It is a fact that the economy does better when we have a Democrat in the White House.
Does the nations economy do better when a Republican or Democrat is in the Oval Office? In her recent campaign stop in Sacramento, Hillary Clinton declared Democrats have the magic touch. It is a fact that the economy does better when we have a Democrat in the White House, Clinton said on June 5, 2016,speaking at Sacramento City Collegeduring her final push in theCalifornia primary. Its similar to a statement the likely Democratic presidential nominee made on March 21, 2016 in Phoenix, when she said: The economy always does better when theres a Democrat in the White House. PolitiFact Arizona checked out that claim andrated it Half True. Heres what they reported: The Clinton family love these comparisons, by the way. In 2015, PolitiFact ruled Mostly True claims from Hillary Clinton a claim that, Under Republicans, recessions happen four times as frequently as under Democrats, and another that, The stock market does better when you have a Democratic president in the White House. At the 2012 Democratic National Convention, former President Bill Clinton had this statement rated True:Since 1961  our private economy has produced 66 million private-sector jobs. So what's the jobs score? Republicans 24 million, Democrats 42 (million). The score, however, isnt as good for this particular Clinton claim. Hillary Clinton speaks at a rally, Monday, June 6, 2016, in Lynwood, Calif. Other factors involved Clintons Arizona spokesman, Tim Hogan, pointed us to aJuly 2014 studyon the topic from Princeton University economists Alan Blinder and Mark Watson. The study concludes that Democratic presidents do have more Gross Domestic Product growth than Republicans, according to quarterly GDP data dating back to 1947, when the data was first tracked. However, the economists point out that there are other factors, such as better oil prices and international conditions, that could be driving these better numbers for Democratic presidents. In short, Democrats occupying the Oval Office tend to have a little better luck. Experts we spoke with largely held the same views. Harvard University government professor Jeffrey Frankel said the statistics, from GDP to the unemployment rate, are striking, but noted that the president does not have all that control. That doesnt prove what the cause is, Frankel said. Christian Weller, a public policy professor at the University of Massachusetts Boston, did his own math on the GDP data since 1947. He found that the economy, through the last quarter of 2015 and after inflation, grew 3.8 percent under Democrats and 2.4 percent under Republicans. For President Barack Obama, the growth rate in his first term was 1.8 percent. His current growth rate is 2 percent, but thats still higher than his predecessor, George W. Bush. And his second term hasnt ended yet. Based on estimates, Weller said Obama should hit the 2.4 percent Republican average. Still, Ronald Reagans 3.4 percent growth rate is well ahead of the economy right now under Obama. Other than Obama, every Democrat had a faster growth rate, even (Jimmy) Carter had a slightly higher growth rate than Reagan, Weller said. This is one of the safest talking points for a Democratic contender. However, the asterisks bother Arizona State University presidential historian Brooks Simpson. Secretary Clinton is not exactly telling the whole truth, Simpson said. Simpson referenced Bill Clintons administration, noting that he benefited from some of the economic policies of his predecessor, Republican George H.W. Bush. A 2011 report from the right-leaning Heritage Foundation notes that the economy was already in its 22nd month of expansion when Bill Clinton took office in January 1993. We asked the Clinton campaign for a response. A spokesman pointed PolitiFact California to previous fact checks on the topic, includingPolitiFact Arizonas. The spokesman also pointed to ablog by the Washington Postthat says Clinton was right on the numbers but questions whether Democrats were responsible for the better economic times or just got lucky. Our ruling Hillary Clinton said in Sacramento, It is a fact that the economy does better when we have a Democrat in the White House. Its similar to her March statement in Phoenix that The economy always does better when theres a Democrat in the White House. Yes, Democratic presidents do have more Gross Domestic Product growth than Republicans, according to quarterly GDP data dating back to 1947. But Clinton's comments require several caveats. The current growth in the economy under Obama is lower than the Republican average. Factors such as oil prices also reflect the higher GDP growth under Democratic presidents. On top of that, comparing one period of time to another or one president to another can be problematic. We agree with PolitiFact Arizonas findings and rate Clinton's claim in Sacramento Half True. HALF TRUE The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/ee86664c-a54d-466d-97d0-e5b488faf87e
In January 2020, a photograph supposedly showing a group of KKK members marching behind a presidential campaign sign for Donald Trump and Mike Pence was circulated on social media, along with a message saying "This is all you need to know about why you should vote Blue in 2020":   This is not a genuine photograph of KKK members holding a Trump-Pence sign. This a digitally manipulated image created from a photograph that originally featured a "Fraternal White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan" sign. The original photograph was taken in July 2009 and showed members of the Klan marching through Pulaski, Tennessee, in honor of Nathan Bedford Forrest, a Confederate army general who led the KKK in the 1860s:   The original picture was taken by Spencer Platt and is available via Getty Images with the following caption: Getty Images Members of the Fraternal White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan participate in the 11th Annual Nathan Bedford Forrest Birthday march July 11, 2009 in Pulaski, Tennessee. With a poor economy and the first African-American president in office, there has been a rise in extremist activity in many parts of America. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center in 2008 the number of hate groups rose to 926, up 4 percent from 2007, and 54 percent since 2000. Nathan Bedford Forrest was a lieutenant general in the Confederate Army during the American Civil War and played a role in the postwar establishment of the first Ku Klux Klan organization opposing the reconstruction era in the South. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images) While the photograph of the KKK holding a Trump-Pence sign is fake, Trump did receive some support from the infamous group during the 2016 election. The official newspaper of the KKK, The Crusader, endorsed Trump for president. But the Trump campaign publicly rejected the Crusader's endorsement: "Mr. Trump and the campaign denounces hate in any form. This publication is repulsive and their views do not represent the tens of millions of Americans who are uniting behind our campaign. rejected Sakuma, Amanda.  "KKK Paper 'The Crusader' Backs Trump; Campaign Rejects It."
