brief sale
Claim:  Account describes women manipulating the short sales of properties. PROBABLY  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, January 2013] Recently, our good friend Michael (a local realtor) shared his experience with Leisa and I about an "Obama supporter" he encountered while showing homes to a low income, working family in Pontiac, MI. We asked him to please write it down so we could share it with you. As a Realtor for the past 28 years I thought Id seen or heard it all. Until now. I was showing homes in Pontiac, MI. one afternoon recently and showed up at a home at the 4:00 pm time my appointment was scheduled for. After I woke up the homeowner, she let us in and then proceeded to tell my buyers and I that she has already entered into a contract to sell the home on a short-sale. (A short-sale is a sale where the banks accepts less money than is owed on the home). After some chit-chat, she proceeded to tell us that she and her sister (who also lived in the area) were buying each others homes via the short-sale process. I mentioned to her that I thought relatives could not be involved in those transactions. She smiled and said "We have two different last names so no one knows the difference". She went on to tell us that each of them owed over 100K on their homes and were in the process of buying each others homes for about 10-15K cash. To top it off, they were each receiving $3,000.00 in government provided relocation assistance at the closing. My buyers and I were amazed that she was outright admitting to fraud and yet, she continued. She began to tell us that the best part of her scheme was that because they currently were not working that they (both) are now receiving Section 8 Vouchers. I said I thought those were for renters and she said "Thats the best part; me and my sister are going to be renting each others homes so we dont even have to move, and Obama is going to give us each $800.00 a month to pay the rent!" She then picked up a picture she had framed of Obama and did a little happy dance around her living room and while she kissed the picture she was singing "Thank you Obama.... thank you Obama." So here is the bottom line Both of these scammers got at least $80,000.00 in debt forgiven, $3,000.00 in cash for relocation (when in fact they did not relocate) and to boot, you and I will now be paying (through our taxes) $1,600.00 in rent for each them each and every month .... perhaps forever! And I also would not be at all surprised if they are receiving food stamps and whatever other programs are available for anyone who is willing to lie to get assistance. These women went from working and paying about $900.00 each in mortgage payments to staying home and getting paid $800.00 each per month to live in the same home they had been living in and all they had to do was lie on a few papers. This craziness has to stop! Im sure this kind of fraud is going on each and every day all across the country and no one wants to touch the subject of entitlements because they might OFFEND someone or lose a vote or two. By the way ... she had an almost new SUV in the driveway, three flat screen TV's and a very nice computer set up in her living room which was furnished entirely with nice leather furniture. 'TIS THE NEW 'AMERICAN WAY' Origins:  The terms "under water" and "short sale" in reference to home mortgages have entered common parlance in recent years due to a severe downturn in the housing market.  The first refers to a mortgage that is greater than the property's current market value: If a home buyer owes $600,000 on a property that he originally bought for $900,000 but that is now valued at only $300,000, his property is described as being under water. The second refers to a process which has been used by some borrowers to keep afloat financially by shedding their under water properties. When a property owner holds an under water mortgage and can no longer make his mortgage payments, one remedy is for the lienholder to agree to a short sale: that is, to allow the owner to sell the property for less than the amount still owed on the loan.  A short sale leaves the lender taking a loss, but it is often preferable to the alternative of the lender's having to foreclose on the property and resell it  themselves (with no guarantee the resale would bring in any more money than the short sale did).     The unpaid balance still owed to a lienholder by the property owner after a short sale is known as a "deficiency."  If the owner with the aforementioned $600,000 mortgage short sells his home for $250,000, he has incurred a $350,000 deficiency.  A short sale may or may not relieve the borrower of the obligation to repay that deficiency: whether it does depends on the agreement made between the lienholder and the property owner prior to the short sale.  (The amount of a deficiency is considered by the IRS to be a benefit which is taxable as income, but the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007 currently allows taxpayers to exclude income from a discharge of debt on their principal residence.) The January 2013 item reproduced above purportedly tells of two women who are supposedly gaming the system by agreeing to buy each other's homes at short sales (in contravention of the rules), then collect a monthly housing assistance stipend for being renters in the homes they formerly owned.  The item contains no verifiable details such as names, dates, or addresses (only the mention of a city or state which changes from version to version), but the scenario described would require a number of implausibilities to all be true:  A woman who was engaging in a scheme to defraud multiple lienholders and government programs would openly admit to that scheme and describe it in detail to a stranger.  The buyers and sellers involved in short sales are required to provide full financial disclosures and are subject to asset checks,making it highly unlikely that this cross-buying scheme could work.  A lienholder would almost certainly refuse to proceed with a short sale by an owner who had just bought another property, or to agree to a short sale home purchase by a buyer who herself currently had a property in short sale.  The $3,000 in relocation assistance provided to those who short sell their homes under the  Home Affordable Foreclosure Alternatives  (HAFA) program also requires financial disclosure and is not available to those who have purchased a house within the last 12 months, so neither sister would qualify. HAFA  Section 8 assistance offered under the Housing Choice Voucher Program (which provides payment of rental housing assistance to private landlords on behalf of low-income renters) is income- and asset-based.  Someone who not only owned her own residential property but was also functioning as a Section 8 landlord could not possibly qualify for Section 8 housing assistance.  Moreover, in many areas the waiting list for renters seeking to obtain Section 8 funds is years-long. Also, little of what is referenced here has any direct connection to President Obama. Although the HAFA program which provides $3,000 in relocation assistance was introduced by the Treasury Department under the Obama administration in 2009, the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act (which exempts deficiencies in short sales from being considered taxable income) was passed in 2007 during the administration of George W. Bush, and Section 8 housing assistance was established under the Housing Act of 1937 passed during the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Last updated:  7 February 2013
