Were  getting into the pool of the 100 million people that are not working. That pool is now coming back.
President Donald Trump took a victory lap on the job market during one of his periodic Cabinet meetings. Unemployment is at a 17-year low,he saidon Dec. 6, 2017. Very shortly it's going to be at a 19-year low. We think the numbers are going to continue to go down. And we're also getting into the pool of the 100 million people that are not working. That pool is now coming back. As you know, that's not considered in the low employment numbers, which means we have a lot of people that want to get to work, and that will be working. The unemployment rate is indeed at its lowest point since December 2000. But we were curious about Trumps other assertion -- that would-be workers from a pool of 100 million are coming back into the workforce. President Donald Trump at a cabinet meeting on Dec. 6, 2017. (Kevin Dietsch-Pool/Getty Images) First off, Trump is in the ballpark when he says that there are 100 million people not working. There are currently 95.4 million people above the age of 16 who are out of the labor force -- meaning neither working nor actively looking for work -- and another 6.5 million people who are unemployed. If you look at the raw number of Americans who are not in the labor force -- people who are not working or looking actively for work -- that figure has risen by 1.02 million since January 2017, an increase of about 1 percent. Meanwhile, the labor force participation rate -- or the percentage of people age 16 and up who are either working or actively looking for work -- has been bouncing around in a narrow band since Trump took office -- between 62.7 percent to 63.1 percent -- with no clear trend. While neither of these measures supports Trumps assertion, each presents an imperfect view of the labor pool by including everyone 16 and up. Those totals are shaped by demographic changes. Demographic trends such as the aging of the baby boomer cohort have been the primary drivers for the decline in labor force participation, said Chris Lafakis, a director at Moody's Analytics. We simply have more retirees now because our population is older. If you drill down using statistics that are more targeted to working-age Americans, Trumps assertion looks more credible. Consider the employment-to-population ratio for Americans age 25 to 54. During Obamas last 12 months, this measurement rose by half a percentage point. (Rising, for this statistic, is good -- it means a larger percentage of Americans are employed.) But in the first 10 months of Trumps tenure, the statistic rose by six-tenths of a percentage point. Thats not a radical improvement, but its better than his predecessor managed in his final year. Heres the full chart (with Obama months in blue and Trump months in red): If you look at the raw numbers, the number of non-workers in the 25 to 54 age range has declined by about 691,000 since January 2017. Another statistic also puts the improvement in 2017 in a favorable light. That would be the unemployment rate known as U-6. This statistic uses a more generous definition of unemployment than the most commonly used measure. The U-6 rate includes not just workers who are officially unemployed but also those who are employed part-time when they would prefer a full-time job, and those who want to work but who havent looked for work in the preceding four weeks. In Obamas final year, this measure dropped by half a percentage point. (A drop is a good sign.) But under Trump, it has dropped by 1.5 percentage points -- three times faster in a shorter period of time. Heres the full chart: This statistic is an important one for judging Trumps assertion, because the people who would be driving the declines would specifically be those who find jobs after being unemployed by conventional definitions, plus those who had been forced to work only part time and those who had not looked for work for several months. President Trump is correct that the pool of non-workers continues to shrink, said Brookings Institution economist Gary Burtless, though he added that it has done so fairly steadily since the last quarter of 2011. Jed Kolko, the chief economist for the job site Indeed.com, puts significant stock in the two statistics that support Trumps statement. Our view is that the labor market is entering 2018 with strength and momentum, with some room to grow, Kolko said. Finally, its worth noting that no president can take full credit for the economys achievements (or take full fault for its shortcomings). Many other factors, including the health of the rest of the world economy and changes in demographics and technology, play a role as well. Our ruling Trump said that were  getting into the pool of the 100 million people that are not working. That pool is now coming back. The statistics that shine the most direct light on working-age Americans support Trumps point. Both the working-age employment-to-population ratio and the U-6 expanded unemployment rate have improved on Trumps watch. Its worth noting that they also improved during Obamas final year, so Trump was fortunate to take office at a time when the economy was already going in the right direction. But the scale of the increase has been bigger under Trump. We rate this statement Mostly True.
