Are Biden and Dems Planning to 'Spy' on Bank and Cash App Accounts?
Various social media posts circulating in late December 2021 claimed that thanks to coronavirus stimulus legislation known as the American Rescue Plan, U.S. President Joe Biden's administration and Democratic legislators would begin "spying" or "snooping" on users of cash apps like PayPal and Venmo. Here is an example of one such post: example   The truth is, unsurprisingly, more nuanced, but the bottom line is that, contrary to what the above Twitter posts state, the effect of the legislation in question isn't that the Biden administration or Democrats will be "tapping into" or "spying on" bank or cash app accounts. This is a misleading characterization. What the legislation does is significantly lower the threshold for reporting taxable transactions made using cash apps like Venmo, PayPal, or Zelle for goods and services to the IRS. And when you reach that threshold, the app companies will then be required to send a tax form called a 1099-K to both you and the IRS. A 1099-K is, according to PayPal, an "informational tax form that is used to report goods and services payments received by a business or individual in the calendar year." PayPal As of this writing, the current threshold for such reporting is $20,000 and 200 payments in goods and services. Come Jan. 1, 2022, that reporting threshold will drop down to $600. threshold This could have a significant impact on platform users' tax returns. Here's how Bloomberg Tax described how users might experience the change: Bloomberg Tax For example, a model train collector may have paid $5,000 for model train pieces over several years that they now sell for $8,000, and the marketplace that introduced the seller to the buyer and through which the sale took place may charge the seller a total fee of $800. It may cost the model train seller $200 in postage to send the pieces to its buyers. The Form 1099-K that the seller will receive from the TPSO will report $8,000 in gross proceeds paid. However, the sellers taxable gain from that sale would only be $2,000. As a result, collectors and other online sellers will need to keep extensive records of their expenses going forward to avoid over-reporting of income and overpayment of tax. Also, consider the alternativea teenager who walks dogs to earn extra money. If their income in 2022 exceeds $600, their expenses may be limited to the fees charged by the website that connects them to pet owners, but they will owe income taxand possibly self-employment taxon the income they earn. According to PayPal, which owns Venmo, the change doesn't affect people who use the apps for personal transactions, like paying a friend back for your share of dinner, gifts, or chipping in for trips. PayPal also states that its app allows users to categorize their own transactions as personal versus rendering payment for "goods and services." PayPal Business Users on Cash Apps Will Begin Receiving Tax Forms. Heres What You Need to Know. WJHL | Tri-Cities News & Weather, 14 Oct. 2021, https://www.wjhl.com/news/business-users-on-cash-apps-to-begin-receiving-tax-forms-what-you-need-to-know/. Pflieger, Deborah. "New Form 1099 Reporting Coming in 2022," Bloomberg Tax, 15 Dec. 2021, https://news.bloombergtax.com/tax-insights-and-commentary/new-form-1099-reporting-coming-in-2022. New U.S. Tax Reporting Requirements: Your Questions Answered. PayPal Newsroom, 4 Nov. 2021, https://newsroom.paypal-corp.com/2021-11-04-New-US-Tax-Reporting-Requirements-Your-Questions-Answered. "PayPal and Venmo Taxes: What You Need to Know About P2P Platforms." TurboTax, 27 Nov. 2021, https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tips/self-employment-taxes/paypal-and-venmo-taxes-what-you-need-to-know-about-p2p-platforms/L5DNjOUM1.
In the wake of public criticism of the Trump administration's response to the devastation wrought by Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico in late 2017 as "inadequate" (among other things), a post widely shared via social media endeavored to make the opposite case, namely that President Trump deployed a massive amount of government assets to address the disaster:   President Trump has dispatched 140 helicopters, 28 ships, 6 Army field hospitals, 3 Navy Seabee Battalions, 5 US Army Combat Engineer Battalions, 3 Civil Affairs battalions, 2 Nuclear Submarines capable of generating 2.8 Gigawatts of Power, released 300,000 tons of food, medical supplies and water from Military stocks. We were unable to trace the figures to any official source, nor do we know who compiled them. We can say, however, based on actual facts and figures shared by FEMA and the Department of Defense (DoD), that the stated numbers range from inflated to downright fictional.  140 Helicopters Mixture. Based on United States Department of Defense statements, dozens of helicopters have been deployed to Puerto Rico, though the actual number is far less than 140. On 27 September (the same day the meme began circulating), DoD announced an "acceleration" of Puerto Rico relief efforts including the deployment of the amphibious assault ship USS Wasp, whose complement of rotary-wing aircraft would bring the total number of helicopters in use there to 52.  announced 28 Ships Mixture. By our count, using figures released by the DoD and U.S. Coast Guard, the total number of U.S. Navy and Coast Guard ships deployed to Puerto Rico is 18 (though an unknown number of non-military ships are also in use). Counting the USNS Comfort, a 1,000 bed hospital ship scheduled to dock in the disaster zone on 4 October, the arrival of the USS Wasp will bring the total number of U.S. Navy ships deployed to five (including the USS Kearsage and USS Oak Hill, both conducting search and rescue flights, aerial damage assessments, logistics support and route clearance on and around the island, and the SS Wright, tasked with delivering 1.1 million meals and one million liters of water). According to the U.S. Coast Guard, 13 of its cutters have been performing search and rescue missions and delivering supplies. An unspecified number of commercial ships are also participating in the aid effort. arrival 6 Army Field Hospitals false. We've found no evidence, either in press reports or statements from DoD or FEMA, that Army field hospitals are in use in Puerto Rico, though that doesn't mean no medical help is being supplied. Emergency medical services are being provided not by Army field hospitals, but by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) personnel assigned to support the efforts of doctors at fully or partially functional hospitals around Puerto Rico, as well as five "federal medical stations" set up near those facilities.  