Says Donald Trumps proposed tax treatment of hedge fund managers makes the current loophole even worse.
Hillary Clinton is attacking DonaldTrumps tax plan, saying it actually benefits the hedge fund managers Trump had promised to cut down to size. Now, before releasing his plan, Trump said, Hedge fund guys are getting away with murder. And he added, Theyll pay more,  Clinton said. Then his plan came out. And it actually makes the current loophole even worse. It gives hedge-fund managers a special tax rate thats lower than what many middle-class families pay, Clinton continuedin the June 21, 2016, speech. And I did have to look twice because I didnt believe it. Under Donald Trumps plan, these Wall Street millionaires will pay a lower tax rate than many working people. Trumps plan does roll back one high-profile advantage for hedge fund partners. Is Clinton right to say they still come out ahead? Trump took an aggressive position on tax rates for hedge fund managers during his fight for the Republican nomination. In an interview with CBS in August, Trumpcalledthem paper pushers who did not build this country. In a Republicandebatein September, Trump said his tax plan would make them pay more. The hedge fund guys wont like me as much as they like me right now. I know them all, but theyll pay more, Trump said. After the Republican debate, Trump released the outline of histax plan. Trumps plan eliminates the so-called carried interest tax loophole, which allows general partners in private investment firms (including most hedge fund managers) to treat some of their income as income from investments, or capital gains, subject to a top tax rate of 23.8 percent, instead of the much higher tax rate for ordinary income (43.4 percent). Under Trumps plan, income from carried interest would no longer be treated as capital gains. Tax rates for ordinary income tops out at 25 percent under Trumps plan. This looks like a hike in line with Trumps promises. Except. Along with private equity and venture capital funds, many hedge funds are structured as partnerships. Under Trumps plan, income through a business partnership is taxed at a rate of no more than 15 percent, significantly less than the 23.8 percent they previously paid, according to ananalysisof Trumps tax plan from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. Eliminating the carried interest loophole actually helps these hedge fund managers under Trumps plan. If carried interest was still treated as capital gains, it could be taxed at the top rate for capital gains in the plan (20 percent), higher than the fixed 15 percent tax for partnership income. Trumps plan presents the discounted rate for partnership income as a way to help the small businesses that are the true engine of our economy. It also helps large businesses and wealthy financiers who structure their businesses as partnerships, including the hedge funds managers he attacked in his campaign. Clinton also said that rates for hedge fund managers would be lower than for middle-class families under Trumps plan. Defining the middle class can be tricky, but in thePew Research Centers rangeof $42,000 to $125,000 for a household of three in 2014, a substantial number of middle-class households would make enough to qualify for a marginal tax rate of more than 15 percent if Trumps plan were enacted. Not all of these people would pay more than 15 percent overall, according to Bob Williams at the Tax Policy Center, and it would be difficult to say how many middle-income people would pay more than hedge fund managers once the many different variables involved played out. But some would, Williams wrote in an email. In May,Politicoreportedthat the Trump campaign had engaged two economists to craft a new tax plan. The Trump campaign has not confirmed whether they plan to re-write their tax plan, and did not respond toPoliticosrequest for comment. The tax plan announced in September remains on Trump's website, and is the basis of this article. The Trump campaign did not respond to our request for comment on this article. Our ruling Clinton said Trumps proposed tax rate for hedge fund managers makes the current loophole even worse. She has a point. By setting a lower tax rate for income from business partnerships, Trumps tax plan would benefit many hedge fund managers. Though the plan would cut tax rates for middle-class families as well, the cuts that would apply to most hedge fund managers are steeper and their resulting tax rate is lower. Trump promised that his tax plan would roll back advantages for hedge fund managers. Instead, in most cases, it would improve their position. We rate the statement True.
