Did Dolly Parton Say: 'Trump In One Year Is Already Better Than 16 Years of Bush, Obama Put Together'?
One of the several forms of political clickbait that has sprung up in the online world in recent years the false attribution of controversial and inflammatory political statements to various celebrities, a form that has already appropriated the name of notables such as Sandra Bullock, Bruce Willis and Demi Moore. Yet another expression of this misleading technique for generating clicks is attributing the sentiment that "Trump in one year is already better than 16 years of Bush and Obama put together" to celebrities ranging from actress Michelle Pfeiffer to singer Dolly Parton: Sandra Bullock Bruce Willis Demi Moore   Neither of these women (nor any other prominent entertainer) gave voice to this thought; it was actually a paraphrase of an opinion expressed by Brett Decker, a former Wall Street Journal editor and the author of the book Bowing to Beijing: How Barack Obama Is Hastening Americas Decline and Ushering a Century of Chinese Domination, while discussing economic policy during a radio interview on 5 January 2018: expressed Decker rejected narratives crediting former President Barack Obamas economic policies with recently developing economic figures during Trumps presidential tenure, framing such assertions as absolutely crazy: You look at the unemployment numbers, and its 4.1 percent. I look at Obama and Bush kind of combined, when I look at this block of sixteen years. Anyone that says this is inheriting some kind of Obama economy, he had eight years, and in 2010, the unemployment rate was 9.6 percent, absolutely crazy ... This idea that it has anything to do with Obama is absolutely crazy. Trump in one year is already better than sixteen years of those guys [i.e., George W. Bush and Barack Obama] put together, said Decker, pointing to a current 17-year high in consumer confidence. Kraychik, Robert.  "Brett Decker: Trump in One Year Is Already Better Than 16 Years of Bush, Obama Put Together."
  Breitbart.  6 January 2018.
In early 2021, readers asked Snopes to examine the accuracy of a widely-shared social media post that purported to describe U.S. President Joe Biden's intention to eliminate a piece of tax law that allows taxpayers to benefit from selling on a home that is left to them by their parents. The post  which was critical of Biden and the supposed plan  first emerged during the 2020 presidential election campaign, but regained prominence after Biden was inaugurated in January 2021. It typically read as follows: first emerged regained Did you know Biden wants to get rid of something called "stepped up basis"? How does this affect you! When your parents pass and leave you the family house, normally you would inherit that property at what it is worth today. If you were to sell that house you would only pay taxes on the gain from what it is worth today and what it sells for. If Biden does away with "stepped up basis," you will inherit the property for what your parents paid for the property. If you decide to sell you will pay taxes on the difference between the original purchase price and what it sells for today. Here is what this looks like! Current PolicyInherited House at Current Value - $200,000Sells for $205,000Taxable income = $5000Taxes Due - 20% of $5000 = $1000Profit to you = $204,000Biden PolicyInherited House at original purchase price - $40,000Sells for $205,000Taxable income = $165,000Taxes Due - 20% of $165,000 = $33,000Profit to you = $172,000If your parents were to have sold this property prior to passing, they would have paid no taxes because it was their primary residence.So much for helping the middle class get ahead.My educated guess would be that at least 95% of Americans dont even know Biden has proposed this. We are talking tens of thousands of more tax dollars for the average sold after inheritance! Wow, google Biden stepped up basis and educate yourself because this is a biggie! Please share!   The viral post accurately stated that Biden proposed getting rid of the "stepped-up" basis for capital gains tax, and correctly explained the potential practical consequences for an individual taxpayer who inherits a home. In fact, the tax hit for wealthier individuals would be even greater than the post stated, because Biden has also proposed doubling the rate of long-term capital gains tax for those with income over $1 million. We are issuing a rating of  Here's how the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office describes the stepped-up basis for capital gains tax, which is the tax due on profits from the sale of an asset, such as shares, a piece of property, and so on: describes When people sell an asset for more than the price for which they obtained it, they realize a net capital gain. The net gain is typically calculated as the sale price minus the assets adjusted basisgenerally the original purchase price adjusted for improvements or depreciation. To calculate the gains on inherited assets, taxpayers generally use the assets fair-market value at the time of the owners death, often referred to as stepped-up basis, instead of the adjusted basis derived from the assets value