Planned Parenthood is nothing more than a referral service.  They dont do anything except profit from killing babies and then selling body parts of those aborted babies.
Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick said in a nationally broadcast interview that Planned Parenthood does little more than profit from killing babies. Patrick, a Republican,appeared Oct. 19, 2015, on Your World with Neil Cavuto, a Fox News program. That wasthe day a Texas state official moved to cut off$3.1 million in annual Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood, 90 percent of it federal aid, for contraception and health services. That came as a result, the official said, of videos showing doctors for the group altered abortion procedures to procure intact fetal tissue for researchers in violation of federal law. Planned Parenthood, denying misconduct, commented that it was considering its options, including a lawsuit. Patrick, talking to Cavuto, said: Were not going to tolerate Planned Parenthood pretending, Neil, to be something theyre not... Cavuto: Do you think that Planned Parenthood does anything good? Patrick: No. I dont think they do anything good. Look, theyre nothing more than a referral service. They pretend to care about womens health. But they dont have professionals even giving any information to women except referring them to another clinic. They dont  have equipment. They dont do anything except profit from killing babies and then selling body parts of those aborted babies. Cavuto: Well, I understand your passions, sir. But they do a little bit more than that. Patrick: Very little. Theres been debate about what the videos taken with hidden cameras by the Center for Medical Progress, an anti-abortion group, show about sales of fetal tissue. But on Oct. 7, 2015,PolitiFact Florida rated Falsea claim that Planned Parenthood has now (been) found to also illegally sell baby parts. Federal law permits fetal tissue donations to researchers. Abortion providers also are allowed to charge a fee for facilitating such donations. We focused our sights on whether Patrick is right that Planned Parenthood solely provides abortions. To our request for backup information, Patricks spokesman, Alejandro Garcia, said by phone: We dont have anything further to add. Past fact checks In August 2015, PolitiFactrated Pants on Firea claim by Jeb Bush that Planned Parenthood is not actually doing womens health issues. That story said Planned Parenthood offers contraception, sexually transmitted infection testing and treatment, pregnancy testing, prenatal services and cancer screenings, including breast exams, though not mammograms. In September 2012, PolitiFact Georgiarated Truea claim that Planned Parenthood does not provide mammograms. Planned Parenthood refers women to mammography providers. Earlier, in April 2011,PolitiFact rated Falsea claim that abortion services are well over 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does. That story, citing a Planned Parenthood fact sheet, concluded that abortions accounted for just under 3 percent of the procedures Planned Parenthood provided in 2009, then the most recent year for which the group was reporting statistics. There is lately more up-to-date information. On Planned Parenthoods website, we spotted aBy the Numbers documentlast updated in July 2015 stating that 34 percent of its health services are contraceptive services and 3 percent are abortions. Another document,Services,states that in 2013, Planned Parenthood provided more than 4.4 million services related to testing men and women for sexually transmitted infections or diseases; more than 3.5 million contraception services; more than 935,000 services related to cancer prevention and detection; some 1.1 million pregnancy and prenatal services; 327,653 abortions; and nearly 132,000 other services. The most prevalent listed contraception service was reversible contraception for women (2.1 million services). The most common cancer screening was breast exams/breast care (487,029 services). That story said that a Planned Parenthood spokeswoman said doctors and nurses at Planned Parenthood health centers provide clinical breast exams and refer patients to facilities with technicians for mammograms based on breast exams, age or family history; she said Planned Parenthood also refers women to breast specialists when a potential abnormality is found and follow-up tests are needed. According to the July 2015 list, Planned Parenthoods most common pregnancy services in 2013 were pregnancy tests (1.1 million services). Other identified services include HIV tests (704,000 services); emergency contraception kits (1.4 million services) and Pap tests (378,692 services). A longer view: Nationally from 2006 through 2013, the number of abortions provided by Planned Parenthood essentially held steady, with marginal increases and a modest peak in 2009, according to an Oct. 1, 2015,PolitiFact article. That story presented a chart showing how the number of specific services provided by Planned Parenthood went up or down from 2006 to 2013, based on Planned Parenthoods annual reports from 2006 to 2013 (though a report from 2008 didnt turn up): Another chart, likewise drawing from the annual reports, showed counts for abortion and non-abortion services provided by the group:  Caveats Per all these figures, its worth repeating caveats offered by PolitiFact in 2011: --First, many people would acknowledge a difference between providing an abortion and, say, handing out a pack of condoms or conducting a blood test. The former is a significant surgical procedure, whereas the latter are quick and inexpensive services. So Planned Parenthoods use of services as its yardstick likely decreases abortions prominence compared with what other measurements would show. Using dollars spent or hours devoted to patient care would likely put abortion above 3 percent in the calculations. --Second, Planned Parenthood self-reported these numbers, though the group says each affiliates numbers are independently audited. This basically means observers must accept their accuracy more or less on faith. Planned Parenthood In Texas To our inquiry about Patricks claim, Yvonne Gutierrez of Planned Parenthood Texas Votes,which saysit battles to protect womens health care access, said the same range of services are offered in Texas by the group. Gutierrez emailed us an undatedPlanned Parenthood documentindicating that in 2013, its Texas clinics had 150,710 patients including 108,533 contraception patients. The document showed state-by-state counts in those categories and for Pap tests plus tests for sexually transmitted infections, breast exams and sex education and outreach. Gutierrez also emailed us achart, attributed to state agencies, distributed by the Texas Health and Human Services Commission. The chart shows $3.1 billion in Medicaid spending on Planned Parenthood-provided services in the fiscal year through Aug. 31, 2015. That spending covered Medicaid reimbursements and payments through health plans for patients who went to Planned Parenthood clinics, Gutierrez said. We also asked Gutierrez about Planned Parenthood in Texas making fetal tissue available for research. Planned Parenthood Greater Texas and Planned Parenthood South have never participated in fetal tissue research projects, she replied by email, and have no plans to do so. While Planned Parenthood Center for Choice (in Houston) does not currently participate in a fetal tissue study, they have taken part in such worthy studies in the past, following all laws and the highest medical and ethical standards. These studies hold the potential to cure disease and save lives. They last partnered with UTMB, the University of Texas Medical Branch, on a study to prevent miscarriage. Our ruling Patrick said Planned Parenthood is nothing more than a referral service. They dont do anything except profit from killing babies and then selling body parts of those aborted babies. To the contrary, Planned Parenthood provides family planning and other womens health services, including abortions and theres been no confirmation it sells body parts. We rate this incorrect and ridiculous statement Pants on Fire. PANTS ON FIRE The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.
