processed his account and returned a statement indicating that he now owed the gas company nothing at all. A week later, the manager of the Mudgee branch of the Westpac Banking Corporation called our hapless friend and asked him what he was doing writing a check for $0.00. After a lengthy explanation, the bank manager replied that the $0.00 check had caused their check processing software to fail. The bank could therefore not process ANY checks they had received from ANY of their customers that day because the check for $0.00 had caused the computer to crash. The following month, the man received a letter from the gas company claiming that his check had bounced and that he now owed them $0.00, and unless he sent a check by return mail, they would take immediate steps to recover the debt. At this point, the man decided to file a debt harassment claim against the gas company. It took him nearly 2 hours to convince the clerks at the local courthouse that he was not joking. They subsequently assisted him in drafting statements that were considered substantive evidence of the aggravation and difficulties he had been forced to endure during this debacle. The matter was heard in the Magistrate's Court in Mudgee, and the outcome was this: The gas company was ordered to: [1] Immediately rectify their computerized accounts system or show cause, within 10 days, why the matter should not be referred to a higher court for consideration under Company Law. [2] Pay the bank dishonor fees incurred by the man. [3] Pay the bank dishonor fees incurred by all the Westpac clients whose checks had bounced on the day our friend's had been. [4] Pay the claimant's court costs; and [5] Pay the claimant a total of $1500 per month for the 5-month period from March to July inclusive as compensation for the aggravation they had caused their client to suffer. And all this over $0.00. This story can also be viewed on the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) website. Who employed these idiots?? Origins: This wacky tale of billing technology gone horribly wrong first appeared on the Internet in July 1997. It's pointless to ask if this e-mailed tale is a true story because not enough details were provided in the text to give anyone much hope of tracking this specific version to a source. We're told this happened in 1992 to a man in Newtown, Massachusetts, but there is no such town. (There is a Newton, however, in that area.) Neither the man nor the credit card company are named, adding to the difficulties of finding out if the particulars of this story are real. Later versions of the same e-mail omitted the name of the town and altered the text to "A man living near Boston..." Even later versions reinserted the name of the town, this time changing it to Newton. In 2003, it reappeared as a tale about a man living in Australia. It's best we forget about trying to find this mystery man and instead look at the story. There's nothing implausible about receiving a zero-sum statement; people get them all the time. What elevates this particular cyber-version into the realm of legend are the additional details tacked on after that event. This story works as an engaging piece of fiction because of the mounting sense of frustration the victim endures as the people he turns to for help prove incapable of undoing what a machine has done. He finally (he thinks) figures a way to beat the machine at its own game by sending a $0.00 check to pay the $0.00 bill, but in doing so causes his bank's computer to hit the bricks and his check to bounce, prompting yet another dunning notice from the credit card company. It's a great tale, but it's probably not a real one: It's unlikely that a zero-dollar check could or did cause a financial institution's computers to crash. If that were all it took, people looking for a few extra days before checks they'd written cleared their accounts (or pranksters merely seeking to wreak industrial havoc) would have routinely deposited zero-dollar checks in order to bring banking systems to their knees. Variations on this story have been around for years. This one comes from a 1970 joke book: Winning a battle with a computer system is getting to be more fun than sneaking into the subway through an exit gate used to be when we were kids. Let's give a great big hand to the latest winner, Jerome T. Parker. Mr. Parker, for reasons unknown to him, received a bill from an oil company for several consecutive months for $0.00. He laughingly showed the bills to friends and waited for the bills to stop coming. When he got one marked "Final Notice," however, plus a threat to turn the account over to a notoriously tough collection agency, he wrote out a check for no dollars and no cents, signed his name, and mailed it to the oil company with a note saying, "This pays my account in full." Damned if he didn't get a form letter in return thanking him for his patronage. The reason for this tale's growing popularity of late may well have been captured in the first line of that 1970 example: "Winning a battle with a computer system." As computers come to play ever-increasing roles in our lives, so grows our resentment of them. We fear the thought of someday falling at their mercy, and the $0.00 story expresses this anxiety. In this Kafka-esque tale, the hero is unable to get any of the humans he speaks with to unravel the mess and ultimately has to resort to playing the computer's game to beat it. Chilling thought, that, and we fear that is indeed the way our world is going. In August 1999, Ann Landers ran the following letter from a reader: DEAR ANN LANDERS: When I read your column about outrageous billing statements, I decided to send you my story. When I was in college, I took out guaranteed student loans. After graduation, while still repaying the loans, I was informed that they had defaulted and had been turned over to the state collection agency. I had no idea why. It took seven years of letter writing, hiring a lawyer, and appealing to my congressperson to straighten out the mess. It turned out that my file at the bank had fallen behind a filing cabinet. Can you believe it? It actually happened. I am not making this up. The U.S. Department of Education dropped all penalty charges, and I paid off the balance in full. End of story, right? Wrong. Keep reading. After the loan was cleared up, I began to receive billing letters from the Department of Education. What was so funny was that the bills reported no balance due—no principal, penalties, or interest. But the letters began none too cordially with, "Warning-Warning-Warning! Your scheduled payment is seriously overdue!" The letters contained several threats about the consequences if I didn't pay off my zero balance immediately. Go figure. I received no fewer than 11 of these threatening letters and wouldn't be surprised if there are more in the pipeline. In October 1999, another of Ann's readers came forward to tell her $0.00 tale: Dear Ann: I just read the letter from C.M. in Milpitas, Calif., who said the Department of Education lost her file and kept billing her for her student loan. After the mess was finally straightened out, she received bills demanding she pay a balance of $0. That's right—zero dollars. This happened to me as well. A financial-aid adviser told me that the quickest way to solve the problem was to "pay" the bill, so I wrote a check for $0. This is the only way to stop the computer from sending statement letters. Calling customer service is useless because they don't always communicate with the billing departments. Since I sent that check, I have not been bothered. But get this—the billing department actually tried to cash it. Can $0.00 billings occur? Ask a bookkeeper who has dealt with a computerized receivables system that generates finance charges but does not round off the amounts. In a situation where an overdue account has attracted a finance charge, such bills can occur when the customer pays his bill. As far as the computer is concerned, a debt of less than $1 still exists, so the program sends this information to the printer at statement printing time. However, because the program has also been coded not to print fractional cent amounts, it spits out a $0.00 statement. (The same reasoning applies to one person's online explanation of why Yahoo! sent him a payment check for $0.00.) In the now-vanished world where competent bookkeepers oversaw the receivables process, such oddities were caught before they were mailed out, and a reversing entry to cancel the fractional finance charge was entered to soothe the electronic beast. In the modern world, statements are all too often automatically stuffed into window envelopes (by yet more machines!), franked, and mailed, and accounting personnel think a reversing entry is something one performs to back into a parking space. One would hope that when matters reach the "telephone for help" stage, they get straightened out, but then I still believe in the myth of the competent bookkeeper. Barbara "debit taunt of 1977" Mikkelson Last updated: 27 June 2014 Landers, Ann. "Ann Landers." 13 October 1999 [syndicated column]. Landers, Ann. "Ann Landers." 18 August 1999 [syndicated column]. | [
"finance"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1hMDwWg-4zdAW1pYOgIElpqUGbcGtc59y",
"image_caption": null
}
] | True | Can $0.00 billings occur? Ask a bookkeeper who has dealt with a computerized receivables system that generates finance charges but does not round off the amounts. In a situation where an overdue account has attracted a finance charge, such bills can occur when the customer pays his bill. As far as the computer is concerned, a debt of < 1 still exists, so the program sends this information to the printer at statement printing time. However, because the program has also been coded not to print fractional cent amounts, it spits out a $0.00 statement. (The same reasoning applies to one person's online explanation of why Yahoo! sent him a payment check for $0.00.) |
FMD_train_1595 | Pandora Endorses Black Lives Matter? | 07/11/2016 | [
"The streaming music service Pandora caused controversy by posting a message using the hashtag #BlackLivesMatter on social media."
] | In July 2016, a week of high-profile shootings involving police occurred in the United States. On July 5, Alton Sterling was shot and killed by police officers in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. The following day, Philando Castile was shot and killed by police during a traffic stop in Minnesota. The day after that, a sniper shot and killed five police officers during a Black Lives Matter protest in Dallas. On July 8, 2016, the streaming music service Pandora posted a message on social media expressing pain and support related to these events. Although Pandora's post stated that their "hearts ache for all of those who unfairly lost their lives" and included the hashtag #LoveAboveAll, their use of the #BlackLivesMatter hashtag to represent the victims of police shootings, without an equivalent hashtag to represent the policemen killed in Dallas (such as #BlueLivesMatter), generated controversy and calls for boycotts of the music service. This reaction prompted social media calls for people to subscribe to Pandora as a gesture of support. Social media messages expressing anger over Pandora's message often asserted that the Black Lives Matter movement is anti-police or that the movement was responsible for the shooting of police in Dallas. Black Lives Matter co-founder Alicia Garza attempted to dispel these rumors during an appearance on "All In with Chris Hayes." Garza stated, "Black Lives Matter has never, ever called for the murder of police officers. What we have said over and over | [
"loss"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1HUTDDuQCZDTZSxQypMXDDyZ77mhXhIRT",
"image_caption": null
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1N2gqTqYOtoTKn1rw1Ejg_pqgVDW2X9fl",
"image_caption": null
}
] | NEI | July 2016 saw a week of high-profile shootings involving police the United States: On 5 July 2016, Alton Sterling was shot and killed by police officers in Baton Rouge, Louisiana; the following day, Philando Castile was shot and killed by police during a traffic stop in Minnesota; and the day after that a sniper shot and killed five police officers during a Black Lives Matter protest in Dallas. On 8 July 2016, the streaming music service Pandora posted a message on social media expressing a feeling of pain and a gesture of support related to those events:@pandora_radio and I'm deleting now Big_Blue_Nate123 (@BlueNate123) July 9, 2016@pandora_radio took a stand, and ppl are pissed....let's support and subscribe! #LoveAboveAll #BlackLivesMatter https://t.co/McvsxAgoAd Olivia X (@EsSeNCeofaDiVa) July 11, 2016Social media messages expressing anger over Pandora's message often asserted that the Black Lives Matter movement is anti-police, or that the movement was responsible for the shooting of police in Dallas. Black Lives Matter co-founder Alicia Garza attempted to dispel these rumors during an appearance on All in with Chris Hayes:Ironically, those upset over Pandora's message announced that they would be boycotting the streaming music service on Facebook, even though Facebook openly expressed support for the Black Lives Matter movement by erecting a Black Lives Matter sign outside their headquarters in Menlo Park, California: |
FMD_train_1066 | The Replaced Rabbit | 03/25/2001 | [
"A family legendarily replaced their neighbor's dead rabbit after mistakenly believing their own dog had killed it."
] | A tale nearly identical in structure to the legend about the dead animal shipped by air freight (which handlers mistakenly thought had died in transit) is the following: dead animal A man moves to town and hunts around for an apartment to rent, but he's turned down by most landlords because of his large dog (mastiff, doberman, etc.). He finally secures a carriage house that's in the backyard of a house owned by two old women by assuring the ladies that the dog is perfectly friendly, which, of course, it is. The landladies have a rabbit hutch in the backyard which contains two white rabbits. Months pass, and everyone gets along just fine. The man had trained the dog not to pester the rabbits while he's away at work, and the dog is quite obedient. One night, though, the man returns from a long weekend away on business. His dog is beside itself with joy to see the master return, but it's late, the man is tired, so he plops right down in bed and falls asleep, leaving the dog outside. In the middle of the night the man is woken up by the strange sounds that his dog is making outside the bedroom window, a kind of muffled whimpering. When he opens the front door he sees the dog standing there with one of the rabbits in its mouth! After a quick smack or two on the head the dog drops the rabbit on the ground, and the man immediately picks the bunny up and brings it inside where it's light. The rabbit is brown with dirt but apparently undamaged, so the man rushes to wash it off and dry it. He slips out the door into the dark night, returns the rabbit to the hutch, and brings the dog inside. Thinking the women won't notice, he falls asleep. In the morning, as he's leaving the carriage house for work, he sees the two old ladies standing around the rabbit hutch, which he must pass by on his way out of the backyard. He figures everything's alright and the rabbit is unhurt, but when he walks up and says good morning he notices that the women are completely distraught and crying. In fact, one of the women is making the sign of the cross over and over again. The man knows that he's probably been caught, but he decides to be cagey and asks, "What happened? Did the rabbits die?" "Well, one of them did," replies one of the women, "but we buried him three days ago and now he's back in the hutch!" Both legends feature persons who, mistakenly believing themselves to be responsible for the death of someone else's pet, try to cover up their culpability by replacing the dead animals only to find that they have exacerbated an unfortunate situation by substituting a live (or seemingly live) pet in place of one that was already dead. A reader tried to slip one past "Dear Abby" advice columnist Jeanne Phillips by submitting an even more twisted version of this tale to her as a first-person experience in September 2004. To her credit, Ms. Phillips spotted it as an urban legend: DEAR ABBY: Last year, my husband's pet rabbit, "Blossom," died. My husband, "Edwin," went into the back yard one morning and found her dead in her cage. He buried her in our yard. Later that day, our neighbor's dog dug up the rabbit. When the neighbor came home, he found the little body on his doorstep. Thinking his dog had killed Blossom, he panicked. He ran out, bought another rabbit that looked just like Blossom, and placed her in our cage. When Edwin returned from work that night, he was stunned to find the rabbit sitting in its cage and immediately concluded that Blossom had returned from the dead. Ever since, my husband has treated the rabbit like a little deity. He built an altar for her and sits in front of her cage in the lotus position and talks to her. The neighbors have since moved, but last week I ran into the wife and she told me the story. Thinking it might help Edwin, I repeated the story to him. He became irate and accused me of trying to ruin the only miraculous thing that had ever happened to him. Should I insist that Edwin seek counseling, or should I continue to live with this? I really don't know where it will end. - At My Wit's End DEAR WIT'S END: You may not, but I do. It's going to end here and now. According to snopes.com, your rabbit tale is an urban legend, and so old it has whiskers. Thank you for sharing it with me. It's still a thigh-slapper. Variations: In some versions the dead pet or the "killer" pet is a cat. The rabbit's owners generally believe some demented person exhumed their pet and replaced it in its pen. In a few versions, however, they think they mistakenly buried the animal alive, and it clawed its way back to the surface, only to die of exhaustion after reaching its cage. The dog's owners learn that the rabbit was already dead from the police, or by talking to the rabbit's owners across the backyard fence. Sightings: We're told a non-talk show sighting of this legend appears in Jeff Foxworthy's 1989 recording, Sold Out, and this tale also formed the plot of an episode of The Chris Isaak Show ("Crimes and Punishment," original air date 26 March 2001). The same story plays out in the 2003 film, Dickie Roberts: Former Child Star. Dickie Roberts: Former Child Star Brunvand, Jan Harold. Curses! Broiled Again!
New York: W. W. Norton, 1989. ISBN 0-393-30711-5 (pp. 151-156).
Brunvand, Jan Harold. Too Good to Be True.
New York: W. W. Norton, 1999. ISBN 0-393-04734-2 (pp. 40-43).
de Vos, Gail. Tales, Rumors and Gossip.
Englewood: Libraries Unlimited, 1996. ISBN 1-56308-190-3 (p. 216).
Phillips, Jeanne. "Hare-Raising Tale Is Too Good to Be True." [syndicated column]
Universal Press Syndicate. 8 September 2004.
Healey, Phil and Rick Glanvill. Gruesome Urban Myths.
Bucks, Great Britain: Ginn and Company, 1995. ISBN 0-602-26200-3 (pp. 32-35).
The Big Book of Urban Legends.
New York: Paradox Press, 1994. ISBN 1-56389-165-4 (p. 41). Healey, Phil and Rick Glanvill. Now! That's What I Call Urban Myths.
London: Virgin Books, 1996. ISBN 0-86369-969-3 (pp. 99-100).
| [
"returns"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1hrc-T_8cRG2mfYesLAbNtcjVs0-KwoKX",
"image_caption": null
}
] | True | A tale nearly identical in structure to the legend about the dead animal shipped by air freight (which handlers mistakenly thought had died in transit) is the following:We're told a non-talk show sighting of this legend appears in Jeff Foxworthy's 1989 recording, Sold Out, and this tale also formed the plot of an episode of The Chris Isaak Show ("Crimes and Punishment," original air date 26 March 2001). The same story plays out in the 2003 film, Dickie Roberts: Former Child Star. |
FMD_train_1208 | Says Tommy Thompson's tax plan amounts to an average tax cut of almost $87,000 for the top 1 percent. | 06/10/2012 | [] | If you havent heard U.S. Rep.Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisconsin, say she is fighting for the middle class in her bid for the U.S. Senate, you havent been listening.But you can be forgiven. The gubernatorial recall all but filled Wisconsins political bandwidth until the election was held June 5, 2012.Now, more attention will turn to Baldwin and the four Republicans seeking to succeed Democrat Herb Kohl in the November 2012 Senate election.Baldwin sounded the middle class theme in attacking the best known GOP candidate, former governorTommy Thompson, in amemoreleasedto the media May 30, 2012.She declared:Thompsons tax plan amounts to an average tax cut of almost $87,000 for the top 1 percent.The 1 percent are people with incomes over $343,000, according to the memo.Sounds like a good deal for them. But is Baldwin on target?Baldwins evidenceBaldwin campaign spokesman John Kraus said Baldwin's is based on a flat tax provision in a tax reformplanthat Thompsonreleasedin April 2012.Two paragraphs in the four-page document are devoted to the flat tax.For two years, individual taxpayers could opt to file a tax return with a 15 percent rate, or file a return using existing exemptions. After two years, Thompson would move to an across-the board flat tax with provisions to encourage savings, investment, home ownership and support for charities, the plan says.Heres the Baldwin math:In 2009,accordingto the latest figures available from the Internal Revenue Service, the top 1 percent of federal income tax returns amounts to nearly 1.38 million people. They all earned more than $343,927.That group generated just over $1.32 trillion in adjusted gross income, which resulted in a total of just over $318 billion in income taxes paid.Had a 15 percent flat rate been in effect, the 1 percent would have paid $198.7 billion in taxes or $119.3 billion less, under Thompsons plan.That means those taxpayers would have paid an average of $86,502 less in income taxes.Thompson campaign spokesman Brian Nemoir noted that tax rates ranged from 10 percent to 35 percent in 2009 (as they do now). He said Thompsons plan better balances the nearly half of all Americans that dont pay income taxes against the nations top 1 percent of earners, who pay 37 percent of the income taxes collected.As for Baldwins figures, he said her analysis seems sufficient.While Thompson's proposal lacks enough detail for analysis, the Tax Policy Centerevaluatedthe more detailed 15 percent flat tax plan advanced by Newt Gingrich during his 2012 run for the Republican presidential nomination. The center concluded that no one, regardless of income, would see a tax increase under Gingrich's plan. Under onescenario, which divided all taxpayers into five groups based on income, all five groups would get a tax cut under Gingrich's plan.So, its likely Thompsons plan would benefit many more groups than the 1 percent cited by Baldwin, who is using that approach to bolster her underlying point.As for the specifics of Baldwin's claim, we ran her numbers by three tax experts: Tax Policy Center senior fellowRoberton Williamsand Tax Foundation economistMark Robyn, both in Washington, D.C.; and Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance presidentTodd Berryin Madison.All three said Baldwin is generally on target, but that Thompsons plan is too short on details to know for sure whether Baldwins $87,000 figure is on the money.Williams said Baldwins numbers, on their face, are accurate.Its a back-of-the-envelope calculation, thats what it is, said Robyn.Robyn and Berry agreed the 1 percent would almost certainly get a tax break under Thompsons plan, but they couldnt say whether Baldwins figure is accurate because Thompsons plan doesnt specify what deductions and exemptions might remain under his flat tax and who would qualify for them.Her calculations are probably overstated a little, but we dont know how much, said Berry.Our ratingBaldwin said Thompson's tax plan amounts to an average tax cut of almost $87,000 for the top 1 percent and Thompson didnt refute the figure.Tax experts said Baldwins figure is in the ballpark, at least as an estimate, but that Thompsons flat tax proposal lacks too much detail to know for sure.Baldwins claim is accurate but needs additional information -- our definition of Mostly True. | [
"Federal Budget",
"Taxes",
"Wisconsin"
] | [] | True | If you havent heard U.S. Rep.Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisconsin, say she is fighting for the middle class in her bid for the U.S. Senate, you havent been listening.But you can be forgiven. The gubernatorial recall all but filled Wisconsins political bandwidth until the election was held June 5, 2012.Now, more attention will turn to Baldwin and the four Republicans seeking to succeed Democrat Herb Kohl in the November 2012 Senate election.Baldwin sounded the middle class theme in attacking the best known GOP candidate, former governorTommy Thompson, in amemoreleasedto the media May 30, 2012.She declared:Thompsons tax plan amounts to an average tax cut of almost $87,000 for the top 1 percent.The 1 percent are people with incomes over $343,000, according to the memo.Sounds like a good deal for them. But is Baldwin on target?Baldwins evidenceBaldwin campaign spokesman John Kraus said Baldwin's is based on a flat tax provision in a tax reformplanthat Thompsonreleasedin April 2012.Two paragraphs in the four-page document are devoted to the flat tax.For two years, individual taxpayers could opt to file a tax return with a 15 percent rate, or file a return using existing exemptions. After two years, Thompson would move to an across-the board flat tax with provisions to encourage savings, investment, home ownership and support for charities, the plan says.Heres the Baldwin math:In 2009,accordingto the latest figures available from the Internal Revenue Service, the top 1 percent of federal income tax returns amounts to nearly 1.38 million people. They all earned more than $343,927.That group generated just over $1.32 trillion in adjusted gross income, which resulted in a total of just over $318 billion in income taxes paid.Had a 15 percent flat rate been in effect, the 1 percent would have paid $198.7 billion in taxes or $119.3 billion less, under Thompsons plan.That means those taxpayers would have paid an average of $86,502 less in income taxes.Thompson campaign spokesman Brian Nemoir noted that tax rates ranged from 10 percent to 35 percent in 2009 (as they do now). He said Thompsons plan better balances the nearly half of all Americans that dont pay income taxes against the nations top 1 percent of earners, who pay 37 percent of the income taxes collected.As for Baldwins figures, he said her analysis seems sufficient.While Thompson's proposal lacks enough detail for analysis, the Tax Policy Centerevaluatedthe more detailed 15 percent flat tax plan advanced by Newt Gingrich during his 2012 run for the Republican presidential nomination. The center concluded that no one, regardless of income, would see a tax increase under Gingrich's plan. Under onescenario, which divided all taxpayers into five groups based on income, all five groups would get a tax cut under Gingrich's plan.So, its likely Thompsons plan would benefit many more groups than the 1 percent cited by Baldwin, who is using that approach to bolster her underlying point.As for the specifics of Baldwin's claim, we ran her numbers by three tax experts: Tax Policy Center senior fellowRoberton Williamsand Tax Foundation economistMark Robyn, both in Washington, D.C.; and Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance presidentTodd Berryin Madison.All three said Baldwin is generally on target, but that Thompsons plan is too short on details to know for sure whether Baldwins $87,000 figure is on the money.Williams said Baldwins numbers, on their face, are accurate.Its a back-of-the-envelope calculation, thats what it is, said Robyn.Robyn and Berry agreed the 1 percent would almost certainly get a tax break under Thompsons plan, but they couldnt say whether Baldwins figure is accurate because Thompsons plan doesnt specify what deductions and exemptions might remain under his flat tax and who would qualify for them.Her calculations are probably overstated a little, but we dont know how much, said Berry.Our ratingBaldwin said Thompson's tax plan amounts to an average tax cut of almost $87,000 for the top 1 percent and Thompson didnt refute the figure.Tax experts said Baldwins figure is in the ballpark, at least as an estimate, but that Thompsons flat tax proposal lacks too much detail to know for sure.Baldwins claim is accurate but needs additional information -- our definition of Mostly True. |
FMD_train_194 | The unemployment rate among blacks in Texas is 9.5% -- far more than double white unemployment -- and wages have fallen for black workers in Texas since 2000. | 04/23/2015 | [] | Urging the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas to choose a president who prioritizes jobs and rising wages for all communities, a Texas group stated that African Americans in the state have fared poorly on both fronts. The Texas Organizing Project, which claims to promote social and economic equality for low- to moderate-income residents, joined labor unions in calling on the Fed, which has kept interest rates near zero since 2008 to spur business lending, not to raise interest rates and instead focus on full employment and higher wages, according to a March 4, 2015, news story in the Dallas Morning News. The project caught our attention in a March 2015 press release with this: Although the economy is adding jobs, the unemployment rate among blacks in Texas is 9.5%—far more than double the white unemployment rate—and wages have fallen for black workers in Texas since 2000. We sought elaboration.
To our inquiry, a project spokesman, Daniel Barrera, pointed us by email to a March 2015 report by the Brooklyn-based Center for Popular Democracy, which claims to promote equity, opportunity, and a dynamic democracy. The report, Wall Street, Main Street, and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard: Why African Americans Must Not Be Left Out of the Federal Reserve's Full-Employment Mandate, presents charts with the cited figures, which the Washington, D.C.-based Economic Policy Institute compiled based on federal wage and employment data. One chart indicates that the 2014 Texas black unemployment rate of 9.5 percent was more than twice the state's white unemployment rate of 3.7 percent; the 2014 Hispanic jobless rate was 5.3 percent. Conditions may have been better in Texas than elsewhere over those years. Nationally, according to the report, black-white unemployment disparities were greatest in Wisconsin (where the black jobless rate was 4.6 times the white rate) and Minnesota (where the black rate was 3.7 times the white rate).
Another chart in the report indicates that median hourly wages for Texas whites and Hispanics increased by 8 and 2.9 percent, respectively, from 2000 to 2014, while median hourly wages for black Texans decreased by 0.8 percent. We wondered if blacks experienced falling wages by this measure throughout those years. They did not: In response to our inquiry, the Economic Policy Institute provided year-by-year data showing that the hourly median for black Texans decreased in six years while increasing in eight years. Throughout the period, the real median wage for Texas African Americans bottomed out at $13.61 in 2008 and peaked at $15.18 in 2012. Nationally, at the end of the 15-year period, median real wages for African-American workers were down even more than in Texas alone, according to the report. Specifically, the national median real hourly wage for African Americans in 2014 was $13.97, about 3 percent less than the comparable median of $14.41 in 2000. Additionally, according to the report, other states had larger differences between the first and last years studied.
And why? Missing from the report is an explanation for the differences between black workers and others. When we called to ask about that, Ady Barkan, a center official, suggested multiple longstanding factors, including racism and differences in education levels and rates of incarceration between blacks and whites. By email, Barkan also pointed out a July 2011 issue paper from the liberal Center for American Progress noting, among other reasons, that in each of the latest U.S. recessions, blacks were most often the first employees fired and the last ones hired (once each recession was ending). We asked the Economic Policy Institute why black unemployment in Texas appeared to be higher than white and Hispanic unemployment. Josh Bivens, director of research and policy, said by email that this may be due to discrimination in the labor market and pre-labor market factors.
And what is the pre-labor market? Bivens explained that residential segregation can lead to blacks attending lower-quality primary and secondary schools, potentially resulting in lower levels of educational achievement and less lucrative jobs. We also sought an explanation of the cited differences from Chris King, director of the Ray Marshall Center for the Study of Human Resources at the University of Texas. By email, King stated that labor economists would explain higher unemployment among blacks/African Americans nationally by pointing out that African Americans tend to have lower levels of education and are employed in lower-paying occupations and industries than whites. King elaborated by highlighting Bureau of Labor Statistics data from 2011 showing that black men were more likely to work in service, production, transportation, and material moving jobs. Conversely, he noted that black men were less likely to work in professional and managerial jobs than whites; the picture was similar for black women.
Another view came from analyst Chuck DeVore of the conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation, who suggested that the real median hourly wage estimates used by the institute may provide an incomplete picture of economic well-being. People do not live on wages alone, DeVore said, adding that a more accurate indicator of wealth would be household income, which includes Social Security, inheritances, and any other financial assistance.