when the decedent initially acquired it. When the heir sells the asset, capital gains taxes are assessed only on the change in the assets value relative to the stepped-up basis. As a result, any appreciation in value that occurred while the decedent owned the asset is not included in taxable income and therefore is not subject to the capital gains tax. In 2015, then-President Barack Obama also proposed eliminating the stepped-up basis. Here's his administration's explanation of how it works: explanation ...Suppose an individual leaves stock worth $50 million to an heir, who immediately sells it. When purchased, the stock was worth $10 million, so the capital gain is $40 million. However, the heirs basis in the stock is stepped up to the $50 million gain when he inherited it  so no income tax is due on the sale, or ever due on the $40 million of gain. Each year, hundreds of billions in capital gains avoid tax as a result of stepped-up basis.  During the 2020 presidential election, Biden and his campaign repeatedly expressed his intention to get rid of the stepped-up basis. As first highlighted by Politifact, the Biden campaign presented the proposal as a partial way to pay for its proposed student loan reforms. In October 2019, ABC News reported that: Politifact ABC News The plan makes official several policies the former vice president often discusses on the trail about student debt as well. Bidens policy includes his plan for reducing student loan debt obligations for students who go into the public service sector, allowing $10,000 of undergrad or graduate debt relief per year for up to five years of service. Biden would also double the maximum amount of Pell grants available to students, including Dreamers, and would allow students making less than $25,000 a year to defer payments on their federal loans without accruing interest. Any student making more than $25,000 would pay 5% of their discretionary income toward their loans rather than the current 10% owed. The plan would be paid for through the elimination of the stepped-up basis loophole, a type of break on inheritance taxes, and capping itemized deductions for wealthy Americans at 28%, according to the campaign. In June 2020, according to CNBC, Biden told would-be donors: "Im going to get rid of the bulk of Trumps $2 trillion tax cut, and a lot of you may not like that but Im going to close loopholes like capital gains and stepped-up basis. CNBC On the Biden-Harris campaign's website, a Spanish-language document outlining the campaign's plans for education reforms stated (translated): document The Biden plan for post-secondary education is a $750 billion investment over 10 years, aimed at developing a stronger and more inclusive middle class. It will be paid for by ensuring the super-rich pay their fair share. Specifically, this plan will be paid for by eliminating the gap in our tax law known as the "Stepped-up Basis Loophole" as well as reducing the itemized deductions that the richest Americans can make to 28 %. [Emphasis is added]. Elsewhere, the Biden campaign proposed not only getting rid of the stepped-up basis, but also doubling the tax rate for long-term capital gains  that is, profits from the sale of an asset that you owned for more than one year  for relatively wealthy taxpayers. Here's what the Biden-Harris campaign website stated, as part of the campaign's healthcare plan: long-term stated As President, Biden will make health care a right by getting rid of capital gains tax loopholes for the super wealthy. Today, the very wealthy pay a tax rate of just 20% on long-term capital gains... As President, Biden will roll back the Trump rate cut for the very wealthy and restore the 39.6% top rate he helped restore when he negotiated an end to the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy in 2012. Bidens capital gains reform will close the loopholes that allow the super wealthy to avoid taxes on capital gains altogether. Biden will assure those making over $1 million will pay the top rate on capital gains, doubling the capital gains tax rate on the super wealthy. The Facebook post shared widely in late 2020 and early 2021 accurately described Biden's stated intention to get rid of the stepped-up basis for capital gains tax, a move that would indeed increase the tax burden on a notional individual who inherits a piece of property from their parents, before selling it on. The tax hit for wealthier taxpayers would be even greater than the Facebook post outlined, since Biden has also proposed increasing the rate of long-term capital gains tax for those with an income above $1 million. The Facebook post did not mention that Biden had stipulated he would use the money raised from eliminating the stepped-up basis to help pay for his healthcare and education plans. We are issuing a rating of  Snopes contacted the White House to ask whether the Biden administration still intended to push for the elimination of the stepped-up basis, but we did not receive a response in time for publication. On Nov. 24, 2022, a Facebook user posted a picture of a blue owl. However, blue owls are not real, meaning that the image was a fake. posted  The post from Nov. 24 was shared