Has Warrick Dunn Built More Than 145 Homes for Single Parents?
Warrick Dunnm who played 12 seasons in the NFL as a running back for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and Atlanta Falcons, has been supporting single-parent families since his 1997 rookie season, when he started the Homes for the Holidays program to provide economically-disadvantaged single parents and their children with comprehensive programming for first-time homeownership.  Homes for the Holidays In September 2018, the former NFL player's charitable efforts, as well as a few facts about his upbringing and the death of his mother, were boiled down into a meme spread via social media:   This meme, for the most part, provided accurate information about Warrick Dunn and his charitable efforts. Dunn's mother, Betty Dunn Smothers, was a police officer in Baton Rouge who was killed in 1993 while working a second job as a security guard: killed Corporal Betty Smothers was shot and killed in an ambush attack while moonlighting as a security guard. Corporal Smothers was in uniform and driving a marked patrol car when she and the store manager went to a bank to make a night deposit. As they sat in the patrol car, three suspects approached and opened fire. They fatally wounded Corporal Smothers and injured the manager. All three suspects were arrested after the incident and sentenced to death for Corporal Smothers' murder. Corporal Smothers had been employed with the Baton Rouge City Police Department for 14 years, and is survived by her two daughters and four sons. Smothers' passing came just a few days before Dunn's 18th birthday and a month before he committed to playing college football at Florida State University (FSU). He was the eldest of Smothers' children, and by most accounts he assumed a father-figure role in the life of his five younger siblings. Here's how the Los Angeles Times described Dunn and his siblings in a December 1994 article headlined "Turning His Grief to Good: Florida State Running Back Warrick Dunn Sets an Example for All": Derek is doing well at Catholic High. Travis is fast and Bryson small, but he's growing. Summer and Samantha are running track and doing well in school. You listen to Warrick Dunn and hear a proud father talking of his children. And then you realize that Dunn is only 19. Still, he's in charge of his brothers and sisters, ages 11-17, now that Betty is gone. She was his best friend, a mother who worked two jobs, 16 hours a day, to keep the family together and to provide a few of the things that make being a kid a little more fun. If there's anything harder than a teen-ager being asked to go to the hospital in a police car, identify his mother and then go home to tell his brothers and sisters what happened, he doesn't want to know about it. It was Dunn, handling things as he always had, the father figure, but now without a mother. "I never really had a childhood," he says. "I've never been able to go out and just go crazy, like most kids, because I grew up staying in the house a lot, baby-sitting." Dunn graduated from FSU and was selected in the first round of the 1997 NFL draft by the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. The rookie running back was challenged by head coach Tony Dungy to give back to the community during his time in Florida, and so Dunn decided to start the "Homes for the Holidays" program in order to help provide homes to single-parent families in honor of his late mother. The program managed to house three families during its first year. By 2018, that number had grown to 159: number My rookie year in the NFL, in Tampa, I was challenged by coach [Tony] Dungy, Dunn said. He told us, If you are going to live in this community, you want to be a part of this community and give back. From that challenge, I thought about my mom and her dream of home ownership, and thats how it all started. We did three homes in 1997, and now were up to 159. I grew up in a situation where we needed a lot of support. I lost my mom at 18. Single mom, six kids, and a Baton Rouge police officer. She was gunned down by armed robbers at a bank. When she lost her life, the city of Baton Rouge started a fund for us. And thats how we were able to survive and pay bills. And when I saw that from the city, that really helped me understand what it means to care about your neighbor and to give back and support. I just think now I have been driven for so many yearsthis is part of who I am, to want to see people smile and help anyone that I can possibly help. Our only quibble with this meme is the statement that Dunn "built and paid for over 145 houses for single mothers." While the former NFL quarterback has certainly donated plenty of time, money, and effort into his charitable endeavors, he did not single-handedly build and pay for all these homes. Dunn's non-profit, Warrick Dunn Charities, partners with other non-profits such as Habitat for Humanity to build homes for disadvantaged families: Warrick Dunn Charities Even in retirement, Dunn and his Warrick Dunn Charities are still partnering with Habitat for Humanity to build homes for disadvantaged families across the United States. In December, Dunn and Habitat combined to build homes number 158 (in Detroit) and 159 (in Atlanta) and place two families in them before the holidays. Furnished, as Dunn like to say, all the way down to the toothbrushes in the bathroom. Dunn's charity provides a down payment for the home, completely furnishes it, and provides other services such as financial literacy program in order to assist single parents as they become first time homeowners: homeowners Warrick Dunn Charities was created from the belief that a better future starts with hope. We are dedicated to strengthening and transforming communities by combating poverty, hunger and improving the quality of life for families and children. We help families thrive academically, socially, and economically. Warrick Dunn Charities, a 501(c)(3) recognized nonprofit, has helped single parents and children thrive academically, socially and economically. Warrick Dunn Charities has awarded millions in home furnishings, food and other donations to single-parent families and children across the nation to combat poverty, hunger and ensure families have comfortable surroundings and basic necessities to improve their quality of life. This meme's popularity in September 2018 was likely connected to a controversy surrounding another former NFL player: Colin Kaepernick. A number of social media users shared this meme along with messages stating that Nike should have used Dunn, not Kaepernick, in their latest commercial: Colin Kaepernick   This meme misleadingly suggests that Colin Kaepernick has not similarly sacrificed by using his own money for charitable endeavors.   However, in January 2018 Kaepernick completed his pledge to donate a total of $1 million to charity over eighteen months, with a list of all the organizations he donated to  viewable here.  here And Dunn himself praised Nike's latest advertising campaign for raising Kaepernick's profile as the latter drove the conversation about social justice: praised "I think its a brilliant campaign, Dunn said. "They just raised his profile because Kaepernick the last couple of years has been the face of this movement of social justice." To be the first guy to come out and really talk about the issues that black kids, black men are being shot and killed, I commend him," Dunn said in a CNN interview. When asked if he thought Nike's stance to create the campaign was a financial or moral decision, Dunn cited the latter. "Its a moral decision. It cant be about finances," Dunn said. "I think overall they (Nike) understand the issues. A lot of their star athlete spokesmen are African American. They have a lot of that demographic, so I think it's important they really go after the issues and not necessarily things that are financial." Fucillo, David.   "Here is a List of Every Organization to Which Colin Kaepernick Donated Money."
  Niners Nation.  31 January 2018. Henry, Jim.  "FSU Great Warrick Dunn Commends Nike, Colin Kaepernick on Ad Campaign."
