Is the Trump campaign automatically selecting a "Recurring Donation" option that will expire in December?
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 On Oct. 31 2020, The New York Times reported that the Trump Campaign's fundraising landing page was "now automatically checking a box to create recurring weekly donations from supporters until mid-December." This is true, though the "automatically checked box" development is fairly old news. The Trump Campaign's primary fundraising platform  WinRed  changed the landing page to automatically check the monthly recurring donation option in March 2020. The shift to soliciting for weekly donations occurred in mid-September 2020, with that option also appearing as pre-checked. reported changed March 2020 shift September 2020 The more recent development is the change in when those weekly contributions would stop. Earlier solicitations committed people to donations that would stop automatically recurring on Election Day, Nov. 3 2020. In late October, the text was changed to read "make this a recurring donation until 12/14." It bears mentioning that well before any returns came in on Nov. 3, the campaign encouraged donations as a way to "keep fighting after election day" because "there will be voter fraud like you've never seen." late October Speaking to the Times, Trump campaign spokesperson Tim Murtaugh said that no one would receive a recurring charge without their knowledge and donors could opt out at any time. He argued that funds were needed because "this race will be very close, and it is possible that multiple states will require recounts and potential additional spending from our campaign.  Speaking From a factual standpoint, there is no guarantee that the money goes to fight election-related lawsuits. Some of the money goes to resolving Trump Campaign debt, much of the rest goes to the Republican National Committees' general operating account. Because the Trump Campaign is indeed accepting recurring donations until Dec. 12, and because that option is auto-checked on the campaign's primary fundraising platform, we rank this claim  the money
On Nov. 11, 2020, Bloomberg reported that strategists at Deutsche Bank, one of the largest financial institutions in the world, recommended levying a tax against people who plan to continue working from home, arguing that "remote workers should pay a tax for the privilege. At least on Twitter, this was a poorly received take. One particularly viral response alleged that the bank "funded Auschwitz, Donald Trump, Jeffrey Epstein and ISIS." reported response     As we show below, the tweet is a largely accurate recounting of history, though the assertion that the bank funded ISIS overstates what is publicly known at this time. In 1999, during negotiations to merge with the New York-based Bankers Trust, the Germany-based Deutsche Bank disclosed that it had helped finance the construction of the Nazi death camp Auschwitz. As reported by Reuters at the time, Deutsche Bank's historian, Manfred Pohl, described the bank's loans to companies involved in multiple aspects of Auschwitz, including loans for construction of the camp and its incineration units, as well as to a company involved in the production of the deadly Zyklon-B gas, which the Nazis used to murder millions: reported Manfred Pohl, head of Deutsche Banks historical institute, said newly uncovered documents showed the bank had links with firms that built the camp in Poland. It also had credit links to one company that made incineration units and funded another whose subsidiary made the Zyklon-B gas used in the camp. On examination of credit records, we determined that branches . . . had credit links to local companies which were active at the construction site . . . in Auschwitz, Pohl said at a media briefing in Frankfurt. Pohl told reporters that the existence of these loans would have been known to high-ranking managers of the bank. "It is clear that this was known as high up at the main office in Katowice. It is not certain whether it was known in Berlin," Pohl said, though he added these loans would have had to be approved in Berlin to go ahead. Deutsche Bank has had a relationship with U.S. President Donald Trump since 1998. As reported in The New York Times, "Over the course of two decades, the bank lent him more than $2 billion  so much that by the time he was elected, Deutsche Bank was by far his biggest creditor." Speaking to Reuters in November 2020, one bank official said that the Trump Organization currently has around $340 million in outstanding debt from the bank: reported Reuters Deutsche Bank has about $340 million in loans outstanding to the Trump Organization, the presidents umbrella group that is currently overseen by his two sons, according to filings made by Trump to the U.S. Office of Government Ethics in July and a senior source within the bank. The three loans, which are against Trump properties and start coming due in two years, are current on payments and personally guaranteed by the president, according to two bank officials. According to that Reuters report, the bank is looking to distance itself from the president moving forward. Their relationship with Trump "cemented Deutsche Banks reputation as a reckless institution willing to do business with clients nobody else would touch," they wrote. "It has made the company a magnet for prosecutors, regulators and lawmakers hoping to penetrate the presidents opaque financial affairs." Regardless, Trump's history with Deutsche Bank is factual and well known. Reuters According to a 2019 report by the New York State Department of Financial Services, "the relationship between Deutsche Bank and Mr. Epstein officially began on August 19, 2013" and eventually involved his opening and funding "more than 40 accounts at the Bank." 2019 report Controversially, they entered into business with Epstein after his 2008 arrest for the solicitation of a minor and after other media revelations about Epstein's alleged trafficking of underage women for sex. Some of these Deutsche Bank accounts were involved in suspicious transactions including, according