On 26 July 2016, Michigan cherry farmer Marc Santucci shared a post on Facebook asserting that he was forced to destroy 14 percent of his tart cherry crop in order to protect the market for cherries imported from overseas: shared These cherries are beautiful! But, we have to dump 14% of our tart cherry crop on the ground to rot. Why? So we can allow the import of 200 million pounds of cherries from overseas! It just doesn't seem right. What do you think? Please share this on your Facebook page???. Just to let everyone know we are not allowed to donate or in any way use diverted cherries. I have people who would buy them if I could sell them. Also these are tart cherries with a very short shelf life  Santucci's post slowly circulated on the social network, attracting the attention of blogs and health-conscious social media users through September 2016. As presented, Santucci's tale sounded like an unbelievable level of bureaucratic interference with the farm industry and left readers wondering whether his report about having to destroy 40,000 pounds of edible cherries in order to "make room" for imported cherries (and was "not allowed to donate or in any way use diverted cherries") was accurate.  Online articles pinned blame for the cherry-chucking on the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), citing a 29 July 2016 Detroit Free Press article about the social media controversy that referenced the federal Agricultural Agreement Act of 1937.  The Detroit Free Press article only briefly mentioned the USDA as a starting point for a very complex cherry charter, noting that cherries were originally not regulated under the Agricultural Agreement Act, but the cherry industry opted into its provisions in 1995.  pinned blame article regulated The act in question was introduced in 1937 due to tumultuous agricultural conditions that exacerbated the Great Depression and aimed to facilitate "orderly marketing conditions for agricultural commodities in interstate commerce" for the express purpose of stabilizing farmers' income. Cherry industry experts stressed that the 1995 extension of the regulation to include the tart cherry market was voluntary and had been desired by many cherry farmers: introduced At issue is a marketing order imposed through the U.S. Department of Agriculture as part of the federal Agricultural Agreement Act of 1937. But that law only applies to the tart cherry industry because growers and processors opted into the order in 1995. "It was created at the industry's behest. It was voted in by growers and processors. It's not an imposition from outside," said Perry Hedin, executive director of the DeWitt-based Cherry Industry Administrative Board [CIAB], which oversees the marketing order not only in Michigan but in all states across the country that produce commercial crops of red tart cherries, including New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin. Tart cherries are one of the most volatile crops grown in the U.S., with yields that can vary dramatically year to year, Hedin said. "This whole concept of the marketing order has two goals: to inject a better stability into our markets and improve grower returns," he said. "The growers have been paid far better prices under the marketing order over the past 20 years than they were before the order was in place." A 29 July 2016 editorial published  in the Michigan Farm News also addressed what it framed as multiple misrepresentations in Santucci's viral post, starting with the reason cherry crops were thusly regulated. A horticulture specialist noted that the cherry farmers themselves (not the USDA) had sought market regulation after experiencing damaging price fluctuations: addressed In a classic example of what happens on social media when people form opinions based on emotion instead of fact, a Northwestern Michigan tart cherry grower's Facebook posting has gone viral, but with faulty information to back up the posting's claims ... The problem, however, said Kevin Robson, horticulture specialist with Michigan Farm Bureau, is that the information posted shows either shallow understanding of the federal marketing order or a deliberate attempt to change the order because of political disagreement. "It's also enforced by the growers themselves," he said. "It is for the betterment of the industry as a whole, and a great number of cherry growers have benefited, even those who voted against it." Administered by the Cherry Industry Administrative Board (CIAB), the order this year required tart cherry processors to keep 29 percent (the farmer's posting said he was ordered to dump only 14 percent) of the crop they handle off traditional markets (pies, sweetened desserts, etc.) in an attempt to stabilize both prices and supply, which in cherries has been notoriously volatile. "For example," Reposing said, "in 1988, when the entity was called the Cherry Administrative Board, growers voted to eliminate the marketing order. Prices began to follow a rollercoaster that led, within 10 years, to tart cherry prices that fell into single figures. Some growers went out of business." In response to prices that were below costs of production, tart cherry growers in seven states petitioned the USDA to put a new order and administrative board in place, and prices began to stabilize. Still, some growers, such as the one who posted the photo of a small pile of cherries, took exception to the order. Generally, the Agricultural Agreement Act ensures relatively stable income for tart cherry farmers in the face of a volatile market, with one of the drawbacks of that stability being that in boom crop years (as 2016 was), farmers may end up with a good deal of product they are precluded from selling on the open market.  However, although some outlets claim CIAB heavies visited farms to ensure every cherry lies unchomped, tart cherry farmers have options beyond leaving their surplus crop to "rot in the sun": visited farms Processors' options in times of surplus include holding the restricted cherries in surplus  frozen, dried or concentrated  for a later slow year. Farmers also can attempt to sell the surplus cherries in overseas markets or sell them domestically in a newly created market, either as a new product or by convincing a supermarket chain or other end user currently supplied by imported cherries to switch to U.S.-grown, he said. Hedin said Santucci could have worked with the [Cherry Industry Administrative] board to find a place to donate the surplus cherries, which typically aren't eaten raw like sweet cherries because of their very short shelf-life, but are instead used in products such as pie filling and jams. Likewise, the Michigan Farm News piece stated that: Another misstatement on the Facebook posting, [horticulture specialist Kevin] Robson said, is that growers are not allowed to donate or use the dumped cherries "in any way." "That's just not true," Robson said. "Farmers can use the cherries for research and development, and they could make thousands of cherry pies and donate them to charity if they want. Remember these are tart cherries. They need to be processed  and quickly  to make a viable product. They aren't sweets that you just eat by the handful." The Facebook posting wrongly puts the blame for cherry dumping on the marketing order, Robson said, when it is the processor who makes the decision to ask farmers to dump cherries. Santucci himself told Grand Rapids television station WXMI that the dumping of surplus cherries wasn't expressly mandatory, but their short shelf life makes it difficult to find alternative uses for them: told "I was just notified when we started shaking the trees that 14 percent would have to be kept off the market, so it didn't give me time to find any alternative action," he said, adding that tart cherries only have a two-day shelf life. It was true that Santucci's 2016 crop was (as with that of all other cherry growers) subject to a growers' agreement barring surplus cherries from the marketplace, and Santucci asserted he had insufficient time to properly divert his surplus cherries to other uses or markets. But the agreement under which the tart cherry market is regulated doesn't mandate surplus cherries be destroyed, nor does the protocol exist to protect foreign imports. Cherry growers in several states voluntarily opted in to a USDA marketing agreement (rather than being forcibly regulated) following a period of instability in the cherry industry, and agriculture experts widely agree the provision provides more protection than harm to cherry growers.  Jackson, Paul W.  "Social Media Post Botches Cherry Program Reality."
  Michigan Farm News.  29 July 2016. Matheny, Keith.  "Traverse City Farmer: Dumping Perfectly Good Cherries Is Rotten."
