Today, you have six financial institutions, the largest six, that have assets that are the equivalent of 60 percent of the GDP of the United States of America.
During an Oct. 4, 2011, interview on MSNBC, host Ed Schultz and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., discussed the Occupy Wall Street protests, which are targeting the financial services sector. Sanders offered a statistic designed to demonstrate the power of American banks.Sanders suggested that many of the protesters have not seen the president be as strong as he should be on Wall Street, saying they want the federal government to take tougher measures against financial-services companies.Ed, today, you have six financial institutions, the largest six, that have assets that are the equivalent of 60 percent of the GDP of the United States of America, Sanders said. (GDP stands for gross domestic product. )We wondered whether Sanders math was correct.When we contacted Sanders office, a spokesman providedtestimonyto a congressional oversight panel by Simon Johnson, a professor of entrepreneurship at the MIT Sloan School ofManagement. Our six largest bank holding companies currently have assets valued at just over 63 percent of GDP, Johnson testified, citing figures for the fourth quarter of 2010. This is up from around 55 percent of GDP before the crisis (e.g., 2006) and no more than 17 percent of GDP in 1995.We wanted to find the original statistics, and we located them in achartposted by the National Information Center, the federal repository of data about banks and other institutions for which the Federal Reserve has a supervisory, regulatory or research interest. The chart lists the 50 biggest bank holding companies as of June 30, 2011.Here are the top six and their total assets:1.Bank of America Corp., $2.264 trillion2.J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., $2.246 trillion3.Citigroup Inc., $1.957 trillion4.Wells Fargo & Co., $1.260 trillion5.Goldman Sachs Group Inc., $937 billion6.Morgan Stanley, $831 billionTogether, the top six companies assets were $9.495 trillion.For the second part of the equation -- gross domestic product -- we turned to the U.S. Commerce Departments Bureau of Economic Analysis.Though the time spans dont line up perfectly, we decided to use the GDP figure for 2010, the most recent full year. That figure is $14.527 trillion.Dividing these top banks assets by the national GDP produces a result of 65 percent -- which is actually a slightly larger percentage than Sanders had indicated, but certainly in the ballpark.To make sure we werent missing something, we contacted a few experts on financial services issues. They offered a few caveats:The comparison is a bit of apples vs. oranges.The banks asset figures are an aggregation measured at a single point in time, whereas the GDP figure is an aggregation of goods and services measured over time. This distinction is the equivalent to a comparison of your net worth with your personal income, said Lawrence White, an economist at New York Universitys Stern School of Business. Economists generally don't find these sorts of comparisons very useful or interesting. So the best that can be said is that these comparisons provide a rough sense of comparative magnitudes.The data are constantly moving.Several of these banks, especially Bank of America, have lost significant value since the figures were published in June 2011, said Satya Thallam, director of the Financial Markets Working Group at George Mason University's Mercatus Center. The denominator, GDP, is always changing, as well. So, any estimate is true for a specific point in time, but possibly out of date not long after its made.Banks overseas holdings significantly complicate the comparison.For starters, the comparison Sanders is making doesnt mean that these banks own 60 percent of the U.S. wealth, because some of these banks assets are in overseas holdings. However, Sanders appears to be on safe ground with his phrasing, since all he said was that the two dollar figures were equivalent.Potentially more problematic for Sanders is that the assets-to-GDP ratio for the top six bank companies in the U.S. are actually quite modest when compared to the biggest banks in other nations.A2010 study by J.P. Morganlisted the 25 biggest banks internationally in 2008, along with the percentages of their home countrys GDP. The highest was UBS, with 376 percent of Switzerlands GDP. And six other banks all had assets as large as their home countrys GDP -- Credit Suisse Group of Switzerland (218 percent), Dexia of Belgium (180 percent), Fortis of the Netherlands (155 percent), Royal Bank of Scotland of the United Kingdom (131 percent), Barclays of the United Kingdom (112 percent) and BNP Paribas of France (101 percent).All of these dwarf the combined holdings of the top six banks in the U.S., in part because Americas GDP is so much larger than the GDP of these other nations.The significance of this fact for Sanders assertion, however, is less clear.This doesn't tell us what is a proper or appropriate number, Thallam said. One might reply that other countries are much more concentrated, but that only means they're worse -- not that we're in a good position. Some scholars, he added, have said that even at current concentration levels, U.S. banks should be broken up because they create a too big to fail problem. On the other hand, people for years said that banking exhibited economies of scale, so consolidation was natural, Thallam said.Our rulingSanders math is correct -- in fact, the percentage he offers is actually a little low. And hes careful to say only that the banks assets are only equivalent to 60 percent of the United States GDP, not that the banks own 60 percent of the United States. Sanders doesnt note that big banks in other countries are far bigger, compared to their nations GDP, than the U.S. banks are. Still, on balance, we rate his statement True.
