No, Trump Didn't Mistake Madonna for Maradona
On Nov. 25, 2020, news broke that Argentinian soccer player Diego Maradona had died. As messages started to circulate mourning the loss of one of the sport's greatest players, some social media users mistakenly shared condolences for music icon Madonna. According to a viral image, U.S. President Donald Trump was one person who made this embarrassing mistake: Diego Maradona mistakenly shared condolences   The message reads: "Very sad to hear about the death of Maradona. A great person. Her music was wonderful. I remember listening to her albums in the early 1980's. Rest In Peace!" This is not a genuine message shared on Trump's Twitter account. For starters, this message does not appear on Trump's Twitter timeline. We also could not find this message in any of the databases that monitor Trump's deleted tweets. Lastly, Trump's Twitter account is monitored by journalists, politicians, and partisan pundits, yet we found no messages containing a link to Trump's alleged post.  Trump's Twitter timeline databases monitor Although a number of people truly did mourn the loss of singer Madonna in the wake of soccer player Maradona's death, Trump was not one of them. It should also be noted that this rumor was based on similar-sounding names and not on news reports about Madonna's health. In the days following this viral rumor, the singer posted several times to Instagram. posted
In a new 2-minute TV ad, Barack Obama explains his economic plans and contrasts them with John McCain's. In two other Truth-O-Meter rulings, we examined Obama's claims about his plans for small businesses and the middle class. Here, we'll address his plan for senior citizens. He says in the ad that seniors making less than $50,000, who are struggling with the rising costs of food and drugs on fixed incomes, wont pay income taxes at all. That is correct. Obama's tax plan specifies that he would eliminate all income taxation of seniors making less than $50,000 per year. The campaign estimates it will cut taxes an average of $1,400 for 7-million seniors. It's worth noting that Obama's proposal has been criticized on several fronts. Some economists have questioned whether it's a wise policy because seniors already receive favorable tax treatment. The Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan tax research group, said Obama's plan would create inequity by eliminating taxes for senior citizens who earn a modest income but continuing to tax younger workers earning the same amount. Also, it would help seniors who are currently paying income taxes but provide no benefit for those too poor to owe any tax. Still, Obama accurately describes his plan in the ad. We rate his statement True. As parts of Pakistan and India saw life-threatening temperatures that broke recent records in spring 2022, a map depicting what appeared to be record-setting land surface temperatures was hot on social media.  The above tweet was by posted by the ADAM Platform account on April 29, 2022. ADAM stands for the Advanced geospatial Data Management (ADAM) tool that compiles global environmental data. Its part of the European Open Science Cloud, an initiative to make scientific data publicly available. The ADAM account noted that the image above was collected by the Copernicus Sentinel 3 Land Surface Temperature (LST) device, a satellite operating under the European Space Agency that collects land surface temperature. ADAM Copernicus Sentinel 3 Widely circulated on social media, the LST map shared by the ADAM platform indeed painted a dire picture for residents living under oppressive temperatures in Southeast Asia. But some social media users unintentionally used the map out of context. out of context The post came as India and Pakistan saw an intense heatwave in early spring as temperatures in parts of the two countries reached record levels. Indian government officials stated that April was the third-hottest the country had seen since 1901, with an average maximum of 95.5 degrees Fahrenheit. Meanwhile, Pakistan was similarly plagued by warming temperatures in what could be an equally dire situation for both nations, where many lack access to air conditioning. reached record levels stated third-hottest average maximum plagued To understand how LST differs from air temperature, Snopes spoke with Cascade Tuholske, a postdoctoral research scientist at the Columbia Climate School, in a series of questions and answers: Columbia Climate School NASA Earth Observatory Tuholske (T): LST is the radiated heat from the ground, while air temperature is the air heat we experience as humans, sometimes called 2-meter air temperature. It is important to note that LST varies much more over short distances and short time frames than air temperature. We can think about this by touching the asphalt of a parking lot on a really hot day next to a baseball field. The asphalt to the touch is hot, whereas the grass on the field is much cooler. Yet the air temperature on our skin, which is likely somewhere between the temperature of the asphalt and the grass, does not change much as we move from the parking lot to the field. Thus, the LST of heat-absorbing surfaces on the ground, like asphalt, are very hot when we use a satellite to measure LST from space. But we don't live directly on top of the ground; we live 5 or 6 feet above the ground, and thus air temperature is much more important to understanding heat impacts to human health and well-being. Another way to think about this is to turn on a stove. When we put our hand on the stove, we get burned. But when we move away, the heat of the stove dissipates. The stove will heat the air in a room, but that depends on how long we keep the stove on and how well the room is insulated.  NOAA Climate T: Wet bulb temperature (WBT) and wet bulb globe temperature (WBGT) are very specific metrics that account for humidity but in very different ways, and they should not be confused. Per this explanation, WBT is: "Wet bulb temperature is the lowest temperature to which air can be cooled by the evaporation of water into the air at a constant pressure." explanation WBT is a psychrometric is constructed from the air temperature (dry bulb), pressure, and water in a parcel of air. psychrometric WBGT is a metric that was created to estimate the combined impact of air temperature, humidity, radiated heat (e.g., land surface temperature), and wind on human physical output. It is measured with a field instrument and tied to several occupational heat health standards. WBGT Both WBGT and WBT are two of many different metrics that try to assess how air temperature and humidity combined impact human health and well-being. In the U.S., a widely used metric that also does this is the Heat Index. Humidity is important to account for because at certain thresholds, with enough water in the air, we don't get any cooling benefit from sweating. widely used metric  Both WBGT and WBT cannot be calculated from LST directly. Thus any attempt to use LST to estimate WBT or WBGT is not only inaccurate, it is highly misleading. T: Both WBGT and WBT cannot be calculated from LST directly. Thus, any attempt to use LST to estimate WBT or WBGT is not only inaccurate, but also highly misleading. This is not to say high LST values do not have impacts on human health and well-being. But it should not be used to measure direct impacts. In areas where we do not have good air temperature data, like much of India, LST is still a useful proxy for understanding impacts to human health and well-being. Further, LST is quite useful for looking at impacts on crops and plants, as it is tied to soil moisture and canopy temperatures. This is important for understanding how heat waves impact food production or wildfire likelihood.  