We lost more jobs in this great recession than the last four recessions combined.
During the April 3, 2011, edition of ABCsThis Week with Christiane Amanpour, columnist George Will said during the shows roundtable segment that we lost more jobs in this great recession than the last four recessions combined.We knew the most recent recession was bad, but we hadnt realized it was so bad in comparison to other recent recessions. So we decided to check whether Will was right.We turned to two sources. One is the National Bureau of Economic Research, an independent group of economists that is the de facto arbiter of when recessions begin and end. The other is the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the federal agency that calculates all manner of employment figures.Below we list the last five recessionsas declared by the NBER, along with the difference inU.S. non-farmemploymentlevels between the official start of the recession and the official end:Jan. 1980 to July 1980: 968,000 jobs lostJuly 1981 to Nov. 1982: 2,824,000 jobs lostJuly 1990 to March 1991: 1,249,000 jobs lostMarch 2001 to Nov. 2001: 1,599,000 jobs lostTotal jobs lost in the four prior recessions: 6,640,000Great Recession -- Dec. 2007 to June 2009: 7,490,000 jobs lostSo the numbers show that Will is right -- about 850,000 more jobs were lost during the great recession than in the previous four recessions combined.We wondered, though, whether the result would be different if we factored in the size of the labor force, which has grown over the past three decades. Its impossible to make the same exact comparison Will did -- that is, comparing the sum of the past four recessions with the current one -- because you cant simply add together percentages drawn from different time periods. But we thought wed at least see whether the 2007-2009 recession registered more jobs lost on a percentage basis than any of the prior ones.Here are the numbers for jobs lost as a percentage of the labor force:Jan. 1980 to July 1980: 1.0 percentJuly 1981 to Nov. 1982: 3.1 percentJuly 1990 to March 1991: 1.1 percentMarch 2001 to Nov. 2001: 1.2 percentGreat Recession -- Dec. 2007 to June 2009: Recession decreased jobs by 5.4 percentSo job losses in the Great Recession have, on a percentage basis, exceeded those in each of the past four recessions. We rate it True.
One of the more whimsical messaging options offered by Snapchat  a social media app for mobile devices introduced in 2011  is the ability to personalize selfies in real time and share them instantly with other users, a feature that has at once contributed to the app's immense popularity (Snapchat boasts an estimated 166 million users daily) and raised privacy concerns among some of its customers.  Snapchat's rotating toolbox of image filters, called Lenses, enables users to manipulate photos and videos to humorous effect, as seen in these examples shared publicly on Instagram by celebrity Snapchatter Chrissy Teigen:   Cute and innocent though it may appear, the feature has become the target of conspiracy theorists claiming that Snapchat's corporate owner, Snap Inc., uses it to collect facial recognition data which it allegedly stores and shares with law enforcement agencies such as the FBI and CIA. We've found examples of such rumors dating back to Fall 2015 (soon after the Lenses feature was officially rolled out): you guys are all swooning over the snapchat filters... And The FBI is getting the most extensive facial recognition library ever  TEENWOLF (@TEENWOLFREMIX) October 3, 2015 October 3, 2015  It wasn't until April of the following year that the rumors reached takeoff speed, however, thanks largely to a tweet composed by hip hop artist, songwriter, and unabashed flat-earth theorist B.o.B to his roughly two million followers: tweet flat-earth when you realize all the snap chat filters are really building a facial recognition database ?  B.o.B (@bobatl) April 16, 2016 April 16, 2016 In May 2016, with civil cases already pending against Facebook and Google alleging unauthorized use of facial recognition technology, a class action lawsuit was filed by two Snapchat users in Illinois complaining that the app violated their rights under the state's Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) by failing to obtain adequate permission before gathering and storing their "biometric identifiers and biometric information". lawsuit BIPA The company flatly denied it: denied Contrary to the claims of this frivolous lawsuit, we are very careful not to collect, store, or obtain any biometric information or identifiers about our community. The class action suit was eventually dismissed in favor of arbitration in September 2016, but as of this writing the case remains unresolved. Crucial to Snapchat's defense is their position, as stated in the Privacy Center of the company's web site, that the app relies on object recognition, not facial recognition, to make Lenses work: arbitration stated Have you ever wondered how Lenses make your eyes well up with tears or rainbows come out your mouth? Some of the magic behind Lenses is object recognition. Object recognition is an algorithm designed to understand the general nature of things that appear in an image. It lets us know that a nose is a nose or an eye is an eye. But object recognition isnt the same as facial recognition. While Lenses can recognize faces in general, they can't recognize a specific face. If it's true that Lenses can't recognize (i.e., identify) specific faces, then the claim that the app produces anything qualifying as a "biometric identifier" under Illinois law is seriously in doubt. (The district judge in Illinois overseeing the Google facial recognition case previously defined "biometric identifier" as "a set of biology-based measurements ... used to identify a person.) case As to the wider claim that Snapchat is building a "facial recognition database," the distinction between object and facial recognition, at minimum, places a burden of proof on those trumpeting the claim to show that the app is capable of identifying specific faces in the first place. If this explanation (provided by the web site Vox) of how the software works is accurate, Snapchat doesn't need to be able to identify specific faces to accomplish the task. It has to recognize a face as a face, and identify the parts of a face as the nose, eyes, ears, chin, etc., but it doesn't have to recognize who the face belongs to: this Moreover, Snapchat's Privacy Policy states that the company neither collects nor permanently stores user-created content (meaning photos and videos) let alone preserves such items in a database: states Snapchat lets you capture what its like to live in the moment. On our end, that means that we automatically delete the content of your Snaps (the photo and video messages that you send your friends) from our servers after we detect that a Snap has been opened by all recipients or has expired. And although the policy further acknowledges that Snap Inc. may share users' personal information "to comply with any valid legal process, governmental request, or applicable law, rule, or regulation" (and transparency reports show that the company has indeed complied with such requests in the past), they can't grant the FBI (or any other agency) access to a "facial recognition database" that doesn't exist. reports Some rumors die hard, however. An updated variant that cropped up in early 2017 brought two new claims to the mix: one, that the FBI literally created Snapchat's image filtering software (and alleged facial recognition database); and two, that there is a smoking gun to prove it  namely U.S. patent #9396354:   granted According to an analysis by Sophos' Naked Security blogger Alison Booth, the patent proposes using facial recognition software to identify individual subjects in photos, whereupon the latter would be modified and/or their distribution restricted in accordance with the subjects' pre-established privacy settings. analysis There is a catch. Implementation of the process would, of course, require amassing a facial recognition database. "For facial recognition to work," writes Booth, "Snapchat would need to store images of all users that sign up to the feature  as a reference image to compare photos against." So, there it is  a "facial recognition database" of the sort conspiracy theorists have been going on about since 2015, except that Snapchat has not, to date, implemented such a feature (a fact we were able to confirm with the company), nor is there evidence that the FBI (or any other law enforcement agency) was involved in creating it, nor does the patent itself mention sharing facial recognition data with government entities. Despite finding no legitimate basis for the claim that Snapchat is currently engaged in collecting, storing, or sharing facial recognition data on its users, we do not wish to downplay the increasing prevalence of facial recognition technology in both commercial and government applications, nor the privacy issues this raises. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minnesota) articulated some of these issues in a statement announcing the release of a 2015 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on the privacy implications of the technology: report The newly released report raises serious concerns about how companies are collecting, using, and storing our most sensitive personal information. I believe that all Americans have a fundamental right to privacy, which is why it's important that, at the very least, the tech industry adopts strong, industry-wide standards for facial recognition technology. But what we really need are federal standards that address facial recognition privacy by enhancing our consumer privacy framework. The tech industry has yet to address these concerns to the satisfaction of consumer privacy watchdogs, however, nor has Congress made progress toward establishing the federal standards Franken called for. Thus far, issue has been dealt with primarily in the court system via cases such as the aforementioned BIPA class action lawsuits against Facebook and Google. watchdogs lawsuits One of the ironies of the false alarms about Snapchat's alleged sharing of facial recognition data with the FBI is that the agency already maintains a biometric data network comprising the facial images of more than 117 million Americans (about half the U.S. adult population, and growing), mostly drawn from state DMV databases and other non-criminal sources. A 2016 report by the Georgetown Law Center for Privacy and Technology warned that the technology is both error-prone, with a disproportionate impact on communities of color, and almost totally unregulated. already report disproportionate In testimony before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing chaired by Sen. Franken in 2012, Electronic Frontier Foundation attorney Jennifer Lynch urged Congress to act sooner rather than later to protect the biometric privacy of all Americans: testimony Face recognition and its accompanying privacy concerns are not going away. Given this, it is imperative that government act now to limit unnecessary biometrics collection; instill proper protections on data collection, transfer, and search; ensure accountability; mandate independent oversight; require appropriate legal process before government collection; and define clear rules for data sharing at all levels. This is important to preserve the democratic and constitutional values that are bedrock to American society. Booth, Alison.  "Snapchat Turns Facial Recognition Technology on Its Head."
