The past (Obama) administration was the first administration that never had a whole year of 3 percent growth.
Speaking at an event in Chicago earlier this month, U.S. Rep. Peter Roskam, R-Ill., was talking tax policy and the economy when he pointed to lackluster economic growth that occurred under former President Barack Obama. The past (Obama) administration was the first administration that never had a whole year of 3 percent growth, Roskam said during a March 6speechat the City Club of Chicago. Its an oft-cited figure Republicans tend to throw around to highlight the weak economic recovery throughout Obamas presidency, but does the data back it up? A familiar claim Roskams claim lacks some specifics, particularly the type of growth and time frame he was referring to in his speech. David Pasch, the Wheaton Republicans communications director, provided a link to data compiled by the Bureau of Economic Analysis showing both the annual and quarterly percentage change in real gross domestic product, or GDP, which is the total value of goods and services provided in the country. While annual figures on GDP growth date back to the Herbert Hoover administration and the onset of the Great Depression in 1929, the federal government did not start trackingquarterly growthuntil 1947. Considering the time frame for which this annual data is available, its safe to assume Roskam was referring to economic growth since the Hoover administration. In fact, Roskams claim is quite similar to a statement Donald Trump made during a campaign speech in October, which wasfact-checkedby our colleague Joshua Gillin at PolitiFact Florida. As was the case with Trumps claim, Roskam is right when he says that year-over-year GDP growth never topped 3 percent while Obama was in office. But as Princeton University economist Alan Blinder told PolitiFact at the time, looking at annual data can be misleading because it doesnt provide context or account for historical factors that affect economic growth, such as recessions and global crises. For example, Hoover came into office on the cusp of the Great Depression, and Obama took over during the tail end of the Great Recession and amid instability in the Middle East. Thats one of the main reasons why economists suggest looking at the percentage change in GDP by quarters, rather than growth in a single calendar year. When PolitiFact Florida fact-checked Trump saying Obama was the first president in modern history not to have a single year of 3 percent growth, data for the third and fourth quarters of 2016 was not yet available. But now it is. GDP growth in 2016 and the Obama years According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the percentage change in GDP growth during the third and fourth quarters of the last year of Obamas final term was 3.5 percent and 1.9 percent, respectively, resulting in an average growth rate of 1.6 percent for 2016. That was down 1 percentage point from 2015 when GDP grew by 2.6 percent, which marked the best year for average growth under Obama. Typically, economic growth in the first quarter of a new presidency is attributed to the previous administration, meaning former President George W. Bush gets credit for the 5.4 percent contraction in the economy during the first three months of 2009. As for the remainder of Obamas time in office, quarterly GDP growth averaged 2.0 percent, or 1.5 percent when averaging out annual figures. But if the data is used to compare one quarter to the same quarter from a year ago, there were two periods during Obamas tenure in which growth exceeded 3 percent. Between the third quarters of 2009 and 2010, GDP growth was about 3.1 percent; and between the first quarters of 2014 and 2015, the economy grew by 3.3 percent, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. With the way Roskam refers to growth, however, Obama indeed was the first president who did not achieve more than 3 percent growth in GDP. Average growth under Bush Sr., was 2.1 percent; 3.9 percent for Bill Clinton; 2.3 percent for George H.W. Bush; and 3.5 percent for Ronald Reagan. The highest annual growth on record occurred in 1942 during the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration, when GDP grew by a staggering 18.9 percent as the United States entered World War II and ramped up production following the Dec. 7, 1941, attack on Pearl Harbor. Our ruling Roskam said the Obama administration was the first administration that never had a whole year of 3 percent growth. While Roskams claim is accurate when based on annual GDP growth figures between 2009 and 2016, there are other ways to look at the data, such as from one quarter to the same in the previous year. Doing so reveals economic growth has surpassed 3 percent during two periods of Obamas presidency. We rate Roskams claim Mostly True.
