Obama's stance on the Debt Limit
Claim:  In 2006, U.S. Senator Barack Obama spoke out against raising the U.S. government debt limit.   Example:  [Collected via e-mail, July 2011]   'The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government can not pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that "the buck stops here." Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.'    Origins:  In 2006, while serving his first term as a freshman U.S. senator from Illinois, Barack Obama made the remarks attributed to him above during discussion in the U.S. Senate prior to the call for votes on raising the debt limit. The full text of his remarks in the Senate on 16 March 2006 are:     The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies.    Over the past 5 years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion. That is "trillion" with a "T." That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers. And over the next 5 years, between now and 2011, the President's budget will increase the debt by almost another $3.5 trillion.    Numbers that large are sometimes hard to understand. Some people may wonder why they matter. Here is why: This year, the Federal Government will spend $220 billion on interest. That is more money to pay interest on our national debt than we'll spend on Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program. That is more money to pay interest on our debt this year than we will spend on education, homeland security, transportation, and veterans benefits combined. It is more money in one year than we are likely to spend to rebuild the devastated gulf coast in a way that honors the best of America.    And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like    bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on. Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America's priorities. Instead, interest payments are a significant tax on all Americans  a debt tax that Washington doesn't want to talk about. If Washington were serious about honest tax relief in this country, we would see an effort to reduce our national debt by returning to responsible fiscal policies.    But we are not doing that. Despite repeated efforts by Senators Conrad and Feingold, the Senate continues to reject a return to thecommonsense Pay-go rules that used to apply. Previously, Pay-go rules applied both to increases in mandatory spending and to tax cuts. The Senate had to abide by the commonsense budgeting principle of balancing expenses and revenues. Unfortunately, the principle was abandoned, and now the demands of budget discipline apply only to spending. As a result, tax breaks have not been paid for by reductions in Federal spending, and thus the only way to pay for them has been to increase our deficit to historically high levels and borrow more and more money. Now we have to pay for those tax breaks plus the cost of borrowing for them. Instead of reducing the deficit, as some people claimed, the fiscal policies of this administration and its allies in Congress will add more than $600 million in debt for each of the next 5 years. That is why I will once again cosponsor the Pay-go amendment and continue to hope that my colleagues will return to a smart rule that has worked in the past and can work again.    Our debt also matters internationally. My friend, the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, likes to remind us that it took 42 Presidents 224 years to run up only $1 trillion of foreign-held debt. This administration did more than that in just 5 years. Now, there is nothing wrong with borrowing from foreign countries. But we must remember that the more we depend on foreign nations to lend us money, the more our economic security is tied to the whims of foreign leaders whose interests might not be aligned with ours.    Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that "the buck stops here.'' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.    I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit.    The shortened quote now attributed to him is a verbatim capture of the opening and closing paragraphs of his remarks of 16 March 2006. (The Senate vote held later that day on a resolution to increase the debt limitpassed by a 52-48 margin, with Senator Obama voting against it.) passed President Obama has undergone a change of position regarding raising the debt limit. In a 15 April 2011 Good Morning America interview, President Obama said this of his reasons for doing so:     Last updated:  7 October 2013    Congressional Record.  "Remarks by Sen. Barack Obama."    16 March 2006.   Farley, Robert.  "Obama Says Reagan Raised Debt Ceiling 18 Times; George W. Bush 7 Times."    St. Petersburg Times.  26 July 2011.   Stephanopoulos, George.  "President Obama One-on-One."    Good Morning America.  15 April 2011.   Werner, Erica.  "WH: Obama Regrets Vote Against Raising Debt Limit."    Associated Press.  11 April 2011.
When it comes to taxes, Democratic candidate for governor Nan Rich wants to make things more fair for the little guy in Florida. Rich, a former state senator from Weston, faced a question about whether Floridas tax system should be changed during a Florida Press Association event July 11 at the swanky Biltmore Hotel in Coral Gables. I think it's a regressive tax base, and when you look at some of the studies saying its the third most-regressive tax base -- I don't want you to quote me on that because PolitiFact may get me, I'm not sure if its (No.) three -- but I think there are things we need to do to make a more equitable and fair tax structure. At PolitiFact Florida, our ears perk up when we hear rankings that put Florida near the top or bottom. As for her request for us not to PolitiFact her, well, we couldnt help but take that as a friendly challenge. Studies about regressive taxes Rich told PolitiFact Florida in an interview, dont hold me to third regressive. .... I did not say third definitively. ... We are one of the most regressive. Rich cited a 2013reportby The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, which partners withCitizens for Tax Justice, a group that advocates for fair taxation of middle- and low-income families. The report concluded that all states have regressive tax systems. It means that state taxes come more from the poor and middle class than from the rich. Virtually every states tax system is fundamentally unfair, taking a much greater share of income from middle- and low-income families than from wealthy families, the report says. The absence of a graduated personal income tax and the over reliance on consumption taxes exacerbate this problem in many states. The report measures property, sales and excise taxes on gasoline and cigarettes paid by different income groups in each state in 2013 and concludes Florida isNo. 2 of the terrible 10-- the second most-regressive tax system in the country. (No. 1 wasWashington state.) The No. 1 and No. 2 predictor of a very unfair tax system is not having a personal income tax of any kind and an above-average sales tax, and Florida has both of those things, said Matt Gardner, the institutes executive director. The report found that for non-elderly taxpayers, the bottom 20 percent pay 13.2 percent of their income toward state and local taxes. Meanwhile, the top 1 percent of earners only pay about 2.3 percent of their income toward state and local taxes. The report gives a nod to one progressive feature of Floridas taxes: We dont have sales taxes on groceries. We were unable to find any other entity that included Florida in a state-by-state comparison of regressivity and taxes. The