The three wealthiest people own more wealth than the bottom half of the American people.
Do three Americans really have more wealth than half the country? Its a claim made by the runner-up for the 2016 Democratic nomination for president,Bernie Sanders. Campaigningon July 14, 2018 for U.S. Sen.Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., Sanderstold a crowdin Eau Claire: The three wealthiest people own more wealth than the bottom half of the American people. The U.S. senator, an independent from Vermont, previously made the claimon Facebookand repeated it three days after his Wisconsin appearance in a column inUSA Today. What we found is the wealth lead enjoyed by the three billionaires is even larger than what Sanders said. Like us on Facebook. Follow us on Twitter:@PolitiFactWisc. A study Before we dig in, an important note about the nations wealth gap: Many Americans make a good income, have some savings and investments, and own a nice home; they also have debt, for a mortgage, credit cards and other bills. The result is, even some people with relatively healthy incomes, as well as many poorer people, have a negative net worth. To back Sanders claim, his campaign pointed us to a November 2017news articlein Forbes. The business magazine reported ona studypublished that month by the Institute for Policy Studies, which the article described as a left-leaning think tank in Washington, D.C. The study, which advocates for reducing wealth inequality, also gained news coverage fromUSA TodayandThe Guardian. And its authors wrote opinion articles about it forNewsweekand theLos Angeles Times. The numbers The study used data from Forbes 2017 ranking of the 400 richest Americans; and data for the rest of the country from the 2016 Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finances, which the study says has become widely accepted as the most comprehensive government dataset documenting household wealth. PolitiFact has alsoreliedonthisFed survey in our wealth fact checks. The first finding the study reported was this: The three wealthiest people in the United States now own more wealth than the entire bottom half of the American population combined, a total of 160 million people. Those individuals and their source of wealth are, according to the study: 1.Bill Gates, Microsoft: $89 billion 2. Jeff Bezos, Amazon: $81.5 billion 3.Warren Buffett, Berkshire Hathaway: $78 billion Thats a total of $248.5 billion. The wealth of the bottom 160 million was $245 billion, the Institute for Policy Studies'Josh Hoxietold us. Thats a gap of $3.5 billion. Hoxie, a former a aide to Sanders, also pointed out that the wealth of the three billionaires has ballooned to $330 billion, according to Forbeslatest estimate. We dont have an updated estimate for the bottom 160 million American, as the Fed survey is done only once every three years. But Hoxie said its nearly impossible that the wealth of Americans at the bottom has grown nearly as much as that of the three billionaires. For the 160 million people at the bottom of the scale, by the way, the study used the net worth figure reported by the Fed and then subtracted automobiles and other durable goods such as electronics, furniture, and household appliances, from that figure. Subtracting durable goods from net worth offers us a more accurate depiction of household wealth as these items are not easily sellable and neither appreciate nor hold constant their value, the study says. Other viewpoints More fact checks on wealth inequality Michael Moore, in 2011: Just 400 Americans -- 400 -- have more wealth than half of all Americans combined.True. One Wisconsin Now, in 2013: The Walton family, which owns Wal-Mart, controls a fortune equal to the wealth of the bottom 42 percent of Americans combined.True. Starbucks, in 2015: White people control almost 90 percent of the nation's wealth.True. The studys methodology is sound and its conclusion cited by Sanders is accurate, according toAbdur Chowdhury, an emeritus economics professor at Marquette University in Milwaukee, and economics professorEmmanuel Saez, director of the Center for Equitable Growth at the University of California, Berkeley. As an aside, well note that Saez also said Sanders claim is somewhat meaningless. The meaningful thing to say, Saez told us, is the bottom half of the U.S. families owns essentially no wealth on net, because debts cancel out whatever small assets they may have, on average. Our rating Sanders says: The three wealthiest people own more wealth than the bottom half of the American people. The wealth of Gates, Bezos and Buffett exceeded that of the 160 million at the bottom of the scale, according to a 2017 study. And more recent estimates indicate the wealth of the three has since grown dramatically, widening the gap even more. We rate Sanders statement True.
Collected via email, 2013: A Country Founded by Geniuses but Run by Idiots Attributed to Jeff Foxworthy: If you can get arrested for hunting or fishing without a license, but not for entering and remaining in the country illegally  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If you have to get your parents permission to go on a field trip or to take an aspirin in school, but not to get an abortion  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If you MUST show your identification to board an airplane, cash a check, buy liquor, or check out a library book and rent a video, but not to vote for who runs the government  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If the government wants to prevent stable, law-abiding citizens from owning gun magazines that hold more than ten rounds, but gives twenty F-16 fighter jets to the crazy new leaders in Egypt  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If, in the nations largest city, you can buy two 16-ounce sodas, but not one 24-ounce soda, because 24-ounces of a sugary drink might make you fat  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If an 80-year-old woman or a three-year-old girl who is confined to a wheelchair can be strip-searched by the TSA at the airport, but a woman in a burka or a hijab is only subject to having her neck and head searched  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If a seven-year-old boy can be thrown out of school for saying his teacher is "cute," but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class ingrade school is perfectly acceptable  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If hard work and success are met with higher taxes and more government regulation and intrusion, while not working is rewarded with Food Stamps, WIC checks, Medicaid benefits, subsidized housing, and free cell phones  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If the governments plan for getting people back to work is to provide incentives for not working, by granting 99 weeks of unemployment checks, without any requirement to prove that gainful employment was diligently sought, but couldnt be found  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If you pay your mortgage faithfully, denying yourself the