Eighty percent of the American people support an approach (to federal budget problems) that includes revenues and includes cuts.
As President Barack Obama and Republicans in Congress continued their high-stakes stand-off over raising the debt ceiling and other budget issues, Obama held a press conference to press his case that he's a reasonable guy. One of the main points of contention is whether an agreement should include tax increases of any kind, such as closing tax loopholes or tax increases on the wealthy. Republicans oppose raising taxes.During a press conference on July 15, 2011, Obama was asked if the negotiations would be going better if he had started making his case to the public months ago, pushing a proposal that included tax increases and spending cuts. Obama rejected the premise. You have 80 percent of the American people who support a balanced approach. Eighty percent of the American people support an approach that includes revenues and includes cuts. So the notion that somehow the American people aren't sold is not the problem, he said. The problem is members of Congress are dug in ideologically into various positions because they boxed themselves in with previous statements. We won't weigh in on Obama's diagnosis of being dug in, but we were interested in the poll numbers on whether the public supports a balanced approach or not.The most recent poll we found largely supported Obama's statement. A Gallup poll conducted July 7-10, 2011 posed the question this way:As you may know, Congress can reduce the federal budget deficit by cutting spending, raising taxes, or a combination of the two. Ideally, how would you prefer to see Congress attempt to reduce the federal budget deficit: only with spending cuts, mostly with spending cuts, equally with spending cuts and tax increases, mostly with tax increases, or only with tax increases?The answer only spending cuts got 20 percent. The other answers were mostly spending cuts, 30 percent; equal spending cuts and tax increases, 32 percent; mostly tax increases, 7 percent; only tax increases, 4 percent; unsure/other, 6 percent.We'll note that Obama counted in his favor people who favored only tax increases or who weren't sure, so he wasn't completely accurate. If you deduct those groups, only 70 percent support the balanced approach. But the poll did support his overall point.Other polls also showed support for Obama's statement, but not quite at an 80-percent level.A poll from Quinnipiac University conducted July 5-11, 2011, asked: Do you think any agreement to raise the national debt ceiling should include only spending cuts, or should it also include an increase in taxes for the wealthy and corporations?In this case, 67 percent favored including tax increases, while 25 percent favored spending cuts only. Another 8 percent were unsure.In June, a Reuters/Ipsos poll found that most people, 46 percent, favored a combination of cuts and tax increases, compared with 26 percent who said cuts alone and 13 percent who said raise taxes. An ABC/Washington Postpoll from April found the number was higher, at 59 percent. We reviewed polls and consulted experts a few weeks ago for a fact-check onwhether people support tax increasesor not. Karlyn Bowman, a senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute who studies polls on taxation, told us polls usually show support for balanced approaches, particularly if people don't have to pay the higher taxes themselves. Generally, combinations of tax hikes and spending cuts are most popular. It seems fair to most people. Spending cuts are favored in the abstract. Tax hikes are favored as long as they don't affect me. Generally, people don't think anybody should have to pay more than a quarter of their income in total taxes, she said. Finally, a few other cautions on poll numbers.Pollsters have long noted that when you ask questions with different wording, you get different results. All the polls we looked at phrased the question slightly differently.A few recent polls also suggested that people find the whole debt ceiling debate confusing, or they aren't following it very closely. A Pew Research Center/Washington Postpoll from May asked people how well they felt they understood what would happen if the government does not raise the federal debt limit; 47 percent said not too well or not at all well. And the July Gallup poll found that 42 percent of respondents were following the issue not too closely or not at all. Getting back to Obama's statement, he said, You have 80 percent of the American people who support a balanced approach. Eighty percent of the American people support an approach that includes revenues and includes cuts. Even the best poll doesn't show support quite that high -- he would more accurately have accounted for the small numbers that support only tax increases or were unsure, putting the number at 70 percent. But his overall point is correct that polls show most Americans support a balanced approach when given a choice between cutting spending or raising taxes. So we rate his statement Mostly True.