Public employee pensions have been a hot topic in the 2014 primary race for governor because two of the Democratic candidates have had to deal with underfunded plans. During theAug. 26, 2014 Providence Journal - WPRI debatebetween Democrats Clay Pell, General Treasurer Gina Raimondo and Providence Mayor Angel Taveras, Raimondo and Taveras swapped barbs about who has administered their respective pension funds most effectively. Taveras, who got concessions from the city's unions, said the state pension fund is underperforming and paying excessive fees. Raimondo, whose changes in the state fund sparked a lawsuit that remains unresolved, countered that we have great returns with lower risk, and she fired back at Taveras. The pension fund in the city of Providence is only 30-percent funded, about the same level as when he [Taveras] took office, she said. [I] fixed a system for the long term. He made small changes and the pension system in Providence is still in crisis. (The U.S. Government Accountability Office recommends that  public pension plans should be atleast 80 percent funded.) We were curious about what the trend has been in Providence and whether the funding has gone down. We asked the Raimondo campaign for its evidence. Spokesman Eric Hyers sent us links to two documents. The first wasa Jan. 19, 2012 reportfrom Providence's pension adviser, Buck Consultants, which tracks funding going back to 1994, when the city had 57.4 percent of the pension money it needed. Since then, the overall trend has been down. The funded ratio had plummeted to 39.3 percent by the last full fiscal year Vincent A. Buddy Cianci Jr. was in office. It had dropped to 34.1 percent by June 30, 2010, when David Cicilline, now a U.S. representative,  was in his last year. A year later, when Taveras had been in office for six months, the funded ratio had dropped to 31.94 percent. The second document was theJan. 31, 2014 valuation reportby the city's new pension adviser, Segal Consulting. It reports that as of June 30, 2013, with Taveras in office two and a half years, the funded ratio was virtually the same -- 31.39 percent. And this was after Taveras won union concessions to reduce pension costs. By comparison, the funded ratio for the state employees plan went from48.4 percentin June 2010, before Raimondo took office, to56.2 percentas of June 30, 2013 in the most recent audit. Michael D'Amico, Taveras' former director of administration who is now a budget consultant for the city, said it was a complete oversimplification to imply that the changes were small because the funded ratio didn't change significantly. The actual cost of the pension system was reduced substantially by negotiating changes such as a 10-year suspension of cost-of-living raises and the elimination of 5- and 6-percent compounded cost of living adjustments, DAmico said. We got just about as much as we possibly could have without cutting pensions, said Taveras spokesman David Ortiz. In a sense, the administration faced a choice: do we push Providence into bankruptcy to give a receiver the ability to cut pensions? The mayor believed the cost and collateral damage of pushing Rhode Islands capital city into bankruptcy was not worth extra pension savings we would have been able to pursue, Ortiz said. Said D'Amico: If we hadn't done anything, the funded ratio would have been much lower. Our ruling When Raimondo said, The pension fund in the city of Providence is only 30 percent funded, about the same level as when he [Taveras] took office, she was only off by one percentage point, according to the most recent audit of the fund. That funded ratio has not increased since Taveras was sworn in on Jan. 3, 2011. But that percentage was on a downward spiral at the time, so having it stabilize at 31 percent doesn't necessarily reflect small changes, as Raimondo claimed in the debate. And the changes negotiated between Taveras and the citys unions are intended to gradually increase the funding ratio. Because the statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, we rate itMostly True. (If you have a claim youd likePolitiFact Rhode Islandto check, email us at[email protected]. And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.) In late February 2022, a rumor went viral on TikTok and Twitter that said Russia's largest bank, Sberbank, had imposed a cash withdrawal limit that would be equivalent to $20 in the U.S. The rumor began to spread just after Russia began its invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24. TikTok Twitter Russia Russia invasion Ukraine On Feb. 25, the person behind the @bantg Twitter account tweeted: "Sberbank, Russian largest bank, has limited cash withdrawals to $20." tweeted  The tweet cited no sources.  Another tweet posted on Feb. 26 claimed: "JUST IN: Sberbank, the largest bank in Russia, has limited cash withdrawals for its customers to $20 ? #PutinWillFeelThePainSoon." The hashtag referred to Russian President Vladimir Putin. tweet Vladimir Putin  Replies under the tweet asked for a source for the information, but @nick82gh did not respond to them.  While this second tweet didn't receive many engagements, it was shared the same day to TikTok as a screenshot. Within 48 hours of being posted, that TikTok video received 80,000 likes and was viewed more than 1.4 million times. The person speaking in the video said: "The bank run has started. Russia is going bankrupt. This is the end of [the] Russian economy completely." video   Here are the facts: It's true that Sberbank is Russia's largest bank by its amount of assets, according to The Wall Street Journal. However, at the time, we found no reporting or evidence of any kind that backed up the claim that the Sberbank had limited cash withdrawals to $20. We also found no data about anything related to Sberbank causing the entire country of Russia to go bankrupt, as mentioned in the TikTok video. The Wall Street Journal By email, a spokesperson for Sberbank told us: "This information contradicts reality. Sberbank continues to fulfill all of its obligations in full, including the withdrawal of funds from accounts. All funds are available to customers at any time." On Feb. 28, ABC News and The Associated Press reported that Sberbank had been hit with "tough U.S. sanctions," leading to some limits on cash withdrawals: ABC News Associated Press Sberbank and VTB banks are Russias two largest state-run banks and own roughly half of the assets in the Russian banking system. They were targeted last week by tough U.S. sanctions aimed at limiting their businesses internationally and over the weekend barred from the international SWIFT payment system. SWIFT In both Slovenia and Croatia, Sberbank temporarily closed its branches or limited cash withdrawals following a rush by its clients last week. In Croatia, the banks clients will be allowed to withdraw a maximum of about 1,000 euros per day over the next two days. In Slovenia, the branches will be closed for the next two days and then the withdrawals will be limited to 400 euros per day. At the time that this news was published, 1000 euros was equivalent to $1,121, while 400 euros converted to $448. Neither of these figures was anywhere close to a $20 limit. We asked Sberbank for information on cash withdrawal limits for other countries but did not receive a response before this story was published. While we found no evidence regarding Sberbank branches having a $20 cash withdrawal limit, the conflict in Ukraine did lead to fears that the bank could fail, according to a report from Reuters, which cited a warning from the European Central Bank. Ukraine report Also, on a similar subject, The National Bank of Ukraine imposed cash withdrawal limits after the invasion began, according to The Wall Street Journal. However, again, those limits were reported to be nowhere near $20. Instead, the reporting said the limit was "100,000 Ukrainian hryvnia a day, equivalent to about $3,339.13." according to The Wall Street Journal This story will be updated if we receive further information. Liberal comedian Bill Maher made an out-of-this-world comparison to poke a hole in the Republican argument that the estate tax threatens the livelihoods of family farmers. Of 5,000 Americans who paid the estate tax in 2013, 20 farmers paid it, Maher said on his April 17, 2015, show. Twenty-four Americans have been to the moon. More astronauts have been to the moon than farmers who paid the inheritance tax in 2013. There obviously is no relation between the number of farmers paying the estate tax and the number of Americans who went to the moon, but as a point of trivia, Mahers claim is an intriguing one. A reader asked us to do the magic that you do, which is determining whether Mahers point is accurate. One small step for fact-checkers ... Caveat No 1: Maher is using the number of astronauts who have been to the vicinity of the moon, not just the number of moonwalkers. Twelve Americans have walked the moons surface over six Apollo missions, starting with Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin planting an American flag in 1969. (If youre not sure about whether the lunar landing really happened, you wont like this fact-check, but you may enjoy these bona fidemoon misconceptions.) Add another 12 American astronauts who orbited the moon but did not walk on it, and you get  24. NASA chief historian William Barry said the 24 Americans is a solid figure in that it doesnt double count Americans who made more than one lunar trip. There were several astronauts who flew to the Moon and orbited it on one mission and then were lucky enough to go back and land on it on a later mission, Barry said. Jim Lovell, for instance, made two trips to the moon in Apollo 8 and Apollo 13, but he never walked on it. (In this Smithsonian picture, Lovell and his crew emerge from the U.S.S. Iwo Jima after landing the spacecraftApollo 13in the South Pacific.) One giant leap for the truth What Maher calls the inheritance tax and what Republicans call the death tax is more accurately described as the estate tax. Some wealthy families face this tax when they pass on assets (cash, land, homes, stocks, etc.) to heirs after death. Most estates do not owe estate taxes. It affects about 5,500 Americans whose estates exceed the exemption limit of$5.43 million per person. If the estate is worth more than that, an heir could pay a tax rate up to 40 percent on the value of the estate above that limit. Even though it doesnt affect all that many people, it brings in big bucks for the government. Repealing it would cost about $270 billion over the next decade, according to the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation. In the week ahead of Mahers April 17 show, House Republicans approveda planto eliminate the estate tax, saying it can prove devastating to families  forcing them to sell land, lay off workers, and even shut down entirely. So did this tax really affect just 20 farmers in 2013, as Maher said? The number comes from an estimate by the Tax Policy Center, a joint venture of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution. Tax Policy Center economists wanted to get an idea of how the tax would affect estates, including those with farm and business assets, in 2013. All of their numbers are estimates based on the centersestate tax model. They defined family farms and businesses as estates having farm or business assets less than $5 million and half of the estate. These farms and businesses had taxable returns and total assets between $5 million and up $10 million. Its a definition that hones in on small farms and business  the most relevant in responding to the myth that many small farms and small businesses must be liquidated to pay estate tax, said Brandon DeBot, a research assistant at the federal fiscal policy division of the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Using the Tax Policy Centers model, an estimated 20 small farms and small businesses would have had to pay the estate tax in 2013, amounting to a total of $6.9 million of tax with an average tax rate of 4.9 percent. So thats not just small farms, its small farmsandsmall businesses, which might not be a farm. Caveat No. 2: The number of farms and businesses is probably not exactly 20, as it is an estimate rounded to the nearest multiple of 10. That means the number is anywhere from 16-24. Caveat No. 3: Maher talked about family farmers, addressing the Republican argument about the plight of farmers who could lose their livelihood because of the estate tax. But family farms can be big farms, and thats where things get more complicated. Maher set up his comparison by discussing the plight of family farmers, but then later dropped the word family. That one word is important. The Tax Policy Center broadened the scope to include all farm and business estates, regardless of size, with at least half of their value from farm business activity. By that method, 120 farm and business estates would have had to pay the estate tax in 2013, said Roberton Williams, a Tax Policy Center fellow who worked on the model. Alan D. Viard, a resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute who studies federal tax and budget policy, says the the estate tax has a lot of flaws, but the effect on farmers is just not the right grounds to criticize this tax. Mahers point was strong, he said. In 2001, House Republicans voted to repeal the death tax.New York TimesreporterDavid Cay Johnston scoured1999 IRS filings, phoned the American Farm Bureau Federation, and interviewed farmers in effort to find examples of working farmers who lost their farms because of estate taxes. He found none, writing that the reality of who is bitten by the estate tax is different from the mythology, as the overwhelming majority of beneficiaries are the heirs of people who made their fortunes through their businesses and investments in securities and real estate. And in 2001, the estate tax wasmore robust than it is now, with a lower exemption level of $675,000 and a higher top tax rate of 55 percent. It is a small number, bottom line, Williams said. Theyre going to be the exception rather than the rule. Our ruling Maher compared 24 American astronauts who have been to the moon to 20 farmers whom he said were the only ones to pay the estate tax. His count for astronauts who have been to the moon is reasonable, counting both American moonwalkers and those