  Tallahassee Democrat.  6 September 2018. Hodges, Jim.  "Turning His Grief to Good."
  Los Angeles Times.  31 December 1994. King, Peter.  "For NFL Giving, Warrick Dunn Is a Model
  Sports Illustrated.  19 January 2018.
In December 2021, a meme circulated on social media that claimed Dr. Anthony Fauci, who leads the U.S. COVID-19 response and has become a bogeyman for pandemic conspiracy theorists, was the real-life model for the villain in the 2013 movie "Dallas Buyers Club." bogeyman   The meme contains images from the movie's promotion materials, including stars Matthew McConaughey, Jennifer Garner, and Jared Leto, next to a black-and-white photograph of a young Fauci. It also contains text that reads: "Remember the movie 'Dallas Buyers Club' about a group of AIDS patients fighting for the right to use cheap, effective drugs against government bureaucrats in the pocket of Big Pharm? The bad guy was Dr. Anthony Fauci." First of all, we note that movies are not real life. Even if it were true that the villain in the movie was based on Fauci, that doesn't mean the story is completely factual rather than dramatized for the purpose of making a good movie. Producer Rachel Winter said as much in a comment published by Slate in 2013: Slate [Screenwriters] Craig [Borten] and Melisa [Wallack] found the right blend of accuracy, not only for the medical details, but for the legal and government issues that Ron faced. There was only so far we could go into 'procedural' mode; the movie had to be entertaining." And entertaining it was, racking up six Academy Award nominations and winning the Oscar for actor, supporting actor, and best makeup and hairstyling. Various aspects of the movie's script don't align with the claim that the villain in the film was modeled after Fauci, and we couldn't find any public statements made by anyone involved with the film indicating that the antagonist was modeled after him. The film is the classic tail of the heroic man who uses his ingenuity and grit to go toe-to-toe with the uncaring and callous Big Government bureaucrats. And though the protagonist in the story is a real person, the antagonists appear to be fictional characters. We don't know whether they are based on real people, or amalgamations of people the protagonist dealt with during his life. McConaughey plays Ron Woodroof, a hard-living Dallas electrician and rodeo rider who gets diagnosed with HIV in 1985. At that time, an HIV/AIDS diagnosis was a death sentence, because there was no treatment for the new epidemic. Woodroof is placed in a clinical trial for azidothymidine (AZT). The thrust of the movie is that there is a conspiracy between the government and medical establishment to push "toxic" AZT on HIV patients, while Woodroof circumvents the system by going to Mexico and getting an unapproved cocktail of drugs and supplements from a doctor who lost his license to practice in the U.S.. Woodroof then returns to form the Dallas Buyers Club with a transgender woman named Rayon (Jared Leto), where they illicitly sell the cocktail, at first for profit and later to save lives, only to be hounded an FDA agent. thrust The antagonist (or "bad guy") in the film is an FDA investigator, which is not an equivalent position to the one Fauci held at the time the events portrayed in the film took place. Fauci was an important public health figure during the HIV/AIDS epidemic, but he wasn't an FDA agent. He spent his career at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (part of the National Institutes of Health), becoming that agency's director in 1984, one year before the events in the film. important The Washington Post reported in 2014 that neither the portrayal of AZT or Woodroof's legal trouble were accurate in the film, noting, "AZT is actually a very effective therapy against HIV/AIDS." It was known to prolong life after a diagnosis. It's true that the doses it was prescribed at early in the epidemic were often too high, resulting in deleterious effects, but those effects could easily be countered by lowering the dose or stopping the drug. reported The Post noted that AZT became an important part of lifesaving HIV/AIDS treatment for about a decade and as such, saved "millions" of lives. The film included a title card at the end admitting as much. Its portrayal of the FDA's actions vis-a-vis such buyers clubs was also factually problematic, in that in reality, the FDA did cooperate with them. Peter Staley, an HIV/AIDS activist who informally consulted on the film told the Post: The true story was that we made the system bend, and we used the system and needed the system. I wouldn't be alive today without the companies this film paints as evil, and I wouldn't be alive today without civil servants at the FDA who worked incredibly hard in the 1990s to get these drugs out there quickly. Furthermore, Woodroof's issues with the FDA largely stemmed from "his reluctance to stop using harmful treatments." In sum, there isn't any evidence that the antagonist in the movie was based on Fauci, and even if that were the case, that doesn't mean one should draw any real-world conclusions about Fauci based on a movie made for entertainment purposes. Dallas Buyers Club (2013) - IMDb. www.imdb.com, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0790636/plotsummary. Accessed 17 Dec. 2021. Westenfeld, Adrienne. Larry Kramer and Anthony Fauci Sparred During the AIDS Crisis. In the End They Were Friends. Esquire, 27 May 2020, https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/books/a32688094/anthony-fauci-larry-kramer-aids-friendship-legacy/. What Dallas Buyers Club Got Wrong about the AIDS Crisis. Washington Post, 10 Dec. 2013, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/12/10/what-dallas-buyers-club-got-wrong-about-the-aids-crisis/. Harris, Aisha. How Accurate Is Dallas Buyers Club? Slate, Nov. 2013. slate.com, https://slate.com/culture/2013/11/dallas-buyers-club-true-story-fact-and-fiction-in-the-matthew-mcconaughey-movie-about-ron-woodroof.html. Correction [Dec. 17, 2021]: "Dallas Buyers Club" won three Academy Awards, not six as previously reported. During debate on a bill to defund Planned Parenthood, U.S. Rep. Sean Duffy, R-Wis., alluded to secretly recorded videos that prompted the legislation, then he made a claim about the groups political activity. If you watch this debate, you have to ask: How could anybody defend the practices at Planned Parenthood? Duffysaidon the House floor on Sept. 18, 2015, the day the Houseapprovedthe one-year defunding. Harvesting body parts. How could anybody defend that? Its an easy answer. Look in (the) political season. Millions of dollars, millions of dollars are spent by Planned Parenthood to elect Democrats to the House of Representatives and to the Senate. This isnt about babies; this is about money. A reader asked us to check Duffys claim. The videos, the funding The videos, first released in July 2015, show Planned Parenthood officials offhandedly discussing how they sometimes procure tissue from aborted fetuses for medical research. The anti-abortion Center for Medical Progress, which recorded the videos, alleges Planned Parenthood is illegally profiting from fetal organ sales. But Planned Parenthood says it has done nothing illegal, and that the videos were edited in a misleading way. The defunding bill, which has yet to be taken up by the U.S. Senate, would end federal payments to Planned Parenthood for a year, diverting the money to thousands of community health centers. Republicans say those clinics could handle the displaced Planned Parenthood patients, but Democrats say the centers are overburdened and sometimes in remote locations. Planned Parenthood gets around$450 millioneach year  in federal payments, mostly Medicaid reimbursements for handling low-income patients. That's around one-third of the organization's $1.3 billion annual budget. As for Planned Parenthoods political activity, some of this ground was covered when Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina made a similar claim. She