Claim:  Photograph shows Michelle Obama serving a government funded soup kitchen meal to a person with an expensive cell phone. REAL PHOTOGRAPH; INACCURATE DESCRIPTION Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, June 2009] Recently Michelle Obama went to serve food to the homeless at a government funded soup kitchen.   Cost of a bowl of soup at homeless shelter: $0.00 dollars Having Michelle Obama Serve you your soup: $0.00 dollars Snapping a picture of a homeless person who is receiving a government funded meal while taking a picture of the first lady using his $500 Black Berry cell phone and $100.00 per month cellular service: Priceless      Origins:  The above-displayed photograph is genuine, a snapshot taken on an occasion in March 2009 when Michelle Obama spent some time serving lunch to men and women at Miriam's Kitchen, a social service agency in Washington D.C., as part of the First Lady's effort to "spotlight local organizations, connect with the city and help those in need amid the economic crisis."   However, all the assumptions and implications of the text accompanying this picture are incorrect or unsubstantiated.  To wit:  The photograph does not depict anyone "receiving a government funded meal": Miriam's Kitchen is a privately funded organization with the goal of "providing individualized services that address the causes andconsequences of homelessness in an atmosphere of dignity and respect"; it is not government run or taxpayer funded. Miriam's Kitchen  A cell phone capable of capturing images (even a BlackBerry Pearl) is not necessarily a "$500 phone" with a "$100 per month cellular service."  Many much more affordable options are available, including cellular providers who give free phones to low-income customers under the Lifeline assistance program.  So a homeless person might very well carry a cell phone, as Scott Schenkelberg, the Executive Director of Miriam's Kitchen, observed when questioned about this photograph during an interview: BlackBerry Pearl affordable Lifeline interview Q: Since the First Lady's visit, both your guests and your food have been the subject of some criticism within the blogosphere. For example, some critics noted thatone of your guests had a cell phone and suggested that it was inappropriate to serve free food to someone who could afford a cell phone.  A: I suspect some people don't understand how inexpensive cell phones are, or how critical they are to this population. These days, you can purchase a cell phone at 7-11 for $10, then pay for minutes as you go. Our clients have a very fragile safety net. Many of them don't have shelter and are extremely vulnerable. For them, cell phones could literally be a lifeline. If they're looking for a job, the cell phone would also be incredibly important  can you even imagine trying to apply for a job without a phone number? Cell phones simply aren't luxuries anymore. If a guest can scrape together some money to purchase a cell phone, I think that's wonderful.  The assumption that a truly homeless person wouldn't have (or couldn't afford) a cell phone is also a mistaken one.  As Scott Schenkelberg noted, the ranks of the homeless served by organizations such as Miriam's Kitchen include not just the long-term, chronically homeless, but also the "newly homeless":  those who had recently been getting by economically until a sudden job loss or other reversal left them with nowhere to go: Until recently, we served mostly the chronically homeless, people who had fallen out of the economy long ago. More recently, we've been seeing more new faces, people who just fell into homelessness or other hard times. These people are generally high-functioning individuals who were hurt by the poor economy. It's very troubling to see previously self-sufficient people coming to Miriam's Kitchen in such high numbers. Last updated:  16 June 2009    Sweet, Lynn.  "Can Michelle Influence what We Eat, Too?"   Chicago Sun-Times.  6 March 2009  (p. C10).    Associated Press.  "First Lady Puts Service on the Menu."   The Australian.  7 March 2009. In June 2014 Facebook users began seeing posts pointing to a purported video clip entitled "You Will Not Use Head & Shoulders Shampoo After Watching This Video," which supposedly graphically illustrated the deleterious effects of using that popular  brand of shampoo.  (Later versions substituted Dove brand shampoo for Head & Shoulders.)  The static image accompanying the posts was the one displayed above, which allegedly pictures some form of bizarre injury or infection that befall a user of that brand of shampoo. The image itself is a hoax, a fabrication that imitates a notorious fake photograph of a supposed 'breast rash caused by South American larvae' (created by merging a picture of a lotus seed pod with a picture of a human shoulder) which has been circulating on the Internet since 2003 and that was earlier used as the subject of a Twitter jape: breast rash lotus seed pod  The referenced video does not exist, and the purpose of the hoax was to serve as a lure in leading users to yet another survey scam: those who clicked through on the teaser link hoping to view the Head & Shoulders video were instead taken to a screen that forced them to first share the link with others on Facebook and/or verify their age by completing a survey that promised a $100 VISA Gift Card for its completion: survey   Of course, getting that "free" $100 gift card required  as explained in tiny type at the bottom of the survey page  that participants first sign up for several different offers, each of which required them to purchase something, subscribe to something, or apply (and be accepted for) a credit card or loan: Purchase Requirements. Incentives are split into two tiers: Tier 1 incentives with a value of $100 or less and Tier 2 incentives with a value more than $100. To qualify for a Tier 1 incentive you must complete 2 Silver, 2 Gold and 1 Platinum offer. To qualify for a Tier 2 incentive, you must complete 2 Silver, 2 Gold, and 6 Platinum offers. You must complete all offers within 30 days from when you complete your first offer. Completion of offers usually requires a purchase, subscription or filing a credit application and being accepted for a financial product such as a credit card or consumer loan. The best way to handle such scamming come-ons is to give them a wide berth: do not click through on associated links, don't share those links on Facebook, and do not participate in any related surveys. For several years an image allegedly depicting a "front fin bones of a Grey whale" circulated on social media platforms such as Reddit, 9GAG, Facebook, and X, formerly known as Twitter, reaching (at least) hundreds of thousand of views. Reddit 9GAG Facebook X ? Whales have arm, wrist & finger bones in their front fins. This is the front fin bones of a Grey whale.byu/Browndog888 inNatureIsFuckingLit ? Whales have arm, wrist & finger bones in their front fins. This is the front fin bones of a Grey