who have flown in its orbit during various Apollo missions. The larger point about only 20 farmers paying the estate tax is a little more complicated. A 2013nonpartisan study found 20 small farmsandsmall businesses faced the estate tax in 2013. Maher referred to family farms in setting up his claim. Saying small farms would have been better. And he dropped family in later references. Experts said Maher generally could have been more careful in his wording, but that his bit of trivia largely checks out, as does his point that the estate tax affectsvery few small farmers. We rate his claim Mostly True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/2edf78cd-008c-408e-ae35-939322661e70 A widespread Internet post claims Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have opposing views on a number of issues, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a proposed trade deal involving the United States and 11 other nations. The image says Sanders opposes the deal, but Clinton supports it. As part of acouple of fact-checkson the post, we looked into whether the two candidates differ on support for the deal, which has divided Democratic leaders on the Hill. President Barack Obama, the deals primary advocate,has sparred with Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., a longtime ally, andreceived praisefrom Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., a frequent opponent, over the deal. So where do the leading Democratic presidential candidates stand on the Trans-Pacific Partnership? Sanders sides with other members of the Senates progressive caucus invehemently opposingthe deal. In January 2014, he said hes against it primarily because it will allow corporations to move jobs overseas. Clintons position on the proposal is complicated by her time as secretary of state, and shes been careful as a presidential candidate not to express a firm position. Theres evidence to suggest Clinton was deeply involved in the deals formation and promotion as the countrys lead diplomat. In 2011, shetold a congressional committeethat even though the State Department was not in charge of the negotiations, we work closely with the U.S. (Trade Representative).Leaked diplomatic cablesshow Clintons deputies specifically discussed the TPP with foreign heads of state. Clinton openly pushed for the dealat least 45 timesduring her tenure as secretary of state, according to CNNs tally. In 2012, she touted the trade deal, also called TPP, to a group of American and Australian officials as a way to lower trade barriers, raise labor and environmental standards, and drive growth across the region. But since entering the race for president, Clinton has distanced herself from those remarks. I did not work on TPP, shetold reporters in July, saying the deal was the responsibility of the United States Trade Representative. At times, Clinton has echoed Sanders concerns about outsourcing. Any trade deal has to produce jobs and raise wages and increase prosperity and protect our security, she told a reporter from MSNBC in April. We have to do our part in making sure we have the capabilities and the skills to be competitive. It's got to be really a partnership between our business, our government, our workforce, the intellectual property that comes out of our universities, and we have to get back to a much more focused effort in my opinion to try to produce those capacities here at home so that we can be competitive in a global economy. Hopeful comments about job creation and increased wages do not signal a clear position on the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Clintons campaign website lists no official position on the deal. Our ruling The graphic claims Bernie Sanders opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and Hillary Clinton supports it. Sanders has said on multiple occasions that he would oppose the trade deal. Clinton supported it as secretary of state, and theres even evidence to suggest she was an advocate for the deal within the Obama administration. But she has taken a neutral stance on the deal during her campaign for the presidency, voicing some of Sanders same concerns yet refusing to explicitly criticize the proposal. Clinton spoke often in support of the Trans-Pacific Partnership  until that backing irritated parts of her Democratic base. We rate the posts claim Mostly True. Scam:  The IRS contacts taxpayers by phone to demand that overdue taxes be settled via prepaid debit card or wire transfers.   Origins:  In March 2014, the IRS reported con artistsimpersonating their agents had stolen more than $1 million from thousands of people across the U.S. via a fraud perpetrated by telephone. The agency has called it "the largest scam of its kind" it has seen. In it, more than 20,000 people from nearly every state were successfully defrauded by fake tax agents who told victims they owed taxes and demanded payment by prepaid debit card or wire transfer. Those masquerading as IRS agents further informed their targets that if they refused to comply with their demands for immediate payment they could be arrested, deported, or lose their business or driver's licenses. Reports of the scam, which has been running since August 2013, continue to increase. The calls are made to look as if they originate with the IRS, with that agency's name appearing on the caller IDs of intended targets' phones. Often those conducting the fraud know the last four digits of their targets' Social Security numbers.  Some of the attempts to defraud also follow up with false IRS emails and phone calls in which the con artists pretend to represent the police or motor vehicles officials. Per the IRS's description of this fraud: IRS's description  Scammers use fake names and IRS badge numbers. They generally use common names and surnames to identify themselves.  Scammers may be able to recite the last four digits of a victims Social Security Number.  Scammers spoof the IRS toll-free number on caller ID to make it appear that its the IRS calling.  Scammers sometimes send bogus IRS emails to some victims to support their bogus calls.  Victims hear background noise of other calls being conducted to mimic a call site.  After threatening victims with jail time or drivers license revocation, scammers hang up and others soon call back pretending to be from the local police or DMV, and the caller ID supports their claim. As a rule, the IRS contacts those who owe on their taxes first by mail or with personal visits from field agents. Real IRS agents never insist on payment by debit card or wire transfer.  They also don't ask for credit card numbers over the phone. Says Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration Russell George, "If someone unexpectedly calls claiming to be from the IRS and uses threatening language if you don't pay immediately, that is a sign that it really isn't the IRS calling."  The IRS advises: If you get a phone call from someone claiming to be from the IRS, heres what you should do:  If you know you owe taxes or you think you might owe taxes, call the IRS at 1.800.829.1040. The IRS employees at that line can help you with a payment issue  if there really is such an issue.  