Be cautious of fraudulent schemes promising a '$3,600 Stimulus for Homeowners'.
We advise all readers, as well as their friends and family, to beware of Facebook ads that promise a "stimulus" or "savings" for homeowners in the amount of $3,600, $3,700, $3,712, $3,800, or another similar dollar figure. The posts featured pictures of U.S. President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, and members of Congress, among others. Some ads also mentioned the term, "mortgage refinance stimulus."  Examples of some of the Facebook ads.  The ads gave the appearance that Biden and the U.S. government voted through a plan to provide $3,600, $3,700, $3,712, $3,800, or another similar amount of money as a "stimulus" or "savings" in the form of check payments to help homeowners. The pictures and text perhaps looked and felt similar to the previous COVID-19 economic impact payments and child tax credit payments that Americans became familiar with in 2020 and 2021. Those genuine payments came directly from the Internal Revenue Service. economic impact payments child tax credit payments However, there is no federal plan to distribute $3,600, $3,700, $3,712, or $3,800 "stimulus" or "savings" checks to homeowners. Facebook users who clicked on the ads were led to websites that were not operated by the government. From there, they all appeared to lead to a central page: GovHomePrograms.com. This website included a brief survey that asked questions about finances, home value, and mortgage status. The forms also asked for a name, email address, phone number, and mailing address. GovHomePrograms.com We filled out the forms and were then led to one or more lenders that could help future homeowners to buy a house or current homeowners to refinance a mortgage. There was no evidence that the Facebook ads led to a way for homeowners to obtain a $3,600, $3,700, $3,712, or $3,800 "stimulus" or "savings" payment from the government. According to GovHomePrograms.com's terms of service and privacy policy pages, its parent company was RateMarketplace.com. Plateau Data Services, LLC was also mentioned in the documentation. terms of service privacy policy RateMarketplace.com One page led to EnhancedRefiNow.com instead of GovHomePrograms.com. Its parent company appeared to be LMB Mortgage Services, Inc., also known as LowerMyBills.com. EnhancedRefiNow.com As of December 2021, at least eight Facebook pages named American Savings Tips, Wise American Solution, Clever American Choices, New American Community, US Relief, StraightFix, Homeowners of America, and Our Best American Life had spent around $200,000 on advertising since late October to promote the ads. One of the biggest spenders was Wise American Solution, which had spent nearly $60,000 alone in early December, as of Dec. 13. American Savings Tips Wise American Solution Clever American Choices New American Community US Relief StraightFix Homeowners of America Our Best American Life spent In other words, at least millions of Facebook users had been served the ads from these pages on Facebook or Instagram.  The American Savings Tips Facebook page spent nearly $60,000 on ads between Oct. 27 and Dec. 7. It also misleadingly showed a picture of a U.S. Treasury check for $3,600.  The Facebook pages and their corresponding websites were all brand new and were created in either October or November 2021. Another page named Helpers Today also pushed similar ads about a "stimulus" or "savings" for homeowners. Helpers Today Several hours after we started investigating Clever American Choices, its Facebook page became unavailable. It's unclear why this happened within those few hours and not at any time in previous weeks. According to its advertising information, Clever American Choices was "deleted" after violating Facebook's advertising policies. It had spent at least $45,209 on Facebook ads between Nov. 21 and Dec. 7. The other pages also showed advertising violations. advertising information advertising violations After we clicked on one of the Facebook ads and landed on a website, we noticed this message at the bottom: "THIS IS AN ADVERTORIAL AND NOT AN ACTUAL NEWS ARTICLE, BLOG, OR CONSUMER PROTECTION UPDATE." at the bottom We also found a list of "disclaimers" in small print spaced far below the end of most of the body of the page that was meant "for Facebook reviewers and 3rd party fact checkers." One of the lines attempted to clarify why words like "government" and "Biden" were used in the copy: 5. "Government" , "Biden" , "New Administration" , "Relief" - assume multiple citations below from the following article: "Biden's $10 billion in financial assistance is expected to be available in 2022." https://finance.yahoo.com/news/biden-signed-10-billion-mortgage-133000243.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/biden-signed-10-billion-mortgage-133000243.html It's true that the Biden administration previously created a Homeowners Assistance Fund that's meant to "provide states with $10 billion to help struggling homeowners catch up on their mortgage payments and utility costs." It's also true that the assistance was still being given out by various states as of November 2021. But nowhere in this plan did we find anything about a $3,600, $3,700, $3,712, or $3,800 "stimulus" or "savings" plan for homeowners in the same way that past stimulus checks worked, as the Facebook ads appeared to hint at. Homeowners Assistance Fund still being given out One of the posts on Clever American Choices originally read: "This was featured on FoxNews [sic] last night. All I did was enter my zip and now I'm getting $3,600 back in savings. It was free to check, Just Enter Zip!" read A seemingly endless number of Facebook users then submitted their ZIP codes in the comments under the ads instead of on the resulting website, perhaps believing this would lead to them being contacted to receive a $3,600 check.  Not only did this ad show a fake "Homeowner Relief Card," but members of former U.S. President Donald Trump's Cabinet can be seen sitting in the photograph captured in Congress.  Aside from the ZIP code comments, the remarks with the most likes caught our eye. For example, a user named Jackie said: "This was featured in CNN yesterday so I guess I could try it since my neighbors already got theirs." Other ads mentioned C-SPAN. We found no record of CNN, Fox News, or C-SPAN recently broadcasting news of a specific $3,600, $3,700, $3,712, or $3,800 "stimulus" or "savings" for homeowners. Also, no one's "neighbors already got" a $3,600 stimulus check payment, because they don't exist.  These comments likely convinced quite a few people to give away their personal information.  Ben commented: "Wow! I've never seen anything like this before! Thank god that I saw it today so I can signup." Matt remarked: "Heard about this program form [sic] my neighbor. They got the check yesterday so I tried it and received a notification that my check will be here this week!" We also saw the same names making the same comments in multiple ads. It's unclear if these people worked for the websites or companies that were affiliated with the posts. We reached out to the Better Business Bureau and AARP for comment on these ads and websites. The BBB responded and told us that this is what they would refer to as a classic "government imposter scam." A BBB spokesperson told us: "Without further research, its hard to tell if this is just a way to get homeowners to apply for refinancing, or if the motive is fraud. Consumers are being asked to share personally identifiable information (PII), and thats a huge red flag because it is everything needed for identity theft. The fact that the domains are new is another red flag. BBB advises consumers never to share personal information with someone who has solicited them, whether through email, social media ad, text, etc., but to carefully vet any new company that needs PII." In a study, the BBB found that these sorts of scams increased in 2020 and 2021 with the COVID-19 pandemic. They also sent over a page about government