  NBC News.  2 November 2016. Claim:   Airlines will not pair Christian pilots and co-pilots out of fear that the Rapture will snatch away both crew members capable of landing the flight.  Examples:  [Collected on the Internet, 2003] I just heard for the third time in as many years that some airlines will not put a whole flight crew of "Christian believers" in the same plane, just in case the "rapture theory" is true. I guess the thought is that the plane would be left unmanned and crash into whatever and kill thousands (like 9/11) if the rapture theory turns out to be correct Bible doctrine.  [Collected on the Internet, 2004] I was raised a Southern Baptist and twice now a preacher has made reference to airlines pairing their pilots with one Christian (or saved)and one non-Christian (or un-saved). This is done on the pre-text that if and when the 2nd coming of Christ happens and the one Christian pilot is taken into the clouds with Christ, leaving the non-Christian pilot to supposedly land the plane safely alone.  One preacher specifically mentioned American Airlines as having this policy. Origins:   While many of those of the Christian faith may be unfamiliar with the concept of the faithful suddenly disappearing from the face of the Earth, this belief permeates a number of fundamentalist branches of Christianity. Known as "The Rapture," it refers to a time when Jesus will return to claim the faithful, drawing Christians (both the still living and the already dead) up into the clouds to meet Him. It is said this event will be followed by seven years of famine, plagues, pestilence, and three world wars before the Savior returns, an interval often referred to as "The Tribulation." The basis for belief in the Rapture lies in the Bible, specifically in this passage from 1 Thessalonians: this passage For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words. Those who believe in the Rapture hold as a tenet of faith the sudden celestial appearance of Christ at some future unknowable date, immediatelyfollowed by the irresistible summoning heavenward of all who follow His teachings.  The   faithful will be pulled towards the Christ the way iron filings are pulled towards a magnet, rendering the Earth depopulated of the godly and leaving the godless (or at least the Christ-rejecting) to battle their way through the horrors of this world's final seven years.  The Rapture interpretation of 1 Thessalonians is not shared by the majority of Christians and appears to date to 1909, when the Scofield Reference Bible (King James Version) was published. Prior to that time, this parsing of 1 Thessalonians' "caught up in the air" passage was unknown, although in the 19th century theologian J.N. Darby popularized the idea that there would be a "secret rapture" seven years before the Christ really returned, and the non-Christians who didn't disappear into the air would be left to face the anti-Christ.  Rapture believers envision a time when the faithful will be abruptly swept into the safety and calm of Heaven, even as their less stalwart human brethren live on to battle great evil and suffering that will culminate in the end of the world. Part of that envisioning process is imagining not just the nightmare of the post-Rapture earthly existence their faith will spare them from knowing, but also the immediate effect their departure will have on those fated to remain behind. From this visualization springs the belief about airline or FAA regulations restricting Christian flight crews from serving together lest the Rapture snatch away everyone who can keep a plane in the air.  Because those who accept the Rapture as an article of faith plan their lives with this event in mind, they project others must be doing so as well. The presumption is further fueled by Rev. Tim LaHaye's and Jerry Jenkins' Left Behind series of novels, in the first of which Pan-Continental Airlines' Capt. Rayford Steele weathers the disappearance of many of his passengers during an overnight flight to England.  Left Behind How far the "Christian pilots and co-pilots barred from serving together" supposition dates back is anyone's guess, but we have recorded sightings of it from 1993, so it certainly has been part of the canon of widely-held beliefs for some time. The rumor has come to us variously as the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) or "the airlines" restricting flight crew composition on religious basis out of concern that the Rapture will  FAA otherwise bring planes crashing to the ground. (Actually, if the FAA or "the airlines" were concerned about guarding against the Rapture's snatching away key personnel, they should also fret over air traffic controllers, because in their hands lies the safety of all who are in the air at any given time. A Raptured flight crew would result in the downing of one plane; Raptured air traffic control centers would endanger multiple planes attempting to take off or land.) We asked the FAA about the possibility of its having a policy that barred the Raptureable from serving with each other, only to be told by one of its representatives: "The FAA does not have any regulations referencing religious beliefs." Likewise, our query in this vein to American Airlines was met with the assurance that AA does not now have such a policy, nor has it ever had one. Ergo, since neither airline nor FAA policy covers this event, if you're unsure of your state of salvation, pray for an atheist on the flight deck. The Rapture stars in another bit of well-traveled lore involving a supposed freakish fatality. In "Leap of Faith," a woman who believes she sees the Rapture taking place jumps out of her car in traffic. Leap of Faith Barbara "jump for joy" Mikkelson Additional information:    Definition of The Rapture  (BibleBell Chronicles)      Preparing for The Rapture  (Free Gospel Bible Institute)   Last updated:  12 May 2005    Wineke, William.  "Giving Wings to Rapture."    Wisconsin State Journal.  10 February 2001  (p. C1). In a spirited and unscripted debate with the House GOP, President Barack Obama said Republicans were wrong to portray him as running up large deficits. Speaking at a retreat for House Republicans in Baltimore on Jan. 29, 2010, Obama was particularly critical of a question from Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas. Hensarling asked Obama, You are soon to submit a new budget, Mr. President. Will that new budget, like your old budget, triple the national debt and continue to take us down the path of increasing the cost of government to almost 25 percent of our economy? The fact of the matter is, Obama replied, is that when we came into office, the deficit was $1.3 trillion -- $1.3 trillion. So when you say that suddenly I've got a monthly deficit that's higher than the annual deficit left by Republicans, that's factually just not true, and you know it's not true. And what is true is that we came in already with a $1.3 trillion deficit before I had passed any law. What is true is, we came in with $8 trillion worth of debt over the next decade. We checked Hensarling's claim in a separate item. Here, we'll look at Obama's claim that he came into office with a $1.3 trillion deficit and $8 trillion worth of debt over the next decade. On Jan. 7, 2009, two weeks before Obama took office, the Congressional Budget Office reported that the deficit for fiscal year 2009 was projected to be $1.2 trillion. The 10-year projection was estimated to be about $3.1 trillion. So Obama's number was very close on the 2009 deficit -- he said $1.3 trillion -- but substantially different from the 10-year projection -- he said $8 trillion. There are two reasons why he differs from the CBO. On the difference between the $1.2 trillion and the $1.3 trillion, the Obama administration credited a small portion of spending on its watch to policies of the previous administration. The reason for this is that the federal government runs on a fiscal year that starts Oct. 1, so Bush and Obama technically split responsibility for 2009 spending. The large difference on the 10-year projection has to do with Bush administration tax cuts. The CBO creates its estimates based on current law, which means the CBO assumes that the Bush tax cuts will end in 