40 percent of American households have female primary breadwinners.
Despite the large number of women in the American workforce, society still treats them as an anomaly, first daughter Ivanka Trump wrote in the introduction to her new book,Women Who Work. Forty-seven percent of the U.S. workforce is made up of women; 70 percent of all mothers support ourselves or contribute financially to our familys bottom line; and 40 percent of American households have female primary breadwinners, Trump wrote. Yet we still say working woman as if she were an anomaly. We never say working man. There are a few statistics in that passage, but we wanted to hone in on one of them: that women are the primary earners in 40 percent of American households. In the notes section of her book, Trump referenced a widely cited2013 Pew Research Center reportthat looked at households with children under the age of 18. The report found that in 2011, women earned most or all of the familys income in 40 percent of these households, adding up to about 13.7 million breadwinner moms. Thats quadruple what it was in 1960  11 percent. The Pew figure is a little more specific than what Trump wrote because it only looked at households that had kids, not those that don't have kids. But in context, it's clear Trump was referring to the Pew report  especially because she referred to the same statistic later in the book when talking about being a working mom herself. As much as motherhood is a joy to so many of us, it is also the greatest predictor of wage inequality between men and women in our country, she wrote. Forty-seven percent of the U.S. labor force is female; 40 percent of women are their family's primary breadwinner. The fact is correct, said Betsey Stevenson, a professor of public policy and economics at the University of Michigan and former chief economist at the U.S. Labor Department. We couldn't find any comprehensive data that spoke to how many households total, including those without kids, had women as the primary earners. Of the families where the woman is the primary breadwinner, Pew found that 37 percent are married women who earn more than their husbands, while 63 percent are single mothers. And the households with a married primary breadwinner, with a median family income of $80,000, are wealthier than the single mother households, which have a median family income of $23,000. The Pew report is the most recent independent report we could find speaking to this issue. But we also came across a2016 report by the liberal Center for American Progressthat had similar findings. According to the Center for American Progress, 42 percent of mothers were the sole or primary breadwinners in their households in 2015. And 22.4 percent were co-breadwinners, earning one-quarter to one-half of their total household income. Even though womens share of the labor forcegrew dramaticallythroughout the latter half of the 20th century, it has stagnated in recent years, at least in part because of alack of family-friendly labor policies, said Casey Schoeneberger, communications director at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth. Our ruling Ivanka Trump said, 40 percent of American households have female primary breadwinners. A widely cited Pew report found that in 2011, 40 percent of American households with children under 18 had women providing most or all of the familys income. A report by a liberal think tank found similar results looking at 2015 data. The context of Trump's statement shows that she had working moms in mind. We rate her statement Mostly True.
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, various cities in the United States saw protests against shelter-in-place orders that were enacted to combat the spread of the COVID-19 coronavirus disease. Several photographs and videos showed these protests, but one image in particular went viral after it was likened to a scene from the zombie comedy "Shaun of the Dead." went viral The top half of the image is a real photograph taken on April 13 by Joshua A. Bickel of The Columbus Dispatch and shows protesters outside of the Ohio Statehouse demonstrating against the state's self-quarantine rules.  Joshua A. Bickel The Columbus Dispatch It was originally published in an article entitled "GOP lawmakers, protesters call on DeWine to begin re-opening Ohio." That article started: started Some Republicans in the Ohio legislature are publicly calling on Gov. Mike DeWine to consider removing coronavirus-related restrictions beginning next month, while on Monday, around 100 protesters gathered outside the Statehouse during Dewines daily COVID-19 press briefing. A growing chorus of Ohios Republican lawmakers want Gov. Mike DeWine to set a date for the first phases of re-opening businesses, schools and public places. We need to get the economy open, even if that means social distancing of some sort for months to come, Sen. Andrew Brenner, R-Delaware, wrote in a Facebook post. We cant stay like this much longer, and the hundreds of thousands of Ohioans whove lost their jobs or the thousands of small business owners cant keep doing this either, or their lives will be irreparably destroyed. On April 15, shortly after this image went viral, The Columbus Dispatch published a follow-up article providing the story behind the photo. This photograph was presented in that article with the following caption: story behind the photo Protesters stand outside the Statehouse Atrium where reporters listen during the State of Ohio's Coronavirus response update on Monday, April 13, 2020 at the Ohio Statehouse in Columbus, Ohio. About 100 protesters assembled outside the building during Gov. Mike DeWine's weekday update on the state's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, upset that the state remains under a Stay-At-Home order and that non-essential businesses remain closed. While Bickel's photograph was taken on April 13 in Ohio, it truly went viral later a few days later when a similar (but larger) protest dubbed "Operation Gridlock" took place in Michigan and made national headlines. That protest featured hundreds of Michiganders outside of the state's Capitol demanding an end to Gov. Gretchen Whitmer's stay-at-home orders.  Whitmer said that the protest in Michigan, which featured American flags, Trump flags, Confederate flags, and a number of heavily armed protesters, was just as much about partisan politics as it was about public health. Whitmer said: said It really wasn't about the stay-at-home order at all. [...] It was essentially a political rally, a political statement that flies in the face of all of the science, all the best practices. [...] It looks like a lot of people and it felt like a lot of people but in the bigger scheme of things, Michigan is a state of 10 million people, the vast majority of whom are doing the right thing. Our hospitals have stepped up, our nurses, our doctors, the average citizen whose staying home or is contributing in some way to help people on the front line. That's the story of what's really going on here. This group, a small group of people that came together without masks on, who were passing out candy with bare hands to children, who were congregating together, who were brandishing their weapons, who were having posters of being anti-choice; this was a political rally, it was a political rally that is going to endanger people's lives, because this is precisely how Covid-19 spreads. While there has been genuine criticism about various stay-at-home orders, there has also been a good deal of misinformation shared about these restrictions. For instance, many people falsely accused Whitmer of "banning the sale" of American flags.  banning the sale Staver, Anna' Behrens, Cole. &bsp; "GOP Lawmakers, Protesters Call on DeWine to Begin Re-Opening Ohio."
  The Columbus Dispatch.  13 April 2020. Deadline Detroit.  "MSNBC Asks Michigan's Whitmer: What's Up With Confederate Flags At Lansing Rally?"
  15 April 2020. Everhart, Michelle.  "You've Seen the Photo of Ohio Protesters. Heres The Story Behind It."
  The Columbus Dispatch.  15 April 2020. Everhart, Michelle.  "You've Seen the Photo of Ohio Protesters. Heres The Story Behind It."