The Lone Star state is home to its very own state-regulated power grid known as the Texas Interconnection. The question of whether Texas produces its own power is one that the Snopes team has seen time and again. We often see this trend during times of power crisis, as was the case in 2021, when the states power grid failed, or when energy politics and prices are making the headlines. This was the case in June 2022 when U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, a Republican representing Texas, tweeted that the impact of President Biden being beholden to the Green New Deal radicals in his party has electricity costs through the roof in Texas. failed June 2022 Green New Deal  Yes, it is true that Texas has its own power grid. The Texas Interconnection (TIS) is one of five alternating current (AC) power grids known in north America as interconnections, according to the U.S. Office of Electricity. TIS spans most of the state and covers all of the electric utilities maintained under the system, each of which is electrically tied together and operates at a synchronized frequency of a 60-hertz average during normal system conditions. U.S. Office of Electricity  Public Domain Texas ownership over its power grid is not necessarily for technical reasons, but more for political ones, reported the Texas Tribune in 2011: namely, to avoid the feds. Power grids that cross state lines are managed by the U.S. Department of Energy, which is responsible for the national energy program, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which regulates the sale and transmission of electricity in interstate commerce. reported But because TIS does not cross state lines, the system can avoid regulation by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and is instead managed by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT). Some 26 million Texans and 90% of the electrical load rely on over 52,700 miles of transmission lines contained within the TIS. As a nonprofit, ERCOT is subject to oversight by the Public Utility Commission of Texas and the Texas Legislature. ERCOT 90% 52,700 miles Public Utility Commission of Texas Its no secret that Texas is rich in energy. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) reports that Texas produces more electricity than any other state, and nearly twice as much as Florida, which comes in at second place. Energy rates are typically determined by a combination of fuel costs, power plant availability, variations in demand, and availability of generation sources, notes the U.S. Energy Information Administration. This cost varies from minute to minute, and in hot climates like Texas, prices are highest in the summer when total demand for air conditioning increases. reports U.S. Energy Information Administration In the Lone Star State, those prices are set by ERCOT. To understand the history of ERCOT, we should also take a quick look back at the U.S. power grid through the 20th century. In 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Federal Power Act, which gave the Federal Power Commission the power to oversee interstate electricity sales. But Texas wanted to remain out of federal oversight, particularly as its grid did not cross state lines. signed The establishment of TIS can trace its history back to World War II, when 10 independent power grids across the state connected to send excess power to the coast for manufacturing, according to ERCOT. Similarly, utility companies across the nation began to tie themselves together to be more productive, organized, and responsive both in the event of an emergency and to more efficiently manufacture and export goods to troops overseas. ERCOT tie themselves together Following a blackout on Nov. 9, 1965, when 30 million people in the Northeastern U.S. lost power, legislators created the National Electric Reliability Council, now known as the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC). Five years later, ERCOT was founded to manage the Texas grid in accordance with national standards but still out of the way of federal fingers. (For more ERCOT history, see this explainer published by NBC Austin affiliate KXAN.) founded this explainer We should also note that the Texas power supply is neither totally independent nor does it cover the entire state. El Paso is on its own grid, as are parts of northeastern and southeastern Texas. In 2011 following rolling blackouts, Texas also imported some power from Mexico, as well as two ties to the Eastern U.S. grid.) imported Sources Archive.Ph. https://archive.ph/oiee1. Accessed 7 June 2022. Cohn, Julie. When the Grid Was the Grid: The History of North Americas Brief Coast-to-Coast Interconnected Machine [Scanning Our Past]. Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 107, no. 1, Jan. 2019, pp. 23243. IEEE Xplore, https://doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2018.2880938. DG - Distributed Generation. https://www.puc.texas.gov/industry/electric/business/dg/dg.aspx. Accessed 7 June 2022. Does Biden Support the Green New Deal? Snopes.Com, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/does-biden-support-green-new-deal/. Accessed 7 June 2022. Electric Reliability Council of Texas. https://www.ercot.com/. Accessed 7 June 2022. ERCOT Organization Backgrounder. https://www.ercot.com/news/mediakit/backgrounder#:~:text=Founded%20in%201970%2C%20ERCOT%20is,grid%20serving%20most%20of%20Texas. Accessed 7 June 2022. EXPLAINER: Why the Power Grid Failed in Texas and Beyond. Snopes.Com, https://www.snopes.com/ap/2021/02/17/why-the-power-grid-failed-in-texas-and-beyond/. Accessed 7 June 2022. Galbraith, Kate. Texplainer: Why Does Texas Have Its Own Power Grid? The Texas Tribune, 8 Feb. 2011, https://www.texastribune.org/2011/02/08/texplainer-why-does-texas-have-its-own-power-grid/. Helman, Christopher. Rolling Blackouts Force Texas To Import Power From Mexico. Forbes, https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2011/02/03/rolling-blackouts-force-texas-to-import-power-from-mexico/. Accessed 7 June 2022. Learn More About Interconnections. Energy.Gov, https://www.energy.gov/oe/services/electricity-policy-coordination-and-implementation/transmission-planning/recovery-act-0. Accessed 7 June 2022. OAKTrust Home. https://oaktrust.library.tamu.edu/. Accessed 7 June 2022. Prices and Factors Affecting Prices - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/prices-and-factors-affecting-prices.php#:~:text=Changes%20in%20prices%20generally%20reflect,to%20meet%20the%20increased%20demand. Accessed 7 June 2022. The History of ERCOT: How Texas Became the Only State with Its Own Power Grid. KXAN Austin, 24 Feb. 2021, https://www.kxan.com/news/texas/the-history-of-ercot-how-texas-became-the-only-state-with-its-own-power-grid/. Claim:  The federal government is preventing Volkswagen's XL1 model car from being sold in the U.S. because the vehicle is too fuel-efficient.