Facebook car giveaway can be rephrased as "Car giveaway promotion on Facebook"
In December 2014, a number of Facebook pages using car brand names such as Audi, Range Rover, Mercedes, and Camaro (among others) posted directives similar to the messages quoted above. The pages claimed that Facebook was giving away cars. Among the cars offered in the giveaways were Audi R8s, Range Rovers, Mercedes-Benz E63 AMGs, and Chevrolet Camaro SS models. Almost all the scams followed the same format: they instructed users to like a separate page, like the original post, and share the post on their own Timeline (thereby validating its legitimacy and enticing others to do the same).users were eligible to win one of two available vehicles in the winner's choice of color simply by liking a separate Facebook page, liking and sharing a post, and waiting for an inbox message confirming the winners. In April 2016, the scam reappeared, this time with a Range Rover as the car offered in the giveaway:    The first clue the giveaways following this format were not on the up-and-up was the pages to which Facebook users were directed, pages that had been created just days before the giveaway posts begin to appear. Not only were the secondary Facebook pages involved always new, they were also not linked with car companies or other interests one might imagine could reasonably be expected to offer up a car in exchange for social media advertising (such as automobile dealerships, insurance companies, or large retailers). Were a legitimate company to engage in such a high-ticket contest giveaway, the incentive would be exposure; however, no corresponding promotional return on advertising investment was discernable in these Facebook giveaway claims. The tactics were similar to recent scams involving Costco, Kroger and Amazon gift cards, but the six-figure price tag attached to some of the vehicles involved in the Facebook car giveaway posts proved a far more difficult-to-resist enticement for some users, not all of whom questioned whether sharing a page presented any negative consequence should it later turn out to be a prank, hoax, or other false promise. Costco Kroger Amazon The pages to which users were directed carried all the hallmarks of "like farming" operations intended to quickly build and sell popular Facebook pages. Even if the page creators' intent were only to build an audience, users' participating in the scam created a larger incentive for employing future fakery of the same description to crowd Facebook feeds. Scammers could also exploit a large audience by mining varying levels of personal data from those who have liked a page of dubious origin. So Facebook users who participate in such fake giveaways not only unwittingly help spammers pollute the social network with scams, they may also risk being exposed to malware, clickjacking, or other unpleasantries (such as finding their names and identities endorsing a scam, hate page, or other undesirable activity). Giveaways, particularly of high-value merchandise, are generally rare and almost always conducted through brands' official channels or the social media accounts of related large companies.
On 3 March 2017, the web site USPOLN published an article which contained several quotes ostensibly uttered by Senator Paul Ryan, including one statement in which he supposedly asserted about birth control that "If there was a legitimate way to have intercourse and not get pregnant, God would have included it in His holy books":  article   This article was framed as presenting portions of a discussion between Ryan and CNN host Jake Tapper, and the introductory paragraph replicated a legitimate exchange between Ryan and Tapper about health care reform and birth control that took place on 13 November 2016: legitimate House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) refused to say if some women would lose access to birth control benefits after Republicans repeal President Barack Obamas health care reform law. The Wisconsin Republican promised during an interview on CNN that the repeal of Obamacare would lower the costs of health care by providing vouchers to poor Americans. CNN host Jake Tapper noted that many women were paying nothing for birth control thanks to an Affordable Care Act mandate. Is that going to end? he wondered. Look, Im not going to get into all the nitty-gritty details of these things, Ryan replied curly. The remainder of the article, however, was completely fabricated. For instance, Paul Ryan never said this: Im not a preacher, nor am I a holy man, but the fact to the matter is that Obamacare is bad for our economy, its bad for Americans, both poor ones and ones who arent, overall, its a bad program and a bad piece of legislation and thats why its gotta go, Ryan argued stubbornly, all the while ignoring the question. And if our biology allowed for a safe way to have intercourse, if we were meant to have intercourse completely naturally and not get pregnant because of it, then God would have included something about it in one of his Holy Books. Now, I havent found anything on the subject  and not for lack of looking, Jake  have you, perhaps?  Or this: Now, how would you feel, Jake, if someone were to take a huge chunk of your hard-earned money and use it to give something to someone youve never met? Ryan asked the host. And the worst part is  nobody asked Americans whether or not they agree to their taxes being raised to help people they dont know, that very fact goes against the essence of capitalism. Its not effective and its not efficient, which makes it the wrong solution from the start. Thats why it needs to be repealed. The other part of the reason why women shouldnt be allowed to use birth control at all is the fact that, in doing so, theyre committing murder and that goes against everything this country stands for. Ryan didn't say any of this during his CNN interview with Jake Tapper on 13 November 2016, or at any other time and place. USPOLN bills itself as a "hybrid" site that publishes a mixture of "satire" and real news, but unlike other hybrid sites such as Newslo, which allow users to click a button revealing which portions of articles are true and which are not, USPOLN provides readers with no mechanism for distinguishing between fact and fabrication. If they did, the introductory paragraph would have been highlighted as "true" while the remainder of the article would have been marked as "satire." hybrid Newslo The actual interview between Tapper and Ryan can be viewed below:  Edwards, David.  "Paul Ryan: Access to Birth Control for Women Is Nitty-Gritty Detail Not Worth Talking About."
