Obama-Nelson economic record: Job creation ... at slowest post-recession rate since Great Depression.
As U.S. Senate candidates in Florida gear up their 2012 campaigns, job creation is a hot topic. Republican and former state legislator Adam Hasner criticizes the Democratic incumbent -- Sen. Bill Nelson -- and President Barack Obama for sluggish job creation.Obama-Nelson economic record. Job creation ... at slowest post-recession rate since Great Depression, Hasner tweeted on May 23, 2011.Many politicians and experts have talked about the jobless recovery -- when the economy rebounds but with lackluster job creation. But we wanted to check whether job creation after the most recent recession has lagged behind job creation after every other recession since the Great Depression?On May 26, Hasner adviser Rick Wilson e-mailed us a May 20USA Todayarticle linked to in the tweet, which stated Nearly two years after the economic recovery officially began, job creation continues to stagger at the slowest post-recession rate since theGreat Depression. The nation has 5% fewer jobs today  a loss of 7 million  than it did when the recession began in December 2007. That is by far the worst performance of job generation following any of the dozen recessions since the 1930s. In the past, the economy recovered lost jobs 13 months on average after a recession. If this were a typical recovery, nearly 10 million more people would be working today than when the recession officially ended in June 2009.We wanted to do our own checking on job recovery.First, we obtained the dates of recessions back to the Great Depression from the National Bureau of Economic Research, a nonpartisan research organization based in Cambridge, Mass.NBER's websitehas a chart listing the dates of the recessions (written as peak and trough). The contraction line is the length of each recession. According to NBER, there have been 13 recessions since the one that started August 1929 and lasted for 43 months, and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics has month-by-month jobs data for 12 of them. The most recent recession was from December 2007 to June 2009, or 18 months. It's worth noting that although voters may judge Obama on job creation, that recession was well under way before he was elected president in November 2008.We contacted economic experts to ask them about Hasner's claim. Heidi Shierholz, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal, labor-backed think tank in Washington, D.C., disagreed with Hasner's claim about job growth: Its not as fast as it could be, but hes wrong, job growth after the early-2000s recession was slower, the slowest on record, she wrote in an e-mail.Shierholz sent us achartshe created based on data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, which on the left side shows percentage job growth over 22 months (because we are now 22 months from the end of the 2007 recession) following a recession for the last four recessions: 1981, 1990, 2001 and 2007. The chart shows the most sluggish job creation was following the 2001 recession, when the number of employees on non-farm payroll dropped by 976,000. Economists referred to the period as a job-loss recovery, she said.You are not going to find anything that is slower than early 2000 recession, Shierholz said in an interview.But in the 22 months following the 2007 recession, the number of employees increased by 535,000.And Shierholz sent more in an e-mail: The sluggish jobs recoveries following the last three recessions were due (to) slow output growth caused in large part by the fact that they were, to varying degrees, balance sheet recessions. (Balance sheet recessions are caused by real estate or financial asset bubbles bursting - meaning that people and/or firms have assets that are worth less than their liabilities, so they will opt to pay down their debts rather than invest and consume, which slows growth. )We asked Shierholz about the claim in theUSA Todayarticle on which Hasner based his tweet.TheUSA Todayarticle cited job losses since thestartof the recession -- that's not the same as the post-recession rate that Hasner referred to,afterthe recession was over. It's simply two different ways to look at job losses or growth.The recovery has not been the slowest, Shierholz said of the most recent recession. But she agreed that starting from the beginning of the recession, we are down more jobs ... than any other recession since the Great Depression; that is true.We sent Shierholz's chart to James Sherk of the conservative Heritage Foundation. He suggested measuring from the start of the recession rather than the end otherwise you ignore the severity of a recession. He created his own chart starting from thebeginning of the recession, which shows that the job picture is worse for the most recent recession than the previous three.We e-mailed Nelson spokesman Dan McLaughlin to ask for a response. He didn't address the accuracy of Hasner's claim comparing job creation after recessions, but argued that Nelson has tried to create jobs by, for example, advocating for high-speed rail in Florida.We sent Shierholz's chart to Wilson and he responded by e-mail: I'm not going to cherry pick obscure economic data: we quoted a sourcedUSA Todaypiece for the matter at hand.Hasner said that job creation has been at the slowest post-recession rate since the Great Depression. Words matter to us, and we think most readers understand post-recession to mean after the recession is over. When counting after the recession, the 2001 recession had a slower job recovery. And Hasner isn't providing a complete picture when he labels this the Obama-Nelson economic record -- the recession started before Obama was elected president and an individual senator can't be blamed for sluggish job recovery any more than Hasner, a former state legislator, can be blamed for unemployment in Florida. Still, Hasner's off by only one recession out of 12. We rate this claim Mostly True.