newest big-screen TV, while your neighbor buys iPhones, time shares, a wall-sized do-it-all plasma screen TV and new cars, and the government forgives his debt when he defaults on his mortgage  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If being stripped of your Constitutional right to defend yourself makes you more "safe" according to the government  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. What a country! How about we give God a reason to continue blessing America! The above-referenced list of entries detailing "A Country Founded by Geniuses But Run by Idiots" was widely circulated via the internet in early 2013 with an "Attributed to Jeff Foxworthy" tag at its head, leading many to believe it was actually the work of that nationally famous comedian. Jeff Foxworthy However, othen than its basic "If you ... you might be ..." pattern that mimics Jeff Foxworthy's popular "You might be a redneck" routines, this item bears little resemblance to anything produced by Foxworthy: his comedic material is typically affectionate and self-deprecating and involves poking fun at his own milieu; his brand of humor is much more apolitical and non-partisan than the list reproduced above. (Nonetheless, Jeff's name has been falsely attached to other similar political pieces that have little in common with the tenor and substance of his comedy material.) attached Jeff's brother, Jay, confirmed for us that this material was not written by his sibling. The original compiler of this list appears to be Fritz Edmunds, who posted it to his "Politically True" blog back on Feb. 3, 2013 (albeit with a disclaimer noting that "some of the ideas were from an email that did not contain any copyright"). Politically True As usual, the list has seen numerous alterations in the process of being passed around the Internet, and several of the entries appearing in earlier versions have since dropped off: If the only school curriculum allowed to explain how we got here is evolution, but your government stops a $15 million construction project to keep a rare spider from evolving to extinction  you might live in a country founded by geniuses and run by idiots. If your government believes that using steroids or other drugs will ruin your life, but throwing you in prison for years will not  you might live in a country founded by geniuses and run by idiots. If children are forcibly removed from parents who discipline them with spankings while children of addicts are left in filth and drug infested homes  you might live in a country founded by geniuses and run by idiots. If your government believes that the way to make a school of unarmed children safe is to pass another law, this time with the illusion that three 10-round magazines in a rifle is safer than a 30-round magazine  you might live in a country founded by geniuses and run by idiots. The phrase "founded by geniuses and run by idiots" appears to be a variant of a similar statement that appeared in Herman Wouk's 1951 novel "The Caine Mutiny": "The Navy is a master plan designed by geniuses for execution by idiots." In the 1954 film of the same name, the line was rendered, "The first thing you've got to learn about this ship is that she was designed by geniuses to be run by idiots." <!-- Sources:    Metz, Ken.  "It's Never Wise to Insult the Police Officer."   The Bath County News-Outlook.  30 August 2007.--> Update [Aug. 2, 2022]: Updated SEO and title. On Feb. 3, 2021, a tweet by @ialhusseini appeared to share heartwarming news about nine parents who were deported during former U.S. President Donald Trump's administration. The tweet claimed the adults had landed back in the U.S. the same day the tweet was posted and had been reunited with their children: tweet   However, the photograph used in this tweet was miscaptioned. It's true that nine parents who were deported from the U.S. were later reunited with their children, but that occurrence took place a year before the tweet shown above was posted. Pictured in the Feb. 3, 2021, tweet were David Xol and his son, Byron. The Associated Press had reported their story in a Jan. 23, 2020, article headlined "9 parents separated from families return to children in US," along with the photograph shown in the tweet.  The picture was credited to Ringo HW Chiu/AP, and its original caption read: "David Xol-Cholom, of Guatemala, hugs his son Byron at Los Angeles international airport as they reunite after being separated by the Trump administration." reported Both Xol and his son were featured in that AP story: LOS ANGELES (AP)  As his long-lost son walked toward him in an airport terminal, a sobbing David Xol stretched out his arms, fell to one knee, and embraced the boy for about three minutes, crying into his shoulder. He had not held the child since May 2018, when border agents pulled then-7-year-old Byron away inside a detention facility. They were separated under President Donald Trumps zero-tolerance policy  the father deported to Guatemala, the son placed in a series of government facilities before ending up with a host family in Texas. Xol was one of nine parents who won the exceedingly rare chance to return to the U.S. after being deported under family separation. They arrived Wednesday at Los Angeles International Airport to be reunited with children they hadnt seen in a year and a half or longer under the order of a federal judge who found the U.S. government had unlawfully prevented them from seeking asylum. A video was also included with the AP story showing the moment that Xol and his son embraced for the first time in more than a year and a half: https://youtu.be/r_QFc8bIIww      The tweet from @ialhusseini received thousands of retweets and likes, with one viewing replying,  "Grateful for the Biden Administration for this beautiful pix." Others thanked both U.S. President Joe Biden and first lady Jill Biden. However, these families were reunited a year before Biden was sworn in as president. After taking office on Jan. 20, 2021, Biden did move forward on plans to reunite children who were deported and separated from their parents under the Trump administration. On Feb. 2, 2021, The Associated Press reported that the wheels for those unifications were in motion: reported Alejandro Mayorkas, who was sworn in as Homeland Security secretary after his nomination was confirmed by the Senate, will lead a task force on family separation, focused largely on reuniting parents and children who remain apart. It is unclear exactly how many, but about 5,500 children have been identified in court documents as having been separated during Trump's presidency, including about 600 whose parents have yet to be found by a court-appointed committee. "We're going to work to undo the moral and national shame of the previous administration," Biden said. The review will address the possibility of legal status in the United States for separated families and providing mental health services. The American Civil Liberties Union, which sued to reunite families, has asked the administration for legal status in the United States for all of the thousands of families that have been separated, as well as financial compensation for those families and attorneys at government expense. In sum, a tweet from Feb. 3, 2021, reported a news story as if it had just taken place. However, although the story was true, it was a report from more than a year earlier. Twitter users shared the tweet and its accompanying picture as if it were new and current, and for this reason we have rated this story as being "Miscaptioned." Featured photograph caption (top): "A Honduran asylum seeker, recently released from federal detention with fellow migrants, holds the hand of her six-year-old daughter at a bus depot on June 11, 2019, in McAllen, Texas." When Susan Goodman Komen died of breast cancer at the age of 33 in 1980, her younger sister, Nancy Goodman Brinker promised she would do whatever she could to help end that disease.  