  Raw Story.  16 November 2016. USPOLN.  "Paul Ryan: 'If There Was A Legitimate Way To Have Intercourse And Not Get Pregnant, God Would Have Included It In His Holy Books.'"
  3 March 2017. OK folks, we don't often get serious but this is important. Little Kyron Horman has been missing and his mother just put up this billboard in WA state.... please share everyone... please! This boy needs to be home with his Momma :(((  As noted on the web site of National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, Kyron Richard Horman, then seven years old, went missing from his Portland, Oregon, home back in June 2010: Kyron Richard Horman He was last seen at school on June 4, 2010. Kyron was last seen wearing a black t-shirt with "CSI" in green letters and a handprint graphic. He was also wearing black cargo pants, white socks, and black Sketchers sneakers with orange trim. Kyron may wear glasses. More than two years later, this missing child case was brought to widespread public attention in conjunction with legal maneuvering, in which a $10 million lawsuit was brough by Kyron's biological mother, Desiree Young, which sought to compel Kyron's stepmother, Terri Horman, to either return Kyron or provide information about what had happened to him: More than two-years after 6-year-old Oregon boy Kyron Horman disappeared, the boy's stepmother is asking a judge to delay hearing a civil suit that says she knows the child's location.  The lawsuit was filed against Terri Horman by Kyron's biological mother, Desiree Young, asking the judge to order the stepmother to return Kyron or, if he's dead, say where his remains are located. The lawsuit also seeks $10 million. Terri Horman says in a brief that a criminal investigation is under way, and the civil suit should be stayed two years while it plays out. Investigators have long focused on Terri Horman, although they have not named her as a suspect or filed criminal charges. The lawsuit accuses her of kidnapping Kyron, by herself or with help. The boy was reportedly last seen on the morning of June 4, 2010 at Skyline Elementary School in Portland, where his stepmother had taken him for a science fair. Five years on, Kyron's case was still being actively pursued by law enforcement, friends, and family: As the five-year anniversary of Kyron Horman's disappearance approaches, The Multnomah County Sheriff's Office wants the public to know the search is still active. Friends and family members said they plan to put together another search effort this summer. But Lt. Steve Alexander said the sheriff's office had to date received more than 4,000 tips in the case. And he said the investigation is definitely still active. "A full time sheriff's office detective is primarily assigned to the Kyron Horman missing child investigation, and efforts to locate Kyron," Alexander said. "Additionally, a now-retired FBI Agent with years of experience in the Child Abduction Rapid Deployment teams continues his involvement in this case, reviewing the evidence amassed by investigators." He said tips in the case come in from all over the world nearly every day. Kyron's stepmother Terri Horman, whom a judge described as a prime suspect in her stepson's disappearance, has twice tried to change her name, and in January 2016 she was reported to have moved out of Oregon to California: The stepmother of missing Portland boy Kyron Horman has moved out of Oregon. In October [2015], Terri Horman changed her Oregon driver's license to an address in Sacramento, California. In August 2014, Terri Horman tried to change her name to Claire Stella Sullivan.  During a court hearing, Horman said she wanted a new name to "start over a new life without the stigma of Horman attached to it."  A Douglas County judge denied that request. Four months later, Horman applied for another name change in Lane County.  She wanted to change her name to Claire Kisiel, but later withdrew the request In a 20 January 2016 interview with People magazine, Terri Horman asserted she had nothing to do with Kyron's disappearance: Terri has never been named a suspect or a person of interest in the case surrounding Kyron's disappearance, which officials for the Multnomah County Sheriff's Department say is an "ongoing investigation."  Still, a cloud of suspicion has followed Terri, and she's ready to answer questions that people have wanted to know. Terri [says] she did not harm or kill Kyron and has no idea what happened to him or where he is.  "The answer is what I've said a hundred times  I don't know." A Facebook group has been established to help disseminate information about Kyron and raise funds for ongoing search efforts. Facebook Leibowitz, Barry.  "Kyron Horman's Stepmom Wants Delay in Lawsuit."
