Has Trump suggested modifications to SSI that might result in the termination of disability benefits for numerous individuals?
In December 2019, readers asked us about reports that claimed the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump had proposed changes to the way Social Security disability payments are made, which could cause thousands, even hundreds of thousands, to lose their benefits.  On Dec. 12, the Philadelphia Inquirer and Chicago Tribune posted an article with the headline "Trump Administration Proposes Social Security Rule Changes That Could Cut Off Thousands of Disabled Recipients." The article reported that: Inquirer Tribune "The Trump administration is proposing changes to Social Security that could terminate disability payments to hundreds of thousands of Americans, particularly older people and children. The new rule would change aspects of disability reviews  the methods by which the Social Security Administration determines whether a person continues to qualify for benefits. Few recipients are aware of the proposal, which is open for public comment through January." The left-leaning website Common Dreams published an article with the headline "'A National Disgrace': Trump Proposes Social Security Change That Could End Disability Benefits for Hundreds of Thousands.'" That story reported: article "Activists are working to raise public awareness and outrage over a little-noticed Trump administration proposal that could strip life-saving disability benefits from hundreds of thousands of people by further complicating the way the Social Security Administration determines who is eligible for payments." On the face of it, the changes proposed by the Trump administration would not, in fact, directly or immediately strip disability benefits from thousands of would-be recipients, rather the changes would introduce more (and more frequent) eligibility reviews for those who wish to receive them. However, some critics have argued that those increased bureaucratic requirements would over-burden some would-be recipients, in particular especially vulnerable recipients, and would ultimately (albeit indirectly) result in thousands losing disability benefits.  The Social Security Administration distributes disability benefits in two principle ways: Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), which typically provides benefits to people based on their previous Social Security tax contributions and history of work, and is paid out of the Social Security insurance fund; and Supplemental Security Income (SSI), which typically provides benefits to people based on their disability status and inability to work, and is paid out of general tax coffers.  ways In order to prevent potential abuse and waste in the system, the Social Security Administration conducts "continuing disability reviews," essentially investigating whether each recipient still has a disabling condition, and if so, which kind. Those reviews take place more or less frequently, depending on the nature of each individual's disability, broken into three "medical diary categories," as follows: reviews In November, the Social Security Administration published its proposals to make several changes to the review system. The most significant proposal was to add a fourth medical diary category, "Medical Improvement Likely." Recipients placed in that category would undergo a review every two years. proposals According to a document accompanying the proposals, the decision to introduce the fourth category was made, in part, because the administration saw a pattern whereby some in the "Medical Improvement Expected" category were being prematurely subjected to re-evaluation, after six-18 months, before a medical improvement had the chance to take hold, and some in the "Medical Improvement Possible" category had successfully treated their impairment comfortably within the three-year review interval. The introduction of the new category would therefore mean the bureaucratic burden on some recipients would actually be lessened, since they would be subject to review less frequently, though clearly it would also mean others would be subject to more frequent reviews. On the whole, the administration has estimated that, between 2020 and 2029, the new category would tend towards requiring more frequent reviews for those currently in the "Medical Improvement Possible" category, rather than less frequent reviews for those currently in the "Medical Improvement Expected" category:   The administration expects the introduction of the "Medical Improvement Likely" category to lead to an 18 percent increase in the total number of reviews undertaken over the next decade. This would therefore lead to an increased up-front cost in administering the disability benefits programs, and an increased aggregate bureaucratic burden to recipients (even if some individual recipients would actually undergo reviews less frequently).  Greater scrutiny of individual cases, and enhanced enforcement of eligibility criteria, results in some recipients no longer being deemed eligible, and no longer receiving either SSDI or SSI, which saves money for the Social Security insurance fund and the Treasury, respectively. For the 2015 fiscal year, for example, the Social Security Administration calculated a 19.9:1 return on investment rate for disability benefits enforcement  meaning that for every $1 spent on performing reviews, the government would save $19.90 on disability benefits that would otherwise have been paid, over the course of a lifetime, to recipients who are now deemed ineligible. To be specific, the administration estimated that the $717 million spent on reviews in 2015 would ultimately save $14.3 billion in lifetime disability benefit payments.  