Does a Video Show the Effects of Drinking 24 Cans of Red Bull?
In mid-July 2015 a video began making the online rounds, accompanied by claims that it depicted a man who had consumed 24 cans of Red Bull energy drink in a short period of time. (One 250ml can of Red Bull contains about 80mg of caffeine, while a typical cup of brewed coffee has about 95 to 200 mg of caffeine.) video coffee WARNING The outcome of drinking 24 cans of RED BULL quickly   The "24 cans of Red Bull" was a familiar trope in mid-2015 due to recent reports in the UK press that a 31-year-old British woman had managed, through the help of hypnosis, to kick a 24-can-a-day Red Bull habit that was having profound effects on her health (and finances): reports   A mother-of-four whose addiction to Red Bull saw her drinking 24 cans of a day claims she has been cured of her habit by hypnosis. Sarah Weatherill, 31, became so dependent on the energy drink she was told if she cut down too quickly she could suffer a seizure as her body was so used to the caffeine. The law student spent a staggering 5,460 every year on the popular energy drink since she became hooked in 2009. Her habit was at its worst the following year when she was studying for a law degree and wanted to stay awake to revise for exams. She soon became dependent on the drink and couldn't get out of bed unless she knew she had some in the fridge. She also became lethargic, depressed, had heart palpitations and was constantly feeling anxious as her 105-a-week habit spiralled out of control. She finally decided to do something about the problem after she realised the constant need for the Red Bull was severely damaging her health.   However, the video shown above has nothing to do with the effects of consuming large quantities of caffeine or energy drinks.  What it depicts is a flail chest, a condition usually seen after automobile accidents or other forms of blunt trauma, when a segment of the rib cage breaks and becomes detached from the rest of the chest wall.  In flail chest patients, pressure changes associated with respiration that the rib cage normally resists produce the motion seen in the video above, as demonstrated here: flail chest   During normal expiration, the diaphragm and intercostal muscles relax increasing internal pressure, allowing the abdominal organs to push air upwards and out of the thorax. However, a flail segment will also be pushed out while the rest of the rib cage contracts.   Although we haven't identified the precise source of this video, it's said to have captured the victim of an automobile accident being treated by emergency medical personnel shortly before his death.
Americans are facing conflicting signals on the economy. The economy is growing rapidly, unemployment is low, and wages are rising. But inflation  a broad pattern of rising consumer prices  is at a four-decade high, and for many voters, that fact seems to be crowding out any other economic news. During a Feb. 13 roundtable discussion on ABCs This Week, panelists addressed Americans concerns about inflation. Patrick Gaspard  who served in President Barack Obamas administration and is now president and CEO of the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank  blamed the coronavirus pandemic for inflation. We all know that inflation has been caused by the global economies shutting down all at once, reopening all at once, Gaspard said. And the fact of the matter is  that the U.S. economy is recovering at a far faster pace than any other country in the OECD. That is an absolute fact. (The OECD is the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, a group of38 advanced, industrialized nations.) A look at cross-national data shows that economic growth in the United States has indeed outpaced that of the other large, comparable economies, and experts agree that this rapid growth has been a factor in the United States currently high inflation rate. But rapid economic growth is not the only reason why the U.S. is experiencing high inflation. As evidence for his claim, Gaspards office pointed to areportdated Feb. 7 by the OECD. The report found that the United States was the only member of the Group of Seven industrial economies that had seen its inflation-adjusted gross domestic product rise above its pre-pandemic level. The other six nations in the G-7  Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the United Kingdom  all had yet to reach the GDP levels they had in the fourth quarter of 2019. (Gross domestic product is the sum of all economic activity in a country and is often used as the primary metric for economic growth.) This supports Gaspards comment on This Week. Other calculations further back up his assertion about robust U.S. growth. If you strip the inflation adjustment from GDP growth, to enable a cleaner comparison of GDP to inflation, the United States GDP growthranked fifthamong the nations that belong to the Group of 20 (a wider group of large economies than the G-7). In this measurement, the U.S. trailed only Turkey, India, China and South Korea. Notably, the United States growth rate exceeded that of each of its fellow G-7 members, whose economies are most similar to that of the U.S. Meanwhile, in arecent paper, Brookings Institution senior fellow Gian Maria Milesi Ferretti found much the same pattern. He compared how countries current GDP levels compared with projections made before the pandemic. The United States finished at the top of the heap in his analysis as well. There is also something to Gaspards contention that rapid economic growth and inflation are connected. When we looked at the latest annual inflation rates for the G-7 nations, we found that the U.S. had the highest inflation. However, the correlation between rapid growth and high inflation isnt perfect. Germany and Canada had the second- and third-highest inflation rates, respectively, but their economic growth barely edged into positive territory when factoring in the pandemic. And the United Kingdom and France nearly matched the U.S.s GDP growth rates but have experienced more modest inflation. Overall, Gaspards focus on rapid GDP growth as a driver of inflation is reasonable, experts said  but they added that the causes of inflation are more complicated. The current inflation is not monocausal or easily understood, said James Feyrer, a Dartmouth College economist. Ferretti said that some global factors affecting inflation are clearly at play, including higher energy prices and disruption of supply chains. Lower rates of labor force participation in the U.S., stemming heavily from pandemic factors such as a shortage of child care options, also played a role. In fact, one of the factors driving rapid growth in the U.S.  generous fiscal support from the federal government  is something that Biden did have control over. Stimulus payments and other financial support from the federal government put more money into Americans hands, driving up demand for goods amid international supply-chain challenges driven by the pandemic. Many countries adopted expansionary policies, but on the fiscal side, the U.S. really stands out, Ferretti said. With very large support to private incomes, U.S. consumption has been very strong, particularly for goods. This has clearly helped the speed of the recovery. But a combination of strong demand and labor shortages, he said, has resulted in higher inflationary pressures than in other advanced economies. In other words, where inflation is concerned, Biden isnt entirely a victim of global forces. His policies were a factor as well. Gaspard said that inflation has been caused by the global economies shutting down all at once, reopening all at once. And  the U.S. economy is recovering at a far faster pace than any other country in the OECD. The U.S. has experienced faster economic growth than most of its most direct global