  CBSNews.com  25 July 2012. Call it the Democrats midterm disease. The voters who come out in presidential elections and help them win the White House tend to stay home in the off-years. Last weeks loss in Florida showed clear symptoms of the partys affliction and whether Democrats can do much about it was batted about by the pundits on the Sunday talk shows. Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of the liberal magazineThe Nation, argued that Democrats should take advantage of what she called a populist moment. The majority support (raising) the minimum wage, vanden Heuvel said on ABCsThis Week. More fairness, taking on a rigged system that's working against working people. We wanted to review the polls to see where the electorate stands. As a matter of simple support, plenty of opinion surveys back up vanden Heuvels claim. The latest results from aBloomberg pollshow 69 percent of the public supports raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour over the next three years. ABC News and theWashington Postasked if a candidates support for raising the minimum wage would make you more likely to vote for him or her. Half of all voters said they would be more likely to vote for that candidate. Only about a fifth said they would be less likely; most of the remainder said it would make no difference in their decision. ACBS/New York Timespoll in February found 65 percent of the public favored raising the minimum wage to $10.10. So people largely support increasing the minimum wage, polls show. But polls also suggest that its not necessarily a high priority. A FebruaryGalluppoll found just 2 percent of respondents said wages were the most important issue facing the country. The gap between rich and poor, another Democratic theme, also came in at 2 percent. What voters cared most about in that survey, 23 percent of them, were jobs and cutting unemployment. Thats obviously connected to whether Americans have enough money to get by, but it isnt the same as supporting a raise in the minimum wage. AQuinnipiac Universitypoll in January had very similar results. In an open-ended question about the nations top priority for 2014, 1 percent of respondents mentioned the minimum wage, while 16 percent said jobs and unemployment, 15 percent said the economy in general, and 18 percent said health care. With jobs and the economy ranked so high, the latest findings fromABC News/Washington Postpolling show the public equally divided on which party they trust to handle the economy. About 40 percent give the nod to the Democrats and 40 percent to the Republicans. Our ruling Vanden Heuvel said most Americans support raising the minimum wage. The polls confirm it. About two-thirds of the public consistently say boosting the minimum wage to $10.10 is a good idea and as many as a half of all voters say they are more likely to vote for a candidate who backs that increase. But how much a candidates position on the minimum wage matters in the polling booth is much less clear. The minimum wage is not top of mind except for a small fraction of voters. Still, vanden Heuvel's specific claim is accurate. We rate the statement True. The recession and its aftereffects have been hard on millions of people across the country.But its been especially hard on women, according to state Assemblywoman Caroline Casagrande (R-Monmouth).Women have come through the recession worse off than men  the numbers bear that out, Casagrande said to My9TVs Brenda Blackmon on the April 29 New Jersey Now program. We went from a 7 percent unemployment rate for women when he (President Barack Obama) was elected to an 8.1 percent now.Casagrande is correct about most of her data, PolitiFact New Jersey found.Obama was elected in November 2008 and took office on Jan. 20, 2009. Anita Velardo, Casagrandes communications director, said in an e-mail that Casagrandes statistic referred to the period from January 2009 to March 2012. But since Casagrande said elected, well look at the unemployment rate for both periods.From November 2008 to March 2012, unemployment among women rose to 8.1 percent from 6.2 percent, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. For men, the rate climbed to 8.3 percent from 7.4 percent.From January 2009 to March 2012, unemployment for women rose from 7 percent to 8.1 percent. The rate for men, however, decreased from 8.6 percent to 8.3 percent. Thats because the male-dominated industries that lost jobs prior to January 2009 were starting to rebound.Now lets look at data for the recession, which the nonprofit National Bureau of Economic Research said occurred from December 2007 to June 2009.During the recession, unemployment among women spiked from 4.9 percent to 8.3 percent. For men, the rate more than doubled, from 5.1 percent to 10.6 percent.Mens unemployment was higher than women during the recession, but women have had a tougher time getting work and living day-to-day during the ongoing economic recovery, according to a September 2011 report, Women and Men Living on the Edge: Economic Insecurity After the Great Recession, prepared by the Institute For Womens Policy Research and funded by the Rockefeller Foundation.Economic and labor experts we talked with supported Casagrandes claim.Male-dominated fields such as construction and manufacturing often are hit first in recessions and tend to rebound first during an economic recovery, according to Elisabeth Jacobs, a Governance Studies fellow at the Brookings Institution; Gary Burtless, a senior fellow in Economic Studies at Brookings; and Harry Holzer, a professor of Public Policy at Georgetown University. Female-dominated fields such as education, public sector jobs and retail often are hit later and rebound slower, they said.In terms of lost jobs, men suffered worse than women and have seen a bigger drop in their employment rate, said Burtless, who contributed $750 to