2010 and everyone will start paying higher taxes in 2011 and going forward. The Obama administration, on the other hand, assumed in its baseline that those tax cuts would be renewed. Economists we spoke with -- Josh Gordon, policy director for the Concord Coalition, and Brian Riedl, lead budget analyst of the conservative Heritage Foundation -- both said they believe the White House approach is more realistic because it assumes current policy will continue. So the CBO's estimate is $5 trillion lower than the White House numbers, though economists don't quibble with the White House methodology. It does highlight, however, that when it comes to budget projections, people can have differences of opinion about what to include. In any budget projection there is room for interpretation, but it seems reasonable to assume for a baseline that the Bush tax cuts will continue. Obama's numbers are fairly solid, so we rate his statement Mostly True. On 8 January 2016, the entertainment web site The Reporterz published an article reporting that Delaware had created a new "child support card" that controlled "what mothers can and cannot buy" with their child support funds: This measure was taken to prevent parents from misusing funds that are meant to help with costs associated with raising children, such as school related expenses, food, etc. This card will not be allow the parent to purchase alcohol, cigarettes or pay car payments the card will be used exactly like a food stamp card. We spoke to Tasha Brown who was upset after she couldn't purchase a bottle of Hennessy at her local liquor store. she says "Its' [sic] unfair its [sic] my money I should be able to do what i want with it how will I pay for my new weave?"   The article was ambiguous about whether the card would apply to all funds received for the care of children (such as support monies paid by former spouses) or funds made available through government assistance programs. It didn't matter either way, though, as the story was a complete fabrication that originated with a fake news web site that does not publish factual stories. A disclaimer on The Reporterz states that "every article is based on a true story, only the facts have been changed." In this case, Delaware really does have a card that makes it easier for single parents and guardians to receive funds. The First State Family Card is a pre-paid debit card that does not require bank account: The First State Family Card is a pre-paid VISA card that is credited whenever a payment is posted to any/all of a client's child support case(s). Benefits to the debit VISA card include: While Delaware does have a card that makes it easier for parents to collect child support, the handbook for the First State Family Card (not the "Child Support Card") does not mention any restrictions on how the funds may be utilized. mention On Jan. 7, 2021, a lengthy piece of text urging Americans to "wake up" was widely circulated on social media along with the claim that it had been penned by radio host Dave Ramsey. Scott Baio, a conservative pundit best known for playing Chachi on the 1970s sitcom "Happy Days," was one social media user who misattributed this text to Ramsey:   But this post was not written by Ramsey. The radio host posted a message to Facebook on Jan. 7 to clarify that he did not author this post: message   In addition to Ramsey's denial, we found versions of this text posted on the internet as far back as October 2020. At the time, Ramsey was not credited as the author.  This text was originally penned by "Bruce Hendry" and published on the right-wing website FrontPageMag.com on Oct. 7, 2020, under the title "Living in the Left's Upside Down World." FrontPageMag.com Here's an excerpt from the article, which is basically a list of grievances that Hendry finds confusing or hypocritical: This morning, I realized that everything is about to change. No matter how I vote, no matter what I say, lives are never going to be the same. [...] We see other countries going socialist and collapsing, but it seems like a great plan for us. Somehow its un-American for the census to count how many Americans are in America. [...] If a dude pretends to be a woman, you are required to pretend with him. It was cool for Joe Biden to "blackmail" the President of Ukraine, but its an impeachable offense if Donald Trump inquiries about it. [...] And, pointing out all this hypocrisy somehow makes you a "racist". Nothing makes sense anymore. No values, no morals, no civility and people are dying of a Chinese virus, but it is racist to refer to it as Chinese even though it originated in China. [...] Wake up America, the great unsinkable ship Titanic America has hit an iceberg, is taking on water and sinking fast. While Hendry prefaced this article with a paragraph insisting that this information was "factual," not "political," many of the items listed above are based on misinformation. For example, President-elect Joe Biden did not blackmail the President of Ukraine, viruses don't have nationalities, transgender people are not "pretending," and the U.S. Census counts "every resident in the United States." did not blackmail U.S. Census So, what does Dave Ramsey have to do with this? One common tactic of purveyors of disinformation is to falsely claim that an extreme view was espoused by a well-known and respected voice. This gives the extreme opinion an air of credibility, and makes it more palatable to a mainstream audience.  The article above originated on a right-wing website and initially gained currency among a similar-minded crowd on conservative forums and social media networks like 4chan. In January 2021, someone tried to get this article in front of a larger audience by falsely claiming that this opinion originated with Ramsey, a popular radio host and finance guru with mainstream appeal. By attaching Ramsey's name to these opinions, the article was spread as if it had been "endorsed" by someone in the mainstream, therefore making it more palatable to people who might have initially balked at this article if they encountered it on a hyperpartisan website.  conservative forums 4chan But Ramsey, of course, did not actually write this article. In October 2017, multiple versions of a dubious post titled "Pizza Hut is giving 3 FREE Large Pizza Coupon on their 58th Anniversary" circulated on Facebook. The link lead to suspicious domains including pizzahutfree.us, pizzahut.com-freezones.us, pizzahut.com-freezones.us, and massiveoffers.xyz/p/, none of which followed the proper formatting for a pizzahut.com subdomain, which is "link.pizzahut.com." Those who clicked through found a page that looked somewhat legitimate, but showed signs of being a very common survey scam. Users were first asked a series of questions: page very survey scam   The page followed a common scammer template of appropriating Pizza Hut's logo and Facebook's visual interface, but sloppily boasted that entrants had "a chance to get [a] Papa [John's] Coupon." Any interaction with the prompts (again mentioning Papa John's 58th anniversary, not Pizza Hut's) led to a screen encouraging potential victims to spread the scam further on Facebook:   Underneath the "Congratulations" interface was a series of what appeared to be comments from real Facebook users who'd successfully redeemed the purported coupon. All of the profiles featured were for individuals with jobs displayed as "MD, at the Hospital":   Pizza Hut addressed a previous flood of customer queries on their Facebook wall during a similar scam in May 2016: Facebook users continue to regularly encounter survey scams (quite often the "anniversary" version) on the social network. A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureau advised users how not to fall prey: anniversary article Dont believe what you see. Its easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender. Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure theres a link to their privacy policy. When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organizations real website may have further information. Watch out for a reward thats too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions. Patterson, Emily.  Customer Survey Scam Lures Victims with Gift Card. 