If you know you dont owe taxes or have no reason to think that you owe any taxes (for example, youve never received a bill or the caller made some bogus threats as described above), then call and report the incident to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration at 1.800.366.4484.  If youve been targeted by this scam, you should also contact the Federal Trade Commission and use their FTC Complaint Assistant at FTC.gov.  Please add "IRS Telephone Scam" to the comments of your complaint. Last updated:  20 February 2015    Norman, Jim.  "Authorities Warn of IRS Phone Scam."   The Record. 21 March 2014  (p. A5).    Richter, Ed.  "IRS scam continues to grow."   The Journal-News. 23 March 2014. 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 In December 2020, as states certified their election results and confirmed that Democratic candidate Joe Biden had won the U.S. presidential election, President Donald Trump continued to push baseless claims that the election was "rigged," "stolen," or marred with widespread voter fraud.  voter fraud On Dec. 9, Trump furthered this false narrative by claiming on social media that his election loss was an historic oddity in that no other candidate had even won the states of Florida and Ohio but still lost the general election: claiming  As we pointed out in an article at the time, Trump was wrong. Precedent did exist for a candidate's losing an election while winning both Florida and Ohio, namely Richard Nixon in 1960, who -- despite capturing those two key states -- was defeated by Democratic candidate John F. Kennedy. article The following day, Trump doubled down on his erroneous claim, moving the goal posts by this time asserting that no previous presidential candidate had won the states of Ohio, Florida, and Iowa and "even come close to losing an election" -- as Trump himself did in 2020:  But Trump was wrong again, for the very same reason. Nixon won all three of those states in the 1960 general election but nevertheless still lost the presidency to Kennedy:  Like Nixon 60 years earlier, Trump won Florida, Ohio, and Iowa during the 2020 election, but he fell short of the 270 electoral college votes required to secure the presidency. Trumps electoral college total of 232 votes was slightly better than Nixons 219, but they simply werent enough compared to Bidens 306. On 16 March 2017, the web site Newslo published an article positing that U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price had said that it would be better for the federal budget if cancer patients died quickly:   "At the risk of sounding insensitive, we've pretty much got two choices here: we either repeal Obamacare, or we take out more loans from countries like China. And nobody wants to be in debt to the Chinese. At the end of the day, it's better for our national budget if cancer patients pass away more quickly, it's a lousy way to live anyway, and I'm sorry to say it out loud, but it's the truth," Price concluded. This quote was not a genuine statement issued by Secretary Price.  It originated with Newslo, a "hybrid" web site that publishes articles containing a mixture of fact and fiction: hybrid JUST ENOUGH NEWS ... Newslo is the first hybrid News/Satire platform on the web. Readers come to us for a unique brand of entertainment and information that is enhanced by features like our fact-button, which allows readers to find what is fact and what is satire. The web site's hybrid articles are accompanied by two buttons labeled "show facts" and "hide facts" that allow readers to see which parts of an article are factual and which parts are fictional. In this case, pressing the "show facts" button highlighted the introductory paragraph of the article, indicating that the remainder of the article, the portion containing the fake Price quote, was fictional:   Newslo is a rather prolific purveyor of fake news, having previously penned articles containing fake quotes from Steve Bannon, KellyAnne Conway, and Mike Pence. Steve Bannon KellyAnne Conway Mike Pence Newslo.  "Tom Price: 'Its Better for Our Budget If Cancer Patients Die More Quickly.'"
  16 March 2017. Claim:  In June 2012, 79% of General Motors' sales were made to the U.S. federal government.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, August 2012] I just received the following & while it seems phony, I sure would liketo know.  "79% of GM's sales last month were government purchased" Remember how obama keeps telling us how he saved GM, and how our economy is getting better, it seems the car company he bought is being saved by Govt employees using our tax money to buy new cars. 79% of GMs sales last month was government purchased.  Origins:  In July 2012 the above-referenced item began circulating (based on information propagated by web sites such as this one), claiming that a whopping 79% of automobile manufacturer General Motors (GM) sales in June 2012 came from purchases of vehicles by the (federal) government and suggesting that the Obama administration had engineered such purchases in order to make GM "appear financially strong" just in time for its upcoming quarterly report  all to justify the President's 2009 decision to provide billions of dollars in federal aid to allow GM and Chrysler to restructure after government-backed bankruptcies. this one However, a closer reading the source material on which the claim was based reveals that it is not true that "79% of GM's sales [in June 2012] were government purchased."  The 79% figure refers to the percentage by which GM's government fleet sales increased for the month, not to the proportion of GM's overall sales that came from government purchases. Moreover, the phrase "government purchases" doesn't refer only to the federal government: state, county, and municipal governments  whose purchasing decisions are not directed by the White House  are also large automotive fleet sales customers. source material fleet sales A General Motors spokesman maintained in a response that the percentage of GM's overall June 2012 sales attributable to government purchases was rather low and the bulk of those purchases were from non-federal government agencies: GM sales spokesman, Jim Cain, points out that total government sales for GM in June were still below 5% of total sales and [the] majority of government sales increases were attributed to state and local governments. Bloomberg news reported that all fleet sales (including purchases by rental car companies, typically the largest fleet customers) made up only 32% of GM's overall sales in June 2012.  This number was comparable to that reported by Ford, who said  fleet sales accounted for 35% of their deliveries that month. Last updated:  10 September 2012    Trudell, Craig.  "Auto Sales in June Provided Bright Spot for U.S. Economy."   Bloomberg.  3 July 2012.    Press Release.  "GM Reports June U.S. Sales Up 16 Percent."   General Motors.  