whale. u/Browndog888 NatureIsFuckingLit  The copied-and-pasted description of the viral image read "Whales have arm, wrist & finger bones in their front fins. This is the front fin bones of a Grey whale." We tracked down the source of the image. TinEye and Google reverse-image search results indicated that the image has been shared online at least since 2017.When we investigated further, we found out that the photo was authentic and it dated back to February 15, 2017. The image was shared on various Chinese-languagenewswebsites and in numerous social media posts. TinEye Google various Chinese-language websites posts Bone of whale's fin, spine section & teeth. Good proof that humans evolve from marine lives https://t.co/eQwqFioBL6 pic.twitter.com/5HoI2ISNd9 https://t.co/eQwqFioBL6 pic.twitter.com/5HoI2ISNd9  China Xinhua News (@XHNews) February 15, 2017 February 15, 2017  Xinhua News Agency, an official state news agency of the People's Republic of China, andChina Central Television(CCTV) were among the first to share the picture of this seemingly unlikely discovery. "Bone of whale's fin, spine section & teeth. Good proof that humans evolve from marine lives," the X caption of Xinhua News Agency's post read. However, the in-question photo did not show the fin of a gray whale, but rather that of a sperm whale. The CCTV post with the image in question read: Xinhua News Agency China Central Television Two sperm whales became stranded near the Yangkou Port in Rudong County, East China's Jiangsu Province on Feb. 14, 2016, and they were later made into specimens in Shanghai and Dalian. Now, one specimen has returned to the port for exhibition. A 2018 research paper with the title "The myodural bridges' existence in the sperm whale" referenced the 2016 incident, as the whale was shared by Chinese authorities for the purpose ofscientific research: research paper A 15.1-meter long sperm whale was acquired opportunistically examined in this study from stranding with the permission of Chinese Authorities for Animal Protection. It died naturally in the beache of Nantong (Jiangsu province, China). The cadaver was permitted for scientific research under the approval of the Ethics Committee of Dalian Medical University. Some social media users were surprised that whales' bones had a so humanlike appearance. American Museum of Natural History explained that "the sperm whale's flippers, or pectoral fins, help the animal maneuver through water." explained   (American Museum of Natural History) Moreover, the museum underscored that the sperm whale's bone structure is similar to human bones: They also share bone structure with the human arm and hand.In fact, the bones of cetacean flippers are the same kinds of bones as in the human arm, with an upper arm bone, two forearm bones, and hand, wrist, and finger bones. In whales, fingers are elongated and may have additional bones. The joint between upper arm and forearm is immobile, creating an effective paddle. Whales Online, a magazine published by the Group for Research and Education on Marine Mammals (GREMM), published an articlereferring to the whales' front limbs (emphasis ours): article The front limbs of whales' land-roaming ancestors grew much shorter and transformed into pectoral fins. The bones are no longer articulated and do not allow for any movement. The only point of articulation is the shoulder. These fins serve both as a stabilizer and a rudder. Five digits for toothed whales and right whales, four for rorquals: some are very long, with many more phalanges than in land mammals. The bones of the hand are embedded in a fibrous, rigid and resistant tissue and do not appear at the surface of the skin. And here's what the whale's full skeleton looks like: looks like   (baleinesendirect.org screenshot) Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/cctvcom/posts/sperm-whale-specimen-transported-back-to-porttwo-sperm-whales-became-stranded-ne/10155111753959759/. Accessed 7 Sept. 2023. "https://Twitter.Com/XHNews/Status/831759371986153472." X (Formerly Twitter), https://twitter.com/XHNews/status/831759371986153472. Accessed 7 Sept. 2023. Liu, Pei, et al. "The Myodural Bridges' Existence in the Sperm Whale." PLoS ONE, vol. 13, no. 7, July 2018, p. e0200260. PubMed Central, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200260. "Skeleton." Baleines En Direct, https://baleinesendirect.org/en/discover/life-of-whales/morphology/skeleton/. Accessed 7 Sept. 2023. In the lead-up to the 2018 U.S. midterm elections, an old meme re-emerged on social media which claimed that former president Barack Obama had displayed an unprecedented level of partisanship and opportunism in his criticisms of President Donald Trump, in that Obama was "the first ex president to publicly speak against a successor" re-emerged social media   The meme was actually an edited form of an earlier version which first emerged on social media in 2017. The original included only the phrase "First Ex President to Publicly Speak Against a Successor": 2017 The claim, that no ex-president before Barack Obama ever publicly criticized his immediate successor is false. There is ample historical evidence of ex-presidents doing just that. Here are a few instances: Barack Obama The 44th president offered what were widely perceived as thinly-veiled criticisms of President Donald Trump when he spoke in Johannesburg, South Africa, in July 2018, railing against what he called "strongman politics," whereby "those in power seek to undermine every institution or norm that gives democracy meaning." He also criticized "far-right parties" with a platform of "protectionism and closed borders" as well as "barely-hidden racial nationalism." perceived Speaking at the University of Illinois in September, Obama criticized Trump by name, saying he was a "symptom, not a cause" of an effort by powerful elites to engender fear and division in the face of social change and progress: Obama had declined to openly attack Trump for the first 18 months of his presidency, following what, in his University of Illinois speech, he called the "wise American tradition of ex-presidents gracefully exiting the political stage." Obama said he had changed his mind because, in his view, the 2018 mid-term elections represented "one of those pivotal moments when every one of us, as citizens of the United States, need to determine just who it is that we are, just what it is that we stand for." speech Bill Clinton In July 2007, the 42nd president took aim at the administration of his successor, George W. Bush, in its handling of the Iraq war, telling Good Morning America's Diane Sawyer "There is no military victory here" and criticizing Bush for attempting to filibuster Congressional efforts to bring about a withdrawal of troops: took aim efforts George H.W. Bush Although George H.W. Bush had a general policy of not speaking publicly against his successor, the 41st president did just that more than once while campaigning for Republican candidates