 Naked Security.  20 July 2016. Danley-Greiner, Kristin.  "Snapchat Defends Procedures After Facial Recognition Class Action."
 Legal Newsline.  2 September 2016. Garvie, Clare et al.  "The Perpetual Line-up: Unregulated Police Face Recognition in America."
 Georgetown Law Center on Privacy & Technology.  18 October 2016. Graham, Meg.  "Illinois Biometrics Lawsuits May Help Define Rules for Facebook, Google."
 Chicago Tribune.  13 January 2017. Korte, Amy.  "Federal Court in Illinois Rules Biometric Privacy Lawsuit Against Google Can Proceed."
 Illinois Policy.  8 March 2017. Maass, Dave.  "Memo to the DOJ: Facial Recognition's Threat to Privacy Is Worse than Anyone Thought."
 Electronic Frontier Foundation.  18 October 2016. Mathies, Daven.  "The Incredible Underlying Technology of Snapchat's Selfie Lenses."
 Digital Trends.  1 July 2016. Nelson, Steven.  "Half of U.S. Adults Are in Police Facial Recognition Networks."
 US News & World Report.  18 October 2016. Roberts, Jeff John.  "Tech Industry's Facial Recognition Plan Bashed by Privacy Groups."
 Fortune.  16 June 2016. Thielman, Sam.  "FBI Using Vast Public Photo Data and Iffy Facial Recognition Tech to Find Criminals."
 The Guardian.  15 June 2016. Trujillo, Mario.  "Facial Recognition Quietly Taking Hold."
 The Hill.  1 August 2015. Welinder, Yana.  "EFF Urges Congress to Protect Privacy in Face Recognition."
 Electronic Frontier Foundation.  18 July 2012. Yakowicz, Will.  "Snapchat Sued Under Illinois Biometric Information Usage Law."
  Inc.  18 July 2016. Electronic Frontier Foundation.  "Testimony of Jennifer Lynch to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law."
 18 July 2012. Google.  "Patent: Apparatus and Method for Automated Privacy Protection in Distributed Images - US 9396354 B1."
  19 July 2016. Government Accounting Office.  "Facial Recognition Technology: Commercial Uses, Privacy Issues, and Applicable Federal Law."
 20 June 2015. U.S. Senate.  "Sen. Franken: New Report on Facial Recognition Technology Highlights Lack of Privacy Standards."
 30 July 2015. U.S. Senate.  "Sen. Franken Releases Extensive Report Detailing Concerns with FBI Facial Recognition Program."
 15 June 2016. On Oct. 11, 2022, we received an email from a reader who said they spotted a questionable quote meme on WhatsApp. The quote was titled "My India in 1835" and was credited to "Lord Macaulay," whose full name was Thomas Babington Macaulay. We found no historical records to confirm that Macaulay ever said the exact words quoted in the meme. At the same time, the quote may have been somewhat of a paraphrase, as Macaulay did express his thoughts on how best to educate the Indian populace in other words.  WhatsApp Macaulay was an English politician, author, and historian who lived from 1800-1859. According to Britannica.com, he was perhaps best known for writing a five-volume work, "The History of England from the Accession of James the Second." Britannica.com The History of England from the Accession of James the Second The fake quote reads as follows (with the words "ancient education system" being bolded in the meme): My India in 1835Read Carefully "I have travelled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such caliber, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage and therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self esteem, their native culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation." Lord Macaulay's Address to the British Parliament on 2nd Feb. 1835 In order to establish whether or not the quote was real, we first looked to Google Books. The Google Books website allows anyone to search the text of just about every book in the world for free. Google Books We searched for various portions of the exact quote, placing quotation marks around the words. However, the only results we found were in recent books that were written in the 21st century. A prominent quote from 1835 would not magically make its first appearance in literature nearly two centuries later. The quote was likely at least partially born on the internet and took on a life of its own, somehow finding its way from the web into recent books. After the Google Books search, we stumbled upon a helpful fact check by Agence France-Presse (AFP). In the AFP story, they reported on the same quote, except the word "India" had been replaced with "Africa." It's unclear which version of the quote came first, but it was likely the one naming India. Nevertheless, AFP concluded the attribution of the quote to Macaulay is incorrect. Agence France-Presse (AFP) replaced with "Africa." The AFP fact check pointed out that the man pictured in the quote meme bore a striking resemblance to "a portrait ofBritish army officer Sir Henry John William Benti[n]ck," not Macaulay. It also mentioned that Macaulay had expressed his views on the benefits of English-language education in India in an 1835 document, "Minute on Education": portrait Minute on Education Authorship of the speech has also been attributed to Lord William Benti[n]ck -- not to be confused with Sir Henry John William Benti[n]ck -- who was a contemporary of Macaulay's and served as Governor-General of British India. attributed to Lord William Benti[n]ck Macaulay's Minute on Education in 1835, which promoted the superiority of Western education, was supported by Lord William Benti[n]ck. In the document, Macaulay talks of creating a class of persons Indian in blood and colour, but English in tastes, in opinions, in morals and in intellect. In "Minute on Education," Macaulay argued that teaching in the English language was necessary to improve education in India. In his opinion, the languages spoken at the time by the people of India were a roadblock to effectively funds allotted by Parliament to improve the country's education. "We have to educate a people who cannot at present be educated by means of their mother-tongue," he said.  The following passage is from Macaulay's "Minute on Education," which included the "blood and color" quote that appeared in the AFP report: In one point I fully agree with the gentlemen to whose general views I am opposed. I feel with them that it is impossible for us, with our limited means, to attempt to educate the body of the people. We must at present do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern, -- a class of persons Indian in blood and color, but English in tastes, in opinions, in morals and in intellect. To that class we may leave it to refine the vernacular dialects of the country, to enrich those dialects with terms of science borrowed from the Western nomenclature, and to render them by degrees fit vehicles for conveying knowledge to the great mass of the population. India gained independence from British rule in 1947. gained independence In sum, there's no record of Macaulay uttering the exact words cited in the quote meme in regard to "dominating" India in the 1835, though he did express thoughts in writing on the subject of Indian education at the time, including his conviction that the education of Indians should be conducted in English, not Indians' native languages. Fenton, Roger. Sir Henry John William Bentinck. National Portrait Gallery, London, 1855, https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw157047/Sir-Henry-John-William-Bentinck. Google Books. https://books.google.com/. India Independence Day (1947). United States Census Bureau, 15 Aug. 2022, https://www.census.gov/newsroom/stories/india-independence-day.html. Knowles, Michael David. Thomas Babington Macaulay, Baron Macaulay | English Politician and Author. Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Thomas-Babington-Macaulay-Baron-Macaulay. Macaulay, Thomas. The History of England from the Accession of James the Second. Penguin Books Limited, 1848. Macaulay, Thomas Babington. Minute on Education. Columbia University in the City of New York, 1835, https://www.columbia.edu/. Malawi Government. Facebook, https://www.facebook.com/malawigovernment/. Mitra, Anirban. The Infamous Macaulay Speech That Never Was. The Wire, 19 Feb. 2017, https://thewire.in/history/macaulays-speech-never-delivered. Saint-Cricq, Thomas, and Charlotte Mason. Lord Macaulay Never Gave This Speech to UK Parliament. Agence France-Presse (AFP), 25 Feb. 2020, https://factcheck.afp.com/lord-macaulay-never-gave-speech-uk-parliament. In May 2012 the web site Breitbart published a copy of a promotional booklet produced in 1991 by the literary agency Acton & Dystel showcasing their roster of writers, among whom was a young man named Barack Obama.  