assigned 3 Navy Seabee Battalions, 5 US Army Combat Engineer Battalions, 3 Civil Affairs battalions true. According to press reports there are Seabees and members of the Army Corps of Engineers now on the ground in Puerto Rico, but we've seen no announcements supporting the numbers specified above. Although DoD officials have not released a breakdown of the various military forces thus far deployed to Puerto Rico, Gov. Ricardo Rossello said there were roughly 7,200 U.S. military personnel on the ground as of 2 October, according to a DoD press release, in addition to an estimated 3,000 non-military federal employees, for a total of more than 10,000 government workers involved in relief efforts. release 2 Nuclear Submarines False. It is not the case that two nuclear submarines were sent to provide emergency electricity to Puerto Ricans. A reported 95 percent of the island's 3.4 million inhabitants were still without power as of 2 October, according to local officials. FEMA reported distributing and setting up more than 300 emergency generators since the disaster, but most of that effort was devoted to restoring power to hospitals and other critical facilities. Using nuclear submarines to supply emergency power in disaster areas has been proposed, but never tried. In 1982, the USS Indianapolis was deployed to Kauai, Hawaii in the aftermath of Hurricane Iwa, a solution both Navy and civilian officials said would have been technically feasible, though the plan was ultimately abandoned in favor of using a portable generator to "jump start" the island's main power plant. No such "nuclear option" has been proposed in the case of Puerto Rico. deployed 300,000 Tons of Food, Medical supplies and Water true. We have not found the above (or any) overall total tonnage stated in any official sources, but vast amounts of food and supplies have either arrived or are on their way to Puerto Rico. According to FEMA, more than two million meals and 2.5 million litres of water have reached the island and been distributed, plus medical equipment, generators, gasoline, and other supplies, with more coming. FEMA For more information, see FEMA's daily-updated overview of federal government efforts on behalf of the citizens of Puerto Rico. overview Davis, Aaron, Lamothe, Dan and O'Keefe, Ed.  "U.S. Response in Puerto Rico Pales Next to Actions After Haiti Quake."
The Washington Post. 28 September 2017. Dickstein, Corey. "Pentagon Adding USS Wasp to Puerto Rico Response, USNS Comfort Departs for Island."
Stars and Stripes. 29 September 2017. Garamone, Jim. "Unified Coordination Group Addressing Puerto Rico Recovery, Governor Says."
U.S. Dept. of Defense. 2 October 2017. Hernandez, Arelis R., Lamothe, Dan, O'Keefe, Ed and Achenbach, Joel. "Trump Administration Rushes Military Assets to Puerto Rico Amid Growing Crisis."
The Washington Post. 27 September 2017. Starr, Barbara, Cohen, Zachary and Browne, Ryan. "U.S. Military Sends Ships, Aircraft to Puerto Rico."
CNN. 26 September 2017. Werner, Ben. "Pentagon: Hospital Ship USNS Comfort Prepares to Depart for Puerto Rico."
USNI News. 26 September 2017. FEMA. "Overview of Federal Efforts to Prepare for and Respond to Hurricane Maria."
2 October 2017. Reuters. "Factbox: Relief Efforts in Puerto Rico After Hurricane Maria."
29 September 2017. UPI. "Navy Seeks to Return Power to Stricken Hawaii Island."
29 November 1982. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services. "HHS Augments Medical Care at Hospitals in Puerto Rico Impacted by Hurricane Maria."
30 September 2017. Former President Bill Clinton raised a hot-button issue while stumping for his wife in Los Angeles this week: Americas mounting student loan debt. Student debt in the United States has reached $1.3 trillion, which trails only the amount Americans owe on their mortgages. Its often blamed for preventing young people from buying houses and cars, which fuels the countrys economy. Undergraduates in the class of 2015 finished school with anaverage of $35,000in student loan debt, the most in history, according to Edvisors.com, a financial aid website. If elected president in November, Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton would remove a unique barrier related to college loans, the former president claimed. A college loan is the only loan in the United States that you cannot refinance when interest rates go down, Bill Clinton said, speaking at a recent campaign rally at Los Angeles Trade-Technical College. We wondered: Is refinancing really off-limits for all college loans? With student loan debt such a big issue this election year, we decided to check the facts. Past efforts at change Both Hillary Clinton and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, her rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, have pledged to allow student loans to be refinanced. But they werent the first to call for this change. In June 2014, Senate Republicans rejectedlegislationby Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., that would have let student borrowers refinance their federal loan debt. Homeowners are refinancing. Small businesses are refinancing. We just want young people who got an education to have their shot, Warren was quoted as saying in aWashington Post news articleat the time. Republicans said they were not convinced the legislation would have resulted in lower borrowing costs, and labeled it an election stunt. The bill would have let people with federal and private loans issued prior to 2010 refinance at 3.86 percent, the article said. It added that the Obama administration estimated that the bill could have helped 25 million borrowers save $2,000 each over the lifetime of their loans, or $50 billion. Former President Bill Clinton speaks during a campaign stop for his wife, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, Tuesday, Feb. 16, 2016, at the West End Community Development Center in Greenville, S.C. (AP Photo/Paul Sancya) Our research As theyve campaigned across the country, Hillary Clinton and Sen. Sanders have each pledged to allow for refinancing of college loan debt. What they, and apparently Bill Clinton, are talking about is refinancing federally backed student loans, which account