during the 1994 mid-term elections. The Daily Oklahoman newspaper reported that Bush Sr. had offered a stinging counter-attack against Clinton during a visit to the state capital on 4 November 1994: reported Saying he was breaking his policy against criticizing President Clinton, former President George Bush said Friday in Oklahoma City he was tired of his Democratic successor criticizing Republicans ... Bush told the crowd ... that Clinton was stumping about blaming Republicans in Congress "for his demise or things that weren't going right." "He blames us and he is wrong. I'm so tired of it," Bush told about 5,000 noisy GOP supporters at Oklahoma Christian University of Sciences and Arts. "I think America is a little tired of it." During a Republican rally in Omaha, Nebraska, the same week, Bush attacked Clinton for having "the nerve" to blame the GOP for "his own failures," the Pittsburgh Post-Gazettereported: reported Former President George Bush broke a self-imposed silence yesterday and attacked President Clinton for taking credit for the U.S. economic recovery. Bush has been stumping for Republican candidates in the Mid-west this week. "He has the nerve to blame Republicans for his own failures and the shortcomings of the Democratic Congress," the former president told a crowd of about 1,500 people in Omaha. In 1999, during the Monica Lewinsky scandal and Clinton's impeachment by the U.S. House of Representatives, Bush even appeared to accuse his successor of behaving in a way which demonstrated a lack of respect for the U.S. presidency, as the Associated Press reported: reported Former President Bush thinks Bill Clinton lacks respect for the presidency, but Bush predicts the country will bounce back after Clinton's impeachment trial ends. "I have tried to stay out of all the Washington mess," Bush said Saturday at the end of a keynote address to the Safari Club International's 27th annual hunters' convention. "But I must confess I have been deeply concerned by what appears to be a lack of respect for the office I was so very proud to hold." Jimmy Carter The 39th president more than once criticized Ronald Reagan, the man who defeated him in the 1980 presidential campaign, firmly defending his own record and offering relatively barbed comments about his successor. In September 1982, Carter responded to Reagan's earlier criticisms of the Democrat's legacy, accusing his rival of failing to "accept his responsibilities as president," the New York Times reported: New York Times Former President Jimmy Carter, responding to criticism from President Reagan, said tonight that while his Administration made mistakes, "we did not spend four years blaming our mistakes on our predecessors" ... Mr. Carter accused Mr. Reagan of not accepting his responsibilities. The former President said that after his defeat in 1980, he resolved to pledge Mr. Reagan "my help, my support when he was ready to accept the awesome responsibilities of the Presidency." "My offer still stands," Mr. Carter said at a Democratic National Committee fund-raising dinner. "When he is ready to accept those responsibilities, I'll be there to help him." At a press conference two months later, Carter continued that theme, saying Reagan's efforts to deflect criticism onto him were "irresponsible and ill-advised" and that his Republican successor had made "radical" and unwelcome changes to U.S. foreign policy, United Press International reported: reported Jimmy Carter criticized President Reagan for making 'radical' changes in U.S. foreign and domestic policy, and said Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin is responsible in part for failure of the Camp David accords. In a wide-ranging news conference, Carter also twitted Reagan for trying to lay the blame for the nation's problems on the previous administration. 'There is always the temptation for an incumbent politician to blame all his mistakes on his predecessor. Most are willing to withstand the temptation. Mr. Reagan, apparently, is not,' Carter said. 'The public sees through that and the results of the (midterm) election proves I'm right' ... Speaking typically with a soft voice but strong words, Carter said: "Most of the quite radical departures in foreign, domestic and economic policy have not been good for the country. We have an unprecedented number of people unemployed; bankruptcies are the highest in years; farm income is at the lowest level ever; the deficits have never been so high, and so forth" ... "It's true President Reagan inherited some serious problems from my administration. I inherited some from President Ford. But to try to forego blame and say all these problems are my predecessor's fault is patently irresponsible and ill-advised," he said. Carter called Reagan's nuclear policies 'ill-advised.' Gerald Ford Just as Carter publicly took aim at the man who replaced him in the White House, he was also the subject of repeated and sometimes very strong criticism by Republican Gerald Ford, whom Carter had defeated in the 1976 election. In April 1977, less than three months after Carter succeeded him, Ford ridiculed the Democrat's economic policies in a widely-syndicated interview with the Washington Post: interview "Mr. Carter's anti-inflation program came in like a lion," Ford said. "It's going out like a mouse" ... The former president, looking relaxed, voiced his criticism of Carter in a brief interview following a speech to a Republican group here [in Los Angeles, California.] Over the next three years, Ford also took aim at Carter's handling of negotiations over the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT), his handling of the economic crisis, and in the summer of 1980 he launched a devastating attack on his successor's legacy at a Republican event in Indianapolis, as the Associated Press reported: negotiations crisis reported "The Carter economic policies have been a catastrophe. They've been disasters. We handed them the economy on a silver platter," Ford said, arguing that the rate of inflation was less than 5 percent when he left office and that unemployment was going down. "The president blew it." Ford predicted that Carter will go into the November election with a national unemployment rate of 9 percent, double-digit inflation and double-digit interest rates. "He'll be defending the worst economic policy of any president since the Depression of 1932. That's bad. And he's responsible." Conclusion The examples highlighted above are far from exhaustive but serve to illustrate that Barack Obama's recent criticisms of President Donald Trump are far from unique or unprecedented and, especially when compared to the pronouncements of Gerald Ford, could even be argued to have been relatively tame. As such, the claim in the 2017 meme which re-emerged in November 2018, that Obama is "the first ex-president to publicly speak against a successor" is false. Wintour, Patrick.  "Obama Criticises 'Strongman Politics' in Coded Attack on Trump." 