competitors, and experts agree that this has contributed to inflationary pressures. While many of these inflationary pressures are traceable to global factors related to the pandemic, some have flowed from the fiscal choices made by the Biden administration. We rate the statement Mostly True. Claim:  Historian David Kaiser or Timothy Wood penned an article cautioning that "Something of historic proportions is happening." INCORRECT ATTRIBUTION Example:  [Collected via e-mail, March 2009] David Kaiser Location: Jamestown , Rhode Island , United States For the past thirty years I have been a historian of international and domestic politics, as well as an authority on some of the more famous criminal cases in American history. For the past four years I have been commenting on current events. History Unfolding I am a student of history. Professionally, I have written 15 books in six languages, and have studied it all my life. I think there is something monumentally large afoot, and I do not believe it is just a banking crisis, or a mortgage crisis, or a credit crisis. Yes these exist, but they are merely single facets on a very large gemstone that is only now coming into a sharper focus.  Something of historic proportions is happening. I can sense it because I know how it feels, smells, what it looks like, and how people react to it. Yes, a perfect storm may be brewing, but there is something happening within our country that has been evolving for about ten - fifteen years. The pace has dramatically quickened in the past two. We demand and then codify into law the requirement that our banks make massive loans to people we know they can never pay back? Why? We learn just days ago that the Federal Reserve, which has little or no real oversight by anyone, has "loaned" two trillion dollars (that is $2,000,000,000,000) over the past few months, but will not tell us to whom or why or disclose the terms. That is our money. Yours and mine. And that is three times the 700B we all argued about so strenuously just this past September. Who has this money? Why do they have it? Why are the terms unavailable to us? Who asked for it? Who authorized it? I thought this was a government of "we the people," who loaned our powers to our elected leaders. Apparently not. We have spent two or more decades intentionally de-industrializing our economy. Why? We have intentionally dumbed down our schools, ignored our history, and no longer teach our founding documents, why we are exceptional, and why we are worth preserving. Students by and large cannot write, think critically, read, or articulate. Parents are not revolting, teachers are not picketing, school boards continue to back mediocrity. Why? We have now established the precedent of protesting every close election (now violently in California over a proposition that is so controversial that it wants marriage to remain between one man and one woman. Did you ever think such a thing possible just a decade ago?). We have corrupted our sacred political process by allowing unelected judges to write laws that radically change our way of life, and then mainstream Marxist groups like ACORN and others to turn our voting system into a banana republic. To what purpose? Now our mortgage industry is collapsing, housing prices are in free fall, major industries are failing, our banking system is on the verge of collapse, social security is nearly bankrupt, as is medicare and our entire government, our education system is worse than a joke (I teach college and know precisely what I am talking  about)  the list is staggering in its length, breadth, and depth. It is potentially 1929 x ten. And we are at war with an enemy we cannot name for fear of offending people of the same religion, who cannot wait to slit the throats of your children if they have the opportunity to do so. And now we have elected a man no one knows anything about, who has never run so much as a Dairy Queen, let alone a town as big as Wasilla, Alaska. All of his associations and alliances are with real radicals in their chosen fields of employment, and everything we learn about him, drip by drip, is unsettling if not downright scary (Surely you have heard him speak about his idea to create and fund a mandatory civilian defense force stronger than our military for use inside our borders? No? Oh of course. The media would never play that for you over and over and then demand he answer it. Sarah Palins pregnant daughter and $150,000 wardrobe is more imporant.) Mr. Obama's winning platform can be boiled down to one word: change. Why? I have never been so afraid for my country and for my children as I am now. This man campaigned on bringing people together, something he has never, ever done in his professional life. In my assessment, Obama will divide us along philosophical lines, push us apart, and then try to realign the pieces into a new and different power structure. Change is indeed coming. And when it comes, you will never see the same nation again. And that is only the beginning. And I thought I would never be able to experience what the ordinary, moral German felt in the mid-1930s. In those times, the savior was a former smooth-talking rabble-rouser from the streets, about whom the average German knew next to nothing. What they did know was that he was associated with groups that shouted, shoved, and pushed around people with whom they disagreed; he edged his way onto the political stage through great oratory and promises. Economic times were tough, people were losing jobs, and he was a great speaker. And he smiled and waved a lot. And people, even newspapers, were afraid to speak out for fear that his "brown shirts" would bully them into submission. And then, he was duly elected to office, a full-throttled economic crisis at hand [the Great Depression]. Slowly but surely he seized the controls of government power, department by department, person by person, bureaucracy by bureaucracy. The kids joined a Youth Movement in his name, where they were taught what to think. How did he get the people on his side? He did it promising jobs to the jobless, money to the moneyless, and goodies for the military-industrial complex. He did it by indoctrinating the children, advocating gun control, health care for all, better wages, better jobs, and promising to re-instill pride once again in the country, across Europe, and across the world. He did it with a compliant media  did you know that? And he did this all in the name of justice and ... change. And the people surely got what they voted for. (Look it up if you think I am exaggerating.) Read your history books. Many people objected in 1933 and were shouted down, called names, laughed at, and made fun of. When Winston Churchill pointed out the obvious in the late 1930s while seated in the House of Lords in England (he was not yet Prime Minister), he was booed into his seat and called a crazy troublemaker. He was right, though. Don't forget that Germany was the most educated, cultured country in Europe. It was full of music, art, museums, hospitals, laboratories, and universities. And in less than six years  a shorter time span than just two terms of the U.S. presidency  it was rounding up its own citizens, killing others, abrogating its laws, turning children against parents, and neighbors against neighbors. All with the best of intentions, of course. The road to Hell is paved with them. As a practical thinker, one not overly prone to emotional decisions, I have a choice: I can either believe what the objective pieces of evidence tell me (even if they make me cringe with disgust); I can believe what history is shouting to me from across the chasm of seven decades; or I can hope I am wrong by closing my eyes, having another latte, and ignoring what is transpiring around me. Some people scoff at me, others laugh, or think I am foolish, naive, or both. Perhaps I am. But I have never been afraid to look people in the eye and tell them exactly what I believeand why I believe it. I pray I am wrong. I do not think I am. Origins:   The Internet piece quoted above originally began circulating just after the U.S. presidential election of November 2008, and by March 2009 it had picked up an attribution crediting it to David Kaiser, a historian who has authored a number of books, including The Road to Dallas: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy.  