to The New York Times, "suspiciously large cash withdrawals and 120 wire transfers totaling $2.65 million to women with Eastern European surnames and people who had been publicly identified as Mr. Epsteins co-conspirators." according In July 2020, Deutsche Bank agreed to pay $150 million to the New York State Department of Financial Services "to settle allegations that it maintained weak internal controls, including processing hundreds of transactions for Jeffrey Epstein despite the billionaires troubled history." The bank has since apologized for its association with Epstein. apologized In the banking world, Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) are notifications made by financial institutions to the United States government about potentially suspicious or illegal activity. A transaction labeled suspicious in these reports does not necessarily indicate illegal activity, however. SARs issued about transactions involving Deutsche Bank have been used to link them to ISIS in multiple investigations. made In December 2017, BuzzFeed News reported on SARs showing that Deutsche Bank had been engaged in business with a corrupt Cyprus bank named FBME that "served as a major conduit to terrorism, organized crime, and chemical weapons." The SARs revealed that "Deutsche processed hundreds of millions of dollars of suspicious transactions for FBME clients  including a Kremlin-linked network of Russian slush funds funneling money to financiers of the Syrian regime and a businessman trading oil with ISIS." The reports do not indicate, however, that Deutsche Bank knowingly participated in illegal activity. reported In September 2020, the existence of an even larger trove of SARs obtained by BuzzFeed News and shared with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) was announced. The collaboration  a project named the FinCEN files  led to hundreds of stories in newsrooms across the world. One story, published by Arab Reporters for Investigative Journalism (ARIJ), identified further transactions that could point to a potential involvement of Deutsche Bank in the movement of funds to, from, and within ISIS held territory. FinCEN files story The files, ARIJ said, "reveal suspicious money transfers of at least $4 billion flagged by Deutsche Banks US branches and Bank of America to a number of Iraqi banks between June 15, 2014 and June 30, 2015." Though the files do not indicate which bank branches were used, they reported, "the transactions were sent and received during the height of the Islamic States reign and its control over several Iraqi bank branches." The report notes that "many of the banks in northern Iraq were in areas of IS [Islamic State] influence, and such transfers could be the proceeds of the illicit oil and gas trade that the organisation largely relied on in its areas of control." said While suggestive of an at least unwitting role for Deutsche Bank in ISIS related finances, these reports are not strong enough evidence to support the statement that Deutsche Bank "funds" ISIS. Because there is some truth to the ISIS claim, and because the other assertions are true, we rank the overall claim made in the viral tweet as "true." 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 On Sept. 27, 2020, The New York Times published a report after obtaining several years of U.S. President Donald Trump's tax returns. published a report As news broke that Trump had paid just $750 in federal income tax in 2016 and 2017  no federal income taxes in 10 of the past 15 years  in addition to the fact that he took an approximate $70,000 deduction for hairstyling during "The Apprentice," and that he has more than $300 million worth of loans coming due, a rumor started to circulate on social media that White House senior adviser Jared Kushner had quietly deleted all of his tweets from his Twitter account: no federal income taxes   This rumor is false. Kushner didn't delete all of his tweets following the NYT article about Trump's taxes.  The above-displayed tweet contains a genuine screenshot of the @JaredKushner Twitter account. This account has been online since 2009, but it has been used sparingly by its owner. Archived pages show that this account posted three messages back in March 2011  none of which was related to taxes  but was then inactive for at least three years. The few messages that were posted to this account were deleted sometime between 2014 and 2016, and no new messages have been posted since then.  JaredKushner March 2011 at least three years In other words, Kushner didn't wipe his Twitter account clean on the evening of Sept. 27 after the NYT published a story about his father-in-law's taxes. This account rarely posts tweets, and the three tweets that were shared to the account in 2011 (again, none of which were related to taxes) were deleted years ago.  This isn't the first time that someone has stumbled across Kushner's Twitter account in the aftermath of a controversy, noticed that it was barren, and then incorrectly assumed that Kushner had recently scrubbed it clean. In October 2017, shortly after Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III revealed charges against former Trump presidential campaign chair Paul Manafort and two other campaign officials, social media users noted then that Kushner's Twitter account was suspiciously void of content, and falsely claimed that he had recently deleted all of his tweets. falsely claimed A few months later, when it was reported that Mueller may have interviewed Kushner in the course of his investigation into Russia's meddling in the 2016 presidential election, this false rumor again was circulated on social media:  reported   The @JaredKushner account has been devoid of content since at least 2016. Claims that he recently deleted his tweets in the wake of breaking news stories are false.  Apuzzo, Matt.  "Muellers Prosecutors Are Said to Have Interviewed Jared Kushner on Russia Meeting."
  The New York Times.  29 November 2017. Buettner, Russ; Craig, Susanne; McIntire, Mike.  "Long-Concealed Records Show Trump's Chronic Losses and Years of Tax Avoidance."