Brinker fulfilled that promise by founding The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation (later known as Susan G. Komen for the Cure, then just Susan G. Komen) in 1982, a group that has since become the largest and most well known breast cancer organization in the United States: breast cancer Brinker fulfilled a promise to her sister that she would do everything she could to help eradicate the disease  a disease that Brinker also was diagnosed with and successfully fought. "At that time, there was a stigma and shame around breast cancer," Brinker said. "You didn't talk about it. There were no 800-numbers, no Internet. Our government didn't spend much on breast cancer research. There were few major cancer centers with expertise about breast cancer. That's the world we faced when Suzy was diagnosed. It's a world I watched her suffer in, and it's a world she wanted us to change." In 2012, Komen founder and CEO Nancy Brinker became the focus of controversy when she announced Komen would be pulling the grants the organization had been providing to Planned Parenthood for breast cancer screenings, then quickly reversed that decision.  Several months later Brinker announced she would be stepping down as Komen's CEO, but the following year she was again the focus of controversy when news outlets reported that not only did she still hold her CEO position, but she had received a hefty raise to boot that brought her annual compensation up to $684,000 per year: In early 2012, Komen announced it was pulling its grants for breast-cancer screenings from Planned Parenthood, drawing an immediate backlash from Komen supporters and abortion rights advocates. Within days, Nancy Brinker, the groups founder and CEO, reversed the decision to defund the organization. Then, in August, Brinker announced that she would be stepping down. But 10 months later, Brinker still holds her position and tax documents reveal that she received a 64 percent raise and now makes $684,000 a year, according to the charitys latest available tax filing.  Komen says the raise came in November 2010, prior to last year's controversy. Ken Berger, president and CEO of Charity Navigator, which evaluates and rates charities, called Brinker's salary "extremely high." "This pay package is way outside the norm," he said. "It's about a quarter of a million dollars more than what we see for charities of this size. This is more than the head of the Red Cross is making, for an organization that is one-tenth the size of the Red Cross."  The American Red Cross had revenue of about $3.4 billion, while Komens was about $340 million last year.  Red Cross CEO Gail McGovern makes $500,000, according to the most recent financial documents available for the charity. Charity Navigator's last compensation figure for Nancy Brinker was $560,896 per year, which at the time put her below Komen president Elizabeth Thompson's reported annual compensation of $606,461.   In June 2013, Komen finally announced that Brinker would be stepping down as president and CEO of that organization and named Judith A. Salerno, M.D. as her successor.  In June 2015, Brinker reportedly resigned from her paid position to assume an unpaid role role as a top volunteer with Komen. Dr. Salerno's most recently reported compensation (in August 2017) was $479,858, while Nancy Brinker was still listed as a "founder" receiving a salary of $397,093. compensation announced unpaid In September 2017, Paula Schneider took over as president and CEO of Komen, with compensation of $137,155 reported as of the end of the fiscal year in March 2018. Paula Schneider The reference to Komen's applying only 20% of donated money to breast cancer research likely comes from a pie chart displayed in the "Use of Funds" section of Wikipedia's article about Susan G. Komen for the Cure, which showed Komen's 2009-2010 Expenses: Use of Funds  While it may have been true that breast cancer research comprised only a 21% share of Komen's program expenses (Charity Navigator puts the figure at 28.8% as of March 2018), citing that figure as a criticism of the organization reflects a common misbelief that groups dedicated to addressing particular diseases (e.g., the Muscular Dystrophy Association, the ALS Association) exist solely or primarily to fund and direct research into curing and/or preventing those diseases.  This perception is inaccurate: Komen and other groups like it have goals that include delivering a wide array of services to the communities they support beyond the funding of research, such as funding educational awareness and outreach programs, providing screening and diagnostic procedures, and arranging medical treatment and home care for persons currently living with those diseases.  A more relevant metric for assessing a charity's overall financial effectiveness is the percentage of the organization's budget that is actually spent on all the programs and services the charity delivers, and in this area the Charity Navigator charity evaluation site gives  Komen an 80.3 rating (as well as a 96.0 rating for Accountability & Transparency).  Charity Navigator does rank many other breast cancer charities higher than Susan G. Komen for the Cure, however. Komen breast cancer Regarding the seemingly excessively high level of CEO salaries at some charities, Charity Navigator advises that: advises While there are certainly some charities that overpay their leaders, Charity Navigator's data shows that those organizations are the minority. Among the charities we've evaluated (those being mid to large-sized charities), the typical CEO's annual compensation is in the low to mid six figures. Before you make any judgments about salaries higher or lower than that range, we encourage you to keep in mind that these charities are complex organizations, with multi-million dollar budgets, hundreds of employees, and thousands of constituents. These leaders could inevitably make much more running similarly sized for-profit firms. Furthermore, when making your decision it is important to consider that it takes a certain level of professionalism to effectively run a charity and charities must offer a competitive salary if they want to attract and retain that level of leadership. In July 2016, a image picturing Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was circulated with text stating that he had freed everyone imprisoned for marijuana offences and expunged their records, and that he was able to enact such a sweeping reform because Canada (unlike the U.S.) has no "prison for profit" facilities:  However, the claim originated not with a news report of any such reform act, but with an article published by the Global Sun on 3 July 2016: A press conference was held last night by The Liberal Party of Canada, on behalf of newly-elected Canadian prime minister, Justin Trudeau about future marijuana laws and regulations. 