T: There are very clear limits in WBT that the human body can handle with even a few hours of exposure. Basically, when WBT hits between 32 and 35 degrees Celsius, humans do not get an evaporative cooling benefit from sweating. Even with any amount of water, we face high the likelihood of heat stroke, organ failure, and death at these upper WBT thresholds. These WBT thresholds have recently started to be crossed (and may be crossed more frequently going forward) in some of the most populated places on the planet. This means for those living and working in these locations, being outside may be deadly. between evaporative cooling benefit started to be crossed  T: Plants, humans, and animals are all impacted by heat differently. Humans, generally, can only tolerate WBT temperatures of between 30 and 35 degrees Celsius. I expect to see significant decreases in labor output in many of the most populated places on the planet where billions of people's livelihoods, both in cities and in rural areas, depend on working outside. I hope we adapt fast enough to prevent mass fatality events, though the heat wave in North America last year shows we need to raise awareness and prepare for extreme heat everywhere. T: The heat wave in Southern Asia is impacting the poorest and most vulnerable people on the planet right now. We have tools and the resources to move these people out of harm's way right now. We don't need new technologies per se. We need the political and cultural will to spend money to help vulnerable people. What is disturbing to me is that the rich and powerful worldwide do not care enough to create collective and coordinated action. T: We must rethink what we value as humans. Do we value the well-being of others, especially the poorest? I would say our current economic systems reflect that no, in fact, we do not value vulnerable people. If we shift resources to raise the floor so to speak, we will deploy tools we already have  like effective early-warning systems, cash transfers for those who can't work because of heat, infrastructure investments so electricity doesn't cut during heat waves and a/c units work, and so forth  and we can reduce the impacts of extreme heat. We have the tools to adapt to extreme heat. We just have to use them. I am hopeful we will. Sources Clifford, Catherine. Indias Record-Setting Heat Wave in Pictures. CNBC, 2 May 2022, https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/02/india-heat-wave-in-pictures.html. CNN, Rhea Mogul, Esha Mitra, Manveena Suri and Sophia Saifi. India and Pakistan Heatwave Is Testing the Limits of Human Survivability. CNN, https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/02/asia/india-pakistan-heatwave-climate-intl-hnk/index.html. Accessed 3 May 2022. Columbia Climate School. https://www.climate.columbia.edu/. Accessed 3 May 2022. Development of the weather and climate service CRITERION for the touristic sector in e-SHAPE. Ilmastokatsaus, vol. 4, no. 1, Feb. 2022. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.35614/ISSN-2341-6408-IK-2022-03-RL. Freedman, Andrew. India and Pakistan Heat Wave Sets Monthly Records, Triggers Fires and Power Outages. Axios, 2 May 2022, https://www.axios.com/india-pakistan-heat-wave-climate-change-records-a59a1070-e367-43ba-aedc-296670267294.html. Home Page. Adam Platform, https://adamplatform.eu/. Accessed 3 May 2022. Https://Twitter.Com/Leahmcelrath/Status/1520863600642039808. Twitter, https://twitter.com/leahmcelrath/status/1520863600642039808. Accessed 3 May 2022. Https://Twitter.Com/Platformadam/Status/1519980107217129472. Twitter, https://twitter.com/platformadam/status/1519980107217129472. Accessed 3 May 2022. Mellen, Ruby, and William Neff. Beyond Human Endurance. Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/interactive/2021/climate-change-humidity/. Accessed 3 May 2022. Beyond Human Endurance. Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/interactive/2021/climate-change-humidity/. Accessed 3 May 2022. Psychrometrics. Wikipedia, 30 Apr. 2022. Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Psychrometrics&oldid=1085398029. Raymond, Colin, et al. The Emergence of Heat and Humidity Too Severe for Human Tolerance. Science Advances, vol. 6, no. 19, May 2020, p. eaaw1838. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaw1838. The Emergence of Heat and Humidity Too Severe for Human Tolerance. Science Advances, vol. 6, no. 19, May 2020, p. eaaw1838. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaw1838. Vecellio, Daniel J., et al. Evaluating the 35C Wet-Bulb Temperature Adaptability Threshold for Young, Healthy Subjects (PSU HEAT Project). Journal of Applied Physiology, vol. 132, no. 2, Feb. 2022, pp. 34045. Penn State, https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00738.2021. Wet-Bulb Temperature - an Overview | ScienceDirect Topics. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/wet-bulb-temperature. Accessed 3 May 2022. 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 late November 2020, social media users called attention to the number of Twitter accounts following U.S. President Donald Trump after his reelection loss to Joe Biden. Donald Trump Joe Biden One such tweet (displayed below) alleged the sitting president had lost followers "for the first time" and included a chart supposedly depicting that trend. such tweet  The underlying assertion  that Trump's account saw an unusual decline in followers after the election  is true; however, it is false to say the follower count had never dipped at all before, or that the number only increased or remained stagnant until late November 2020. Firstly, the number of Twitter accounts following @realDonaldTrump overall increased during Trump's presidency. Snopes created the below-displayed visualization of the trend based on follower analytics by Factba.se, a database of the president's public statements that uses automated software and archived screenshots to measure his accounts follower count over time. @realDonaldTrump Factba.se   Next, let us unpack the claim. Socialbakers, a software company that compiles social media analytics, apparently created the tweet's data visualization. The graph measured @realDonaldTrump's millions of Twitter followers between Nov. 16 and Nov. 23, when the account was a leading tool for the president's misinformation campaign to try to lower Americans' trust in the 2020 election as states certified election results in Biden's favor. @realDonaldTrump president's misinformation campaign states certified election results The graph depicted a steady decrease in followers over that time period, going from about 88.95 million followers to 88.90 million followers. Below is another visualization of the account's growth or decline in followers via Socialbakers over a longer time frame, between Election Day on Nov. 3 and Nov. 29.   Those numbers were indeed accurate estimations, according to Factba.se. Factba.se In other words, it is accurate to state that the president's follower account was decreasing from one day to the next in late November 2020. Per Factba.se, the president recorded an all-time peak follower count  88,964,791  on Nov. 17. Then, the following day, that total dropped by more than 18,900 accounts, and a daily decline continued with no sign of changing course as of this writing on Nov. 30. By that point, the president had lost almost 140,000 followers since the high point roughly two weeks earlier. (See the slight declines each day via Factba.se data below.)   That type of consecutive daily decline over the course of almost two weeks had not happened since the start of Trump's presidency in January 2017, per Factba.se's data.   