The national debt is larger than our entire annual economy.
Budget-cutting is a favorite theme for Champaign County Rep. Jim Jordan, a formerRepublican StudyCommitteechairman with themost conservative votingrecord of any Ohio Congress member. Jordan has frequentlyopinedthat thecontroversial sequester budget cutsimplemented on March 1 are a positive step toward reining in out-of-control government spending. On March 19, the House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus Oversight and Government Spending that Jordan chairs held a hearing on how several government departments decided where to make cuts required by the sequester. At the hearing, Republicans and Democratsblamed each otherfor the $85 billion in cuts to government programs that were implemented after Congress failed to agree on an alternative. Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District of Columbia's representative to Congress, rattled off the list of cuts to agencies testifying before the hearing: $2 billion to the Agriculture Department, $551 million to the Commerce Department, and $17 million to the Federal Communication Commission and concluded: This hearing really should be entitled: 'Sequestration Oversight; What Were House Republicans Thinking.' Jordan responded to her speech by saying: The reason we support reducing spending in sequestration is because we have a debt larger than our entire annual economy. We do have to cut some spending around this place and were finally taking some modest first steps. Jordans point about the national debt being larger than the entire U.S. annual economy is becoming a familiar GOP talking point. A few days before Jordan spoke at the hearing,  House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan made avirtually identical statementin a speech at Washington, D.C.s Conservative Political Action Conference, saying  Our debt is already bigger than our economy. PolitiFact has examined that statement and several other similar ones, noting that the politicians government debt tally included IOUs between government agencies, which dont affect the wider economy and credit markets as much as publicly held debt, which totals 75 percent of GDP. To find the size of the economy, PolitifFact national cited a Feb. 28, 2013 news release from The Bureau of Economic Analysis that put the GDP at just over $15.8 trillion. The governmentdefinesthe GDP -- gross domestic product -- as the market value of the goods and services produced by labor and property within the country. As for the debt, the U.S. Treasury is the go-to source. As of March 14, 2013,total outstanding public debtwas $16,708,225,460,175.14. Thats broken down into two categories: debt held by the public and intragovernmental holdings. Here are those dollar figures: Debt held by the public: $11.9 trillion Intragovernmental holdings: $4.8 trillion To explain the difference, well borrow from our PolitiFact Texas colleagues handiwork. Intragovernmental debt refers to money owed by agencies within government to other agencies -- basically an internal accounting issue. An example: Social Security surpluses that the government uses for other federal operations. Such money will have to be repaid, its presumed, but the demand is less pressing right now and it doesnt affect credit markets. In contrast, public debt reflects money borrowed from outside sources -- giving it more of a connection to the economy, Josh Gordon, an analyst with the anti-deficit Concord Coalition, told PolitiFact Texas. If your problem with the national debt is that you think its affecting the economy or interest rates or something like that, the only part of the national debt that affects the economy is the debt held by the public. Thats where the (U.S.) Treasury is borrowing money on the open market. Paul Van de Water, an economist with the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, further explained why that matters. Debt held by the public is important because it reflects the extent to which the government goes into private credit markets to borrow. Such borrowing draws on private national saving and international saving and therefore competes with investment in the nongovernmental sector (for factories and equipment, research and development, housing, and so forth). Large increases in such borrowing can also push up interest rates and increase the future interest payments the federal government must make to foreign lenders, which reduces Americans income. Achieving a stable debt-to-GDP ratio is a key test of fiscal sustainability, Van de Water wrote in a memo. So, if we just consider debt held by the public -- which is what most affects the economy -- it totals about 75 percent of GDP -- which is not larger than the entire economy, as Ryan and Jordan stated. But the pair arent entirely off-base, especially since partisans tend to disagree about the importance of intragovernmental holdings. When you dig a bit deeper, you hit a partisan debate about the portion of the debt not held by the public, most of which is held by the government in trust funds. Republicans say that the trust funds are filled with IOUs, which eventually will have to be redeemed with other funds. Democrats say that the trust funds represent binding promises that government has made to tens of millions of Americans. Theyre both right, said William Galston, an expert with the Brookings Institution who was an adviser to President Bill Clinton. When we asked Jordans press secretary if there was additional information that PolitiFact Ohio should consider in evaluating her boss assertion, she replied: The facts are correct behind Rep. Jordans statement: economy - $15.8 trillion, debt - $16.7 trillion. Jordan claimed we have a debt larger than our entire annual economy. If you count debt held by the public and intragovernmental holdings, the debt is roughly 105 percent of the economy, which makes his statement accurate. But the debt held by the public is more relevant to discussions about federal spending and the economy. With that clarification, we rate his statement 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 One of the many claims U.S. President Donald Trump repeatedly made in his futile attempt to overturn his loss to Democratic rival Joe Biden in the 2020 general election was to assert that his own popular vote total was indicative of a "rigged election." How could he possibly have lost in 2020, Trump reasoned, when he received some 11 million votes more than he did in 2016, when he won?  "Perhaps the biggest difference between 2016 and 2020 is @FoxNews, despite the fact that I went from 63,000,000 Votes to 75,000,000 Votes, a record 12,000,000 Vote increase. Obama went down 3,000,000 Votes, and won. Rigged Election!!!" The answer to this question is a simple one: Neither the voting-age population of the U.S., nor the percentage of that population that actually turns out to vote, is a constant. Those figures can -- and do -- vary widely from election to election. It is true that former U.S. President Barack Obama won reelection in 2012, despite garnering some 3.5 million fewer votes that year than he did when he was initially elected in 2008. Why? Largely because some 2.2 million fewer people turned out to vote in 2012 than in 2008. (Obama still received well over 50% of the popular vote in both years, nonetheless.) 2012 2008 And it is true that Trump was elected President in 2016 after receiving about 63 million votes, yet lost his reelection bid in 2020 despite receiving over 11 million more votes than he had in the previous election. How did this happen? For two very important (and obvious) reasons that Trump consistently overlooks or ignores: 2016 2020 1) Voter turnout skyrocketed between 2016 and 2020, rising from 55.7% of eligible voters in the former year to 66.7% in the latter -- a difference of some 22 million additional voters. So even though the increased turnout brought Trump an additional 11 million votes, it also brought another 11 million votes cast for someone other than him. 2) Popular vote doesn't determine the election winner; electoral votes do. Trump won the presidency in 2016 despite receiving some 3 million fewer votes than Hillary Clinton nationwide, because he managed to pull of narrow victories in three key states: Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. In 2020, however, Trump's popular vote deficit was over twice as large as the previous election (he received some 7 million fewer votes than winner Joe Biden), and, more crucially, he lost all three of the key states he had managed to capture in 2016 as they flipped back to blue:  The fact that far fewer voters cast their ballots for third-party candidates in 2020 than in 2016 also seems to have worked against Trump, as his Democratic opponent in 2020 (Biden) tallied over 15 million more votes than his Democratic opponent in 2016 (Clinton) had -- a figure constituting far more than half of the 22 million additional ballots cast in 2020 over 2016. Joke:  Naked woman distracts drivers by washing their windshields while her partner robs the cars. LEGEND Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, February 2005] WARNING A scam is being pulled, mainly on older men. What happens is that when you stop for a red light, a young nude woman comes up and pretends to be washing your windshield. While she is doing this, another person opens your back door and steals anything in the car. They are very good at this:  They got me 7 times Friday and 5 times Saturday.  I wasn't able to find them on Sunday. Origins:  This howler began its Internet life in January 2005. No, it is not a valid warning about an actual crime being perpetrated by gangs of naked women and their accomplices; it is merely a joke that is presented as an alert solely as the set-up for its final line, "I wasn't able to find them on Sunday." The crime victim's wistfulness is key to the jest, transforming the supposed account of repeated thefts into one of a lustful man so entranced by the sight of the woman's nudity that not only didn't he mind being repeatedly stolen from, he would actively go looking for it. In May 2005 we encountered a distaff version of the joke: Scam on Women of a Certain Age...Watch out this weekend, ladies... Be careful of this scam This new scam is being pulled mainly on older women who are apparently passed the age of giving a running pursuit. What happens is that when the intended victim stops for a red light, a completely nude and good looking, nicely tanned, unbelievably well enhanced young man comes up with muscles flexing, and body stretched to its full potential, he pretends to wash your windshield. While he is doing this, another person opens the back door of your car, taking anything you have in the car. They are very good at this. They got me seven times Friday and five times Saturday  I couldn't find them on Sunday. In August 2006 we began receiving inquiries about a more elaborate, "purse snatching" variation of the latter version: WARNING! I want ALL of my friends and family to be aware of this potential danger! I don't know how many of you shop at Sam's Club or Costco, but this may be useful to know. I became a victim of a clever scam while out shopping. This happened to me and it could happen to you!! Here's how the scam works: Two seriously good-looking 23-year-old, well-built guys come over to your car as you are packing your shopping in the trunk. They both are shirtless and start  wiping your windshield with a rag and Windex, with their highly-defined chest muscles and rock-hard abs exposed. It's impossible not to look. When you thank them and offer them a tip, they say 'No' and instead ask you for a ride to another Sam's Club or Costco. You agree and they get in the back seat. On the way, they start talking dirty about what they want to do to you. Then one of them climbs over into the front seat and begins kissing your neck and begs you to pull over so he can make love to you! BEWARE! While this is going on the other guy steals your purse!  I had my purse stolen last Tuesday, Wednesday, twice on Thursday, again on Saturday, and also yesterday and most likely tomorrow. I'm running out of purses ... PLEASE SEND ME ANY PURSES YOU ARE NO LONGER USING! You know I'm living on a fixed income and doing without food trying to keep the purses stocked! Thank you in advance ... PLEASE HELP! March 2009 brought an even more exaggerated version involving young female wallet thieves victimizing men who shop at Home Depot: SHOPPING AT HOME DEPOT A 'heads up' for those men who may be regular Home Depot customers. This one caught me by surprise. Over the last month I became a victim of a clever scam while out shopping. Simply going out to get supplies has turned out to be quite traumatic. Don't be naive enough to think it couldn't happen to you or your friends. Here's how the scam works: Two seriously good-looking 20-21 year-old girls come over to your car as you are packing your shopping into the trunk. They both start wiping your windshield with a rag and Windex, with their breasts almost falling out of their skimpy T-shirts. It is impossible not to look. When you thank them and offer them a tip, they say 'No' and instead ask you for a ride to McDonalds. You agree and they get into the back seat. On the way, they start undressing. Then one of them climbs over into the front seat and starts crawling all over you, while the other one steals your wallet. I had my wallet stolen January 4th, 9th, 10th, twice on the 15th, 17th, 20th, 24th & 29th. Also February 1st & 4th, Twice on the 8th, 16th, 23rd, 26th & 30th, three times last Monday and very likely again this upcomingweekend. So tell your friends to be