30 minutes into the conference, Trudeau announced the big news that all members of the parliament have agreed to  and that is pardoning all Canadian prisoners who have been convicted of a minor or major offence of marijuana. The Global Sun is a satirical publication that does not publish factual stories: The Global Sun is a satire website, articles/post on the website are all made-up stories and should not be taken seriously. Although Prime Minister Trudeau has not freed all those convicted of marijuana-related offences from prison, real news suggests Canada may be moving toward legalizing the drug in 2017: legalizing Canada's Liberal Party government will introduce a law next spring to legalize recreational marijuana, Health Minister Jane Philpott disclosed last week at the United Nations. She did not detail who would be allowed to grow or distribute cannabis products. Canada has a lot of options here, said RAND Drug Policy Research Center co-director Beau Kilmer. You have to pay attention to what's going to happen with the regulation and the taxes. That could really shape what happens in terms of people coming in from other countries. You have to decide whether you want to allow that. Messages offering a seemingly helpful heads-up about how to deal with a situation in which one is forced to hand over money withdrawn from an ATM under duress began circulating on the Internet in September 2006:  I just found out that should you ever be forced to withdraw monies from an ATM machine, you can notify the police by entering your Pin # in reverse. The machine will still give you the monies you requested, but unknown to the robber, etc, the police will be immediately dispatched to help you. The broadcast stated that this method of calling the police is very seldom used because people don't know it exist, and it might mean the difference between life and death. Hopefully, none of you will have to use this, but I wanted to pass it along just in case you hadn't heard of it. Please pass it along to everyonepossible. [Collected via e-mail, December 2008] PIN NUMBER REVERSAL If you should ever be forced by a robber to withdraw money from an ATM machine, you can notify the police by entering your PIN # in reverse. For example if your pin number is 1234 then you would put in 4321. The ATM recognizes that your pin number is backwards from the ATM card you placed in the machine The machine will still give you the money you requested, but unknown to the robber, the police will be immediately dispatched to help you. This information was recently broadcast on CTV and it states that it is seldom used because people don't know it exists. I checked with my Bank of Nova Scotia to see if this was correct and staff said yes this information is correct. Please pass this along to everyone possible. [Collected via e-mail, June 2009] WHEN A THIEF FORCES YOU TO TAKE MONEY FROM THE ATM, DO NOT ARGUE OR RESIST, YOU MIGHT NOT KNOW WHAT HE OR SHE MIGHT DO TO YOU. WHAT YOU SHOULD DO IS TO PUNCH YOUR PIN IN THE REVERSE, I..E IF YOUR PIN IS 1254, YOU PUNCH 4521. THE MOMENT YOU PUNCH IN THE REVERSE, THE MONEY WILL COME OUT BUT WILL BE STUCK INTO THE MACHINE HALF WAY OUT AND IT WILL ALERT THE POLICE WITHOUT THE NOTICE OF THE THIEF. EVERY ATM HAS IT; IT IS SPECIALLY MADE TO SIGNIFY DANGER AND HELP. NOT EVERYONE IS AWARE OF THIS. FORWARD THIS TO ALL YOUR FRIENDS AND THOSE YOU CARE However, the word "seemingly" applies in this case because the tip is only a chimera, as entering one's Personal Identification Number (PIN) in reverse at Automated Teller Machines (ATMs) does not automatically summon the police. The Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 compelled the Federal Trade Commission to provide an analysis of any technology, either then currently available or under development, which would allow a distressed ATM user to send an electronic alert to a law enforcement agency. The following statements were made in the FTC's April 2010 report in response to that requirement: report FTC staff learned that emergency-PIN technologies have never been deployed at any ATMs. The respondent banks reported that none of their ATMs currently have installed, or have ever had installed, an emergency-PIN system of any sort. The ATM manufacturer Diebold confirms that, to its knowledge, no ATMs have or have had an emergency-PIN system. Ergo, there aren't and haven't ever been "reverse PIN" technologies despite online claims dating to September 2006 that anyone being robbed at an ATM simply had to enter his or her PIN in reverse to summon help. Moreover, said that FTC report: The available information suggests that emergency-PIN and alarm button devices: (1) may not halt or deter crimes to any significant extent; (2) may in some instances increase the danger to customers who are targeted by offenders and also lead to some false alarms (although the exact magnitude of these potential effects cannot be determined); and (3) may impose substantial implementation costs, although no formally derived cost estimates of implementing these technologies are currently available. The reverse PIN system was first imagined in 1994 and patented in 1998 by Joseph Zingher, a Chicago businessman. His SafetyPIN System would alert police that a crime was in progress when a cardholder at an ATM keyed in the reverse of his personal identification numbers. The flip-flopped PIN would serve as a "panic code" that sent a silent alarm to police to notify them that an ATM customer was acting under duress. Because palindromic PINs (e.g., 2002, 7337, 4884) cannot be reversed, Zingher's system included work-arounds for such numeric combinations. However, Zingher had little success in interesting the banking community in SafetyPIN despite his pitching it to them with great persistence over the years. He did in 2004 succeed in getting the Illinois General Assembly to adopt a "reverse PIN" clause in SB 562, but the final version of the bill watered down the wording so as to make banks' implementation of the system optional rather than mandatory: "A terminal operated in this State may be designed and programmed so that when a consumer enters his or her personal identification number in reverse order, the terminal automatically sends an alarm to the local law enforcement agency having jurisdiction over the terminal location." SB 562 In 2006, Michael Boyd pressed the Georgia State Assembly to pass a law requiring banks to create ATM panic codes that