at least 2,000 times in a little over one week. It was the earliest posting of the picture that we have found so far. On Twitter, the fake blue owl picture, which showed cat-like whiskers for the animal, received hundreds of thousands of likes. For example, this tweet from@jimrosecircus1 was posted on Dec. 1, 2022. It showed nearly 150,000 likes by the next day. The caption read, "I hope you don't mind this adorably majestic blue owl in your newsfeed." tweet  Under the tweet, Twitter added a context note that read, "There is no such thing as blue owl. It looks really good but unfortunately it's not true." On Dec. 2, the @daily__owls Twitter account also posted the fake picture of the blue owl with the misleading caption, "The beautiful Norwegian Blue owl." posted  According to Brittanica.com, "owls vary in color from white through many shades of tan, gray, brown, or rufous (reddish) to deep brown." Despite the beauty of the blue and orange owl in the picture, it's just not real. Brittanica.com Hoax hunter @HoaxEye tweeted of the blue owl image that it may have been generated by artificial intelligence (AI). The tweet also tagged the user @Valdevia_Art, who added that they believed it was likely not as simple as a color change in Adobe Photoshop. Instead, the user said that it "does seem AI-generated." tweeted added said This wasn't the first time a picture of a purportedly blue owl made its way around social media. In 2021, USA Today's fact-check team debunkeda picture of what online posts referred to as a "blue Philippines owl." VisitCryptoVille.com previously published a story about the same picture five years earlier. debunked picture story Back in 2019, AFP filed a report about a "beautiful blue owl of Madagascar," which also was fake. report At Snopes, we've previously fact-checked photos purporting to show a multicolored "rainbow owl" (fake) and a "rare red owl with blue eyes" (also fake). rainbow owl rare red owl with blue eyes This story will be updated if we find more details about the origins of the blue owl picture. As noted by some knowledgeable Twitter users, it may have simply been generated by AI. @Daily__Owls. Twitter, 2 Dec. 2022, https://twitter.com/Daily__Owls/status/1598613376992792576. @HoaxEye. Twitter, 2 Dec. 2022, https://twitter.com/hoaxeye/status/1598734104396079104. @jimrosecircus1. Twitter, 1 Dec. 2022, https://twitter.com/jimrosecircus1/status/1598366192817045504. "Owl - Appearance and Classification." Britannica.Com, https://www.britannica.com/animal/owl/Form-and-function. Sadeghi, McKenzie. "Fact Check: Viral Image Claiming to Be a Blue Philippine Owl Is Doctored." USA TODAY, 22 Feb. 2021, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/02/22/fact-check-viral-image-purported-blue-philippine-owl-doctored/4533533001/. Salah, Dr. Muhammad. "Just Admire the Beauty of Allah's Creation!" Facebook, 24 Nov. 2022, https://www.facebook.com/MSalahOfficial/posts/pfbid0TazmyskVgTA2axagkDCMNrAUqheW4LRPz91UvMUaK3v6xywK5JgrQHjLy6YysK61l. "The Blue Owl of the Philippines 19-31." VisitCryptoVille.com, 19 Jan. 2016, https://visitcryptoville.com/2016/01/19/the-blue-owl-of-the-philippines-19-31/. @Valdevia_Art. Twitter, 2 Dec. 2022, https://twitter.com/valdevia_art/status/1598752209935560706. Yan, Rachel. "No, This Is Not a Genuine Photo of a Blue Owl in Madagascar." AFPFact Check, 4 June 2019, https://factcheck.afp.com/no-not-genuine-photo-blue-owl-madagascar. On 16 March 2017, the web site Newslo published an article positing that U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price had said that it would be better for the federal budget if cancer patients died quickly:   "At the risk of sounding insensitive, we've pretty much got two choices here: we either repeal Obamacare, or we take out more loans from countries like China. And nobody wants to be in debt to the Chinese. At the end of the day, it's better for our national budget if cancer patients pass away more quickly, it's a lousy way to live anyway, and I'm sorry to say it out loud, but it's the truth," Price concluded. This quote was not a genuine statement issued by Secretary Price.  It originated with Newslo, a "hybrid" web site that publishes articles containing a mixture of fact and fiction: hybrid JUST ENOUGH NEWS ... Newslo is the first hybrid News/Satire platform on the web. Readers come to us for a unique brand of entertainment and information that is enhanced by features like our fact-button, which allows readers to find what is fact and what is satire. The web site's hybrid articles are accompanied by two buttons labeled "show facts" and "hide facts" that allow readers to see which parts of an article are factual and which parts are fictional. In this case, pressing the "show facts" button highlighted the introductory paragraph of the article, indicating that the remainder of the article, the portion containing the fake Price quote, was fictional:   Newslo is a rather prolific purveyor of fake news, having previously penned articles containing fake quotes from Steve Bannon, KellyAnne Conway, and Mike Pence. Steve Bannon KellyAnne Conway Mike Pence Newslo.  "Tom Price: 'Its Better for Our Budget If Cancer Patients Die More Quickly.'"