careful. P.S. Wal-Mart has wallets on sale for 2.99 each. I found cheaper ones for $1.99 at K-Mart and bought them out. Also, you never will get to eat at McDonalds. I've already lost 11 pounds just running back and forth to Home Depot. In September 2010, we spotted this adendum to the version quoted above: So please, send this on to all the older men that you know and warn them to be on the lookout for this scam. (The best times are just before lunch and around 4:30 in the afternoon.) An instance of ostension was reported in December 2005 by Houston station KPRC-TV, who broadcast that  a pair of Hispanic women between 17 and 22 years of age robbed a local man in somewhat similar fashion. According to the victim's statement, a woman approached him as he was getting into his pickup truck and exposed herself, then pulled out a hammer and broke his window. A second woman produced a gun and robbed him. It is believed the same women stole another man's van not far from the apartment complex where the pickup owner was robbed. ostension Barbara "wash and beware" Mikkelson Last updated:  1 September 2010 Republican Senate candidate George Allen recently accused Democratic opponent Tim Kaine of being a tax hiker, even on people of modest means.During a July 21 debate in Hot Springs, Allen criticized Kaine for actually proposing tax increases that would be hitting people earning as little as $17,000 a year.We checked to see if Kaine, who was governor from 2006 to 2010, really did try to raise taxes on people at that income level.The Allen campaign, in awebsite post, backed Allens statement by citing news articles about a proposal Kaine unveiled in December 2009 as part of his farewell biennial budget proposal for 2010-2012. Kaine called for adding a 1 percent income tax surcharge and giving all proceeds to localities in return for them scrapping the car tax they levy on personal vehicles.Legislators in 1998 adopted a five-year plan to phase out the personal property tax on most cars and reimburse localities for their lost revenues. But the program was more expensive than anticipated and legislators eventually capped the state reimbursement at $950 million a year. The remaining share is paid by vehicle owners.Ending the car tax would mean the state wouldnt have to provide the annual $950 million payment to localities, Kaine said in aspeechto the General Assemblys money committees. Kaine wanted to use the savings to help balance the states recession-wracked budget.News articles from the time said Kaines policy would raise the maximum state income tax rate from 5.75 percent to 6.75 percent. That maximum rate applies to all taxable income above $17,000 after deductions and exemptions are taken into account.The state charges gradually higher income tax rates up to that level. Virginia puts a 2 percent levy on the first $3,000 of taxable income, 3 percent of the next $2,000, 5 percent on the next $12,000 and then 5.75 percent on all taxable income above $17,000.Thebilladvancing Kaines proposal did not say the added tax would only be levied on taxable income of $17,000 or more. The added 1 percent surtax would have pertained to all income levels, according to Joel Davison, a spokesman for the Virginia Department of Finance.Virginia does not require individuals with a state adjusted income below $11,950 and married couples with a state adjusted income below $23,900 to pay state income taxes. So they wouldnt have been affected by the tax increase.Kaines proposal was killed by the General Assembly.It should be noted that some people earning $17,000 would have benefitted from Kaines plan if their savings from the elimination of the car tax outstripped their increased income tax. There are no estimates of the number of Virginians who would fallen into this category, but we suspect it would be a small group. Heres why:For starters, we can eliminate those who didnt own cars.Now, lets consider those who did own vehicles. A single filer with no children earning $17,000 would have a taxable income of $13,070 after taking the standard deduction and exemption. A 1 percent income tax increase for that person would come to almost $131 a year.The car levy paid by that person would depend on where he or she lived because each locality sets it own tax rate based on the assessed value of the vehicle. In Richmond, a person wouldnt pay a $131 levy unless they had a car worth about $9,000. In rural Henry County, a vehicle would have to be valued at about $17,500 to merit a $131 tax.Our rulingAllen said that Kaine proposed a tax increase that would have affected people earning as little as $17,000 a year. Not everyone at that level would have paid more under Kaines plan, but its a safe bet that large number of them would have seen their overall tax bill rise.We rate Allens statement True. Democratic presidential candidate Martin OMalley recently offered a striking comparison about American families and college tuition. Fifty years ago, the average GM employee could pay for a year of a son or daughters college tuition on just two weeks' wages, OMalley wrote in apost on Medium. Today, we are saddling our graduating kids and their families with more than $1.3 trillion in loan debt. Really? We decided to take a closer look. What tuition cost The easier part of this equation to nail down is the average cost of college tuition. According to theU.S. Education Department, average undergraduate tuition and fees -- excluding room and board -- in the 1965-66 school year was $607 per year for a four-year college (public and private) and $203 for a two-year college. (Adding room and board bumps up those figures to $1,375 and $884, respectively, but OMalley said tuition, so we wont consider room and board.) What the average GM worker made According to anarticlein the Aug. 25, 1964, edition of theChicago Tribune, the average hourly wage in the auto industry that year was $3.01. That grew a bit after anew union contractwas negotiated later that year, but a figure in that ballpark is about right for the time frame OMalley was talking about, said Kristin Dziczek, director of the industry and labor group at the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Mich.Historical wage datafrom Ford, for instance, shows that the base wage for a major assembler was $2.91 an hour in 1965. Dziczek noted that workers in durable-goods manufacturing averaged 44 hours per week in 1965, with time-and-a-half for the final four hours. So a $3.10-an-hour wage (accounting for the increase in the 1964 UAW contract) would work out to $142.60 per week, or $285.20 for the two-week period OMalley cites. So if you ignore taxes -- a questionable policy, but one well grant OMalley for the sake of argument -- then two weeks of average GM pay would have been enough to pay for one year at the typical two-year college in 1965. But it would not