  The New York Times.  27 September 2020. Virginia Democrats believe they have found evidence showing states that expand their Medicaid rolls are better off than those that reject expansion. Sen. George Barker, D-Fairfax,toldthose gathered for an expansion rally in Woodbridge that hospitals in Medicaid expansion states have fewer patients who cant pay. Those states who have adopted Medicaid expansion, and half of the states have -- what they have seen just in the first few months of this calendar year, 2014  is a reduction in uncompensated care, he said. That means people who show up at the hospital, show up at the emergency department, are uninsured and cant pay anything  charity care thats provided by the hospital  thats gone down by 30 percent just in the first few months. This seems to be an important point for their case, so we wondered about the origin of the figure. First, lets remember how we got here. The Affordable Care Act -- also known as Obamacare -- gives states the option of expanding Medicaid eligibility. Uncle Sam will pick up the entire tab for new enrollees during the next two years, that slowly declines to 90 percent with states picking up the remaining cost.Virginia has estimated that as many as 400,000 state residents could join Medicaids rolls. The Republican-controlled House of Delegates refused to broaden the program, saying the federal government cant be trusted to pay its promised share. That led to a months-long stalemate between the House and the Democratic-controlled Senate on the states two-year budget. Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a Democrat, who earned aPromise Brokenby signing a budget that did not include expansion, is exploring whether he can broaden the program without the consent of the legislature. Uncompensated care is a key reason Virginia hospitals have pleaded with legislators to expand Medicaid. Across the country, uncompensated care totaled $45.9 billion in 2012, the most recent year for which data was available, according to the American Hospital Association. It was 6.1 percent of hospitals expenses that year. When we asked Barker about his claim, he sent us a link toan articlefrom Governing magazine. The article citesa studyfrom the Colorado Hospital Association that looked at 30 states, 15 with Medicaid expansion and 15 without. In the states with expansion, hospitals had charity care decreases from an average of $2.8 million per hospital in the first quarter of 2013 to $1.9 million per hospital in the first quarter of 2014, a 32 percent drop. And out-of-pocket charges decreased from 4.7 percent of all charges to 3.1 percent of all charges -- a 34 percent drop. Meanwhile, Medicaid charges surged from 15.3 percent to 18.8 percent, a 19 percent jump. While the survey covered a short period of time, the difference between hospitals in states with Medicaid expansion and those without was stark. States that balked at Medicaid expansion saw little change in their uncompensated care levels, the study found. Governing also linked to Arkansas Democratic Gov. Mike Beebes May 31columnin which he stated 42 hospitals in the state reported an average of 30 percent decline in uncompensated care. For emergency room visits, the hospitals had an average of 24 percent drop in uncompensated care. Beebe said the survey was not comprehensive for every acute-care center in the state, but its a good snapshot of early progress. Tenet Health, a publicly traded company with 80 hospitals in 14 states,reportedthat its hospitals in four states that expanded Medicaid saw a 33 percent decline in uninsured and charity admissions in the first quarter this year. In the second quarter, which ended in June, the numbers improvedeven more. With hospitals in five states that expanded Medicaid, the company had a decline in uninsured and charity admissions of 54 percent. Meanwhile, Medicaid admissions increased 23 percent. We also found an Arizona Daily Stararticlereporting on a survey of hospitals in the state done by the Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Association. In the first four months of 2014, the associations hospitalsreporteda 31 percent drop in uncompensated care expenses compared to the same period in 2013. So this seems to be a broader trend. This is how the law was intended to work, said Gayle Nelson, director of hospital community benefit program at The Hilltop Institute, part of University of Maryland, Baltimore County. This was all part and parcel of the same anticipation that this would happen, she said. The need for uncompensated care would reduce and the funds needed to address uncompensated care would also be reduced  This is good news. Of course, in those states where uncompensated care is reduced, that presumably leaves some resources freed up to be used in other ways. The Governing article said the trend was positive, but hospitals are hoping its enough to offset cuts called for in the Affordable Care Act. The biggest piece of this will be $39 billion in cuts to the Disproportionate Share Hospital program, which helps hospitals that serve the poor. In Virginia, this primarily means the University of Virginia and Virginia Commonwealth University hospitals. Our ruling Barker said hospitals in states with Medicaid expansion have already benefited from a 30 percent drop in uncompensated care. The evidence is based on the first three months after Medicaid expansion took effect and from a few sources. Its early, but he accurately reported the results. The statement is True. Claim:  Chase Bank does not allow cash deposits made by non-account holders.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, July 2008] Chase bank this morning would not accept cash deposit, when the person depositing the cash was not the account holder.  