  Detroit Free Press.  29 July 2016. Pagan, Gabriella.  "Cherry Dumping Photo Goes Viral, Grower Calls for Change."
  WPBN.  27 July 2016. Shesky, Ty.  "Farmer Explains Why Cherries Were Left to Waste."
  WXMI.  29 July 2016. In July 2021, a set of photographs supposedly showing a $325,000 Ferrari 458 Italia owned by Joel Osteen, televangelist and megachurch pastor, was widely circulated on social media:   While Osteen may own an expensive car (or two), he does not own the vehicle shown in this picture. It should also be noted that reports about Osteen owning a Ferarri 458 Italia have not been verified. In fact, some news outlets that initially published this claim, such as the Houston Chronicle, have since deleted their articles. some news outlets that initially published this claim We have not been able to find any verified reporting that Osteen owns a $325,000 Ferrari. There don't appear to be any photographs of Osteen driving this exotic sports car, and we have not been able to find any statements from Osteen in which he talks about an exotic collection. This rumor appears to be little more than an assumption. Osteen does have a reported net worth in the tens of millions (more on that later) and a large house in Houston, Texas. It certainly seems possible that Osteen has purchased an exotic car (or two), but so far these reports are not verified. As for the photographs above, one (the top right image in the above-displayed meme) was originally posted to an Exotic Cars Flickr page in 2010. A spokesperson for the Exotic Car Life Flickr account told us that the photograph was taken in Coral Gables, Florida down the street from the luxury car dealership The Collection. They told us that they saw the car, which they believed to be a customized order, at one other event and provided us with numerous photographs, none of which featured Osteen. Exotic Cars Flickr page in 2010 The spokesperson said: "I saw the car on another occasion at an event, no Joel Osteen was seen." It should also be noted that this meme features photographs of two different Ferraris. As noted above, one pic shows a custom Ferrari in 2010 in Florida. The other photograph shows a Ferrari in Zurich, Switzerland in 2013. The following video appears to be the source of the second photo:  In addition to this video's being taken in Switzerland, not Houston, Texas, where Osteen resides, the driver can be seen toward the end of this video, and it is not Osteen. It's worth nothing that in 2018, an associate pastor at Osteen's Lakewood Church was criticized for buying his wife a $200,000 Ferrari. associate pastor at Osteen's Lakewood Church was criticized for buying his wife a $200,000 Ferrari As these pictures went viral, a number of other claims about Osteen's net worth were circulated on social media. One viral tweet, for example, claimed that Osteen had a net worth of more than $40 million, that he lived in a $10.5 million mansion, and that his Lakewood Church received $4.4 million in PPP Covid-19-relief loans. These claims, in general, are true. However, there's a little nuance that should be noted. Osteen does own a home in Houston that is valued at around $10 million, and his Lakewood Church did receive a $4.4 million PPP loan. Claims about Osteen's net worth, however, are just estimations. We found estimates for Osteen's net worth ranging from$40 to $100 million, which indicates that these are little more than guessing. While we can't determine Osteen's exact net worth, it is safe to say that he's wealthy. around $10 million receive a $4.4 million PPP loan Osteen's net worth $40 100 million, The bulk of Osteen's fortune appears to come from book sales. In addition to being a megachurch pastor and a televangelist, Osteen is also a successful author. In 2006, The New York Times reported that Osteen's 2004 book "Your Best Life Now" sold more than 3 million hardcover copies: New York Times reported Mr. Osteen, a television evangelist, has signed a book deal with Free Press, an imprint of Simon & Schuster, that publishing insiders say is potentially one of the richest for a nonfiction book and could bring the author more than $10 million. Mr. Osteen's contract follows the enormous success of "Your Best Life Now," published in 2004 by Warner Faith, a division of the Time Warner Book Group. More than three million hardcover copies were sold, along with more than one million copies of associated journals, daily devotionals and study guides. Osteen talked about his wealth during an interview with PennLive in 2013: PennLive "I believe we are supposed to be leaders," Osteen said. "That we are supposed to represent Christ. I believe we are supposed to look good and excel at what God called us to do. You have gifts from the inside and you are supposed to excel. It is not that tradition saying you are supposed to be poor and humble. I believe Jesus died so we can have an abundant life and be leaders. I believe that's a part of the ministry that resonates with people." Osteen has repeatedly fought off the label of a prosperity gospel televangelist. "I don't really know what the prosperity gospel is," Osteen said. "The way I define it is that I believe God wants you to prosper in your health, in your family, in your relationships, in your business, and in your career. If that is the prosperity gospel, then I do believe that." Update [20 July 2021]: Added additional information about source photos. 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 In August 2021, readers searched the Snopes website and sent emailed questions in regards to a false internet rumor that the Make-A-Wish Foundation, a non-profit organization that grants wishes to critically ill children, would only grant wishes to children who have been vaccinated against COVID-19. The rumor was spread via a copypasta meme that circulated on social media. Here is an example of a misleading post on Facebook that went viral:   "This is literally a new low for humanity," the text of the above meme reads. "Terminally ill children will not be granted a wish.. from the make a wish foundation unless.. you guessed it.. theyre fully vaccinated." The source for this rumor is the misrepresentation of a video announcement posted on June 9, 2021, by Make-A-Wish, in which the organization's CEO, Richard Davis, announced that it was loosening some of the safety measures undertaken amid the COVID-19 pandemic. This included resuming, as of Sept. 15, 2021, the fulfillment of wishes that require air travel and large gatherings, in consultation with public health and medical professionals. video The resumption of these activities, for the time being, includes requiring those participating to be vaccinated against COVID-19. "All wish participants, including your wish kid and any siblings, will need to be two weeks past completion of either a one-dose or a two-dose vaccine," Davis stated. "While we won't ask for proof of vaccination, we'll ask that any adult participant to sign a letter of understanding that certifies that they and any minors participating in the wish are vaccinated and understand the risks of traveling at this time." Davis acknowledged that the situation isn't ideal. As of this writing, only children aged 12 years and older are eligible for the vaccine. eligible "We understand that this change affects many families whose children aren't eligible for the vaccine yet, and also know that there are families who