  16 March 2017. InMay 2016, a viral YouTube video purportedly featuring one of the final scenes in the Pixar movieMonsters Inc.renewed interest in a rumor that a drawing of characters "Uncle Roger" and "Mommy" engaged in a sex act could be spotted on Boo's bedroom wall:  The drawing did not actually appear in the movie at all. Theimage was created by Corey Vaspasianofor a digital editingcontest forthe web siteCracked,in which users were asked to insert R-rated "Easter eggs"into children's movies: Cracked    The above-displayed image was laterinserted into a clip fromMonsters Inc.which had many people convinced that it was real.While Disney and Pixar both love to insert "Easter eggs" intentional hidden messages or inside jokes  into their films, this is not an example of one. The real scene fromMonsters Inc.featured an innocent picture of a cat: scene    While many of the X-rated Disney rumors have been proven false, the movieThe Rescuers did actually feature two frames showing a topless woman. Disney rumors woman At the end of his 24-year congressional career, Rep. Jim Moran Jr. is returning to his athletic roots. Moran, D-8th, is the son and namesake of Jim Moran Sr., who played professional football with the Boston Redskins in the mid 1930s. The congressman, himself, played football at the College of the Holy Cross in the mid 1960s. Moran, who retires Jan. 3, introduced legislation this fall that would create a commission to look into the policies of the NCAA after myriad college sports scandals. The resolution calls for the panel to make recommendations to improve the interaction of athletics and academics on campuses. That includes examining the graduation rates of student athletes, rules restricting athletes abilities to earn money, and the wherewithal of universities to finance broad athletic programs. We have a system now where in 40 states, the highest-paid public employee is the state universitys head football or basketball coach, and yet only 20 schools in the Football Bowl Subdivision have athletic departments with revenue exceeding expenses, Moran said in a Facebook post. We rated Morans statement about coaches pay as Mostly True. Now, well look at his claim that only 20 athletic departments at  the nations largest universities are making a profit. Lets start with a definition of the Football Bowl Subdivision -- the term Moran used to qualify his statement. There are1,083colleges and universities competing in sports that fall under the NCAAs governance. They are grouped into three divisions, that are defined by athletic scholarship rules and the amount of money the schools spend on sports. For example, Division I schools -- which are typically large -- can offer many full athletic scholarships, Division II schools can offer partial athletic scholarships and Division III schools are not allowed to offer sports  scholarships. There are 346 Division I schools. Of them, 123 are classified as members of the Football Bowl Subdivision, the top tier of sports competition. These are colleges and universities that are eligible to compete in bowl games and have average attendance of at least 15,000 at their home games. So Moran is generally talking about the athletic department finances at large universities that field football teams. Morans spokesman, Thomas Scanlon, said the congressmans claim was based on anNCAA studyon Division I athletic department budgets that was released in April. The report says, A total of 20 athletics programs in the FBS reported positive net revenues for the 2013 fiscal year. The study deals in broad statistics and does not identify schools that are in the black or the red. Only two sports were profitable at FBS schools, according to the report. Football programs netted a median profit of slightly more than $3 million and mens basketball netted a median $340,000. But the profits at most schools quickly vanished after paying for a long list of other intercollegiate teams, all of which lose money. The median loss among of athletic departments was $11.6 million. Here are some other findings from the NCAA report: According to the report, all athletic departments outside of the FBS operate in the red. In other words, only 20 of the 1,083 college sports programs in the nation are profitable. Our ruling Moran said only 20 FBS schools generate more money from athletics than they spend. We rate his statement True. Well-rounded vegan diets may be less hazardous and better for the health of dogs compared to conventional meat or raw meat diets, according to research published in April 2022.  