However, it was false to claim that Trump's follower count had never before decreased. Between Jan. 20, 2017  the day of Trump's inauguration  and Nov. 17, 2020, Trump lost followers from one day to the next on numerous occasions, per the database. The net losses, which ranged in size, were documented on the following dates: June 15, 2017; June 29, 2017; July 13, 2017; Jan. 30, 2018; Feb. 2, 2018; May 25, 2018; June 9, 2018; June 28, 2018; July 12, 2018; July 18, 2018; July 19, 2018; Oct. 23, 2018; Oct. 24, 2018; Nov 4, 2018; Nov. 5, 2018; Nov. 9, 2018; Nov. 29, 2018; Dec. 7, 2018; April 24, 2019; Nov. 29, 2019; Jan. 29, 2020; Oct. 31, 2020; Nov. 9, 2020; Nov. 14, 2020, and Nov. 15, 2020. In other words, in four instances  July 2018, October 2018, November 2018, and mid-November 2020  Trump's Twitter account measured a follower count less than the day prior two days in a row. But in all of those cases, on the third day, the quick trend reversed and showed a net gain. That was not the case in late November 2020, when, as of this writing, the account tallied 13 days of consecutive net losses. We should note here: the data showed the total number of accounts following the president, no matter if they were associated with particular individuals, companies, organizations, or bots. The latter are run by programs attempting to spread content on social media without human involvement. Factba.se tweeted the following: tweeted   "We don't analyze for bot behavior," the tweet said. However, "small drops daily"  like what the president's account measured in late November  were not typically the result of bots removing themselves from accounts, per Factba.se's analysis. In sum, it was true in November 2020 that Trump was losing Twitter followers from one day to the next over almost two weeks  something that had not happened since the start of his presidency. However, it was false to say his follower account declined "for the first time." On numerous occasions, he lost followers from one day to the next. For those reasons, we rate this claim a mixture of truth and falsehood. Readers responded with bemusement and skepticism in June 2019 after an "Official 2020 Trump vs Democrat Poll" emerged online and on social media, appearing to pose questions framed in a heavily anti-Democrat way. For example, one survey question asked, "Who would you rather see fix our Nation's shattered immigration policies? President Trump // A MS-13 loving Democrat," while another somewhat tautological question asked: "Who would you trust to NOT raise your taxes? President Trump // A High Tax Democrat." Such bias in the questions, as well as some clear nods to Trump's go-to insults against his political opponents (the poll referenced "a Lyin' Democrat" and "a Low IQ Democrat"), prompted inquiries from Snopes readers who were uncertain whether they were reading a parody or hoax or an official Trump 2020 campaign poll. One reader asked, "Oh my gosh, is this really from the Trump campaign? Or some satire site?" while another wrote, "Is this for real? It sounds too crazy ..." The survey was indeed published by Trump's official re-election campaign committee, on that campaign's official website. An archived version can be read here. The site on which it appeared, donaldjtrump.com, is run by two formally registered, pro-Trump committees and the Republican National Committee (RNC). The website contains the following disclaimer, which makes clear the official nature of the June 2019 survey and all other content featured on the site: here "Paid for by the Trump Make America Great Again Committee, a joint fundraising committee authorized by and composed of Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. and the Republican National Committee." Committee Inc Committee The poll's true purpose may not have been to create a set of results that reflected in a misleadingly positive way on the president but rather to harvest contact information  respondents were required to enter their name, zip code and email address in order to submit their answers.  The full list of questions was as follows: The "Trump vs Democrat" poll bore similarities to another survey on the subject of "mainstream media accountability," which Trump's website published in February 2017, and that included heavily slanted questions such as. "Do you feel that the media is too eager to slur conservatives with baseless accusations of racism and sexism?"  accountability DonaldJTrump.com. "Official 2020 Trump vs Democrat Poll."
 June 2019. DonaldJTrump.com. "Mainstream Media Accountability Survey."
 February 2017. Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO In April 2020, millions of Americans who lost income due to circumstances related to the COVID-19 pandemic were waiting on promised relief payments from the United States government. So when news broke that U.S. President Donald Trump was making the "unprecedented" move of having his name added to these stimulus checks, a decision that could potentially delay the arrival of these checks by several days, many citizens took to social media to voice their displeasure, as in the example below: millions of Americans social media   Trump's name is truly being added to the COVID-19 stimulus checks, otherwise known as Economic Impact Payments. As of this writing, however, officials at the U.S. Treasury Department insist this will not result in any delays.  The Washington Post first reported on Trump's decision on April 14, 2020. According to the news outlet, Trump's name is expected to appear in the memo line of the check, not as the payment's official signatory, and that this will be the "first time that a president's name appears on an IRS disbursement": reported The Treasury Department has ordered President Trumps name printed on stimulus checks the Internal Revenue Service is rushing to send to tens of millions of Americans, a process that could slow their delivery by a few days, senior IRS officials said. The unprecedented decision, finalized late Monday, means that when recipients open the $1,200 paper checks the IRS is scheduled to begin sending to 70 million Americans in coming days, President Donald J. Trump will appear on the left side of the payment. It will be the first time a presidents name appears on an IRS disbursement, whether a routine refund or one of the handful of checks the government has issued to taxpayers in recent decades either to stimulate a down economy or share the dividends of a strong one. Treasury officials disputed that the checks would be delayed. While Trump's name will appear on these stimulus checks, we can't predict whether these payments will be delayed or go out on time. A Treasury Department official said in a statement that "absolutely no delay whatsoever" would occur:  statement "Economic Impact Payment checks are scheduled to go out on time and exactly as planned  there is absolutely no delay whatsoever ... In fact, we expect the first checks to be in the mail early next week which is well in advance of when the first checks went out in 2008 and well in advance of initial estimates." It should also be noted that many Americans will be receiving their stimulus payments via a direct deposit. It's unclear how many people will receive hard paper checks bearing Trump's name and how many will receive a digital payment.  An IRS official told Fox News that the number of people who will receive paper checks was subject to a "number of variables, including how much info the IRS obtains through the Non-Filers Enter Payment Info web portal and the Get My Payment portal launching [April 15] at IRS.gov. Fox News These Economic Impact Payments were included in the $2.2 trillion stimulus package that Trump signed in late March 2020. According to the IRS, direct-deposit payments had already started going out as of the second week in April. Those waiting on a paper check, however, may not see their payments for several weeks. (If you're waiting on a payment, you can check the status of your check on a recently launched web app from the IRS.) several weeks web app To sum up: It is true that in April 2020, the U.S. government made the unprecedented move of adding the president's name to stimulus checks issued by the IRS in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Although an IRS official said this could slow the process and delay the delivery of checks, Treasury officials insisted that the checks would still go out on schedule.  Paine, Neil.  "More Than 16 Million Americans Have Lost Their Jobs In The Past Three Weeks."