said Planned Parenthood funnels millions of dollars in political contributions to pro-abortion candidates. PolitiFact National rated the statementMostly True. Millions have been spent. But the caveat is that the operational, medical clinics of Planned Parenthood cannot spend money in politics -- separate entities that are affiliated with Planned Parenthood can. Duffys claim Duffys claim was a little different -- that Planned Parenthood spent millions to elect Democrats to the House and Senate. We found,using figuresfrom the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, that that was this case. In the 2014 election cycle alone, Planned Parenthood-affiliated groups that can't give directly to candidates or coordinate with them, such asPlanned Parenthood Votes, a Super PAC, made over$6 millionin independent expenditures. That included $1.85 million spent in support of Democrats and $2.87 million spent against Republicans. In addition, Planned Parenthood's PAC gave nearly$590,000to congressional candidates, all of them Democrats. The numbers would be higher, of course, if previous cycles were included. Our rating Duffy said: Millions of dollars are spent by Planned Parenthood to elect Democrats to the House of Representatives and the Senate. By law, the operational, medical clinics of Planned Parenthood cannot spend money in politics. But separate entities that are affiliated with Planned Parenthood can, and they spent millions just in the 2014 election cycle to elect Democrats. We rate Duffys statement Mostly True. Debt is typically a major campaign issue in elections from the municipal level all the way up to the office of the President of the United States.  Candidates tout their accomplishments in balancing budgets or reducing government debt as examples of fiscal prudence while pointing to increased debts during their opponents' administrations as indicators of profligate and wasteful spending of taxpayers' money.    The chart reproduced above, which was posted to the Flickr account of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, attempted to reverse conventional political stereotypes by portraying recent Republican presidents as responsible for huge increases in the national debt, while showing recent Democratic presidents as responsible for much lower increases in the level of debt.   Flickr account As a first step in evaluating this chart, we have to determine the applicable definition of "debt."  In general, the term "public debt" (or "debt held by the public") refers to money borrowed by the government through the issuance and sale of securities, government bonds, and bills.  It includes federal debt held by all investors outside of the federal government, including individuals, corporations, state or local governments, the Federal Reserve banking system, and foreign governments. Another form of debt is "intragovernmental debt" (or "debt held by government accounts"), which refers to money that the government has borrowed from itself, such as when the U.S. government invests money from federal savings programs such as Medicare and the Social Security trust fund by buying up its own treasury securities.  A variety of names have been applied to the total of these two forms of debt, including "gross federal debt," "total public debt," and "national debt." Although this chart is labeled as presenting a "percent increase in public debt," it actually uses figures corresponding to the total described as "gross federal debt" above (i.e., a combination of debt held by the public and debt held by government accounts, rather than just the former).  We checked the numbers in this chart by using (for pre-1993 years) the U.S. Treasury's Monthly Statement of the Public Debt (MSPD), noting the total debt reported as of January 31 of each relevant year, and (for 1993 onwards) the Treasury's The Debt to the Penny and Who Holds It application, noting the total debt reported as of Inauguration Day of each relevant year. Monthly Statement of the Public Debt The Debt to the Penny and Who Holds It From these records, we gleaned the following information: Ronald Reagan:Took office January 1981.  Total debt: $848 billionLeft office January 1989.    Total debt: $2,698 billionPercent change in total debt:  +218%  George H.W. Bush:Took office January 1989.  Total debt: $2,698 billionLeft office 20 January 1993.    Total debt: $4,188 billionPercent change in total debt:  +55% Bill Clinton:Took office 20 January 1993.  Total debt: $4,188 billionLeft office 20 January 2001.  Total debt: $5,728 billionPercent change in total debt:  +37% George W. Bush:Took office 20 January 2001.  Total debt: $5,728 billionLeft office 20 January 2009.  Total debt: $10,627 billionPercent change in total debt:  +86% Barack Obama:Took office 20 January 2009.  Total debt: $10,627 billionTotal debt (as of the end of April 2011):  $14,288 billionPercent change in total debt:  +34% So, as far as raw numbers go, the chart is reasonably accurate (although our calculations produced a somewhat higher debt increase for Ronald Reagan than reported).  That said, however, we have to consider how valuable these numbers are; whether by themselves they present a reasonable comparative measure of presidential fiscal responsibility.  In that regard, one could find a number of aspects to take issue with:  The chart isn't a true comparison of equals, as it includes three presidents who served two full terms (Reagan, Clinton, and George W. Bush), a president who served one term (George H.W. Bush), and a president who had served half a term (Obama).  Obviously, the longer a president holds office the greater the opportunity for him to influence the debt, and certainly (barring a radical change in current circumstances)  the increase reported for Barack Obama would be considerably higher by the time he left office.   All presidents come into office with policies and budgets that were put into place by their predecessors in the White House and Congress, and they all pass the same along to their successors when they leave office.  Therefore, determining how much of the change in debt that occurs during a given president's administration is actually the result of his actions (rather than the consequence of factors over which he had little or no influence) would require a much more complex analysis than the one presented here.  Which is the best measure of debt for this purpose: public debt, intragovernmental debt, or a combination of the two?  As noted in the General Accounting Office's FAQ on Federal Debt, they represent rather different concepts: FAQ Debt held by the public approximates current federal demand on credit markets. It represents a burden on today's economy, and the interest paid on this debt represents a burden on current taxpayers. Federal borrowing from the public absorbs resources available for private investment and may put upward pressure on interest rates. Further, debt held by the public is the accumulation of what the federal government borrowed in the past and is reported as a liability on the balance sheet of the government's consolidated financial statements. In contrast, debt held by government accounts (intragovernmental debt) and the interest on it represent a claim on future resources. This debt performs largely an internal accounting function. Special federal securities credited to government accounts (primarily trust funds) represent the cumulative surpluses of these accounts that have been lent to the general fund. These transactions net out on the government's consolidated financial statements. Debt issued to government accounts does not affect today's economy and does not currently compete with the private sector for available funds in the credit market.   Are plain percentage changes in the national debt level a useful figure, or do they need to be placed in context to have relevance?  