However, as Mr. Kaiser told us and notes in his blog, History Unfolding, he did not pen this piece: History Unfolding The first two sentences, beginning, "For the past thirty years," were of course written by me; the rest of the email was not written by me. Its views are in many ways the opposite of my own. This item has also been mistakenly attributed to Dr. Timothy L. Wood, an Assistant Professor of History at Southwest Baptist University.  Like David Kaiser, Dr. Wood told us that he did not write the piece and pointed us to a blog entry disclaiming his authorship. blog The original is also commonly attributed to Pamela Geller, having appeared in her Atlas Shrugs blog on 13 November 2008.  However, Ms. Geller notes in her introductory statement that "I wish I had written it" and indicates it originated as a reader comment posted to yet another blog. Atlas Shrugs As far as we know, this piece began as a comment posted to Pat Dollard's blog in November 2008 by an author identified only as "TPS." blog TPS Last updated:  7 April 2009 Phishing bait:  Notice from the IRS indicating the recipient's electronic tax return or payment has been rejected or that the recipient has a refund coming. Examples:   [Collected via e-mail, October 2010] Subject: Your Federal Tax Payment ID 010357109 is rejected.  Urgent Report. Your Federal Tax Payment ID: 01037524 has been rejected. Return Reason Code R21 - The identification number used in the Company Identification Field is not valid. Please, check the information and refer to Code R21 to get details about your company payment in transaction contacts section: EFTPS: The Electronic Federal Tax Payment System PLEASE NOTE: Your tax payment is due regardless of EFTPS online availability. In case of an emergency, you can always make your tax payment by calling the EFTPS.  [Collected via e-mail, January 2008] After the last annual calculations of your fiscal activity we have determined that you are eligible to receive a Stimulus Payment. Please submit the Stimulus Payment Online Form in order to process it. A Stimulus Payment can be delayed for a variety of reasons.For example submitting invalid records or applying after the deadline. To submit your Stimulus Payment form, please download the document attached to your email. Note: If filing or preparation fees were deducted from your 2007 Refund or you received a refund anticipation loan, you will be receiving a check instead of a direct deposit. Regards,Internal Revenue Servicestimulus.payment@irs.gov  [Collected via e-mail, August 2007] From: "Internal Revenue Service" Subject: IRS Notification - Fiscal ActivityDate: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 23:57:35 +0300 After the last annual calculations of your fiscal activity we have determined that you are eligible to receive a tax refund of $268.32. Please submit the tax refund request and allow us 6-9 days in order to process it. A refund can be delayed for a variety of reasons. For example submitting invalid records or applying after the deadline. To access the form for your tax refund, please click here Regards,Internal Revenue Service Copyright 2007, Internal Revenue Service U.S.A. All rights reserved.  [Collected via e-mail, February 2009] Re: US Stimulus Check Information--------------------------------------------------------------------If you're one of the millions of Americans struggling in today's economy, help is available. You've been chosen for the chance to get a US Stimulus Check based on your annual income level. (Participation required. See below for details.) Refer to the chart below to determine the amount of money you can receive: --------------------------------------------------------------------$0 - $35,000........................$709 US Stimulus Check--------------------------------------------------------------------$35,000 - $70,000.................$615 US Stimulus Check--------------------------------------------------------------------$70,000+.............................$504 US Stimulus Check--------------------------------------------------------------------  Make your selection here, then follow the instructions on our website before this offer expires.  [Collected via e-mail, July 2009] Tax Refund Notification After the last annual calculations of your fiscal activity, we have determined that you are eligible to receive tax refund of 488.50 GBP. You are require to submit the tax refund request using the tax refund reference below and allow up 6-9 working days in order to process it [link elided] Note : A refund can be delayed for different reasons, for example submitting invalid records or applying after deadline. we apologise for any inconveniences and thank you for your co-operation. Yours Sincerely HM Revenue & Customs  [Collected via e-mail, June 2011] Department of Treasury Internal Revenue Source Important information about your tax return We are unable to process your tax return We recived your tax return. However, we are unable to process the return as field. Our records indicate that the person identified as the primary taxpayer or spouse on the tax return did not provided all the required documents shown on the tax form. Our records are based on information received from the Social Security Administration. Based on this information, the tax account for the individual has been locked  What you need to do Print out the attached notification and list of missing documents, fill it in, add the documents and send the following information to the adress shown in the attached notification. List of required documents: 1. A copy of this letter 2. Notification letter 3. A photocopy of valid U.S. Federal or State Government issued identification. Keep this notice for your records. If you need assistance, please don'thesitate to contact us  [Collected via e-mail, January 2012] IRS notice, The analysis of the last annual calculations of your fiscal activity has indicated that you are entitled to receive a tax refund of $115.25 Please submit a request of the tax refund and a processing of the request will take 7-14 days. A tax refund can be delayed by different reasons. For instance submission of invalid records or sending after the deadline. Please find the form of your tax refund attached and fill out it and send a report. Regards,Internal Revenue Service. Origins:  Notices purporting to come from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) make good  phishing bait for a number of reasons: phishing  Notices from institutions of the federal government (especially an agency with the ominous reputation of the IRS) grab people's attention.  Unlike other phishing schemes that emulate mailings from various private financial institutions (e.g., Bank of America) and are therefore easily recognized as phony by many recipients (because they do no business with those companies), a forged IRS notice has the potential to take in a much larger pool of victims, as most adult U.S. residents have dealings with that agency.  Many people find the federal income tax filing process complicated and confusing, so the idea that they might have unclaimed refunds or payments waiting for them to claim seems plausible. An August 2007 mass phish e-mailing (reprised in January 2012) took advantage of those points, spamming millions of Internet users with phony notices that advised recipients they were eligible to receive tax refunds (of amounts such as $109.30 or $268.32) and invited them to click on a link that took them to a form  through which they could claim those refunds.  