In December 2014, a number of Facebook pages using car brand names such as Audi, Range Rover, Mercedes, and Camaro (among others) posted directives similar to the messages quoted above. The pages claimed that Facebook was giving away cars. Among the cars offered in the giveaways were Audi R8s, Range Rovers, Mercedes-Benz E63 AMGs, and Chevrolet Camaro SS models. Almost all the scams followed the same format: they instructed users to like a separate page, like the original post, and share the post on their own Timeline (thereby validating its legitimacy and enticing others to do the same).users were eligible to win one of two available vehicles in the winner's choice of color simply by liking a separate Facebook page, liking and sharing a post, and waiting for an inbox message confirming the winners. In April 2016, the scam reappeared, this time with a Range Rover as the car offered in the giveaway:    The first clue the giveaways following this format were not on the up-and-up was the pages to which Facebook users were directed, pages that had been created just days before the giveaway posts begin to appear. Not only were the secondary Facebook pages involved always new, they were also not linked with car companies or other interests one might imagine could reasonably be expected to offer up a car in exchange for social media advertising (such as automobile dealerships, insurance companies, or large retailers). Were a legitimate company to engage in such a high-ticket contest giveaway, the incentive would be exposure; however, no corresponding promotional return on advertising investment was discernable in these Facebook giveaway claims. The tactics were similar to recent scams involving Costco, Kroger and Amazon gift cards, but the six-figure price tag attached to some of the vehicles involved in the Facebook car giveaway posts proved a far more difficult-to-resist enticement for some users, not all of whom questioned whether sharing a page presented any negative consequence should it later turn out to be a prank, hoax, or other false promise. Costco Kroger Amazon The pages to which users were directed carried all the hallmarks of "like farming" operations intended to quickly build and sell popular Facebook pages. Even if the page creators' intent were only to build an audience, users' participating in the scam created a larger incentive for employing future fakery of the same description to crowd Facebook feeds. Scammers could also exploit a large audience by mining varying levels of personal data from those who have liked a page of dubious origin. So Facebook users who participate in such fake giveaways not only unwittingly help spammers pollute the social network with scams, they may also risk being exposed to malware, clickjacking, or other unpleasantries (such as finding their names and identities endorsing a scam, hate page, or other undesirable activity). Giveaways, particularly of high-value merchandise, are generally rare and almost always conducted through brands' official channels or the social media accounts of related large companies. In early March 2020, a number of social media users posted a video of a genuine shoplifting incident in San Francisco, California, along with commentary that the incident was evidence of "radical left" leadership that led to lenient policies that were responsible for the crime: social media users video https://youtu.be/PZfcOuRAwzISpecifically, some viewers claimed the crime was the result of some unspecified "no arrest" policy in the city of San Francisco. Others stated the incident was the upshot of California Proposition 47, a 2014 ballot measure that, among other reforms, created a new penal code for shoplifting that didn't exist before, classifying it as a misdemeanor if the dollar amount stolen was less than $950. no arrest Others Proposition 47 Both claims are false.We contacted the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD), and a spokesman there said the shoplifting incident was real and occurred about 1 p.m. on Feb. 29, 2020. Employees at the Walgreens drugstore where it occurred told police that three females, possibly minors, took "several cosmetic items," then fled before police arrived. The investigation remains open and no arrests have been made.  San Francisco Police Officer Robert Rueca said that SFPD doesn't have a "no arrest" policy. "If we have the probable cause to believe that someone has committed a crime, we will arrest the suspects and present that case to the District Attorney," Rueca said in an email to Snopes. It's also a mischaracterization of events to claim the crime was allowed to occur because of purported leniency resulting from Prop 47.  A person who is accused of committing any misdemeanor can be arrested and face jail time under California state law. Shoplifting in the state is punishable by up to six months in county jail. Shoplifting is defined under California law as "entering a commercial establishment with intent to commit larceny while that establishment is open during regular business hours, where the value of the property that is taken or intended to be taken does not exceed nine hundred fifty dollars ($950)." punishable defined Prop 47, which California voters approved in 2014, reclassified some minor crimes as misdemeanors instead of felonies, with the intent of reducing what was at the time a severely overcrowded prison population. The aim was also to reduce the number of people serving long sentences and ending up with felony-conviction records for petty crimes.  Prop 47 increased the felony threshold for certain types of theft from $450 to $950  meaning the simple theft of property valued below $950 is a misdemeanor. It also reduced simple drug possession (possession of drugs without the intent to sell) to a misdemeanor. The claim that Prop 47 is to blame for the incident depicted in the video is representative of misinformation that has been circulating about the law for years, said George Gascn, the former district attorney of San Francisco who is now running for the same position in Los Angeles County and who co-authored Prop 47. Although the threshold for misdemeanor-versus-felony theft prior to Prop 47 was $450, it's unclear whether the new law makes any potential difference in the San Francisco case. In the video, the thieves are seen stuffing drugstore-brand cosmetics into bags. It's unknown how much the items were worth  SFPD would not give us an estimate. "Prop 47 doesnt cover robberies, theft by the use of force or fear. It doesn't cover burglaries," Gascn said. "If you break into a structure with the intent to commit theft or another felony, that continues to be a felony. If someone breaks into your car to steal even a pack of cigarettes, thats still a felony. Even the crimes that are covered by Prop 47, they were not decriminalized. We moved them from a felony to a misdemeanor. [Perpetrators] can still go to county jail" if they are convicted. The claim that increasing the value of shoplifted property to meet a felony threshold is contributing to a rash of crime in California is spurious, given that other states have higher thresholds (Texas' felony threshold, for instance, is $2,500). A 2018 Pew Research study found that states that increased thresholds to account for inflation did not see a resulting uptick in crime as a result. $2,500 study Gascn said that when crafting Prop 47, he and his co-authors purposely looked at felony thresholds in red states. States like Texas and Tennessee "had significantly higher thresholds between felonies and misdemeanors," Gascn told us. Part of the intent behind Prop 47 was to deal with inequality embedded in the system, Gascn said. For example, crack possession used to be a felony while possession of drugs like methamphetamines and cocaine were what were known as "wobblers," he said, which is jargon for crimes that prosecutors had some discretion to charge either as misdemeanors or felonies. Racial discrepancies existed in terms of who was most likely to have those drugs; African Americans, for instance, were more likely to be charged with felony drug possession than whites were, he said. Prop 47 was also intended to address severe overcrowding in California's prisons and meet a federal court order to alleviate it. In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that overcrowding in the state's prison system was unconstitutional. Prop 47 succeeded in helping the state reach key benchmarks by reducing low-level, non-violent offenses like drug possession, petty theft, and writing bad checks to misdemeanors so long as the amounts in question did not exceed $950. The effect was a decrease in the prison population and also a reduction in recidivism. ruled reduction A 2018 study conducted by the University of California at Irvine found no evidence that Prop 47 resulted in an increase in crime. Meantime, violent crime and property crime in California remain at historic lows. study historic lows In summary, the claim that a "no arrest policy" exists in San Francisco appears to be made up. We also found no evidence that a change in California state law in regards to misdemeanor shoplifting directly contributed to this incident. We therefore rate this claim   California Courts."Proposition 47: The Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act." Los Angeles Times Editorial Board."Editorial: No, Prop 47 Didnt De-Criminalize Misdemeanors."