This booklet was of particular interest because it included a brief biographical sketch which described the future President as having been born in Kenya: Barack Obama, the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii. The son of an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister, he attended Columbia University and worked as a financial journalist and editor for Business International Corporation. He served as project coordinator in Harlem for the New York Public Interest Research Group, and was Executive Director of the Developing Communities Project in Chicago's South Side. His commitment to social and racial issues will be evident in his first book, Journeys in Black and White.  Is this booklet evidence that Barack Obama was actually born in Kenya?  Not even the site that published it made that claim, noting in a disclaimer that: Andrew Breitbart was never a "Birther," and Breitbart News is a site that has never advocated the narrative of "Birtherism." In fact, Andrew believed, as we do, that President Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, on August 4, 1961. ... [W]e discovered, and now present, the booklet described below  one that includes a marketing pitch for a forthcoming book by a then-young, otherwise unknown former president of the Harvard Law Review.  It is evidence  not of the President's foreign origin, but that Barack Obama's public persona has perhaps been presented differently at different times. The editor of the biographical text about Barack Obama which was included in the booklet maintained that the mention of Kenya was an error on her part and was not based on any information provided to her by Obama himself: Miriam Goderich edited the text of the bio; she is now a partner at the Dystel & Goderich agency, which lists Obama as one of its current clients. "You're undoubtedly aware of the brouhaha stirred up by Breitbart about the erroneous statement in a client list Acton & Dystel published in 1991 (for circulation within the publishing industry only) that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. This was nothing more than a fact checking error by me  an agency assistant at the time," Goderich wrote. "There was never any information given to us by Obama in any of his correspondence or other communications suggesting in any way that he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii. I hope you can communicate to your readers that this was a simple mistake and nothing more." A New York Times article about Barack Obama published in 1990, a year before the Acton & Dystel promotional booklet was issued, correctly identified his birthplace as Hawaii. article A variant of this item paired the image shown above with the statement "Big Oops! Harvard Law Review did not cleanse its 1991 yearbook which states he was born in Kenya."  As noted above, the biographical sketch pictured above was put out by a literacy agency; it was not part of any yearbook published by Harvard.    Butterfield, Fox.  "First Black Elected to Head Harvard's Law Review."
  The New York Times.  6 February 1990. Stableford, Dylan.  "'Obama's Literary Agent Misidentified His Birthplace in 1991."
  ABC News.  18 May 2012. Taranto, James.  "Counterfeit Kenyan."
  The Wall Street Journal.  18 May 2012. A budget storm is brewing in Tallahassee, and Senate President Mike Haridopolos is making clear that no agency, program or area may be spared from impending cuts.Haridopolos, R-Merritt Island, met with reporters on Jan. 12, 2011, to offer his outlook regarding Florida's $3.62 billion budget shortfall for the coming fiscal year. Haridopolos predicted that it would be difficult to pursue any significant tax cuts -- like those being championed by Gov. Rick Scott -- and that everyone should expect spending cuts.That includes education funding, he warned.More than $3 billion in federal stimulus funds have helped the state fill education budget holes for the past two years, but those funds sunset this spring. And while some additional federal funds are coming available, about $555 million, Florida's budget picture remains bleak, Haridopolos said.Whether you like to admit it or not, half our general revenue goes to education, Haridopolos was quoted as saying in theOrlando Sentinel. It's a very difficult spot to be in, and the reason we wanted to make the adjustments to the class-size amendment defeated by voters in November. Haridopolos was referring to an amendment proposed by the Legislature to ease class-size requirements at Florida schools so the state could save money. That measure failed to receive the needed 60 percent voter approval to pass.For this fact check, we decided to zero in on Haridopolos' claim that half of state general revenue goes to fund education.Understanding the state budget and education fundingIn his claim, Haridopolos is talking about a subset of the state budget, which is a subset of state's share of education funding in Florida, which is a subset of overall education funding in Florida. Oh, and he's not just talking about K-12 spending, but also state spending on the state university system, pre-Kindergarten and student aid programs.We'll walk you through it.Let's start with the state budget, which you can imagine by picturing a three-legged stool.Leg one: General revenue (what Haridopolos is talking about). General revenue makes up about 34 percent of the current state budget. The money mostly comes from sales taxes -- though some comes from telephone and cable taxes, corporate income taxes (which Scott has vowed to phase out), and taxes on property transactions. The state has broad discretion on how general revenue is spent.Leg two: State trust funds. State trust funds make up about 27 percent of the current state budget. That is money collected by the state to be used for a specific purpose. The state gas tax is funneled into a transportation trust fund, for example, to pay for road building projects. Florida Lottery proceeds roll into the Educational Enhancement Trust Fund. (The Legislature, at times, has raided trust funds to help balance the budget. )Leg three: Federal dollars. Federal dollars this year comprise about 39 percent of the state budget. Federal dollars primarily fund the state's Medicaid program, but also help fund education, road projects and the criminal justice system.So while each leg helps fund education programs from pre-K through college, Haridopolos is focusing on the general revenue fund. In the current budget, 56 percent of all state education spending came out of general revenue, and it's the portion of state spending the Legislature can most easily control.Now, here's a second important primer.The state doesn't fund education all by itself. Hardly. Local school districts contribute billions of dollars on their own through local property taxes. Most of those property taxes, believe it or not, are set at rates mandated by the Legislature through something called the Required Local Effort. In short, school districts are forced to collect the amount of property taxes the Legislature decides, or the districts won't get to share in state funding.In addition, there are other property taxes individual school districts have discretion over. None of those funds are technically state revenues for the purpose of this analysis.If this isn't confusing enough already, the context of Haridopolos' statement also is important. He's talking about potential cuts in education funding because of less federal dollars and lower sales tax receipts that are affecting the state's bottom line. One way to offset those cuts would be to raise the Required Local Effort, but the Republican-led Legislature that sets the tax has been opposed to that idea. Drilling down on general revenueNow, sticking to Haridopolos' statement and examining only general revenue, the Senate president is correct.Of the $23.8 billion of general revenue budgeted to be spent between July 1, 2010, and June 30, 2011, $12.5 billion was directed to education -- pre-K through college.Divide one into the other and you see that education spending currently equals more than 52 percent of general revenue. You can see the full breakdown of general revenue spending on Page 5 ofthis report.Haridopolos spokesman David Bishop said the state expects to receive $22.6 billion in general revenue for the 2011-2012 fiscal year.If you look at the overall state budget, education funding made up about 32 percent ($22.4 billion) of the entire $70 billion state budget in 2010-2011. RulingAs Haridopolos talked in Tallahassee about the grim state budget prospects for this coming year, he said state education funding might see cuts. Part of the problem is just how much of the budget is tied to education funding, he said -- half of the state's general revenue fund.To be honest, Florida's education funding structure is way more complicated than Haridopolos let on. But he's right that the state general revenue fund, which is a little more than a third of the overall state budget, is being used primarily to fund education.We rate this statement True. FACT CHECK:  Are the claims made in an e-mail titled "New American Way of Life" accurate?  