On 14 April 2018, a Facebook page "America - Love It Or Leave It" shared a meme proclaiming that Article 54 of Obamacare would soon be diverting 30 percent of seniors' social security payments to pay for insurance for undocumented immigrants: shared meme   However, the full text of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act does not include an Article 54, nor does it include any provision for using 30% of seniors' Social Security payments to cover the funding of insurance of undocumented immigrants. full text Moreover, this claim originated solely with "The "America - Love It Or Leave It" Facebook page, which is part of a network of fake news sites and Facebook pages that engage in political trolling under the guise of providing "satire." network In mid-April 2021, the fast-food empire McDonalds announced a meal collaboration with Korean pop boy band BTS. The announcement rocked Twitter, inciting Tweets from the millions-strong musical groups fanbase. McDonalds  The collaboration was announced on TikTok and Twitter by the fast-food company and BIGHIT MUSIC, the record label of BTS. In an email to Snopes, McDonalds said that the signature meal is set to include a 10-piece Chicken McNuggets, medium World Famous Fries, medium Coke and, for the first time ever in the U.S., sweet chili and cajun dipping sauces inspired by popular recipes from McDonalds South Korea. BIGHIT MUSIC said  Image courtesy of McDonald's  BTS truly lights up the world stage, uniting people across the globe through their music, said Morgan Flatley, Chief Marketing Officer, McDonalds USA. Were excited to bring customers even closer to their beloved band in a way only McDonalds can  through our delicious food  when we introduce the BTS signature order on our menu next month." McDonalds said that the BTS collaboration builds on McDonalds partnerships with rapper Travis Scott and reggaeton musician J Balvin last year under the celebrity signature orders program launched in U.S. restaurants in 2020. But this time around, BTS will be the first member of the program to eventually launch in 50 countries across six continents. Travis Scott J Balvin celebrity signature orders The band has great memories with McDonalds. Were excited about this collaboration and cant wait to share the BTS Meal with the world, said BIGHIT MUSIC. Also known as the Bangtan Boys, the seven-member boy band was formed in 2010 and debuted in 2013. BTS fans are so die-hard that theyve given themselves the nickname The Army  which stands for Adorable Representative M.C. for Youth. McDonalds told Snopes that customers will have the option of ordering BTS meals in participating restaurants or through contactless mobile orders, the app, drive-through or via McDelivery. The BTS meal will be available at select U.S. restaurants beginning May 26 and will be rolled out to others across the globe through June 25. And on May 26, the bands signature order was made available at participating U.S. restaurants nationwide.  Seeing the passion and anticipation from our fans worldwide since we announced the BTS Meal has been incredible, said Morgan Flatley, McDonald's chief marketing and digital customer experience officer, of the launch. And the best part is, we are just getting started. We are preparing to give customers even more ways to experience this collaboration in the coming weeks  through a merch drop and exclusive digital content that will provide a behind-the-scenes look at BTS. said  Image courtesy of McDonald's  UPDATE [May 26, 2021]: This article was updated to announce the launch and include newly released images. Barack Obama and U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, lately have aired similar concerns about the future of working-class Americans, though they differ over what to do. In hisJanuary 2015 State of the Union address, the Democratic president said he wants towork with Congress to offer free community college to students while creating other education, child care and retirement savings programs to help the middle class. Funding, hes proposed, would come from a $320 billion tax increase on the nations highest earners and financial institutions including investment banks. After Obamas speech, Cruz told Fox News he was disappointed with Obamas goals to increase government spending and taxes, which he described as hurting hardworking Americans. Then Cruz said the countrys rich and powerful have gotten fat and happy on Obamas watch. Today the top 1 percent earn a higher share of our national income than any year since 1928, Cruz said. Take that, Mister President! And was Cruz right? Cruz cites West Coast economist By email, Cruz spokesman Phil Novack indicated Cruz does not agree with Obama, who said in his speech he wants to reduce the top 1 percents after-tax income. Novack said Cruz, rather than increase taxes on the wealthy, believes the only way to jumpstart the economyis by championing pro-growth policies like energy development and aflatter, simpler tax structure. And, Novack said, Cruz drew his comparison to 1928 froma reportby the Pew Research Center citing research byEmmanuel Saez, a University of California, Berkeley economics professor who studies wealth and income inequality. Saez helps steer theWorld Top Incomes Database, sponsored by the Paris School of Economics, a research center and conglomerate of French universities offering graduate degrees and post-graduate fellowships in economics. The database, in place since 2011, shows the distribution of top incomes for more than 20 countries using data from millions of tax returns collected over about 100 years. By email, Saez said he and economists includingThomas Pikettybuilt the database from sources including public-use files of individual tax returns. The public-use micro-files are blurred to preserve each payers confidentiality, Saez said. A closer look To check on changes over time for ourselves, we built a chart fromthe database. The