Pets are multibillion-dollar industries. According to estimates published in 2018, there are 471 million pet dogs and 373 million pet cats worldwide, which sets the international worth of pet food sales at nearly 132 billion euros. Such high demand has a large impact on the environment, particularly in the sourcing of the animal and agricultural products that make up pet food. Feeding pets is also a lucrative market. In 2020, the vegan pet food market alone was worth $8.7 billion in the U.S., and was expected to grow to over $15 billion in the next six years expected Because pets and their nutrition represent large shares of both the economy and its production line, researchers at the University of Winchester in the U.K. set out to determine what diets are best for the health of pets. To determine the links between diet and health, the team advertised an online survey through social media between May and December 2020 to determine the links between diet and health, and analyzed the data of more than 2,500 dogs that were included in survey responses from the pets' guardians.  Each dog had been living with its guardian for at least one year. About half were fed conventional meat-based diets, around one-third raw meat, and 13% were fed a vegan diet. The survey included questions about the dogs health, such as veterinary visits, medications, and overall health disorders, and consulted both the guardian and a veterinarian on its health status.  We believe our study of 2,536 dogs is by far the largest study published to date, exploring health outcomes of dogs fed vegan and meat-based diets, wrote the researchers in a news release.  news release It analyzed a range of objective data, as well as owner opinions and reported veterinary assessments of health. It revealed that the healthiest and least hazardous dietary choices for dogs, are nutritionally sound vegan diets.   Figures show the three main diets fed to the 2,536 dogs included in the survey. PLOS One  PLOS One Publishing their work in the peer-reviewed journal PLOS One, the team found that overall, dogs on conventional meat diets were less healthy than those on raw meat or vegan diets. Previously it was thought that raw meat diets were linked to an increased risk of pathogen exposure, while vegan diets may result in nutritional deficiencies. But when necessary hygienic and nutritional supplements were taken into consideration, both diets were, by and large, shown to be healthier and less hazardous to the canine consumer.  peer-reviewed PLOS One In summary, when jointly considering health outcomes and dietary hazards, our results and those of other studies indicate that the healthiest and least hazardous dietary choices for dogs, are nutritionally sound vegan diets, concluded the researchers. However, there are several limitations to the study that should be taken into consideration. For one, it could be the case that dogs given a raw meat diet were not necessarily healthier than those given a conventional diet, but rather that their guardians might have been less likely to take their pets to a veterinarian. Because the frequency of veterinarian visits was considered a health indication, this internal bias may have skewed the results. Furthermore, dogs given a raw meat diet tended to be younger in age than those eating other diets, which could further explain why they were deemed healthier.  The study authors also didnt factor in the sex or breed of each dog, a limitation that may have influence the results given that certain breeds are more prone to illness than others.  Lets also look at the structure of the study itself. Participating guardians were asked to consider the main ingredients within your pets normal diet, which means that a pet may not have been fed the identified diet exclusively, nor were treats or other dietary supplements excluded. It was also an opinion-based study in which respondents gave their thoughts on a dogs health in a non-standardized way. Additionally, because the survey was conducted online, this required that respondents have internet access and the time necessary to complete the survey, which may have excluded pet guardians of lower income statuses.  Lastly, there is an inherent unconscious bias within the study structure, which means that a given guardian might have been expecting a better health outcome based on the preferred diet, and this expectation could have influenced how they responded to the survey question.  While there is now scientific evidence to suggest that both raw meat and vegan diets are better than conventional diets alone, the study authors said more research is needed to determine which of the two is associated with better dog health outcomes. Dog guardians should ensure that all aspects of their dogs nutrition are being met, regardless of primary diet preference. Check pet food labels and check with manufacturers to make sure that healthy practices are in place to provide nutritional soundness.  https://www.theinsightpartners.com, The Insight Partners. Vegan Pet Food Market to Grow at a CAGR of 7.7% to Reach US$ 15,651.22 Million from 2020 to 2028. The Insight Partners, https://www.theinsightpartners.com/reports/vegan-pet-food-market. Accessed 13 Apr. 2022. Vegan Pet Food Market to Grow at a CAGR of 7.7% to Reach US$ 15,651.22 Million from 2020 to 2028. The Insight Partners, https://www.theinsightpartners.com/reports/vegan-pet-food-market. Accessed 13 Apr. 2022. Knight, Andrew, et al. Vegan versus Meat-Based Dog Food: Guardian-Reported Indicators of Health. PLOS ONE, vol. 17, no. 4, Apr. 2022, p. e0265662. PLoS Journals, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265662. Vegan Diets for Dogs May Be Linked with Better Health, and Could Be Less Hazardous, than Meat-Based Diets. EurekAlert!, https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/948887. Accessed 13 Apr. 2022. Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here Throughout the 2020 presidential campaign, U.S. Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has frequently referred to his roots in Scranton, Pennsylvania. Some social media users questioned whether this was the same "Scranton" from the U.S. sitcom "The Office" (and whether Scranton was indeed a real American city). Meanwhile, Biden's political rival, U.S. President Donald Trump, accused Biden of exaggerating his connections to the small Pennsylvania city.  This topic came up once again during the final presidential debate of 2020. Twice during the debate, Biden mentioned his small-town roots while talking about middle-class families. Here are transcripts from these two moments: mentioned Where I come from, in Scranton and Claymont, the people don't live off of the stock market. This isn't about me. There's a reason why he's bringing up all this malarkey. There's a reason for it. He doesn't want to talk about the substantive issues. It's not about his family and my family. It's about your family, and your family's hurting badly. If you're making less than, if you're a middle class family, you're getting hurt badly right now. You're sitting at the kitchen table this morning deciding, well, we can't get new tires, theyre bald, because we have to wait another month. Or, so are we going to be able to pay the mortgage? Who's going to tell her, she can't go back to community college? They're the decisions you're making in the middle class families like I grew up in Scranton and Claymont. They're in trouble. We should be talking about your families but that's the last thing he wants to talk about. Later in the debate, Trump disputed Biden's connections to Scranton: And he doesn't come from Scranton. That's like, what -- he lived there for a short period of time before he even knew -- And he left. And the people of Pennsylvania will tell you that. In the past, Trump has pushed an exaggerated version of this claim, saying that Biden "wasn't born here" in Scranton. wasn't born here The president is wrong. Biden was born in Scranton, Pennsylvania. Here's a November 1942 newspaper clipping of Biden's birth announcement from The Tribune, a local Scranton newspaper: https://www.newspapers.com/clip/61652359/ For fans of "The Office," this is the same Scranton that serves as the home of the fictional paper company Dunder Mifflin.  Scranton Biden lived in Scranton until he was 10 years old. His father struggled to find work and eventually landed a job cleaning boilers in Wilmington, Delaware. Biden's father made the two-hour commute for a time, but in 1953 he moved the family to Claymont to be closer to work. The New York Times reported: reported Though Scranton was sharing in the postwar economic boom, Joe Sr. had trouble finding steady work, and nothing that measured up to his previous success. For a time, he commuted to Wilmington to clean boilers for a heating and cooling company. In 1953, he moved the family there. [...] After a few years in a drab apartment in Claymont, Del., the Bidens moved to a nondescript split-level home on Wilson Road in Wilmington, where they stayed until the children were grown. While the Bidens moved out of Scranton when he was 10 years old, the family maintained some connections to his hometown. In 1987, Jean Finnegan Biden, the former vice president's mother, told the Scrantonian Tribune, "Scranton's our hometown... we have fond memories of it." In 2008, Delaware's The News Journal published an article about Biden's hometown friends and his authentic connection to the city: Scrantonian Tribune  Mon, Sep 1, 2008  Page 10  The News Journal (Wilmington, Delaware)  Newspapers.com  Mon, Sep 1, 2008  Page 10  The News Journal (Wilmington, Delaware)  Newspapers.com In an interview with GQ, Biden talked about his childhood in Scranton and noted that his family spent most holidays and summers visiting friends in Scranton until he was about 16 years old. Biden also said that a few of his friends from Scranton were in his wedding: GQ I go back [to Scranton] lot. For the last thirty-five years, any time Scranton needs something I don't know how to say no to them. For real. I really don't. You know, it's still home. I moved outta there when I was 11 years old, but probably till I was 16, we spent every holiday up there. And almost every summer. And when I got married, to Neilia, my deceased wife, there were six, seven guys in the wedding and three of them were from Scranton. In short: 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden was born in Scranton, Pennsylvania, in November 1942. This is the same Scranton that is featured in the show "The Office." Biden lived in Scranton for about 10 years until his father moved the family a few hours away to Clayton after getting a job in Delaware.  The Associated Press.  "The Office sheds light on Scranton, Pa."