Tax Foundation, a business-backed group that analyzes tax policy, wrote areportcriticizing the institutes study, but their points were not specifically about the states rankings. Instead, they criticized the report for promoting income taxes. The foundation does its own ranking of states in terms ofbusiness climate-- Florida placed fifth. We interviewed a few experts on taxes, and they were not surprised by Floridas ranking when it comes to regressive taxes. Not that many states dont have an income tax, so that puts us in a small group that looks more regressive, said University of Central Florida economist Sean Snaith. However, he said,  regressive and burdensome are separate issues. The tax burden in Florida is still very low, despite being regressive. Aaron Twait, research director at the Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence, said there are only two taxes that are progressive: the income tax and the estate tax. States that dont have the income tax -- they just dont have that lever to pull, he said. Sales taxes, property taxes, and excise taxes run from moderately regressive to really regressive. Our ruling Rich said that there is evidence that Florida has the third most-regressive tax base, though she acknowledged when she spoke she wasnt certain if she had the number right. She was close: A study placed Florida No. 2 in terms of its regressive tax base. Florida has a regressive tax base because we lack a state income tax. Though the Tax Foundation criticized the report, it didnt dispute the states rankings, and other experts we interviewed also had no qualms about Floridas placement. Richs number of third place was just a smidgen low, so we rate this claim Mostly True. In her new book,Going Rogue, Sarah Palin said President Barack Obama's support for a cap and trade plan was misguided. The president has already admitted that the policy he seeks will cause our electricity bills to 'skyrocket.' Sadly, those hit hardest will be those who are already struggling to make ends meet, she wrote. Here, we're looking at Obama's comments on electricity bills. First, though, here's a quick summary of cap and trade for those who aren't famliar with it: To slow climate change, the government would set a cap on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions. To comply, companies such as electric utilities must either upgrade to cleaner technologies or buy credits  also known as allowances  to continue polluting. Companies can buy and sell the credits as necessary to conduct their business. We were familiar with Obama's original quote from his campaign for president. It came from a videotaped interview he did with theSan Francisco Chronicleeditorial board very early in the campaign in January 2008.Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket, Obama told theChronicle. Coal-powered plants, you know, natural gas, you name it, whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.Obama also said the biggest challenge would be making sure voters understand why such a plan is necessary. The problem is, can you get the American people to say this is really important, Obama said. Obama was talking in general about cap and trade, but there is now a specific bill making its way through Congress, written by Reps. Henry Waxman and Edward Markey, Democrats from California and Massachusetts, respectively. Their goal is to lower carbon pollution by 17 percent by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050. Under their plan, most pollution permits initially would be given out for free. But eventually, companies would have to buy those permits from the government. The latest version of the bill includes a number of measures to offset higher utility bills for consumers. Revenue from the permits would be passed to consumers through rebates or expanded efficiency programs, and an additional 15 percent of the revenue would go directly to low-income consumers. Legislators have opted to give 85 percent of the polluting permits away for free instead of putting them up for sale, as Obama pledged to do on the campaign trail. In theory, this approach should reduce costs to consumers. So how much would rates go up for consumers? It's hard to say. There has been much debate about the costs, and it's been difficult to come up with a reliable number because the bills have been changing as they move through the House and the Senate. Republicans have cited numbers as high as $3,000 per year, a claim that when it was combined with a falsehood on health care, earned ourPants on Firerating. Recent estimates by the Congressional Budget Office and the Environmental Protection Agency are much lower  between $80 and $340 a year, depending on income. So the climate debate has changed substantially since Obama sat down with theChroniclenearly two years ago.Despite those potential cost cuts, there's still little disagreement that consumers will pay for cap-and-trade, whether it's $3,100 a year or $340. Because that hasn't changed since Obama first said that utility rates would necessarily skyrocket, and because Palin got Obama's words right, we give Palin a True. Phishing bait:  Software order confirmation from Intuit. Example:   [Collected via e-mail, October 2012]     Origins:  In October 2012, Internet users were spammed with phony e-mailed confirmation orders from Intuit, a financial and tax preparation software company, bearing subject lines such as "Intuit Order Status," "Intuit GoPayment Order Status update," "Intuit GoPayment Shipment Information," and "Intuit GoPayment Shipment Note." Intuit posted an alert on its web site about the fake e-mail, advising recipients to: alert  Do not click on the link in the email. Send a copy of the email to spoof@intuit.com. Do not forward the email to anyone else. Delete the email. Intuit's alert also advises users that: On the Internet, "phishing" refers to criminal activity that attempts to fraudulently obtain sensitive information. Here's what you can do to protect yourself from a phishing attack:  If you suspect you have received a phishing email from Intuit, please forward it immediately to spoof@intuit.com. We will look into each reported instance. Make sure you subscribe to an anti-virus software and keep it up-to-date. Make sure you have updated your web browser to one that includes anti-phishing security features, such as Internet Explorer 7 or Firefox version 3 or higher. Make sure that you keep up to date on the latest releases and patches for your operating systems and critical programs. These releases are frequently security related. Do not respond to emails asking for account, password, banking, or credit card information. Do not open up an attachment that claims to be a software update. We will not send any software updates via email. Do not respond to text messages or voicemails that ask you to call a number and enter your account number and pin. Make sure you have passwords on your computer and your payroll files. Last updated:  1 October 2012 Claim:  Lou Pritchett penned an "open letter" to President Obama. CORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED Example:  [Collected via e-mail, May 2009] AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA Dear President Obama: You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me. You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you. You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support. You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American. You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll. You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core.. You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others. You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail. You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America' crowd and deliver this message abroad. You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector. You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one. You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves. You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world. You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics against certain banks and corporations. You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals. You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people. You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient. You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do. You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Relllys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view. You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing. Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years. Lou Pritchett Origins:  Lou Pritchett is a former vice president of Procter & Gamble whose career at that company spanned 36 years before his retirement in 1989, and he is the author of the 1995 business book, Stop Paddling & Start Rocking the Boat.   Lou Pritchett Mr. Pritchett confirmed to us that he was indeed the author of the much-circulated "open letter" quoted above: I did write the 'you scare me' letter. I sent it to the NY Times but they never acknowledged or published it. However, it hit the internet and according to the 'experts' has had over 500,000 hits. In April 2012, the following update was added to the original: In April 2009, I sent President Obama and the New York Times a lettertitled "You Scare Me" because, as a candidate, he promised to"fundamentally transform America." Now, after observing his performancefor over three years, he no longer scares me  he terrifies me for thefollowing reasons: FIRST-- He has done more to damage America's standing in the world, tolower the standard of living in America, to impoverish future generationsand to shake our faith in the country's future than any other Americanpresident in history. SECOND-- With a compliant Democrat congress, a lapdog media and a weak,almost nonexistent Republican opposition, he has shattered the Americandream of job security, home ownership and rugged individualism formillions of Americans and has poisoned and divided our civil society withhis politics of envy, class warfare, race warfare, and religious warfarewhich he is using as fundamental building blocks for his 'socialist'agenda. THIRD-- culturally, he remains totally out of touch with traditionalAmerican values. This has absolutely nothing to do with race or where hewas born, rather it has everything to do with where, how and with whom hewas raised, schooled, educated, trained and associates with still today. FOURTH-- he has surrounded himself with naive academicians, lawyers,politicians, bureaucrats and socialist leaning czars who arrogantly thinkand behave exactly as he does.People who offer no balanced suggestions or devils advocate positions andthink in lock step with him that big government is the answer to all ourproblems. FIFTH-- he not only encourages but aids and abets the unionization of allAmerican industry, the albatross around the neck of the free market. Inturn, they provide the money and muscle to intimidate his opponents. SIXTH-- he has increased the national debt by over 30% in just threeyears. If re-elected and this rate of increase continues, America will beburdened with an unsustainable 20 trillion dollar debt which will resultin the Country's financial death. Recovery will be impossible ---- Americawill be the Greece of 2016. SEVENTH-- given his fanatical beholding to the 'environmental' and'man-caused global warming' fringe, he has deliberately discouraged U.S.fossil fuel exploration and production while wasting millions of tax payerdollars on solar, wind and algae experiments. He refuses to accept thatoil, gas and coal are not America's enemies, they are America's assetswhich, properly managed, could make us energy independent within ageneration. EIGHTH-- He views the U.S. as a power in retreat which abused its Worlddominance. Therefore he systematically apologizes round the world. LastMarch he whispered to Russian President Medvedev "--this is my lastelection. After my election, I have more flexibility". Just what is thesecret that Obama and Putin are concealing from the American people untilafter the election? With what other leaders has he made similar secretagreements? NINTH---and finally, after all his mis-steps, bad decision making, poormanagement, and zero leadership, the fact that he has the audacity to seekre-election should terrify every American.I predict that if re-elected, future historians and political interpreterswill look back at the eight year period 2008-2016, and conclude "the 44thPresident of the U.S. allowed the takers to overpower the payers whichresulted in the greatest economy in history vanishing from the face of theEarth". Lou Pritchett  April 15, 2012Farewell America, the World will really miss you! Last updated:  12 May 2012 As U.S. President-elect Donald Trump prepared to take office in December 2016, multiple news reports addressed the potential conflicts of interest he would face as he transitioned from a businessman to chief executive. Many critics urged Trump to divest himself of his businesses and cited former U.S. President Jimmy Carter's sale of his peanut farm as an exemplary model of how to head off such potential conflicts: conflicts of interest         In May 2020, after an appeals court ruled that a lawsuit could proceed alleging that Trump had violated the constitution by receiving foreign money through his hotels, comparisons between Carter and Trump once again gained traction on social media: court ruled that a lawsuit social media   While Carter did place his businesses into a blind trust before he was elected president in 1977, he didn't actually sell his peanut farm until he left office in 1981.  On Jan. 5, 1977, Carter released a plan detailing how his assets would be handled when he assumed office. Carter listed eight actions that he would take to avoid conflicts of interest, including transferring Carter's Warehouse, Carter Farms, and all funds related to those business ventures into a trust: released listed The transition group has studied existing laws and regulations bearing on conflicts of interest and the regulation of ethics of officials in the executive branch of government. The existing law is extremely strong in prohibiting outside earned income. Governor Carter heavily approves of that law and its policy ... In order to prevent possible financial conflicts of interest while President, Governor Jimmy Carter is taking the following actions: 1. All common stock is being sold, consisting of 100 shares of Rich's, Inc. and 956 shares of Advanced Investors. A small net loss on this stock is likely. 