I was told that "banking laws prohibit someone who is not the account holder from depositing cash to an account." (This actually happened to me!) Origins:  In January 2014, JPMorgan Chase & Co., the largest bank in the U.S., announced that in order to head off potential money laundering issues, it would be implementing a policy that requires customers making cash deposits to show identification and that prohibits customers from depositing cash into personal accounts on which they are not listed as account holders: announced  The policy applies only to cash deposits (not negotiables such as checks or money orders) and only to deposits made into consumer and business accounts (not investment, Treasury and commercial accounts). The restrictions, for example, limit the ability of parents to deposit cash into the accounts of their children who might be away from home (e.g., at college or on vacation) if the parents are not listed as joint account holders, but Chase customers can add authorized signers to their accounts to work around this limitation. According to a Chase spokesperson, the policy change was related to efforts to bolster the bank's anti-money laundering efforts: "It's an excellent idea. I guarantee other banks will follow suit very shortly  if they're smart," said Annemarie McAvoy, a former federal prosecutor who now teaches anti-money laundering and counterterrorism at Fordham Law School. "The hard thing with cash is you can't tell where it's coming from once it goes into an account," said McAvoy. "I think Chase is trying very hard to be ahead of the curve. Part of it is they are under the microscope [due to a $2 billion settlement over criminal charges related to the Madoff scandal], but I think they are really trying to do the right thing." settlement It is not accurate to say that this limitation on cash deposits is "banking law," however.  Banks are required by law to report cash transactions exceeding $10,000, but they are not required to turn down cash deposits made by non-account holders  the latter restriction is purely a voluntary policy that Chase has chosen to implement on its own; other banks may or may not follow suit. Last updated:  20 September 2014 On Sept. 21, 2022, we reviewed a misleading Facebook post that claimed multiple users had won a brand new Ninja Foodi MAX 15-in-1 SmartLid Multi-Cooker. The post was made on a page named Blue Light Card, which showed the unrelated category of "Wine/spirits." All of this was nothing more than another scam that led to a seemingly endless number of surveys that promised other prizes.  The post originally read as follows: CONGRATULATIONS for those of you who have received comments from me have been selected as winners???Step 1 = Like and ShareStep 2 = Register here ? https://tinyurl.com/2ej2cd6uStep 3 = Coments "DONE" receive my prize. And the Gift will be sent after you successfully register (this is authentic and official) God bless you Good Luck. #bluelightcardcontest#entertowincontest_bluelightcard#entertowincontestbluelightcard The Facebook page that pushed this scam appeared to have been removed shortly before we published this story. Facebook The product was once featured in an official video from the company, Ninja Kitchen. It retails for around 299 pounds in the U.K., which would make it a pricey item to give out to multiple users for free. official video 299 pounds  In sum, we recommend avoiding any promotions, giveaways, or contests on Facebook that ask users to like, comment, and share. The only exception to this rule would be if the post came from a page that has a verified badge. A page that's verified presumably would mean that a promotion would be trustworthy. Other than that, we generally advise that readers avoid prize offers that seem too good to be true. verified badge Healthcare reform has been a perennial political project in American politics, from the presidencies of Franklin D. Roosevelt and those of Richard Nixon through Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and now Donald Trump. Both those for and against the concept of the United States' adopting a universal health care system often use comparisons between the U.S. and other countries to advocate for their positions, as exemplified by a 20 April 2018 post on the "U.S. Democratic Socialists" Facebook page featuring a widely-shared meme purportedly outlining the main features of the Japanese healthcare system: meme   We examine this meme point-by-point below: 1. 100 percent of Japanese have health insurance. This is basically true. Japan has universal health care, which means that everyone who lives there (except undocumented immigrants and short-term visitors) can access affordable care and is required by law to be covered by some form of insurance. For the most part, residents do this through two kinds of insurance, which are administered by the government: employment-based health insurance, and National Health Insurance (known as "Kokumin Kenko Hoken"). care Kokumin Kenko Hoken However, Japan's aging population, low birth rate, and economic stagnation have placed a burden on the country's universal health care system, so reforms to that system are under way. reforms 2. Costs are half of what is spent for healthcare in the United States. By the two most commonly-used metrics, this is about right. A country's health spending is most often measured in a couple of ways: the percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) spent on healthcare, and healthcare spending per capita (the total amount spent on health care divided by the number of people living in the country). According to 2016 data published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the United States spends 17.2 percent of its GDP on healthcare, by far the highest proportion among developed countries. Japan spends 10.9 percent of its GDP, about two-thirds the relative amount the United States does. data In 2016, total healthcare spending in the United States worked out to be $9,892 per person per year, again by far the highest level in the developed world. In Japan that figure was $4,519 per person, which is less than half than the United States spends. 3. Japanese can choose their own doctors and see them twice as often as Americans Japan has what is known as a "free access" system, which means  as the meme correctly states  that for the most part patients can use whichever doctors and hospitals they choose.  According to the Health and Global Policy Institute, patients should get a referral letter before presenting at larger hospitals. This is partly because the free access system can sometimes mean individuals with only minor ailments present at hospital emergency rooms, creating a backlog for patients in more urgent need of care.  referral letter backlog Japanese people visit doctors even more than twice as often Americans do, at least according to OECD data. Figures from 2011 (the most recent year for which a direct comparison is possible) show that United States residents averaged four doctors' consultations per person that year in the United States, while in Japan the figure was more than three times higher, at 13 doctors' consultations per person that year. (In 2014, that figure was 12.7 doctors' visits per person per year in Japan.) Figures 4. Japanese have the world's longest life expectancy and the second lowest infant mortality.  