5% Downpayment Quote
Claim:  Senator Chris Dodd opined that a 5% down payment requirement "would restrict home ownership to only those who can afford it."  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, May 2010] Democrats Vote Down 5 Percent Rule In a bid to stem taxpayer losses for bad loans guaranteed by federal housing agencies Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn) proposed that borrowers be required to make a 5% down payment in order to qualify. His proposal was rejected 57-42 on a party-line vote because, as Senator Chris Dodd (D-Conn) explained, "passage of such a requirement would restrict home ownership to only those who can afford it." Origins:  One factor that fueled the subprime mortgage crisis of the 2000s was easy access given to home loans for those who were poor risks. As these loans almost inevitably failed, mortgage delinquencies and foreclosures not only rose but spiraled dramatically upwards, seriously affecting banking and financial markets around the world. Many people believe a tightening of lending practices would keep similar economic collapses in the housing market from occurring again, with one proposed tightening being the imposition of a five percent down payment requirement upon prospective home buyers. However, not everyone believes such a requirement would be the best way to deal with the issue, which leads us to the fictitious quote reproduced above. Although the debate was real, the quote wasn't  it was a fabrication which was penned by John Semmens of Semi-News, an online  publication billed as "A Satirical Look at Recent News,"  and appeared as the final item in his 15 May 2010 column. Other offerings from that column include "Election Officials to Bar Voluntary Showing of ID by Voters" (an item that included the made-up statement of a Wisconsin Election Board official: "Allowing those who have valid IDs to show them would intimidate those without IDs. They might be discouraged from attempting to vote. This would lower turnout and threaten the democratic process") and "Crist Refuses to Return GOP Donations" (which quoted Crist as saying: "Look, my view has always been caveat emptor"). column Semi-News is a satire publication, albeit one which draws upon the news of the day. Senator Bob Corker had proposed an amendment (S.A. 3955) to the Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010 which would have (among other things) instituted a residential mortgage underwriting standard requiring a five percent down payment from prospective home buyers. Democrats did oppose the amendment, with one reason given by Dodd being that  it would have disadvantaged home buyers who had good credit and solid incomes but lacked the cash to make required down payments.  S.A. 3955 Stability Act Last updated:  20 June 2010
In May 2017, Gov.Scott Walkermade a claim about tax cuts since he took office in 2011. He said the cuts that had been approved, and those that were proposed in his 2017-19 state budget, would exceed $8 billion by the time the budget is done. Werated the statement True. Now the budget is done and Walker ismakingtheclaimwithoutqualifications. For example, he declared on May 31, 2018,on Twitter: Since taking office, we have enacted more than $8 billion in cumulative tax relief. Campaigning for a third term in the November 2018 election, its a statement Walker will repeat. Lets see if its right. More governors race fact checks: How Walker and the Democratic candidates for governorstack up on the Truth-O-Meter. The numbers The governors office provided us tallies from the State Budget Office. They show that through June 2019, when the current 2017-19 state budget ends, the tax cuts will exceed $8.85 billion. We also went to a nonpartisan source, the state Legislative Fiscal Bureau, which did calculations in May 2018 and arrived at a slightly lower figure. The fiscal bureau told us it estimated the reduction in general fund tax revenues and property tax revenues, as a result of tax law changes enacted since 2011, at $8.47 billion: Income and franchise tax reductions $4.82 billion Property tax reductions $3.56 billion Other tax cuts $90 million Total tax reductions 2011 through mid-2019 $8.47 billion Democrats' reaction We asked the stateDemocratic Partyabout Walkers claim. The party did not challenge the $8 billion tally, but criticized a number of Walkers policies. Like us on Facebook. Follow us on Twitter:@PolitiFactWisc Among them: The manufacturing and agricultural tax credit gave an estimated $22 million in creditsto 11 individualswho had an adjusted gross income of $30 million or more in 2017, according to the state fiscal bureau. Our rating Walker says: Since taking office, we have enacted more than $8 billion in cumulative tax relief. The states official nonpartisan budget scorekeeper puts the figure -- since Walker took office in 2011 and through the current budget that runs through mid-2019 -- at $8.47 billion. We rate Walkers statement True. Collected via email, 2013: A Country Founded by Geniuses but Run by Idiots Attributed to Jeff Foxworthy: If you can get arrested for hunting or fishing without a license, but not for entering and remaining in the country illegally  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If you have to get your parents permission to go on a field trip or to take an aspirin in school, but not to get an abortion  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If you MUST