When it comes to taxes, Democratic candidate for governor Nan Rich wants to make things more fair for the little guy in Florida. Rich, a former state senator from Weston, faced a question about whether Floridas tax system should be changed during a Florida Press Association event July 11 at the swanky Biltmore Hotel in Coral Gables. I think it's a regressive tax base, and when you look at some of the studies saying its the third most-regressive tax base -- I don't want you to quote me on that because PolitiFact may get me, I'm not sure if its (No.) three -- but I think there are things we need to do to make a more equitable and fair tax structure. At PolitiFact Florida, our ears perk up when we hear rankings that put Florida near the top or bottom. As for her request for us not to PolitiFact her, well, we couldnt help but take that as a friendly challenge. Studies about regressive taxes Rich told PolitiFact Florida in an interview, dont hold me to third regressive. .... I did not say third definitively. ... We are one of the most regressive. Rich cited a 2013reportby The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, which partners withCitizens for Tax Justice, a group that advocates for fair taxation of middle- and low-income families. The report concluded that all states have regressive tax systems. It means that state taxes come more from the poor and middle class than from the rich. Virtually every states tax system is fundamentally unfair, taking a much greater share of income from middle- and low-income families than from wealthy families, the report says. The absence of a graduated personal income tax and the over reliance on consumption taxes exacerbate this problem in many states. The report measures property, sales and excise taxes on gasoline and cigarettes paid by different income groups in each state in 2013 and concludes Florida isNo. 2 of the terrible 10-- the second most-regressive tax system in the country. (No. 1 wasWashington state.) The No. 1 and No. 2 predictor of a very unfair tax system is not having a personal income tax of any kind and an above-average sales tax, and Florida has both of those things, said Matt Gardner, the institutes executive director. The report found that for non-elderly taxpayers, the bottom 20 percent pay 13.2 percent of their income toward state and local taxes. Meanwhile, the top 1 percent of earners only pay about 2.3 percent of their income toward state and local taxes. The report gives a nod to one progressive feature of Floridas taxes: We dont have sales taxes on groceries. We were unable to find any other entity that included Florida in a state-by-state comparison of regressivity and taxes. The Tax Foundation, a business-backed group that analyzes tax policy, wrote areportcriticizing the institutes study, but their points were not specifically about the states rankings. Instead, they criticized the report for promoting income taxes. The foundation does its own ranking of states in terms ofbusiness climate-- Florida placed fifth. We interviewed a few experts on taxes, and they were not surprised by Floridas ranking when it comes to regressive taxes. Not that many states dont have an income tax, so that puts us in a small group that looks more regressive, said University of Central Florida economist Sean Snaith. However, he said,  regressive and burdensome are separate issues. The tax burden in Florida is still very low, despite being regressive. Aaron Twait, research director at the Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence, said there are only two taxes that are progressive: the income tax and the estate tax. States that dont have the income tax -- they just dont have that lever to pull, he said. Sales taxes, property taxes, and excise taxes run from moderately regressive to really regressive. Our ruling Rich said that there is evidence that Florida has the third most-regressive tax base, though she acknowledged when she spoke she wasnt certain if she had the number right. She was close: A study placed Florida No. 2 in terms of its regressive tax base. Florida has a regressive tax base because we lack a state income tax. Though the Tax Foundation criticized the report, it didnt dispute the states rankings, and other experts we interviewed also had no qualms about Floridas placement. Richs number of third place was just a smidgen low, so we rate this claim Mostly True. Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO In April 2020, millions of Americans who lost income due to circumstances related to the COVID-19 pandemic were waiting on promised relief payments from the United States government. So when news broke that U.S. President Donald Trump was making the "unprecedented" move of having his name added to these stimulus checks, a decision that could potentially delay the arrival of these checks by several days, many citizens took to social media to voice their displeasure, as in the example below: millions of Americans social media   Trump's name is truly being added to the COVID-19 stimulus checks, otherwise known as Economic Impact Payments. As of this writing, however, officials at the U.S. Treasury Department insist this will not result in any delays.  The Washington Post first reported on Trump's decision on April 14, 2020. According to the news outlet, Trump's name is expected to appear in the memo line of the check, not as the payment's official signatory, and that this will be the "first time that a president's name appears on an IRS disbursement": reported The Treasury Department has ordered President Trumps name printed on stimulus checks the Internal Revenue Service is rushing to send to tens of millions of Americans, a process that could slow their delivery by a few days, senior IRS officials said. The unprecedented decision, finalized late Monday, means that when recipients open the $1,200 paper checks the IRS is scheduled to begin sending to 70 million Americans in coming days, President Donald J. Trump will appear on the left side of the payment. It will be the first time a presidents name appears on an IRS disbursement, whether a routine refund or one of the handful of checks the government has issued to taxpayers in recent decades either to stimulate a down economy or share the dividends of a strong one. Treasury officials disputed that the checks would be delayed. While Trump's name will appear on these stimulus checks, we can't predict whether these payments will be delayed or go out on time. A Treasury Department official said in a statement that "absolutely no delay whatsoever" would occur:  statement "Economic Impact Payment checks are scheduled to go out on time and exactly as planned  there is absolutely no delay whatsoever ... In fact, we expect the first checks to be in the mail early next week which is well in advance of when the first checks went out in 2008 and well in advance of initial estimates." It should also be noted that many Americans will be receiving their stimulus payments via a direct deposit. It's unclear how many people will receive hard paper checks bearing Trump's name and how many will receive a digital payment.  An IRS official told Fox News that the number of people who will receive paper checks was subject to a "number of variables, including how much info the IRS obtains through the Non-Filers Enter Payment Info web portal and the Get My Payment portal launching [April 15] at IRS.gov. Fox News These Economic Impact Payments were included in the $2.2 trillion stimulus package that Trump signed in late March 2020. According to the IRS, direct-deposit payments had already started going out as of the second week in April. Those waiting on a paper check, however, may not see their payments for several weeks. (If you're waiting on a payment, you can check the status of your check on a recently launched web app from the IRS.) several weeks web app To sum up: It is true that in April 2020, the U.S. government made the unprecedented move of adding the president's name to stimulus checks issued by the IRS in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Although an IRS official said this could slow the process and delay the delivery of checks, Treasury officials insisted that the checks would still go out on schedule.  Paine, Neil.  "More Than 16 Million Americans Have Lost Their Jobs In The Past Three Weeks."
  Five Thirty Eight.  9 April 2020. Raju, Manu; Fox, Lauren; Klein, Betsy.  "Some Americans Could Wait 20 Weeks to Receive Stimulus Checks, IRS Tells House Democrats."
