Ohios lost more jobs in March than any other state in the nation.
During budget debates in the Ohio House, Democrats portrayed themselves as the defenders of middle-income Ohioans, announcing a plan they called their Targeted Middle Class Tax Cut. The plan, which majority Republicans did not include in the budget, was the brainchild of Reps. Mike Foley of Cleveland and John Patrick Carney of Columbus. The two Democrats announced their plan in the wake of new job figures which they said showed that Republican Gov. John Kasichs economic policies aren't working. In a news release posted to his House webpages, Foley cited the job figures and claimed that Ohio lost more than 20,400 jobs in March, and that those losses were the largest of any state in the nation. PolitiFact Ohio decided to check his claim. We asked Foleys staff to support his statement, and also checked ourselves with the U.S. Department of Labors Bureau of Labor Statistics, home of a vast array of jobs data. Foleys staff provided a news article from The Plain Dealer that relied on data from BLS and the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services. In March, according to BLS estimates, the seasonally adjusted estimate for the total number of non-farm jobs in Ohio was 5,176,900 jobs. That represents a loss of about 20,400 from the previous month, just as Foley said. You have to go back to June 2009, the month the recession officially ended, to find a greater monthly figure. That month about 33,000 jobs were lost. In April 2009, Ohio lost more than 44,000 jobs, the worst monthly performance so farin this century. But the March 2013 figure also is small enough that it did not change the unemployment rate. That remained 7.1 percent, just as it was in February, according to the state Department of Job and Family Services. So how did Ohio stack up against the rest of the nation? Foleys claim cites a raw number (rather than a percentage), which means Ohios size could come into play. The Buckeye State is the seventh most populous in the nation. But did it lead the nation in job losses? After all, California, with more than three times Ohios population, has a much larger economy. Texas has more than double the people. And New York and Florida, Nos. 3 and 4, each have populations more than 60 percent greater than Ohio. BLS figures show Ohio did indeed lose the most jobs. Nonfarm employment decreased in 26 states and the District of Columbia. It increased in 23 states. New Mexico was unchanged. The largest increases were in Florida, which added 32,700 jobs, and California, which gained. 25,500. The largest decreases were in Ohio (-20,400) and Illinois (-17,800). In Ohio, the industries posting big losses in March included leisure and hospitality (down 6,000 jobs), professional and business services (down 4,300 jobs) and construction (down 3,300 jobs),according to Job and Family Services.Even the category including health services posted a 2,500 decline. That is extremely unusual. That has been our best growth sector for decades, economic research analyst George Zeller told The Plain Dealer. A bright spot was manufacturing, which has fueled the recovery in Ohio and gained 1,800 jobs. It is also worth noting that the March job losses were preceded by three months in a row of job gains. And so far this year, the state still is showing a net job gain.The state lost jobs during four months of 2012, but nothing on the scale of Marchs decline. Foley, in his news release, said that Ohio lost 20,400 jobs in March and that it led the nation in jobs lost. Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics confirms both the number of jobs lost, albeit an estimate, and that Ohio lost more than any other state. Foleys statement is accurate, although he is focusing on a month in which the number of job losses is unusually high. With that point of clarification, on the Truth-O-Meter, his claim rates Mostly True.
In the weeks after a gunman opened fire at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida on 14 February 2018, killing seventeen people, Internet trolls and "hoaxers" continued to share an already completely debunked rumor that David Hogg  a teenaged survivor of the mass shooting who has since become an outspoken advocate of gun control  is actually a professional actor who went to school in southern California:   As Hogg's classmates have pointed out and as we reported previously, the above meme is a very low-quality, low-effort Internet hoax  the photograph actually confirms that Hogg is legitimately an Marjory Stone Douglas High School student because the image was taken from MSD's yearbook, a fact that could be gleaned from another student in the very same image wearing an MSD "Eagles" mascot shirt two rows above him: reported previously Theres a photo going around claiming David Hogg did not attend Douglas, but a school in California. Heres a video to debunk that: pic.twitter.com/hJsMNSdAsF pic.twitter.com/hJsMNSdAsF  Joey (@_Joey_Wong) February 21, 2018 February 21, 2018  Hogg had visited California in 2017 and witnessed an altercation, about which he made a video blog  a simple fact that was blown out by conspiracy theorists to mean he already lived in Los Angeles and was part of the entertainment industry. (Hogg did live in California, but relocated with his family to Florida before starting high school; he returns to visit every year, as many people do.)  video blog Nikolas Cruz, 19, a former Marjory Stone Douglas student who used an AR-15 semi-automatic firearm he had reportedly purchased from a gun store to carry out the mass shooting, has since been charged with murder; Parkland students have galvanized a national movement calling for stricter gun legislation. Hogg has been one of the most vocal leaders in what has become known as the "March For Our Lives." known as The students' activism has made them the target of "hoaxers"  deranged Internet users and grifters who spread false information that mass shooting incidents are manufactured by the government to seize guns and hand power to a secret global cabal working to install an authoritarian world government. hoaxers Such hoaxers have periodically been arrested and jailed for physically stalking and harassing survivors, but despite their outlandish beliefs and apparent moral debasement, they are not exactly the "fringe." Far-right web sites and Internet personalities like GatewayPundit.com writer Lucian Wintrich, undeterred by ongoing lawsuits related to previous conspiracy theory-related blunders, have claimed the Parkland students were reading from scripts, while the National Rifle Association said in an official statement in response to a nationwide march on 24 March 2018 that the events were staged by "Hollywood elites." arrested jailed stalking ongoing lawsuits blunders claimed statement DAngelo, Bob.  "NRA: March Fueled By 'Gun-Hating Billionaires and Hollywood Elites.'"