 Better Business Bureau.  4 July 2014. Claim:  Several million fewer dependents were claimed on federal income tax returns the year the IRS started requiring taxpayers to list the Social Security numbers of their children.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, 2006] I had read at some point that millions of dependents dropped off the 1040 forms the year that the IRS required social security numbers. This seems incredibly high, but I know that it was a fact that there had been a lot of divorced parents both claiming the same children as dependents and people claiming their pets.   Origins:  The U.S. federal income tax code requires residents to be responsible for their own taxes  that is, it's up to each taxpayer to reckon his income, determine his allowable deductions, and file a tax return with the Internal Revenue Service (or to hire someone to do it for  him).  Such a system allows (some say it even encourages) taxpayers to cheat, engaging in everything from fudging the line between business and personal expenses to hiding large amounts of unreported income.  Although tax fraud may never be completely eliminated, the increasing use of automated record-keeping and tracking technology has made many of the more common cheating schemes quite difficult, if not impossible, to pull off successfully these days. Given how often we're asked to provide our Social Security numbers  (they seem to used for just about everything these days), those of us who began paying federal income tax only in the last twenty years might be surprised to discover that not until 1987 did the IRS begin requiring taxpayers to include the Social Security numbers of all dependent children claimed on their returns.  After all, listing phony dependents in order to claim illegitimate extra deductions has historically been one of the more common forms of tax fraud, so it makes sense the IRS would always have wanted to track such information as closely as possible. This is the notion behind the legend  made familiar to many readers by the 2005 best-seller Freakonomics  that the  year the IRS did begin asking taxpayers to provide Social Security numbers for all dependent children, the number of claimed dependents suddenly dropped significantly: Some cheating leaves barely a shadow of evidence. In other cases, the evidence is massive. Consider what happened one spring evening at midnight in 1987: seven million American children suddenly disappeared. The worst kidnapping wave in history? Hardly. It was the night of April 15, and the Internal Revenue Service had just changed a rule. Instead of merely listing each dependent child, tax filers were now required to provide a Social Security number for each child. Suddenly, seven million children  children who had existed only as phantom exemptions on the previous year's 1040 forms  vanished, representing about one in ten of all dependent children in the United States. The "seven million" figure appears to be accurate, as noted in a December 2000 National Tax Journal article by Jeffrey B. Liebman that drew its data from a 1990 Internal Revenue Service conference report: article Another way in which taxpayers without children might claim a dependent child is to invent a fictional one. The strongest evidence for this possibility is that in 1987, the first year in which taxpayers were required to list social security numbers of dependents on their tax returns, 7 million fewer dependent children were claimed than in the previous year. The suggestion by the Freakonomics authors that most or all of that drop in the number of dependents claimed in 1987 was directly attributable to fraud was an obvious one but not necessarily the only one, as alternative explanations could have accounted for a substantial portion of the reduction in number of claimed dependents.  For example, it was not until 1987 that the IRS first demonstrated a program to allow parents to automatically obtain Social Security numbers for their newborn children when those births were registered, and the program did not become nationwide until 1989.  Since the average citizen doesn't generally keep abreast of all the changes made to the tax code from year to year until they directly affect him, perhaps many taxpayers sat down to fill out their returns in 1987 and didn't realize until it was too late that they had never applied for Social Security numbers for their children. 1987 However, the assumption that many taxpayers had previously claimed non-existent children until the newly-implemented Social Security number requirement made it much more difficult for them to safely do so is certainly an obvious one, and seems to be supported by additional information provided by Liebman: Further evidence that nonexistent children may have been claimed comes from the 1988 TCMP [Taxpayer Compliance Measurement Program]. In 1988, taxpayers were required to list on their tax returns the social security numbers of all dependents who were at least five years old. On tax returns where the TCMP auditor disallowed an EITC [Earned Income Tax Credit] claim, 39 percent of the disallowed dependent child claims were dependents for whom the taxpayer checked the box stating the child was under five and did not provide a social security number  possibly because the children did not exist. Likewise, although followup reports in subsequent years noted that some portion of the previously claimed dependents who went "missing" in the 1987 tax year were indeed real people who were not claimed as dependents in 1987 for reasons other than their being fictitious (e.g., they were children who had in earlier years been unlawfully claimed as dependents by each of two divorced parents), the pattern of disappearing dependents in 1987 was indicative of widespread fraud: Starting in 1987, the I.R.S. required that taxpayers report the Social Security number of all dependents over the age of 5. That year 7 million American children disappeared from the nation's tax returns, representing a 9 percent drop in the 77 million dependents claimed the previous year and $2.9 billion more in yearly tax revenue. The tax agency said about 20 percent of the vanished dependents were children who had been claimed as dependents by both parents after a divorce. Under the law, only one parent may claim the child as a deduction. Most of the others probably never existed, John Szilagyi, an I.R.S. researcher, said. And some families apparently became quite greedy in creating dependents, each worth a $1,080 deduction in 1986, and $1,900 in 1987. About 66,000 taxpayers who claimed four or more dependents in 1986 claimed none in 1987, after the Social Security identification rule went into effect. And more than 11,000 families claimed seven or more dependents in 1986, but none in 1987. Those returns are now under investigation, with more than 1,000 audits in which the 1986 dependents were disallowed, and back taxes and fines collected. Mr. Szilagyi said some cases of apparent fraud have also been referred to the authorities for criminal investigation.  "In any individual family, you can imagine that one or two children might legitimately have stopped being dependents in 1987, but it's hard to imagine a legitimate situation in which a taxpayer had seven dependents one year and none the next," said Mr. Szilagyi, who drafted the proposal to require Social Security numbers from dependents and baby sitters. Mr. Szilagyi said his research indicates that there are probably four million to five million more dependents being claimed illegally, either because they are fictitious or do not legally qualify as dependents. Last updated:  15 April 2014 Freakonomics    Lewin, Tamar.  "I.R.S. Sees Evidence of Wide Tax Cheating on Child Care"   The New York Times.  6 January 1991.    Liebman, Jeffrey B.  "Who Are the Ineligible EITC Recipients?"   National Tax Journal.  December 2000  (pp. 1165-1186). In the summer of 2018, the Trump administration's implementation of a "zero tolerance" immigration policy  which saw thousands of children separated from their migrant parents, often in difficult and uncertain circumstances  provoked widespread and often impassioned opposition and public debate. One such discussion around the issue of immigration sparked a wave of outrage after screenshots went viral online which appeared to show an employee of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) calling for immigrants into the United States to be shot at the border.  