Call it the war over the wives. An ad suggesting that Donald Trump's wife, Melania, might not be modest enough to be first lady started a series of nasty exchanges between Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz that have been the talk of the campaign for more than a week. CNN's Anderson Cooper grilled Trump about the ad during aMarch 29interview in Wisconsin, questioning Trump about his accusation, made ina March 22 tweet, that Cruz was responsible for the picture. I did not start this, Trump told Cooper seven days after the tweet. He sent out a picture and he knew very well it was a picture ... He didn't send out a picture, Cooper interrupted. It was an anti-Trump super PAC. When Cooper asked Trump if he had any proof that Cruz was behind the ad, Trump said, No. Everybody knows he sent it out. He knew the people in the super PAC. He knew. I would be willing to bet he wrote the phrase, a reference to the words that accompanied the nude photograph of Mrs. Trump, a model, posed on a rug. Meet Melania Trump, your next first lady, the ad said. Or, you could support Ted Cruz on Tuesday, a reference to the March 22 Utah primary. I didn't send the photo to everybody in the state of Utah. He did, said Trump. It was his people, who were his friends. For this fact-check, we'll look at whether Trump is correct that Cruz distributed this Facebook ad containing a nude photograph of Trump's wife. Federal law says political ads must clearly identify their source, and this one lists the source as a political action committee calledMake America Awesome. Such groups are called super PACs because they can spend limitless amounts of money advocating for or against a candidate or a point of view. Super PACs have one major restriction: They can't coordinate their efforts with a candidate's official campaign, which is restricted in its spending. If Cruz did arrange for the ad under the auspices of the super PAC, it would be a serious violation of federal law. The super PAC says . . . The Cruz campaign had nothing to do with this ad whatsoever. We didnt get the image or the idea for the ad from them, said Republican strategist Liz Mair, who is behind the super PAC. Make America Awesome, based in Virginia, was founded in December and reports $20,752 in contributions through February, with most of the money that it spent going to small purchases of air time in nine states, according to the Federal Election Commission website. I would guess that including money that has come in since our last filing, we have raised about $35,000, said Mair. There's also no evidence that the PAC is a front for the Cruz campaign. When we checked the PAC'sYouTube page, we found four commercials, only two of which are the standard length for broadcast. The Jan. 20 Buyer Beware commercial, obviously made on a shoestring budget, includes a light-hearted rundown of nine Republican presidential candidates as breakfast cereals. They include Jeb Bush (Good source of experience and wonkiness. The brand you know. ), Ben Carson (With extra nice guy doctorness. ), Chris Christie (100% RDA of telling it like it is.) and Ted Cruz (Two Scoops of Conservatism!). In the ad, the shopper buys the Trump cereal (Guaranteed success and a free 'Screw the Liberal Establishment!' voucher inside) and ends up regretting the purchase. Mormon women targeted The only ads we've run in favor of any candidate are the three Facebook ads we ran targeting Mormons in Utah and Arizona, of which the Melania one was one, and the one with the least money put behind it (about $300, maybe even less than that, honestly), Mair wrote in an email. The Melania ad, she wrote, was targeted only to Mormon women of (if I recall correctly) ages 45-65 living in Utah and Arizona who self-identified as moderate, conservative or very conservative. The shot we used was chosen because of the presence of handcuffs, which was particularly bothersome to the target audience, Mair said. However, there are definitely racier shots of her out there that would no doubt be considered more scandalous by a lot of voters across the entire political spectrum  too racy for us to use in Facebook ads, candidly. Although the ads urge voters to support the Texas senator, he was only one of two viable alternatives to Trump currently on the ballot in those states. Picture purchased? In a March 27 interview with ABC News, Trump claimed Cruz or his campaign bought the rights to the Melania photo and gave it to the super PAC. There's no evidence that Cruz, the campaign or Mair's group purchased rights to the photo, taken when she was Trump's girlfriend. The image was, at the time we concepted out and then created the ad, already republished all over the Internet at numerous sites, Mair told us in an email. The photographer who took the image for the 2000 photo spread inBritish GQ, Antoine Verglas, told our friends at FactCheck.org thatnobody contacted himto buy rights to the picture. The magazine reprinted that photo, along with other pictures from the shoot,onlineMarch 4 under the headline, The Future First Lady? Sexy Melania Trump's Nude Photo Shoot. As for Cruz himself, Mair said, I think I've met him at gatherings attended by many people maybe once or twice in my life (and it will have been some time ago), and I have never spoken to him privately. We contacted the Trump campaign but didn't get a response. Our ruling Trump said Cruz was responsible for the racy ad questioning whether people wanted Melania Trump to be first lady. One of the tenets of PolitiFact is that the person making the claim is responsible for substantiating it. Trump said on CNN that he has no real proof. And all the evidence we found points to the ad being the work of a political action committee whose goal has been to block Trump's nomination. Theres no proof of Cruz working with that committee, which would be illegal. We rate Trump's claim as False. Claim: Kohl's is giving Facebook users a coupon for 50 percent off any purchase for liking and sharing a status.  Example: [Collected via e-mail, October 2015] There is a Yes pass from Kohl's, saying that everything is 50% off. You need to share and comment Thanks Kohl's. Is this true?? _______________________________________________________________________ Happy Thanksgiving from Kohl's. 50 % OFF of everything. Origins: In mid-November 2015, links began circulating on Facebook promising users a Thanksgiving coupon for 50 percent off all Kohl's purchases:  The appended links involved a variety of URLs (above, "couponbits.com"), and users who clicked through to claim their coupon landed on a page titled "Complete these steps below to get KOHL'S Reward!" While the page mimicked the style of Facebook-based content, it was hosted on a non-Facebook URL:   As with many similar coupon lures on Facebook, the dangled bait was based upon an actual Kohl's coupon (albeit one whose savings were far more modest):   In response to an avalanche of Facebook complaints from frustrated users who hadn't received coupons after completing the steps, Kohl's verified account replied: Please know this is not a valid Kohl's offer. Social media users are largely acquainted with survey scams of this type; Kohl's (previously), Costco, Home Depot, Lowe's, Kroger, Best Buy, Macy's, Olive Garden, Publix, Target, and Walmart are among retailers used as scam bait (by folks mining personal information and valuable page likes from Facebook users). Kohl's Costco Home Depot Lowe's Kroger Best Buy Macy's Olive Garden Publix Target Walmart bait A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureau illustrated how folks might spot and avoid bad actors utilizing the reputations of brands on social media: article Don't believe what you see. It's easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender. Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure there's a link to their privacy policy. When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organization's real website may have further information. Watch out for a reward that's too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions. It's likely Kohl's planned to release Black Friday coupons on or around Thanksgiving, but the retailer was unlikely to do so by forcing its customers to like and share a Facebook status update.   Last updated: 19 November 2015 Originally published: 19 November 2015 Claim:  Predators, pedophiles, and child trafficking rings are using Facebook to source new victims by friending trusting parents and mining images posted of their children. Example:  [Collected on Facebook, September 2014] A guy sends you a friend request. You don't know him, but he's got a cute profile pic, so you accept. It's baby girl's first day of school! She looks SO cute in her new outfit you just have to take a picture and put it on Facebook so all your friends and family can see. You're so excited dropping her off that you "check in" to her school on Fb saying "I can't believe how big she's gotten. Time sure flies. One proud momma/daddy right here!"... Meanwhile, the mystery guy whose friend request you hurriedly accepted earlier this morning is saving that picture you posted of your daughter in her cute new outfit to his phone and texting it to 60 other grown men across the world with the caption "Caucasian female. Age 5. Brown hair, green eyes. $2,500." Not only did you provide a picture of your little girl to a child trafficker, you've handed him the name and exact location of her school on a silver cyber platter. You go to pick her up at 3:00 this afternoon, but she's nowhere to be found. Little do you know, your precious baby girl was sold to a 43-year-old pedophile before you even stepped foot off campus this morning, and now she's on her way to South Africa with a bag over her head, confused, terrified and crying because a man she's never seen before picked her up from school, and now she doesn't know where her parents are, where she's going, or what's gonna happen to her. STOP ADDING STRANGERS ON FACEBOOK. Origins:  In September 2014, the post above (without original attribution) went viral on Facebook. While this iteration is a new one, panic over internet strangers is as old as the internet itself, and warnings such as this have largely morphed from email forwards to Facebook shares. panic over internet strangers In May and June of 2015, the story received a second wave of interest after it was published to the website StylishLisa on 27 May 2015. On 30 May 2015 the message appeared on the Facebook page Lil' Red Warriors, but was later deleted after Facebook commenters correctly identified the photograph's origin on a page about children's hairstyles. The photo and its claim were later published verbatim to the Facebook page of Cyn Malvita, from where it was shared hundreds of thousands of times. A cached version of the iteration involving the hairstyling picture is embedded below: published Lil' Red Warriors deleted children's hairstyles Cyn Malvita  The Facebook post currently in circulation bears some resemblance to a well-traveled warning from years back describing a similar danger. While the premise is similar, the stated risk has evolved, incorporating Facebook's open and share-friendly nature as the door through which rampant child predators will enter your life and summarily terrorize you. well-traveled warning This particular warning has some unpleasant undertones in its telling, suggesting that female users are too readily tempted by a "cute" potential predator to consider the safety of their children. It also tacitly condemns parents (mothers, presumably in particular) for even mentioning their children in hawking its highly improbable, sanctimonious premise. Facebook and similar social media sites have ushered in a new level of panic when it comes to internet safety, given that the social network requires users to supply accurate information about their true identities and real names to use the service. While many users flout this aspect of the site's terms and services, many others have been banned temporarily or permanently for using aliases in place of real names. Reading the circulating post above might lead one to believe that the danger is very real and omnipresent, but the scenario presented is one that is exceedingly unlikely. Among other implausibilities, this warning makes it sound as though the bad guys are stymied in their search for victims and don't know where to look for kids to abduct until they see pictures of them on Facebook. But potential abductors' seeing a Facebook photo of a particular child who attends a given school does nothing to facilitate the snatching of random children for sale to pedophiles  would-be kidnappers don't need Facebook photos, as they could simply lie in wait outside just about any school and try to grab children as such opportunities presented themselves. Aside from that, first and foremost, most schools nowadays do not release children to parties who have not been explicitly granted permission and had their names recorded on an authorized list, a fact to which any parent who has ever needed a friend to make a last-minute school pickup can attest. Secondly, while the risk of child abduction and trafficking may exist, children are far, far more likely to be endangered by a relative or other "trusted" adult than a random Facebook contact. According to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, the most recent statistics reflect a far different danger than the one described above. Of 800,000 children reported missing, 200,000 were abducted by relatives, 58,000 were kids taken by nonfamily members, and only 115 missing child reports were considered "stereotypical" abductions involving a complete stranger with intent to harm or keep the child. National Center for Missing & Exploited Children A lengthy report on Child Exploitation Prevention presented to Congress by the Justice Department in 2010 [PDF] further delves into the profiles of predators involved in child abuse and trafficking. According to the data presented, the vast majority of children harmed in this manner are either introduced or otherwise victimized by family members or other trusted adults such as babysitters, coaches, or family friends. Only four percent of victims identified were exploited or abused by an adult not previously known to the child or their family. PDF In the cases examined, abuse typically occurred over the course of years and involved "grooming" and other behaviors designed to created compliance. Child victims were not at risk of being immediately whisked to Africa by a strange Facebook user, but rather more likely placed in harm's way by the people meant to ensure their safety and care. On rare occasions child predators may mine publicly posted photos of children for personal use or trade, and posted Facebook pictures and locations might facilitate a kidnapping if the abductors were seeking to grab a specific child (rather than trolling for random victims), but no evidence suggests the posting of kids' photos on Facebook has resulted in a general increase of kidnapping or abuse of children. Last updated:  4 June 2015 In November 2019, a survey scam was spread via Facebook purporting to offer free $75 Costco coupons in celebration of the company's anniversary to users who clicked particular links and then followed the instructions found there:  The scam provided links which led to web pages (not operated or sponsored by Costco) displaying a Bud Light logo along with entreaties to spread the scam further by sharing the pages and writing thank you in the comments field:  Users who followed instructions were then led into a set of pages prompting them to input a fair amount of personal information (including name, address, e-mail address, date of birth, and phone numbers), complete a lengthy series of surveys, and finally sign up (and commit to paying) for at least six "Reward Offers" that usually involve applying for a credit card or signing up for some sort of paid subscription service. Those intent upon snapping up free stuff via such lures