The deficit ... is coming down, and its coming down rapidly.
Larry Kudlow, director of the National Economic Council for President Donald Trump, raised eyebrows when he said in aFox Business Network interviewthat the nations deficit is falling on Trumps watch. The economy under President Donald Trump, Kudlow said on June 29, is throwing out enormous amounts of new tax revenues. As the economy gears up, more people working, better jobs and careers -- those revenues come rolling in, and the deficit, which is one of the other criticisms (of Trumps economic policy), is coming down, and its coming down rapidly. Growth solves a lot of problems. . @larry_kudlow: The deficit... is coming down, and it's coming down rapidly. Growth solves a lot of problems.pic.twitter.com/H375h7rV0a As it happens, the deficit hasnt come down to date -- which sparked a quick backlash on social media and prompted Kudlow to amend his remarks later that day. KudlowtoldtheWashington Postthat the economy is so strong right now its going to produce lower deficits. I probably should have said future deficits. However, that assertion is questionable as well. The most trusted source for future budget projections, the Congressional Budget Office, shows rising deficits for years into the future. Infiscal year 2015, when Barack Obama was president, the federal deficit was $438 billion. (A refresher: The deficit refers to federal revenues minus federal outlays. Each years deficit adds to the overall public debt.) In fiscal year 2016, which was also under Obama, the deficit rose to $585 billion. In fiscal year 2017, which was about two-thirds on Trumps watch, the deficit rose to $665 billion. The deficit also rose as apercentage of the nations gross domestic product-- a way of comparing economic statistics across time. In fiscal year 2015, the deficit was 2.4 percent of GDP, rising to 3.2 percent of GDP in fiscal 2016 and 3.5 percent in fiscal 2017. So on a full-year basis, Kudlow is wrong. Hes also wrong if you look at the first seven months of fiscal year 2018. According to theTreasury Department, the first seven months of the current fiscal year saw a deficit of $385 billion -- which is 12 percent higher than the first seven months of fiscal year 2017, when the deficit totaled $344 billion. As for the future,CBO findsno reason to expect the deficit to go down any time soon. For fiscal year 2018, CBO projects a deficit of $804 billion, rising each successive year to $981 billion in 2019, $1 trillion in 2020, $1.1 trillion in 2021, and $1.3 trillion in 2022. The deficit is also poised to increase as a percentage of GDP --  from 3.5 percent in 2017 to 4.0 in 2018 and eventually to 5.4 percent in 2022. Heres the full chart from CBOs most recent projections, released in April. Not only that, but CBO specifically cited the tax cut Trump backed and signed into law as a reason for spiraling deficits. The deficit that CBO now estimates for 2018 is $242 billion larger than the one that it projected for that year in June 2017, CBO wrote in its April report. Accounting for most of that difference is a $194 billion reduction in projected revenues, mainly because the 2017 tax act is expected to reduce collections of individual and corporate income taxes. And the projections would be even worse if Congress doesnt allow the recent round of tax cuts to expire. In that scenario, far larger deficits and much greater debt would result than in CBOs baseline projections for the 20192028 period, CBO wrote. Kudlow said, The deficit ... is coming down, and its coming down rapidly. After being criticized, he later clarified that he probably should have said future deficits. Kudlows first formulation is wrong, and his revised version isnt supported by the most widely trusted barometer -- projections by the CBO. Trump tax bill, which dramatically cut revenues, is a big reason why. The statement is inaccurate and ridiculous. We rate the statement Pants on Fire!
On Jan. 4, 2022, a strange Facebook ad appeared that claimed: "The Sudden Loss That Hit 'Little People, Big World.'" It led to a lengthy article that claimed to reveal news of a death, "shocking truth," or some sort of sad development about the Roloff family. claimed However, this was all very misleading. For readers unfamiliar with "Little People, Big World," it's a reality TV show that follows the lives of the Roloff family. reality TV show "Matt and Amy Roloff, both 4 feet tall, face a variety of challenges in raising their four children: twins Jeremy and Zach, who is 2-feet shorter than his brother, and younger siblings Molly and Jacob, who like Jeremy are average height," a synopsis on TheTVDB.com reads. "The family's 34-acre Oregon farm serves as part playground and part moneymaker. As the series ages, Matt and Amy deal with personal strife, embrace their kids getting older and leading lives of their own, become grandparents, and attempt to keep Roloff Farms operational." synopsis The show began airing on TLC in 2006 and is often referred to by the acronym, "LPBW." Matt and Amy divorced in 2015. airing on TLC divorced In the Facebook ad about the Roloff family's "sudden loss," the caption contained several grammatical errors. It said: "Since the allegation were confirmed to the public, the cast of 'Little People, Big World' has ask for some privacy. Here is all the information given to the public so far." In other words, the ad appeared to imply that there were recent developments about a death that involved someone on "LPBW" or in the Roloff family.  This strange Facebook ad came from a page named P-15897-2.  The ad was posted on a Facebook page with a strange name: P-15897-2. It was described as a "clothing store." However, the truth was that this was nothing more than a quickly-created page that was being used to profit off of tragic and outdated news. It was likely managed from outside of the U.S. One of the photos showed a young Zach Roloff in a hospital bed. The picture was a screenshot from a 2006 episode of "LPBW" named "Zach's Emergency" where he experienced a "mysterious illness." episode The ad led to a lengthy slideshow-style article on foodisinthehouse.com. Its headline read: "Little People, Big World: Learn the Shocking Truth About the Roloff Family." article However, the Facebook ad and this article were both misleading. The story was nothing more than an extremely long history of the Roloff family. It mentioned several tragic developments. Matt had a brother named Josh who died at the age of 34 in 1999. He had experienced multiple medical problems since his birth, according to a report. Additionally, the story mentioned the August 2021 death of Felix, who was Amy's dog. She posted about his passing on Instagram. This news, which was reported by People.com and others, was around four months old by the time the misleading article was published and the Facebook ad went live. There's no evidence that the family asked "for privacy" about either of these two past deaths, as the Facebook ad claimed. report posted reported by People.com The lengthy article also documented two unrelated, sad developments about Dr. Jennifer Arnold, the star of the former TLC series, "The Little Couple." According to Chron.com, the show provided a "deeper look into the married life of Dr. Jen Arnold and Bill Klein, who happen to be dwarfs." According to Chron.com In 2013, Today.com reported that Dr. Arnold was "diagnosed with stage 3 choriocarcinoma, a rare cancer that began with a September pregnancy loss." reported In sum, an unknown person was paying Facebook to display an ad about "Little People, Big World" that seemed to indicate there were new and tragic developments. It said that the Roloff family asked "for privacy" and hinted with the words "so far" that more information was coming about a recent "loss" or death. However, this was misleading and appeared to be little more than an attempt to profit from past tragedies from two TLC TV shows. For these reasons, we have rated this claim as "Outdated." attempt to profit Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising "arbitrage." The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads. submit ads to us One claim that has often been repeated by U.S. President Donald Trump is that he rebuilt a military that was "totally depleted" by his predecessor, Barack Obama. Trump's grievance is based on a grain of truth  military spending was reduced during Obama's second term  but Trump's statements on the matter have combined distorted facts with outright falsehoods. The way Trump tells it, the United States military was in a complete shambles when he took office. Over the years, Trump has made a variety of statements in order to perpetuate this notion.  