calculated So the introduction of the Trump administration's proposals is highly likely to ultimately lead to thousands of disability benefits recipients no longer receiving those benefits  both because some will be overburdened by the bureaucratic demands of more frequent reviews, and because some recipients whose medical status no longer meets the eligibility criteria will have that ineligibility discovered sooner. A considerable measure of truth, therefore, exists in the reports published by the Philadelphia Inquirer and Common Dreams. However, those articles failed to mention an important component to the administration's proposals: They would not change how a recipient's eligibility is determined, only how often that determination takes place. As the proposal stated: "We are not changing the Medical Improvement Review Standard that we use to determine whether a person continues to meet the disability requirements of the Act." This means that, while the proposed increase in the number and frequency of reviews was highly likely to ultimately cause thousands to lose their benefits, that loss of benefits would not be arbitrary, or based on an application of a new and different standard for determining whether someone's health has improved. The standards and criteria for assessing whether an improvement has taken place would be the same as currently exist, and only the frequency of those reviews would change. In other words, some recipients would be subject to more frequent reviews, but if those more frequent reviews result in a finding that the recipient still has a qualifying disability or impairment  based on the same criteria as currently apply  the recipient would continue to receive disability benefits.  It could be that, as some critics have argued, the proposal represents an elegant way for the administration to save money by removing thousands from the recipient rolls without having to change eligibility criteria  the latter a move that would be more likely to cause public outrage or political opposition. However, on its face at least, the proposal involves enhanced enforcement of existing eligibility standards and criteria. That's an important distinction, and a significant omission from news articles that reported, with some justification, that the Trump administration had proposed changes to Social Security disability benefits that would cause thousands to be stripped of those benefits.  argued Lubrano, Alfred. "Trump Administration Proposes Social Security Rule Changes That Could Cut Off Thousands of Disabled Recipients."
 The Philadelphia Inquirer/The Chicago Tribune. 12 December 2019. Johnson, Jake. "'A National Disgrace': Trump Proposes Social Security Change That Could End Disability Benefits for Hundreds of Thousands."
 Common Dreams. 16 December 2019. Social Security Administration. "Proposed Rule -- Rules Regarding the Frequency and Notice of Continuing Disability Reviews."
 Federal Register. 18 November 2019.
One of the lines of defense in the current Internal Revenue Service controversy is that the agency stumbled under a heavy workload of applications from groups seeking tax-exempt status. Steven Miller, the former acting IRS commissioner, made this point in a piece he wrote forUSA Today,describing a sharp increase in applications. The day after an audit critical of the agency went public on May 14, 2013, the IRS posted on aquestion-and-answer pagethat the number of applications has more than doubled in recent years. The agency connected that directly to the singling out of tea party groups, writing this inappropriate criterion was used as a shortcut to centralize similar cases. Rep. Tim Griffin, R-Ark., took issue with that argument. At a House Ways and Means Committee hearing on Tuesday, he spoke about myths being thrown around. There was no surge in 501(c)(4) applications in 2010, Griffin said. Its possible to check whether a flood of paperwork was a contributing factor in the IRS missteps and we can see if Griffin is on solid ground. The IRS keeps track of its workload and according to the inspector generals audit, IRS staff was on the lookout for tea party-type groups at least six months before we see a jump in the number of applications. In fact, the data tell us that the volume of applications had dropped a bit from the year before the screening began. Heres how the activity breaks down for 501(c)(4) applications, the sort of tax-exempt group where political activity is allowed: 2009:    1,751 2010:    1,735 2011:    2,265 2012:    3,357 The inspector generals report saidthese figurescame from the IRS Exempt Organizations office and were for the fiscal year. As a reminder, the governments fiscal year starts in October, so FY 2010 begins on Oct. 1, 2009, and runs through the end of September 2010. The inspector generals report also providesa detailed timelinethat tracks when the tea party screening began. On about March 1, 2010, a manager asked a staffer to tally the number of tea party-related