forabout 90 percentof all student borrowing. We turned to the nonprofit college planning group American Student Assistance for some advice. They and other groups say federal student loans can be refinanced into private loans. But doing so can remove federal protections such as fixed interest rates and the ability to pause repayments. Also, private student loans can be refinanced into new lower-interest private loans. But theres no provision in federal law allowing the refinancing of a federal loan to another, lower-interest federal loan. There is no federal refinancing. Congress sets the interest rate for federal student loans, and most of these rates are fixed by law, no matter how solid your credit or income becomes post-graduation, American Student Assistanceadvisespotential borrowers. PolitiFact Texasexamined a similar claimin 2014 and rated it Mostly True. They spoke withHeather Jarvis, a North Carolina attorney specializing in student loan law, who told them some graduates may be able to refinance student loans at lower rates through private lenders. But, she said, this would only happen in cases in which borrowers have substantial income. Jarvis added that refinancing federal loans with a private loan is risky. The borrower gives up important protections that accompany federal loans (like flexible repayment and discharge provisions). Students repaying federally backed loans, Jarvis said, are effectively barred from refinancing opportunities because federal law makes no provision for the government to make such offers. Asked about the former presidents statement, Bill Clintons press secretary said in an email its very safe to say that the vast majority of students with debt have federaldebt. She pointed tostatistics from the College Boardshowing federal loans account for about 90 percent of student borrowing. She said a small percentage of borrowers can refinance a federal student loan by making it a private loan. Our ruling Former President Bill Clinton said at a recent campaign rally in Los Angeles: A college loan is the only loan in the United States that you cannot refinance when interest rates go down. Borrowers of federally backed student loans, which account for about 90 percent of student loans, cannot refinance those into lower-interest federal loans. Congress sets the interest rate on these loans, and theres no provision in federal law that allows for them to be refinanced. Depending on factors such as income, some borrowers can refinance their federal loans into lower-interest private loans, though they risk losing their federal loan protections. Clinton most likely was referring only to federally backed loans when he made his statement, but a clarification about private loans would have helped. We rated his claim Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. On 3 March 2017, the web site USPOLN published an article which contained several quotes ostensibly uttered by Senator Paul Ryan, including one statement in which he supposedly asserted about birth control that "If there was a legitimate way to have intercourse and not get pregnant, God would have included it in His holy books":  article   This article was framed as presenting portions of a discussion between Ryan and CNN host Jake Tapper, and the introductory paragraph replicated a legitimate exchange between Ryan and Tapper about health care reform and birth control that took place on 13 November 2016: legitimate House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) refused to say if some women would lose access to birth control benefits after Republicans repeal President Barack Obamas health care reform law. The Wisconsin Republican promised during an interview on CNN that the repeal of Obamacare would lower the costs of health care by providing vouchers to poor Americans. CNN host Jake Tapper noted that many women were paying nothing for birth control thanks to an Affordable Care Act mandate. Is that going to end? he wondered. Look, Im not going to get into all the nitty-gritty details of these things, Ryan replied curly. The remainder of the article, however, was completely fabricated. For instance, Paul Ryan never said this: Im not a preacher, nor am I a holy man, but the fact to the matter is that Obamacare is bad for our economy, its bad for Americans, both poor ones and ones who arent, overall, its a bad program and a bad piece of legislation and thats why its gotta go, Ryan argued stubbornly, all the while ignoring the question. And if our biology allowed for a safe way to have intercourse, if we were meant to have intercourse completely naturally and not get pregnant because of it, then God would have included something about it in one of his Holy Books. Now, I havent found anything on the subject  and not for lack of looking, Jake  have you, perhaps?  Or this: Now, how would you feel, Jake, if someone were to take a huge chunk of your hard-earned money and use it to give something to someone youve never met? Ryan asked the host. And the worst part is  nobody asked Americans whether or not they agree to their taxes being raised to help people they dont know, that very fact goes against the essence of capitalism. Its not effective and its not efficient, which makes it the wrong solution from the start. Thats why it needs to be repealed. The other part of the reason why women shouldnt be allowed to use birth control at all is the fact that, in doing so, theyre committing murder and that goes against everything this country stands for. Ryan didn't say any of this during his CNN interview with Jake Tapper on 13 November 2016, or at any other time and place. USPOLN bills itself as a "hybrid" site that publishes a mixture of "satire" and real news, but unlike other hybrid sites such as Newslo, which allow users to click a button revealing which portions of articles are true and which are not, USPOLN provides readers with no mechanism for distinguishing between fact and fabrication. If they did, the introductory paragraph would have been highlighted as "true" while the remainder of the article would have been marked as "satire." hybrid Newslo The actual interview between Tapper and Ryan can be viewed below:  Edwards, David.  "Paul Ryan: Access to Birth Control for Women Is Nitty-Gritty Detail Not Worth Talking About."
  Raw Story.  16 November 2016. USPOLN.  "Paul Ryan: 'If There Was A Legitimate Way To Have Intercourse And Not Get Pregnant, God Would Have Included It In His Holy Books.'"