  CNN.  2 April 2020. Olson, Tyler and John Roberts.  "Trump's Name Will be Added to Stimulus Checks."
  Fox News.  15 April 2020. Acosta, Jim and Caroline Kelly.  "Trump's Name Will be Added to Stimulus Checks."
  CNN.  15 April 2020. Acosta, Jim and Caroline Kelly.  "Trump's Name Will be Added to Stimulus Checks."
  CNN.  15 April 2020. Lederman, Josh Phil Helsel.  "Trump's Name Will Appear on Coronavirus Relief Checks."
  NBC News.  14 April 2020. If you or someone you know is experiencing a mental health, suicide or substance use crisis or emotional distress, reach out 24/7 to the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline (formerly known as the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline) by dialing or texting 988 or using chat services atsuicidepreventionlifeline.orgto connect to a trained crisis counselor.  suicidepreventionlifeline.org In August 2021, remarkable footage of a daring rescue re-emerged online, prompting interest from readers about its authenticity and origins.  On Aug. 12, a post on the popular forum Reddit carried the title "Firefighter snatches suicide jumper out of mid air" and included the 20-second video, which although not graphic, shows an interrupted suicide attempt and thus might be upsetting to some readers: post   The footage was entirely authentic and really did show a firefighter, leaning out of a window while being supported by his colleague, catch a suicidal woman who had fallen or jumped from the floor above. As a result, we are issuing a rating of  The incident took place in May 2018 in Riga, the capital city of the Baltic nation of Latvia. According to an official account posted by Valsts ugunsdzsbas un glbanas dienests (the national Latvian State Fire and Rescue Service or SFRS), the firefighters responded to an emergency call from the apartment building in question, about a woman on the fourth floor who appeared to be contemplating suicide.  official account Fearing that she might jump out of the window if they attempted to rescue her from inside her apartment, some of the firefighters set up on the floor below, while others went on the roof and attempted to lower mountaineering equipment in order to secure the woman. It's not entirely clear whether the woman ultimately jumped or fell from the fourth-floor window sill, and the SFRS statement noted that her fingers were observed to be "slipping." On the third floor, Tomas Jaunzems leaned out of the window while his colleague, Boriss Rutkovskis, braced Jaunzems' legs and helped stabilize him against the window ledge. As the video shows, Jaunzems ultimately caught the falling woman and, with the help of Rutkovskis, carried her inside to safety. The Latvian Interior Ministry later awarded the two men medals for "selflessness" and "heroic actions," as shown below: awarded  From left to right: Head of the SFRS Oskars boli; SFRS firefighter Tomas Jaunzems; SFRS firefighter Boriss Rutkovskis; Latvian Interior Minister Rihards Kozlovskis. Photo: SFRS  The authenticity of the video footage is further confirmed by the fact that the SFRS itself posted the clip to Facebook on May 31, 2018. posted the clip to Facebook Some Republican critics have scoffed at President Barack Obama's pronouncements that the economy seems to be improving, pointing to the unemployment rate, which keeps going up. But Obama has consistently tempered his hopeful words about positive economic indicators with warnings that unemployment rates are likely to continue to rise for a while, even as the economy improves. History tells us that job growth always lags behind economic growth, Obama said Nov. 6, 2009, in remarks in the White House Rose Garden. He's right about that, said William Beach, director of the conservative Heritage Foundation's center for data analysis. In the post-World War II era, there have been 10 recessions and after most of them, employment lagged a few months behind other improving economic indicators. But after the last two, in 1991 and 2001, unemployment rates continued to climb for more than a year. Interestingly, Democrats criticized President George W. Bush regarding the 2001 jobless recovery, much as some Republicans now criticize Obama for the current one. The latest jobless recovery came as little surprise to economists who study such trends. Employers are hesitant to hire people back to the work force (after a recession) because they don't know if the economy is going to continue to grow, which is understandable, Beach said. But more importantly, he said, the American economy has become increasingly reliant on service jobs, such as information and financial jobs. Those jobs come back very slowly, Beach said. The recession this time is even more severe, so Beach predicts this jobless recovery will last even longer than past recessions. I don't think we'll see jobs coming back for a long time, Beach said. But even without government meddling, Beach believes employment was destined to lag. TheSan Francisco Chronicle, relying on numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in August charted the lag between recessions' end and the peak of unemployment rates. In the eight recessions between 1949 and 1991, unemployment rates lagged by an average of about three months. After the last two, however, it took 15 months and 19 months, respectively, before unemployment rates peaked. Bottom line, President Obama is right when he cautions that employment has lagged behind economic recovery in the past. And so we rate his statement True. Tax cuts passed under the Bush administration have been in place for close to ten years, but they will expire at the end of 2010 if Congress doesn't take action. Add in a weak economy, big government deficits, and an upcoming election, and you've got one of the most pressing policy issues of the year.President Barack Obama's administration wants to see the tax cuts made permanent for individuals who make less than $200,000 a year and couples who make less than $250,000 a year. Tax rates would go up for people who make more than that.Austan Goolsbee defended that position onThis Week with Christiane Amanpour. Goolsbee is one of Obama's top economic officials, and was recently selected to chair the Council of Economic Advisers, which counsels the president on economic policy.Obama has been quite