grant scams and a scam alert about stimulus checks. study government grant scams a scam alert about stimulus checks We also heard from Kathy Stokes, director of fraud prevention for the AARP Fraud Watch Network. In an email, Stokes told us: "It is safe to say that ads that pitch free money from the government are government grant scams and the internet, particularly Facebook, is teeming with them. Sometimes youll see your Facebook friends share the information, claim they got money from a grant, and encourage you to get your free money, too. Often that means the friends Facebook account has been hacked. Whether it is a scammer or an actual company, you should report the ads to the FTC. These sites often ask for you to share your personal information, which can be dangerous for the person entering it." AARP In sum, the Facebook ads that promised a "stimulus" or "savings" for homeowners simply appeared to be a way to route future homeowners to lenders or to show current homeowners where they could refinance their mortgages. With guidance from the BBB and AARP on identifying this as a "government imposter scam" or "government grant scam," we have rated this story accordingly with the "Scam" rating. The rating for this fact check was changed from "False" to "Scam" after we received guidance in a response from the Better Business Bureau and AARP. We also added several more Facebook pages and updated the advertising dollar figure to be around $200,000.
U.S. Rep. Pete Gallego invoked pickup trucks to frame his case for making it easier for college students and young graduates to refinance student loans. The average student loan debt in Texas is over $22,000, the Texas Democrat wrote in a May 14, 2014, email blast. That also happens to be the cost of an average size pickup truck! But heres whats truly alarming: students are NOT allowed to refinance their loans at lower rates -- the same way car owners can, Gallego wrote. Democratic-sponsored legislationwould provide federal aid so students and graduates stuck with high interest rates could repay the loans at the lower rates Congress approved for new student loans in 2013, though a May 16, 2014 National Journalnews storycalled the proposal a long shot in the Senate, where Republicans were described as likely to resist higher taxes on the wealthy to pay for the refinancing wrinkle. Gallegos revved our curiosity thrice over. Average student loan debt By email, Gallegos campaign manager, Anthony Gutierrez told us the congressmans average student-loan debt figure came from anews storyposted online May 8, 2014, on the GovBeat blog ofThe Washington Post. That story said more than a million Americans would graduate this year with substantial student loan debt, a conclusion it attributed to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The graduates will have an average of $26,500 in student loans, thePoststory said, joining the tens of millions of other adults who collectively hold more than $1 trillion in student loan debt. That burden is largest, on average, in many Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states, a few Southeastern states and California. An accompanying U.S. map shows more than 20 states including Texas where the average student loan debt is $22,000 to $25,000  ThePostcredited these conclusions to the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, using data from the third quarter of 2012. We ventured to a web page for the reserve bank where its entry on student loan debt led us to aresearch paper, published in 2012 and revised in April 2013, by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. According to the revised paper, student loan debt increased dramatically over the last several years, from about $346 billion in the fourth quarter of 2004 to $996 billion in the fourth quarter of 2012, a surge of nearly 14 percent a year. By comparison, the report said, total credit card debt was $679 billion and auto debt was $783 billion. Then again, the report states, increasing levels of debt were driven largely by growth in the number of borrowers, rather than growth in average debt levels of borrowers. The report said that in the fourth quarter of 2012--a few months after the period analyzed in thePosts chart--the median borrower holding student loan debt owed $13,924 in student loan debt. The average amount of student loan debt across all consumers with student loan debt was $24,699. Thats the latest available calculation, Bill Medley, spokesman for the Kansas City Fed, told us by email. Pricing average pickup trucks Next, did Gallego capture the price of an average-size pickup? Gutierrez told us the campaign researched average used truck prices on the Cars Direct website. He pointed us to an April 5, 2012,articleon the site showing suggested retail prices for five 2010 and 2007 models. These prices are for a base model pickup truck with standard options and no additional accessories, the article said. According to the story, the average manufacturers suggested retail price for a 2010 two-door Ford F-150 was $22,355 and the average for a 2010 Dodge Ram 1500 was $21,510--prices close to the $22,000-plus cited by Gallego. Then again, the Cars Direct article listed estimated prices for two 2010 models at less than $22,000. It also listed the price for another 2010 truck as nearly $6,000 higher. But Gallego priced used pickups; we looked on Edmunds.com, which compiles car and truck prices, for manufacturers suggested retail prices for model-year 2013 and 2014 pickups.According to the site, the price for a basic Ford F-150 regular cab starts at $24,070 (2013 model) and $24,735 (2014). A Toyota Tacoma regular cab starts at $17,625 (2013) and $18,125 (2014),the sitesays. Limits on refinancing student loans? Finally, are students really not allowed to refinance college loans? Gutierrez pointed out news articles including a Feb. 20, 2013,Time magazine piecestating that unlike other consumers who have taken advantage of reduced interest rates to refinance purchases, student borrowers have been restricted because Congressnot the free marketsets the interest rate on the vast majority of student debt, and because these loans are not secured by collateral private lenders are loath to undercut the federal governments terms. The Time story noted that student loan debt was at $1 trillionand of that, the federal government backed $864 billion. Also, most of the debt was being carried at an interest rate higher than 6 percent, a figure Time attributed to a Feb. 13, 2013,reportfrom the left-leaning Center for American Progress. Thats almost twice the rate of an average 30-year mortgage, Time said. By telephone,Heather Jarvis, a North Carolina attorney specializing in student loan law, said that some graduates may be able to refinance student loans at lower rates through private lenders, though she said this would only happen in cases of substantial income. (Car owners, in contrast, have four-wheeled collateral.) By email, Jarvis said 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. Also by phone,Brian Stewartof the Center for American Progress -- which has urged the Democratic-backed action -- said its possible but difficult to refinance student loans with private lenders while there's no way for students to get the federal government to refinance a government-backed loan. Stewart, a spokesman for Generation Progress, a center project focused on young adults, said the center has been researching student-loan issues for about two years. Our ruling Gallego said the average student loan debt in Texas is over $22,000...the cost of an average size pickup truck. But unlike car owners, he said, students are not allowed to refinance their loans at lower rates. This claim reflects the latest estimate of average student-loan debt and a findable price for an average-size pickup. Its also so that most college loans are federally backed and Uncle Sam doesnt offer a way for students and graduates to refinance. On the other hand, students taking loans from banks or other private lenders arent prevented from refinancing; this claim lacks that clarification. We rate this statement as Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. Claim:  Photograph shows a house painted in protest by its owner after he was barred from displaying a U.S. flag in his yard.  