Of course, the link included in the messages didn't actually send users to the genuine IRS web site; it redirected claimants to an imposter site that instructed them to enter sensitive personal information (e.g., Social Security number and debit card number) in order to "deposit" their refunds.   Similarly, January 2009 versions redirected claimants to an imposter site with a form for them to fill out in order to claim stimulus payments, and an October 2010 version used the lure of claiming that the recipients' Electronic Federal Tax Payments (EFTPS) had been rejected due to invalid information and sent them to a phony imitation of the real EFTPS site to enter new information. The IRS never offers refunds through e-mail or sends out unsolicited e-mails to taxpayers.   When the IRS needs to contact a taxpayer, it sends notice via U.S. Mail, and every such notice includes a telephone number that the recipient can call for confirmation.  Should you need to visit the IRS web site for any reason, go there directly (by entering the www.irs.gov URL into your web browser) rather than following links in e-mail messages. The IRS says about such e-mails that: IRS The IRS does not initiate taxpayer communications through e-mail. In addition, the IRS does not request detailed personal information through e-mail or ask taxpayers for the PIN numbers, passwords or similar secret access information for their credit card, bank or other financial accounts.  Do not open any attachments to questionable e-mails, which may contain malicious code that will infect your computer. Please be advised that the IRS does not initiate contact with taxpayers via e-mails. The EFTPS web site also states that: EFTPS EFTPS values your privacy and security and will never attempt to contact you via e-mail. If you ever receive an e-mail that claims to be from EFTPS or from a sender you do not recognize that mentions a payment made through EFTPS, forward the e-mail to phishing@irs.gov or call the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration at 1.800.366.4484. Last updated:  9 January 2012 Claim:  Letter from Judge David Kithil provides accurate line item criticisms of "Obamacare" health care reform legislation.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, November 2009] I have reviewed selected sections of the bill and find it unbelievable that our Congress, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, could come up with a bill loaded with so many wrong-headed elements. We do need to reform the health insurance system in America in order to make coverage affordable and available to everyone. But, how many of us believe our federal government can manage a new program any better than the bankrupt Medicare program or the underfunded Social Security program? Both Republicans and Democrats are equally responsible for the financial mess of those two programs. I am opposed to HB 3200 for a number of reasons. To start with, it is estimated that a federal bureaucracy of more than 150,000 new employees will be required to administer HB3200. That is an unacceptable expansion of a government that is already too intrusive in our lives. If we are going to hire 150,000 new employees, let's put them to work protecting our borders, fighting the massive drug problem and putting more law enforcement/firefighters out there." Other problems I have with this bill include: Page 50/section 152: The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally. Page 58 and 59: The government will have real-time access to an individual's bank account and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts. Page 65/section 164: The plan will be subsidized (by the government) for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations (such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now - ACORN). Page 203/line 14-15: The tax imposed under this section will not be treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their right mind come up with that?) Page 241 and 253: Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the government will set all doctors' fees. Page 272. section 1145: Cancer hospital will ration care according to the patient's age. Page 317 and 321: The government will impose a prohibition on hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception. Page 425, line 4-12: The government mandates advance-care planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend an "end-of-life planning" seminar every five years. Page 429, line 13-25: The government will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order. Finally, it is specifically stated this bill will not apply to members of Congress. Members of Congress are already exempt from the Social Security system and have a well-funded private plan that covers their retirement needs. If they were on our Social Security plan, I believe they would find a very quick "fix" to make the plan financially sound for the future." Honorable David Kithil Marble Falls, Texas.  Origins:  A number of similar pieces presenting lists of line item criticisms of a pending health care reform bill (H.R. 3200) began circulating on the Internet in mid-2009, and they continue to circulate widely three years later as arguments to oppose the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), commonly known as "Obamacare." The versions of this item that continue to be spread via e-mail forwards and online postings are wrong in nearly every particular, however:  Although this list is commonly attributed as originating with a letter sent to Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana by Dr. Stephen E. Fraser, an Indianapolis anesthesiologist, or as a letter sent to the River Cities Tribune by David Kithil, a former county judge in Marble Falls, Texas, it is actually the work of Peter Fleckenstein, who issued Peter Fleckenstein the list as a series of Tweets and posted it to his blog in July 2009.  The bill referenced in this list, America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 (H.R. 3200), was never passed by Congress.  A   completely different bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590), became the basis for what is now known as "Obamacare."  Many of the entries in the list are therefore irrelevant and outdated, as they address aspects of health care reform legislation that were never enacted by Congress (particularly the "public option" for a government insurance plan). H.R. 3200 H.R. 3590  Virtually every statement included in this list is exaggerated, misleading, inaccurate, or outright erroneous, as detailed below:    The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally. This is false.  The PPACA, as enacted, doesn't "provide insurance" to anyone  it institutes some regulations on the insurance industry to make medical insurance more broadly available and affordable to Americans, and it requires that Americans enroll in PPACA-qualified medical plans or pay a penalty, but everyone is still responsible for obtaining (and paying for) their own insurance coverage.   Moreover, the section of the unpassed HB 3200 bill referenced in the above statement is 152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE, which simply states that "[e]xcept as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations consistent with this Act, all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services."  It doesn't explicity grant or authorize government funds for providing illegal immigrants with health care or health insurance, and another section of the bill specifically states that  "Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States."  