Claim: An e-mail titled "New American Way of Life" accurately describes a generous safety net available to Americans who opt not to work.     Examples: [Collected via Facebook and e-mail, August 2015] Do you have any info on this article? I find a lot of it to be wrong, and no sources are cited. From what I understand less than 5% of the population abuses welfare, Pell grants barely cover college tuition and books. Who gets free cell phones? Does a mother of 2 really get $600 a month in food stamps? I've seen this posted 3 times today in my FB feed and feel it needs to be dispelled  ------------------------  The Key to Success for Those Who Are Inheriting America in 13 Easy Steps! How to get $75,000 in benefits every year from the US Government for you and your girlfriend? Follow these proven and simple steps. First ... get a girlfriend         1. Don't marry her.         2. Use your mom's address to receive your mail.         3. The guy buys a house.         4. Guy rents out house to his girl girlfriend who has 2 of his kids.         5. Section 8 will pay $900 a month for a 3 bedroom home.         6. Girlfriend signs up for Obamacare so guy doesn't have to pay for family insurance.         7. Being a single mother, Girlfriend gets to go to college for free!         8. Girlfriend gets $600 a month for food stamps        9. Girlfriend gets free cell phone from US Government       10. Girlfriend get free utilities.       11. Guy moves into home but still uses mom's house to receive mail.       12. Girlfriend claims one kid and guy claims one kid on taxes.  Now you both get to claim head of household at $1,800 credit.       13. Girlfriend gets disability for being "crazy" or having a "bad back" at $1,800 a month and never has to work again.         This plan is perfectly legal and is being executed now by millions of people. A married couple with a stay at home mom yields $0 dollars. An unmarried couple with stay at home mom nets $21,600 disability + $10,800 free housing + $6,000 free obamacare + $6,000 free food + $4,800 free utilities + $6,000 Pell Grant money to spend + $12,000 a year in college tuition free from Pell Grant + $8,800 tax benefit for being a single mother = $75,000 a year in benefits. Any idea why the country is 18 + trillion in debt? Welcome to the new multicultural diverse, fundamentally changed America, thanks to the ever popular and exciting, everyone is entitled to everything world. Origins: The item reproduced above has been circulating online since at least April 2015, and after it was published the Miller County Liberal of to Colquitt, Georgia, on 19 August 2015 it received a boost in popularity due to the implied authority of appearing in print. (Although it was attributed to "John Tabb," an earlier version was credited to "Jeffery Rightmire.") published credited As is often the case with e-mail polemics focused on purported welfare abuse and taxpayer outrage, the "New American Way of Life" offers an implausible, far-fetched scenario to condemn those who use public assistance to make ends meet: polemics welfare abuse taxpayer assistance   1. Don't marry (your girlfriend).  2. Use your mom's address to receive your mail.  3. The guy buys a house.  4. Guy rents out house to his girlfriend who has 2 of his kids.  5. Section 8 will pay $900 a month for a 3 bedroom home. Points 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the forward pertain to the imagined generosity of the housing program colloquially called "Section 8," the U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) assistance program that provides very low-income families with subsidized vouchers they can use towards paying a portion of their monthly rent. Section 8 HUD While Section 8 is frequently derided in the fashion referenced above, it's very difficult to play the system in the manner described due to the low supply versus tremendous demand for housing and vouchers among those in need of it.  Applicants typically have to spend years on waiting lists before Section 8 housing becomes available, and in many cases it takes years to even get one's name on a waiting list in the first place.  Waiting lists for the program close to new applicants for years at a time on a not-infrequent basis, as a 24 August 2015 article in the Albuquerque Journal reported: close years The waiting list for Section 8 subsidized housing will re-open on Sept. 1, after closing 28 months ago, the Bernalillo County Housing Department announced Friday. But getting onto that waiting list is no assurance that a person will move into Section 8 housing anytime soon. According to Housing Department senior administrative assistant, Craig Smith, the waiting list will re-open with 600 people still on the list, and we expect to add thousands by the time the list is closed back down, though there is no tentative date when that will happen. The wait list was shut down on May 1, 2013, because of sequestering of funds and budget cuts from the federal government, in particular the federal department of Housing and Urban Development, or HUD. So it's extremely unlikely the baby daddy landlord in this hypothetical scenario could simply make a residence available for the Section 8 program and then immediately rent it to the tenant of his choosing.  He'd typically have to wait years for his preferred renter (i.e., his girlfriend) to get on a Section 8 waiting list, then more years for her to work her way to the top of the list, before he could double-dip by getting the government to subsidize his girlfriend's paying him rent to live in a house he owns.  The baby daddy in this scenario (one who can afford to buy his own house) would probably be far better off financially if he simply lived in the house with his girlfriend, or rented it out to someone other than his girlfriend. 6. Girlfriend signs up for Obamacare so guy doesn't have to pay for family insurance. There is a persistent misperception that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act PPACA  7. Being a single mother, Girlfriend gets to go to college for free! If there is any guaranteed way for a "single mother" to obtain a college education for free, we've yet to locate it.  Yes, federal Pell Grants can provide qualifying students with up to almost $6,000 per year towards the cost of attending college (depending upon financial need), but they aren't tied to one's status as a single mother.  There are some grants and scholarships available for single parents to both help them afford school while they are in and and help them pay it off once they have graduated, but those types of programs are scant, and very, very few unpartnered mothers could get a free ride to any college on the basis of their status as single parents alone. Pell Grants single parents scant 8. Girlfriend gets $600 a month for food stamps The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, commonly known as "food stamps") is an often criticized assistance program aimed at combating hunger by financially struggling families. Eligibility for SNAP varies based on household size, but the maximum monthly allotment ranges from $194 for a family of one to $1,169 for a family of eight. Each additional family member after that can qualify a household for up to $146 more each month in benefits, or just under $5 per person per day.  