ODOT In a 19 June 2018 Facebook post, Angela Ochoa shared a screenshot which appeared to show Lori McAllen, an employee of ODOT, writing: post I personally think they should shoot them all at the border and call it good...it'll save us hard working AMERICAN'S [sic] billions of dollars on our taxes!! ;)   The post went viral.  A spokesperson for ODOT confirmed that the agency was "looking into a posting that was connected to ODOT." Without naming McAllen, the spokesperson said the employee had been "put on administrative leave" while ODOT investigates the facts surrounding the post, as well as its authenticity.  "We take this very seriously and very personally," the spokesperson told us, adding that the post "does not reflect the values of ODOT," and that its content was "deeply disturbing and hurtful." We can confirm that McAllen's post is authentic. We spoke to a person with knowledge of the posts and whose identity we were able to verify. That person told us that McAllen made her remarks during the course of a 19 June 2018 Facebook debate involving several people about the ongoing "zero tolerance" immigration policy, and the separation of children from their parents. The conversation was held on the Facebook page of another user.  We also received multiple screenshots from that conversation, which both corroborate the authenticity of McAllen's post, and show excerpts from the exchanges that led up to, and came after, her "shoot them all at the border" comment. We have edited these images only to preserve the anonymity of other participants.    Some time after McAllen posted the comment in question, another participant, outraged at its content, warned that they would make her "famous." In this screenshot, McAllen responds mockingly to a reference to her own offending remarks:    Another screenshot shows a third person, supportive of McAllen, acknowledging the fact that she did indeed post the remarks in question ("ONE comment Lori made") and attacking another participant in the conversation.     Another series of screenshots sent to us clearly shows McAllen responding to further references to her "shoot them at the border" comments.  McAllen has deleted her social media profiles and we were unable to contact her for comment. As U.S. President Donald Trump accelerated unsubstantiated attacks on the legitimacy of mail-in voting during the summer of 2020, numerous Snopes readers asked us to investigate whether the leader of the U.S. Postal Service was carrying out a nefarious scheme to help Trump win another presidential term. mail-in voting In late July and early August, various rumors surfaced regarding Louis DeJoy, a North Carolina businessman whom the Postal Service's governing board selected to run the agency in May 2020. For example, a viral tweet thread alleged: viral tweet My mailman just confirmed they have all officially been told to "SLOW THE MAIL DOWN," per trump's Postmaster General. ...He says that there is backed up mail ALL OVER THE FLOOR. He's never seen anything like it. It has ALREADY begun. But as long as we keep each other informed, we can beat their dirty tricks with INFORMATION.   The claim's underlying notions were these: DeJoy was a political ally to the Republican president, and the new postmaster general had used his new authority to order Postal Service carriers and clerks to slow deliveries to help Trump win the 2020 November election. A backlog of ballots in the weeks or days before Election Day, critics of the president worried, could lead to votes going uncounted or deemed invalid due to state laws governing mail-in election deadlines. state laws What follows is an examination of federal documents obtained by Snopes  including letters by members of Congress, campaign finance reports, and internal memos to Postal Service employees  as well as interviews with postal union representatives and a Postal Service spokesperson, to determine the legitimacy of those questions. DeJoy could not be reached for an interview for this report.  Note: Snopes not only investigated DeJoy's relationship to Trump, but his financial stake in companies that compete with the Postal Service to evaluate if, or to what extent, his past investments provided any evidence of a plan to undermine the Postal Service's longstanding mission: to provide mail service to every American, no matter their address or income. Yes. DeJoy, who lives in Greensboro, donated more than $1.2 million to the Trump campaign between August 2016 and February 2020, according to campaign finance reports compiled by the Federal Elections Commission (FEC). Federal Elections Commission It's unclear when or how DeJoy developed a relationship with Trump, and why he decided to support the billionaire's political pursuits. In a 2005 interview with Greensboro's local newspaper, DeJoy  then-CEO of New Breed Logistics, a distribution and warehousing company  appeared less supportive of Trump, saying his self-important attitude on the reality-TV show "The Apprentice" was destructive. 2005 interview The Apprentice "I'd be fired," DeJoy said, if he was a contestant. Nonetheless, by early 2017, DeJoy was among his state's top donors to Trump (see below for The Charlotte Observer's list that ranks DeJoy at No. 3 with a total contribution of $111,000). And by October of that year, DeJoy had become close enough to the president to host him and other donors for fundraiser at his Greensboro house. top donors Greensboro house.     Also, by that time, DeJoy's wife, Aldona Wos, had been appointed by the president to serve as vice chair of a White House commission that oversees paid fellowships in federal offices, according to the couple's foundation website. foundation website In addition to his contributions to Trump's political campaigns specifically, DeJoy has given hundreds of thousands of dollars to Republican causes or campaigns over decades, the FEC records show. The Postal Service's governing board, a group appointed by the president with confirmation from the Senate, selected DeJoy as Postmaster General on May 6, 2020, after what it described as an extensive nationwide search for qualified candidates. At the time of that decision, Trump had appointed all six board members  Chairman Robert Duncan, John Barger, Ron Bloom, Roman Martinez IV, Donald Moak, and William Zollars  since the early days of his presidency. what it described Robert Duncan John Barger Ron Bloom Roman Martinez IV Donald Moak William Zollars  DeJoy, who was in charge of fundraising for the Republican National Convention (RNC) in Charlotte when the board made its announcement, made the following donations since the start of 2020, according to filings from the FEC: National Republican Congressional Committee. National Republican Congressional Committee Facebook In sum, considering DeJoy's record of donations, as well as evidence of him hosting a Trump fundraiser at his Greensboro home in fall 2017, it is accurate to claim that the new postmaster general is a political ally to the Republican president.  home The answer to this question is less clear. In summer 2020, the viral claim about DeJoy  that he had directed carriers to delay mail to benefit Trump's reelection campaign (which we unpack below)  took on another layer: that DeJoy had also allegedly invested $70 million of his own money in delivery companies that compete with the Postal Service. another layer allegedly     That allegation, which we deemed true (see the explanation below), was particularly worrisome for critics of Trump and DeJoy, who believed the alleged holdings were more proof of the two leaders conspiring together  this time in an attempt to privatize the Postal Service. critics Here's some context before we dive into DeJoy's personal assets: Conservative Republicans have long pushed to remove government from mail services that they believe should be left to the private commercial market. Since Trump took office, he has called the Postal Service "a joke" or Amazon's "delivery boy," considering its package rates, and has floated the idea of eventually privatizing the agency. a joke delivery boy eventually privatizing the agency Meanwhile, others fear dismantling the federally-mandated mail service would disproportionately affect people who live in rural areas, where private companies such as FedEx and UPS either charge higher rates or do no shipments at all. At the same time, the Postal Service  which does not receive tax dollars for its operating expenses  