Some would argue, for example, that the Debt-to-GDP ratio is a better measure of economic health relative to the national debt than raw debt figures alone, and a chart which tracked the change in that ratio over the last several presidencies would paint a significantly different picture of debt levels than the one displayed above. Debt-to-GDP chart All in all, this is a case of relatively accurate information which is of marginal value due to a lack of proper comparative context. On 12 August 2017, First Lady Melania Trump publicly responded to violent events that had taken place earlier that day at a white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, by tweeting the following: violent events Our country encourages freedom of speech, but let's communicate w/o hate in our hearts. No good comes from violence. #Charlottesville #Charlottesville  Melania Trump (@FLOTUS) August 12, 2017 August 12, 2017  In mid-2016, Mrs. Trump had been the subject of fierce criticism for delivering a speech before the Republican National Convention which included passages identical in content and specific phrasing to an address given before the Democratic National Convention in 2008 by Michelle Obama.  That event prompted a good number of spoof items posted online that played on the idea of various prominent political figures plagiarizing each other's words. criticism spoof items posted Shortly after the 12 August 2017 statement referenced above was posted to the First Lady's Twitter feed, another image began circulating online positing that Melania Trump had likewise taken those words (without credit) from a comment made by former First Lady Michelle Obama over a year earlier:  Although we can't yet absolutely rule out the possibility that Mrs. Obama might at some time have expressed something like the thought attributed to her here, we have found no record of her having done so (on 16 April 2016 or any other day) and suspect that this image is just a spoof of the earlier convention speech controversy. Claim:  E-petitions urge Americans to buy/not buy Citgo brand gasoline.  OF AND  INFORMATION Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, 2006] Looking for an easy way to protest Bush foreign policy week after week? And an easy way to help alleviate global poverty? Buy your gasoline at Citgo stations. And tell your friends. Of the top oil producing countries in the world, only one is a democracy with a president who was elected on a platform of using his nation's oil revenue to benefit the poor. The country is Venezuela. The President is Hugo Chavez. Call him "the Anti-Bush." Citgo is a U.S. refining and marketing firm that is a wholly owned subsidiary of Venezuela's state-owned oil company. Money you pay to Citgo goes primarily to Venezuela  not Saudi Arabia or the Middle East. There are 14,000 Citgo gas stations in the US. (Click here to find one near you.) By buying your gasoline at Citgo, you are contributing to the billions of dollars that Venezuela's democratic government is using to provide health care, literacy and education, and subsidized food for the majority of Venezuelans. here Instead of using government to help the rich and the corporate, as Bush does, Chavez is using the resources and oil revenue of his government to help the poor in Venezuela. A country with so much oil wealth shouldn't have 60 percent of its people living in poverty, earning less than $2 per day. With a mass movement behind him, Chavez is confronting poverty inVenezuela. That's why large majorities have consistently backed him in democratic elections. And why the Bush administration supported an attempted military coup in 2002 that sought to overthrow Chavez. So this is the opposite of a boycott. Call it a BUYcott. Spread the word.  Of course, if you can take mass transit or bike or walk to your job, you should do so. And we should all work for political changes that move our country toward a cleaner environment based on renewable energy. The BUYcott is for those of us who don't have a practical alternative to filling up our cars. So get your gas at Citgo. And help fuel a democratic revolution in Venezuela.  Venezuela Dictator Vows To Bring Down U.S. Government Venezuela government is sole owner of Citgo Gasoline Company Venezuela Dictator Hugo Chavez has vowed to bring down the U.S. government. Chavez, president of Venezuela, told a TV audience: "Enough of imperialist aggression; we must tell the world: down with the U.S. empire. We have to bury imperialism this century." The guest on his television program, beamed across Venezuela, was Cindy Sheehan, the antiwar activist. Chavez recently had as his guest Harry Belafonte, who called President Bush "the greatest terrorist in the world." Chavez is pushing a socialist revolution and has a close alliance with Cuban dictator Fidel Castro. Regardless of your feelings about the war in Iraq, the issue here is that we have a socialist dictator vowing to bring down the government of the U.S. And he is using our money to achieve his goal! The Venezuela government, run by dictator Chavez, is the sole owner of Citgo gas company. Sales of products at Citgo stations send money back to Chavez to help him in his vow to bring down our government. Why should U.S. citizens who love freedom be financing a dictator who has vowed to take down our government? Very important. Please forward this to your friends and family. Most of them don't know that Citgo is owned by the Venezuela government. Origins:  Dueling Citgo e-mails reached our inbox in early 2006, one urging Americans to buy only Citgo brand gasoline in order to support "Venezuela's democratic government" and avoid sending more U.S. dollars to Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries, and the other urging Americans to boycott Citgo over remarks by Venezuelan president Hugo Chvez. Hugo Chvez The television incident referenced in the second message occurred on 29 January 2006, when anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan appeared on Chvez's weekly TV broadcast, following a similar recent meeting between the Venezuelan president and entertainer Harry Belafonte: Cindy Sheehan, who gained international fame when she camped outside President Bush's ranch in an anti-war protest, plans to pitch her tent again, Venezuela's president said Sunday as he urged activists worldwide to help bring down "the U.S. empire." Hugo Chvez, an arm around Sheehan's shoulders, told a group of activists that she had told him "she is going to put up her tent again in front of Mr. Danger's ranch." In some of his strongest recent comments aimed at Washington, Chvez condemned the Bush administration and said his audience should work toward ending U.S. dominance. "Enough already with the imperialist aggression!" Chvez said, listing countries from Panama to Iraq where the U.S. military has intervened. "Down with the U.S. empire! It must be said, in the entire world: Down with the empire!" Sheehan also noted that singer and activist Harry Belafonte recently called Bush "the greatest terrorist in the world," and said, "I agree with him. George Bush is responsible for killing tens of thousands of innocent people." Hugo Chvez, the president of Venezuela, is certainly no fan of the U.S., and his trading rhetorical political barbs with U.S. government officials (and others) has been common news fodder for several years now.  (Chvez was elected president of Venezuela in 1998, and after a failed coup in 2002, he won a referendum over whether he should serve out the remainder of his term.  The war of words reached a  coup  new peak in August 2005, when Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson suggested to viewers that the U.S. should assassinate Chvez.) Pat Robertson In 2006 U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice labeled Chvez a "challenge for democracy" and a danger to Latin America and announced the establishment of contacts with government officials in other South American countries for the purpose of creating a united front to oppose Venezuela. Chvez responded to Rice's comments in a television appearance by blowing her a screen kiss and announcing, "Don't mess with me, girl," as well as warning that he would consider suspending Venezuela's oil exports if the U.S. went "too far with the Venezuelan government."  (Venezuela is the fourth-largest supplier of crude oil to the U.S., sending the states about 1.5 million barrels daily.)  Chvez also denounced President George W. Bush as "the devil" in a September 2006 speech before the U.N. General Assembly and called Bush an "alcoholic" during a visit to Harlem the following day. U.S. attitudes towards President Chvez in early 2006 tended to be polarized along political lines, with one side declaring him a dangerous dictator who supported America's enemies, while the other side defended him as a democratically-elected leader who was the target of the Bush administration's enmity primarily because he dared to stand up to the U.S.  Excerpts from two U.S. newspaper Op-Ed pieces of that period illustrated this dichotomy: [Corrales, 2006] Hugo Chvez [was] elected president of Venezuela in December 1998. The lieutenant colonel had attempted a coup six years earlier. When that failed, he won power at the ballot box and is now approaching a decade in office. In that time, he has concentrated power, harassed opponents, punished reporters, persecuted civic organizations and increased state control of the economy.  [W]hen it comes to accountability and limits on presidential power, the picture grows dark. Mr. Chvez has achieved absolute power over all state institutions that might check his power. He controls the legislature, the Supreme Court, two armed forces, the gigantic state-owned oil company PDVSA  the only important source of state revenue, which comes in handy at election time  and the institution that monitors electoral rules. As if that weren't enough, a new media law allows the state to supervise media content, and a revised criminal code permits the state to imprison any citizen for showing "disrespect" toward government officials.  By compiling and posting on the Internet lists of voters and their political tendencies  including whether they signed a petition for a recall referendum in 2004  Venezuela has achieved reverse accountability. The state is watching and punishing citizens for political actions it disapproves of rather than the other way around. If democracy requires checks on the power of incumbents, Venezuela doesn't come close.  [Weisbrot, 2006] Venezuela is a democracy  despite the best efforts of the Bush team to use President Hugo Chvez's close relations with Cuba's Fidel Castro as evidence to the contrary. Its elections are transparent and have been certified by observers from the Organization of American States, the Carter Center and the European Union. Freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly and of association prevail, at least as compared with the rest of the hemisphere.  In fact, most of the media remains controlled by the opposition, which attacks the government endlessly on all the major TV channels. It is the most vigorous and partisan opposition media in the hemisphere, one that has not been censored under Chvez. Like all of Latin America, Venezuela has governance problems: a weak state, limited rule of law, corruption and incompetent government. But no reputable human rights organization has alleged that Venezuela under Chvez has deteriorated with regard to civil liberties, human rights or democracy, as compared with prior governments. Nor does the country compare unfavorably on these criteria with its neighbors in the region. In Peru, the government has shut down opposition TV stations; in Colombia, union organizers are murdered with impunity. From a Latin American point of view, Venezuelans should have the right to choose their own president  even one who sometimes insults the American president  without interference from the United States. And Chvez's anger at Washington, from Latin Americans' point of view, appears justified. U.S. government documents released under our Freedom of Information Act indicate that Washington not only supported but was involved in the military coup that temporarily overthrew Venezuela's elected government in April 2002. Neither a "buycott" nor a boycott was likely to accomplish much beyond the symbolic.  In the first case, the Citgo brand (marketed by Citgo Petroleum Corporation, which has been owned by Petrleos de Venezuela,  Citgo the national oil company of Venezuela, since 1990) doesn't have nearly the capacity and presence in the U.S. to satisfy demand and wean American consumers from Middle Eastern oil supplies; in the second case, boycotting a gasoline brand over political issues is problematic for a number of reasons (not least of which is the notion that threatening not to buy gasoline from someone who is threatening not to sell it to you doesn't sound like an effective ploy for either side).   Many different oil companies buy crude oil from Venezuela, so even Americans who shun CITGO brand gasoline have no guarantee that they aren't still sending their money to that country.  And although Citgo may be owned by Petrleos de Venezuela, it is a formerly American company which is still headquartered in the U.S. (in Houston, Texas), employs 4,000 people, and supplies 14,000 independent retailers with gasoline and other petroleum products  Americans with no substantive connection to Venezuela who would be economically harmed by such an action. (Citgo also provides free or discounted heating oil to low-income communities and tribal reservations within the United States.) And, of course, in a tight oil market Citgo could likely find alternative buyers for its products far more easily than the U.S. could make up the shortfall created by a cut-off of Venezuelan oil.   As we've noted in many other articles discussing various schemes regarding where and how people should purchase gasoline, the global and fungible nature of the world oil market doesn't really provide consumers with many effective opportunities to influence political issues through their buying patterns.  articles Since the original e-petitions cited above originally appeared in early 2006, they have gone through a number of changes that added and dropped additional claims about Citgo.  In September 2006, the following addendum to one of the Citgo-related e-mails began circulating:  Friends, I asked you earlier to boycott Citgo Gas Stations in response to the actions of Hugo Chavez and the Venezuelan Government.  I am coming to you again and asking you to take this a step further. Many 7-11 Stores sell Citgo gas.  I ask you to boy cut these stores and notify the Southland Corp. & the store managers of your action and be sure they know that it is because they sell Citgo Gas Products. You may think this is an extreme step but Hugo & other American haters count on Americans not to have the stomach to do anything. Prove them wrong! One by one we can make a difference.  Please forward this to others if you believe in taking a stand against the thugs of our century. God Bless America! Shortly afterwards, 7-Eleven Inc. announced it was dropping Citgo Petroleum as its gasoline supplier, although the convenience store chain also stated the move was not motivated by political issues: 7-Eleven's contract with Citgo was due to expire at the end of September 2006, and the company had already made plans to market its own brand of gasoline. In October 2006, the following e-mail about Citgo and Petro Express began circulating: CITGO, BEING AWARE THAT GASOLINE SALES ARE DOWN DUE TO U.S. CUSTOMERS NOT WANTING TO BUY FROM "CHAVEZ".... HAVE  BEGUN CHANGING THE NAME OF SOME OF THEIR CIRCLE K STORES IN TEXAS & OKLAHOMA...AND POSSIBLY OTHER PLACES AS WELL, TO: "PETRO  EXPRESS" THEREFORE, DO NOT BUY FROM "PETRO EXPRESS", ...NOR CITGO....  "PETRO EXPRESS" IS ALSO 100% OWNED BY "CHAVEZ" .... Both Circle K and Petro Expressare privately-owned chains of convenience stores, the former an international property of Quebec-based Alimentation Couche-Tard, and the latter owned by The Pantry, Inc., which is headquartered in Sanford, North Carolina.  Neither chain is owned by Citgo or the Venezuela government.   