3 July 2012. In October 2021, a list of what appeared to be failed, and in some cases rather bizarre, historical proposals to amend the U.S. Constitution proved popular on the online forum Reddit. An Oct. 20 post bore the headline "A list of American amendments that were never approved," and consisted of a photograph of a page from a book, containing the following text: Oct. 20 post The following is a very limited list of some of the proposed amendments that never left the halls of Congress: 1876 An attempt to abolish the United States Senate1876 The forbidding of religious leaders from occupying a governmental office or receiving federal funding1878 An Executive Council of Three to replace the office of President1893 Renaming this nation the United States of the Earth1893 Abolishing the United States Army and Navy1894 Acknowledging that the Constitution recognize God and Jesus Christ as the supreme authorities in human affairs1912 Making marriage between races illegal1914 Finding divorce to be illegal1916 All acts of war should be put to a national vote. Anyone voting yes had to register as a volunteer for service in the United States Army.1933 An attempt to limit personal wealth to $1 million1936 An attempt to allow the American people to vote on whether or not the United States should go to war1938 The forbidding of drunkenness in the United States and all of its territories1947 The income tax maximum for an individual should not exceed 25%1948 The right of citizens to segregate themselves from others1971 American citizens should have the [in]alienable right to an environment free of pollution.   On the whole, the list presented 15 proposed amendments with a very high degree of accuracy. Most were entirely accurate, a few were accurate in their substance, with some relatively insignificant disclaimers necessary, and only one involved a degree of misrepresentation.  The source of the list was "The U.S. Constitution and Fascinating Facts About It," a book that has been printed and updated by Oak Hill Publishing, since the early 1990s. The U.S. Constitution and Fascinating Facts About It Oak Hill Publishing As the book suggests, the 15 proposals on the list represent a very tiny fraction of all of the failed proposals to amend the U.S. Constitution over the years. According the U.S. Senate historian, more than 11,000 amendments have been proposed since 1789. Of those, only 27 have come into effect, while six others gained the two-thirds majority required in both houses of Congress, but failed to be ratified by three-quarters of state legislatures. more than 11,000 amendments have been proposed since 1789 The following is a breakdown of the details and context associated with each of the 15 failed amendments included in the list, presented in chronological order. 1876 An attempt to abolish the United States Senate. In April 1876, U.S. Rep. Sobieski Ross, R-Pennsylvania, presented two "memorials" (petitions) on behalf of 22 residents of Potter County in northern Pennsylvania, near the border with upstate New York. One called for the "abolition of the presidency," the other called for the "abolition of the United States Senate." The proposed amendments were forwarded to the House Judiciary Committee, but do not appear to have advanced from there.  presented two "memorials" (petitions) In April 1911, U.S. Rep. Victor Berger, a Socialist from Wisconsin, introduced his own proposal to amend the Constitution by abolishing the Senate. The resolution read, in part: proposal to amend the Constitution by abolishing the Senate Whereas the Senate in particular has become an obstructive and useless body, a menace to the liberties of the people, and an obstacle to social growth... All legislative powers shall be vested in the House of Representatives. Its enactments, subject to referendum...shall be the supreme law, and the President shall have no power to veto them, nor shall any court have the power to invalidate them. Berger's proposal never made it out of committee, but shortly afterwards, the Senate passed a separate resolution that would go on to become the 17th Amendment, which provided for direct popular elections to the U.S. Senate, and replaced the existing method whereby state legislatures selected the members of the upper chamber.  separate resolution 1876: "The forbidding of religious leaders from occupying a governmental office or receiving federal funding.". This appears to be a reference to the Blaine Amendments  a series of proposals between 1875 and 1876, the first of which was made by James Blaine, a Maine Republican who was a member of the House, and then the Senate, during that period. Blaine's December 1875 proposal prohibited states from allowing religious groups or schools to receive taxpayer dollars, as follows:  December 1875 proposal No State shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, and no money raised by taxation in any State for the support of public schools, or derived from any public fund therefor, nor any public lands devoted thereto, shall ever be under the control of any religious sect or denomination; nor shall any funds so raised, or lands so used, be divided among any religious sects or denominations. However, it did not address the eligibility of "religious leaders" to hold office, and its restrictions relating to public funding were limited to the states, rather than including federal funding. A subsequent Republican revision of Blaine's proposal, in 1876, did expand the funding restrictions to the federal level, but did not involve barring religious leaders from holding office.  Republican revision 1878: "An Executive Council of Three to replace the office of President."  In the spring of 1878, U.S. Rep. Milton Southard, D-Ohio, introduced a proposal to replace the existing office of the president with a new "Supreme Executive Council of three." The triumvirate was to be chosen by "qualified electors" of the states, and taken from three would-be new districts: the Western states; the Eastern and Middle states; and the Southern states.  The original proposal can be found here. The exact stage at which the proposed amendment failed is not clear.  here 1893: "Renaming this nation the 'United States of the Earth'"1893: "Abolishing the United States Army and Navy." Based on a news report from the spring of 1893, and a 1987 New York Times article, both these measures were included in a proposed constitutional amendment put forward in February 1893, by U.S. Rep. Lucas Militiades Miller, D-Wisconsin.  news report from the spring of 1893 1987 New York Times article However, Miller may have made the proposals at the request of James Seldon Cowen, a Virginia inventor with eclectic interests and theories, who advanced detailed proposals for renaming the country, as well as abolishing the Army, Navy and their "schools of organized murder," in a book published the previous year.  inventor eclectic interests in a book published the previous year 1894: "Acknowledging that the Constitution recognize God and Jesus Christ as the supreme authorities in human affairs."In 1894, U.S. Sen. William Frye, R-Maine, introduced a proposal to amend the preamble to the Constitution and explicitly assert the Christianity of the United States. After the words "We the people of the United States," and before "in order to form a more perfect union," Frye proposed to add the following:  proposed to add the following ...devoutly acknowledging the supreme authority and just government of God in all the affairs of men and nations, and grateful to Him for our civil and religious liberty; and encouraged by the assurances of His word, invoke His guidance, as a Christian nation, according to His appointed way, through Jesus Christ,... 