Los Angeles Times.18 July 2018. Arango, Tim."In California, Criminal Justice Reform Offers a Lesson for the Nation."
The New York Times.21 January 2018. Vock, Daniel V."After Years of Court Orders, California's Prison Population Finally Hits Target."
Governing.9 October 2015. Totenberg, Nina."High Court Rules Calif. Must Cut Prison Population."
NPR.23 May 2011. UCI News."Proposition 47 Not Responsible for Recent Upticks in Crime Across California, UCI study Says."
7 March 2018. Public Policy Institute of California."The Impact of Proposition 47 on Crime and Recidivism."
June 2018. Public Policy Institute of California."Crime Trends in California." In 2021, social media users began circulating photographs purporting to show "electric powered cars in boneyard" near Paris, France, that supposedly housed hundreds of derelict electric vehicles, the automobiles supposedly having been abandoned and left to decay because their battery storage cells had "given out" and were too expensive to replace:   Although the photographs are real; the accompanying description is misleading in multiple ways. This item is, in effect, an example of a failed business model rather than a failed technology. Back in 2011, the Autolib program offered the service of providing thousands of electric vehicles in the Paris area under a car-sharing program. Subscribes to the service were able to use the any of the fleet of 4,000 BlueCar cars as they wished, paying a fee each time depending upon how long they used the vehicle. At its peak in 2016, the program boasted 110,000 subscribers. However, Autolib slid from that peak into decline, due to a number of factors: Four thousand cars for over 100,000 subscribers meant many users were unable to find vehicles when they wanted them; users frequently left the cars dirty inside and damaged; and competition from ride-hailing apps such Uber eroded the customer base. By 2018, Autolib was running debts of tens of millions of euros and the program was discontinued in June of that year. running debts of tens of millions of euros program was discontinued in June In the end, most of the BlueCars in better condition were purchased and re-sold to new users or scrapped for parts. But a private company eventually stored some of the cars in not-so-good condition in a lot in an industrial area near Romorantin in Loir-et-Cher, as seen above -- not because the vehicles' storage cells had failed, but because the Autolib car-sharing program proved not to be a viable long-term business model. purchased and re-sold to new users or scrapped for parts It is also not the case that the abandoned Autolib BlueCars' batteries are "draining toxins into the ground." As noted in reports on the subject, the batteries have been removed from the pictured vehicles: reports Despite protests from the Bollor group, the multinational had to evacuate the 4,000 unwanted autolibs from the Paris region and urgently store them. They were then sold in several batches and two companies now hold most of the remaining fleet: the Breton company Autopuzz, former subcontractor of Bollor, which resells these vehicles throughout France, and the company Atis Production, whose manager Paul Aouizerate does not want to reveal his plans for the Autolib parked in Loir-et-Cher. The businessman also regrets the publication of photos of his vehicles in early March, shared by a blogger passionate about electric cars, who was amazed at such a landscape. The images became widespread on Facebook and Twitter, with internet users questioning how these cars can be reused and wondering about the potential risk of soil pollution they pose. Our vehicles are properly stored. The firefighters are aware that the construction site is well organized. All batteries have been removed, [and] the connections are isolated [said Paul Aouizerate, Atis Production Manager]. On 29 August 2017, a satirical Facebook page called "The Cajun Navy" (not to be confused with the actual Cajun Navy, a nonprofit organization whose members have been conducting rescues of Harvey victims on the ground) posted a now-viral meme that appeared to exploit Internet-driven outrage over the misleading rumor that "Prosperity Gospel" preacher Joel Osteen had closed his 16,000-capacity megachurch in Houston to refugees from floodwaters caused by Tropical Storm Harvey, which made landfall in southeast Texas in late August 2017. satirical Cajun Navy organization rumor The meme stated that only 60 of Houston's 1,566 churches had opened their doors to flood victims. It was shared thousands of times although it provided no citation for the figures:  meme   Only 60 (4%) out of 1566 have opened their doors to help the flood victims and the needy during hurricane Harvey. Let that sink in for a moment. "The Cajun Navy" page has shared several other posts mocking Osteen and his church for their response to Hurricane Harvey.  mocking church Despite the fact none of the figures in the meme are attributed, it was picked up by a Huffington Post community blogger who used it as leverage in arguing that churches should be taxed because they do an inadequate job of providing charity. blogger However, according to the Internal Revenue Service, religious organizations are tax exempt to promote religious freedom, not because they provide charity: exempt Congress has enacted special tax laws that apply to churches, religious organizations and ministers in recognition of their unique status in American society and of their rights guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Churches and religious organizations are generally exempt from income tax and receive other favorable treatment under the tax law; however, certain income of a church or religious organization may be subject to tax, such as income from an unrelated business. The meme was shared on 29 August 2017, just a few days after Hurricane Harvey made landfall in Texas  and it seems highly unlikely someone conducted a survey of all of the churches in Houston during this time. Although we don't know the exact percentage of churches that opened their doors (or the number that couldn't, due to flood damage), we have come across multiple reports of churches coming to the aid of those in need in the wake of Hurricane Harvey: flood damage multiple reports churches aid The firefighters put a call out for help, asking if anyone could take the evacuees in. One local youth pastor answered the call. The rescue teams picked up Pastor David