be enough to pay for a year at typical four-year college. That would take a little more than four weeks work. What the OMalley campaign says The OMalley campaign said they took the wage number from a column by University of California-Berkeley economist Robert Reich, who also served as labor secretary under President Bill Clinton. In 2014, Reich wrote. Fifty years ago, when General Motors was the largest employer in America, the typical GM worker got paid $35 an hour in todays dollars. But that works out to $4.66 an hourin 1965 dollars, and contemporary evidence suggests that wage is about 50 percent too high. Meanwhile, on the tuition side of the equation, the OMalley campaign said that one year of in-state, undergraduate tuition atUniversity of Iowain the 1964-65 school year cost $340, and that this was the case for other states, as well, such as New Hampshire. However, if you use the $3.10-an-hour wage -- rather than Reichs $4.66-an-hour wage -- then two weeks pay, even when untaxed, would not quite cover a years in-state tuition at the University of Iowa. And since many GM workers wouldnt have been residents of Iowa, and thus eligible for the in-state rate at the University of Iowa, we think its fairer to look at average tuition nationally. Comparing 1965 to today So OMalleys comparison doesnt quite hold up. However, its fair to note that he has a point about the larger question. Namely, it was a whole lot more realistic to be able to pay for a year of tuition with just a few weeks of blue-collar income in 1965 than it is now. During the 2012-13 school year, a years tuition at the average four-year college was $14,101, and the base wage at Ford for a major assembler was $28.13 an hour. If you include overtime pay, then two 44-hour weeks at that wage (without setting aside anything for taxes) works out to about $2,700, or less than 20 percent of the one-year average tuition cost. At that rate, it would take more than 10 weeks work, including some overtime, to pay for a years worth of tuition. We should note that the rise of college tuition costs is the bigger culprit here. In nominal dollars, auto worker wages have grown ninefold since 1965. But average four-year-college tuition is up 23 times from what it was in 1965. Our ruling OMalley said, Fifty years ago, the average GM employee could pay for a year of a son or daughters college tuition on just two weeks wages. Thats not quite right -- it would have taken about four weeks of work at GM, not two, to pay for a year at the average four-year college in 1965, and more than that if you take account of taxes. Still, OMalley has a point that the situation in 1965 was quite a deal compared to today, when a typical auto worker would have to work for 10 weeks in order to pay for a year of tuition at the average four-year college. We rate the statement Mostly True. CORRECTION, Feb. 2, 2016: The calculations in our original version slightly overstated the typical weekly and biweekly wages for UAW workers. A $3.10-an-hour wage (accounting for the increase in the 1964 UAW contract) would work out to $142.60 per week, or $285.20 for the two-week period Martin OMalley cited. The difference does not affect the final rating. Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO In the winter of 1968, the H3N2 virus, also referred to as the "Hong Kong flu," spread widely in the United States. Over the next 18 months, the pandemic killed an estimated 100,000 people in the U.S. and 1 million worldwide, yet daily life, more or less, proceeded as if it were business as usual. There were no statewide lockdowns or mandatory mask requirements, and large public events, such as the Woodstock music festival, took place as scheduled.  So what changed? Why did the U.S. operate under one set of guidelines during a pandemic in the 1960s only to implement much stricter rules during a pandemic in 2020?  That's the thrust of an article published by the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER) on May 1, 2020, under the headline "Woodstock Occurred in the Middle of a Pandemic." Although the headline of this article is factually accurate (Woodstock took place in August 1969), the argument that government officials should be approaching all future pandemics the same way they did during the 1960s is flawed for several reasons.  Let's start with the basics. The world has seen a number of plagues and pandemics in its history, from the bubonic plague in the 1300s, which killed an estimated 200 million people, to smallpox, which killed an estimated 300 million people throughout the 20th century. Although these diseases may all have the same end result (sickness and death), they also vary in variety of ways, such as their lethality and incubation periods. bubonic plague estimated 300 million Medicine, too, improves, and some diseases are more quickly met with treatments and vaccines than others. The bubonic plague, for example, still exists but can be easily treated with antibiotics.  treated Every pandemic has unique challenges, yet the premise of the AIER article is based largely on the idea that the pandemic in the 1960s and the pandemic today involved two practically interchangeable diseases. After noting that the population in the U.S. was smaller in the 1960s (200 million compared to 330 million), the article states that "in terms of lethality, [H3N2] was as deadly and scary as COVID-19 if not more so." But that really isn't the case.  pandemic While the 1968 flu was classified as a pandemic, this outbreak wasn't as deadly as previous pandemics, such as the 1918 flu.  Dr. David Morens, a senior scientific adviser at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, described the 1968 pandemic as "wimpy" compared to previous pandemics and noted that the total number of deaths wasn't much different than the amount of deaths seen during an average flu season. Morens told us: The number of deaths caused by that pandemic in the first two years, 1968 and 1969, weren't much higher than the average seasonal flu. So, it really was kind of a pandemic that was such a wimpy pandemic it didn't make much of a blip on the radar screen.  A 2008 study published in the American Journal of Public Health that examined seasonal flu trends supports Morens' assertion. This study found that the 1957 pandemic and the 1968 pandemic did "not stand out as exceptional outliers, nor were these pandemics visually discernible from non-pandemics in seasonal or monthly influenza mortality graphs." American Journal of Public Health   While this flu analogy has been poorly used to describe COVID-19, it is an apt description for the H3N2 virus which, quite literally, continues to circulate as a variety of the seasonal flu.  seasonal flu The H3N2 virus followed a seasonal flu pattern after its initial outbreak in 1968. Generally speaking, this means that the disease peaks during the winter months before waning in the summer. Here's a chart from a study published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases showing the seasonal spread of H3N2. We added a red "X" to this chart to show when Woodstock occurred:Woodstock took place in the summer of 1969 when there were practically no reported cases of H3N2 in the U.S. The majority of U.S. deaths happened several months prior to this festival, and the second wave of this pandemic didn't hit until a few months after.  