1912: "Making marriage between races illegal." In December 1912, U.S. Rep. Seaborn Roddenberry, D-Georgia, introduced a proposal to prohibit inter-racial marriage by way of constitutional amendment. Roddenberry, a white supremacist and racist extremist even by the standards of the early 20th century, explicitly cited his own revulsion at the recent high-profile marriage between Jack Johnson, the Black heavyweight boxer, and Lucille Cameron, a white woman, as the catalyst for his crusade against "miscegenation," as interracial relationships were at that time widely described.  In support of his cause, Roddenberry described inter-racial marriage as being "repulsive and averse to every sentiment of pure American spirit," according to a contemporaneous news report that contains some exceptionally offensive racist language.  news report Roddenberry's proposed amendment did not make it past the House Judiciary Committee, but several states subsequently introduced laws banning inter-racial marriage, until 1967, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in Loving vs. Virginia, that any and all laws prohibiting or restricting marriage based on racial considerations were in violation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection clause.  did not make it past the House Judiciary Committee ruled, in Loving vs. Virginia 1914: "Finding divorce to be illegal." In February 1914, U.S. Sen. Joseph Ransdell, D-Louisiana, proposed a constitutional amendment to outlaw divorce in the United States, arguing that the increased prevalence of divorce posed a threat to "the home," which he described as "the chief bulwark of society." He added: increased prevalence He added The remedy by constitutional prohibition is drastic, but the malady is so fatal that nothing short of it will prove efficacious. In the United States, divorce is spreading with alarming rapidity. It has permeated every walk of life and is prevalent among every class of people. The proposal did not make it out of committee.  did not make it out of committee 1916: "All acts of war should be put to a national vote. Anyone voting yes had to register as a volunteer for service in the United States Army." Several sources refer to a 1916 petition, signed by a group of Nebraska residents, which proposed to amend the constitution by requiring a referendum in order to declare war. A 1987 New York Times article reported that "the petition proposed that all those who voted in favor of the United States entering World War I be willing to enlist." Several sources We haven't yet tracked down that 1916 petition, but its description in the 1987 Times article was based on the account of a National Archives curator, and so can be relied upon as accurate. We were able to locate a proposal, brought before the House in February 1916, by U.S. Rep. Denver Church, D-California, who similarly called for a popular vote before any declaration of war. However, it's not clear if this was separate to the "Nebraska" proposal, or one and the same.  a proposal, brought before the House in February 1916 1933: "An attempt to limit personal wealth to $1 million." On May 9, 1933, U.S. Rep. Wesley Lloyd, D-Washington, proposed House Joint Resolution 178, which called for a constitutional amendment allowing Congress to set "the maximum amount of wealth allowed to any one individual" at a ceiling of "1,000,000 gold dollars." It's not clear at what stage the proposal died, but it does not appear to have reached a vote in either house.  House Joint Resolution 178 1936: "An attempt to allow the American people to vote on whether or not the United States should go to war."true. (The proposed amendment would still have allowed the U.S. to go to war without popular approval, in the event of an attack or invasion). Since the 1910s, several members of Congress advocated for the introduction of referendums as a prerequisite for the United States' entering a war. Most notably, between 1935 and 1936, U.S. Rep. Louis Ludlow, D-Indiana, embarked on what one historian described as a "war referendum crusade."  one historian described as In January 1935, he introduced a resolution in the House, calling for a constitutional amendment that would require that, "except in the event of attack or invasion," any Congressional resolution to go to war must be put to a popular referendum, and would not come into effect unless backed by a majority of voters.  The resolution was debated in the House Judiciary Committee, where it remained during 1935 and 1936, but advanced no further. 1938: "The forbidding of drunkenness in the United States and all of its territories." In April 1938, U.S. Rep. Gomer Griffith Smith, D-Oklahoma, introduced House Joint Resolution 661, a proposed constitutional amendment that stated: "Drunkenness in the United States and all Territories thereof is hereby prohibited." The proposal was considered by the House Judiciary Committee, but appears to have gone no further. In a copy of the resolution provided to the committee  and now held by the National Archives  an unknown individual added a handwritten note ironically suggesting an additional section: "That period of time, commonly known as Saturday night, is hereby stricken from the calendars of the United States, and abolished." copy of the resolution 1947: "The income tax maximum for an individual should not exceed 25%"true. This one appears to be referring to one of two tax-related proposed constitutional amendments put forward in 1947 by U.S. Rep. Noah Mason, R-Illinois. We haven't yet been able to locate the exact wording of those proposals, but we know that a subsequent compendium of proposed constitutional amendments, compiled by the U.S. Senate Library, described House Joint Resolutions 24 and 256 as both being "relative to taxes on incomes, inheritances and gifts." compendium of proposed constitutional amendments 24 256 We also know that in the previous Congress, in 1945, Mason  a Welsh-born conservative Republican  had proposed House Joint Resolution 88, which the same compendium described as proposing to "repeal the Sixteenth Amendment"  which allowed Congress to levy a federal income tax without having to distribute those monies among the states  as well as limiting "income, gift and inheritance tax to 25 percent."  House Joint Resolution 88 It is therefore highly likely that Mason's subsequent proposals, in 1947, called for substantially the same outcome. 1948: "The right of citizens to segregate themselves from others."In May 1948, U.S. Rep. Oren Harris, D-Arkansas, introduced a proposal to amend the Constitution as follows: "The right of any number of citizens to voluntarily segregate themselves from others for any lawful purpose shall not be denied."  introduced a proposal Harris, who opposed racial desegregation, was explicitly responding to the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision in Shelley vs. Kraemer, which had been published just days earlier. In that opinion, the Court had ruled that racially restrictive covenants  which were relatively common at that time and prohibited homeowners in historically white neighborhoods from selling their houses to non-white buyers  violated the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.  