McDougle, 26, and his wife from their flooded home so they could open the First Baptist Church North Houston as a makeshift shelter for those stranded. McDougle said he got a call Sunday evening asking if he would let evacuees sleep at the church, so he and his wife took all the food and water they had gotten and brought it to the church. Though they now have a roof over their heads, the church is not a designated shelter and has no food or water for the evacuees. The church reached capacity with nearly 300 people laying on the floor of the gym, and the food supply ran out around 5 a.m. People are nervous to drink tap water. The restrooms at the church will not flush, creating a mess of the place. Houston's First Baptist Church, led by Pastor Greg Matte, is also participating in relief efforts, providing food and shelter to those in need. Pastor Kirbyjon Caldwell, a former faith adviser to George W. Bush and pastor of Windsor Village United Methodist Church, announced that as of Monday, his church would house those affected by another round of evacuations.  announced Max Moll, a spokesman for Houston Controller Chris Brown, told us that churches have in fact been helping in various capacities, depending on their ability and circumstance in relation to flood damage. Some have been volunteering while others have been donating clothing and other supplies. Others have opened their doors to shelter stranded residents. Moll told us: Its up to each individual entity to decide what they can and can't do. Some [of the churches] are without power, or are flooded, or the roads around them are impassable. There are a lot of ways to respond and a lot of churches have responded in strong ways. In general terms, the city has three official shelter locations where thousands are being housed  the George R. Brown Convention Center, the Toyota Center and NRG Center. Osteen told "CBS This Morning" that his church has been coordinating its relief efforts with the city and opened the church for shelter when the city's overflowed: told We worked with the city constantly. The city set up a shelter about four miles from here that can house 10,000 people, showers, dormitories, kitchens, security, all that. They didn't need us as a shelter at that point. They wanted us to be a distribution center. ... When they filled up, they said "we need shelter," we started our shelter. Shellnut, Kate.  "Houston Churches Fight Flooding After Harvey Cancels Services."
  Christianity Today.  28 August 2017. Rombow, Dennis.  "Texas LDS Meetinghouse Becomes Shelter, Boat Command Center."
  Deseret News.  29 August 2017. Sullivan, Kevin.  "Texas Officials Say at Least Nine Dead as Harvey Flooding Continues"
  Washington Post.  28 August 2017. LA Times.  "Why Don't Churches Pay Taxes?"
  23 September 2008. McGowan Mellor, Gail."One of the Most Telling Things Ive Heard This Week."
Huffington Post blog.30 August 2017. Internal Revenue Service."Tax Guide for Churches & Religious Organizations." The Georgia night sky could -- loudly -- come to life if a piece of legislation becomes state law. Senate Resolution 378 would allow revenue from the sale of consumer fireworks to be used to help fund trauma care and firefighter services in Georgia. Currently, nothing with more pop than a sparkler can be sold in this state. The expansion would allow the sale of more high-powered fireworks, such as rockets, firecrackers and Roman candles. The resolution, if approved, would require a statewide voter referendum in November 2014. One prominent sponsor of the bill, Sen. Jeff Mullis, said theres a practical reason for such a law. We lose millions of dollars of revenue because people go out of state to buy fireworks, said Mullis, a Republican from Chickamauga, a 10-minute trip from the Tennessee border. Mullis claimed in a press release that the sales tax on these purchases will raise and [sic] estimated $5 million each year for vital emergency services. Lawmakers propose a 6 percent tax on fireworks sales with the proceeds being evenly split for trauma care and a firefighter safety council. An additional 1 percent tax could be collected by cities and counties. PolitiFact Georgia received a reader request to figure out if Mullis is correct in his assertion that Georgia loses millions of dollars because people travel to Alabama, South Carolina and Tennessee to get their fireworks. We try to stay away from fact-checking revenue projections. Mullis, a former firefighter, said via email that his primary concern is Georgia is failing to capitalize on a form of commerce that could add millions of dollars to our state's bottom line, as well as jobs which would be created as a result of new industry. Marietta resident Bill Tugwell owns the large Alabama fireworks store on U.S. 431 between Phenix City and Eufaula that many metro Atlantans pass on their way to vacation along the Florida Panhandle beaches. The parking lot is often filled with cars bearing Georgia license plates. I dont think its millions plural, Tugwell said regarding how much money Georgia loses to other states. I think its closer to a million. Some states have interesting purposes for their fireworks laws. Florida allows people to buy an estimated 2,000 forms of fireworks that are listed under the category of sparklers. For anything that explodes or lifts off the ground, you need a permit. Some of the permitted uses for more powerful forms of fireworks include scaring birds away from crops. There shouldnt be a critter left in Florida, quipped Julie Heckman, executive director of the American Pyrotechnics Association, a Maryland-based trade group. Revenue officials in Alabama, South Carolina and Tennessee said they did not have any research showing how much money Georgians spend on fireworks there. Economics academics at colleges and universities in those states said they havent seen or conducted such research. A Senate spokeswoman sent us a report by the American Pyrotechnics Association that says consumers nationwide spent $649 million on fireworks in 2011, up from $284 million in 1998. The figures were not broken down by states. Jeff Humphreys, director of the University of Georgias Selig Center for Economic Growth, suggested we could come up with an estimate by calculating a per capita breakdown of how much money Georgians would spend on fireworks if the menu of products was expanded. Since slightly more than 3 percent of the nations population lives in Georgia (9.9 million residents), that