This is true. According to United Nations data, a Japanese person born in 2014 could expect to live, on average, until the age of 83.6, the highest life expectancy figure of more than 200 countries. (Children born in Hong Kong can expect to live to 84, but Hong Kong is a territory of China, not a sovereign nation.) data Research has shown that the relatively healthy diet and lifestyle of Japanese people, as well as good healthcare, plays a significant role in their longevity. Research United Nations data also show that in 2013, the most recent year for which data are available, Japan had the joint second-lowest rate of infant mortality in the world, defined as the number of children who died under the age of one for every 1,000 live births. With 2.1 infant deaths per 1,000 live births, Japan was ranked second, along with Finland and just behind Iceland and Luxembourg. data 5. 95 percent of Japanese healthcare is not-for-profit. It's not clear what this claim means, so we can't really evaluate its accuracy. Does this mean 95 percent of healthcare providers operate on a not-for-profit basis? That 95 percent of procedures are performed on a non-profit basis? That 95 percent of all health care expenditures relates to not-for-profit providers? We do know that by law, hospitals in Japan cannot operate for profit, with the exception of large for-profit companies who build hospitals for their own employees. According to an analysis by Ryozo Matsuda, a health policy expert at Ritsumeikan University in Kyoto, 80 percent of hospitals are privately run. Facilities that provide care for elderly and disabled people (e.g., nursing home care, respite care, home care) can operate for profit, and according to Matsuda, most do.  analysis 6. The government sets all fees for medical services and drugs. That's true. More specifically, the fees are set by a government-appointed body called the Central Social Insurance Medical Council. A 2016 study in the journal Risk Management and Healthcare Policy described the system as "a uniform fee schedule at national level," noting that "All providers, no matter whether private or public, share the same prices for their medicines, devices, and services under this nationwide fee schedule." body study Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare (Japan).  "Overview of Medical Service Regime in Japan."
  Accessed 25 April 2018. Reich, Michael R. and Kenji Shibuya.  "The Future of Japan's Health System -- Sustaining Good Health with Equity at Low Cost."
  The New England Journal of Medicine.  5 November 2015. Otake, Tomoko.  "April 1 Marks Start of Japan's New Medical Fees and Processes."
  Japan Times.  13 February 2018. Dum, Bel.  "Unlocking the Secrets of Longevity in Japan."
  Scientific American.  12 July 2016. Matsuda, Ryozo.  "The Japanese Health Care System."
  The Commonwealth Fund.  October 2016. Zhang, Xing and Tatsuo Oyama.  "Investigating the Health Care Delivery System in Japan and Reviewing the Local Public Hospital Reform."
  Risk Management and Healthcare Policy. 18 March 2016. Claim:  Participating in a 'Not One Damn Dime Day' is an effective way to protest the war in Iraq. Status:  Probably not. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2004] National Anti-War Boycott It doesn't really matter that everyone will be out spending what they didn't the next day  a point or two will have been made: Since our religious leaders will not speak out against the war in Iraq, since ourpolitical leaders don't have the moral courage to oppose it, Inauguration Day, Thursday, January 20th, 2005 is "Not One Damn Dime Day" in America. On "Not One Damn Dime Day" those who oppose what is happening in our name in Iraq can speak up with a 24-hour national boycott of all forms of consumer spending. During "Not One Damn Dime Day" please don't spend money. Not one damn dime for gasoline. Not one damn dime fornecessities or for impulse purchases. Not one damn dime for anything for 24 hours. On "Not One Damn Dime Day," please don't go to the mall or the local convenience store. Please don't buy any fast food (or any groceries at all for that matter). For 24 hours, please do what you can to shut the retail economy down. The object is simple. Remind the people in power that the war in Iraq is immoral and illegal; that they are responsible for starting it and that it is their responsibility to stop it. "Not One Damn Dime Day" is to remind them, too, that they work for the people of the United States of America, not for the international corporations and K Street lobbyists who represent the corporations andfunnel cash into American politics. "Not One Damn Dime Day" is about supporting the troops. The politicians put the troops in harm's way. Now 1,200+ brave young Americans and (some estimated) 100,000 Iraqis have died. The politicians owe our troops a plan  a way to come home. There's no rally to attend. No marching to do. No left or right wing agenda to rant about. On "Not One Damn Dime Day" you take action by doing nothing. You open your mouth by keeping your wallet closed.  For 24 hours, nothing gets spent, not one damn dime, to remind our religious leaders and our politicians of their moral responsibility to end the war in Iraq and give America back to the people. Please share this email with as many people as possible. Origins:  Evaluating e-mails urging people to participate in some form of protest is always difficult, because (except in the rare cases where a hoax or a joke has been taken seriously) they can't be "true" or "false."  The protests may succeed, fail, or achieve some intermediate result, but whether to participate is a matter of individual choice.  We don't know who came up with the idea for the Not One Damn Dime! protest  Not One Damn Dime!  (it is often falsely attributed to newsman Bill Moyers) or what level of participation it might achieve; all wecan do is offer an opinion about its likelihood of success.  In this case our opinion is that someone has taken the futile concept of slacktivism to a new extreme. slacktivism Some protests are functional; they involve people taking direct action to achieve the desired result, such as chaining oneself to a tree to prevent its being cut down.  Other protests are symbolic; they seek to inform the public or call attention to an issue through activities such as holding marches or making speeches.  Sometimes protests are a combination of the two: chaining oneself to a tree is a functional but necessarily short-term solution, yet such an event is usually covered by the media and thus helps to publicize the cause of conservation. So which form of protest is this supposed to be? Its ostensible purpose is a symbolic one  to "remind the people in power that the war in Iraq is immoral and illegal"   which leaves us wondering how this form of protest is supposed to help effect any change in circumstances The merits and conduct of the U.S. war with Iraq have been endlessly debated, in every medium, since the U.S. invasion of Iraq nearly two years ago.  