  The Columbus Dispatch.  15 April 2020. Scam:  Card-skimming thieves can make fraudulent purchases with information read from RFID-enabled credit cards carried in pockets and purses.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, December 2010] Just received an email concerning "Credit Card Pickpocketing". It was broadcast from Memphis WREG TV.  [Collected via e-mail, October 2012] PLEASE WATCH THIS VIDEO I read this about a couple weeks ago, and then checked my cards for the little "WiFi Signal Icon" on each one.  I found none w/that signal on them, but I was determined to watch for it when my cards came in on renewals. Well, yesterday I got my CHASE SLATE card AND THERE IT WAS!  My first time to see it. I'll not activate that card after seeing this.  I guess I'll go to the bank and see if I can replace it w/a non wi fi (Radio Frequency Card)....? Thought all my contacts ought to see this if you've not already seen this demo....wow!  Origins:  In December 2010, Memphis television station WREG aired an "Electronic Pickpocketing" piece on the potential risks posed by "contactless" credit/debit/ATM cards containing embedded RFID (radio frequency identification technology) chips.  Such chips encode basic information (e.g., account numbers, expiration dates) that can be picked up by point-of-sale RFID readers, eliminating the need for cards to be physically handled or swiped.  One possible drawback to this technology is unauthorized persons might use RFID readers of their own to surreptitiously glean that same information, as demonstrated in WREG's report, which featured Walt Augustinowicz of Identity Stronghold using a card reader and a netbook computer to engage in card "skimming"  picking up account information off RFID-enabled cards carried in the pockets and purses of random passers-by on the street.  A few days after it broadcast the original "Electronic Pickpocketing" story, WREG reported the piece had gone  Electronic Pickpocketing  viral, racking up 1.2 million views in just three days. Despite all the publicity WREG's report garnered, the concept of RFID-enabled credit card theft was hardly a new one.  Various news, technical, and security  outlets have been reporting (and demonstrating) for several years the potential risk that information transmitted wirelessly by RFID-enabled cards might be picked up by eavesdropping thieves using relatively cheap equipment.  But although (as demonstrated in WREG's piece) it's certainly possible for interlopers to read pieces of information from some contactless cards under some circumstances, the extent to which this activity might be used to facilitate theft is currently difficult to gauge. reporting As the WREG report noted, representatives from the Identity Theft Resource Center said "they've never seen a case of RFID skimming used to steal information,"  but it's also the case that it would be difficult (if not impossible) for skimming victims to identify exactly how their card information had been stolen. Nonetheless, other analysts have offered reasons why they believe card skimming may not be nearly as much of a threat as some reports have made it sound:  The data streams emitted by contactless cards don't include such information as PINs and CVV (Card Verification Value) security codes  or, in newer cards,  customer names  and without those pieces of information a card skimmer should not be able to utilize the stolen card numbers to print up counterfeit cards or engage in Card Not Present (CNP) transactions: CNP None of the cards transmits the additional number on the front or back, known as the card validation code, that some businesses require for online purchases. [C]ompany representatives argued [that] the process of making purchases with the cards involves verification procedures based on powerful encryption that make each transaction unique. Most cards, they said, actually transmit a dummy number that does not match the number embossed on the card, and that number can be used only in connection with the verification "token," or a small bit of code, that is encrypted before being sent. "It's basically useless information," said David Bonalle, vice president and general manager for advanced payments at American Express. "You can't steal that data and just play it back and expect that transaction to work." However, some merchants are not assiduous about requiring extra levels of security information from their customers beyond credit card number and expiration date, and security providers contend that card skimmers can still find plenty of places to make purchases with nothing more than 16-digit account numbers and expiration dates.  Although some contactless cards can be read from as far as a few feet away, refinements to the RFID technology employed in newer cards limits their transmission range to a much smaller distance.   Although RFID-enabled cards may have originally transmitted their information in plain text, newer contactless cards are adding encryption to the data streams and thus cannot be read directly by ordinary card readers.  (Encryption requires additional processing time, however, so businesses that place a premium on speed may still eschew its use in their card processing systems.)  Card skimming generally works when the victim is carrying only a single contactless card; otherwise, the transmissions from multiple cards can create a jumbled, unintelligible stream. It remains the case that cardholders are not liable for the fraudulent use of their credit card information, but consumers who are extra cautious have the option of investing in secure sleeves that shield the RFID signals transmitted by their cards from electronic eavesdroppers. On 17 February 2016, an updated version of the rumor began making the rounds, this time accompanied by a photo of a man holding a Point of Sale (PoS) device: version   In theory, all that a thief would need to do would be to enter a price lower than 30, then tap the device against people's pockets and they would be charged. Almost all new bank cards and credit cards issued in the UK now offer the chips, which allow users to authorise small transactions without entering a PIN code. Facebook user R Jarvis claims he saw the alleged scammer at work, saying, "So this guy was spotted wandering round with a Point of Sale (POS) device. All he has to do is key in a price less than 30 and then touch the device on the pocket that contains your wallet." However, the photo that went along with this claim wasn't taken by Paul Jarvis. It appeared in an 8 February 2016 article about possible electronic pickpocketing in Russia. In any case, "electronic pickpocketing," with or without Point of Sale devices, remained rare as of 2016, but RFID sleeves for cards remained readily available for those with lingering concerns. claim article available Last updated:  17 February 2016     Sources:   Noll, Scott.  "Electronic Pickpocketing."   WREG-TV [Memphis].  3 December 2010.     Noll, Scott.  "Electronic Pickpocketing Goes Viral."   WREG-TV [Memphis].  6 December 2010.     Schwartz, John.  "Researchers See Privacy Pitfalls in No-Swipe Credit Cards."   The New York Times.  23 October 2006.     Vamosi, Robert.  "RFID-Enabled Credit Card Theft."   CNET.com.  27 October 2006.     KKCO-TV [Grand Junction, CO].  "Protecting Your Identity Against Credit Card Hackers."   15 May 2012. In October 2018, social media users shared a meme posted by the liberal Facebook page Occupy Democrats reporting a series of events involving Gulf states were the result of President Donald Trump and his son-in-law and adviser Jared Kushner "using American foreign policy to enrich themselves":   Although the sequence of events referenced in the meme is described accurately according to reputable news reports, the motives, connections, and causality the meme ascribes to those events have not been proved. It is true that Jared Kushner, who is married to President Trump's eldest daughter Ivanka, was in need of over a billion dollars to cover the mortgage on 666 Fifth Avenue, a 41-story Manhattan building he purchased for $1.8 billion in 2007, as the New Yorker reported on 2 March 2018: reported Kushner Companies co-owns 666 Fifth Avenue with another developer, Vornado Realty. In 2007, at Jared Kushners urging, the company paid $1.8 billion for the building -- at the time, the highest price ever paid for a New York office tower. The property occupies a prime spot between Fifty-second and Fifty-third streets, but it was built in 1957 and needed extensive upgrades. It still has many vacancies, and the $1.2 billion mortgage, which reportedly has ballooned to almost $1.5 billion, is due in February, 2019. Right now, it is not entirely clear whether Kushner Companies is in a position to repay or refinance the