Our ruling: The Texas Organizing Project stated that the unemployment rate among blacks in Texas is 9.5%—far more than double the white unemployment rate—and that wages have fallen for black workers in Texas since 2000. Texas African Americans may not have been as badly off as residents of other states, and this claim does not acknowledge wage fluctuations over the years. Regardless, evidence shows that Texas blacks have a higher unemployment rate than their fellow Texans and are the only group with lower wages in 2014 than in 2000. We rate the statement True. The statement is accurate, and there is nothing significant missing. | [
"Economy",
"Education",
"Jobs",
"Texas"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=19pRqHD0DqmL80mT3oznackGqq3feWsIy",
"image_caption": "Dallas Morning News"
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1pfGOL4uNVjdrzZv0FADq9yXOavoEZX78",
"image_caption": ", Wall Street, Main Street, and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard: Why African Americans Must Not Be Left Out of the Federal Reserves Full-Employment Mandate, Center for Popular Democracy, April 6, 2015"
}
] | True | The Texas Organizing Project,which saysit promotes social and economic equality for low- to moderate-income residents, joined labor unions in calling on the Fed, which has kept interest rates near zero since 2008 to spur business lending, not to raise interest rates and focus instead on full employment and higher wages, according to a March 4, 2015,news storyin theDallas Morning News.The project got our attention in a March 2015press releasewith this: Although the economy is adding jobs, the unemployment rate among blacks in Texas is 9.5% -- far more than double white unemployment -- and wages have fallen for black workers in Texas since 2000.To our inquiry, a project spokesman, Daniel Barrera, pointed us by email to a March 2015 report by the Brooklyn-based Center for Popular Democracy, which says it promotes equity, opportunity and a dynamic democracy. The report,Wall Street, Main Street, and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard: Why African Americans Must Not Be Left Out of the Federal Reserves Full-Employment Mandate,presents charts with the cited figures, which the Washington, D.C.-based Economic Policy Institute based on federal wage and employment data.Source:Report, Wall Street, Main Street, and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard: Why African Americans Must Not Be Left Out of the Federal Reserves Full-Employment Mandate, Center for Popular Democracy, April 6, 2015Source:Report, Wall Street, Main Street, and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard: Why African Americans Must Not Be Left Out of the Federal Reserves Full-Employment Mandate, Center for Popular Democracy, April 6, 2015When we called to ask about that, Ady Barkan, a center official, suggested multiple longstanding factors including racism and differences between blacks and whites in education levels and rates of incarceration. By email, Barkan also pointed out aJuly 2011 issue paperfrom the liberal Center for American Progress noting, among reasons, that in each of the latest U.S. recessions, blacks were most often the first employees fired and the last ones hired (once each recession was ending).We also sought an explanation of the cited differences from Chris King, director of the Ray Marshall Center for the Study of Human Resources at the University of Texas. By email, King said labor economists would explain higher unemployment among blacks/African Americans nationally by pointing out that African Americans tend to have lower levels of education and be employed in lower-paying occupations and industries than whites. King elaborated by pointing out Bureau of Labor Statistics data covering 2011 showing black men more likely to work in service, production, transportation and material moving jobs. Conversely, he wrote, black men were less likely to work in professional and managerial jobs than whites; the picture was similar, he said, for black women. (See his full reply here.)Separately to our inquiry, analyst Chuck DeVore of the conservativeTexas Public Policy Foundation suggested real median hourly wage estimates used by the institute may deliver an incomplete picture of economic well being. People dont live on wages alone, DeVore said, adding that a more accurate indicator of wealth would be household income, folding in Social Security, inheritances and any other financial assistance.See more on this aspect here.Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. |
FMD_train_517 | Says, when this governor came to office, he had (an) 11 billion dollar - I call it mismanagement deficit. | 02/21/2013 | [] | Its the number that keeps on giving.Assembly Minority Leader Jon Bramnick is the latest public official to get mileage from a claim about an $11 billion albatross that was hanging around Chris Christies neck when he became governor in 2010.Bramnick, a Republican representing parts of Union, Somerset and Morris counties, mentioned the number during a roundtable discussion Feb. 8 for NJTVs On The Record with Michael Aron. PolitiFact New Jersey has checked the existence of such a deficit on several occasions when Christie made similar claims.Why did Bramnick bring up the number?Bramnick and several other legislators were discussing the concept of the state returning money to municipalities that utilities pay towns for hosting utility poles, facilities and more. That money is paid to the state, which is supposed to then send the money estimated in the hundreds of millions -- to the municipalities. That hasnt happened, however, as the state grapples with various economic issues. Bramnick said the theory of returning the money is an idea no one would disagree with, but he questioned where the millions would come from.When this governor came to office, he had (an) 11 billion dollar -- I call it mismanagement deficit, Bramnick said, adding that Christie has been working to improve the states finances.Bramnicks right that Christie took office with an $11 billion deficit, but that number is a theoretical figure only.Lets explain the deficit.The $11 billion refers to a $10.7 billion structural deficit the states nonpartisan Office of Legislative Services projected for the fiscal 2011 budget year. That budget was put together under then-Gov. Jon Corzine. Christies first budget was for fiscal year 2012.A structural deficit measures how much money the state would need if current services and revenues remained the same and all statutory spending obligations were fully funded.The state, however, does not have to meet all of its obligations since the budget supersedes statute.That means that while a state statute may require certain levels of spending on different programs, the governor can sign a budget that does otherwise.And like his predecessor, thats basically what Christie did when it was his turn to craft a spending plan. In Christies case, he skipped a $3 billion pension payment and didnt fully fund the school-aid formula or the states property tax rebate program.The result? New Jersey still had a projected structural deficit for the fiscal 2012 budget year, but slightly smaller. It was $10.5 billion, according to the OLS.So there was an approximate $11 billion deficit when Christie took office, but in theory only.Bramnick acknowledged that the deficit in place when Christie took office was a structural deficit, and said he cited it during the discussion to illustrate the states financial woes.Our rulingBramnick said during a roundtable discussion on NJTVs On The Record with Michael Aron that when this governor came to office, he had (an) 11 billion dollar -- I call it mismanagement -- deficit.The OLS projected a nearly $11 billion structural deficit for the fiscal year 2011 budget created under Corzine, but its the type of deficit that measures how much money the state would need to maintain funding for services, if all required spending was fully funded and revenues stayed the same.Bramnicks right that a deficit existed when Christie came into office, but it was a theoretical one that resulted because administrations prior to Christies didnt spend all of the money needed to fully fund required expenses -- a move Christie repeated for his first budget as governor. We rate Bramnick's claim Mostly True. To comment on this story, go toNJ.com. | [
"New Jersey",
"Debt",
"Deficit",
"State Budget"
] | [] | True | To comment on this story, go toNJ.com. |
FMD_train_78 | The shutdown is projected to result in $10 billion in costs to the economy per week. | 10/03/2013 | [] | Now that we're living in a federal government shutdown, what is the impact on the economy? U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz waved her calculator at the GOP and cited a staggering figure on Twitter: $10 billion in costs to the economy per week. This is what the Republicans had to say? tweeted Wasserman Schultz, D-Weston, who also serves as the chair of the Democratic National Committee. We wanted to verify her number: How much will the shutdown cost the economy? Wasserman Schultz's figures align with those from the White House. A White House spokesman stated that the $10 billion figure originated from an August report by the investment group Goldman Sachs. We also found similar estimates from Moody's and IHS. These financial firms agree that the impact depends on the duration of the shutdown. The longer the closure lasts, the worse the impact becomes. A brief shutdown would delay, not cancel, most spending, according to the Goldman Sachs report. In a brief shutdown, it is likely that only federal employee compensation would be lost; most of the other activity would simply be delayed and made up later. A longer shutdown—the longest on record, which occurred in late 1995 and early 1996, lasted about three weeks—would affect a greater share of federal activities. The report includes three scenarios based on a two-day, one-week, and three-week shutdown. It predicts a $2.6 billion economic loss for a two-day shutdown, $10.4 billion for a week, and $36.8 billion for three weeks. Moody's found that a shutdown lasting three to four weeks would cost $55 billion, with costs accelerating over time. Moody's takes into account the losses from federal workers not getting paid, the delay of housing and small business loans, the hit to tourism spending, and the interruptions for contractors. To be clear, these are rough estimates of what we think the impacts will be, Moody's analyst Brian Kessler told PolitiFact. There are just a ridiculously large number of moving parts. Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's, testified before the Joint Economic Committee about the shutdown in September. A shutdown lasting only three or four days would have modest economic consequences, costing the economy approximately 0.2 percentage points of annualized real GDP growth in the fourth quarter. However, shutting the government down for three or four weeks would cause significant economic damage, reducing real GDP by 1.4 percentage points in the fourth quarter. This likely understates the economic fallout, as it does not fully account for the impact of such a lengthy shutdown on consumer, business, and investor psychology. IHS calculated a loss of $1.6 billion for one week due to furloughs, with the impact increasing for a longer shutdown. The spending habits of government employees probably would not change if the shutdown were short-lived, particularly if they believed they would receive back wages, as in 1995, states the September IHS report. Any uncertainty about compensation, however, could increase the impact on consumer spending. Meanwhile, incomes would be maintained for Social Security beneficiaries. Medicare payments would also continue, so spending on health care services would not be harmed, and hospitals and doctors would receive payments. We also reviewed studies about previous shutdowns and media reports analyzing the potential hit to the economy. We interviewed Tad DeHaven, a budget analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute; Jason Peuquet from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget; and Dean Baker, an economist with the liberal Center for Economic Policy Research. Our experts generally agreed on one key point: The economic hit will depend on how long the shutdown lasts. Jason Peuquet of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget told us that it is extremely difficult to quantify the impact of a shutdown on the economy. Sure, analysts can calculate the direct costs of furloughing federal employees, Peuquet told PolitiFact in an email. But once you factor in the impacts on thousands of federal contractors, the time and resources lost preparing for and implementing the shutdown, the added economic uncertainty of how lawmakers will resolve this, how the Federal Reserve may respond if the shutdown continues for an extended period, and then the ensuing economic reverberations of these changes, it becomes a very imprecise exercise. DeHaven of Cato emphasized that these analyses from economists are just estimates and that the actual impact on the economy could differ. If you go back and look at previous shutdowns, there was no long-term effect..., DeHaven said. For Wasserman Schultz or the White House to tweet out that this is going to cost X amount of money is nonsense. You could discuss the costs associated with the government creating uncertainty in the economy due to many actions taken in Washington. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service concluded that the cost of shutdowns in fiscal year 1996 was $1.4 billion—most of that was for back pay to furloughed workers, according to University of Maryland political science professor Roy Meyers. In 1995, the government first closed from Nov. 14-19 and then again from Dec. 16-Jan. 6. However, Peuquet and Meyers noted that some factors could make the economic hit from a shutdown different today, meaning we can't simply adjust for inflation from the mid-1990s shutdowns. Back then, several appropriations bills had already been enacted, allowing spending in various areas of the federal government. This time, those bills haven't been enacted. The federal government also relies more heavily on contractors than it did in the 1990s, and they are unlikely to receive back pay. We are still learning a lot of this as we go, Peuquet said. Another factor to consider is that the economy is much weaker now than it was in the mid-1990s. This shutdown is likely to have a larger daily cost..., Meyers told PolitiFact. The economy is weaker and cannot handle as much of a shock as it could in 1995-96. Overall, we rate this statement Mostly True. | [
"Economy",
"Federal Budget",
"Florida"
] | [] | True | $10 billion in costs to the economy per week and this is what the R's had to say?tweetedWasserman Schultz, D-Weston, who also serves as the chair of the Democratic National Committee.Wasserman Schultzs numbers are the same as those from theWhite House. A White House spokesman said the $10 billion figure came from an August report from the investment groupGoldman Sachs. We also found similar estimates fromMoodysandIHS.Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moodys,testifiedbefore the Joint Economic Committee about the shutdown in September.IHScalculated a loss of $1.6 billion for one week as a result of furloughs, with the impact increasing for a longer shutdown.We also readstudiesaboutprevious shutdowns andmediareportsanalyzingthe potential hit to the economy. We interviewed Tad DeHaven, budget analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute; Jason Peuquet, Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget and Dean Baker, an economist with the liberal Center for Economic Policy Research.The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service concluded that the cost of shutdowns in fiscal year 1996 was$1.4 billion-- most of that was for back pay to furloughed workers, according to University of Maryland political science professorRoy Meyers. In 1995, the government first closed from Nov. 14-19 and then again from Dec. 16-Jan.6. |
FMD_train_1492 | Is Stacey Abrams responsible for a debt exceeding $50,000 in overdue taxes? | 10/25/2018 | [
"A graphic criticizing the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial candidate was not inaccurate, but neither was it a \"gotcha\" moment."
] | A graphic circulated online about 2018 Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams owing a large sum in back taxes was technically accurate, but it omitted several key details in an attempt to frame her as irresponsible or dishonest. The meme showed a photograph of Abrams along with a caption reading, "This is Stacy [sic] Abrams, the Democrat on the ticket for Georgia governor. She owes the IRS $50,000 in back taxes." Abrams publicly revealed that she owed a $54,000 debt to the Internal Revenue Service when she released her personal financial disclosure documents in March 2018. However, although she is in debt, she is not delinquent in her taxes, as documents show she is on a payment plan after deferring payments for the tax years 2015 and 2016. The candidate elaborated on her situation in an op-ed published by Fortune magazine on April 24, 2018, stating that even though she earned $95,000 a year at her first job after graduating college, the cost of her education left her with more than $100,000 in debt before she had to take on additional financial responsibilities. She wrote, "I'd love to say that was the end of my financial troubles, but life had other plans. In 2006, my youngest brother and his girlfriend had a child they could not care for due to their drug addictions. Instead, my parents took custody when my niece was five days old. Underpaid, raising an infant, and battling their own illnesses, my parents' bills piled up. I took on much of the financial responsibility to support them, and even today I remain their main source of financial support. Paying the bills for two households has taken its toll. Nearly twenty years after graduating, I am still paying down student loans and am on a payment plan to settle my debt to the IRS. I have made money mistakes, but I have never ignored my responsibilities; I will meet my obligations—however slowly but surely." Abrams' opponent in the 2018 gubernatorial race (which she lost), Republican Brian Kemp, was reportedly also in heavy debt. He was sued by an investment company in June 2018 after allegedly failing to repay a $500,000 loan he guaranteed for an agricultural company in which he invested, Hart AgStrong LLC. Kemp has claimed that he is not responsible for paying the loan, but the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported in September 2018 that, according to court documents, Kemp also promised to cover around $10 million in other loans for the company. | [
"taxes"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1Vk_cKUsfSGahw5jKgPUDzwiIF6gdLfIH",
"image_caption": null
}
] | True | Abrams publicly revealed that she owed a $54,000 debt to the Internal Revenue Service when she released her personal financial disclosure documents in March 2018. But although she is in debt, she is not delinquent in her taxes, as documents show her to be on a payment plan after deferring payments for tax years 2015 and 2016.The candidate elaborated on her situation in an op-ed published by Fortune magazine on 24 April 2018, saying that even though she earned $95,000 a year at her first job after graduating college, the cost of her education still left her more than $100,000 in debt before she had to take on even more financial responsibilities:Abrams' opponent in the 2018 gubernatorial race (which she lost), Republican Brian Kemp, was reportedly also in heavy debt. He was sued by an investment company in June 2018 after allegedly failing to repay a $500,000 loan he guaranteed for an agricultural company in which he invested, Hart AgStrong LLC. Kemp has claimed that he is not responsible for paying the loan, but the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported in September 2018 that according to court documents, Kemp also promised to cover around $10 million in other loans for the company. |
FMD_train_357 | Cat and Rat Ranch Hoax | 01/06/2000 | [
"We feed the cats to the rats, the rats to the cats, and get the skins for free!"
] | Claim: A serious prospectus inviting investors to become part of a cat-and-rat farm was once circulated, the basic premise of which involved skinning cats for their fur, feeding the cat carcasses to rats, then feeding the rats to the cats being raised for their fur. Origins: This grey-bearded leg pull has been around for a whopping 125 years, since that day in 1875 when Willis B. Powell, editor of a newspaper in Lacon, Illinois, pulled the wool over the collective eyes of Associated Press by supplying that newswire with details about a supposedly real cat-and-rat ranch being advertised in that area. Despite its silliness, the story evaded scrutiny, and an obvious prank took on a life of its own in the imaginations of many. Then, as now, the Associated Press imprimatur conferred credibility. Not until April 1940, when an article appeared in Goldfish Bowl (a publication of the National Press Club of Washington, D.C.), was the famous Lacon, Illinois, ranch for felines and rodents widely revealed as a hoax. The spurious prospectus on which the Associated Press news accounts were based read as follows: Glorious Opportunity To Get Rich!!! We are starting a cat ranch in Lacon with 100,000 cats. Each cat will average 12 kittens a year. The cat skins will sell for 30 cents each. One hundred men can skin 5,000 cats a day. We figure a daily net profit of over $10,000. Now what shall we feed the cats? We will start a rat farm next door with 1,000,000 rats. The rats breed 12 times faster than the cats. So we will have four rats to feed each day to each cat. Now what shall we feed the rats? We will feed the rats the carcasses of the cats after they have been skinned. Now Get This! We feed the rats to the cats and the cats to the rats and get the cat skins for nothing!Barbara "ratified" Mikkelson Sightings: The 1934 film Maniac contains this urban legend, and various music lovers have informed me that on its 1985 album New Day Rising, Husker Du features a song called "How to Skin a Cat." The lyrics, I'm told, go something like "We'll feed the rats to the cats and the cats to the rats ." Just goes to show that you can't keep a good story down. Last updated: 10 August 2011 Hoaxes Sifakis, Carl. The Big Book of Hoaxes. New York: Paradox Press, 1996. ISBN 1-563-89252-9 (p. 41). The Big Book of Hoaxes Tan, Paul Lee. Encyclopedia of 7700 Illustrations. Rockville, Maryland: Assurance Publishers, 1979. ISBN 0-88469-100-4 (p. 289). | [
"profit"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1McJd6JbsXZ_P-kj4kuOBKCFyuODOWKYF",
"image_caption": null
}
] | False | Sifakis, Carl. The Big Book of Hoaxes. New York: Paradox Press, 1996. ISBN 1-563-89252-9 (p. 41). |
FMD_train_1860 | Photograph Shows Alton Sterling with Children, Guns | 07/07/2016 | [
"A years-old image purports to show a man who was fatally shot by police in July 2016."
] | On 7 July 2016, a photograph purportedly showing Alton Sterling and two of his children holding guns was posted to the "White Rights" section of Reddit. There is no evidence, however, that the man pictured in this image is the same man who was shot and killed by police officers in Baton Rouge. The image displayed above has been circulating since at least 2010 (a time stamp on the image shows it was taken even earlier in 2007) when it was posted to comedian Dan Goodman's "Ghetto MySpace" web, where it was accompanied by several other images of this family: Ghetto MySpace A few of these photographs have also been featured on "Parenting Fails" lists. While Goodman did not provide an exact source for the images displayed here, the pictures from "Ghetto Myspace" were purportedly culled from real MySpace profiles: Parenting Fails GhettoMyspace.net, recently featured on Tosh.0, Bossip.com, and Death and Taxes Mag, is a site dedicated to real photos from peoples myspace profiles. On this site you will find kids with guns, drug dealing, ghetto booty, hood funerals, and in general people having a great time. May we all have as much fun as the people in the pictures. Goodman removed the post containing these images from Ghettomyspace.net shortly after this article was published. He explained the decision in an email, writing that he wanted "zero association" with the community claiming that the images showed Alton Sterling: I've deleted the post. I want zero association with that community. I'm saddened anyone would use these pictures in how i'm guessing they're using them. I don't think it's him and furthermore if you look closely all the guns in the picture are Airsoft guns and not the real thing. Ghettomyspace was always meant to be funny and more commentary on the crazy stuff people share on social media and the gun culture, and at the time the social divide that was happening in 2010 when some people were only on myspace and some were only on facebook. There is no evidence that this image is of Alton Sterling (it bears little more than a passing resemblance to later photographs of him) or that it came from Sterling's MySpace profile: | [
"share"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1GMnESVACY9QyvyF9GdJof2TossQLJEEm",
"image_caption": null
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1JGz2uucsPiXWPqgKyESCnzlJl0DRSfe-",
"image_caption": null
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1cT23SKSA7CL-QhE16hozHKXswFZZVWi8",
"image_caption": null
}
] | NEI | The image displayed above has been circulating since at least 2010 (a time stamp on the image shows it was taken even earlier in 2007) when it was posted to comedian Dan Goodman's "Ghetto MySpace" web, where it was accompanied by several other images of this family: A few of these photographs have also been featured on "Parenting Fails" lists. While Goodman did not provide an exact source for the images displayed here, the pictures from "Ghetto Myspace" were purportedly culled from real MySpace profiles: |
FMD_train_1254 | Was Joel Osteen nominated by Paul Ryan for the position of House Chaplain? | 05/01/2018 | [
"Rumors about the outgoing House Speaker tapping the televangelist originated with a satirical post on a message board."
] | Shortly after outgoing House Speaker Paul Ryan fired House Chaplain Patrick Conroy in a closed-door meeting at the end of April 2018, a rumor that the House Speaker had nominated televangelist Joel Osteen as his replacement started to spread online: fired spread Paul Ryan did not nominate Joel Osteen to be the new House Chaplain. This rumor originated with a satirical post on the message board Democratic Underground: post In a surprise move during the weekend, Speaker Ryan proposed that Prosperity Gospel champion, Joel Osteen, become the new chaplain for the U.S. House of Representatives. In a brief comment, the Speaker said, "America needs to become more prosperous. It needs a new approach to individual wealth. Pastor Osteen carries that message and shows us the way. Working Americans should be grateful to pay more taxes to the Federal Government. As Jesus, himself, said, 'It will be returned an hundred-fold.' Joel, my good friend, suggests that the road to a more prosperious America will come through even higher taxes on low-income citizens, who will benefit in the end, of course. I agree with the good Pastor, and will be introducing new legislation to that effect soon." The author of this post, a user identified as "MineralMan," wrote in the comments that the "evil grin" emoticon included at the bottom of the post indicated that the text was satirical. Forum users also compared the text to articles on the Borowitz Report, a well-known satirical blog published in the New Yorker: Borowitz Report Zanona, Melanie. "Ryan Explains Decision to Dismiss House Chaplain."
The Hill. 27 April 2018. | [
"taxes"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1chuxQLn0KdBpxei6mgPtFQekrP3A5u00",
"image_caption": null
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1h25yobEHLi0aT2vhrIY_gnYAEYC5rUMG",
"image_caption": null
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1QGcarrmfq0AR3S6U51qnLIK6jSFQAxki",
"image_caption": null
}
] | False | Shortly after outgoing House Speaker Paul Ryan fired House Chaplain Patrick Conroy in a closed-door meeting at the end of April 2018, a rumor that the House Speaker had nominated televangelist Joel Osteen as his replacement started to spread online:Paul Ryan did not nominate Joel Osteen to be the new House Chaplain. This rumor originated with a satirical post on the message board Democratic Underground:The author of this post, a user identified as "MineralMan," wrote in the comments that the "evil grin" emoticon included at the bottom of the post indicated that the text was satirical. Forum users also compared the text to articles on the Borowitz Report, a well-known satirical blog published in the New Yorker: |
FMD_train_581 | Is This Carl Sagan Holding a 'No Billboards in Space' Sign? | 02/26/2018 | [
"An image purportedly showing famed astronomer Carl Sagan holding a sign reading \"No Billboards in Space\" is fake."
] | When Elon Musk launched the Falcon Heavy rocket (and its payload of a Tesla Roadster) in February 2018, many saw it as a giant step toward commercial space travel and sending a human to Mars. Tesla Roadster Others saw something slightly more cynical, namely a giant advertisement: advertisement Elon Musk pulled off a double marketing coup with the first successful test launch of his Falcon Heavy rocket, the flagship of his private space-flight company SpaceX, and the subsequent debut of its payloada Tesla Roadster driven by a dummy nicknamed Starmanas the first car in space. While the launch was clearly one of the most dramatic moments of livestreaming in recent memory, its the live YouTube feed of Musks own cherry-red Roadster circling the Earth that will perhaps generate the biggest publicity boost for Musks emerging electric-car company. With a famously nonexistent ad budget, Tesla just secured a place in auto marketing history. In the wake of this monumental achievement of space travel advertising, a photograph purportedly showing a disapproving Carl Sagan holding a "No Billboards in Space" sign started recirculating on the internet: This image isn't real. This photograph has been circulating online since at least 2010. A Redditor claimed in a 2011 posting of the image that they had created it for a photoshop contest on the web site Fark, but we were unable to locate the original contest. 2010 claimed created Regardless, this has image has been doctored. The original image showed Sagan holding one of the "Pioneer Plaques," not a sign reading "No Billboards in Space." The Pioneer Plaques were launched into space in the early 1970s aboard the Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 spacecrafts. The idea was that the plaques, which contained a pictorial message, would relay some information about the spacecraft's origins in case it was intercepted by an extraterrestrial life form: message It seemed to us appropriate that this spacecraft, the first man-made object to leave the solar system, should carry some indication of the locale, epoch, and nature of its builders. We do not know the likelihood of the Galaxy being filled with advanced technological societies capable of and interested in intercepting such a spacecraft. It is clear, however, that such interception is a very long term proposition. Griner, David. "With a $0 Ad Budget, Tesla Just Pulled Off One of the Greatest Marketing Stunts Ever"
Adweek. 7 February 2018. Sagan, Carl. "A Message from Earth."
Science Magazine. 25 February 1972. | [
"budget"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1evWuH_p9XV9SF_1sQUI0AJ5OkS2l1FCU",
"image_caption": null
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1fHWj8YxixMzAUfN68MOAPX5wg56OmBvE",
"image_caption": null
}
] | False | When Elon Musk launched the Falcon Heavy rocket (and its payload of a Tesla Roadster) in February 2018, many saw it as a giant step toward commercial space travel and sending a human to Mars.Others saw something slightly more cynical, namely a giant advertisement:This photograph has been circulating online since at least 2010. A Redditor claimed in a 2011 posting of the image that they had created it for a photoshop contest on the web site Fark, but we were unable to locate the original contest. The Pioneer Plaques were launched into space in the early 1970s aboard the Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 spacecrafts. The idea was that the plaques, which contained a pictorial message, would relay some information about the spacecraft's origins in case it was intercepted by an extraterrestrial life form: |
FMD_train_1127 | Is This Carl Sagan's 'Foreboding of an America'? | 01/23/2017 | [
"A quote from a 1995 book by the late astronomer and science communicator Carl Sagan struck a nerve with some readers decades later."
] | Amid talk of alternative facts and a post-truth world that dominated the news directly after the inauguration of President Donald Trump on January 20, 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: "Science is more | [
"economy"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1FSIqFhFHeJ8lR4HyEqwJxNyh85BlObUM",
"image_caption": null
}
] | True | This is the excerpt from the passage containing that quote which was shared most frequently: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."Sagan, for his part, described the book as "a personal statement, reflecting my lifelong love affair with science."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: |
FMD_train_1130 | Did Tucker Carlson Ask Hunter Biden for Help Getting His Son into College? | 12/07/2022 | [
"The Fox News host was once friendly with the presidents son."