clear, Goolsbee said, that borrowing $700 billion to extend tax cuts that average more than $100,000 a year to millionaires and even billionaires is the least effective bang for the buck we have.We were interested in that $100,000 number -- that extending the expiring tax cuts would average more than $100,000 a year to millionaires and even billionaires.The White House pointed us to data from the Ways and Means Committee, the committee in the U.S. House of Representatives charged with writing tax legislation. Democrats on the committee asked the Joint Committee on Taxation for an analysis of extending the expiring tax cuts. The Joint Committee on Taxation, or JCT, is a nonpartisan committee with a professional staff of economists, attorneys and accountants who conduct research.The JCT crunched the numbers to generate several tables estimating tax revenues if the tax cuts expire, and how many taxpayers would be affected. The JCT found that, for those who have income of $1 million or more, extending the Bush tax cuts would mean $32.7 billion that the government would not collect in 2011. That amount would apply to 315,000 tax filers. Divide the foregone tax revenues by the number of filers, and you get $103,809, or just over $100,000, as Goolsbee said.We also checked with the Tax Policy Center, an independent, nonpartisan think tank that generates economic projections similar to those of the JCT. The Tax Policy Center found that theaverage tax increaseto millionaires and up would be $128,832. That's a bit higher than the JCT estimate, but for a complex economic analysis, it's fairly close. The center's numbers also supports Goolsbee's statement that extending the tax cuts would average more than $100,000 a year to millionaires and even billionaires.To get the point of view of someone who opposes letting the current tax rates expire, we turned to the conservative Heritage Foundation. J.D. Foster said he didn't argue with the numbers, but with Goolsbee's focus on millionaires. Many of those who make more than $200,000 or $250,000 are not millionaires, and those people will see a tax increase as well.If they only intend to raise taxes on millionaires, then they need to change their proposal, Foster said. I understand it's a convenient rhetorical ploy, but its factually incorrect.This is a fair point: Goolsbee talked about a $700 billion cost, which is a general estimate for what extending the tax cuts for 10 years would cost for all higher earners, not just millionaires.We went back to the analysis and found calculations for what the Bush tax cuts are worth for other high incomes. The JCT found that for those who make between $500,000 and $1 million, the lower rates were worth an average $17,467 per tax filer, and for those who make between $200,000 and $500,000, the lower rates were worth $7,152 per tax filer. The Tax Policy Center's numberswere similar.So Goolsbee is correct that the expiring tax cuts are worth, on average, more than $100,000 for millionaires and billionaires. But the proposal the president supports would let tax cuts expire for some people who make high salaries but aren't millionaires, which Goolsbee didn't mention. So we deduct a tick from the Truth-O-Meter and rate his statement Mostly True. In October 2019 it came to our attention that an aging platitude about aging, already credited to multiple sources, found a new voice:   The meme appeared on Get Old, a lifestyle blog published by a pharmaceutical company. The same quote has been attributed to Landers on several sites, including Psychology Today. Psychology Today However, the quote does not surface in searches at AnnLanders.com, an advice column launched in 2019 by Landers daughter, Margo Howard. The site is also advertised as an archive of Landers columns. Thats not the only reason to doubt the credit. A similar quote has been attributed to Bob Hope, Anonymous, a wise old man, and Winston Churchill. Snopes investigated that last one in December 2018: Bob Hope a wise old man December 2018 Not so long ago, this particular quote about aging existed on the Internet primarily as a wise saying attributed to Anonymous or Unknown. For example, motivational speaker Bill Benjamin included it as such on his list of Favorite Quotes & Thoughts as far back as 2008. This quote appears in myriad other lists of anonymous sayings as well and was memed into a Churchill quote only fairly recently. 2008 We rate the newer variation of this claim as "Misattributed" because, although Landers could have given some version of this advice during the 47 years she was publishing columns, there is no available evidence to prove that the exact quote originated with her. Unfortunately, Landers (Esther Pauline "Eppie" Lederer) died in 2002 at the age of 83, so we cannot ask her to confirm directly. died Here is advice on aging Landers did recommend for everyone over 60. Again, however, not her words. The list was written by one of her readers. Here is advice Have you seen other variations of this claim? Let us know. Let us know. Jeff Bezos, founder and chief executive officer of online retailing giant Amazon.com, became the world's richest person in October 2017, according to Forbes magazine. And in January 2018, Bezos' company opened the first "Amazon Go"  a new kind of store with no checkout required  in Seattle, Washington, to considerable fanfare: Forbes Amazon Go  Amid a wave of increased press coverage and scrutiny, a viral meme made a number number of claims about Amazon in January 2018: meme  A spokesperson for Amazon confirmed the fact that the company's new grocery store, Amazon Go, does not accept SNAP benefits or food stamps as a form of payment. The source of the claim about Amazon workers receiving food stamps was a January 2018 report by the nonprofit group PolicyMatters Ohio, which estimated that roughly 700 Amazon workers in Ohio (more than 10 percent of the company's employees in the state) receive Supplementary Nutrition Assistance Program benefits: report As of last August, 1,430 Amazon employees or family members were getting assistance under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), according to the Ohio Department of Job & Family Services. In August, the average Ohio family receiving SNAP contained just more than two people. Based on that average, more than 700 Amazon workers received benefits that month, or more than one in every 10 of those Ohioans employed by the company. PolicyMatters Ohio arrived at that estimate by finding the number of Ohio food stamp recipients who are part of a household where someone works for Amazon (1,430), then dividing that by 2.02 (the average size of a household on food stamps in Ohio at that time). The resulting estimate is about 700 workers, or 11.8 of Amazon's Ohio workforce. We were unable to find any research or data on Amazon workers' availing themselves of food stamps in other states.  