aren't ready to get the vaccine, and we'll respect everyone's freedom of choice," Davis said in the video. Davis also said that the steps being taken "represent the start of our return to normal, and that because of the pandemic, international travel and cruises are still on hold. In other words, Davis said that in the midst of the pandemic, the foundation, which serves critically ill children, has been taking safety measures to protect those children. While that means some children won't be able to travel or participate in events or activities that involve crowds, that doesn't mean unvaccinated children won't be granted wishes. The Make-A-Wish Foundation published a statement countering viral rumors. The key portion of the statement reads: statement Make-A-Wish has not, does not and will not deny wishes to children who are not vaccinated. Since the beginning of the pandemic, Make-A-Wish has safely granted over 6,500 wishes to children and families  regardless of vaccination status. Make-A-Wish will continue to grant wishes to children who are not vaccinated. It is important to note that Make-A-Wish serves children with critical illnesses. Children do not need to have an end-of-life diagnosis to be eligible for a wish. In fact, most children we serve are able to manage, and even overcome, their illnesses and view the wish as an important part of the healing process. Spreading misinformation around the types of children who are eligible for a wish is harmful and hurtful to wish children and families. The vaccination policy does not apply to any child who has received an end-of-life prognosis. Make-A-Wish will not require anyone to get vaccinated to get a wish. We respect everyone's freedom of choice. We understand that there are many families whose children aren't eligible for the vaccine yet, and we also know that there are families who are choosing not to get the vaccine. There are many other wish options for children who do not currently meet the requirements for air travel and events involving large gatherings. The list of wish possibilities is as expansive as a creative child's imagination, and it includes road trips to national parks, spending time with celebrities, outdoor playhouses, shopping sprees, staycations, wishes for pets, computers, and room redecorations. CDC. COVID-19 Vaccination. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 11 Feb. 2020, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/recommendations/adolescents.html. COVID-19 Wish Updates: Air, Train, Bus Travel & Large Gatherings. www.youtube.com, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3T8eCqsgzxs. Accessed 31 Aug. 2021. Make-A-Wish Counters Misinformation: Vaccine Policy. https://wish.org/news-releases/vaccine-policy. Accessed 31 Aug. 2021. An image comparing changes in the financial status of former and current United States presidents was widely shared on social media at the end of 2017, with minimal text suggesting that the data it presented was particularly revealing of something (without providing any detail about what that "something") might be:  <!-- --> As for the hard data, we won't dwell on precise numbers because net worth figures are typically estimates that are at least partially based on assets with fluctuating valuations, and federal election disclosure laws have only required that candidates list their assets and liabilities in ranges rather than specific amounts. However, in general we can note that the information in the image is at least within the ballpark of reasonable. The Clintons' net worth was as reported as $700,000 in their 1992 statement, the Obamas' net worth was estimated at about $1.3 million in 2007 (mostly derived from book publishing advances and royalties), while the Trumps' net worth was pegged at $3.7 billion in 2016. $700,000 $1.3 million $3.7 billion As of 2017, the Clintons were estimated to have made $240 million since Bill Clinton left office in 2001, the Obamas' combined net worth was reckoned to be about $24 million, while the Trumps' net worth was thought to have dropped to about $3.1 billion. Suffice it to say that the Clinton and Obama families have done very well for themselves since leaving the White House, but the Trumps have realized no similar windfall (and have possibly seen their overall wealth decline a bit). $240 million $3.1 billion The comparison in this image is one of apples and oranges, however, and therefore it reveals nothing remarkable or surprising. It contrasts two men who each served eight years as President and are no longer in office with one man who has only been the U.S. chief executive for a year and still occupies that position. The longer one holds high office, the more opportunity one has to establish connections and build experience that might prove financially lucrative later on, so obviously two men who sat in the White House for eight years each has a considerable advantage over the one who has barely been in Washington for a year. More important, though, is that former Presidents Clinton and Obama are former presidents who have returned to private life, and thus they can avail themselves of many money-making opportunities common to ex-presidents -- writing books, giving speeches, consulting for private companies, holding board seats, advising businessmen and politicians -- that are simply not available to a sitting president. But for the incumbent chief executive, the position of President of the United States affords its holder little time to manage any outside business interests, and conflict of interest laws make it difficult for presidents to engage in profitable business ventures while they're serving as public officials. (Most sitting presidents choose to put their business interests into blind trusts or otherwise delegate their day-to-day management to others during their terms of office.) conflict of interest blind trusts This image also conveniently omits data that demonstrates the money-making proclivities of former presidents to be neither an aberration nor an activity limited to Democrats: George H.W. Bush saw his fortune grow from $4 million in his pre-presidential days to $23 million in 2017, and his son, George W. Bush, began his presidency with $20 million and is now reportedly worth $35 million. Finally, nothing about this subject has anything to do with any presidents, current or former, "stealing" anyone's money. Whatever controversies may have surrounded Presidents Clinton, Obama, and Trump so far, none of them has been accused of enriching themselves by looting the public treasury. Erb, Kelly Phillips.  "What's a Blind Trust, Anyway, And Why Won't It Work for President-Elect Trump?"
  Forbes.  12 January 2017. Forbes.  "The Definitive Net Worth of Donald Trump."
  Accessed 28 December 2017. Alexander, Dan.  "How Bill and Hillary Clinton Made $240 Million in the Last 15 Years."
  Forbes.  8 November 2016. Dangremond, Sam.  "How Much Is Hillary Clinton Actually Worth?"
  Town & Country.  12 October 2017. Gore, Leada.  "Donald Trump's Net Worth as He Takes Office and Barack Obama's as He Leaves."
  AL.com.  19 January 2017. Wang, Jennifer.  "Donald Trump's Fortune Falls $800 Million to $3.7 Billion."
  Forbes.  28 September 2016. Gerth, Jeff.  "THE 1992 CAMPAIGN: Personal Finances; Wealthy Investment Family a Big Help to Clinton."
  The New York Times.  5 February 1992. Dangremond, Sam.  "How Much Money Can Ex-Presidents Pull In?"