would operate the machines normally while also alerting police. His wife, Kimberly Boyd, was killed on 12 September 2005 after being carjacked by convicted sex offender Brian O'Neil Clark and forced to withdraw cash at an ATM. (She died when Clark crashed her SUV while being followed by a civilian who ultimately shot Clark to death afterwards.) Such a bill was placed before the Georgia Senate on 29 December 2005 (SB 379), but nothing came of it. SB 379 In 2004, the Kansas state senate sent to its Financial Institutions and Insurance Committee SB 333, a bill that stated: "Any automated teller machine operated in this state shall be designed and programmed so that when a consumer enters such consumer's personal identification number in reverse order, the automated teller machine automatically sends an alarm to the local law enforcement agency having jurisdiction over the automated teller machine location." That bill died in committee that year. SB 333 All this talk of various bills in three different state legislatures may serve to obscure some of the more important points attaching to this issue, points that are key to making up one's mind about whether having such a system in place is actually a good idea. No one in the banking industry seems to want the technology. The banks argue against its implementation, not only on the basis of cost but also because they doubt such an alert would help anyone being coerced into making an ATM withdrawal. Even if police could be summoned via the keying of a special "alert" or "panic" code, they say, law enforcement would likely arrive long after victim and captor had departed. They have also warned of the very real possibility that victims' fumbling around while trying to trigger silent alarms could cause their captors to realize something was up and take those realizations out on their captives. Finally, there is the problem of ATM customers' quickly conjuring up their accustomed PINs in reverse: Even in situations lacking added stress, mentally reconstructing one's PIN backwards is a difficult task for many people. Add to that difficulty the terror of being in the possession of a violent and armed person, and precious few victims might be able to come up with reversed PINs seamlessly enough to fool their captors into believing that everything was proceeding according to plan. As Chuck Stones of the Kansas Bankers Association said in 2004: "I'm not sure anyone here could remember their PIN numbers backward with a gun to their head." Hazim, Madinah.  "Creators Pitch ATM Safety System."   Topeka Capital-Journal.  13 June 2001. Kellner, Tomas.  "Banking on ATM Safety."   Forbes.  28 June 2004. McDermott, Kevin.  "Inventor Urges Idea to Thwart Holdups at ATMs."   St. Louis Post-Dispatch.  28 March 2005  (p. B1). Plummer, Don.  "Push on for ATM Alert Code."   The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.  14 January 2006  (p. E3). During the tour to promote his presidential memoir,Decision Points, George W. Bush defended his fiscal record in an interview with Matt Lauer on NBC'sToday Show. In the interview, Bush said that the ratio of the deficit to gross domestic product during his time in office was lower than Ronald Reagan's by half. Lower than my dad's. And only [worse than] Bill Clinton among modern presidents. ... My debt to GDP was the lowest or one of the lowest of modern presidents. My taxes to GDP was the lowest and my spending to GDP was too. We thought it would be worthwhile to see if Bush was correct. So we turned to a historical table from the Office of Management and Budget that shows tax receipts, spending and the deficit as a percentage of GDP -- essentially, as a percentage of the nation's economy as a whole.The challenge is figuring exactly how to compare recent presidents.Let's start with the deficit. The most obvious way to do it is to add up all of the annual percentages for a president and divide by the number of years served, to produce an average.Calculating it this way -- and beginning our list of modern presidents with President Dwight Eisenhower -- we came up with the following order: Eisenhower (deficits averaged 0.53 percent of GDP), Clinton (0.76 percent of GDP), Richard Nixon (0.93 percent), Lyndon Johnson (1.1 percent),George W. Bush (2.0 percent), Jimmy Carter (2.4 percent), George H.W. Bush (3.98 percent), Reagan (4.23 percent). (We excluded John F. Kennedy and Gerald Ford because of their short tenures. )You can do the same with spending and tax receipts.For spending as a percent of GDP, the ranking from low to high is Eisenhower (18.1 percent of GDP), Johnson (18.7 percent), Nixon (19.2 percent),George W. Bush (19.6 percent), Clinton (19.8), Carter (20.8), George H.W. Bush (21.9), and Reagan (22.4).For tax receipts as a percentage of GDP, the ranking from low to high is Eisenhower (17.5 percent of GDP), Johnson andGeorge W. Bush (tied at 17.6 percent), George H.W. Bush (17.9 percent), Reagan (18.2 percent), Nixon (18.3 percent), Carter (18.4 percent) and Clinton (19 percent).Whether Bush is correct depends heavily on which presidents you consider modern. If you only go back to Reagan -- the earliest president that Bush himself cited by name in the interview -- then Bush is basically correct. Only Clinton did better when measured by deficit as a percentage of GDP, while no president dating back to Reagan scored better on spending or tax receipts as a percentage of GDP.By contrast, if you go back to Eisenhower -- the first fully post-World War II president -- Bush is in the middle of the pack on the deficit and on spending, and he's near the top on tax receipts.But there's another way to look at the deficit -- to compare a president's first deficit as a percentage of GDP to their last. This shows what direction the deficit went during their tenures.And on this one, George W. Bush does the worst of any president dating back to Eisenhower.The younger Bush went from a 1.3 percent surplus to a 3.2 percent deficit, a decline of 4.5 percentage points. The best was Clinton, who moved the deficit from a 3.9 percent deficit to a 2.4 percent surplus -- a positive change of 6.3 percentage points. The other presidents all had changes up or down that were roughly two percentage points or smaller.This suggests that Bush's fiscal record wasn't so sterling if you use a different measure than the one he did. But to analyze the accuracy of his statement, we'll stick closely to the words he used. George W. Bush is correct that he outperformed his father, Reagan and (mostly) Clinton. So if you consider those the modern presidents, he's essentially right. If you broaden the modern presidents to include those serving in the entire post-World War II period, Bush is about average. While we wouldn't have chosen to define the modern presidents to include just the four that Bush mentioned by name, we'll give him some deference in framing the question. So we rate his statement Mostly True. Adam Hasner, fake conservative? That's the contention being made by George LeMieux, as the two Republicans vie for the GOP nomination to take on incumbent Democratic