loan. The company hoped to knock the building down and put up another, twice as tall and far more luxurious, in its place, Bloomberg reported. It sought funds from investors in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, China, South Korea, Israel and France. No investors were announced for the plan, described by many as prohibitively expensive. That same day, The Intercept reported that in April 2017, Kushner's father Charles, who runs the family's real estate firm Kushner Companies, had made a direct appeal for financing to Qatari Finance Minister Ali Sharif Al Emadi, which was followed shortly afterwards by the Saudi-led blockade of Qatar: reported The 30-minute meeting, according to two sources in the financial industry who asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the potential transaction, included aides to both parties, and was held at a suite at the St. Regis Hotel in New York. A follow-up meeting was held the next day in a glass-walled conference room at the Kushner property itself, though Al Emadi did not attend the second gathering in person. The failure to broker the deal would be followed only a month later by a Middle Eastern diplomatic row in which Jared Kushner provided critical support to Qatars neighbors. Led by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, a group of Middle Eastern countries, with Kushners backing, led a diplomatic assault that culminated in a blockade of Qatar. Kushner, according to reports at the time, subsequently undermined efforts by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to bring an end to the standoff. Middle Eastern diplomatic row subsequently undermined In May 2017, Qatar's Gulf neighbors commenced a blockade of that country, and within days President Trump tweeted his support of the blockage despite the fact that Qatar is home to Al Udeid Air Base, a key U.S. military installation: commenced tweeted During my recent trip to the Middle East I stated that there can no longer be funding of Radical Ideology. Leaders pointed to Qatar - look!  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 6, 2017 June 6, 2017  In May 2018, the New York Times reported that the Kushner family was close to reaching a bailout deal for 666 Fifth Avenue with a company possessing Qatari government ties: reported Charles Kushner, head of the Kushner Companies, is in advanced talks with Brookfield Asset Management over a partnership to take control of the 41-story aluminum-clad tower in Midtown Manhattan, 666 Fifth Avenue, according to two real estate executives who have been briefed on the pending deal but were not authorized to discuss it. Brookfield is a publicly traded company, and its real estate arm, Brookfield Property Partners, is partly owned by the Qatari government, through the Qatar Investment Authority. And, the Trump administration around that time reversed course with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo telling the Saudis in April 2018 that it was time to end the blockade against Qatar. telling It's likely the meme gained momentum on social media in October 2018 due to scrutiny over Kushner and Trump's relationship with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in light of the gruesome murder of Jamal Kashoggi.  scrutiny Kashoggi, a Saudi national and columnist for the Washington Post, went missing on 2 October 2018 after entering the Saudi consulate in Istanbul seeking documents he needed to get married. According to reports citing Turkish government and U.S. intelligence sources, the Virginia resident never left the consulate, where he was ambushed by Saudi agents, tortured and murdered, and his body dismembered. ambushed Trump has resisted calls by U.S. lawmakers to impose sanctions on Saudi Arabia in retaliation for the journalist's apparent death, comparing global condemnation of the Gulf kingdom to accusations of sexual misconduct leveled against U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Trump told the Associated Press: "Here we go again with, you know, you're guilty until proven innocent. I don't like that. We just went through that with Justice Kavanaugh and he was innocent all the way as far as I'm concerned." calls told Cassidy, John.  "Jared Kushners Conflicts of Interest Reach a Crisis Point."
  The New Yorker.  2 March 2018. Swisher, Clayton and Ryan Grim.  "Jared Kushner's Real Estate Firm Sought Money Directly from Qatar Government Weeks Before Blockade."
  The Intercept.  2 March 2018. Bagli, Charles V. and Jesse Drucker.  "Kushners Near Deal with Qatar-Linked Company for Troubled Tower."
  The New York Times.  17 May 2018. Kirkpatrick, David D. and Carlotta Gall.  "Audio Offers Gruesome Details of Jamal Khashoggi Killing, Turkish Official Says."
  The New York Times.  17 October 2018. Announced in April 2021, U.S. President Joe Bidens American Families Plan is an ambitious proposal that aims to expand Americans' access to childcare and education and increase the number of women in the workforce. The plan is to fund all of this through more taxes on higher-income earners and increased reporting requirements of banks that could potentially yield more tax revenue. These reporting requirements have caught the ire of a number of banks that took issue with this less widely known section of the plan. Announced reporting A Facebook post by FNB Community Bank claimed: The Biden administration has proposed requiring all community banks and other financial institutions to report to the IRS on all deposits and withdrawals through business and personal accounts worth more than $600 regardless of tax liability. This indiscriminate, comprehensive bank account reporting to the [Internal Revenue Service (IRS)] can soon be enacted in Congress and will create an unacceptable invasion of privacy for our customers. Facebook post   Another screenshot shared by our readers expressed similar concerns:   The Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA) even began a campaign, calling on communities to send a letter to Biden to prevent this so-called intrusive proposal": began a campaign, Tell Congress: Don't Let IRS Invade My Privacy The Biden administration is proposing requiring financial institutions report to the IRS all transactions of all business and personal accounts worth more than $600. This is an unprecedented invasion of privacy. In order to knock down this intrusive proposal, please send this letter to your representative and senators immediately. We looked up the proposal itself, and it does require more robust reporting of transactions across business and personal accounts. The proposal, which aims to go into effect after Dec. 31, 2022, states: proposal This proposal would create a comprehensive financial account information reporting regime. Financial institutions would report data on financial accounts in an information return. The annual return will report gross inflows and outflows with a breakdown for physical cash, transactions with a foreign account, and transfers to and from another account with the same owner. This requirement would apply to all business and personal accounts from financial institutions, including bank, loan, and investment accounts, with the exception of accounts below a low de minimis gross flow threshold of $600 or fair market value of $600. We begin by explaining some of the more technical terms in this proposal. A "de minimis threshold" is broadly defined as the amount of a transaction that has such a small value that accounting for it would be unreasonable. We spoke to Visiting Assistant Professor of Tax Law at New York University, Nyamagaga Gondwe, who explained, "It is the amount below which the [IRS] would argue isn't worth investigating. It's the difference between your company giving you a $5 card to Subway, versus traveling on a private jet on your company's dime. [The latter] is worth reporting." In this case, "gross flow" refers to the aggregate inflows and outflows of cash from bank accounts. In sum, the current proposal stipulates that an aggregate amount of less than $600 worth of cash flowing into and out of accounts is not worth reporting.  defined gross flow The "fair market value" refers to the amount people are willing to pay for an asset in the open market. In this case, Gondwe argued, the use of the term could possibly refer to the changing market value of transactions more than $600 that may occur in foreign currency transactions.  