would equate to about $20 million being spent by Georgians in 2011. Humphreys advised us that there would be a multiplier effect on top of the direct fiscal impact due to reduced shopping outside Georgia if fireworks were available for purchase inside the state, but he said it would not be large. A 6 percent tax or fee could be worth at least $3 million annually. In 2006, Indiana lawmakers imposed a 5 percent safety fee on retail fireworks sales. Indiana collects about $2.5 million a year from the fee, state data shows. Indiana has about 6.5 million residents. Michigan collected $755,262 from a 6 percent fireworks safety fee during the first eight months of its new law to allow more powerful fireworks to be sold, the Detroit News reported. The newspaper reported the revenue collected was far below projections. Michigans new fireworks safety fee and guidelines took effect in January 2012. Michigan has 9.8 million residents, nearly the same amount as Georgia. Bill Weimer, a top official of a company in Ohio that sells many of the fireworks not currently sold in Georgia, believes Mullis claim is accurate. Weimer looked at the amount of fireworks sold in Indiana and believes the same volume of fireworks will be sold in Georgia or more. You can do the math, said Weimer, vice president of Phantom Fireworks, which sells fireworks to several national retail chains. Phantom Fireworks has been working with Mullis and other lawmakers trying to pass SR 378. So where does this leave us? Mullis claimed Georgias economy loses millions of dollars in revenue because residents travel outside the state to purchase their fireworks. Its probable, but there is no specific research to support his argument. We do know some Georgians go outside the state to buy fireworks, and it does seem like people spend millions of dollars on fireworks in other states. It would be useful if there were more hard numbers out there to back up Mullis claim. But based on the specific numbers we have from other states and our own estimates, he seems to be in the ballpark. We rate his claim Mostly True. At the end of June 2006, a new blog entitled "That Girl Emily" appeared at thatgirlemily.blogspot.com. Ostensibly the musings of a married, 35-year-old New Jersey realtor named Emily, the blog for the first few weeks reported what might be read as the ordinary musings of a suburban professional woman: details of a recent vacation with her husband (Steven, a financial consultant), frustrations she experienced in pilates class, her husband's slow climb up the corporate ladder, and (after prompting by her sister) a discussion of her declining sex life. thatgirlemily.blogspot.com The blog then took a sudden left turn when Emily's brother convinced her to hire a private investigator (PI) to "spy" on her husband  a suggestion which Emily promptly accepted, implemented, and concluded in short order, finding out in the process (Quelle surprise!) that her husband was carrying on an expensive affair with her best friend, Laura. Emily spent the next few weeks venting her anger at her lying, cheating husband in her blog, including divulging information about various revenge schemes she had enacted to get back at Steven, starting with the billboard pictured here:  This photo is what Ive been talking about, the favors that I called in for. Brilliant, isn't it? I think so. I ran out early this morning to beat the rush hour traffic (didn't quite go as planned but at least it wasn't standstill) and got a picture of my billboard. My way to tell the world about the lowlife I've just wasted so many years on. I put it near Steven's office so his co-workers and friends could see exactly what a cheating scumbag he is. And of course, for all of you to see as well. I've decided to do what so many quiet, back-stabbed wives don't  take charge, make my whoring, cheating, adulterous, fornicating husband know what it feels like to be humiliated. And do it with many decibels. It's a personal message for everyone to read. Thanks goes out to my husband who chipped in on the price tag. Golly gee honey, I would've never been able to tell the world about your exploits with my best friend without your contribution! Gotta love joint bank accounts. Oh, sorry Steve, I had to splurge on the lights, too. Some people work late, like you. And theyre always driving home when it's dark. Burning that midnight oil, Steve-o. Just like you. So for the next two weeks, starting with today, I will exact revenge on my whoring husband. And who knows what a disparaged woman with lots of resources at her disposal might do?! Many readers who had been following "Emily"'s blog already suspected that something wasn't quite on the level, and their suspicions were confirmed when billboards with text identical to the one pictured above ("Hi Steven, Do I have your attention now? I know all about her, you dirty, sneaky, immoral, unfaithful, poorly endowed slimeball. Everything's caught on tape. Your [soon-to-be-ex] Wife, Emily.") popped up not only in New York, but in Brooklyn, Los Angeles, and Chicago as well. Some sharp-eyed readers noticed that one of Emily's blog entries was remarkably similar to the plot line of an episode of Court TV's reality show Parco P.I., and the blog and billboards were soon revealed as a stealth promotion for the upcoming season of that television series: Parco P.I. The billboard created interest, and not just from an unfaithful Steven. A booking agent from "Good Morning America" sent an e-mail to Emily inviting her on the show. British Glamour wanted to make her the subject of a feature article. But when pictures of the billboard proliferated on blogs, readers quickly dug in. One fact soon emerged, thanks to camera phone pictures: the billboard was identical to others in Brooklyn, Los Angeles and Chicago. Someone else discovered that Emily was keeping a blog, thatgirlemily.blogspot.com, detailing Steven's infidelities. More digging showed that one Emily blog entry was oddly similar to a synopsis for an episode of "Parco P.I.," a reality show on Court TV. Another "source" sent an e-mail suggesting that Court TV was behind the signs, pointing out that it was a viral marketing campaign to promote one of its programs. Mystery solved. The bad news for viral marketers who use these kind of devices: executives at Court TV said they did not really want to be discovered so quickly. The good news is that even after the ruse was discovered, people visited the Emily blog, pushing it to one million hits by the end of [July 2006]. A fake surveillance video on the blog, supposedly from a private eye capturing Steven holding hands with his paramour, hit YouTube and became one of its most-viewed videos. Did it even matter that Emily was fictitious? "Emily is really an amalgam of all of us who have been cheated on," said Marc Juris, general manager for programming and marketing at Court TV. "Clearly, this really resonated with people." The "Emily" ruse was originally intended to be a stunt to help promote the start of the show's new season on Aug. 15, but Court TV's marketing group liked the idea so much that they made it a large part of the campaign.  