explicitly responding Shelley vs. Kraemer Harris's proposal languished in the House Judiciary Committee.  1971 American citizens should have the [in]alienable right to an environment free of pollution.  In 1968, U.S. Sen. Gaylord Nelson, D-Wisconsin, proposed a constitutional amendment that stated simply "Every person has the inalienable right to a decent environment. The United States and every state shall guarantee this right." proposed Nelson, a progressive Democrat, environmentalist and co-founder of Earth Day, proposed the same amendment again in January 1970, explaining:  proposed the same amendment again in January 1970 In its degradation of the quality of American life, in its danger to the future of man himself, I believe the environmental crisis is the greatest single threat to our pursuit of those inalienable rights  life, liberty. and the pursuit of happiness  which we have recognized as a society. Although that resolution was first introduced in 1970, the 91st Congress lasted until early 1971, so it's reasonable to date it to that year, although 1970 would probably be more suitable.  A Proposed Constitutional Amendment to Dissolve the United States Senate | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives. https://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1901-1950/A-proposed-constitutional-amendment-to-dissolve-the-United-States-Senate/. Accessed 29 Oct. 2021. In November 2019, some people encountered a meme on Facebook that claimed the social media company was using the contributions its users were making to birthday fundraisers as a tax-deductible write-off for the company:   While this meme contains four separate assertions, we'll focus mainly on the second one for this article, that "Facebook is allowed to declare your donation for a tax write-off." Facebook launched its birthday-donation program in 2017, a feature that allows users to "donate their birthdays" to raise money for various charities. A few weeks before a Facebook user's birthday, the user receives a message asking about a possible fundraiser centered on that day. If the user decides to raise funds, he or she may choose from 750,00 non-profits, set a fundraising goal, and then share the fundraiser with Facebook friends. Here's how Facebook explained the feature in its announcement: explained Two weeks before your birthday, youll see a message from Facebook in your News Feed giving you the option to create a fundraiser for your birthday. You can create a fundraiser for any of the 750,000 US nonprofits available for fundraising on Facebook. Your friends will receive a notification inviting them to support your cause in honor of your special day.   When birthday fundraisers were initially rolled out, Facebook was retaining 5% of the donations to cover processing fees and fraud protection. The company did away with those fees at the end of 2017, so as of now 100% of such donations go to the designated charities. In August 2018, Facebook announced that it has helped facilitate $300 million in charitable donations. (The above-displayed meme claims in item 3 that Facebook can "brag" about its charitable donations, but we should note the company's announcement says "People Raise $300M Through Birthday Fundraisers in First Year," not "Facebook Raises $300M Through Birthday Fundraisers in First Year.") announced The claim that Facebook was able to use the $300 million raised by its users via birthday fundraisers as a tax-deductible write-off is not substantiated by any evidence. In fact, it seems that Facebook users and not the company itself are actually the ones who get to write off these donations, as Facebook states: states A donation to a nonprofit through its Facebook Page or a fundraiser on Facebook may be tax-deductible. Since tax laws vary by country and region, you should consult a tax professional or review the laws for your area to determine whether a donation is tax-deductible. After you make a donation, a confirmation will be sent to the primary email listed on your Facebook account. This confirmation shows that you've made this donation as a charitable contribution and that you're not receiving any goods or services in return. We reached out to Facebook for comment on this meme and a spokesperson told us that these claims were "completely false": These claims about Facebook Fundraising tools are completely false. We are a donation platform and payments to charities are processed by our licensed, regulated subsidiaries. 100% of whats raised using donate buttons and fundraisers created on Facebook goes to the benefiting nonprofit. Nonprofits either receive funds directly from Facebook, or via Network for Good, a Donor Advised Fund we partner with."  While Facebook does not write off donations made by users, the company's birthday fundraisers have nonetheless spurred some criticism. In October 2018, some users reported that their one-time donations turned into recurring donations. (In fact, some billing irregularities occurred, but no users were actually charged more than they agreed to donate.) Tech Crunch also noted that this program has raised concerns about privacy, and one fundraising consultant was leery of the program for further distancing donors from charitable organizations: reported Tech Crunch As with almost every other Facebook feature, its fundraising tools have prompted concerns about privacy, particularly donor privacy, which is considered sacrosanct by many organizations (Facebook lets users decide if they want to share their donation with friends). Some charities also have qualms about benefiting from Facebook fundraisers until the company does a better job of policing hate speech, especially if the purpose of their work is aiding marginalized or persecuted minority groups. prompted concerns about privacy users decide if they want to share their donation with friends does a better job of policing hate speech In an insightful blog post from last November, fundraising consultant Jeremy Hatch argued that fundraising on Facebook also eliminates the relationship between donors and organizations, where there are established norms and ethical practices. He added that non-profits should reconsider before they grow increasingly reliant on a company whose ultimate goal is to gather and monetize user data. insightful blog post from last November We've yet to come across any credible reporting, however, documenting that Facebook was using individual donations from users as a tax write-off. As such, we rate this claim  Facebook Newsroom.  "People Raise $300M Through Birthday Fundraisers in First Year."
  15 August 2018. Shu, Catherine.  "Facebook Says Birthday Fundraisers Have Raised More Than $300 Million Over the Past Year."
  Tech Crunch.  15 August 2018. Sweet, Joni.  "Is It Safe to Donate Money on Facebook for Birthday Causes?"
  Yahoo News.  2 November 2018. Facebook Newsroom.  "Celebrating a Birthday? Now You Can Make It Even More Meaningful."
  16 August 2017.