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, September 2013] Volkswagen's New 300 MPG Car Not Allowed In America Because It Is Too Efficient Would like to know of the article is valid. Origins:  For many years conspiracy rumors have circulated positing that a collusion between Big Oil and the U.S. government has prevented the American public from having the opportunity to purchase fully developed, market-ready automobiles capable of obtaining fuel efficiencies of 200-300 MPG.  Such rumors have taken the form of everything from mysterious forces stealing cars equipped with miracle carburetors to keep that technology's existence a secret, to the federal government's enacting regulations intended for the sole purpose of keeping high-mileage vehicles out of the U.S. market in order to protect the interests (and profits) of American oil companies. miracle carburetors high-mileage April 2014 saw the emergence of yet another entry in this vein, courtesy of Jim Stone, Freelance Journalist (the same "journalist" who promulgated the ridiculous story about a passenger on missing Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 who supposedly hid his cell phone in his rectum and used it to post a picture to the Internet after the flight was hijacked), positing that Volkswagen has a terrific 300 MPG vehicle that only costs $60,000 all ready to go, but it can't be sold (or even seen) in America because politicians in the pay of oil companies are conspiring to keep it unknown and unsellable in the U.S.: Jim Stone, Freelance Journalist ridiculous You won't find the 300 MPG Volkswagen XL1 in an American showroom, in fact it has even been denied a tour of America because it is too efficient for the American public to be made widely aware of, and oil profits are too high in America with the status quo in place. No tour has been allowed for this car because the myth that 50 mpg is virtually impossible to obtain from even a stripped down econobox is too profitable to let go of, and when it comes to corporate oil profits, ignorance is bliss. The answer is obvious. Simply for the sake of raking in huge profits from $4 a gallon gas, getting guzzled at 10X the rate it should be, the corporations have via campaign contributions and other types of pay outs succeeded in getting the FED to legislate the best cars off the road for irrelevant trumped up reasons.  Even after being hand made with "exotic" materials in an intentionally limited edition, the Xl1 still only costs $60,000. There is a lot more of a market for this car than 2,000 units at that price, have no doubt, this car is being held back on purpose. In this case the vehicle in question is the Volkswagen XL1, a two-person,  "one-liter" concept car (i.e., a vehicle capable of averaging 100 km per liter of fuel, or about 235 MPG) originally shown to the public back in 2002 and modified (and renamed) several times since over the intervening years.  The latest unveiled version of the XL1, already put into production, is a plug-in diesel-electric hybrid described thusly by Green Car Reports: XL1 Green Car Reports The Volkswagen XL1 is a plug-in diesel hybrid with a body seemingly beamed in from a future time. It's the physical representation of the benefits of reducing weight and improving aerodynamics. The small body may only take two people, but it's allowed for an incredibly streamlined body with a drag coefficient of only 0.189. Low weight  only 1,752 lbs  means only a small engine and electric motor is needed to deliver respectable performance. Much of the car is constructed from carbon fiber, aluminum and titanium. VW says the car will do 261 mpg, though the real figure will be lower than that should it ever be tested under EPA guidelines. Even so, it'll still use comfortably less fuel than any vehicle currently on sale. A diesel engine of only 0.8 liters and 2 cylinders capacity produces 47 horsepower, with a further 27 horses delivered by the electric motor. Power reaches the wheels via a 7-speed dual-clutch gearbox. Those figures sound miniscule by modern standards, but the XL1 should reach 62 mph in 12.7 seconds. Top speed is 98 mph. Operating alone, the small battery can deliver up to 31 miles of range, and can be charged via plug or regenerative effect. It's true that very few, if any, Volkswagen XL1s will likely be seen on U.S. roads in the immediate future, but that situation will be due to a confluence of factors that does not include a government/Big Oil conspiracy to keep them out of the U.S. First of all, it's not true that the XL1 has "been denied a tour of America because  it is too efficient for the American public to be made widely aware of."  Existing safety and traffic regulations do limit where the current XL1 models can be legally driven in public roads in the U.S., but Volkswagen has taken at least three of the vehicles on tour around the U.S., and the staff of Jalopnik drove one around Manhattan at the end of 2013. Jalopnik Second, the primary reason the XL1 won't be seen in the U.S. anytime soon is that Volkswagen is only producing 200 units for retail sale (not 2,000 as claimed above), all of them to be sold in Europe via some sort of selection (i.e., lottery) process.     200 units But why only 200 cars?  And why only in Europe? As for the first part, the answer is that new vehicles like the XL1 are expensive to develop and produce (and therefore expensive for consumers to afford), and similar forms of automobiles have not yet met with tremendous success on the commercial market, so any automotive company that puts such a model into full-blown production risks sinking a whole lot of money into something that may not sell well at all (especially in the U.S. market, where consumers have very different expectations and preferences than European car buyers do). The XL1 is in many ways still a concept/prototype vehicle, and so Volkswagen is testing the waters by putting out a limited production run to see how many consumers are really interested in shelling out the equivalent of U.S. $150,000 (not $60,000 as claimed above) for a two-person car.  And the testers at Car and Driver found that while the XL1's fuel efficiency might be superb, it might also be somewhat overblown as presented in promotional materials: Car and Driver The XL1 should run 31 miles solely on electric power, says [VW development engineer Ulrich] Mitze. But on the cold and rainy April day we drove it, the small, 60-cell, 5.5-kWh, 150-pound lithium-ion battery pack needed a recharge after only 22 miles.  According to the on-board computer, we are fuel hogs. Having started with a full tank (2.6 gallons) and fully charged batteries, we ended our trip after 67 miles; fuel consumption plummeted at one point to a dismal 128 mpg. Achieving the XL1's theoretical 749-mile range would take a right foot as light as a moonbeam. As for why only Europe, the answer is that the U.S. does have many safety standards in place (enacted many years ago a variety of reasons, none of which was to keep high-mileage vehicles off the U.S. market) that all automobile manufacturers have to meet in order to legally sell their vehicles in America, regulations that sometimes require manufacturers to modify or retrofit models that were produced for sale under less strict regulations in Europe (or other parts of the world).  