] | Since the 2020 elections, Fox News host Tucker Carlson has attacked U.S. President Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, for allegedly engaging in business practices that benefited him due to his father's position. However, just a few years ago, according to an internet rumor, Carlson was seeking the younger Biden's assistance in getting his son into college. A meme circulating online claims that an email shows Carlson thanking Biden for writing a letter to Georgetown University on behalf of his son, Buckley. This claim is accurate. In 2014, when Joe Biden was serving as vice president, Carlson and his wife, Susie, reached out to Hunter Biden for help in getting their son into Georgetown University. Their email communication was revealed through forensic analysis of a laptop once owned by Biden, which he had purportedly left at a Delaware computer repair shop in 2019. The laptop was obtained by Trump's then-lawyer Rudy Giuliani, and its contents were published by the New York Post in 2020. The correspondence on Biden's hard drive, a copy of which was also in the possession of the FBI, was largely used to investigate his overseas business dealings during his father's time in the White House, but it also illuminated more about the Carlson-Biden relationship. The emails were given to The Washington Post on a hard drive by activist Jack Maxey, who received it from Giuliani. The Washington Post revealed the details of Carlson's and Biden's communication in May 2022 and was able to confirm, with the help of forensic analysis and interviews with people familiar with the communications, that this and other emails on the hard drive were real. So what did Carlson actually say? The Post shared an image of a few of the emails in which he thanks Biden for writing a letter to Georgetown "on Buckley's [his son's] behalf." He added, "So nice of you. I know it'll help." Carlson's wife wrote to Biden in 2014: "I realize you don't really know Buckley. Maybe you could meet or speak to him, and he could send you a very brief resume with his interests and grades attached." She also wrote: "Tucker and I would be so grateful if you could write a letter or speak to someone in the Georgetown Admissions Office about Buckley." Biden replied that he would be honored to help. "I will do anything you would like me to do," he said. Carlson described his son's interest in squash and fly fishing and wrote, "He loves Washington for all the right reasons, I think, and really wants to go to school here." When Biden agreed to write a letter for Buckley, Susie responded with, "Tucker and I have the greatest respect and admiration for you. Always!" Carlson admitted that he was once close with Biden in a phone interview with the Post. He said: "Hunter Biden was my neighbor. Our wives were friends. I knew him well. I talked to him many times about addiction, something I know a lot about. And I've said that. I think that Hunter Biden is an addict and that's why his life is falling apart, and I feel bad for him. I've said that many times, and I mean it." He refused to discuss the emails, however, pointing (with apparent irony) to claims that the timing of the laptop's emergence in 2020 had the hallmarks of Russian disinformation. Previously, Carlson had dismissed and mocked claims of a Russian disinformation campaign as an effort by the establishment and tech giants to protect Joe Biden's 2020 election campaign. It is unclear if Biden ended up writing a letter, but Carlson's son did end up going to the University of Virginia. "I can't confirm these emails. The emails that you're referring to were described by our intel community as Russian disinformation," he said. He added that he could not verify the emails as he did not have access to the account. Hunter Biden declined to comment to the Post. Since 2020, Carlson has regularly criticized the younger Biden on his show, accusing him of getting "lucrative jobs because he had an important father." He did say there were certain lines he would not cross, pertaining to the laptop. In October 2020, he said: "Much of the material on the laptop is of limited relevance to the public. [...] And by the way, if we're being honest, some of the exchanges between Hunter Biden and his father, and they are on there, too, reveal that whatever you say about them, Joe Biden really loves his son, and they're touching." But following the 2020 election, Carlson's anti-Hunter Biden rhetoric grew, and he even poked fun at his addictions in an October 2021 segment: "So again, let's say you were a crackhead through your 40s, made a lot of pornographic videos mostly of yourself, your genitals covered in M&Ms, and then once you got to your 50s, decide, 'Hey, I want to be Andy Warhol.' You probably couldn't do it unless your dad happened to be the president, and that's how Hunter Biden pulled that off." | [
"interest"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1017snNnLWcsddO2HH8yHEp663jEcngiu",
"image_caption": null
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1s2nHEqaqypEg66SOCZCdBzn_duxftxiO",
"image_caption": null
}
] | True | Since the 2020 elections, Fox News host Tucker Carlson has attackedU.S. President Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, for allegedly engaging in business practices by means of which Hunter allegedly benefited from his father's position. But just a few years ago, according to an internet rumor, Carlson was asking for the younger Biden's help in getting his son into college.This claim is accurate. In 2014, when Joe Biden was serving as vice president, Carlson and his wife, Susie,reached out to Hunter Biden for help in getting their son into Georgetown University. Their email communication was revealed through forensic analysis of a laptop once owned by Biden that he had purportedly left at a Delaware computer repair shop in 2019. The laptop was obtained by Trump's then-lawyer Rudy Giuliani, and its contents pushed out to the New York Post in 2020. The correspondenceon Biden's hard drive, a copy of which was also in the possession of the FBI, was largely used to investigate his overseas business dealings during his father's time in the White House, but also have illuminated more about the Carlson-Biden relationship.The emails were given to The Washington Poston a hard drive by activist Jack Maxey, who received it from Giuliani. The Washington Post revealed the details of Carlson's and Biden's communication in May 2022, and was able to confirm with the help of forensic analysis and interviews with people familiar with the communications that this and other emails on the hard drive were real.So what did Carlson actually say? The Post shared an image of a few of the emails in which he thanks Biden for writing a letter to Georgetown "on Buckley's [his son's] behalf." He added, "So nice of you. I know it'll help."Carlson admitted that he was once close with Biden in a phone interview with the Post. He said: "Hunter Biden was my neighbor. Our wives were friends. I knew him well. I talked to him many times about addiction, something I know a lot about. And I've said that. I think that Hunter Biden is an addict and that's why his life is falling apart, and I feel bad for him. I've said that many times, and I mean it."He refused to discuss the emails, however, pointing (with apparent irony) to claims that the timing of the laptop's emergence in 2020 had the hallmarks of Russian disinformation. Previously, Carlson had dismissed and mocked claims of a Russian disinformation campaign as an effort by the establishment and tech giants to protect Joe Biden's 2020 election campaign. It is unclear if Biden ended up writing a letter, but Carlson's son did end up going to the University of Virginia."I can't confirm these emails. The emails that you're referring to were described by our intel community as Russian disinformation," he said. He added that he could not verify the emails as he did not have access to the account.Since 2020, Carlson has regularly skewered the younger Biden on his show, accusing him of getting "lucrative jobs because he had an important father."But following the 2020 election, Carlson's anti-Hunter Biden rhetoric grew, and he even poked fun at his addictions in an October 2021 segment:"So again, let's say you were a crackhead through your 40s, made a lot of pornographic videos mostly of yourself, your genitals covered in M&Ms, and then once you got to your 50s, decide, 'Hey, I want to be Andy Warhol. You probably couldn't do it unless your dad happened to be the president, and that's how Hunter Biden pulled that off." |
FMD_train_882 | Did a Noted Pathologist Write This Viral Coronavirus Advice Letter? | 03/02/2020 | [
"Amid an outbreak of coronavirus in 2020, an email from pathologist James Robb was heavily memed and exaggerated."
] | In late February 2020, as a new coronavirus spread worldwide, a letter providing advice on avoiding a viral infection was shared and memed heavily. The letter is attributed to pathologist James Robb who described himself as "one of the first molecular virologists in the world to work on coronaviruses." The letter itself provides common-sense solutions to preventing disease transmission: letter shared memed 1) NO HANDSHAKING! Use a fist bump, slight bow, elbow bump, etc. 2) Use ONLY your knuckle to touch light switches. elevator buttons, etc.. Lift the gasoline dispenser with a paper towel or use a disposable glove. 3) Open doors with your closed fist or hip - do not grasp the handle with your hand, unless there is no other way to open the door. Especially important on bathroom and post office/commercial doors. 4) Use disinfectant wipes at the stores when they are available, including wiping the handle and child seat in grocery carts. 5) Wash your hands with soap for 10-20 seconds and/or use a greater than 60% alcohol-based hand sanitizer whenever you return home from ANY activity that involves locations where other people have been. 6) Keep a bottle of sanitizer available at each of your home's entrances. AND in your car for use after getting gas or touching other contaminated objects when you can't immediately wash your hands. 7) If possible, cough or sneeze into a disposable tissue and discard. Use your elbow only if you have to. The clothing on your elbow will contain infectious virus that can be passed on for up to a week or more! The portion of the missive that garnered the most attention, however, was the pathologist's recommendation of zinc lozenges: Stock up now with zinc lozenges. These lozenges have been proven to be effective in blocking coronavirus (and most other viruses) from multiplying in your throat and nasopharynx. Use as directed several times each day when you begin to feel ANY "cold-like" symptoms beginning. It is best to lie down and let the lozenge dissolve in the back of your throat and nasopharynx. Cold-Eeze lozenges is one brand available, but there are other brands available. This portion of the letter apparently resulted in memes suggesting the product Cold-Eeze was a "silver bullet" that would "kill coronavirus": We reached out to Robb to ask if he was the author of this letter. Via email, he told us that he did indeed write it, but that it was never meant to be for anyone besides family and close friends, and that it was not intended to be an advertisement for any specific product: It was my email to my family and close friends ONLY. Someone put it on their Facebook page. It was intended to be a monologue - not a dialogue. I do not use any social media and may have been too naive about what "sharing" means today. His history with coronaviruses is accurately recounted. In the late 1970s, as professor of pathology at the University of California, San Diego, Robb published some of the earliest descriptions of coronaviruses. He also published a book chapter on this class of viruses for "Comprehensive Virology." earliest descriptions book chapter While Robb does recommend zinc lozenges (of any brand, he told us), he would not describe the product as the silver bullet solution to the outbreak: In my experience as a virologist and pathologist, zinc will inhibit the replication of many viruses, including coronaviruses. I expect COVID-19 [the disease caused by the novel coronavirus] will be inhibited similarly, but I have no direct experimental support for this claim. I must add, however, that using zinc lozenges as directed by the manufacturer is no guarantee against being infected by the virus, even if it inhibits the viral replication in the nasopharynx. In general terms, research suggests that zinc may be able to inhibit the spread of some viral infections, but the question remains scientifically unsettled. A 2010 study using cell cultures published in PLOS One found evidence that increasing intracellular zinc concentrations "can efficiently impair the replication of a variety of RNA viruses" including coronaviruses. According to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, "trials conducted in high-income countries since 1984 investigating the role of zinc for the common cold symptoms have had mixed results." The common cold is, in some cases, caused by a virus also classified as a coronavirus. 2010 study According common cold Because the letter was written by him, we rank this claim as Correctly Attributed" to Robb. For more tips on protecting against the coronavirus, visit the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention tip sheet here. tip sheet Bond, Clifford W., et al. "Pathogenic Murine Coronaviruses II. Characterization of Virus-specific Proteins of Murine Coronaviruses JHSMV and A59V."
Virology. 30 April 1979. Robb, James A. and Clifford W. Bond. "Coronaviridae."
Comprehensive Virology. 1979. te Velthuis, Aartjan J. W., et al. "Zn2+ Inhibits Coronavirus and Arterivirus RNA Polymerase Activity In Vitro and Zinc Ionophores Block the Replication of These Viruses in Cell Culture."
PLOS Pathogens. 4 November 2010. Singh, Meenu and Rashmi R. Das. "Zinc for the Common Cold."
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.   18 June 2013. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "Common Human Coronaviruses."
Accessed 2 March 2020. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Prevention and Treatment."
Accessed 2 March 2020. Correction [13 March 2020]: Clarified that human coronaviruses are just one of several potential causes of the common cold. | [
"income"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1coH6H57ZzyP1PeShXX-peW2sew49OH2s",
"image_caption": null
}
] | True | In late February 2020, as a new coronavirus spread worldwide, a letter providing advice on avoiding a viral infection was shared and memed heavily. The letter is attributed to pathologist James Robb who described himself as "one of the first molecular virologists in the world to work on coronaviruses." The letter itself provides common-sense solutions to preventing disease transmission:His history with coronaviruses is accurately recounted. In the late 1970s, as professor of pathology at the University of California, San Diego, Robb published some of the earliest descriptions of coronaviruses. He also published a book chapter on this class of viruses for "Comprehensive Virology."In general terms, research suggests that zinc may be able to inhibit the spread of some viral infections, but the question remains scientifically unsettled. A 2010 study using cell cultures published in PLOS One found evidence that increasing intracellular zinc concentrations "can efficiently impair the replication of a variety of RNA viruses" including coronaviruses. According to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, "trials conducted in high-income countries since 1984 investigating the role of zinc for the common cold symptoms have had mixed results." The common cold is, in some cases, caused by a virus also classified as a coronavirus.Because the letter was written by him, we rank this claim as Correctly Attributed" to Robb. For more tips on protecting against the coronavirus, visit the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention tip sheet here. |
FMD_train_1640 | 3-on-3 Basketball at the 2016 Olympics? | 01/16/2015 | [
"Rumor: The IOC has announced that 3-on-3 basketball will be an official sport at the 2016 Olympics."
] | Claim: The IOC has announced that 3-on-3 basketball will be an official sport at the 2016 Olympics. Example: [Collected via Twitter, January 2015] The 2016 Olympics will feature 3-on-3 basketball. Who would you choose? pic.twitter.com/4VZhxLLy2i pic.twitter.com/4VZhxLLy2i BALL UP NBA (@BallUpNBA) January 15, 2015 January 15, 2015 Origins: On 14 January 2015, the satirical Australian website Betoota Advocate published a fake news article claiming that 3-on-3 basketball would be an officially sanctioned sport at the 2016 Summer Olympics. After decades of pressure and debate, as well as an official application submitted by the International Basketball Federation, the IOC confirmed this week that a three-on-three basketball variant will be included as part of the official event program for the 2016 Olympics in Rio de Janeiro. The final decision was made quietly during an annual committee meeting late last month. After nearly a decade of exploring different options, the International Olympic Committee's executive board confirmed that they would go ahead with the proposal despite the fact that the request would result in a higher number of athletes and an increased number of medals, thereby adding to the cost and complexity of the Games. While the Betoota Advocate's article was shared only a few hundred times on social media, the rumor about 3-on-3 basketball becoming an official Olympic sport received a viral push when Deadspin reported the hoax as real news: The IOC has officially added a new half-court 3-on-3 basketball event to the competitions to be held in the 2016 Olympics in Rio de Janeiro. This rules. Right away, you'll have to throw a big bucket of calm down on your head because, as the IOC put it in a 2012 letter discussing its interest in 3-on-3, a large part of the impetus is to focus more on the amateurism of sports and get the event away from being "somewhat of an exhibition for the American NBA." When reporter Kyle Wagner realized his mistake, he added an update at the top of the article stating he had been duped by a satire site: Nah, this isn't happening. I wrote a post based on a satire website, which is just about the dumbest way to mess up. Sorry. Mess me. Would have been cool though. Last updated: 16 January 2015 | [
"interest"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1tZCuxdfXrwwGjBitFWjZiMJI1j5bWHPI",
"image_caption": null
}
] | False | The 2016 Olympics will feature 3-on-3 basketball. Who would you chose? pic.twitter.com/4VZhxLLy2i BALL UP NBA (@BallUpNBA) January 15, 2015Origins: On 14 January 2015, the satirical Australian web site Betoota Advocate published a fake news article claiming 3-on-3 basketball would be an officially sanctioned sport at the 2016 Summer Olympics:While the Betoota Advocate's article was shared only a few hundred times on social media, the rumor about 3-on-3 basketball's becoming an official Olympic sport received a viral push when Deadspin reported the hoax as real news: |
FMD_train_453 | Did Biden Set US 'Back 50 Years' on Energy Independence Progress? | 02/15/2021 | [
"It is true that 2019 was the first year since 1957 in which the U.S. was energy independent. "
] | The conservative group Turning Point USA created a meme that pushes a sophomoric and factually lacking political argument. The meme in question, watermarked with the logo of Turning Point USA's political action committee (Turning Point Action), makes two claims. First, it states that the year 2019 was the first year the United States achieved energy independence since 1957. Second, it argues that "in only ten days" Joe Biden "sent us back 50 years," implying policies enacted in the first 10 days of his administration reversed American energy independence: political action committee Turning Point Action's graphic, it bears highlighting, makes no reference to the year 2020, despite the fact that President Donald Trump was in office that year. The claim about 2019 being the first year in which the U.S. achieved energy independence since 1957 is true so long as we understand what the term "energy independence" really means. It means that the U.S. produced more energy than it consumed. Most importantly, from an energy security perspective, energy independence does not mean that the U.S. doesn't import foreign oil or isn't fundamentally reliant on foreign sources of energy. is true In 2019, according to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the U.S. imported 9.1 million barrels per day (MMb/d) of oil from about 90 countries, though at the same time it also exported 8.5 MMb/d of oil to about 190 countries. By email, Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist and energy systems analyst at the Breakthrough Institute, explained that "our local production does not meaningfully insulate us from potential future global oil price shocks." according Zeke Hausfather The energy independence experienced by the U.S. in 2019 was driven by record levels of total fossil fuel exports from the U.S. That record was set as part of a long-term trend dating back to 2006 and 2008, according to the EIA: according Domestic crude oil production has increased since 2008 and natural gas production has increased since 2006. The increases in crude oil production and the easing of restrictions on crude oil exports in December 2015 have contributed to increases in crude oil exports. Increases in natural gas production along with increases in liquefied natural gas (LNG) export capacity have contributed to increases in natural gas exports in recent years. In 2011, the United States became a net exporter of petroleum products for the first time since at least 1949. In 2017, the United States became a net exporter of natural gas for the first time since the late 1950s. In 2019, U.S. total annual energy exports exceeded total annual energy imports for the first time in 67 years, and the United States became a net total energy exporter. The Turning Point meme disregards entirely the existence of the year 2020. The omission of 2020 masks not only a decline in U.S. fossil fuel production that occurred, it also conceals a larger truth about U.S. presidents and the global energy market: Neither they nor their policies have a significant effect on the market compared to other global factors. a decline A significant factor in allowing the U.S. to increase its energy exports has been the rising cost of crude oil globally. Technological innovations like fracking and horizontal drilling have, in recent years, allowed the U.S. to exploit fossil fuel reserves that were previously inaccessible, but these technologies add cost. A high-cost, high-demand energy economy like the one present during the record-setting year of 2019 benefits the U.S. energy sector because it makes American fossil fuel exports financially viable. The flip side is that the viability of U.S. exports depends in large measure on the going rate for a barrel of oil. If the cost is too low, U.S. drilling operations become financially uncompetitive and exports drop off. The year 2020 saw a historic drop in the price of oil. add cost historic drop "In 2020, U.S. oil production fell by around 8% relative to 2019," Hausfather told Snopes. "This was primarily due to falling global oil prices making relatively high-cost US shale oil production uncompetitive." The drop in demand, and then price, was not the result of any policy decision; it was the result of a massive global pandemic. In a Feb. 3, 2021, news release, Acting EIA Director Stephen Nalley explained that 'the pandemic triggered an historic energy demand shock that led to ... decreases in energy production, and sometimes volatile commodity prices in 2020.'" news release Indeed, this volatility resulted in times during 2020 a year in which Joe Biden was not president when the U.S. dipped into consuming more energy that it produced. In July and August 2020, the U.S. was not energy independent, at least on monthly terms. By Turning Point USA's logic, this would mean that two months of Trump "sent us back 50 years" in terms of energy policy. In reality, the actions of any U.S. president cannot affect rapid change in the global energy market, and the effect of any domestic policy changes are dwarfed by global factors outside any one president's control. July and August As previously discussed, the U.S. had already experienced at least a brief period of energy "dependence" before Biden took office. While the most recent month for which we have data October 2020 indicates the U.S. was producing slightly more energy than it consumed toward the end of Trump's presidency, U.S. oil production has been dropping off and global demand remains depressed. These trends, which predate the Biden administration, are unlikely to change anytime soon. October 2020 It will take a while for the energy sector to get to its new normal, said the EIA's Nalley in February 2021. In its 2021 "Global Outlooks" annual report, the EIA argued that "total U.S. energy consumption will return to 2019 levels by 2029, though that is highly dependent on the pace of U.S. economic recovery." In terms of energy production, "EIA projects that the United States will continue to export more petroleum and other liquids than it imports, but the balance of imports to exports will be highly sensitive to supply, demand, and price factors." said argued The bottom line, according to the Breakthrough Institutes' Hausfather, is that "oil production changes in 2020 and 2021 are driven by larger changes in global demand and oil prices, rather than anything that either the Trump or Biden administration has done." Because the meme correctly states that 2019 was the first year the U.S. achieved energy independence in decades, but because it falsely implies a connection between the Biden administration and post-2019 trends in the global energy market that predate his time in office and are independent of the actions of either Trump or Biden, we rank its claims "false." | [
"economy"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1WQKeb9woUMqg30VTxrfTXGpHeWM3jv5Q",
"image_caption": null
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1fdMYtghj3z-eUi_4dQgQyW-wpej-xX-4",
"image_caption": null
}
] | False | The conservative group Turning Point USA created a meme that pushes a sophomoric and factually lacking political argument. The meme in question, watermarked with the logo of Turning Point USA's political action committee (Turning Point Action), makes two claims. First, it states that the year 2019 was the first year the United States achieved energy independence since 1957. Second, it argues that "in only ten days" Joe Biden "sent us back 50 years," implying policies enacted in the first 10 days of his administration reversed American energy independence:The claim about 2019 being the first year in which the U.S. achieved energy independence since 1957 is true so long as we understand what the term "energy independence" really means. It means that the U.S. produced more energy than it consumed. Most importantly, from an energy security perspective, energy independence does not mean that the U.S. doesn't import foreign oil or isn't fundamentally reliant on foreign sources of energy.In 2019, according to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the U.S. imported 9.1 million barrels per day (MMb/d) of oil from about 90 countries, though at the same time it also exported 8.5 MMb/d of oil to about 190 countries. By email, Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist and energy systems analyst at the Breakthrough Institute, explained that "our local production does not meaningfully insulate us from potential future global oil price shocks." The energy independence experienced by the U.S. in 2019 was driven by record levels of total fossil fuel exports from the U.S. That record was set as part of a long-term trend dating back to 2006 and 2008, according to the EIA:The Turning Point meme disregards entirely the existence of the year 2020. The omission of 2020 masks not only a decline in U.S. fossil fuel production that occurred, it also conceals a larger truth about U.S. presidents and the global energy market: Neither they nor their policies have a significant effect on the market compared to other global factors.A significant factor in allowing the U.S. to increase its energy exports has been the rising cost of crude oil globally. Technological innovations like fracking and horizontal drilling have, in recent years, allowed the U.S. to exploit fossil fuel reserves that were previously inaccessible, but these technologies add cost. A high-cost, high-demand energy economy like the one present during the record-setting year of 2019 benefits the U.S. energy sector because it makes American fossil fuel exports financially viable. The flip side is that the viability of U.S. exports depends in large measure on the going rate for a barrel of oil. If the cost is too low, U.S. drilling operations become financially uncompetitive and exports drop off. The year 2020 saw a historic drop in the price of oil."In 2020, U.S. oil production fell by around 8% relative to 2019," Hausfather told Snopes. "This was primarily due to falling global oil prices making relatively high-cost US shale oil production uncompetitive." The drop in demand, and then price, was not the result of any policy decision; it was the result of a massive global pandemic. In a Feb. 3, 2021, news release, Acting EIA Director Stephen Nalley explained that 'the pandemic triggered an historic energy demand shock that led to ... decreases in energy production, and sometimes volatile commodity prices in 2020.'"Indeed, this volatility resulted in times during 2020 a year in which Joe Biden was not president when the U.S. dipped into consuming more energy that it produced. In July and August 2020, the U.S. was not energy independent, at least on monthly terms. By Turning Point USA's logic, this would mean that two months of Trump "sent us back 50 years" in terms of energy policy. In reality, the actions of any U.S. president cannot affect rapid change in the global energy market, and the effect of any domestic policy changes are dwarfed by global factors outside any one president's control.As previously discussed, the U.S. had already experienced at least a brief period of energy "dependence" before Biden took office. While the most recent month for which we have data October 2020 indicates the U.S. was producing slightly more energy than it consumed toward the end of Trump's presidency, U.S. oil production has been dropping off and global demand remains depressed. These trends, which predate the Biden administration, are unlikely to change anytime soon.It will take a while for the energy sector to get to its new normal, said the EIA's Nalley in February 2021. In its 2021 "Global Outlooks" annual report, the EIA argued that "total U.S. energy consumption will return to 2019 levels by 2029, though that is highly dependent on the pace of U.S. economic recovery." In terms of energy production, "EIA projects that the United States will continue to export more petroleum and other liquids than it imports, but the balance of imports to exports will be highly sensitive to supply, demand, and price factors." |
FMD_train_1333 | 'Accidental' Venmo Payment from a Stranger May Be a Scam | 03/10/2021 | [
"Beware of strangers on Venmo \"accidentally\" sending money and requesting it back."
] | In early March 2021, Snopes readers inquired about screenshots of what appeared to be a scam circulating on the payment platform Venmo. The alleged scam shows a Venmo user sending $600 to another user and then requesting it back, claiming to have sent it to the wrong person. Although we do not know the intentions of the Venmo user involved in the exchange (and we cropped the person's name out for privacy reasons), sending money to strangers and then requesting it back is a known type of scam on Venmo. The Dayton Daily News, a daily newspaper based in Dayton, Ohio, described how the scam works: Even Venmo is aware of these scams and places a warning on its website that Venmo is designed for payments between people who trust each other because there is no protection for the buyer or seller. Therefore, it is important that you do not accept or give money to strangers who could potentially be scammers. For example, scammers connect stolen credit cards to Venmo and use them to transfer money to unsuspecting users. If you send the money back to the scammer, he or she will delete the stolen credit card from the account and add his or her own card in its place. Others send screenshots of fake emails that make it seem like they have paid you through the app when they actually have not. The Better Business Bureau (BBB) also warns against this type of scam, in which a cash app user "accidentally" sends a stranger a payment and then requests that they send it back. The BBB advises that if you are targeted in an exchange like this, do not send the money back. Instead, ask the other person to simply cancel the transaction. "The sender can request that the vendor cancel the transaction. If the person refuses, it is probably a scam," the BBB states. The BBB also encourages cash app users to check their security settings and to link their accounts to credit cards instead of debit cards or bank accounts because, in the event that you are scammed, it is easier to recoup the money if you charged it to a credit card. | [
"credit"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1pCsj0zidSspftjQSC1YKxyAYI-tURET0",
"image_caption": null
}
] | False | Although we don't know the intentions of the Venmo user involved in the above exchange (and we cropped the person's name out for privacy reasons), sending money to strangers and then requesting it back is a known type of scam on Venmo. The Better Business Bureau (BBB) also warns against this type of scam, in which a cash app user "accidentally" sends a stranger a payment and then requests that they send it back. The BBB advises that if you are targeted in an exchange like this, don't send the money back. Instead, ask the other person to simply cancel the transaction. |
FMD_train_742 | Obama's Fannie Mae Economic Advisors | 09/18/2008 | [
"Did three former Fannie Mae executives serve the Obama campaign as economic advisors?"
] | Here is a quick look at three former Fannie Mae executives who have brought down Wall Street. Franklin Raines was the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer at Fannie Mae. Raines was forced to retire from his position when an audit discovered severe irregularities in Fannie Mae's accounting activities. At the time of his departure, The Wall Street Journal noted, "Raines, who long defended the company's accounting despite mounting evidence that it wasn't proper, issued a statement late Tuesday conceding that 'mistakes were made' and saying he would assume responsibility as he had earlier promised. News reports indicate the company was under growing pressure from regulators to shake up its management in the wake of findings that the company's books ran afoul of generally accepted accounting principles for four years." Fannie Mae had to reduce its surplus by $9 billion. Raines left with a golden parachute valued at $240 million in benefits. The government filed suit against Raines when the depth of the accounting scandal became clear. The government noted, "The 101 charges reveal how the individuals improperly manipulated earnings to maximize their bonuses while knowingly neglecting accounting systems and internal controls, misapplying over twenty accounting principles and misleading the regulator and the public. The notice explains how they submitted six years of misleading and inaccurate accounting statements and inaccurate capital reports that enabled them to grow Fannie Mae in an unsafe and unsound manner." These charges were made in 2006. The court ordered Raines to return $50 million he received in bonuses based on the misstated Fannie Mae profits. Tim Howard was the Chief Financial Officer of Fannie Mae. Howard was a strong internal proponent of using accounting strategies that would ensure a "stable pattern of earnings" at Fannie. In everyday English, he was cooking the books. The government investigation determined that "Chief Financial Officer Tim Howard failed to provide adequate oversight to key control and reporting functions within Fannie Mae." On June 16, 2006, Rep. Richard Baker, R-La., asked the Justice Department to investigate his allegations that two former Fannie Mae executives lied to Congress in October 2004 when they denied manipulating the mortgage-finance giant's income statement to achieve management pay bonuses. Investigations by federal regulators and the company's board of directors concluded that management did manipulate 1998 earnings to trigger bonuses. Raines and Howard resigned under pressure in late 2004. Howard's golden parachute was estimated at $20 million. Jim Johnson, a former executive at Lehman Brothers, was later forced from his position as Fannie Mae CEO. A look at the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's May 2006 report on mismanagement and corruption inside Fannie Mae reveals some interesting things about Johnson. Investigators found that Fannie Mae had hidden a substantial amount of Johnson's 1998 compensation from the public, reporting that it was between $6 million and $7 million when, in fact, it was $21 million. Johnson is currently under investigation for taking illegal loans from Countrywide while serving as CEO of Fannie Mae. Johnson's golden parachute was estimated at $28 million. WHERE ARE THEY NOW? FRANKLIN RAINES? Raines works for the Obama Campaign as Chief Economic Advisor. TIM HOWARD? Howard is also a Chief Economic Advisor to Obama. JIM JOHNSON? Johnson was hired as a Senior Obama Finance Advisor and was selected to run Obama's Vice Presidential Search Committee. If Obama plans on cleaning up the mess, his advisors have the expertise; they made the mess in the first place. Would you trust the men who tore Wall Street down to build the New Wall Street? Origins: When one of the hottest issues of a presidential campaign is the meltdown of the mortgage lending industry and the collapse of the economy, a candidate's having economic advisors on his staff who are strongly associated with the system and practices that helped create the current mess likely wouldn't sit well with the public. That's the premise of the above-quoted e-mail, which claimed that three men formerly associated with the Federal National Mortgage Association (commonly known as "Fannie Mae") were serving as "chief economic advisors" with the 2008 presidential campaign of Barack Obama. However, although some of these men had at least tangential connections to the Obama campaign at one time or another, none of them had ongoing roles with that campaign as chief economic advisors. Franklin Raines, who formerly headed the budget office for the Clinton administration, became the first black CEO of a Fortune 500 company when he took over at Fannie Mae in 1999. Raines, who had earned $20 million in salary and bonuses from Fannie Mae in 2003, resigned from his CEO position in 2004 after regulators determined that the company had violated accounting rules and created an illusory $9 billion in past profit. Raines had some dealings with the Obama campaign, but he never held any actual position within the campaign (much less as its "chief economic advisor"), and his involvement with it was not nearly as substantial as implied above. As the Washington Post reported when a McCain campaign commercial attempted to link Raines with the Democratic candidate, the whole substance of the connection between the two men was that Raines "had gotten a couple of calls from the Obama campaign" in which they talked about "general housing and economy issues." Franklin Raines' predecessor, James A. Johnson, former chief of staff to Vice President Walter F. Mondale, was CEO of Fannie Mae from 1991 to 1998. After Johnson left the company, regulators later discovered that Fannie Mae had engaged in fraudulent accounting practices in 1998, which manipulated its earnings so that executives could earn performance bonuses (up to $1.9 million in Johnson's case) they would not otherwise have been entitled to. In May 2008, Senator Obama tapped James Johnson to be one member of a three-person panel tasked with vetting potential vice-presidential running mates. Johnson, who was not serving as an economic advisor to the Obama campaign, resigned from that position shortly afterward when news accounts reported that he had received more than $2 million in home loans at below-average market rates from Countrywide Financial, a partner of Fannie Mae. Tim Howard, the former CFO of Fannie Mae, was caught up in the same accounting scandal that undid Franklin Raines and, like Raines, resigned from the company in 2004. We found no substantive connection between Tim Howard and the Obama campaign, however, much less any information supporting the claim that Howard was ever a "Chief Economic Advisor to Obama." Last updated: 3 January 2012. Smith, Elliot Blair. "Former Fannie Mae Execs May Face Investigation." USA Today. 14 June 2006. Superville, Darlene. "Rise and Fall of Fannie Mae Chairman and CEO Franklin Raines." San Diego Union-Tribune. 30 December 2004. Weisman, Jonathan and David S. Hilzenrath. "Obama's Choice of Insider Draws Fire." The Washington Post. 11 June 2008 (p. A1). The Washington Post. "Linking Obama to Ex-Fannie Mae Chief Is a Stretch." 20 September 2008. | [
"income"
] | [] | False | Raines had some dealings with the Obama campaign, but he never held any actual position within the campaign (much less as its "chief economic advisor"), and his involvement with it was not nearly as substantial as implied above. As the Washington Post reported when a McCain campaign commercial attempted to link Raines with the Democratic candidate, the whole substance of the connection between the two men was that Raines "had gotten a couple of calls from the Obama campaign" in which they talked about "general housing and economy issues." Franklin Raines' predecessor, James A. Johnson, (former chief of staff to Vice President Walter F. Mondale), was CEO of Fannie Mae from 1991 to 1998. After Johnson left the company, regulators later discovered that Fannie Mae had engaged in fraudulent accounting practices in 1998 which manipulated its earnings so that executives could earn performance bonuses (up to $1.9 million in Johnson's case) they would not otherwise have been entitled to. |
FMD_train_1082 | Barack Obama will somehow manage to add more than $8 trillion to the national debt, which is more debt than the 43 presidents who held office before him compiled together. | 02/18/2016 | [] | Compared to immigration and terrorism, the growth of the federal debt may not be as significant a topic for Republicans running for president this year. However, it has not disappeared entirely. In a February 5, 2016, Medium post about his approach to Social Security, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush reiterated a talking point that many Republicans have used before. Barack Obama will somehow manage to add more than $8 trillion to the national debt, which is more debt than the 43 presidents who held office before him compiled together, Bush wrote. It has been a while since we last checked a claim of this sort, so we decided to take a closer look. Bush phrased his claim carefully, and it largely holds up by the numbers. It is also important to note that Obama is not the only one responsible for the growth of the federal debt.