seasonal flu pattern Journal of Infectious Diseases  COVID-19 is not expected to follow a similar seasonal pattern. Although researchers are not entirely sure how the changing seasons will impact the spread of COVID-19, evidence exists that COVID-19 can spread in warmer climates.  Marc Lipsitch, professor of epidemiology and director of the Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, wrote: wrote The short answer is that while we may expect modest declines in the contagiousness of SARS-CoV-2 in warmer, wetter weather and perhaps with the closing of schools in temperate regions of the Northern Hemisphere, it is not reasonable to expect these declines alone to slow transmission enough to make a big dent. The H3N2 virus proved to be less deadly than previous pandemics in part because it emerged approximately 10 years after the world dealt with a similar virus, H2N2, also called the "Asian flu." As these two diseases both contained the N2 neuraminidase, populations that survived H2N2 had already built up immunity to the H3N2 virus.  Morens told us: "In 1968, the US population had partial immunity. Because the 1968 virus was H3N2 and the 1957 virus was H2N2 so the whole population had a degree of protection related to the N2 neuraminidase. So the brakes were on this pandemic before it even appeared and we knew that early on." A vaccine for this disease was also quickly developed (although it was not widely available) just a few months after the initial outbreak. On the other hand, there are no "specific treatments for COVID-19" and a vaccine is still months, if not years, away as of this writing.  vaccine One of the arguments made in the AIER article is that the 1968 pandemic resulted in the deaths of 100,000 people, yet daily life, more or less, proceeded as normal. By comparison, the author argues, the COVID-19 pandemic has killed fewer people (as of this writing), yet has resulted in a major disruption of American life. When we take a closer look at these figures, however, we see that they aren't truly comparable.  The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that approximately 100,000 people died in the U.S. during the H3N2 pandemic, with the majority of deaths occurring during the first wave in 1968. This figure accounts for pandemic-related deaths over the span of approximately 18 months. Comparatively speaking, COVID-19 has so far resulted in more than 80,000 deaths over an approximate 4-month span. estimates 80,000 deaths Morens told us: "It's not comparable. It's not comparable in a lot of ways but particularly in its mortality. It's also not comparable in the effects of what would happen if you just let it go." Of course, when we compare the death tolls from the 1968 pandemic and the COVID-19 pandemic, we also have to factor in the impact of social distancing and shelter-in place policies. While the 1968 pandemic saw some social distancing measures (more on that below), these guidelines were nowhere near as stringent as the policies put in place today. Generally speaking, H3N2 was allowed to spread unabated. During the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, on the other hand, the U.S. economy was basically shut down to slow the spread of the disease. But even with these extreme measures in place, COVID-19 resulted in more than 80,000 deaths during its first few months. If these social distancing measures were not put in place (i.e., if Woodstock-like festivals were allowed to go on as planned), it's reasonable to assume that the death toll would be much higher.  In fact, in April 2020, after some states started to relax their shelter-in place guidelines and allowed businesses to reopen, the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) at the University of Washington revised its death toll estimate for the beginning of August from 60,000 to 135,000: revised The institute wrote that the revisions reflected rising mobility in most U.S. states as well as the easing of social distancing measures expected in 31 states by May 11, indicating that growing contacts among people will promote transmission of the coronavirus." While the social-distancing measures implemented in 1968 were a far cry from the policies enacted 2020, it's not accurate to say that "nothing closed" and "schools stayed open," as the AIER article stated. We found several newspaper clippings from 1968 noting that schools, businesses, and even political ceremonies were impacted by H3N2:  newspaper clippings  Fri, Dec. 13, 1968  9  The Post-Crescent (Appleton, Wisconsin)  Newspapers.com  Fri, Dec. 13, 1968  9  The Post-Crescent (Appleton, Wisconsin)  Newspapers.com A Getty Images photograph from December 1968 shows a nurse at Cleveland's Grace Hospital in front of a sign announcing the temporary restriction of all visitors during the pandemic:  Nurse Nadyne Weber stands by her notice severely restricting visiting hours at Cleveland's Grace Hospital due to a flu outbreak.  The argument that today's shelter-in place rules are unnecessary because similar rules were not implemented in the 1960s is based on a faulty comparison between two vastly different pandemics. On one hand, you have a disease that killed approximately 100,000 people over the span of 18 months during which little to no social distancing rules were implemented to stop it. On the other, you have a disease that has killed more than 80,000 people over the span of just a few months in spite of extreme self-quarantine laws that were implemented around the country.  So what if we treated COVID-19 the same way we treated H3N2 in 1968? In other words, what if we let another Woodstock go on in 2020?  Morens told us that if we just let things go the way we did in the Woodstock era and waited until the population reached herd immunity, the U.S. would see more than 1 million deaths from COVID-19.  Morens said: "COVID-19 is far more deadly than the 1968 pandemic virus ... We have about 5% of herd immunity right now in the nation. By the time we get to 70%, think about that, that's 14 times as many cases as we have now. And if you project that onto 80,000 deaths, you can see [if we just] let things go, as we did in the Woodstock era, we'd have more than 1 million deaths." Jester, Barbara; Uyeki, Timothy; Jernigan, Daniel.  "Fifty Years of Influenza A(H3N2) Following the Pandemic of 1968."