applications. According to the report, the staffer used Tea Party, Patriots, and 9/12 as part of the criteria for these searches. The earliest that there might have been a jump in applications would have been in October 2010. That is well after the IRS began its effort to give selective treatment to tea party groups. The IRS is correct in saying that the number of applications doubled, but that happened later -- from 2011 to 2012. We contacted the IRS and nothing we learned changes the numbers or the sequence of events. Reporters for theChronicle of Philanthropyand theWashington Posthave sifted the facts, too, and reached the same conclusion: The rise in applications for 501(c)(4) status came after the IRS began treating tea party-type groups differently. Our ruling Griffin said there was no surge in 501(c)(4) applications in 2010, and the numbers from the IRS back him up. The timeline in the Inspector Generals audit shows that the selective treatment of groups based on their ties to the tea party movement began before any rise in the IRS workload. We rate the statement True. U.S. Sen. Mark Warner joined the ranks of Wall Street critics during a recent radio interview, by complaining that investors increasingly are focused on reaping quick profits from companies at the expense of long-term value. The average time someone used to hold a share of stock back in the 60s was eight years. Now, the average time is four months, he said during aninterviewon Cats Roundtable, a New York City radio talk show hosted by John Catsimatidis, a billionaire businessman. We wondered whether Warner, D-Va., is right about the plunge in share-holding time. Warners office sent us a variety of articles by academics, investment strategists, newspapers and magazines that contained similar statistics to the ones cited by the senator. The source of thehistoric datais the New York Stock Exchange which, for most of the 20th century, was the dominant U.S. stock-trading venue. Heres the NYSEs average holding period for stocks at the start of each new decade, beginning at Warners mark in 1960: 1960, eight years, four months; 1970, five years, three months; 1980, two years, nine months; 1990, two years, two months; and 2000, one year, two months. But many new trading venues have opened and expanded in recent decades - E*Trade and NASDAQ, for example - and the New York Stock Exchanges dominance has diminished. About 25 percent of all U.S. trading now occurs on the NYSE, which has high financial requirements for the companies it lists and generally deals with large, stable stocks. In 2004, the NYSE changed its formula for calculating average share-holding periods to focus on its own listings. Credit Suisse that year began computing share-holding data that reflect the broader U.S. stock market. Credit Suisse figures show that in 2008 and 2009, when the nation was mired in the Great Recession, shares turned over an average almost five times a year. Thats slowed to about three times a year since 2013 or, as Warner put it, once every four months. The World Bank offers more conservative figures, saying U.S. shares, on average, turned over four times a year during the Great Recession and that slowed to 1.65 times a year in 2015 - or about once every eight months. Stock market analysts and academics note a variety of reasons for the quickening turnover of shares. Many say the days of small ma-and-pa investors have given way to an era of mutual funds and hedge funds that exert strong pressure of companies to produce short-term profits. The growth of e-trading also is cited; so are federal laws passed in 1993 that tied the bonuses of executives to their achievement of measurable performance goals in order for the bonuses to be tax-deductible for their companies. Warner said the consequence of activist investors is that corporations pay less attention to training workers and to research and development. He said Congress should explore offering tax incentives to companies that embrace those long-range goals. Many activist investors, to the contrary, say their actions have been beneficial and note that the stock market has continued to rise over the decades. Our ruling Warner said, The average time someone used to hold a share of stock back in the 60s was eight years. Now, the average time is four months. The gist of Warners statement is undeniable: The average holding period for stocks has eroded greatly during the past 56 years. The specifics of Warners statement, however, need a little elaboration. Estimates by Credit Suisse jibe with Warners claim that shares, on average, now are held for four months. The World Bank estimates the holding period now is about eight months. So we rate Warners statement Mostly True. It's not every day that readers see a paid online advertisement that describes the cumulative weight of someone's bowel movements. One such ad for the FloraSpring weight loss supplement reads as follows: "65 y/o Man Poops Out 42 Lbs." A somewhat similar YouTube video ad also promised a "pooping habit" for customers who take FloraSpring. First, this is the Google-hosted ad that claimed a 65-year-old man had 42 pounds of bowel movements:   However, the photo in the misleading ad did not show a man who "pooped out 42 pounds" (nor was he actually 65 years old). It was originally posted by photographer Pavel Ladziak in 2017. posted   In 