should keep in mind that there is often a further downside to the process beyond their personal disappointment and the financial enrichment of the scam artists preying upon their gullibility: All too often such adventures in clickjacking also result in the download of trojans and other viruses onto the computers of those looking to score the promised goodies. Costco themselves says of such schemes that: There are numerous posts circulating on Facebook stating that we are giving away $100 to $1,000 Costco Cash Cards to all Facebook users. While we love our fans and members, Costco is not giving away Costco Cash Cards to Facebook users, and is not associated with this program. The Costco $150 coupon offer is a variation of the company anniversary survey scam, a ploy that also depends on the unwary unwittingly promoting the phony coupon to their social media friends: anniversary survey scam These web pages (which are not operated or sponsored by the companies they reference) typically ask the unwary to click what appear to be Facebook share buttons and post comments to the scammers site (which is really a ruse to dupe users into spreading the scam by sharing it with all of their Facebook friends). Those who follow such instructions are then led into a set of pages prompting them to input a fair amount of personal information (including name, age, address, and phone numbers), complete a lengthy series of surveys, and finally sign up (and commit to paying) for at least two Reward Offers (e.g., Netflix subscriptions, credit report monitoring services, prepaid credit cards)[.] President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have sparred over tax policy for many months. They have argued over the treatment of the middle class, small businesses and whether the Bush-era tax cuts should be extended for the wealthiest 2 percent. The first presidential debate sparked debate on a different point -- the taxes paid by companies doing business overseas.So far, this topic has not played a prominent role in the campaign, although American-based multinational firms have a huge stake in the outcome. By one conservative estimate, this part of the tax code is worth $30 billion a year.During the debate, Obama tried to score points on Romney by highlighting the tax breaks companies get when they move jobs overseas.When it comes to our tax code, Gov. Romney and I both agree that our corporate tax rate is too high, so I want to lower it, particularly for manufacturing, taking it down to 25 percent. But I also want to close those loopholes that are giving incentives for companies that are shipping jobs overseas. I want to provide tax breaks for companies that are investing here in the United States.Romney responded, The idea that you get a break for shipping jobs overseas is simply not the case.In this fact-check, we'll examine the presidents statement and ask if there are tax incentives for companies that set up foreign operations.In the narrowest sense possible, Romneys rebuttal is accurate. There is no clause in the tax code that rewards a company when it relocates production beyond U.S. borders. But if a plant moves at all, whether its from Ohio to Tennessee or Ohio to Malaysia, it is eligible for deductions.There is certainly a tax break for U.S. companies that move operations or people abroad, said Gary McGill, director of the Fisher School of Accounting at the University of Florida. It is simply a business expense like any other legitimate expense.Richard Harvey, a former partner at the accounting firm Pricewaterhouse Coopers and now at Villanova School of Law, went even further.A company would be arguably negligent if they did not claim the deductions, Harvey said. In addition, the current tax law would allow a tax deduction for the costs of shutting down a U.S. operation.But both tax experts said the moving expenses were trivial compared to the hefty tax savings that companies can realize after they move their operations. There are two provisions in the code that allow them to shelter income from the IRS.Tax break #1: Keeping profits overseasWhen an American firm opens a foreign division, it typically sets up a separate company that does not pay U.S. taxes.That foreign subsidiary is a new entity, organized and created in a foreign country, said McGill. And responsible for its own taxes. Profits earned by the subsidiary need not show up on the parent companys tax return.The subsidiary pays taxes in the country where it's located. Those rates are often lower than in the U.S., where the corporate rate is 35 percent. So long as profits remain overseas, U.S. taxes are deferred.The company can declare that none of that money will return to the U.S.McGill, along with colleagues Edmund Outslay and Michael Donohoe, picked apart the public financial statements of Apple and other high-tech companies such as Google and IBM. With Apple, they found the company had built up $23.4 billion in earnings the company said would stay overseas permanently. And for good reason: Apple was paying an effective tax rate overseas of 1.2 percent on those profits.Tax break #2: Selling to yourselfAn American firm with a global network of subsidiaries has another way to trim its tax bill. All of those companies can buy and sell among themselves. Its perfectly legal and very lucrative. Take the example of Google.In just one quarter, the owner of the worlds most popular search engine had nearly $2.8 billion in net income and over half of that came from outside the U.S. That would put Google in good shape regardless, but the foreign earnings would be especially valuable. In 2009, the companys foreign tax rate was 2.4 percent, reportedBloomberg News.Google helped keep its taxes low by licensing its algorithms and other digital wizardry to an Irish subsidiary which then sold advertising around the world. The Irish tax rate on that income was 4 percent. But Google was able to drive its tax bill even lower by creating Google Ireland Holdings based in Bermuda where the tax rate is 0.6 percent. The Irish subsidiary sheltered its income by paying royalties to the subsidiary based in Bermuda.These transactions are supposed to cost the same as if they were conducted at arms length. Harvey, the former Pricewaterhouse Coopers partner, said they are anything but.It is relatively clear most U.S. multinational corporations are aggressively shifting taxable income to low-tax jurisdictions, Harvey said. I believe that anyone who believes the IRS can effectively enforce the arms-length standard is an eternal optimist  or delusional.Tallying the costHarvey said the tax tools that multinationals can use give them a competitive advantage over domestic firms. He points to the work of Martin Sullivan, chief economist at Tax Analysts, a nonprofit news service. Sullivan told the House Ways and Means Committee that the tax revenues lost through deferral and transfer pricing were worth between $30 billion to $60 billion a year.Sullivan also noted that American firms with international operations had shed American jobs while increasing their overseas employment.Between 1999 and 2008, U.S. multinational corporations cut their domestic employment by 1.9 million. Over the same period U.S. multinationals increased their employment overseas by 2.4 million, Sullivan said.But the picture is more complicated than that might seem. There is strong debate over the role that tax rates play in those job shifts. Some analysts, including Harvey, believe the real drivers could be lower wage rates and being closer to important markets around the globe.However, regardless of the initial motivation, once companies make the move, in Sullivans words, a toehold of real investment allows a truckload of profit to follow.Our rulingPresident Obama said there are loopholes that are giving incentives for companies that are shipping jobs overseas.Independent analysts agree that firms with international operations can take advantage of tax loopholes that domestic firms can not. The value of these is in the billions. Such tax