2. Jimmy Carter's interest in (a) Carter's Warehouse and Carter Farms, Inc., and any funds related to them (b) all property except the private home and personal items, and (c) his father's estate will be transferred to a trust. Income or principal from the trust will be available to Jimmy Carter but only as distributions of cash. Carter's business suffered significantly while he served as president, but it wasn't until he left office in 1981 that the decision was made to sell the family farm: suffered While he serves as president, Jimmy Carter placed the family farm supply business into the protection of a blind trust before he left for Washington, D.C. in 1977. This trust allowed for a law firm in Atlanta to take full administration of the farm supply business during his years in the White House. The Carters felt that relinquishing the business to someone elses care would separate them from these affairs and avoid the possibility of their financial holdings resembling any conflict of interest while President Carter was in office. Their personal counsel, Charles Kirbo of the Atlanta law firm, was their financial trustee. Following the election loss in 1981, the Carters were informed by Charles Kirbo that because of three years of drought and several changes in warehouse management, they were over $1 million in debt. As they struggled to recover from the unexpected financial blow, the solution to their problem became evident. The Carters sold the family business and also began writing books, which helped them recover financially. In regards to a meme's claim that Carter was still building houses at the age of 92, that is, for the most part, true. Carter has been building houses with Habitat for Humanity since 1984. At the age of 92, he was still actively participating in the construction of new homes. The above-displayed meme is a few years old, however, as Carter is 95 years old at the time of this writing in May 2020.  If the text of this meme was altered to give Carter's current age, it would still be true. In October 2019, shortly after suffering a fall at his home that required stitches, Carter was back on the construction site. A Habitat for Humanitys Jimmy & Rosalynn Carter Work Project has also been announced in the Dominican Republic for November 2020, but it's unclear if Carter will travel to the country to take part in the construction: back on the construction site announced Since beginning their work with Habitat for Humanity in 1984, President and Mrs. Carter have helped to build, renovate and repair 4,390 homes in 14 countries alongside more than 104,000 volunteers through their annual work project. Since its founding in 1976, Habitat has served more than 22 million people around the world. We are honored to host the 2020 Jimmy & Rosalynn Carter Work Project in the Dominican Republic, said Cesarina Fabin, national director of Habitat for Humanity Dominican Republic. President and Mrs. Carter are shining examples of service. We are so grateful to their commitment to building a world where everyone has a safe and decent place to live. In summary, Carter placed his peanut farm into a blind trust when he took office in 1977. It wasn't until he left office four years later that the farm was sold. With that in mind, we rate this claim "Mixture." Gerstein, Josh.  "Appeals court Greenlights Emoluments Suit Against Trump."
  Politico.  14 May 2020. Folley, Aris.  "Jimmy Carter Back to Building Homes for Habitat for Humanity One Day After Fall."
  The Hill.  7 October 2019. The New York Times.  "Texts of Carter Statement on Conflicts of Interest and Ethics; Appointees Guidelines."
  5 January 1977. Buchanan, Larry.  "The Array of Conflicts of Interest Facing the Trump Presidency."
  The New York Times.  14 December 2016. In November 2015, the biography of Frederick Trump, Donald Trump's grandfather, was condensed into two paragraphs and then passed around the internet via a meme. While some of the information included in the meme is accurate, much of it is either over-exaggerated or incomplete:  This particular rumor centers on the idea that Frederich Trump made his fortune via brothels and opium dens. While there is anecdotal evidence that Trump dabbled in prostitution, there is no proof that this made up the bulk of his fortune. In Gwenda Blair's 2000 book The Trumps: Three Generations of Builders and a Presidential Candidate, she described how Frederick Trump opened a series of restaurants and hotels during the Klondike Gold Rush in the 1890s. One of those hotels, The Arctic Restaurant and Hotel, was described as decadent and far superior to other restaurants in the area: book In the larder was salmon and an extraordinary variety of meats, including duck, ptarmigan, grouse, goose, and swan, as well as caribou, moose, goat, sheep, rabbit, and squirrel. Incredibly, the New Arctic served fresh fruit: red currants, raspberries, strawberries, blueberries, blackberries, even cranberries. A small oasis of luxury, the Arctics menu was a vast improvement over what the two restaurateurs had been able to offer on the trail. An anonymous letter to the Yukon, however, claimed that The Arctic Restaurant and Hotel was also known for prostitution: I would advise respectable women traveling alone, or with an escort, to be careful in their selection of hotels at Bennett, he wrote. For single men the Arctic has excellent accommodations as well as the best restaurant in Bennett, but I would not advise respectable women to go there to sleep as they are liable to hear that which would be repugnant to their feelings  and uttered, too, by the depraved of their own sex. While it's unclear if Frederich Trump directly profited from prostitution at his hotel (or whether it even occurred there), it should be noted that the world's oldest profession was relatively commonplace during the Gold Rush. The meme also claims that Frederick Trump decided to go back to Germany when police started cracking down on "his criminal rackets." Again, this is based on little more than a morsel of truth, and does not tell the whole story. In 1901, Trump sold his assets and returned to Germany. While one could argue that Trump made the decision because he believed that police were going to start enforcing prostitution laws, that is only one factor that led to Trump's departure for Germany: Frederick Trump saw that it was time to leave. If Major Wood actually enforced the laws regarding prostitution, gambling, and liquor, hotels and restaurants would be far less profitable. Not only that, the economic boom was bound to be short lived. There was not nearly enough solid economic development to absorb these newcomers in any long-term way; when the placer deposits were emptied, they would go back home. Without the umbrella of gold, other local industries would not be strong enough to keep going on their own and compete with cheaper sources farther south. The boom was over, Frederick Trump realized... ... Frederick Trump left just in time. He avoided the uproar when his erstwhile partner hit the skids, and he avoided the economic decline that would soon sweep over White Horse. Once again, in a situation that created many losers, he managed to emerge a winner. He had made money; perhaps even more unusual in the Yukon, he had also kept it and departed from White Horse with a substantial nest egg. He had accomplished this goal of making and saving enough money to marry. But he had no intention of doing so in America. For this important moment, he would have to return to Germany. While the meme exaggerated Trump's involvement in "criminal rackets," it did correctly state that Trump returned to the United States after the German government determined that he had originally left Germany in 1885 to avoid taxes and the army. returned In summation, Donald Trump's grandfather Frederick Trump was a German immigrant who made his fortune by opening several restaurants and hotels in Seattle and British Columbia during the Yukon Gold Rush. While some of these hotels may have been used for prostitution, gambling, or other seedy activities common on the trail, it is incorrect to say that Trump built his fortune on illegal activities. Grier, Peter.  "Donald Trump: The Son of an Immigrant."