U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson. LeMieux, a former U.S. senator, is challenging Hasner, a former Florida House majority leader, on two core issues: taxes and spending. LeMieux campaign e-mails and Web posts on Aug. 1, 2011,show a cartoon Hasnerwearing a joker hat and holding a mask in his hand. He is attending his own masquerade ball  one where hes only pretending to be conservative.The Masquerade Ball gown Hasner has chosen on the key issues of taxes and spending is a prime example. Hasners rhetoric simply does not match his record. Hasners record includes: Increasing Spending  A 40% increase during his time in the legislature. Requesting over $92.2 million in earmarks. Billions in new taxes and fees. Voting to accept Obama stimulus money.The earmark claim caught our eye. Hasner, elected to the Florida House of Representatives in 2002,served as majority leaderfrom 2008-10 before term limits ended his run. That means plenty of time to rack up requests for pet projects. But did he request over $92.2 million in earmarks? And if he did, how did that compare with requests by other lawmakers?A more detailed look at Hasners record atGeorgeForFlorida.comclarifies the LeMieux campaign was talking about Floridas twist on the earmark, the Community Budget Issue Request. As weve written inother earmark fact-checks, its a way state legislators use to request funding for local projects. Lawmakers had to file requests  for a local park, say, or a new community wastewater system  and attach their names to each one.The Legislaturestopped the practicein 2009 as budgets got tighter. But the Florida House keepsan archive of such requests, funded and unfunded, at FloridaHouse.gov.A PolitiFact Florida analysis oflawmakers requests from 2003-08shows Hasner indeed made use of CBIRs to ask for state funding for everything from acommunity child care center in Delray Beach($25,000) to support for amedical cluster and research institutein the Miami area ($20 million). He requested $1 million for manatee avoidance technology, made regular requests on behalf ofbrain injury prevention effortsamong seniors ($199,450) and asked for taxpayer aid for drainage improvements, boardwalk replacements and reclaimed water systems.Over six years, his requests total just over $92.2 million.Well mention that the archive doesnt make it clear which projects ultimately won funding, and indeed some requests may have been made year after year precisely because they failed to attract lawmaker support. Rep. Adam Hasners Community Budget Issue Requests 2003-08 That means the amount of local funding Hasner requested for his district was in the bottom half of lawmakers in four out of six years, though it jumped to the 60th percentile in 2006, the year before he served as deputy majority leader, and the 86th percentile in 2007, the year before he took the top seat.But even in 2007, the amount Hasner requested was eclipsed by top CBIR filers, such asRep. Marti Coley, R-Marianna,who wanted $202.3 million for projects in her district  nearly four times Hasners total.A couple of other notes.First, we feel we should at least mention that LeMieux has a record of voting for earmarks while he was in the U.S. Senate. LeMieux, whohadnt held elected officebefore he was appointed to U.S. Sen. Mel Martinezs seat in 2009 by his former boss, Gov. Charlie Crist, has claimed henever requested a single earmark. But he didnt have to: Earmarks bound for Florida were already packed into appropriations bills before LeMieux took over for Martinez. LeMieux voted forseveral such bills. He also activelylobbied for local stimulus projects. Later, he voted for a moratorium to ban federal earmarks through 2013  but so did Sen. Bill Nelson.Meanwhile, as the Florida economy faltered, Hasner cut his own local funding requests in 2008 to a single item  $385,000. That put him last among more than 100 lawmakers who made local funding requests. And he was in the leadership when the decision was made to stop such requests altogether. Hasners campaign, for the record, thinks its unfair to call Community Budget Issue Requests earmarks, which campaign spokesman Douglass Mayer said evokes last-minute congressional handshake deals.The difference here is transparency, Mayer said. CBIRs are submitted with full accountability and voted on in the light of day. Earmarks are snuck in the backdoor of the federal budget process to avoid accountability.But CBIRs are often referred to as Floridas version of the earmark, and documentation from the LeMieux campaign makes the reference clear.Where does this leave us?LeMieuxs campaign says that (Adam) Hasners record includes  requesting over $92.2 million in earmarks. On the numbers, LeMieux is right -- from 2003-08 Hasner requested $92.2 million for projects through a process called Community Budget Issue Requests. But we think there are a couple of caveats worth noting. First is the CBIR process itself -- which was open and transparent. Legislators made requests for dollars in writing and were forced to explain what the money would be used for. Second, it's important to note that Hasner wasn't particularly aggressive in requesting money through CBIRs and more than 100 House members asked for more than he did in 2008. Lastly, it strikes us as hypocritical for LeMieux to attack competitors over earmarks when his own record  where it exists  shows votes and personal lobbying for local spending. We rate this claim Mostly True. Claim:  Welfare queen decries New Orleans public housing. Status:  Multiple  see below. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, February 2008] Welfare Ain't What It Used To Be Sharon Jasper has been victimized. Sharon Jasper has been rabidly wronged. She has become a Section 8 carcass  the victim of ever changing public housing policies. Sharon Jasper has spent 57 or her 58 years dedicated to one cause and one cause only, and has nothing to show for her dedicated servitude. She has lived in Section 8 housing all but 1 of her 58 years. It was a legacy passed down from her parents who moved into   Section 8 housing in 1949 when she was six months old. She has passed the legacydown to her children, but fears they may have to get jobs to pay for the utilities and deposits. She laments about her one year hiatus from the comfort of her Section 8 nirvana, "I tried it for a year..you know...working and all. It's not anything I would want to go through again, or wish on anyone in my family, but I am damn proud of that year." Sharon was moved out of her St. Bernard housing project after hurricane Katrina and into a new, yet albeit, substandard quarterage. As can be noted from the above photo of her new Section 8 home, it is repugnant and not suitable for someone of Sharon Jasper's seniority status in the system. "Don't be fooled by them hardwood floors," says Sharon. "They told me they were putting in scraped wood floors cause it was more expensive and elegant, but I am not a fool  that was just a way to make me take scratched up wood because I am black. The 60 inch HD TV? It may look nice but it is not a plasma. It's