  3 March 2017. As thousands of protesters continued to gather in Cannon Ball, North Dakota, in September 2016 to protest the construction of the Dakota Access oil pipeline, social media users widely circulated a photograph purportedly showing a young protester staring down a police officer garbed in full riot gear:  North Dakota. The United States of America. 2016. You need to know what is happening. The tribes are not speaking up for only themselves, but for all people who rely on clean water to live. You do drink water, don't you? This little girl is standing up for you. Although this photograph is real, it was not taken in North Dakota nor does it have anything to do with protests over the Dakota Access Pipeline. This image originated with the Reuters news service and captured a moment from a September 2016 political demonstration in Chile: Reuters A demonstrator looks at a riot policeman during a protest marking the country's 1973 military coup in Santiago, Chile  September 12, 2016 01:00pm EDT Facebook user "Bc EchoHawk," who originally shared the above-displayed photograph along with the claim that it was taken in North Dakota, later updated his Facebook post with correct information about the photograph's origins: CORRECTION: This photo does not come from the Sacred Stone Camp, as I believed, knowing the ND Governor had sent National Guard troops to the area. It was taken from a protest earlier this week in Chile. So, while this young girl is not in ND, there ARE children there who clearly understand what is happening, and continue to fight for clean water and treaty rights with their families. I stand firmly behind my original words, and if inadvertently using an inaccurate photo allowed those words to be seen and shared by over 50K people, then more power to FB. Why doesn't anybody share my cat memes like this? While "Bc EchoHawk" admitted the mistake, this photograph is still being widely shared with along with the incorrect claim that it was taken in North Dakota and not Chile. North Dakota "The Price Is Right" is not ending, nor did its host, Drew Carey, endorse keto diet pills, despite what some readers might have seen online in a fake article that was designed to mimic the Us Weekly website. The Price Is Right Drew Carey keto Us Weekly On May 9, 2022, we looked at a paid advertisement from the Blossom Words Facebook page that showed a picture of Carey with a sad expression on his face. The ad read, "What you didn't know about the 'Price Is Right' host. Will the show stay on air?" It appeared to hint that the long-running game show would be ending. However, this was nothing but misleading clickbait to try to sell a keto diet pill product named Lifestyle Keto. Facebook Carey Price Is Right  The ad appeared to vaguely hint that something was revealed about Carey that he was sad about. We previously saw this same clickbait tactic used with "Jeopardy" host Mayim Bialik. In that instance, an ad falsely claimed that there were "allegations" against Bialik. The ad led to a fake CBD gummies endorsement page that mentioned nothing of any "allegations" against the TV star, because there were none. Carey Jeopardy Mayim Bialik CBD After clicking the ad with Carey's sad facial expression, we were led to a scammy website (entertainmentnewsnow.net) that published a fake Us Weekly article. It appeared that scammers had copied the design from the official Us Weekly website and recreated it to push their scam, all seemingly without the authorization of the magazine's parent company, A360 Media, LLC. A360 Media, LLC  The article included a fake interview between Carey and Ellen DeGeneres in which he purportedly endorsed a product named Lifestyle Keto. The interview supposedly happened on "The Ellen DeGeneres Show." At one point during the fake interview, DeGeneres supposedly asked, "Lifestyle Keto? You mean Lifestyle Ketosis? I think I saw something on Dr. Oz about it." We found no record of this interview or any mention of Lifestyle Keto on Dr. Mehmet Oz's show, because it was completely made up by the person or people who designed the website. Ellen DeGeneres Dr. Mehmet Oz The fake interview in the fake Us Weekly article had the following headline: "After Drew Careys Shocking Health News- Millions Of Americans Are Melting Body Fat & Getting Ripped Thanks To His Intermittent Keto Routine!" It began like this: The Price Is Right's Drew Carey has recently opened up about his recent body transformation after having battled with weight problems for most of his life. Drew was recently announced as one of Time's 100 Most Influential People, and is a loving father. Carey said that for his entire comedy career, he had tried everything. He tried a lot of classes, he tried his own healthy recipes, but nothing worked like Lifestyle Keto did. Like millions of parents across North America, the TV star seems to swear by Keto Prime, but he has said it was hard to find something that worked and he trusted - it took him years to find this keto solution. In 2022, Drew Carey told US Weekly Magazine that he had tried almost every fitness style, class, and supplement out there, but was yet to figure out what works for him. The Price Is Right "I tried spinning, I tried running, I tried Pilates. I realized I don't like running ... I refuse to do it," Drew Carey told the publication. Eventually, he said he fell in love with Lifestyle Keto. This whole article was both misleading and false. Again, we found no record that Carey had ever endorsed Lifestyle Keto or any other keto diet pills. To cover all of the bases for any future claims, we also found no evidence that he endorsed any CBD gummies or oil products. We previously saw Us Weekly's website design being used in other keto diet pill scams, all seemingly without the publisher's authorization. In 2018, we debunked a claim to the effect that singer Kelly Clarkson had been fired from the reality TV series "The Voice" and that she later endorsed keto diet pills. debunked Kelly Clarkson In 2021, another fake article that mimicked the Us Weekly website design claimed that the cast of the "Shark Tank" reality TV series had endorsed a product named Keto Burn. All of this was false. claimed Shark Tank In 2010, People.com published an article about the real way that Carey said he lost 80 pounds. Keto diet pills didn't appear in the story: article So how'd he do it? No carbs, Carey says. I have cheated a couple times, but basically no carbs, not even a cracker. No bread at all. No pizza, nothing. No corn, no beans, no starches of any kind. Egg whites in the morning or like, Greek yogurt, cut some fruit. He snacks on fruit, and for dinner he ll have grilled chicken and steamed vegetables and water. I dont drink anything but water, he says. No coffee, no tea, no soda. In sum, no, "The Price Is Right" is not ending or going off the air, nor did Carey ever endorse Lifestyle Keto or any other keto diet pill