The government will have real-time access to an individual's bank account and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts. This is false. The section of HB 3200 referenced here does nothing more than attempt to provide a framework for simplifying the use of electronic payments for health services, emulating the way that many consumers currently use to make a variety of other payments (e.g., utilities, mortgages, credit card balances).   The bill simply calls for the secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to set standards for electronic administrative transactions that would "enable electronic funds transfers, in order to allow automated reconciliation with the related health care payment and remittance advice."  Nothing in this section grants the government "real-time access to an individual's bank account" or the "authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts."  The bill doesn't even require that consumers use an electronic payment system  it simply seeks to make that an option for those who want to use it.   The plan will be subsidized (by the government) for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations (such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now - ACORN). This statement is misleading, as the section of HB 3200 referenced here is SEC. 164. REINSURANCE PROGRAM FOR RETIREES, which addresses "retirees and ... spouses, surviving spouses and dependents of such retirees" who are covered by "employment-based [health benefit] plans."  It does not specifically provide for subsidizing health insurance for "all union members, union retirees and community organizations"; it sets up a new federal reinsurance plan for any retirees and their spouses who are covered by any employer plan, not just those who are covered under plans run by unions or community groups.  The reinsurance would be available to any "group health benefits plan that ... is maintained by one or more employers, former employers or employee associations."  The tax imposed under this section will not be treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their right mind come up with that?) This statement misleadingly tries to make HB 3200 sound ridiculous by deliberately eliding the end of the statement it quotes.  What the bill actually says is that"The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax imposed by this chapter for purposes of determining the amount of any credit under this chapter or for purposes of section 55."  Section 55 is a reference to the Alternative Minimum Tax, and the purpose of this portion of the bill is to mitigate the effects that new health care-related taxes would have on persons making over $350,000 a year.   Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the government will set all doctors' fees. This is false. The section of the bill referenced here is an updating of the physician fee schedule for Medicare services, which neither states that "all doctors will be paid the same regardless of specialty" nor that the "government will set all doctors' fees."  All this section does is slightly revise the formula used for determining how much doctors are reimbursed for providing Medicare services, depending upon which of two categories those services fall under.   Cancer hospital will ration care according to the patient's age. This is false. The section referenced here is one which does nothing more than call for a study to determine whether certain classes of hospitals incur higher costs than other hospitals for the cancer-related care they deliver, with the aim of providing "an appropriate adjustment [in payments] "to reflect those higher costs." This section in no way "rations care" provided by "cancer hospitals" based on a patient's age (or any other factor); it simply seeks to pay some hospitals more to compensate for their higher costs in treating cancer patients.  The government will impose a prohibition on hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception. This is mostly false. As noted by FactCheck, forbids hospital expansion "only for rural, doctor-owned hospitals that have been given a waiver from the general prohibition on self-referral. It does not apply to hospitals in general. The bill provides for exceptions to even this limited expansion ban."   The government mandates advance-care planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend an "end-of-life planning" seminar every five years. This is false. This statement references a much-distorted portion of the bill that would allow for Medicare to cover voluntary counseling sessions for seniors with their doctors to discuss aspects of end-of-life care such as hospice care, DNR orders, life-sustaining treatments, living wills, and the like (a form of counseling not previously covered by Medicare).  Nothing about such counseling sessions would be mandatory, for Social Security recipients or anyone else.   The government will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order. This is false. The bill does not "specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order."  It merely defines an "end-of-life order" (i.e., an order for life-sustaining treatment) as a document "signed and dated by a physician [that] effectively communicates the individual's preferences regarding life sustaining treatment."  It is specifically stated this bill will not apply to members of Congress. This is false. HB 3200 did not contain a provision stating that it would "not apply to members of Congress."  The bill likely would have had little or no effect on members of Congress because they belong to a class of federal worker who have the benefit of choosing from a variety of subsidized insurance plans offered through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, but the same requirements for obtaining and having health insurance would have applied to them just as much to other citizens.  The version of the PPACA that was actually passed did indeed require lawmakers to give up the insurance coverage previously provided to them through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and instead purchase health insurance through the online exchanges that the law created.  Variations:  A later version of this piece was prefaced with the false claim that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act limits the amount of Medicare coverage provided to those over the age of 75 or 76.  This claim is covered in a separate article on this site: separate PLEASE PASS THIS OUTRAGE TO EVERYONE ON YOUR LIST!!! THIS should be readby everyone, especially important to those over 75.......If you areyounger, then it applies to your parents. Your hospital Medicare admittance has just change under Obama Care. Youmust be admitted by your primary Physician in order for Medicare to payfor it! If you are admitted by an emergency room doctor it is treated asoutpatient care where hospital costs are not covered. This is only the tipof the iceberg for Obama Care. Just wait to see what happens in 2013 &2014! Age 76 Today, I went to the Dr. for my monthly B12 shot that I have beengetting for a number of years. The nurse came and got me, got out theneedle filled and ready to go then looked at the computer and got veryquiet and asked if I was prepared to pay for it. I said no that myinsurance takes care of it. She said, that Medicare had turned it down and went to talk to my Dr.about it. 15 minutes later she came back and said, she was sorry but theyhad tried everything they could but Medicare is beginning to turn manythings away for seniors because of the projected Obama Care coming in. Shewas brushing at tears and said, "Someday they too will get old", I am sovery sorry!! Please for the sake of many good people ... be informed please.YOU ARE NOT GOING TO LIKE THIS. Last updated:  11 March 2014 Soliciting contributions to her campaign fund, U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin warned her supporters about the dangers of dark money -- cash spent on elections by groups that dont have to disclose their donors. In an Oct. 30, 2015 email, the Wisconsin Democrat wrote that groups backed by conservatives such asKarl Roveand theKoch brothershave spent hundreds of millions of dollars to make sure they get right-wing extremists elected into office. And its only getting worse. Today, Baldwins email continued, dark money spending is 10 times what it was at the same point in the 2012 election cycle. And in 2012, it ended up topping $308 million. Then she asked for a contribution of $5 or more. A year away from the 2016 general election, is dark-money spending already 10 times higher than it was at this point four years ago? The answer, from the source widely acknowledged as the best in this area: Yes. What dark is We consulted the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan campaign finance research group that runs a website calledOpenSecrets.org. (Two other groups involved in campaign finance -- the Sunlight Foundation and the Campaign Finance Institute -- also referred us to the center.) Using data from the Federal Election Commission, the Center for Responsive Politics tracks so-called dark-money spending -- that is, expenditures by nonprofit groups, whose primary function is not supposed to be political activity, that dont have to disclose their donors. Those groupscan receiveunlimited corporate, individual, or union contributions. They can use the money for various election activities, including buying ads that advocate for or against a candidate, running phone banks and making contributions to super PACs. Butthey cantcoordinate with or donate money to candidates. Lets start with 2011 and 2012 -- that is, the 2012 election  cycle. 2012 election cycle The center reports that, as Baldwin indicated, more than$308 millionin dark money was spent during the entire 2012 election cycle. Some 86 percent was spent by conservative groups, 11 percent by liberal groups and 3 percent by other groups. The most -- $71 million -- was spent byAmerican Crossroads/Crossroads GPS, which was co-founded by Rove.Americans for Prosperity, founded in part by the billionaire brothers David and Charles Koch, was second ($36 million) and theU.S. Chamber of Commercewas third ($35 million). The three leading liberal groups, as identified by the center, were theLeague of Conservation Voters($11 million),Patriot Majority USA($7 million), whose priorities include money for public schools and infrastructure, andPlanned Parenthood(nearly $7 million). 2016 cycle As for the 2016 cycle,$4.88 millionin dark money expenditures have already been made, according to the center. Thats more than 10 times the$440,000that was spent at this point during the 2012 cycle. The $4.88 millionhas been spent by six groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ($3 million) and Americans for Prosperity ($1.5 million), The only liberal group was Planned Parenthood, which spent just under $75,000 Richard Skinner, policy analyst at the Sunlight Foundation, told us that the focus of early dark money being spent in the 2016 cycle is on U.S. Senate elections that are considered to be competitive, though some is also being spent on U.S. House races. (Baldwin isnt up for election again until 2018. But Wisconsins other senator, Republican Ron Johnson,is ratedas being in a pure toss-up race in 2016 from Democrat Russ Feingold, whom Johnson defeated in 2010. No dark money has been spent yet in that race, according to the Sunlight Foundation.) Skinner said he didnt know whether dark money spending so far means that the total for the 2016 cycle will ultimately be 10 times higher than four years earlier. But he said he expects more dark money to spent in the 2016 cycle than ever before. Our rating Baldwin said dark money spending in the 2016 election cycle is 10 times what it was at the same point in the 2012 election cycle, when it topped $308 million. So-called dark money spending in election campaigns -- by groups that dont have to disclose their donors -- exceeded $308 million in the 2012 election cycle. So far in the 2016 cycle, it has reached nearly $5 million, more than 10 times the $440,000 that had been spent at this point in the 2012 cycle. We rate Baldwins statement True. More on Tammy Baldwin The pope and Donald Trump and Tammy Baldwin all agree on eliminating the carried-interest tax break.Half True. Scott Walker's views on abortion are more restrictive than any Republican president in recent times.True. Middle-class Americans pay a higher tax rate than millionaires and billionaires.Half True. Smaller government. Lower taxes. More freedom. Thats the mantra of the Georgia Libertarian Party, which, this year, is fielding candidates for a handful of state offices, including governor. In Cherokee County, attorney and Libertarian Jeff Amason is running as a write-in candidate for the District 21 House seat. That seat is currently held by Scot Turner, a one-term Republican from Holly Springs. Amason recently appeared on the Monica Perez Show on WSB radio to discuss his candidacy and priorities, including reining in state spending. The state budget has increased almost $800 million a year in each of the last two years. You can only imagine what it might be in five years, Amason said. We need to be funding essential programs. We dont need to be funding every program out there. With the economy making a slow but steady recovery, we decided to fact check Amasons budget claims. We contacted him, and he sent us budget figures for the state fiscal years 2012, 2013 and 2014, as well as for the current fiscal year, which started July 1. That data showed that the total state budget grew from $18.5 billion in 2012 to $19.3 billion in Fiscal 2013 and to $20.2 billion in 2014. Thats a jump of $800 million between 2012 to 2013 and a $900 million increase between 2013 to 2014. We confirmed the accuracy of Amasons numbers using budget documents available at the Governors Office of Planning and Budget website. (We didnt compare the 2014 and 2015 budgets because the General Assembly will amend the 2015 spending plan in the legislative session that starts in January.) Helping to drive up the recent state budgets were increases in enrollment in public schools, Medicaid and the states health insurance program for children, as well as pension costs, according to state documents. Current spending levels are 26.7 percent above 2005 levels, not adjusted for inflation, an OPB report shows. In summary, Amason said the state budget increased nearly $800 million a year in each of the last two years. He was very close, if not conservative in his assessment.. We rate his statement True. On 9 May 2017, Facebook page "The Church of PUNK" shared an article reporting that a KGB agent admitted the band the Sex Pistols were an operation backed by the former Soviet Union to destabilize Western democracy: shared article   The April 2015 article reported that at the time it was published, a former KGB agent had just disclosed the punk rock plot: article Alexandrei Varennikovic Voloshin, a retired KGB agent, has admitted this week on National Russian Television (NTV) that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) was behind the creation of the 1970s punk scene and financed major punk bands such as the Sex Pistols, the Clash and the Ramones. The USSR government at the time spent hundreds of millions of rubles on this covert operation destined to create utter chaos and pervert the Western youth to nihilist, anti-establishment and anti-american ideologies he explained in an hour long interview broadcast on national television. There is no truth to this story; World News Daily Report states on its own disclaimer page that all of the content on the site is fictional: no truth disclaimer WNDR assumes however all responsibility for the satirical nature of its articles and for the fictional nature of their content. All characters appearing in the articles in this website  even those based on real people  are entirely fictional and any resemblance between them and any persons, living, dead, or undead is purely a miracle. In 2009, Forbes magazine ranked Peter Lewis at #366 on its list of the richest Americans, pegging his net worth at just over $1 billion. Lewis acquired his wealth primarily through his stewardship of Cleveland-based Progressive Insurance, a company co-founded by his father in 1937. Forbes Progressive Insurance When he assumed the position of CEO of Progressive in 1965, Lewis took over a business with about 100 employees and $6 million in yearly revenue; forty years later, Progressive had become the third largest auto insurer in the United States, employing over 27,000 people with yearly revenues topping $13 billion.   