The household size posited here (a single mother with two children) wouldn't qualify for $600 per month in SNAP benefits. food stamps criticized Eligibility The Department of Agriculture (under which the program operates) estimates a total annual program "loss" of about four percent.  Despite widespread belief that the SNAP program is rampantly abused with little oversight, fraud in the program is aggressively investigated and prosecuted where applicable. estimates investigated 9. Girlfriend gets free cell phone from US Government The Lifeline program (commonly known as "Obamaphones," even though the program was actually initiated long before the Barack Obama took office) requires phone service providers to offer monthly discounts on landline or wireless telephone service to eligible low-income consumers.  The program does not require those providers to issue "free cell phones" to anyone (although some cellular providers choose to do so at their own expense). Obamaphones 10. Girlfriend get free utilities. Various programs administered at the state level provide low-income families with financial assistance to offset the costs of essential utilities, but often only in emergency situations. utilities emergency 11. Guy moves into home but still uses mom's house to receive mail. One might theoretically do this, but the person who deliberately falsified his residence address in order to live in self-owned housing that he was being paid to rent to another party under the Section 8 program would be committing a crime, not simply taking legitimate and legal advantage of government assistance programs. 12. Girlfriend claims one kid and guy claims one kid on taxes.  Now you both get to claim head of household at $1,800 credit. Whether or not taxpayers are setting out to craftily claim tax deductions to which they are not entitled, the IRS's head of household tax filing status indeed entitles the person filing to a higher deduction ($9,250 in 2015 versus $6,300 for taxpayers filing as Single or Married Filing Separately). It's important to bear in mind that that dollar amount is what taxpayers may deduct from their taxable income, and not necessarily an amount that they will receive back in the form of a tax refund. head of household status entitles And of course, if each parent is claiming one of the two children as a dependent, than the mother can't be legally collecting benefits (such as SNAP) for both children. Girlfriend gets disability for being "crazy" or having a "bad back" at $1,800 a month and never has to work again. For starters, one cannot simply declare herself to be mentally ill or have back problems, then sit back and collect disability payments for the rest of her (working) life.  Such claims have to be documented by medical professionals as genuinely disabling conditions, and even then those living with disabilities find that securing benefits isn't quite so easy. Presuming the woman in this anecdote is fairly young, she would have to have accrued sufficient work credits to qualify for lifelong disability payments (an unlikely scenario), and then she would still have to meet separate criteria for a qualifying condition (which precludes having earned more than $1,090 per month in that year). The condition under which a person qualifies also must be one that limits ability to do any other work: easy accrued work credits criteria If you cannot do the work you did in the past, we see if you are able to adjust to other work. We consider your medical conditions and your age, education, past work experience and any transferable skills you may have. If you cannot adjust to other work, your claim will be approved. If you can adjust to other work, your claim will be denied. According to data from the agency, more than half of disability claims are denied, and the wait for hearings has increased (partly due to an aging pool of applicants). The anecdotal claimant's purported plundering of disability benefits also conflicts with her concurrent sponging of educational grants, as the usefulness of the latter is negated by the former: A full-time student wouldn't  qualify for lifelong disability payments, and college would be unnecessary for the matriarch of a household who intended to remain home for life collecting benefits for her fabricated disability. denied aging This plan is perfectly legal and is being executed now by millions of people. A married couple with a stay at home mom yields $0 dollars. An unmarried couple with stay at home mom nets. $21.600 disability + $10,800 free housing + $6,000 free   obamacare +$6,000 free food + $4,800 free utilities + $6,000 Pell Grant money to spend + $12,000 a year in college tuition free from Pell Grant + $8,800 tax benefit for being a single mother = $75,000 a year in benefits. Any idea why the country is 18 + trillion in debt? As the excerpt above concludes, the figures bandied about in the e-mail encompass virtually all programs available to low-income Americans and extrapolates the fictional family described routinely accesses all of them. Some of the benefits described (such as free college for single mothers or free utility programs) don't seem to exist, and several of forms of assistance (such as Section 8 or disability) are not administered in the simplistic manner suggested by this item. Furthermore, while this item asserts that the complex welfare hustling plan described here is "perfectly legal," several aspects of it involve defrauding the system in an expressly prohibited (and largely criminal) fashion. Were any family to hide assets or lie about household income on application forms, they would be subject to severe penalties and prosecution should their perfidy be unraveled. The scheme also rests upon the (fallacious) notion that access to assistance programs is easy to both maintain and retain. fallacious Finally, the causes of the national debt are fairly complex. However, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and Defense broadly account for most government spending. account Last updated: 31 August 2015 Originally published:  31 August 2015 A big part of the mayoral campaign of Paul Vallas relies on his six-year record as CEO of the Chicago Public Schools under former Mayor Richard Daley. And the theme that Vallas often falls back on is that he was a turnaround specialist who revived a very troubled school system and left it in better financial and academic shape than he found it. I took over the school district when it had a $1 billion structural deficit and left them with $1 billion in cash and 70,000 more students than they have today, Vallas declared in a New Years Eve interviewon WGN radio. Ive always been a problem-solver. My approach has always been to go in, bring financial stability to the systems that Ive taken responsibility for, design budgets that are long-term financial plans that actually invest in the community to generate growth. Vallas is facing a crowded field of contenders in next months city elections to replace the retiring Rahm Emanuel as mayor, and the flagging condition of the citys public schools will be sure to present a major test for whichever candidate prevails. Having a proven track record as a school fix-it specialist could be a big plus for Vallas. But how valid are his claims? We decided to take a look. Vallas claims raise two questions. First, whether his basic facts check out. Second, whether they can be credited to his leadership. News clips and columns from the Vallas era at CPS, which began in 1995, back up the first beat of his claim. They note that district leaders had projected before he took over that CPS was on track to run a deficit of more than $1 billion by 1999. Under Vallas, that huge deficit never materialized, and district financial records he pointed to show that by his last year at the helm in 2001 CPS claimed a positive balance of nearly $1 billion in all of its financial accounts. But can Vallas credit his policy decisions entirely for that transformation? Not exactly. In 1995, lawmakers in Springfield turned over control of the district, which was facing one of many financial crises, to Mayor Richard M. Daley. He named Vallas, who had been serving as his budget director, chief executive officer. Daley also appointed Gery Chico, now a mayoral opponent of Vallas, as school board president. But the new guard at CPS also got to play by a different set of financial rules. Instead of receiving state aid earmarked for specific purposes, for