  3 March 2006. Tavernise, Sabrina.  "Biden Says He Gets Places Like Scranton. Some in Town Arent So Sure."
  The New York Times.  23 Otober 2020. Calefati, Jessica.  "Fact-Checking Trumps Frequent Claim That Joe Biden Abandoned Scranton.'"
  PolitiFact.  29 August 2020. Depaulo, Lisa.  "$#!% Joe Biden Says."
  GQ.  19 November 2010. Solender, Andrew.  "He Wasnt Born Here: Trump Birthers Biden Near Scranton Ahead Of DNC Acceptance Speech."
  Forbes.  20 August 2020. Broder, John.  "Fathers Tough Life an Inspiration for Biden."
  The New York Times.  23 October 2008. USA Today.  "Debate Transcript: Trump, Biden Final Presidential Debate Moderated by Kristen Welker."
  23 October 2020. Location is commonly cited as the most important consideration in buying real estate, and geographic location was the reason that Cleveland once was tagged as being -- or occupying -- the best location in the nation.The slogan was coined in 1944 by the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co., now part of FirstEnergy Corp., to help build post-war business.The claim was based on the fact that within 500 miles of the city lived half the people of the United States and Canada; that Cleveland was the natural meeting place of iron ore, coal, copper, gypsum, stone, sand and other vital raw materials; and that efficient water, rail, highway and air transportation facilitated delivery and reduced costs, wrote historians Carol Poh Miller and Robert Anthony Wheeler.The slogan has fallen into disuse, but geography hasn't changed.Gov. John Kasich touted the concept this month when he spoke to the Ohio Chamber of Commerce about making Ohio more competitive for business growth:We're to the point now where location matters because logistics matters again, he said. Cost of shipping things matters again. We're within 600 miles of 60 percent of America. We're in a perfect location.Given our Buckeye bias, PolitiFact Ohio wanted to believe it. But we have examined similar claims before and found them wanting. We knew that population has shifted since the 1940s, when the population center point of the entire nation (now in Missouri) was still in Ohio. But we also noted that Kasich moved the measuring stick from 500 miles cited in those previous claims to 600 miles.Using the tools we employed before,we built a map including all U.S. counties whose seats are located within 600 miles of Ohio's borders. We used U.S. Census Bureau data to calculate the aggregate population.We found that 184,900,000 people live within 600 miles of Ohio, or 59.9 percent of the U.S. population of 308.7 million.That's 60 percent, whether you round off by a number that is not statistically significant or factor a margin of error.The 600-mile reach would include nearly all of the Eastern Seaboard, the upper Midwest, much of the Deep South and some states west of the Mississippi River.One additional note: In addition to 60 percent of the U.S. population, Kasichs claim also would encompass the most populous parts of Ontario and Quebec.We rate Kasich's statement as True. During his recent election announcement for governor of Missouri, Mike Parson trumpeted a strong economy in the state, taking particular care to highlight increases in small-business wages. With record lows in unemployment, more people are going back to work in Missouri, Parson said Sept. 8. Wages are on the rise  in fact we were the top small-business wage growth state in the nation. Does the governors comment check out? We wanted to investigate. A spokesperson for Parsons campaign cited an April 2019 article from St. Louis Business Journal that used numbers from an April 2019 report from Paychex/IHS Market Small Business Employment Watch to show Missouri ranked first in the country in hourly wage growth for small businesses. At $25.55 per hour, Missouri small business wages were up 3.48%, or 86 cents, that month. The Show-Me State finished first ahead of California, New York, Arizona and Illinois in small-business wage growth. According to the Small Business Employment Watchs September report, Missouri now ranks third in the country in hourly wage growth increase at 3.38% (New York is second at 3.53% and Illinois is first at 4.11%). If assessing for weekly wage growth rise, Missouri is second at 3.83%. Illinois comes in at 3.84%, just .01% better than Missouri. Overall, Missouri has been a top-five small business wage growth state (by weekly earnings) every month this year, according to Paychexs analysis. So