average size PolicyMatters Ohio sent us figures to corroborate their claims, which they received from the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services. (That data is available for download in spreadsheet form here.) Further, whether or not an individual qualifies for food stamps is determined by more than just income. Having a gross monthly household income at or below 130 percent of the federal poverty limit is an important factor. However, you can also qualify for SNAP benefits with an income above the poverty limit if someone in your household is disabled or elderly, and the poverty limit is pro-rated depending on the size of your household. here factor Another factor to consider is whether a worker is employed by Amazon on a full-time or part-time basis. Someone whose only source of income was their part-time job at an Amazon fulfillment center would earn a lower monthly income than a full-time worker in a similar position, even if they received the same hourly wage. This circumstance might well qualify someone for food stamps even if their hourly wage at Amazon were otherwise not too bad. In an email, an Amazon spokesperson told us that Amazon full-time hourly employees in Ohio earn between $14.50 and $15 an hour as a starting wage with regular pay increases plus Amazon stock and performance based bonuses." On 1 February 2018, Amazon's jobs web site listed seven open warehouse positions in Ohio. Only one was full-time, a description which a company spokesperson told us entails 40 hours of work per week. The hourly wage for the part-time jobs ranged from $10.50 to $11.75, while a "reduced time" position came with a starting rate of between $14.50 and $17 an hour. The full-time position had a starting hourly wage of between $14.50 and $15. positions According to a major 2016 report by the non-profit Institute for Local Self-Reliance, a group that advocates for more sustainable community development, Amazon's warehouse workers across 11 metropolitan areas in the United States earned, on average, 15 percent lower than could be expected for a worker in that industry (page 39). report Institute for Local Self-Reliance page 39 Amazon told us this analysis was "flawed," because it compared Amazon wages with "traditional warehouse jobs and compensation," claiming that the appropriate comparison would be between Amazon wages and retail wages, because "that industry more closely resembles the environment of an Amazon fulfillment center." Additionally, the report's authors said it was difficult to ascertain exactly what proportion of warehouse workers were on permanent contracts, and what proportion were temps, but estimated (based on news reports and the industry average) that the permanent to temporary ratio was roughly 60/40.  A spokesperson for the company gave contradictory figures, saying: "Throughout the year on average, 90 percent of associates across the companys U.S. fulfillment network are regular, full-time employees. That applies for states like Ohio." The spokesperson confirmed that "regular" means permanent. The ILSR criticized Amazon for using the label "seasonal"  which has connotations of the annual retail holiday rush  to describe the temporary positions it fills year-round.  Amazon has also previously come under fire for what have been described as difficult working conditions. In its 2016 report, the ILSR summarized employment at the company's fulfillment centers as "grueling work for lower pay than average": Employees describe running across warehouses that sprawl the distance of 17 football fields; production quotas, or rates, that can be set 60 percent higher than the industry standard; and a disciplinary system that tracks workers every action and inflicts points for any deviation from Amazons standard. Underlying these conditions is Amazons fundamental approach to its warehouse workers. The companys warehouses are finely-tuned machines, and the company creates conditions such that its workers are expected to be parts of that machine. The result is a work environment that is profoundly dehumanizing. In response to these descriptions, a spokesperson for the company told us: Like most companies, we have performance expectations for every Amazon employee and we measure actual performance against those expectations. Associate performance is measured and evaluated over a long period of time as we know that a variety of things could impact the ability to meet expectations in any given day or hour. We support people who are not performing to the levels expected with dedicated coaching to help them improve. While the meme says that Amazon grossed $128 billion in sales "last year," that number is not quite accurate. For one thing, Amazon's 2017 earnings had not yet been published in January 2018, when the meme was created. Instead, Grit Post, where the meme appears to have originated, said in a list of sources that they had used Amazon's 2016 numbers. Amazon actually had net (not gross) sales of $136 billion in 2016, according to the company's full year financial results. This means gross sales (which were not reported) were even higher than that, and certainly higher than the $128 billion claimed in the meme.  sources results Amazon's sales for 2017 are likely to be astronomical. Based on the company's predictions for the final three months of the year, Amazon's full-year net sales in 2017 might reach around $178 billion.  predictions Vinton, Kate.  "Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos Is the Richest Person in the World  Again."
  Forbes.  27 October 2017. Kelly, Heather.  "Inside Amazon Go: The Store of the Future."
  CNN.  26 January 2018. Schiller, Zach.  "More Ohio Amazon Workers Relying on Food Aid."