laws might not be the deciding factor for companies to locate in foreign countries, but they make that choice more lucrative.We rate the statement True. In August 2018, a number of social media users came across an image offering a purported newspaper clipping of an article entitled "Tech Billionaire Parenting" and wondered if the article, as well as the information contained within it, was genuine: image   This image presents a slightly paraphrased version of an article written by Alice Thomson entitled "Help Kids to Kick Social Media Addiction" which was published in The Times of London in March 2018, the original text of which read as follows: The Times The philanthropist Melinda Gates told me the same. Her children dont have smartphones and only use a computer in the kitchen. Her husband Bill, the Microsoft co-founder, spends hours in his office reading books while everyone else is refreshing their homepage. The most sought-after private school in Silicon Valley, the Waldorf School of the Peninsula, bans technical devices for the under-11s and teaches the children of eBay, Apple, Uber and Google staff to make go-karts, knit and cook. Facebooks Mark Zuckerberg wants his daughters to read Dr Seuss books and play outside rather than use Messenger Kids. Steve Jobss children had strict limits on how much technology they used at home. Its astonishing if you think about it: the more money you make out of the tech industry, the more you appear to shield your family from its effects. The general theme of this article, that several prominent tech billionaires advocated limiting their children's use of technology, is accurate and supported by various interviews and articles. Our only quibble is with the claim that Bill and Melinda Gates' children don't currently have smartphones. As far as we can tell, the Microsoft moguls didn't allow their children to possess smartphones of their own until they reached the age of 14, but as of this writing Jennifer, Rory, and Phoebe Gates are all now over the age of 14. In a June 2018 interview with The Mirror, Bill Gates explained some of his parental rules when it came to technology use by his children: The Mirror We often set a time after which there is no screen time and in their case that helps them get to sleep at a reasonable hour. Youre always looking at how it can be used in a great way  homework and staying in touch with friends  and also where it has gotten to excess. We dont have cellphones at the table when we are having a meal, we didnt give our kids cellphones until they were 14 and they complained other kids got them earlier. Melinda Gates also penned an op-ed for the Washington Post in August 2017 in which she warned about putting a computer in a child's pocket at too early of an age. Gates seemed to acknowledge that her children had cellphones at the time but said that she "probably would have waited longer" if she had the chance to do it again: Washington Post Still, as a mother who wants to make sure her children are safe and happy, I worry. And I think back to how I might have done things differently. Parents should decide for themselves what works for their family, but I probably would have waited longer before putting a computer in my childrens pockets. Phones and apps arent good or bad by themselves, but for adolescents who dont yet have the emotional tools to navigate lifes complications and confusions, they can exacerbate the difficulties of growing up: learning how to be kind, coping with feelings of exclusion, taking advantage of freedom while exercising self-control. Its more important than ever to teach empathy from the very beginning, because our kids are going to need it. As for the remainder of the text at the head of this page, it appears wholly accurate. A number of Silicon Valley parents truly do send their children to the Waldorf School of the Peninsula, where an emphasis is placed on pen and paper rather than digital screens. News outlets such as the New York Times and the Guardian have reported on that school's technology policy in relation to the student body's connection to Silicon Valley: New York Times Guardian The chief technology officer of eBay sends his children to a nine-classroom school here. So do employees of Silicon Valley giants like Google, Apple, Yahoo and Hewlett-Packard. But the schools chief teaching tools are anything but high-tech: pens and paper, knitting needles and, occasionally, mud. Not a computer to be found. No screens at all. They are not allowed in the classroom, and the school even frowns on their use at home. Schools nationwide have rushed to supply their classrooms with computers, and many policy makers say it is foolish to do otherwise. But the contrarian point of view can be found at the epicenter of the tech economy, where some parents and educators have a message: computers and schools dont mix. This is the Waldorf School of the Peninsula, one of around 160 Waldorf schools in the country that subscribe to a teaching philosophy focused on physical activity and learning through creative, hands-on tasks. Those who endorse this approach say computers inhibit creative thinking, movement, human interaction and attention spans. The web site for the Waldorf School of the Peninsula also includes a page in which they describe their "Media & Technology Philosophy": page Waldorf educators believe it is far more important for students to interact with one another and their teachers, and work with real materials than to interface with electronic media or technology. By exploring the world of ideas, participating in the arts, music, movement and practical activities, children develop healthy, robust bodies, balanced and well-integrated brains, confidence in their real-world practical skills and strong executive-function capabilities. In the high school curriculum, Waldorf embraces technology in ways that enhance the learning process, by using it as a tool, rather than replace the role of the teacher. Students quickly master technology, and many Waldorf graduates have gone on to successful careers in the computer industry. The claim that "Steve Jobss children had strict limits on how much technology they used at home" is supported by a 2014 New York Times article which labeled the Apple founder a low-tech parent: article [N]othing shocked me more than something Mr. Jobs said to me in late 2010 after he had finished chewing me out for something I had written about an iPad shortcoming. So, your kids must love the iPad? I asked Mr. Jobs, trying to change the subject. The companys first tablet was just hitting the shelves. They havent used it, he told me. We limit how much technology our kids use at home. Im sure I responded with a gasp and dumbfounded silence. I had imagined the Jobss household was like a nerds paradise: that the walls were giant touch screens, the dining table was made from tiles of iPads and that iPods were handed out to guests like chocolates on a pillow. Nope, Mr. Jobs told me, not even close. Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg's reported desire to have his daughter read Dr. Seuss and play outside comes from an open letter he wrote after the birth of his second daughter in August 2017: letter But rather than write about growing up, we want to talk about childhood. The world can be a serious place. Thats why its important to make time to go outside and play. You will be busy when youre older, so I hope you take time to smell all the flowers and put all the leaves you want in your bucket now. I hope you read your favorite Dr. Seuss books so many times you start inventing your own stories about the Vipper of Vipp. I hope you ride the carousel with Max until youve tamed every color horse. I hope you run as many laps around our living room and yard as you want. And then I hope you take a lot of naps. I hope youre a great sleeper. And I hope even in your dreams you can feel how much we love you. Gates, Melinda.  "Melinda Gates: I Spent My Career in Technology. I Wasnt Prepared for Its Effect on My Kids."