show your identification to board an airplane, cash a check, buy liquor, or check out a library book and rent a video, but not to vote for who runs the government  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If the government wants to prevent stable, law-abiding citizens from owning gun magazines that hold more than ten rounds, but gives twenty F-16 fighter jets to the crazy new leaders in Egypt  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If, in the nations largest city, you can buy two 16-ounce sodas, but not one 24-ounce soda, because 24-ounces of a sugary drink might make you fat  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If an 80-year-old woman or a three-year-old girl who is confined to a wheelchair can be strip-searched by the TSA at the airport, but a woman in a burka or a hijab is only subject to having her neck and head searched  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If a seven-year-old boy can be thrown out of school for saying his teacher is "cute," but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class ingrade school is perfectly acceptable  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If hard work and success are met with higher taxes and more government regulation and intrusion, while not working is rewarded with Food Stamps, WIC checks, Medicaid benefits, subsidized housing, and free cell phones  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If the governments plan for getting people back to work is to provide incentives for not working, by granting 99 weeks of unemployment checks, without any requirement to prove that gainful employment was diligently sought, but couldnt be found  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If you pay your mortgage faithfully, denying yourself the newest big-screen TV, while your neighbor buys iPhones, time shares, a wall-sized do-it-all plasma screen TV and new cars, and the government forgives his debt when he defaults on his mortgage  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If being stripped of your Constitutional right to defend yourself makes you more "safe" according to the government  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. What a country! How about we give God a reason to continue blessing America! The above-referenced list of entries detailing "A Country Founded by Geniuses But Run by Idiots" was widely circulated via the internet in early 2013 with an "Attributed to Jeff Foxworthy" tag at its head, leading many to believe it was actually the work of that nationally famous comedian. Jeff Foxworthy However, othen than its basic "If you ... you might be ..." pattern that mimics Jeff Foxworthy's popular "You might be a redneck" routines, this item bears little resemblance to anything produced by Foxworthy: his comedic material is typically affectionate and self-deprecating and involves poking fun at his own milieu; his brand of humor is much more apolitical and non-partisan than the list reproduced above. (Nonetheless, Jeff's name has been falsely attached to other similar political pieces that have little in common with the tenor and substance of his comedy material.) attached Jeff's brother, Jay, confirmed for us that this material was not written by his sibling. The original compiler of this list appears to be Fritz Edmunds, who posted it to his "Politically True" blog back on Feb. 3, 2013 (albeit with a disclaimer noting that "some of the ideas were from an email that did not contain any copyright"). Politically True As usual, the list has seen numerous alterations in the process of being passed around the Internet, and several of the entries appearing in earlier versions have since dropped off: If the only school curriculum allowed to explain how we got here is evolution, but your government stops a $15 million construction project to keep a rare spider from evolving to extinction  you might live in a country founded by geniuses and run by idiots. If your government believes that using steroids or other drugs will ruin your life, but throwing you in prison for years will not  you might live in a country founded by geniuses and run by idiots. If children are forcibly removed from parents who discipline them with spankings while children of addicts are left in filth and drug infested homes  you might live in a country founded by geniuses and run by idiots. If your government believes that the way to make a school of unarmed children safe is to pass another law, this time with the illusion that three 10-round magazines in a rifle is safer than a 30-round magazine  you might live in a country founded by geniuses and run by idiots. The phrase "founded by geniuses and run by idiots" appears to be a variant of a similar statement that appeared in Herman Wouk's 1951 novel "The Caine Mutiny": "The Navy is a master plan designed by geniuses for execution by idiots." In the 1954 film of the same name, the line was rendered, "The first thing you've got to learn about this ship is that she was designed by geniuses to be run by idiots." <!-- Sources:    Metz, Ken.  "It's Never Wise to Insult the Police Officer."   The Bath County News-Outlook.  