not a plasma because I'm black. Now they want me to pay a deposit and utilities on this dump." "Do you know why?" She has held her tongue in silence through the years of abuse by the system, but it came to a head at the New Orlean's city council meeting where discussions were under way about the tearing down of the St. Bernard projects. When a near riotous exchange between groups opposing the tearing down of St. Bernard, and groups wanting the dilapidated buildings torn down and newer ones built, Sharon unleashed verbal hell with her once silenced tongue. The object of her oratory prowess was an acquiescent poor white boy in attendance. The context of her scathing rebuke was, "Just because you pay for my house, my car, my big screen and my food, I will not be treated like a slave!" and "Back up and Shut up! Shut up, white boy! Shut up, white boy!" Recapping from the mental log of the city council minutes in her head, Sharon repines, "Our families have been displaced all over the United States. They are being forced to commit crimes in cities they areunfamiliar with. It is a very uncomfortable situation for them. Bring them back, then let's talk about redevelopment." Sharon directs the reporter's attention across the street to Duncan Plaza where homeless people are living in tents, and states that, "I might do better out there with one of these tents." She further lamented hersentiments about her situation, "I might be poor, but I don't have to live poor." Origins:  In December 2007, as part of its coverage of the ongoing battle over the City Council of New Orleans' plan to tear down four public housing complexes, a photographer visited the home of Sharon Jasper, a 48-year-old resident of that city and housing activist who lives in an apartment rented for her under the provisions of Section 8. (Federal housing assistance programs began in the U.S. during the Great Depression. The Housing Choice Voucher Program is one such program and is better known as Section 8, a term which refers to the part of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 under which the original subsidy program was authorized. Section 8 tenants pay their landlords about 30 percent of their income for rent, with the difference between what they pay and what is deemed fair rent for the unit provided by the federal  government.) That visit resulted in the photograph shown here of Jasper sitting on a couch in the subsidized private apartment she'd described as a slum. The snapshot captured her big screen TV and the unit's hardwood floors, apartmental accoutrements many had difficulty squaring against their definition of "slum." Jasper also complained about missing window screens, a slow leak in a sink, a warped back door, and a few other details of a residence that otherwise appeared to have been recently renovated.  That photo plus quotes from Sharon Jasper lifted from that article ("I might do better out here with one of these tents") and from others ("I might be poor, but I don't have to live poor") were married to her outbursts at a New Orleans City Council meeting on 20 December 2007 ("I will not be treated like a slave!" and "Back up and Shut up! Shut up, white boy! Shut up, white boy!"), then worked into the satire piece quoted above. It's for this reason that we've given this item a "Multiple" status: While some of the elements portrayed in the spoof are fabricated of whole cloth, others aren't. And while most of the photos associated with the satire were taken from elsewhere, the first one, the one that shows a big screen television, is the real deal. Though we cannot yet definitively identify the satirist who masterminded this piece, we believe it to be the work of a blogger known as jimbyrd on the Word Press site. The item now circulates generally in the shortened version quoted above, but the far longer original contains additional photos of the "substandard" housing given in the satire's version of Sharon Jasper, as well as her assessment of the same, such as her reaction to the contents of the wine cellar: "Look at all these bottles of wine, they are worthless. Just another example of thinking I am stupid. All this wine is at least 10 years old and some of it is 20 years old, you know the white man kept all the fresh stuff for himself. I aint that stupid." original That same blog contains other works of satire, such as "Vermont to Arrest George Bush and Dick Cheney" and "Hillary Clinton Sues Barack Obama." Vermont Sues Last updated:  17 February 2008    Sources:   Bohrer, Becky.  "Public Housing Advocates Seek Halt on Demolitions."   Associated Press.  30 November 2007.    Warner, Coleman.  "Housing Officials Claim Surplus."   [New Orleans] Times-Picayune.  18 December 2007. Scam:  Scammers pose as census workers to elicit personal information from unsuspecting victims. Origins:  Many modern scams involve the obtaining of personal information (e.g., names, phone numbers, addresses, Social Security numbers), data which fraudsters can use in a variety of ways to loot the bank accounts and credit lines of unsuspecting victims.  Unfortunately, scammers often find easy pickings, because some people still offer up such information indiscriminately; and even those who are more cautious about providing personal information only to appropriate authorities are often fooled by crooks who falsely pose as official representatives of agencies  such as financial institutions, law enforcement, and government. The census undertaken by the federal government in the United States once every ten years can provide ample opportunities for identity theft scammers.  Most citizens know that U.S. Census Bureau officials will be contacting them in person, on the phone, or by mail to verify their addresses and gather information (e.g., name, age, gender) about persons in their households, so during the census period they may let down their guards and more willingly provide information (or entry to their homes) to unauthorized strangers posing as government officials.  Reports of con artists taking advantage of these circumstances were not uncommon during previous censuses and have already started rolling regarding the upcoming 2010 census, as these reports from 1990, 2000, and 2009 (respectively) demonstrate: census An 80-year-old North Carolina woman was tied up and robbed by two men she thought were census workers. Con artists claiming to be census employees charged Houston residents $50 after helping them complete their forms. Isolated incidents of con artists posing as census workers have occurred during every census, said Ray Bancroft of the census promotion office.  In the North Carolina case, the woman initially allowed only one man into her home and was having a "nice conversation" with him when the doorbell rang and the man told her it was his partner, said Tom Smith Jr. of the Charlotte, N.C., census office. "They tied her up and commenced taking some valuable things from the house as well as her car," Smith said, adding that the woman was not physically injured. In the Midwest, about a dozen people have complained that "someone has come around saying they're taking a census, not saying the U.S. Census Bureau, and then they ask demographic type of questions, generally including some income questions," said Marvin Postma, director of the Kansas City census region office.  