faces a worsening financial situation due to a 2006 congressional mandate that required the agency to prepay health care benefits of retirees, as well as a decline in first-class mail customers. The coronavirus pandemic exacerbated those long-standing problems, forcing several post offices nationwide to completely close or scale back hours. congressional mandate coronavirus pandemic scale back hours For instance, on April 9, 2020, roughly one month before DeJoy was selected to lead the Postal Service, then-Postmaster General Megan Brennan said the agency was preparing for a $13 billion revenue shortfall due directly to COVID-19 and an additional $54.3 billion in losses over 10 years. Considering those projections, she said the agency could run out of cash this fiscal year  or the end of September  without federal intervention. (Brennan announced her retirement in October 2019, after more than 30 years with the agency.) April 9, 2020 announced her retirement The former Postal Service leader made those comments shortly after federal leaders negotiated a $2.2 trillion COVID-19 economic relief package, called the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, which, initially, included a $13 billion one-time boost for the mail service. But, purportedly at the urging of Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and aides to Trump, congressional leaders removed that provision from the stimulus package, and instead included a $10 billion loan that the Trump administration could leverage in its favor. Then, on July 29, 2020, The Washington Post reported that under DeJoy's leadership, the postal agency gave Mnuchin's office's proprietary information about the Postal Service's most lucrative private-sector contracts, such as Amazon, FedEx and UPS, in exchange for the loan money. economic relief package Steven Mnuchin The Washington Post By that time, Congressional leaders and Trump were battling yet again over another emergency relief package; Democrats proposed a $25 billion boost for the Postal Service but then lowered that amount to $10 billion during talks with Republicans. On Aug. 13, 2020, during an interview on Fox Business Network, the president said frankly the tug-and-pull over Postal Service funding was part of his administration's plan to try to make it harder for the agency to handle the expected surge in mail-in ballots in the November election. If we dont make a deal, that means they dont get the money, Trump told host Maria Bartiromo, referring to the false claim that Democrats are are proposing a universal mail-in voting system. That means they cant have universal mail-in voting; they just cant have it. told Which brings us to DeJoy's assets, and the above-mentioned claim that he had "$70 million invested in companies that compete with USPS." For the basis of this analysis, we considered private companies that provide shipping or distribution services, such as DHL, the FedEx Corporation, and United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS), business competitors with the post office. For more than 30 years, DeJoy was the CEO of New Breed Logistics, a supply chain business that contracted with a variety of public and private companies, including the Postal Service. In 2014, XPO Logistics acquired DeJoy's company, and he served on the company's executive team or board of directors until May 2018. According to internal documents, which we obtained using the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) database of company filings, XPO Logistics considered its competitors to include DHL, FedEx, UPS, and J.B. Hunt Transport Services.  XPO Logistics DHL FedEx UPS J.B. Hunt Transport Services Aside from that evidence, which proved DeJoy's former company competed for business with organizations that also competed with the Postal Service, Snopes uncovered a letter from his wife, Wos, to a White House legal advisor on January 3, 2020, that listed her family's financial assets, known as "Attachment A." According to that list, the family had stock in companies including UPS, J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc., and XPO Logistics, Inc. letter She wrote the letter in response to a nomination by the Trump administration to serve as U.S. ambassador to Canada, and she said she would divest from all holdings in the document within 90 days of her confirmation. However, as of this writing, Wos had not been sworn into the position. The letter, which was available via the Office of Government Ethics, read: nomination Office of Government Ethics   As of June 15, 2020, the day DeJoy assumed his role as postmaster general, The Washington Post reported the couple had between $30.1 million and $75.3 million in assets in Postal Service competitors or contractors. XPO Logistics represented the vast majority of those investments, and the couple's combined stake in UPS and trucking company J.B. Hunt, for examples, was roughly $265,000. The Washington Post reported On DeJoy's first day, the Senate's top Democrat, Charles Schumer of New York, said in letter to the Postal Service's board of governors' chairman: "[DeJoy's] financial interests in companies that have business ties with the Postal Services, as well as his extensive campaign fundraising efforts, raise questions" over his ethical conflicts of interest and partisan interests. letter By that point, a spokeswoman for DeJoy told journalists he had resigned as finance chair for the Republican National Convention, and would "comply with any financial divestitures that are required" for the new leadership position. told journalists In sum, reports proved the DeJoy family at one point had millions of dollars in assets in companies that compete or contract with the Postal Service, which lend credibility to the viral assertion. But the exact amount of such investments was unclear, and as of this writing, it was unknown if or to what extent the couple had divested any of the financial holdings. Not exactly  but there is some truth to the claim. Upon our analysis, the rumor seems to have stemmed from a series of directives DeJoy gave Postal Service employees since he took over the agency. On his first day, for example, he addressed the agency in a video that alluded to impending changes under his leadership that aimed to create a "viable operating model," though he did not go into specifics. video Then, in mid-July, he issued several memos to employees, including a "New [Postmaster General's] expectations and plan." Those messages to all managers, clerks, and carriers nationwide appeared to be the source of the claim, and detailed changes to how and when the Postal Agency would deliver mail. A July 10, 2020, internal document to managers, which Snopes received from the American Postal Workers Union and refers to an "operational pivot" for the agency, said the following, for example: American Postal Workers Union The initial step in our pivot is targeted on transportation and the soaring costs we incur due to late trips and extra trips, which costs the organization somewhere around $200 million in added expenses. $200 million in added expenses The shifts are simple, but they will be challenging, as we seek to change our culture and move away from past practices previously used. But perhaps most relevant to the claim, the DeJoy-sponsored directives included instructions for employees to leave letters or packages at distribution centers if they delayed carriers from their routes  contradicting previous rules for deliveries  and said the Postal Service would no longer pay employees overtime to complete all mail deliveries. The July 10, 2020 memo said:  contradicting One aspect of these changes that may be difficult for employees is that  temporarily  we may see mail left behind or mail on the workroom floor or docks [in Processing and Distribution Centers], which is not typical. We will address root causes of these delays and adjust the very next day. Any mail left behind must be properly reported, and employees should ensure this action is taken with integrity and accuracy. As we adjust to the ongoing pivot, which will have a number of phases, we know that operations will begin to run more efficiently and that delayed mail volumes will soon shrink significantly. We also considered a separate message to employees in July 2020 that said, under a new initiative, carriers in certain regions would not sort any mail during the morning and instead clock in, retrieve sorted mail from the