REAL PHOTOGRAPH;  INACCURATE DESCRIPTION Example:  [Collected via Facebook, May 2013] I have received an email that stated a man was told by his homeowner's association that he could not fly his flag.  It showed what he'did about it', and the house was beautifully painted like an American flag:  This guy was told by his Homeowners Association that he couldn't fly the American flag in his yard ...  Origins:  Recent years have seen a number of "viral" news stories about homeowners (often military personnel or veterans) who have run afoul of local ordinances or homeowners association (HOA) rules that  prevented them from displaying U.S. flags on their property, such as the 2009 case of Van T. Barfoot and the 2013 case of Brandon Weir.  Usually such problems arise not because of a general prohibition on the flying of U.S. flags, but because some facet of a particular flag's display violates an existing rule: the flag is too large, the flagpole from which it is flown is too high, or the flag is attached to a portion of a home (such as a balcony or stairway) which is required to be kept free from adornment. Van T. Barfoot Brandon Weir In May 2013 a photograph (displayed above) of a home with its exterior painted in the pattern of an American flag (white stars amidst a blue field adjacent to red and white horizontal striping) was circulated on the Internet, with accompanying text identifying the paint scheme as one the homeowner resorted to after being told by his HOA "that he couldn't fly the American flag in his yard."  Although the picture is real and the unusual paint job it depicts was something undertaken as a form of protest, the true backstory had nothing to do with a homeowner's being barred from displaying a U.S. flag in his yard.    The American flag house pictured above is located in Cambridge, Maryland, and its owner, Branden Spear, gave it that distinctive paint job after being angered that his restored Victorian property was declared by building inspectors to be non-compliant with historical code: Cambridge Homeowners who choose to paint their houses with non-traditional colors risk running afoul of their neighbors and local politicians, but owner and contractor Branden Spear never set out to paint his restored Victorian properties with colors that were out of the norm. But when local building inspectors told him that the windows he chose to restore the home weren't up to historical code, he got angry. "It would have cost one-third of the restoration budget just to install those windows," says Spear. Then he realized the building code said nothing about what colors the old Victorians should be painted. So as a show of his anger, and as a protest against what he says are unfair regulations, he painted one home all black, and the adjacent home with an American flag theme. They've become something of a tourist attraction since, and even though Spear is still at odds with local government officials, he has proven one point  that paint and color can also be used as protest. In June 2014, Florida news outlets reported a case of a resident of Bradenton who had also painted his house in the style of a U.S. flag as a protest over the city's code compliance enforcement:   A prestigious road in Bradenton is now home to a very patriotic house. Brent Greer, who lives on Riverview Boulevard, recently painted the outside of his house red, white and blue. Greer said he decided to turn his home into the American flag to send a message. Greer grew up in the 100-year-old home and now lives there with his wife and seven adopted children. He said they changed the color of their house after getting into a dispute with the city's code enforcement. A few months ago, code enforcement officers said they went to the home acting on an anonymous tip. "Late February, we received a complaint about a dead Christmas tree on the balcony," said Volker Reiss, Community Services and Code Compliance Manager for City of Bradenton. Reiss said his officers asked the family to remove it and they complied. Greer said to his surprise, they were told about more violations. The city sent Greer a two page letter, listing several violations at the home. Some of the issues were about missing window screens, painting, pressure washing, loose railings, and trash on the property. Greer said while everything was upsetting, one complaint made him furious. He said he was told his home's exterior painting was not up to city standards. The Greers do not live in a deed-restricted community. He said he feels like he's being treated as if he does. Last updated:  5 June 2014    Smith, Summer.  "Manatee Man Paints American Flag on Home During Dispute with City."   Bay News 9.  4 June 2014. 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. Phishing bait:  E-mailed messages pose as overdue notifications for E-ZPass bills. SCAM Example:  [Collected via e-mail, July 2014] Just got word from my dad of a virus that I didn't see listed on your site: ------------------ Judy got an e-mail with the subject line saying "Payment for driving on a toll road."  She forwarded it to me. The message said something like "You are overdue for paying your E-Z Pass bill.  Click here to download your invoice."  I should have known better than to do it, but I did.  It downloaded an "exe" file to my computer.  Like a damn fool, I actually told my computer to open it.  I got a warning message saying "The publisher cannot be verified.  Are you sure you want to open this file?" At that point, I realized that I had narrowly escaped infecting my computer with some kind of malware  virus, identity theft, or something of that type.  I permanently deleted the exe file and any e-mail messages containing the link to it.  Origins:  In July 2014 Internet users were spammed with emails appearing to originate with the E-ZPass Service Center (an electronic toll-collection system used on most tolled roads, tunnels, and bridges in the eastern half of the United States) with subject lines such as "In arrears for driving on toll road."  The text of such messages informed recipients that "You have not paid for driving on a toll road" and invited them to click on a link to download an invoice and "service your debt in the shortest possible time."   These messages were not legitimate; they were part of a phishing scheme intended to lure recipients into clicking links or opening attachments and downloading malware onto their computers.  The New York State Thruway Authority has posted a warning on its site advising customers that the messages are not authorized communications from E-ZPass, the New York State Thruway Authority, or any other toll collection agency and should not be opened or responded to: warning The New York State Thruway Authority is warning motorists about a scam involving fake e-mails. The authority says it recently learned of an email phishing scam which appears to be an attempt to collect unpaid tolls. An example of the email is as follows: "Dear customer, You have not paid for driving on a toll road. This invoice is sent repeatedly, please service your debt in the shortest possible time." The authority is warning that this is not an authorized communication from E-ZPass, the New York State Thruway Authority or any other toll agency associated with E-ZPass. People are advised not to open or respond to such a message. The safest thing to do is to delete the email. The E-ZPass Service Center does not send out email invoices for payment. If you owe money for using E-ZPass on a toll facility, the E-ZPass service center will send an invoice through the US Postal Service for payment. If you have any questions about the validity of any message received from E-ZPass, contact the E-ZPass New York Customer Service Center at 800-333-8655. Last updated:  10 July 2014 Claim:  Winston Churchill wrote about the "dreadful curses of Mohammedanism" in his 1899 book The River Wars. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, January 2015] Origins:  An obscure quote attributed to British statesman Winston Churchill has been circulating on the Internet since at least May 2013, when Missouri State Representative Rick Stream sent an e-mail to his colleagues warning about the dangers of Islam. That e-mail cited a passage said to have been taken from a speech by Churchill, as reproduced in his 1899 book The River War: An Historical Account of the Reconquest of the Soudan:   He was a brave young soldier, a brilliant journalist, an extraordinary politician and statesman, a great war leader and Prime Minister, to whom the Western world must be forever in his debt. He was a prophet in his own time; He died on 24 January 1965, at the grand old age of 90 and, after a lifetime of service to his country, was accorded a State funeral.   How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.   A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.   Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome. The above-quoted passage did appear in The River War when it was first published as a two-volume set in 1899, but the selection was removed when the book was condensed into one volume and republished in 1902. While the one-volume abridged edition of The River War is still readily available, as of January 2015 the original two-volume 1899 version is much harder to find, a condition which may have led to confusion about the origins of the quote in question. However, the Churchill Centre has confirmed these words were indeed written by Winston Churchill. confirmed The passage as reproduced on the Internet typically incorporates one small omission, though: it elides Churchill's praise of "Moslems" as "brave and loyal soldiers" and covers the gap by combining the remaining part of the sentence with the previous one: Last updated:  8 January 2015 Claim:  Aspiring work-at-homers promised big bucks for acting as intermediaries for international transactions wherein they cash checks for other parties have been defrauded by con artists.  REAL FRAUD WHICH COSTS ITS VICTIMS THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2004] Good day, my name is Evaldas Vytautas. I'm Sales Manager of Lionder Web Design Agency. We are situated in Vilnius, Lithuania. Lionder Web Design Agency is pleased to offer you the position of Exchange Manager for our organization. We are excited about the potential that you bring to our company. We work with corporate clients and some of them prefer to do wire transfers, however we cannot receive international wire transfers because of heavy taxes. Tax for international wire transfer is 25% In Lithuania. There is no sense for us to work in such a way, however we don't want to lose our clients. You need to have Paypal/bank account. System is completely automated. You will work only 1-2 hours a day, receive, process payments from our clients through your Paypal/bank account. Report about all new payments, act only within the limits of law  earn minimum $1500-$2000 per month. Your salary will be 5-15% from every processed amount (you begin from 5%). To join the minimum requirements include : -MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS (Skills, Knowledge, Ability, etc.)-The minimum qualifications are diploma or equivalent.-Must be able to multi-task and have good communication skills.-Knowledge of MS Word and other basic computer programs.-This being a new field there is NO experience needed. HOW TO APPLY: If you would like to pursue this opportunity simply send Your Resume (CV) to resume@lionder.net OR Download Job Application Form  (www.lionder.net/Job_Application_Form.doc), fill it in and send us to resume@lionder.net (No phone calls please. Callers will not be considered for the position). We will respond promptly. Please don't feel shy to contact our Online Support and ask any questions you will have: Contact Name: Julie JakulyteICQ- 257235542,AOL IM Screen Name- Jakulyte,Yahoo! ID: JJakulyte,MSN- Jakulyte@hotmail.com. No agencies, please. Lionder Web Design Agency is an equal opportunity/affirmative actionemployer. For more information about who we are and what we do, please visit our webiste  www.lionder.net It is necessary that we know your decision by November 20, 2004, so that we can plan accordingly. Regards, Evaldas VytautasLionder Web Design Agency Origins:  In   2004 we began noticing a new scam targeting those searching for part-time paid duties that could be performed from home. This new con uses the promise of high-paying work to lure eager job seekers into being defrauded themselves or used to steal from others. Those so led down the garden path are pulled in by advertisements for jobs involving the forwarding of monies or goods collected in the U.S. to business entities in other countries. Supposedly, the successful applicants will make thousands of dollars through working from home for a few hours a week, with no special skills or training required. Sometimes international wire transfers are specifically mentioned in these solicitations, and the terms "import/export specialist," "marketing manager," and "financial manager" often turn up in their wording. The reputations of the venues where the ads are found proves no protection to those looking for such opportunities, in that this work-at-home scam has been touted thousands of times on popular job web sites including Monster, Careerbuilder, Careers.com, and Yahoo! Hotjobs. This con operates in one of two of ways, both of which leaves hopeful job seekers in a mess of trouble:  In its more usual incarnation, successful job applicants are tasked with depositing checks for varying amounts (anywhere from a few thousand dollars all the way into the six-figure range) into their personal bank accounts and relaying to their new employers 95% of the amount banked, keeping 5% as their commission. The explanation given by the employers for that which necessitates their having someone cash checks on their behalf varies from come-on to come-on, but the need to believe in 'something for nothing' (in this case a high steady income in return for a few hours' work per week) blinds the about-to-be-defrauded to the glaring implausibilities inherent to these tall tales of strange government-imposed restrictions, exorbitant tax rates in the homeland, the need to fly under a competitor's radar, and the like. The checks the unsuspecting dupes are given to deposit are worthless, but this detail is not discovered by them or their banks until weeks after the fact, which is long after 95% of the face value of said financial instruments has been wired to the thieves. As is the case in the 'cashier check' scam (sellers are duped into accepting cashier checks in excess of the amounts they seek for their goods on the understanding they are to forward the additional monies to third parties), the scam works because the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC) requires banks to make money from cashier's, certified, or teller's checks available in one to five days. Consequently, funds from checks that might not be good are often released into payees' accounts long before the checks themselves have been honored by their issuing banks. High quality forgeries can be bounced back and forth between banks for weeks before anyone catches on to their being worthless. cashier check In this form of the scheme, those who'd thought they were about to pack up and move to Easy Street thanks to their new jobs as international relayers instead find themselves on the hook for the amounts they wired to others. That the original checks were worthless does not absolve those who deposited them from financial responsibility for the funds they subsequently instructed their banks to pay out  the two transactions (the deposit and the disbursement) are regarded as separate. Therefore, if a hypothetical erstwhile wire transfer facilitator handled a bogus check for $10,000, instead of netting $500 (his 5% fee), he would be out $9,500 (the amount he had his bank wire to those who'd conned him).  