The Milwaukee County executive can sell the public museum, the airport and the zoo -- all on his own, without County Board approval
The two Milwaukee Democrats sparring in the race for Milwaukee County executive are both busy talking about the incumbent,Chris Abele. The millionaire philanthropist,electedin 2011 to succeed Scott Walker, is touting his accomplishments -- claiming he balanced the county budget without raising taxes five years in a row (Half True), and that 1 million route-miles have been added to the bus system without a fare increase (Mostly True). Meanwhile, the leading challenger, state Sen.Chris Larson, has cast Abele as out of touch -- andtoo powerful. Larson, who was a member of the county Board of Supervisors before Abele took office, won election to the Senate in 2010 afterdefeatinga Democratic incumbent. On the Nov. 22, 2015 Upfront with Mike Gousha public affairsTV show, Larson decried the power Abele he has gained at the expense of the County Board, which is essentially moving to part-time status as a result of a 2014 voterreferendum. With the referendum, which Abele supported, salaries for the 18 County Boardsupervisorswill be cut in half following the April 2016elections. In addition, the supervisors health insurance will end and no additional pension benefits will be accrued. Gousha asked Larson whether a full-time County Board is better than a part-time board. Larson answered by making a claim we want to check, as well as a reference to rapper-producerKanye West. I do understand that theres a lot of people who dont like the County Board. Id also understand that theres people who dont like Congress, Larson said. The difference I have is that I dont think we should abolish Congress, or abolish the legislative check and balance that we have in American-style democracy. Then Larson alluded to a recent change in state law that gives more power to the Milwaukee County executive, saying: If anything, I think we've erred too far in giving all this power to one individual, including land sales. He has unilateral authority over the County Board -- or, the County Board has no oversight over land sales, including the museum, the airport and the zoo. That's just scary to think what he could do with that. And to paraphrase Kanye West: No one man should have all that power. So -- not that it's likely -- but does the Milwaukee County executive have the power, on his own, to sell the Milwaukee Public Museum, General Mitchell International Airport and the Milwaukee County Zoo. All without approval from the County Board? The law In July 2015, while making final adjustments to the 2015-17 state budget, GOP lawmakersinserteda provision to eliminate the Milwaukee County Boards oversight of sales of county-owned properties that are not zoned for park use. County Board members made power-grab allegations against Abele who, despite being a Democrat, hasforged allianceswith some Republicans. The budget provisionhelpedclear the way for Abele tosell 10 acresof land that is envisioned as part of a downtown Milwaukee development coinciding with a new arena for the Milwaukee Bucks basketball team. Now to Larsons claim. Underthe changein state law, any sale of non-park land owned by Milwaukee County requires the approval of only one other person besides the county executive -- either the electedcounty comptrolleror a real estate expert who lives in the community where the land is located and who does not hold public office. That expert is appointed by the Milwaukee County Intergovernmental Cooperation Council, which is made up of elected representatives from the various cities and villages in the county. In other words, the County Board doesnt have a say, although the county executive alone couldnt sell non-park land, such as the museum, the airport or the zoo. The countys top attorney, Corporation Counsel Paul Bargren, confirmedin a memoto the County Board that county-owned land that isnt zoned for parks can be sold without the boards OK. Specifically, the executive could lease, sell or convey any non-park county property regardless of board policy and without board approval, he wrote. Either the comptroller or the appointed real estate expert would have to determine that the sale is in the best interests of the county. Bargren noted that counties are considered an arm of the state. And that the state Legislature can delegate or remove powers from county boards in all 72 counties and can, as it did in this case, treat one county differently than the others. In effect, the Legislature has inserted itself in place of the (Milwaukee) County Board and, as a matter of county policy, has delegated administration of land sales and contracts and procurement to the executive, his memo says. Our rating Larson said the Milwaukee County executive can sell the public museum, the airport and the zoo -- all on his own, without County Board approval. A recent change in state law that applies only to Milwaukee County allows the executive to sell any county-owned land not zoned as park land without approval of the County Board. However, such sales would need the OK of at least one other person -- either the elected county comptroller or a real estate expert appointed by elected municipal officials who lives in the community where the land is located. We rate Larsons statement Mostly True. More on Milwaukee County In Milwaukee County, juveniles arrested for car theft get sent immediately home, because under the point system in juvenile court on holding suspects, a stolen car gets zero points.Mostly False. In Context: Which black people did Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke call uneducated, lazy and morally bankrupt?
Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO In mid-March 2020, social media users posted a message cautioning that scammers were victimizing elderly people amid the COVID-19 pandemic by impersonating Red Cross volunteers:  A variation of this meme contained a similar warning, along with an image of people clad in white biohazard suits. (We cropped the image out for the sake of privacy.)   This is indeed a scam. Red Cross chapters have warned of criminals exploiting the coronavirus disease in various ways, which has sickened and killed thousands globally and isolated people in their homes worldwide. In a statement emailed to Snopes, a Red Cross spokesperson said: The American Red Cross has seen widespread reports of this scam across the United States, along with other countries, on social media platforms. We would like to emphasize that this rumor is not true. The Red Cross is not going to people's homes to offer coronavirus tests. If someone comes to your house claiming that they work for the Red Cross and that they're authorized to do coronavirus testing, do not allow them in your home. Our most important guidance is for people to please be safe. Should such an incident occur, we ask that you call the police as soon as possible. The Oklahoma chapter, for example, advised the public to be wary of scammers impersonating Red Cross volunteers offering coronavirus testing door-to-door: advised A similar warning was issued by the British Red Cross Northwest Branch. "We would like to make it clear that the Red Cross is not conducting coronavirus tests in Northern Ireland or anywhere else in the UK," the statement said.  warning Likewise, the Canadian Red Cross issued an alert that scammers impersonating the organization were exploiting the pandemic by sending out text messages offering to sell or give away protective masks.Unfortunately, scams like these are not new. In a rather cruel variation of this scam during the coronavirus pandemic, a message posted to social media falsely claimed that if you lacked health insurance to pay for a coronavirus diagnostic test, you could donate blood as an alternative because donors must have a blood test. alert  like these variation The U.S. government has since taken steps to roll out widespread testing for the coronavirus disease at no cost to patients. steps Updated with statement from Red Cross and variation of the meme. Claim:  E-mail criticizes U.S. environmental regulations on the oil industry.  OF AND  INFORMATION Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, June 2008] Bill Phillips spent nearly 50 years in the US oil and gas industry; most of his career was with the Phillips Petroleum Company. Bill is a descendant of Frank Phillips. Frank Phillips, along with his brother Lee Eldas (L.E.) Phillips, Sr., founded the original Phillips Petroleum Company in 1917 in Bartlesville, OK. Do you remember Phillips 66 gas stations? Phillips Petroleum Company merged with Conoco, Inc. in 2002 to form the current ConocoPhillips oil company. So, when Bill talks about oil and gas issues, I tend to listen - very closely. I think that you will find Bill's thoughts and facts very revealing, very compelling and very difficult to argue with. As you prepare to cast your crucial ballots this Fall, please think long and hard about the far-reaching, cumulative effects of the US political philosophies, policies and legislation that have contributed to the current and future US oil supply situation.  Did you know that the United States does NOT have any big oil companies. It's true: the largest American oil company, Exxon Mobil, is only the 14th largest in the world, and is dwarfed by the really big oil companies  all owned by foreign governments or government-sponsored monopolies  that dominate the world's oil supply. With 94% of the world's oil supply locked up by foreign governments, most of which are hostile to the United States, the relatively puny American oil companies do not have access to enough crude oil to significantly affect the market and help bring prices down. Thus, ExxonMobil, a "small" oil company, buys 90% of the crude oil that it refines for the U.S. market from the big players, i.e., mostly-hostile foreign governments. The price at the U.S. pump is rising because the price the big oil companies charge ExxonMobil and the other small American companies for crude oil is going up as the value of the American dollar goes down. They will eventually bleed this country into printing even more money and we will go into runway inflation once again as we did under the Carter Democratic reign. This is obviously a tough situation for the American consumer. The irony is that it doesn't have to be that way. The United States  unlike, say, France  actually has vast petroleum reserves. It would be possible for American oil companies to develop those reserves, play a far bigger role in international markets, and deliver gas at the pump to American consumers at a much lower price, while creating many thousands of jobs for Americans. This would be infinitely preferable to shipping endlessbillions of dollars to Saudi Arabia, Russia and Venezuela to be used in propping up their economies. So, why doesn't it happen? Because the Democrat Party  aided, sadly, by a