  The Washington Post.  24 August 2017. Richtel, Matt.  "A Silicon Valley School That Doesn't Compute."
  The New York Times.  22 October 2011. Bilton, Nick.  "Steve Jobs Was a Low-Tech Parent."
  The New York Times.  10 September 2014. Jenkin, Matthew.  "Tablets Out, Imagination In: The Schools That Shun Technology."
  The Guardian.  2 December 2015. Abramson, Alana.  "'Childhood Is Magical.' Read the Letter Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan Wrote to Their Baby Daughter."
  Fortune.  28 August 2017. Stillman, Jessica.  "Why Steve Jobs and Bill Gates Both Severely Limited Their Kids' Tech Use."
  Inc.  29 October 2017. A federal judgeissueda temporary restraining order to block the online publication of blueprints outlining how to create untraceable and undetectable 3D-printed firearms. The blueprints were originally scheduled for an Aug. 1 release after a government settlement ended five years of litigation. But word of the release prompted panic as legislators and officials scrambled to block the action. Before the federal judges ruling, at least 21 attorneys general filed suit to stop the blueprints from going live. As conversation heated up, President Donald Trump weighed in onTwitter. I am looking into 3-D Plastic Guns being sold to the public, he said. Already spoke to NRA, doesnt seem to make much sense! I am looking into 3-D Plastic Guns being sold to the public. Already spoke to NRA, doesnt seem to make much sense! Politicians and pundits jumped at the presidents words as proof that he was unfamiliar with a decision from his own administration. Trump: My own administrations latest decision doesnt seem to make much sense! said a July 31headlinefrom Addicting Info, a liberal website. This story was flagged as part of Facebooks efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about ourpartnershipwith Facebook.) Trumps last-minute statement gave us pause, too, so we decided to look at the settlement. Was the Trump administration  or Trump  actually behind it? The White House did not respond to a request for comment (though Trump's press secretary said later that he did not get a chance to weigh in). So we searched elsewhere for our answer. On May 5, 2013, Defense Distributeduploadedblueprints online that could be used to make a working 3D-printed gun called The Liberator, as well as a 53-secondvideoof founder Cody Wilson firing one. Wilson soon received aletterfrom the Obama administrations State Department demanding that he remove the files from the internet. The letter said the technical data amounted to an illegal gun export in violation of theArms Export Control ActandInternational Traffic in Arms Regulations, because it could be accessed in countries where the United States does not sell weapons. The State Department instructed Wilson to take down the files until he applied for specific approval of the guns multiple components. By that point, the blueprints had already been downloaded 100,000 times. In response, Wilson filed alawsuitagainst the State Department with the help of Second Amendment Foundation, a guns-rights organization, in which he sought a preliminary injunction to allow continued publication of the gun files online. Under both the Obama and Trump administrations, the government stuck by its assertion that the technical data constituted an illegal gun export. Wilson countered that the governments intervention violated his First Amendment right to free speech. Ultimately, district and appeals courts both rejected Wilsons injunction request. But as the case turned to the First Amendment claim, the government made an unexpected settlement offer. With thesettlement, reached in June and announced July 10, the government waived the relevant export restrictions and allowed Wilson to post the blueprints online as early as Aug. 1. Specifically, the State Departmentannouncedthat it was in the interest of the security and foreign policy of the United States to temporarily modify theU.S. Munitions Listto exclude the technical data for the 3-D-printed guns. Defense-related items on the munitions list face tight restrictions, because they offer a critical military or intelligence advantage to the United States. The U.S. Commerce Department manages a separate export list with fewer restrictions. It is not clear what role Trump or the White House played in the settlement decision, though White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanderssaid during an Aug. 1 press briefing that the Department of Justice instructed the State Department to settle without White House approval. The State Department has said that its role in this issue relates solely to regulation of exports of certain types of firearms and any related technical data. But the move to shift the 3D-printed guns technical data outside of the State Departments purview was not without precedent. The governments decision came amid a longstanding but relatively behind-the-scenes administrative project  started under the Obama administration and known as export control reform  to restructure the regulations governing exports of weapons and technologies. Just as the litigation against Wilson can be traced back to the Obama years, so, too, can the export control changes that may have opened the door for the State Departments settlement. Beginning in 2009, the Obama administrationlaunchedan overhaul of export control in order to refine regulations for items that were subject to both the State Departments International Traffic in Arms Regulations and the Commerce Departments Export Administration Regulations. The goal of the reform was to streamline export controls by transferring commercially available items  such as consumer guns  off the USML and onto the less restrictive Commerce Control List. The State Department began reviewing the munitions list, sifting through each category and removing items that were not considered military-sensitive. By 2016, it had finished reviewing all but threecategories: firearms, ammunition and artillery. However, reform of those final categories stalled before it could become policy. Aproposed rulewould have handed jurisdiction of commercial firearms export controls to the Commerce Department in 2012, but it was delayed following the Sandy Hook school shooting. That proposed rule did notregainmomentum until 2018, under Trump. On May 24, the Departments ofStateandCommercesimultaneously publishedproposalsin the Federal Register to amend the final three categories of the munitions list. The proposed revisions would keep military-grade weapons under State Department jurisdiction and place commercially available firearms under the purview or the Commerce Department. According to theNew York Times, these proposals strongly resemble the Obama administrations 