Mr. Juris was still marveling: "It's like a flash investigation took place, and within 24 hours we were busted." A similar billboard was spotted in Greensboro, North Carolina, in March 2013, this one supposedly bearing a message from a scorned woman named Jennifer, whose unfaithful partner, Michael, was carrying on an affair with a woman named Jessica. The text of the billboard echoed MasterCard's classic "Priceless" campaign, listing items (e.g., a GPS tracker, a Nikon camera) Jessica had purchased to expose Michael's cheating ways and stating that she had used the couple's investment account to fund putting up the shaming sign.  Local news accounts identified this billboard as another advertising gimmick, in this case for a Greensboro yogurt and coffee shop: What is known is that the billboard is owned by Outdoor Signage, a local company whose phone number connects to the offices of Kotis Properties. Kotis also owns a yogurt and coffee shop  Yo Daddy Dessert Bar  on Westover Terrace, the name of which was [later] featured on the billboard. Jessica  Meet me at Yodaddys at 7:00 p.m. for some wine therapy.  Jennifer, the new message read.  Debbie Hill, vice president of Triad Outdoor Advertising (which is not affiliated with the sign), said she has never known of anyone locally buying a billboard for a revenge message. She added that personalized messages are rare in the business. Its usually way too expensive, she said. In January 2010, YaVaughnie Wilkins put up a series of billboards in New York, San Francisco, and Atlanta after learning that the married man with whom she had been carrying on an affair for over eight years, Charles E. Phillips, had reconciled with his wife. Those billboards bore no scornful messages, however  they simply displayed a romantic picture of the couple, along with their first names and a reproduced quote from Phillips stating "You are my soulmate forever":  The billboards did include a URL for a (no longer active) web site, charlesphillipsandyavaughniewilkins.com, which featured numerous photographs and other mementos documenting the multi-year relationship between Wilkins and Phillips. The attendant publicity forced Phillips, who at the time was the president of Oracle Corporation and a member of President Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board, to publicly acknowledge the affair. (YaVaughnie Wilkins' experience was also chronicled in the documentary film The Glamorous Lie.) The Glamorous Lie Berg, Emmett et al.  "Jilted Mistress Proclaims Love for Exec Ex with Billboard."
  New York Post.  22 January 2010. Bosman, Julie.  "Public Hath No Fury, Even When Deceived."
  The New York Times.  24 July 2006  (p. C6). Gardner, David.  "Revenge by Billboard."
  Daily Mail.  23 Janaury 2010. Tucker, Chad.  "Wifes Billboard Revenge a Clever Marketing Ploy by Restaurant Company."
  WGHP-TV [Greensboro].  20 March 2013. [Greensboro] News & Record.  "Greensboro Billboard Draws Attention."
  22 March 2013. Former Democratic Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland didnt waste any time attacking Republican Sen. Rob Portman for opposing the 2009 automotive bailout and calling it a lousy deal. He said the auto rescue was a lousy deal for Ohio, Strickland told an audience during his opening statement at the third Senate debate in Cleveland. This isnt the first time Strickland made this claim. Strickland made the charge in front of some Ohio delegates during a meeting held the week of the Democratic National Convention, according to theColumbus Dispatch. We wondered if Strickland was right. Did Portman call the automotive bailout a lousy deal? Stricklands campaign said the remark in question comes froma 2009 statement from Portman, who was a candidate for Senate that year but was not yet in office. The campaign accessed the news release using the Wayback Machine, an Internet Archive website. The General Motors bankruptcy plan Washington announced today is a lousy deal for Ohio, reads the statement. Taxpayers, including hard working Ohioans, are investing $50 billion in a GM plan that we now find includes shutting down plants in Mansfield, Parma, and Columbus, Ohio. The reason for this unprecedented taxpayer bailout and government intervention was to preserve jobs. Instead, for our $50 Billion taxpayer investment, thousands more workers will see their jobs disappear. Ohio deserves better than this. Thats the only direct reference to lousy Stricklands campaign sent PolitiFact Ohio, but they also sent an article from theColumbus Dispatchthat quotes Portmans former spokesperson in 2011 saying Portman still thinks the auto bailout was not a good deal for Ohio. Portmans campaign told PolitiFact Ohio that although Portman was not in office when the bailout launched, he would have supported the auto rescue. As evidence of this, Portmans campaign pointed to a 2010 U.S. Senate debate against Democrat Lee Fisher. Portman was asked if he would have supported the 2009 bailout, which Portman responded to with a yes, while also mentioning he would have liked to see more conditions in the bailout. $50 billion of our taxpayer money went to a private entity that the government essentially took over, and then they closed four plants here in Ohio. Portman said at the debate. So, if I had been in office at the time I would have supported it, but I would have been sure that Ohio didnt fall behind. Our ruling Strickland said Portman said the auto rescue was a lousy deal for Ohio. As a candidate for Senate, Portman did call the 2009 automotive bailouts of GM and Chrysler a lousy deal in a press release from 2009. Strickland cited this remark without including the fact Portman said he still would have supported the bailout. Stricklands claim is accurate, but needs a slight clarification. We