2017, Bodybuilding.com reported that Ladziak was nowhere near 65 years of age: reported "Pawel Ladziak, a 35-year-old Polish fitness pro and personal trainer, is causing a sensation on Instagram by intentionally aging himself. His goal: to look as muscular and as old as he possibly can." There was no indication that Ladziak had any involvement with or knowledge of the "Man Poops" ad. We reached out to him, and will update this story should we hear back. The misleading ad led to a full-screen seminar-style video on a website for FloraSpring. It was described as "a weight loss supplement that assists in the weight loss process by increasing ones metabolism." described At first, a red line at the bottom of the screen looked to be a progress bar for the video player. However, the line appeared to be part of the video itself. It moved at a fairly quick speed at the beginning of the video, giving the effect that its running time would be short (as promised in the ad). However, the line later slowed to a crawl for the remainder of the presentation. Around 80 seconds into the video, the video's voice-over announced: "In the next 6 minutes and 27 seconds, you're going to get to go behind the scenes at Dr. (Steven) Masley's private clinic." However, the video lasted well over 45 minutes. Viewers who attempted to leave the video page were shown a notice. It said: "WAIT! BEFORE YOU GO... READ THE FREE REPORT FROM DR. MASLEY INSTEAD OF WATCHING THIS VIDEO NOW... CLICK HERE NOW." It led to a fairly lengthy page with an introduction from Dr. Steven Masley, MD. page The page purported to feature success stories for FloraSpring. The pictures next to the stories were from unrelated websites. For example, one of the pictures was from a YouTube video that featured dancing. Another looked to have come from the satirical website ClickHole. pictures YouTube video ClickHole We contacted Revival Point LLC, the company that sells FloraSpring. We asked about the ad that claimed a 65-year-old man released 42 pounds of fecal matter. The company's name was "Revival Point Labs" in the ad. A company spokesperson claimed that an affiliate was to blame. They also said the ad was a violation of the company's terms of service: This advertisement is not run by Dr. Masley or Revival Point LLC. The man in the photo does not represent a Revival Point LLC customer and the ad copy does not represent any of the studies supporting the ingredients in the product. The spokesperson later said they "submitted the link to Google Adwords to get the ad account removed that's running the ads." They also told us that they "terminated the link from these ads and permanently removed the affiliate." We asked about the unrelated photographs in the success stories. They told us that the three stories were representative of Masley's patients, but that real names and photos were changed for privacy reasons: unrelated photographs As for the photos on the longer page, these people represent three of Dr. Masley's patients, but their names and photos have been changed to keep their identity private. Due to Doctor/Patient confidentiality, we cannot provide any further information on these patients or their medical history with Dr. Masley. The photos on the page have been replaced with licensed stock imagery. Following our email to Revival Point LLC, the original pictures were changed to stock photographs. original pictures stock photographs We also stumbled upon a YouTube video that purported to show a FloraSpring video advertisement about a "pooping habit." Masley appeared in the video, which looked to have been screen-recorded and posted by a YouTube user. The ad mentioned "poop" and "pooping" many times. The small, corner photograph of Masley matched the profile picture on a YouTube channel for Revival Point Labs. YouTube video YouTube channel  The ad's voice-over script promised a "pooping habit" with FloraSpring: The good news is this pooping habit is something that anyone can start at any time at any age. It will help burn off pounds of fat, restore energy, shut down cravings, and yes, help you have amazing poops. Poop more often. Poop better. Make your poops more solid, and yet come out much easier, all while flushing out pounds of fat, flushing those excess calories and fat right out your butt into your toilet, and right down the drain, gone for good. We asked Revival Point LLC about the FloraSpring "pooping habit" ad. In response, they said: "This does not appear to be from us or affiliated with us." In sum, a picture in an online advertisement did not show a 65-year-old man. He also did not "poop out 42 pounds" after taking FloraSpring. The man in the ad is Ladzia, a Polish photographer. He's in his late 30s, and ages himself to look older as a hobby. Revival Point LLC claimed that the Google ad and the "pooping habit" YouTube video ad were not created by their company. In November 2015, a photograph began circulating online via sites such Imgur and Facebook showing a restaurant bill from a customer who purportedly stiffed his waitress and mocked her for being an immigrant: Imgur Facebook  The identity of the original friend of a friend who posted the image wasn't clear, but a FoxNews.com article provided some additional information about the circumstances under which the controversy began: article After serving a customer at Bamboo Thai Bistro in Redondo Beach, Calif., an