  Policy Matters Ohio.  5 January 2018. Office of Fiscal and Monitoring Services.  "Public Assistance Monthly Statistics Report  August 2017."
  August 2017. LeVecchia, Olivia and Stacy Mitchell.  "Amazon's Stranglehold: How the Company's Tightening Grip Is Stifling Competition, Eroding Jobs, and Threatening Communities."
  Institute for Local Self-Reliance.  November 2016. Claim:  Crafters have been asked to knit sweaters for oil-soaked penguins.  Example:  [Collected via Facebook, March 2014]    Origins:  When an ocean-going tanker goes down at sea, loosing crude oil into the ocean, the immediate and long-term effects on the environment are often catastrophic. Equally as dangerous is the illegal practice of passing ships' dumping fuel oil into the water rather than properly disposing of it in port. In the case of the "little penguins" (previously known as "fairy penguins")  who live on Phillip Island near Melbourne, Australia, such accidents and illegal activities have threatened the entire population of penguins.  Cleaning the animals by hand with warm water and a mild detergent then returning them to their natural habitat has been found to be an effective means of dealing with the danger posed by oil spills, but there's a snag in the plan: Often the little penguins are far too ill to be bathed right away, and the scrubbing can be quite stressful. One solution proffered several years ago was to slip the oil-coated birds into wool sweaters to prevent them from preening themselves and possibly swallowing toxic petroleum-based oil as they regained needed strength, and to keep them warm until their bodies were once again producing the natural oils (removed by the cleaning) necessary to their insulation. But where would get such penguin attire? Appeals were made to the knitting public to place their time, skill, and leftover yarn into the service of animals in need. A New Year's Day 2000 spill of 260 gallons of fuel oil off the southern tip of Australia prompted an appeal that resulted in piles of sweaters ("jumpers," in Australia) being sent to aid the damaged little birds, many crafted by the capable hands of American knitters. To be better prepared for the next such environmental crisis, in 2001, the Tasmanian Conservation Trust and State Library ran the knit-for-a-penguin campaign. They hoped to build a stockpile of 100 sweaters. They got more than they bargained for. The original result was an oversubscription of this entreaty for aid, with the appeal threatening to escalate into a "Sorcerer's Apprentice" situation. One thousand sweaters were quickly received, with more arriving all the time. The organizers originally wanted to conclude this part of its Oil Spill Response Program, but then rethought that   action, deciding to ask the knitting public for an additional two thousand penguin sweaters. However, despite those good intentions, other wildlife officials have stated in connection with similar efforts that knitting garments for penguins accomplishes little  (other than fulfilling an instinctive human need to help), as penguins don't really benefit from wearing vests and sweaters, and many items crafted for that purpose have simply accumulated in unused piles: Hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of sweaters have been lovingly knitted and donated to help the little blue penguins coated with oil stay warm  but the outfits won't be used. The countless hours spent by people selecting colours, designing patterns and knitting the costumes has only resulted in idle piles of the woollen outfits, unused and unlikely to be used. A Maritime New Zealand spokesman for the oiled wildlife centre in Tauranga said they had received a box of the handmade sweaters and that should be more than enough. "The vets have expressed appreciation [but] they haven't used any," he said. "They haven't been required and I just don't know that they will be used at all." A keeper at Auckland Zoo said the idea of making the little birds wear the jerseys might cause them extra stress. She said the cleaning process strips the birds of their natural oil and can make them cold but the facilities at the centre were set up to cater for this. "They are getting washed and rinsed and then they go into a warmed tent under heat lamps." Miss Clark said she had never seen a vest on a penguin and she wondered how much the birds would appreciate the costuming. "Putting something like that on a penguin, it's probably only going to stress it out even more than they already are. These are wild penguins, they haven't had any interaction with humans. There's already enough stress on a bird without trying to put a sweater on it," she said. Maree Buscke of Skeinz.com, which helped to organise the knitting scrum, said the sweaters were a way for people to help, even if they weren't going to be used. She was still receiving sweaters from knitters, she said, plus turning down more offers to help. The blog of the International Bird Rescue organization similarly states that sweaters "are not considered a useful tool for the rehabilitation of oiled birds, primarily penguins": International Bird Rescue To help the birds stay warm and limit the amount of preening, we only have to do one thing  house birds in a warm, ventilated area. When birds are warm, they reduce their preening because they're comfortable. When they're cold, they're stimulated to preen in an attempt to correct the loss of body heat. Our research and experience over the course of hundreds of spills has shown us that when we keep them warm while they are still oiled, birds do well. There's also another hazard to the sweater concept: Any handling or wearing of anything foreign to them contributes to the penguins' stress. Reducing stress is our biggest challenge in an oil spill. Sweaters can be cumbersome, and require a secure fit to ensure that the bird will not become entangled. When birds are kept in warm rooms without sweaters, their stress is reduced, because they do not need to be monitored or handled. In the Treasure oil spill in 2000 in Cape Town, South Africa, International Bird Rescue worked with the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) and the South African Foundation for the Conservation of Coastal Birds (SANCCOB) to rehabilitate over 20,000 oiled African Penguins; we successfully released 95% of them. In every oil spill where we have cared for penguins, International Bird Rescue has had at least an 80% release rate, and none of these birds wore sweaters. Our colleagues from around the world agree that penguin sweaters are adorable and offer an avenue for concerned people to contribute, but they are not considered a useful tool for the rehabilitation of oiled birds, primarily penguins. In 2014 another Internet-circulated call went out for volunteers to knit jumpers for penguins in case of an oil spill emergency, a plea said to have been issued at the behest of the Australia-based Penguin Foundation.  