handful of Republicans  deliberately keeps gas prices high and our domestic oil companies small by putting most of our reserves off limits to development. China is now drilling in the Caribbean, off Cuba but our own companies are barred by law from developing large oil fields off the coasts of Florida and California. Enormous oil-shale deposits in the Rocky Mountain states could go a long way toward supplying American consumers' needs, but the Democratic Congress won't allow those resources to be developed. ANWR contains vast petroleum reserves, but we don't know how vast, because Congress, not wanting the American people to know how badly its policies are hurting our economy, has made it illegal to explore and map those reserves, let alone develop them. In short, all Americans are paying a terrible price for the Democratic Party's perverse energy policies. I own some small interests in tiny, 4 barrel-per-day oil wells in Wyoming. We have 14 agencies that have iron-hand jurisdiction over us. If we drop any oil on the ground when the refinery truck comes to pick up oil from our holding tanks, we are fined. Yet down the road the state will spray thousands of gallons of used oil on a dirt road to control dirt. When it rains that oil runs into rivers and creeks. Yet a cup of oil on the ground at our wellhead is a $50,000 EPA fine plus additional fines from state regulating agencies. They treat oil as if it were plutonium that has the potential to leak into the environment. We are fined if our dirt burms are not high enough around a holding tank, yet the truck that picks up our oil runs down the road at 60 mph with no burm around it. People wonder why there is no more exploration in this country. It's because of the regulators; people who have lived their whole lives doing nothing but imposing fines on small operators like us for doing mostly nothing. So, America enjoy your $4.00 per gallon gasoline. Your dollar is now worth 0.62 Euro-Cents. The lack of American production of GNP, the massive trade deficit (as labor markets have moved overseas to fight insanely high union imposed labor costs in America) and the run away printing of money (backed by nothing of value here in America) has caused the dollar to become more worthless on the international market. And that's where our oil comes from. It's paid for with dollars that become more worthless everyday. If we had just kept par with the Euro we'd be paying $62 dollars per barrel for oil (42 gallons) or about $1.50 instead of $2.50 a gallon for crude oil. What the US government also does not tell you is that it is the leaseholder and royalty recipient of most oil production and receives 25% of the gross oil sales before we pay for electricity to lift the oil, propane to keep the oil-water separators from freezing in the winters. We pay a pumper to visit each well everyday plus we have equipment failures all the time. We pay for that out of our 75% of gross sales. The government does not share in any expenses to run any production well. So, if the Big Oil Companies are making record profits, then so is the federal government from it's 25% tax on every molecule of oil sold to a refinery in this country. Why isn't the government on the stand for "Record" profits? What you don't see is this 25% of the sales price of crude oil being siphoned away by the government. That money plus the road taxes, state taxes, etc. amounts to over $1 per gallon of gasoline you are buying while the governments only admit to about 50 cents per gallon. To all you Democrats, when you go vote for your candidate, a blazing liberal like Barrack Hussein Obama just keep in mind that their liberal spending habits will further decrease the value of the American dollar on the world market and your gasoline costs will hike even higher. As they introduce more give-away programs, raise taxes on everyone to pay people not to produce or work, your dollar will continue to dwindle on the world market and you will be paying $10.00 per gallon at the next election. Cheap hydrocarbon fuel is all over. Enjoy! Enjoy the fruits of your decision to elect these folks when you are there in that voting booth and you stab your pin through a Democrat's name. William "Bill" Phillips Origins:  Several readers (including members of the Phillips family) have maintained to us that there is no descendant of Frank Phillips matching the description of the putative author of this piece, which itself appears to be a rewritten/expanded version of an earlier article (one not originally attributed to William "Bill" Phillips).  