Asian waitress received a short note scribbled on the receipt instead of a tip, according to NBC Los Angeles. It read, Tip for U.S. citizens only." The server is from Thailand and in the U.S. legally on a visa with the hope of obtaining a green card one day. According to NBC, on Nov. 11 a male diner paid for his meal of kung pao spaghetti that totaled $22.84 --which would have meant the server got $3.43. But after discovering the nasty note, it's believed another diner snapped a photo of the receipt, which included the man's name--and posted it online. An earlier report from Los Angeles television station KNBC included a brief video segment about the ensuing controversy: report Despite massive social media interest in the receipt and its unpleasant message, the man whose name appeared on the slip of paper hasn't responded to media requests for his version of events. He's neither confirmed nor denied he left the message, and hasn't e-mailed a response to any of the several media outlets covering the viral controversy. Although KNBC included CCTV footage of the man purportedly entering Bamboo Thai Bistro in Redondo Beach, California, on 11 November 2015, that clip didn't definitively indicate he signed a receipt (much less left a rude, anti-immigrant message on a piece of paper which included his full legal name). A report from the Daily Breeze of Los Angeles County's South Bay left it unclear whether the man was a take-out customer or a diner who was waited upon by the server: report A 15 percent tip would have been $3.43, but the male customer wrote Tip for U.S. Citizens Only on the tip line for his $22.84 receipt for kung pao spaghetti. It was really bizarre, said the owner, who asked to be identified only as Adison. She thought she did something wrong. She is one of the best workers here. The man ordered his food and got up and left. I went outside to go do something and, when I came back in, my waitresses were showing me the receipt, Adison said. This guy left this. Searches for Jason Naglich restricted to a few days before the 11 November 2015 date supplied by the restaurant revealed he had no Internet presence of which to speak. How a fellow customer who was not party to the transaction came to view the receipt (as the restaurant claimed) was unclear. The restaurant's owner later said he feared litigation as a result of the controversy. restricted So while the story has drawn massive interest from across the country, little about Naglich and the purported receipt (beyond the original assertion) has been confirmed. It's possible that a diner by that name chose to add insult to injury by stiffing his waitress and blaming it on her immigrant status. It's similarly possible that as with prior claims of this variety, someone somewhere along the line fabricated the slip's message. However, diners swept up in previous hoaxes have quickly spoken up to correct the story once it came to their attention, whereas Naglich has yet to address the rumor. fabricated In November and December 2018, French demonstrators known as 'gilets jaunes' (yellow vests) garnered international attention for their (at times) destructive protests against President Emmanuel Macron's proposed carbon tax increase in the country's 2019 budget. protests On 5 December, the French government announced they would be removing the fuel tax hike from the budget, after weeks of demonstrations that saw extensive property damage and clashes with police take place on the streets of Paris. removing Against that background, one Twitter user with a penchant for sharing viral visual content posted photographs of what was  presented as quintessentially French weapons seized from the gilets jaunes protesters. On 3 December, @HansReloaded tweeted images of what looked like a bread knife disguised in a modified baguette and described as "Bladed weapons confiscated from rioters by the Paris police": bladed weapons confiscated from rioters by the paris police. pic.twitter.com/fyVe8alMbv pic.twitter.com/fyVe8alMbv  Hans (@HansReloaded) December 3, 2018 December 3, 2018  The tweet was widely promulgated on both Twitter and Facebook, with many users (whether or not they actually took the "weapon" to be authentic) reveling in the stereotype-affirming use of a baguette in the context of violent crime: A knife hidden in a baguette is the most French shit ever. https://t.co/3uqHl3bAOc https://t.co/3uqHl3bAOc  Baby D (@ZGAplease) December 4, 2018 December 4, 2018   The photographs posted by @HansReloaded did not originate in the gilets jaunes protests of November and December 2018, and could be found online well before that period. They appear to have been posted originally in September 2017 by a French Twitter user who added the caption "French self-defense": found French self-dfense. pic.twitter.com/tgvymxZCrK pic.twitter.com/tgvymxZCrK  Buby-stoukette  (@BubyBuubs) September 12, 2017 September 12, 2017  That user confirmed in a later tweet that the photographs were taken at a branch of La Chaise Longue, a chain store with locations throughout France that specializes in novelty household items and gifts, such as the "couteau  pain baguette" ("baguette knife") -- which can be purchased from La Chaise Longue's online store for 21.95 ($24.99 as of 6 December 2018): confirmed purchased   Willsher, Kim. "Macron Scraps Fuel Tax Rise in Face of Gilets Jaunes Protests."