products. All of this was false. The Price Is Right Source: Hammel, Sara. Drew Carey: How I Lost 80 Lbs. People.com, 29 July 2010, https://people.com/health/drew-carey-how-i-lost-80-lbs/. For all the discussion of immigration, foreign policy and social issues in the 2016 campaign, one issue always returns to the fore eventually: jobs. Republican candidate John Kasich emphasizes his record on jobs as Ohio governor in a new ad. Theadbegins with grainy footage of what seems to be an unemployment line. The narrators first words are, Twenty million Americans are out of work, and this assertion is bolstered by being repeated in on-screen text:  This figure sounded high to us, since the official number of unemployed Americans during the most recent month, February, tops out at about 7.8 million. So we asked the Kasich campaign for their evidence, and they proceeded to cite a source that caught us off-guard: Us. Specifically, they pointed to ourfact-check from Augustin which we analyzed a statement by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. Trump said that we have 93 million people out of work. They look for jobs, they give up, and all of a sudden, statistically, they're considered employed. We rated this claimFalse, largely because the 93 million number included lots of people who would not be expected to want or be able to work, including full-time students, senior citizens, the disabled, and those who have chosen to take care of their children full-time. However, in the process, we conducted a mathematical experiment in which we played with possible numbers of Americans who are out of work that fit somewhere between the official unemployment rate (on the low end) and Trumps number (on the high end). HELP US RAISE $15,000 TO HIRE AN EXTRA FACT-CHECKER Heres what we wrote, using the statistics that were current at the time: The official number of unemployed Americans is 8.3 million -- less than one-tenth of what Trump says. But to give Trump the benefit of the doubt, its possible to expand this number using more credible economic thinking. Gary Burtless, an economist at the Brookings Institution, says its not unreasonable to include:  The 6.4 million people who havent looked for work recently enough to qualify as being in the labor force, but who say they currently want a job. And the 6.5 million people working part-time who would prefer to have a full-time job. This would mean that upwards of 21 million Americans could be described with some justification as out of work involuntarily, either fully or partially. But thats not even one-quarter of the number that Trump offered. Rob Nichols, a spokesman for Kasich, said the campaign simply updated our math with more recent data in preparing the television ad. The numbers for January 2016, Nichols said, were:  Unemployed: 7.8 million  People who havent looked for work recently enough to qualify as being in the labor force, but who say they currently want a job: 6.2 million  People working part-time who would prefer to have a full-time job: 6 million. That works out to 20 million on the nose. We salute the Kasich campaigns efforts to fact-check-proof their assertion. Still, we should note that we didnt intend our calculation to be the final word on how to determine the number of out of work Americans. Rather, we were trying to provide a benchmark for showing just how wrong Trumps number was. Well note that our wording was that the 21 million figure had some justification  not exactly a clarion call for the Bureau of Labor Statistics to change its longstanding protocol. In subsequent fact-checks, though not the one the Kasich campaign referred to, we have added language that is clearer about our intentions. We did that, for instance, in ourFeb. 11, 2016, fact-checkof a different statement by Trump: Don't believe those phony numbers when you hear 4.9 and 5 percent unemployment. The number's probably 28, 29, as high as 35 (percent). In fact, I even heard recently 42 percent. In that fact-check, which produced a rating ofPants on Fire, we prefaced a similar alternative calculation this way: We are deliberately stretching the numbers here as an intellectual exercise; we are not saying that 15.6 percent is a more accurate unemployment rate than the official one of 4.9 percent. But enough from us. What do the two economists we checked with for the original fact-check think about Kasichs use of the 20 million figure? Given that the image looks like a guy in an unemployment line, I'd say it's a misleading figure, said Tara Sinclair, an economist with George Washington University and the jobs website Indeed.com. Many people have good reasons for not wanting to work now, she said, and that is something distinct from actually being out of work. Burtless agreed, saying, The 5.988 million people working part-time who would prefer to have a full-time job are not out of work. They are employed, but on a work schedule that does not provide them with the weekly hours they desire. At the same time, Burtless said there is still some value in the number cited in Kasichs advertisement. Gov. Kasich has given an upper-bound estimate of the total number of Americans who are unemployed or underemployed, Burtless said. Its just not theonlyestimate. Our ruling Kasichs ad said that 20 million Americans are out of work. The Kasich campaign shrewdly cites a past PolitiFact item as evidence for this larger-than-usual estimate of Americas out of work population. But its worth noting that the calculation we did was not intended to determine the actual number of out-of-work Americans, but rather to suggest the highest figure with any sort of credibility as a way of seeing how far out of line Trumps assertion was. The statement is partially accurate but takes things out of context, so we rate it Half True. Imagine America as a sweaty, scruffy, cigarette-smoking dude -- with a drug problem.That vision comes to life in anew political ad: America could learn a lot from a drug addict, says Addicted Dude. Even though this countrys $14  trillion in debt, Washington raised the debt ceiling 10 times in the last 10 years. Each time  its like another hit  another spending hit. But youre the junkies.41 cents out of every dollar you spend is borrowed from places like China. So China is like your dealer, and your addiction and your dealer control your life. To borrow less, you need to spend less. Yeah  Washington could learn a lot from a drug addict.The ad was paid for by the Public Notice Research & Education Fund, a sister organization to Public Notice. In apress release, Public Notice said it was airing the ads in hopes that the super committee in Congress working on a new budget would adopt more spending cuts.Public Notice says its mission is to increase the publics awareness and understanding of the economic issues that affect their daily lives, communities, and children and grandchildren. That sounded rather