Given the uncertain provenance of the "Phillips" authorship version, we'll address our analysis primarily to the wording of the (presumed) original: article I hadn't realized, until the hearings on energy that were held this week in House and Senate committees, that the United States doesn't have any big oil companies. It's true: the largest American oil company, Exxon Mobil, is only the 14th largest in the world, and is dwarfed by the really big oil companies  all owned by foreign governments or government-sponsored monopolies  that dominate the world's oil supply. With 94% of the world's oil supply locked up by foreign governments, most of which are hostile to the United States, the relatively puny American oil companies do not have access to enough crude oil to significantly affect the market and help bring prices down. Thus, Exxon Mobil, a small oil company, buys 90% of the crude oil that it refines for the U.S. market from the big players, i.e., mostly-hostile foreign governments. The price at the U.S. pump is rising because the price the big oil companies charge Exxon Mobil and the other small American companies for crude oil is going up. Ranking businesses according to "bigness" can be based on a variety of different metrics: geographic reach, scale of operations, market value, gross revenues, net profits, etc. Exxon Mobil is certainly one of the world's largest (in terms of gross revenues) and most profitable public companies.  (Many of the world's largest non-public companies are also in the oil business.)  The statement here about Exxon Mobil's being "only the 14th largest [oil company] in the world" refers to the amount of oil and gas reserves that company controls, and it is generally true that the major (public) oil companies have much less access to oil and gas resources than they did a few decades ago, most of which are now controlled by national oil companies: largest profitable non-public reserves Despite record crude prices, the major oil companies are struggling to access resources that are being jealously guarded by national companies with whom they are forced to establish partnerships. As paradoxical as it may seem, high oil prices do not mean a golden age for the likes of ExxonMobil, Chevron, Totalor BP. Of course, with a barrel of oil at more than 140 dollars, they are seeing major profits, but the future has never seemed so uncertain. The problem is access to reserves. The oil majors now control less than 10 percent of world resources of gas and oil, against 70 percent in the 1970s, according to figures released by the office of Ernst and Young at the World Petroleum Congress in Madrid. As a result they are being forced to explore in increasingly extreme conditions. The statement that "94% of the world's oil supply [is] locked up by foreign governments, most of which are hostile to the United States" might be a considered a bit misleading since many of those "hostile" countries have relatively small oil reserves, while the country with the second-largest oil reserves, Canada, is U.S.-friendly (and both Mexico and the United States are also among the countries with the largest oil reserves). reserves This is obviously a tough situation for the American consumer. The irony is that it doesn't have to be that way. The United States  unlike, say, France   actually has vast petroleum reserves. It would be possible for American oil companies to develop those reserves, play a far bigger role in international markets, and deliver gas at the pump to American consumers at a much lower price, while creating many thousands of jobs for Americans. This would be infinitely preferable to shipping endless billions of dollars to Saudi Arabia, Russia and Venezuela. So, why doesn't it happen? Because the Democratic Party  aided, sadly, by a handful of Republicans  deliberately keeps gas prices high and our domestic oil companies small by putting most of our reserves off limits to development. China is now drilling in the Caribbean, but our own companies are barred by law from developing large oil fields off the coasts of Florida and California. Enormous shale oil deposits in the Rocky Mountain states could go a long way toward supplying American consumers' needs, but the Democratic Congress won't allow those resources to be developed. ANWR contains vast petroleum reserves, but we don't know how vast, because Congress, not wanting the American people to know how badly its policies are hurting our economy, has made it illegal to explore and map those reserves, let alone develop them. Drilling for oil off of most of the Pacific and Atlantic coasts has largely been barred due to a moratorium imposed by Congress in the early 1980s and by an executive order signed by President George H.W. Bush (a Republican) in 1990.  The congressional moratorium has to be renewed every year, and it has remained in place for nearly three decades through a succession of administrations and Congresses, both Democratic and Republican alike.  (On 14 July 2008, President George W. Bush lifted the executive order barring offshore drilling that had been signed by his father eighteen years earlier.)  The congressional moratorium is due to expire on 1 October 2008 unless Congress votes to extend it. Some analysts have claimed that if the oil industry could extract oil and gas from oil shale in a cost-effective manner, oil shale deposits in the U.S. (particularly on the western slope of the Rocky Mountains, site of the world's largest such deposit) could produce viable oil reserves of about 800 billion barrels (three times the current proven reserves of Saudi Arabia).  