Under Ted Cruzs tax plan, businesses will now have to pay 16 percent on the money they make. They will also have to pay 16 percent on the money they pay their employees.
Ted Cruzs tax plan, envisioningtax returns that fit on postcards, would whack businesses twice over, Marco Rubio says. We wondered about that. In the Jan. 14, 2016, Fox Business Network Republican presidential debate in North Charleston, S.C., Sen. Rubio of Florida said that under the plan advocated by Sen. Cruz of Texas, businesses basically will have to pay a tax, both on the money they make, but they also have to pay taxes on the money that they pay their employees. A moment later, Rubio said Cruzs plan does not eliminate the corporate (income) tax or the payroll tax. Businesses will now have to pay 16 percent on the money they make. They will also have to pay 16 percent on the money they pay their employees. Cruz disputed that characterization, saying in part that a critical piece that Marco seems to be missing is that this 16 percent business flat tax enables us to eliminate the corporate income tax. It goes away. Cruzs plan replaces the corporate income tax, the payroll tax and others with a flat tax. Does it also make businesses pay 16 percent on profits and payroll, as Rubio said? Cruzs plan outlined After emailing Rubios campaign about how he reached his 16 percent conclusions, we turned to Cruzs tax plan asoutlined by his campaign. Under the Simple Flat Tax, Cruz says on a campaign webpage, the current seven rates of personal income tax will collapse into a single low rate of 10 percent. For a family of four, the first $36,000 will be tax-free. The Child Tax Credit will remain in place, Cruz proposes, and the plan revamps the earned-income tax credit while preserving deductions for charitable contributions and mortgage interest payments. Heres the flat-tax postcard as envisioned by Cruz:  SOURCE:Web page,The Simple Tax Plan,Ted Cruz presidential campaign (viewed Jan. 20, 2016) Next up: the 16 percent element. On Cruzs website, we spotted no direct indication the 16 percent would apply to payroll spending. For businesses, Cruz says there, the corporate income tax will be eliminated. It will be replaced by a simple Business Flat Tax at a single 16 percent rate. The current payroll tax system will be abolished, while maintaining full funding for Social Security and Medicare. Cruz further says the business flat tax will be based on revenues minus expenses such as equipment, computers, and other business investments. In general, Cruz says, his proposed tax overhaul will deliver a tremendous economic boost, according to the well-respected Tax Foundation, a Washington, D.C., nonprofit thatdescribes itselfas a leading independent tax policy research organization. Independent breakdowns We fetched the foundationsOctober 2015 analysisof Cruzs plan which, the foundation said, would replace the corporate income tax and all payroll taxes with a 16 percent Business Transfer Tax, or subtraction method value-added tax. In addition, his plan would repeal a number of complex features of the current tax code. Farther along, the analysis spelled out a payroll aspect. Specifically, the foundation said, Cruzs plan: Enacts a broad-based, 16 percent Business Transfer Tax or value-added tax. This tax is levied on all business profits, less capital investment. This would include the payroll of business, government, and nonprofit institutions, as well as net imports. The tax would exempt from taxation the purchase of health insurance. A business transfer tax is also often known as a subtraction-method value-added tax. While its base is identical in economic terms to that of the credit-invoice VAT seen in many OECD countries, it is calculated from corporate accounts, not on individual transactions. The foundation also said: Under current law, some taxes on labor are explicitly levied on nominal wages, reducing take-home pay, while others are implicitly passed on to workers through lower nominal wages. The business transfer tax would also fall substantially on payrolls, but it would do so entirely through implicit reductions in nominal wages rather than explicit reductions in take-home pay. Thats a bit gobbledy-gooky for us. A foundation official, Kyle Pomerleau, told us by phone and email that what Rubio said largely holds up, though it would be wrong to conclude businesses under Cruzs plan would pay 16 percent on the same money twice. That is, Pomerleau elaborated, Cruzs plan eliminates the existing payroll tax, which is 15.3 percent of wages (half of that paid by employers, the other half by employees), but the plan counts payroll expenditures as part of net business profits, which are taxed at 16 percent. Even though his plan gets rid of the payroll tax, Pomerleau emailed, his new Business Flat Tax will end up taxing that payroll by disallowing its deduction at the business level. Another authority, Joe Rosenberg of theUrban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, told us by phone that Rubio was accurate about Cruzs plan presuming he meant what most people define as profit by his phrase what you make. Rosenberg walked us through how he sees Cruzs plan working: Say a business buys something for 50 cents at wholesale and has to pay its employees 50 cents, accumulating $1 in costs. Then the business sells the something for $1.10, drawing a 10-cent profit. Under the Cruz plan, Rosenberg said, the business pays the flat tax solely on the 60-cent difference between the $1.10 in sales and the 50 cents spent on the wholesale purchase. And, Rosenberg noted, theres another way to pin what Cruzs plan subjects to the 16 percent tax -- by isolating what the business makes, the 10 cents, and then adding the 50 cents in employee payroll. Its very fair to interpret what Sen. Rubio said as correct, Rosenberg said, though its also worth mention (again) that Cruzs plan eliminates existing payroll and income taxes. Broadly, Rosenberg didnt agree that Cruzs plan whipsaws businesses, saying: Its a change in the way theyre taxed. Its not taxing something twice. We didnt hear back from Rubios camp about his claim nor did Cruz aides engage. Footnote: A Jan. 14, 2016,foundation postby economist Alan Cole says Cruz and Rubio arent proposing entirely distinct tax approaches. In fact, Cole wrote, if you put together two taxes from Rubios plan (and fiddle with the rates), you can actually synthetically construct the business flat tax from Cruzs plan! Our ruling Rubio said that under Cruzs tax plan, businesses will now have to pay 16 percent on the money they make. They will also have to pay 16 percent on the money they pay their employees. Under Cruzs plan, that rate applies both to net income and payroll expenditures though the way this description was phrased by Rubio merits clarification. That is, the 16 percent would not be applied to what a business makes and separately applied again to money paid to employees. Also unsaid: The proposed tax would replace taxes including payroll and income taxes. We rate this claim Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.