In one oft-repeated story, Trump illustrated his claim that Obama depleted the military by saying that the armed forces had "no ammunition" when he took office. In October 2019, for instance, Trump said: "When I took over our military, we did not have ammunition." said This is not true. The military did not run out of ammunition during the Obama administration (or during any other administration, as far as we can tell). not true In addition, Trump falsely claimed in August 2018, as he was signing the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2019, that the military had not received any money for years and years. Trump said: "Weve been trying to get money. They never gave us money for the military for years and years. And it was depleted." This, again, is false. In fact, approximately $600 billion was spent on the military in the year before Trump took office.  President Trump has also mischaracterized his own military spending. On May 22, 2020, during a speech at the "Rolling to Remember Ceremony: Honoring our Nations Veterans and POW/MIA," Trump claimed that he spent trillions on equipment: speech "Weve invested the $2.5 trillion in all of the greatest equipment in the world, and its all made here, right in the USA.  This is not true. The $2.5 trillion figure refers to the total Department of Defense (DOD) budget that was passed under Trump -- comparatively speaking, Obama's budget during was about $3.3. trillion during his first term and $2.7 trillion during his second term -- but only of a portion of the DOD budget is spent on equipment. The amount spent on procurement, or the act of obtaining military equipment and supplies, varies from year to year, but it generally made up about 15% of Trump's total military budget.  not true While Trump has told several falsehoods about how Obama supposedly "totally depleted" the military, there is some general truth to the idea, as overall military spending was reduced during the Obama administration. However, there is a bit more nuance to this issue than is often heard on the campaign trail.  While the military was leaner during the Obama years, the Obama administration still spent trillions on national defense.  Calculating an exact dollar figure for how much the U.S. spends on the military (and what administration is responsible for that spending) is a complicated proposition. The military budget covers a wide range of expenses across five military branches: the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, and Space Force. One could also factor in money spent on the Department of Veterans Affairs, on overseas contingency operations, and on other security agencies, such as Homeland Security. Military contracts and budgetary plans also often overlap presidential terms, meaning that spending authorized under one president may end up getting spent under another. Furthermore, each president is faced with different domestic and global threats, which require different approaches and therefore different spending. Lastly, no president has sole discretion over military spending. For instance, sequestration, a provision of the 2011 Budget Control Act that passed congress with bipartisan support, limited the amount that could be spent on the military. military budget covers sequestration The "green book," an annual budgetary analysis put out by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, shows that military spending greatly increased following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks during the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush. Spending continued to increase after Obama took office. In 2010, there was a slight decrease in military spending, and that trend continued until 2015. Spending increased again during Obama's final year in office and then continued to increase during Trump's administration.  green book The following chart from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) takes a look at the United States' budget stretching back to the 1980s. The green line at the top of this chart is the United States budget for National Defense.  Center for Strategic and International Studies   Trump's military budget for his first four years (approximately $2.9 trillion) was more robust than Obama's budget during his last four years (approximately $2.7 trillion). However, it was smaller than Obama's budget during his first four years (approximately $3.3 trillion). The Marine Corps Times writes: writes The military the president inherited from Obama was not depleted or facing a massive readiness crisis, which resulted from massive underfunding in the Obama years. In fact, according to Gen. David Petraeus ,who commanded our troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan and also headed the CIA, and Michael OHanlon, there was no readiness crisis and in 2016, the year Trump was elected, the state of our military was awesome. Nor was the defense budget seriously underfunded in the Obama years. If one controls for inflation, in FY2021 dollars Obama spent $3.3 trillion in his first term compared with the $2.9 trillion under Trump. Moreover, while defense spending did decline slightly in Obamas second term, it still amounted to $2.7 trillion, about $200 million, or 7 percent less, than Trumps first-term budget. However, this decline was a result of the Budget Control Act or sequestration (BCA,) which was instituted by his current chief of staff, Mark Meadows, who was then a congressman from South Carolina. While the military certainly had ammunition during the Obama administration, and while the Obama administration certainly spent a few trillion dollars more than nothing on national defenses, several aspects of the military were truly reduced during Obama's administration. Todd Harrison, the director of Defense Budget Analysis for CSIS, examined Obama's budget for fiscal year 2017, the budget that would be in place when Trump took office, and found that "nearly every measure of force structure  the number of brigades, aircraft, ships and subs, marine battalions, and end strength  [was] smaller than when the [post 9/11] buildup began." However, this "smaller force consumes a budget more than 50 percent larger in real terms than before 9/11. The military is spending more for a smaller force."  examined Obama's budget Though it is certainly not accurate to say that the military did not receive any funding during the Obama administration, there was truly a reduction in spending. Two major factors resulted in reduced spending. First, congress placed restrictions on military spending in 2011 in an attempt to reduce the national deficit. And second, the Obama administration started to withdraw troops from Afghanistan and Iraq.  Here's how The New York Times explained the impact of the congressional sequester on military spending: explained In 2011, in response to a debt ceiling crisis, lawmakers reached a bipartisan agreement to reduce deficits by at least $2.1 trillion over the next decade. In addition to limits on domestic spending, limits were placed on the Pentagons base budget, but not its wartime spending. Congress increased spending caps by $32 billion in 2013 and $40 billion in 2015, referred to by budget watchers as partial sequester relief. In February, the cap was blown off entirely, when Mr. Trump signed a budget deal that raised it by $165 billion over two years. Effectively, that ended the sequester without repealing the original law. From 2012 to 2017, the Pentagons annual budget had decreased as a percent of the economy. But it still hovered around $600 billion  a far cry from no money at all. Qiu, Linda.  "Trump Goes for Broke on Claim Military Received No Money Before His Watch. (Hes Still Wrong.)."