However, the cost and effectiveness of oil shale development (and the resource use and environmental effects attendant to accomplishing it) remain a subject of considerable debate, and oil companies remain barred from undertaking commercial oil shale projects on federal land: At best production is years away, while unpredictable oil markets, growing water demand, sizable electricity needs and climate change all pose potentially huge hurdles. Democrats have barred the Bureau of Land Management from leasing any federal land for commercial-scale oil shale projects. Skeptic Randy Udall of nearby Carbondale, Colo., argues that oil shale is but a poor cousin to other fossil fuels, with an energy content per ton less than one-third that of cattle manure and only slightly better than the potato. Any oil shale project in this region would mean new water demands on the Colorado River and its tributaries, vital waterways for much of the western U.S. and northern Mexico. That potential demand for water worries rancher David Smith of nearby Meeker, Colo., who relies on water from the White River that he fears will be diverted to the oil shale operations. The oil companies, Smith said, could help ease concerns by sharing in the cost of a water storage project. "They have not offered to do that," Smith said. Besides water, Shell's oil shale project would require far more electricity than the existing power grid could supply. That likely means construction of a new power plant. In this part of the country, the most economical way to fire a power plant would be with coal. But in the next Congress, lawmakers are likely to pass legislation to limit greenhouse emissions, and coal-fired plants are huge emitters of carbon dioxide. That would add to cost, ever oil shale's nemesis. The subject of opening the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration and development is another issue that has been pursued across the years through a succession of administrations and Congresses, both Democratic and Republican alike. The issue has been complicated by the uncertainty of many factors involved in the opening of ANWR to U.S. oil production, such as the total amount of oil underlying the area, the size of the oil fields that might be found in ANWR, the quality of the oil that might be found in ANWR, the potential production capacity of ANWR drilling operations, how long it would take before ANWR operations began providing significant amounts of oil for the U.S. market, what effects the oil extracted from ANWR would have on world oil supply and prices, and the environmental impacts of oil exploration and development in ANWR.  As of now, both major-party presidential candidates, Senators John McCain and Barack Obama, are opposed to opening ANWR to oil exploration. pursued factors Last updated:  14 July 2008    Dechaux, Delphine.   "Despite Rocketing Prices, Outlook Is Bleak for Oil Majors."   Agence France Presse.  6 July 2008.     Feller Ben.   "Bush Trumps Congress; Moves First on Drilling."   Associated Press.  14 July 2008.     Forbes, Steve.   "Will We Rid Ourselves of This Pollution?"   Forbes.  16 April 2007.     Guerrera, Francesco and Carola Hoyos.   "Hidden Value: How Unlisted Companies Are Eclipsing the Public Equity Market."   Financial Times.  15 December 2006.     Ivanovich, David.   "Despite 800 Billion Barrel Potential, Oil Shale a Hard Sell."   The Houston Chronicle.  12 July 2008.     Simon, Richard.   "Bush Lifts Presidential Ban on Offshore Drilling."   Los Angeles Times.  14 July 2008. As President Donald Trump prepared on 8 January 2019 to deliver a televised speech to the nation making the case for billions of dollars to construct a wall along the roughly 2,000-mile border between the U.S. and Mexico, some social media users circulated an inaccurate meme containing the claim that the preceding Obama administration, with the help of Democratic lawmakers Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, had given Iran $150 billion in cash.   President Trump battled Congress over his request for $5.7 billion to fulfill a 2016 campaign promise to "build the wall." The resulting impasse over budget appropriations for the wall's construction led to a protracted shutdown of the federal government. build the wall impasse shutdown As with many memes, the one above paired two topics that were unrelated to each other, along with a generous helping of inaccuracy. The "enemy of the U.S." referred to Iran, which was never given a $150 billion cash payment by President Barack Obama with the help of Pelosi and Schumer. Instead, billions of dollars worth of Iranian assets were unfrozen as a result of the 2015 nuclear deal negotiated with that country, which had nothing to do with the U.S. federal budget or border wall construction. nuclear deal Trump floated the "$150 billion" figure in conjunction with his desired border wall construction in a 12 December 2018 Twitter post: The Democrats and President Obama gave Iran 150 Billion Dollars and got nothing, but they cant give 5 Billion Dollars for National Security and a Wall?  