  The Christian Science Monitor.  24 August 2015. Blair, Gwenda.  The Trumps: Three Generations of Builders and a Presidential Candidate.
  Simon and Schuster, 2000.  ISBN 0-684-80849-8. Claim:  Actress Cindy Williams penned an editorial denouncing a proposed pay raise for the military. INCORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED Example:  [Collected via e-mail, June 2001] This is how we treat our public servants. One story among many! Salute to our Service Men & Women On 12 Jan, Ms Cindy Williams (from Laverne and Shirley TV show) wrote a piece for the Washington Times denouncing the pay raise(s) coming service members' way this year-citing that the stated 13% wage  gap was bogus. A young airman from Hill AFB responds to her article below. He ought to get a bonus for this!  Ms. Williams:  I just had the pleasure of reading your column of 12 Jan 00, "Our GIs earn enough," and I am a bit confused. Frankly, I'm wondering where this vaunted overpayment is going, because as far as I can tell, it disappears every month between DFAS (The Defense Finance and Accounting Service) and my bank account.  Checking my latest leave and earnings statement (LES), see that I make $1,117.80, before taxes. After taxes, I take home $ 874.20. When I run that through Windows' Calculator, I come up with an annual salary of $13,413.60 before taxes, and $10,490.40 after. I work in the Air Force Network Control Center (AFNCC), where I am part of the team responsible for the administration of a 25,000-host computer network. I am involved with infrastructure segments, specifically with Cisco Systems equipment. A quick check under jobs for Network Technicians in the Washington, D.C. area reveals a position in my career field, requiring three years experience with my job. Amazingly, this job does NOT pay $13,413.60 a year, nor does it pay less than this. No, this job is being offered at $70,000 to $80,000 per annum. I'm sure you can draw the obvious conclusions. Also, you tout increases to Basic Allowance for Housing and Basic Allowance for Subsistence (housing and food allowances, respectively) as being a further boon to an already overcompensated force. Again, I'm curious as to where this money has gone, as BAH and BAS were both slashed 15% in the Hill AFB area effective in January 00. Given the tenor of your column, I would assume that you have NEVER had the pleasure of serving your country in her armed forces. Before you take it upon yourself to once more castigate congressional and DOD leadership for attempting to get the families in the military's lowest pay brackets off AFDC, WIC, and food stamps, I suggest that you join a group of deploying soldiers headed for Saudi  I leave the choice of service branch up to you. Whatever choice you make, though, opt for the SIX month rotation: it will guarantee you the longest possible time away from your family and friends, thus giving you full "deployment experience." As your group prepares to board the plane, make sure to note the spouses and children who are saying good-bye to their loved ones. Also take care to note that several families are still unsure of how they'll be able to make ends meet while the primary breadwinner is gone  obviously they've been squandering the vast piles of cash the DOD has been giving them. Try to deploy over a major holiday; Christmas and Thanksgiving are perennial favorites. And when you're actually over there, sitting in a DFP (Defensive Fire Position, the modern-day foxhole), shivering against the cold desert night, and the flight sergeant tells you that there aren't enough people on shift to relieve you for chow, remember this: trade whatever MRE you manage to get for the tuna noodle casserole or cheese tortellini, and add Tabasco to everything. Talk to your loved ones as often as you are permitted; it won't nearly be long enough or often enough, but take what you can get and be thankful for it. You may have picked up on the fact that I disagree with most of the points you present in your op-ed piece. But, tomorrow from Sarajevo, I will defend to the death your right to say it. You see, I am an American fighting man, a guarantor of your First Amendment rights and every other right you cherish. On a daily basis, my brother and sister soldiers worldwide ensure that you and people like you can thumb your collective nose at us, all on a salary that is nothing short of pitiful and under conditions that would make most people cringe. We hemorrhage our best and brightest into the private sector because we can't offer the stability and pay of civilian companies. And you, Ms. Williams, have the gall to say that we make more than we deserve? Rubbish! A1C Michael BraggHill AFB AFNCC  IF YOU AGREE, PLEASE PASS THIS ALONG TO AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE AND SHOW OUR SUPPORT OF THE AMERICAN  FIGHTING MEN & WOMEN. THANK YOU. THIS LETTER SHOULD BE APPLAUDED BY ANYONE WHO'S EVER SERVED OR HAD A FAMILY MEMBER SERVE IN THE ARMED FORCES! THIS YOUNG MAN DESERVES A MEDAL !!! Variations:  An August 2009 version changed the responding airman from one posted to Hill Air Force Base in Ogden, Utah, to one posted to Afghanistan, replying from Kabul. Origins:  The editorial critical of military pay raises alluded to above and the irate response to it penned by an airman at Hill Air Force Base are genuine, but the author of the original editorial has been mistaken for her (more famous) namesake. Actress Cindy Williams, who starred in the hit 1973 film American Graffiti and portrayed sweet, lovable Shirley Feeney on the popular 1970s sitcom Laverne & Shirley hasn't been writing newspaper articles denouncing our "overpaid" servicemen.  Back in January 2000,a different Cindy Williams, one who was then working as a senior research fellow at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and who had once served as assistant director for national security in the Congressional  Cindy Williams Budget Office, contributed an op-ed piece to the Washington Post (not the WashingtonTimes) in which she criticized a proposed 25% pay increase for military personnel (on top of a 4.85% raise that had just been enacted).  In her article, Ms. Williams maintained that claims that servicemen in the military suffered a 13 percent "pay gap" relative to the private sector were inaccurate, and that military personnel were already well paid compared to the average American.    The full text of the editorial ("Our GIs Earn Enough") by the non-actress Cindy Williams can be found here.  