  The Guardian.  17 July 2018. Reuters.  "Bill Clinton Criticizes Bush on Iraq." 
  19 July 2007. Stolberg, Sheryl Gay and Jeff Zeleny.  "Clash Over Iraq Becomes Bitter Between Bush and Congress." 
  The New York Times.  12 July 2007. Zizzo, David.  "Bush Criticizes Clinton During Stop in City." 
  The Daily Oklahoman.  5 November 1994. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.  "Bush Criticizes Clinton." 
  5 November 1994. Associated Press.  "Bush Criticizes Clinton, But Says Scandal Will Fade." 
  The Atlanta Constitution   25 January 1999. Clymer, Adam.  "Carter Says Reagan Has Failed to Accept His Responsibilities." 
  The New York Times.  1 October 1982. Pippert, Wesley G.  "Jimmy Carter Criticized President Reagan Wednesday for Making 'Radical'..." 
  United Press International.  10 November 1982. Cannon, Lou.  "Ford Criticizes Carter Economics." 
  The Tampa Bay Times.  17 April 1977. Associated Press.  "Ford Criticizes Carter's Policy." 
  The [Uniontown] Evening Standard.  8 April 1977. Associated Press.  "Ford Criticizes Carter's Economic Policies." 
  The [Staunton] News Leader.  11 October 1979. Carrol, Jan.  "Former President Ford Criticizes Carter for 'Flip-Flopping' Policies." 
  The [Lousiville] Courier-Journal.  27 June 1980. U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont loves to boast about hisindependence from super PACsand billionaires, saying his campaign relies on the support of small donors. Recently, the Democratic presidential hopeful extended his small donor claim to Russ Feingold. Sanders sent out a news release May 26, 2016 that said he would be raising money for Feingold, a former U.S. senator who is aiming to unseat Republican incumbent Ron Johnson in a rematch of their 2010 contest. Sanders also sent an email to his national fundraising list. We are going to have to elect candidates up and down the ballot who recognize that it is too late for establishment politics and economics, Sanders wrote. Candidates like my friend, former U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold. Sanders continued: Russ led the fight with me to make the Affordable Care Act much stronger in 2009. He voted against the USA PATRIOT Act and the war in Iraq. He authored and passed landmark campaign finance reform legislation and his campaign is powered by small-dollar contributions like ours. That last accolade caught our eyes. Sanderss record-breakinglevelof small-contribution support has been well noted. We wondered if small donors were also powering Feingolds campaign. Sanders backup Typically, small donors are considered those who give $200 or less over an election cycle. Having a lot of small-dollar contributions can indicate strong grassroots support and an effective online fundraising effort. When asked to back up the statement, Sanders team sent us to anews releaseissued by Feingolds campaign in April 2016. At that time, the release said, 30,000 Wisconsinites had contributed to Feingolds campaign with money coming in from each of the states 72 counties. The release also claimed 96 percent of all contributions in the first quarter were $100 or less. The problem for fact-checkers -- it cannot be independently verified. PolitiFact National explored the issue when presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton said our campaign depends on small donations for the majority of our support. Her team provided similar information, saying more than 50 percent of the money raised by the campaign came from online grassroots donations, with 98 percent smaller than $250. Until an individual donor surpasses $200 in contributions, their funds are unitemized on campaign disclosure reports. So the number of donors who give less than $200 is unknown. Numbers reported to the Federal Elections Commission provided weak support for Clintons statement, PolitiFact National found. And small donors accounted for less than 20 percent of Clintons total donations, according to those figures. The claim was ratedMostly False. FEC numbers The Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan campaign finance research group, tracks money given to candidates from individuals and PACs, as well as those self-financing their campaigns and money contributed from other means. Sanders profile on the groups web site reports that 99 percent of his campaigns more than $200 million in funds has come from individual contributions (as opposed, for instance, to political action committees). Of that, 62 percent -- or more than $129 million -- was from contributions of $200 or less. The other part comes from large individual contributions of up to $2,700. So what about Sanders Wisconsin pal, Feingold? According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Feingold has raised more than $10 million in the race against Johnson. Like Sanders, an overwhelming amount of his funds, 93 percent, come from individual contributions. But, Feingold has received a larger share of donations from large donors than small ones. Feingold received 52 percent of his overall funds from people who gave more than $200. Another 41 percent came from small individual donors. He also received about $600,000 from PAC contributions. So, the majority of Sanders funding -- 62 percent -- comes from these small donors while 41 percent of Feingolds funding came from small donors. The phrase powered by, of course, is open to some interpretation. We