The mayhem doesn't necessarily end there. There is a further danger that, now armed with the dupe's banking information from the wire transfer, these same thieves can use those numbers to create a demand draft to  withdraw funds without confirmation from the hapless job seeker's bank account until there's nothing left in it but dust. demand draft  In another version of the con, those who land these coveted 'jobs' are tasked with collecting payments from their new employers' clients in the U.S. and wiring these funds back to the home office, retaining a specified portion of the recouped accounts as their fees. Only after the fact does it come to light that the deposited checks were for non-existent merchandise vended through online auction sites, usually about the time that the police come a'knocking on the door. This form of the wire transfer scam mirrors a type of the CNP fraud in which job-seeking dupes are hired to repackage and ship to Nigeria goods purchased on stolen credit cards. As with the wire transfer come-on, the promise of  easy, high-paying part-time work blinds those who unwittingly become part of an international theft ring thanks to their desire to believe in the job fairy. In both cases, they're the ones left holding the bag when the police turn up to ask questions about the monies or goods others have been duped out of. CNP daydream about earning livable incomes from the comfort of their dens rather than having to make the trek to their offices each day, they do not as a general rule of thumb search for such job openings with the same fervor as do the elderly, the physically afflicted, or the parents committed to remaining at home with their preschool children. Members of those groups hunt for work-at-home opportunities because laboring in more traditional job settings is impossible for them. Because genuine offers of work of this nature are few and far between, with the need to secure a steady income becoming more of a pressing issue with each passing non-employed day, those folks are at far greater risk of being victimized by such schemes  their desperation leads them to be gulled by pie-in-the-sky promises and mollified by the wild backstories that go with them whereas the financially better off are more likely to remain convinced something is very wrong with the offer of mucho bucks in exchange for only a few hours' labor performed from home each week by folks possessed of no special training or skills. Barbara "reshipboard romance" Mikkelson How To Avoid Falling Victim To Reshipper Scams: Avoid job listings that use these descriptions: "package forwarding," "reshipping," "money transfers," "wiring funds" and "foreign agent agreements." These and similar phrases should raise a red flag.   Do not be fooled by official-sounding corporate names. Some scam artists operate under names that sound like those of long-standing, reputable firms.   Never forward or transfer money from any of your personal accounts on behalf of your employer. Also, be suspicious if you are asked to "wire" money to an employer. If a legitimate job requires you to make money transfers, the money should be withdrawn from the employers business account, not yours.   Do not give out your personal financial information. A potential legitimate employer will not request your bank account, credit card or Paypal account number. Provide your banking information only if you are hired by a legitimate company and you choose to have your paycheck direct deposited.   Do not fax copies of your ID or Social Security number to someone you have never met. Credit checks and fake IDs can be obtained with this information. Give these documents to your employer only when you are physically at the place of employment.   If you have questions about the legitimacy of a job listing, contact your Better Business Bureau, your state or local consumer agency, or the Federal Trade Commission.   Stop believing in the chimera of "something for nothing."  Additional Information:      Work-at-Home Schemes   (Federal Trade Commission)       Work-at-Home Schemes   (Better Business Bureau)   Last updated:  11 July 2011 <!-- FACT CHECK: Was Nick Hanauer's 2012 TED Talk about income inequality banned because it was "too politically controversial" to release?  Claim: A 2012 TED Talk video featuring wealthy entrepreneur Nick Hanauer speaking on the subject of income inequality was banned because it was deemed "too politically controversial."    Example: [Collected via e-mail, July 2015]   There are several articles that claim "TED Banned This Billionaire For Exposing Capitalism's Biggest Lie" or some similar wording. This is about the speech of Nick Hanauer, apparently a Seattle venture capitalist. The language of this sensational claim makes me suspicious, as does the unlikelihood of the claim. Is it true? What is the source of the rumour?   Origins: On 1 March 2012, Seattle-based venture capitalist and entrepreneur Nick Hanauer participated in the global conference series of "TED Talks." The video of his six-minute talk, widely circulated since its release, captured him addressing a spate of issues pertaining to income inequality and capitalism from the perspective of a very wealthy individual:  Not long after Hanauer's March 2012 talk was filmed, rumors began circulating claiming that TED had deliberately suppressed the clip due to its potentially offensive (to rich people) nature. On 16 May 2012, National Journal published an article contending that TED's organizers had quashed the groundbreaking talk because its content was simply too controversial to release, an odd assertion considering the 2011 emergence of a well-known (and widely reported upon) protest movement known as Occupy Wall Street): article Occupy Wall Street TED organizers invited a multimillionaire Seattle venture capitalist named Nick Hanauer  the first nonfamily investor in Amazon.com  to give a speech on March 1 at their TED University conference. Inequality was the topic  specifically, Hanauer's contention that the middle class, and not wealthy innovators like himself, are America's true "job creators." "We've had it backward for the last 30 years," he said. "Rich businesspeople like me don't create jobs. Rather they are a consequence of an ecosystemic feedback loop animated by middle-class consumers, and when they thrive, businesses grow and hire, and owners profit. That's why taxing the rich to pay for investments that benefit all is a great deal for both the middle class and the rich." You can't find that speech online. TED officials told Hanauer initially they were eager to distribute it. "I want to put this talk out into the world!" one of them wrote him in an e-mail in late April. But early this month they changed course, telling Hanauer that his remarks were too "political" and too controversial for posting. In the years since 2012, Hanauer's TED clip has paradoxically been viewed millions of times while remaining the focus of articles describing it as described as "banned," "too controversial," or the speech TED "doesn't want you to see." While it's difficult to determine the accuracy of statements about its online availability in March 2012, the clip clearly became widely available and was frequently viewed on sharing sites such as YouTube shortly thereafter, and it has remained popular ever since. But in 2015, many social media users continued to assert Hanauer's talk was banned: Banned TED Talk: Nick Hanauer  Rich People Dont Create Jobs (VIDEO) #news https://t.co/wmlAmaIZ48 #news https://t.co/wmlAmaIZ48  Hannah Kennison (@HannahKennison1) July 6, 2015 July 6, 2015   Nick Hanauer on His Banned TED Talk & Why the Middle Class are the Job Creators https://t.co/KKQOqIK5PQ https://t.co/KKQOqIK5PQ  Jonathan Goodman (@GoodmanJonathan) July 20, 2015 July 20, 2015   if you are interested in #economics, then it is worth listeningBanned TED Talk: Nick Hanauer 'Rich people don't... https://t.co/00E6rlPF1g #economics https://t.co/00E6rlPF1g  Mudassar Bashir (@mb62020) June 15, 2015 June 15, 2015   Nick Hanauer too politically controversial: rich people dont create jobs, consumers do - via Reese Jones https://t.co/9xzs0vn1kz https://t.co/9xzs0vn1kz  VritTV (@Verite_TV) June 11, 2015 June 11, 2015   In late May 2012 a contributor to TED's forums specifically asked why Hanauer's talk had been "banned," prompting a lengthy discussion during the course of which individuals affiliated with TED linked to a statement issued by TED curator Chris Anderson on why Hanauer's talk had not been promoted.     