The war in Iraq was the primary issue in a long, contentious, headline-dominating presidential campaign that ended just a few months ago.  The war is still one of the lead stories in the news nearly every day.  Many different polling organizations and major news outlets regularly survey public opinion on the issue.  If the result desired by those who would engage in this protest hasn't yet been achieved, it's not because the issue hasn't received enough publicity or those "in power" are insufficiently aware of it. All that aside, the suggested scheme is one of the least effective forms of symbolic protest one could devise: it literally proposes that people do nothing, and doing nothing generates little, if any, publicity or news coverage.  Massing thousands of people in one place and engaging speakers to make rousing public speeches provide vivid, well-defined images for the news media to pick up on, but pictures of people not spending money just don't make compelling fodder for newspapers and television.  (Images of normally bustling malls, restaurants, and airports standing eerily devoid of human traffic might make for a good news story, but public opinion on this issue is far too divided for this protest to be able to bring all business to a grinding halt.)  Even worse, when you call upon people to do nothing, how is anyone supposed to gauge the success of your efforts?  There's no way to distinguish those who are doing nothing out of principle from those who are simply doing nothing out of  habit. As a functional protest, this one is equally off the mark.  Although a boycott can be an active form of protest (even though boycott participants are in effect doing nothing, they're following a course of action that directly affects the object of their protest), boycotts succeed by causing economic harm to their targets, thereby putting them out of business or at least requiring them to change their policies in order to remain in business.  But the target of this boycott isn't an entity that has the power to bring about the desired resolution (i.e., the government)  those who will be economically harmed by it are innocent business operators and their employees.  These people have no power to set U.S. foreign policy or recall troops from Iraq, but they're the ones who would have to pay the price for this form of protest, incurring all their usual overhead costs (e.g., lighting, heat, refrigeration) to keep their businesses open and paying employees' salaries, all the while taking in little or no income.  (And no, it doesn't all even out in the end  restaurants, for example, aren't going to recoup their lost business through boycott participants' eating twice as much the next day.)  Whether the desired goal is laudable or not, a protest that has little chance of succeeding at its purpose but a high likelihood of harming innocent parties does no one any good.  As we always say about these kinds of things, results are generally proportional to effort: If the most effort one is willing to put into a cause is to do nothing, then one should expect to accomplish nothing in return. Last updated:  14 January 2005    Sources:   Graves, Rachel.  "Inaugural Protest Ideas Sprout Across Internet."   Houston Chronicle.  10 January 2005.    Moscoso, Eunice.  "Internet Campaign Urges Economic Boycott on Inauguration Day."   The Palm Beach Post.  12 January 2005.    Richmond, Alex.  "Protesting? Do Something, Not Nothing."   The Trentonian.  12 January 2005.    Wilson, Craig.  "On Jan. 20, War Protest Will Turn on a 'Dime'."   USA Today.  13 January 2005  (p. D1) 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 On Oct. 20, 2020, U.S. President Donald Trump's son Eric Trump posted an image to social media that supposedly showed musicians Ice Cube and Curtis "50 Cent" Jackson wearing "Trump 2020" hats: posted   This is not a genuine photograph of 50 Cent and Ice Cube wearing "Trump 2020" hats. This is a doctored image that was created from a photograph of Ice Cube and 50 Cent at a BIG3 basketball game in Las Vegas, Nevada, in 2017. In the original image, Ice Cube is wearing a hat with the BIG3 logo on it and 50 Cent is wearing a hat with a New York Yankees logo.  Ice Cube shared the original photograph to his Twitter page in July 2020 along with a birthday message for his friend 50 Cent:  Getty Images has archived a few other photographs taken at this event. The image at the top of this article, for example, carries the caption: caption LAS VEGAS, NV - AUGUST 26: BIG3 founder and recording artist Ice Cube and Curtis "50 Cent" Jackson attend the BIG3 three on three basketball league championship game on August 26, 2017 in Las Vegas, Nevada. (Photo by Sean M. Haffey/BIG3/Getty Images) Ice Cube confirmed that the image was fake in a message posted to Twitter and Trump has since deleted his tweet. Twitter Although this image is fake, both of these musicians have truly aligned themselves, at least in part, with the Trump administration. While Ice Cube has not endorsed Trump for 2020, he did work with the president's administration to create a "Contract With Black America." Ice Cube said that he would "advise anyone on the planet who has the power to help Black Americans close the enormous wealth gap." work with said 50 Cent's support for Trump was more explicit. On Oct. 19, 50 Cent took to Instagram and shared a message endorsing Trump along with a screenshot from CNBC's "Power Lunch" concerning a report that Biden's tax plan would raise the tax rate to as much as 62% on Americans who make more than $400,000 a year: Instagram WHAT THE FUCK! (VOTE For TRUMP) IM OUT. FUCK NEW YORK The KNICKS never win anyway. I dont care Trump doesnt like Black people 62% are you out of ya fucking mind."   This screenshot comes from a segment of "Power Lunch" that aired on Oct. 19. During this segment, CNBC's Robert Frank explained how people earning more than $400,000 a year could pay income taxes at rate of more than 62%. Here's a video of Frank on another CNBC show, "Squawk Box," talking about Biden's tax plan: aired explained  Interestingly, Ice Cube and 50 Cent appear to be aligning themselves with Trump for polar opposite reasons. Ice Cube, for instance, said that he was willing to work with either presidential campaign in order to improve the lives of Black Americans and to "close the enormous wealth gap." 50 Cent, on the other hand, said he didn't care that "Trump doesnt like Black" and that he was endorsing the incumbent because his opponent's tax plan would increase taxes on wealthy Americans. Asmelash, Leah.  "From N.W.A. to MAGA: Ice Cube Takes Some Heat For Working With the Trump Administration."