But while that organization notes on its web site they do use penguin pullovers, they "do not urgently require little penguin jumpers for rehabilitation" and they already "have a good supply of these [jumpers]": Penguin Foundation web site We have a good stockpile of jumpers suitable for rehabilitation purposes which we also distribute to other wildlife rescue centres where need be. Little penguin jumpers are also used as an educational tool to teach students and others about the devastating effects marine and coastal pollution has on marine wildlife and the environment.  Please know that we do not urgently require little penguin jumpers for rehabilitation, we have a good supply of these which we use on any rescued oiled penguins and in the event of an oil spill, these jumpers are also sent to other wildlife rescue centres if required. Concerned animal lovers may still offer their time and effort to craft garments for penguins nonetheless, but it's highly unlikely they will ever be worn by any of those birds  instead they'll probably be sold to raise funds for ongoing conservation efforts, and volunteers who want to help might do better to simply donate money directly to wildlife organizations that help protect penguins rather than expending their time and effort at making clothing for those critters: Q. What'll happen if I knit a penguin sweater?  A. Odds are it'll be used to dress a toy, not a real penguin. When charities got inundated with sweaters last time, several started using the extra sweaters as fundraisers  they use them on stuffed toy penguins, and the sales of those benefit the charity. That's what's happening here. The money raised helps wildlife conservation. The Penguin Foundation also uses the sweaters in its educational programs. Q. Bottom line: Should I knit a penguin sweater or not? A. Your call. There's no wrong answer. It's an easy project, it'll definitely help penguins and it's a fun way to introduce children and rookie knitters to the joys of charity knitting. So if you really want to knit a penguin sweater, go to it  but bear in mind that the cost of shipping it/them to Australia won't be cheap, and if you want to help the birds, you might just want to donate funds directly to the Penguin Foundation. Barbara "fashion plated" Mikkelson Additional information:        Caring for Sick and Injured Little Penguins    (Penguin Foundation)    Last updated:  11 February 2015    Brown, Simon Leo.  "Knitters Wanted for Penguin Pullovers."   ABC Melbourne.  6 March 2014.    Frederick, Chuck.  "North Shore Women Knit Sweaters for Birds."   Duluth News Tribune.  7 June 2000.    Mooney, Mary.  "Penguin Sweaters: Separating Fact from Fiction."   The Oregonian.  6 March 2014.    AAP Newsfeed.  "TAS: Penguin Jumper Glut."   17 May 2001.    Associated Press.  "Guild Knits Sweaters for Miniature Penguins."   [Dubuque] Telegraph Herald.  11 April 2000  (p. A1).    The Age.  "Penguins Get Knits."   18 May 2001.    Omaha World-Herald.  "Knitter Helps Save Penguins."   9 February 2001  (p. 17). Claim:  The Monsanto Protection Act creates a "precedent-setting limitation onjudicial review of genetically-engineered crops."  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, March  2013]  I received an email regarding The Monsanto Protection Act is this true? On March 21st, Congress passed The Monsanto Protection Act that was slipped into a short term budget resolution. This dangerous rider found in Section 735 of the bill would create a precedent-setting limitation on judicial review of genetically-engineered crops, allowing them to be planted without federal safeguards in place that protect our environment,family farmers and citizens. Call President Obama today; tell him to strike section 735 from the 2013 Continuing Resolution.  Add your voice to the groundswell in response to this dangerous bill! Together we WILL be setting right this gross imbalance! Origins:  On 26 March 2013, President Obama signed into law a bill passed by the House and Senate earlier that month known as the "Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013" to provide funding for various federal agencies through the end of the 2013 fiscal year.  One of the provisions included in that bill in the section for "Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and related agencies" was Section 735, variously dubbed the "Farmer Assurance Provision" or the "Monsanto Protection Act," an inclusion which reignited a clash between the agribusiness industry and food safety groups.  The former maintains that the Farmer Assurance Provision prevents activists from manipulating the court system to force farmers to abandon or destroy genetically modified (GMO) or genetically engineered (GE) crops that have already received U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) safety approval; the latter assert that Congress kowtowed to big business by sneaking into an appropriations bill a provision that allows large biotech companies like Monsanto to do an end run around the court system and avoid legitimate legal challenges to the safety of their products: bill Not only has anger been directed at the Monsanto Protection Act's content, but the way in which the provision was passed through Congress without appropriate review by the Agricultural or Judiciary Committees. The biotech rider instead was introduced anonymously as the larger bill progressed  little wonder food activists are accusing lobbyists and Congress members of backroom dealings. The Food Democracy Now and the Center for Food are directing blame at the Senate Appropriations Committee and its chairman, Sen. Barbara Mikulski. According to reports, many members of Congress were apparently unaware that the "Monsanto Protection Act" even existed within the spending bill, HR 933; they voted [for the bill] in order to avert a government shutdown. The "Farmer Assurance Provision" is not new to 2013: it was also part of the initial draft of a FY2013 Agriculture Appropriations bill in June 2012.  