generic to us, and we wanted to know more about Public Notice. However, as a 501(c)(4), Public Notice isnot requiredto disclose its donors. Public Notices executive director, Gretchen Hamel, is a former spokesman for the  House Republican Conference.We decided to fact-check the ads claim that 41 cents out of every dollar you spend is borrowed from places like China.To check this item, we turned to two government agencies that monitor the economy.We consulted the most recent report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office to see if 41 cents of every dollar is borrowed.The numbers show that for fiscal year 2011 (which ended Sept. 30, 2011), the federal government took in $2.3 trillion and spent $3.6 trillion. So the shortfall between receipts and outlays was about $1.3 trillion. That means about 36 cents of every dollar spent was borrowed.Thats pretty close to the 41 percent the ad cited. When we contacted Public Notice, they told us they took their numbers from an earlier report published in June 2011 that included numbers for fiscal year 2010. The numbers we used were for fiscal year 2011 and published Nov. 7, 2011.Next, for the sake of thoroughness, we checked how much U.S. debt is held by China. China is the number one foreign country holding U.S. debt, according to the U.S. Treasury Department.China holds $1.15 trillion in U.S. debt, followed by Japan with $957 billion; the United Kingdom with $422 billion; and a group of oil-exporting countries that collectively hold $230 billion. (See the entire list. )So is Addicted Dude a good analogy for our budget situation? If China is our drug dealer, Chinas offering us the good stuff at an extremely low mark-up -- interest rates on U.S. Treasuries are near rock-bottom right now. On the other hand ...thats how they get you hooked.So well leave it up to you to decide whether the metaphor is apt.The ad from Public Notice says, 41 cents out of every dollar you spend is borrowed from places like China. China is indeed the country that holds the most U.S. debt. But the most recent numbers on U.S. debt put the borrowed amount slightly lower, at 36 cents on the dollar. So we rate this statement Mostly True. On 10 August 2009, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer published an op-ed piece in USA Today under the title "'Un-American' attacks can't derail health care debate," in which they criticized those who had been engaging in efforts to disrupt debate over health insurance reform legislation (which later became widely known as "Obamacare"). op-ed Reps. Pelosi and Hoyer wrote (in part): [I]t is now evident that an ugly campaign is underway not merely to misrepresent the health insurance reform legislation, but to disrupt public meetings and prevent members of Congress and constituents from conducting a civil dialogue. These tactics have included hanging in effigy one Democratic member of Congress in Maryland and protesters holding a sign displaying a tombstone with the name of another congressman in Texas, where protesters also shouted "Just say no!" drowning out those who wanted to hold a substantive discussion. These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views  but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American. Drowning out the facts is how we failed at this task for decades. That op-ed prompted Dennis L. Guthrie, an attorney with the Charlotte, North Carolina, law firm of Guthrie, Davis, Henderson & Staton, to pen a (primarily ad hominem) critical letter to Rep. Pelosi the following day, images of which soon began circulating online.  Dear Ms. Pelosi: I write to you out of utter disdain! You are as despicable and un-American as the traitor Jane Fonda. I am a soon to be 65 year-old who has voted in every state and local election since 1966. I have voted for both Republicans and Democrats alike. I have worked on campaigns for both Republicans and Democrats, white and black. I served the country that I love in Vietnam, as my son did in the Middle East. I was awarded two bronze stars. I have been involved in politics since age 6 when my father was campaign manager for a truly great American Congressman, Charles Raper Jonas, who worked for his constituents and his country, and was to be admired, unlike you. You obviously haven't read the Constitution recently, if ever, the Federalist Papers, or even David McCullough's book on John Adams. You ought to take the time while riding around in your government provided luxury executive jet to do just that. You represent Socialistic and even Marxist principals that our founding fathers tried to avoid when setting out the capitalistic republican form of government represented by our Constitution. I find it interesting that you and your husband are multi-millionaires with much of your fortune being made as a result of your public service. You have controlled legislation that has enhanced your husband's investments both on and off shore. At the same time you redistributed the wealth of others. Our system of a free market economy is being destroyed by the likes of you. You ride around in a Gulfstream airplane at the tax payers expense while criticizing the presidents of companies who produced something for the economy. You add nothing to the economy of the United States; you only subtract therefrom. I would like to suggest that you return to the city of fruitcakes and nuts and eat your husband's canned tuna and pineapple - produced by illegal immigrants and by workers who have been excluded from the protection that 90% of the legal workers in the United States have. I await your defeat in the next election with glee. Dont ever use the term un-American again for protesters who love this country and are exercising their rights upon which this country was founded. By the way, while I served in the Army, I was spit on by the same type of lunatics who support you and who you probably supported in the 60s and 70s. You are an embarrassment to all of us who served so that you would have the protected right of free speech to call us un-American. But at the same time, I have the right to write you to notify you that I consider you to be un-American, as do the majority of the people of this formerly great country. You are a true disgrace to most of the people who served this country by offering themselves for public service in the United States Congress. I feel certain your aides will not share this letter with you, but I intend to share it with many.   We contacted Mr. Guthrie at the address included in the letterhead on which the letter was printed, and he confirmed that he did indeed write and send such a letter to Rep. Pelosi. The letter circulated again in 2019 via social media, with one minor revision: The line "I am a soon to be 65 year-old" was changed to "I am a soon to be a [sic] 75 year-old." Pelosi, Nancy and Steny Hoyer.  "'Un-American' Attacks Can't Derail Health Care Debate."