  CNN.  16 October 2020. Reilly, Nick.  "50 Cent Endorses Donald Trump for President Even Though He 'Doesnt Like Black People."
  NME.  20 October 2020. CNBC.  "Bidens Tax Plan Could Lead to Combined Rate of 62% For High Earners."
  15 October 2020. Frank, Robert.  "Biden Tax Plan Gives $620 Tax Cut to Middle Class, New Study Says."
  CNBC.  15 October 2020. On 18 September 2017, Facebook user Mike Abreu posted what he presented as a photograph of a restaurant check receipt from his recent visit to a Cheesecake Factory outlet in Valencia, California, that appeared to offer some misleading and exaggerated tip amount suggestions: posted When the bill finally returned I noted it it was $33.76 total. Right above where you fill in the tip and total was the tipping guide which prefigures your percentage based on your total bill. I personally am a fan of this feature as I don't like figuring percentages on and odd amount so I normally just go with what they put for 20%. So I began to write in $14.71 as it stated was 20 percent of my bill.  My wife then asked how much was the bill and I replied almost $50 with the tip. She then said that's pretty expensive for two iced teas and two apps. I looked at the bill again and saw $33.76 which was correct but then I realized that 20 percent of that should be $6.75 and not $14.71 (more than double) that was printed on my bill.   The credit card receipt is authentic. Abreu (who goes by "Frank") brandished an identical-looking slip during an interview with Los Angeles television station KCAL, along with an itemized receipt showing the same total cost ($33.76 including sales tax) but accurate tip suggestions (20% of the bill as $6.75, for example). Thedate and server's name on that receipt were both the same as the credit card slip featured in Abreu's Facebook post. interview A spokesperson for the Cheesecake Factory told us that the discrepancy was caused by an error resulting from a staff member's mistakenly processing the Abreus' order along with someone else's, yielding a larger total that was then used as the basis for the tip suggestions presented in each check: The receipt does not accurately reflect the transaction. The suggested gratuity calculation resulted from inadvertently combining two unrelated parties checks. We deeply apologize for the mistake. It would appear that the staff member corrected the error in the itemized receipt, leaving accurate tip suggestions there, but processed the credit card payment as if it were part of the erroneous "split bill," creating the inaccurate tip suggestions there. (If the combined cost of the two bills were $73.55, for example, then $14.71 would have been an accurate suggested amount for a 20% tip.) The practice of presenting tip suggestions based a whole table's order, in each separate receipt after a bill is split, is controversial. The Cheesecake Factory is currently being sued in Los Angeles Superior Court for allegedly presenting tip suggestions misleadingly based on percentages of a whole table's bill, in instances where diners split checks: sued The Cheesecake Factory ... [when a table] uses two or more credit or debit cards to pay for the charges, the combined bill is divided between the credit/debit cards and Defendant presents each diner/consumer with a separate sales draft for a portion of the bill (a split bill). On each of the sales drafts, Defendant includes suggested gratuity amounts to facilitate customers in calculating and leaving a gratuity for service. Defendant represents the suggested gratuity to be 15%, 18%, 20% or 22% of the check amount reflected on the sales draft, but, in reality, it calculates the suggested gratuity on the combined bill and the suggested gratuity amounts are actually 30%, 36%, 40%, or 44% of the amounts shown on the separate sales drafts. When customers use credit or debit cards to settle their dining bill, Defendant provides them with sales drafts that contain suggested gratuity amounts, and when Defendant divides the total bill between two or more credit/debit cards, the sales drafts contain suggested gratuity amounts which do not accurately represent the total of each sales draft. Plaintiff estimates that over 80% of restaurant charges are paid by credit or debit cards and that approximately 10% or more of those charges (which represents many thousands of consumers) are divided between two or more credit/debit cards and are affected by The Cheesecake Factorys wrongful suggested gratuity practices. The case has the potential to become a class action lawsuit. An initial status conference is scheduled for 18 October 2017.  KCAL-TV [Los Angeles].  "'Borderline Theft': Tipping Suggestions on Man's Cheesecake Factory Receipt Don't Add Up."