example, the district started getting a significant amount of funding in the form of a block grant. Another big change that helped un-tie its fiscal hands: Lawmakers allowed property tax dollars, which had previously flowed directly into the pension fund for teachers, to go to CPS instead. And in 1997, legislators permitted the district to forego payments into the pension fund provided it hit benchmarks signifying sound fiscal health. He was not operating under the same conditions as the CEO that existed prior to 1995, said Amanda Kass, associate director of the Government Finance Research Center at the University of Illinois-Chicago. During Vallas six years with the district, and for several years following his tenure, CPS paid next to nothing toward teacher pension costs. The Vallas era at CPS coincided with the dot.com bubble that sent markets soaring, helping the pension fund stay healthy even without the annual injections of cash it began missing out on. Had Springfield not changed the law, the CPS teacher pension fund would have been paid$90millionin 1995 to cover the employer share of pension costs that year. Instead, it got $10 million. Over the next decade, the fund was out$2billion. We asked Vallas in a phone interview why he opted to stop pension payments. The system was earning such strong returns, it didnt require that we make contributions during those few years, he explained. Kass said its considered best practice for local governments to continue employer share contributions regardless of the financial health of pension funds  something the 1997 law did not require. Had CPS continued contributions during the Vallas years, the pension fund would have had more cushion to weather the financial recessions that hit in 2001 and again in 2008, she explained. That said, Kass added that her observations come with the benefit of hindsight after watching the pension fund balance worsen dramatically after Vallas left and his successors continued to put off payments even as the funds fiscal viability declined. I do think that Vallas inherited a challenging situation, Kass said, noting that ratings of CPS bonds improved significantly during his tenure and enabled a system all but shut out of the credit markets to begin borrowing again. In short, CPS was on the financial ropes before Vallas took over but made significant fiscal strides under him. Changes in state law, however, gave him far more financial flexibility to operate than his predecessors. In touting his success as CEO, Vallas also pointed to the size of the district under his watch compared with much-diminished enrollment figures of today. Enrollment is important as a symbol of how attractive CPS is to families of school age children, but it also carries real financial weight because the fewer students attending classes the less state aid the district gets. Vallas numbers are roughly accurate. CPS enrollment stood at nearly 425,000 when he left the district, but now sits at about 361,000,stateandCPS figuresshow. But in using enrollment data as a measuring stick of his success, Vallas ignores significant demographic changes in the city since his time at CPS that render such a comparison misleading. Chicago saw a period of population growth in the 1990s due in large part to a substantial increase in immigrants, largely from Mexico. With that increase in immigration came an influx of students into CPS, said Chicago demographer Rob Paral. The stuff going on demographically today is quite different than the forces that were in play in the 90s, he said. Chicago was a huge magnet for all that 90s immigration. In the years after Vallas left CPS, the immigrant population of the city stopped growing and the African-American population began a significant decline. Minority students make up about 90 percent of CPS enrollment, so the changing demographics had a significant impact at the schools. Vallas said, I took over the school district when it had a $1 billion structural deficit and left them with $1 billion in cash and 70,000 more students than they have today. The bond rating and bottom line at CPS did improve significantly under Vallas, but new laws passed in Springfield also removed fiscal handcuffs which gave him more flexibility to manage the districts finances than his predecessors enjoyed. And he is correct that CPS has nearly 70,000 fewer students today than in 2001 when he departed. But that is due at least in part to significant demographic changes in Chicago outside the control of any schools chief. His claim is accurate but requires additional information to understand the context. We rate it Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click herefor moreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. Claim:  A 2013 immigration reform bill provides young people with free cars to transport them to their jobs.   Example:  [Collected via e-mail, June 2013] BREAKING: Immigration bill now includes free cars (at tax payer expense) for young people to help them get to work! LIKE if you agree: The Senate should vote no on this Gang of 8 immigration bill! Call and let them know what you think! (888) 978-3134  Fox News reported that the riders made to the 2013 Immigration bill now in the Senate that Bernie Sanders has added a provision for free cars, motorcycles or scooters for "young people to use as transportation" to jobs.  This was reported by  Laura Ingraham on Fox and Friends on June 25, 2013.  Is there any truth to this report.  I can not find a copy of the 1,190 page 2013 immigration bill to read it my self Origins:  In April 2013, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act ("a bill to provide for comprehensive immigration reform and for other purposes") was introduced to the U.S. Senate as S.744, sponsored by Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer of New York.  In June 2013 two Republican senators, Bob Corker of Tennessee and John Hoeven of North Dakota, drafted an amendment to that bill (commonly known as the Hoeven-Corker Amendment) in order to, in the words of Senator Corker, "mandate an unprecedented surge of security at the southern border, implement tough interior enforcement to curb de facto amnesty, and help prevent abuse of federal benefits": S.744 Hoeven-Corker Amendment "The Hoeven-Corker amendment takes big and important steps on the immigration issue that matters most: border security," Senator Lamar Alexander said. "It would double the number of agents on the southwest border, construct 700 miles of new or upgraded fencing and spend $3.2 billion on new security technology that was perfected in Iraq and Afghanistan." The Hoeven-Corker amendment would add 20,000 border patrol agents, enough to allow putting one agent every 1,000 feet along the U.S. southwest border. The border patrol agents, fencing and security technology plan would have to be in place before anyone under the immigration legislation's "Registered Provisional Immigrant" program would be allowed to apply for legal permanent residency, otherwise known as a green card. Democratic-affiliated Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont has been outspokenly critical of the potential economic effects of S.744, arguing that the bill would "allow college students from around the world to take jobs that young Americans would otherwise perform."  In response, he drafted a  Youth Jobs Plan that would "provide $1.5 billion over two years for states and local communities to help find jobs for more than 400,000 16- to 24-year-olds who were hard hit by the Wall Street-caused recession."  That job plan was incorporated into the Hoeven-Corker Amendment under a heading of "TITLE V  JOBS FOR YOUTH." Youth Jobs Plan TITLE V The claim that the immigration bill includes a provision granting "free cars, motorcycles or scooters for young people" stems from a very broad, speculative interpretation of one sentence in the jobs plan portion of the Hoeven-Corker Amendment which generally directs how the job plan funds should be used: IN GENERAL. The funds made available under this section shall be used  (A) to provide summer employment opportunities for low-income youth, with direct linkages to academic and occupational learning, and may be used to provide supportive services, such as transportation or child care, that is necessary to enable the participation of such youth in the opportunities; and  (B) to provide year-round employment opportunities, which may be combined with other activities authorized under section 129 of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 17 2854), to low-income youth. As stated, the bill does not contain a specific provision to provide "free cars for young people to help them get to work."  