resulting data, covering 1913, the earliest checkable year, to 2012, shows 1928 and 2012 to be the top two years where the top 1 percent of the richest Americans (the richest of the rich)earned the greatest share of the nations income, whichthe government breaks downinto 15 categories including wages, salaries and self-employment income plus income from dividends and interest. In 1928, the top 1 percentof earners, then comprised of about 1.2 million residents, together held 19.6 percent of the nations income. In 2008, the year Obama was elected president, the top 1 percent possessed nearly 18 percent. The 1 percent collectively saw its share of the nations income escalate nearly 5 percent through the first three years of Obamas presidency. And in his fourth year, 2012, the 1 percent (nearly 314 million residents) controlled 19.34 percent. According to the database, that was the greatest share these wealthiest Americans had held since 1928, as Cruz said.(No. 3 goes to 1927, when the top 1 percent had 18.7 percent of U.S. income.) Top 15 years the richest American taxpayers had the greatest share of U.S. income 1913 through 2012  Year Top 1% income share 1928 19.6 2012 19.34 1927 18.68 1916 18.57 1929 18.42 2007 18.33 1914 18.16 2006 18.06 1926 18.01 1913 17.96 2008 17.89 2005 17.68 1936 17.64 1917 17.6 1925 17.6 Source:The World Top Incomes Database, 2011 (accessed Jan. 30, 2015) By email, Saez told usObama and Congress (which shifted to Republican control in his tenure) did little to address wealth inequality up until 2012 as the country recovered from the Great Recession -- which officially lasted from December 2007 to June 2009. In aSept. 3, 2013, report, Saez wrote that in 2012, average real  incomes per familyin the top 1 percent of earners nationally increased by 19.6 percent, while average incomes among the rest of us grew1 percent. The report said the entire surge in top 1 percent incomes in 2012 could be a result of income re-timing -- when people hold off on making payments so they can report a higher income to take advantage of lower tax rates. By email, Saez said he expects the top 1 percents income share for 2014 to prove slightly lower than in 2012 as a result of tax increasesapproved by Congress and Obama in 2013raising the nations marginal income-tax rate from 35 to 39.6 percent for married couples earning more than $450,000 annually, starting in 2013. That deal, which also whittled tax deductions for high-earning businesses and individuals, helped the government avoidthe fiscal cliff, a term describing the looming impact of tax cuts initiated by President George W. Bush expiring at the end of 2012 at the same time congressionally mandated spending reductions were due to kick in. Questions about income-inequality research The World Top Incomes Database and Saezs work have become popular sources forpoliticiansto cite when discussing income and wealth inequality. Still, some experts have raised doubts about what goes into the Piketty-Saez inequality measurements. By email, Gary Burtless, an economist with the Brookings Institution, a Washington, D.C., think tank, said the Saez-Piketty data understate income growth by the bottom 99 percent. That is, he noted, Piketty and Saez limit their focus to pre-tax private income including wages, self-employment earnings, dividends, interest, rental payments and, in some cases, capital gains. The result, Burtless said, is the database doesnt consider other sources of income such as Social Security, unemployment benefits, food stamps, government reimbursement of medical bills and untaxed fringe benefits such as employer contributions to health and retirement plans. If we include these income items, the bottom 99 percent of income recipients has enjoyed much faster increases in income than whats shown by Piketty and Saez, Burtless wrote. Burtless suggested the best statistics on U.S. income inequality come from the nonpartisanCongressional Budget Office. That's because CBO constructs 3 measures of income -- gross market income, pretax income (gross market income plus cash and no cash government transfers), and after-tax income (pre-tax income minus federal income, payroll, and excise taxes), Burtless said in his email. CBO data indicates that from 2009 to 2010, the top 1 percents share of income increased from 13.3 percent to 14.9 percent. (To refresh, Piketty and Saez say their research shows the top 1 percents share of income escalating from 16.68 percent to 17.45 percent.) Next, we talked to Robert Litan, another economist with the Brookings Institution, about why income inequality escalated so quickly in Obamas first term. By email, Litan said reasons for the rising share of the top 1 percents income include rising CEO pay relative to workers, extraordinary success of tech entrepreneurs in particular, made possible by Internet + globalization, and successful financiers, especially hedge fund managers. AJune 12, 2014 articleby the liberal Economic Policy Institute also highlights inequality in earnings and compensation between CEOs and typical workers. Burtless and Litan also told us by email Congress and Obama could not have done much to affect the percentage increase of the top 1 percents income based on Piketty-Saez measurements. The Congress and president have a bigger direct impact on after-tax income than on pre-tax income because their decisions directly affect the tax burdens and government transfer payments of families in different positions in the income distribution, Burtless said. Our ruling Cruz said: Today the top 1 percent earn a higher share of our national income than any year since 1928. Cruz accurately recapped calculations of income by respected researchers though this statement fails to note there are some income streams not part of the cited calculations that would tend to help those of us in the bottom 99 percent, relatively speaking. Also, tax changes that took effect in 2013 may slightly be reducing how much of the nations income is held by the top 1 percent. Mark this statement Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. Since at least 2020, various Facebook and Instagram ads claimed that U.S. citizens with "no DUIs in the last 3 years" could receive $610, $622, $710, or $712 as a government refund check, perhaps as part of a stimulus plan, if they simply entered their ZIP code into a form. For example, one video ad showed U.S. President Joe Biden signing a piece of paper and another person holding checks that appeared to resemble the design used by the U.S. Treasury. It also included a clip of a family celebrating something they saw on their computer. one video ad Joe Biden  The video of the family celebrating likely had something to do with the girl in the video being accepted to a college. It's unclear if they knew their video was being used in this Facebook ad.  