Circle K Petro Express The Pantry Petro Express outlets (which the parent company has been converting to their Kangaroo Express brand) were known for selling Citgo-branded gasoline.  The Pantry stated in October 2006 that the chain would be phasing out sales of that brand by 2007, and  soon after The Pantry's acquisition of Petro Express in 2007,  the new parent company announced that gasoline sales at those outlets would be converted to Chevron's Texaco brand.  However, The Pantry's 2010 annual report indicates that Citgo is still one of their fuel suppliers, with a contract running through August 2013: acquisition As of September 30, 2010, Marathon, BP and CITGO supplied approximately 68% of our fuel purchases. On July26, 2010, we entered into a new fuel supply agreement with Marathon. Our contract with Marathon for unbranded fuel anddistillate expires on December 31, 2017, and our contract with Marathon for branded fuel and distillate expires on June 30,2013, with an option for the Company to renew until December 31, 2017. As a result of this new fuel agreement withMarathon, we now have three principal suppliers for the majority of our fuel. On September 1, 2010 we entered into aMarketer Franchise Agreement, including an Addendum to Marketer Franchise Agreement, with CITGO. Our contract withCITGO expires August 31, 2013 and our contract with BP expires September 30, 2012. It is not uncommon for independent stations and chains to switch fuel suppliers from time to time.  Occurrences of independents' dropping Citgo in favor of other suppliers are often misinterpreted by the public as attempts on Citgo's part to "switch names" in order to fool consumers into continuing to purchase Citgo gasoline. An addendum about AK-47 factories and Iranian-run oil refineries was also later appended to this piece: NEWS FLASH: Chavez is NOW getting a Russian Weapons Factory built by Putin. The RUSSIANS are building an AK-47 Kalashnikov Assault Rifle  factory in Venezuela to give armament support to Communist Rebel groups throughout the Americas. Chavez NOW has IRANIANS operating his oil refineries in Venezuela for him. It is likely only  a matter of time, if not already, before Chavez has Iranian built LONG RANGE missiles,  with a variety of warhead types aimed at: Guess Who? According to news reports, Russia's Izhevsk Mechanical Plant (IMP) has already manufactured and supplied about 100,000 AK-103 assault rifles to Venezuela under an earlier contract, and they have also signed a contract for two arms plants in Venezuela (one to produce AK-103a  and the other to produce 7.62-mm ammunition for those rifles), with construction to begin at the end of 2007 and be completed by 2010. Also in 2007, Venezuela and Iran signed a $4 billion deal to develop Ayacucho 7, a block of the lucrative Orinoco Reserve in Venezuela which is believed to hold more than 30 billion barrels of oil.  Under the deal, Iran will build four oil rigs off the shore of Venezuela by the end of the year.  Last updated:  8 January 2012    Corrales, Javier.  "Hugo Chvez Is Part Robin Hood, Part Oil Mogul, Part Electoral Wizard."   The Dallas Morning News.  12 February 2006.    Douglass, Elizabeth.  "7-Eleven Dumps Venezuela-Backed Citgo to Pump Own Brand."   Los Angeles Times.  28 September 2006  (p. C1).    Gentile, Carmen J.  "Venezuela, Iran Team Up on Oil."   United Press International.  17 July 2007.    Kirkpatrick, Christopher D.  "Petro Express Nixing Citgo Gas."   The Charlotte Observer.  17 October 2006.    Padgett, Tim.  "Chavez: 'Bush Has Called Me Worse Things.'"   Time.  22 September 2006.    Sieff, Martin.  "Defense Focus: Venezuela's Kalashnikovs."   United Press International.  15 August 2007.    Stock, Sue.  "Petro Express Stores to Get Name Change."   The Charlotte Observer.  3 February 2010.    Weisbrot, Mark.  "The Failure of Hugo-Bashing."   Los Angeles Times.  9 March 2006  (p. B13).    Associated Press.  "Chvez Hosts Peace Activist."   Miami Herald.  31 January 2006.    The Australian.  "US Brushes Off Chavez Barbs to Rice."   22 February 2006.    BBC News.  "Profile: Hugo Chavez."   13 October 2005.    Diario El Universal.  "US Calls Empty Rhetoric President Chvez' Threats of Cutting Oil Supply."   21 February 2006. Claim:  U.S. postage stamps may not be resold for a price greater than their face value.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, October 2007] I was always under the impression that selling a regular US First-Class stamp for profit was illegal. I thought you could only sell it for face value, is this true?   Origins:  These days postal customers have a multiplicity of options for buying postage: They can purchase stamps not only at post offices but also from private mailbox chain outlets and from many grocery, warehouse, and convenience stores; they can order stamps by phone, through the mail, or over the Internet; and they can even print out postage stamps themselves through programs operated by authorized U.S. Postal Service (USPS) vendors.  It wasn't all that long ago, however, when many customers had few (if any) alternatives for obtaining stamps other than by trekking down to the local post office.  It might be memories from those  days  when the U.S. Post Office Department was strictly a government agency (i.e., prior to the creation of the USPS in 1970) and its offices were the only sales outlet for stamps for many people  that have fostered the mistaken belief it is illegal to re-sell U.S. postage stamps for a price greater than their face value.  Perhaps people viewed postage stamps as a type of government service, and therefore they thought making aprofit from the resale of stamps was a form of illegal profiteering.   We know this not to be true from anecdotal evidence: Years ago, one of the few sources of stamps other than the post office was the mechanical, lever-operated  machines commonly found in grocery stores which dispensed individual stamps (rather than booklets) and were notorious for not providing full value  depositing a dime in such a machine would typically fetch the customer something like one five-cent stamp and two one-cent stamps, or a quarter might buy three six-cent stamps and one three-cent stamp.  Even today, the private mailbox outlets that have sprung up across the country often add surcharges to the price of stamps they offer their customers as a convenience.  (Plus, if selling stamps for more than their face value were truly prohibited by law, then all philatelic sales of uncancelled stamps would be illegal.) In any case, we don't need to rely on anecdotal evidence, because the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) section of the USPS's web site explains that it has no control over the prices other entities charge for reselling U.S. postage stamps: FAQ Selling stamps at a higher price The Postal Service sells stamps at face value to everyone. We have no control over the pricing policies of private entrepreneurs, companies or agencies who resell our products. A charge at a higher price is most likely imposed to earn a return on their investment of capital and effort. The prices they charge are, no doubt, established on the basis of their needs and market evaluations. Customers may avoid paying more than the stated value for First-Class Mail postage by purchasing stamps at their Post Office, through Stamps By Mail, phone, online, Automated Postal Centers and retail outlets that are involved with our consignment programs or from one of the many postal stores. Last updated:  19 August 2013 On July 25, 2010, David Gregory, the host of NBC'sMeet the Press, asked his roundtable panelists to consider Diversity and the Myth of White Privilege, aWall Street Journalop-ed column from July 22, in which Sen. James Webb, D-Va., argues against federal affirmative action laws.I have dedicated my political career to bringing fairness to America's economic system and to our work force, regardless of what people look like or where they may worship, Webb wrote. Unfortunately, present-day diversity programs work against that notion, having