On July 11, 2022,we received reader mail asking us about sponsored posts on Facebook Marketplace that advertised portable power generators at Costco Wholesale. The sponsored posts led to a page that, to some viewers, may have looked like an official website for Costco. However, that was not really the case. The page was designed by scammers to try to fool users into losing money. One of the sponsored posts on Facebook Marketplace read, "30-day money-back guarantee!" and led to expeditaeos.com. The real website for Costco is costco.com.  Facebook Marketplace costco.com That sponsored ad on Facebook looked like this:  Once users clicked the sponsored post on Facebook, they were directed to the look-alike website that featured the Costco logo and 22 different products, most of which were portable power generators. The brands for the generators included Honda, Generac, Ryobi, and Toro. Such generators can easily sell for well over $1,000. On the scam page, however, the generators were supposedly available for less than $100.  Costco scam  While scanning the products, we came across another red flag that this was a scam: The fake page attempted to convince onlookers that they could buy Honda generators from Costco, when, in reality, Honda generators are not sold at Costco stores, nor are they available on the companys website. Honda generators are not sold at Costco stores The scammers appeared to be targeting users Paypal accounts. While checking out, the website asked people for Paypal.com login information even when they wanted to pay with credit or debit cards. We previously reported on a similarly-run scam about a supposed giveaway of pricey items from Traeger Grills. That scam also targeted users' Paypal information. Paypal Paypal.com reported We strongly recommend against ordering any products that claim to be sold by Costco unless the address bar at the top of your web browser specifically says that you are visiting costco.com. The scam involving portable power generators was not the first fraudulent scheme we've seen on Facebook using Costco's name and logo. Less than a month prior, scammers created a Facebook page named "Costco Wholesale Fans" and falsely claimed that the company was giving away TVs for free. (Additionally, we previously reported on a similar scam about Walmart, not Costco, giving away televisions for free.) claimed reported Walmart  In sum, no, Costco was not advertising and selling deeply discounted power generators through Facebook Marketplace. We recommend caution when clicking on sponsored posts on Facebook that claim to provide steep price cuts on products that are normally pricey and quite useful. Facebook An unexpected controversy took root after the July 2016 Democratic National Convention (DNC) involving key speaker Khizr Khan, who took to the convention stage to speak about Donald Trump, Muslims in America, and the loss of his son, U.S. Army Captain Humayun Khan: Captain Humayun Khan   Khan's speech was preceded by brief introductory footage of Hillary Clinton describing his immigration to the United States, and how his son was killed in action in Iraq while guarding his Army unit. Khan reiterated his son's story and challenged Donald Trump (who has at times proposed barring Muslims from entering the United States) to read the U.S. Constitution: Like many immigrants, we came to this country empty-handed. We believed in American democracy; that with hard work and goodness of this country, we could share in and contribute to its blessings ... Our son, Humayun, had dreams too, of being a military lawyer, but he put those dreams aside the day he sacrificed his life to save the lives of his fellow soldiers. Hillary Clinton was right when she called my son "the best of America." If it was up to Donald Trump, he never would have been in America. Donald Trump consistently smears the character of Muslims. He disrespects other minorities: women, judges, even his own party leadership. He vows to build walls, and ban us from this country. Donald Trump, you're asking Americans to trust you with their future. Let me ask you: have you even read the United States constitution? I will gladly lend you my copy. [Waved "Pocket Constitution."] In this document, look for the words "liberty" and "equal protection of law." Have you ever been to Arlington Cemetery? Go look at the graves of brave patriots who died defending the United States of America. You will see all faiths, genders and ethnicities. You have sacrificed nothing and no one. Trump repeatedly issued comments about Khan via Twitter as the Khans were being interviewed about the speech and about Trump's reaction to it: Captain Khan, killed 12 years ago, was a hero, but this is about RADICAL ISLAMIC TERROR and the weakness of our "leaders" to eradicate it!  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 31, 2016 July 31, 2016 I was viciously attacked by Mr. Khan at the Democratic Convention. Am I not allowed to respond? Hillary voted for the Iraq war, not me!  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 31, 2016 July 31, 2016  This story is not about Mr. Khan, who is all over the place doing interviews, but rather RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM and the U.S. Get smart!  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 1, 2016 August 1, 2016  On 31 July 2016, the dispute escalated when Trump suggested to ABC's George Stephanopoulos and the New York Times' Maureen Dowd that Khan's wife Ghazala was silent during her husband's DNC speech because, as a Muslim female, she was not permitted to speak: Mr. Trump told Mr. Stephanopoulos that Mr. Khan seemed like a nice guy and that he wished him the best of luck. But, he added, If you look at his wife, she was standing there, she had nothing to say, she probably  maybe she wasnt allowed to have anything to say, you tell me. Mr. Trump also told Maureen Dowd of The New York Times, Id like to hear his wife say something. A day earlier, Mrs. Khan told MSNBC that she was unable to bring herself to speak at the convention due to her ongoing grief over her son's death: Ms. Khan did speak to MSNBCs Lawrence ODonnell, saying she cannot even come in the room where his pictures are. When she saw her sons photograph on the screen behind her on the stage in Philadelphia, she said, I couldnt take it. I controlled myself at that time, she said, while choking back tears. It is very hard. On 31 July, Ghazala Khan wrote an editorial for the Washington Post addressing the ongoing controversy. The same day Mrs. Khan's editorial appeared, bloggers Theodore and Walid Shoebat published a lengthy polemic stitching together circumstantial evidence to suggest Khizr Khan was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood: editorial Shoebat polemic The Muslim who attacked Donald Trump, Khizr Muazzam Khan, is a Muslim Brotherhood agent, working to bring Muslims into the United States. After reading what we discovered so far, it becomes obvious that Khan wanted to trump Trumps Muslim immigration policy of limiting Muslim immigration into the U.S. But not so fast. Trump we have your back. The Shoebats went on to cite two papers written by Khan in 1983 and 1984 pertaining to the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, or OPEC, described as "an intergovernmental oil company consisting of mainly Islamic countries" and a second titled "Juristic Classification of Islamic Law" (both of which were written prior to the family's move to the United States). With respect to the latter, Shoebat bracketed a not-present "Sharia" in the title and included a snapshot of the only page of the paper freely available (which in no part suggested support for Sharia law or membership in the Muslim brotherhood and appeared to be an academic piece, not an advocacy paper). The Shoebats maintained that in the paper "Khan shows his appreciation for the icon of the Muslim Brotherhood," referencing a citation holding that "The contribution to this article of S. Ramadans writing is greatly acknowledged." page However, the quoted text was suspiciously elided from the screenshot that appeared on Shoebat and looked far less damning in its actual context as an academic footnote:  The elided citation was offered as support of the assertion that Khan's work was undersigned by the "Saudi Wahhabist religious institution" and cited a "recent report" that Khan had moved from Pakistan to the United Arab Emirates, "a hotbed for the Muslim Brotherhood." That "recent report" was a Politico article that described the Khan "familys journey from Pakistan to the United Arab Emirates, and from there to Boston," which in turn referenced Khan's 2005 interview with the Washington Post about the recent loss of his son Humayun. In its original context, the interview revealed a very different picture than the one painted by the Shoebats: article interview [Khan] and his