This Facebook ad from the Edwin Parker Facebook page, which had more than 70,000 followers, read: "Enter Your Zip Code To See What You Get Back. US Citizens with no DUIs in the last 3 years are getting $610 back if they sign up before the deadline ends. HURRY." Edwin Parker Facebook page However, there was no truth to any of this. Biden did not sign legislation to provide $610, $622, $710, $712, or any other amount of money to drivers who hadn't driven under the influence in the last three years. No other U.S. government entity was providing money either. A picture of Chief Justice John Roberts of the U.S. Supreme Court also appeared in some of the ads as well, which was also misleading. These sorts of Facebook and Instagram ads often lead to little more than offers to change insurance providers. However, the Better Business Bureau (BBB) told us that these can also be scams that attempt to obtain your personally identifiable information for nefarious purposes. We previously reported about a similar scam that also used pictures of Biden and promised $3,600 stimulus checks from the government to homeowners. reported The ad on the Edwin Parker Facebook page led to the website expertsinfinance.online. We noticed that the website's terms and conditions page was rather short, and that the address it listed was in Mumbai, India. expertsinfinance.online terms and conditions page Mumbai, India  The Facebook ads claimed the dollar amount was $610 or $622, while the website resulting from the ad said $710 or $712.  The website's landing page stated the following: People With No DUIs In Last 3 Years Are Getting $710 Back in Savings. ENDING SOON: Drivers Should Check Savings Before the 30th ... Disclaimer: This is an advertorial and not an actual news article, blog or consumer protection update. Our aim is to bring consumers the best information that may help them make informed decisions. This article is for demonstration purposes only. By proceeding forward you automatically agree to our terms and conditions. The purpose of this site is the solicitation of insurance. This article is for demonstration purposes only. By proceeding forward you automatically agree to our terms and conditions. The purpose of this site is the solicitation of insurance. This site is not a part of the Facebook website or Facebook Inc. This site is not endorsed by Facebook in any way. FACEBOOK is a trademark of FACEBOOK, Inc. As for the Edwin Parker Facebook page, it listed 19 page managers in India, one in Germany, and one in the U.S. Also, its profile picture did not show a man named Edwin Parker, but rather Ezekiel Emanuel. profile picture Emanuel's bio said that he was "the Vice Provost for Global Initiatives, the Diane v.S. Levy and Robert M. Levy University Professor at the University of Pennsylvania." He was also listed as "a Special Advisor to the Director General of the World Health Organization, as well as a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress." He appeared to do have nothing to do with the Facebook page and likely did not know his picture was being misused. bio In sum, no, drivers with "no DUIs in the last 3 years" were not eligible for government refund checks of $610, $622, $710, $712, or any other dollar amount. Readers as well as their friends and family are advised to steer clear of these kinds of ads and websites. For the reasons stated within this story, along with guidance from the BBB, we have rated this claim as a "Scam." How would you feel if you had qualified for a performance bonus at your job, but nobody recognized you'd met your goal until half a century later? Just ask former baseball pro Jim Gentile. Jim Gentile was a slugging first baseman of the 1950s who had the misfortune of being signed to the Dodgers organization at a time when perennial all-star Gil Hodges had a lock on the first base position. Gentile spent several years in the Dodgers' minor league system with little opportunity to play for the big club until he was finally traded to the Baltimore Orioles after the 1959 season. Jim Gentile Gil Hodges Gentile had a few solid seasons as a full-time player in Baltimore, including a monster year in 1961 when he hit .302 with 46 home runs and 141 RBI. Unfortunately for Gentile, a few other players had monster years in 1961 as well, so he didn't lead the league in any offensive category: He was fifth in batting average (far behind Norm Cash's impressive .361), finished third in the home run race behind the Yankees' Roger Maris and Mickey Mantle (the former of whom broke Babe Ruth's single-season home run record that year with 61), and was one RBI shy of Maris' league-leading total of 142.  Brooklyn Dodger Gil Hodges poses for a portrait after clubbing four home runs in a game in 1950.  