Obamas campaign in 2011 but also was an adviser on aspects of labor policy to the presidential campaign of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). In terms of the number of adults who are still looking for work, womens situation looks (proportionately) a bit worse than that of men.The recovery has progressed more slowly for women than for men, and the unemployment rate for women is indeed higher today than it was when President Obama was elected president, Jacobs said in an e-mail.But is Obama to blame?Our colleagues at PolitiFact.com addressed this issue in April after Mitt Romneys campaign claimed women were hit hard by job losses under Obama. Their report showed that women have had a more difficult jobs recovery than men, but Obama cannot bear all the blame, just as he couldnt take the credit if jobs were booming when he took office.Our rulingCasagrande said, women have come through the recession worse off than men  the numbers bear that out. We went from a 7 percent unemployment rate for women when he was elected to an 8.1 percent now. Labor statistics show and some experts told us that while men took the brunt of job loss during the recession, the industries they dominate  construction and manufacturing  tend to bounce back first during economic recovery. Women often are affected much later than men during a recession, meaning they are more likely to have a slower rate of gaining employment. Casagrandes timeframe is off slightly for the statistic she cited, and Obama cant be held completely responsible for the slow recovery among women. We rate Casagrandes statement Mostly True. To comment on this story, go toNJ.com. On Nov. 22, 2022, we received an email from a reader who spotted a survey scam on the Facebook page named "Groceries today" that promised a "$500 store credit" or "$500 Walmart credit" to users.  We were unable to find the origins of the picture of the Walmart employee and the carful of groceries, but it likely showed products provided in the past as part of a charity food drive. In other words, the person pictured in the post had nothing to do with the scam. Survey scams usually begin on social media with a big promise, then ask users who clicked on the posts to fill out a seemingly endless amount of online surveys with further promises of other prizes. This survey scam that promised a $500 store credit to Walmart asked for personal information and perhaps even financial data. We strongly recommend against believing in any offers that don't come from a company's official social media pages. As we've mentioned in the past, some survey scams often begin with a big promise of $750 delivered via PayPal or Cash App. Usually, the scammers who create the Facebook posts are hoping that users sign up for accounts on various websites that pop up during the survey scams, as they might land them small amounts of referral commission. At the same time, survey scams also have a chance of being quite dangerous,reported AARP.org: reported AARP.org Amid questions about the supposed subject, sham surveys solicit personal or financial information, such as a credit card number to pay a shipping fee for your prize  something a legit survey will not do. They might trick you into signing up for a"free trial" offerthat's actually a costly subscription for adietary supplementor other product. Clicking on the link might also launch malware that can scrape sensitive data from your device. Either way, the scammers get information they can use foridentity theftor sell on to other bad actors. Some major retailers, including Amazon and Walmart, do offer gift cards as prizes for customers who complete online surveys about their shopping experience, but those companies say they will never ask participants to provide sensitive data. We strongly advise all of our readers to never click any links in offers that seem too good to be true. Also, we recommend sharing this article with family members or friends who often shop at Walmart, as they might be more susceptible to falling for the scams. Note: Walmart does give away gift cards in an official and recurring promotion, but they don't use Facebook to do it. does give away gift cards in an official and recurring promotion "Beware of Survey Scams That Require Personal Information."AARP, 1 Sept. 2021, https://www.aarp.org/money/scams-fraud/info-2021/survey.html. "Groceries Today." Facebook, https://www.facebook.com/Groceries-today-107660332152080/. Liles, Jordan. "Was Walmart Giving Away $1,000 Gift Cards by Email?" Snopes, 7 Mar. 2022, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/walmart-1000-gift-cards/. Former Texas state Rep. Paul Sadler answered adebatequestion June 26, 2012, with a call to stop expanding government programs until the federal debt is under control.Squaring off in Dallas with retired teacher Grady Yarbrough, his opponent in the July 31, 2012, runoff for the Democratic U.S. Senate nomination, Sadler said, Until we get our financial house in order, we cannot continue to spend money. We just cant.The U.S. has never seen national debt like this, Sadler said. It doubled during the Bush administration.We decided to see if Sadlers claim about debt under President George W. Bush holds up.Sadler sent us an email with several presidents names linked to numbers, such as Bill Clinton 1.4, and told us the numbers sources were the U.S. Treasury, Financial Management Service, Bureau of the Public Debt, Federal Reserve Bank of New York and Office of Management and Budget.The same figures and sources, listed in the same order, appear on a July 28, 2011,New York Timeschartillustrating how much of the federal debt accumulated under each president since 1981.According to the chart, the Bush administration began with a $5.8 trillion gross federal debt, which grew by $6.1 trillion to reach $11.9 trillion --  an increase of 105 percent, or slightly more than