 The Guardian. 5 December 2018. Ripping thesweeping tax reformspushed by PresidentDonald Trumpand other leading Republicans, U.S. Rep.Mark Pocan, D-Madison, singled out the provision to eliminate the death tax. In an Oct. 18, 2017, appearanceon a talk showon Janesvilles WCLO radio, Pocan said: They (Republicans) go about getting rid of the estate tax -- which, to me, is the one that I wish more people would really understand. Theyve done a good of marketing it as a death tax -- you die and you get taxed. But the reality is, its a tax on the ultra-wealthy that the vast majority of people will never, ever, ever see in their life. Last year, two out of every 1,000 people paid an estate tax. So its not like a common tax thats out there. With the overall reform gaining momentum froma Senate votethe day after Pocans claim, anda House votea week later, lets see if his statistic is correct. Aimed at the rich? Thereisdebate about how the rich are treated by the reform proposal, which at this stage is considered only a framework, since it lacks details. Weverated as Mostly Falsea claim by House SpeakerPaul Ryan, a Janesville Republican who represents the congressional district that borders Pocans. Ryan said the framework, which he supports, is focused on tax breaks for the middle class and not about people who are really high-income earners getting a tax break. The framework does offer some benefits for the middle class, but whats more clear is there are specific provisions benefiting the wealthy. As for what is conventionally known as the estate tax, theTrump administration usesthe term death tax (asdo Ryanandother Republicans) in promoting how the framework would repeal the tax. Trump himself claimed ending the tax would protect millions of small businesses and the American farmer. But PolitiFact Nationalsrating was Pants on Fire: Only 5,460 estates even pay the tax each year, with only 80 being small businesses or farms. Pocans figure The Internal Revenue Service tells usthe estate tax is a tax on your right to transfer property at your death. It consists of an accounting of everything you own or have certain interests in at the date of death -- including cash and securities, real estate, insurance, trusts, business interests and other assets. In 2016, the year cited in Pocans claim, an unmarried individuals estate was potentially taxable only if the estates value exceeded $5.45 million. (The value had to exceed $10.9 million to be taxable, if there was a surviving spouse.) After deductions, such estates generally are taxed at40 percent. IRS figures showthere were 12,411 estate tax returns filed in 2016 -- but a tax was owed on only 5,219 of them. That smaller figure aligns with what PolitiFact National found. And the non-profit Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Centermakes a similar estimatefor 2017: 5,460 estates owing a tax.) In 2016, those 5,219 estates paid a total estate tax of$18.3 billion. Since annual estate tax filings include deaths that occur in previous years, the Tax Policy Center says that each year, there are roughly 5,000 estates that pay the federal estate tax out of roughly 2.6 million deaths each year. That comes to 2 of every 1,000. Point of view on the tax While he doesnt dispute the statistics,Chris Edwards, director of tax policy studies at the libertarian-leaning Cato Institute, told us there are other points to consider regarding the estate tax, saying: The estate tax affects far more people than the relatively small number who pay. Many people who own businesses and/or investments have to spend a lot of time and money on lawyers/accountants planning to avoid it. A substantial portion of the life insurance industry exists only to avoid the estate tax. And, indeed, that is an important criticism: it is one of the most inefficient taxes in the sense that the ratio of paperwork/avoidance to tax collections is very high . The estate tax is anti-saving and anti-investment. It encourages wealthy folks to consume their wealth before death because, if the rate is high, they dont want the government to grab it. For the rest of us, it would be better if wealthy people kept their money invested in the economy,  because that spurs growth. Its better for us if the wealthy hold large pools of savings rather than going out and buying expensive cars and yachts. A high estate tax rate encourages them to go out and buy expensive cars and yachts, which does nothing for long term economic growth. Our rating Pocan says that what Republicans call the death tax is the estate tax on the ultra wealthy which, in 2016, was paid by only two out of every 1,000 people. Republicans who are proposing to eliminate the estate tax do use the death tax term. In 2016, the tax, generally 40 percent, applied only to estates worth $5.45 million or more. After deductions, the tax was paid by only about two out of every 1,000 people who died. We rate the statement True. Phishing bait:  E-mailed messages pose as overdue notifications for E-ZPass bills. SCAM Example:  [Collected via e-mail, July 2014] Just got word from my dad of a virus that I didn't see listed on your site: ------------------ Judy got an e-mail with the subject line saying "Payment for driving on a toll road."  She forwarded it to me. The message said something like "You are overdue for paying your E-Z Pass bill.  Click here to download your invoice."  I should have known better than to do it, but I did.  It downloaded an "exe" file to my computer.  Like a damn fool, I actually told my computer to open it.  I got a warning message saying "The publisher cannot be verified.  Are you sure you want to open this file?" At that point, I realized that I had narrowly escaped infecting my computer with some kind of malware  virus, identity theft, or something of that type.  I permanently deleted the exe file and any e-mail messages containing the link to it.  