Dayton Daily News.  25 March 2018. Herman, John. "The Making of a No. 1 YouTube Conspiracy Video After the Parkland Tragedy."
The New York Times.  21 February 2018. Chavez, Nicole.  "School Shooting Survivor Knocks Down 'Crisis Actor' Claim."
CNN.  21 February 2018. After the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost a historic 1,175 points in a single day in February 2018, the left-wing Facebook page Occupy Democrats was keen to point out a trend. In a 6 February meme, the page listed what it called the "Biggest One-Day Drops in Dow Jones History," along with the name of the U.S. president in office at the time of each point drop. meme According to the meme, each of the largest drops occurred during the presidencies of Donald Trump and George W. Bush -- both Republicans. The meme concluded: "Share this for your friends who STILL think Republicans are GOOD for the economy!"    The meme correctly lists the seven biggest one-day points drops in Dow Jones history, which all took place during the tenure of two Republican presidents, though it leaves out the eighth, ninth and 10th, which occurred with Democrats Bill Clinton and Barack Obama in the White House. The main problem with the meme, however, is that its conclusion (that the numbers show which president is good for the economy) overstates the influence of a president -- as opposed to macro-economic and geopolitical forces -- on stock market trends. In fact, one-day losses and gains can sometimes happen despite the policies and efforts of the person in the Oval Office. For example, many commentators attributed the 29 September 2008 points drop -- the second-biggest ever -- to the U.S. House of Representatives' failure to pass a $700 billion bank bailout bill, which President George W. Bush had pushed for.  many commentators attributed Even if one simply wanted to examine during which presidencies the Dow suffered largest single-day losses, looking at the largest point drops wouldn't be the way to do it. As the stock market has grown in value over the last century, large point drops have become more common, even if their impact on the overall market value isn't particularly great. To get a clearer picture of the impact of these drops, one would have to measure the drop in percentage terms, rather than points.  Biggest one-day percentage losses (Sources: Wall Street Journal's Market Data and Yahoo! Finance's downloadable Dow Jones data) Market Data data Five of these 10 events took place during the era of the Great Depression, and all but one occurred during the tenure of Republican presidents.  However, if one were to insist on linking the occupant of the White House to the performance of the stock market, a better way to do it would be to track the average performance of the Dow Jones over the entire course of a presidency, rather than looking at one-day outliers in isolation.  To illustrate this, we looked at the average performance of the Dow over the course of the last nine presidential terms. We used Yahoo! Finance data for this, which only goes back as far as 29 January 1985, so we're missing figures for the first week or so of Ronald Reagan's second administration.  Average one-day percentage change in Dow Jones Average Industrial Index, Last Nine Terms   So while Donald Trump's presidency did see the largest one-day points drop in Dow Jones history, it has also seen the biggest average one-day percentage growth since 1985. However, this is based on only 12 months of data, and the next three years could see that 0.09 percent growth rate drop.  The biggest average daily percentage growth over the course of a four-year presidency was 0.08 percent, during Bill Clinton's first administration between 1993 and 1997. Market Data Center. "U.S. Stocks -- Historical Index Data."
 Wall Street Journal. 30 December 2011. Yahoo! Finance. "Dow Jones Industrial Average -- Historical Data."
 Yahoo! Finance. 6 February 2018. CBS News/Associated Press. "Stocks Take Record Tumble, Down 777 Points."
 CBS News/Associated Press. 29 September 2008. Twin, Alexandra. "Stocks Crushed."
 CNN Money. 29 September 2008. Bajaj, Vikas; Grynbaum, Michael M. "For Stocks, Worst Single-Day Drop in Two Decades."