  Town & Country.  23 March 2017. Alan Grayson, an Orlando Democrat and former U.S. Representative running to reclaim a seat in 2012, emerged a big-time supporter of the Occupy Wall Street movement after appearing on HBO'sReal Time with Bill Maheron Oct. 7, 2011.A couple of Maher's panelists, and even Maher himself, mocked the protesters for their worrisome bathroom situation, lack of media spokesperson, name choice, and proficiency (or lack thereof) in economics. Saying he was a former economist, Grayson jumped in, saying he had no problem understanding the protesters' grievances.They're complaining about the fact that Wall Street wrecked the economy three years ago and nobody's held responsible for that, he said. Not a single person has been indicted or convicted for destroying 20 percent of our national net worth accumulated over the course of two centuries. They're upset about the fact that Wall Street has iron control over the economic policies of this country. And that one party is a wholly owned subsidiary of Wall Street. And the other party caters to them as well. That's what they're upset about.It gets more interesting. P.J. O'Rourke, a political theorist and author, said, Get the man a bongo drum. They've found their spokesman, okay. Take your shoes off, get a bongo drum, forget where to go to the bathroom, and it's yours. He got a few laughs. Then Grayson shot back with this:Listen, if I am a spokesman for all the people who think we should not have 24 million people in this country who can't find a full-time job, that we should not have 50 million people in this country who can't see a doctor when they're sick, that we shouldn't have 47 million people in this country who need government help in order to feed themselves, and we shouldn't have 15 million families who owe more on their mortgage than the value of their home, okay, I'll be that spokesman.Maher's audience gave Grayson a standing ovation. His retort popped up on YouTube and then spread through Facebook and Twitter. Liberal bloggers praised him for his succinct explanation. You can see the video cliphere.We decided to check Grayson's litany of claims about the economic plight of many Americans. (We previously checked a claim from Michael Moorethat gets at Grayson's other major point, that no one associated with the 2008 economic collapse was arrested or indicted. )We'll take the economic claims one by one.24 million people in this country can't find a full-time jobA similar claim -- More than 25 million Americans are unemployed -- was presented in an article in the protester-producedOccupied Wall Street Journal, which we examined in a fact-checkhere.Grayson was wise to distinguish between the number of people who are unemployed and those who can't find a full-time job.According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 14 million Americans were unemployed as of September 2011, which is how officials determine the unemployment rate. We pointed out in our fact-check that BLS methodology has been criticized for not expanding the definition of unemployment so that it includes people who have stopped looking for work or who are working part time, even though they would rather have a full-time job.An alternative measure called the U-6 paints that picture. As of September, an additional 2.5 million Americans were deemed marginally attached to the labor force, and another 9.3 million are working part time but would prefer a full-time job. That adds up to 25.8 million people.In our item, we pointed out theOccupy Wall Street Journalarticle described the expanded definition of unemployment, not the traditional one. Grayson's statement is a little low at 24 million but more precise in its definition.50 million people in this country can't see a doctor when they're sickAgain, this is close to what is cited by theOccupied Wall Street Journalarticle but is a little different. That story claimed more than 50 million live without health insurance, and we found that they were almost exactly right. A U.S. Census Bureau study called Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage: 2010,found that49.9 million Americans were uninsured in 2010. That's about 16 percent of the population.While Grayson's statement isn't exactly the same, his point seems clear enough to us.47 million people in this country need government help in order to feed themselvesGrayson is talking about what we know as food stamps, which has been called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program since 2008. The U.S. Department of Agriculture funds SNAP and the states administer it, sometimes by other names. The economic recession has forced more people into the program since 2008, and the numbers are climbing, according to thisannual summary.In fiscal year 2008, 28.2 million people received nearly $35 billion worth of benefits. The program served 33.4 million in FY 2009 and 40.3 million in FY 2010.Themost recent participation figure,for July 2011, is 45,344,946 people, with the most recent monthly allotment per household at $283.68. That enrollment figure isn't the program's highest number, but it's just 65,737 people short of the May 2011 record.We are dealing with historic participation, said Regan Hopper, USDA Food and Nutrition Service spokeswoman.Grayson's figure is pretty close.He probably wasn't accounting for other government food programs, such as the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children -- better known as WIC -- in his tally. But that USDA program provides low-income pregnant, post-partum and breastfeeding women, as well as infants and children up to age 5, with checks for certain kinds of food to supplement their diets.WIC served8.9 million in July 2011, said Regan Hopper, a USDA Food and Nutrition Service spokeswoman. Further, USDA funds school lunch and breakfast programs, which provide free and reduced-price meals to some schoolchildren, and provides food and money through its Emergency Food Assistance Program to states for distribution in food banks, soup kitchens and the like.15 million families owe more on their mortgage than the value of their homeThis housing phenomenon is also referred to as being underwater or upside down in mortgage payments. We asked a few companies that keep databases of mortgages and home loans, usually public records in counties, for the financial and property industries.Seattle-based Zillow.com puts the latest figure for these homes at 26.8 percent for the second quarter, which ended in June. That amounts to 15.3 million homes. It's down slightly from Zillow's first-quarter analysis, which put the number of underwater homes at 28.4 percent, or 16.2 million.We posed the same question to CoreLogic,a Sana Ana, Calif. firm.In a study released in September, CoreLogic reported that 22.5 percent of all homes with a mortgage were in negative equity in the same period. CoreLogic's number is roughly 5 million homes fewer than Zillow's, coming in at 10.9 million. The company found another 2.4 million borrowers at the brink of negative equity, or having less than 5 percent equity. You may have noticed some disparity with those estimates. Corelogic's data includes 48 million properties with a mortgage, accounting for more than 85 percent of all mortgages in the country. Zillow.com tries to provide an estimate for the country's total number of homes with outstanding mortgages, estimated by the U.S. Census bureau to be 50 million to 55 million. So part of the difference could lie in the 15 percent of homes CoreLogic does not cover. There are also estimation errors to consider, said Zillow.com chief economist Stan Humphries, particularly in guessing the value of homes and current outstanding loan balance. A difference of about 4 percent between the companies' estimates is not really significant, he said. We think this is a critically important metric in understanding the housing market, he said. The point remains that economists have never seen housing values fall so low. Housing data is scant for the Great Depression, but Humphries believes the ongoing crisis outranks that period. He says Depression-era down payments were higher in the 1930s, giving folks some cushion as the crisis set in. Our rulingGrayson's defense of the Occupy Wall Street movement earned him praise from the left-wing blosophere and pundits for its pith. No pundit or officialin the movement's first monthhad quite articulated the protesters' qualms -- high unemployment, expensive health care, poverty and underwater mortgage payments -- as Grayson did in 20 seconds on Maher's show.We examined each of his economic claims and found them accurate, point for point. We rate his claim True. In mid-November 2015, many Internet users became aware that Google returned an interesting search result to those who asked the search engine if farting burned calories: aware    Although Google may return the results shown above to such a query, the source the search engine cited for this information, a Facebook page called "F A C T," does not offer any evidence proving this claim. In fact, the only source provided by "F A C T" was Google itself: "Google is your friend if you think these facts are false." page The Facebook page "F A C T," however, didn't pull this number out of thin air. The claim that a single fart burns approximately 67 calories has been floating around the internet since at least 2009, when an Internet troll responded to a question on ChaCha thusly:  question How many calories does farting burn? The amount of calories burned by farting would depend on how long the fart lasts and how much energy you use to do it. Some people believe you can burn up to 67 calories by releasing gas. It should be noted that similar inquiries posed via ChaCha also prompted answers of less than one calorie, not very many calories, and no calories. less not very many no So how many calories do you burn during a single fart? Unsurprisingly, we weren't able to uncover much scientific research on the subject. But according to a post on the web site Fat Loss School, the number is much lower than 67: number Some people get a bit desperate when it comes to weight loss. They start wondering which of their daily activities burns enough calories to warrant increasing the frequency. We get questions about calorie consumption in a host of different scenarios. But perhaps the strangest question posed to date is: how many calories do you burn by farting? If you take a moment to think about this, the answer is rather obvious: none! When you fart, your muscles relax and the gas pressure in your bowels do all the work in expelling the gas. The only way you would achieve a measureable figure in the calories burned farting is if you really strained yourself to the limit. Virus:  FBI vs. Facebook virus lure. Status:  Real. Example:   [Collected via e-mail, July 2008]  Origins:  The "FBI vs. Facebook" mailings are new lures for an existing virus (rather than a new form of virus), but since they've garnered so much attention, we've created this separate entry for them. The mailings, which began in July 2008, typically arrive with a subject line of "F.B.I. vs. Facebook" and include the text "F.B.I. Facebook Records" with a link to what appears to be a news site.  