The response to that editorial which is reproduced in the example block above was indeed drafted by the airman named, although it was not itself published in Washington Post.    here The misidentification of the original article's author has caused considerable grief for Cindy Williams the actress: "I've done everything to try to squelch it, but nothing seems to work," says Miss Williams of "Laverne and Shirley" fame. "I have people writing and calling me, even my friends, asking: 'Are you against a pay raise for the military?' And I reply, 'You know me, I'd fight [in the military] if I could, because I am such a patriot.'" Ironically enough, much of the angry correspondence (even "hate mail") the actress has received has come from the military ranks. "It's been really worrisome," says the actress. "It's terrible to malign people like that. I don't know where to go to say I didn't do this." Versions of this article circulated since 2009 have stated that Cindy Williams (the one who actually did write the editorial) is the Obama administration'sAssistant Director for National Security in the Congressional Budget Office.  This is not correct  Ms. Williams  held that position from 1994 to 1997, during the Clinton administration.   Last updated:  8 October 2015    Williams, Cindy.  "Our GIs Earn Enough."   The Washington Post.  12 January 2000  (p. A19). In early June 2016, Facebook users widely shared articles that reported that Hillary Clinton wore a $12,495 Giorgio Armani jacket to deliver a speech on income inequality. The claim's undercurrent was that Clinton's interest in the plight of middle-class Americans was visibly superficial. Interest in the claim began with a New York Post article that focused not on the jacket, but on Clinton's general wardrobe choices on the campaign trail. Its title referenced the "surprising strategy behind Hillary Clintons designer wardrobe," and the piece began by noting that Clinton's appearance and style have been publicly scrutinized and mocked for decades: Hillary Clintons New York primary victory speech in April focused on topics including income inequality, job creation and helping people secure their retirement. It was a clear attempt to position herself as an everywoman. But an everywoman she is not  she gave the speech in a $12,495 Giorgio Armani tweed jacket. The polished outfit was a stark contrast to the fashion choices Clinton has made in the past. As first lady, Clinton wore frumpy pastel skirtsuits. As New York senator and secretary of state, she attempted a more serious look, wearing pantsuits in a rainbow of colors  so mocked that they sparked memes. In comparison to Michelle Obama, whos become known as a style icon during her time in the White House and appeared on the cover of Vogue twice, Clinton has never been able to nail down a personal aesthetic that works for her. The article speculated (but didn't confirm) that Clinton paid full price for the clothing and did not wear it on loan from its designers. The paper also suggested that Clinton's fashion choices negatively affected her public perception in the past. The cost of men's suits worn by fellow politicians didn't appear in the article for contrast: Its a marked shift from Clintons 2008 run, when she regularly recycled outfits such as blue-and-tangerine pantsuits from DC-based designer Nina McLemore. But just like Clintons fashion choices of the past, the makeover could turn out to be divisive. On one side will be those who say its an appropriate expense for Clinton, given that shes in the unprecedented position of running for president as a woman  and looking the part is crucial to her success. On the other side are those who will see her spending as being out of touch with her message. Not long after Clinton's 2016 campaign looks were dissected by the Post, a litany of items condensed the article to a single headline:  It's true that the jacket was from Giorgio Armani's collection and bore a list price of $12,495. But on 8 June 2016 the jacket's actual retail price was $7,497, and the jacket can now be had for about one-third of that list price. price jacket The Post speculated that Clinton paid for the clothing out of pocket, but the web site Fashionista in turn said that might not necessarily be the case: The Post also posits that Clinton must be spending her own money on all these clothes, as no designer is taking credit for dressing her as they do with First Lady Obama; with Anna Wintour backing her campaign, it would not be outrageous to think that designers might also be quietly gifting clothing to Clinton. (The Post also attacks Clinton's style by mentioning that Michelle Obama has nabbed the cover of Vogue twice; it would be worth noting that Clinton has her own cover of Vogue, for which she wore Oscar de la Renta.) It's unclear whether Clinton purchased expensive clothing for such major appearances (such as her New York speech in April 2016), and it's possible she was loaned articles of clothing to wear by major designers. Stylists Jennifer Rade and Rebecca Klein of Media Style told CNBC that no matter what Clinton did, she would be criticized for her sartorial choices: CNBC But Clinton is "damned if she does, damned if she doesn't," said Rade. If Clinton were to wear a lower priced wardrobe, she would be criticized for not wearing the same caliber of clothing as her competitors. "It's not appropriate for the forum," Klein said. "She is a presidential candidate. That would be disrespectful. ... She is dressing for the occasion." A June 2014 Associated Press article examined the matter of the contents of White House closets, noting that as an issue, the debate went back at least as far as Mary Todd Lincoln. The outlet noted that some clothing was gifted to Michelle Obama under specific circumstances: article In recent weeks, Mrs. Obama has turned heads with a forest-green Naeem Khan dress [and] shimmered in a silver Marchesa gown ... her flowered shirtdress for a Mother's Day tea at the White House (recycled from an earlier event) hit the just right note for an audience of military moms. It takes money to pull that off, month after month. Those three dresses by themselves could add up to more than $15,000 retail, not to mention accessories such as shoes and jewelry. Is it the taxpayers who foot the bill? No. (Despite what critics say.) Is it Mrs. Obama? Usually, but not always. Does she pay full price? Not likely. Does she ever borrow gowns from designers? No. The financing of the first lady's wardrobe is something that the Obama White House is loath to discuss. It's a subject that has bedeviled presidents and their wives for centuries. First ladies are expected to dress well, but the job doesn't come with a clothing allowance or a salary. Here's how Joanna Rosholm, press secretary to the first lady, explains it: "Mrs. Obama pays for her clothing. For official events of public or historic significance, such as a state visit, the first lady's clothes may be given as a gift by a designer and accepted on behalf of the U.S. government. They are then stored by the National Archives." The claim also included that Ms. Clinton wore the designer piece to "deliver a speech about income inequality." The Post originally reported that "Clintons New York primary victory speech in