 New York Times. 29 September 2008. Romans, Christine. "Remembering the Worst Day in Wall Street History."
 CNN Money. 19 October 2017. Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here During the first 2020 U.S. presidential debate held in Cleveland on Sept. 29, Democratic nominee Joe Biden said he does not support the Green New Deal, a resolution introduced in Congress by members of his own party proposing strategies for dealing with climate change, but instead backs the Biden Plan for doing so, which is laid out on his campaign website. Biden's disavowal came on the heels of an attempt by his opponent, U.S. President Donald Trump, to tie him to the Green New Deal, claiming it would cost $100 trillion if implemented. Biden's responses (which begin one hour and 20 minutes into the below video clip) were as follows: That is not my plan. The Green New Deal is not my plan. [] The Green New Deal will pay for itself as we move forward. Were not going to build plants that in fact are great polluting plants. [] No, I dont support the Green New Deal. I support the Biden Plan that I put forward. The Biden Plan, which is different than what [Trump] calls the radical Green New Deal.  https://www.c-span.org/video/?475793-1/trump-biden-debate These statements sparked criticism from Republicans like Omar Navarro, who ran three unsuccessful bids for Californias 43d Congressional District in 2016, 2018, and again in 2020. On Sept. 30, Navarro shared a screenshot from Bidens website that described the Green New Deal as a crucial framework for meeting the climate challenges Omar Navarro  three unsuccessful bids   The language in the tweeted screenshot above was indeed found on Bidens website as of Sept. 30, but was taken out of context and doesn't reflect the differences between the Biden Plan and the Green New Deal, which we will discuss below. The Green New Deal resolution was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives on Feb. 7, 2019, in response to Trumps 2017 announcement that the United States would withdraw from the Paris Agreement on climate change. The 14-page proposal sets forth a number of policies aimed at lowering greenhouse gas emissions produced by American companies, creating high-wage jobs for Americans, and to set an overall framework for environmental justice and resiliency against climate change-related disasters. It is important to note that the Green New Deal is nonbinding, and if it were to pass, nothing outlined within its pages would become law. 14-page proposal nonbinding Biden made climate change a cornerstone of his 2020 bid for the presidency, in turn criticizing Trump's handling of environmental affairs. It is true that the Biden Plan (archived here for reference) includes elements of the Green New Deal and is similar to it in that both plans agree that the U.S. needs to act urgently and epically to meet the scope of the climate change challenge, and that the environment and the economy are completely and totally connected. The Biden Plan addresses many of the issues outlined in the Green New Deal, with the addition of specific actions that a Biden administration would take should he be elected in November 2020. cornerstone Biden Plan here We dug through both proposals to understand the nuances between the two, where they differ, and where they are the same. Generally speaking, both policies establish a similar framework but differ in the specifics of how policymakers should go about enforcing and reaching defined goals. For example, both plans highlight the importance of clean, safe drinking water and community-driven projects that promote social and environmental justice in areas disproportionately impacted by the effects of climate change.  The greatest difference between the Biden Plan and the Green New Deal lies in their stances on the Paris Agreement, an international agreement established in 2015 with the central aim of coordinating and strengthening the global response to climate change and keeping the global temperature rise in this century below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Whereas the Biden Plan promises a recommitment to the Paris Agreement, the Green New Deal does not mention it at all.  Paris Agreement When it comes to clean energy, the Green New Deal and the Biden Plan are similar in that they aim to achieve 100% clean energy and net-zero emissions, but the former sets forth a 10-year mobilization deadline, whereas the Biden Plan sets a goal of no later than 2050. Both plans establish priorities for investment in clean energy innovation and research; however, the Biden Plan is far vaguer. The Green New Deal goes into greater detail, specifying that those investments should include infrastructure and industry, sustainable farming and land-use practices, zero-emission vehicle infrastructure, manufacturing public transit, removing greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing and industry, and the research and development of new clean and renewable energy technologies. Other key areas of overlap between the two plans include creating resiliency across the nation and committing to international policy and trade that employ strong labor and environmental protections. According to his website, the Biden plan will be paid for by rolling back Trump tax incentives and will require a federal investment of $1.7 trillion over the next decade, leveraging the additional private sector and state and local investments to total more than $5 trillion. This estimated cost is significantly lower than the $100 trillion bill that Trump claimed the U.S. would foot during the debate. However, serious disagreement exists over how much implementation of the Green New Deal might actually cost.  website After its 2019 introduction by U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., Republican leaders and some media publications cited research by the right-wing think tank American Action Forum that speculated the Green New Deal could cost up to $93 trillion, or an estimated $600,000 per household, in its first 10 years. (A supplementary brief from the organization outlining the projected costs can be found here.) But a number of financial experts have countered that research, suggesting that it is more likely that the Green New Deal would cost significantly less, and in some estimates half as much. In fact, a September 2020 study published in the journal Energy Research & Social Science suggested a total overall cost of just over $16 trillion over 15 years. media publications American Action Forum here financial experts estimates Energy Research & Social Science Though both the Biden Plan and the Green New Deal provide similar general frameworks for moving towards a cleaner economy and combating the effects of climate change at a national level, subtle differences exist between the two. Although Biden stated outright that he does not support the Green New Deal, it is apparent from his own policy statements that he supports elements of it that have been incorporated into his own plan. As such, we rate this claim as a "Mixture." Green New Deal Friedman, Lisa.  "What Is the Green New Deal? A Climate Proposal, Explained."