Origins:  In July 2014 Internet users were spammed with emails appearing to originate with the E-ZPass Service Center (an electronic toll-collection system used on most tolled roads, tunnels, and bridges in the eastern half of the United States) with subject lines such as "In arrears for driving on toll road."  The text of such messages informed recipients that "You have not paid for driving on a toll road" and invited them to click on a link to download an invoice and "service your debt in the shortest possible time."   These messages were not legitimate; they were part of a phishing scheme intended to lure recipients into clicking links or opening attachments and downloading malware onto their computers.  The New York State Thruway Authority has posted a warning on its site advising customers that the messages are not authorized communications from E-ZPass, the New York State Thruway Authority, or any other toll collection agency and should not be opened or responded to: warning The New York State Thruway Authority is warning motorists about a scam involving fake e-mails. The authority says it recently learned of an email phishing scam which appears to be an attempt to collect unpaid tolls. An example of the email is as follows: "Dear customer, You have not paid for driving on a toll road. This invoice is sent repeatedly, please service your debt in the shortest possible time." The authority is warning that this is not an authorized communication from E-ZPass, the New York State Thruway Authority or any other toll agency associated with E-ZPass. People are advised not to open or respond to such a message. The safest thing to do is to delete the email. The E-ZPass Service Center does not send out email invoices for payment. If you owe money for using E-ZPass on a toll facility, the E-ZPass service center will send an invoice through the US Postal Service for payment. If you have any questions about the validity of any message received from E-ZPass, contact the E-ZPass New York Customer Service Center at 800-333-8655. Last updated:  10 July 2014 After the police shooting of 20-year-old Latrell Allen in Chicago's Englewood community on the afternoon of Aug. 9, 2020, unrest in that city extended through that night and into the early morning hours of the following day, with looters hitting some stores in Chicagos wealthiest shopping district on North Michigan Avenue. Latrell Allen extended The following evening, members of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement held a solidarity rally in that city with some of the people who had been arrested for looting the night before. Shortly after those events, social media users began circulating a meme stemming from that event, quoting a "BLM leader & organizer" named Ariel Atkins as saying, "I don't care if someone decides to loot, because that makes sure that person eats or has clothes. Anything they want to take, they can, because these businesses have insurance":  That was an accurate quote, according to Chicago NBC affiliate WMAQ-TV, who reported on the Aug. 10 event: reported Members of Black Lives Matter held a solidarity rally on Monday night [August 10] with the more than 100 individuals who were arrested after a night of looting and unrest in Chicago. The rally was held at the South Loop police station where organizers say those individuals are currently being held in custody. I dont care if someone decides to loot a Gucci or a Macys or a Nike store, because that makes sure that person eats, Ariel Atkins, a BLM organizer, said. That makes sure that person has clothes. Black Lives Matter Chicago organized the rally after overnight unrest throughout the city, with police saying that more than 100 individuals were taken into custody for a variety of offenses, including looting. That is reparations, Atkins said. Anything they wanted to take, they can take it because these businesses have insurance. Atkins said essentially the same thing a few days later, when she was interviewed by Chicago NPR station WBEZ on the subject of "why she supports looting": interviewed A lot of people are really attacking our pages. Theyre like, Oh, you support the looters. And yeah, we do, 100%. Thats reparations. And like however people choose to protest, especially if it was definitely in line with what happened with the shooting, which would be powerful to see people reacting ... without organizers just being like, Were angry and this is what were gonna do. Were gonna take the power back. I feel like these stores, these Macys, these Guccis, the PNC Banks, theyre not here for us. The city puts way more money and investment into spending time and protecting their spaces and making sure that they exist. And yet our people are constantly being pushed out of the city ... Unemployment is incredibly high, like we are in an incredible situation, and the fact that anybody gives a s*** about these businesses over what is happening in this city right now and the pain that people are in and the suffering that is taking place, I dont care. I will support the looters till the end of the day. If thats what they need to do in order to eat, then thats what youve got to do to eat .... The whole idea of criminality is based on racism anyway, because criminality is punishing people for things that they have needed to do to survive or just the way that society has affected them with white supremacist B.S. So its like her deciding what is criminal and what isnt. WMAQ-TV [Chicago].  "Black Lives Matter Holds Rally Supporting Individuals Arrested in Chicago Looting Monday."
  10 August 2020. Black, Curtis. &nbps; "Latrell Allen Police Shooting Exposes Gaps in Body Camera and Foot Pursuit Policies."
  The Chicago Reporter.  14 August 2020. Yoon-Ji Kang, Esther.  "Officers Disrespected Englewood Residents Following Police Shooting, Activists Say."