But ... thirty-four years later, in 1995, a researcher discovered that Maris had erroneously been credited with an extra RBI, which meant that Gentile had actually tied for the American League lead in that category in 1961: researcher discovered Ron Rakowski, a member of the Society for American Baseball Research, maintains that Maris mistakenly was credited with an extra RBI July 5 against the Cleveland Indians at Yankee Stadium. Therefore, Rakowski says, Gentile and Maris should be co-leaders at 141. In the third inning, with Tony Kubek on first, Maris singled to right. Third baseman Bubba Phillips took the throw from Willie Kirkland, then threw to first trying to catch Maris rounding the base. Phillips' throw went into the seats, allowing Kubek to score. Maris later hit a bases-empty homer, but the official scorer reported two RBIs for him, one on Phillips' error that enabled Kubek to score. Reached for comment, Gentile recognized that Major League Baseball doesn't necessarily adjust its record books when statistical discrepancies are found many years after the fact. And, he wryly noted, he might have received an extra $5,000 in pay if the correct RBI totals had been reported back in 1961: "After 34 years, no one is likely to change it," said Gentile, who lives in Edmond, Okla., and helps conduct the Orioles Fantasy Camp as well as baseball camps for youngsters in Oklahoma. "Well, maybe it's worth an asterisk." "I wish I'd known that then," said Gentile, whose 141 are an Orioles record. "The next winter, [general manager] Lee MacPhail said if I had led the league in RBIs, that alone would have been worth an extra $5,000." Laughing, Gentile added, "Maybe I should write the Orioles a letter." But ... another fifteen years later, in 2010, the corrected statistic was finally recognized, and Gentile became the official American League co-leader in RBI for 1961. corrected statistic was finally recognized Gentile received another boost in August 2010, when -- nearly fifty years late -- the Orioles came through and presented him with a check for $5,000 in recognition of his newfound status: presented him with a check for $5,000 It took almost 50 years, and there was no interest added. But a promise is a promise, and Jim Gentile finally got his $5,000 bonus from the Baltimore Orioles. The Orioles honored Gentile, now 76, for his achievement before their game at Camden Yards on [Aug. 6]. Andy MacPhail, the Orioles president of baseball operations whose father made that long-ago promise, presented him with a $5,000 check. It should be noted that no "promise" had actually been made to Gentile back in 1961, nor did his contract for that year include any clause calling for payment of a $5,000 bonus if he led the league in RBI. According to Gentile, the Orioles' general manager merely quipped to him during the next year's salary negotiations that Gentile's being the league leader in the RBI category might have prompted the club to offer him a somewhat higher salary for 1962. Nonetheless, Gentile didn't appear to have fared too badly in the pay department. According to a Feb. 14, 1962, report in The Sporting News, Gentile's 1962 salary of $30,000 was double his 1961 figure. Brown, Doug.  "Diamond Jim Hit $$ Jackpot with New Oriole Pact."
  The Sporting News.  14 February 1962.
 Brown, Doug.  '61 RBI Race Resumes: Researcher Says O's Gentile Tied Maris at 141."
  The Baltimore Sun.  26 July 1995.
 Kepner, Tyler.  "For Jim Gentile, A Long-Awaited Bonus."
  The New York Times.  6 August 2010. Rumors are surging in the wake of George Floyd's death and resulting protests against police violence and racial injustice in the United States. Stay informed. Read our special coverage, contribute to support our mission, and submit any tips or claims you see here. Read contribute here A number of tweets and posts began circulating online in June 2020, unearthing old posts from the Obama Foundation and alleging a conspiracy connecting the foundation to George Floyd. Floyd, an unarmed Black man, died on May 25, 2020, after a Minneapolis police officer held him down and kneeled on his neck. Protests around the country against police brutality followed, with some people carrying posters with Floyd's face to commemorate him.  tweets posts died In early June, social media users stumbled upon an Obama Foundation tweet dated May 17 that featured a photograph of a poster with Floyd's face on it. They questioned how the photo could have been shared days before Floyd's death and how a Twitter post allegedly could be edited retroactively:   The Hal Turner Radio Show, a far-right program, said about this and some other tweets that featured the same image, "Something stinks here." Some social media users speculated that the foundation somehow knew in advance that Floyd would die.  Hal Turner Radio Show program speculated This rumor has no truth to it. The Obama Foundation's tweets shared links to its website, Obama.org. The preview image for that page updates dynamically on Twitter when the platform's web crawlers (bots) re-index (restructure the website data for) the preview image for the website every week. Obama.org In other words, at a certain point following Floyd's death the foundation changed the Twitter Card image for the website, which retroactively updated the image on past tweets. A Twitter spokesperson told Snopes that the image shown in the card updates when the foundation updates the data used to generate the card. The group did not edit the tweet, according to the spokesperson, but may have changed the data associated with the link. This is the image shared on May 16, in a screenshot: Twitter Card   We reached out to the Obama Foundation to ask about the photo on June 8. On June 9, the image from the May 16 post had been changed to the foundation's logo:   An Obama Foundation spokesperson confirmed for us that the rumor is false, and that the preview image for Obama.org updates dynamically based on information set in the link. The photograph of the poster with Floyd's face on it was taken on May 30, 2020, according to the foundation, and was first used on the site on May 31.  We therefore rate this claim as  Cheung, Helier. "George Floyd Death: Why US Protests Are So Powerful This Time."