wife would talk often to their three boys about why they decided to come to the United States, he began. It was the 1970s, and Pakistan was under military rule. They came to Silver Spring to have more freedom and opportunity. "It sounds cliche," said Khan, 54, "but that is the story." His son was always reading books about Thomas Jefferson; that part of his passion was certainly his father's doing. When the boys were small, Khan would take them to the Jefferson Memorial. He'd have them stand there and read the chiseled, curving words about swearing hostility against tyrannies over the minds of men ... It was not exactly surprising, he continued, that Humayun quoted Jefferson in his admissions essay for the University of Virginia, a line about freedom requiring vigilance. It was a bit surprising, though, when he signed up for ROTC and told his dad that after graduation in 2000, he wanted to join the Army. "He said that it seems only fair and logical to join the Army," Khan said. "Because he wanted to complete the journey  he felt that ROTC had completed him as a person, and he wanted to give back. That's what he wanted to do." It was logical, Khan said, and how was a lawyer going to argue with logic? Humayun finished his four years of service and was preparing for law school when the Army called him back to duty. As he was moving into Iraq last year, Khan called him and they spoke briefly, a conversation he has turned over in his mind a million times since. His son said, "Remember I wrote that article for admission to U-Va.?" Khan said, pausing, taking the pen cap off and putting it on again, his voice steady. "He said, 'I meant it.' He said that. He wasn't going there through some thoughtless process, or thoughtlessly following orders. He thought he was serving a purpose." Khan recounted the details of his son's death to the paper in 2005, noting that by all accounts his son sent his unit to safety before running towards a suicide bomber: Over time, his colonel and his fellow soldiers told Khan how his son died, and that, too, had some sort of horrible logic to it. Humayun's job at the base in Baqubah was to inspect the soldiers at the gates, where crowds of Iraqis would sometimes gather. Humayun went early that morning, which was just like him. He saw a taxi speeding toward the gates, too fast, he thought. He yelled for everyone to hit the dirt. Then, as was his nature, he went running toward it, they said. "Ten or 15 steps with his hand outstretched," his father said, stretching his own arm out in front of him almost a year later, telling some ghost taxi to stop in a downtown conference room. The explosives detonated before the car could ram the gates or the mess hall nearby, where several hundred soldiers were eating breakfast. The Shoebat page was something of a Gish Gallop, patching together a pile of loosely or unrelated details to paint a picture of a Muslim Brotherhood infiltrator in the Army who was killed before he could complete some undescribed subversive mission: Gish Gallop I can go on and on. Is it likely that Khans son was killed before his Islamist mission was accomplished? Only another type of investigation will determine that. Do they ever mention how many soldiers have died because of Muslim traitors? Do they ever bring up how many Christians in the US military were killed? Yet the modernists and homosexuals continue to attack Christians. But soon everything we need to know will be uncovered. As we say in the Middle East: the snow always melts and the sh*t under it will soon be revealed. The Shoebats' insinuations about the younger Khan directly conflict with all other published accounts about him. Had Humayun's intent in joining the Army been one of sabotage, there would be no reason to expect he'd ultimately lay down his life to stop a suicide bomber from killing scores of other American soldiers  yet by every telling, that is exactly how Capt. Humayun Khan died. The other big "smoking gun" Shoebat cited to support their theory that Khizr Khan is a Muslim Brotherhood operative is his work as an immigration lawyer. By their rationale, Khan bears a grudge against Donald Trump for the candidate's myriad statements about Muslims and immigration  but although it's true that Khizr Khan and his sons were Muslims immigrants to the United States, none of the "evidence" presented by Shoebat remotely supported the idea that Khan is an operative of the Muslim brotherhood. Not only were most of the points made about Khan by Shoebat unrevealing and tenuous, the heroic death of Humayun Khan flies in the face of claims the family were Muslims operatives seeking to harm Americans or work against U.S. interests. Capt. Khan enlisted in the U.S. Army by choice and died protecting his fellow soldiers; by contrast, the only "evidence" linking his family to the Muslim Brotherhood are irrelevant, decades-old papers written about OPEC and Islamic law by Khizr Khan before he immigrated to America.  Haberman, Maggie and Richard A. Oppel, Jr.  "Donald Trump Criticizes Muslim Family of Slain U.S. Soldier, Drawing Ire."
  The New York Times.  30 July 2016. Khan, Ghazala.  "Ghazala Khan: Trump Criticized My Silence. He Knows Nothing About True Sacrifice."
  The Washington Post.  31 July 2016. Khan, Khzir.  "Juristic Classification of Islamic Law."
  Houston Journal of International Law.  1983. McCrummen, Stephanie.  "Khizr Khans Loss: A Grieving Father of a Soldier Struggles to Understand."
  The Washington Post.  22 March 2005. Shoebat, Theodore and Walid Shoebat.  "What The Media Is Not Telling You About the Muslim Who Attacked Donald Trump ..."
  Shoebat.  31 July 2016. Timsit, Annabelle.  "Seven Minutes That Shook the Convention."
  Politico.  29 July 2016. In April 2016, a meme was published by the Facebook page "The Other 98%" (among others) holding that 643,000 Americans declare bankruptcy over medical bills every year, while in a number of other first-world countries, bankruptcies over medical bills are non-existent (due to the implementation of national social health insurance/medical care systems in those other countries):   At the fine print at the bottom of the meme was a citation: "Source: NerdWallet Health Analysis." No link to the specific analysis referenced was provided, but presumably the item in question was a 19 July 2013 item published by NerdWallet pertaining to medical bankruptcies. However, in that analysis NerdWallet repeatedly stated that their findings were "estimates" or "extrapolations," and some of their data were quite old even back in 2013. The primary portion of that article held that: In 2013 over 20% of American adults are struggling to pay their medical bills, and three in five bankruptcies will be due to medical bills. While we are quick to blame debt on poor savings and bad spending habits, our study emphasizes the burden of health costs causing widespread indebtedness. Medical bills can completely overwhelm a family when illness strikes, says Christina LaMontagne, VP of Health at NerdWallet. Furthermore, 25 million people hesitate to take their medications in order to control their medical costs. Unfortunately this can lead to even worse financial outcomes as preventative treatments are not rendered and patients end up using expensive ambulance and ER care as their health worsens. Finally, many question whether President Obamas universal health insurance mandate will protect Americans from problems with medical bills. Insurance is no silver bullet, says LaMontagne. Even with insurance coverage, we expect 10 million Americans will face bills they are unable to pay. Although the "643,000" figure didn't expressly appear in that article, if we take the number of bankruptcy filings in the U.S. in 2013 (1,032,236) and apply NerdWallet's statement that "three in five (60%) bankruptcies will be due to medical bills," then we arrive at a number of medical bill-related bankruptcies (619,342) reasonably close to the 643,000 figure (although technically a bankruptcy filing can represent more than one person). bankruptcy Likewise, a 2013 CNBC item based on the 2013 NerdWallet Health Analysis included a chart showing the estimated total number of medical-related bankruptcies in the U.S. in 2013 to be 646,812, which is also quite close to the cited 643,000 figure: item  Since the number of bankruptcy filings in the U.S. is a matter of public record, the accuracy of this figure hinges on how reliable is the estimate that 60% of those filings are medical-related. In NerdWallet's "Methodology & Sources" section, the site said their medical bankruptcy estimates were based on a 2009 Harvard study, which in turn used bankruptcy data from 2007 and involved interviewing a random national sample of a bankruptcy filers: BACKGROUND: Our 2001 study in 5 states found that medical problems contributed to at least 46.2% of all bankruptcies. Since then, health