  American Public Health Association.  8 April 2020. The New York Times.  "Models Project Sharp Rise in Deaths as States Reopen."
  4 May 2020. Viboud, Cecile; Grais, Rebecca; Lafont, Bernard; Miller, Mark; Simonsen, Lone.  "Multinational Impact of the 1968 Hong Kong Influenza Pandemic: Evidence for a Smoldering Pandemic."
  Journal of Infectious Diseases.  15 July 2005. Tucker, Jeffrey.  "Woodstock Occurred in the Middle of a Pandemic."
  American Institute for Economic Research..  1 May 2020. Kossakovski, Fedor.  "One Simple Chart Explains How Social Distancing Saves Lives."
  NPR.  13 March 2020. Piper, Kelsey.  "Data Shows Social Distancing Has Slowed Down the Coronavirus Outbreak. But Whats Next?"
  VOX.  15 April 2020. Two of Donald Trump's most prominent 2016 campaign pledges were to build a border wall along the Mexican border (or rather, to reinforce and extend it; a wall already exists along hundreds of miles of the international border), and to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement, a 1994 arrangement between the United States, Canada and Mexico which he called "the single worst trade deal ever approved in this country." exists arrangement called In October 2017, left-wing Facebook page "The Other 98%" posted a widely-shared meme which claimed that Mexico had  in retaliation for Trump's border wall plans  signed a major agricultural trade agreement with Argentina, which would have very harmful effects on American farmers: meme They're trying to distract us from the fact that Mexico retaliated against the border wall by establishing an agricultural agreement with Argentina. Starting next year Mexico will be buying 100% of their corn, rice, wheat and soy from Argentina duty free. In exchange Mexico will ship cars to Argentina duty free. This will take away at least $13 billion annually from American farmers.    As of 1 November 2017, Mexico and Argentina have not signed an agreement like the one described by "The Other 98%", but the two countries have held talks about a more limited (though still significant) trade deal involving grains and cars. Furthermore, the main catalyst for the negotiations has been the uncertainty caused by Donald Trump's vow to renegotiate NAFTA rather than his plans to build a border wall.  The source cited by "The Other 98%" is a September 2017 article by Daily Kos, which reported: Daily Kos Mexico already retaliated against Trump and his insults earlier this year by establishing an agricultural agreement with Argentina. Starting next year Mexico will be buying 100% of her corn, rice, wheat and soy from Argentina duty free. In exchange Mexico will ship cars to Argentina, duty free. This will taken [sic] away $13 billion annually from American farmers.  It's not clear what the source of these claims is, but a similar meme appeared online earlier in 2017, which read: meme Mexico has retaliated against Trump's racial profiling and insistence that Mexico will pay for his border wall. Beginning in 2018, Mexico will be buying its corn, rice, wheat and soy from Argentina. Not America. American farmers stand to lose $13 billion. The ripple effect will be even more devastating. The fact that this announcement was made during Trump's Made in America week, is just karmic icing.  "Made in America Week" took place from 17-24 July 2017; we found no evidence of any deal between Mexico and Argentina being announced during that time period. However, talks have been ongoing between the two countries.  place In the spring of 2017, Mexico's Deputy Economy Minister Juan Carlos Baker made several comments in interviews about his country's negotiations with Argentina and Brazil. On 26 March 2017, the Financial Times reported: Financial Times Mexico, the worlds biggest buyer of US corn, is considering offering duty-free access to Brazilian and Argentine maize as an alternative to American imports in a move that could have big consequences for US farmers worried about Donald Trumps trade and tax agenda. [...] "I am pretty optimistic about the possibility of having a deal with these countries soon," Juan Carlos Baker, Mexicos deputy economy minister, told the Financial Times in an interview. "Were pretty far advanced with Brazil...Argentina is a few steps behind," he said.... The following month, Baker told Reuters that a deal with Argentina could be finalized by the end of 2017: Reuters Mexico, seeking closer ties with the rest of Latin America, expects to finish negotiations on a trade deal with Argentina involving cars and agricultural products around the end of the year, Mexicos deputy minister for foreign trade said in an interview on Tuesday. [...] Under the deal, Argentina could gain part of the lucrative grains market in Mexico, Latin Americas No. 2 economy, Baker told Reuters. In 2015 Mexico imported $2.3 billion worth of U.S. corn and $1.4 billion of U.S. soy. But Baker said those numbers will likely decrease under a renegotiated North American Free Trade Agreement called for by Trump. "The potential is there," Baker said. "The Argentine exporters could find attractive conditions in Mexico." Mexico, in turn, could export cars to Argentina, he said. "We have a very strong manufacturing industry and Argentina is an important market for us," Baker said. A trade deal between Mexico and Argentina may be in the works, but it has not yet been announced as of 1 November 2017. However, assuming a deal goes ahead to shift Mexico's importation of certain products from the United States to Argentina, the numbers are significant  but not as dramatic as they are in the meme. According to United States Grain Council statistics, the United States exported $2.5 billion worth of corn to Mexico in 2015 and 2016. In 2015, the United States exported $2.9 billion worth of soy products to Mexico, according to the U.S. Soybean Export Council (page 19.) According to Global Agricultural Trade System statistics for 2016, exports of wheat and rice were worth $612 million and $274 million, respectively.  