However, clicking through on the link will initiate the download of an malicious executable (fbi_facebook.exe) onto recipients' PCs, while something like the screen shot shown above displays to trick users into believing they're merely visiting an innocuous news site. All of this camouflage is cover for propagation of the Storm worm, a virus which has been around for a few years and has been spread via many guises.  Because this particular incarnation invokes the name and symbol of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), that agency has issued a press release to warn the public about the misleading  messages: Storm press release FBI Warns of Storm Worm Virus The FBI and its partner, the Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3), have received reports of recent spam e-mails spreading the Storm Worm malicious software, known as malware. These e-mails, which contain the phrase "F.B.I. vs. facebook," direct e-mail recipients to click on a link to view an article about the FBI and  Facebook, a popular social networking website. The Storm Worm virus has also been spread in the past in e-mails advertising a holiday e-card link. Clicking on the link downloads malware onto the Internet connected device, causing it to become infected with the virus and part of the Storm Worm botnet.A botnet is a collection of compromised computers under the remote command and control of a criminal "botherder." Most owners of the compromised computers are unsuspecting victims. They have unintentionally allowed unauthorized access and use of their computers as a vehicle to facilitate other crimes, such as identity theft, denial of service attacks, phishing, click fraud, and the mass distribution of spam and spyware. Because of their widely distributed capabilities, botnets are a growing threat to national security, the national information infrastructure, and the economy. "The spammers spreading this virus are preying on Internet users and making their computers an unwitting part of criminal botnet activity. We urge citizens to help prevent the spread of botnets by becoming web-savvy. Following some simple computer security practices will reduce the risk that their computers will be compromised," said Special Agent Richard Kolko, Chief, FBI National Press Office. Everyone should consider the following:  Do not respond to unsolicited (spam) e-mail.  Be skeptical of individuals representing themselves as officials soliciting personal information via e-mail.  Do not click on links contained within an unsolicited e-mail.  Be cautious of e-mail claiming to contain pictures in attached files, as the files may contain viruses. Only open attachments from known senders.  Validate the legitimacy of the organization by directly accessing the organization's website rather than following an alleged link to the site.  Do not provide personal or financial information to anyone who solicits information.  Last updated:  6 August 2008    Sources:   Colker, David.  "Don't Open 'FBI vs. Facebook' E-Mail, Lest You Loose the Storm Worm."   Los Angeles Times.  3 August 2008.    Durkin, Mike.  "FBI vs Facebook Email Thread Has 'Storm Worm' Virus."    FOXNews.com.  30 July 2008. The holiday shopping season often spurs rumors that retailers use "disappearing ink" on receipts, making it difficult for consumers to use paid-for warranties or return unserviceable merchandise. Some rumors were more broad, involving anecdotal concerns about "disappearing ink" receipts, addressing retailers: I know you are in business to make money. I know that fraudulent returns cut into your profit margin, so you feel the need to tighten up your return policies. I am totally on board with that. BUT, could you please then stop using disappearing ink on your receipts? I just had my baby shower, and EVERY SINGLE gift receipt from your store was so faded, it was barely legible. Then, you tried to give me a hard time because your computers couldn't read the receipts, therefore making my duplicates off the registry unreturnable (but improper registry maintenance is a whole other issue.) To sum up. You require receipts? Then print legible receipts. Thank you. Others were more specific, claiming very clear timeframes30 to 45 daysand practices governed the legibility of receipt ink. Iterations of that sort asserted companies deliberately sought out to ensure that no receipts past a certain point could be used, presumably rendered void when the ink "disappeared" by design: PLEASE READ: Learned something new tonight...I guess you guys need to be made aware of (if you don't already know)...I was informed this evening after making a purchase with an extended warranty from Wal-Mart that I needed to go home and make a photo copy of the receipt and file with the warranty card. I curiously asked why and the lady told me that Wal-Mart now uses disappearing ink. My jaw dropped. So this means after 30 -45 days moving forward, you will no longer have a legible receipt from Wal-Mart for returns or warranty usage or credit card issues. Heads up guys ! This will be a problem for many ! I understand the reason they gave for this action, but it sure makes for a difficult life for the honest folks in this world.   Don't forget to take a picture of your receipts. Disappearing ink is one big snowjob, so be ready for the storm.... 30 days and presto-change o. Although the rumor was rife on Facebook, instances of it far antedated the social network. Forum posts as far back as 2003 referenced the phenomenon. 2003 However, many retailers's return policies stipulate that receipts are not the sole manner in which consumers can prove a purchase. Walmart maintains: maintains Walmart will accept a non-receipted return or exchange provided it meets the following conditions: The refund verification process accepts the return.The government issued ID must not be altered and is accepted by Walmart. To return or exchange items without a receipt, you are required to present a valid government issued photo ID. Information from the customer ID will be stored in a secured database of returns activity that Walmart uses to authorize returns. At Lowe's the policy reads, in part: the policy reads, in part In most instances, your receipt can be retrieved by using the original credit card, checking account number, MyLowe's card or by your phone number. For returns without a valid receipt, in-store credit may be issued for the items current selling price. Lost or stolen gift cards can only be replaced for the remaining balance by presenting the original receipt. Similarly, CVS notes "returns or exchanges are subject to a third-party verification process," suggesting physical paper receipts were not the sole manner in which proof of purchase was retained by the consumer or retailer. The web site CreditCards.com surveyed major retailers and reported that in addition to protections offered by issuers such as American Express and Mastercard, receipts were rarely the only recourse: notes surveyed Our survey of 12 large retailers policies regarding returning items without a receipt shows most allow it  within limits. Although a staunch no receipt, no return policy is rare, it does still happen, and there can be individual store quirks that make the return process difficult to predict. Store policies tend to be tiered, with full refunds reserved for those who meet the gold standard: They return the entire item, in its original packaging, quickly, with a receipt. The further you vary from the gold standard, the less you get back. Credit card holders may find that using their cards provides an added avenue to a refund, since some retailers will look up a credit card transaction and let you use that as proof of purchase for a return. As to how youll get your money back, its typical for stores to return it in the same way it was tendered. So if you used a credit card, expect to get the money back in the form of a credit on your cards statement. Retailers' policies stipulating for other verification measures undermined the implication receipt degradation was a deliberate action to discourage store returns. As for why receipts tended to fade (at least under certain conditions), papermaker Panda Paper Roll explained that the effect was a cost-saving measure for different reasons: explained Receipts are typically printed on thermal paper, a chemically coated paper that produces text and image when heat is applied to its surface. Since this kind of paper is susceptible to heat and UV light, extended exposure to these elements will ultimately cause gradual fading. If you are in the mood for experimenting, place a receipt that you dont need under a hot iron for about 10 seconds. The heat from the iron will change the color of paper to black. Oil and humidity are also factors to blame. Now if youre wondering why the use of thermal paper is so widespread despite this massive disadvantage, its because they are very low cost and the equipment used to print it is low maintenance, since it doesnt need ink or ribbon cartridges. That claim was echoed in a since-deleted 2014 WFLA story about "disappearing ink" receipts: story If you keep paper receipts, this could happen to you, too. That's because more retailers are using thermal paper. Heat and light fades the ink. Although it was clearly true that many receipts faded over time, the claim involving "disappearing ink" was a misnomer. Retailers' well-known reliance on thermal paper due to its cost efficient nature led to the generation of fragile receipts, particularly those exposed to heat or light. The phenomenon was real, but the cause was often misinterpreted by concerned consumers. Early iterations of the rumor also antedated the rise of online retail giants, e-receipts, smartphones with storage capabilities, and other technological advances that served effectively as a "receipt" for consumers. Behnken, Shannon.  "Sales Receipts Have Ink That Fades, Making Returns Harder."