It includes a clause allowing that youth job program funds may be used to "provide supportive services, such as transportation" to low-income youth taking part in summer employment opportunities.  Whether and how that provision would be applied in practice is purely speculative at this point and could vary widely from place to place, potentially ranging anywhere from arranging carpools and subsidizing bus fare to buying, leasing, or renting motor vehicles to be temporarily utilized in ferrying job program participants to work.  But the government isn't going to be buying up cars and turning ownership of them over to young people engaged in summer job programs.       Last updated:  26 June 2013 Claim:  The Obama administration is proposing a 1% tax on debit card usage and/or banking transactions.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, July 2010] The Transaction Tax!  WHAT THE HELL IS THIS??President Obama's finance team and Nancy Pelosi are recommending a 1% transaction tax on all financial transactions.The bill is HR-4646 introduced by US Rep Peter deFazio D-Oregon and US Senator Tom Harkin D-Iowa.Their plan is to sneak it in after the November election to keep it under the radar.See what Nancy has to say about this wonderful idea!https://tinyurl.com/24dn5udIt's only 1%! This is a 1% tax  on all transactions to or from any financial institution i.e. Banks, Credit  Unions, Mutual funds,  Brokers, etc.Any deposit you make will have a 1% tax charged.Any withdrawal you make, 1% tax.Any transfer within your account, a transfer to or from savings and checking, will have a 1% tax charged.Any ATM transaction, withdrawal or deposit, 1% tax.If your pay check or your Social Security is direct deposited, 1% tax.If you carry a check to your bank to deposit, 1% tax.If you take cash in to deposit, 1% tax.If you receive any income from a bond or a dividend from stock, 1% tax.Any Real Estate Transaction, 1% tax.This is from the man who promised that if you make under $250,000 per year, you will not see one penny of new tax! Remember, he is completely honest and trustworthy.Keep your eyes and ears open.   https://tinyurl.com/24dn5ud Folks, Nancy says this would be a minimal tax on the people, but 1 percent every time you pay a bill or make a deposit is not minimal. This would no doubt tax investment  transactions as well as bank account transactions.This woman is nuts!!!If you know someone in California get this to them!  While at the checkout of Wal-mart in Greeneville, TN I heard that in the future the government may be planning to place a 1% tax on people using debit cards at the check out.  I have heard discussion and seen on emails the fear that the Obama administration is going to pass a 'banking tax' that will take 1% of each deposit and 1% of every transaction out of a bank account. Summary:  The Obama administration has not proposed or recommended placing a 1% tax on all financial transactions.  The idea of the 1% transaction tax stemmed from a bill repeatedly introduced by a single congressman which had no support from any other member of Congress and no chance of passing. Origins:  Some members of Congress have what might be termed "hobby horse" issues: concepts about which they introduce legislation in Congress after Congress although their bills not only never come close to passing, but never even clear committee to be put to  votes in the first place.  The hobby horse of Representative Chaka Fattah of Pennsylvania is the notion of eliminating all federal taxes on individuals and corporations and replacing them with a revenue-generating system based on transaction fees (a concept he originally called the "Transform America Transaction Fee" and later referred to as the "Debt Free America Act"). Chaka Fattah Transform America Transaction Fee In 2004 Rep. Fattah presented a bill calling on Congress to fund a study regarding the replacement of the federal tax code with a transaction fee-basedsystem (H.R. 3759), he introduced a similar bill in 2005 (H.R. 1601), again in 2007 (H.R. 2130), and again in 2009 (H.R. 1703).  None of these bills was ever put to a vote, and only one of them had so much as a single co-sponsor. H.R. 3759 H.R. 1601 (H.R. 2130), (H.R. 1703) In 2010, Rep. Fattah moved beyond proposing studies and submitted the Debt Free America Act (H.R. 4646), a bill calling for the implementation of  a scheme to pay down the national debt and eliminate federal income tax on individuals by imposing a 1% fee on specified financial transactions: H.R. 4646 pay down One idea for raising taxes to pay down the debt is the bill introduced this February [2010] by Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-Pa.). His "Debt Free America Act" (H.R. 4646) would impose a 1 percent "transaction tax" on every financial transaction  whether paid by cash, credit card or any form of financial transfer, the only exception being transactions involving the purchase or sale of stock. Theoretically, everyone would pay one cent on the dollar for every such transaction in America every day  whether $3 million on a $300 million business acquisition, $300 on the purchase of a $30,000 car, or $5 on a $500 ATM withdrawal. Specifically, the text of the bill stated that: The purpose of [the transaction fee] is to establish a fee on most transactions. Such [a] fee:  is different than a sales tax in that a sales tax is charged only on sales to the final consumer, [while] the transaction fee would apply to intermediate users as well as end users   is different than a value added tax (VAT), commonly used in European and other countries, in that a VAT is imposed only on a portion of a transaction's value (roughly the difference between an item's selling price and its cost), [while] the transaction fee would apply to the entire amount of the transaction  is intended to raise sufficient revenue to eliminate the national debt, which was $10.6 trillion in January 2009, during a period of 7 years, and to phase out the income tax on individuals. [This bill would] impose on every specified transaction a fee in an amount equal to 1 percent of the amount of such transaction. The term 'specified transaction' means any transaction that uses a payment instrument, including any check, cash, credit card, transfer of stock, bonds, or other financial instrument. The term 'transaction' includes retail and wholesale sales, purchases of intermediate goods, and financial and intangible transactions. Persons become liable for the fee at the moment the person exercises control over a piece of property or service, regardless of the payment method. (The bill provided for individuals earning $125,000 or less to receive a credit equal to 1% of their income against the tax, and it gave the Treasury Department discretion to exempt certain transactions on which lower-income people disproportionately relied.) Like Rep. Fattah's other Congressional efforts along these lines, his Debt Free America Act had no sponsors other than himself,  languished in committee after being introduced, had no realistic chance of being passed. Thus, although e-mailed warnings about a "1% transaction tax" do reference a once-real piece of proposed legislation, the amount of attention those warnings garnered vastly, vastly outstripped any real possibility that such legislation would actually be enacted. Moreover, some of the additional details contained with such e-mailed warnings were erroneous:  Neither "President Obama's finance team" nor Nancy Pelosi is "recommending a 1% transaction tax."  The proposal for the  Debt Free America Act was purely the effort of a single congressman, with no outside support.  Neither Representative Peter DeFazio of Oregon nor Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa introduced the Debt Free America Act, co-sponsored it, or publicly supported it.  The included link that supposedly showed Nancy Pelosi endorsing the Debt Free America Act antedated the introduction of that bill to Congress; her comments actually referred to a different, earlier transaction tax proposed in December 2009 by Rep. Peter DeFazio.  