  Five Thirty Eight.  9 April 2020. Raju, Manu; Fox, Lauren; Klein, Betsy.  "Some Americans Could Wait 20 Weeks to Receive Stimulus Checks, IRS Tells House Democrats."
  CNN.  2 April 2020. Olson, Tyler and John Roberts.  "Trump's Name Will be Added to Stimulus Checks."
  Fox News.  15 April 2020. Acosta, Jim and Caroline Kelly.  "Trump's Name Will be Added to Stimulus Checks."
  CNN.  15 April 2020. Acosta, Jim and Caroline Kelly.  "Trump's Name Will be Added to Stimulus Checks."
  CNN.  15 April 2020. Lederman, Josh Phil Helsel.  "Trump's Name Will Appear on Coronavirus Relief Checks."
  NBC News.  14 April 2020. Claim:  The plastic strip embedded in U.S. bank notes enable the Feds to tell how much money you have on you.  Examples:  [Collected on the Internet, 2001] This past weekend, a friend visiting our house told us that the anti-counterfeiting strip put in newly printed paper money can be used to determine how much cash you are carrying.  She said that the ever-present "they" at the airport have a machine that can determine how much cash you have on your person or in your luggage, and if you are carrying a sufficiently large amount of cash, you will be detained by the police and interrogated until you confess your guilt as a drug smuggler.  [Collected on the Internet, 2003] I did not get this in an e-mail but my bank teller in Kirksville, MO told me this one.  Evidently there is an urban legend floating around that the new "security strip" in the new $20's can be read by satellites with the implication being the Govt. can beam a satellite on you and eventually, when all the bills in circ. will have these, be able to tell how much $ you are carrying around.  This teller told me that she has had customers come in requesting "no new $20s" for this reason! We had a good laugh about it and we both agreed that the Govt. is going to be sorely disappointed if they turned this hypothetical satellite on us! Origins:  The ongoing effort to stay one step ahead of the counterfeiters has led to the inclusion of a number of security features in U.S. currency. One countermeasure in particular has come to be the focus of a widely-believed bit lore: the embedded inscribed security thread. According to scuttlebutt, the purpose of the thread isn't really to make it more difficult for the ill-intentioned to introduce   worthless currency into circulation by fooling its recipients into thinking it genuine, but instead to allow the government to know exactly how much money anyone is carrying at any particular moment. With the use of special scanners, or possibly a beam from a distant satellite, the Feds can quickly count the value of all bank notes being carried on or about one's person and thus track how much money is entering or leaving the country, and with whom. This knowledge, says the behind-the-hand whisperings, is used to finger drug dealers and smugglers. The rumor is bunk. The strip's sole purpose is the foiling of counterfeiters. It, along with a number of other security features worked into the nation's bank notes, make it far harder on the criminal element to produce phony bills that will be mistaken for the real thing. Other features include the microprinting of "The United States of America" within the rim surrounding the portraits on bills, a watermark displayed elsewhere on the bill of the figure in the portrait, and optically variable ink (OVI) which changes from green to black in the number in the lower right-hand corner of the bill when viewed from different angles. As for the suspect strip, it is made of polyester and is inscribed with the denomination of the bill. Nothing about the composition of these strips renders them detectable by scanner or satellite. In 2004, the false belief attaching to this security feature was enhanced by the claim of these bands containing RFID tags. As technology advanced, so did the rumor, leading many to microwave their $20 bills into ashen submission by falling for the canard that nuking their currency would disable these  RFID tags transmitters. Yet the belief about governmental detection of concealed sums via a subterfuge worked into the currency even predates the polyester security threads. In the 1980s, those similarly worried about being tracked by Big Brother fretted over the ink with which bank notes were printed, muttering to themselves that the "magnetic ink" they believed to have been used rendered the bills somehow magnetic and thus detectable by machine. Back then, the concern was more that this magnetic money would serve to pinpoint the location of the person carrying it rather than it give away how much of it was being ported, but it is another form of the same belief. One confirmation that nothing in and of itself is detectable about the polyester strips embedded in bank notes arises out of the news about security technologies now used at some U.S. airports, including Chicago's O'Hare. Were caches of greenbacks already being ferreted out via their embedded threads, descriptions of the BodySearch scanner, a device that uses special "backscatter" X-rays to produce images of items that might be concealed under passengers' clothing, would not always impart the glad tidings that this gizmo reveals the presence of currency as well as narcotics, plastic explosives, and plastic weapons.  While in the main, the "sneakily embedded technology allows for the surreptitious tracking of people or their assets" rumor attaches to currency and blames the government for the supposed spying, the belief also carries to other items and points fingers at other parties.  [Kamradt, 2003] Some students have not picked up their new ID cards through the re-carding project, which ends today, because of a rumor that there is a locator chip inside the IDs so Purdue can track their whereabouts. "To dispel the transponder rumors, I was closely involved in developing the requirements for production of the ID cards and I can ensure students that no secret electronic devices were embedded in these cards," said Terry Schroeder, project manager for the Purdue ID Re-carding Project. "From my understanding, most of the group that met to discuss this issue (as a result of distributed flyers) were wearing aluminum foil beanies."  [Mulkins, 2000] I heard that a person carrying a large number of $100 bills, going through the PikePass readers, could be detected and the exact amount of money determined. The authorities are using PikePass to detect drug dealers and then confiscating the money, even confiscating the money of innocent persons. (PikePass is a prepaid toll device containing a battery and a radio-frequency modulator placed on the windshield of a vehicle.  