30 August 2007. Update [Aug. 2, 2022]: Updated SEO and title. Within 24 hours of the deaths of a New Jersey couple, dubious web sites seized on the tragedy as fodder for their latest round of conspiracy theory-driven content. On 7 July 2018, 72-year-old Carole Paladino and her 73-year-old husband Jon Paladino were killed when their Newfield, New Jersey, home exploded. killed The next day conspiracy-minded sites, citing "4Chan and 8Chan users," published stories promoting the claim that Carole Paladino, a retired school nurse, was "due to testify" in a grand jury investigation against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton:   The dubious alleged connection here is a two-year old controversy over Mylan Pharmaceuticals (who donated somewhere between $100,000 and $250,000 to the Clinton Foundation) having increased the price of EpiPens by more than 400% over the course of several years -- something Hillary Clinton herself criticized the company over: controversy Over the last several years, Mylan Pharmaceuticals has increased the price of EpiPens by more than 400%. Theyre now charging up to $600 for a two-EpiPen set that must be replaced every 12-18 months. This both increases out-of-pocket costs for families and first responders, and contributes to higher premiums for all Americans and their employers, Clinton said in a statement released to reporters by her campaign. Thats outrageous  and its just the latest troubling example of a company taking advantage of its consumers ... [I]ts wrong when drug companies put profits ahead of patients, raising prices without justifying the value behind them Given that John Paladino worked at a funeral home and Carole Paladino was a retired school nurse, it's unlikely that either of them would have been testifying before a grand jury about the operations of a large pharmaceutical company. Moreover, prosecutors in Gloucester County have told news outlets (and reiterated to us) that foul play is not suspected in the Paladinos' deaths, so any "news" story attempting to link their demise to a deliberate and furtive criminal plot to keep the couple from testifying against Hillary Clinton is merely another iteration of the "Clinton body bag" rumor that has been disseminated online since Clinton's husband, Bill, was president back in the 1990s. outlets Clinton body bag Melamed, Samantha et al.  "Two Dead in New Jersey House Explosion: 'It Was a Huge Ball of Fire.'"
  Philadelphia Inquirer.  7 July 2018. Everett, Rebecca.  "Retired School Nurse, Husband Killed in Earth-Shaking House Explosion."
  NJ.com.  7 July 2018. President Barack Obamas upcoming State of the Union address gave Republicans and Democrats on the Sunday news shows another chance to make their case about the countrys economic performance over the past five years. OnFox News Sunday,Obama adviser Dan Pfeiffer pointed out the country has added 8 million jobs since the health care law passed in March 2010. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, offered a different take on the state of the labor force onFace the Nation. Why are jobs and economic growth so dismal? he asked. Weve got the lowest labor force participation in over three decades, since 1978. And if President Obama wants to give an honest, candid State of the Union address this week, hell address the fact that his economic policies are not working. It's difficult to say how Obama's policies are causing the economy to stall or succeed, but we can examine Cruz's specific claim about labor force participation. Cruz, whose press office did not respond to our request for comment, is correctly breaking down data from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. The labor force participation rate is another measurement of the health of the labor market. The unemployment rate is the number of people who are not working as a percent of the labor force. There are multiple lenses through which to view jobs data. Another measure, thelabor force participation rate, refers to the percentage of Americans who are considered to be in the labor force as a part of the overall population. To be counted in the labor force, someone must be working or actively looking for work. In December (and also October), the labor force participation rate was 62.8 percent. In January and March of 1978, it was also 62.8 percent. We know what youre thinking: Cool numbers, PolitiFact, but what do they mean? Take a look at the trend. The labor force participation rate had been increasing since 1948, the first year the labor force participation rate was calculated. Then, it was 58.6 percent. It peaked in the late 1990s and 2000 to just more than 67 percent, before more recently hitting its lowest point in 36 years. Its fallen 2.9 percentage points since Obamas first month on the job in January 2009. Whats happening is the subject of an ongoing debate. There is understandable concern about the countrys long-term unemployed anddiscouraged workers. The economic recovery from the 2007-09 recession has been slow, which may have propelled people to go back to school, stay at home with their kids or give up on a search altogether when they could not find jobs in their field. Still, many economists attribute at least a portion of the drop to an unsurprising reason: the retirement of baby boomers, which does not exactly qualify as an American horror story. The trick is to determine how much of the drop represents the impact of a lagging economy, which is worrisome, and how much is due to non-worrisome factors, such as the aging of the adult population, said Gary Burtless, an economist at the Brookings Institution, ina 2013 PolitiFact interview. Theres no reason to believe things will change anytime soon. The labor force