  The New York Times.  13 August 2018. Plinkington, Ed.  "Barack Obama Sets Out Plans for Leaner Military in Historic Strategy Shift." 
 The Guardian.  5 January 2012. Ewing, Philip.  "Fact Check: Has President Obama 'Depleted' The Military?"
  NPR.  29 August 2016. Korb, Lawrence.  "Trumps Misleading Claims on Military Readiness and Veteran Care."
  Marine Corps Times.  14 September 2020. Harrison, Todd.  "Analysis of the FY 2017 Defense Budget."
  Center for Strategic and International Studies.  April 2016. Robertson, Lori.  "Trumps False Military Equipment Claim.'"
  FactCheck.org.  2 July 2020. In February 2018, a graphic attempted to blame Sen. Cory Booker (D-New Jersey) for a second brief shutdown of the U.S. federal government within a month with a fabricated statement:   Cory Booker (d) today annouced Senior Citizens, disable military, will have their monthly payments held up Until DACA passes, or hell freezes over if that's what it takes with the looming democrat shut down of government. He added he wasn't elected by "Those sort of people in the first place" and credits his win to Dreamers Brave enough to register to vote for him. Further he stated DACA recipients need to be treated as first Class citizens, not as undocumented aliens, while seniors and disable Veterans as well as active duty need to be removed from preferential treatment and learn to pass their privlage onto our most honored Citizens Dreamers. DACA or shut down the government till Dreamers can vote in midterm elections. Besides losing coherence as it goes along in what we can only describe as sheer laziness, the post spreads a number of falsehoods: first of all, both DREAMers (the term for immigrant youths who would have been covered under the proposed DREAM Act) and enrollees in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program cannot vote. Conservatives have consistently insisted  without any proof to back it  that Democrats have benefitted from receiving millions of illegal votes, whether it be from undocumented immigrants or African-Americans. DREAM DACA proof African-Americans. Further, the remarks about "those sort of people" and veterans having to "pass their privlage [sic]" were fabricated. And while the graphic fretted about a government shutdown, it was brief; President Donald Trump signed a congressional budget agreement early on 9 February 2018, which ensured that the government would continue to function. signed We contacted Booker's office seeking a response to the fabrications in the graphic, but did not receive a response by press time. Walters, Joanna.  "What is Daca And Who Are the Dreamers?"
 The Guardian.  14 September 2017. Davis, Susan et al.  "Trump Signs 2-Year Spending Pact."
 NPR.  9 February 2018. Charles Francis says Raleigh isnt spending its parks money fairly. Francis, a Democrat, is running for mayor of Raleigh against three-time incumbent Nancy McFarlane, whos unaffiliated. Theyre in a runoff after none of the three candidates  Francis, McFarlane and Republican Paul Fitts  secured the 50 percent of the vote required to win. (McFarlane got 48 percent, Francis got 36 percent and Fitts got 12 percent) In a debate Friday, Francis suggested the city shouldnt focus all of its energy on Dix Park when more basic needs go unaddressed. Dix Park is a 308-acre property just south of downtown Raleigh that the city bought from the state in 2014 and plans to develop into a destination recreation spot. Its not right that there are parks in Southeast Raleigh that still dont have air conditioning in the gym, he said. Weve got to have equity in the way we approach our parks. Southeast Raleigh, the citys lone predominantly black area, hasnt enjoyed the same economic success as other areas of the city where businesses are opening and property values are rising. Francis grew up there and is campaigning on the idea that the city should be doing more for the area. A recent PolitiFact analysis of the Oct. 10 election showed Francis got his most fervent support in Southeast Raleigh. And he has previously talked about howthose voters could swing the election. There are 80,000 black voters in Raleigh, Francis said at a forum in September. McFarlane normally wins with 25,000 to 30,000 votes. If only a quarter of African-American voters vote  and vote the right way  were going to win. Given the city's budget is $919 million, PolitiFact wondered whether there are, indeed, gyms in Southeast Raleigh that dont have air conditioning. What we found Turns out, the city controls 23 gyms at 19 venues. And yes, there are three gyms in southeast Raleigh that dont have air-conditioning units, according to Raleighs parks, recreation and cultural resources department. Biltmore Hills Park, John Chavis Memorial Park and Tarboro Road Park are all located in southeast Raleigh and lack air conditioning units. But thats not the whole story. There are six other Raleigh gyms that also lack air-conditioning. The gyms at Green Road Park, Lions Park in northeast Raleigh, Method Community Park in west Raleigh, Millbrook Exchange Park in north Raleigh and two gyms at Laurel Hills Park in northwest Raleigh also lack air conditioning. Most area gyms have AC There are also four gyms in the Southeast Raleigh area that do have air conditioning: Barwell Road Community Center, Halifax Community Center, Roberts Park Community Center and the Worthdale Community Center. The city says it didnt begin putting air-conditioned gyms in park facilities until 2006. It costs about $300,000 to install units in older facilities. The city says its budget for capital projects will fund air-conditioning units in eight of the nine AC-less gyms by 2022. Method Park, the lone outlier, is being considered for AC funding as part of the 2023 budget, the city says. Our ruling Francis said gyms in Southeast Raleigh don't have air conditioning. There are four area gyms that have it and six gyms elsewhere in the city that don't have it. That context is important when debating city priorities and Francis didn't elaborate during the televised debate. But he's right: there are three gyms in Southeast Raleigh that don't have AC. We rate his claim Mostly True. In September 2019, we received inquiries from readers about the accuracy of a widely-shared tweet claming that the United States had been ranked the "118th safest country in the world" in 2019, a decline of 53 places in just one year. The claims originated with a September 3 tweet by @ResisterSiano, a left-leaning, anti-Trump Twitter account, which said: "The United States is the 118th safest country in the world. 118. Down from 65th last year. We fell 53 places in 1 year. The overwhelming majority of countries are now safer than the US. [I don't know] how else to say this. The United States is a dangerous shithole." The United States is the 118th safest country in the world. 