As a car bearing one travels under a transmitter overhanging a turnpike lane, the device intercepts the signal being broadcast and returns a signal exclusive to that particular PikePass customer. The signal is read, and the toll is subtracted from the customer's account.) PikePass Whereas student ID cards and prepaid toll signalers do at least have a whiff of the enigmatic to their technology, which works to encourage belief that some of that incomprehensibility might be of nefarious intent (we mistrust what we don't understand, after all), this next expression of the rumor is even farther afield: [Collected on the Internet, 1999] I recently received an email telling me that I need to take the labels off my canned good and mark the bare cans with a marker, or at least black out the UPCs. Why? Well, it seems the government has helicopters equipped with scanners that can read the UPCs of the food you have stored. Ostensibly, the government is doing this so they can confiscate food for redistribution in the up coming Y2K breakdown of society. When asked to verify, the poster informed me she was told this by a 'family friend" who flies one of these scanner-equipped helicopters. Of course he doesn't want to be named for his own safety, but he risked telling his dear friends because he loves them. While most folks will laugh off the thought of their soup cans spying on them, the same cannot be said of the belief that their long green is being counted by surveillance satellites sent into orbit by a government intent upon keeping tabs on its citizens  a great many appear to believe that.  Barbara "watch your money, don't worry about your money watching you" Mikkelson Sightings:  In a first-season episode of television's The X Files ("E.B.E.," original air date 18 February 1994), a member of a group that believes the government is up to any number of monstrous conspiracies takes a $20 bill from Agent Scully, holds it up to the light, rips the left side off, and pulls out its security strip, saying, "They use this magnetic strip to track you. Whenever you go through a metal detector at an airport, they know exactly how much you're carrying." Additional information:        Inscribed Security Thread   (Secret Service)        Money Design Features   (Secret Service)        The Redesigned $20 Note   (Bureau of Engraving)   Last updated:  19 May 2011   Garber, Andrew.  "New Airport Gadgets Strip, Sniff, Scan."  The Seattle Times.  23 October 2001  (p. A1).   Kamradt, Kori.  "Officials Dismiss Rumors About New IDs."  The [Purdue University] Exponent .  14 November 2003.   Mulkins, Phil.  "PikePass Can't Count Dope Dealers' Money."  Tulsa World.  28 July 2000.   Webb, Tom.  "U.S. Currency to Get Makeover."  The Denver Post.  14 July 1994  (p. A4).   Zane, Maitland.  "Counterfeit-Proof Cash Makes Its Debut."  The San Francisco Chronicle.  26 July 1991  (p. A1).   The Associated Press.  "O'Hare Officials Install Scanner, Hoping to Replace Body Searches."  St. Louis Post-Dispatch.  23 November 1999  (p. B2). People sometimes search for proofs of their darkest imaginings everywhere, including on the shelves of grocery stores. One example of this phenomenon is that packages bearing marks whose meanings aren't readily apparent to the average shopper have been interpreted by those always on the sniff for a Jewish conspiracy as signs that Big Business is in league with the Jews: The "Kosher Nostra Scam" on the American Consumer  By Ernesto CienfuegosLa Voz de Aztlan  Los Angeles, Alta California  (ACN) La Voz de Aztlan receives quite a few "news tips" per week from our many subscribers and readers. Some we dismiss immediately but a very few catch our attention. Last week we receive an e-mail asking us if we knew the significance of the small encircled letter "U" or letter "K" that can be found printed on many food cans, food packages and on other kitchen products. The message gave us some clues and suggested that we do some research into the subject. What we found certainly was "news" to us and it both shocked and angered us.  On arriving at my residence, I immediately went to the pantry to verify that what I had just learned was actually true. Sure enough, most of the packaged and canned foods from major companies, like Proctor & Gamble and others, did have the (U), the (K) or other similar markings. The Arrowhead water bottle, the instant Folgers Coffee, the Kelloggs box, the Jiff Peanut Butter, the Pepper container, the Trader Joe's tea box and even the Glads plastic sandwich bags carton had the (U) or (K) mark on them.  We needed a little more verification so we called two major companies to asked some questions. We chose Proctor & Gamble that markets the Folgers Coffee and the Clorox Company that manufactures the Glads plastic zip lock sandwich bags. Each of the two companies, as well as most others, have 1-800 telephone numbers printed on their packages for consumers to call in case they have any questions about their products. When we asked the Proctor & Gamble representative what the (U) meant on their Folgers Coffee container, she asked us to wait until she consulted with her supervisor. She came back and informed us that the mark meant that the coffee was " certified kosher". We than asked her how and who certified the coffee to be "kosher" and whether it cost any money to do so. She refused to answer these and other questions. She suggested that we write to their Corporate Public Affairs Department. We than called the Clorox Corporation to ask what the (U) meant on the package of their Glads plastic sandwich bags and she also said that the (U) meant that the plastic bags were "kosher" but refused to answer questions concerning payments the Clorox Corporation has to make in order to be able to print the (U) on their products.  What we learned next, pretty much floored me personally. I learned that major food companies throughout America actually pay a Jewish Tax amounting to hundreds of million of dollars per year in order to receive protection. This hidden tax gets passed, of course, to all non-Jewish consumers of the products. The scam is to coerce the companies to pay up or suffer the consequences of a Jewish boycott. Jewish consumers have learned not to buy any kitchen product that does not have the (U) the (K) and other similar markings.  Another shocker was learning who is actually behind these sophisticated "Kosher Nostra Scams." It turns out that the perpetrators of these elaborate extortion schemes are actually Rabbinical Councils that are set up, not just in the U.S. but in other western countries as well. For example, the largest payola operation in the U.S. is run by those who license the (U) symbol. The (U) symbol provides protection for many products sold here in Aztlan and in the United States. This symbol is managed by the The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations with headquarters at 333 Seventh Avenue in New York City.  The scam works like a well oiled machine and is now generating vast amounts of funds, some of which are being utilized by the Union of Orthodox Rabbis to support the Ariel Sharon Zionist government in Israel. The website of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations is full of pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian propaganda.  The "Kosher Nostra" protection racket starts when an Orthodox Rabbi approaches a company to warn the owners that unless their product is certified as kosher, or "fit for a Jew to eat", they will face a boycott by every Jew in America. Most, if not all of the food companies, succumb to the blackmail because of fear of the Jewish dominated media and a boycott that may eventually culminate in bankruptcy. Also, the food companies know that the cost can be passed on to the consumer anyway. The food companies have kept secret from the general consumer the meaning of the (U) and the amount of money they have to pay the Jewish Rabbis.  