took a look at candidates in other competitive Senate races across the country this election cycle. Most candidates received less than 20 percent of all campaign funds from small donors. Some approached 30 percent -- still far below the proportion of funds Feingold has raised from small donors. So, while Feingold is not above 50 percent -- and does not match Sanders level -- we feel like the claim is generally on target. It doesnt factor into this claim, but as a point of reference, Johnson has raised just less than $12 million. Individuals donated about 80 percent of that money. He has gotten a far greater share of his contributions from big spenders -- those donating between $200 and $2,700 this election cycle. Just 15 percent of his funds come people who donate less than $200, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Our rating Sanders said in a fundraising letter that Feingolds campaign is powered by small-dollar contributions like ours. Both the presidential and congressional hopefuls have received the majority of their support from individual donors. While small donors have played a role in Feingolds funding, theyre not as integral as Sanders small donors. We rate the claim Mostly True. 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: Joe Biden   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'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. image 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 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: Getty Images "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.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFfJkWTAu-EYou 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: reported The United States is back as a cooperative leader of the free world under President Joe Biden, Frances Emmanuel Macron said on Saturday, illustrating the relief felt by many key U.S. allies that the tumult of Donald Trumps presidency is over. Macrons remark echoes that of British Prime Minister Boris Johnson who hailed Biden on Thursday as a big breath of fresh air. Neither Macron nor Johnson drew an explicit parallel between Biden and Trump, though both praised Bidens distinctly cooperative tone and officials said there was relief after Trump at times shocked and bewildered many European allies. Biden, asked by a reporter if America was back, turned to Macron and gestured with his sunglasses towards the French president that he should answer that question. Yes definitely, Macron said. Its great to have a U.S. president whos part of the club and very willing to cooperate. What you demonstrate is that leadership is partnership, Macron told Biden as they sat on an outdoor terrace with a sweeping view of the turquoise sea behind them. 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: laughing together walking arm in arm The super PAC Ending Spending Fund is broadcasting another attack ad against Michelle Nunn, a politically pedigreed Democrat hoping to succeed Republican Saxby Chambliss as a U.S. Senator from Georgia. This time, its aradio adsimulating a man-on-the street interview with a potential female voter. In the ad, the announcer says: According to news reports, shes acknowledged allowing a convicted felon who is well known for his radical anti-American statements to actually hold a fundraiser for her. He then asked the unidentified woman: Is there any wisdom in that thinking? Im going to say None, the woman responds. Its part of a new campaign by Ending Spending that plays off Nunns well-known name. Her father, Sam Nunn was a respected moderate Democrat in the U.S. Senate for 24 years, from 1972 to 1997, who some considered White House or vice presidential material. The ad follows the theme of the super PACs new website,www.AbsolutelyNunn.com, which answers the question, is there any reason for Georgians to vote for her? But, PolitiFact Georgia wondered, is Nunn working with felons to win office? First, lets look at Ending Spending Action Fund, formed by TD Ameritrade founder Joe Ricketts. As of Sept. 11, the group has spent nearly $2.8 million -- more than any other outside group -- on Georgias Senate race, according to OpenSecrets.org. The PAC favors Nunns GOP opponent, businessman David Perdue. Some of its money paid for ads during the contentious Republican primary earlier this year. The race is being closely watched, and heavily funded, nationally because of the tight battle for control of the U.S. Senate. Its also a priority for state Democrats eager to reclaim a major statewide office. The Nunn-Perdue battle has drawn the fifth-most money from outside groups in Congressional races across the nation this year, $12.4 million on ads from both sides. That brings us back to the ad, which is a reference to the July 8 Washington, D.C. fundraiser that featured Sam Nunn as a special guest. Virtual Murrell is listed as one of the co-hosts of the event, giving $2,600 to Nunns campaign for the honor. Guests paid at least $250 to the campaign to attend, according tothe invitation. Two days after the fundraiser, the conservative National Review broke the story that Murrell, now a political consultant, had pleaded guilty in 1995 to accepting a bribe while working as an Oakland (Calif.) City councilmans aide. He was sentenced to a year in prison. Nunn expressed surprise at the news of Murrells history, which also includes a stint in the 1960s as a leader