Grain Council page 19 Global Agricultural Trade System This yields a total of $6.3 billion in U.S. exports to Mexico of corn, rice, wheat and soy  the four products specified in the above meme. So even if Mexico did decide to stop importing all these products from the U.S., the likely annual financial cost to the American agriculture industry would be extremely significant, but still only around half the $13 billion claimed. It's not entirely clear where the figure of $13 billion came from, but it might have originated in an October 2017 letter sent to Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, and signed by dozens of food and agriculture companies and industry associations, warning Ross about the dangers, as they see them, of withdrawing from NAFTA.  letter According to a study by ImpactECON, if Canada, Mexico, and the United States return to most favored nation (MFN) tariff rates upon any withdrawal from NAFTA, the negative impact on the United States will far outweigh any benefits from higher U.S. tariffs, including a net loss of 256,000 U.S. jobs, a net loss of at least 50,000 jobs in the U.S. food and agriculture industry, and a drop in GDP of $13 billion from the farm sector alone. The study mentioned here was an August 2017 working paper produced by the economic consulting firm ImpactECON. It did not actually mention any figure of $13 billion. Rather, it projected that over the course of two to three years after a U.S. withdrawal from NAFTA, real GDP in the United States would fall by as much as 0.09 percent. working paper Gross domestic product, or GDP, is the combined market value of all goods and services produced in a particular geographic area (in this case, the United States.) It is a calculation commonly used to measure the total size of an economy. Real GDP is gross domestic product adjusted for inflation - meaning, roughly speaking, the size of the economy in relation to the cost of living.  As of the third quarter of 2017 (when the ImpactECON report was published), the real GDP of the United States was $17.01 trillion, according to figures from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. A 0.09 percent decline in that would amount to a $15.3 billion loss  not far off the $13 billion posited by the food and agriculture industry, in their letter.  figures There are a couple of things to note here: firstly, the 0.09 percent decline estimated in the ImpactECON report relates to the entire U.S. economy, and not "the farm sector alone," as mentioned in the letter. In fact, the working paper projects a very small increase in production for the crops and forestry sector (0.04 percent, page 20), accompanied by a significant boost to production in the sugar sector (5.11 percent), but it also projects production declines of between one and two percent in the meat, food and livestock and fishing sectors.  page 20 Secondly, this real GDP declined is projected to happen "in the next 2-3 years", so if the meme is using the letter to Wilbur Ross as the source of its $13 billion figure, it is misrepresenting the decline as happening "annually." projected Politico. "Full Transcript: First 2016 Presidential Debate."
 Politico. 27 September 2016. Webber, Jude. "Mexico Eyes Duty-Free Corn Deals to Counter Trump."
 Financial Times. 26 March 2017. Misculin, Nicolas. "Mexico, Looking South, Sees Trade Deal With Argentina Around Year's End."
 Reuters. 18 April 2017. U.S. Soybean Export Council. "2015 Annual Report."
U.S. Soybean Export Council. 27 October 2015. NAFTA Food and Ag Trade Working Group. "Letter to Wilbur Ross."
NAFTA Food and Ag Trade Working Group. 25 October 2017. Bureau of Economic Analysis. "Gross Domestic Product: Second Quarter 2017 (Advance Estimate.)"
 U.S. Department of Commerce. 28 July 2017. Walmsley, Terry; Minor, Peter. "Reversing NAFTA: A Supply Chain Perspective."
 ImpactECON. August 2017. Update [2 November 2017]: Added possible source of the $13 billion figure in the meme. In March 2020, Facebook posts offering free coupons supposedly worth $50 in merchandise from Walmart began circulating with the claim that the company was celebrating its anniversary:  Users who clicked on the offer were taken to an external website where they were instructed to answer survey questions in order to receive their coupon:  After completing the questionnaire, however, users are then required to click a button to share the "offer" with all their Facebook friends before they can retrieve their coupon. Those who comply by spamming their friends are then allowed to click a "Receive the Coupon" button. However, there is no actual coupon to receive. Like innumerable other "free merchandise" offers on Facebook (including previous examples targeting Walmart customers), this one is a scam. We've had many occasions to alert readers to this kind of fraud: other free merchandise offers targeting These types of viral coupon scams often involve websites and social media pages set up to mimic those of legitimate companies. Users who respond to those fake offers are required to share a website link or social media post in order to spread the scam more widely and lure in additional victims. Then those users are presented with a survey that extracts personal information such as email addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, and even sometimes credit card numbers. Finally, those who want to claim their free gift cards or coupons eventually learn they must first sign up to purchase a number of costly goods, services, or subscriptions. The Better Business Bureau offers consumers several general tips to avoid getting scammed: offers consumers Better Business Bureau.  Scam Alert: Giveaway Scam Poses as Facebook.