previous day and limit time in the office as much as possible. Then, when they returned from the streets, they would sort all available mail for the next day. July 2020 The agency said the extra spending on employees' overtime or delivery trips had not improved "our performance scores," without going into detail on what that meant, and framed the changes as necessary steps to improve its financial position. A July 27, 2020, public statement from DeJoy said: said public statement Given our current situation, it is critical that the Postal Service take a fresh look at our operations and make necessary adjustments. We are highly focused on our public service mission to provide prompt, reliable, and efficient service to every person and business in this country, and to remain a part of the nations critical infrastructure. David Partenheimer, manager of media relations for the Postal Service, told Snopes that the postmaster general was not doing any media interviews regarding the initiatives, nor about the underlying claims of this report. In a roughly 760-word email to us, however, Partenheimer reemphasized what the agency viewed as the need for the adjustments, and said: "We acknowledge that temporary service impacts can occur as we redouble our efforts to conform to the current operating plans, but any such impacts will be monitored and temporary ... and corrected as appropriate." Soon after the directives, American Postal Workers Union President Mark Dimondstein told us in a phone interview that employees and customers across the country were noticing mail delays. In the Philadelphia region, for instance, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported situations where residents were going upwards of three weeks without receiving packages and letters, and postal union leaders and carriers said mail was piling up at offices, unscanned and unsorted. Mark Dimondstein employees Philadelphia Inquirer "When you ... say this is what you have to do as workers, then that's what we have to do  [the change] runs counter to everything that the Postal Service is about, which is we treat the mail as our own; we get it to the customer as quickly as we can," Dimondstein said. "They've never seen mail backed up like this  it's not being moved." That meant, while DeJoy had not told carriers to "slow the mail down" verbatim, he initiated changes to how and when carriers go about doing their job that the Postal Agency said would cause temporary mail delays. However, it would be inaccurate to assume all slow deliveries under DeJoy's leadership were a result of the July 2020 directives specifically, when they could also be linked to reduced hours for some post offices or other circumstances. Roughly three months before the 2020 presidential election, voting rights groups and outspoken critics to the president believed the new directives by DeJoy occurred at a convenient time for Trump: when a record number of Americans were preparing to vote by mail and avoid potential exposure to the COVID-19 coronavirus by casting ballots at in-person polling places. Specifically, they worried the new requirements for post office carriers and clerks would lead to backlogs of mail-in ballots and thus create challenges for elections officials who, in the majority of states, must invalidate ballots that reach them after Election Day  even if they were postmarked before that date. Rep. Carolyn Maloney, a Democrat from New York, for example, led colleagues in writing a letter to DeJoy on July 20, 2020, that said: Rep. Carolyn Maloney "While these changes [to mail service] in a normal year would be drastic, in a presidential election year when many states are relying heavily on absentee mail-in ballots, increases in mail delivery timing would impair the ability of ballots to be received and counted in a timely manner  an unacceptable outcome for a free and fair election." We asked Dimondstein, APWU president, whether he believed the July directives by Postal Service leadership were somehow linked to a plan to cause mail service chaos before the November election and help Trump win reelection. He said: What we do know for truth is this administration is, in written record, proposing and planning to sell the post office to private corporations, i.e. privatizing. ...That was June 2018. We also know as a fact that ...that [there are] calls for reduced service, increased prices, and less workers' rights and benefits. So if you take those two things together, certainly if they're implemented, then they're going to cause delays in mail; they're going to cause service being undermined. ... written record This is a fact: [DeJoy is] what's considered a mega-donor of the Trump administration and the Republican party. ... Anything that undermines the Postal Service' [service to customers] ... has us concerned that it could be linked back to those who have an agenda to eliminate [the Postal Service]. But I can't sit here and tell you that that's a fact. Partenheimer said any notion that DeJoy made decisions for the Postal Service under directions from Trump (which include claims that he issued the July 2020 changes that resulted in delays to help Trump's re-election campaign) were "wholly misplaced and off-base." He said the Postal Service, typically an apolitical agency, remains committed to "fulfilling our role in the electoral process" in places where politicians allow voters to cast ballots by mail and "to delivering Election Mail in a timely manner consistent with our operational standards." He elaborated: "[Despite] any assertions to the contrary, we are not slowing down Election Mail or any other mail. Instead, we continue to employ a robust and proven process to ensure proper handling of all Election Mail consistent with our standards." Days later, he said in a statement to news media that certain deadlines concerning mail-in ballots, may be incompatible with the Postal Services delivery standards, especially if election officials dont pay more for first-class postage. To the extent that states choose to use the mail as part of their elections, they should do so in a manner that realistically reflects how the mail works, he said. news media Then, on Aug. 18, 2020, DeJoy issued a statement in which he said he would temporarily suspend initiatives "that have been raised as areas of concern as the nation prepares to hold an election in the midst of a devastating pandemic," including the controversial July 2020 directives that eliminated overtime and some delivery trips. The statement read: statement To avoid even the appearance of any impact on election mail, I am suspending these initiatives until after the election is concluded. I want to assure all Americans of the following: In addition, effective Oct. 1, we will engage standby resources in all areas of our operations, including transportation, to satisfy any unforeseen demand. In sum, it was accurate to state that DeJoy, a political ally to Trump, ordered Postal Service workers to leave late-arriving mail at distribution centers for delivery the following day and eliminate extra trips in July 2020  a change the Postal Service was expecting to cause temporary mail delays  although no verifiable evidence proved those directives were part of a deliberate scheme to disenfranchise voters in the November 2020 election. Additionally, there was no proof to show the changes aimed to help Trump win reelection. For those reasons, we rate this claim "Unproven." Ye Hee Lee, Michelle and Bogage, Jacob. "Postal Service Backlog Sparks Worries That Ballot Delivery Could Be Delayed In November".
 The Washington Post. 30 July 2020. Naylor, Brian. "Pending Postal Service Changes Could Delay Mail And Deliveries, Advocates War".
 NPR. 29 July 2020. Naylor, Brian. "Pending Postal Service Changes Could Delay Mail And Deliveries, Advocates War".
 NPR. 29 July 2020. USPS Contributor. "What Is The History Behind The Unofficial USPS Motto?"
 Postal Posts. 11 September 2015. USPS. "Postmaster General Statement On Operational Excellence And Financial Stability".
 27 July 2020. Office of Inspector General. "U.S. Postal Service's Processing Network Optimization And Service Impacts".
 USPS. 16 June 2020. Dawsey, Josh, et. al. "Top Republican Fundraiser And Trump Ally Named Postmaster General, Giving President New Influence Over Postal Service".
 The Washington Post. 6 May 2020. Bogage, Jacob. "Postal Service Memos Detail 'Difficult' Changes, Including Slower Mail Delivery".