118. Down from 65th last year. We fell 53 places in 1 year. The overwhelming majority of countries are now safer than the US. Idk how else to say this. The United States is a dangerous shithole.  Sergio (@ResisterSiano) September 3, 2019 September 3, 2019  Those claims were further promulgated when a Facebook user posted a screenshot of the tweet, garnering thousands of shares within a week:  The claims constituted a somewhat confusing and misleading representation of the findings of the 2019 Global Peace Index (GPI), an annual report produced by the Institute for Economics and Peace, an Australia-based non-profit organization, in collaboration with the Economist Intelligence Unit, a research and analysis firm associated with the Economist magazine. The originator of the tweet confirmed they had based their claims on the 2019 GPI in another tweet in which they wrote that "the United States ranked 118th in safety in 2019" and included a link to a summary of the report on the website World Population Review. tweet summary The GPI tracks the overall "absence of violence or fear of violence" in more than 160 independent countries and territories around the world. The overall GPI score is based on 23 separate indicators which, taken together, describe the presence and impact of internal and external conflicts, the impacts of violent crime and instability (including homicide rates, terrorism, the proportion of refugees and internally displaced people within a given population, and so on), as well as the levels of militarization and the availability and prevalence of weapons within a country or territory, among several other factors. The full list of 23 indicators can be viewed below, and a more detailed description of the methodology can be found in the 2019 GPI (starting on page 84): page 84   The GPI is not simply a measure of "safety" within a country, and it cannot be claimed, in a straightforward or reliable way, that a country which ranks 100th, for example, in the GPI is therefore "the 100th safest country in the world." It is probably more apt (though still imprecise) to describe the index as a rough approximation of each country or territory's overall peacefulness, a term which takes into account public safety and violent crime, but also factors such as militarization and the presence, impact, and intensity of national and international conflicts. Notwithstanding these important distinctions, safety and security do form an important component of the GPI, and "Societal Safety and Security" is one of the index's three main strands, along with "Ongoing Domestic and International Conflict" and "Militarization." "Societal Safety and Security" does include some indicators which a reader might typically associate with "safety," such as the level of violent crime, the impact of terrorism, and the homicide rate, but it also takes into account several factors which a reader would not typically associate with "safety," such as political instability and the ratio of police to population. Conversely, "ease of access to small arms and light weapons" -- a factor which many observers in the U.S., in particular, might associate with public safety -- is included in the "Militarization" strand, and not "Societal Safety and Security." More broadly, the overall GPI score takes into account several other factors which a reader would not typically consider when making a straightforward assessment of the "safety" of a given country, such as: a country's financial contribution to UN peacekeeping missions; the prevalence of refugees and internally displaced persons within the population; military spending as a percentage of GDP, and others. Bearing in mind the aforementioned nuances and complexities inherent in the GPI and its methodology, the following is a breakdown of the United States' rankings (both overall and for each of the three strands), from 2015 to 2019: U.S. Rankings in Global Peace Index, 2015-2019(Out of 163 countries/territories, unless otherwise stated.) 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019  Even if we set aside for a moment the inherent nuances in the GPI and the indicators of which it consists, those rankings lay bare several factual inaccuracies contained within the tweet. First, the U.S. did not rank 118th in the 2019 GPI, by any measure, and it's not clear what the basis was for citing that number. The United States' overall ranking was 128th, and when it came to "Societal Safety and Security" -- the strand which arguably represents "safety" most closely -- the U.S. ranked considerably better, at 59th out of 163 countries. On "Societal Safety and Security," therefore, only around 36 percent of countries performed better than the United States, which somewhat undermines the claim that "the overwhelming majority of countries are now safer than the U.S." Furthermore, no justification exists for the claim that the U.S. "fell 53 places in one year," although the U.S. did rank lower by every measure in 2019 than the year before, and 2018 represented a decline in rankings by every measure from the year before that. The actual decline in U.S. rankings between 2018 and 2019 was: seven places in the overall rankings; two places under "Ongoing Domestic and International Conflict"; 12 places under "Societal Safety and Security," and one place under "Militarization." Notwithstanding these factual inaccuracies, and the over-simplistic invocation of the concept of "safety," there is a justification for saying that based on the many and varied factors that go into the GPI, the United States was ranked the 128th most peaceful country in the world in 2019, an even lower ranking than 118th. That is to say, the United States could reasonably be described as being in the bottom 23 percent of the world's nations when it comes to overall peacefulness (which takes into account public safety and violent crime, but also international conflict and militarization). That ranking placed the U.S. below Central American nations such as Honduras (123rd), Nicaragua (120th), Guatemala (114th) and El Salvador (112th), as well as the African nations of Niger (126th), the Republic of the Congo (121st), and Kenya (120th), and historical rivals such as China (110th) and Cuba (91st). The U.S. ranked significantly below many of its European and NATO allies, such as the U.K. (joint 45th), Germany (22nd), and Canada (6th), but notably did outrank Russia, which was placed at 154th out of 163 countries and territories. Despite a somewhat confusing and misleading representation of the GPI, the index's actual findings would no doubt be just as worrying to many Americans. WorldPopulationReview.com.  "Safest Countries in the World 2019."