The service by which Anderson published the explanation (Posterous) shuttered in April 2013, taking Anderson's remarks with it. However, a cached version revealed the date (17 May 2012), title ("TED and inequality: The real story"), and content of Anderson's rebuttal. asked shuttered version Anderson opened by stating that "TED was subject to a story so misleading it would be funny... except it successfully launched an aggressive online campaign against us." He described an ensuing "firestorm of outrage" on sites including Reddit and Huffington Post, wherein TED was "accused of being cowards ... in the pay of our corporate partners ... [and] the despicable puppets of the Republican party." Anderson's account of the decision not to release Hanauer's talk differed dramatically from the circulating rumors: Here's what actually happened. At TED this year, an attendee pitched a 3-minute audience talk on inequality. The talk tapped into a really important and timely issue. But it framed the issue in a way that was explicitly partisan. (The talk is explicitly attacking what he calls an article of faith for Republicans. He criticizes Democrats too, but only for not also attacking this idea more often.) And it included a number of arguments that were unconvincing, even to those of us who supported his overall stance, such as the apparent ruling out of entrepreneurial initiative as a root cause of job creation. The audience at TED who heard it live (and who are often accused of being overly enthusiastic about left-leaning ideas) gave it, on average, mediocre ratings  some enthusiastic, others critical. At TED we post one talk a day on our home page. We're drawing from a pool of 250+ that we record at our own conferences each year and up to 10,000 recorded at the various TEDx events around the world, not to mention our other conference partners. Our policy is to post only talks that are truly special. And we try to steer clear of talks that are bound to descend into the same dismal partisan head-butting people can find every day elsewhere in the media. We discussed internally and ultimately told the speaker we did not plan to post. He did not react well. He had hired a PR firm to promote the talk to MoveOn and others, and the PR firm warned us that unless we posted he would go to the press and accuse us of censoring him. We again declined and this time I wrote him and tried gently to explain in detail why I thought his talk was flawed. So he forwarded portions of the private emails to a reporter and the National Journal duly bit on the story. And it was picked up by various other outlets. As Anderson noted, income inequality was the subject of at least one [uncensored] TED Talk video in 2011. video Much of the rumor regarding Nick Hanauer's purportedly banned TED Talk segment hinged upon the differing assertions made by TED and Nick Hanauer at the time of the controversy in 2012. However, Anderson's claims (that TED curators are tasked with promoting only the most impactful clips) weren't implausible or suggestive of a coverup. It would be difficult to determine whether Hanauer or anyone working on his behalf threatened a public relations offensive, but TED maintained that quality and not content was behind the decision not to feature the video (which clearly was not "banned" from public view but was simply not promoted by TED). Since the time of the initial debate over whether or why the TED talk was "banned," the clip has been distributed both by TED and other outlets and widely viewed by a large online audience. In August 2014, Hanauer returned for a TED Talk titled "Beware, fellow plutocrats, the pitchforks are coming." titled While it's true that TED opted not to promote Hanauer's initial appearance (during which he discussed income inequality) his segment was not banned, and the organization cited his lack of substantive content alongside his primary reliance on partisan ideas as the reason it was not curated alongside other featured TED Talks. At no point during the immediate controversy did TED appear to deny the existence of the video, remove it from the Internet, interfere with its distribution, or otherwise thwart the ideas advocated by Hanauer from spreading. The group simply chose initially not to promote the clip (as they do for a large number of TED Talks) in favor of other content selected by their curators. Last updated:  27July 2015 Originally published: 27July 2015 In a high-profile event at the White House on Feb. 27, 2014, President Barack Obama unveiled a new effort called the My Brothers Keeper Initiative, designed to help every boy and young man of color who is willing to do the hard work to get ahead. Obama told the audience -- a mix of African American and Latino youth and such public figures as basketball Hall of Famer Magic Johnson and former Secretary of State Colin Powell -- that he understood the challenges facing young people of color. The only difference is that I grew up in an environment that was a little bit more forgiving, Obama said. So when I made a mistake, the consequences were not as severe. I had people who encouraged me, not just my mom and grandparents, but wonderful teachers and community leaders. I firmly believe that every child deserves the same chances that I had. That's why we are here today, to do what we can in this year of action to give more young Americans the support they need to make good choices, and to be resilient and overcome obstacles and achieve their dreams. A group of prominent foundations have pledged $200 million over five years to improve early childhood development, school readiness, parental engagement, literacy, educational opportunity and school discipline. As Obama explained the challenges facing young black and Latino men today, he offered this statistic: Fewer black and Latino men participate in the labor force, compared to young white men. We wondered whether that was accurate, so we turned to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the federal governments official repository for employment data. We used as our yardstick the labor force participation rate. This is the percentage of the civilian population that is either employed or unemployed. (Unemployed refers to people who are not employed but who are actively looking for work.) In addition, we assumed that Obama was comparingyouthlabor force participation for black and Latino men to the rate for white youth, even though he didnt explicitly say that. Given the context, this seemed to be the obvious interpretation. Finally, we had to determine a definition for young. The most appropriate age ranges for which BLS offers data, we concluded, are 16 to 19 and 20 to 24. So well look at the data for both of these ranges. Heres a summary of what we found for January 2014, the most recent month for which data on the labor force participation rate is available. 