2012 version. CNNreportedthat the government is currently reviewing them. This may explain the State Departments sudden decision to settle its case with Wilson. By recommending that commercial firearm exports move under Commerce Department oversight, the May 24 proposals would likely free Wilsons blueprints from the International Traffic in Arms Regulations that previously restricted them. My guess is that it was somehow wrapped up in the movement of items from the (U.S. Munitions List) to the (Commerce Control List), said Rachel Stohl, managing director at the Stimson Center and an expert in the international arms trade. If you deregulate the weapons themselves, it would follow that the technical specs could be deregulated as well. Stohl added that the settlement was unexpected and the State and Commerce Departments have been less than forthcoming on these details. For his part, Wilson has agreed to refrain from posting his blueprints for at least another month while the multi-state lawsuit travels through the courts. A headline suggested that the government settlement that would have made 3D-printable guns available for download was actually a Trump administration decision, and that Trump said that didn't make much sense. We could not independently determine the extent of Trumps involvement, although Sanders said the president was not afforded the opportunity to approve of the settlement decision. But the State Department under Trump did initiate the settlement after previously taking steps to clear a path for it. However, the Obama administrations export control reform made those steps possible, and it is not far-fetched to consider the Trump administrations move a continuation of that initiative. We rate this statement Mostly True. Republican U.S. Senate hopeful Joe Kyrillos said increased revenues are needed to deal with the national debt, but the path to that goal isnt paved with tax hikes.Rather, Kyrillos said, he wants to lower taxes to stimulate growth.Well, we're going to have to raise revenue and I want to do it through growth. I want to lower tax rates. I want to make sure that America doesn't have the highest corporate tax rate in the world, which is what we have now, and lower the rates for everybody, Kyrillos said during a debate tonight with his Democratic rival, U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez, that aired on NJTV.Are corporations in the United States subject to the highest tax rate in the world?The statutory rate for businesses is the highest among industrialized nations. But for the rate businesses actually pay -- whats called the effective tax rate -- the United States ranks among the highest, but not at the very top, according to studies.We checked a nearly identical claim that Kyrillos made during an Aug. 20 interview on WOR-AM. Then he said, we've got the highest corporate tax rate in the world. We rated that statement Mostly True.At that time, a spokeswoman for Kyrillos cited the nations top statutory corporate tax rate of 39.2 percent. That rate is a combination of federal, state and local tax rates before any tax breaks are factored in.Japan used to have a higher statutory rate than the United States. But in April, Japan reduced its rate and the U.S. took first place among industrialized nations, according to the Tax Foundation, a business-backed group.So on that point, Kyrillos is right.Since businesses receive a number of tax breaks, the effective tax rate for corporations in the U.S. isnt the worlds highest, but its still up there.More than a dozen of the most recent studies on effective corporate tax rates across the world found businesses in the U.S. paid an effective rate between 23 percent and 34.9 percent, according to a September 2011 report from the Tax Foundation.The effective rate varied between the studies the Tax Foundation looked at because of different methodologies.In those studies, the U.S. never ranked first in the world. But in 10 of the studies, the nations effective corporate tax rate ranked among the top five highest.Its worth noting that an analysis by the left-leaning Citizens for Tax Justice along with the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, found that 30 Fortune 500 companies, including General Electric, didnt pay any federal corporate income taxes over the 2008-2010 period.As for what is the better measure -- statutory rates or effective rates -- we found mixed views.Scott Hodge, the president of the Tax Foundation, told PolitiFact New Jersey in August that because statutory rates are fixed they make for better comparisons, whereas effective rates are unpredictable and vary across different industries.But Joseph Rosenberg, a research associate at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, said effective tax rates provide the best measure of comparison for overall tax burdens.Then Aparna Mathur, an economist with the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said in an e-mail that both are equally valid measures of looking at the burden of the corporate income tax.Our rulingKyrillos repeated a claim he made before that the United States has the highest corporate tax rate in the world.Thats true for the nations statutory corporate tax rate among industrialized nations. When Japan lowered its statutory rate, the United States moved into first place.Even when accounting for various tax breaks, the effective rate is still among the highest.On the Truth-O-Meter, we rate this statement Mostly True.To comment on this ruling, go toNJ.com. FACT CHECK:  Did President Obama "suspend" the Second Amendment?  Claim:  President Obama has "suspended" the Second Amendment.     Examples:  [Collected via Twitter, October 2015] BREAKING NEWS- President Barack Hussein Obama Jr. SUSPENDS 2ND AMENDMENTRead more at https://t.co/CVT80kEfls https://t.co/CVT80kEfls  The Dc Gazette (@TheDcGazette) October 2, 2015 October 2, 2015   This is bull crap. Get rid of this idiot! He cant do this https://t.co/oqv0GWX1d2 https://t.co/oqv0GWX1d2  Mason Page (@MasonKanePage) October 2, 2015 October 2, 2015   Origins:   On 1 October 2015, ten people were killed in a mass shooting at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon.   