The text of the provision (Section 735) states that: bill In the event that a determination of non-regulated status made pursuant to section 411 of the Plant Protection Act is or has been invalidated or vacated, the Secretary of Agriculture shall, notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon request by a farmer, grower, farm operator, or producer, immediately grant temporary permit(s) or temporary deregulation in part, subject to necessary and appropriate conditions consistent with section 411(a) or 412(c) of the Plant Protection Act, which interim conditions shall authorize the movement, introduction, continued cultivation, commercialization and other specifically enumerated activities and requirements, including measures designed to mitigate or minimize potential adverse environmental effects, if any, relevant to the Secretarys evaluation of the petition for non-regulated status, while ensuring that growers or other users are able to move, plant, cultivate, introduce into commerce and carry out other authorized activities in a timely manner: Provided, That all such conditions shall be applicable only for the interim period necessary for the Secretary to complete any required analyses or consultations related to the petition for non-regulated status: Provided further, That nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting the Secretary's authority under section 411, 412 and 414 of the Plant ProtectionAct. The provision directs the Secretary of Agriculture to grant temporary deregulation status to allow growers to continue the cultivation of biotech crops that had previously been approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) while legal challenges to the safety of those crops are underway, and it prevents courts from interceding in the review process  a situation which critics contend unconstitutionally bars the court system from taking part in ensuring the safety of food products: The "Monsanto Protection Act" effectively bars federal courts from being able to halt the sale or planting of controversial genetically modified (aka GMO) or genetically engineered (GE) seeds, no matter what health issues may arise concerning GMOs in the future. The advent of genetically modified seeds  which has been driven by the massive Monsanto Company  and their exploding use in farms across America came on fast and has proved a huge boon for Monsanto's profits. But many anti-GMO folks argue there have not been enough studies into the potential health risks of this new class of crop. Well, now it appears that even if those studies are completed and they end up revealing severe adverse health effects related to the consumption of genetically modified foods, the courts will have no ability to stop the spread of the seeds and the crops they bear. The American Soybean Association (ASA) and other major agricultural associations expressed support for the provision in 2012, stating that it "addresses a costly vulnerability in the regulatory process for biotechnology that is discouraging innovation in agriculture and unnecessarily putting farmers at financial risk" by allowing biotech opponents to mount challenges to GE crop approvals based on procedural, rather than scientific, issues: support Opponents of agricultural biotechnology have repeatedly filed suits against USDA on procedural grounds in order to disrupt the regulatory process and undermine the science-based regulation of such products. These lawsuits have also created tremendous resource constraints for  USDA and have resulted in significant delays in approval of new, innovative products that will help growers provide Americans with an abundant and economical food supply while remaining competitive in the world market. [This provision] provides certainty to growers with respect to their planting decisions. If enacted, growers would be assured that the crops they plant could continue to be grown, subject to appropriate interim conditions, even after a judicial ruling against USDA. The inclusion of [this provision] is a positive step to ensure that U.S. farmers and our food chain are shielded from supply disruptions caused by litigation over procedural issues unrelated to sound science or the safety of biotech crops. This legislative solution ensures that national agricultural policy is not being decided by the court system while providing a level of certainty that is critical to ensure that our agricultural producers continue to lead the world. Dozens of food and consumer groups opposed the provision on the grounds that it was unnecessary and undermined the judiciary's authority to regulate the growing of genetically engineered crops:  opposed Reeling from federal court decisions that have found approvals of several genetically engineered (GE) crops to be unlawful, the biotech industry has quietly slipped a policy rider into the FY 2013 Agriculture Appropriations bill now being debated in the House Appropriations Committee. The provision would strip federal courts of the authority to halt the sale and planting of an illegal, potentially hazardous GE crop while the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) assesses those potential hazards. Further, it would compel USDA to allow continued planting of that same crop upon request, even if in the course of its assessment the Department finds that it poses previously unrecognized risks. Far from safeguarding farmers, the only parties whose interests are "assured" by this rider are those of GE crop developers.  The "farmer assurance provision" has very little to do with farmers and everything to do with the developers of GE crops. It would strip the Judiciary of its authority to fully adjudicate violations of law by USDA and compel USDA to take actions that might harm farmers and the environment  all to "assure" the profits of a handful of biotech companies, including Monsanto, Dow and Bayer CropScience. Every court that has reversed a USDA decision to approve a GE crop has carefully weighed the interests of all affected farmers, as is already required by law. No farmer has ever had his or her crops destroyed. USDA already has working mechanisms in place to allow partial approvals, and the Department has used them, making this provision completely unnecessary. The provisions of this bill (including the "Monsanto Protection Act") were originally to remain in effect for six months, until the end of the  fiscal year on 30 September 2013.  The bill was later extended to expire on 15 December 2013.     Last updated:  13 September 2013    Sheets, Connor Adams.  "Furor Growing Against Obama Over 'Monsanto Protection Act.'"   Interntional Business Times.  27 March 2013.    Sheets, Connor Adams.  "Monsanto Protection Act."   Interntional Business Times.  27 March 2013.