what is Paychex, and how does it calculate its data for the Small Business Employment Watch? Paychex is a human resources and payroll company with over 600,000 clients nationwide. According to a media spokesperson for the company, it uses up-to-date, aggregated payroll data from approximately 350,000 of Paychex's small business clients with fewer than 50 workers to keep its data current. All businesses whose wage data is included in the report must have run payroll for the month that the data is being compiled and the three months prior. According to a Paychex spokesperson, the sample includes millions of small-business workers. How many small-business workers are there in Missouri and in the United States? It depends what you consider a small business. Paychex defines a small business as a firm with fewer than 50 workers, but the U.S. Small Business Administration defines small businesses as firms with less than 500 workers. According to the SBAs 2019 profile for the state of Missouri, there are 1.2 million small business employees in the state of Missouri alone, and 58.9 million in the country. In other words, while Paychex represents a significant portion of small businesses, its not the whole pie. The company itself claims to work with one in 12 private sector employees. Parson said, Wages are on the rise  in fact we were the top small business wage growth state in the nation. This statement is backed by statistics from Paychex that showed it to be true for the month of April, although Missouri fell behind in later months. Since it cant be proven that Paychex takes a representative sample, and its the only indicator Parson cites, we rate this comment as Mostly True. Canada doesnt often get mentioned in political debates in the United States, but our northern neighbor had a cameo in the vice presidential debate, cited as a bastion of low taxes.Seeking to draw a contrast with the tax policies of President Barack Obama, Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin native, said, Where I come from, overseas, which is Lake Superior  the Canadians  they drop their tax rates to 15 percent. The average tax rate on businesses in the industrialized world is 25 percent.We wondered whether Canada was really as much of a low-tax haven as Ryan indicated.Canadian corporate taxesWe found two measurements of Canada's corporate tax rate from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a group of advanced industrialized nations. Over the past 15 years, the trendline for both has been consistently downward. Since 1998, the central government corporate rate has declined from 29.12 percent to 15 percent today; while the combination of the central and provincial corporate tax rates has fallen from 42.94 percent to 26.1 percent today.So Ryan is right that Canadas national rate was recently lowered to 15 percent -- the culmination of policies put forward by both center-left prime ministers Jean Chretien and Paul Martin and current center-right prime minister Stephen Harper, who took office in 2006. Small businesses today have a special, lower rate of 11 percent.Still, its worth noting that when you take into account average provincial tax rates -- the equivalent of state corporate taxes in the U.S. -- the combined corporate tax rate in Canada rises to 26.1 percent.International comparisonsWhat about Ryans claim that the average tax rate on businesses in  the industrialized world is 25 percent?We can use the same OECD data to check this claim. Averaging the 2012 tax rates for OECD members, we found that the average for the 34 countries studied is just slightly under 25 percent. Thats just as Ryan said.And in case youre wondering, the top U.S. corporate tax rate, including both federal and state taxes, is 39.1 percent. Thats quite a bit higher than Canadas, and since April, it has been the highest corporate tax rate on the books of any OECD nation.Still, the actual tax rate paid by a company will likely be lower than the official rate, due to deductions and exemptions.Our ratingRyan said Canada dropped its corporate tax rates to 15 percent and that the average tax rate on businesses in the industrialized world is 25 percent. Hes correct on both counts, though its worth pointing out that provincial taxes boost Canadas rate to 26.1 percent, and that the actual rate paid by specific companies in certain countries, such as the U.S., can be lower than official rates due to deductions and exemptions. We rate Ryans claim Mostly True.