  The New York Times.  21 Feb. 2019.  116th Congress 1st Session  "Recognizing the Duty of the Federal Government to Create a Green New Deal."
  7 Feb. 2019.  Muyskens, John, Uhrmacher, Kevin.  "Where 2020 Democrats Stand on Climate Change."
  The Washington Post.  8 April 2019.  Relman, Eliza.  "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Says Her Green New deal Climate Plan Would Cost At Least $10 Trillion."
  Business Insider.  5 June 2019.  Re, Gregg.  "Green New Deal Would Cost Up To $93 Trillion, Or $600G Per Household, Study Says."
  Business Insider.  5 June 2019.  Holtz-Eakin, Douglas, et al.  "The Green New Deal: Scope, Scale, and Implications."
  American Action Forum.  25 Feb. 2019.  Holtz-Eakin, Douglas.  "An Initial Analysis of the Green New Deal."
  American Action Forum.  25 Feb. 2019.  Sherman, Amy.  "The Green New Deal Would Put a $600,000 Tax Burden on Every Household."
  PolitiFact.  27 Sept.. 2019.  McDonald, Jessica.  "How Much Will the Green New Deal Cost?"
  FactCheck.org.  14 March 2019.  Galvin, Ray and Noel Healy.  "The Green New Deal in the United States: What It Is and How to Pay For It."
  Energy Research & Social Science .  September 2020. Holidays like Christmas frequently inspire an uptick of crime avoidance tip of questionable merit, such as one popular rumor that indiscreet disposal of fancy gadget boxes can leave people open to an increased risk of robbery and theft. After 25 December 2016, Facebook was awash in warnings encouraging everyone to disguise their Christmas refuse from enterprising thieves "shopping" the flashiest trash: warnings   Police departments and municipal agencies (which are known to occasionally give shaky advice on social media) frequently included the tip in their holiday advice posts: municipal shaky advice included tip holiday advice  In some versions, discarded holiday boxes were compared to leaving doors open to thieves, so great was the purported risk:  Rumors were sufficiently pervasive to inspire mocking memes:    In the weeks leading up to the holidays, similar rumors about avoiding crime while shopping circulate and recirculate every year. As with most of these stories, the post-Christmas rumor that thieves use trash to target homes with desirable new items includes zero evidence to support the claim, just directives to drive your garbage to a second location to ward off crime and theft. The rumors imbue a sense of misplaced security at best (and at worst, a lingering fear among people who tossed their boxes before seeing the rumor).  shopping But is the risk high enough to justify concern and heightened caution? It is true that holiday-related crimes take place each year, and in December 2016 gift-grabbing robbers did make the news in several locations across the United States. Of particular note in those scenarios was that the victims did not appear to have been targets of trash-casing thieves, but rather selected at random, meaning that no amount of garbage rearranging would have spared them. One of the affected families was attending a religious service during the crime; by that rationale, you're arguably more likely to be robbed of your new things while driving your trash to a faraway recycling plant than because you discarded the boxes where thieves might view them.  gift-grabbing robbers news locations Another consideration worth remembering is that burglars, thieves, and other criminals need no particular inspiration to commit crimes, and are overwhelmingly opportunistic. Furthermore, many homes can reasonably be expected to have televisions, computers, gaming systems, and other valuable items inside them at any time of year. In 2014, Boston.com attempted to determine if the holidays in general carried a heightened risk of being robbed, and were unable to substantiate the claim. attempted Jokingly blaming the cultural influence of Home Alone (a film series that coincidentally prompted its own Christmas warning in 2016, thanks to a misfired joke) the newspaper also noted that the idea that the month of December is teeming with crime is often advanced by entities hawking preventive goods or services, such as cameras or security personnel: Christmas warning Every year, along with the snow and the Christmas lights, comes a flood of warnings to protect your home from burglars looking to take advantage of all the houses left empty during holiday vacations ... But google something along the lines of holiday home break-ins and youll see a lot of "tips" written by insurance agencies or companies selling home security systems. Not surprisingly, some of those tips include "Buy our security equipment," or "Get our insurance." So are holiday crime sprees just a myth cooked up by self-interested corporations and classic 90s films? Or do the numbers justify the fears? ... Boston.com dove into the stats from the last few years, punching our calculators and tabulating the averages to bring you the answer, which is... it kind of depends. The Boston