refers to The ICBA claims that the proposal will make banks report "all transactions" above the limit, but this is misleading. While it is true that the IRS will have more information on cashflows above $600, that doesnt mean they will have all the information pertaining to all transactions. The Center for American Progress (CAP) points out that banks will only be providing aggregate numbers to the IRS after each year  gross inflow and gross outflow  and not individualized transaction information. This reporting requirement would also extend to peer-to-peer payment services like Venmo, but wouldnt require people to report any additional information to the government. According to The Wall Street Journal, financial institutions must already report interest, dividends, and investment incomes to the IRS, and the IRS can get other information through audits. Center for American Progress extend Wall Street Journal audits According to Marie Sapirie of Tax Notes, a publication focused on tax news, a parenthetical to the proposal indicates that there is some flexibility on raising the minimum account balance/inflow/outflow above $600. Tax Notes parenthetical The Tax Notes report also states that the treasury department estimated this form of reporting would raise $463 billion over the 10-year budget window, making it the third largest revenue raiser proposed in the budget. The aim is to target businesses outside of large corporations that carry out gross underreporting of their income in the amount of $166 billion per year. According to the proposal: Requiring comprehensive information reporting on the inflows and outflows of financial accounts will increase the visibility of gross receipts and deductible expenses to the IRS. Increased visibility of business income will enhance the effectiveness of IRS enforcement measures and encourage voluntary compliance. Tax Notes aim Banks claim this would be an invasion of consumer privacy, with the ICBA saying it would allow the government to monitor account information. However, CAP analysts Seth Hanlon and Galen Hendricks argue, Only the prior years total inflow and total outflow would be reported on annual forms. No one would say that the IRS monitors you on your job because it receives a W-2 from your employer with your total wages every January. saying argue Another challenge not mentioned in the ICBAs consumer alert is the higher costs this reporting proposal may place on banks. In May 2021, a coalition of banking associations wrote a letter to the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance, arguing that they already give a lot of data to the IRS, and that this would impose additional costs on their systems: consumer alert wrote a letter The costs and other burdens imposed to collect and report account flow information would surpass the potential benefits from such a reporting scheme. New reporting would appear to require material development costs and process additions for financial institutions, as well as significant reconciliation and compliance burden on impacted taxpayers. For example, reporting total gross receipts and disbursements would require a new reporting paradigm for depository institutions, which necessitates system changes to collect the information. On the flipside, Sapirie wrote for Tax Notes, the benefits of such a reporting proposal may be difficult to come by: Tax Notes Increasing the amount of information flowing into the IRS would not in itself lead to increased enforcement, and it might come with added challenges. [Former IRS Commissioner Charles O.] Rossotti acknowledged that the IRS today cannot use all the information it already receives, and significant areas of noncompliance are barely addressed, so more reporting alone will not solve the problem. It would almost certainly have a deterrent effect for taxpayers contemplating evasion, but the extent of that effect is unclear, and it might be insufficient to justify the costs to financial institutions and the federal government of implementing such a large new reporting regime. But CAPs analysis argues that this will help prevent tax evasion, while also providing more funding to enhance data security for consumers: CAPs analysis Additional funding would go to enhancing data security. Even at present, the IRS data security is already much better than the financial industry, with only very rare and limited breaches compared to the exponentially bigger data breaches from financial institutions. Second, the reporting of information flows only from financial institutions to the IRS and not in the other direction, as some earlier proposals had called for.  [...] The Biden administrations bank reporting proposal is a critical element of the Build Back Better agenda. It gives the IRS some visibility into opaque forms of income that disproportionately accrue to high-income individuals. Despite fearmongering from bank lobbies, the proposal protects taxpayers privacy while simply requiring banks to provide basic, aggregated information about flows. That enables the IRS to select audits in a more efficient and equitable way so that the vast majority of taxpayers will be less likely to be audited. And by deterring and helping catch tax cheats, the proposal raises substantial revenue for the Build Back Better agenda, which provides critical investments to increase economic opportunities for American families and communities. On Oct. 12, 2021, Speaker Nancy Pelosi defended the proposal in response to a question from a reporter, who said, "[Banks] are concerned about the tracking of transactions that are greater than $600, Americans are starting to get worried about this. Do you think [this] is going to stay in the Reconciliation Bill?"  defended "With all due respect, the plural of anecdote is not data," Pelosi said. "Yes, there are concerns that some people have. But if people are breaking the law and not paying their taxes, one way to track them is through the banking measure. I think $600  that's a negotiation that will go on as to what the amount is. But yes."     Whatever the impact of this proposal is, it does require additional reporting of certain bank transactions, just not in the way the above banks are portraying it. As such, we rate this claim a Mixture. A Scorecard for Reconciliation, Round 2. Tax Analysts, https://www.taxnotes.com/featured-analysis/scorecard-reconciliation-round-2/2021/09/10/783l0?highlight=biden. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Community Banks Must Engage Customers on New IRS Reporting Mandates. ICBA, https://www.icba.org/newsroom/blogs/main-street-matters---advocacy/2021/08/19/community-banks-must-engage-customers-on-new-irs-reporting-mandates. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Consumer Alert from ICBA. ICBA, https://www.icba.org/bank-locally/consumer-alert-from-icba. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021.Digging Into the Bank Info Reporting Plan. Tax Analysts, https://www.taxnotes.com/tax-notes-today-global/information-reporting/digging-bank-info-reporting-plan/2021/08/30/777dx. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Fair Market Value (FMV). Investopedia, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fairmarketvalue.asp. Accessed 16 Sept. 2021. "General Explanations of the Administrations Fiscal Year 2022 Revenue Proposals." Department of the Treasury, May 2021, https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/131/General-Explanations-FY2022.pdf. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Gross Cash Flow Definition. Law Insider, https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/gross-cash-flow. Accessed 16 Sept. 2021. Hanlon, Seth, and Galen Hendricks. Bank Tax Reporting Is a Critical Component of Bidens Build Back Better Agenda. Center for American Progress, 14 Sept. 2021, https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/news/2021/09/14/503821/bank-tax-reporting-critical-component-bidens-build-back-better-agenda/. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. ICBA Urges House Panel to Reject IRS Monitoring Plan. Default, https://www.icba.org/newsroom/news-and-articles/2021/09/09/icba-urges-house-panel-to-reject-irs-monitoring-plan. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Jagoda, Naomi. Pelosi Defends IRS Bank-Reporting Proposal, Says Specifics Open to Negotiation. The Hill, 12 Oct. 2021, https://thehill.com/policy/finance/576362-pelosi-defends-irs-bank-reporting-proposal. Joint Trades Statement for the Record: Senate Subcommittee on Taxation and IRS Oversight Hearing Entitled: Closing the Tax Gap: Lost Revenue from Noncompliance and the Role of Offshore Tax Evasion." 10 May 2021, https://bpi.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Joint-SfR-Senate-Finance-Subcommitte-Hearing-on-Closing-the-Tax-Gap-051021.pdf. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Rubin, Orla McCaffrey and Richard. Biden Tax Plan Leans on Banks to Help Find Unreported Income. Wall Street Journal, 29 Apr. 2021. www.wsj.com, https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-tax-plan-leans-on-banks-to-help-find-unreported-income-11619701380. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Tankersley, Jim, and Dana Goldstein. Biden Details $1.8 Trillion Plan for Workers, Students and Families. The New York Times, 28 Apr. 2021. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/28/us/politics/biden-american-families-plan.html. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. "When Is a Minimal Fringe Benefit Not So Minimal?" https://www.wolterskluwer.com/en/expert-insights/when-is-a-minimal-fringe-benefit-not-so-minimal. Accessed 16 Sept. 2021. Oct. 14, 2021: Added Pelosi's comments on the proposal. The New Testament's book of Colossians (one of the thirteen epistles traditionally attributed to Paul, this one addressed to Christians in the city Colossae) reads as follows (in verses 1:12-20 of the King James Version): Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. For it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. It is not uncommon for sermons and other Christian devotional/inspirational writings to cite this passage in comparison with some scientific concept: Just as gravity or atoms or molecules are the "glue" that holds the physical world together, so God or Jesus is the force that binds the spiritual world. An example involving laminin glycoprotein cited is one example of this form, with the addition of a graphic meant to illustrate how God's design is evident (in the shape of a cross) in the molecular structure of laminin  what literally holds us together (in a biological sense) was clearly created by He who spiritually holds us together: laminin A couple of days ago I was running (I use that term very loosely) on my treadmill, watching a DVD sermon by Louie Giglio ... and I was BLOWN AWAY! I want to share what I learned ... but I fear not being able to convey it as well as I want. I will share anyway. He (Louie) was talking about how inconceivably BIG our God is ... how He spoke the universe into being ... how He breathes stars out of His mouth that are huge raging balls of fire ... etc. etc. Then He went on to speak of how this star-breathing, universe creating God ALSO knitted our human bodies together with amazing detail and wonder. At this point I am LOVING it (fascinating from a medical standpoint, you know.) ... and I was remembering how I was constantly amazed during medical school as I learned more and more about God's handiwork. I remember so many times thinking ... "How can ANYONE deny that a Creator did all of this???" Louie went on to talk about how we can trust that the God who created all this, also has the power to hold it all together when things seem to be falling apart ... how our loving Creator is also our sustainer. And then I lost my breath. And it wasn't because I was running my treadmill, either!!! It was because he started talking about laminin. I knew about laminin. Here is how wikipedia describes them: "Laminins are a family of proteins that are an integral part of the structural scaffolding of basement membranes in almost every animal tissue." You see ... laminins are what hold us together ... LITERALLY. They are cell adhesion molecules. They are what holds one cell of our bodies to the next cell. Without them, we would literally fall apart. And I knew all this already. But what I didn't know is what laminin LOOKED LIKE. But now I do. And I have thought about it a thousand times since (already) ... Here is what the structure of laminin looks like ... AND THIS IS NOT a "Christian portrayal" of it ... if you look up laminin in any scientific/medical piece of literature, this is what you will see ... Now tell me that our God is not the coolest!!! Amazing! The 'glue' that holds us together ... ALL of us ... is in the shape of the cross. Immediately Colossians 1:15-17 comes to mind. "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created; things in heaven and on earth , visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things HOLD TOGETHER." Colossians 1:15-17 Call me crazy. I just think that is very, very, very cool. Thousands of years before the world knew anything about laminin, Paul penned those words. And now we see that from a very LITERAL standpoint, we are held together...one cell to another....by the cross. You would never in a quadrillion years convince me that is anything other than the mark of a Creator who knew EXACTLY what laminin "glue" would look like long before Adam even breathed his first breath!!We praise YOU, Lord!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This particular example is based on the work of Christian pastor/evangelist Louie Giglio, as seen in the following video clip:  Discussions about whether or not nature evinces signs of a purposeful (Christian) creator are theological/scientific debates that can (and do) fill volumes, so we'll just note a few items to consider: accidentally crucifixion And when the illustration is returned to its original orientation, many liken it to the appearance of a sword:  appearances  Davis, Kenneth C.  Don't Know Much About the Bible.
  New York: Eagle Brook, 1998.  ISBN 0-688-14884-0  (pp. 435, 440-441). K. Beck, I. Hunter and J. Engel.  "Structure and Function of Laminin: Anatomy of a Multidomain Glycoprotein."
  The FASEB Journal, Vol 4, 148-160. Several similar items have been circulated during or since the 2008 U.S. presidential election, all suggesting (without evidence) that Barack and Michelle Obama, both of whom obtained licenses to practice law in Illinois, were forced to give up those licenses in order to avoid having them revoked through disciplinary actions or criminal prosecution. In fact, neither of the Obamas gave up their law licenses because they were facing disciplinary actions or criminal charges: Barack Obama  Editor of the Harvard Law Review  Has No Law License? I saw a note slide across the #TCOT feed on Twitter last night that mentioned Michelle Obama had no law license. This struck me as odd, since (a) she went to school to be a lawyer, and (b) she just recently held a position with the University of Chicago Hospitals as legal counsel  and that's a pretty hard job to qualify for without a law license. But being a licensed professional myself, I knew that every state not only requires licensure, they make it possible to check online the status of any licensed professional. So I did, and here's the results from the ARDC Website: She "voluntarily surrendered" her license in 1993. Let me explain what that means. A "Voluntary Surrender" is not something where you decide "Gee, a license is not really something I need anymore, is it?" and forget to renew your license. No, a "Voluntary Surrender" is something you do when you've been accused of something, and you "voluntarily surrender" you license five seconds before the state suspends you. Here's an illustration: I'm a nurse. At various times in my 28 years of nursing I've done other things when I got burned out; most notably a few years as a limousine driver; even an Amway salesman at one point. I always, always renewed my nursing license  simply because it's easier to send the state $49.00 a month than to pay the $200, take a test, wait six weeks, etc., etc. I've worked (recently) in a Nursing Home where there was an 88 year old lawyer and a 95 year old physician. Both of them still had current licensures as well. They would never DREAM of letting their licenses lapse. I happen to know there is currently in the Indiana State Prison in Michigan City Indiana an inmate who is a licensed physician, convicted of murder when he chased the two burglars who entered his home and terrorized his family into the street and killed them. (And I can't say I blame him for that, either.) This physician still has an active medical license and still sees patients, writes prescriptions, etc all from inside the prison. And he renews his medical license every two years, too. I tried looking up why she would "Voluntarily surrender" her license, but Illinois does not have it's 1993 records online. But when I searched for "Obama", I found this: "Voluntarily retired"  what does that mean? Bill Clinton hung onto his law license until he was convicted of making a false statement in the Lewinsky case and had to "Voluntarily Surrender" his license too. President Barack Obama, former editor of the Harvard Law Review, is no longer a "lawyer". He surrendered his license back in 2008 possibly to escape charges that he "fibbed" on his bar application. This is the former editor of the Harvard Law Review who doesnt seem to give a crap about his law license. Something else odd; while the Search feature brings up the names, any searches for the Disciplinary actions ends quickly. As in, Too Quickly. Less than a half-second quickly on a Search Engine that can take five seconds to Search for anything. As in, "there's a block