rate Stricklands claim Mostly True. The Club for Growth, an anti-tax group, portrays Donald Trump as a liberal in a new TV ad. Which presidential candidate supports higher taxes, national health care and the Wall Street bailout?asks the narratorin the Sept. 15 ad in Iowa as it shows photos of Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. It's Donald Trump. The ad then shows a clip of Trump saying in 2004: In many cases I probably identify more as a Democrat. We have already fact-checked Trumps statements ontaxes(hes supported increases),health care(hes had different views over the years) and an attack about hisparty affiliation(he was once a Democrat). Here, we will fact-check if he supported the Wall Street bailout. Trump on the bailout In October 2008, Congress created a $700 billion emergency bailout fund called the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP,  to rescue banks in response to the subprime mortgage crisis. President George W. Bush pressed for passage, and it also drew the support of GOP presidential nominee John McCain and the Democratic nominee, Barack Obama. The Club for Growthcitedthree statements by Trump in support of the bailout. However, the ad omits that he expressed some skepticism about whether it would work. On Sept. 30, 2008, CNNs Kiran Chetry asked Trump about the bailout days before its final passage. The ad includes this segment of that interview: Chetry:Do you think that this bailout plan needs to pass in some way, shape or form for things to stabilize? Trump replied: Well, I think it would be better if it passed. But the ad omits the rest of Trumps statement in which he expressed some doubt about the bailout: I'm not sure that it's going to work.Youknow, it is trial and error. This is very complicated. This is more complicated than sending rockets to the moon. Nobody really knows what impact it's going to have. Maybe it works, and maybe it doesn't. But certainly it is worth a shot. I don't love the idea that the government's buying back all the bad loans. How about some of the good loans? You know? I don't like the idea that the government, frankly, is going to be negotiating with people to sell those loans, because maybe we'd be better off having the best bankers in the world do that. But I think overall, it's a probable positive, other than you have to control the price of oil. Because if you don't, whatever happens with the bailout, if you want to call it the bailout, whatever happens with the bailout, is will have no impact, no positive impact. OnLarry King Liveon April 15, 2009, King asked Trump his opinion of Obama and Trump turned to the bailout in part of his answer: I do agree with what they're doing with the banks. Whether they fund them or nationalize them, it doesn't matter, but you have to keep the banks going, Trump said. On Feb. 18, 2009, Trump talked about the bank bailout onDavid Letterman: The one thing is, the government came in and intelligently put money into the banks, so that if you have your money in CDs or whatever in the banks, youre not going to lose your money at least. In response to the ad, Trumptweeted: Little respected Club for Growth asked me for $1,000,000 -- I said NO. Now they are spending lobbyist and special interest money on ads! Trumps charge relates to a June 2 letter from Club for Growth president David McIntosh to Trump asking him to contribute $1 million to the group. Trump then issued apress releasesaying that the group was trying to shake him down. Club for Growth spokesman Doug Sachtleben told PolitiFact that Trump had asked for the meeting and was interested in donating to the group. Our ruling A Club for Growth TV ad states that Trump supports the Wall Street bailout. Trump made multiple statements in support of TARP, the bailout of the banks, in late 2008 and 2009. However, the ad omits that he raised concern that the banks had received billions and were not loaning them out. Overall, we rate this claim Mostly True. Scammers and malware purveyors are always looking for ways to entice online users into following web links that will lead those victims into the traps set for them, and offers of free products are prime bait in that pursuit of prey. One common method such predators use is establishing fake Facebook accounts mimicking those of well-known vendors of consumer products (typically of the edible variety, such as Starbucks, Taco Bell, McDonald's, KFC, Wendy's, Burger King, Whole Foods, Safeway, Food Lion, and Little Caesars) and posting bogus offers for "lifetime passes" or other dispensations of free product as part of a supposed company anniversary or birthday celebration (e.g., "Starbucks is giving away free lifetimes in celebration of the brand's 44th anniversary"). The primary type of free product fraud is the "sweepstakes scam," which is intended to lure victims into completing numerous surveys, disclosing a good deal of personal information, and then agreeing to sign up for costly, difficult-to-cancel "Reward Offers" hidden in the fine print. The scammers spread links via e-mail and Facebook that purport to offer free product to those who follow those links. These web pages (which are not operated or sponsored by the companies they reference) typically ask the unwary to click what appear to be Facebook "share" buttons and post comments to the scammer's site (which is really a ruse to dupe users into spreading the scam by sharing it with all of their Facebook friends). Those who follow such instructions are then led into a set of pages prompting them to input a fair amount of personal information (including name, age, address, and phone numbers), complete a lengthy series of surveys, and finally sign up (and commit to paying) for at least two "Reward Offers" (e.g., Netflix subscriptions, credit report monitoring services, prepaid credit cards): Pursuant to the Terms & Conditions, you are required to complete 2 of the Reward Offers from the above. You will need to meet all of the terms and conditions to qualify for the shipment of the reward. For credit card offers, you must activate your card by making a purchase, transferring a balance, or making a cash advance. For loan offers you must close and fund the loan. For home security and satellite tv offers you must have the product installed. You may not cancel your participation in more than a total of 2 Reward Offers within 30 days of any Reward Offer Sign-Up Date as outlined in the Terms & Conditions (the