Police Department breaks their crime data down by week, so we actually get to see how the trend changes within the month of December in 2012 and 2013 ... The first half of December is pretty normal (i.e. the blue and green bars are about the same height as the purple bar, which represents the average of all 52 weeks of the year), but in both years those last two weeks  where Christmas and New Years fall  saw significantly more burglaries than the normal week ... [but] Boston police dont keep separate numbers for home burglaries vs. burglaries of businesses, so not all of the break-ins were looking at happened at peoples houses. Its possible commercial burglary is more common during the holidays, while residential burglary is not (or vise versa). ... Theres really no [discernible] pattern here. In 2012, November saw fewer than average home break-ins and December was roughly on par with the rest of the year. In 2013, November saw a few more break-ins than usual, but the numbers plummeted in December ... The Cambridge Police Department at least has an explanation for the tiny number of break-ins during December of 2013. The annual crime report from last year reads, The majority of this decline can be attributed to the eradication of three housebreak patterns that had been a problem from late September to mid-November." Boston.com concluded that while normal levels of concern were advisable, taking extensive precautions was not necessary. A 2013 CNN Money item took a separate stab at substantiating the belief that burglars are spurred on by holiday bounties, only to discover that December wasn't even the worst offender among calendar months (pointing to summer vacations as a larger problem). substantiating The piece was peppered with somewhat contradictory details, noting that burglaries peak in the summer nationally and citing travel as a known factor, before doling out the "cut up your boxes" advice: In several states, according to the FBI, December is the peak month for burglaries as folks leave homes unattended during the holidays ... Nationally, burglaries peak during the summer vacations, though December is close behind. Many families take off, leaving homes empty -- except for all the gifts. And winter storms can make it obvious that nobody's home. "Criminals drive through neighborhoods looking for places to burglarize," said Hayden. "If there's newly fallen snow that hasn't been shoveled, they figure the home is empty." He added that many townspeople put their beautifully decorated Christmas trees -- and all the gift packages stacked beneath them -- right at the front of the living room. "Burglars can walk around and window-shop," said Hayden. The criminals are already aware that homes are filled with loot this time of year -- jewelry, televisions, smart phones and computers. Sometimes homeowners advertise what they got for Christmas by putting out for trash collection the empty boxes their gifts came in, according to Gary Holliday, deputy chief of the Knoxville, Tenn., police department ... To minimize risk, police advise homeowners to cut up boxes and stuff them into black garbage bags before putting them out for collection. "Social media is a great thing for people but it's a great thing for criminals too," said Holliday. "Criminals stake out the Internet." Social media, holiday home vacancy, and knowledge of attractive loot were all cited by police as possible factors, but no evidence indicated any or all of those circumstances caused anyone to fall victim or inspired crimes. Overall, police said thieves are aware of holiday gift-giving, suggesting that discarded boxes are not a primary contributor to Christmas crime. Not only was the notion of a Christmas crime spike mostly anecdotal, information suggesting thieves "shopped" from boxes at the curb appeared to come solely from speculation about criminal behavior, not the real-life practices of thieves. By most accounts, criminals target homes bearing signs of non-occupancy, not those "advertising" their loot. Bryan, Emory.  "Tulsa Family's Home Burglarized While They're at Christmas Services."
  WARN.  26 December 2016. Christie, Les.  "Burglaries Jump During the Holidays."
  CNN Money.  27 December 2013. James, Cory.  "Burglars Are Caught on Camera Stealing Christmas Gifts from Fresno Home."
  KFSN-TV.  24 December 2016. Matson, Emily.  "How to Keep Your Home Secure from Christmas Burglars."
  WICU.  22 December 2016. Kwong, Jessica.  "Corona Del Mar Home Burglarized Monday After Christmas."
  The Orange County Register.  26 December 2016. O'Brien, Kelly.  "Its Not Clear Home Break-Ins Happen More Often During the Holidays."
  Boston.com.  10 December 2014. Szalavitz, Maia.  "10 Ways We Get the Odds Wrong."
  Psychology Today.  1 January 2008. Yawn, Andrew J.  "Protect Your Home by Doing This After Christmas."
  Montgomery Advertiser.  24 December 2016. Associated Press.  "Gretna Police, JP Deputies Replace Christmas Presents After Home Is Burglarized."