double. TheTimesascribed the increase in debt to tax cuts, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, (the) economic downturn in 2001 and recession starting in 2007.Following a suggestion from Treasury spokesman Matthew Anderson, we found that plugging the fiscal years of Bushs presidency -- October 2001 through September 2009 -- into theTreasurys online calculatorgives debt figures that tally with theTimesgraphic. While that period begins nearly nine months into Bushs presidency, it also aligns with the years over which he held budgetary sway.Gross federal debt, though, is only one measure of how much the government owes. Because Sadlers numbers match theTimeschart, we started with that statistic, which includes money the federal government owes itself, including for programs such as Social Security and Medicare, in addition to public debt.Public debt itself is another commonly used measure. Debt held by the public is money borrowed from investors outside the federal government, in the form of Treasury notes and other securities.Which to use? We consulted Oregon State University political scientist Robert Sahr, who studies U.S. debt, policy, presidents and inflation.Sahr suggested we use public debt, and emailed us part of atextbooks explanation of why net public debt, rather than gross debt, is seen as a better measure of how much government is borrowing: We returned to the Treasury calculator and found that during Bushs fiscal years, public debt rose from $3.3 trillion to $7.6 trillion -- up 130 percent, clearly more than double.Also, we asked Sahr whether he agreed that debt doubled under Bush.Adjusted for inflation, he said, public debt did not double, though it came close.Sahr produced aspreadsheetfor us withfiscal year-end debt numbersfrom the federal Office of Management and Budget. Among the results: As with the Treasury calculator, 2001-2009 public debt in non-inflation-adjusted dollars went up 130 percent. Adjusted for inflation (to 2011 dollars), though, the increase was 88 percent.Returning to gross federal debt, which was Sadlers basis: Sahrs spreadsheet showed the same 105-percent increase in non-inflation-adjusted dollars as theNew York Timeschart. In 2011 dollars, though, the increase was 70 percent.Some news analyses have compared changes in debt using inauguration dates. We checked those with the Treasury calculator, finding that from Bushs first inauguration, January 20, 2001, to the day President Barack Obama took office, January 20, 2009, gross federal debt in non-inflation-adjusted dollars rose from $5.7 trillion to $10.6 trillion, up 86 percent. The calculator didnt have an amount for public debt January 20, 2001, but says the non-adjusted figure was $6.3 trillion January 20, 2009.When we checked back in with Sadler, he objected to adjusting the debt changes for inflation, saying by email: I seriously doubt any holder of the debt or your bank would allow you to adjust your debt for inflation. The amount owed is the amount owed - you don't get to adjust it for inflation.Sahr said later: Sure, youre paying in current dollars. But if youre looking at the change in debt over eight years, part of the change is the change in the value of the dollar over those years.A final note: Such accounting and tallies can be read as blaming Bush alone for the increases. As PolitiFact has noted numerous times, such assumptions are overly sweeping. Many factors are at play, including Congress, which votes on many spending decisions affecting the debt.Our rulingWe see how Sadler reached his conclusion. In raw terms, both the public debt and gross federal debt more than doubled during the fiscal years corresponding to Bushs presidency. However, adjusting for inflation, gross debt increased 70 percent over those years, while public debt increased 88 percent. Thats not quite doubling.We rate Sadlers claim Mostly True. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has been the subject of a number of false rumors and misleading memes ever since she won a seat as the youngest woman ever elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 2018. One of many disparaging attacks on the freshman lawmaker came in the form of a photograph that supposedly showed her working at a "Hot Dog on a Stick" stand (a staple of shopping mall food services) and a piece of text claiming that she had been fired from that job for incompetence:   The text of the meme stated that "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was fired from a Hot Dog on a Stick job in 2008 for incompetence. And the Democrats elected her to Congress."    This meme did not relay a credible story about Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez. In fact, it didn't even feature a photograph of her. This picture used in the meme was taken by Flickr user Michael Zampeli and showed a young woman named Stephanie preparing a batch of lemonade at a Hot Dog on a Stick outlet. While the image used in the meme has been degraded to the point where the name tag on the food worker's hat is illegible, the original photograph on Flickr clearly showed that the tag bore the name "Stephanie": Flickr   It should also be noted that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was elected to Congress at the age of 29. If this meme were true (which it is not), the alleged firing would have occurred when she was just 18 years-old. This baseless meme is just the latest attack on the congresswoman. We've previously debunked rumors holding that Ocasio-Cortez had a credit score of 430 and a history of evictions, and that her Green New Deal legislation included a provision requiring that men recycle their  urine. attack credit score urine Hess, Abigail.  "29-Year-Old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Is Poised to Become the Youngest Woman in Congress."
  NBC News.  6 November 2018.  Zampelli, Michael.  "Hot Dog on a Stick."