  14 April 2017. On 6 December 2018, an article reporting that former presidents George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama trashed Air Force One after the funeral of former president George H.W. Bush was published by the WeAreTheLLOD website, which is part of the "Last Line of Defense" network of junk news sites: article President Trump was gracious enough to loan his personal airplane to the Bush family to transport dead President George H.W. Bush back home to Kennebunkport, Maine. They invited all the other past presidents and even the illegal Obama. In return, the grieving family showed their appreciation by leaving the plane a mess and vandalizing the bathroom and kitchen.   This was not a genuine news article, as WeAreTheLlod.com and the rest of the Last Line of Defense network are junk news sites that have a long history of publishing misinformation. Last Line of Defense  This article also included a number of obvious hints about the satirical nature of its content. For example, the label "Dead People and Satire with Hot Green Chili" can be glimpsed below the article's title. The web site banner also features the tagline "Information You Probably Shouldn't Trust" and the footer states that the site was paid for by the "liberal trolls of America." As well, all of the hyper-links in this article lead to unrelated content. For instance, where the text references the alleged legal terms "hapneus corpum and juris prumidential," it links to a Google Translation page for the sentence: "Because they don't exist and are possibly the dumbest things ever conceived." Eagleton, Flagg.  "BREAKING: Bush, Clinton, Obama Funeral Party Trashes Air Force One."
  WeAretheLLOD.com.  6 December 2018. Have you heard the sweet rumor about a Napoleon Dynamite sequel? Well, don't get your hopes up. It's just another movie sequel hoax. The rumors about a sequel to the oddball cult classic have been periodically reappearing since the original film came out in 2004. This particular version of the rumor is based on a fan-made movie poster paired with an old gossip article:   As convincing as it might appear, this poster was not created by a movie studio and was never shared in an official capacity to hype a new sequel. Instead, it was created by graphic designer Jack Gambro and can be found on his web site in the "conceptual" section: Jack Gambro conceptual This section contains conceptual projects unrelated to the organizations or individuals involved. The gallery is a collection of unofficial artwork. A 2006 article from CinemaBlend.com is also frequently shared by sequel-hungry fans:   Despite the article's clickbait title and web address, it doesn't actually report that a sequel has been confirmed. Rather, it reported that "there have been talks" about making a sequel (emphasis ours):  Napoleon Dynamite cost only $400,000 to make and grossed over $46 million worldwide. When a movie sports that kind of positive cost to profit ratio, youve got to assume there will be a sequel. Evidently the folks behind the movie agree. Efren Ramirez, who played Pedro in Napoleon appeared on the Dallas radio show Pugs & Kelly this afternoon and confirmed that there have been talks about making a Napoleon Dynamite 2. He says most of the rumors circulating about other Napoleon projects, like a television show or a series of comic books are nothing but rumors, but he confirms that they are at least talking about making another movie. There may have been talks about making a follow-up to the 2004 movie at some point, but in the years since its release there have been no official announcements about a Napoleon Dynamite sequel. Claim:  A 2013 immigration reform bill provides young people with free cars to transport them to their jobs.   Example:  [Collected via e-mail, June 2013] BREAKING: Immigration bill now includes free cars (at tax payer expense) for young people to help them get to work! LIKE if you agree: The Senate should vote no on this Gang of 8 immigration bill! Call and let them know what you think! (888) 978-3134  Fox News reported that the riders made to the 2013 Immigration bill now in the Senate that Bernie Sanders has added a provision for free cars, motorcycles or scooters for "young people to use as transportation" to jobs.  This was reported by  Laura Ingraham on Fox and Friends on June 25, 2013.  Is there any truth to this report.  I can not find a copy of the 1,190 page 2013 immigration bill to read it my self  S.744 Hoeven-Corker Amendment "The Hoeven-Corker amendment takes big and important steps on the immigration issue that matters most: border security," Senator Lamar Alexander said. "It would double the number of agents on the southwest border, construct 700 miles of new or upgraded fencing and spend $3.2 billion on new security technology that was perfected in Iraq and Afghanistan." The Hoeven-Corker amendment would add 20,000 border patrol agents, enough to allow putting one agent every 1,000 feet along the U.S. southwest border. The border patrol agents, fencing and security technology plan would have to be in place before anyone under the immigration legislation's "Registered Provisional Immigrant" program would be allowed to apply for legal permanent residency, otherwise known as a green card. Democratic-affiliated Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont has been outspokenly critical of the potential economic effects of S.744, arguing that the bill would "allow college students from around the world to take jobs that young Americans would otherwise perform."  In response, he drafted a  Youth Jobs Plan that would "provide $1.5 billion over two years for states and local communities to help find jobs for more than 400,000 16- to 24-year-olds who were hard hit by the Wall Street-caused recession."  That job plan was incorporated into the Hoeven-Corker Amendment under a heading of "TITLE V  JOBS FOR YOUTH." Youth Jobs Plan TITLE V The claim that the immigration bill includes a provision granting "free cars, motorcycles or scooters for young people" stems from a very broad, speculative interpretation of one sentence in the jobs plan portion of the Hoeven-Corker Amendment which generally directs how the job plan funds should be used: IN GENERAL. The funds made available under this section shall be used  (A) to provide summer employment opportunities for low-income youth, with direct linkages to academic and occupational learning, and may be used to provide supportive services, such as transportation or child care, that is necessary to enable the participation of such youth in the opportunities; and  (B) to provide year-round employment opportunities, which may be combined with other activities authorized under section 129 of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 17 2854), to low-income youth. As stated, the bill does not contain a specific provision to provide "free cars for young people to help them get to work."  It includes a clause allowing that youth job program funds may be used to "provide supportive services, such as transportation" to low-income youth taking part in summer employment opportunities.  Whether and how that provision would be applied in practice is purely speculative at this point and could vary widely from place to place, potentially ranging anywhere from arranging carpools and subsidizing bus fare to buying, leasing, or renting motor vehicles to be temporarily utilized in ferrying job program participants to work.  But the government isn't going to be buying up cars and turning ownership of them over to young people engaged in summer job programs.       Last updated:  26 June 2013