expanded so far beyond their original purpose that they now favor anyone who does not happen to be white. In an odd historical twist that all Americans see but few can understand, many programs allow recently arrived immigrants to move ahead of similarly situated whites whose families have been in the country for generations. These programs have damaged racial harmony. And the more they have grown, the less they have actually helped African-Americans, the intended beneficiaries of affirmative action as it was originally conceived.Marc Morial -- president of the National Urban League, a century-old civil rights organization -- was one panelist who took the challenge, arguing that non-whites continue to experience disadvantages compared to whites.I don't agree that Latinos and Asians have not suffered discrimination in this country or that Native Americans have not suffered discrimination in this country, Morial said. I think the question is, how do you target and tailor policies that are going to help all economically and socially disadvantaged people. And it's a fair debate to have, but it also needs to be positive with facts. Look at the Latino unemployment rate. It's higher than the white rate. The black rate is higher than the Latino rate. So to suggest that there are not disparities that affect the Latino community, that affect the Native American community, most in depth, the African-American community, we've got to have the discussion that Jim Webb wants to have. We have facts, real facts, that give a picture of how life is in this nation.We won't take sides on Webb's proposal to end policies that provide race-based advantages, a topic that inspires passions on both sides, but which isn't a checkable fact. Instead, we'll focus on the narrower question of whether Morial is accurate on the question of comparative unemployment rates for whites, blacks and Latinos.The Bureau of Labor Statistics calculates seasonally adjusted unemployment rates by race and ethnicity. We found that in June 2010, the white unemployment rate was 8.6 percent. The black unemployment rate was 15.4 percent, and the Hispanic/Latino rate was 12.4.So Morial is correct that the Latino unemployment rate is higher than the white rate and that the black rate is higher than the Latino rate.Though it falls beyond the boundaries of our fact-check, we'll note one other point from the statistics. Morial argued that Latinos and Asian Americans have suffered discrimination in the United States, and we think most people would agree with that at least as a historical matter. But if you look at the unemployment rate for Asians, it's 7.7 percent. That's actually lower than the rate for whites. (Technically, the BLS only calculates a non-seasonally-adjusted rate for Asians, but the comparable rate for whites is still higher at 8.7 percent. )Still, as we indicated, Morial made no specific claim about unemployment among Asian-Americans, and for the groups that he did mention -- whites, blacks and Latinos -- his numbers were accurate. So we rate his comment True. In August 2020, some users of Gmail, the Google email service, reported receiving a message with the subject line, "Notice of Class Action Settlement re Google Plus  Your Rights May Be Affected." The email claimed that users of the now-defunct Google Plus social network, which was owned and operated by Google, may be eligible for a cash payment from a 2018 lawsuit settlement. The email directed them to a website that outlined options for receiving the payment. The lawsuit was reportedly the result of a data breach that exposed the private information of hundreds of thousands of Google Plus users.  website Snopes readers and many online users speculated it was a scam, given that the email began with the words, You are not being sued. scam Despite the apprehension of users, we learned that this email did indeed come from Google, referred to a real settlement, and that users could indeed receive a cash payment.    The email said:  You are not being sued. This notice affects your rights. Please read it carefully. On June 10, 2020, the Honorable Edward J. Davila of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, granted preliminary approval of this class action Settlement and directed the litigants to provide this notice about the Settlement. You have received this notice because Googles records indicate that you may be a Settlement Class Member, and you may be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement. Please visit www.GooglePlusDataLitigation.com for more information. The Final Approval Hearing on the adequacy, reasonableness, and fairness of the Settlement will be held at 9:00 am on November 19, 2020 [...] You are not required to attend the Final Approval Hearing, but you are welcome to do so at your own expense. In a statement to the business magazine Fast Company, and in a tweet, Google confirmed that the email and its contents were real. Responding to a Twitter user who asked if the email was a scam, Gmails verified account directed the person to the aforementioned website: Fast Company tweet   Snopes reached out to Google for confirmation, and we will update this post if we receive more information. The situation that led to Gmail users receiving the email began in 2018 with a lawsuit resulting from a privacy blunder. Earlier that year, Google discovered that software bugs exposed data of up to 500,000 users of Google Plus since 2015. Google later claimed that the data included names, email addresses, age, gender, and occupation. The breach allowed third-party developers to potentially access this information, though the company claimed it found no evidence that anyone misused or stole the data. The technology giant plugged the data leak in March 2018, but did not publicize it. After a Wall Street Journal report exposed the leak in October 2018, a number of plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against Google on behalf of users reportedly affected by the exposure of their personal data. Google Plus was shuttered by early 2019.  privacy blunder potentially access Wall Street Journal lawsuit In August 2020, some Gmail users received the email from the email address google-noreply@google.com, alerting them about the June of 2020 lawsuit settlement, which required that Google pay $7.5 million in payments to claimants and other associated fees. Claimants were defined in the email as, all persons within the United States who (a) had a consumer Google+ account for any period of time between January 1, 2015 and April 2, 2019, and (2) had their non-public Profile Information exposed as a result of the software bugs Google announced. The website GooglePlusDataLitigation.com also offered options for claimants, which ranged from submitting a claim by Oct. 8, 2020, opting out of the settlement, filing an objection to the settlement, or doing nothing. The claim form requires users to fill out their name and contact information and confirm they used Google Plus within the stipulated period of time mentioned above. GooglePlusDataLitigation.com claim form As it turned out, the actual amount of cash one could receive wasnt too much. Claimants could get the tidy sum of up to $5 or $12  depending on the number of people who filed valid claims  but would have to waive their right to future litigation against Google in relation to this case. According to the email: If sufficient funds remain after calculation of the aggregate initial maximum distribution of US$5.00 per Claimant, the allocation shall be recalculated on a pro rata basis up to a maximum distribution of up to US$12.00 per Claimant. For clarity, the maximum Settlement Payment to be made to any single Claimant shall not exceed US$12.00. In summary, based on confirmation from Google on multiple platforms about the veracity of the email, and the process of receiving funds from the settlement, we rate this claim as True. Google Plus Profile Litigation. "Case No. 5:18-CV-06164-EJD (VKD)
United States District Court Northern District of California."