It is estimated that the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations, which manages the (U) symbol protection racket, controls about 85% of the "Kosher Nostra "certification business. They now employ about 1200 Rabbi agents that are spread through out the U.S. Food companies must first pay an exorbitant application fee and than a large annual fee for the use of the (U) copyright symbol. Secondly, the companies must pay separate fees each time a team of Rabbis shows up to "inspect" the company's operations. Certain food companies are required to hire Rabbis full time at very lucrative salaries.  The amount of money that the non-Jewish consumer has paid the food companies to make up for the hidden Jewish Tax is unknown, but it is estimated to be in the billions since the scam first started. The Orthodox Jewish Councils as well as the food companies keep the amount of the fees very secret. The Jewish owned Wall Street Journal wrote about the problem many years ago, but they have stopped writing about it now.  Only public awareness concerning the "Kosher Nostra Scam" will eventually help stop this swindle of the American consumer. Public education of the scam may lead to an eventual non-Jewish boycott of all products with the (U), (K) or other Jewish protection symbols. I certainly do not need to pay extra for "kosher water", "kosher coffee" or "kosher plastic sandwich bags". In fact, I demand my money back for all the money I had to pay over the years for the hidden and illegal Jewish Tax. Are there any bright attorneys out there that could bring a class action suit against the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations on behalf of the citizens of Aztlan and other non-Jewish people? The rumor that the presence of those mysterious markings signifies that the manufacturers of those products have paid a secret tax to the Jews of America has been afoot for decades, and the e-mail quoted above is merely a more recent manifestation of this age-old canard. The claim is wholly false, and we wonder at the twisted minds that would advance such a slander. No "Jewish Secret Tax" exists, or ever has. The markings pointed to in the rumor are real; however, their purpose is entirely different from the one asserted by the rumormongers. They do not signal that a secret tax has been paid or that corporations have succumbed to blackmail; they are there to indicate to members of a particular faith that such items have been vetted as having met the strictures their religion imposes. (If the notion of a religion imposing dietary requirements upon its followers sounds like an outlandish proposition, keep in mind that only in recent times have Catholics taken to eating meat on Fridays, and that Muslims still eschew pork.) As to what those markings mean:  The letter "K" simply means "Kosher." Kosher, in Hebrew, means fit or proper, and is generally used to describe foods that are prepared in accordance with special Jewish dietary laws. These laws are stringent and almost incomprehensible to those not versed in them.  The small "u" in a circle or ("OU") stands for the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations and shows that the food underwent rabbinical supervision in its preparation. (An "OUD" marking shows that the package contains dairy products, while an "OUM" indicates the presence of meat.)  "Parve" (also "pareve") is Yiddish for "neutral." The presence of this word on packaging signifies that the contents of the package contain neither milk nor meat and thus can be combined with other ingredients in recipes. (Jewish dietary law forbids the mixing of meat and dairy, thus a packaged food that contained cheese could not be combined with, say, hamburger.) This variety of markings used on packaged foods alert consumers that items contained therein either meet the strict dietary constraints imposed by Judaism on its followers or that the contents of the package can be mixed with other foods or can touch them. Not all Jews keep kosher, nor even among those who do are the strictures always adhered to rigorously, but those determined upon being truly pious are aided in this endeavor by the presence of those markings. The devout go so far as to maintain two separate sets of utensils, cookware, and cutting surfaces so that meat and dairy never encounter one another in their kitchens. It is for their benefit that otherwise puzzling kosher certifications on non-foodstuff items are there (e.g., certifications are placed upon dishwashing liquid because dishes used for dairy cannot be washed using a soap made from animal fats). Less observant Jews do not bother themselves overly much about the kosherness of everyday items; they avoid the out-and-out no-nos such as pork and shellfish but don't lose much sleep over the animal fat content of their washing-up liquid, nor do they fret that cold cuts might now be resting upon a plate that had months earlier been used to serve cheese. The proponents of the "Jewish Secret Tax" slander often assert that a sub rosa Jewish cabal forces large companies to comply via the threat of a nationwide boycott, backed by the underlying presumption that all Jews can be marshalled into turning their backs on products that fail to display kosher certification marks. That is not the case  Jews buy and use non-kosher items too, so although lack of kosher certification keeps the ultra-conservative crowd from buying certain products, it doesn't prevent the less stringent from making such purchases, nor would a "don't buy that because it's not kosher" directive have much effect even if there were a secret Jewish cabal to issue it. Those seeking kosher certification for their products have to adhere to kosher practices through the manufacturing process, use only kosher ingredients, and have their facilities regularly vetted by qualified inspectors. Kosher certification companies do charge for this service, which is the backbone of the "secret tax" claim  it costs money to obtain and maintain kosher certification, thus this is an extra expense a manufacturer must bear if he's determined upon having that certification. Where the rumor and reality part ways, however, is where the money goes. Fees paid to kosher certification companies go to keeping those businesses afloat with the profits siphoned off by those companies' owners; they do not flow off into some special Jewish fund used to advance Zionist causes. These are businesses, not charities, and those who run them do so with every expectation of making a living, in the same manner that someone who owns a hardware store does so with the notion of making  enough from the endeavor to support himself and his family. Does certification add to the price of a product? Certainly, but the amount is miniscule, especially compared to the advertising,  packaging, shipping, research, testing, admin and finance-related costs, and a myriad of other components that contribute to the process of bringing a product to market or making it better appeal to consumers. One might as well rail against the costs associated with selecting the ink colors and style of lettering used on a package  it's all legitimate business expense, even though no one ever rails against the "Secret Red Ink Conspiracy" or rants about the "Helvetica Font Tax." <!--      A Kosher Primer  (Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America)-->   Brunvand, Jan Harold.  The Mexican Pet.
  New York: W. W. Norton, 1986.   ISBN 0-393-30542-2   (pp. 106-107).