Running the numbers, we first turned to the U.S. Treasury Department's Debt to the Penny calculator, which allows you to track the federal debt on a daily basis. The website lists two kinds of debt: publicly held debt and gross federal debt. The difference is that federal debt is calculated by taking the amount of publicly held debt and adding to it the debt that is held by the government. These are typically IOUs between one governmental entity and another, such as the money owed by the general treasury to the Social Security trust fund. On January 20, 2009, the day Obama was inaugurated, the public debt stood at about $6.31 trillion. By the day Bush's column ran, it stood at about $13.67 trillion. That is an increase of $7.36 trillion, which is short of the $8 trillion Bush mentioned. However, remember that Bush said Obama will add that much on his watch, which can be reasonably interpreted to mean the amount by the end of Obama's second term. If the debt continues to rise at the same pace it has increased over the past seven-plus years, it will end up at nearly $8.4 trillion when Obama leaves office. Using this measurement, then, Bush is correct that Obama will see the debt increase by more than $8 trillion on his watch, and that this amount will exceed the total accumulated by the previous 43 presidents ($6.31 trillion).
Bush is not correct, however, when using gross federal debt. Using the same method of estimating, Obama should see an increase of $9.51 trillion in gross federal debt by the end of his second term. That is less than the $10.63 trillion he inherited from his 43 predecessors. Experts say that either publicly held debt or gross federal debt could be used to define the term national debt that Bush uses. Still, economists told us that publicly held debt is often the most popular measurement among specialists, so we will not quibble with Bush's decision to focus on publicly held debt.
The size of debt production under Obama is reinforced by looking at debt as a percentage of gross domestic product. At the end of fiscal year 2008, publicly held debt accounted for 39 percent of gross domestic product. By the end of fiscal year 2016, it is expected to be almost 77 percent. Even if bad timing has exaggerated this increase—fiscal 2008 ended four months before Obama took office, right as the economy was collapsing—it is certainly a significant percentage jump over eight years.
All this said, we will note a few things that are important to keep in mind. How much blame does Obama deserve? Bush makes it sound as if Obama simply flipped a switch and debt started pouring out. Obviously, it is a lot more complicated than that. It is not as if we were projecting balanced budgets and Barack Obama came into office and signed legislation increasing spending and cutting taxes, said Marc Goldwein, a budget analyst at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. In fact, Goldwein said, the January 2009 estimate from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected that the debt would be around $9 trillion today. So Obama could, at most, be assigned the blame for adding an additional $4.5 trillion to the debt, and that is only if you absolve Congress (which has been controlled by Republicans for most of his tenure) of any responsibility, and if you blame Obama for all of the long-lasting effects of the recession that he inherited.
Also, a lot of the debt comes from entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare, which are increasing largely on autopilot due to demographic trends that are out of any president's control. So while Obama does bear some responsibility for the debt accumulation on his watch, he certainly does not deserve sole responsibility. Bush's own party played a role, too, as did the inevitable grind of demographic trends. Any president today would be in much the same situation.
Another type of inevitable grind—inflation—is worth factoring in as well. Every year, inflation puts upward pressure on the scale of the debt. Inflation erodes the numbers and makes them a bit meaningless, Goldwein said. For a comparison, let us take a look at Obama's predecessor in the White House, George W. Bush—a Republican and Jeb Bush's brother. The Debt to the Penny calculator does not offer daily tallies for publicly held debt around the time of Bush's inauguration, but it does offer daily data for gross federal debt, so we will use that. When Bush came into office on January 20, 2001, the gross federal debt stood at $5.73 trillion. At the end of Bush's term eight years later, the debt had risen to $10.63 trillion—an increase on Bush's watch of $4.9 trillion. That is not quite equal to what his 42 presidential predecessors accumulated, but it is 86 percent of the way there. That increase under Bush is a little smaller than the expected increase during Obama's full tenure—89 percent—but it is not off by much.
Our ruling: Bush said that Obama will somehow manage to add more than $8 trillion to the national debt, which is more debt than the 43 presidents who held office before him compiled together. On the numbers, Bush is right, as long as you measure the nation's publicly held debt, the most commonly cited statistic, and as long as you project forward to the end of Obama's tenure. However, Bush leaves out some important context when he focuses the blame solely on Obama and ignores that the percentage increase in the debt under George W. Bush was similar. The statement is accurate but needs clarification, so we rate it Mostly True. | [
"National",
"Debt",
"Deficit",
"Federal Budget"
] | [] | True | In a Feb. 5, 2016,Medium postabout his approach to Social Security, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush reiterated a talking point that many Republicans have used before.We first turned to the U.S. Treasury Departments Debt to the Penny calculator, which allows you to track the federal debt on a daily basis. |
FMD_train_952 | Obama Uses Own Money to Open Muslim Museum Amid Government Shutdown | 10/03/2013 | [
"Is President Obama using his personal funds to keep the International Museum of Muslim Cultures open during the government shutdown?"
] | Claim: President Obama is using his personal funds to keep the International Museum of Muslim Cultures open during the government shutdown. Example: [Collected via e-mail, September 2013] I recently read an article online stating that president Obama is using his personal funds to keep the international museum of Muslim culture open during the government shutdown. I was wondering if your site had any information regarding this. Origins: On 2 October 2013, the National Report published an article positing that President Obama would be using his personal funds to keep the International Museum of Muslim Cultures open during the current government budget shutdown: article While up to 800,000 federal workers faced life without a paycheck as Day One of the government shutdown kicked in, President Barack Obama held a press conference to announce that he is using his own money to open the federally funded International Museum of Muslim Cultures. "During this shutdown, people will have to deal with some of their favorite parks and museums being closed," Obama told reporters. "Just keep in mind, they will always be there. The Grand Canyon and the Smithsonian are not going anywhere." Obama continued, "The International Museum of Muslim Cultures is sacred. That is why I have taken it upon myself to use my own personal funds to re-open this historic piece of American culture." The International Museum of Muslim Cultures closed its doors as parts of the federal government shut down after Congress failed to reach an agreement on spending. The fiscal standoff stems in large part from Republican attempts to block President Obama's healthcare initiative. By the following day links and excerpts referencing this article were being circulated via social media, with many of those who encountered the item mistaking it for a genuine news article. However, the article was just a bit of satire from the National Report, a web site that publishes outrageous fictional stories such as "IRS Plans to Target Leprechauns Next," "Boy Scouts Announce Boobs Merit Badge," and "New CDC Study Indicates Pets of Gay Couples Worse at Sports, Better at Fashion Than Pets of Straight Couples." The National Report's (since removed) disclaimer page notes that: disclaimer National Report is a news and political satire web publication, which may or may not use real names, often in semi-real or mostly fictitious ways. All news articles contained within National Report are fiction, and presumably fake news. Any resemblance to the truth is purely coincidental. Nonetheless, Fox News host Anna Kooiman fell for this spoof during a Fox & Friends segment, reporting that "[W]e're going to talk a little bit later in the show about some things that are continuing to be funded. And President Obama has offered to pay out of his own pocket for the museum of Muslim culture ...": (For the record, we note that there is indeed an International Museum of Muslim Cultures in Jackson, Mississippi, but it is an independent museum and not a federally funded one.) International Museum of Muslim Cultures Last updated: 5 October 2013 | [
"budget"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1CeTayXWEp4taz3E2BZgr6Jw7iVoKm6IQ",
"image_caption": null
}
] | False | Origins: On 2 October 2013, the National Report published an article positing that President Obama would be using his personal funds to keep the International Museum of Muslim Cultures open during the current government budget shutdown:The National Report's (since removed) disclaimer page notes that:(For the record, we note that there is indeed an International Museum of Muslim Cultures in Jackson, Mississippi, but it is an independent museum and not a federally funded one.) |
FMD_train_896 | Did Trump Have a 'Diet Coke' Button in the Oval Office? | 01/21/2021 | [
"With a push of a button, former President Donald Trump could summon a Diet Coke to the Oval Office. "
] | On Jan. 21, 2021, as U.S. President Joe Biden settled into the Oval Office the day after his inauguration, a report started circulating that the newly-elected president had removed a "Diet Coke button" from the Oval Office. This, of course, begged the question: Did former President Donald Trump have a Diet Coke button in the Oval Office? report started circulating Trump truly had a button in the Oval Office that he used to order Diet Cokes. However, this call button wasn't the invention of the Trump administration. Photographs show that former Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush also had service buttons in the Oval Office that they could use in a similar fashion. Presidents Barack Obama George W. Bush It should also be noted that Biden still has access to this usher call button and photographs show him in the Oval Office with this button on his desk. It's unclear how Biden will use this service button, but he will be able to use it, like his predecessor, to order Diet Cokes or anything else available at the White House. photographs Richard Branson, the CEO of Virgin Airlines, wrote in his autobiography that Obama once told him the button was used to order tea for his guests: autobiography As we stood up to leave I noticed the red buttons on his desk. Obama saw me looking at them. "They used to be there for emergencies, but now I use them for ordering tea for my guests." "They used to be there for emergencies, but now I use them for ordering tea for my guests." Trump's soda button first made the news in April 2017, when news outlets published articles concerning Trump's first 100 days in office. At the time, reports stated that this button summoned a regular "Coke" for the president. Here's an excerpt from reporter Julie Pace's article "Nearing 100 days, Trump says his presidency is different" that was published by The Associated Press: Associated Press "A man accustomed to wealth and its trappings, Trump has embraced life in the Executive Mansion, often regaling guests with trivia about the historic decor. With the push of a red button placed on the Resolute Desk that presidents have used for decades, a White House butler soon arrived with a Coke for the president." Demetri Sevastopulo relayed a similar anecdote for the Financial Times. Like Pace, Sevastopulo also noted that Trump could press the button to "order some Cokes": Financial Times Sitting across from Donald Trump in the Oval Office, my eyes are drawn to a little red button on a box that sits on his desk. This isnt the nuclear button, is it? I joke, pointing. No, no, everyone thinks it is, Trump says on cue, before leaning over and pressing it to order some Cokes. Everyone does get a little nervous when I press that button. While the initial reports noted that this button summoned Cokes, not Diet Cokes, Trump had a known affection for Coca-Cola's lighter offering. In December 2017, The New York Times reported that Trump, who once tweeted "I have never seen a thin person drinking Diet Coke," would consume as many as 12 Diet Cokes a day: New York Times tweeted "Watching cable, he shares thoughts with anyone in the room, even the household staff he summons via a button for lunch or for one of the dozen Diet Cokes he consumes each day." Former Trump administration communications aide Cliff Sims also mentioned this Diet Coke button in a passage from his White House memoir, "Team of Vipers: My 500 Extraordinary Days in the Trump White House." Sims was describing a meeting between Trump and Housing Secretary Ben Carson when he wrote: I could see Trump starting to lose interest as Carson continued articulating the detailed plans inside his notebook. First, the President shifted in his chair and readjusted a small pillow he'd placed behind his back. Then, as Carson talked about different phases of his program and whatnot, Trump glanced around the room. At some point he noted his Diet Coke was nearly gone and went back to his button routine, but his heart wasn't quite in it this time. "People always wonder about this button," he told a confused Carson. Finally, he pressed it again. Diet Coke arrived and Trump was done. Trump's Diet Coke button was also featured in the monologues of at least one late night talk show. In April 2017, Stephen Colbert talked about Trump was "turning the Oval Office into a treehouse" by putting a diet coke button on the Resolute Desk. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpqTpzg3hYE&feature=emb_title Trump did indeed have a button in the Oval Office that he used to order Diet Cokes. This service button, however, was not novel to the Trump administration. Updated [25 January 2021]: Updated to note that President Trump was not the first president to have a call button on his desk and that President Biden still has access to this service button. Status changed to Mixture. | [
"interest"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1w2hl0GZe7DpehgV2M6MZZRkEpDj_X_PI",
"image_caption": null
}
] | NEI | On Jan. 21, 2021, as U.S. President Joe Biden settled into the Oval Office the day after his inauguration, a report started circulating that the newly-elected president had removed a "Diet Coke button" from the Oval Office. This, of course, begged the question: Did former President Donald Trump have a Diet Coke button in the Oval Office?Trump truly had a button in the Oval Office that he used to order Diet Cokes. However, this call button wasn't the invention of the Trump administration. Photographs show that former Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush also had service buttons in the Oval Office that they could use in a similar fashion.It should also be noted that Biden still has access to this usher call button and photographs show him in the Oval Office with this button on his desk. It's unclear how Biden will use this service button, but he will be able to use it, like his predecessor, to order Diet Cokes or anything else available at the White House. Richard Branson, the CEO of Virgin Airlines, wrote in his autobiography that Obama once told him the button was used to order tea for his guests:Here's an excerpt from reporter Julie Pace's article "Nearing 100 days, Trump says his presidency is different" that was published by The Associated Press:Demetri Sevastopulo relayed a similar anecdote for the Financial Times. Like Pace, Sevastopulo also noted that Trump could press the button to "order some Cokes":While the initial reports noted that this button summoned Cokes, not Diet Cokes, Trump had a known affection for Coca-Cola's lighter offering. In December 2017, The New York Times reported that Trump, who once tweeted "I have never seen a thin person drinking Diet Coke," would consume as many as 12 Diet Cokes a day: |
FMD_train_497 | In fact, theres more state funding for education today than any other time. | 11/10/2013 | [] | Chris Christie heard the complaints often. He cut education funding and supports charter schools. He is hard on teachers, and his quest for tenure and other reforms is excessive. However, the governor continues to respond to those complaints with various versions of this refrain: New Jersey has the most funding allocated to education in state history. Christie reiterated this on November 2 during a gubernatorial campaign stop in Somers Point, when he and a public school teacher got into an argument. Christie was re-elected on Tuesday. In fact, there is more state funding for education today than at any other time, Christie said when the teacher cited the governor's education funding cuts as the reason he referred to New Jersey schools as "failure factories." Technically, Christie is correct about the level of education funding in New Jersey, but as we have pointed out in the past, there is more to this story that he does not address. First, let's return to that remark about "failure factories." Christie used it during a speech he gave on October 6 to the Orthodox Union in Teaneck, where he promoted his education policies. "I would be happy to take as many dollars as possible away from failure factories that send children on a nonstop route to prison and to failed dreams, if we could take that money and put it into a place where those families have hope," Christie said. Now, regarding the governor's point about education funding, Christie's proposed fiscal year 2014 budget called for nearly $9 billion in education funding, about $1 billion more than the previous year. Under that spending plan, state aid to schools increased by $97 million. While no district saw a decrease in state aid, many either received an increase of $1 or their funding remained the same as the previous year. At the time, Christie released a statement through the state Department of Education in which he touted the funding level while also emphasizing fiscal restraint. "However, even as we continue to fund education at the highest levels in state history, we must remain willing to reflect on how we are spending our money and work towards solutions that make every dollar we invest count," he said in the statement. We have previously run Christie's claim past Steve Wollmer, a spokesman for the New Jersey Education Association, the state's largest teachers' union. Wollmer agreed that in terms of dollars, it is correct that the state has its highest-ever level of education funding. However, that does not mean there hasn't been a long-lasting downside to the cuts that Christie made during his first year as governor. He took office in January 2010. What he does not mention is that he cut $1.3 billion from state aid in his first year, withholding $475 million in aid in January, which was the amount that the state's nearly 600 districts had in total surpluses for unanticipated expenses (a new roof, a bus that needed replacing, an unanticipated special education placement), and another $820 million in the FY11 budget (which began for schools in September 2010), Wollmer said previously in a statement to PolitiFact New Jersey. Districts cut back dramatically, resulting in the layoff of 10,000 teachers and staff, cuts to programs, and increased class sizes. Those cuts continue to have a lasting impact, Wollmer said. In addition to the cuts, the New Jersey Supreme Court in 2011 ordered Christie to increase aid to the now-former Abbott districts by about $500 million. Our ruling: Christie last week said during an argument with a teacher, "In fact, there is more state funding for education today than at any other time." Critics frequently call the governor out for the massive funding cuts he has made to education since taking office and for either increasing state aid by a minimal amount or not at all. However, the fact of the matter is that despite the cuts, New Jersey's education funding level is the highest it has ever been. For that reason, we rate Christie's statement as true. To comment on this story, go to NJ.com. | [
"New Jersey",
"Education",
"State Budget"
] | [] | True | To comment on this story, go toNJ.com. |
FMD_train_679 | Security provided to John Kerry by the Secret Service | 10/02/2004 | [
"Would the Secret Service have to provide lifetime protection for all of John Kerry's homes?"
] | Claim: If John Kerry were elected President, the Secret Service would have to protect him and every property he owns for the rest of his life. Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2004] You will pay upkeep/Secret Service for 5 Kerry mansions. It is good to be John F. Kerry....... The F stands for Forbes in case you ever wondered. He is one of the richest Senators in Government. When someone is elected president, it means the Secret Service has to protect the President and his family as well as his property. The Kerry's have five US properties not counting the several foreign properties they own too. The cost to run these homes are more than what the average American could afford, even if the rent was free, and all you had to pay the water, gas & electric. Including ground keepers, maintenance, pool, and house keepers. To be President would require the taxpayers to pay for all that now if elected. Including a complete staffed Secret Service security 24 hours a day. In addition to that we will have to pay for each of their homes for security improvements even if they never go to them all there is that just in case. Who do you think will pay for all this? We Pay! This takes all the expense off Kerry and puts it on us. Nevertheless, factor another major cost to Americans that Kerry does not want you to know about. Becoming president would automatically include taking care of all their properties with Secret Service Agents that includes 5 agents per 6 hour shift 4 times a day 365 days of the year for the rest of their lives so long as they own those properties. It comes with being President once you are elected. It requires us the taxpayers, to pay for this as well as his annual salary as well as his retirements including the cost of living adjustments to boot. These salaries and agents protect all their real estate property with Secret Service Agents and pay the bills for the rest of his life. In addition, feed the Secret Service Agents and rotate new ones every 6 hours for the rest of his life. Do the math. Five properties need to be protected. This requires five Secret Service Agents per shift, daily every six hours, per property! That is 20 Secret Service Agents per day per property everyday including Holidays. Wow, what does that cost? Lets say an average of 20 agents per property, each earning a about $60K per agent to survey the perimeters and protect. Now times that by five properties so far. That is if the Kerry's do not buy any more properties afterwards. This also includes the Agents vehicles and repairs, gas, meals, days off, paid vacation, and medical plan visits etc per agent. Who pays? YOU pay, the whole time they are alive after becoming President! Is this the best use of our tax money electing Kerry to take care of all their properties both foreign and domestic? On the other hand, shouldn't he pay for his own? Yet, the Presidential salary could not afford it. The more I think about paying for Kerry's properties everyday, just makes me happy keeping President Bush all the more merrier. Without raising taxes to boot. How on earth would Kerry pay for everyone to have Healthcare, increase our military, and have us pay to protect his investments, all without raising our taxes? Tax and spend Kerry is his party motto. Which really has to make you wonder why anyone with his wealth, would take a salary of that of a U.S. Senator, never mind wanna be President? Do you believe him now why he needs to be the Prez? To serve the people? On the other hand, the people serve Him and his wife! IF YOU AREN'T COMPLETELY APPALLED, THEN YOU HAVEN'T BEEN PAYING ATTENTION Origins: The fact that Senator John Kerry's middle name is "Forbes" is about the only piece of information this latest political diatribe gets right. John Kerry and his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, together own several homes, but since they signed a prenuptial agreement and have kept their premarital assets separate, a Boston townhouse (which John Kerry mortgaged in 2003 to finance his presidential bid) is the only one of these homes that they technically own as a couple. The government is obligated to provide Secret Service protection to the President and his immediate family, so if John Kerry were elected to that office, of course he and his family would be entitled to the same level of security detail that the Secret Service provides to every President. That protection might indeed include the use of public funds to pay the costs of installation and maintenance for security systems at some of the Kerrys' homes, because the protection of First Families is viewed as a right and proper charge upon the nation. Security measures of this level would not be specific to the Kerrys; the homes of all Presidents are treated this way, as (to a lesser extent) are the homes of all former Presidents. homes It is not true, however, that every single residence owned by the either of the Kerrys (whether it be in America or abroad) would be staffed by five Secret Service agents around the clock, and that those agents would be guarding the Kerrys and all their properties for the rest of John Kerry's life. Secret Service staffing levels vary as the situation requires, and lifetime protection for former Presidents and their spouses was eliminated by Congressional legislation in 1997. President Clinton and his wife, Hillary, are the last First Couple who will receive such a benefit; President George W. Bush and all who succeed him in the White House will be limited to receiving Secret Service protection for a period of not more than 10 years from the time they leave office. protection In any case, the idea that U.S. voters would have to pay higher taxes if John Kerry were elected President in order to "protect his investments" is just silly. The projected U.S. federal budget for 2005 is $2.4 trillion the amount of money spent to protect the President and his family (whoever that President might be) is but a teeny-tiny fraction of a drop in that vast bucket. The only thing sillier than that notion that taxes would have to be raised to protect a putative President Kerry is the suggestion that the cost of Secret Service protection should be a factor in voters' choosing who should serve as President of the United States. budget For more information about the protection afforded former Presidents, see our article about a similar rumor that was attached to the previous First Couple when President Bill Clinton left office in 2001. article Last updated: 2 October 2004 Sources: Burger, Timothy and Kenneth Bazinet. "Hil and Bill Buy 3M Home, Sweet Home in Capital." [New York] Daily News. 30 December 2000 (p. 6). DeFrank, Thomas. "1st Family's N.Y. Bunker." Fuchs, Marek. "First Family's Arrival Changes the Focus of Secret Service Office." The New York Times. 29 October 2000 (Weekend Calendar; p. 5). Grove, Lloyd. "The Reliable Source." The Washington Post. 12 January 2001 (p. C3). | [
"budget"
] | [] | False | John Kerry and his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, together own several homes, but since they signed a prenuptial agreement and have kept their premarital assets separate, a Boston townhouse (which John Kerry mortgaged in 2003 to finance his presidential bid) is the only one of these homes that they technically own as a couple. The government is obligated to provide Secret Service protection to the President and his immediate family, so if John Kerry were elected to that office, of course he and his family would be entitled to the same level of security detail that the Secret Service provides to every President. That protection might indeed include the use of public funds to pay the costs of installation and maintenance for security systems at some of the Kerrys' homes, because the protection of First Families is viewed as a right and proper charge upon the nation. Security measures of this level would not be specific to the Kerrys; the homes of all Presidents are treated this way, as (to a lesser extent) are the homes of all former Presidents. It is not true, however, that every single residence owned by the either of the Kerrys (whether it be in America or abroad) would be staffed by five Secret Service agents around the clock, and that those agents would be guarding the Kerrys and all their properties for the rest of John Kerry's life. Secret Service staffing levels vary as the situation requires, and lifetime protection for former Presidents and their spouses was eliminated by Congressional legislation in 1997. President Clinton and his wife, Hillary, are the last First Couple who will receive such a benefit; President George W. Bush and all who succeed him in the White House will be limited to receiving Secret Service protection for a period of not more than 10 years from the time they leave office. In any case, the idea that U.S. voters would have to pay higher taxes if John Kerry were elected President in order to "protect his investments" is just silly. The projected U.S. federal budget for 2005 is $2.4 trillion the amount of money spent to protect the President and his family (whoever that President might be) is but a teeny-tiny fraction of a drop in that vast bucket. The only thing sillier than that notion that taxes would have to be raised to protect a putative President Kerry is the suggestion that the cost of Secret Service protection should be a factor in voters' choosing who should serve as President of the United States.For more information about the protection afforded former Presidents, see our article about a similar rumor that was attached to the previous First Couple when President Bill Clinton left office in 2001. |
FMD_train_811 | Did Soros Say 'I'm Going to Bring Down the U.S. by Funding Black Hate Groups'? | 09/07/2016 | [
"This doesn't sound like the kind of plan someone would openly announce."
] | In August 2016, a graphic featuring a picture of billionaire George Soros next to a quote ostensibly attributed to him about his goal to "bring down the United States by funding Black Hate groups" began circulating on social media. Although this image suggested that the business magnate and political activist made this comment during an interview with the German newspaper Bild in September 2014, we found no evidence that any such interview took place. The alleged statement from Soros about his funding of "Black Hate groups" does not appear in the newspaper's archives for September 2014 (or any other month), nor did we find reference to it in any other credible publication. The first iteration of this quote we could uncover appeared on the Tumblr page "Overpasses for America" in an article published on 19 August 2016, nearly two years after Soros allegedly made these inflammatory remarks. Aside from the suspicious lack of documentation for this alleged Soros quote, it is highly unlikely that the billionaire would be so open and candid about a plan to fund "Black Hate groups," manipulate the black community, and bring down the United States in a newspaper interview. It also makes little sense for Soros, one of the world's richest people and most successful capitalists, to be motivated to dismantle the nation that is home to the planet's largest economy. Fake quotes are frequently accompanied by false source information in order to make them appear legitimate. This tactic has also been used for viral quotes ostensibly attributed to presidential candidates Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton; for example, Trump was accused of saying that Republicans were the "dumbest group of voters" during an interview with People, and Clinton was accused of saying the same of Democratic voters in a 2005 book. Yet neither Clinton nor Trump made such comments. | [
"economy"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1GnYWVXRtaR0v9EOq81jKNAU7X2Irr-Ry",
"image_caption": null
}
] | False | Although this image indicated that the business magnate and political activist issued this comment during the course of an interview with the Germany newspaper Bild in September 2014, we found no evidence that any such interview took place. The putative statement from Soros about his funding "Black Hate groups" does not appear in the newspaper's archives for September 2014 (or any other month), nor did we find reference to it in any other credible publication.Fake quotes are frequently accompanied by false source information in order to make them appear legitimate. This tactic has also been used for viral quotes ostensibly uttered by presidential candidates Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, for example: Trump was accused of saying that Republicans were the "dumbest group of voters" during an interview with People, and Clinton was accused of saying the same of Democratic voters in a 2005 book. Yet neither Clinton nor Trump made such comments. |
FMD_train_902 | Will Jesus Be Portrayed as Homosexual in an Upcoming Film? | 04/20/2000 | [
"Long-standing false rumor holds that Jesus and His disciples will be portrayed as homosexual in a soon-to-be-released movie."