 Accessed 6 August 2020. MacMillan, Douglas and Robert McMillan. "Google Exposed User Data, Feared Repercussions of Disclosing to Public."
 The Wall Street Journal. 8 October 2018. Newman, Jared. "Google Admits to Potential Google+ Data Leak After Getting Caught."
 Fast Company. 8 October 2020. Newman, Lily Hay. "Google's Privacy Whiplash Shows Big Tech's Inherent Contradictions."
 Wired. 8 October 2018. Zara, Christopher. "Whats Up With That Google Plus Lawsuit Settlement Email? Its Real, But its Also Weird."
 Fast Company. 5 August 2020. Cuyahoga County Executive Ed FitzGerald formally announced his candidacy for governor last month, kicking off his campaign with speeches in Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati. The Democrat, taking aim at the man he hopes to unseat next year, portrayed Republican Gov. John Kasich as a politician whose policies hurt middle-class Ohioans. Just about everyone everywhere is spending more hours on the job, less time with their families, bringing home smaller and smaller paychecks, while they're paying more and more at the gas pump and the grocery stores, FitzGerald told supporters. PolitiFact Ohio wondered about the basis for the statement and asked for sources. For the claim about more hours on the job, less time with their families, FitzGerald's staff cited data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. According to its American Time Use Survey, the average employed American spent an average of 7.6 hours per day working on days that theyworked in 2011, the most recent year available. That's an increase from 7.48 hours in2010. They also cited an article from the news serviceThe Fiscal Timesthat reported Americans are logging in more time at work, skipping vacation time and increasingly handling work-related email on vacation and weekend time. As for the smaller paychecks, FitzGerald's camp said that the real hourly wages of Ohio workers have failed to keep pace with inflation since 2010, decreasing the salaries of workers in inflation-adjusted dollars. Their source was the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. Its data show that the mean and median hourly wages of Ohioans rose from $19.66 and $15.45 in2010to $20.52 and $16.03 in2012. Whenadjusted for inflationand measured in current dollars, however, using the CPI inflation calculator, mean and median hourly wages fell from $20.99 and $16.49 in 2010 to $20.52 and $16.25 in 2012. PolitiFact has always stipulated that the ability of an individual governor to influence the economy is limited. Determining how credit or blame should be apportioned is seldom clear. We did not assign credit toKasich for his statementin March that Ohioans' wages have risen by more than $10 billion since 2010. But we rated the statement as True. We can't rate FitzGerald's linking of Kasich to his statement about people spending more hours on the job and bringing home smaller paychecks. But his statement is accurate, with the point of clarification that smaller paychecks are in inflation-adjusted current dollars. Because that additional information is needed, we rate the statement as Mostly True. Various social media posts circulating in late December 2021 claimed that thanks to coronavirus stimulus legislation known as the American Rescue Plan, U.S. President Joe Biden's administration and Democratic legislators would begin "spying" or "snooping" on users of cash apps like PayPal and Venmo. Here is an example of one such post: example   The truth is, unsurprisingly, more nuanced, but the bottom line is that, contrary to what the above Twitter posts state, the effect of the legislation in question isn't that the Biden administration or Democrats will be "tapping into" or "spying on" bank or cash app accounts. This is a misleading characterization. What the legislation does is significantly lower the threshold for reporting taxable transactions made using cash apps like Venmo, PayPal, or Zelle for goods and services to the IRS. And when you reach that threshold, the app companies will then be required to send a tax form called a 1099-K to both you and the IRS. A 1099-K is, according to PayPal, an "informational tax form that is used to report goods and services payments received by a business or individual in the calendar year." PayPal As of this writing, the current threshold for such reporting is $20,000 and 200 payments in goods and services. Come Jan. 1, 2022, that reporting threshold will drop down to $600. threshold This could have a significant impact on platform users' tax returns. Here's how Bloomberg Tax described how users might experience the change: Bloomberg Tax For example, a model train collector may have paid $5,000 for model train pieces over several years that they now sell for $8,000, and the marketplace that introduced the seller to the buyer and through which the sale took place may charge the seller a total fee of $800. It may cost the model train seller $200 in postage to send the pieces to its buyers. The Form 1099-K that the seller will receive from the TPSO will report $8,000 in gross proceeds paid. However, the sellers taxable gain from that sale would only be $2,000. As a result, collectors and other online sellers will need to keep extensive records of their expenses going forward to avoid over-reporting of income and overpayment of tax. Also, consider the alternativea teenager who walks dogs to earn extra money. If their income in 2022 exceeds $600, their expenses may be limited to the fees charged by the website that connects them to pet owners, but they will owe income taxand possibly self-employment taxon the income they earn. According to PayPal, which owns Venmo, the change doesn't affect people who use the apps for personal transactions, like paying a friend back for your share of dinner, gifts, or chipping in for trips. PayPal also states that its app allows users to categorize their own transactions as personal versus rendering payment for "goods and services." PayPal Business Users on Cash Apps Will Begin Receiving Tax Forms. Heres What You Need to Know. WJHL | Tri-Cities News & Weather, 14 Oct. 2021, https://www.wjhl.com/news/business-users-on-cash-apps-to-begin-receiving-tax-forms-what-you-need-to-know/. Pflieger, Deborah. "New Form 1099 Reporting Coming in 2022," Bloomberg Tax, 15 Dec. 2021, https://news.bloombergtax.com/tax-insights-and-commentary/new-form-1099-reporting-coming-in-2022. New U.S. Tax Reporting Requirements: Your Questions Answered. PayPal Newsroom, 4 Nov. 2021, https://newsroom.paypal-corp.com/2021-11-04-New-US-Tax-Reporting-Requirements-Your-Questions-Answered. "PayPal and Venmo Taxes: What You Need to Know About P2P Platforms." TurboTax, 27 Nov. 2021, https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tips/self-employment-taxes/paypal-and-venmo-taxes-what-you-need-to-know-about-p2p-platforms/L5DNjOUM1.