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 12, 2018 December 12, 2018 The $150 billion figure is an estimate of the value of Iranian assets that were unfrozen as a result of Iran's agreeing to the terms of the nuclear agreement reached with seven nations in 2015, including the U.S., an agreement formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. In other words, Iran gained access to assets that already belonged to them, assets that had been frozen in various financial institutions around the world due to sanctions imposed to curb Irans nuclear program. But Iran didn't get $150 billion in cash, nor did they receive any money at all from U.S. taxpayers -- they only regained access to assets that had been frozen in several different countries (not just the U.S.), and the $150 billion figure was merely an upper estimate. agreement Moreover, that $150 billion figure was the highest estimate of the value of Iran's frozen assets, with multiple sources reporting much lower figures. For example, Adam J. Szubin, Acting Under Secretary of Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, supplied written testimony to a U.S. Senate committee in August 2015 stating that U.S. assessment of the total liquid assets Iran would regain control of as a result of the nuclear agreement was "a little more than $50 billion": testimony We must also be measured and realistic in understanding what sanctions relief will really mean to Iran. Estimates of total Central Bank of Iran (CBI) foreign exchange assets worldwide are in the range of $100 to $125 billion. Our assessment is that Irans usable liquid assets after sanctions relief will be much lower, at a little more than $50 billion. The other $50-70 billion of total CBI foreign exchange assets are either obligated in illiquid projects (such as over 50 projects with China) that cannot be monetized quickly, if at all, or are composed of outstanding loans to Iranian entities that cannot repay them. These assets would not become accessible following sanctions relief. Nader Habibi, professor of economics of the Middle East at Brandeis University, told us via email his best estimate was that between $30 billion and $50 billion of unfrozen funds were made available to Iran as a result of the deal. On 8 May 2018, President Trump announced that he was pulling the U.S. out of the nuclear deal with Iran, which had been negotiated over the course of two years. Associated Press.  "Democrats and Obama Did Not Give $150 Billion to Iran."
  14 December 2018. Hirschfeld Davis, Julie.  "Schumer and Pelosi Tap Themselves to Respond to Trump Speech."
  The New York Times.  8 January 2019. Bozorgmehr, Najmeh.  "Iran to Keep Most Unfrozen Overseas Assets in Foreign Banks."
  Financial Times.  8 February 2016. Cunningham, Erin, and Bijan Sabbagh.  "Iran to Negotiate with Europeans, Russia and China About Remaining in Nuclear Deal."
  The Washington Post. 8 May 2018. Dahl, Fredrik.  "Iran Has $100 Billion Abroad, Can Draw $4.2 Billion: U.S. Official."
  Reuters.  17 January 2014. Habibi, Nader. " Irans Frozen Funds: How Much Is Really There and How Will They Be Used?"
  The Conversation.  11 August 2015. On July 6, 2019, fans of actor Cameron Boyce were shocked and saddened to learn that the 20-year-old Disney star had passed away after experiencing a seizure. As celebrities and fans mourned the loss of Boyce on social media, a rumor began to circulate that actress Debby Ryan had suffered a heart attack after hearing the news about her former co-star's death: passed away   There was no truth to this unfounded rumor, which was widely disseminated by a viral video posted to YouTube by @Dancetayley and titled "Debby Ryan Rushed to Hospital After Finding Out About Cameron Boyce." The video, which racked up nearly 2 million views within a day of its initial posting, included a number of screenshots of tweets from random people who claimed that Ryan had suffered a heart attack: YouTube   None of those tweets originated with verified sources, however, and no credible news outlets reported that Ryan experienced a heart attack. This rumor likely stemmed from the fact that Ryan's voice was absent from the conversation immediately following Boyce's death. While many other co-stars and celebrity friends posted messages to social media mourning the loss of Boyce after the news of his death broke, Ryan's social media accounts were largely silent. Fans began to wonder why she hadn't commented yet, and some of them started to claim without evidence that she had suffered a heart attack. messages There were, of course, innumerable potential reasons why Ryan didn't immediately post to social media that did not involve a heart attack. For example, she might simply have taken some time to process the news that her co-star had passed away. While Ryan didn't immediately post to social media, she did like a tweet posted by actor Charles Esten, who co-starred with Ryan and Boyce on the show Jessie: tweet   Ryan, who turned off her Instagram comments following Boyce's death (likely because a large number of fans were continuously reminding her that her friend had just died), also posted a video to her Instagram story of Boyces acceptance speech for the Pioneering Spirit award at the 2018 Thirst Gala. Instagram comments posted Instagram story Here's the full video of Boyce's acceptance speech. The portion of his speech included in Ryan's post is transcribed below:  Its crazy, we can tweet whenever we want and we can use social media and Instagram and make the world a better place, instead of a worse one, which so many people use it for... We need to use what we have and make the world a better place for other people, other people, people who need us. BBC News.  "Cameron Boyce: Disney Descendants Star Dies Age 20."