If Volkswagen wants to test-market their XL1 in limited quantities, there's no reason for them to expend millions of dollars preparing and certifying those vehicles for U.S. safety standards when they can vend  their small lot of cars just as well in the European market without all the added expense.  As noted by USA Today: The XL1 [is] a spaceship-like, ultra-high-mpg, plug-in diesel-electric hybrid. VW used exotic, but obtainable, materials and technologies to craft a mileage-above-all car able to get 261 mpg in European tests, equating, very roughly, to perhaps 200 mpg in U.S. tests. Barely a real production model, it's made in a factory, but largely by hand. It couldn't meet U.S. safety rules and needed changes in German rules to be on the road there. And if one buys into the conspiracy theory that the government and Big Oil are colluding to keep high-mileage vehicles off the U.S. market in order to protect profits from gasoline sales, one has to wonder why those powerful and malevolent entities aren't doing anything to stop Americans from purchasing cars produced by Tesla, superbly-performing vehicles that use no gasoline at all yet still deliver premium performance, have great range for electric cars, have received the highest rating of any automobile ever evaluated by Consumer Reports, are top-rated for safety even under tougher U.S. standards, but are widely available for purchase in the U.S.: Tesla Most Americans may never actually see a Tesla Model S sedan in person, but you will want to know why this car is so important to the automotive industry and what all the media fuss is about. Tesla Motors was founded in 2003 by a group of intrepid Silicon Valley engineers who set out to prove that electric vehicles could be awesome. The name of the company pays homage to Nicola Tesla, a Serbian American inventor, electrical engineer, mechanical engineer, physicist, and futurist best known for his contributions to the design of the modern alternating current (AC) electricity supply system. As the California automakers first production model, the Tesla Model S is 100 percent electric, a car so advanced it sets the new standard for premium performance. This is not a hybrid, nor is it equipped with any kind of "range expanding" gasoline engine. At the heart of the vehicle is the proven Tesla powertrain, delivering both unprecedented range and a thrilling drive experience. The Tesla Model S has won the 2013 Motor Trend Car of the Year award, received the highest rating of any automobile in history from Consumer Reports (99 out of 100) and achieved the best possible US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration rating. Unlike the internal combustion engine with hundreds of moving pieces that spark, pump, belch, and groan, the Tesla motor has only one moving piece: the rotor. As a result, Model S acceleration is instantaneous, like flipping a switch. Hit the accelerator. In 5.4 seconds, Model S is traveling 60 miles per hour, without hesitation and without a drop of gasoline. As in so many cases, what is attributed to furtive conspiracy is more easily explained away as wishful thinking colliding with the hard, cold realities of economics. Last updated:  14 April 2014    Healey, James R.  "Test Drive: VW XL1 Shows How to Get 200 MPG."   USA Today.  7 December 2013.     Ingram, Antony.  "261 MPG Volkswagen XL1 Production Confirmed, Debuts Geneva."   Green Car Reports.  21 February 2013.     Ingram, Antony.  "Orders for 261-MPG Volkswagen XL1 Exceed Production of 200."   Green Car Reports.  28 October 2013.     Zoellter, Juergen.  "2014 Volkswagen XL1."   Car and Driver.  June 2013.     Green Bay Press Gazette.  "2014 Tesla Model S Sedan Takes the Electric Car to a New Level."   14 April 2014. Before Gov. John Kitzhaber released his budget proposal for the next two-year cycle, he gave a few hints at how hed budget some of the biggest pieces of state government. In an e-mail sent out before the Feb. 1, 2011, budget announcement, he says hell allocate some $5.56 billion for the states K-12 public school system.But thats not all. He gets even more specific. Kitzhaber plans to make 52 percent of the total (about $2.89 billion) available in the first year of the cycle.This, he says, is the equivalent to a $5.78 billion budget for school funding. The effect is to provide an increase in state funding for the 2011-12 school year.That, naturally, piqued our curiosity given that most of what you hear down in Salem is worrying comments about how education will have to take a cut going forward. And yet, heres Kitzhaber talking about increased spending.Could he really be offering the schools more money next year? We decided to find out.To start off, its helpful to have a clear understanding of where funding is currently. The thing is, the budget for public education has fluctuated several times over the past couple of years. The state revenue forecast is consistently down, which has led to reductions in the budget. Meanwhile, theres been movement on the federal level to kick funds to states, which have helped balance, in part, some of those earlier cuts. But not all of them.To get the most recent number, we called Oregon's Legislative Fiscal Office. According to the offices most recent calculations, K-12 education is operating on a budget of $5.756 billion. Thatincludes the promise of $35.5 million from a state education stability fund, which may or may not come through. But, for the purpose of this article, well keep it in the total.Of that $5.75 billion, $342 million has come from the federal government in various forms and $5.41 billion has come from the state. To parse it even more (who doesnt love lots of numbers? ), $2.94 billion went to schools during the 2009-10 school year, while the remaining $2.82 billion went to schools for the current year.So, lets compare these numbers to what Kitzhaber is proposing. According to the e-mail statement, Kitzhaber is suggesting a K-12 budget of $5.56 billion for the next two-year period. But for next year in particular, he is suggesting $2.89 billion go to schools. Thats a clear increase in funding (not just state funding, but overall funding) this year over next, by about $70 million.Still, its important to note here, that funding, overall, will take a hit. Sure, the state is throwing in more cash for the upcoming biennium than it did the current -- about an extra $150 million. And yes, the school system will have more cash to work with next year than it did this year. But overall the bienniums budget is down, $5.756 billion to $5.56 billion. Thats because the states increase in funding still doesn't offset lost federal dollars.Whats more, under Kitzhabers proposal, that reduction will be felt strongest come the 2012-13 school year. Whereas there will be a $70 million more to work with next year, as compared to the current school year, there will be a $150 million decrease the following year, if you use the current year as the baseline.By front-loading 2012, you necessarily leave 2013 with a smaller slice of the funds.Kitzhaber explains his logic in the e-mail: Front-loading the funding also provides a year to find cost savings through consolidation and other efficiencies to maintain this level of classroom