will become older, slowly add workers as the overall population grows and become more racially diverse in the next decade, according to theBureau of Labor Statistics. BLS researchers say the labor force participation rate will continue to slowly fall until hitting 61.6 percent in 2022 -- a projected decline of 1.2 percentage points since December 2013. The past decade saw a much more dramatic drop, declining 3.6 percentage points since December 2003. Our ruling Cruz said, Weve got the lowest labor force participation in over three decades, since 1978. Were pretty confident Obama isnt asking Cruz for State of the Union talking points, and hes especially not interested in one that may suggest todays economic policies arent working. Cruz has his statistics right. But well note at least part of the trend has been years in the making and appears strongly tied to the inevitable aging of the baby boomer population. In other words, its not all Obamas fault, and its not going to change the minute he leaves office. We rate Cruzs statement Mostly True. In 2012, PolitiFact twiceratedTrueclaims that President Barack Obama failed to keep a promise to cut federal deficits in half by the end of his first term. At that point, the budget gap topped a trillion bucks and Republican congressmencalled out Obamabecause the deficit had been reduced by just 15 percent. But there was the president atLaborfest 2014in Milwaukee proclaiming we cut our deficits by more than half. In his Sept. 1, 2014speech, the president ticked off for union supporters a list of major policy decisions he contends helped boost the economy and improve the governments bottom line. We cant cover all of those here, but the deficit claim grabbed our attention. Has it really been cut in half? The White House Office of Management and Budget pointed us to achart prepared by that officein 2013 as proof of Obama's claim. It compares the yearly deficits under Obama, expressed -- as they often are -- as a share of the nations entire economy, which is measured by the Gross Domestic Product. At the start of Obamas term, the chart showed, the figure was 9.2 percent. The latest figure was 4.1 percent. That appears to back Obama's statement. But let's examine this in detail. To do that, we reviewed figures published by the Congressional Budget Office as well as theWhite Houses Office of Management and Budget. We also consulted with independent fiscal experts. The baseline year for comparison is fiscal year 2009, which ended Sept. 30 of that year. This was the last budget from President George W. Bush, as Obama took office in January of that year. The most recent complete fiscal year is 2013. Those are the same years Obama's chart showed. Our analysis showed the drop easily topped 50 percent, and was actually somewhat higher than Obama's chart would indicate. As a share of the economy, we found -- and our experts confirmed -- the drop was from 9.8 percent in 2009 to 4.1 percent in 2013. Obamas chart actually reflects a lower deficit figure for 2009, and therefore a lower share of GDP, 9.2%. Thats because instead of using the actual 2009 deficit of $1.4 trillion, Obama lowers it by the $200 billion in increased deficit spending that he -- not Bush -- pushed through in the stimulus plan to address the crisis that became the Great Recession. That resulting figure is what Obama calls the deficit he inherited from Bush. But no matter which figure is used, the deficit as a share of the economy still fell by more than half. Show me the money There's another way to look at this. That is, in raw dollars -- the way attendees at the union event probably would. Indeed, deficits are often expressed that way as well. The White House and CBO figures each show that in 2009 the deficit reached $1.4 trillion. As a share of GDP, it easily topped any year since World War II, said Steve Ellis, vice president of the nonpartisan Taxpayers for Common Sense. By the end of fiscal year 2013, the deficit figure had fallen to $679.5 billion in dollars unadjusted for inflation. Thats a 52 percent drop. Heres the year-by-year trend in 2009 dollars: Fiscal year Deficit Deficit as share of GDP 2009 1,412,688,000,000 9.8 percent 2010 1,294,373,000,000 8.8 percent 2011 1,299,593,000,000 8.4 percent 2012 1,086,963,000,000 6.8 percent 2013 679,502,000,000 4.1 percent There is one wrinkle. When you use Obama's methodology to compare the deficit Obama inherited -- the 2009 result minus the stimulus package to that in 2013 --  the drop in the deficit is slightly under half, at 48%. Ellis and Marc Goldwein, senior policy director at the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, both included an additional year, the 2014 fiscal year, which is just a month from completion. The Aug. 27, 2014CBO estimate for this years budget,fiscal year 2014, is a continued shrinking of the deficit to $506 billion, or 2.9 percent of GDP. Those figures would put Obama's claim over the top no matter the number-crunching method. Looking ahead Ellis cautioned that talking about deficit amounts in raw dollars doesnt really give a good sense of the scale: A $400 billion deficit in a $10 trillion economy is a lot bigger than a $400 billion deficit in $17 trillion economy. And he and Goldwein emphasized that while the deficit has been halved, its been halved from a skyscraping peak. In the decade before deficits exploded in 2008 and 2009, they averaged just over 1 percent of GDP, including three