 BBC News. 8 June 2020. Hal Turner Radio Show. "How Did the Obama Foundation Tweet a George Floyd Poster on May 17, When He Wasn't Killed Until May 25?"
 6 June 2020. Southern Poverty Law Center. "Hal Turner." True Pundit. "WATCH: Suspicious Mystery Grows Debating Obamas Tweeted Photo of George Floyd NINE DAYS Before His Death."
 9 June 2020. One of the forms of political expression that frequently arrives in our inbox for verification is the "evil plan" warning, items which present the notion that some malevolent entity (ranging from Communists to Satan himself) not only expressed an intent to destroy our society from within, but outlined a specific plan for doing so. A quote attributed to Soviet dictator Josef Stalin that a reader emailed us in November 2011 exemplifies the genre: Soviet dictator Josef Stalin "America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within."   The specifics of these plans (no matter how long ago they may supposedly have been formulated) generally relate to current events, and the political purpose of circulating them is to make readers aware that trends which threaten the health of our society are currently in place (i.e., "This is EXACTLY what is happening now!"), and to warn them that we must be vigilant about holding our course and stopping or reversing the encroachment of these socially unhealthful trends. This form has been expressed in such widely circulated items as Paul Harvey's "If I Were the Devil" essay, an (apocryphal) quotation by Karl Marx about the perils of consumer debt, and an (also apocryphal) warning from Abraham Lincoln about the accumulation of vast wealth in the hands of a few. If I Were the Devil Karl Marx Abraham Lincoln The putative quotation from Stalin referenced above is another item of this genre, one which presents the concept that Communist enemies of the U.S. viewed patriotism, morality, and spirituality as America's greatest assets and cannily plotted that the U.S. could be made to collapse from within if these values were sufficiently undermined (and which, of course, serves as an admonition to American readers to be attentive in maintaining these values). Whatever level of truth one might find in this sentiment, however, it's highly unlikely that Stalin ever spoke these words. Proving a negative is often an uncertain proposition, but our reasons for believing this quotation to be of dubious origin are: Josef Stalin Internet Archive Stalin documents letter Cummings, Jeanne.  "Gingrich Out to Save America."The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. 16 January 1994 (p. G1). "Readers Respond to 'The Day After'."Lawrence Journal-World. 23 November 1983 (p. 9). Stalin Internet Archive. https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/subject/index.htm. Accessed 15 Sept. 2022. Stalin, Joseph, 1879-1953 | The Online Books Page. https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupname?key=Stalin%2c%20Joseph%2c%201879-1953. Accessed 15 Sept. 2022. Updated [Sept.15, 2022]: Sources and links refreshed. On 4 May 2004, a campaign swing through the Midwest saw President Bush visiting Lebanon, Ohio, where  as he worked the crowd outside the Golden Lamb (the state's oldest inn)  he was photographed giving a comforting hug to 15-year-old Ashley Faulkner, whose mother was killed in the September 11 terrorist attacks on the U.S.  The moment was captured with a digital camera by Ashley's father, Lynn Faulkner. (Ashley's mother, Wendy Ruth Faulkner, a vice president of a risk management and insurance brokerage company, was working in the South Tower of the World Trade Center on September 11 and did not survive the collapse of the building.) Wendy Ruth Faulkner Bush Photo with Teen Shows Conviction and Compassion It started out as a fluke.  Lynn Faulkner had been offered an extra ticket to a Bush campaign event by his neighbor Linda Prince.  Mr. Faulkner decided to offer it to his 15-year old daughter Ashley who he expected would decline, as she would have to miss some school to attend.  But his daughter surprised him.  Ashley reminded her dad how four years ago they attended a similar event when then Texas Governor George W. Bush visited the same spot on the campaign trail.  Ashley remembered attending that event with both her father and her mother Wendy Faulkner.  It was raining that day and they all stood in the rain awaiting Governor Bush "eating Triscuit crackers" enjoying the time together and hoping to get a glimpse of the would-be president.  Ashley recalled holding her mothers hand as they waited. So she decided to go again this year, but this time her mother could not attend.  Wendy Faulkner was murdered on 9/11/01 in the south tower of the World Trade Center.  She was there on the 104th floor for a one-day meeting.  Ashley decided to miss school in honor and remembrance of her mother and attend the event. [Rest of article here.] here An editorial about the story behind the photograph can be found at the Washington Dispatch web site, which also includes a page of reader-submitted commentary about the story. Washington Dispatch commentary  Goetz, Kristina.  "Bush Pauses to Comfort Teen."