  28 August 2019. The Institute for Economics and Peace/the Economist Intelligence Unit.  "Global Peace Index 2019."
  12 June 2019. The Institute for Economics and Peace/the Economist Intelligence Unit. "Global Peace Index 2018."
  June 2018. The Institute for Economics and Peace/the Economist Intelligence Unit. "Global Peace Index 2017."
  1 June 2017. The Institute for Economics and Peace/the Economist Intelligence Unit. "Global Peace Index 2016."
  June 2016. The Institute for Economics and Peace/the Economist Intelligence Unit. "Global Peace Index 2015."
  June 2015. In December 2020, a viral meme was shared on social media that claimed a story about U.S. President-elect Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, was "front page news" in Australia. The article's headline read: "Biden 'Child Porn' Shock."  (Twitter screenshot) However, the meme's claim was false. The story appeared in a tabloid newspaper. Further, it did not appear on the front page of that publication, and the front page did not appear to tease or even mention the story in any way:   Also, any scandal surrounding Hunter Biden wasn't new news in December 2020. The story appeared in the Oct. 22, 2020, edition of the conservative Australian tabloid newspaper The Daily Telegraph. It claimed that Hunter Biden became "the hunted amid claims of underage pics on his laptop": appeared THE ongoing story of alleged corruption and foreign influence trading by the Biden family took a more sinister turn on Wednesday (AEDT). Speaking to the conservative American news outlet Newsmax, President Donald Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani said he had turned the hard drive reportedly left abandoned by Hunter Biden, son of Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden, at a Delaware repair shop over to state police due to contents which he said included inappropriate text messages and pictures of underage girls. Mr. Giuliani said there were "numerous" pictures which he described as being of underage girls. He also said there were text messages from Hunter to Joe saying that he had been accused of speaking naked to a 14-year-old girl on FaceTime. [...] The laptop has rocked the presidential race as it appears to provide direct evidence of cash-for-influence schemes involving Hunter and countries such as Ukraine and China. We previously reported on rumors surrounding Biden's son, which surfaced prior to the 2020 U.S. presidential election, as have The Associated Press, NBC News, and Fox News, among other news media outlets. We also debunked a false claim that said a photograph of Malia Obama's credit card was found on Hunter Biden's laptop, complete with lines of cocaine. reported on The Associated Press NBC News Fox News debunked Update [June 1, 2023]: Changed rating from False to Miscaptioned in accordance with current rating standards. Fans of former president Barack Obama -- or at least critics who like seeing current President Donald Trump get roasted online -- might have gotten their hopes up at what appeared to be a Twitter jab aimed at Trump by his predecessor. But the truth is, the tweet was manufactured. On 1 August 2018, an image began circulating online designed to look like it issued from Obama's Twitter account, with wording that read, "What type of ID do we need to buy groceries I'm at the store and all I have on me is my birth certificate":   Actually, Barack Obama only posted two tweets that day  one of them listed the Democratic Party candidates he was endorsing in the 2018 midterm elections, and the other promoted those candidates: listed other I'm confident that, together, they'll strengthen this country we love by restoring opportunity, repairing our alliances and standing in the world, and upholding our fundamental commitment to justice, fairness, responsibility, and the rule of law. But first, they need our votes. The fake tweet contained two barbs aimed at the current president. It made light of Trump's already widely-derided argument for voter identification cards offered during a 31 July 2018 speech, when the President said, "If you go out and you want to buy groceries, you need a picture on a card, you need ID. You go out, you want to buy anything, you need ID, you need your picture." widely-derided  In reality, shoppers only need to produce identification when purchasing age-restricted items such as cigarettes or alcohol, or picking up prescriptions from grocery stores that include pharmacies. White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said a day later that Trump was referring to alcohol purchases when he made the remark. said The "birth certificate" reference in the fake Obama tweet was also a callback to Trump's longtime promotion of the "birther" conspiracy theory, which claimed that Obama was not born in the U.S. and consequently ineligible to be president.  In 2011, Trump claimed credit for the fact that Obama released his long-form birth certificate. But unidentified advisers reportedly said in 2017 that even after being elected president, Trump "used closed-door conversations to question the authenticity" of his predecessor's birth certificate. claimed released reportedly Snider, Mike.  "ID for Groceries? Trump Trolled on Twitter for His Shopping Comment at Florida Rally."
  USA Today.  2 August 2018. Levy, Pema.  "Sanders Defends Trump on Needing an ID to Buy Groceries."
  Mother Jones.  1 August 2018. Scherer, Michael.  "Birtherism Is Dead, But the Birther Industry Continues."
nbsp;  TIME.  27 April 2011. Haberman, Maggie and Jonathan Martin.  "Trump Once Said the 'Access Hollywood' Tape Was Real. Now He's Not Sure."