  WFLA.  23 June 2014. Cabrera, Kristen.  "Major Retailers' 2016 Return And Receipt Policies."
  CreditCards.com.  22 December 2016. Walmart Help Center.  "No Receipt Returns In Stores Policy."
  Accessed 14 December 2017. Lowe's Service Desk.  "Returns and Refunds Policy."
  Accessed 14 December 2017. CVS.com.  "Returns Policy."
  Accessed 14 December 2017. Panda Paper Roll Company.  "Thermal Paper: Why It Fades And How To Restore It."
  Accessed 14 December 2017. In July 2017, the Seattle Times reported that two judges in King County (Washington) Superior Court had expressed concerns to county officials about the preponderance of crime around the courthouse located at Third Avenue and James Street in Seattle: reported Two King County Superior Court judges are asking for help cleaning up the courthouse at Third Avenue and James Street after they say two jurors and half a dozen employees have been assaulted. The nearby blocks host most of the citys homeless-shelter beds and many of its social-service outlets, which draw those who need help and the people who prey on them. Thats nothing new, [Judge Jim] Rogers said. But, for whatever reasons, things have gotten worse over the past few years and jurors and potential jurors report being afraid to go to the courthouse, the judges said. The judges said they have started hearing from jurors who want to do their civic jury duty at the countys superior courthouse in Kent because they dont want to come to the downtown courthouse. [Judge Laura] Inveen told the [Metropolitan King County Councils committee on government accountability and oversight] about two incidents, one in late May and one in June, in which jurors were attacked in separate incidents outside the courthouses Third Avenue entrance. On other occasions, Inveen said, employees have been spat upon, slammed against a wall or punched. Although cleaning and patrolling the area immediately surrounding the courthouse would not address some of the deep-seated issues faced by denizens of the space, it would send a signal that somebody was paying attention, she said. She and Rogers asked the county to take immediate steps to clean up the courthouse with a daily power-wash of the surrounding sidewalks, which reek of urine and excrement. They also asked that the county empty trash cans more frequently, remove bus-stop benches, remove tents from the adjoining park and increase the presence of law enforcement  not just to arrest people but to deter crime. Another suggestion was closing the Third Avenue entrance and reopening the one on Fourth. Although the Times article emphasized the need for reducing crime (and the fear of crime) around the courthouse as the primary problem, of which cleaning up human waste was just one element, many right-leaning websites focused on the sanitation aspect  and one county councilmember's comments in particular. In the middle of the story, the Times quoted Councilmember Larry Gossett as saying that "he didnt like the idea of power-washing the sidewalks because it brought back images of the use of hoses against civil-rights activists." That single line was plucked from its context and used as fodder for articles bearing headlines such as "Seattle Councilman: Cleaning Poop Off Sidewalks Is Racist" (The Daily Caller) and "Seattle Councilman Criticizes Plan to Hose Excrement Off Sidewalks Because It's Racially Insensitive" (The Blaze). And Turning Point USA reduced the whole issue to a single meme asserting that "the city of Seattle leaves poop on their sidewalks because hosing it off is 'racially insensitive': Larry Gossett The Daily Caller  Of course, none of those right-leaning sources made clear that Gossett didn't actually use either the term "racist" or "racially insensitive," nor did any of them report  as more moderate news outlets did  the full context of Gossett's remarks, which was that he felt merely cleaning up waste would essentially be treating a symptom rather than addressing the larger underlying problem. Tacoma radio station KNKX, for example, observed that: observed There is, however, some push back to some of the clean up proposals. King County Councilman Larry Gossett says hes worried that power washing and increased security will affect the vulnerable population on the street. Most of the emphasis seems to be on safety for the jurors and courthouse staff and not enough attention being put to underlying problems that give rise to some of the disruptive activities of the lumpen proletariat out on the street, Gossett said. Likewise, the Seattle Times also included that missing context: Some committee members expressed concern about addressing the symptoms of the areas problems without getting to the cause. Councilmember Larry Gossett said he didnt like the idea of power-washing the sidewalks because it brought back images of the use of hoses against civil-rights activists. The Turning Point USA meme was particularly factually egregious in that it fostered the mistaken impression that the issue of sidewalk-cleaning applied to the entirety of Seattle, when in fact the discussion was about the area around a single courthouse. And the meme also wrongly asserted that "Seattle leaves poop on its sidewalks," even though contemporaneous reporting made it clear that wasn't true, with the Seattle Times noting that "the countys administrative officer, Caroline Whalen, and the facilities manager assured committee members that a stepped-up schedule of power washing and garbage cleanup [around the courthouse] would begin immediately." The coup de grce was that the photograph used to illustrate The Blaze's article and Turning Point USA's meme did not picture a scene in Seattle, or Washington state, or anywhere else in the U.S., but rather ... Moscow: photograph  Wissel, Paula.  "King County Looks to Improve Safety for Jurors, Other Courthouse Visitors."