on that information" kind of thing. So we have the first Lawyer President and First Lady  who don't actually have licenses to practice law. There's more to this story, I'm sure. I'll let you know when I find it. Such claims are false ones, based on misreadings of information about license status and erroneous interpretations and assumptions about such information, as detailed below: I saw a note slide across the #TCOT feed on Twitter last night that mentioned Michelle Obama had no law license. This struck me as odd, since (a) she went to school to be a lawyer, and (b) she just recently held a position with the University of Chicago Hospitals as legal counsel  and that's a pretty hard job to qualify for without a law license. This lead-in was wrong on two counts: Michelle Obama does in fact have a license to practice law in Illinois (it is currently on inactive status), and she did not hold a position as legal counsel with the University of Chicago Hospitals (rather, she worked at that institution as Executive Director for Community Affairs and then Vice President for Community and External Affairs). None of her job duties at the University of Chicago Hospitals required her to have an active law license. worked She "voluntarily surrendered" her license in 1993. Let me explain what that means. A "Voluntary Surrender" is not something where you decide "Gee, a license is not really something I need anymore, is it?" and forget to renew your license. No, a "Voluntary Surrender" is something you do when you've been accused of something, and you "voluntarily surrender" you license five seconds before the state suspends you. This passage was also wrong: Michelle Obama did not "voluntarily surrender" her law license; she requested that her license be placed on "inactive" status. The difference is crucial: a lawyer who has surrendered his law license has given it up and therefore no longer has a license, while a lawyer who has gone on inactive status still holds a valid law license but is not currently engaged in any professional activities that require it to be active. At various times in my 28 years of nursing I've done other things when I got burned out; most notably a few years as a limousine driver; even an Amway salesman at one point. I always, always renewed my nursing license  simply because it's easier to send the state $49.00 a month than to pay the $200, take a test, wait six weeks, etc., etc. I've worked (recently) in a Nursing Home where there was an 88 year old lawyer and a 95 year old physician. Both of them still had current licensures as well. They would never DREAM of letting their licenses lapse.  A lawyer's holding active license status can entail a number of obligations, both financial and otherwise: paying bar association fees, carrying malpractice insurance, taking continuing legal education classes, etc. Therefore, it is not uncommon for lawyers who are not in practice (i.e., do not appear in court or counsel clients) and do not expect to return to practice in the near future to request that their licenses be placed on inactive status in order to avoid these ongoing obligations. Reactivating an inactive law license is a fairly easy procedure, as noted in the Volokh group blog for law professors: Volokh The fact that someone who doesn't actually practice law, and is unlikely to practice law, voluntarily retires is hardly a sinister signal: It costs money to be a member of the bar, and if you're not going to practice, it may make sense to retire. Nor does this somehow undermine claims that he's a lawyer; a retired lawyer is still commonly called a lawyer  as an indication of what he has studied, and his general professional field  even if he is no longer a member of the bar. The bar record says that [Michelle Obama] is "Voluntarily inactive." This is even more common for lawyers who don't need a bar card, such as many lawyers who don't appear in court or counsel clients other than [their] employer. Being an active status lawyer costs more money than being inactive, and it requires one to do Continuing Legal Education classes, unless one is in certain jobs for which the CLE requirements are waived. The difference in bar fees, for instance, is why I myself was inactive in 2001. Moreover, it's pretty easy to switch back to active status should one need to do that. The following passage included the erroneous implication that Barack Obama also gave up his law license to avoid disciplinary action: "Voluntarily retired"  what does that mean? Bill Clinton hung onto his law license until he was convicted of making a false statement in the Lewinsky case and had to "Voluntarily Surrender" his license too. President Barack Obama, former editor of the Harvard Law Review, is no longer a "lawyer". He surrendered his license back in 2008 possibly to escape charges that he "fibbed" on his bar application. This passage was similarly incorrect: Barack Obama did not "surrender" his law license. Like his wife, Barack Obama had no need for an active law license for the work in which he was engaged, so in February 2007 (after announcing his candidacy for the presidency) he chose to have his law license placed on voluntarily inactive status, and after becoming president he opted to change his status to voluntarily retired. Neither of the Obamas was irrevocably stripped of a law license through the action of "surrendering" it. James Grogan, deputy administrator and chief counsel for the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois, affirmed that the Obamas were "never the subject of any public disciplinary proceedings," and the Illinois State Bar Association continues to list Barack and Michelle Obama as Honorary Members of that organization. list Something else odd; while the Search feature brings up the names, any searches for the Disciplinary actions ends quickly. As in, Too Quickly. Less than a half-second quickly on a Search Engine that can take five seconds to Search for anything. As in, "there's a block on that information" kind of thing. The above passage was also not true. Information about the statuses of both Barack and Michelle Obama's licenses is readily retrievable, both show no record of any disciplinary actions or pending proceedings, and the elapsed time for searches we performed on their information was comparable to that for searches on information about other names in the Illinois ARDC database.   (The "Malpractice Insurance" section of Michelle Obama's license information which included a notation about her being on "court ordered inactive status" was not, as commonly misinterpreted, an indication of any wrongdoing on her part. That terminology was used simply because prior to the end of 1999, the Illinois ARDC rules required "a proceeding in the Court for any voluntary transfer to inactive status, whether because of some incapacitating condition or solely as a matter of the lawyer's preference because the lawyer would not be practicing law.") rules So we have the first Lawyer President and First Lady  who don't actually have licenses to practice law.  This was hardly remarkable or suspicious: neither of the Obamas held a currently active law license because neither President of the United States nor First Lady was a position that required one. This statement was also inaccurate in referring to the Obamas as the "first Lawyer President and First Lady," as both Bill and Hillary Clinton held law degrees and engaged in legal work prior to the former's election to the presidency. In November 2019, an old clip from the children's popular show "Sesame Street" started to go viral on Twitter. The clip, which was viewed more than 8 million times in a few days, showed a child named "John-John" counting to 10 with a muppet in 1971, and then showed John-John's return to "Sesame Street" about 20 years later: One of my favorite @sesamestreet moments of all time... pic.twitter.com/WnHgjTQWkb @sesamestreet pic.twitter.com/WnHgjTQWkb  ?Kristina A. Holzweiss #HackingSchoolLibraries (@lieberrian) November 21, 2019 November 21, 2019 While many viewers were delighted that John-John appeared to have grown into an upstanding citizen and member of the U.S. Air Force, others claimed there was a bit more to the story: Many Twitter users pointed to a 2015 article published on I Love Old School Music as evidence that he'd been in trouble with the law. Here's an excerpt from that article, as well as a mugshot of a man named "John Bernard Williams": I Love Old School Music ... John ended up getting convicted of Aggravated Sexual Assault Of A Child in the state of Texas... ... Texas Department Of Public Safety Sex Offender Registry Records reveal that John sexually assaulted a 4 year old female child and that he was sentenced to 5 years in prison, was released on parole and is now under a lifetime mandatory supervision by the state of Texas.   