] | This piece about an upcoming "gay Jesus film" is one of those examples that demonstrates a good petition never goes away, even when the issue it addresses has long since been settled (or was never really an issue in the first place). The "gay Jesus film" petition first hit the fan in 1984, and by the end of 1985 more than a million Christians had written protest letters in an attempt to have the non-existent movie it referenced banned. Yes, non-existent. There never was such a film in production, but petitions likes these were circulated anyway: Modern People News has revealed plans for the filming of a movie based on the SEX LIFE OF JESUS in which Jesus is portrayed as a swinging HOMOSEXUAL. This film will be shot in the U.S.A. this year unless the public outcry is great. Already a French Prostitute has been named to play the part of Mary Magdalene, with who Christ has a blatant affair. We CANNOT AFFORD to standby and DO NOTHING about this disgrace. We must not allow this perveted world to drag our Lord through the dirt. PLEASE HELP us to get this film banned from the U.S.A. as it has been in Europe. Let us show how we feel. Detach and mail the form below to the address shown. Make a few copies and give them to your friends. Only one name per copy. -------------------------------------------------------- Attorney General Scott,301 South Second Street,SpringfieldILLINOIS 62606 Dear Attorney General Scott, I would like to protest, in the strongest terms possible, the production, filming, and showing of any movie that supposedly depicts the sex life of JESUS CHRIST by MODERN PEOPLE NEWS, 11030 West Addison Street, Franklin Park, Illinois 60181. Such a movie would be blasphemous and would be an outrage and contrary to the truth. We urge you to take proper action against this moral corruption. NAME:...................................................ADDRESS:.............................................CITY:.....................................................STATE:..............................CODE:.......... In the early incarnations of this call to arms, people were asked to fill out an attached form letter of protest and mail it to the Attorney General of Alabama. The message often contained the following postscript: Evangelist Jimmy Swaggart recently reported that the above mentioned movie HAS BEEN COMPLETED!!! According to Brother Swaggart, the movie company has released word that the movie is scheduled to be shown in various locations around the country during the Christmas Season. So, the time is short to put a stop to it. We sincerely hope that all spiritually and morally minded people will band together and keep this UNGODLY type of filth out of Alabama. Many readers fell for it, including a radio station that happily passed the story along to their listeners and later had to retract it, according to folklorist Jan Brunvand: By later the same day the radio station [in Gadsen, Alabama] personnel had attempted to contact Modern People News and had been in touch with the Alabama Attorney General's office. Following these efforts at verification, a statement was read on the air saying that although the attorney general had received between two and three thousand letters over a period of several weeks concerning the supposed gay-Jesus movie, no evidence could be found that such a project ever existed. Modern People News, it was stated, seemed to have either gone out of business or changed their name. In January 1985 Ann Landers published a letter from the Attorney General's office of Illinois which tried to set the record straight. By then it was Modern Film News (not Modern People News) who supposedly had offices in Illinois, which is how that state got dragged into this issue). People were exhorted to write to Attorney General William J. Scott . a man who had last held that office four years earlier: Dear Ann Landers: The office of the Attorney General of the State of Illnois respectfully requests your assistance in combating an international chain letter that is distressing hundreds and thousands of Christians and those of other faiths as well. The chain letter is a plea to protest "in the strongest possible language" the making of a movie in which Jesus Christ could be depicted as a swinging homosexual. Both this office and the Associated Press have chased down every possible clue and cannot find a shred of truth in the story that such a film was ever in production. Modern Film News, which reported the film plans, has been out of business for more than two years. Moreover, 90 percent of the protest mail that has been overwhelming our staff is addressed to the former attorney general, William J. Scott, who has been out of office longer than four years. Despite our efforts to get the word to the public that the chain letter is a hoax, we continue to receive approximately 1,000 protests every week and at least a dozen phone inquiries each working day. The inquiries and protests have come from 41 states, Canada, Puerto Rico, New Zealand, Australia, Cambodia, Spain, Brazil, the Dominican Republic, India, the Philippines, Guatemala, Costa Rica and Portugal. We have concluded that the "Jesus movie" rumor originated in 1977 when a suburban Chicago publication, Modern People News, reported that certain interests in Europe were planning such a film and requested that readers express their opinion of the purported project. The result was the chain-letter protest, which, for some unknown reason, has been revived and is again sweeping the world. We are appealing to you, Ann Landers, to help us get the word out. The scope of your readership and impact on millions of newspaper readers around the world cannot be overestimated. The postage and phone calls, not to mention the valuable time of employees, run into a great deal of money that could be used for so many worthwhile purposes. Will you please help us? Neil F. Hartigan, Attorney General, State of Illnois Dear Attorney General Hartigan: Hoaxes die hard and the zanier the hoax, the more difficult it is to convince people that it is not true. If any of you, my readers, receive a copy of that wacky chain letter, take my word for the fact that there is not an iota of truth in it. And please tell friends that chain letters are illegal and should be tossed into the handiest wastebasket or fed to the nearest goat. The only such movie that seems to have been planned or made when this petition originally began circulating decades ago was the 1974 film Him, described briefly in Harry and Michael Medved's 1980 book, The Golden Turkey Awards, as an "everything you ever wanted to know about bad movies, but were afraid to ask" offering: This innovative film, designed exclusively for gay audiences, goes into excruciating detail concerning the erotic career of Jesus Christ. The ads for the film show the face of The Savior (with a cross glistening in one eye) while the headline inquires 'Are You Curious About HIS Sexual Life?' Filmmaker Ed D. Louie satisfies that curiosity by showing us that the Son of Man was a voracious homosexual. (After all, why did he spend all that time hanging around with the Apostles?) The central character of the film is actually a young gay male in contemporary America whose sexual obsession with Jesus helps him to understand the "hidden meaning" of the Gospels. Contrary to common belief, the entry for Him in the Medveds' book was not a hoax concocted by them. However, the minor, low-budget film was so obscure even after its release that it's hard to imagine it could have triggered a massive outpouring of petitions to halt its production. obscure The non-existence of a "gay Jesus film" did not stem the ire of those who heard about it. Blasphemy even the mere hint of it is enough to mobilize good Christian soldiers everywhere. In 1988, Martin Scorsese's The Last Temptation of Christ reaped massive publicity and long lines at the box office after fundamentalist Christians picketed theaters. The uproar wasn't over a gay Jesus, merely one who both questioned his fate and who had a dream about a sexual relationship with Mary Magdalene. The film remains controversial to this day. We take our religious icons seriously, as Denis Lemon, editor of the British publication Gay News, found out in 1978. He lost his appeal against conviction for blasphemous libel involving poem he had published about a Roman centurion's homosexual love for Jesus. Though the nine month suspended sentence was set aside, the $900 fine against him and $1,900 fine against his magazine were upheld. A non-film version of a work similar to the one described in the petition was produced in 1998, when Terrance McNally's dramatic offering Corpus Christi began previews at the Manhattan Theater Club in New York. As described by the New York Times, the production "retells the Biblical story of a Jesus-like figure from his birth in a Texas flea-bag hotel with people having profane, violent sex in a room next door, to his crucifixion as 'king of the queers' in a manner with the potential to offend many people." Corpus Christi And it did. The Manhattan Theater Club's announcement of the play as part of its fall season was greeted with bomb threats promising to "burn the place to the ground" if the production opened. In May 1998 the theatre announced it was pulling "Corpus Christi" from its line-up. A week later it changed its mind, reinstating the play to its fall roster. Caught between cries of censorship on one side and outraged sensibilities on the other, the theatre had to make a choice. Additional security measures were taken during the play's run to protect both the actors and the audience. The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights (self-described as the nation's largest Catholic civil rights group) planned an opening-night protest at the theatre involving busloads of people from as far away as Baltimore and Philadelphia as well as nuns, priests and lay people from Long Island. "Hopefully we'll send a message that this is basically unacceptable," said William A. Donohue, the league's president. Corpus Christi continues to play various live theatres from time to time. It completed a four-week engagement at London's Pleasance Theatre in late 1999, and in March 2001 it became the subject of a brouhaha at Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton when several state lawmakers threatened to cut funding for FAU because their theatre department staged the play. In March 2010, Tarleton State University's decision to host to a student performance of Terrence McNally's Corpus Christi drew ire from some residents of Stephenville, Texas, home of that institute of higher learning. Corpus Christi is undoubtedly the "play that went on for a while but never stopped" referred to in the current petition, but there are still no plans to make a movie out of it. The 2010 release Corpus Christi: Playing with Redemption is often mistakenly cited as a film version of the play Corpus Christi, but it is not; it's a documentary about the controversy surrounding one particular troupe's production of the play, not a movie version of the play itself. Likewise, the 2006 DVD release entitled Corpus Christi is simply a documentary about the historical figure of Jesus, not a film version of the similarly titled play. documentary Corpus Christi Abrams, Joseph. "Texas Town Cross Over Play's 'Gay' Christ."
FOXNews.com. 25 March 2010. Applebomb, Peter. "In Reversal, Theater Vows to Stage Play That Drew Threats."
The New York Times. 29 May 1998 (p. A1). Brunvand, Jan Harold. The Mexican Pet.
New York: W. W. Norton, 1986. ISBN 0-393-30542-2 (pp. 175-177). Landers, Ann. "Ann Landers."
20 January 1985 [syndicated column]. Leo, John. "Bigotry Still Has No Place in World of Art."
The Detroit News. 9 June 1998 (p. A7). Medved, Harry and Michael Medved. The Golden Turkey Awards.
New York: Perigee Books, 1980. (pp. 122-124). O'Haire, Patricia. "Curtains for Play Depicting Christ As Gay."
[New York] Daily News. 22 May 1998 (p. 7). Reel, Bill. "Artistic Freedom Is Not a License to Commit or Aid Artistic Assault."
Newsday. 2 June 1998 (p. A40). Associated Press. "Florida University Under Fire for Play with Gay Christ Character."
30 March 2001. The New York Times. "Lemon Loses Appeal."
18 March 1978 (p. 7). renovated | [
"budget"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1hxlePPtzsIvpo_P6AArBdxOzTmVkNMoP",
"image_caption": null
}
] | False | Contrary to common belief, the entry for Him in the Medveds' book was not a hoax concocted by them. However, the minor, low-budget film was so obscure even after its release that it's hard to imagine it could have triggered a massive outpouring of petitions to halt its production.A non-film version of a work similar to the one described in the petition was produced in 1998, when Terrance McNally's dramatic offering Corpus Christi began previews at the Manhattan Theater Club in New York. As described by the New York Times, the production "retells the Biblical story of a Jesus-like figure from his birth in a Texas flea-bag hotel with people having profane, violent sex in a room next door, to his crucifixion as 'king of the queers' in a manner with the potential to offend many people." Corpus Christi is undoubtedly the "play that went on for a while but never stopped" referred to in the current petition, but there are still no plans to make a movie out of it. The 2010 release Corpus Christi: Playing with Redemption is often mistakenly cited as a film version of the play Corpus Christi, but it is not; it's a documentary about the controversy surrounding one particular troupe's production of the play, not a movie version of the play itself. Likewise, the 2006 DVD release entitled Corpus Christi is simply a documentary about the historical figure of Jesus, not a film version of the similarly titled play. |
FMD_train_800 | Did Lowe's Donate $25M to Minority-Owned Businesses, While Home Depot Founder Gave to Trump? | 06/10/2020 | [
"A meme comparing political involvement of the home improvement chains left out some context."
] | In early June 2020, a meme comparing two popular U.S. home improvement chains spread across social media: The facts presented are true, but some context was missing. It's true that Lowe's has created a $25 million grant for minority-owned small businesses trying to reopen after being forced to close due to the COVID-19 coronavirus disease pandemic. As CNBC reported on May 20, 2020: grant CNBC reported Lowes is dishing out the funds to help small businesses, especially home improvement professionals, in need of masks, personal protective equipment and other supplies to operate safely. The new funds follow $340 million of support the home improvement retailer provided for Covid-19 response activities in the first quarter. These are going to be minority businesses and other businesses that are now starting to reopen, CEO Marvin Ellison told CNBCs Jim Cramer in a Mad Money interview. So we just want to continue to not only run a good business but also be a great corporate citizen in all of the communities that we operate in. It is also true that Home Depot co-founder Bernie Marcus donated $7 million to U.S. President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign. He vowed to again support Trump in his 2020 run against presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden. donated Marcus, a philanthropist who gives billions of dollars away to various causes, is generally a large-ticket financial supporter of Republican politicians and organizations. But he also retired from his position as Home Depot's company chairman in 2002. (Home Depot's other co-founder, Arthur Blank, who is also retired from the company, appears to donate primarily to Democrats.) gives appears to The Home Depot political action committee on the other hand has contributed a total of $1,495,000 to both Democratic and Republican federal candidates in 2020, with 44% of those contributions going to Democrats and 56% to Republicans, according to the campaign transparency tracking tool Open Secrets. both Meantime the political action committee for Lowe's donated a total of $540,500 to federal candidates in both parties, with 30% going to Democrats and 70% to Republicans, per Open Secrets. Political action committees (PACs) associated with corporations are separate organizations that are funded by employees or owners of the company (but not the company itself). These PACs donate money to political candidates and organizations they believe to be "aligned with their financial goals," explains Open Secrets. explains Given the meme leaves out important context about political contributions and Marcus' current involvement with Home Depot, we rate this claim "true." Clifford, Tyler. "Lowes Funds $25 Million in Grants to Help Minority Businesses Reopen; CEO Challenges Other Executives to Do Our Part.'"
CNBC. 20 May 2020. Kempner, Matt."Atlanta Billionaire Plans to Give Almost All of It Away."
Atlanta Journal-Constitution. 30 June 2019. Evers-Hillstrom, Karl."Why Corporate PACs Have an Advantage."
Open Secrets.14 February 2020. Updated to include political contribution information about Home Depot's other co-founder, Arthur Blank. | [
"funds"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1LyBqCgYRESt8kxksx0whPxgW0T47-B08",
"image_caption": null
}
] | True | It's true that Lowe's has created a $25 million grant for minority-owned small businesses trying to reopen after being forced to close due to the COVID-19 coronavirus disease pandemic. As CNBC reported on May 20, 2020:It is also true that Home Depot co-founder Bernie Marcus donated $7 million to U.S. President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign. He vowed to again support Trump in his 2020 run against presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden. Marcus, a philanthropist who gives billions of dollars away to various causes, is generally a large-ticket financial supporter of Republican politicians and organizations. But he also retired from his position as Home Depot's company chairman in 2002. (Home Depot's other co-founder, Arthur Blank, who is also retired from the company, appears to donate primarily to Democrats.)The Home Depot political action committee on the other hand has contributed a total of $1,495,000 to both Democratic and Republican federal candidates in 2020, with 44% of those contributions going to Democrats and 56% to Republicans, according to the campaign transparency tracking tool Open Secrets.Political action committees (PACs) associated with corporations are separate organizations that are funded by employees or owners of the company (but not the company itself). These PACs donate money to political candidates and organizations they believe to be "aligned with their financial goals," explains Open Secrets. |
FMD_train_373 | Medical Device Excise Tax | 01/08/2013 | [
"Health care legislation imposes a 2.3% excise tax on the sale of medical devices as of 1 January 2013?"
] | Health care legislation imposed a 2.3% excise tax on the sale of medical devices as of January 1, 2013. The Cabela's chain (and some other stores) mistakenly applied medical excise taxes to certain non-medical purchases made on that date. The medical excise tax applies to non-medical items such as archery and sport fishing equipment, tires, coal, and "gas guzzling" automobiles. For example, a post collected on Facebook in January 2013 stated, "OK.... Here comes some of those Obama care taxes on Jan 1, 2013. Soon every purchase you make will have more taxes. On $103.98, I was charged $8.58 for Texas state taxes, and then an Obama care medical tax of another $2.39. So the more you spend, the more goes to the 'so-called free Obama care.' Let the ObamaCare fun begin!" Clothing now counts as being taxed under ObamaCare because it "alters the function of the body." I wish more companies would have the courage to do it the way Cabela's is, but most will bury it in the cost of the product. The new law provides that any device defined in 201(h) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) that is intended for humans will be taxable. The FFDCA is written very broadly to include instruments, machines, implants, and in vitro reagents, among others. Section 201(h) also includes associated parts and accessories, which are (1) recognized in the official National Formulary or the United States Pharmacopeia, or any supplement to them; (2) intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, treatment, or prevention of disease or other conditions; or (3) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body, excluding products relying on a chemical reaction within or on the body or being metabolized to achieve their primary intended purposes. Included is a copy of a Cabela's receipt that charges a Medical Excise Tax of $11.97. This is what the customer said he bought: 3 pairs of hiker socks, 2 safe door pocket organizers, 1 pair of female boots, 1 female jacket, 1 female workout pant, and 1 Lyman sonic brass cleaner. The receipt total was $520.82. 2.3% of that is $11.97.
One of the provisions in the reconciliation bill (HR 4872) passed in conjunction with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), also known as "Obamacare," instituted a 2.3% tax on the first sale of medical devices as of January 1, 2013. (Technically, the medical device tax is an excise tax that applies only to manufacturers, producers, or importers and is not to be paid directly by consumers, but the costs of such taxes are typically passed along to consumers through higher prices.) The text of the legislation states that the roster of taxable medical devices does not include "eyeglasses, contact lenses, hearing aids, and any other medical device determined to be of a type that is generally purchased by the general public at retail for individual use." Anticipating what constitutes a "taxable medical device" under this legislation can be rather confusing, as explained in a July 2012 tax adviser article. Under Sec. 4191(b)(1), a taxable medical device is a device, as defined in Section 201(h) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) (21 U.S.C. 321(h)), that is intended for humans. The latter provision defines a device as an instrument, apparatus, implement, machine, contrivance, implant, in vitro reagent, or other similar or related article, including any component, part, or accessory that meets certain requirements. The device must be: (1) recognized in the official National Formulary or the United States Pharmacopeia, or any supplement to them; (2) intended for use in the diagnosis of disease or other conditions, or in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in humans or other animals; or (3) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of humans or other animals. The device must also not achieve its primary intended purposes through chemical action within or on the body of humans or other animals and must not depend upon being metabolized for the achievement of its primary intended purposes. Sec. 4191(b)(1) limits the definition for purposes of the tax to devices intended for humans. Under what is commonly called the retail exemption, the tax provision does not apply to eyeglasses, contact lenses, hearing aids, and any other medical device determined by Treasury to be of a type that is commonly purchased by the general public at retail for individual use. According to proposed regulations issued by the Internal Revenue Service in February 2012, the medical items that would be exempt from the tax because they are "commonly purchased by the general public at retail for individual use" should be determined as follows: A device will be considered to be of a type generally purchased by the general public at retail for individual use if it is regularly available for purchase and use by individual consumers who are not medical professionals, and if the design of the device demonstrates that it is not primarily intended for use in a medical institution or office or by a medical professional. The following factors suggest that a device is of a type that is regularly available for purchase and use by individual consumers who are not medical professionals: (A) Consumers who are not medical professionals can purchase the device through retail businesses that also sell items other than medical devices, such as drug stores, supermarkets, and similar vendors. (B) Consumers who are not medical professionals can use the device safely and effectively for its intended medical purpose with minimal or no training from a medical professional. (C) The device is classified by the FDA under Subpart D of 21 CFR Part 890 (Physical Medicine Devices).
Why the medical device excise tax should have been applied to all the items listed in the receipts pictured above was something of a mystery to viewers when these images were originally circulated back in January 2013. Although some states allow sellers to pass along the expense of the new medical device excise tax to customers by "separately stating a line item charge on the invoice or receipt given to their customers for 'Federal Excise Tax' or something similar," the vendor in this case, Cabela's, is a retailer of hunting, fishing, camping, and related outdoor recreation merchandise not known for selling medical devices, and the items listed in the receipts (such as a Ruger Attache Pistol Case) would not seem, by any stretch of the imagination, to fit FDA definitions of medical devices. The answer was that vendors typically use upgraded sales software at the beginning of each year, which is programmed to handle changes in tax laws that have just gone into effect, and on January 1, 2013, Cabela's found that their upgraded software was improperly applying the medical device excise tax to all purchases rather than just those of qualifying items. A companywide glitch in Cabela's cash register system that added a 2.3 percent Medical Excise Tax to customers' purchases—everything from boots to bullets—was an error and will be refunded, a company spokesman said. The error was discovered after consumers in several states notified the company that the surcharge appeared on their sales receipts and had been applied to all of their purchases. "It was a glitch in the system," said Cabela's spokesman Joe Arterburn. The error was limited to transactions that occurred on January 1 and was caught that same day by the Sidney, Neb.-based hunting and outdoor outfitter. Images of Cabela's sales receipts showing the surcharge have appeared on various websites, prompting several rumors. One rumor alleged that retailers had begun passing their employees' insurance coverage costs onto consumers in the form of a medical excise tax. Other sites claimed that because the tax had been applied to shoes and shirts, clothing and footwear are now considered medical devices under the new law. Both speculations are false. Some readers have incorrectly interpreted the listing of federal excise taxes on forms of sport fishing equipment, archery equipment, tires, coal, and gas guzzlers in Chapter 5 of IRS Publication 510 as evidence that those items are now being taxed as medical devices. This interpretation is incorrect: those items are all subject to excise taxes that were enacted well prior to, and have nothing to do with, the excise tax on medical devices created by the PPACA. The excise taxes on sport fishing equipment, for example, were enacted in the 1950s through the Sport Fish Restoration Act, and the excise tax on archery equipment was enacted in 1975 to help support the Wildlife Restoration Program. | [
"taxes"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://blog.idataresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Tax.jpg",
"image_caption": null
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1eY4FqbQvVKUQdJnYbNPe8oUyOlED90vu",
"image_caption": null
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1xjWuXd2Id8d4-mwB5pcnxz7WIfsMNUWY",
"image_caption": null
}
] | True | Origins: One of the provisions in the reconciliation bill (HR 4872) passed in conjunction with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) health care legislation, also known as "Obamacare," instituteda 2.3%taxAnticipating what constitutes a "taxable medical device" under this legislation can be rather confusing, as explained in a July 2012 tax adviser article.According to proposed regulations issued by the Internal Revenue Service in February 2012, the medical items that would be exempt from the tax because they are "commonly purchased by the general public at retail for individual use" should be determined as:allow sellers to pass along the expense of the new medical device excise tax to customers by "separately stating a line item charge on the invoice or receipt given to their customers for 'Federal Excise Tax' or something similar,"the vendor in this case, Cabela's, is a retailer of hunting, fishing, camping and related outdoor recreation merchandise not known for selling medical devices, and the items listed in the receipts (such as a Ruger Attache Pistol Case) would not seem by any stretch of the imagination to fit FDA definitions of medical devices. Some readers have incorrectly interpreted the listing of federal excise taxes on forms of sport fishing equipment, archery equipment, tires, coal, and gas guzzlers in Chapter 5 of IRS Publication 510 as evidence that those items are now being taxed as medical devices. This interpretation is incorrect: those items are all subject to excise taxes that were enacted well prior to, and have nothing to do with, the excise tax on medical devices created by the PPACA. The excise taxes on sport fishing equipment, for example, were enacted in the 1950s through the Sport Fish Restoration Act, and the excise tax on archery equipment was enacted in 1975 to help support the Wildlife Restoration Program. |
FMD_train_485 | Credit Card Scams | 02/21/2005 | [
"E-mail chronicles various ways scammers might obtain your credit card numbers."