in the Black Panther movement. Her campaign declined this week to make her available to discuss the fundraiser and its fallout. Spokesman Nathan Click referred us to a statement released in July, which said Nunn was unaware of Murrells record and promised to return contributions linked to him. Click, however, declined to confirm the exact amount of money the campaign said was returned or to disclose how much money was tied to Murrell. We didn't deposit any contributions from him or anything he raised for the event, Click said in a statement. We reached out to Murrell via email, to confirm that Nunn returned his donation and other he raised. He did not respond. We also contacted Brian Baker, Ending Spendings president, who said Nunn has acknowledged Murrell, a convicted felon, co-hosted a fundraiser for her. That is exactly what we say in the ad, Baker said. The ad is 100 percent factual. The event wasnt the campaigns only embarrassing moment. In late August, a series of confidential memos were leaked, revealing Nunns campaign strategy and vulnerabilities. Ironically, those documents may support the campaigns contention that Nunn didnt know Murrells background. On page 57 of the 144-page document  after listing vulnerabilities such as being linked to President Obama and before several pages laying out campaign issues  is a category called Vetting. It takes up less than a quarter of the page, most notably this one-sentence paragraph: Currently, there are no plans to vet donors to the campaign, the memo said. Baker said finding out Murrells background didnt require a complicated vetting process and was accessible with a basic Google search. PolitiFact Georgia has reviewed previous ad claims from the group, with mixed results. In August, Ending Spending ads claim that Michelle Nunns foundation directed grants to an Islamic group tied to radical terrorists earned aMostly False. In July, we rated asMostly Truean Ending Spending claim that Nunn earned as much as $300,000 from Points of Light around the time it laid off 90 workers due to its merger with the nonprofit Hands on Network. Available information on the latest claim suggests Ending Spendings new ad uses guilt by association in a bid to suggest Nunn knowingly wooed an inflammatory ex-convict to raise cash for her Senate bid. Nunn has repeatedly said she did not know Murrells history when she attended the fundraiser. She pledged to give back the money he raised, though the campaign and Murrell have not confirmed how much was determined to be linked to Murrell. Most of the statement from the Ending Spending attack ad is correct. A convicted felon did host a fundraiser for Michelle Nunn. Nunn has said she did not know anything about the mans criminal background. And there is evidence from a leaked memo that her campaign was not vetting donors. The claim is accurate. But it leaves out some relevant details. We rate it Mostly True. On Aug. 26, 2019, the Twitter account Discover and Know (@myth_vs_facts) posted a photograph that supposedly showed "how Chinese soldiers keep their posture"  by placing a pin or needle in their uniform collars with the point facing toward the neck skin: This is how Chinese soldiers keep their posture. pic.twitter.com/WU8Y9DDLf5 pic.twitter.com/WU8Y9DDLf5  Discover and Know (@myth_vs_facts) August 26, 2019 August 26, 2019  This is a genuine photograph. It was taken in Beijing in February 2012 and shows a Chinese paramilitary policeman preparing for the National People's Congress. The picture is available via Getty Images with the following caption: A pin, used for training purposes, is placed on the collar of a Chinese paramilitary policeman undergoing a drill to prepare for the upcoming National People's Congress (NPC) in Beijing on February 28, 2012. China's parliament, the National People's Congress, is set to open its annual session on March 5. CHINA OUT AFP PHOTO (Photo credit should read STR/AFP/Getty Images) While this is a genuine photograph of a pin being used to correct posture, this is not a training method that all soldiers have to endure. A 2009 article from The New York Times indicated that this is a corrective measure for soldiers whose postures aren't up to standards (emphasis ours): The New York Times The Olympics that dazzled spectators last year showed Chinas knack for meticulous preparation. Participants in the Thursday parade have engaged in similarly intense drills for months, according to reports in the Chinese news media. Soldiers have practiced endless hours to hold their rifles at precisely the same level. Photos show their instructors holding threads as rifle guides, or sticking needles in soldiers shirt collars, pointed at their necks, to correct poor posture. They have trained to stand motionless for a solid hour, to refrain from swaying during the second hour and not to collapse after three hours, reported Xinhua, the state-run news agency. We found one other photograph from Getty Images showing a Chinese officer with a pin being placed in his collar in an attempt to correct posture. The following picture is available with the caption: "An officer sticks a needle in the collar of a paramilitary policeman to correct his posture during a training session in Hefei, Anhui province September 13, 2009.VCP (Photo by Jie Zhao/Corbis via Getty Images)." caption   LaFraniere, Sharon.  "No Detail Is Overlooked as China Prepares to Celebrate." 