  25 December 2016. Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO In May 2020, a video supposedly showing Vice President Mike Pence delivering empty boxes that were supposed to be filled with personal protective equipment (PPE) to the Woodbine Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center in Alexandria, Virginia, was featured on the show "Jimmy Kimmel Live." A clip of this segment was later shared on social media along with the caption: "Mike Pence caught on hot mic delivering empty boxes of PPE for a PR stunt."  This is genuine footage of Pence. However, it does not show him "caught on hot mic" admitting that he just delivered a bunch of empty boxes to a health care facility. This video actually shows Pence making a humorous quip after delivering boxes that were truly filled with PPE.  The full video from C-Span shows Pence transporting several boxes from a truck to the door of the health care center. After unloading the boxes from his dolly, Pence returns to the truck to grab another round of boxes but is informed by someone that the remaining boxes are empty. Pence then jokes that he should carry one of the empty boxes for the cameras. The man replies with a quip of his own, saying that the empty ones are much easier to carry than the full ones, which draws laughter from the crowd. Pence then closes the van door. You can see this exchange around the 9-minute mark of the following video from C-Span: https://www.c-span.org/video/?471876-1/vice-president-pence-delivers-ppe-woodbine-rehabilitation-center We reached out to the Woodbine Rehabilitation Center to confirm that it had received PPE from the vice president. While we have yet to receive a response, the facility did post a message on Facebook to thank Pence and his team: Facebook   Jon Thompson, a spokesperson for the vice president, called the claim that Pence was delivering empty boxes "absolute garbage" in a tweet: tweet     Coleman, Justine.  "Pence Delivers PPE to Alexandria Nursing Home."
  The Hill.  7 May 2020. C-Span.  "Vice President Pence Delivers PPE to Woodbine Rehabilitation Center."
  7 May 2020. Debt is typically a major campaign issue in elections from the municipal level all the way up to the office of the President of the United States.  Candidates tout their accomplishments in balancing budgets or reducing government debt as examples of fiscal prudence while pointing to increased debts during their opponents' administrations as indicators of profligate and wasteful spending of taxpayers' money.    The chart reproduced above, which was posted to the Flickr account of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, attempted to reverse conventional political stereotypes by portraying recent Republican presidents as responsible for huge increases in the national debt, while showing recent Democratic presidents as responsible for much lower increases in the level of debt.   Flickr account As a first step in evaluating this chart, we have to determine the applicable definition of "debt."  In general, the term "public debt" (or "debt held by the public") refers to money borrowed by the government through the issuance and sale of securities, government bonds, and bills.  It includes federal debt held by all investors outside of the federal government, including individuals, corporations, state or local governments, the Federal Reserve banking system, and foreign governments. Another form of debt is "intragovernmental debt" (or "debt held by government accounts"), which refers to money that the government has borrowed from itself, such as when the U.S. government invests money from federal savings programs such as Medicare and the Social Security trust fund by buying up its own treasury securities.  A variety of names have been applied to the total of these two forms of debt, including "gross federal debt," "total public debt," and "national debt." Although this chart is labeled as presenting a "percent increase in public debt," it actually uses figures corresponding to the total described as "gross federal debt" above (i.e., a combination of debt held by the public and debt held by government accounts, rather than just the former).  We checked the numbers in this chart by using (for pre-1993 years) the U.S. Treasury's Monthly Statement of the Public Debt (MSPD), noting the total debt reported as of January 31 of each relevant year, and (for 1993 onwards) the Treasury's The Debt to the Penny and Who Holds It application, noting the total debt reported as of Inauguration Day of each relevant year. Monthly Statement of the Public Debt The Debt to the Penny and Who Holds It From these records, we gleaned the following information: Ronald Reagan:Took office January 1981.  Total debt: $848 billionLeft office January 1989.    Total debt: $2,698 billionPercent change in total debt:  +218%  George H.W. Bush:Took office January 1989.  Total debt: $2,698 billionLeft office 20 January 1993.    Total debt: $4,188 billionPercent change in total debt:  +55% Bill Clinton:Took office 20 January 1993.  Total debt: $4,188 billionLeft office 20 January 2001.  Total debt: $5,728 billionPercent change in total debt:  +37% George W. Bush:Took office 20 January 2001.  Total debt: $5,728 billionLeft office 20 January 2009.  