costs and the numbers of un- and underinsured have increased, and bankruptcy laws have tightened. METHODS: We surveyed a random national sample of 2314 bankruptcy filers in 2007, abstracted their court records, and interviewed 1032 of them. We designated bankruptcies as medical based on debtors stated reasons for filing, income loss due to illness, and the magnitude of their medical debts. RESULTS: Using a conservative definition, 62.1% of all bankruptcies in 2007 were medical. NerdWallet themselves reported that they employed a more conservative estimate than the Harvard study figure regarding the proportion of bankruptcies that are medical-related: We relied on a widely cited Harvard study published in 2009. NerdWallet Health chose to include only bankruptcy explicitly tied to medical bills, excluding indirect reasons like lost work opportunities. Thus we conservatively estimated medical bankruptcy rates to be 57.1% (versus the authors 62.1%) of US bankruptcies. We also used official bankruptcy statistics, released this month through March 2013, from US Courts. Still, quantifying the occurrence of medical bankruptcies can be problematic, as noted in aJanuary 2016 New York Times article on the subject: article Research on medical bankruptcies has been controversial because it can be hard to untangle how medical bills fit into a familys overall pattern of financial troubles. Twenty-nine percent of the people with medical bill problems said a family member had been forced to stop working or cut back on hours. (On the other side, about 41 percent of people said theyd taken on extra work to help pay bills.) Is that a job problem or a medical bill problem? said David Himmelstein, a professor of public health at the City University of New Yorks Hunter College School of Public Health who has studied medical bankruptcies. Its both of those things. However, that article also factored in a large development that occurred after NerdWallet's 2013 analysis: the activation of major provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (also known as PPACA, ACA, or Obamacare): The [ACA] has led to a decline in the number of Americans suffering financial stress from health problems, thanks to the new options for receiving coverage, especially for the poor. But the problem is still widespread, touching roughly a quarter of Americans under 65, when the insured and uninsured are looked at together. Americans older than 65 are covered by Medicare, which more frequently protects people from major financial trouble. Unlike other polls, which have focused on the ways that insurance affects health care, the new Times-Kaiser survey explored the effects of medical bills on peoples daily lives well beyond the medical system. We found that medical bills dont just keep people from filling prescriptions and scheduling doctors visits. They can also prompt deep financial and personal sacrifices, affecting their housing, employment, credit and daily lives. The potentially ameliorating effect of the ACA on bankruptcies was also cited by a July 2015 Wall Street Journal article which (in part) described research into medical bankruptcy done by Northeastern University law professor Daniel Austin: article So what does Prof. Austin think will happen with mandatory health care in all 50 states? Could the system designed to give people access to affordable health insurance make families more financially stable and keep them out of bankruptcy? It absolutely should show a reduction in bankruptcies [filed] due to medical debt, Prof. Austin said in an interview. Plenty of studies have pinpointed medical debt as the No. 1 reason why people turn to bankruptcy for a fresh start. In rallying for health-care reform in his 2009 State of the Union address, President Barack Obama said that 62.1% of consumer bankruptcies are medical bankruptcies, citing a study Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) co-wrote as a Harvard law professor. Prof. Austins study found the percentage of medical bankruptcies to be far smaller. Overall, 18% to 25% of personal bankruptcies filed in the U.S. were prompted by medical debt.  But even prior to the implementation of the ACA, some sources questioned the true impact of medical debt on bankruptcy rates. A 2012 piece published by The Hill compared rates of bankruptcy between the United States and Canada (the latter a country with single-payer healthcare system): compared It's difficult to conclude that bankrupt folks are awash in healthcare debt when nearly 90 percent of their obligations are unrelated to health care ... Will ObamaCare's increased regulation of the healthcare marketplace help put an end to the phenomenon? Data from countries with government-run healthcare systems suggest not. Consider Canada. Our neighbor to the north features a government-run, single-payer healthcare system where private insurance is outlawed for procedures covered under the law. So you'd think that Canada would have a lower rate of bankruptcy than the United States, what with one big potential cause of bankruptcy  the cost of health care  absorbed by the government. But according to researchers at the Fraser Institute, a nonpartisan Canadian think tank, bankruptcy rates are statistically the same on both sides of the 49th parallel. In both the United States and Canada, less than one-third of 1 percent of families file for bankruptcy each year. Further, even with a socialized healthcare system, some Canadians go bankrupt because of medical expenses. Approximately 15 percent of bankrupt Canadian seniors  those 55 and older  cited medical reasons, including uninsured expenses, as the main culprit for their insolvency. Canada wasn't the only country in which the presence of single-payer healthcare reportedly wasn't a total shield against bankruptcies (medical-related or otherwise). A 2010 World Health Organization (WHO) paper [PDF] found that: PDF Outside of the US, research on links between over-indebtedness and health has been quite limited to date, consisting largely of rankings of factors in consumer debt. For instance, within the United Kingdom, sickness or disability accounted for 5% of households in financial difficulties in 2002. A ranking of causes of over-indebtedness and private bankruptcy in Germany found that psychological problems and own sickness, if added together, would rank in fourth place of reasons for over-indebtedness and private bankruptcy. There have been a number of interesting recent studies in Germany on the subject. These have found a high risk of mental disorders among those facing the threat of over-indebtedness as well as the association of over-indebtedness with an increased prevalence of overweight and obesity apart from traditional socioeconomic factors. Additionally, there is evidence that over-indebted persons refrain from seeking medical treatment or purchasing prescriptions even under Germanys health system. One-third of participants in a study of insolvency counseling services in RhinelandPalatinate indicated that their financial difficulties were a result of accident, illness or addiction. In short, using some very specific analyses, one could make the case that (at least within the last several years) about 643,000 Americans declared bankruptcy annually due to medical bills. But the accuracy of those analyses is open to question, the playing field has changed significantly since they were undertaken (due to the implementation of the ACA), and it's far from an absolute that the other countries listed in the meme experience zero medical-related bankruptcies.  Emami, Sarah.  "Consumer Over-Indebtedness and Health Care Costs:
How to Approach the Question from a Global Perspective."
  World Health Report (2010) Background Paper, 3.  2010. Himmelstein, David U. et. al.  "Medical Bankruptcy in the United States, 2007: Results of a National Study."
  American Journal of Medicine.  12 April 2009. Lamontagne, Christina.  "NerdWallet Health Finds Medical Bankruptcy Accounts for Majority of Personal Bankruptcies."
  NerdWallet.  19 June 2013. Lamontagne, Christina.  "NerdWallet Health Finds Medical Bankruptcy Accounts for Majority of Personal Bankruptcies."
  NerdWallet.  26 March 2014. Luthra, Shefali.  "Consumers Still Struggling with Medical Debt."
  USA Today.  1 February 2015. Mangan, Dan.  "Medical Bills Are the Biggest Cause of US Bankruptcies: Study."
  CNBC.  25 June 2013. Pipes, Sally C.  "Medical Bankruptcy: Fact or Fiction?"
  The Hill.  23 October 2012. Sanger-Katz, Margot.  "Even Insured Can Face Crushing Medical Debt, Study Finds."
  Thne New York Times.  5 January 2016. Stech, Katy.  "The Future of Personal Bankruptcy in a Post-Obamacare World."
  The Wall Street Journal.  1 July 2015. Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy.  "Growing Old Gracefully, An Investigation Into the Growing Number of Bankrupt Canadians Over Age 55."