That bill, known as the "Let Wall Street Pay for the Restoration of Main Street Act" (H.R. 4191), called for the funding of investment in middle class jobs by levying small percentage value taxes on the buying and selling of stocks, futures, swaps, options and other securities. (Although Rep. DeFazio's bill had 31 co-sponsors, it too languished in committee without being brought to a vote.) proposed H.R. 4191  Later versions of this item opened with the statement that "ON JANUARY 1ST 2012, THE GOVERNMENT IS REQUIRING EVERYONE TO HAVE DIRECT DEPOSIT FOR SS CHECKS. WONDER WHY?"  The Social Security program did switch over to an electronic payments system as of 1 March 2013 that provided recipients with the options of receiving their benefits payments either through direct deposit to a bank account or via the reloading of a debit card, but that change had nothing to do with the Congressional bill discussed above. Rep. Fattah reintroduced his Debt Free America Act (as H.R. 1125) to the 112th Congress on 16 March 2011. Like Rep. Fattah's previous efforts along these lines, Govtrack.us tagged it with the prognosis "This bill has a 0% chance of being enacted." H.R. 1125 Govtrack.us Last updated:  22 October 2013 In late February 2022, a rumor went viral on TikTok and Twitter that said Russia's largest bank, Sberbank, had imposed a cash withdrawal limit that would be equivalent to $20 in the U.S. The rumor began to spread just after Russia began its invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24. TikTok Twitter Russia Russia invasion Ukraine On Feb. 25, the person behind the @bantg Twitter account tweeted: "Sberbank, Russian largest bank, has limited cash withdrawals to $20." tweeted  The tweet cited no sources.  Another tweet posted on Feb. 26 claimed: "JUST IN: Sberbank, the largest bank in Russia, has limited cash withdrawals for its customers to $20 ? #PutinWillFeelThePainSoon." The hashtag referred to Russian President Vladimir Putin. tweet Vladimir Putin  Replies under the tweet asked for a source for the information, but @nick82gh did not respond to them.  While this second tweet didn't receive many engagements, it was shared the same day to TikTok as a screenshot. Within 48 hours of being posted, that TikTok video received 80,000 likes and was viewed more than 1.4 million times. The person speaking in the video said: "The bank run has started. Russia is going bankrupt. This is the end of [the] Russian economy completely." video   Here are the facts: It's true that Sberbank is Russia's largest bank by its amount of assets, according to The Wall Street Journal. However, at the time, we found no reporting or evidence of any kind that backed up the claim that the Sberbank had limited cash withdrawals to $20. We also found no data about anything related to Sberbank causing the entire country of Russia to go bankrupt, as mentioned in the TikTok video. The Wall Street Journal By email, a spokesperson for Sberbank told us: "This information contradicts reality. Sberbank continues to fulfill all of its obligations in full, including the withdrawal of funds from accounts. All funds are available to customers at any time." On Feb. 28, ABC News and The Associated Press reported that Sberbank had been hit with "tough U.S. sanctions," leading to some limits on cash withdrawals: ABC News Associated Press Sberbank and VTB banks are Russias two largest state-run banks and own roughly half of the assets in the Russian banking system. They were targeted last week by tough U.S. sanctions aimed at limiting their businesses internationally and over the weekend barred from the international SWIFT payment system. SWIFT In both Slovenia and Croatia, Sberbank temporarily closed its branches or limited cash withdrawals following a rush by its clients last week. In Croatia, the banks clients will be allowed to withdraw a maximum of about 1,000 euros per day over the next two days. In Slovenia, the branches will be closed for the next two days and then the withdrawals will be limited to 400 euros per day. At the time that this news was published, 1000 euros was equivalent to $1,121, while 400 euros converted to $448. Neither of these figures was anywhere close to a $20 limit. We asked Sberbank for information on cash withdrawal limits for other countries but did not receive a response before this story was published. While we found no evidence regarding Sberbank branches having a $20 cash withdrawal limit, the conflict in Ukraine did lead to fears that the bank could fail, according to a report from Reuters, which cited a warning from the European Central Bank. Ukraine report Also, on a similar subject, The National Bank of Ukraine imposed cash withdrawal limits after the invasion began, according to The Wall Street Journal. However, again, those limits were reported to be nowhere near $20. Instead, the reporting said the limit was "100,000 Ukrainian hryvnia a day, equivalent to about $3,339.13." according to The Wall Street Journal This story will be updated if we receive further information. In late August 2020, readers inquired about a meme circulating on Facebook that claimed falsely that U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had rigged legislation to help her husband benefit financially from selling off property belonging to the U.S. Postal Service.   The meme's text reads: This is Paul Pelosi (aka, Nancys Husband). He owns Financial Leasing Services LLC, a San Francisco based Real Estate and Venture Capitalist Firm. His net worth is 120 million. Why is this important? His wife sits on the House Appropriations committee. This committee appropriates funds to the United States Postal Service ( and others). Why is this important? Easy. She passed a bill to sell off 9 billion dollars ( yes 9 BILLION WITH a [smile emoji] worth of FEDERALLY OWNED POST OFFICE PROPERTY AND AWARDED THE THE CONTRACT TO, none other, Financial Leasing Services LLC. Her husbands firm. Why is this important? The commissions rate was set at 9%. That is almost a 1 BILLION dollar contract. If thats not enough, lets look at the new stimulus package. Nancy wants 25 billion in the stimulus package for the postal service where only 1.25 billion goes to making sure voting ballots are legit. The other 23.5 billion is going to upgrading the facilities so they are more attractive to potential buyers for her husbands firm. Corrupt to the core. It's true that Speaker Pelosi's husband Paul Pelosi owns and operates Financial Leasing Services, a San Francisco-based investment company. Financial disclosures in 2018, the most recent available, show Speaker Pelosi's estimated net worth to be $114 million. owns estimated But Speaker Pelosi doesn't sit on the House Appropriations Committee. Her spokesman Drew Hammill told us by email she hasn't been on the committee since 2002. Furthermore, we found no evidence that a bill to sell off $9 billion-worth of federally-owned U.S. Postal Service property exists. doesn't sit It's true that the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill that would, if signed into law, provide $25 billion to shore up the Postal Service and rectify delays in mail delivery service, but it doesn't allocate $1.25 billion toward "making sure voting ballots are legit." The funding was originally on the table during negotiations over a coronavirus stimulus package, but those negotiations broke down. Whether the stand-alone Postal Service funding bill will be signed into law by U.S. President Donald Trump seems unlikely. bill originally unlikely The meme seems to be a rehash of a similar one that dates back to 2013  except in that case the subject of the claim was Richard Blum, the husband of U.S. Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., who like Pelosi hails from San Francisco. similar one Mikkelson, David.  "Did Dianne Feinstein Get Her Husbands Company a USPS Contract?"   Snopes. 23 April 2013. Rayome, Alison DeNisco.  "What the New USPS Bill Means for the Next Stimulus Package."   CNET.  24 August 2020. Pramuk, Jacob.  "House Passes Bill to Put $25 Billion Into USPS and Reverse Changes Amid Uproar."   CNBC.  22 August 2020. Henney, Megan.  "How Much Money is Nancy Pelosi Worth?"   Yahoo! News.  17 July 2020. Wildermuth, John.  "Pelosi's Husband Prefers a Low Profile."   San Francisco Chronicle.  1 January 2007.