  USA Today.  10 August 2009. Following the death of Carrie Fisher, the resurgent interest in her most famous role (that of Princess Leia in Star Wars) prompted renewed attention to the subject of the inspiration behind the most distinctive aspect of her character's appearance: Princess Leia's iconic look was inspired by real-life Mexican Revolutionaries pic.twitter.com/hJFhQgm60K pic.twitter.com/hJFhQgm60K  NowThis (@nowthisnews) December 29, 2016 December 29, 2016 The debate regarding Princess (later General) Leia Organa's hair, and specifically her hair buns, began in 2002 when Star Wars creator George Lucas offered this explanation about it to Time magazine: offered In the 1977 film, I was working very hard to create something different that wasnt fashion, so I went with a kind of Southwestern Pancho Villa woman revolutionary look, which is what that is. The buns are basically from the turn-of-the-century Mexico. Then it took such hits and became such a thing. But as Remezcla reported, the claim came under question when the character's hair was compared to pictures of adelitas, as women who fought in the Mexican revolution were called, that exhibited no such hairstyle: reported, adelitas Lucas revelation of the hairstyles origins only seemed to cause confusion across the internet. Some found it difficult to find photographic evidence for Lucas claims. Perhaps, they only saw images of soldaderas wearing hats. (All Star Wars historian Michael Heilemann could find were these bun-less images of adelitas.) As a result, some began to look elsewhere to find other possible explanations. bun-less images In fact, some critics argued, Leia's hair more closely resembled a traditional hairstyle worn by women of the Hopi Native American tribe. But Eric Tang, an associate professor of African and African Diaspora Studies at the University of Texas-Austin, added to the discussion when he posted a picture (that post being no longer publicly available on Facebook) taken from a Star Wars exhibition currently on display at the Denver Art Museum that seemingly supported the "Mexican revolutionary" claim. worn exhibition The museum confirmed to Snopes on 30 December 2016 that the referenced photograph was part of their exhibition, and sent us full-length pictures of the display, as well as a transcription of the audio accompanying it:   Princess Leias side cinnamon-bun hairdo was one of the most iconic looks from the original "Star Wars" films. Some twenty years later, actress Natalie Portman wore these fake hair rolls to reprise the hairstyle as Padm Amidala in the film "Attack of the Clones." Clearly, George Lucas and his team had learned a thing or two in the intervening years. While it took actress Carrie Fisher two hours to have her hair done as Leia, Portman could just pop on her side buns in a matter of minutes. But where did this unusual hairstyle originate in the first place? Look for some of the reference photos nearby. For Princess Leia in the original "Star Wars," George Lucas was inspired by a traditional Hopi Native American hairstyle. For Leias mother, Padm, Lucas prequel team looked at Hopi and Mexican Revolution imagery for inspiration, and sketched even more dramatically shaped variations of the coiffure  as you can see in the drawing in this display. The response to Leias hair had been so overwhelming in the 1970s and beyond, that Lucas encouraged the prequel designers to be even more outlandish, drawing everything from space mohawks to snakelike coils, hair nautilus shells, and everything in between. A museum spokesperson could not directly confirm the origin of the picture other than to say it was "sourced from the Lucas Museum of Narrative Art archives at Skywalker Ranch." (We contacted Lucasfilm seeking additional information, but the film company did not respond.) However, we were able to track it down fairly easily, as it is a famous photograph of Mexican soldadera and guerrilla fighter Clara de la Rocha, as seen below (alongide her father, General Herculano de la Rocha): photograph General  Clara de la Rocha is described in the book Las Soldaderas: Women of the Mexican Revolution as a guerilla commander who played an important role in the seizing of the city of Culiacn, Sinaloa in 1911, alongside her father. She eventually earned the rank of coronela, or colonel, in the fight against Porfirio Diaz's regime. described regime One of her descendants, Alexandra de la Rocha, told Public Radio International that she saw Tang's post about the exhibit and recounted some of the soldadera's exploits: told She actually crossed a river on horseback ... and was able to take out a power station in order to allow the rebel forces to attack during night without being seen. he was a grizzled woman, as her father was. They were mountain people, and were actually miners and owned a lot of land. They were business people. Clara de la Rocha died in 1970 in Culiacn, the site of her most famous battle. While she was certainly not the only inspiration for the Leia Organa character's hairstyle, she was by all accounts a major one. Cagle, Jess.  "So, What's the Deal with Leia's Hair?" 
  Time.  21 April 2002. Simn, Yara.  "Princess Leias Iconic Buns Were Inspired by These Revolutionary-Era Mexican Women." 
  Remezcla.  28 December 2016.  El Informador.  "Las 'Adelitas', Las Otras Revolucionarias."     Informador.   19 November 2010. Denver Art Museum.   "Star Wars and the Power of Costume."  
   denverartmuseum.org The de la Rocha History Project.  "Herculan y Coronela Clara de la Rocha." 
  delarochahistory.com

 Public Radio International.  "The Little-Known Link Between Princess Leias Iconic Hairstyle and the Mexican Revolution." 