support during the 2012-13 school year.Whether those cost savings will be realized, nobody can say, so well stick the initial statement, which is that this proposed budget represents an increase in state funding for the upcoming 2011-12 school year. Kitzhaber is right, it does. That said, its important to recognize that even with the increase in state funds, the school system will have to make do with less sooner or later. Kitzhaber seems to have chosen later.Since we think that bit of context is important, we rate this claim Mostly True. Comment on this item. On the third night of the Democratic convention, Vice President Joe Biden took vigorous exception to the Republican message of a nation teetering on the brink. Not only do we have the largest economy in the world, we have the strongest economy in the world, Biden said. We have the most productive workers in the world. And given a fair shot, given a fair chance, Americans have never ever ever let their country down. Does American have the most productive workers? Not quite. We checked the numbers and found that we rank third, not first. Productivity is a measure of how much value comes out of each hour worked. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development tracks the performance of the worlds higher income nations. When the OECDcompares the GDP per hour workedacross 47 countries (using dollars corrected for inflation and the purchasing power in each nation), it consistently reports that Luxembourg and Norway have more productive workers than the United States. This table shows the top six countries since 2010. 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Luxembourg 78.4 78.2 76 78.4 79.3 81.2 Norway 77.8 77.2 77.8 78.3 78.9 79.7 United States 61.9 62.1 62.2 62.2 62.4 .. Belgium 61.8 61.6 61.4 61.7 62.2 .. Ireland 58.2 60.7 61 60.2 62 .. Netherlands 59.6 60.1 59.9 60.1 60.6 61.3  For 2014, the most recent year for which we have complete data, America ranks third, as it has since 2010. For each hour worked in Luxembourg, that country gains $79.30. In Norway, the amount is $78.90. In the United States, the value is $62.40. We reached out to Bidens press office and were told that when hes made this comparison before, he has referred to other larger economies, which means the United States ranks first. He left out that qualification this time. Our ruling Biden said that America has the most productive workers in the world. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development tracks how much value comes out of each hour worked in the worlds higher income nations. According to its data, Luxembourg and Norway have more productive workers than America. That ranking has been in place since 2010. Third is not first. But to place in the top three out of the worlds 47 most wealthy nations is still an achievement. Biden is wrong on the details, but the general point is correct. We rate this claim Mostly True. Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here On Dec. 11, 2020, a Twitter user posted a new permutation of a conspiracy theory about Dominion Voting Systems, the technology firm that provided voting systems in multiple U.S. jurisdictions in the November 2020 election, and which has also been the target of a disinformation campaign falsely claiming its systems were used to perpetrate widespread voter fraud. technology firm falsely claiming One of the narratives in the election fraud conspiracy theory holds that voting machines provided by Dominion switched votes from ballots cast for U.S. President Donald Trump to his challenger, Joe Biden, who is now president-elect. Trump has refused to accept his electoral loss, and has perpetuated the lie that Dominion machines were used en masse to flip votes. perpetuated Hence, more than a month after Biden was declared winner of the election, conspiracy theories continued to flourish. In this case, a Twitter user falsely claimed that Dominion is owned by a member of Biden family, namely his nephew. But the tweet in question is nothing but a patchwork of misleading screenshots and assumptions, based on people sharing a common surname. We cropped the user's name out below: falsely claimed   The screenshots in the meme above contain what appear to be the professional biographies of two men, Stephen Owens and R. Kevin Owens, neither of which mentions Dominion. The meme included in the tweet points to President-elect Biden's sister and campaign manager Valerie Biden Owens, with the alleged clincher being that Stephen Owens, a co-founder of Staple Street Capital, an investment firm that owns 75% stake in Dominion, shares a surname. However, "Owens" is a common last name, so that hardly serves as proof at all. co-founder owns Valerie and her husband, John T. Owens, have three children, none named Stephen. A spokesperson for Staple Street confirmed in an email to Snopes that Stephen Owens has no relation to the Biden family. three children And although the meme includes mention of R. Kevin Owens, an attorney who is related to Valerie's husband, we see no connection between this person and Dominion. related In other iterations of this conspiracy theory, the voting systems company has been falsely linked to deceased Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, as well as various Democratic politicians, including U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, and the Clinton Foundation, the charitable foundation run by former President Bill and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Hugo Chavez including Trump's own administration has undermined his post-election disinformation blitz by stating the November 2020 election was "the most secure in American history." undermined "There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised," the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which is a component of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, said in a Nov. 12, 2020, statement. statement Updated to note that a Staples Street representative confirmed Stephen Owens isn't related to the Bidens. On June 13, 2023, one day after the Denver Nuggets had won their first NBA title, we looked into a claim that was made in an online article that said former NBA star Charles Barkley was leaving the TNT TV show, "Inside the NBA." won According to the story, Barkley had either resigned or his contract with TNT was "abruptly terminated." The headline of the article read, "TNT Has Pointed The Finger At Charles's Wife, Maureen Blumhardt, For The Analyst's Unexpected Resignation." However, this rumor was false. The made-up story was published on an unknown date prior to June 13 in order to push a scam involving the promotion of purported keto weight loss gummies. The article showed a logo for an apparently made-up news organization named, "Breaking News Alerts (BNA)." It wasposted to the dubious website top-magazine-trending.com and began as follows: She's famously known as Charles Barkley's wife, but Maureen Blumhardt has proven she's a savvy businesswoman in her own right - and Charles Barkley is in DEEP trouble for it. Maureen Blumhardt, most famously known as the 59-year-old wife of Charles Barkley, has shocked the entire world after being revealed as the sole reason for her husband's departure from his hit TV show 