A man named John Bernard Williams truly is on the Texas Public Sex Offender registry. We also found that much of the known biographical information for "John-John" matched with the information of this offender from the Texas Department of Public Safety. the Texas Public Sex Offender For instance, a profile on "Airman John-John" published by the Air Force Service Information and News Center in 1989 identified him as "John Bernard Williams." That article also identified his mother by the first name of "Trina." This is also the name of convicted sex offender John Bernard Williams' mother, according to a 2000 opinion on Williams' court case. Air Force Service Information and News Center 2000 opinion We also know that John-John was born in 1969 because many news outlets reported that the viral "Sesame Street" counting clip was filmed in 1971 when he was just 2 years old. The Muppet Fandom Wiki provides a more specific date of birth for John-John (Sept. 24, 1969), but we have been unable to verify this information. If this information is accurate, though, John-John and John Bernard Williams share the exact same birth date. If it's inaccurate, we still know that they were born in the same year. reported Muppet Fandom Wiki Lastly, in 1998, The New York Times caught up with John-John for the 30th anniversary of "Sesame Street." That article noted that John-John was living in San Antonio, Texas. A year later, charges would be filed against a man named John Bernard Williams in Bexar County, where San Antonio is located, for the sexual assault of a child. San Antonio, Texas. The information we've gathered seems to show that John-John, the 2-year-old child who made multiple appearances on "Sesame Street," may be the same person who ended up on the offender list in Texas. However, it is possible that this is just a coincidence. Given the nature of the rumor, and the fact that we have been unable to definitively tie these two identities together (via family statements, social security numbers, fingerprints, etc.) we are rating this claim "Unproven." We've reached out to the Texas Department Of Public Safety and will update this article if more information becomes available. Ramos, Cindy.  "Grover San Antonian's 14 Years on 'Sesame Street' Influenced His Life."   San Antonio Express-News.  12 May 1998. Sutherland, Anna.  "Airman John-John."   Air Force Service Information and News Center.  1989. Martin, Brett.  "TELEVISION; Still a Bilingual Guy, But Without Muppets."   New York Times.  29 March 1998. iloveoldschoolmusic.com.  "Man Who Played Sesame Street Kid 'John John' Was Convicted Of Heartbreaking Crime Against Child."   22 October 2015. On July 10, 2019, we examined a claim holding that Google was "scrubbing" its search results of any pictures showing President Bill Clinton together with convicted sex offender and billionaire/financier Jeffrey Epstein. While this rumor was false (Google's search results were not notably different than those of Yahoo, Duck Duck Go, Yandex, or Bing), we were left with one unanswered question: Are there any photos of Epstein and Clinton? false After all, Clinton flew on the private plane of Epstein, a convicted sex offender who was arrested again in July 2019 on new charges related to child-sex-prostitution. The two were also both present at a "small dinner party" in 1995 hosted by Revlon mogul Ron Perelman to raise funds for the Democratic National Convention. It seems reasonable to believe that someone at some point took a photograph of these two well-known public figures together.  flew child-sex-prostitution On July 22, 2019, Josh Rosner, the managing director of independent research consultancy Graham Fisher & Co, alerted us to his tweet containing a photograph of Epstein and Clinton that was published in a 2003 issue of Vanity Fair: Josh Rosner published Disturbing! The #press wiped all pictures of @BillClinton & #JeffreyEpstein from the #internet. Even @VanityFair who published this image in 03 from their #sex(?) trip to Brunei scrubbed it. #sycophant #power @CJR @theintercept @propublica pic.twitter.com/MmCZZraHai #press @BillClinton #JeffreyEpstein #internet @VanityFair #sex #sycophant #power @CJR @theintercept @propublica pic.twitter.com/MmCZZraHai  joshua rosner (@JoshRosner) July 22, 2019 July 22, 2019  Again, no evidence exists that this image was "wiped" from the Internet. In fact, this image is available online in Vanity Fair's digital archive (subscription required). digital archive This photograph was published in a March 2003 article by Vicky Ward entitled, "The Talented Mr. Epstein." The photograph's caption: "Epstein with President Clinton in Brunei, 2002." published   One possible explanation as to why this photograph doesn't pop up in search engines is that Vanity Fair didn't publish it as a standalone image. Rather, it is embedded in a digital copy of the March 2003 edition of the magazine. While we're not in the business of offering predictions, we'd bet that this image will start finding its way into Google Images and other image-based search engines in the near future (especially if more outlets pick up and publish stories including this image). Clinton is mentioned three other times in the Vanity Fair story; each iteration is reproduced below (emphasis ours): Lately, Jeffrey Epstein's high-flying style has been drawing oohs and aahs: the bachelor financier lives in New York's largest private residence, claims to take only billionaires as clients, and flies celebrities including Bill Clinton and Kevin Spacey on his Boeing 727. But pierce his air of mystery and the picture changes. VICKY WARD explores Epstein's investment career, his ties to retail magnate Leslie Wexner, and his complicated past. In addition to the town house, Epstein lives in what is reputed to be the largest private dwelling in New Mexico, on an $18 million, 7,500-acre ranch which he named "Zorro." "It makes the town house look like a shack," Epstein has said. He also owns Little St. James, a 70-acre island in the U.S. Virgin Islands, where the main house is currently being renovated by Edward Tuttle, a designer of the Aman resorts. There is also a $6.8 million house in Palm Beach, Florida, and a fleet of aircraft: a Gulfstream IV, a helicopter, and a Boeing 727, replete with trading room, on which Epstein recently flew President Clinton, actors Chris Tucker and Kevin Spacey, supermarket magnate Ron Burkle, Lew Wasserman's grandson, Casey Wasserman, and a few others, on a mission to explore the problems of AIDS and economic development in Africa. Epstein is known about town as a man who loves womenlots of them, mostly young. Model types have been heard saying they are full of gratitude to Epstein for flying them around, and he is a familiar face to many of the Victoria's Secret girls. One young woman recalls being summoned by Ghislaine Maxwell to a concert at Epstein's town house, where the women seemed to outnumber the men by far. "These were not women you'd see at Upper East Side dinners," the woman recalls. "Many seemed foreign and dressed a little bizarrely." This same guest also attended a cocktail party thrown by Maxwell that Prince Andrew attended, which was filled, she says, with young Russian models. "Some of the guests were horrified," the woman says. "He's reckless," says a former business associate, "and he's gotten more so. Money does that to you. He's breaking the oath he made to himselfthat he would never do anything that would expose him in the media. Right now, in the wake of the publicity following his trip with Clinton, he must be in a very difficult place." In 2002, around the time that this photograph was taken, Clinton told New York Magazine via a spokesperson that, "Jeffrey is both a highly successful financier and a committed philanthropist with a keen sense of global markets and an in-depth knowledge of twenty-first-century science. I especially appreciated his insights and generosity during the recent trip to Africa to work on democratization, empowering the poor, citizen service and combating H.I.V./AIDS." New York Magazine Clinton once had a relationship with Epstein and even took multiple trips on his private plane. However, the former president said that he hasn't had contact with Epstein for a decade and knows nothing about the crimes the latter has been accused or convicted of: Statement on Jeffrey Epstein. pic.twitter.com/98ha9YYd1l pic.twitter.com/98ha9YYd1l  Angel Urea (@angelurena) July 8, 2019 July 8, 2019  Clinton, of course, isn't the only high-profile politician connected to Epstein. U.S. President Donald Trump has also been photographed with Epstein.  photographed Gold, Michael.  "Bill Clinton and Jeffrey Epstein: How Are They Connected?"