  KNKX.  11 July 2017. Randall, Amber.  "Seattle Councilman: Cleaning Poop Off Sidewalks Is Racist."
  The Daily Caller.  12 July 2017. Clarridge, Christine.  "Judges Complain Its Unsafe, Unsanitary Outside King County Courthouse in Seattle."
  The Seattle Times.  11 July 2017. Gonzales, Sara.  "Seattle Councilman Criticizes Plan to Hose Excrement Off Sidewalks Because It's Racially Insensitive."
  The Blaze.  13 July 2017. An image purportedly reproducing a CNN graphic comparing Presidents Trump and Obama "by the numbers" -- with the former seemingly recording a significantly higher job approval rating than his predecessor -- received a viral push on 8 August 2018, when Donald Trump, Jr. shared it with his 1.2 million followers on Instagram:   However, the image was a doctored version of a graphic that was originally used during a CNN fact-checking segment regarding a tweet posted by President Trump about his approval numbers: Presidential Approval numbers are very good - strong economy, military and just about everything else. Better numbers than Obama at this point, by far. We are winning on just about every front and for that reason there will not be a Blue Wave, but there might be a Red Wave!  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 5, 2018 August 5, 2018  CNN's John King fact checked this tweet by comparing Presidents Obama and Trump "by the numbers" from around the same point of times in their presidencies. The image posted by Trump Jr. showed his father with a 50% job approval rating, but the genuine graphic aired by CNN showed President Trump's approval rating at only 40%. Here's the original segment from CNN:  A side-by-side comparison clearly shows how a "50%" was digitally edited (quite poorly) in place of the "40%" number in the original graphic:   The job approval statistics used by CNN for this graphic were taken from Gallup. According to that polling company, which samples presidential approval ratings every week, President Trump had never held a 50% approval writing up to the point of the CNN segment. Gallup. Donald Trump, Jr. later removed the doctored image from his Instagram page. An expanded version of the chart began making the rounds in September 2018 in the form of a meme shared by Turning Point USA, a conservative group whose stated mission is "to identify, educate, train, and organize students to promote the principles of freedom, free markets, and limited government." shared stated Apart from repeating the inaccurate "50 percent" approval rating for Trump and substituting year-to-date federal deficit figures with first-year-in-office totals for both Trump and Obama, the Turning Point USA chart faithfully copies the information provided in the August CNN segment.   As CNN correspondent John King pointed out in that segment, the numbers reflect favorably on Trump. In terms of comparing Trump to Obama, however, the meme omits important contextual information. First, the figures cited were snapshots of a particular point in each president's administration. They didn't reflect longer-term fluctuations and trends. Second, unlike Trump, Obama entered office in the midst of a devastating economic collapse. Trump inherited an economy that was already strong and growing. It's meaningless to compare the two without taking these factors into account. Unemployment rate: As stated in the meme, the unemployment rate in July 2018 was 3.9 percent, as compared to 9.4 percent at the same point in Obama's first term in office (July 2010). But that number fell during 2011 as the economy began to recover, and, apart from minor fluctuations, fell steadily every year thereafter. By December 2016 (Obama's last full month in office) the unemployment rate was down to 4.7 percent and still falling, as illustrated in this U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics graph: rate   Jobs added: According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, total non-farm employment in the U.S. grew from 145.7 million in January 2017 to almost 149 million in June 2018 -- an increase of approximately 3.2 million jobs. The same source reported that by the exact same point in Obama's first term, the economy had lost some 3.5 million jobs since January 2009 (.6 million more than was claimed by CNN and the Turning Point USA meme). But, again, the recession was underway, and the economy had already shed nearly 3.6 million jobs during the 12 months before Obama took office. The employment rate began to improve in 2011 and did so steadily throughout the rest of Obama's two terms: employment   First year deficit: The Congressional Budget Office reported in March 2018 that the federal deficit stood at $665 billion (equivalent to 3.5 percent of the Gross Domestic Product) at the end of 2017, Trump's first year in office. At the end of Obama's first year, 2009, the deficit was $1.4 trillion (9.9 percent of GDP, the highest deficit as a share of GDP since 1945). It was mostly attributable to spending on the stimulus package meant to rescue the U.S. economy from the recession. Deficit spending didn't remain that high throughout Obama's tenure, however. In fact, the deficit during each of the last three years of his term of office ($485 billion in 2014, $438 billion in 2015, and $585 in 2016) was lower than the 2017 deficit, as well as the projected $833 billion deficit for 2018. reported $1.4 trillion deficit GDP growth: The growth rate of the Gross Domestic Product reflects the health of the economy in terms of the value of all goods and services produced in a given time period. As of the end of the second quarter of 2018, the rate of GDP growth was 4.2 percent (revised upward from 4.1 percent), as compared to a rate of 1.6 percent in the second quarter of 2010, Obama's second year in office. The quarterly GDP growth rate can be volatile, however. It reached or surpassed the 4 percent mark on four separate occasions during the Obama administration, including hitting a high point of 5.2 percent in the third quarter of 2014: 1.6 percent source: tradingeconomics.com tradingeconomics.com Changes in economic indicators are a valid way of evaluating the effectiveness of presidents and their policies, but, as in the examples above, when they are taken out of context and oversimplified they can be more misleading than enlightening. Amadeo, Kimberly.  "U.S. GDP by Year Compared to Recessions and Events: The Strange Ups and Downs of the U.S. Economy Since 1929."
 The Balance.  2 August 2018. Gstalter, Morgan.  "Trump Jr. Falsely Claims That GDP Growth Never Passed 2 Percent Under Obama."
 27 July 2018. Nance-Nash, Sheryl.  "Revision of Second Quarter GDP Shows Slowing Economy."
 ABC News.  27 August 2010. Selk, Avi.  "Trumps Approval Hits 50 Percent  In a Doctored Poll Graphic Shared by His Son."
  The Washington Post.  10 August 2018. Congressional Budget Office.  "The Federal Budget in 2017: An Infographic."
 5 March 2018. Congressional Budget Office.  "Federal Budget Deficit Totals $1.4 Trillion in Fiscal Year 2009."
 6 November 2009. CNN.  "MAGIC WALL: Trump vs. Obama, By the Numbers."
  6 August 2018. NPR.  "GDP Is Up 4.1 Percent: What That Means."
 27 July 2018. Trading Economics.  "United States GDP Growth Rate - 1947-2018."
 Accessed 17 September 2018. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.  "Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey."
 Accessed 17 September 2018. U.S. Department of Treasury.  "Monthly Treasury Statement of Receipts and Outlays of the United States Government."
 12 July 2018. Update [17 September 2018]: Added analysis of expanded Facebook meme circulating on September 2018.