  The New York Times.  28 September 2009. Claim:  Photograph shows Arizona billboard poking fun at Los Angeles' decision to boycott that state over illegal immigrant legislation.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, June  2010]     Origins:  In June 2010, Los Angeles County "became the latest government body to boycott Arizona to protest the state's tough new law targeting illegal immigration": After a heated debate, the county's board of supervisors voted 3-2 to ban new contracts with Arizona-based companies and review those that could be canceled. The county has more than $26 million in contracts with Arizona companies this year. Several California cities, including Los Angeles, Oakland and San Francisco, have passed similar measures. The Arizona law, set to go into effect July 29 [2010], requires police enforcing another law to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they are in the country illegally. Supervisor Gloria Molina said the law "goes too far." "I am sworn as an L.A. County supervisor to uphold the Constitution. All I can say is that I believe that Arizona's law is unconstitutional," she said. U.S. Justice Department officials have drafted a legal challenge asserting that Arizona's law is unconstitutional because it intrudes on the federal government's authority to guard the nation's borders. The image displayed above supposedly shows a billboard erected in Phoenix in response to Los Angeles' boycott of Arizona, a sign which sardonically informs illegal immigrants that "Los Angeles loves you" and suggests they head west on Interstate 8 out of Arizona and into California.  However, this image is a digitally created mock-up and not a genuine photograph of a real billboard.  Elements such as the saguaro cactus on the left-hand side of the picture and the Arizona state flag, for example, were clearly pasted in from other cactus and flag photos: cactus flag   Probably not coincidentally, immediately before this billboard image began circulating, a letter to the editor from a Phoenix resident was published in the Arizona Republic advocating the very idea depicted above: letter to the editor Arizona citizens should erect a billboard on northbound Interstate 10 just south of Casa Grande that says in Spanish: "Attention, illegal immigrants. Arizona does not welcome you. But Los Angeles loves you. Free housing. Free school. Free food. Free medical and hospital. No insurance costs nor taxes. Plentiful jobs. Turn left on 8 and follow your road to paradise." - John Forster, Phoenix Last updated:  8 June 2010    Associated Press.  "LA County Boycotts Arizona Over Immigration Law."   2 June 2010. Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO On July 16, 2020, as the U.S. recorded its single highest number of COVID-19 cases since the coronavirus health crisis began, U.S. President Donald Trump spoke at an event held on the South Lawn of the White House, ostensibly on the subject of "Rolling Back Regulations to Help All Americans." During his talk, according to a meme, Trump allegedly tackled the subject of energy-efficiency standards which have supposedly resulted in home appliances that do not function properly due to requirements aimed at conserving the amount of water and power they consume:  This was an accurate reproduction of a portion of Trump's talk, according to a White House transcript of the event: transcript Were bringing back consumer choice in home appliances so that you can buy washers and dryers, showerheads and faucets. So showerheads  you take a shower, the water doesnt come out. You want to wash your hands, the water doesnt come out. So what do you do? You just stand there longer or you take a shower longer? Because my hair  I dont know about you, but it has to be perfect. Perfect. Dishwashers  you didnt have any water, so you  the people that do the dishes  you press it, and it goes again, and you do it again and again. So you might as well give them the water because youll end up using less water. So we made it so dishwashers now have a lot more water. And in many places  in most places of the country, water is not a problem. They dont know what to do with it. Its called rain. They dont have a problem. This was far from the first time the president had riffed on poorly functioning appliances. In December 2019, as Trump spoke in the Roosevelt Room of the White House amidst an impeachment inquiry, he digressed into railing about toilets and other bathroom fixtures that allegedly frustrate their users due to the use of low-flow technology. CNN reported: digressed railing about toilets The President claimed Americans are flushing their toilets "10 times, 15 times, as opposed to once" and argued that they are having difficulty with washing their hands in what appeared to be a tangent about low-flow sinks and toilets. "We have a situation where we're looking very strongly at sinks and showers and other elements of bathrooms where you turn the faucet on -- and in areas where there's tremendous amounts of water, where the water rushes out to sea because you could never handle it, and you don't get any water," the President said during a roundtable with small business leaders about deregulatory actions. "You turn on the faucet and you don't get any water. They take a shower and water comes dripping out. Just dripping out, very quietly dripping out," the President continued, lowering his voice as he spoke about the drips. "People are flushing toilets 10 times, 15 times, as opposed to once." It wasn't entirely clear what he was talking about, but it appeared to have to do with bathroom fixtures with low-flow appliances. He said the Environmental Protection Agency was looking into the issue on his suggestion. "They end up using more water. So (the) EPA is looking at that very strongly at my suggestion," Trump said, though he did not give details on what suggestions, if any, he made. NPR quoted the Pacific Institute, a non-profit research institute with a focus on global and regional freshwater issues, as asserting that Trump's statements did not comport with reality: quoted asserting Peter Gleick with the Pacific Institute in Oakland considers this all to be Trumpian nostalgia for a time when showers were strong, toilets used 4 gallons a flush and lightbulbs burned your hands when you touched them. Gleick said these newer household items are part of an "efficiency revolution," doing the same tasks with less and halting the upward trajectory of water and energy consumption in America. And, yes, a dishwasher cycle takes longer, and incandescent bulbs are cheaper to buy upfront. But in the long run, "They're much more expensive, because they use a huge amount of energy, which we pay for over time and they burn out 20 times faster," Gleick said. Based on the way Trump talks about efficient lightbulbs, it seems his complaint is with compact fluorescent bulbs, which were the only low-energy bulbs widely available 10 years ago. But today, store shelves are full of LED bulbs with warmer-looking light and even longer life spans. Gleick suspects Trump's toilet complaints are outdated as well, because low-flow toilet technology has come a long way in recent years. "Some people got bad toilets, but that was 15 and 20 years ago," Gleick said. "And now the new toilets not only use a tiny fraction of the water the old toilets used to use, but the truth is they flush better  and if you have a bad toilet that doesn't flush, well, that's because you have a bad toilet." A video of the portion of the speech reproduced in the above meme can be viewed here:  Picheta, Rob et al.  "Trump Claims Americans Have to Flush the Toilet '10 Times, 15 Times, As Opposed to Once.'"
  CNN.  7 December 2019. Keith, Tamara.  "Trump vs. Toilets (And Showers, Dishwashers and Lightbulbs)."
  NPR.  27 December 2019. WhiteHouse.gov.  "Remarks by President Trump on Rolling Back Regulations to Help All Americans."
  16 July 2020.