  The Cincinnati Enquirer.  6 May 2004.

 Hallett, Joe.  "No Apology from Bush Just Yet."
  The Columbus Dispatch.  5 May 2004  (p. A1).

 Hallett, Joe.  "Despite the Post-9/11 Tribulations, the President Remains a Leader."
  The Columbus Dispatch.  9 May 2004  (p. B5).

 Rairden, C.K.  "Bush Photo with Teen Shows Conviction and Compassion."
  The Washington Dispatch.  10 May 2004.

 Zimkus, Charlie.  "Our Artist Records Warm Welcome for President Bush."
  The Columbus Dispatch.  6 May 2004  (p. B8). Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here In September 2020, social media users began circulating a text meme charting the decrease in abortion rates in the U.S. during previous presidential administrations, attributing the greater drop in those rates during Democratic administrations to a difference in approach (i.e., making it illegal vs. making it unnecessary):     As we noted in an earlier article on a similar topic, following the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that protected a pregnant woman's liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction, the abortion rate rose immediately afterward until it peaked in the 1980s, and it has fairly consistently declined since that peak through presidential administrations of both parties: article Following nationwide legalization of abortion in 1973, the total number, rate (number of abortions per 1,000 women aged 1544 years), and ratio (number of abortions per 1,000 live births) of reported abortions increased rapidly, reaching the highest levels in the 1980s before decreasing at a slow yet steady pace.     Although it is true that the abortion rate has experienced greater declines during Democratic administrations than Republican ones, we can't draw any definitive conclusion that, as the meme tries to suggest, this difference is primarily due to varying approaches by the two main political parties. The simple idea presented by the meme has a number of flaws, chief among them that political factors that might influence the abortion rate (e.g., policies, legislation, judicial appointments and rulings) do not neatly conform to presidential terms of office -- what takes place during one administration generally continues to have an effect throughout subsequent administrations. As well, events occurring at state and local levels (not necessarily directly tied to federal actions) can have a substantial impact on the availability and prevalence of abortions. More important, though, is that we cannot definitively determine to what extent political factors influence the abortion rate. As the Guttmacher Institute (a pro-abortion-rights research organization) observed, recent declines in the abortion rate appear to have been driven not primarily by abortion restrictions but by a broader decline in pregnancies: observed Abortion restrictions target either individuals ability to access the procedure (such as by imposing coercive waiting periods and counseling requirements) or providers ability to offer it (such as through unnecessary and intentionally burdensome regulations). Any one of these restrictions could result in some people being forced to continue pregnancies they were seeking to end; this could, in theory, lower the abortion rate. With the available evidence, it is impossible to pinpoint exactly which factors drove recent declines, and to what degree. However, previous Guttmacher analyses have documented that abortion restrictions, while incredibly harmful at an individual level, were not the main driver of national declines in the abortion rate ... Rather, the decline in abortions appears to be part of a broader decline in pregnancies, as evidenced by fewer births over the same period. What's driving that decline in pregnancies, then? We don't know that for sure, either, but likely a combination of social, cultural, economic, medical, and political factors: combination Experts say the decline isnt due to a single cause, but rather a combination of several factors, including changing economics, delays in childbirth by women pursuing jobs and education, the greater availability of contraception, and a decline in teen pregnancies. The trend seen in the United States is also seen in much of the developed world, including Western Europe, said Dr. John Rowe, a professor at Columbia Universitys Mailman School of Public Health. One important factor driving this is the changing roles of women in society, Rowe said. In general women are getting married later in life, he explained. They are leaving the home and launching their families later. [Dr. Helen Kim, an associate professor at Northwestern Universitys Feinberg School of Medicine] said the concept of the ideal family size may be changing. There are shifts where having smaller families is a trend, she added. I cant speak on this as a sociologist, but this is what Ive seen among my peers and colleagues. One of the biggest factors is the decline in teen pregnancies, Rowe said. Thats good news ... And that makes a huge difference to their lives. The Guttmacher Institute posited a similar mix of factors to explain the decline in the abortion rate: Because both abortions and births [have] declined, it is clear that there were fewer pregnancies overall in the United States ... The big question is why. One possible contributing factor is contraceptive access and use. Since 