  18 September 2017. Kieler, Ashlee.  "Cheesecake Factory Customers Say They Were Duped Into Leaving Big Tips."
  Consumerist.  11 August 2017. Goldman, Marcel.  "Class Action Complaint  Marcel Goldman vs the Cheesecake Factory Incorporated."
  Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles.  12 July 2017. Claim:  After a bank failure, the FDIC has 99 years to pay back insured deposits.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, July 2008] I heard an "expert" on KFI AM 640 in LA say the FDIC has up to 99 years to repay you in the event of a bank failure. Sounds like a misrepresentation but when asked by the host, she said "it's in the fine print."  [Collected via e-mail, September 2008] I have been hearing of a story of a man entering a bank week after week and making a deposit of a government check in some sort of insignificant amount (the number I heard was $0.35 per check). The teller asks why is he depositing such a small check. His response is that his bank went bust and that the checks are from the F.D.I.C. The gist of this apocryphal tale is that FDIC insurance is not a good thing and that if it does pay out it will take forever to recover your "insured" loss. This tale was repeated yesterday to my sister-in-law by a bank teller trying to dissuade her from moving an UNINSURED money market account to an F.D.I.C. insured CD with another bank. Origins:   Economic turmoil in the United States in recent years has given many Americans pause to consider just how safe their money is, especially in light of some bank failures that have reminded us that even such seemingly secure investments as ordinary savings accounts are not  completely risk-free.   And although most bank customers are aware their deposits are insured, they aren't necessarily familiar with the details of how that insurance works, a circumstance that has fostered the spread of rumors which create additional insecurity. After a wave of bank failures that came in the wake of the stock market crash of 1929 and the prolonged economic depression that followed, the U.S. federal government created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to restore public confidence in (and help stabilize) the U.S. banking system.  The FDIC provided federal government guarantees of deposits up to $100,000 per account holder per bank (and up to $250,000 per account holder for deposit retirement accounts), subject to certain conditions, at insured financial institutions.*    FDIC Bank failures in the U.S. have been a relatively uncommon phenomenon since the savings-and-loan crisis of the late 1980s, so many consumers have had little or no exposure to the process by which FDIC deposit insurance works, a circumstance that has led to the uncertainty reflected in the examples cited above.  Widely-believed rumors hold that FDIC insurance actually covers just a small fraction of the original deposit amount  (e.g., 1.5%), or that the FDIC only reimburses depositors in full over a very long period of time (e.g., 99 years), the net result being the mistaken belief that FDIC insurance isn't really much of a guarantee at all.  In fact, these rumors are so prevalent that they were both included (as numbers #3 and #4) in a list of the top ten misconceptions about the FDIC published in the Spring 2006 edition of the FDIC Consumer News newsletter, where they were addressed thusly: If a bank fails, the FDIC could take up to 99 years to pay depositors for their insured accounts. This is a completely false notion that many bank customers have told us they heard from someone attempting to sell them another kind of financial product. The truth is that federal law requires the FDIC to pay the insured deposits "as soon as possible" after an insured bank fails. Historically, the FDIC pays insured deposits within a few days after a bank closes, usually the next business day. In most cases, the FDIC will provide each depositor with a new account at another insured bank. Or, if arrangements cannot be made with another institution, the FDIC will issue a check to each depositor. The FDIC only pays failed-bank depositors a percentage of their insured funds. All too often we receive questions similar to this one: "Is it true that if my FDIC-insured bank fails, I would only get $1.31 for every $100 in my checking account?" As with misconception number 3, this misinformation appears to be spread by some financial advisors and sales people. Federal law requires the FDIC to pay 100 percent of the insured deposits up to the federal limit  including principal and interest. If your bank fails and you have deposits over the limit, you may be able to recover some or, in rare cases, all of your uninsured funds. However, the overwhelming majority of depositors at failed institutions are within the insurance limit, and insured funds are always paid in full. As noted, this type of misinformation is often passed along by unscrupulous or misinformed financial advisors who are trying to steer customers towards investments or accounts that are not insured, so if you have any doubts about exactly what is or is not covered by FDIC insurance, you may want to undertake some additional verification on your own. *Note: In October 2008 the FDIC insurance limit was temporarily increased to $250,000 per account, with that increase slated to remain in effect through the end of 2009, but subsequently extended through the end of 2013. In July 2010 the FDIC insurance limit was permanently increased to $250,000 per depositor, per insured depository institution for each account ownership category. increased Last updated:  8 April 2014