years of surpluses, we calculated. As of 2013, that figure was at 4.1 percent. The growth in the deficit from 2007 to 2009 was due mainly to factors related to the Great Recession, said Goldwein. Tax collections fell as people lost jobs and corporate profits dropped; spending on food stamps and other aid programs rose with increased need; stimulus and tax break legislation passed, as did bailouts of financial firms. The economic recovery, wind-down of stimulus, reversal of TARP/Fannie transactions, and lower interest rates are really what has caused our deficit to fall so much, Goldwein told us. He mentioned cuts in discretionary spending as well. Looking ahead, the CBO warns that later in the next decade deficits as a share of the economy will grow and federal debt will climb without changes in current policies. But Obama, its fair to say, was speaking of the change during his presidency. And his claim dovetails with one PolitiFact National checked in July 2013, ratingTrueObamas claim that the deficit is falling at the fastest rate in 60 years. Our rating At a union rally on Labor Day, Obama declared We cut our deficits by more than half. The numbers back up Obamas claim:  Thanks to income tax revenues rising and spending on emergency assistance dropping, Americas deficit has fallen by more than 50 percent from its highest point since World War II to a level $733 billion lower. We rate the claim True. For all the advances since the era of teased-out rocker hair, one thing hasnt changed for Americas average working man: the amount of bacon he brings home. So says Rana Foroohar, a CNN global economic analyst andTimemagazine assistant managing editor (who, by the way,snagged thefirst interviewwith new Federal Reserve chair Janet Yellen). Appearing on CNNsThe Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer,Foroohar brought up the point during a general discussion about the countrys economic woes. You know, I have to jump in on this because we are living in a time when the corporate share of the overall economic pie is as high as it has been in decades, Foroohar said. Meanwhile, the median male worker in this country has not seen a raise, inflation-adjusted, for 30 years, basically. Foroohars eye-popping statistic about median male worker income is certainly interesting. We wanted to know if it is correct. Comparing 1982-2012 TheU.S. Census Bureauproved a go-to source. The bureaus Septemberreporton income, poverty and health insurance coverage in 2012 contains text and tables outlining historical changes (or lack thereof) in earnings for both men and women. Foroohar referenced median earnings, which experts say is a better measure than the average because the income difference between the countrys rich and working-class earners is stark. In 2012, the latest year for which data is available, the median full-time, year-round male worker earned $49,398. In 1982, exactly 30 years earlier, earnings in 2012 dollars were $48,152. So from 1982 to 2012, there was actually an inflation-adjusted raise of $1,246.But thats more because Foroohar is looking at two years in isolation. Tracking the income of median male workers over time shows that incomes climbed steeply from 1960 to 1970. But the figure has ebbed and flowed and remained mostly stagnant since 1970, dipping as low as $46,841 in 1996 and reaching a high of $51,670 in 1973. (You canview the tableon page 50 of the report.) Point being:You could just as easily widen or shrink Foroohars 30-year window by a few years and find a number that supports her point. Median earnings of the 2012 male worker are down compared to his counterpart 25 years ago (who earned $50,166 in 1987), 35 years ago ($50,480 in 1977) or 40 years ago ($50,074 in 1970). Even though Foroohars window shows a 2.6 percent pay increase between 1982 and 2012, its really pretty close to flat, said Gary Burtless, a senior fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution. It means that male median earnings increases just 0.085 percent per year (that is, 85 one-thousandths of a percentage point per year), he said. Some say men are even worse off Foroohars larger point, while technically correct and oft-repeated, misses the larger economic picture and is actually too generous, argues Michael Greenstone, an economics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Greenstone co-authored a2012New York Timespostwith Brookings fellow Adam Looney that presented another way to examine median male wages. Instead of counting only the earnings of men with jobs, as the Census Bureau does, Greenstone factored in all working-age men. Factoring in men without jobs brings down the median income. The fraction of men in the workforce has declined sharply over the last several decades, he wrote, from 94 percent of prime-age men working in 1970 to 81 percent in 2010. It happened as incarceration rates and enrollment in the Social Security disability insurance program increased and labor force participation waned, as well as the wild success of women entering the labor market, he said. His 2012 study found real earnings of median males actually dropped by 19 percent since 1970, he found. This means that the median man in 2010 earned as much as the median man did in 1964  nearly a half century ago. The reasons for the trend are complex, Greenstone told us. Yes, there have been sweeping changes in technology, machinery and trade over the last 30 or 40 years that have had some