April focused on topics including income inequality, job creation and helping people secure their retirement," an opener widely condensed to "a speech about income inequality." But in fact neither claim was accurate; the full text of Clinton's April 2016 New York speech was available online, and the words "income inequality" didn't appear a single time. The wide-ranging speech only briefly touched on a theme of "income inequality," an in a much broader sense than the rumor suggested: full text Now, we all knowwe all know many people who are still hurting. I see it everywhere I go. The Great Recession wiped out jobs, homes, and savings, and a lot of Americans havent yet recovered. But I still believe with all my heart that as another greater Democratic President once said, theres nothing wrong with America that cant be cured by whats right with America. That is, after all, what weve always done. Its who we are. America is a problem-solving nation. And in this campaign, we are setting bold progressive goals backed up by real plans that will improve lives, creating more good jobs that provide dignity and pride in a middle class life, raising wages and reducing inequality, making sure all our kids get a good education no matter what zip code they live in, building ladders of opportunity and empowerment so all of our people can go as far as their hard work and talent will take them. Lets revitalize places that have been left out and left behind, from inner cities to coal country to Indian country. And lets put Americans to work rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, including our failing water systems like the one in Flint, Michigan. There are many places across our country where children and families are at risk from the water they drink and the air they breathe. Lets combat climate change and make America the clean energy superpower of the 21st century. Lets take on the challenge of systemic racism, invest in communities of color, and finally pass comprehensive immigration reform. And once and for all, lets guarantee equal pay for women. After the Republican National Convention (RNC) in July 2016, Hillary Clinton's infamous Armani jacket was again negatively compared to the dress worn at the convention by GOP nominee Donald Trump's daughter Ivanka, an item of clothing (from Ivanka's own label) that retails for $158.  Trump's wife Melania, however, opted for a pricier Margot dress by Roksanda, which retails for $2,190 Ivanka label Melania  Benac, Nancy.  "Clothing Allowance Not A Perk For First Ladies' Fashion Needs And Wants."
  Associated Press.  2 June 2014. Bourne, Leah.  "The Surprising Strategy Behind Hillary Clintons Designer Wardrobe."
  New York Post.  5 June 2016. Gorman, Michele.  "Transcript: Hillary Clintons New York Victory Speech."
  Newsweek.  20 April 2016. McCall, Tyler.  "Actually, Hillary Clinton's Jacket Costs $7,497."
  Fashionista.  8 June 2016. In late January 2022, Google users looked to Reddit and elsewhere to find out if an email for the status of the Equifax data breach settlement was a "scam or legit," as readers often do after receiving such notices. The email had the subject line, "Equifax Data Breach Settlement (Credit Monitoring Instructions and Activation Code)," and linked to the website, experianidworks.com/equifaxsettlement. It promised a free four-year membership for the credit monitoring service Experian IdentityWorks. Google Reddit experianidworks.com/equifaxsettlement This was a legitimate notice for a data breach settlement for Equifax. Readers might remember making a claim in the settlement back in July 2019. Users who opted to receive credit monitoring instead of a check were sent activation codes in the new email for Experian IdentityWorks. The official website for the settlement was equifaxbreachsettlement.com. back in July 2019 equifaxbreachsettlement.com The official settlement website documented the fact that in September 2017, Equifax was "the victim of a criminal cyberattack," giving the attackers "unauthorized access to the personal information of approximately 147 million U.S. consumers." This included "peoples names, Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses, and in some instances drivers license numbers, credit card numbers, or other personal information." documented Equifax Numerous lawsuits were brought on behalf of consumers whose personal information was impacted as a result of the Data Breach. Chief Judge Thomas W. Thrash Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia is overseeing these lawsuits. These lawsuits are known as In re: Equifax Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, Case No. 1:17-md-2800-TWT. The consumers who sued are called the Plaintiffs. Equifax, Inc., and two of its subsidiaries are the Defendants. Plaintiffs claimed that Equifax did not adequately protect consumers personal information and that Equifax delayed in providing notice of the data breach. The most recent version of the lawsuit, which describes the specific legal claims alleged by the Plaintiffs, is available here. Equifax denies any wrongdoing, and no court or other judicial entity has made any judgment or other determination of any wrongdoing. here In the end, both sides of the legal battle "agreed to a settlement after a lengthy mediation process overseen by a retired federal judge." That settlement allowed claimants to choose to receive a check or credit monitoring. Anyone who chose to receive a check might eventually receive an amount much smaller than expected, as the "alternative compensation of up to $125" would "likely will be substantially lowered" to a "small percentage" of what was expected.  In 2017, the Equifax website provided steps for consumers to take following a security breach at the company. (Photo by Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Images)  The email that began to be sent in late January 2022 provided a status update on the Equifax data breach settlement. According to a copy of the email that we reviewed, it read as follows: Equifax Data Breach Settlement (Credit Monitoring Instructions and Activation Code) Issue Date: January 31, 2022 Claim No. (removed)Dear (removed): You filed a claim in the Equifax Data Breach Settlement and chose to receive free, three-bureau (Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion) credit monitoring from Experian for four years. Implementation of the Settlement was delayed by appeals; however, the Settlement is now effective because appellate courts have affirmed it. This email provides additional information about the services provided by Experian as part of the Settlement and how you can enroll. You are receiving free membership in Experian IdentityWorks for four years. You must enroll by June 27, 2022. This service is free for you and provided as a Settlement benefit. You do not need to provide any payment information to enroll and you