This success spawned chain emails and memes decrying Lewis' supposed political leanings and involvement:  This is a heads up regarding Progressive Auto Insurance. You know who they are. Theyre the ones with the clever television ads featuring the perky brunette actress all dressed in white. What you might not know is that the chairman of Progressive is Peter Lewis, one of the largest funders of the left in America. He's your typical rich spoiled kid who took over the company from his father and apparently feels "guilty" for his success and now dedicates himself to making it impossible for anyone else to become wealthy.Between 2001 and 2003, Lewis funneled $15 million to the ACLU, the group most responsible for destroying what's left of America's Judeo-Christian heritage. Indeed, Lewis is himself an ACLU member. One of the ACLU projects he earmarked his funds for was an effort to sue school districts who have drug testing policies. In other words, this idiot wants teachers to be able to use drugs without fear of exposure. I wonder what he would think if all his own employees came to work drugged out every day. Lewis also gave $12.5 million to MoveOn.org and American Coming Together, two key components of the socialist left. The former group is perhaps the main group used by the Obama forces to organize their activists; the latter group is a 527 political action group that essentially served as a front for the SEIU union thugs who ran ACORN. His funding for these groups was conditional on matching contributions from George Soros, the international socialist who finances much of the Obama political network. It's disturbing that Lewis made a fortune as a result of capitalism but now finances a progressive movement that threatens to destroy the free enterprise system. He reminds me somewhat of Armand Hammer, the former head of Occidental Petroleum who did business with Joseph Stalin and became his good friend, around the same time Stalin was executing businessmen all over the USSR. What angers me further is the way this company is targeting television shows watched by conservatives such as Fox News. Peter Lewis is making a fortune off of conservative Americans so that he can destroy our country. He's banking on no one finding out who he is. I think it's time we expose this clown. Boycott Progressive Insurance Peter Lewis personally donated a good deal a money to various philanthropic efforts over the years, including hundreds of millions of dollars to Princeton and Case Western Reserve universities, and another $50 million to the Guggenheim Museum. He has also given large amounts of money to various political organizations, including donations of $7 million and $8 million to the ACLU in 2001 and 2003. (The former donation went to the Trust for the Bill of Rights, the ACLU's endowment fund; the latter was described by the ACLU as being earmarked "to fight Bush Administration policies that trample on civil liberties." According to the Boston Globe, Lewis stipulated that $5 million of his 2001 donation go "to the ACLU's drug-policy litigation project, which deals with drug-testing in schools and the medicinal use of marijuana.") Case Western Reserve $7 million $8 million Lewis also made donations of $3 million and $2.5 million (both of which were reportedly matched by billionaire activist George Soros) to America Coming Together (a liberal political action group which has since disbanded), and MoveOn.org (a progressive/liberal political action committee and public policy group) in 2004. America Coming Together MoveOn.org Among his other causes, Lewis was an advocate for the removal of criminal penalties for marijuana use, particularly for medicinal purposes (he was himself arrested and charged in New Zealand for possession of marijuana in 2000), adding his name to a 1998 letter to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan calling for the initiation of a "truly open and honest dialogue regarding the future of global drug control policies," and becoming the largest donor (including $3 million in 2007 alone) to the Marijuana Policy Project. (The Progressive Insurance company, as opposed to Peter Lewis personally, supports multiple non-political charitable causes.) letter Marijuana Policy Project charitable However, the "heads up regarding Progressive Auto Insurance" reproduced above, originally circulated in 2010, is now woefully out of date: Lewis stepped down from his role as Progressive Insurance's CEO in 2000 and after that date was neither an executive of that company nor involved in its day-to-day management. Although after 2000 he continued to hold the position of chairman of the board of the Progressive Corporation and was that entity's single largest individual shareholder, he passed away in November 2013 and therefore obviously no longer has any connection with Progressive Insurance. As well, some of the statements made in the above-quoted call for a boycott of Progressive Insurance were inaccurate and misleading: regulations [A school board] policy required any teacher who suffered an injury on the job to submit to a drug test  even if that "injury" resulted from being punched by a student.The drug test of two-time East Baton Rouge Teacher of the Year Peggy Reno illustrates how the School Board's now defunct drug-testing policy was put into effect. Ms. Reno, a veteran and respected teacher, never in her life used an illegal drug, and her school never suspected otherwise. A student punched Ms. Reno on September 24, 2008. Although there was no suspicion that she was under the influence of drugs or alcohol, Ms. Reno was forced by a School Board official to submit to an invasive drug test. Countless other teachers who have never used drugs  and who have never been suspected of using drugs  have been subjected to similar unconstitutional searches. The Fourth Amendment to the Bill of Rights forbids government searches when there is no reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing. defend Clarke, Josie.  "Eccentric Billionaire Has High Profile at Home."
  The New Zealand Herald.  31 August 2000.

 Edsall, Thomas B.  "Soros-Backed Activist Group Disbands as Interest Fades."
  The Washington Post.  3 August 2005.
 Healy, Rita.  "Mellowing Out on Marijuana."
  Time.  8 November 2007.
 Kranish, Michael.  "Rich Activists, Hoping to Sway Voters, Give Vast Sums to 527s."
  Boston Globe.  21 September 2003  (p. A8).
 Leinwand, Donna.  "Super-Rich Trio Put Cash into Marijuana Initiatives."
  USA Today.  5 November 2002  (p. A8).
 ACLU.  "Individual Donor Sets Record with $7 Million Donation."
  18 July 2001.
 ACLU.  "$8 Million Gift Will Boost Campaign to Fight Bush Administration's Assault on Civil Liberties."
  15 January 2003.
 Forbes.  "The Forbes 400 Richest Americans 2009."
  30 September 2009.
 The Nation.  "The Beat-Bush Brigades."
  26 April 2004.
 USA Today.  "Partisan Groups' attack Ads Dodge Disclosure Rules."