  The New York Times.  28 November 2017. If you browse Snopes.com, you'll likely come across the advice, "If it seems too good to be true, it it probably is" on pages about social media scams. While this platitude is certainly worth considering when browsing the internet, a few exceptions exist. social media scams The Germany-based search engine Ecosia claims to use its profits to plant trees around the world. Its home page even carries a tally of the number of trees that have reportedly been planted by Ecosia users:   For many people, this business model may seem "too good to be true" and has led to some skepticism about the legitimacy of this company. A search on Google, for instance, results in several articles and blog posts questioning the legitimacy of the search engine and asking whether Ecosia is a scam. As far as we can tell, Ecosia is a legitimate search engine that truly uses a portion of its profits to help plant trees around the world.  Ecosia was launched in 2009 by Christian Kroll. At the time, the search engine was partnered with the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and promised to donate "at least 80 percent of its income from sponsored links to WWFs rainforest protection programme in Brazils Juruena-Apui region." WWF announced the partnership in a blog post: blog Those people unable to make it to the Copenhagen Climate Conference this month can still contribute to stopping climate change  by using a new search engine from their own computers. The same day the conference begins on Dec. 7, web users can start using a new green search engine called Ecosia. The new application, powered by Yahoo! and Microsofts Bing search engines, will allow internet surfers to protect about 2 square meters of Amazon rainforest just by clicking on sponsored links. Although users do not donate any money themselves, the company behind Ecosia will donate at least 80 percent of its income from sponsored links to WWFs rainforest protection programme in Brazils Juruena-Apui region. The green search engine is a very modern and inventive method of saving the world climate without a huge effort, says WWF Germanys director Eberhard Brandes. Every year billions of dollars are being earned in the internet only from advertising revenue, says Christian Kroll, founder of Ecosia. There is a more eco-friendly way of using these huge profits: the money should better be used to fight global warming. Since 2009, Ecosia has partnered with a number of other environmental organizations. The company reports it uses a portion of its profits to fund these organizations, who in turn work to plant trees around the world.  Ecosia makes money the way most other search engines and websites do: through advertising revenue. While this money covers various business expenses, such as advertising and operational costs, Ecosia claims that the majority of its revenue goes toward funding tree-planting projects.  Ecosia releases monthly financial reports so users can see exactly how the company is spending its money. The most recent full report comes from July 2019. The following report shows that 52% of its total income (approximately 80% of its surplus revenue) was invested in tree-planting projects; 5% was spent on advertising; 30% was spent on operational costs; and 12% went into company "reserves," which are used to fund larger environmental investments: financial reports   We have been unable to independently verify these numbers. However, we checked the websites of several of Ecosia's reported benefactors and found that many of these organizations list Ecosia as one of their partners. Dr. Simon Pfister, managing director of Green Ethiopia, an organization working to grow forests in Ethiopia that received approximately $150,000 from Ecosia in June 2019, told us that Ecosia accurately reported its donation in the company's financial report.  Ecosia is also a Certified B Corporation. This means that Ecosia underwent a third-party evaluation that determined the company had an overall positive impact on its workers, community, and environment. According to the company: Ecosia Certified B Corporation. B Corp Certification doesnt just evaluate a product or service; it assesses the overall positive impact of the company that stands behind it. And increasingly thats what people care most about. Certified B Corporations achieve a minimum verified score on the B Impact Assessment  a rigorous assessment of a companys impact on its workers, customers, community, and environment and make their B Impact Report transparent on bcorporation.net. Certified B Corporations also amend their legal governing documents to require their board of directors to balance profit and purpose. The combination of third-party validation, public transparency, and legal accountability help Certified B Corps build trust and value. B Corp Certification is administered by the non-profit B Lab. Ecosia lets users plant trees by searching the web. In donating 80 percent of its surplus ad revenue, the search engine has raised almost $3 million for reforestation projects since its founding in December 2009. Ecosia's mission to cultivate a world where the environment doesnt need protecting has it working to plant one billion new trees by the year 2020. By supporting high-impact reforestation efforts  as well as neutralising all CO2 emissions related to its search  Ecosia aims to achieve the highest positive environmental impact per dollar possible. By publishing its monthly donation receipts online, Ecosia aims to live up to its users demands for transparency. And by working to improve its charitable web service day after day, Ecosia aims to show the world that small changes can make a big difference. In its mission to plant one billion trees by 2020, Ecosia is working with experts and communities to reforest areas of the world that need it most. Sustainable, high-impact planting strategies mean improvements to the environment, local economies and social stability. Ecosia truly uses a large portion of its profits to fund tree planting projects. Of course, for anyone searching for an environmentally friendly search engine, planting trees isn't the only factor to consider. Ecosia is largely powered by Microsoft's Bing search engine. While Microsoft's global operations have been carbon neutral since 2012, the data centers powering Bing don't run entirely on renewable energy. Microsoft is working toward this goal, however, and expects to be driven by 100 percent renewable energy by 2023: Bing 2012 100 percent renewable energy In our data centers, we will continue to focus on R&D for efficiency and renewable energy. In 2016, we announced that we would power our data centers with more renewable energy, setting a 50 percent target by the end of 2018 and topping 60 percent early in the next decade while continuing to improve from there. We hit the first target nearly a year ahead of schedule, and today we are sharing the news that we will reach the 60 percent milestone before the end of this year. Were therefore setting our next milestone on the path to 100 percent renewable energy, aiming to surpass the 70 percent target by 2023. Well also launch a new data-driven circular cloud initiative using the Internet of Things (IoT), blockchain and artificial intelligence (AI) to monitor performance and streamline our reuse, resale and recycling of data center assets, including servers. For comparison's sake, Google announced in 2017 that its search engine was being powered by 100% renewable energy. announced While Microsoft may not be at quite at 100% renewable energy yet, Ecosia claims that its own servers run on clean power thanks to its new solar plant. Additionally, Ecosia's carbon footprint is lessened due to its involvement with various tree-planting projects around the world. The company says: carbon footprint Renewable energy: Did you know that the CO2 footprint of an average search is estimated at 0.2 grams? Not so with Ecosia. We recently built our own solar plant, so that we can run our servers on clean power. This is even better than buying renewable energy from existing plants, as the plant can deliver clean energy to the grid and replace electricity derived from fossil fuels. Carbon-negative: By planting trees and offsetting its energy use with renewables, each search with Ecosia actually removes 1 kg of CO2 from the air, which makes Ecosia a carbon-negative search engine. Heres the math: an average search generates around 0.005  of revenue. It costs roughly 0.25  to plant a tree, which means that Ecosia can plant one tree every 50 searches. On average, these trees will each remove 50 kg of CO2 during an expected 15 year lifetime. To sum up: Ecosia makes money through advertisements on its search engine. While a portion of that money is used to fund the operational costs of the business, about 80% of its surplus revenue is donated to environmental organizations and tree-planting projects around the world.  Smith, Brad.  "We're Increasing Our CarbonFee as We Double Down on Sustainability."   Microsoft.  15 April 2019. Google.  "100% Renewable is Just the Beginning."