effect. More striking, he said, is that educational attainment among men, which used to climb with each generation, has dropped off. The decline in working is concentrated among the men who have lower levels of education, Greenstone said. Its not concentrated among the college-grad guy who is married to a super successful woman. Michael Saltsman of the conservative Employment Policies Institute also argued the idea of stagnant wages is more controversial than it seems -- to a different end. He cited a 2012study in the National Tax Journalthat analyzed middle-class income from the past three cycles. Instead of using pre-tax income data, the researchers expanded the income definition to include taxes, income transfers and fringe benefits. Middle-class Americans are found to have made substantial gains, and these increases are even larger when including non-cash income, such as the ex-ante value of health insurance, the report says. Meanwhile, the earnings of female workers isnt cited as often as a metric of the economy because their participation in the workforce jumped sharply over the last 50 years. In any case, the 2012 full-time, year-round median female worker earned $37,791, according to census figures. In 1982, when about half as many women were working, median earnings were $29,731. Our ruling Foroohar said, the median male worker in this country has not seen a raise, inflation-adjusted, for 30 years, basically. Federal data for 1982-2012 shows a slight increase, though the numbers show the real value of median male earnings have been in the range of $46,840-$51,670 for about 40 years. We found another point of view that says the real median income has declined significantly once men without jobs are factored in. We also found a broader definition of income that changes the dynamic. Still, Foroohar clearly has a point. We rate her claim Mostly True. In July 2016, a image picturing Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was circulated with text stating that he had freed everyone imprisoned for marijuana offences and expunged their records, and that he was able to enact such a sweeping reform because Canada (unlike the U.S.) has no "prison for profit" facilities:  However, the claim originated not with a news report of any such reform act, but with an article published by the Global Sun on 3 July 2016: A press conference was held last night by The Liberal Party of Canada, on behalf of newly-elected Canadian prime minister, Justin Trudeau about future marijuana laws and regulations. 30 minutes into the conference, Trudeau announced the big news that all members of the parliament have agreed to  and that is pardoning all Canadian prisoners who have been convicted of a minor or major offence of marijuana. The Global Sun is a satirical publication that does not publish factual stories: The Global Sun is a satire website, articles/post on the website are all made-up stories and should not be taken seriously. Although Prime Minister Trudeau has not freed all those convicted of marijuana-related offences from prison, real news suggests Canada may be moving toward legalizing the drug in 2017: legalizing Canada's Liberal Party government will introduce a law next spring to legalize recreational marijuana, Health Minister Jane Philpott disclosed last week at the United Nations. She did not detail who would be allowed to grow or distribute cannabis products. Canada has a lot of options here, said RAND Drug Policy Research Center co-director Beau Kilmer. You have to pay attention to what's going to happen with the regulation and the taxes. That could really shape what happens in terms of people coming in from other countries. You have to decide whether you want to allow that. Social media users are frequently targeted by anniversary giveaway and survey scams, with one common form of bait being fake coupon offers for free boxes of Dunkin' Donuts:  Such scams typically provide links which lead to web pages (not operated or sponsored by Dunkin' Donuts) displaying the Dunkin' logo along with entreaties to spread the scam further by sharing those pages and writing thank you in the comments field. The free Dunkin' Donuts offers are a variation of the company anniversary survey scam, a ploy that depends on the unwary unwittingly promoting the phony offer to their social media friends: anniversary survey scam These web pages (which are not operated or sponsored by the companies they reference) typically ask the unwary to click what appear to be Facebook share buttons and post comments to the scammers site (which is really a ruse to dupe users into spreading the scam by sharing it with all of their Facebook friends). Those who follow such instructions are then led into a set of pages prompting them to input a fair amount of personal information (including name, age, address, and phone numbers), complete a lengthy series of surveys, and finally sign up (and commit to paying) for at least two Reward Offers (e.g., Netflix subscriptions, credit report monitoring services, prepaid credit cards). A representative for Dunkin' Donuts wrote on the company's official Facebook page that the online "free dozen" coupon was not one offered by the chain:   The Better Business Bureau issued guidelines warning specifically of identical scams on Facebook that target shoppers: Dont believe what you see. Its easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender. Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure theres a link to their privacy policy. When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organizations real website may have further information. Watch out for a reward thats too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions. Legitimate Dunkin' Donuts offers are listed in a Promotions page on the company's website. Promotions On 30 July 2017, the conservative Truth Division web site reported that the United States' national debt had fallen to a "surprising" extent in the seven months since the inauguration of President Donald Trump: Truth Division President Donald Trump and his administration are undoing the governments rampant spending that occurred under former President Obamas watch.  According the U.S. Treasurys direct record, a surprising amount of money has been saved over the course of seven months. On January 20th, the day Trump was inaugurated, the total debt was $19,947,304,555,212.49. On July 30th, seven short months later, its at $19,844,938,940,351.37. Overall the debt has decreased by $102,365,614,861.12. We have checked these numbers and set them in context, and found that the national debt did indeed fall by $102 billion between 20 January and the end of July 2017. This decline is also historically remarkable, in both absolute and percentage terms. This six-month fall in the national debt is also significant when measured against the size of the overall economy. National debt  the basics  The national debt is, in brief, the total value of what the federal government owes, and is made up of accumulated annual deficits (when the government spends more than it receives in taxes and other income). It is made up of "public debt" and "intragovernmental holdings." Public debt is, essentially, debt held by sources outside the central government. Intragovernmental holdings are debts between agencies within the federal government, in the form of government trust funds, such as Social Security trust funds.  National debt  the numbers According to figures published by the Treasury Department's Bureau of Fiscal Services on the TreasuryDirect web site, the national debt was $19.84 trillion on 27 July 2017 (not 30 July, as stated by Truth Division. On 20 January, it was $19.95 trillion. TreasuryDirect That shows a fall of $102.37 billion, or 0.51 percent, over a period of 131 business days. To set that in context, we analyzed national debt data stretching back to 12 July 1993, and examined every 131-day period in the last 24 years. You can download a spreadsheet containing all the relevant data here. here Debt-to-GDP ratio The national debt, however, is best viewed with reference to the overall economy. If two countries have about the same national debt, the one with the smaller economy will likely be more constrained in its spending, whereas the larger economy  despite having the same level of debt  will be less affected in terms of economic and fiscal policy. A good way of checking this is to compare the size of the debt to the size of the economy, measured as GDP (gross domestic product). GDP is the combined market value of all goods and services produced in a given jurisdiction (in this case, the United States). This comparison between the size of the national debt and the size of the economy is known as the debt-to-GDP ratio.  While the Treasury Department publishes the national debt for every business day, GDP is only published on a quarterly basis (once every three months). In order to compare the debt-to-GDP ratio on 27 July with the same figure on Inauguration Day, we have to get a little bit creative.  For example, we know that the United States GDP was $18.9 trillion at the end of December 2016 (the end of the fourth quarter), according to figures published by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.  Bureau of Economic Analysis We also know that the national debt on 30 December 2016 was $19.98 trillion, so the estimated debt-to-GDP ratio on that date was 105.67 percent. In other words, the debts of the United States federal government were 5.67 percent bigger than the size of the Unites States economy (when measured by GDP). At the end of the first quarter of 2017 (the end of March), GDP was $19.06 trillion. And we know that on 31 March, the national debt was $19.85 trillion, meaning the debt-to-GDP ratio was 104.14 percent  a healthier number than at the end of December. But to estimate GDP for all the days in between 30 December and 31 March (including 20 January, Inauguration Day) we have to cheat a little bit. You can read more about our methodology by downloading this spreadsheet, but here's what our estimates revealed: Causes The Truth Division, a conservative, openly pro-Trump web site, clearly attributes this decline in the national debt to the president, claiming he and his administration are "undoing the government's rampant spending" and "keeping his promises regarding fiscal responsibility". However, the article does not cite any examples of actions taken by Donald Trump which would support this conclusion.  Jared Bernstein, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and former economic adviser to Vice President Joe Biden, dismissed any claims that President Trump is responsible:  Trump hasn't legislated anything that would have any impact on the fiscal accounts, so it simply doesn't make sense on the face it.  