'Inside The NBA'. Why? Because she failed to disclose her massive weight loss company to TNT (while making regular appearances on the show), which is actually a HUGE competitor to the show's sponsor 'Weight Watchers'. Maureen's product is one tenth of the price and twice as effective as their competing product, which has Weight Watchers threatening to pull advertising from the network completely. Charles Barkley's contract was abruptly terminated. Lucky for them, Maureen's product has been incredibly successful and is taking over the weight loss world by storm - and her net worth is even more than his! The product is called Quickshot Keto Gummies and it has taken the world by storm. Quickshot Keto Gummies is repeatedly selling out within minutes and Maureen says her number one struggle as CEO is sourcing enough products to be able to adequately service the demand. We were unable to obtain a working link to the article to include in our fact check. The reason for this was that scammers employ tactics to make their articles hidden unless they've been accessed via specific ads. When users click on those specific ads, the ads act like a key to open a door, unlocking the article to display on their screens. The top of the article falsely claimed that the news had been shared by CBS News, ABC, NBC, and Fox. The scam also misleadingly said that celebrities including Jennifer Aniston, Ellen DeGeneres, Kim Kardashian, Charlize Theron, and Sandra Bullock all joined with Barkley and his wife, Maureen Blumhardt, to endorse keto weight loss gummies, even though they had nothing to do with the products. The image and likeness of each of these famous people were used without permission. Barkley The article played on the oldmeme of unnamed doctors being mad about something. Remember old ads with the line, "Doctors Hate Him"? The story said that Blumhardt had made doctors "angry" and "furious" by revealing something about keto weight loss gummies. Again, this was completely made up. meme CBD and keto gummies scams often claim that people will be able to magically lose weight with the products, and that no diet or exercise would be required. In the past, many of the websites where the supposed weight loss gummies could be purchased enrolled customers in subscription charges of hundreds of dollars per month. They also sometimes didn't display phone numbers for customer service, something that may have been done on purpose in order to make it more difficult for customers to find a way to cancel a monthly subscription. If any readers were victimized by these scams, we recommend contacting your credit card company to tell them what happened. You also can report fraudulent activity to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC). report fraudulent activity For more details on how these sorts of keto weight loss gummies scams work, we encourage readers to look through some of our past articles on the subject. some of our past articles on the subject "One Weird Trick / Doctors Hate Him."Know Your Meme, 10 Mar. 2020, https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/one-weird-trick-doctors-hate-him. Pells, Eddie. "Nuggets Take Home 1st NBA Title in Rugged 94-89 Win over Heat." The Associated Press, 13 June 2023, https://apnews.com/article/nuggets-heat-nba-finals-jokic-99c0f25e6e468a97f8c86330f988933d. On 8 January 2016, the entertainment web site The Reporterz published an article reporting that Delaware had created a new "child support card" that controlled "what mothers can and cannot buy" with their child support funds: This measure was taken to prevent parents from misusing funds that are meant to help with costs associated with raising children, such as school related expenses, food, etc. This card will not be allow the parent to purchase alcohol, cigarettes or pay car payments the card will be used exactly like a food stamp card. We spoke to Tasha Brown who was upset after she couldn't purchase a bottle of Hennessy at her local liquor store. she says "Its' [sic] unfair its [sic] my money I should be able to do what i want with it how will I pay for my new weave?"   The article was ambiguous about whether the card would apply to all funds received for the care of children (such as support monies paid by former spouses) or funds made available through government assistance programs. It didn't matter either way, though, as the story was a complete fabrication that originated with a fake news web site that does not publish factual stories. A disclaimer on The Reporterz states that "every article is based on a true story, only the facts have been changed." In this case, Delaware really does have a card that makes it easier for single parents and guardians to receive funds. The First State Family Card is a pre-paid debit card that does not require bank account: The First State Family Card is a pre-paid VISA card that is credited whenever a payment is posted to any/all of a client's child support case(s). Benefits to the debit VISA card include: While Delaware does have a card that makes it easier for parents to collect child support, the handbook for the First State Family Card (not the "Child Support Card") does not mention any restrictions on how the funds may be utilized. mention Does the stock market boom under Democratic presidents? Hillary Clinton said so during a town hall in Nashua, N.H., on July 28, 2015. You know the evidence is pretty clear that under Democratic presidents, going a ways back, people do better, Clinton said,at around 5:30 in this video. And not only working people, middle class people. Even the stock market does better when you have a Democratic president in the White House. We wondered: Is it true that the stock market does better when you have a Democratic president in the White House? We took a closer look. Scrutinizing the stock ticker There have been a couple studies addressing this question, and they all agree: For whatever reason, going back more than a century, the stock market has done better under Democratic presidents than Republican presidents. A2012 report by CMC Markets, an international financial firm, found that since 1900, the United States stock markets have posted an average annual return of 15.31 percent under Democratic presidents, compared to just 5.43 percent under Republicans. Anotherstudyfrom 2012 by Adviser Perspectives newsletter, using somewhat different methodology, found that since 1900, the Dow Jones Industrial Average has gained 8.7 percent annually under a Democratic president, compared to 5.7 percent under Republicans. AndcalculationsbyThe Economistfound that the Barclays U.S. equity index gained a cumulative 300 percent under Democratic presidents between 1929 and 2011, compared to about zero under Republican presidents. To bring the data up to date, we checked in with Sam Stovall, the chief investment strategist at S&P Equity Research in New York. He hadpreviously founda big Democratic advantage in stock market gains through 2012. From 1901 through July 31, 2015, Stovall found, the stock market gained 8.7 percent under Democratic presidents, compared to 5.3 percent under Republican presidents. The same pattern held in Stovalls data since the end of World War II  in fact, it was even more pronounced. Since 1945, the markets