Total debt: $10,627 billionPercent change in total debt:  +86% Barack Obama:Took office 20 January 2009.  Total debt: $10,627 billionTotal debt (as of the end of April 2011):  $14,288 billionPercent change in total debt:  +34% So, as far as raw numbers go, the chart is reasonably accurate (although our calculations produced a somewhat higher debt increase for Ronald Reagan than reported).  That said, however, we have to consider how valuable these numbers are; whether by themselves they present a reasonable comparative measure of presidential fiscal responsibility.  In that regard, one could find a number of aspects to take issue with:  The chart isn't a true comparison of equals, as it includes three presidents who served two full terms (Reagan, Clinton, and George W. Bush), a president who served one term (George H.W. Bush), and a president who had served half a term (Obama).  Obviously, the longer a president holds office the greater the opportunity for him to influence the debt, and certainly (barring a radical change in current circumstances)  the increase reported for Barack Obama would be considerably higher by the time he left office.   All presidents come into office with policies and budgets that were put into place by their predecessors in the White House and Congress, and they all pass the same along to their successors when they leave office.  Therefore, determining how much of the change in debt that occurs during a given president's administration is actually the result of his actions (rather than the consequence of factors over which he had little or no influence) would require a much more complex analysis than the one presented here.  Which is the best measure of debt for this purpose: public debt, intragovernmental debt, or a combination of the two?  As noted in the General Accounting Office's FAQ on Federal Debt, they represent rather different concepts: FAQ Debt held by the public approximates current federal demand on credit markets. It represents a burden on today's economy, and the interest paid on this debt represents a burden on current taxpayers. Federal borrowing from the public absorbs resources available for private investment and may put upward pressure on interest rates. Further, debt held by the public is the accumulation of what the federal government borrowed in the past and is reported as a liability on the balance sheet of the government's consolidated financial statements. In contrast, debt held by government accounts (intragovernmental debt) and the interest on it represent a claim on future resources. This debt performs largely an internal accounting function. Special federal securities credited to government accounts (primarily trust funds) represent the cumulative surpluses of these accounts that have been lent to the general fund. These transactions net out on the government's consolidated financial statements. Debt issued to government accounts does not affect today's economy and does not currently compete with the private sector for available funds in the credit market.   Are plain percentage changes in the national debt level a useful figure, or do they need to be placed in context to have relevance?  Some would argue, for example, that the Debt-to-GDP ratio is a better measure of economic health relative to the national debt than raw debt figures alone, and a chart which tracked the change in that ratio over the last several presidencies would paint a significantly different picture of debt levels than the one displayed above.  Debt-to-GDP chart All in all, this is a case of relatively accurate information which is of marginal value due to a lack of proper comparative context. On 6 December 2018, an article reporting that former presidents George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama trashed Air Force One after the funeral of former president George H.W. Bush was published by the WeAreTheLLOD website, which is part of the "Last Line of Defense" network of junk news sites: article President Trump was gracious enough to loan his personal airplane to the Bush family to transport dead President George H.W. Bush back home to Kennebunkport, Maine. They invited all the other past presidents and even the illegal Obama. In return, the grieving family showed their appreciation by leaving the plane a mess and vandalizing the bathroom and kitchen.   This was not a genuine news article, as WeAreTheLlod.com and the rest of the Last Line of Defense network are junk news sites that have a long history of publishing misinformation. Last Line of Defense  This article also included a number of obvious hints about the satirical nature of its content. For example, the label "Dead People and Satire with Hot Green Chili" can be glimpsed below the article's title. The web site banner also features the tagline "Information You Probably Shouldn't Trust" and the footer states that the site was paid for by the "liberal trolls of America." As well, all of the hyper-links in this article lead to unrelated content. For instance, where the text references the alleged legal terms "hapneus corpum and juris prumidential," it links to a Google Translation page for the sentence: "Because they don't exist and are possibly the dumbest things ever conceived." Eagleton, Flagg.  "BREAKING: Bush, Clinton, Obama Funeral Party Trashes Air Force One."