2011, contraception has become more accessible, as most private health insurance plans are now required by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to cover contraceptives without out-of-pocket costs. In addition, thanks to expansions in Medicaid and private insurance coverage under the ACA, the proportion of women aged 1544 nationwide who were uninsured dropped more than 40% between 2013 and 2017. There is evidence that use of long-acting reversible contraceptive methods -- specifically IUDs and implants -- increased through at least 2014, especially among women in their early 20s, a population that accounts for a significant proportion of all abortions Another possible contributing factor might be a decline in sexual activity. Findings from one national survey suggest a long-term increase in the number of people in the United States -- mostly younger men -- reporting not having sex in the past year. Yet another possibility is that infertility is increasing in the United States, thereby reducing the chances of getting pregnant and subsequently seeking to obtain an abortion. More generally, there are a host of other potential factors that could be driving declines in pregnancy rates, from individuals evolving desires about whether and when to become parents to peoples changing economic and social circumstances. Finally, it is possible that ... there could have been an increase in self-managed abortions happening outside of medical facilities, which the census would be unable to capture. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) also offered a combination of potential explanations for lower abortion rates: combination Multiple factors influence the incidence of abortion including the availability of abortion providers; state regulations, such as mandatory waiting periods, parental involvement laws, and legal restrictions on abortion providers; increasing acceptance of nonmarital childbearing; shifts in the racial/ethnic composition of the U.S. population; and changes in the economy and the resulting impact on fertility preferences and access to health care services, including contraception. As we stated four years ago, "causation between the presidency and abortion rates [is] difficult to demonstrate in any case, because it is hard to draw a straight line between federal government policy (let alone presidential policy) and abortion procurement." That observation remains true today. Carroll, Linda and Shamard Charles, M.D.  "Americans Aren't Making Enough Babies to Replace Ourselves."
  NBC News.  13 January 2019. Nash, Elizabeth and Joerg Dreweke.  "The U.S. Abortion Rate Continues to Drop: Once Again, State Abortion Restrictions Are Not the Main Driver."
  Guttmacher Institute.  18 September 2019. Kasprak, Alex.  "Abortion Rates Fall During Democratic Administrations and Rise During Republican Ones."
  Snopes.com.  11 November 2016. In May 2022, a fake quote was attributed to former congressman Trey Gowdy in an attempt to hype the film "2000 Mules" on social media:    This is not a genuine quote from Gowdy. It doesn't appear on Gowdy's social media feeds, nor does it appear in any genuine news articles about "2000 Mules" or Gowdy.  Gowdy confirmed to The Associated Press that this quote is fake and that he had never seen or even heard of the film: Both assertions are completely false. Never said it. Didnt attend. Never heard of the movie much less seen the movie. So, its false at every level. confirmed to The Associated Press "2000 Mules" is a documentary released in May 2022 by Dinesh D'Souza, a right-wing political commentator who received a pardon from former U.S. President Donald Trump after pleading guilty to violating campaign finance laws in 2014. The film attempts to further the discredited premise that the 2020 election was marred by widespread voter fraud.  pardon from former U.S. President Donald Trump A number of news organizations looked into the movie's claims and found them to be sorely lacking. The Washington Post said the film offered the "least convincing election-fraud theory yet." The Associated Press wrote that there were "gaping holes" in the film's claims, and the Denver Post wrote that the film used "faulty assumptions, anonymous accounts and improper analysis of cellphone location data." Washington Post said the film Associated Press wrote Denver Post wrote The movie has received little to no attention from mainstream conservative media outlets.  mainstream conservative media outlets Analysis | 2000 Mules Offers the Least Convincing Election-Fraud Theory Yet. Washington Post. www.washingtonpost.com, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/11/2000-mules-offers-least-convincing-election-fraud-theory-yet/. Accessed 12 May 2022. PolitiFact - The Faulty Premise of the 2,000 Mules Trailer about Voting by Mail in the 2020 Election. Politifact, https://www.politifact.com/article/2022/may/04/faulty-premise-2000-mules-trailer-about-voting-mai/. Accessed 12 May 2022. Press, Ali Swenson |. The Associated. Fact-Checking 2000 Mules, the Movie Alleging Ballot Fraud. The Denver Post, 8 May 2022, https://www.denverpost.com/2022/05/08/2000-mules-fact-check/. Staten, Adam. Dinesh DSouza Slams Tucker Carlson, Newsmax over New Documentary Coverage. Newsweek, 9 May 2022, https://www.newsweek.com/dinesh-dsouza-slams-tucker-carlson-newsmax-over-new-documentary-coverage-1704863.