gained 11.2 percent under Democratic presidents and 6.3 percent under Republican presidents. And it wasnt just the stock market that chalked up better performance under Democratic presidents, according toa July 2014 paperby Princeton University economists Alan Blinder and Mark Watson. They found a performance gap between the parties that was startlingly large over a wide variety of economic metrics. The U.S. economy not only grows faster, according to real GDP and other measures, during Democratic versus Republican presidencies, it also produces more jobs, lowers the unemployment rate, generates higher corporate profits and investment, and turns in higher stock market returns,Blinder and Watson wrote. Indeed, it outperforms under almost all standard macroeconomic metrics. What does this mean? So, multiple studies show that Clintons claim is numerically correct. But what, if anything, can we conclude from it? Experts said its best not to go overboard in drawing conclusions about White House control and stock market performance. Here are some of the reasons why. A lot of this stems from luck and timing.Republicans are cursed by having Herbert Hoover on their presidential roster. The stock-market decline was so quick and deep under Hoover that it continues to hobble the partys stock-market performance all these decades later. Meanwhile, starting at such a low point was a huge help to his Democratic successor, Franklin D. Roosevelt. In fact, if you remove Hoover from the GOP column, the average monthly return for Republicans improves significantly, from a 0.38 percent average monthly return to a 0.61 percent monthly return. The Hoover-free GOP number is within striking distance of the Democratic mark of 0.73 percent, said Lawrence J. White, a professor at New York Universitys Stern School of Business. White doesnt argue that its fairest to remove Hoover from the GOPs calculation. Rather, he said, its a reminder that relatively small changes due at least in part to unlucky timing can have big effects on the end result. Partisan labels are only somewhat helpful.What matters is the relationship of policy to the stock market, not partisan labels, said Dan Mitchell, an economist with the libertarian Cato Institute. Economic policy under Bill Clinton was far more market-oriented than it was under either Bush or Nixon. A good stock market is harder to define than one might think.For instance, a healthy year-over-year increase in the stock market may sound good, but if it comes with high volatility throughout the year, that can be a lot less pleasant for investors, said Tom Arnold, a professor of finance at the University of Richmond Robins School of Business. Meanwhile, down markets are buying opportunities and up markets are selling opportunities for the purpose of cashing in on profits, possibly from securities purchased in a down market, Arnold said. Better in one market is usually at the cost of another market. Market results dont align neatly with presidential terms.The stock market makes an anticipatory assessment of a president and his policies shortly after his election  or even before the election, White said. So the market's anticipation of what an incoming president will do occurs during the last few months of the incumbents presidency. He noted that this factor was even stronger prior to 1936, when the new president was inaugurated on March 4, leaving four months of stock market anticipation in the previous presidents column. A president is only one factor in determining stock market performance.Perhaps most important, experts urge caution in ascribing too much credit to a president for how the stock market performs on his watch. Often  including now, during a period of strong stock-market gains  Congress is held by the opposing party. Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve, which plays a crucial role in the economy by directing the nations monetary policy, operates independently once appointments are made by the president and confirmed by Congress. And a host of other factors that a president cant control, including technological advances and international economic trends, play a role as well. In their paper, Blinder and Watson focus on two factors as most important in determining economic performance. One is the presence or absence of an energy price shock -- something that, unfortunately for the GOP, hit during the presidencies of Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and George W. Bush, compared to just once under a Democrat, Jimmy Carter. The other factor they pointed to is what economists call total factor productivity,defined asthe portion of economic output not explained by the amount of inputs used in production. Think of it as the economys special sauce, or its extra bang for the buck. Although its unclear why, Democratic presidents have benefited from higher total factor productivity, most clearly during the technology boom under Bill Clinton, which produced significant productivity gains. Hillary Clintons campaign emphasized to PolitiFact that she didnt say that the president is the only factor that went into stock market results. Still, our experts agreed that while the numbers to back up her claim are clear, the meaning and significance of those numbers should be taken with a grain of salt. I wouldn't place much weight on it, one way or the other, White said. Our ruling Clinton said that the stock market does better when you have a Democratic president in the White House. The numbers back her up, but its worth noting that luck, timing and several other factors in the broader economy also play a role in determining stock market performance. The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, so we rate it Mostly True. Who is the woman in a viral photo with former President Bill Clinton? She's a photographer and co-founder of a New York-based modeling agency. But if you pose that question to adherents of a Qanon conspiracy theory, you'll probably get a different answer: She's an associate of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and recruits children to come to the billionaire's island. Qanon conspiracy theory So how did this ordinary citizen get mixed up in the world of Q? It started with a single miscaptioned photograph that supposedly showed her on Epstein's private plane with Clinton:   While this appears to be a genuine, unaltered photograph, the conspiracy theorists spreading it get several things wrong about what it shows. Mainly, the photograph wasn't taken on a plane owned by Epstein, who was charged with new sex crimes related to child-sex-trafficking for prostitution in the summer of 2019.  Before we go any further, we should note that the Q conspiracy theory is built on speculation and wild assumptions. The woman has not been implicated in any legal proceedings related to Epstein, and she has not been charged with any crimes herself (Snopes is not identifying her to protect her privacy). Q conspiracy theory Indeed, Miami Herald reporter Julie Brown, who was fundamental in uncovering Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking crimes, told us that she never come across the woman's name during her investigation into Epstein: "I have never run across her name anywhere  and I checked with two people involved in the case for 12 years and they never heard of her. They suspect its BS internet conspiracy shit."  