  31 March 2006. On 5 September 2017, the Facebook page "Babies Are Beautiful" (@babofficial) posted a story accompanied by a photograph of a crying doctor. The narrative, purportedly penned by the unnamed doctor, told of a woman who gave birth under highly implausible medical circumstances, only to die after her child was delivered: @babofficial posted Today is the saddest day of my life. As a Doctor, I have handled so many pregnant women in Labour and every time am in the delivery room I always pray to God to bless all mothers. The pain women go through in the delivery room is undescribable and this does not include the 9 months they spent carrying the baby. They go through a lot just to bring forth new life. Today I cried bitterly because I lost a woman, we don't pray for things like this to happen but sometimes God may have other plans. Why is this woman's case so painful? She has been barren for 14 years! We have tried IVF & so many method known to man, the woman went through a lot. Finally God blessed her, it was way beyond science and human knowledge. She just got pregnant despite the fact she has ovarian cyst and huge load of fibroids, brethren she got pregnant. Her fibroid started melting and everything was OK, I know that's God, he will do things just to show off his glory and awesomeness. After 9 months, it was time, her husband rushed her to the hospital and quickly I left everything that I was doing and attended to her. She laboured for hours, after 7 hours, it was so painful so we decided to open her up. We lost her but the baby was alive,. Before her death, she held the baby in her arms and smiled "God is great" and then she gave up the ghost. I was devastated and sad, I went to broke the news to her husband myself, upon hearing the news, her husband fainted, their happy day just turned sour. We lost a live just to deliver a new life today. Please respect women because they pass through the valley of death to bring life. Respect your wife! Carrying your baby for 9 months is no jokes and labouring for hours to give birth to your children is a huge sacrifice. I pray to God to please protect everyone reading this, especially pregnant women, please put them in your prayers. Dear husband, I repeat respect your wife because she is truly the giver of life. May God strengthen all pregnant women, you will all deliver your babies like the women of Hebrew. Don't ignore this post, share to others it is very important because the women in our lives should be worshipped. Please if you are having problems with your mother and you refused to call her, I beg you to CALL HER NOW! she went through hell to give birth to you. Show some love to women, they are super. Please share. GOD BLESS WOMEN ?  In just over 24 hours, the post was shared more than half a million times.  The Facebook page that posted the tale, "Babies Are Beautiful," appeared to be affiliated with an online baby supply shop (babbyy.com) which listed a California phone number and Delaware address as its contact information. However, the babbyy.com domain was registered by an owner in Nigeria. address registered The nature of the story suggested that the tale was fabricated to rack up Facebook likes and shares. (The majority of recent posts on the page were similar "likebait" photographs, sometimes directing users to "type amen.") No details were provided about the name of the doctor or location of the hospital, and commenters who identified themselves as medical professionals were quick to point out weak spots in the story: likes type amen     Those commenters noted that, among other things, the purported patient would have been treated as high-risk and obtained a C-section, that uterine fibroids are not typically fatal, and that details of the account did not align with the actual origins of the photograph. zge Metin Photography was credited for the photograph of the crying doctor (which bears a watermark in Turkish) and posted it to Instagram on 6 September 2017. In the post's comment thread, photographer zge Metin confirmed the "Babies Are Beautiful" post was a hoax, as the father captured in the image was crying tears of joy after the birth of his healthy baby: Instagram confirmed kole.photography [link] Another stolen post. What a beautiful photo! You should get credit. elia_79 Hi is this a sad story or it is just a hoax on internet ozgemetinphotography @elia_79 This Crying Father is photo of mine, i took it. The Father was crying because his baby was born as a healthy baby. Not because his wife died, his wife did not die. This story is not true. elia_79 @ozgemetinphotography ughh thank you so much. Yes I saw that it had your picture on it that's why I looked you up in Instagram thank you so much. Great pictureozgemetinphotography@elia_79    We contacted babbyy.com and reached the owner, Alex Onyia, who told us that the photograph was not meant to depict the events in the story, which he said had been sent in by a fan of the Facebook page. He claimed that the company had reached out to photographer zge Metin on Instagram and had secured permission to use her photographs, but given the Metin's comments on Instagram, we doubt that this is the case. Onyia also maintained that the story was genuine, although he had not verified that the person who wrote it was an actual doctor: "We have featured so many similar stories over the years and all are genuine." Although sharing the false story and misused photograph posed little danger to Facebook users, it did bolster the reach of a dubious Facebook page attached to a retail outlet of unknown reliability. Claim:  After a young man slips his date an aphrodisiac and leaves her alone in the car, he returns to find that she has impaled herself on the stick shift handle in a sexual frenzy. LEGEND Example:  [Collected via e-mail, 1995] A friend at work says that when she was in high school a story circulated about a boy who wanted to sleep with his girlfriend, but she was unwilling. After he complained to his friends about this state of affairs, someone suggested he try Spanish fly.   He agrees and gets some. They go to a drive-in movie, and he slips the spanish fly in her drink. A while passes and nothing happens, so he gets out to go to the bathroom.  While he is out of the car she, in a fit of sexual frustration, impales herself on the gearshift.  Variations:   Where the boy takes his date varies: usually either a drive-in movie or parking at some secluded spot.   The reason why the boy leaves his date alone for a few minutes also varies: generally either to go to the bathroom or to visit to the drive-in's snack bar.  Sometimes one (or both) of the participants is a well-known community member.   Origins:  The   legend that Spanish fly (or cantharides, a substance made from dried beetle remains) is a powerful aphrodisiac has been around for hundreds of years.  The substance irritates the urogenital tract and produces an itching sensation in sensitive membranes, a feeling that allegedly increases a woman's desire for intercourse.  No medical or scientific test has ever shown Spanish fly to be deserving of its reputation as an aphrodisiac, however, and its indiscriminate use can result in serious medical problems. The legend of the girl and the gearshift lever has been circulating since at least the early 1950s, and has probably been in existence as long as automobiles have been around.  The legend combines the male fantasy of a "love potion" that turns any female into a willing sexual partner with a sort of medical "sorcerer's apprentice" horror story about the perils of the uninitiated attempting to cast powerful spells they can't control. Perhaps the latter point plays on the adolescent male fear of the (perceived) strength and irrationality of the female sex drive; the idea that even a "nice" girl is really a ravening sexual beast just waiting to be awakened, and that if you do arouse this primal lust, it will be more than you can handle. (Female hypersexuality is a common feature of adolescent sex legends.) There may also an element of the sexist "cain't leave 'em alone fer a minute" in the fact that the boy leaves, then comes back to find his girlfriend sexually active. The unfortunate young man then experiences the ultimate American male nightmare: being cuckolded by his own automobile. Last updated:  22 March 2011  The Choking Doberman    Brunvand, Jan Harold.  Too Good To Be .   New York: W. W. Norton, 1999.   ISBN 0-393-04734-2  (pp. 123-124). Too Good To Be     Nordenberg, Tamar.  "The Facts About Aphrodisiacs."   FDA Consumer.  January 1996  (p. 10).     Reuben, David.  Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex.   New York: David McKay Company, 1970  (p. 73).    Rodgers, Joann.  "The Enduring Myth of Aphrodisiacs."   The Los Angeles Times.  