Instead, Bernstein told us, the cause of the drop in the debt is simple  the federal debt ceiling that has been in place since March 2017. If you look at a plot of the total debt right now, it's holding steady at the limit, because to go over the limit is unconstitutional. So you either have to engage in extraordinary measures or eventually default, and the latter is unimaginable so right now Treasury is engaged in the former. That is, they are delaying or suspending various payments that need to be made, particularly within some of their intra-governmental accounts... By those measures, they can hold the national debt where it is for a certain amount of time.  Eventually, Bernstein says, the debt ceiling will have to be lifted, and the payments that had been delayed will cause the national debt to increase once again.  That pattern can be seen in this chart, which shows the national debt from January 2011 up to the end of July 2017. There are four flat lines showing four periods during which the debt ceiling was frozen: from May to August 2011; May to October 2013; March to October 2015; and the ongoing period since March 2017.  2011 2013 2015   Conclusion The Truth Division article accurately describes the extent to which the national debt fell between the inauguration of Donald Trump in January 2017 and the end of July of the same year. And it rightly describes this fall as "surprising", since it ranks among the very largest 131-day declines in the national debt since July 1993, both in absolute and percentage terms.  Similarly, the decline in both components of the national debt  public debt and intragovernmental holdings  was highly significant between 20 January and 27 July 2017, both in absolute and percentage terms, and as we have shown, the national debt has fallen by an estimated 2.25 percent since Inauguration Day  even when measured against the size of the overall Unites States economy. Whether or not any actions or decisions made by Donald Trump have caused or contributed to these historically remarkable declines in the debt is a question that goes beyond the scope of this particular fact check. Unfortunately, the  national debt resumed its upward march in August 2017 and by mid-August 2018 stood at about $21.3 trillion (up $1.4 trillion since Inauguration Day), so the early 2017 drop has not proved to be a long-term trend. national debt A spreadsheet containing all the data relevant to this article can be downloaded here. here Bureau of Fiscal Services.  "Frequently Asked Questions About the Public Debt".
 TreasuryDirect.gov.  1 April 2016. Social media users love to share words of inspiration and wisdom  if you can pair a profound (or at least vague) life lesson with a striking photo of a celebrity, all the better.  That was the case in early 2018, when a photograph of California's former governor Arnold Schwarzenegger appeared along with an elaborate, but false, back story. A photograph of Schwarzenegger in a sleeping bag in front of a statue of himself bore the following caption: caption Famed actor Arnold Schwarzenegger posted a photo of himself sleeping on the street under his famous bronze statue, and sadly wrote "How times have changed"... The reason he wrote the phrase was not only because he was old, but because when he was governor of California he inaugurated a hotel with his statue. Hotel staff told Arnold, "at any moment you can come and have a room reserved for you." when Arnold stepped down as governor and went to the hotel, the administration refused to give him a room arguing that he should pay for it, since they were in great demand. He brought a sleeping bag and stood underneath the statue and explained what he wanted to convey: "When I was in an important position, they always complimented me, and when I lost this position, they forgot about me and did not keep their promise. Do not trust your position or the amount of money you have, nor your power, nor your intelligence, it will not last. " Trying to teach everyone that when you're "Important" in the people's eyes , everyone is your "Friend " But once you don't benefit their interests , you won't matter. " You are not always who you think you will always be, nothing lasts forever."    The story is riddled with falsehoods, and its primary claim  that Schwarzenegger slept outside a hotel after being refused a free room is a fabrication.  In reality, the photograph (which is legitimate) was taken in January 2016, while the Hollywood star was shooting a film in Columbus, Ohio. Schwarzenegger posted it to his Instagram account on 15 January 2016, apparently as a joke: shooting account   The statue is located outside the city's convention center and has never been situated in front of a hotel, despite the false claims in the Facebook post.  located Schwarzenegger first helped unveil the statue in 2012, outside the Franklin County Veterans Memorial, and then took part in its rededication in 2014, after it was moved to its current location. The former bodybuilder has longstanding ties to Columbus, which is host to an annual bodybuilding competition called the Arnold Sports Festival.  2012 competition Finn, Natalie.  "Here Is Arnold Schwarzenegger Sleeping Next to a Statue of His Bodybuilder Self in Ohio."
  E! Online.  15 January 2016. Associated Press.  "Arnold Schwarzenegger Statue Rededicated in Downtown Columbus."
  WBNS-TV.  6 October 2014. Audi, Tamara.  "Hello, Columbus: Arnold Schwarzenegger Is Back, Bigger Than Ever in Ohio."
  The Wall Street Journal.  2 March 2012.