Julie Brown fundamental We also dug through dozens of Q posts, conspiracy primers, Qanon explainers, and 4chan and 8chan threads attempting to connect her to Clinton and Epstein, but we've yet to see any concrete evidence. Instead, we found invented explanations for out-of-context pictures and illogical leaps of faith being accepted as fact.  The above-displayed picture has been online since 2006. It was originally shared with a caption saying it showed Clinton with a 19-year-old college student aboard billionaire venture capitalist Ron Burkle's private plane. It wasn't until several years later (circa 2017) that the "Pizzagate" conspiracy community picked up this picture and started claiming that it showed a woman with Clinton aboard Epstein's plane (popularly dubbed the "Lolita Express"). The fact that this photograph was circulating for more than a decade before it became attached to claims relating to Epstein should immediately raise red flags.  shared billionaire venture capitalist circa 2017 Pizzagate Furthermore, photographs reportedly showing the inside of Epstein's plane don't appear to match with this viral picture. Here's a comparison of the viral Clinton photograph and a picture of Epstein's plane obtained by Radar Online: inside of Epstein's plane Radar Online   While we may be entering dot-connecting territory here, the design on the wall behind Clinton bears a resemblance to a photograph from Business Insider supposedly showing the interior of Canadian businessman Frank Giustra's plane. Giustra and Clinton, like Burkle and Clinton, were frequent travel partners: Canadian businessman frequent travel   Angel Urena, Clinton's spokesperson, also denied that the viral image was taken aboard Epstein's plane: "This photograph was not taken on Epsteins airplane." In addition to misidentifying the location of this photograph, Qanon believers also frequently share this photograph with the claim that the woman was underage at the time the photograph was taken. Again, this is based on pure speculation: speculation   When Gawker first shared this photograph in 2006, the organization claimed it showed a "19-year-old college student." This appears to be accurate. In 2009, The Cut identified the woman as a "22-year-old" in an article about her photography. This would make her approximately 19 in 2006 when the photograph was allegedly snapped.  Clinton did fly on Epstein's plane a number of times. However, the above-displayed photograph does not document one of these trips. This photograph shows Clinton with a young woman aboard a plane more likely owned by either Burkle or Giustra.  number of times While the question of who she is may send conspiracy theorists down a rabbit hole of assumptions and speculation, the real answer is quite simple: She is a photographer and co-founder of New York-based modeling agency who was needlessly thrown into this world of conspiracy because she once appeared in a photograph on a plane with Clinton.  co-founder Rothschild, Mike.  "QAnon is Attacking a Random Woman in a Disturbing and Dangerous Way."
  Daily Dot.  21 March 2019. Rothschild, Mike.  "QAnon is Attacking a Random Woman in a Disturbing and Dangerous Way."
  Daily Dot.  21 March 2019. Ellia, Emma.  "Crying 'Pedophile' is the Oldest Propaganda Trick in the Book."
  Wired.  1 August 2018. Neon Revolt.  "D-Room. DINING ROOMS. HRC +++ + +++++ Unlocked? #QAnon #GreatAwakening."
  7 April 2018. NWO Report.  "Footage Of Abused Children Captured On Jeffrey Epsteins Pedo Island."
  15 April 2018. Radar Online.  "Tour for the First Time: Inside Bill Clinton Pal's 'Lolita Express' - The Pedophile Billionaire's Sex Jet He Flew On 11 Times."
  11 July 2016. Alterman, Eric.  "If Jeffrey Epstein Faces Justice, Itll Be Thanks to a Local Newspaper."
  The Nation.  17 July 2019. Brown, Julie.  "How a Future Trump Cabinet Member Gave a Serial Sex abuser the Deal of a Lifetime."
  Miami Herald.  28 November 2018. In July 2019, an $80 coupon began making the rounds on Facebook for the ALDI grocery store chain. These shared posts were the latest iteration of the common "free coupon" or "free gift card" scams that frequently plague social media and have also preyed on shoppers of chains such as Kroger and Target: Kroger Target  A different scam coupon offer also circulated with the ALDI logo in December 2015, advertising a "get 40% off all purchases in store" promise. Another displayed what appeared to be a free coupon for "$60 off a minimum $70 purchase", and even one for $75 off:  "Aldi has a coupon for $60 off a minimum $70 purchase. Aldi has verified this is a scam, but people are sharing it all over facebook." These coupons are not legitimate, as ALDI themselves noted on their Facebook page:  These coupon offers are a form of survey scams that direct victims to either a survey on an website not owned by ALDI, or what looks like a Facebook page for ALDI. The survey pages nor the Facebook page have any affiliation with the company, despite being adorned with the ALDI logo. Both instruct people to share the bogus ALDI coupon offer on their Facebook timelines and submit comments about it:  This page instructs shoppers to follow these "two simple steps" in order to get their coupons. Once the steps are completed, however, users are not greeted with information explaining how to claim their coupons. Instead, they're asked to take a brief survey that entails providing personal information such as home address, telephone number, e-mail address, and date of birth, and are required to sign up for credit cards or enroll in number of subscription programs in order to obtain their "free" gift cards:  A version of the scam also surfaced in May 2016, and another later in 2018. ALDI responded to frustrated consumers on Facebook:  In June 2017, a version of the scam touting discounts in honor of ALDI's purported anniversary also appeared on Facebook: "HEY FRIENDS CHECK THIS OUT!!!!!Aldi is giving Free $75 Coupon to Everyone to celebrate 103rd Anniversary!Each Person (1)- Go & get yours!ALDI-COM.COM" However, attempting to visit the linked domain (ALDI-COM.com) led to a "deceptive site ahead" warning and not to ALDI's official web site:  If you frequently use Facebook, there is a good chance that you'll run into one of these survey scams again. A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureau lists key factors for identifying fraudulent Facebook posts: article "Dont believe what you see. Its easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender. Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure there's a link to their privacy policy. When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organization's real website may have further information. Watch out for a reward that's too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions." All in all, trying to claim that "free" deep discount ALDI coupon is likely going to end up costing you a lot more than you'll save. Patterson, Emily.  "Customer Survey Scam Lures Victims with Gift Card." 
  Better Business Bureau.  4 July 2014. 10 July 2019: This story has been updated with a scam offer appearing on Facebook that promises $80 off at ALDI.