16-19 years old 20-24 years old White men 35.1 percent 74.2 percent Black men 25.3 percent 66.2 percent Hispanic men 27.0 percent 77.1 percent  So for Americans age 16 to 19, Obama is correct that labor force participation among black and Hispanic men trails that of white men. But the data for men age 20 to 24 are more mixed. Labor force participation among whites does exceed that of blacks, but the rates for Latinos actually exceed those of whites. (Latinos also have a higher rate for men age 25-29.) So on this score, Obama is only half-right. We checked with economists to see if they had an explanation for higher labor force participation rates. A big reason appears to be what happens in college. Among the youngsters who complete high school, Latinos and non-Hispanic whites are now about equally likely to attend college, but a higher proportion of Hispanic youngsters drop out of high school before obtaining a diploma, said Gary Burtless, an economist at the Brookings Institution. In addition, Hispanic college enrollees are less likely to enroll in four-year colleges and less likely to be enrolled as full-time students. Generally, full-time students are less likely to work for pay or be looking for a job compared with non-students and part-time students. What this means, Burtless said, is that more young Hispanics are free to become part of the labor force. Another possible factor, Burtless suggested: A higher percentage of Hispanic young adults are not legal residents, so they may be ineligible for the student assistance and public aid that would permit them to be students and remain outside the workforce. If you cannot legally obtain college aid or public assistance, or are afraid to ask for it, you are probably more likely to support yourself through work, he said. In the meantime, we also wondered whether having a higher labor force participation rate for those age 16 to 19, as whites do, is unquestionably a good thing, since it could reward high school dropouts who took low-wage jobs. Participating in the labor force at this age would not seem to be an unmitigated good, said George Washington University economist Tara Sinclair. Even at older ages, I wouldn't be against seeing more stay-at-home dads. Burtless said that among economists, the jury is still out on this question. Many students can combine paid employment with satisfactory progress toward a high school or college degree, but obviously this would be a challenge for some young people who need to apply themselves hard in school in order to complete a degree, he said, adding that his own research suggests that the earlier in life that Americans start to work, the more money they earn later on. Whats less clear is whether late entry into the job market causes lower earnings, or whether people who go on to earn a lot of money simply love to work and start doing so earlier in their lives. Our ruling Obama said that fewer black and Latino men participate in the labor force, compared to young white men. Thats true for black men age 16-19 and 20-24 and for Hispanic men age 16-19, but its not correct for Hispanic men age 20-24. We rate the claim Mostly True. On Oct. 12, 2021, a Facebook user posted a meme that purported to compare grocery store shelves as they appeared in "Trump's America" vs. "Biden's America." The meme was somewhat similar to another one we previously reported about on the subject of gas prices. posted a meme previously reported about Both were highly misleading.  The meme was shared 50,000 times in the first 48 hours.  In reality, the photograph of fully-stocked grocery store shelves labeled "Trump's America" was captured in 2012. At the time, former U.S. President Barack Obama was in the White House. Also, it wasn't even taken in the U.S. According to the Wikimedia Commons caption, it was shot at a Coles Supermarket at Westfield Southland Shopping Centre in Melbourne, Australia. Wikimedia Commons caption https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Faced_products_on_a_supermarket_shelf.JPG Meanwhile, the second picture showing nearly empty shelves that was labeled "Biden's America" was captured while former President Donald Trump was in office. According to MyHorryNews.com, which publishes local news for South Carolina, it was shot after a hurricane in September 2018. The caption read: "Randy Spivey, Hills manager, concerned about when he can get his shelves restocked after Hurricane Florence and the flood that hit the area recently." According to MyHorryNews.com caption https://www.myhorrynews.com/news/local/loris/customers-find-bare-shelves-after-storm-passes/article_c4ea1ab2-c0c4-11e8-b9da-176624af8143.html Presidents of both parties have been faced with natural disasters like Hurricane Florence that emptied some store shelves in impacted areas for temporary periods of time. Further, readers may recall that shelves were emptied of popular foods and other goods at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020. The New York Times attributed the empty shelves to "panic shopping." attributed the empty shelves  March 14, 2020. (Photo by JOSH EDELSON/AFP via Getty Images)  The misleading Facebook meme was apparently posted in reaction to a shipping container logjam that was also occurring in October 2021. shipping container logjam According to The Associated Press, it led to "mass shortages" of goods "and delays that have caused a longer than expected bout of inflation." According to The Associated Press Businesses were worrying about monthslong delays for shipping containers in June, yet the administration only formed its supply chain task force that month and named a port envoy on Aug. 27 to address the challenge. Ports are also just one piece of the puzzle, Biden said. The country needs more truck drivers, private retailers to step up and better infrastructure, as well as a supply chain that can less easily be disrupted by pandemics and extreme weather. The president is trying to use the predicament as a selling point for his policy plans that undergoing congressional scrutiny. We need to take a longer view and invest in building greater resiliency to withstand the kinds of shocks weve seen over and over, year in and year out, the risk of pandemic, extreme weather, climate change, cyberattacks, weather disruptions, he said. The sense of uncertainty is beginning to consume the attention of many Americans. As for what caused the supply chain issues in the first place, the Los Angeles Times described the root of the problem in the simplest way: the COVID-19 pandemic. described COVID-19 pandemic The Times published that "the pandemic whirled up a toxic brew of forces that triggered and then exacerbated the shipping logjam." The first blow came when many of the Chinese plants that build parts or assemble goods for global manufacturers were shut down by coronavirus outbreaks. Similar disruptions soon spread across the globe, affecting both manufacturers and the logistics companies that ship, store and deliver their goods. After a brief COVID-related recession, however, demand for goods grew quickly, as people shifted to online buying and took up new habits (a surge in home-improvement projects, for example, boosted demand for appliances and construction materials). ... The pandemic is not entirely to blame. Robert Handfield, the Bank of America professor of supply chain management at North Carolina State University, said that "warehouse, distribution, and truck driver shortages were bad before COVID." But the pandemic made the shortfall dramatically worse. The Washington Post also published an interview with Gene Seroka, executive director of the Port of Los Angeles, who said that "the United States is 'decades behind' foreign ports in getting carriers, terminals, and shippers to provide each other access to commercial data for planning purposes." published In sum, the viral Facebook meme that purported to display "Trump's America" vs. "Biden's America" showed pictures from the wrong presidential terms, and one of them wasn't even captured in the U.S. Further, it appeared to be attempting to score political points on a much larger problem. In December 2019, readers asked us about reports that claimed the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump had proposed changes to the way Social Security disability payments are made, which could cause thousands, even hundreds of thousands, to lose their benefits.  