Con artists posing as census takers have attempted to get Social Security numbers and gain entry into local homes, according to the Better Business Bureau president. "Those are the two things that are most prevalent. It's happening throughout the United States," said Jere L. Bennett, president of the local BBB office. Mr. Bennett said his office has received phone inquiries during the past month about fake census enumerators  people who contact residents by telephone and in person  wanting information.  Some senior citizens in Congressman Bill Foster's district recently received what appears to be a scam letter in the mail that solicits credit card information and donations while falsely appearing to be authored by the U.S. Census Bureau. The eight-page mailer starts with a header identifying the letter as being sent by the "National Census of Senior Citizens" and the "Council for Retirement Security." The letter describes itself as an advocate for senior citizen interests and asks a number of questions about political issues before soliciting a minimum contribution of $14.58 or more by providing credit card information. Since the first phase of the 2010 U.S. Census is already underway, reminders about how to ensure you provide information only to official Census Bureau representatives  and provide only the types of information they are authorized to collect  are especially timely.  The web site of the Better Business Bureau (BBB) offers some good advice on this topic: BBB If a U.S. Census worker knocks on your door, they will have a badge, a handheld device, a Census Bureau canvas bag and a confidentiality notice. Ask to see their identification and their badge before answering their questions.  However, you should never invite anyone you dont know into your home.  Census workers are currently only knocking on doors to verify address information. Do not give your Social Security number, credit card or banking information to anyone, even if they claim they need it for the U.S. Census.  While the Census Bureau might ask for basic financial information, such as a salary range, it will not ask for Social Security, bank account or credit card numbers, nor will employees solicit donations.  Eventually, Census workers may contact you by telephone, mail or in person at home.  However, they will not contact you by e-mail, so be on the look out for e-mail scams impersonating the Census. Never click on a link or open any attachments in an e-mail that are supposedly from the U.S. Census Bureau.  Last updated:  11 September 2009    Sources:   Fuller, James.  "'National Census' Scam Targets Senior Citizens."   [Chicago] Daily Herald.  7 May 2009.     Skorneck, Carolyn.  "Count on Scam Artists to Profit from Census."   Chicago Sun-Times.  29 May 1990.     Walker, Clarissa J.  "Bureau Warns of Census Scam."   The August Chronicle.  11 April 2000. On Nov. 20, 2021, Twitter user @delaneykingrox tweeted that film actor Harrison Ford improvised "I know" to Carrie Fisher's "I love you" in 1980's "Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back," just before his character, Han Solo, is frozen in carbonite. She also claimed that the originally scripted line for Solo to respond to Princess Leia was, "I love you too." tweeted frozen in carbonite claimed She tweeted the thread to talk about "on the nose" dialogue, which she defined as "communicating what is obvious to the audience with no subtly or subtext." tweeted     There are a number of rumors out there about "The Empire Strikes Back" that aren't true. For example, there's the fake audience reaction sound recording from 1980 that's received nearly 10 million views on YouTube. (A video with genuine audience reaction audio from 1980 does exist, but it only had several thousand views.) rumors fake audience reaction sound recording from 1980 As for this fact check, it's true that Ford improvised Solo's line, "I know," in "The Empire Strikes Back," and that the originally scripted line was, "I love you too." While many fans might debate that the trophy for the best line in the franchise would go to Darth Vader's "I am your father," there would perhaps also be a handful of people who would vote for Solo's "I know." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdlRmWd_R7AIn a 2011 sitdown with "Cowboys and Aliens" director Jon Favreau, Ford explained that he wasn't a fan of "I love you too," which was the original line in the "Empire Strikes Back" script from story creator George Lucas. Leigh Brackett and Lawrence Kasdan also drafted the screenplay. Lucas also served as an executive producer on the film but did not direct it. The film was directed by Irvin Kershner. directed In the interview, Ford called Lucas "a powerful producer at the time," after the success of "American Graffiti" and "Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope." "George had artfully contrived for Han Solo to say, 'I love you too,'" Ford said. However, the actor called it a "lost opportunity" and told Favreau: "You want your badasses to be a badass until the end." On the set of the film, Ford said he asked a question of Lucas and perhaps other members of the cast and crew. "What's the last thing a woman wants to hear when she says, 'I love you'? She says 'I love you,' and I say... 'I know.'" said https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4xdWpo4bh8According to Ford, they shot one take with the line, "I love you too," but said it was "just for protection." That recording has never been made public. "We shot one just for protection where I spoke the line as written," Ford said. "And George, I think, this is fair enough to say, he went apeshit. He thought it was horrible and that it would get a bad laugh. So I was obliged to sit next to him when he tested it for the first screening. There was a laugh, but it was a laugh of recognition. And so, he generously let it stay in the movie."  Carrie Fisher and Harrison Ford in 1980's "Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back." (Photo by Lucasfilm/Sunset Boulevard/Corbis via Getty Images)  In a separate interview that appeared to be recorded years before 2011, Kershner remembered that there were perhaps more takes with either the "I love you too" line or "I know," but didn't specify which one. remembered "We tried take after take after take. Nothing satisfied me," Kershner said. "And finally, I said, 'Harrison, don't think about it. Don't think about it. Let's shoot it. Ok, action.' And he dropped in and I said, 'cut.' I said, 'yeah, that's a great line. That's Han Solo.'" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM_tGKSnMUEIn sum, yes, Ford improvised Solo's "I know" that was spoken in response to Leia's "I love you" in "The Empire Strikes Back," an exchange that perhaps could be considered as a pivotal scene in one of the most beloved onscreen love stories of all time.