  30 December 2016. [01/23/2020]: Removed broken Facebook embed. Claim:  Starbucks has joined Monsanto in a lawsuit against Vermont to avoid the implementation of GMO labeling regulations. : : Starbucks is a member of the Grocery Manufacturers Association, a group challenging Vermont over GMO labeling requirements.      : Starbucks has joined forces with Monsanto to sue the state of Vermont over GMO labeling requirements.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, November 2014] Starbucks doesn't think you have the right to know what's in your coffee.  So it's teamed up with Monsanto to sue the small U.S. state of Vermont to stop you from finding out.    Origins:  In November 2014, a petition claiming coffee  giant Starbucks had "teamed up" with agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation Monsanto to sue the state of Vermont over a GMO (genetically modified organism) labeling law began to circulate heavily on social media sites. Given the massive popularity of Starbucks and broad worry over genetically modified foods, the petition caused concern amid many Starbucks drinkers over whether their daily latte habit was somehow funding big agribusiness bullies. General consumer unease with what are often unclear links between large corporations as well as growing distaste for massive food conglomerates made the claim particularly unsettling to many social media users. Most consumers lack the luxury to make all their own foods and drinks at home, and to some extent, we all place our trust in large companies to do right by their customers in choosing safe ingredients and not abusing their financial strength by bullying less-powerful entities. A quick scan of Twitter reveals widespread belief Starbucks has suddenly decided to abandon its socially and nutritionally conscious consumer base to join forces with Monsanto, but is that really the case? Most of the chatter points back to the petition, initiated by a group called SumOfUs. On its Facebook about page, SumOfUs describes its mission: SumOfUs We are a movement of consumers, investors and workers counterbalancing the power of large corporations to forge a just, sustainable path for the global economy. The relevant petition can be found on the SumOfUs website: SumOfUs Starbucks doesn't think you have the right to know what's in your coffee. So it's teamed up with Monsanto to sue the small U.S. state of Vermont to stop you from finding out. Hiding behind the shadowy Grocery Manufacturers' Association, Starbucks is part of a lawsuit that's aiming to block a landmark law that requires genetically-modified ingredients be labeled. Amazingly, they are claiming it's an assault on their corporate right to free speech. Even a local Vermont company, Green Mountain Coffee, has joined in. The quoted portion makes it clear Starbucks isn't the entity driving the lawsuit at which the petition takes aim. The Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), a large food industry group of which Starbucks is one of more than 300 members, is the trade organization behind the litigation in question. To call the group "shadowy" is somewhat misleading: GMA has a web site that presents their clear stance on the issue of genetically modified foods and labeling and that included a 2014 membership directory openly listing Starbucks and Monsanto as members.  (The online membership directory link is no longer accessible from GMA's web site, and the organization did not respond to our inquiry about it.) web site membership directory The petition explains (in essence) why Starbucks has been singled out among GMA-affiliated companies as a target of consumer pressure:  SumOfUs members have already chipped in to support Vermont's legal defense fund, and we need to keep it up. Monsanto might not care what we think  but Starbucks does. If we can generate enough attention, we can push Starbucks to withdraw its support for the lawsuit, and then force other companies to do the same. Sign the petition to tell Starbucks and Green Mountain Coffee to withdraw their support for the lawsuit against Vermont, and stop fighting accurate food labeling. Vermont is a small, entirely rural state with just 600,000 people. It's a classic David and Goliath fight  Vermont vs. Monsanto and Starbucks, some of the most powerful corporations in the world. The petition references Vermont's Act 120, voted upon in April 2014 and signed into law on 8 May 2014. Under the provisions of the new law, Vermont is poised to became the first state to require labeling of all foods containing genetically modified ingredients by 1 July 2016. Act 120 On 13 June 2014, the GMA issued a press release stating its intent to challenge the law in Vermont, positing the law was unconstitutional and citing the First Amendment. In its statement, the trade group expressed concern more states would follow Vermont's lead and adversely affect the food industry by imposing labeling standards that serve no health or safety interest: press release Today, the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), along with the Snack Food Association, International Dairy Foods Association and the National Association of Manufacturers, filed a complaint in federal district court in Vermont challenging the state's mandatory GMO labeling law.  GMA issued the following statement in conjunction with the legal filing. "Vermont's mandatory GMO labeling law  Act 120  is a costly and misguided measure that will set the nation on a path toward a 50-state patchwork of GMO labeling policies that do nothing to advance the health and safety of consumers. Act 120 exceeds the state's authority under the United States Constitution and in light of this, GMA has filed a complaint in federal district court in Vermont seeking to enjoin this senseless mandate. "Act 120 imposes burdensome new speech requirements  and restrictions  that will affect, by Vermont's count, eight out of every ten foods at the grocery store. Yet Vermont has effectively conceded this law has no basis in health, safety, or science. That is why a number of product categories, including milk, meat, restaurant items and alcohol, are exempt from the law.  This means that many foods containing GMO ingredients will not actually disclose that fact. "The First Amendment dictates that when speech is involved, Vermont policymakers cannot merely act as a pass-through for the fads and controversies of the day. It must point to a truly "governmental" interest, not just a political one. And the Constitution prohibits Vermont from regulating nationwide distribution and labeling practices that facilitate interstate commerce. That is the sole province of the federal government. The U.S. Food & Drug Administration, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency have both the mandate and expertise to incorporate the views of all the stakeholders at each link in the chain from farm to fork." On 9 November 2014, musician Neil Young stated that he was no longer going to patronize Starbucks due to the GMA lawsuit. On 15 November 2014, Starbucks addressed the claims. The coffee chain sent a tweet with a link to a longer statement: Neil Young Starbucks is not a part of Monsanto's GMO lawsuit to stop food labeling https://t.co/mEsQHqukMA Starbucks News (@Starbucksnews) November 16, 2014 Starbucks is not a part of Monsanto's GMO lawsuit to stop food labeling https://t.co/mEsQHqukMA https://t.co/mEsQHqukMA  Starbucks News (@Starbucksnews) November 16, 2014 November 16, 2014  The statement indicated Starbucks asked the petition be edited to reflect their position and lack of involvement in the lawsuit against the state of Vermont: Starbucks is not a part of any lawsuit pertaining to GMO labeling nor have we provided funding for any campaign. And Starbucks is not aligned with Monsanto to stop food labeling or block Vermont State law. The petition claiming that Starbucks is part of this litigation is completely false and we have asked the petitioners to correct their description of our position.  Starbucks has not taken a position on the issue of GMO labeling. As a company with stores and a product presence in every state, we prefer a national solution. Grocery Manufacturers Association spokesman Brian Kennedy said that Starbucks is an "affiliate member" of the GMA and is not involved in actions such as the Vermont lawsuit: As an affiliate member, [Starbucks] is not involved in any policy, governance, or legal work with the Association, which includes the lawsuit in Vermont. In summary: Although Starbucks is a member of the Grocery Manufacturers Association, the lawsuit targeted by the petition was initiated by that group and not by Starbucks or Monsanto; and direct collusion between Starbucks and Monsanto on the issue is neither evident nor germane to the dispute between the state of Vermont and the GMA.  Last updated:  17 November 2014