In the wake of the incident (and ensuing interest in the topic of gun violence), the disreputable web site Universal Free Press published an article with the clickbait headline "BREAKING NEWS  President Barack Hussein Obama Jr. SUSPENDS 2ND AMENDMENT," stating that: mass shooting In a move unprecedented by a sitting president and in wake of the recent mass shooting in Oregon, Barack Obama said Ive had enough and I will not allow more women and children to die by gun violence on my watch. Sources on Capitol Hill say, that Obama while in a cabinet meeting, was handed the recent statistical reports on violent crime and at the same time was told of another mass shooting, it was then that he exclaimed Are you joking, this is unacceptable and THIS time Im going to do something about it! He continued by saying, For too long, have I sat idly by and watched crime after crime be committed when there was a gun involved, well NO MORE, I have to think of the safety of the American people, after all, I took a solemn oath to do so. Sources close to the president explained that suspending a constitutional right was not within his power, Obama exclaimed,  I have certain powers granted to me and I intend to use them to keep the citizens of this great nation safe, if there is a legality issue, we can sort it out later. A few (but not all) users who shared the link on Twitter noted that the article was both prefaced by and concluded with a note indicating that its claims were entirely fabricated (and calculated to take advantage of the tragedy and produce revenue-generating traffic by provoking baseless outrage): *Disclaimer* This article is satire and there is no basis of fact for it to be taken seriously. Last updated:     2 October 2015 Originally published:   2 October 2015 The Georgia General Assembly earlier this year pulled the plug on one of the nations most generous state tax credits for electric cars. At the same time, state lawmakers voted to impose a $200 annual registration fee on owners of some plug-in hybrids and all zero-emissions vehicles to make up for the gas taxes those motorists dont pay and to help fund a backlog of road projects. Both changes took effect July 1, and already, preliminary numbers show sales of the Nissan Leaf and other electric cars are plummeting, Don Francis, coordinator of the Clean Cities-Georgia Coalition, said in an interview published Oct. 28 at Watchdog.org. New electric car registrations in Georgia fell 89 percent from 1,338 in June, the last month that the tax credit was available, to 148 in August, Francis said. Sound surprising? Maybe not. True? PolitiFact decided to dig deeper. First, well provide some background. Georgia started providing a tax credit for electric car purchases in 1998. Initially, businesses and individuals were offered a tax credit up to $1,500 as incentive to buy alternative-fuel vehicles. Two years later, the credit was upped to $2,500 for all low-emission vehicles, and in 2001, it was doubled to $5,000 for zero-emission vehicles. By comparison, Louisiana and Maryland offer a credit up to $3,000, and Utah gives up to $1,500. All three states limit the tax credit to vehicle purchases. Georgias $5,000 credit meant huge savings for state residents who wanted to buy or even lease an electric car -- especially when coupled with a federal tax credit that could be as much as $7,500, depending on the capacity of the vehicles battery. Those who wanted to get rid of the tax credit said that the double tax credits were excessive and allowing Atlanta yuppies to lease electric cars, including the $30,000 Leaf, for as little as $100 a month. Supporters said the tax credit made Georgia one of the top states for electric cars, a positive step especially in metro Atlanta where air pollution from auto emissions has been a persistent problem. Statewide, electric car ownership has jumped dramatically just in the past couple of years.. According to the state Revenue Department, 1,743 electric cars were riding the roads of Georgia in 2012. By 2014, that number had soared to 15,729, or an increase of 802 percent, with two-thirds of them parking outside homes in metro Atlantas four biggest counties -- Fulton (4,288), Cobb (2,397), Gwinnett (2,087) and DeKalb (2,067). Proposals to eliminate the tax credit went nowhere in 2013 and 2014. But in this years legislative session, when raising $1 billion for transportation projects was a priority, budget analysts said cutting the tax credit for electric cars would bring in $66 million by 2016 and nearly $190 million by 2020. Supporters of the tax credit touted a private study that said, without the tax credit, Georgias economy would lose $252 million in the next 16 years. What the numbers say We began our fact check by contacting Francis, who opposed abolishing the state tax credit during this years General Assembly session. Francis shared with PolitiFact a spreadsheet that he developed based on motor vehicle data he obtained from a national automotive information company. The data showed a spike in Georgias electric car sales in the months between when lawmakers voted to kill the tax credit and when it officially expired July 1. Sales declined sharply in July, going from 1,338 in June to 776, and fell even more, to 149, in August, the last month for which data are available, Francis said. When you were selling an average of just over 1,000 (cars) a month and then it goes to 150 a month, you have to say: What changed? Francis said. Two things changed: The tax credit went away, and the $200 fee was added. We contacted officials at IHS Automotive, the company where Francis received the data used in the spreadsheet, and asked it to review the accuracy of his information. Michelle Culver, senior manager for corporate communications at IHS, said via an email that we did a spot check on this, and it is our data and accurate. We also decided to find out what the Georgia Department of Revenue, the agency in charge of vehicle registrations in the state, was seeing. William Gaston, the departments spokesman, sent us data on new car sales, rather than new car registrations. The reason, he said, was an owner could register a vehicle after July 1 but have purchased it before the deadline and thus qualify for the tax credit. Revenue Department numbers and Francis data brought us to the same conclusion -- sales of electric cars have done a nosedive. Specifically, Georgians purchased 5,434 zero-emissions vehicles -- or an average of 905 a month -- from Jan. 1 to June 30 of this year, when the $5,000 tax credit was available. Between July 1 and Sept. 30 -- when the state tax credit was no longer available -- 439 electric cars were sold, or about 149 per month. Our ruling: Don Francis, coordinator of the Clean Cities-Georgia Coalition, said electric car sales in Georgia have dropped dramatically since a $5,000 tax credit was eliminated and a $200 annual registration fee was imposed July 1. That statement is backed up by data available so far on new car registrations and new car sales. Keep in mind that car sales spiked as people rushed to buy before the credit expired July 1, and that makes the post-July 1 drop in sales look that much more shocking. Whether that trend holds remains to be seen. But everything we found so far indicates Francis is on the money. We therefore rate his statement as True.