 Morgan, Hal and Kerry Tucker. More Rumor! On 3 February 2019, Super Bowl Sunday, the viral news and entertainment site LADbible.com reported that the pop music band and Super Bowl LIII halftime act Maroon 5 had donated their "entire $500,000 Super Bowl fee" to a children's charity: reported   Although it's true that Maroon 5 partnered with their label Interscope Records and the National Football League (NFL) in making a $500,000 donation to the children's charity Big Brothers Big Sisters of America, the money didn't come out of the band's performance fee. NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy clarified in an email that Super Bowl halftime acts don't receive performance fees. McCarthy referred us to a statement from Maroon 5 lead singer Adam Levine provided to People magazine that said: "Playing the Super Bowl has been a dream of our band for a long time. We thank the NFL for the opportunity and also to them, along with Interscope Records, for making this donation to Big Brothers Big Sisters, which will have a major impact for children across the country." People Maroon 5 followed the lead of rapper Travis Scott, who only agreed to perform at the Super Bowl after the NFL vowed to make a $500,000 donation to Dream Corps, a social justice-oriented non-profit founded by Van Jones in 2015. non-profit The large donations to charitable organizations were the result of the mounting pressure the NFL was facing over what critics called the "blacklisting" by the league of former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick. In 2016, Kaepernick began kneeling during the playing of the national anthem before NFL games in protest over police violence against black Americans. As his protest spread and was adopted by other players in the league, so did the backlash. In reference to players' kneeling before games, President Donald Trump in September 2017 stated: Wouldnt you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say, Get that son of a bitch off the field right now. Out! Hes fired. Hes fired! stated Kaepernick hasn't played since opting out of his contract with the San Francisco 49ers in 2017 and has filed a grievance against the NFL, accusing team owners of colluding in not signing him. grievance As a result of the controversy, the NFL had trouble securing halftime acts for Super Bowl LIII, with A-list entertainers such as Rihanna, Cardi B, Jay-Z, and Pink declining to perform in solidarity with Kaepernick. In an interview with the Associated Press, rapper Cardi B said, I got to sacrifice a lot of money to perform. But theres a man who sacrificed his job for us, so we got to stand behind him. Associated Press Maroon 5's act of charity didn't save them from harsh criticism for crossing "the ideological or intellectual picket line," as Kaepernick's attorney Mark Geragos put it in an interview with ABC News. "In fact, if anything, its a cop-out when you start talking about, 'Im not a politician Im just doing the music.' Most of the musicians who have any kind of consciousness whatsoever understand what's going on here." ABC News Tracy, Brianne.  "Maroon 5 and the NFL Announce $500,000 Charity Donation Ahead of Super Bowl Halftime Show."
  People.  31 January 2019. Ruggieri, Melissa.  "Super Bowl 53: Travis Scotts Halftime Inclusion Comes Wwth Charitable Contribution from NFL."
  Atlanta Journal-Constitution.  14 January 2019. Landrum, Jonathan Jr.  "Cardi B Declined Super Bowl Halftime with Mixed Feelings.'"
  Associated Press.  1 February 2019. Allen, Karma et al.  "Maroon 5's Adam Levine Addresses 'Controversy' Surrounding Super Bowl Halftime Show, Teases Performance."
  ABC News.  1 February 2019. Langone, Alix.  "Here's How Much Maroon 5 Is Getting Paid to Perform at the 2019 Super Bowl."
  Yahoo Finance.  3 February 2019. Bieler, Des. " Colin Kaepernick Thanks Rihanna for Her Super Bowl Boycott."
  The Washington Post.  5 February 2019. The coronavirus pandemic has been especially unkind to the already staggering dairy industry. Plunging demand from restaurants and schools and an inability to quickly shift processing to meet new categories of demand has left farmers dumping milk on a massive scale. But at least milk prices are going up, right? Thats not exactly a help, one dairy farmer said in a widely-shared Facebook post. The price consumers pay at retail for a gallon of milk has gone up 7.5% since this time last year, Pennsylvania farmer Greg Hemsarth said in aMay 2, 2020, postthat was shared more than 3,500 times. The price farmers are paid has dropped 23%. Figure that one out. This post was flagged as part of Facebooks efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about ourpartnership with Facebook). Are farmers really getting paid less even as retail milk prices go up? Lets dive into the data behind this dairy dichotomy. For starters, connecting any pair of dots to explain milk pricing is tricky. This post referenced liquid milk prices, but only 30% of the milk produced in the U.S. is actually sold in liquid form, said Michael Nepveux, an economist with the American Farm Bureau Federation. While we may see fluid milk flying off grocery shelves and wonder why farmers are having to dump milk, it must be remembered that many of these other products rely heavily on the foodservice and restaurant sector, he said. And farmers pricing is part of a system that is complex to say the least. RELATED:Are bottling limitations on liquid milk to blame for milk dumping? Nepveux spent nearly 2,000 words and a handful of charts detailing how pricing works ina primer the Farm Bureauposted in June 2019. It started this way: Theres an old adage in the dairy industry that only five people in the world know how milk is priced in the U.S.  and four of them are dead. Milk payments to farmers are influenced by commodity prices, geography and whether the milk is being used for liquid sales, yogurt, cheese, butter, etc. We started with Hemsarth himself. Though the numbers in the post are stated generally, he told PolitiFact Wisconsin he was actually referring only to his own observations. Hemsarth was comparing the price of milk at a grocer in Bloomsburg, Penn., to a picture he took of the milk case a year prior. And he was looking at payments he received for milk he sold compared to a year ago. Given the generic wording and wide sharing of this post, most readers likely assumed it referenced some broader dataset, at either the state or national level. So lets check those datapoints. National data shows the trend Hemsarth highlighted isnt confined to his corner of the world. Prices paid to farmers have dropped even as retail prices rose. The retail price for a gallon of milk averaged $3.27 in April, according to thelatest datafrom the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Thats up 9.6% from the April 2019 mark ($2.98). Data provided by Dairy Management Inc., a group funded by farmers to help increase sales of dairy products, shows a nearly identical comparison. They reported a national average of $3.11 as of mid-April, compared to $2.83 a year prior. Thats an increase of 9.9%. A state-level breakdown showed a year-over-year increase in all but one state. The largest jump was in Ohio  more than 28%. Pennsylvania prices increased 9.5%, and Wisconsin was up 8.7%. So, on that part of the equation, the post was in the ballpark  actually understating the magnitude of the retail increase nationally. On the farm payment side, Hemsarth reported a milk payment drop of 23%. The Farm Bureau, using U.S. Department of Agriculture data, reported a 21.1% drop in the price paid to farmers in May 2020 compared to May 2019. Nepveux said that is based on Class 1 fluid milk, the highest valued class of milk. A month earlier, in April, farmers were seeing payments 5.6% higher than the year prior. May is the first month where 2020 was lower than that month in 2019, though prices have fallen each month since December. May milk prices dropped because the formula relies heavily on commodity prices, and those dropped sharply in April, Nepveux said. A viral Facebook post said retail milk prices are up 7.5% from last year while the price paid to farmers dropped 23%. The farmer who provided these numbers was just referencing payments for the milk he sold and prices at a local grocer, but the trends are in line with what we see nationally. Nationwide, retail milk prices in April were up nearly 10% from the prior year, while the price paid to farmers dropped sharply in May to about 21% below the prior year. The comparison oversimplifies things a bit, since the majority of milk produced in the U.S. isnt sold in liquid form. And the specific numbers arent exactly right. But the general point is. We rate this Mostly True. Debt is typically a major campaign issue in elections from the municipal level all the way up to the office of the President of the United States.  