14 December 1987  (p. B4). In late May 2023, a number of Twitter accounts retweeted and criticized a post supposedly written on May 28 by U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), about farmers: retweeted and criticized  (@Shamrock168339/Twitter)   (@GSchifanelli/Twitter) Contrary to what most of these users apparently assumed, however, the "Farming should be illegal" tweet attributed to AOC was actually posted by a parody account: "Farming should be illegal" tweet AOC parody account  (@AOCpress/Twitter) It was a joke. AOC did not tweet that "Farming should be illegal." No such tweet or sentiment appeared on her official Twitter account. Twitter users were similarly fooled by a previous tweet from the parody account, also fact-checked by Snopes, in which Ocasio-Cortez supposedly said "Printing money is the only way out of inflation." previous tweet fact-checked by Snopes In a May 30 tweet from her official account, Ocasio-Cortez informed the public that the parody account was "impersonating" her and "releasing false policy statements," and noted that Twitter owner Elon Musk "has engaged it, boosting its visibility": May 30 tweet FYI there's a fake account on here impersonating me and going viral. The Twitter CEO has engaged it, boosting visibility. It is releasing false policy statements and gaining spread. I am assessing with my team how to move forward. In the meantime, be careful of what you see.  Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) May 30, 2023 May 30, 2023  This is the @AOCpress tweet that Musk engaged with:  (@elonmusk/Twitter) Snopes has also fact-checked fake tweets attributed to AOC that were created image-editing software. In one such fake tweet that circulated during the COVID-19 pandemic, she allegedly urged that businesses be kept closed until after the 2020 election. In another, she allegedly called for Democrats to commence with "The Purge" (a reference to the 2013 horror film) after U.S. President Joe Biden was elected. businesses be kept closed commence with "The Purge" 2013 horror film For background, here iswhywe sometimes write about satire/humor. why Mikkelson, David. "Did AOC Tweet That Businesses Should Be Shut Down Until the Election?" Snopes, 23 June 2020, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/aoc-businesses-closed-tweet/. Palma, Bethania. "No, AOC Didn't Tweet About 'The Purge.'" Snopes, 12 Jan. 2021, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fake-aoc-purge-tweet/. Houston businessman Farouk Shami, running for governor, turned to his leading Democratic foe on Monday night and leveled a foul charge.In a televised debate, Shami told Bill White, the former Houston mayor: Our city is the third-most toxic city in the United States of America.White didnt take issue with Shamis description, but it was news to us. We decided to check into the Bayou Citys ick ranking.Shamis campaign said the candidate based his statement on a 2009 article in Forbes magazine putting Houston behind only Atlanta and Detroit for toxicity among major U.S. cities.The magazine said it based its rankings of the nations 40 largest metropolitan statistical areas on data provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.We counted the number of facilities that reported releasing toxins into the environment, the magazine said, the total pounds of certain toxic chemicals released into the air, water and earth, the days per year that air pollution was above healthy levels, and the number of times the EPA has responded to reports of a potentially hazardous environmental incident or site in each metro area's principal city.Its article states Houston's residents live with with air that's far filthier than it should be.Facilities in Houston released 88.7 million pounds of toxic chemicals in the environment in 2007, the magazine says, and the former site of a methanol fire and chemical explosion number among the city's 50 sites necessitating an EPA response. Factories that serve the local petrochemical industry emit benzene and 1-3 butabeine, toxins proven to be particularly harmful, that the area's intense sunlight and lack of wind keep trapped in the local area's atmosphere.Jim Lester, vice president of the Houston Advanced Research Center, a Woodlands-based nonprofit group that studies and promotes sustainable development, is quoted saying Houston has become one of the favorite places in the world for doing air-quality science. He saw that as a boon: The more people understand about it (air quality), the more changes are likely that will take us in a positive direction.When we reached Lester, he revisited pollution levels reported by industries and posted online by the EPA. In 2007, Harris County industries reported either releasing or disposing of 36.1 million pounds of toxic chemicals, while industries around Detroit in Wayne County nearly matched that dubious achievement, reporting the disposal or release of nearly 30 million pounds of toxic pollutants.Shami correctly referred to a recent national comparison. We rate his statement as True. Claim:  E-mail compares proposed changes in taxes after the 2008 presidential election. Status:  False. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, June 2008] This is something you should be aware of so you don't get blind-sided. This is really going to catch a lot of families off guard. It should make you worry. Proposed changes in taxes after 2008 General election: CAPITAL GAINS TAX MCCAIN: 0% on home sales up to $500,000 per home (couples). McCain does not propose any change in existing home sales income tax. OBAMA: 28% on profit from ALL home sales How does this affect you? If you sell your home and make a profit, you will pay 28% of your gain on taxes. If you are heading toward retirement and would like to down-size your home or move into a retirement community, 28% of the money you make from your home will go to taxes. This proposal will adversely affect the elderly who are counting on the income from their homes as part of their retirement income. DIVIDEND TAX MCCAIN: 15% (no change) OBAMA: 39.6% How will this affect you? If you have any money invested in stock market, IRA, mutual funds, college funds, life insurance, retirement accounts, or anything that pays or reinvests dividends, you will now be paying nearly 40% of the money earned on taxes if Obama become president. The experts predict that 'higher tax rates on dividends and capital gains would crash the stock market yet do absolutely nothing to cut the deficit. INCOME TAX MCCAIN (no changes) Single making 30K - tax $4,500Single making 50K - tax $12,500Single making 75K - tax $18,750 Married making 60K - tax $9,000Married making 75K - tax $18,750Married making 125K - tax $31,250 OBAMA: (reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts) Single making 30K - tax $8,400Single making 50K - tax $14,000Single making 75K - tax $23,250 Married making 60K - tax $16,800Married making 75K - tax $21,000Married making 125K - tax $38,750 Under Obama your taxes will more than double! How does this affect you? No explanation needed. This is pretty straight forward. INHERITANCE TAX MCCAIN: 0% (No change, Bush repealed this tax) OBAMA: Restore the inheritance tax How does this affect you? Many families have lost businesses, farms and ranches, and homes that have been in their families for generations because they could not afford the inheritance tax. Those willing their assets to loved ones will not only lose them to these taxes. NEW TAXES BEING PROPOSED BY OBAMA * New government taxes proposed on homes that are more than 2400 square feet * New gasoline taxes (as if gas weren't high enough already) * New taxes on natural resources consumption (heating gas, water, electricity) * New taxes on retirement accounts and last but not least.... * New taxes to pay for socialized medicine so we can receive the same level of medical care as other third-world countries!!! Origins:   Every  recent presidential election cycle has brought e-mailed forwards that paint the Democratic candidate as a proponent of a "tax and spend" philosophy (who will inevitably implement significant tax increases on taxpayers across all income levels) and present the Republican candidate as a model of fiscal conservatism, and the example quoted above fits this pattern.    However, this example is off the mark both in its broad strokes and in its particulars.  According to the Tax Policy Center's analysis of the candidates' proposed tax changes, the primary difference between them would be distributional, with Senator Obama's proposals favoring lower-income taxpayers and Senator McCain's favoring higher-income taxpayers: analysis McCain: The average taxpayer in every income group would see a lower tax bill, but high-income taxpayers would benefit more than everyone else.  Obama: High-income taxpayers would pay more in taxes, while everyone else's tax bill would be reduced. Those who benefit the most  in terms of reducing their taxes as a percentage of after-tax income  are in the lowest income groups. The statements made about the candidates' proposals for changes in specific taxes (or implementation of new taxes) are also all erroneous or grossly misleading. as we note below: CAPITAL GAINS TAX MCCAIN: 0% on home sales up to $500,000 per home (couples). McCain does not propose any change in existing home sales income tax. OBAMA: 28% on profit from ALL home sales The statement that Senator Obama proposes instituting a 28% tax "on profit from ALL home sales" is false.  Both candidates' proposals would leave intact an existing capital gains exemption for the first $500,000 per household of profit from the sale of a primary residence.  Homeowners who realize a profit higher than the current exemption amount from the sale of their primary residences might pay more capital gains tax under an Obama presidency than they would now, but those instances currently constitute a very small minority of all home sales.  (For the purposes of this article, the term "per household" refers to married couples who file taxes jointly.) The mention of Obama's imposing a 28% capital gains tax as president is also misleading.   