  Retrieved 27 August 2019. Ecosia.  "Financial Reports and Tree-Planting Receipts."
  15 May 2019. World Wildlife Fund.  "Clicks to Help Save Amazon."   3 December 2009. Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren warned about the financial crisis of the 2000s before it happened, she claimed during a CNN town hall where she pitched herself as the best option for president in the 2020 election. Warren, a former Harvard Law School professor, told an audience of college students that her whole lifes work has been about what's happening to working families. And starting in the early 2000s, the crisis was coming. I was waving my arms, ringing the bell, doing everything I could. I said families are getting cheated all over this country,Warren said April 22 in Manchester, N.H.It started when the mortgage companies targeted communities of color. They targeted seniors. They targeted Latinos. They came in and sold the worst possible mortgages and stripped wealth out of those communities, and then took those products across the nation. I went everywhere I could. I talked about it to anyone who would listen, a crisis is coming. But nobody wanted to listen, Warren said, so the crisis hit in 2007, 2008, and just took us down. We confirmed that Warren did raise the alarm about the looming housing and financial crisis. She spoke about debt, financial lending practices and other factors affecting families and the economy years before the financial crisis peaked in 2008. Millions of peoplelost their jobs and homes during the recent Great Recession, generally regarded as happening from late 2007 to mid 2009. Experts say the financial crisis resulted from a number ofcolliding factors, including an unsustainable housing boom partly driven by an easy availability of mortgages, banks taking on too much risk, government policies and lax regulation. Subprime loans  loans at higher interest rates made to people perceived to be at greater risk for defaulting on loans (including families with low and moderate income and poor credit histories)  played a key role in the housing crisis. Warrens presidential campaigncitedseveralblogpostsand comments to media outlets in 2005 and 2006, and Warrens 2003 book, The Two-Income Trap, co-authored with her daughter, Amelia Warren Tyagi, as examples of Warren warning about subprime lending and an imminent housing crisis. Warren has represented Massachusetts in the U.S. Senate since 2013. Before going to Congress, she taught law at the university level for more than 30 years, most recently at Harvard, specializing in commercial law, contracts, and bankruptcy. Subprime lenders defended their business practices by saying they were helping more families own homes, Warrens book said, but thats little more than public relations hot air. In the overwhelming majority of cases, subprime lenders prey on families that already own their own homes, rather than expanding access to new homeowners. Fully 80 percent of subprime mortgages involve refinancing loans for families that already own their homes,Warren said in the book. For these families, subprime lending does nothing more than increase the family's housing costs, taking resources away from other investments and increasing the chances that the family will lose its home if anything goes wrong. In aJune 2004 interviewwith PBSs NOW host David Brancaccio, Warren spoke about growing household debt, against risky mortgage lending practices and what she regarded as bad advice to Americans by then-Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan. Warren said Greenspan encouraged families to borrow against their house to pay for basic expenses. I think what the landscape shows is the middle class is under assault in a way that has not happened before in our history, Warren said. Stagnant wages, rising costs, wildly rising debt. It's in everyone's interest to turn that back around. Warrens campaign noted that The New York Times quoted Warren in an October 2005articlethat said homeowners in suburbs were taking on more and more home-equity debt to stay out of bankruptcy. The article said: Professor Warren of Harvard believes that disaster lurks as homeowners borrow against their homes to forestall bankruptcy. When the stock market tumbled five years ago, people in trouble could sell stocks to stay afloat, she said. But home equity doesn't work the same way. As she put it, You can't sell a part of your home like you could a stock in the stock market bubble. Warren told the newspaper that after a new bankruptcy law went into effect that month, filing for bankruptcy would become more difficult: And that means more families are set up to lose their homes. Warren was substantially correct in herassessmentthat home prices were going up rapidly relative to incomes (particularly for households with a one wage earner), said Ed Pinto, co-director of the Housing Center at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. But Pinto disagrees with Warren about what caused the crisis. Warren blames banks and lenders, when in fact Congress andgovernment policiesaimed at making homes more affordable are the root cause, Pinto said. (Check out our2008 in-depth analysison the causes of the financial crisis and how that issue was debated in the 2008 presidential campaign. Then, both Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama said they sounded warnings, and both blamed the other for helping cause the crisis.) Warren was also a vocal opponent of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, because she thought the law would hurt consumers, said Deborah Goldstein, an executive vice president at the Center for Responsible Lending, which advocates for consumer financial protections. Risingcredit card debthurt Americans already struggling with mortgage payments. I remember (Warren) talking about credit card abuses and how they were harming families, Goldstein said. People were using credit to manage basic daily expenses. Goldstein said that her group, also concerned about the imminent financial crisis, in the early 2000s communicated with Warren on what could be done about it. I'd give then-professor Warren the credit for banging the drum and ringing the bell early on unfair financial practices, said Ed Mierzwinski, senior director of the Federal Consumer Program at the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. Warren was the No. 1 go-to academic expert in the mid-to-late '90s and 2000s in the debate over changes to the bankruptcy code, he said. Warren in January 2007testifiedbefore the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, saying that the credit card market was broken and hurt consumers. Warren was chosen in 2008 to lead theCongressional Oversight Panel, established by Congress to review the state of the financial markets and the regulatory system. Warren also helped create the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The bureau emerged from the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, designed to enforce federal consumer financial laws and protect consumers. In 2013 and 2014, Goldstein's groupcollaborated with the CFPBin drafting payday lending rules. Speaking of the financial crisis that gained traction in 2007, Warren said, I talked about it to anyone who would listen, a crisis is coming. There is documented evidence that Warren spoke against risky mortgage lending practices, rising debt and other factors that contributed to the financial and housing crisis years before it materialized. We rate Warren's claim True. Claim:  A provision of "Obamacare" health care legislation creates a 3.8% Medicare tax on real estate transactions.  