do not need to cancel the service when it ends. We encourage you to enroll today. HOW TO ENROLL:  Visit the Experian IdentityWorks Website: www.experianidworks.com/equifaxsettlement Enter Your Activation Code: (removed) www.experianidworks.com/equifaxsettlement You must use the above code to enroll by June 27, 2022 (your activation code will not work after this date). If you have questions, need help with Identity Restoration (either because you were a victim of fraud or identity theft) because of the Equifax data breach, or would like another way to sign up for Experian IdentityWorks, please call Experians customer care team toll-free at 1-877-251-5822. So that the team may better serve you, please be prepared to provide them with engagement number (removed) so that you may access the Settlements Identity Restoration services for assistance with fraud or identity theft. For more information on Identity Restoration services, visit www.experianidworks.com/equifaxsettlement. www.experianidworks.com/equifaxsettlement The email also broke down exactly what is included in the four-year membership to the credit monitoring service known as Experian IdentityWorks: Experian IdentityWorks - Daily Credit Monitoring* from each of the three nationwide Consumer Reporting Agencies showing key changes to your Consumer Reports;- Automated alerts when new accounts are opened; inquiries or requests for credit reports are made for the purpose of determining credit; changes to address; and negative information (including delinquencies or bankruptcies);- On-demand online access to a copy of your Experian Consumer Report, updated monthly;- Automated non-credit alerts, using public or proprietary data sources, for example: when certain information is found on a suspicious website or the dark web; when names, aliases, and addresses have been associated with your Social Security Number; when a payday loan or unsecured credit has been taken or opened using your Social Security Number; when your information matches information in arrest or criminal court records; when your information is used for identity authentication; when your mail has been redirected through the U.S. Postal Service; when banking activity is detected related to new deposit account applications, changes to personal information, and new signers are added to accounts; and when a balance is reported on your credit line that has been inactive for at least six months;- Up to One Million in Identity Theft Insurance** which provides coverage for certain costs and unauthorized electronic fund transfers;- A customer service center to assist with enrollment, monitoring alerts, disputes, fraud, and other Credit Monitoring Service questions;- Full Identity Restoration Service if you are the victim of fraud or identity theft (which includes a dedicated identity theft restoration specialist who will provide you with step-by-step assistance, and form letters to contact companies, government agencies, and Consumer Reporting Agencies), and- Child Monitoring Services (for Class Members under the age of eighteen). * Daily credit reports are only available online. If you do not register online, you can call for additional reports each quarter after you sign-up.** The Identity Theft Insurance is underwritten and administered by American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida, an Assurant company. Please refer to the actual policies for terms, conditions, and exclusions of coverage. Coverage may not be available in all jurisdictions.  Close-up of code on a computer screen for the Apache Struts framework, which was exploited by computer hackers using a Remote Code Execution exploit in order to allegedly steal the personal information of millions of people from credit bureau Equifax, Oct. 2, 2017. (Photo by Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Images)  To reach the administrator of the Equifax data breach settlement or to inquire about its status, the email said to call 1-833-759-2982. Meanwhile, any questions about Experian IdentityWorks can be directed to the phone number 1-877-251-5822. Equifax We previously reported on other legal matters involving settlements for National Grid and a Plaid Inc. National Grid Plaid Inc FACT CHECK:  Does a photograph depict a pressure canner accident?   Claim:  A photograph depicts a pressure canner accident.   PROBABLY  Example:  [Collected via Reddit, August 2015] Why I'm not allowed to cook dinner anymore Origins: On 24 August 2015, a user (who has since deleted the post from their history) published a thread  titled "Why I'm not allowed to cook dinner anymore" with the photograph shown above to Reddit's r/funny subreddit. r/funny The image garnered thousands of comments and "upvotes" for the submitter, but that user was very likely not the source of the image. One day earlier, Imgur user NineteenSeventyFour had published the same image in a separate post on that site with the title "Whoopsie." In both cases no backstory for what was depicted in the photograph was provided. Whoopsie As is not uncommon for popular image posts of this sort, the photograph filtered over to Facebook. The account UNILAD published the same picture to their timeline (crediting the Reddit user who posted it as the source), and the the page Adinas Acres page also posted it along with the following text: UNILAD posted Canning season is upon us. If you use a pressure canner be sure the weights/release is working correctly. Despite clear interest in the events of the photograph (and multiple reposts of the picture), the actual scenario depicted by the photograph remains unknown. We were unable to find any online versions of it before it was shared to Imgur in August 2015 with no description, and the user who posed it there has a site tagline that reads "It's not a Repost, it's Nostalgia!", suggesting that they curate and share interesting images not personally taken by them. Imgur While it's possible the photograph indeed depicts a pressure canning or cooking scenario gone awry, no actual information was ever included alongside its iterations to definitively describe the image. We don't know when the photo was taken, by whom, or even in which country the purported kitchen catastrophe occurred. Moreover, canning enthusiasts commenting on the image noted that while debris from equipment was scattered throughout the scene in the photograph, the splattered food one would expect to see if a pressure cooker malfunctioned was curiously absent. It's unlikely that either the person who originally posted the photograph on Imgur or the Reddit reposter snapped the picture themselves. As such, any information gleaned from such online postings are speculative, and the humorous one-line descriptions that have accompanied it were likely invented to encourage sharing of an amusing picture.       Last updated: 28 August 2015 Originally published:  28 August 2015