Senator Obama has indicated he would likely raise the capital gains tax rate, but he has not specified by how much  the 28% figure is a previous (i.e., pre-Bush) capital gains tax rate which Obama stated he would certainly not exceed while noting that his capital gains tax rate would likely be "significantly lower": Q: How do you plan to change the tax code when it comes to capital gains? How high will that 15 percent rate go? A: Well, you know, I haven't given a firm number. Here's my belief, that we can't go back to some of the, you know, confiscatory rates that existed in the past that distorted sound economics. And I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was the 28 percent. I would  and my guess would be it would be significantly lower than that. I think that we can have a capital gains rate that is higher than 15 percent. The  Tax Plan Fact Sheet posted on Obama's web site says that he will "create a new top capital gains rate of 20 percent."  Tax Plan DIVIDEND TAX MCCAIN: 15% (no change) OBAMA: 39.6% The notion that Senator Obama is proposing raising the tax rate on dividend income from its current 15% level to a 39.6% is unfounded.  Obama has proposed taxing dividends at the same rate as capital gains, and although he hasn't yet specified a figure for the latter, he has already stated (as noted above) that he "certainly would not go above" 28%.  Also, the proposed increase would only affect households with income of more than $250,000 per year (a figure that encompasses about 2% of U.S. households.)  INCOME TAX MCCAIN: (no changes) Single making 30K - tax $4,500Single making 50K - tax $12,500Single making 75K - tax $18,750 Married making 60K - tax $9,000Married making 75K - tax $18,750Married making 125K - tax $31,250 OBAMA: (reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts) Single making 30K - tax $8,400Single making 50K - tax $14,000Single making 75K - tax $23,250 Married making 60K - tax $16,800Married making 75K - tax $21,000Married making 125K - tax $38,750 Under Obama your taxes will more than double! This is an erroneous interpretation of federal income tax rates based on the premise that Senator McCain favors extending the temporary tax cuts instituted by the Bush administration in 2001 and 2003, while Senator Obama does not.  However, both senators said they would favor extending those tax cuts; the difference is that Senator Obama said he would not favor extending the tax cuts for households with incomes of $250,000 or more per year.  Since none of the tax tables listed above applies to that income level, their inclusion is irrelevant and misleading.  As noted at the head of this article, taxpayers in the brackets covered by these tables would likely see a greater reduction in taxes under Senator Obama's proposals than under Senator McCain's, an outcome reflected in the Tax Policy Center'sestimate of how the average tax bill could change in 2009 under each candidate's proposals: estimate         INHERITANCE TAX MCCAIN: 0% (No change, Bush repealed this tax) OBAMA: Restore the inheritance tax Pretty much everything asserted about the inheritance tax (also referred to as "death tax" or "estate tax")  in these few short statements  that President Bush repealed it, that Senator McCain would maintain it at 0%, and that Senator Obama would "restore" it  is wrong. In general, estate tax currently applies only to estates valued at more than $2 million and tops out at a 45% rate.  The exclusion amount is already set to rise to $3.5 million in 2009, followed by a repeal of the estate tax in 2010, and then a reinstatement of the estate tax in 2011 with the exclusion amount reverting back to $1 million and the tax rate topping out at 55%.  repeal Senator McCain has proposed raising the estate tax exclusion amount to $5 million and setting a maximum estate tax rate of 15%, while Senator Obama has proposed raising the estate tax exclusion amount to $3.5 million and maintaining the maximum estate tax rate at its current 45% level. NEW TAXES BEING PROPOSED BY OBAMA * New government taxes proposed on homes that are more than 2400 square feet * New gasoline taxes (as if gas weren't high enough already) * New taxes on natural resources consumption (heating gas, water, electricity) * New taxes on retirement accounts and last but not least.... * New taxes to pay for socialized medicine so we can receive the same level of medical care as other third-world countries!!! Three of these five statements are completely erroneous: Senator Obama has not proposed a tax on "homes that are more than 2,400 square feet," any "new gasoline taxes," or "new taxes on retirement accounts." The phrase "taxes on natural resources consumption" presumably refers to Senator Obama's "cap and trade" proposal for reducing carbon emissions, a proposal which would likely impose additional costs on polluters but isn't technically a "tax": cap and trade Obama supports implementation of a market-based cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions by the amount scientists say is necessary: 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Obama's cap-and-trade system will require all pollution credits to be auctioned. A 100 percent auction ensures that all polluters pay for every ton of emissions they release, rather than giving these emission rights away to coal and oil companies. Some of the revenue generated by auctioning allowances will be used to support the development of clean energy, to invest in energy efficiency improvements, and to address transition costs, including helping American workers affected by this economic transition. As for "new taxes to pay for socialized medicine," Senator Obama has proposed funding his health care plan through additional revenues generated by not extending the Bush administration's temporary tax cuts for persons making more than $250,000 per year.  Whether allowing a portion of already-scheduled expiration of temporary tax cuts to take place really constitutes "new taxes" is a matter of semantics. health care Last updated:  16 July 2008    Sources:   Sahadi, Jeanne.  "What They'll Do to Your Tax Bill."   CNNMoney.com.  11 June 2008.    Sahadi, Jeanne.  "What Obama Means by Tax the Wealthy."   CNNMoney.com.  28 June 2008.    Closing Bell.  "Maria Bartiromo Speaks with Senator Barack Obama."   CNBC.  27 March 2008. In March 2016, photos showing a bottle of Coca-Cola with the words "share a Coke with the KKK" written on its label started circulating online:    This is not a real product sold by Coca-Cola. While the "Share a Coke" campaign allows Coca-Cola drinkers to personalize their cans, some words or phrases (such as "KKK") are not available:    The image showing the "KKK" bottle was created for an online petition on the web site Color Of Change, asking the company to pull its sponsorship of the Republican National Convention due to Donald Trump's failure to condemn the KKK in an interview: petition interview Even with Trump refusing to disavow the support of the Ku Klux Klan this weekend and declaring All Lives Matter at a rally, Coca-Cola and other companies still have not canceled their sponsorship of the RNC. How can Coca-Cola, a company that heavily markets to and profits from Black people, fund a platform for a presidential nominee that is being bolstered into office by former Grand Wizard David Duke, the KKK, and other white supremacists? The petition presupposes both that Coca-Cola will be sponsoring the 2016 Republican National Convention, and that Coca-Cola would be effectively endorsing the Ku Klux Klan by sponsoring the RNC. On 23 February 2016, representatives from the advocacy groups ColorofChange, Americas Voice, CREDO Action, Million Hoodies, MoveOn, and Presente.org admitted as much in an open letter to Coca-Cola and other alleged sponsors of the 2016 RNC: letter Based on your corporate sponsorship of the 2012 Republican National Convention we have reason to believe that your company is planning to again sponsor the RNC this year. We believe it is a sign of strong corporate leadership for you and your company to refrain from sponsoring Donald Trumps hateful and divisive rhetoric. While Coca-Cola did sponsor the Republican National Convention in 2012, the company also sponsored the Democratic National Convention that year: sponsored Many of the sponsors of the Democratic convention were also sponsors of the host committee in Tampa for last week's Republican National Convention. "The Coca-Cola Company believes we have a role to play in the political process and that includes helping to make the political conventions a success," said Coca-Cola spokeswoman Nancy Bailey. Sometimes, Snopes readers stumble on old stories that require us to revisit key moments of history. One such story was of the courageous actions of Neerja Bhanot, an Indian flight attendant on Pan Am flight 73, which was hijacked in 1986 by Palestinian militants on its way to the United States while on a stopover in Karachi, Pakistan. Neerja Bhano Many of our readers shared social media posts, and queries, asking us to detail some of the main events of the hijacking, including Bhanots death from a gunshot wound. posts   One reader asked us to confirm the following: When radical Islamic terrorists hijacked her A/C in Karachi, Pakistan she informed the pilots (who used their escape hatch to runaway) and kept both the passengers/remaining crew calm. When the terrorists demanded to know who the Americans were