] | Claim: E-mail chronicles various ways scammers might obtain your credit card numbers. POSSIBLE, BUT NOT COMMON Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2004] Good Information This was just passed on to me. Seems to make a lot of sense. IT COULD CERTAINLY HAPPEN TO ME EASILY ENOUGH...... SCENE 1: A friend went to the local gym and placed his belongings in the locker. After the workout and a shower, he came out, saw the locker open, and thought to himself, "Funny, I thought I locked the locker. Hmmmmm." He dressed and just flipped the wallet to make sure all was in order. Everything looked okay all cards were in place. A few weeks later his credit card bill came a whooping bill of $14.000! He called the credit card company and started yelling at them, saying that he did not make the transactions. Customer care personnel verified that there was no mistake in the system and asked if his card had been stolen. "No," he said, but then took out his wallet, pulled out the credit card, and yep, you guessed it, a switch had been made. An expired similar credit card from the same bank was in the wallet. The thief broke into his locker at the gym and switched cards. Verdict: The credit card issuer said since he did not report the card missing earlier, he would have to pay the amount owed to them. How much did he have to pay for items he did not buy? $9,000! Why were there no calls made to verify the amount swiped? Small amounts rarely trigger a "warning bell" with some credit card companies. It just so happens that all the small amounts added up to big one! SCENE 2: A man at a local restaurant paid for his meal with his credit card. The bill for the meal came, he signed it, and the waitress folded the receipt and passed the credit card along. Usually, he would just take it and place it in his wallet or pocket. Funny enough, though, he actually took a look at the card and, lo and behold, it was the expired card of another person. He called the waitress and she looked perplexed. She took it back, apologized, and hurried back to the counter under the watchful eye of the man. All the waitress did while walking to the counter was wave the wrong expired card to the counter cashier, and the counter cashier immediately looked down and took out the real card. No exchange of words nothing! She took it and came back to the man with an apology. Verdict: Make sure the credit cards in your wallet are yours. Check the name on the card every time you sign for something and/or the card is taken away for even a short period of time. Many people just take back the credit card without even looking at it, thinking that it has to be theirs. FOR YOUR OWN SAKE, DEVELOP THE HABIT OF CHECKING YOUR CREDIT CARD EACH TIME IT IS RETURNED TO YOU AFTER A TRANSACTION! SCENE 3: Yesterday I went into a pizza restaurant to pick up an order that I had called in. I paid by using my Visa Check Card which, of course, is linked directly to my checking account. The young man behind the counter took my card, swiped it, then laid it flat on the counter as he waited for the approval, which is pretty standard procedure. While he waited, he picked up his cell phone and started dialing. I noticed the phone because it is the same model I have, but nothing seemed out of the ordinary. Then I heard a click that sounded like my phone sounds when I take a picture. He then gave me back my card but kept the phone in his hand as if he was still pressing buttons. Meanwhile, I'm thinking: I wonder what he is taking a picture of, oblivious to what was really going on. It then dawned on me: the only thing there was as my credit card, so now I'm paying close attention to what he is doing. He set his phone on the counter, leaving it open. About five seconds later, I heard the chime that tells you that the picture has been saved. Now I'm standing there struggling with the fact that this boy just took a picture of my credit card. Yes, he played it off well, because had we not had the same kind of phone, I probably would never have known what happened. Needless to say, I immediately canceled that card as I was walking out of the pizza parlor. All I am saying is, be aware of your surroundings at all times. Whenever you are using your credit cards, take caution and don't be careless. Notice who is standing near you and what they are doing when you use your card. Be aware of phones because many have a camera phone these days. When you are in a restaurant and the waiter/waitress brings your card and receipt for you to sign, make sure you scratch the number off. Some restaurants are using only the last four digits, but a lot of them are still putting the whole thing on there. I have already been a victim of credit card fraud and, believe me, it is not fun. The truth is that they can get you even when you are careful, so don't make it easy for them. FORWARD THIS TO AS MANY PEOPLE AS YOU CAN THINK OF. LET'S GET THE WORD OUT! Origins: The item quoted above is another example of a "crime warning" message that is difficult to classify as either true or false. The scenarios it describes are possible, and someone, somewhere, might very well have been victimized by them, but on the other hand the message provides no details of time, place, or person, to use in verifying these tales, and the scenarios proffered are generally too implausible to be of much legitimate concern to the average person. The first two entries describe scammers who supposedly switch expired credit cards for valid credit cards, thereby enabling them to run up thousands of dollars in charges before the victims realize their cards are missing. This isn't a scheme likely to be successful in most cases, for a number of reasons: Not all credit cards look alike. Common credit cards such as VISA and MasterCard vary quite widely in appearance, featuring different logos (based upon the issuing financial institutions), different colors of plastic, and even different (customer-selected) background designs. For this scenario to work, the putative thieves would have to carry around a plethora of different styles of cards and hope to hit a long shot by coincidentally matching one of their cards to a victim's particular style card. The deception would be obvious the next time the victim used (or, presumably, even looked at) his card, which wouldn't give the scammers much time to try to run up a huge charge on the stolen card via many small purchases. Contrary to the claim made above, most credit card issuers will flag as suspect thousands of dollars' worth of charges made on a credit card within a short period of time, even if none of those charges are for large amounts. Also contrary to a claim made above, a credit card customer could not be held liable for $9,000 worth of charges made to a stolen credit card, whether he reported the card stolen or not. According to the Federal Trade Commission, under federal law a credit card holder's maximum liability for any unauthorized credit card use is $50. (If the cardholder reports the loss before the credit card is used, he cannot be held responsible for any unauthorized charges at all.) If the loss involves the credit card number, but not the card itself, the cardholder also has no liability for unauthorized use. liability Frankly, if you're habitually leaving your wallet unattended in an easily-opened locker, you've got a lot more to be concerned about than potential visits from card-swapping scammers. The third scenario covers a situation we've already written an article about, that of identity thieves supposedly snapping pictures of credit cards with cell phone cameras. This scheme too is possible but implausible, since: article It's still quite difficult (given the quality of cell phone cameras, the reflectiveness of plastic credit cards, and the usual lack of contrast between the colors of a card's imprinted numbers and its background) to quickly snap off a clear photo of a credit card. Taking a picture of the front of a credit card won't capture the CVC2 or CVV2 security code required for most CNP (i.e., "card not present") purchases. (American Express, however, is an exception to this, as their security codes are printed on the cardfaces.) security code CNP Retail clerks and others who typically handle customers' credit cards in the course of business transactions have many, many ways of recording card numbers that are better and easier (and less obtrusive) than literally pointing a camera at a card and taking a picture of it. The admonition to "take caution and don't be careless" with your credit cards is generally sound, but then again, it's also rather obvious advice that applies to just about every aspect of life. Last updated: 22 July 2011 | [
"liability"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1LVZSMo1RIWFhwBvzz4vOMZnu0hH4Ivf0",
"image_caption": null
}
] | NEI | Also contrary to a claim made above, a credit card customer could not be held liable for $9,000 worth of charges made to a stolen credit card, whether he reported the card stolen or not. According to the Federal Trade Commission, under federal law a credit card holder's maximum liability for any unauthorized credit card use is $50. (If the cardholder reports the loss before the credit card is used, he cannot be held responsible for any unauthorized charges at all.) If the loss involves the credit card number, but not the card itself, the cardholder also has no liability for unauthorized use. The third scenario covers a situation we've already written an article about, that of identity thieves supposedly snapping pictures of credit cards with cell phone cameras. This scheme too is possible but implausible, since: Taking a picture of the front of a credit card won't capture the CVC2 or CVV2 security code required for most CNP (i.e., "card not present") purchases. (American Express, however, is an exception to this, as their security codes are printed on the cardfaces.) |
FMD_train_153 | According to statistics, a large majority of individuals born in the 1940s experienced greater financial success than their parents. However, in contrast, individuals born in the 1980s, often criticized as Millennials, face only an even chance of surpassing their parents' level of financial success, despite being the most educated generation in history. | 10/27/2017 | [] | Candidate for California governorDelaine Eastinsays she wants to create an economy that works for everyone. But with the states affordable housing crisis and deep poverty, Eastin believes thats not happening now, especially for young people. People become cynical, she wrote in an Oct. 11, 2017op-edin theSan Francisco Chroniclebecause the path to a brighter future is becoming more remote. Eastin continued: Ninety percent of people born in the 1940s ended up doing better financially than their parents. But those born in the 1980s, the much-maligned Millennials, have only a 50-50 chance of doing better (financially) than their parents, despite being the best-educated generation in our history. Millennialsare typically considered the children of the Baby Boomers and older Gen Xers. They were born between the early 1980s and the late 1990s. We wanted to know whether Eastin was right about this dramatic decline in children doing better than their parents. We set out on a fact check. Eastins background Eastin is one of several Democrats vying to succeed Gov. Jerry Brown in 2018. She served in the State Assembly from 1986 to 1994 and then as State Superintendent of Public Instruction from 1995 to 2003. She was the first, and remains, the only woman to hold that position. In addition to her desire to create a more equitable economy, Eastin has advocated for greater investment in education, the adoption of universal health care and continued work on climate change during her run for governor. Our research We asked Eastins campaign for evidence supporting her claim about millennials and their financial prospects. Jon Murchinson, her campaign spokesman, told us the statement is based on conclusions in aDecember 2016 studyby the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research. The study is called The Fading American Dream: Trends in Absolute Income Mobility since 1940. Its findings, indeed, show that the fraction of children earning more than their parents has plummeted -- from 90 percent for children born in the 1940s to 50 percent for those born in the 1980s. The study accounted for inflation, taxes and other changes between the generations. Its basically a coin flip as to whether youll do better than your parents, Stanford economistRaj Chetty, one of the studys authors, said in anews releaseannouncing the studys publication in December 2016. SOURCE:The Equality of Opportunity Project Reached by email this week, Chetty told us Eastins characterization of this trend appears accurate. David Grusky, the studys co-author and director of Stanfords Center on Poverty and Inequality, added that Eastins statement is a fair summary of our headline conclusion. The Stanford study doesnt examine whether millennials are the best-educated generation in our history. That part of Eastins statement, however, was substantiated in a recentsurveyby the Pew Research Center. It found 27 percent of millennial women and 21 percent of millennial men had completed at least a bachelors degree by age 33. That was slightly higher than the percentages for men and women at the same age from Baby Boomer to Generation X populations. Inside the study While Eastin appears to have correctly represented the reports findings, we wanted to know how the Stanford researchers came to their conclusions and whether other researchers agreed with them. Grusky told us the report used millions of Internal Revenue Service records and Census data to compare income between parents and children. The report specifically looked at people born between 1940 and 1984 and measured household income for parents and children when both were 30 years old. Even after accounting for changes between the generations, such as millennials entering the workforce at an older age than their parents, Grusky said the findings on upward mobility did not change significantly. Only slightly more than 50 percent of children at age 40 had higher income compared with their parents income when their parents were 30 years old. Unequal growth The Stanford study also accounted for the rapid economic growth experienced during the Baby Boomer generation, when the nations post-World War II economy created a surge of new jobs and industries. Assuming both generations had experienced the same economic growth rates, Grusky said only 62 percent of millennials would do better than their parents. The key factor holding back broader financial success of this younger generation, the report concluded, was todays inequality of growth. Financial success, Grusky said, has become concentrated among a smaller share of families compared with the recent past. Ensuring that financial success is distributed more widely would make a lot of headway toward millennials doing better than their parents in future years, the researcher added. The report found declines in upward mobility for millennials across all 50 states. The biggest drops took place in Rust Belt states such as Ohio, Illinois and Michigan, Grusky said. Millennials in states such as California, New York and Massachusetts saw, on average, less substantial declines. SOURCE:The Equality of Opportunity Project For this study, Grusky said, researchers were not able to factor in student debt or address how people of different races and ethnicities are affected by the mobility trends. Behind the starting line Tom Allison, deputy policy and research director atYoung Invincibles, said the Stanford research is right in line with theconclusions reachedby his Washington D.C.-based group. Young Invincibles advocates for expanding economic opportunities for young adults and encouraging them to get involved in the political process. Allison said the Stanford study is both transparent and relies on credible public data. Factors from the Great Recession to student debt to globalization have all put millennials behind the starting line compared with their parents, he said. That is a cornerstone of the American Dream, Allison continued, that if you work hard and play by the rules, then you can exceed the living standards of your parents. And weve seen a precipitous decline in that. Our ruling Delaine Eastin recently claimed millennials have only a 50-50 chance of doing better financially than their parents, while those born in the 1940s had a 90 percent chance of doing better than their parents. Her claim is supported by a 2016 Stanford study, The Fading American Dream: Trends in Absolute Income Mobility since 1940. Stanford researchers found stronger economic growth combined with a broader distribution of that growth during the Baby Boomer generation drove greater upward mobility for people born in the 1940s. They said financial success has become more concentrated in recent decades, leaving millennials with much lower odds of doing better than their parents. Even after accounting for changes, such as inflation and millennials starting work at older ages, they found todays younger generation faces comparatively smaller odds of earning more than their parents. Other research, notably by the advocacy group Young Invincibles, agreed with the Stanford findings. We rate her claim True. TRUE The statement is accurate and theres nothing significant missing. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. | [
"Economy",
"Education",
"Jobs",
"The 2018 California Governor's Race",
"California"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1nSWfAwjMD8YqDYcqfkU-8pG_VXptKxYB",
"image_caption": "San Francisco Chronicle"
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1oiY_8rOKG7FhA2wk22wgsZtyc1s5uFiO",
"image_caption": "Ninety percent of people born in the 1940s ended up doing better financially than their parents. But those born in the 1980s, the much-maligned Millennials, have only a 50-50 chance of doing better (financially) than their parents, despite being the best-educated generation in our history."
}
] | True | Candidate for California governorDelaine Eastinsays she wants to create an economy that works for everyone.People become cynical, she wrote in an Oct. 11, 2017op-edin theSan Francisco Chroniclebecause the path to a brighter future is becoming more remote.Millennialsare typically considered the children of the Baby Boomers and older Gen Xers. They were born between the early 1980s and the late 1990s.We asked Eastins campaign for evidence supporting her claim about millennials and their financial prospects. Jon Murchinson, her campaign spokesman, told us the statement is based on conclusions in aDecember 2016 studyby the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.The study is called The Fading American Dream: Trends in Absolute Income Mobility since 1940.Its basically a coin flip as to whether youll do better than your parents, Stanford economistRaj Chetty, one of the studys authors, said in anews releaseannouncing the studys publication in December 2016.SOURCE:The Equality of Opportunity ProjectDavid Grusky, the studys co-author and director of Stanfords Center on Poverty and Inequality, added that Eastins statement is a fair summary of our headline conclusion.The Stanford study doesnt examine whether millennials are the best-educated generation in our history. That part of Eastins statement, however, was substantiated in a recentsurveyby the Pew Research Center. It found 27 percent of millennial women and 21 percent of millennial men had completed at least a bachelors degree by age 33.SOURCE:The Equality of Opportunity ProjectTom Allison, deputy policy and research director atYoung Invincibles, said the Stanford research is right in line with theconclusions reachedby his Washington D.C.-based group. Young Invincibles advocates for expanding economic opportunities for young adults and encouraging them to get involved in the political process. Allison said the Stanford study is both transparent and relies on credible public data.Her claim is supported by a 2016 Stanford study, The Fading American Dream: Trends in Absolute Income Mobility since 1940.Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. |
FMD_train_336 | The House tax bill has a lot more permanent relief for middle-income and even lower-income families than the Senate bill does. | 12/14/2017 | [] | As the House and Senate were finishing the details of a joint version of the Republican-backed tax bill, Rep. Carlos Curbelo, R-Fla., was defending the Houses version as friendlier to Americans of modest means. In anappearanceon Miamis WPLG-TV on Dec. 10, Curbelo was asked about the pattern of Americans being projected to gain from the GOP tax bills in the first few years after its passed, but then paying more in taxes closer to 10 years after passage. Curbelo responded to the question by touting the advantages of the House-passed version compared with the Senate-passed version. The House bill does have a lot more permanent relief for middle income and even lower income families long term, permanently, Curbelo replied. The Senate bill, their budget rules are different so they had to put these gimmicks in the bill, frankly. We, in conference, are insisting on the House provisions to make the middle-class relief permanent. We wondered whether Curbelo was correct that he House bill has a lot more permanent relief for middle-income and even lower-income families than the Senate bill does. Curbelo is correct that in the Houses version of the tax bill, several key provisions -- its replacement of seven existing tax brackets with four, the raising of the standard deduction, and an expanded child tax credit -- are permanent. All of these provisions in the Senate bill expire after 2025. Theres only one significant provision in the House bill that would expire -- a family tax credit worth $300 credit for the taxpayer, spouse, and non-child dependents. That provision sunsets in 2022 under the House bill. (A similar, $500 credit in the Senate bill would expire in 2025.) The pattern of eventual tax increases in the Senate bill is stronger than from the House bill,thenonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxationfound. By 2027, every income group below $100,000 would see an increase, on average. So Curbelo has a point that several key House provisions are written to be permanent, unlike the equivalent provisions of the Senate bill. Its important to note, however, that sunsetting provisions arent the only cause of later tax increases. Other factors the following provisions of the House bill (and also the Senate bill): The amount of the child credit is not indexed for inflation. By contrast, the provision it effectively replaces -- the personal exemption -- is indexed for inflation. The rate brackets would grow more slowly from year to year because they would be adjusted by a less generous measure of inflation. The earned income tax credit -- a refundable credit for low-income Americans who are employed -- would also increase more slowly because of the same change to the inflation measurement. Curbelo said the House tax bill has a lot more permanent relief for middle-income and even lower-income families. Thats generally the case: Only one provision of the House bill thats likely to be claimed by Americans of modest incomes, a family tax credit, would expire within the first decade, whereas many key provisions in the Senate bill would sunset early. However, its worth noting that the expiration of provisions is not the only reason that taxpayers are projected to pay more closer to 10 years after the bills passage. Another one, unmentioned by Curbelo, is changed treatment of inflation adjustments in the House bill. We rate the statement Mostly True. | [
"Taxes",
"Florida"
] | [] | True | In anappearanceon Miamis WPLG-TV on Dec. 10, Curbelo was asked about the pattern of Americans being projected to gain from the GOP tax bills in the first few years after its passed, but then paying more in taxes closer to 10 years after passage.The pattern of eventual tax increases in the Senate bill is stronger than from the House bill,thenonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxationfound. By 2027, every income group below $100,000 would see an increase, on average. |
FMD_train_1346 | Did Mexico Sign a Major Trade Deal With Argentina to Retaliate Against Trump's Border Wall Plans? | 11/01/2017 | [
"Mexico is in trade talks with Argentina, but no deal has been finalized; the cost to American farmers would likely be lower than claimed."
] | Two of Donald Trump's most prominent 2016 campaign pledges were to build a border wall along the Mexican border (or rather, to reinforce and extend it; a wall already exists along hundreds of miles of the international border), and to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement, a 1994 arrangement between the United States, Canada and Mexico which he called "the single worst trade deal ever approved in this country." exists arrangement called In October 2017, left-wing Facebook page "The Other 98%" posted a widely-shared meme which claimed that Mexico had in retaliation for Trump's border wall plans signed a major agricultural trade agreement with Argentina, which would have very harmful effects on American farmers: meme They're trying to distract us from the fact that Mexico retaliated against the border wall by establishing an agricultural agreement with Argentina. Starting next year Mexico will be buying 100% of their corn, rice, wheat and soy from Argentina duty free. In exchange Mexico will ship cars to Argentina duty free. This will take away at least $13 billion annually from American farmers. As of 1 November 2017, Mexico and Argentina have not signed an agreement like the one described by "The Other 98%", but the two countries have held talks about a more limited (though still significant) trade deal involving grains and cars. Furthermore, the main catalyst for the negotiations has been the uncertainty caused by Donald Trump's vow to renegotiate NAFTA rather than his plans to build a border wall. The source cited by "The Other 98%" is a September 2017 article by Daily Kos, which reported: Daily Kos Mexico already retaliated against Trump and his insults earlier this year by establishing an agricultural agreement with Argentina. Starting next year Mexico will be buying 100% of her corn, rice, wheat and soy from Argentina duty free. In exchange Mexico will ship cars to Argentina, duty free. This will taken [sic] away $13 billion annually from American farmers. It's not clear what the source of these claims is, but a similar meme appeared online earlier in 2017, which read: meme Mexico has retaliated against Trump's racial profiling and insistence that Mexico will pay for his border wall. Beginning in 2018, Mexico will be buying its corn, rice, wheat and soy from Argentina. Not America. American farmers stand to lose $13 billion. The ripple effect will be even more devastating. The fact that this announcement was made during Trump's Made in America week, is just karmic icing. "Made in America Week" took place from 17-24 July 2017; we found no evidence of any deal between Mexico and Argentina being announced during that time period. However, talks have been ongoing between the two countries. place In the spring of 2017, Mexico's Deputy Economy Minister Juan Carlos Baker made several comments in interviews about his country's negotiations with Argentina and Brazil. On 26 March 2017, the Financial Times reported: Financial Times Mexico, the worlds biggest buyer of US corn, is considering offering duty-free access to Brazilian and Argentine maize as an alternative to American imports in a move that could have big consequences for US farmers worried about Donald Trumps trade and tax agenda. [...] "I am pretty optimistic about the possibility of having a deal with these countries soon," Juan Carlos Baker, Mexicos deputy economy minister, told the Financial Times in an interview. "Were pretty far advanced with Brazil...Argentina is a few steps behind," he said.... The following month, Baker told Reuters that a deal with Argentina could be finalized by the end of 2017: Reuters Mexico, seeking closer ties with the rest of Latin America, expects to finish negotiations on a trade deal with Argentina involving cars and agricultural products around the end of the year, Mexicos deputy minister for foreign trade said in an interview on Tuesday. [...] Under the deal, Argentina could gain part of the lucrative grains market in Mexico, Latin Americas No. 2 economy, Baker told Reuters. In 2015 Mexico imported $2.3 billion worth of U.S. corn and $1.4 billion of U.S. soy. But Baker said those numbers will likely decrease under a renegotiated North American Free Trade Agreement called for by Trump. "The potential is there," Baker said. "The Argentine exporters could find attractive conditions in Mexico." Mexico, in turn, could export cars to Argentina, he said. "We have a very strong manufacturing industry and Argentina is an important market for us," Baker said. A trade deal between Mexico and Argentina may be in the works, but it has not yet been announced as of 1 November 2017. However, assuming a deal goes ahead to shift Mexico's importation of certain products from the United States to Argentina, the numbers are significant but not as dramatic as they are in the meme. According to United States Grain Council statistics, the United States exported $2.5 billion worth of corn to Mexico in 2015 and 2016. In 2015, the United States exported $2.9 billion worth of soy products to Mexico, according to the U.S. Soybean Export Council (page 19.) According to Global Agricultural Trade System statistics for 2016, exports of wheat and rice were worth $612 million and $274 million, respectively. Grain Council page 19 Global Agricultural Trade System This yields a total of $6.3 billion in U.S. exports to Mexico of corn, rice, wheat and soy the four products specified in the above meme. So even if Mexico did decide to stop importing all these products from the U.S., the likely annual financial cost to the American agriculture industry would be extremely significant, but still only around half the $13 billion claimed. It's not entirely clear where the figure of $13 billion came from, but it might have originated in an October 2017 letter sent to Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, and signed by dozens of food and agriculture companies and industry associations, warning Ross about the dangers, as they see them, of withdrawing from NAFTA. letter According to a study by ImpactECON, if Canada, Mexico, and the United States return to most favored nation (MFN) tariff rates upon any withdrawal from NAFTA, the negative impact on the United States will far outweigh any benefits from higher U.S. tariffs, including a net loss of 256,000 U.S. jobs, a net loss of at least 50,000 jobs in the U.S. food and agriculture industry, and a drop in GDP of $13 billion from the farm sector alone. The study mentioned here was an August 2017 working paper produced by the economic consulting firm ImpactECON. It did not actually mention any figure of $13 billion. Rather, it projected that over the course of two to three years after a U.S. withdrawal from NAFTA, real GDP in the United States would fall by as much as 0.09 percent. working paper Gross domestic product, or GDP, is the combined market value of all goods and services produced in a particular geographic area (in this case, the United States.) It is a calculation commonly used to measure the total size of an economy. Real GDP is gross domestic product adjusted for inflation - meaning, roughly speaking, the size of the economy in relation to the cost of living. As of the third quarter of 2017 (when the ImpactECON report was published), the real GDP of the United States was $17.01 trillion, according to figures from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. A 0.09 percent decline in that would amount to a $15.3 billion loss not far off the $13 billion posited by the food and agriculture industry, in their letter. figures There are a couple of things to note here: firstly, the 0.09 percent decline estimated in the ImpactECON report relates to the entire U.S. economy, and not "the farm sector alone," as mentioned in the letter. In fact, the working paper projects a very small increase in production for the crops and forestry sector (0.04 percent, page 20), accompanied by a significant boost to production in the sugar sector (5.11 percent), but it also projects production declines of between one and two percent in the meat, food and livestock and fishing sectors. page 20 Secondly, this real GDP declined is projected to happen "in the next 2-3 years", so if the meme is using the letter to Wilbur Ross as the source of its $13 billion figure, it is misrepresenting the decline as happening "annually." projected Politico. "Full Transcript: First 2016 Presidential Debate."
Politico. 27 September 2016. Webber, Jude. "Mexico Eyes Duty-Free Corn Deals to Counter Trump."
Financial Times. 26 March 2017. Misculin, Nicolas. "Mexico, Looking South, Sees Trade Deal With Argentina Around Year's End."
Reuters. 18 April 2017. U.S. Soybean Export Council. "2015 Annual Report."
U.S. Soybean Export Council. 27 October 2015. NAFTA Food and Ag Trade Working Group. "Letter to Wilbur Ross."
NAFTA Food and Ag Trade Working Group. 25 October 2017. Bureau of Economic Analysis. "Gross Domestic Product: Second Quarter 2017 (Advance Estimate.)"
U.S. Department of Commerce. 28 July 2017. Walmsley, Terry; Minor, Peter. "Reversing NAFTA: A Supply Chain Perspective."
ImpactECON. August 2017. Update [2 November 2017]: Added possible source of the $13 billion figure in the meme. | [
"economy"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1G3pe_2Ay9IzbMiQ-LfkfK7WfgM9WwnjE",
"image_caption": null
}
] | NEI | Two of Donald Trump's most prominent 2016 campaign pledges were to build a border wall along the Mexican border (or rather, to reinforce and extend it; a wall already exists along hundreds of miles of the international border), and to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement, a 1994 arrangement between the United States, Canada and Mexico which he called "the single worst trade deal ever approved in this country."In October 2017, left-wing Facebook page "The Other 98%" posted a widely-shared meme which claimed that Mexico had in retaliation for Trump's border wall plans signed a major agricultural trade agreement with Argentina, which would have very harmful effects on American farmers:The source cited by "The Other 98%" is a September 2017 article by Daily Kos, which reported:It's not clear what the source of these claims is, but a similar meme appeared online earlier in 2017, which read:"Made in America Week" took place from 17-24 July 2017; we found no evidence of any deal between Mexico and Argentina being announced during that time period. However, talks have been ongoing between the two countries. In the spring of 2017, Mexico's Deputy Economy Minister Juan Carlos Baker made several comments in interviews about his country's negotiations with Argentina and Brazil. On 26 March 2017, the Financial Times reported:The following month, Baker told Reuters that a deal with Argentina could be finalized by the end of 2017:According to United States Grain Council statistics, the United States exported $2.5 billion worth of corn to Mexico in 2015 and 2016. In 2015, the United States exported $2.9 billion worth of soy products to Mexico, according to the U.S. Soybean Export Council (page 19.) According to Global Agricultural Trade System statistics for 2016, exports of wheat and rice were worth $612 million and $274 million, respectively. It's not entirely clear where the figure of $13 billion came from, but it might have originated in an October 2017 letter sent to Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, and signed by dozens of food and agriculture companies and industry associations, warning Ross about the dangers, as they see them, of withdrawing from NAFTA. The study mentioned here was an August 2017 working paper produced by the economic consulting firm ImpactECON. It did not actually mention any figure of $13 billion. Rather, it projected that over the course of two to three years after a U.S. withdrawal from NAFTA, real GDP in the United States would fall by as much as 0.09 percent.As of the third quarter of 2017 (when the ImpactECON report was published), the real GDP of the United States was $17.01 trillion, according to figures from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. A 0.09 percent decline in that would amount to a $15.3 billion loss not far off the $13 billion posited by the food and agriculture industry, in their letter. In fact, the working paper projects a very small increase in production for the crops and forestry sector (0.04 percent, page 20), accompanied by a significant boost to production in the sugar sector (5.11 percent), but it also projects production declines of between one and two percent in the meat, food and livestock and fishing sectors. Secondly, this real GDP declined is projected to happen "in the next 2-3 years", so if the meme is using the letter to Wilbur Ross as the source of its $13 billion figure, it is misrepresenting the decline as happening "annually." |
FMD_train_753 | Did WaPo Headline Call IS Leader al-Baghdadi an 'Austere Religious Scholar'? | 10/28/2019 | [
"The Washington Post was criticized for an online obituary headline about al-Baghdadi. "
] | On Oct. 27, 2019, U.S. President Trump announced the death of Islamic State (IS) leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. As news outlets quickly reported on the terrorist leader's death, the Washington Post published an obituary that labeled al-Baghdadi an "austere religious scholar." Screenshots of this obituary headline were widely shared on social media, accompanied by criticism of the news outlet. Former White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer, for instance, posted the following message on Twitter: "Stop, read this & think about it: last night a ruthless, brutal terrorist who threatened our country and is responsible for the death of American citizens was killed in a successful operation by the U.S. military, and @washingtonpost described #Albagdadi as an austere religious scholar." This is a genuine headline that briefly appeared on Washingtonpost.com. An archived version of the article can be found here. The headline was on the Washington Post's website for about two hours. The story was published at 8:31 a.m. CDT, according to the article's timestamp. This headline was changed to "Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, extremist leader of Islamic State, dies at 48" at about 10:35 a.m., according to archived links from the Internet Wayback Machine. Kristine Coratti Kelly, the vice president and communications general manager of Washington Post Live, posted a message on Twitter stating that the headline "should never have read that way." Regarding our al-Baghdadi obituary, she said, "the headline should never have read that way, and we changed it quickly." The qualms over the Washington Post's headline likely inspired a meme targeting another "mainstream media" outlet, CNN. Some social media users began sharing an image that supposedly showed a screenshot from a CNN broadcast about al-Baghdadi's death featuring the chyron "Trump Kills Unarmed Father of Three." For the record, while the Washington Post briefly published a headline for al-Baghdadi's obituary labeling him a religious scholar, the above-displayed chyron is a digital manipulation featuring a years-old image of Don Lemon that never aired on CNN. Warrick, Joby. "Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Extremist Leader of Islamic State, Dies at 48." The Washington Post. 27 October 2019. | [
"share"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1XBx6ut9CvMPrMQc2aKHH1RVWY9Dpv0ui",
"image_caption": null
}
] | True | Stop, read this & think about it: last night a ruthless, brutal terrorist who threatened our country & is responsible for the death of American citizens was killed in a successful operation by US military & @washingtonpost described #Albagdadi as an austere religious scholar pic.twitter.com/Mjptm0Fa3Z Sean Spicer (@seanspicer) October 27, 2019This is a genuine headline that briefly appeared on Washingtonpost.com. An archived version of the article can be found here.The headline appeared on the Washington Post's website for about two hours. The story was published at 8:31 a.m. CDT, according to the article's timestamp. This headline was changed to "Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, extremist leader of Islamic State, dies at 48" at about 10:35 a.m., according to archived links from the Internet Wayback Machine. Kristine Coratti Kelly (@kriscoratti) October 27, 2019For the record, while the Washington Post briefly published a headline for al-Baghdadi's obituary labeling him a religious scholar, the above-displayed chryon is a digital manipulation featuring a years-old image of Don Lemon that never aired on CNN. |
FMD_train_861 | Did the man from Ohio who referred to COVID-19 as a 'political scheme' pass away from the illness? | 04/22/2020 | [
"John W. McDaniel of Ohio passed away at the age of 60 in April 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.
In April 2020, a set of screenshots supposedly showing comments from a "John McDaniels," in which he called COVID-19 a "political ploy" and social-distancing measures "bullshit," started to circulate on social media. Along with the posts were articles claiming he died from complications of the coronavirus disease.
McDaniel truly died from complications related to COVID-19 in April 2020 after he downplayed the seriousness of the disease on social media. The New York Daily News reported that an Ohio man tragically died from COVID-19 after criticizing his state's coronavirus lockdown. John W. McDaniel, 60, died Wednesday in Columbus, exactly one month after reportedly calling Gov. Mike DeWine's stay-at-home order madness. "If what I'm hearing is true, that DeWine has ordered all bars and restaurants to be closed, I say bullshit! He doesn't have the authority," McDaniel reportedly wrote in a since-deleted social media post that circulated widely. As screenshots of McDaniel's posts went viral, many social media users took the opportunity to criticize him, saying he had received his comeuppance for calling the virus a political ploy.
McDaniel's wife, Lisa, acknowledged that her husband had made some "early assumptions" about the virus on social media but added that social media users were also making unfair assumptions about him. In a statement posted to the Snyder Funeral Homes Facebook page, which announced that services for McDaniel would not be live-streamed due to concerns about unwanted, negative social media reactions, she explained that McDaniel, like many others, was initially not fully aware of the severity of the pandemic. However, she wrote that he ordered the employees at his company, O&M, to work from home on March 16 (the day after the above-displayed Facebook post). Furthermore, according to her Facebook message, he self-isolated as soon as he was made aware that he had been in contact with someone who tested positive for COVID-19.
Lastly, she wrote that if he were still alive, he would have abided by the state's stay-at-home order and would have encouraged others to do the same. Here's her statement from April 22, 2020 (emphasis ours): "Words do not describe all of the emotions we, John W. McDaniel's family, are experiencing right now. We are overwhelmed with grief for the loss of our beloved husband, father, soon-to-be father-in-law, son, brother, uncle, and dear friend to many. Similar to thousands of people, we are suffering from an unexpected and untimely loss due to the effects of COVID-19, the likes of which we never could have imagined. During this time of mourning, John's story, along with early assumptions that he stated on Twitter and Facebook, have turned into national news. The news has opened the floodgates for people to share their own misguided anger and unfounded assumptions about a man they don't know. Wanting to protect my family and John's legacy, we have decided not to live stream his funeral services via Facebook today. We will be privately recording his services today, and we will be sharing it directly with his family and friends. We have not come to this decision lightly, and we hope everyone will honor and respect this decision.