  WBEZ [Chicago].  10 August 2020. Wildeboer, Rob and Chip Mitchell.  "Officers Disrespected Englewood Residents Following Police Shooting, Activists Say."
  WBEZ [Chicago].  12 August 2020. FACT CHECK:  Did President Obama "suspend" the Second Amendment?  Claim:  President Obama has "suspended" the Second Amendment.     Examples:  [Collected via Twitter, October 2015] BREAKING NEWS- President Barack Hussein Obama Jr. SUSPENDS 2ND AMENDMENTRead more at https://t.co/CVT80kEfls https://t.co/CVT80kEfls  The Dc Gazette (@TheDcGazette) October 2, 2015 October 2, 2015   This is bull crap. Get rid of this idiot! He cant do this https://t.co/oqv0GWX1d2 https://t.co/oqv0GWX1d2  Mason Page (@MasonKanePage) October 2, 2015 October 2, 2015   Origins:   On 1 October 2015, ten people were killed in a mass shooting at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon.   In the wake of the incident (and ensuing interest in the topic of gun violence), the disreputable web site Universal Free Press published an article with the clickbait headline "BREAKING NEWS  President Barack Hussein Obama Jr. SUSPENDS 2ND AMENDMENT," stating that: mass shooting In a move unprecedented by a sitting president and in wake of the recent mass shooting in Oregon, Barack Obama said Ive had enough and I will not allow more women and children to die by gun violence on my watch. Sources on Capitol Hill say, that Obama while in a cabinet meeting, was handed the recent statistical reports on violent crime and at the same time was told of another mass shooting, it was then that he exclaimed Are you joking, this is unacceptable and THIS time Im going to do something about it! He continued by saying, For too long, have I sat idly by and watched crime after crime be committed when there was a gun involved, well NO MORE, I have to think of the safety of the American people, after all, I took a solemn oath to do so. Sources close to the president explained that suspending a constitutional right was not within his power, Obama exclaimed,  I have certain powers granted to me and I intend to use them to keep the citizens of this great nation safe, if there is a legality issue, we can sort it out later. A few (but not all) users who shared the link on Twitter noted that the article was both prefaced by and concluded with a note indicating that its claims were entirely fabricated (and calculated to take advantage of the tragedy and produce revenue-generating traffic by provoking baseless outrage): *Disclaimer* This article is satire and there is no basis of fact for it to be taken seriously. Last updated:     2 October 2015 Originally published:   2 October 2015 "If something sounds too good to be true, then it probably is" says the manta of the fact-checking industry. In December 2018, a number of social media users came across a post promising a chance at an ambassadorship with the popular brand Lululemon. The posting, which was shared by Instagram accounts such as @lulurecruitment.co (which has no affiliation with the real Lululemon) explained that anyone with 150 followers had a chance of obtaining free clothes and gift for simply sharing this advertisement with their friends on social media: @lulurecruitment.co   This is not a genuine offer from Lululemon, and the accounts sharing this message are not affiliated with the brand. Lululemon's social media team has responded to a few queries about the scam with messages similar to the following: responded FB User: Is this legit? I am assuming no Lululemon: Hi Michelle, You've got itour accounts are verified with the blue check mark, and our ambassadors are chosen individually by our stores rather than via our social channels. This account has been flagged to our brand protection team. Let me know if you have more questions! - Camilla The non-existent ambassadorship was only offered to users with a minimum of 150 followers, which is a relatively low bar for any sort of social media position, especially for a well-known national brand such as Lululemon. This scam also required potential "ambassadors" to follow the fake Lululemon account and then share its post with their friends. This allowed the scammers to build a following and ensured that their dishonest message would be spread to a greater number of social media users. This Lululemon scam followed a strategy similar to other "like farming" social media schemes. Such fraudsters offer something of value (in this case an ambassadorship) in exchange for social media engagement, which allows them to quickly build a following and then provides them the opportunity to sell the account to a third party. like farming One way to avoid this type of scam is to double-check to make sure that a company-affiliated post actually originated with the brand's official social media accounts: @lululemon can you confirm if this is real or fake? pic.twitter.com/gnp8g2sD2p @lululemon pic.twitter.com/gnp8g2sD2p  Jason Davis (@Jasonnn93) December 13, 2018 December 13, 2018  Social media users should also keep old adages such as "nothing in life is free" when they peruse the internet.