  Flickr.  16 February 2008. Vice President Joe Biden loves campaigning in Ohio. He did so 15 times during the 2010 Midterm elections for various state and federal candidates. But Democrats still suffered a shellacking, he joked during an April 19 campaign fundraiser in Cleveland for U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown, who faces re-election next year.Citing positive economic news, Biden insisted, however, that the political debate about his administrations policies now favors Democrats.A lot of things we took a shellacking for, the American public has had an opportunity to take a good look at now, he said.Biden noted the improving unemployment rate. And he added this comparison: We have created more jobs in this last year than the Bush administration (did) in eight years. We are in a position where we are moving to toward creating an average of 220,000 jobs a month. Not enough, but we are moving.PolitiFact Ohio likes comparisons and decided to examine this one because its emerging as a key Democratic talking point. When checking out job figures, PolitiFact turns to The Bureau of Labor Statistics, the official score keeper of U.S. employment numbers.The BLS numbers are based on monthly surveys of employers. It updates the monthly figure as employers complete their surveys and it incorporates into the monthly figure a more complete quarterly census of employment and wages.First, we can quickly dispense with the Bidens lead-in: That the unemployment rate is improving.In March, the national unemployment rate dropped for the fourth consecutive month. At 8.8 percent, the rate is down from a recession peak of 10.1 in Oct. 2009, according to the BLS.Also, we can dispense with the last part: We are moving to toward creating an average of 220,000 jobs a month. Not enough, but we are moving. Since its not really a statement of fact and includes a prediction, well leave that to be examined down the road.But how about the Obama vs. Bush job comparison?The number of jobs as of February 2001, the first full month of Bushs presidency, was 132.53 million. The number of jobs as of January 2009, the month he left office, was 133.56 million. Thats a net gain 1.03 million jobs.To checkout Bidens claim, we looked back 12 months, from March 2010 to March of 2011. (Though Biden made remarks this month, April figures have not yet been tallied. )The number of jobs in March 2010 was 129.43 million. The number of jobs in March 2011 is 130.73 million. The net gain during the last year is 1.3 million jobs.That means 270,000 more jobs were created in the last 12 months than the net total of jobs at the end of Bushs two terms.A familiar detour, or caveat, is in order. Typically, the most recent BLS monthly job figures are preliminary and will change as surveys are completed and figures are updated. That means the 270,000 edge for the Obama administration could increase -- or disappear.Politifact also frequently points that when framing job figures, slicing and timing make all the difference.Republicans, for instance, like to frame the jobs story this way: The U.S. has lost a total of 2.09 million jobs since Obamas first full-month in office in February 2009. Thats true. Of course, looking at this way shortchanges the impact of the deep recession Obama inherited and the recent economic growth.Likewise, Democrats shortchange Bush when they ignore that the U.S. created more than 5.6 million jobs through January 2008, when the recession began to take hold.The bottom line is that the recession, which officially began in Dec. 2007, hurt the job record of both presidents.So where does that leave Bidens statement?Hes correct about the declining unemployment rate. Hes also accurate about the gains made in the last year. The figure also falls within the context that the recovery has been slow and painful but the job picture is improving of late, albeit slowly.Understanding how he slices job numbers in his comparison is a point that provides clarification. On the Truth-O-Meter, we rate Bidens statement as Mostly True. Does the nations economy do better when a Republican or Democrat is in the Oval Office? In her recent campaign stop in Sacramento, Hillary Clinton declared Democrats have the magic touch. It is a fact that the economy does better when we have a Democrat in the White House, Clinton said on June 5, 2016,speaking at Sacramento City Collegeduring her final push in theCalifornia primary. Its similar to a statement the likely Democratic presidential nominee made on March 21, 2016 in Phoenix, when she said: The economy always does better when theres a Democrat in the White House. PolitiFact Arizona checked out that claim andrated it Half True. Heres what they reported: The Clinton family love these comparisons, by the way. In 2015, PolitiFact ruled Mostly True claims from Hillary Clinton a claim that, Under Republicans, recessions happen four times as frequently as under Democrats, and another that, The stock market does better when you have a Democratic president in the White House. At the 2012 Democratic National Convention, former President Bill Clinton had this statement rated True:Since 1961  our private economy has produced 66 million private-sector jobs. So what's the jobs score? Republicans 24 million, Democrats 42 (million). The score, however, isnt as good for this particular Clinton claim. Hillary Clinton speaks at a rally, Monday, June 6, 2016, in Lynwood, Calif. Other factors involved Clintons Arizona spokesman, Tim Hogan, pointed us to aJuly 2014 studyon the topic from Princeton University economists Alan Blinder and Mark Watson. The study concludes that Democratic presidents do have more Gross Domestic Product growth than Republicans, according to quarterly GDP data dating back to 1947, when the data was first tracked. However, the economists point out that there are other factors, such as better oil prices and international conditions, that could be