OF AND  INFORMATION:    Health care legislation imposes a 3.8% tax on all home sales.  Health care legislation imposes a 3.8% transaction tax on profits over the capital gains threshold. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, April 2010] 3.8% tax on real estate transactions Under the new health care bill - did you know that all real estate transactions are subject to a 3.8% "Sales Tax"? You can thank Nancy, Harry & Barack (and your local Congressmen) for this one. If you sell your $400,000 home, this will be a $15,200 tax. Remember Obamas battle cry  take from the workers and give to the drones. TAX ON HOME SALES Imposes a 3.8 percent tax on home sales and other real estate transactions. Middle-income people must pay the full tax even if they are "rich" for only one day  the day they sell their house and buy a new one.   Origins:  One of the provisions in the reconciliation bill (HR 4872) passed in conjunction with the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act (PPACA) health care legislation calls for high-income households to be subject to a new 3.8% Medicare tax on investment income starting in 2013: HR 4872 The PPACA creates a new Code Section 1411, which will generally impose a 3.8 percent tax on the lesser of "net investment income" or the excess of modified adjusted gross income over a "threshold amount" (generally, $250,000 for taxpayers filing a joint return, $125,000 for married taxpayers filing a separate return and $200,000 in all other cases). Net investment income generally means the excess of (i) interest, dividends, annuities, royalties, rents, income from passive activities, income from trading financial instruments and commodities, and gain from the disposition of certain non-business property, over (ii) allowable deductions properly allocable to such income. In determining the amount of net investment income, special rules apply with respect to dispositions of equity interests in certain partnerships and S corporations, and to distributions from certain qualified plans. This additional tax applies to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2012. This is a complicated section of a complicated piece of legislation, and the 3.8% Medicare tax has been frequently misreported as amounting to a 3.8% "sales tax" on all real estate transactions.  This is incorrect: the Medicare tax is not a sales tax, nor does it apply to all real estate transactions; it is a tax on investment income (income which may or not derive from the sale of property) only for persons who earn more than the amounts specified in the bill. First of all, the Medicare tax will be imposed only on individuals with an income above $200,000 and couples with a joint income more than $250,000, a figure which currently excludes about 97% of all U.S. households.  Second, the tax will not be assessed on every house sale, but only on real estate transactions that produce profits over a specified dollar amount.  As Sara Orrange, Government affairs director of the Spokane Association of Realtors noted in response to a repetition of the "sales tax" rumor in the Spokane Spokesman-Review: response In his recent guest column regarding the impact of the health care bill, Paul Guppy of the Washington Policy Center claimed that a 3.8 percent tax on all home sales was a part of the recently passed legislation. This is inaccurate and needs to be corrected. The truth about the bill is that if you sell your home for a profit above the capital gains threshold of $250,000 per individual or $500,000 per couple then you would be required to pay the additional 3.8 percent tax on any gain realized over this threshold. Most people who sell their homes will not be impacted by these new regulations. This is not a new tax on every seller, and that correction needs to be made. This tax is aimed at so-called "high earners"  if you do not fall into that category you will not pay any extra taxes upon the sale of your home. For example, let's assume that a couple with an income of $325,000 bought a house in 2004 for $300,000 and resold it in 2013 for $850,000, thus producing a $550,000 profit.  Since U.S. law allows a couple to exclude from their gross incomeprofits of up to $500,000 from the sale of their principal residence, the taxable gain from this sale would be $50,000 (i.e., a $550,000 profit minus the $500,000 exclusion), and the couple's taxable income would now be $375,000 (i.e., the original $325,000 plus the $50,000 of taxable profit from their home sale).   The 3.8% Medicare tax would now apply to whichever of the following dollar figures is the lesser: exclude  a)  The amount by which the couple's taxable income now exceeds the $250,000 income threshold level.  b)  The amount of taxable income gained from the sale of their home. In case (a), the dollar figure  would be the couple's taxable income ($375,000) minus the income threshold level ($250,000), or $125,000. In case (b), the dollar figure would be amount of taxable income gained from the sale of their home, which, as detailed above, was $50,000 (i.e., $550,000 profit minus the $500,000 exclusion).   The second dollar amount is the lesser of the two, and therefore the couple would have to pay an additional tax of 3.8 percent of $50,000, which would amount to $1,900.  (If the hypothetical couple had realized less than a $500,000 profit on the sale of their residence, none of that gain would be subject to the 3.8% tax.) The referenced tax is therefore not a tax on all real estate sales; it is an investment income tax which could result in a very small percentage of home sellers paying additional taxes on home sales profits over a designated threshold amount.   In short, if you're a "high earner" and you sell your home at a substantial profit, you might be required to pay an additional 3.8% tax. However, given that only about 3% of U.S. households have incomes that exceed the specified income threshold amount, the existing home sale capital gains exclusion on a principal residence ($250,000 for individuals, $500,000 for couples) still stands, and the national median existing-home price in January 2012 was only $154,700 , the Medicare tax will likely affect only a very small percentage of home sellers when it is implemented in 2013. median Additional information:      The 3.8% Tax:Real Estate Scenarios & Examples  The 3.8% Tax:Real Estate Scenarios & Examples Last updated:  15 March 2012    Sahadi, Jeanne.  "Medicare Tax Hikes: What the Rich Will Pay."   CNNMoney.com.  25 March 2010.