Candidates tout their accomplishments in balancing budgets or reducing government debt as examples of fiscal prudence while pointing to increased debts during their opponents' administrations as indicators of profligate and wasteful spending of taxpayers' money.    The chart reproduced above, which was posted to the Flickr account of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, attempted to reverse conventional political stereotypes by portraying recent Republican presidents as responsible for huge increases in the national debt, while showing recent Democratic presidents as responsible for much lower increases in the level of debt.   Flickr account As a first step in evaluating this chart, we have to determine the applicable definition of "debt."  In general, the term "public debt" (or "debt held by the public") refers to money borrowed by the government through the issuance and sale of securities, government bonds, and bills.  It includes federal debt held by all investors outside of the federal government, including individuals, corporations, state or local governments, the Federal Reserve banking system, and foreign governments. Another form of debt is "intragovernmental debt" (or "debt held by government accounts"), which refers to money that the government has borrowed from itself, such as when the U.S. government invests money from federal savings programs such as Medicare and the Social Security trust fund by buying up its own treasury securities.  A variety of names have been applied to the total of these two forms of debt, including "gross federal debt," "total public debt," and "national debt." Although this chart is labeled as presenting a "percent increase in public debt," it actually uses figures corresponding to the total described as "gross federal debt" above (i.e., a combination of debt held by the public and debt held by government accounts, rather than just the former).  We checked the numbers in this chart by using (for pre-1993 years) the U.S. Treasury's Monthly Statement of the Public Debt (MSPD), noting the total debt reported as of January 31 of each relevant year, and (for 1993 onwards) the Treasury's The Debt to the Penny and Who Holds It application, noting the total debt reported as of Inauguration Day of each relevant year. Monthly Statement of the Public Debt The Debt to the Penny and Who Holds It From these records, we gleaned the following information: Ronald Reagan:Took office January 1981.  Total debt: $848 billionLeft office January 1989.    Total debt: $2,698 billionPercent change in total debt:  +218%  George H.W. Bush:Took office January 1989.  Total debt: $2,698 billionLeft office 20 January 1993.    Total debt: $4,188 billionPercent change in total debt:  +55% Bill Clinton:Took office 20 January 1993.  Total debt: $4,188 billionLeft office 20 January 2001.  Total debt: $5,728 billionPercent change in total debt:  +37% George W. Bush:Took office 20 January 2001.  Total debt: $5,728 billionLeft office 20 January 2009.  Total debt: $10,627 billionPercent change in total debt:  +86% Barack Obama:Took office 20 January 2009.  Total debt: $10,627 billionTotal debt (as of the end of April 2011):  $14,288 billionPercent change in total debt:  +34% So, as far as raw numbers go, the chart is reasonably accurate (although our calculations produced a somewhat higher debt increase for Ronald Reagan than reported).  That said, however, we have to consider how valuable these numbers are; whether by themselves they present a reasonable comparative measure of presidential fiscal responsibility.  In that regard, one could find a number of aspects to take issue with:  The chart isn't a true comparison of equals, as it includes three presidents who served two full terms (Reagan, Clinton, and George W. Bush), a president who served one term (George H.W. Bush), and a president who had served half a term (Obama).  Obviously, the longer a president holds office the greater the opportunity for him to influence the debt, and certainly (barring a radical change in current circumstances)  the increase reported for Barack Obama would be considerably higher by the time he left office.   All presidents come into office with policies and budgets that were put into place by their predecessors in the White House and Congress, and they all pass the same along to their successors when they leave office.  Therefore, determining how much of the change in debt that occurs during a given president's administration is actually the result of his actions (rather than the consequence of factors over which he had little or no influence) would require a much more complex analysis than the one presented here.  Which is the best measure of debt for this purpose: public debt, intragovernmental debt, or a combination of the two?  As noted in the General Accounting Office's FAQ on Federal Debt, they represent rather different concepts: FAQ Debt held by the public approximates current federal demand on credit markets. It represents a burden on today's economy, and the interest paid on this debt represents a burden on current taxpayers. Federal borrowing from the public absorbs resources available for private investment and may put upward pressure on interest rates. Further, debt held by the public is the accumulation of what the federal government borrowed in the past and is reported as a liability on the balance sheet of the government's consolidated financial statements. In contrast, debt held by government accounts (intragovernmental debt) and the interest on it represent a claim on future resources. This debt performs largely an internal accounting function. Special federal securities credited to government accounts (primarily trust funds) represent the cumulative surpluses of these accounts that have been lent to the general fund. These transactions net out on the government's consolidated financial statements. Debt issued to government accounts does not affect today's economy and does not currently compete with the private sector for available funds in the credit market.   Are plain percentage changes in the national debt level a useful figure, or do they need to be placed in context to have relevance?  Some would argue, for example, that the Debt-to-GDP ratio is a better measure of economic health relative to the national debt than raw debt figures alone, and a chart which tracked the change in that ratio over the last several presidencies would paint a significantly different picture of debt levels than the one displayed above. Debt-to-GDP chart All in all, this is a case of relatively accurate information which is of marginal value due to a lack of proper comparative context.