  The New York Times.  9 July 2019. Thomas Jr., Landon.  "Jeffrey Epstein: International Moneyman of Mystery."
  NY Magazine.  28 October 2002. Ward, Vicy.  "The Talented Mr. Epstein."
  Vanity Fair.  March 2003. In early January 2017 a rumor swept Facebook asserting that "Facebook security" people were being paid to watch individual accounts:  According to that rumor, entering the term "Facebook Security" into Facebook's "block users" field would reveal a list of people whom the social network had engaged to furtively monitor your activity, and each of whom had to be individually blocked by you to prevent them from spying on you: rumor [D]id you know there are people literally watching your Facebook account? Yes. There are people who have a specific duty to monitor your posts and activity. While there are many Facebook secrets, for those who enjoy privacy, this one is for you! Here is what you need to do to block the majority of the accounts that monitor your Facebook: 1. > Log into Facebook 2. > Account Settings 3. > Click on blocking 4. > In the search field where it says Block Users type in: Facebook Security 5. > A new window will pop up. The list you see is a list of [most likely] Facebook employees, spies, and private accounts that are paid to shill for who knows who (sarcasm (kind of)). 6. > Go down the list, and if you dont like being monitored, just hit the block button. Some of the accounts are unable to be blocked. While this is somewhat disturbing, you must remember that Facebook owns everything Facebook, so in essence, you agreed to be monitored. (I know. What moral and reasonable organization needs to hire people to monitor you? Right?) However, following these instructions does nothing to uncover or block the (non-existent) Facebook security personnel who are supposedly monitoring your online activities. Entering the term "Facebook Security" into "Block Users" search box simply returns "profiles of [users] who have used those particular words somewhere on their profile [or] in a place thats visible to the individual, as in a public post." The list returned by this search neither includes people who are furtively following you, nor persons employed to spy on you by Facebook security. In September 2017, this rumor took on a slightly new form (one which eliminated the paranoid reference to "Facebook security"): Again, following these instructions simply produces a list of Facebook users with the string 'Me' somewhere in their screen names or profiles, not a list of accounts of people who are secretly following you: After the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost a historic 1,175 points in a single day in February 2018, the left-wing Facebook page Occupy Democrats was keen to point out a trend. In a 6 February meme, the page listed what it called the "Biggest One-Day Drops in Dow Jones History," along with the name of the U.S. president in office at the time of each point drop. meme According to the meme, each of the largest drops occurred during the presidencies of Donald Trump and George W. Bush -- both Republicans. The meme concluded: "Share this for your friends who STILL think Republicans are GOOD for the economy!"    The meme correctly lists the seven biggest one-day points drops in Dow Jones history, which all took place during the tenure of two Republican presidents, though it leaves out the eighth, ninth and 10th, which occurred with Democrats Bill Clinton and Barack Obama in the White House. The main problem with the meme, however, is that its conclusion (that the numbers show which president is good for the economy) overstates the influence of a president -- as opposed to macro-economic and geopolitical forces -- on stock market trends. In fact, one-day losses and gains can sometimes happen despite the policies and efforts of the person in the Oval Office. For example, many commentators attributed the 29 September 2008 points drop -- the second-biggest ever -- to the U.S. House of Representatives' failure to pass a $700 billion bank bailout bill, which President George W. Bush had pushed for.  many commentators attributed Even if one simply wanted to examine during which presidencies the Dow suffered largest single-day losses, looking at the largest point drops wouldn't be the way to do it. As the stock market has grown in value over the last century, large point drops have become more common, even if their impact on the overall market value isn't particularly great. To get a clearer picture of the impact of these drops, one would have to measure the drop in percentage terms, rather than points.  Biggest one-day percentage losses (Sources: Wall Street Journal's Market Data and Yahoo! Finance's downloadable Dow Jones data) Market Data data Five of these 10 events took place during the era of the Great Depression, and all but one occurred during the tenure of Republican presidents.  However, if one were to insist on linking the occupant of the White House to the performance of the stock market, a better way to do it would be to track the average performance of the Dow Jones over the entire course of a presidency, rather than looking at one-day outliers in isolation.  To illustrate this, we looked at the average performance of the Dow over the course of the last nine presidential terms. We used Yahoo! Finance data for this, which only goes back as far as 29 January 1985, so we're missing figures for the first week or so of Ronald Reagan's second administration.  Average one-day percentage change in Dow Jones Average Industrial Index, Last Nine Terms   So while Donald Trump's presidency did see the largest one-day points drop in Dow Jones history, it has also seen the biggest average one-day percentage growth since 1985. However, this is based on only 12 months of data, and the next three years could see that 0.09 percent growth rate drop.  The biggest average daily percentage growth over the course of a four-year presidency was 0.08 percent, during Bill Clinton's first administration between 1993 and 1997. Market Data Center. "U.S. Stocks -- Historical Index Data."
 Wall Street Journal. 30 December 2011. Yahoo! Finance. "Dow Jones Industrial Average -- Historical Data."
 Yahoo! Finance. 6 February 2018. CBS News/Associated Press. "Stocks Take Record Tumble, Down 777 Points."
 CBS News/Associated Press. 29 September 2008. Twin, Alexandra. "Stocks Crushed."
 CNN Money. 29 September 2008. Bajaj, Vikas; Grynbaum, Michael M. "For Stocks, Worst Single-Day Drop in Two Decades."
 New York Times. 29 September 2008. Romans, Christine. "Remembering the Worst Day in Wall Street History."
 CNN Money. 19 October 2017.