Cancellation Limit). Not only that, but the fine print on the "free" product offers typically states that by accepting its terms, the user agrees to receive telemarketing phone calls and text messages from a variety of different companies:   Similar phony free product lures are used to spread malware. In those versions of the scam, those who attempt to reach the URL provided for the purpose of claiming the free products are instead victimized by a Facebook "lifejacking" attack, a malicious script that takes over a user's Facebook profile without their knowledge and propagates itself to their friends' accounts as well. lifejacking In short, those who seek "free" merchandise generally end up paying a dear cost for it. Stephen Colbert has intervieweda slew ofpresidential candidates in the first weeks of his new job hosting CBSThe Late Show, including Jeb Bush, Donald Trump, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz. His time with Cruz on Sept. 21 stood out for a fact-filled back and forth about a major Republican role model, President Ronald Reagan. Colbert asked Cruz if he could agree with Reagans support of amnesty for undocumented immigrants and record of raising taxes amid budget shortfalls. Cruz said of course not before pivoting to Reagans most conservative accomplishments, one being that he signed the largest tax cut in history and spurred economic growth. You know, when Reagan came in, from 1978 to 1982, economic growth averaged less than 1 percent a year. Theres only one other four-year period where thats true. Thats true from 2008 to 2012, Cruz said. Colbert jumped in, saying But when conditions changed in the country, he reversed his worlds largest tax cut and raised taxes when revenues did not match the expectations. So its a matter of compromising. PolitiFact explored Cruzs point about economic growth inanother fact-check. We wondered if Colberts retort was on the money or overstated. (Its our first fact-check ofColbertin his new role  and the first one in five years, period.) Did Reagan really shift course on tax cuts when the growth stopped? A CBS press contact did not return an email for comment. Reagans tax cut As Cruz said, the Gipper really did cut taxes  with the help of Congress  in his first year as president. The largest tax cut in history that Cruz mentioned is in reference to the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, a $38 billion phased-in cut ($99 billion in 2015 dollars). Put in the way that economists prefer to discuss tax cuts, it represented 1.91 percent of the countrys gross domestic product. This law included across-the-board cuts of about 30 percent to statutory income tax rates. As Colbert said, Reagan raised taxes, too. Two laws, one in 1982 and another in 1984, were especially dramatic. These laws generally raised taxes by removing tax loopholes, not by raising the tax rate, said Dean Baker, a liberal economist and co-founder of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. Still, Baker said, the loopholes were big ones. Reagans tax increases 1982:The most significant tax increase Reagan signed was also the first. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (yes, another law with a very sexy name) increased taxes by almost 1 percent of GDP. The 1982 tax increase was probably the largest peacetime tax increase in American history, said economist Bruce Bartlett, who advised Reagan on domestic policy and then worked as Treasury deputy assistant secretary for economic policy in the George H.W. Bush administration. (An analysis by Jerry Tempalski, an analyst in the Office of Tax Analysis with the U.S. Department of the Treasury,agrees.) This law was driven by pressure to attack the federal budget deficit, as well as the impression that Reagans tax-cutting was partially responsible for lower-than-expected tax revenues. Bartlett, who reviewed Reagans tax record forTax Notesin 2011, cited aTreasury estimatethat the 1982 law raised taxes by almost 1 percent of GDP, or about $150 billion in modern dollars. Specifically, it rolled back some but not all of the 1981 tax cut for writing off equipment, and it repealed 1981 safe harbor leasing provisions, said Stephen J. Entin, senior fellow at the Tax Foundation and former deputy assistant secretary for economic policy in the Reagan administration. 1983:A law Reagan signed in 1983 aimed to keep Social Security afloat by increasing payroll taxes and taxing Social Security benefits for some high-earners. This cost $24.6 billion, or almost $50 billion in 2015 dollars, through 1988, according to an administrationestimate. 1984:The Deficit Reduction Act that Reagan signed rolled back part of the 1981 cut on buildings, Entin said, with the idea that Congress would enact spending cuts. But many of those cuts were either never enacted or were later restored, Entin said. This led to $25 billion in tax receipts. Reagan also signed tax increases in 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988 (as well as a couple other laws with revenue reductions). So where does that leave Reagans tax record on the whole? Its mixed. On one hand, revenues were lower as ashare of GDPin his last year in office (17.6 percent of GDP in 1988) compared to the year before he took office (18.5 percent of GDP in 1980), according to the White House Office of Management and Budget. However, the thrust of the 1981 tax cut that Cruz touted on Colberts show didnt prove to have lasting effects on the whole. A 2006 Treasury Departmentanalysisoffers another view of the plunge after the 1981 law and the subsequent changes that wound it back. Reagans staff tallied up the effect of major legislation on tax receipts over his tenure for his final budget proposal (page 4-4). The 1981 tax cuts comprised most of the total $275 billion in tax relief, but the other side of the ledger listed $133 billion in cumulative tax increases. Thus, Reagan took back about half the 1981 tax cut with subsequent tax increases, Bartlett wrote. Our ruling Responding to Cruzs assertion that Reagan signed the largest tax cut in history, Colbert said he reversed it and raised taxes when revenues did not match the expectations. Legislation that Reagan signed over his time in office and raised taxes did not completely reverse the 1981 Economic Recovery Tax Act. But the broader point Colbert makes is on point. Reagan agreed to raise taxes to deal with budget deficits, even if he wasnt enthusiastic about it. We rate the claim Mostly True.