on the flight so they could execute them she gathered all the passports and hid the ones belonging to Americans under seat cushions. The terrorists confused and unable to determine the national origins of the passengers didn't execute anyone. When Pakistani police raided the plane she was able to nearly singlehandedly evacuate all the passengers as the firefight ensued. She being one of the last people on board did a last check and found three children still hiding. As she led the children to safety the surviving terrorists spotted the children and opened fire on them. Neerja jumped in the way of the bullets and was mortally wounded. She was able to evac the children to safety before dying from her wounds. Neerja was awarded the Ashok Chakra Award by India, the highest peacetime gallantry award possible. She was the youngest and first civilian to ever be awarded this honor. Through testimonies from the flight crew and passengers during the sentencing of one of the hijackers, and interviews done by the BBC, we were able to gather key facts from that fateful day. In 2004, Zayad al Safarini, a Jordanian hijacker who was part of the attack, was sentenced by a U.S. district judge to 160 years in prison. At the hearing for his sentencing, a number of passengers, flight attendants, and Bhanots brother, came forward to recount the events of the hijacking. The full transcript of their testimonies can be read here. testimonies BBC sentenced here The Palestinian militants who hijacked the aircraft were affiliated with the Abu Nidal Organization (ANO), which was opposed to U.S. and Israeli policies in the Middle East, and was described as a secular international terrorist organization. When the hijackers boarded the plane, they began trying to identify any Americans on board. A 2016 BBC report included interviews with the surviving flight attendants, described the scene: described BBC report Sunshine, Madhvi Bahuguna and another flight attendant began collecting passports, quietly avoiding collecting any that were American. They then went through the bags of passports they had collected, secretly sifting out any remaining American ones and tucking them under their seats or concealing them in their clothing. Mike Thexton, a passenger on the plane, describes the act in his book What Happened to The Hippy Man? as "extremely brave, selfless and clever". "I may be biased but I feel that day proved that the flight attendants on board were some of the best in the industry." Descriptions from passengers and family members from the sentencing of Safarini detailed the moment that flight attendants were told to gather passports, and the ways in which they tried to protect the Americans among them. Aneesh Bhanot, Neerjas brother, who was not on the plane as these events took place, described this effort as one carried out by all the flight attendants together: Descriptions Neerja was an Indian citizen. All the other flight attendants were also Indian citizens. Mr. Safarini and his gang were targeting Americans, as was very obvious from the passenger calls which you heard later on. Neerja and all the other attendants knew this. That is why when they asked them to get the passports of all the passengers, they hid the American passports on the airplane. He also cited the testimony of another passenger that was published in the Cincinnati Enquirer in September 1986. A clipping of that paper is available below (in which Bhanot is referred to as Neerja Mishra):   Michael John Thexton, a British passenger, recounted the following: recounted Then came the call for passports, and I should have ignored it. But I felt that I had to obey orders. So I took out my passport and I handed it in, still thinking that the Americans would be in front of us, not reckoning the ingenuity and the extraordinary bravery of the stewardess who was making the collection in discarding American passports that had a white face. I suppose the British were [the] third choice for the terrorists. And after the Americans and the Israelis, mine was the only one of a small handful of British passports with a white face in that pile. I think maybe six or seven, something of that sort. So the call came over the public address for passenger Michael John to come forward, then Michael John Thexton, and I knew that they wanted to shoot me. Darrell Pieper, an American passenger, credited flight attendant Sunshine Vesuwala for protecting his identity. In his testimony, he said, Sunshine hid my passport when she realized the hijackers are looking for Americans. I'm grateful to her for her quick thinking and action, which again saved my life. credited Gregg Maisel, the attorney representing the U.S. government, said, the flight attendants, risking their own lives, deliberately refused to accept United States passports from some passengers and hid several United States passports under seat cushions. said Given that Bhanot played a big role in protecting the American passengers by hiding their passports, but was not the only flight attendant doing this, we rate this part of the claim as true. In this instance, even as Bhanot showed remarkable bravery in getting passengers to safety, she was not alone in this effort. According to Maisel, passengers escaped after Bhanot and others were able to open up some exits: escaped As the bullets and grenades flew, Neerja Bhanot, as well as other flight attendants and passengers, heroically managed to force open two exits in the economy section. The opening of the rear exit triggered inflation of the emergency slide, but the opening of the exit over the wing did not trigger the inflation of a second emergency slide. People clamored to reach both exits fearful that the hijackers would resume the assault.[...]This diagram illustrates the efforts of surviving hostages to escape the aircraft using the emergency slide and climbing onto the wing of the plane. While the slide was a safer escape route, the sheer number of people attempting to leave the plane through this exit at night resulted in additional injuries to some who were unable to exit quickly enough to avoid being crushed by others behind them.[...]At the direction of several flight attendants, other passengers reentered the plane climbing over the wounded and the dead and used the rear exit where the slide was inflated to the safer escape route. Aneesh Bhanot also recounted an article written by a Pakistani passenger: recounted There's another passenger from Pakistan, a gentleman called Hussein, who had written an article in a newspaper called the Star of Pakistan. And he wrote again that says as the lights went out at 10:00 p.m. we was herded with the passengers and the shooting started. From nowhere, his savior, Neerja, and I'm sure other flight attendants also did the same thing, had the presence and the nerve to steer through the pandemonium to lead the passengers where to go. Neerja, by sheer zest, it seems, single-handedly opened the chute. Her favorite words to him and other passengers were, get out, run. In this instance, since Bhanot appeared to have taken the lead in helping passengers escape and was also aided by other crew and passengers, we rate this part of the claim as a mixture, given that she did not do this alone. Bhanots death was described through different accounts, based on information gathered in the aftermath of the attack. Some reports said she was protecting three children, while flight attendants described her being shot during the escape. Jennifer Levy, another attorney representing the U.S. government, described Bhanots final moments: described When the lights went out just before the final assault, Ms. Bhanot ran for the emergency door and activated the inflatable chute. Instead of escaping as one of the first off the aircraft, she remained on board to help others out of the plane. She was shot in the final assault. Although she was taken off the plane alive by her fellow flight attendants, she died shortly afterwards of massive bleeding. Viraf Daroga, Pan Ams director in Pakistan, described how Bhanot was brought down from the aircraft through the emergency chute: described Those who were injured were picked up as they came down the chute, put in ambulances that came rushing to the aircraft, and were driven off to various hospitals. Neerja, the senior purser, was brought down by her colleagues and was taken to the hospital. She died in the hospital in the arms of one of my staff. Aneesh Bhanots testimony described how Bhanot was indeed protecting three children when she was shot and killed: described Neerja could have been the first one to escape from the aircraft as she opened the emergency door, yet she chose not to do that. Instead, she got the passengers out and gave her own life, as we are told, while shielding three small children from gunfire. Her actions probably saved hundreds of lives. The Pan Am Historical Foundation also described her death by saying As the hijackers opened fire on passengers and crew, Neerja Bhanot lost her life shielding three children from bullets. described Since reports differ on what happened during Bhanots final moments, and some details remain uncertain, we rate the overall truth of this claim as "Mixture." But there is no doubting that her actions, as well as the actions of other flight attendants and crew, saved many lives. She was posthumously awarded the Ashok Chakra award, which is India's highest civilian decoration for bravery.  Ashok Chakra award