  WeAretheLLOD.com.  6 December 2018. Claim:  President Bill Clinton issued an executive order disarming soldiers on military bases.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, August 2010]  Is it true that "one of the first things Bill Clinton did in office was to issue an executive order disarming soldiers on military bases"?   Origins:  The wake of the September 2013 fatal shooting of 12 people by a civilian military contractor who went on a rampage at Washington Navy Yard saw the recirculation of a rumor that gained currency after the November 2009 fatal shooting of 13 people by a U.S. Army psychiatrist at  Fort Hood, Texas: that one of the reasons these mass shooters had not been stopped earlier in their killing sprees was because President Bill Clinton had issued an executive order back in 1993 that prohibited personnel on military bases from carrying firearms while on duty. While there was at least a small kernel of real information underlying such claims, the gist of the rumor was wrong on two major counts. It was during the presidency of George H.W. Bush, not Bill Clinton, that the U.S. Department of Defense issued a directive in February 1992 affecting the carrying of firearms on bases by military personnel.  That directive was eventually implemented through a  regulation 190-14 issued by the Department of the Army  (not via executive order) in March 1993, just two months after President Clinton assumed office.   directive regulation Additionally, that change in regulations (which applied only to the Army, not other branches of the U.S. armed forces) did not ban the carrying of weapons by soldiers on Army bases; rather, it restricted the authorization to carry firearms to personnel engaged in law enforcement and security duties, and to personnel stationed at facilities where there was "a reasonable expectation that life or Army assets would be jeopardized if firearms were not carried": a. The authorization to carry firearms will be issued only to qualified personnel when there is a reasonable expectation that life or Department of the Army (DA) assets will be jeopardized if firearms are not carried. Evaluation of the necessity to carry a firearm will be made considering this expectation weighed against the possible consequences of accidental or indiscriminate use of firearms. b. DA personnel regularly engaged in law enforcement or security duties will be armed. c. DA personnel are authorized to carry firearms while engaged in security duties, protecting personnel and vital Government assets, or guarding prisoners. Others noted that the change in policy likely had little actual effect on day-to-day base operations: Steven Bucci, a military expert for The Heritage Foundation who served 28 years in the Army and retired in 2005 with the rank of colonel, also [said] that Clinton is not to blame. "I think you are barking up the wrong tree if you are looking to put blame on someone for disarming the military," said Bucci, when asked if Clinton was responsible. "I think that's kind of a bogus story." "We have never had our soldiers walking around with weapons all the time, other than in combat zones," he added, noting only Military Police have had that authority. Last updated:  16 July 2015 Claim:  Photographs show a high-rise construction site flooded by waters from a nearby marina. Status:  True. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, May 2007] Nearly 100 workers at the site of the Infinity Tower escaped as excavation work on the 80-floor building was nearing completion. The incident happened as the workers were assisting the project owners and the piling contractor with the foundation works on site 20 meters below ground level. The supervision team noticed a slight movement and cracks in the diaphragm wall adjacent to the Dubai Marina and alerted management, who ordered an immediate evacuation of the site. The diaphragm wall collapsed and crumbled within 2 minutes from being noticed as the workers were scrambling over safety ladders up to the ground level. The whole site was totally flooded within 4 minutes. The construction of the tower will continue to be suspended until the site can be totally dewatered. A special diving team has been brought in to assess the situation.            Origins:  Construction projects, both large and small, can be delayed or set back for any number of reasons  labor problems, material shortages, budget overruns, economicreversals, bad weather, faulty planning, etc.  But not often do we see construction delayed in as spectacular a fashion as happened with the Infinity Tower project, an 80-story, helix-shaped high-rise building currently being erected within the Dubai Marina district of Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Infinity Tower Dubai Marina The pictures displayed above illustrate a February 2007 accident in which a wall holding back the waters of the Dubai Marina was breached, completely flooding the construction site.  As the Gulf News reported of the accident: Nearly 100 workers at the site of the 'tallest building with a twist' had a lucky escape as a wall holding back the Dubai Marina waters breached and flooded the foundation site.  Excavation work on the 80-floor Infinity Tower was nearing completion when there was a sharp and loud sound, said a worker.  "We then saw sand pouring down the sides," he said.  The workers were ordered to evacuate immediately, said the foreman.  According to a manager of Arabtec, the incident is under investigation. Additional post-accident photographs of the Infinity Tower site can be viewed at the Dubai News Online web site. photographs Last updated:  7 June 2007    Sources:   Gulf News.  "Lucky Escape for 100 Workers."   8 February 2007. Claim:  Actress Gwyneth Paltrow starved to death trying to live off of food stamps for a week.     Example: [Collected via Twitter, June 2015] Origins:  On 8 June 2015, the satirical web site Clickhole published an article reporting that actress Gwyneth Paltrow had starved to death after trying to live off of food stamps for one week: article Yep, the Shakespeare In Love and Iron Man star tried to feed herself on just $29 for an entire week in order to demonstrate just how desperate things are for the nations working poor, and after spending her entire budget on barely enough food to create two healthy, well-balanced meals and a couple of snacks, Paltrow slowly starved to death over the next four days. Clickhole published their satirical article a few months after Paltrow announced that she wanted to "raise awareness and money for the Food Bank for New York City by trying to live on $29 dollars for the week." While it's true that the actress had a difficult time living on the same grocery budget as low-income families utilizing the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) commonly known as "food stamps," Paltrow did not "starve to death" as a result: difficult Clickhole, an offshoot of The Onion, is a satirical web site that parodies "clickbait" sites such as Upworthy and BuzzFeed.     Last updated:  8 June 2015