As each day passes, we are all learning more about this "invisible enemy." We have learned that the early actions taken by our national and state government were indeed the right actions to take. Quarantine and social distancing have been effective in flattening the curve. John, President of O&M, ordered the company to work from home on March 16. In addition, it is important to note that John immediately self-isolated as soon as he learned he had been in contact with someone who had tested positive. Many, like John, made statements early on not fully aware of the severity of COVID-19; many have retracted their statements knowing now the effects of this pandemic. We know if John were still here with us, he would acknowledge the national crisis we're in, abide by the stay-at-home order, and encourage family and friends to do the same. But sadly, he is not with us, and we will forever have to live and cope with how his life ended far too soon. Furthermore, we will never be able to erase from our hearts and minds the negative posts that have been made and shared about John this past week. To all of our family and friends, my sons and I will never be able to appropriately say "thank you" for all the love and support you have given us throughout this entire process. From the bottom of our hearts, we will forever be grateful for you and the special relationship we share.
While some may cast aspersions on McDaniel for not treating COVID-19 with the seriousness it deserved in March 2020, it should be noted that misinformation has been rampant during this pandemic. We've debunked scores of rumors over several months that have touted bad medical advice and promoted conspiracy theories. U.S. President Donald Trump has also been criticized for downplaying the seriousness of COVID-19 and has repeatedly called the news outlets covering this pandemic "fake news." On Feb. 28, just two weeks before McDaniel posted on social media that COVID-19 was a "political ploy," Trump said during a rally that "Democrats are politicizing the coronavirus" as their "new hoax." | [
"loss"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=16f9Q3QXUIxG_SfEE1Lx94a7svQ_tMqX6",
"image_caption": null
}
] | True | 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. McDaniel truly died from complications related to COVID-19 in April 2020 after he downplayed the seriousness of the disease on social media. The New York Daily News wrote: In a statement posted to the Snyder Funeral Homes Facebook page that announced services for McDaniel would not be live-streamed due to concerns about unwanted, negative social media reactions, she explained that McDaniel, like many others, was initially not fully aware of the severity of the pandemic. However, she wrote that he ordered the employees at his company O&M to work from home on March 16 (the day after the above-displayed Facebook post). Furthermore, according to her Facebook message, he self-isolated as soon as he was made aware that he had been in contact with someone who tested positive for COVID-19.While some may cast aspersions on McDaniel for not treating COVID-19 with the seriousness it deserved in March 2020, it should be noted that misinformation has been rampant during this pandemic.We've debunked scores of rumors over several months that have touted bad medical advice and promoted conspiracy theories. U.S. President Donald Trump, too, has been criticized for downplaying the seriousness of COVID-19 and has repeatedly called the news outlets outlets covering this pandemic "fake news." On Feb. 28, just two weeks before McDaniel posted on social media that COVID-19 was a "political ploy," Trump said during a rally that "Democrats are politicizing the coronavirus" as their "new hoax." |
FMD_train_183 | Trump expressed a wish for his political enemies to suffer in Hell in his Christmas Day 2023 post. | 12/27/2023 | [
"Readers asked Snopes if it was true that the former U.S. president had ended a Christmas message with the words, \"May they rot in hell.\""
] | On Dec. 27, 2023, readers emailed Snopes to ask if it was true that former U.S. President Donald Trump had written a post on Christmas Day that included the words, "May they rot in hell." A check of Trump's posts on his social media platform, Truth Social, showed dozens of new posts ("Truths") and reposts ("Retruths") in the previous two days. Buried below all of the more recent shared posts was a "trending" post in which Trump had offered a "Merry Christmas" message on Dec. 25. That post truly did include the words, "May they rot in hell," which appeared in all capital letters. The imprecation was aimed at so-called "thugs" Trump claimed were "looking to destroy our once great USA." The full post (archived) read as follows: post archived Merry Christmas to all, including Crooked Joe Bidens ONLY HOPE, Deranged Jack Smith, the out of control Lunatic who just hired outside attorneys, fresh from the SWAMP (unprecedented!), to help him with his poorly executed WITCH HUNT against TRUMP and MAGA. Included also are World Leaders, both good and bad, but none of which are as evil and sick as the THUGS we have inside our Country who, with their Open Borders, INFLATION, Afghanistan Surrender, Green New Scam, High Taxes, No Energy Independence, Woke Military, Russia/Ukraine, Israel/Iran, All Electric Car Lunacy, and so much more, are looking to destroy our once great USA. MAY THEY ROT IN HELL. AGAIN, MERRY CHRISTMAS! Snopes has previously published a wealth of reporting about claims mentioned in the above post: "open borders," worldwide inflation, the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Green New Deal, U.S. President Joe Biden's plans for taxes, Biden's record on energy independence, the idea of the U.S. military being "woke," Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the war in Israel and Gaza and electric-powered vehicles. open borders worldwide inflation U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan Green New Deal taxes energy independence woke Russia's invasion of Ukraine war in Israel and Gaza electric-powered vehicles On the same day that Trump posted his Christmas message on Truth Social, a Biden-Harris campaign spokesperson named Seth Schuster responded by calling it an "erratic Christmas Day rant," according to reporting from Washington Examiner. Washington Examiner We reached out to the Trump campaign by email to ask about the statement and will update this story if we receive a response. In addition to the Truth Social post on Christmas Day, Trump also released a video message on Christmas Eve that did not include the words, "May they rot in hell." Rather, the video simply showed Trump offering positive, forward-looking sentiments about Christmas, U.S. military servicemembers and the upcoming 2024 U.S. presidential election. Dapcevich, Madison. Does Biden Support the Green New Deal? Snopes, 1 Oct. 2020, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/does-biden-support-green-new-deal/. Datoc, Christian. MSN.MSN.Com, Washington Examiner, 26 Dec. 2023, https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-campaign-rebukes-trump-s-rot-in-hell-christmas-wish/ar-AA1m43Pg. Electric Vehicles Archives | Snopes.com. https://www.snopes.com/tag/electric-vehicles/. Huberman, Bond. About That Biden Tax Plan Meme. Snopes, 29 Oct. 2020, https://www.snopes.com/collections/about-that-biden-tax-plan-meme/. Ibrahim, Nur. Do Democrats Want Open Borders? Snopes, 17 June 2022, https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/06/17/do-democrats-want-open-borders/. Inflation Is Spiking Around the World Not Just in US. Snopes via The Conversation, 1 Aug. 2022, https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/08/01/inflation-us-world/. Israel Hamas War Archives | Snopes.com. https://www.snopes.com/tag/israel-hamas_war/. Kasprak, Alex. Did Biden Set US Back 50 Years on Energy Independence Progress? Snopes, 15 Feb. 2021, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-energy-independence/. Liles, Jordan. Did the Trump Admin Agree to Free 5,000 Taliban Prisoners? Snopes, 12 Dec. 2022, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-5000-taliban-prisoners/. Palma, Bethania. Top General Blasts Rep. Matt Gaetz for Offensive Comment About Military Being Woke. Snopes, 24 June 2021, https://www.snopes.com/news/2021/06/24/matt-gaetz-mark-milley-woke/. Ukraine War Archives | Snopes.com. https://www.snopes.com/tag/russia-ukraine/. | [
"inflation"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=165ltMKbmNz3LwdsUW6y1bBeeCaepTVdO",
"image_caption": null
}
] | True | The full post (archived) read as follows:Snopes has previously published a wealth of reporting about claims mentioned in the above post: "open borders," worldwide inflation, the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Green New Deal, U.S. President Joe Biden's plans for taxes, Biden's record on energy independence, the idea of the U.S. military being "woke," Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the war in Israel and Gaza and electric-powered vehicles.On the same day that Trump posted his Christmas message on Truth Social, a Biden-Harris campaign spokesperson named Seth Schuster responded by calling it an "erratic Christmas Day rant," according to reporting from Washington Examiner. |
FMD_train_699 | Rhode Island has the highest percentage of uninsured adults of any state in New England. | 01/04/2011 | [] | The cost of health care is a huge issue for everyone.If you have health insurance, the chances are excellent that you've seen your costs, along with co-payments and deductibles, go up significantly.If you don't have health insurance, the bill you get from your doctor or hospital is strikingly higher than what people with health insurance are charged. That's because insurance companies negotiate deep discounts that uninsured people never see.And because people who don't have insurance areseven times more likelyto skip the care they need, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, that typically makes your care more expensive when you do seek it. If, on top of everything else, you can't pay for that care and a hospital provides it for free, as a hospital is obligated to do, those costs are passed on to everyone else.So it caught our attention when Marie Ghazal, chief executive officer of theRhode Island Free Clinic, the Providence nonprofit organization that treats the uninsured, beganan opinion columnin The Providence Journal by asserting that Rhode Island has the highest percentage of uninsured adults of any state in New England.She stated that between 13.9 percent and 21.4 percent of residents are not insured, which translates to 139,000 to 214,000 Rhode Islanders.We wondered if our ranking was really that poor, and why the range was so large.When we contacted Ghazal, she said she got the information froma story in the Providence Business News. The article gives no specific numbers for Rhode Island or most other states. It wasbased on a mapdeveloped by the CDC that breaks the states into three categories: those having the highest proportion of people with health insurance, those having the lowest and those in between.Rhode Island -- like New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Virginia and most of the states in the Midwest -- is in the in-between category. Ghazal said our rate of uninsured adults was 13.9 percent to 21.4 percent because, as it turns out, that's how the CDC defined the in-between group.We asked if she had specific numbers. She said she didn't. So we went searching.When we contacted CDC, they directed us tostate-by-state numbers, as collected by Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, a telephone survey that counts how many people are without health insurance at the time of the call.According to the BRFSS statistics, which served as the basis for the map cited by Ghazal, the 2009 telephone survey of4,318 Rhode Islands found that the percentage of uninsured adults in Rhode Island was 14.2 percent, below the national average of 16.9 percent. Thirty-two states had a lower rate of health insurance coverage than Rhode Island. The worst rate was in Texas, where 29.1 percent of the population was not covered. In 15 states, at least 20 percent of the adult population younger than 65 was without health insurance.But we found something else while digging into the numbers. The margin of error in the survey was plus or minus 1.9 percentage points.If you ignore the margin of error, it is true that Rhode Island had the highest rate of uninsured adults in New England. Maine, where 13.7 percent were uninsured, was closest to Rhode Island. But that's a difference of only 0.5 percentage points. Massachusetts, in contrast, had the lowest rate of uninsured -- 6.2 percent -- because the Bay State has mandatory health insurance.However, if you consider the margin of error in the poll, we could rank ahead of New Hampshire (where 13.1 were uninsured) and Maine.For additional context, we looked at thepercentages going back to 1995(excluding 2001 and 2002, two years when the survey results are not on the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention & Health Promotion website).It turns out that in 2004, the level of uninsured in Rhode Island was a bit higher -- 14.4 percent; 15 years ago it was at about 13 percent. The rate did dip to 11.7 percent in the 1998 survey but, in general, the numbers have stayed consistent.By any measure, that's still a lot of people walking around without health insurance.Ultimately, if you ignore the margin of error, Ghazal is correct about our ranking compared with other New England states. But if you take that into account, its possible that her statement could be inaccurate.More importantly, she's making a selective comparison. When you compare us with the rest of the country, we're better than average.Because of those omissions, we rate her statement Mostly True. | [
"Rhode Island",
"Economy",
"Health Care",
"Poverty"
] | [] | True | The cost of health care is a huge issue for everyone.If you have health insurance, the chances are excellent that you've seen your costs, along with co-payments and deductibles, go up significantly.If you don't have health insurance, the bill you get from your doctor or hospital is strikingly higher than what people with health insurance are charged. That's because insurance companies negotiate deep discounts that uninsured people never see.And because people who don't have insurance areseven times more likelyto skip the care they need, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, that typically makes your care more expensive when you do seek it. If, on top of everything else, you can't pay for that care and a hospital provides it for free, as a hospital is obligated to do, those costs are passed on to everyone else.So it caught our attention when Marie Ghazal, chief executive officer of theRhode Island Free Clinic, the Providence nonprofit organization that treats the uninsured, beganan opinion columnin The Providence Journal by asserting that Rhode Island has the highest percentage of uninsured adults of any state in New England.She stated that between 13.9 percent and 21.4 percent of residents are not insured, which translates to 139,000 to 214,000 Rhode Islanders.We wondered if our ranking was really that poor, and why the range was so large.When we contacted Ghazal, she said she got the information froma story in the Providence Business News. The article gives no specific numbers for Rhode Island or most other states. It wasbased on a mapdeveloped by the CDC that breaks the states into three categories: those having the highest proportion of people with health insurance, those having the lowest and those in between.Rhode Island -- like New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Virginia and most of the states in the Midwest -- is in the in-between category. Ghazal said our rate of uninsured adults was 13.9 percent to 21.4 percent because, as it turns out, that's how the CDC defined the in-between group.We asked if she had specific numbers. She said she didn't. So we went searching.When we contacted CDC, they directed us tostate-by-state numbers, as collected by Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, a telephone survey that counts how many people are without health insurance at the time of the call.According to the BRFSS statistics, which served as the basis for the map cited by Ghazal, the 2009 telephone survey of4,318 Rhode Islands found that the percentage of uninsured adults in Rhode Island was 14.2 percent, below the national average of 16.9 percent. Thirty-two states had a lower rate of health insurance coverage than Rhode Island. The worst rate was in Texas, where 29.1 percent of the population was not covered. In 15 states, at least 20 percent of the adult population younger than 65 was without health insurance.But we found something else while digging into the numbers. The margin of error in the survey was plus or minus 1.9 percentage points.If you ignore the margin of error, it is true that Rhode Island had the highest rate of uninsured adults in New England. Maine, where 13.7 percent were uninsured, was closest to Rhode Island. But that's a difference of only 0.5 percentage points. Massachusetts, in contrast, had the lowest rate of uninsured -- 6.2 percent -- because the Bay State has mandatory health insurance.However, if you consider the margin of error in the poll, we could rank ahead of New Hampshire (where 13.1 were uninsured) and Maine.For additional context, we looked at thepercentages going back to 1995(excluding 2001 and 2002, two years when the survey results are not on the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention & Health Promotion website).It turns out that in 2004, the level of uninsured in Rhode Island was a bit higher -- 14.4 percent; 15 years ago it was at about 13 percent. The rate did dip to 11.7 percent in the 1998 survey but, in general, the numbers have stayed consistent.By any measure, that's still a lot of people walking around without health insurance.Ultimately, if you ignore the margin of error, Ghazal is correct about our ranking compared with other New England states. But if you take that into account, its possible that her statement could be inaccurate.More importantly, she's making a selective comparison. When you compare us with the rest of the country, we're better than average.Because of those omissions, we rate her statement Mostly True. |
FMD_train_1918 | Is Biden suggesting a 3% federal tax on properties? | 10/27/2020 | [
"The Democratic presidential candidate has not proposed a 3% property tax."
] | During the 2020 U.S. presidential campaign, social media postings repeatedly warned readers that Democratic candidate Joe Biden was planning to impose a 3% federal tax on the value of homes, in addition to any property taxes homeowners were already paying. However, this warning about a Biden-backed federal property tax was unfounded. Property taxes in the U.S. are set and collected at the state, county, and city levels, and the announced Biden Tax Plan includes nothing that could be construed as imposing an additional federal property tax on privately owned homes. The Tax Foundation, an independent tax policy nonprofit, summarizes the Biden tax plan as including the following primary elements applicable to individuals (rather than businesses): it imposes a 12.4 percent Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (Social Security) payroll tax on income earned above $400,000, evenly split between employers and employees. This would create a donut hole in the current Social Security payroll tax, where wages between $137,700, the current wage cap, and $400,000 are not taxed. It reverts the top individual income tax rate for taxable incomes above $400,000 from 37 percent under current law to the pre-Tax Cuts and Jobs Act level of 39.6 percent. It taxes long-term capital gains and qualified dividends at the ordinary income tax rate of 39.6 percent on income above $1 million and eliminates the step-up in basis for capital gains taxation. It caps the tax benefit of itemized deductions to 28 percent of value for those earning more than $400,000, which means that taxpayers earning above that income threshold with tax rates higher than 28 percent would face limited itemized deductions. It restores the Pease limitation on itemized deductions for taxable incomes above $400,000. It phases out the qualified business income deduction (Section 199A) for filers with taxable income above $400,000. It expands the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) for childless workers aged 65 and older and provides renewable-energy-related tax credits to individuals. It expands the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit (CDCTC) from a maximum of $3,000 in qualified expenses to $8,000 ($16,000 for multiple dependents) and increases the maximum reimbursement rate from 35 percent to 50 percent. For 2021 and as long as economic conditions require, it increases the Child Tax Credit (CTC) from a maximum value of $2,000 to $3,000 for children 17 or younger, while providing a $600 bonus credit for children under 6. The CTC would also be made fully refundable, removing the $2,500 reimbursement threshold and 15 percent phase-in rate. It reestablishes the First-Time Homebuyers Tax Credit, which was originally created during the Great Recession to help the housing market. Biden's homebuyers credit would provide up to $15,000 for first-time homebuyers. It expands the estate and gift tax by restoring the rate and exemption to 2009 levels. Similar analyses of Biden's tax plan by other entities include no mention of a federal property tax. | [
"dividend"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1Ten4TT_VbN1rZRv3n11jXLJCJrLzRpfh",
"image_caption": null
}
] | False | However, this warning about a Biden-backed federal property tax was specious. Property taxes in the U.S. are set and collected at the state, county, and city levels, and the announced Biden Tax Plan includes nothing that could be remotely construed as imposing an additional federal property tax on privately-owned homes.The Tax Foundation, an independent tax policy nonprofit, summarizes the Biden tax plan as including the following primary elements applicable to individuals (rather than businesses):Similar analysis of Biden's tax plan by other entities include no mention of a federal property tax. |
FMD_train_833 | Scam: Facebook Dislike Button Activation | 09/21/2015 | [
""
] | FACT CHECK: Can Facebook users get the "newly enabled Dislike button" by clicking a link and completing a survey? Claim: Facebook users can get the "newly enabled Dislike button" by clicking a link and completing a survey. Example: [Collected via Facebook, September 2015] Origins: In September 2015, in a Q&A session Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg somewhat misleadingly implied to social media users worldwide that the long-awaited Facebook Dislike button would soon be implemented. Predictably, Facebook scammers seized upon this nugget of partial truth in an attempt to more efficiently spread their (mal)wares and make a quick buck. Dislike Not long after inaccurate news stories informed Facebook users they'd soon be getting access to a Dislike button, a number of links resembling the example reproduced above and touting the Dislike button as an feature available by invitation only, were circulated on Facebook. Owing to the then-recent spate of news articles about Facebook's reportedly forthcoming Dislike button, users were more open to believe the link would indeed activate such a feature in their accounts. But users who clicked through to activate the Dislike button were greeted with a page that mimicked the style of Facebook-based content but was hosted outside that social network (alongside an initial red flag, what appeared to be a ticking deadline clock and apparent limited time to act upon the offer). Whether the user shared the item or not, a second inducement soon appeared promising a large cash sum (and coded to prevent easy reproduction): Neither the original embedded URL nor later clickthroughs led to any content hosted on or published by Facebook (which stands to reason, as the Facebook Dislike button rumor was widely misrepresented, and so no real Dislike button was forthcoming). Each of the links was a version of a typical social media survey/sweepstakes scam, such as those that have used Kohl's, Costco, Home Depot, Lowe's, Kroger, Best Buy, Macy's, Olive Garden, Publix, Target, and Walmart as bait by which scammers aimed to collect personal information and page likes from social media users (never delivering on their initial lofty promises once the desired information was collected from the marks). Kohl's Costco Home Depot Lowe's Kroger Best Buy Macy's Olive Garden Publix Target Walmart scammers A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureau described common hallmarks of social media survey 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. Legitimate Facebook features are always released through Facebook itself, and rarely require users to leap through hoops in order to enable them (Facebook's Celebrate Pride rainbow profile photo filter was a good example of an official feature released by the social network). When and if the feature described by Zuckerberg in September 2015 (not a Dislike button) readies for release, it won't appear in the form of a shady survey. Celebrate Pride Last updated: 21September 2015 Originally published: 21September 2015 | [
"credit"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1E4yVrNjmIKwt03Jbng3EMVa-TFYketfS",
"image_caption": null
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1V2XpBMTeekFrOiAfdRbqoz2z6TMyKCO_",
"image_caption": null
}
] | False | Origins: In September 2015, in a Q&A session Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg somewhat misleadingly implied to social media users worldwide that the long-awaited Facebook Dislike button would soon be implemented. Predictably, Facebook scammers seized upon this nugget of partial truth in an attempt to more efficiently spread their (mal)wares and make a quick buck.Neither the original embedded URL nor later clickthroughs led to any content hosted on or published by Facebook (which stands to reason, as the Facebook Dislike button rumor was widely misrepresented, and so no real Dislike button was forthcoming). Each of the links was a version of a typical social media survey/sweepstakes scam, such as those that have used Kohl's, Costco, Home Depot, Lowe's, Kroger, Best Buy, Macy's, Olive Garden, Publix, Target, and Walmart as bait by which scammers aimed to collect personal information and page likes from social media users (never delivering on their initial lofty promises once the desired information was collected from the marks).A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureau described common hallmarks of social media survey scams:Legitimate Facebook features are always released through Facebook itself, and rarely require users to leap through hoops in order to enable them (Facebook's Celebrate Pride rainbow profile photo filter was a good example of an official feature released by the social network). When and if the feature described by Zuckerberg in September 2015 (not a Dislike button) readies for release, it won't appear in the form of a shady survey. |
FMD_train_1814 | Among states, Missouri ranks 3rd (in) average yearly growth of high-tech industries. | 11/27/2017 | [] | In efforts to lure Amazon to the Midwest, Missouri officials sent three proposals to the tech-giant by Oct. 19 to be considered for the location of its second headquarters. Kansas City and St. Louis officials threw their hats into the ring, and state officials proposed an innovation corridor along I-70, which would link the two metro areas. Missouris brochurereleased on theMakeMOHQ2Home websiteclaims the state ranked third in average yearly growth of high-tech industries. When you think of a high-tech state, California and New York may be the first states to come to mind, but not Missouri. We wanted to find out how high-tech Missouri really is, and how it ranks in the country. We spoke with the researchers behind the data and economic experts who all agreed that rate of growth can be misleading. The Bureau of Labor Statistics notes that defining high-tech is a moving target. Generally, though, it considers jobs with lots of workers in science, technology, engineering and math fields to be part of the high-tech industry. Missouri officials used a2016 Milken Institute studyin their claim.The Milken Instituteis a nonprofit and nonpartisan think tank. The Milken Institute has a free-market slant, said Michael Leeds, chair of the economics department at Temple University, but (is) a credible group of scholars. Minoli Ratnatunga, director of regional economics research at the institutes Center for Regional Economics, was a researcher in the study. Ratnatunga said the group considered 19 industries it thought were high-tech. A few of these industries include: pharmaceutical and medicine manufacturing, commercial and service industry machinery manufacturing, medical equipment and supplies manufacturing, telecommunications and computer systems design. The Milken Institutes2016 State Technology and Science Indexshows that Missouri ranked third in average yearly growth of high-tech industries from 2010 to 2015. However, this is just one component that makes up Missouris overall placement. In 2016, Missouri ranked 28 out of 50. Two years prior, Missouri ranked 34 out of 50. In 2012, Missouri ranked 29 out of 50. These scores are based on several factors: human capital investment, research and development, risk capital, technology and science workforce, and technology concentration. Massachusetts, Colorado and Maryland were ranked the top three states overall in 2016. Kansas, Tennessee and Oklahoma ranked behind Missouri, with West Virginia rated last. That tells us where Missouri ranks relative to its peers, Ratnatunga said. Its improving, and things like (high-tech) growth is one aspect thats impacted its overall ranking, but its not in the top tier. Ratnatunga said its easy for Missouris high-tech industry to look as if its grown exponentially. If you have a relatively small sector, its easier to get a higher growth rate, Ratnatunga said. The same 500 jobs added in California would be a smaller growth rate. Leeds also said the rate of growth can be deceiving. If you have a very small base, twice a very small number is 100 percent growth, but it can be a very small number, he said. Ratnatunga said companies like Amazon need to look at the index overall when considering a states economy. This means recognizing qualities like overall growth in the economy, the quality of the workforce, universities, capital investments and research and development inputs. If it doesnt meet Amazons requirements, it might be a great choice for other companies that are looking to grow in high-tech, Ratnatunga said. Missouri officials claimed Missouri ranked 3rd (in) average yearly growth of high-tech industries. While Missouri high-tech industries may have seen growth, the size of base matters. Missouri has seen a growth in high-tech jobs, but the claim can be misleading when you dont consider the size of the base. Overall, Missouri is about average in the rankings. We rate this Mostly True. | [
"Economy",
"States",
"Missouri"
] | [] | True | Missouris brochurereleased on theMakeMOHQ2Home websiteclaims the state ranked third in average yearly growth of high-tech industries.Missouri officials used a2016 Milken Institute studyin their claim.The Milken Instituteis a nonprofit and nonpartisan think tank.The Milken Institutes2016 State Technology and Science Indexshows that Missouri ranked third in average yearly growth of high-tech industries from 2010 to 2015. |
FMD_train_120 | Is Columbia University Planning Graduation Ceremonies Based on Race, Background? | 03/16/2021 | [
"It is common for higher education institutions to organize various events in celebration of the annual milestone."
] | On March 16, 2021, Fox published an article with the headline, "Columbia University hosting 6 separate graduation ceremonies based on income level, race, ethnicities." The link garnered heavy reaction online, notably among high-profile conservative commentators who framed the alleged events by the New York City university as unnecessarily separatist. an article unnecessarily separatist. The viral claim was a misleading depiction of the facts, absent of context explaining why and under what circumstances the university hosted what it dubbed "multicultural graduation ceremonies" annually. In reality, it is common for higher education institutions to organize various graduation ceremonies. In the case of Columbia University, students could attend multiple institution-sponsored commencement celebrations on a voluntary basis. Those facts discredited social media posts that advertised the multicultural events as examples of the university forcing students to celebrate graduation only with peers who identify or look like them. As of this writing, schools within Columbia University were also planning commencement ceremonies for spring 2021 that did not promise to explicitly honor, nor highlight the significance of, graduating seniors who are not white, affluent, or Hispanic. (Here's the page to find information on those events.) Also, the institution was preparing for a university-wide commencement ceremony on April 30. Here's the page university-wide commencement With that said, the Fox article failed to state of the goal of the multicultural ceremonies: to provide students of historically-disenfranchised communities spaces to honor their academic successes with their background and identity front of mind, according to the events' registration page (a portion of which is displayed below). registration page "Complementing our school and University-wide ceremonies, these events provide a more intimate setting for students and guests to gather, incorporate meaningful cultural traditions and celebrate the specific contributions and achievements of their communities," the registration page read. In other words, it was true that, as of this writing, graduating seniors of any undergraduate school at Columbia University could voluntarily attend ceremonies between April 25 and April 30 based on whether they identify as Native, Asian, Black, Latino or Latina, low income, or a member of the LGBTQ community, or whether they are the first generation in their family to achieve the academic milestone. The events would take place virtually due to the COVID-19 pandemic. COVID-19 pandemic See the below-displayed screenshot from Columbia University's website for evidence of the 2021 events. The scheduled events, coordinated by Columbia University's Intercultural Resource Center (IRC), were not the first of their kind. According to photographic evidence on the center's Facebook page, it hosted the multicultural graduation ceremonies every year since the social media account's creation in 2012. Facebook page Snopes reached out to university leaders for their response to the Fox News story and subsequent criticism of the multicultural graduation ceremonies. A Columbia University spokesperson emailed us the following statement: Columbia marks graduation every spring with a university-wide Commencement ceremony. [...] The smaller celebratory events held for particular groups are in addition to, not instead of, the main Commencement and Class Day graduation ceremonies. In most instances, these smaller, multicultural gatherings evolved from ceremonies originally created by alumni and students. The gatherings are voluntary, open to every student who wants to participate, and have become a highly anticipated and meaningful part of the Columbia graduation experience. Class Day In sum, while it was true graduating seniors at Columbia University could attend 2021 commencement ceremonies based on race, ethnicity, gender or sexual identity, or socioeconomic status, it was false to frame those events as unprecedented efforts to "bring back segregation" or eliminate diversity at graduation ceremonies. For those reasons, we rate this claim a "Mixture" of true and misleading information. | [
"income"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1wdVPlyza_x04otIxjRMGQu0UvRRyqcAU",
"image_caption": null
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1_p7q-WHYDORDdbAa4lOw9DMMY8-pl7Ik",
"image_caption": null
}
] | NEI | On March 16, 2021, Fox published an article with the headline, "Columbia University hosting 6 separate graduation ceremonies based on income level, race, ethnicities." The link garnered heavy reaction online, notably among high-profile conservative commentators who framed the alleged events by the New York City university as unnecessarily separatist. As of this writing, schools within Columbia University were also planning commencement ceremonies for spring 2021 that did not promise to explicitly honor, nor highlight the significance of, graduating seniors who are not white, affluent, or Hispanic. (Here's the page to find information on those events.) Also, the institution was preparing for a university-wide commencement ceremony on April 30.With that said, the Fox article failed to state of the goal of the multicultural ceremonies: to provide students of historically-disenfranchised communities spaces to honor their academic successes with their background and identity front of mind, according to the events' registration page (a portion of which is displayed below).In other words, it was true that, as of this writing, graduating seniors of any undergraduate school at Columbia University could voluntarily attend ceremonies between April 25 and April 30 based on whether they identify as Native, Asian, Black, Latino or Latina, low income, or a member of the LGBTQ community, or whether they are the first generation in their family to achieve the academic milestone. The events would take place virtually due to the COVID-19 pandemic.The scheduled events, coordinated by Columbia University's Intercultural Resource Center (IRC), were not the first of their kind. According to photographic evidence on the center's Facebook page, it hosted the multicultural graduation ceremonies every year since the social media account's creation in 2012.Columbia marks graduation every spring with a university-wide Commencement ceremony. [...] The smaller celebratory events held for particular groups are in addition to, not instead of, the main Commencement and Class Day graduation ceremonies. In most instances, these smaller, multicultural gatherings evolved from ceremonies originally created by alumni and students. The gatherings are voluntary, open to every student who wants to participate, and have become a highly anticipated and meaningful part of the Columbia graduation experience. |
FMD_train_116 | Was it Donald Trump who used his private plane to rescue stranded troops? | 10/22/2016 | [
"A story that Donald Trump personally sent out an airplane to transport hundreds of stranded U.S. Marines home is based on inaccurate information."