 The Washington Post. 14 July 2020. Naylor, Brian. "New Postmaster General Is Top GOP Fundraiser".
 NPR. 7 May 2020. Hummel, Marta. "New Breed CEO No One's 'Apprentice' Louis DeJoy Is A Big Supporter Of George W. Bush But Says The Clinton Era Was His Most Profitable".
 News & Record. 7 January 2005. Heckman, Jory. "USPS Board Names Logistics Executive As New Postmaster General".
 Federal News Network. 6 May 2020. Gordon, Aaron. "USPS Plans To Slash Hours At Many Post Offices, Hoping To Save A Buck".
 Vice. 29 July 2020. Cohen, Rachel. "USPS Workers Concerned New Policies Will Pave The Way To Privatization".
 The Intercept. 29 July 2020. Derysh, Igor. "With Trump Donor In Charge, Postal Service May Shut Locations And Cut Service Before Election Day".
 Salon. 31 July 2020. Rushing, Ellie. "Mail Delays Are Frustrating Philly Residents, And A Short-Staffed Postal Service Is Struggling To Keep Up".
 The Philadelphia Inquirer. 2 August 2020. Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney. "Maloney, King Lead Bipartisan NY Delegation Call For Immediate Help For The Postal Service".
 28 April 2020. House Committee On Oversight And Reform. "Senior Democrats Request Information On Postal Service's Operational Changes".
 20 July 2020. Bogage, Jacob. "Trump Ally Takes Over Crisis-Ridden Postal Service As Top Senate Democrat Demands Inquiry On Hiring".
 The Washington Post. 15 June 2020. Murphy, Brian. "NC Businessman, A Big-Time GOP Donor, Is Tapped To Lead US Postal Service".
 The News & Observer. 7 May 2020. Shear, Michael. "Mail Delays Fuel Concern Trump Is Undercutting Postal Service Ahead Of Voting".
 The New York Times. 1 August 2020. Sargent, Greg. "Trump Just Told Us How Mail Delays Could Help Him Corrupt The Election".
 The Washington Post. 31 July 2020. Reichmann, Deb, and Izaguirre, Anthony. "Trump Admits He's Blocking Postal Cash To Stop Mail-In Votes."
 Associated Press. 14 August 2020. USPS. "Postmaster General Louis DeJoy Statement."
 18 August 2020. This report was updated to include an interview by Trump with Fox Business Network on Aug. 13, 2020, where he acknowledged that he was intentionally blocking Postal Service funding in an attempt to make it harder for the agency to process mail-in ballots in the November presidential election. This report was updated to include a statement by DeJoy on Aug. 18, 2020, in which he announced the suspension of certain initiatives "to avoid even the appearance of any impact on election mail." Claim:  The sister ship to the Olympic and Titanic was originally intended to be named the Gigantic.   . Origins:   The   Titanic was originally conceived by the White Star Company as one of a triumvirate of ships intended to vie with Cunard for the trans-Atlantic passenger service business.  White Star couldn't hope to offer ships as fast as Cunard's liners, so they planned to compete by building liners that were both bigger (and hence able to carry more paying passengers and cargo) and more luxurious than Cunard's.  Moreover, since an Atlantic crossing typically took five days in the new class of steamships operated by Cunard and White Star in the first decade of the 20th century, creating a trio of similar ships would allow White Star to offer trans-Atlantic service in both directions on a regular weekly schedule. The planned ships were so large that the shipbuilders, Harland and Wolff, had to allocate space normally used for building three hulls to handle just two of the new behemoths.  Harland and Wolff planned to construct the liners on a staggered schedule so that White Star would have one ready to go into service each spring between 1911 and 1913, and initially everything went according to plan. The keel of the first ship, the Olympic, was laid in December 1908, and the Titanic followed suit three months later.  The Olympic was launched in October 1910, and the Titanic in May 1911.  The  Olympic's maiden voyage took place in June 1911, and the Titanic's in April 1912.  And then ... After the Titanic disaster, the feverish public interest in these massive ocean liners abated, and the third ship of the planned triumvirate, the Britannic, was finally launched (after extensive modifications and with considerably less fanfare than her sisters) in April 1914.  Like her sister ship Titanic, she wasn't around long, though: World War I broke out before the Britannic ever went into passenger service; she was requisitioned by the Royal Navy and pressed into service as a hospital ship; and she struck a mine and sank off the coast of Greece in November  1916.   The magnitude of the Titanic disaster and World War I both overshadowed the short life of the Britannic, and she was gone before many people were even aware she had been built.  Over the years a rumor began to circulate that the Britannic's original name had been the Gigantic, but White Star had thought better of it and quietly changed their minds after the Titanic sank.  White Star maintained that this was not true; they had planned to name the ship Britannic all along and had never considered the name Gigantic. From a purely logical point of view, Gigantic seems the more likely choice.  The names Olympic, Titanic, and Gigantic all evoke a sense of size and strength that Britannic simply does not.  And White Star had considered naming a ship Gigantic on at least one other occasion, as demonstrated by this brief article that appeared 17 September 1892 New York Times: London, Sept. 16  The White Star Company has commissioned the great Belfast shipbuilders Harland and Wolff to build an Atlantic steamer that will beat the record in size and speed. She has already been named the  Gigantic, and will be 700 feet long, 65 feet 7-1/2 inches beam and 4,500 horsepower. It is calculated that she will steam 22 knots an hour, with a maximum speed of 27 knots. She will have three screws, two fitted like Majestic's, and the third in the centre. She is to be ready for sea in March, 1894. We have more than logic and supposition to go by here, however.  Contemporary references publications such as The New York Times, Scientific American, and Lloyd's List and Shipping Gazette as well as a promotional flyer from White Star itself all indicate that White Star did indeed originally have the name  Gigantic in mind, but one could hardly blame them for altering their plans.  After the sinking of the Titanic, passengers were suddenly less concerned with size and luxury than they were with getting to their destinations alive, and the dignified name Britannic conveyed a sense of safety and reliability in a way the attention-grabbing Gigantic could not. Last updated:  18 December 2005    Sources:   Eaton, John P. and Charles A. Haas.  Titanic: Destination Disaster.   Wellingborough, England: Patrick Stephens, 1987.  ISBN 0-85059-868-0  (pp. 54-56). Titanic: Destination Disaster    Heyer, Paul.  Titanic Legacy: Disaster As Media Event and Myth.   Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 1995.  ISBN 0-275-95352-1  (pp. 20-22).