driving these better numbers for Democratic presidents. In short, Democrats occupying the Oval Office tend to have a little better luck. Experts we spoke with largely held the same views. Harvard University government professor Jeffrey Frankel said the statistics, from GDP to the unemployment rate, are striking, but noted that the president does not have all that control. That doesnt prove what the cause is, Frankel said. Christian Weller, a public policy professor at the University of Massachusetts Boston, did his own math on the GDP data since 1947. He found that the economy, through the last quarter of 2015 and after inflation, grew 3.8 percent under Democrats and 2.4 percent under Republicans. For President Barack Obama, the growth rate in his first term was 1.8 percent. His current growth rate is 2 percent, but thats still higher than his predecessor, George W. Bush. And his second term hasnt ended yet. Based on estimates, Weller said Obama should hit the 2.4 percent Republican average. Still, Ronald Reagans 3.4 percent growth rate is well ahead of the economy right now under Obama. Other than Obama, every Democrat had a faster growth rate, even (Jimmy) Carter had a slightly higher growth rate than Reagan, Weller said. This is one of the safest talking points for a Democratic contender. However, the asterisks bother Arizona State University presidential historian Brooks Simpson. Secretary Clinton is not exactly telling the whole truth, Simpson said. Simpson referenced Bill Clintons administration, noting that he benefited from some of the economic policies of his predecessor, Republican George H.W. Bush. A 2011 report from the right-leaning Heritage Foundation notes that the economy was already in its 22nd month of expansion when Bill Clinton took office in January 1993. We asked the Clinton campaign for a response. A spokesman pointed PolitiFact California to previous fact checks on the topic, includingPolitiFact Arizonas. The spokesman also pointed to ablog by the Washington Postthat says Clinton was right on the numbers but questions whether Democrats were responsible for the better economic times or just got lucky. Our ruling Hillary Clinton said in Sacramento, It is a fact that the economy does better when we have a Democrat in the White House. Its similar to her March statement in Phoenix that The economy always does better when theres a Democrat in the White House. Yes, Democratic presidents do have more Gross Domestic Product growth than Republicans, according to quarterly GDP data dating back to 1947. But Clinton's comments require several caveats. The current growth in the economy under Obama is lower than the Republican average. Factors such as oil prices also reflect the higher GDP growth under Democratic presidents. On top of that, comparing one period of time to another or one president to another can be problematic. We agree with PolitiFact Arizonas findings and rate Clinton's claim in Sacramento Half True. HALF TRUE The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/ee86664c-a54d-466d-97d0-e5b488faf87e Claim:  John McCain said he would define the income level that divides the middle class from the rich as $5 million. Status:  True. Example:   [Collected via e-mail, September 2008] I have heard many times that John McCain said (paraphrasing his comment, I'm sure) that the middle class includes people who make under $5 million. I am trying to find that IN PRINT to forward to relatives who say it is untrue. Origins:  On 16 August 2008, presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain made back-to-back appearances at the Presidential Candidates Forum held at the Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California, where they responded to questions posed to them by Pastor Rick Warren.  During that forum, Pastor Warren asked both candidates to define "rich" for the purposes of taxation (although, since the candidates appeared separately, the question was not posed to both of them with the same wording). Presidential Candidates Forum To Democratic candidate Barack Obama, Pastor Warren said: "OK. Taxes, this is a real simple question. Define rich. I mean give me a number, Is it $50,000, $100,000, 200,000? Everybody keeps talking about who we're going to tax. How can you define that?"  Senator Obama didn't quite answer the question directly, saying that an income level of less than $150,000 per year was middle class and that his tax plan would call for a "modest increase" in taxes for those making more than $250,000 per year: Look, the  here's how I think about it. Here's how I think about it. And this is reflected in my tax plan. If you are making $150,000 a year or less, as a family, then you're middle class or you may be poor. But $150,000 down you're basically middle class, obviously depends on the region where you're living. I would argue that if you're making more than $250,000, then you're in the top three percent, four percent of this country. You're doing well. Now, these things are all relative. And I'm not suggesting that everybody is making over $250,000 is living on easy street. But the question that I think we have to ask ourselves is, if we believe in good schools, if we believe in good roles, if we want to make sure that kids can go to college, if we don't want to leave a mountain of debt for the next generation. Then we've got to pay for these things, they don't come for free, and it is irresponsible. I believe it is irresponsible intergenerationally for us to invest or for us to spend $10 billion a month on a war and not have a way of paying for it. That, I think, is unacceptable. So nobody likes to pay taxes. I haven't sold 25 million books but I've been selling some books lately, and so I write a pretty big check to Uncle Sam. Nobody likes it. What I can say is under the approach I'm taking, if you make $150,000 or less, you will see a tax cut. If you're making $250,000 a year or more, you're going to see a modest increase. What I'm trying to do is create a sense of balance, and fairness in our tax code. One thing I think we can all agree on, is that it should be simpler so that you don't have all these loopholes and big stacks of stuff that you've got to comb through, which wastes a huge amount of money and allows special interests to take advantage of things that ordinary people cannot take advantage of. To Republic candidate John McCain, Pastor Warren said: "Ok, on taxes, define 'rich.' Everybody talks about taxing the rich, but not the poor, the middle class. At what point  give me a number, give me a specific number  where do you move from middle class to rich? Is it $100,000, is it $50,000, is it $200,000? How does anybody know if we don't know what the standards are?"  