  16 March 2004  (p. A12). Did he or didnt he? Only the ghost of Strom Thurmond knows for sure. Mystery surrounds whether, back in 1984, the former senator from South Carolina knowingly deprived Puerto Rico of bankruptcy protections that every U.S. state enjoys. Its crunch time for Puerto Rico. The island territory needs to pay bondholders $422 million on May 1. It doesnt have the cash, it cant use bankruptcy to reschedule its payments, and Congress seems unlikely to craft a solution in time to avoid a massive default. During hisApril 24, 2016,HBO showLast Week Tonight, comedian and social critic John Oliver described the devils brew of legal oddities and fiscal recklessness by Puerto Rican officials that brought the island territory of the United States to the financial brink. If you are massively in debt and you cant declare bankruptcy, you are stuck, Oliver said. And this happened because of a tiny amendment to a law in 1984, and the crazy thing is, no one can say why it was written. The tiny amendment Oliver mentioned was stuck in the most boring location one could ever imagine  in the definitions section ofHR 5174, a bill geared mainly to fixing the bankruptcy court system. Buried in a long list of changes was the meaning of state. 'State' includes the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, except for the purpose of defining who may be a debtor under chapter 9 of this title; That was it. With those two dozen words, the bankruptcy protections that applied to every state, and until 1984, to Puerto Rico, too, were wiped away. We tried to find out for ourselves why that amendment got attached, Oliver said. We knew Strom Thurmond had proposed it. So we asked an archivist at the library where his papers are kept to go through the relevant papers, and they came up with nothing. Oliver quipped about that lack of a paper trail, saying it might be the best scenario for Thurmond given his reputation for fervent racism. Oliver enlivened his diatribe over Puerto Rico's dilemma witha rapperformed by Lin-Manuel Miranda, the son of Puerto Rican parents and the creator and star of the Broadway hitHamilton.Miranda mentioned Thurmond, too: Somewhere down the line Strom Thurmond's ghost busted a cap at a chance at Chapter 9. Which brings us to the focus of this fact-check: Did Thurmond propose the cunning words that ultimately caught Puerto Rico in a debtors vice? Thurmonds role Ina 2015 ruling, the judges of the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals provided some very helpful background. In March 1984, the House passed its version of a bankruptcy bill. That version did not have the Puerto Rico exemption. Then on May 21, 1984, the judges wrote that Thurmond introduced the package of changes that included the text at the center of this controversy. On the day that he introduced the amendment, Senator Thurmond addressed the Senate to explain several of its numerous stipulations, yet said little about the newly added Puerto Rico exemption, the judges wrote. In fact, we went through theCongressional Recordfor that day (thank you, Internet Archive). Thurmond said less than little. He said nothing. The record shows that after Thurmonds amendment, the exemption became part of the final legislation. While this seems to point the finger at Thurmond, theres more to this story. Aside from introducing the overall amendment, Thurmond might not have had much to do with the text. It had been introduced four years before, and not in the Senate, but in the House. Congress earlier run at changing the law Experts question whether Thurmond actually understood the significance of the amendment. To see why, we have to go back to 1978. That year, Congress gave the bankruptcy law a complete overhaul. As often happens with major legislation, various gaps and ambiguities emerged and, in 1979, the Senate passed a bill to tidy up the loose ends. Among the dross, the Senate defined states to include Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia and any territory or possession of the United States. That legislation moved over to the House, and here the trail becomes murky. Bankruptcy law professor Stephen Lubben at Seton Hall University traced thetwists and turns in a 2014 article. In July 1980, the House Judiciary Committee returned with an amendment to the Senate bill that struck the entire Senate text and replaced it with theJudiciary Committees desired text, including a new definition of state,  Lubben wrote. The House version, under Democratic control, had the Chapter 9 bankruptcy exclusion for Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia. That bill never passed, but in April 1981, Lubben found that the exclusion language resurfaced in the Senate. This exclusion was never discussed by Congress, at least publicly, and the language apparently simply materialized as a result of the House Judiciary Committees extensive revision of the 1979 Senate technical corrections bill, Lubben wrote. Lubben told us that the text in Thurmonds 1984 amendment was essentially the same language that was kicking around since 1980. Its not even clear that the parties even understood what was going on, Lubben said. The only thing we can say for certain is the change happened without a whole lot of thought behind it. Another factor makes it hard to find Thurmonds fingerprints on the text that beleaguers Puerto Rico today. The change was never offered as a stand-alone item. It was always bundled with a number of other small changes. Law professor John Pottow at the University of Michigan told us, Strom Thurmond might have introduced that, but its an overstatement to say he played a big role. A final mystery  if youve followed the trail this far, you will notice that in 1984, the House version of the bill didnt have the Puerto Rico exclusion. The logical question is, why was it dropped when the House was the first to add it in 1980? We wish we knew. Our ruling Oliver said we know that Thurmond proposed the text that stripped Puerto Rico of the right to let municipalities and public utilities declare bankruptcy. There is no question that Thurmond introduced the amendment with that change. So technically, he did propose it.But theres no evidence that he came up with the idea, and experts question that he understood the significance of the change that would follow. The statement is accurate but requires some additional information. We rate this claim Mostly True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/260b6aad-f921-45fc-9937-1d82d35f7874 This fact-check previously contained erroneous references about the timing of Strom Thurmond's Senate career and Lin-Manuel Miranda's birthplace. In December 2020, an online advertisement displayed a picture of an Olive Garden Italian Restaurant sign along with text that read: "Closing Time: Here's All The Restaurant Chains Closing in 2020."   This advertisement was misleading. Olive Garden is not closing all of its restaurants. Readers who clicked the advertisement were led to a 50-page story on the website Money Pop. 50-page story While the advertisement promised a list of restaurant chains that would be closing in 2020, the headline on the actual story was different: "These Popular Restaurant Chains Are Losing Money Fast." headline The story mentioned Olive Garden, but it only mentioned that two locations had closed in Springfield, Massachusetts, and Birmingham, Alabama, in March and April, respectively. Springfield, Massachusetts Birmingham, Alabama Olive Garden did not go out of business in 2020, but that's not to say it hadn't faced financial hardship during the COVID-19 pandemic. The coronavirus had led to the closure of dine-in services at thousands of different restaurants across the United States. This meant less revenue, which resulted in lost jobs. In many cases, restaurants closed. lost jobs restaurants closed On June 22, 2020, Nation's Restaurant News reported that National Restaurant Association President and CEO Tom Ben said the restaurant industry had faced "catastrophic losses." reported Darden Restaurants owns the Olive Garden brand, as well as LongHorn Steakhouse, Cheddar's Scratch Kitchen, Yard House, The Capital Grille, Seasons 52, Bahama Breeze, and Eddie V's. On Dec. 9, 2020, InvestorPlace.com reported that Darden had managed to survive the pandemic thus far, but it also asked: "What's next for Darden Restaurants?" reported The bull case is built on a bear case regarding other restaurants. Without government help, small operators are closing by the score. This means chains like Darden may be all thats left when people again feel safe to eat out. Darden has managed to make money at Olive Garden while closing half its tables. It reinstated the dividend and paid back its $270 million emergency loan. Once the pandemic is over, Cramer predicts, fast-casual chains like Olive Garden will be the height of fine dining. the height of fine dining. Darden is expected to report earnings Dec. 18, for the quarter ending in November. The estimate is for 72 cents per share of net income on $1.7 billion of sales. That would beat last years profit on 17% less revenue. on $1.7 billion of sales on 17% less revenue The Money Pop story also mentioned The Cheesecake Factory on its list. We previously covered that rumor as well. previously covered Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising "arbitrage." The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads. submit ads to us