] | In May 2016, syndicated talk radio host Sean Hannity aired an item claiming that Donald Trump had sent a plane to give 200 stranded U.S. Marines a much-needed ride home after Operation Desert Storm in 1991. When Corporal Ryan Stickney and 200 of his fellow Marines prepared to return to their families after Operation Desert Storm in 1991, a logistics error forced them to turn to a surprising source for a ride home: Donald J. Trump. Today, Stickney would like to say "thank you." Stickney, a squad leader in a TOW company of a Marine reserve unit based in Miami, FL, spent approximately six months in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War between 1990 and 1991. Upon his unit's return to the United States, the former Marine says the group spent several weeks decompressing at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina before heading back to Miami. Stickney recalls being told that a mistake had been made within the logistics unit and that an aircraft wasn't available to take the Marines home on their scheduled departure date. This, according to Stickney, is where Donald Trump comes in. "The way the story was told to us was that Mr. Trump found out about it and sent the airline down to take care of us. And that's all we knew ... I remember asking, 'Who is Donald Trump?' I truly didn't know anything about him," the former Marine said. Corporal Stickney snapped a photo to remember the day. The story came up several times during the course of the 2016 presidential campaign (Cpl. Stickney even told it in person at a Trump rally), but skeptics questioned its validity despite a statement from the Trump campaign allegedly confirming it: "The Trump campaign has confirmed to Hannity.com that Mr. Trump did indeed send his plane to make two trips from North Carolina to Miami, Florida, to transport over 200 Gulf War Marines back home. No further details were provided." The few details we do have about Trump's alleged participation don't, in fact, add up. We can confirm, based on military records, that the 209-member Anti-Tank (TOW) Company, part of the 8th Tank Battalion for Operation Desert Shield, deployed to Camp LeJeune, North Carolina, from their home base in Miami on 26 November 1990. We can also confirm that the company deployed from Camp LeJeune to Saudi Arabia on 22 December, served throughout the combat phase of Operation Desert Storm (from 17 January to 28 February 1991), and returned to North Carolina in April. A command chronology of the deployment notes that a "Cpl. Stickney" was among those receiving certificates of commendation. We can also confirm, via a 23 April 1991 article from the Sun-Sentinel, that a series of flight delays stalled the company's homecoming to Miami on 22 April, but that they finally did arrive home after being split across two separate flights. Stickney's photograph shows that he arrived on a plane marked "Trump," but it also proves something else: that even if Trump did send the plane, it wasn't his private jet. That Trump didn't send the pictured plane at all was something noted by a sharp-eyed reader, who wrote to us to note: First, that's not Trump's private 727 jet; it's one of the jets in the Trump Shuttle fleet. I wondered if maybe Trump's jet back in those days was painted differently, so I researched his private jet as of April 1991. I found that Trump was deep in the red financially and having to liquidate assets, one of which was his personal 727. The sale of that jet was finalized in the first week of May 1991, making it highly unlikely he was also flying reservists around while discussing the sale at the end of April. The markings of the plane in Stickney's photo match those of the Trump Shuttle fleet, so the question becomes: Did Trump himself send a Trump Shuttle to retrieve the stranded Marines, or was it procured some other way? To arrive at an answer, it's necessary to go into a bit of the history of Trump Shuttle. A July 2015 article in NYC Aviation detailed Trump's short-lived airline industry involvement, beginning with an entirely separate carrier, Eastern Air Shuttle, which he immediately rebranded with his own name. CEO Frank Lorenzo began selling off assets, including the prized Shuttle operation. Donald Trump placed a winning bid for the Shuttle, its aircraft, and landing slots at LaGuardia and National for $380 million, financed through no less than 22 banks. The newly branded Trump Shuttle took to the skies on June 7, 1989. Timing is everything in business, and unfortunately for Trump, he entered the airline game at the wrong time. The U.S. entered an economic recession in the late '80s, leading many corporations to cut back on business travel. In addition, tensions in the Middle East leading up to the first Gulf War caused oil prices to spike. This 1-2 punch was devastating for the airline industry and led to the demise of several airlines, including Eastern and Pan Am. Given these circumstances, the Trump Shuttle lost money, and with Trump continuing to accumulate debt in his other ventures, it was becoming increasingly difficult to pay back the loans taken to purchase the airline. In September 1990, Trump defaulted on his loan, and control of the airline went back to the banks led by Citibank. Given that the bankers, not Donald Trump, owned Trump Shuttle from September 1990 until it was sold to U.S. Air in 1996, Trump wasn't in a position to send the planes anywhere, much less on a spur-of-the-moment Marine transport mission. So who did? As it turns out, the U.S. military itself chartered the flights—a common practice in the day, according to an 11 August 2016 report by The Washington Post. Lt. Gen. Vernon J. Kondra, now retired, was in charge of all military airlift operations. He said that relying on commercial carriers freed up military cargo aircraft for equipment transport. Kondra's notes on the flight are declassified and available online and show a contract for Trump Shuttle to "move troops in [the] continental United States" during the 1990-91 timeframe. There are several references to a 1990-91 contract for Trump Shuttle to carry personnel across the United States, between the East and West Coasts, on a standard LaGuardia-Dover-Charleston-Travis-Chord-Kelly-Dover-LaGuardia run. "It worked very well, and the crews loved it, and really thought that we'd done something special for them," Kondra recalled in the oral history. "It was a helluva lot better than using 141s [cargo craft], which we could use for something else." But Kondra said that the notion that Trump personally arranged to help the stranded soldiers made little sense. "I certainly was not aware of that. It does not sound reasonable that it would happen like that. It would not fit in with how we did business. I don't even know how he would have known there was a need." So the real story underlying the claim that Donald Trump personally sent his jet to pick up stranded soldiers and return them to the U.S. is that the military paid to charter a plane from an airline Trump no longer owned in order to bring those service personnel home. | [
"finance"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=13b4IM4Jz-u7p_PNQLdd2RSAk1tWFDw2H",
"image_caption": null
}
] | False | In May 2016, syndicated talk radio host Sean Hannity aired an item claiming that Donald Trump had sent a plane to give 200 stranded U.S. marines a much-needed ride home after Operation Desert Storm in 1991:The story came up several times during the course of the 2016 presidential campaign (Cpl. Stickney even told it in person at a Trump rally), but skeptics questioned its validity despite a statement from the Trump campaign allegedly confirming it: "The Trump campaign has confirmed to Hannity.com that Mr. Trump did indeed send his plane to make two trips from North Carolina to Miami, Florida to transport over 200 Gulf War Marines back home. No further details were provided."We can confirm, based on military records, that the 209-member Anti-Tank (TOW) Company, part of the 8th Tank Battalion for Operation Desert Shield, deployed to Camp LeJeune, North Carolina, from their home base in Miami on 26 November 1990. And we can confirm that the company deployed from Camp LeJeune to Saudi Arabia on 22 December, served throughout the combat phase of Operation Desert Storm (from 17 January to 28 February 1991), and returned to North Carolina in April. A command chronology of the deployment notes that a "Cpl. Stickey" was among those receiving certificates of commendation.We can also confirm, via a 23 April 1991 article from the Sun-Sentinel, that a series of flight delays stalled the company's homecoming to Miami on 22 April, but that they finally did arrive home after split across two separate flights. Stickney's photograph shows that he arrived on a plane marked "Trump," but it also proves something else: that even if Trump did send the plane, it wasn't his private jet.First, thats not Trumps private 727 jet; its one of the jets in the Trump Shuttle fleet. I wondered if maybe Trumps jet back in those days was painted differently, so I researched his private jet as of April 1991. I found that Trump was deep in the red, financially, and having to liquidate assets, one of which was his personal 727. The sale of that jet was finalized in the first week of May 1991, making it highly unlikely he was also flying reservists around while discussing the sale at the end of April.To arrive at an answer, it's necessary to go into a bit of the history of Trump Shuttle. A July 2015 article in NYC Aviation detailed Trump's short-lived airline industry involvement, beginning with an entirely separate carrier, Eastern Air Shuttle, which he immediately rebranded with his own name:Lt. Gen. Vernon J. Kondra, now retired, was in charge of all military airlift operations. He said that relying on commercial carriers freed up the military cargo aircraft for equipment transport.Kondra's notes on the flight are declassified and available online and show a contract for Trump Shuttle to "move troops in [the] continental United States" during the 1990-91 timeframe: |
FMD_train_1550 | Says President Franklin Delano Roosevelt felt there wasnt a need in the public sector to have collective bargaining because the government is the people. | 08/13/2013 | [] | Reaction was swift and strong after Republican Gov. Scott Walker said the curbs he enacted on the collective-bargaining power of public-employee unions were philosophically in line with principles espoused by President Franklin Roosevelt, the liberal Democratic icon. Walker drew the comparison ina July 29, 2013 speechat theGovernmental Research Association policy conferencehosted by Milwaukees Public Policy Forum. The governor, whose Act 10 law wiped away most subjects of bargaining for most public unions and shifted more pension and health-care costs to workers,arguedthe changes helped balance government budgets and made merit more important than teacher seniority in schools. We think it has a dynamic impact going forward on how we perform, and that is putting power in the hands of the people duly elected at the state and at the local level, Walker said. Its why -- some people are surprised to know this -- the position I pushed is not unlike the principle that Franklin Delano Roosevelt, not exactly a conservative, pushed as well when it came to public sector collective bargaining, Walker added. He felt that there wasn't a need -- and others like him, (former New York Mayor Fiorello) LaGuardia and others -- felt there wasnt a need in the public sector to have collective bargaining because the government is the people. We are the people. Did Roosevelt -- the patron of the post-Depression boost in organizing by industrial unions in the private sector -- really take the position that when it came to federal government employees, there wasnt a need to have collective bargaining? Before we check Walkers claim, lets stipulate the obvious: There are dramatic differences between Walker and the architect of the New Deal, from their approaches to governing in times of economic distress to their views on the proper size and role of the state. In the labor realm, when it came to private-sector unions whose cause he championed, FDR called collective bargaining a fundamental individual right. Walker, meanwhile, has not ruled out signing right to work limits on private-sector unions, though hes not pushing it now. Thats one reason the comparison so riled Democrats and union leaders. FDR brought us out of the Great Depression with strong investment in workers and jobs programs that worked, Wisconsin State AFL-CIO leader Phil Neuenfeldt said. Scott Walker is drowning in a jobs deficit and to compare himself to FDR is laughably delusional. But Walker in his speech made a claim on a very specific historical point: FDRs views on collective bargaining for public employees. And that is the claim we are examining. Where Roosevelt stood Compared to the mountain of evidence on FDRs sympathetic stance on protections and rights for private laborers, the historical record on his attitude toward public-sector unions is less than a few inches high. Walker cites an on-point and oft-quoted FDR letter that conservatives frequently highlight when arguing for limits on unions in the government sector. That letter, we found, dominates scholarly debate over Roosevelts views on this issue. And its easy to see why: The presidentsAug. 16, 1937 correspondencewith Luther C. Steward, the president of the National Federation of Federal Employees, is bluntly worded -- to say the least. Roosevelt was responding to an invitation to attend the organizations 20th jubilee convention. In the letter, FDR says groups such as NFFE naturally organize to present their views to supervisors. Government workers, he observed, want fair pay, safe working conditions and review of grievances just like private-industry workers. Organizations of government employees have a logical place in Government affairs, he wrote. But Roosevelt then shifted gears, emphasizing that meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government. Then, the most-famous line and the one directly on point to Walkers comment: All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service, he wrote. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. Roosevelt didnt stop there. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations, he wrote. When Walker claimed FDR said the government is the people, he had Roosevelts next line in mind. The employer, Roosevelts letter added, is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters. Roosevelt concluded with a strong stance against strikes by unions representing government workers, noting that NFFEs bylaws rejected strikes. The letter, the FDRPresidential Library sitepoints out, was released publicly by the Roosevelt White House and became the administration's official position on collective bargaining and federal government employees. Roosevelt had previously laid out his views on public-sector unions at aJuly 9, 1937 news conference. His statements there add more weight to Walkers claim. A reporter directly asked Roosevelt whether he favored government employees joining unions to the extent of collective bargaining with the government. Roosevelts response made clear he thought managers should listen to worker concerns, whether raised by union representatives or not. Federal workers are free to join any union they want, he said. But he recalled that in 1913, when he was Navy assistant secretary, he told a union official the Navy would not enter into a contract with the union because it had no discretion under federal law. The pay is fixed by Congress and the workmen are represented by the members of Congress in the fixing of Government pay, Roosevelt said. His thinking then still applied, Roosevelt told the reporters in 1937. At the end of news conference, Roosevelt was asked, after making the point that Congress sets compensation: In other words, you would not have the representatives of the majority as the sole bargaining agents? Roosevelt: Not in the government, because there is no collective contract. It is a very different case. There isnt any bargaining, in other words, with the government, therefore the question does not arise. Taken together, the letter and news conference remarks positioned Roosevelt as deeply skeptical of the need and wisdom of collective bargaining power for unions in the federal system. When he wrote that the unique circumstances would make it impossible for government officials to make a binding deal on behalf of the government, that didnt leave a lot of ambiguity. Same with the phrase insurmountable limitations. What the scholars say Perhaps because of the strong wording of his views, the 1937 letter remains -- nearly 75 years later -- the best piece of evidence on this topic. Even scholars and union officials who chafe at Walker linking himself to FDR have acknowledged the letters significance. Roosevelt absolutely did not favor collective bargaining for federal workers and especially did not favor the right to strike, public-sector labor scholar Joseph McCartintold Salon.comshortly after Walkers dramatic action in 2011. And the current head of the National Federation of Federal Employees says Roosevelts words meant he believed that there should be no right to federal bargaining over wages and benefits. The union chief,William Dougan, told us Roosevelt feared that dealing with multiple unions could lead to pay disparities. To be sure, Roosevelts views were in part a product of his time. At the time, government unions had no collective bargaining rights, and it was not uncommon for elected officials to stand against union bargaining rights for government employees. Even in the private-sector, labor rights were still developing, their constitutionality still under debate in the courts. The notion of expanding those powers to the government sector had not yet taken hold -- and it would not under FDR. It wasnt until 1962 that President John F. Kennedysexecutive orderallowed bargaining, and then just over working conditions. Federal unions still cannot bargain over pay and benefits. Still, there are prominent scholarly voices who think Roosevelts 1937 letter has been misinterpreted, at least in part. One such voice is McCartin, theGeorgetown University history professorwho told Salon that Roosevelt absolutely did not favor collective bargaining for federal workers and especially did not favor the right to strike. When we asked McCartin about that interview, he said he had spoken prematurely. He and other historians note that Roosevelt wrote that collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. Historians and union officials have parsed the phrase for decades, debating its meaning, and sometimes disagreeing with each other. The phrase, some say, leaves open the possibility that Roosevelt supported a modified form of collective bargaining, different from what private workers had created. They note that in the letter, Roosevelt directed his opposition most specifically at the right to strike. Dougan, the union official,believes Roosevelt appeared opento bargaining over working conditions. Several scholars emphasize that Roosevelt later praised a union contract negotiated between the federally owned Tennessee Valley Authority and unions representing workers for the electric utility created by the federal government in 1933. The TVAs board, appointed by Roosevelt,chose as a matter of policyto recognize the unions and bargain with them. The TVA Act signed by Roosevelt did not direct or discourage such bargaining. TheTVAepisode is the only effective rebuttal offered to the words in FDRs letter, wrote Wilson R. Hart, a longtime labor relations adviser in the federal government who examined Roosevelts thinking on unions. Hart felt that the apparent contradiction between FDRs TVA comments and his 1937 letter strongly suggested that Roosevelt was not denouncing all elements of collective bargaining in the letter. How Walkers action compares Scholars, including McCartin, believe FDRs views might have evolved in favor of public sector bargaining -- and against what Walker did. We wont judge that for this item, but well end with a few observations regarding the two situations, separated by nearly three-quarters of a century. In substance, Walkers move dramatically limited, but did not completely end, collective bargaining by most public employees. His Act 10 allowed the state to cut benefits and try to limit pay increases. He argued that unions had become too powerful and that elected representatives of the people should have more control over taxpayer-funded compensation. Roosevelt said in the 1937 press conference that compensation levels for federal employees should be set by Congress and the president, not through bargaining with unions. So both men -- decades apart -- envisioned a limited role for unions in the public sector. But the differences in context make the two mens views hard to compare. Walker acted after 50 years of collective bargaining between the state and its employees -- in the birthplace of public collective bargaining -- while FDR expressed his views before labor won that toehold into that arena. Our rating Walker said FDR felt there wasnt a need in the public sector to have collective bargaining because the government is the people. The governor relies -- to good effect -- on Roosevelts 1937 letter, which, along with other primary evidence, lays out in striking language FDRs deep reservations about the need for and wisdom of public-sector bargaining. While Roosevelt was open to discussion with represented and unrepresented employees over working conditions, he seemingly had major concerns about a formal, contractual bargaining process. Scholars cite Roosevelts positive comments on the Tennessee Valley Authority labor contracts, and debate certain phraseology in FDR's writings, but its limited evidence compared to the clear impression left by the letter and press conference remarks. Roosevelt saw a logical place for unions in government affairs, but the most compelling evidence suggests he drew the line at collective bargaining with them. We rate Walkers narrow statement True. | [
"Federal Budget",
"Labor",
"State Budget",
"States",
"Unions",
"Wisconsin"
] | [] | True | Walker drew the comparison ina July 29, 2013 speechat theGovernmental Research Association policy conferencehosted by Milwaukees Public Policy Forum.The governor, whose Act 10 law wiped away most subjects of bargaining for most public unions and shifted more pension and health-care costs to workers,arguedthe changes helped balance government budgets and made merit more important than teacher seniority in schools.And its easy to see why: The presidentsAug. 16, 1937 correspondencewith Luther C. Steward, the president of the National Federation of Federal Employees, is bluntly worded -- to say the least.The letter, the FDRPresidential Library sitepoints out, was released publicly by the Roosevelt White House and became the administration's official position on collective bargaining and federal government employees.Roosevelt had previously laid out his views on public-sector unions at aJuly 9, 1937 news conference.Roosevelt absolutely did not favor collective bargaining for federal workers and especially did not favor the right to strike, public-sector labor scholar Joseph McCartintold Salon.comshortly after Walkers dramatic action in 2011.The union chief,William Dougan, told us Roosevelt feared that dealing with multiple unions could lead to pay disparities.The notion of expanding those powers to the government sector had not yet taken hold -- and it would not under FDR. It wasnt until 1962 that President John F. Kennedysexecutive orderallowed bargaining, and then just over working conditions. Federal unions still cannot bargain over pay and benefits.One such voice is McCartin, theGeorgetown University history professorwho told Salon that Roosevelt absolutely did not favor collective bargaining for federal workers and especially did not favor the right to strike.Dougan, the union official,believes Roosevelt appeared opento bargaining over working conditions.Several scholars emphasize that Roosevelt later praised a union contract negotiated between the federally owned Tennessee Valley Authority and unions representing workers for the electric utility created by the federal government in 1933. The TVAs board, appointed by Roosevelt,chose as a matter of policyto recognize the unions and bargain with them. The TVA Act signed by Roosevelt did not direct or discourage such bargaining.TheTVAepisode is the only effective rebuttal offered to the words in FDRs letter, wrote Wilson R. Hart, a longtime labor relations adviser in the federal government who examined Roosevelts thinking on unions. |
FMD_train_442 | Did Harrison Ford Really Improvise Han Solo's 'I Know' in 'The Empire Strikes Back'? | 12/17/2021 | [
"The pivotal line comes right before Han Solo is frozen in carbonite."
] | On Nov. 20, 2021, Twitter user @delaneykingrox tweeted that film actor Harrison Ford improvised "I know" to Carrie Fisher's "I love you" in 1980's "Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back," just before his character, Han Solo, is frozen in carbonite. She also claimed that the originally scripted line for Solo to respond to Princess Leia was, "I love you too." tweeted frozen in carbonite claimed She tweeted the thread to talk about "on the nose" dialogue, which she defined as "communicating what is obvious to the audience with no subtly or subtext." tweeted There are a number of rumors out there about "The Empire Strikes Back" that aren't true. For example, there's the fake audience reaction sound recording from 1980 that's received nearly 10 million views on YouTube. (A video with genuine audience reaction audio from 1980 does exist, but it only had several thousand views.) rumors fake audience reaction sound recording from 1980 As for this fact check, it's true that Ford improvised Solo's line, "I know," in "The Empire Strikes Back," and that the originally scripted line was, "I love you too." While many fans might debate that the trophy for the best line in the franchise would go to Darth Vader's "I am your father," there would perhaps also be a handful of people who would vote for Solo's "I know." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdlRmWd_R7AIn a 2011 sitdown with "Cowboys and Aliens" director Jon Favreau, Ford explained that he wasn't a fan of "I love you too," which was the original line in the "Empire Strikes Back" script from story creator George Lucas. Leigh Brackett and Lawrence Kasdan also drafted the screenplay. Lucas also served as an executive producer on the film but did not direct it. The film was directed by Irvin Kershner. directed In the interview, Ford called Lucas "a powerful producer at the time," after the success of "American Graffiti" and "Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope." "George had artfully contrived for Han Solo to say, 'I love you too,'" Ford said. However, the actor called it a "lost opportunity" and told Favreau: "You want your badasses to be a badass until the end." On the set of the film, Ford said he asked a question of Lucas and perhaps other members of the cast and crew. "What's the last thing a woman wants to hear when she says, 'I love you'? She says 'I love you,' and I say... 'I know.'" said https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4xdWpo4bh8According to Ford, they shot one take with the line, "I love you too," but said it was "just for protection." That recording has never been made public. "We shot one just for protection where I spoke the line as written," Ford said. "And George, I think, this is fair enough to say, he went apeshit. He thought it was horrible and that it would get a bad laugh. So I was obliged to sit next to him when he tested it for the first screening. There was a laugh, but it was a laugh of recognition. And so, he generously let it stay in the movie." Carrie Fisher and Harrison Ford in 1980's "Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back." (Photo by Lucasfilm/Sunset Boulevard/Corbis via Getty Images) In a separate interview that appeared to be recorded years before 2011, Kershner remembered that there were perhaps more takes with either the "I love you too" line or "I know," but didn't specify which one. remembered "We tried take after take after take. Nothing satisfied me," Kershner said. "And finally, I said, 'Harrison, don't think about it. Don't think about it. Let's shoot it. Ok, action.' And he dropped in and I said, 'cut.' I said, 'yeah, that's a great line. That's Han Solo.'" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM_tGKSnMUEIn sum, yes, Ford improvised Solo's "I know" that was spoken in response to Leia's "I love you" in "The Empire Strikes Back," an exchange that perhaps could be considered as a pivotal scene in one of the most beloved onscreen love stories of all time. | [
"lien"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1LflY424GSxQmDLZ8oYrg6Ozu8ECdfDNY",
"image_caption": null
}
] | True | On Nov. 20, 2021, Twitter user @delaneykingrox tweeted that film actor Harrison Ford improvised "I know" to Carrie Fisher's "I love you" in 1980's "Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back," just before his character, Han Solo, is frozen in carbonite. She also claimed that the originally scripted line for Solo to respond to Princess Leia was, "I love you too."She tweeted the thread to talk about "on the nose" dialogue, which she defined as "communicating what is obvious to the audience with no subtly or subtext."There are a number of rumors out there about "The Empire Strikes Back" that aren't true. For example, there's the fake audience reaction sound recording from 1980 that's received nearly 10 million views on YouTube. (A video with genuine audience reaction audio from 1980 does exist, but it only had several thousand views.)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdlRmWd_R7AIn a 2011 sitdown with "Cowboys and Aliens" director Jon Favreau, Ford explained that he wasn't a fan of "I love you too," which was the original line in the "Empire Strikes Back" script from story creator George Lucas. Leigh Brackett and Lawrence Kasdan also drafted the screenplay. Lucas also served as an executive producer on the film but did not direct it. The film was directed by Irvin Kershner.On the set of the film, Ford said he asked a question of Lucas and perhaps other members of the cast and crew. "What's the last thing a woman wants to hear when she says, 'I love you'? She says 'I love you,' and I say... 'I know.'" Carrie Fisher and Harrison Ford in 1980's "Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back." (Photo by Lucasfilm/Sunset Boulevard/Corbis via Getty Images)In a separate interview that appeared to be recorded years before 2011, Kershner remembered that there were perhaps more takes with either the "I love you too" line or "I know," but didn't specify which one. |
FMD_train_1452 | During the time when a Republican president with conservative views was in office, the job loss rate was at 750,000 per month. | 10/11/2015 | [] | Its been nearlyeight years since George W. Bush was president, but Democrats still plan to run against him. Certainly, thats what Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz promised on the eve of the first Democratic presidential debate. There are so many people who are focused on making sure we can look at the fact that, when we had a conservative Republican president, we were losing 750,000 jobs a month, Wasserman Schultz said on CNNsState of the UnionOct. 11, 2015. Weve come through that -- 67 straight months of job growth in the private sector. People are no longer losing their homes. Thats the contrast well talk about. The DNC press office told us that Wasserman Schultz was thinking of President George W. Bush, and that the time period she had in mind were the last few months of his presidency, November through January. President Barack Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009, so its reasonable to count that month as part of the Bush legacy. We pulled up theBureau of Labor Statisticsnumbers and Wasserman Schultz is on solid ground. Month Jobs (000s) Loss Nov 135,469 -765 Dec 134,773 -696 Jan 133,977 -796 Average -752 Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Statistics Benchmark comparison The number is particularly high because Wasserman Schultz chose the three worst months of the Bush presidency. If she had chosen a longer period, say the last full year, the losses would have averaged about 365,000 per month. The losses would shrink even more if you look at longer period of time. Wasserman Schultz didnt mention that the economy continued to shed jobs at or above the 700,000 mark for the first two months of Obamas presidency before the trend began to ease. This chart from theBureau of Labor Statisticsgives a more complete jobs picture. The Great Recession saw employment declines of historic proportions.Government analystscompared the relative losses from 2007 to 2009 to past downturns. The bottom purple line on their chart tracks jobs in the Great Recession which officially began December 2007. Of course, Wasserman Schultzs statement implies that conservative Republican policies alone brought about a massive loss of jobs and the reality is more complicated. Some analysts believe that a portion of the blame goes back to policies that enjoyed Democratic support, including changes in financial regulation passed during the Clinton administration. But Wasserman Schultz did not make that claim specifically. Our ruling Wasserman Schultz said that under a conservative Republican president the country was losing 750,000 jobs a month. Wasserman Schultz was speaking of President George W. Bush and at the end of his term, the monthly job losses averaged about 750,000 jobs. The average would of course be less if she had included Bushs final 12 months -- or a period longer than that. There is an element of cherry-picking here, but the overall point holds up. We rate the claim Mostly True. | [
"National",
"Economy",
"Jobs"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1VQ07oyIKJzI-BBN6eyxYPkwlL6FkhNon",
"image_caption": "State of the Union"
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=13w_uf1w0kfxg5ZHJbETG3yuQDvKCxo7v",
"image_caption": "Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Statistics Benchmark comparison"
}
] | True | We pulled up theBureau of Labor Statisticsnumbers and Wasserman Schultz is on solid ground.Wasserman Schultz didnt mention that the economy continued to shed jobs at or above the 700,000 mark for the first two months of Obamas presidency before the trend began to ease. This chart from theBureau of Labor Statisticsgives a more complete jobs picture.The Great Recession saw employment declines of historic proportions.Government analystscompared the relative losses from 2007 to 2009 to past downturns. The bottom purple line on their chart tracks jobs in the Great Recession which officially began December 2007. |
Subsets and Splits