Senator McCain responded by stating that he didn't think "rich" should be solely defined by income level and that the question was moot because he wanted cut spending rather than increase taxes on the rich; along the way he mentioned an income level of $5 million (immediately noting that "I'm sure that comment will be distorted"): Some of the richest people I've ever known in my life are the most unhappy. I think that rich should be defined by a home, a good job, an education and the ability to hand to our children a more prosperous and safer world than the one that we inherited. I don't want to take any money from the rich  I want everybody to get rich. I don't believe in class warfare or re-distribution of the wealth. But I can tell you, for example, there are small businessmen and women who are working 16 hours a day, seven days a week that some people would classify as  quote  "rich," my friends, and want to raise their taxes and want to raise their payroll taxes. Let's have  keep taxes low. Let's give every family in America a $7,000 tax credit for every child they have. Let's give them a $5,000 refundable tax credit to go out and get the health insurance of their choice. Let's not have the government take over the health care system in America. So, I think if you are just talking about income, how about $5 million? But seriously, I don't think you can  I don't think seriously that  the point is that I'm trying to make here, seriously  and I'm sure that comment will be distorted  but the point is that we want to keep people's taxes low and increase revenues. And, my friend, it was not taxes that mattered in America in the last several years. It was spending. Spending got completely out of control. We spent money in way that mortgaged our kids' futures. Although this item is "true" in the strictly literal sense that John McCain did make the remark attributed to him, how much importance to place upon it is a subjective issue. Predictably, Democrats painted Senator McCain's remarks as indicative of his being out of touch with ordinary Americans and desirous of giving tax breaks to the rich, while the McCain campaign dismissed the candidate's statement as an obvious joke. (A Democratic National Committee video spotlighted Senator McCain's "$5 million" statement while omitting the remarks that surrounded it; the full exchange in context can be viewed here.)  Meanwhile, economists asked to comment on the issue observed that the definition of "rich" is a murky one, and that the dividing line between "poor" and "middle class" (rather than between "middle class" and "rich") is probably the more significant one: video here Economists said in interviews that neither candidate was wrong because there are no agreed-upon definitions for the terms that describe income segments. "To be fair to both of them, 'rich' is an adjective," said James P. Smith, a senior economist at the Rand Corp., a nonpartisan think thank in Santa Monica. "Economic science is not going to tell you that 'this' is the cutoff point." Yet the $5-million level, Smith said, includes "almost nobody." Experts said that of all the households in the nation, fewer than one-tenth of 1% had an annual  income of $5 million or more. Ken Goldstein, an economist for the Conference Board, a business-research group based in New York, said he would define rich as income about $500,000 or more. "If you set the bar at half a million, you're talking about the top 1% of taxpayers. If you think about the last eight years, those are the folks who have benefited the most." Other economists said they would have gone with a lower figure. Even the moderator who asked the question of the candidates, Pastor Rick Warren of Orange County's Saddleback Church, did not seem to anticipate a reply beyond the lower six figures, urging each man to "give me a specific number ... is it 100,000 [dollars], is it 50, 200?" Most ordinary Americans tend to massage the definitions of such terms in an attempt to crowd themselves into what many consider the least offensive category. "If you do surveys, 95% of people think they are middle class," said Len Burman, director of the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan group that has analyzed the candidates' tax proposals. "This is including people who are objectively quite poor and people who are objectively quite rich." Burman added: "I guess it says something nice about America that rich people don't want to act like they're better than anybody else and poor people don't like complaining about how tough it is to pay their bills." Economists tend to spend more time debating the definition of poor, in large part because that cutoff has consequences for an array of social programs designed to assist those whose incomes fall below the poverty line. Last updated:  13 September 2008    Sources:   Miller, Greg.  "Who's Rich? McCain and Obama Have Very different Definitions."   Los Angeles Times.  18 August 2008.    Montopoli, Brian.  "DNC Looks to Exploit McCain's '$5 Million' Comment."   CBSNews.com.  19 August 2008.    Reuters.  "Obama Rips McCain for $5 Million 'Rich' Definition."   18 August 2008.