On Dec. 12, the Philadelphia Inquirer and Chicago Tribune posted an article with the headline "Trump Administration Proposes Social Security Rule Changes That Could Cut Off Thousands of Disabled Recipients." The article reported that: Inquirer Tribune "The Trump administration is proposing changes to Social Security that could terminate disability payments to hundreds of thousands of Americans, particularly older people and children. The new rule would change aspects of disability reviews  the methods by which the Social Security Administration determines whether a person continues to qualify for benefits. Few recipients are aware of the proposal, which is open for public comment through January." The left-leaning website Common Dreams published an article with the headline "'A National Disgrace': Trump Proposes Social Security Change That Could End Disability Benefits for Hundreds of Thousands.'" That story reported: article "Activists are working to raise public awareness and outrage over a little-noticed Trump administration proposal that could strip life-saving disability benefits from hundreds of thousands of people by further complicating the way the Social Security Administration determines who is eligible for payments." On the face of it, the changes proposed by the Trump administration would not, in fact, directly or immediately strip disability benefits from thousands of would-be recipients, rather the changes would introduce more (and more frequent) eligibility reviews for those who wish to receive them. However, some critics have argued that those increased bureaucratic requirements would over-burden some would-be recipients, in particular especially vulnerable recipients, and would ultimately (albeit indirectly) result in thousands losing disability benefits.  The Social Security Administration distributes disability benefits in two principle ways: Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), which typically provides benefits to people based on their previous Social Security tax contributions and history of work, and is paid out of the Social Security insurance fund; and Supplemental Security Income (SSI), which typically provides benefits to people based on their disability status and inability to work, and is paid out of general tax coffers.  ways In order to prevent potential abuse and waste in the system, the Social Security Administration conducts "continuing disability reviews," essentially investigating whether each recipient still has a disabling condition, and if so, which kind. Those reviews take place more or less frequently, depending on the nature of each individual's disability, broken into three "medical diary categories," as follows: reviews In November, the Social Security Administration published its proposals to make several changes to the review system. The most significant proposal was to add a fourth medical diary category, "Medical Improvement Likely." Recipients placed in that category would undergo a review every two years. proposals According to a document accompanying the proposals, the decision to introduce the fourth category was made, in part, because the administration saw a pattern whereby some in the "Medical Improvement Expected" category were being prematurely subjected to re-evaluation, after six-18 months, before a medical improvement had the chance to take hold, and some in the "Medical Improvement Possible" category had successfully treated their impairment comfortably within the three-year review interval. The introduction of the new category would therefore mean the bureaucratic burden on some recipients would actually be lessened, since they would be subject to review less frequently, though clearly it would also mean others would be subject to more frequent reviews. On the whole, the administration has estimated that, between 2020 and 2029, the new category would tend towards requiring more frequent reviews for those currently in the "Medical Improvement Possible" category, rather than less frequent reviews for those currently in the "Medical Improvement Expected" category:   The administration expects the introduction of the "Medical Improvement Likely" category to lead to an 18 percent increase in the total number of reviews undertaken over the next decade. This would therefore lead to an increased up-front cost in administering the disability benefits programs, and an increased aggregate bureaucratic burden to recipients (even if some individual recipients would actually undergo reviews less frequently).  Greater scrutiny of individual cases, and enhanced enforcement of eligibility criteria, results in some recipients no longer being deemed eligible, and no longer receiving either SSDI or SSI, which saves money for the Social Security insurance fund and the Treasury, respectively. For the 2015 fiscal year, for example, the Social Security Administration calculated a 19.9:1 return on investment rate for disability benefits enforcement  meaning that for every $1 spent on performing reviews, the government would save $19.90 on disability benefits that would otherwise have been paid, over the course of a lifetime, to recipients who are now deemed ineligible. To be specific, the administration estimated that the $717 million spent on reviews in 2015 would ultimately save $14.3 billion in lifetime disability benefit payments.  calculated So the introduction of the Trump administration's proposals is highly likely to ultimately lead to thousands of disability benefits recipients no longer receiving those benefits  both because some will be overburdened by the bureaucratic demands of more frequent reviews, and because some recipients whose medical status no longer meets the eligibility criteria will have that ineligibility discovered sooner. A considerable measure of truth, therefore, exists in the reports published by the Philadelphia Inquirer and Common Dreams. However, those articles failed to mention an important component to the administration's proposals: They would not change how a recipient's eligibility is determined, only how often that determination takes place. As the proposal stated: "We are not changing the Medical Improvement Review Standard that we use to determine whether a person continues to meet the disability requirements of the Act." This means that, while the proposed increase in the number and frequency of reviews was highly likely to ultimately cause thousands to lose their benefits, that loss of benefits would not be arbitrary, or based on an application of a new and different standard for determining whether someone's health has improved. The standards and criteria for assessing whether an improvement has taken place would be the same as currently exist, and only the frequency of those reviews would change. In other words, some recipients would be subject to more frequent reviews, but if those more frequent reviews result in a finding that the recipient still has a qualifying disability or impairment  based on the same criteria as currently apply  the recipient would continue to receive disability benefits.  It could be that, as some critics have argued, the proposal represents an elegant way for the administration to save money by removing thousands from the recipient rolls without having to change eligibility criteria  the latter a move that would be more likely to cause public outrage or political opposition. However, on its face at least, the proposal involves enhanced enforcement of existing eligibility standards and criteria. That's an important distinction, and a significant omission from news articles that reported, with some justification, that the Trump administration had proposed changes to Social Security disability benefits that would cause thousands to be stripped of those benefits.  argued Lubrano, Alfred. "Trump Administration Proposes Social Security Rule Changes That Could Cut Off Thousands of Disabled Recipients."
 The Philadelphia Inquirer/The Chicago Tribune. 12 December 2019. Johnson, Jake. "'A National Disgrace': Trump Proposes Social Security Change That Could End Disability Benefits for Hundreds of Thousands."
 Common Dreams. 16 December 2019. Social Security Administration. "Proposed Rule -- Rules Regarding the Frequency and Notice of Continuing Disability Reviews."
 Federal Register. 18 November 2019.