  8 July 2019. McBride, Jessica.  "Debby Ryan Shuts Off Instagram Comments After Cameron Boyces Death."
  Heavy.  8 July 2019 Sager, Jessica.  "Adam Sandler, More Co-Stars Mourn Death of Cameron Boyce."
  Fox News.  7 July 2019 A June 2023 Twitter thread from Democratic presidential primary challenger Robert F. Kennedy Jr. that began with a video of him performing pushups also stated an allegedly science-based fact  that the average American gained 29 pounds during the lockdowns of the early COVID-19 pandemic. There are several ways in which this statement is false. Twitter thread  First, Kennedy misrepresented the findings of the survey he cited. Second, that survey  even when read correctly  does not properly address the question Kennedy claimed it addresses. And third, published clinical data suggest the pandemic did not have a significant overall effect on weight and, instead, followed a trend of an increase in the average weight of Americans that has existed since well before the pandemic. In an email to Snopes, Kennedy conceded that this critique was valid. "I appreciate you catching my mistake and alerting me," he wrote. The statistic Kennedy (partially) quoted comes from a 2021 survey conducted by the American Psychological Association. That study found that 42% of people gained unwanted weight during the pandemic, and within that subset of people the average weight gain was 29 pounds. 2021 survey APA's survey of U.S. adults, conducted in late February 2021 by The Harris Poll, shows that a majority of adults (61%) experienced undesired weight changesweight gain or losssince the pandemic started, with 42% reporting they gained more weight than they intended. Of those, they gained an average of 29 pounds (the median amount gained was 15 pounds) and 10% said they gained more than 50 pounds, the poll found. majority of adults (61%) experienced undesired weight changes When the pool of individuals you are looking at includes only people who reported gaining weight (and not, for example, the people who say they lost or maintained weight during the same period of time) the number is going to be significantly higher. Kennedy's claim relies on the notion that the only Americans that existed during the pandemic are those who gained weight. This same survey indicated that "18% of U.S. adults report undesired weight loss, with an average weight loss of 26 lbs." same survey In response to our question about his use of this data, Kennedy responded to Snopes by email stating that he was in error. "I made an error in describing 29 lbs as a national average," he wrote. The APA survey did not gather weight data on any individual. Instead these data stem from surveys carried out by the APA, Stress In America, that measure "attitudes and perceptions of stress among the general public". This particular survey, the Pandemic Anniversary Survey, was conducted roughly a year into the pandemic in February 2021. It had a sample size of just over 3,000 individuals: Stress In America sample size The Pandemic Anniversary Survey was conducted online within the United States by The Harris Poll on behalf of the American Psychological Association between Feb. 19 and 24, 2021, among 3,013 adults age 18+ who reside in the U.S.  The survey questions were designed to identify perceptions of stress, not to quantify standardized measurements of weight. Reports of undesired weight gain, in this sort of study, are entirely self-reported. Even if used in good faith, such a survey would not be an appropriate gauge of actual trends of weight gain or loss in America. In contrast to the APA study and its 3,000 participants, a research paper published by the Epic Health Research Network (EHRN) analyzed anonymized medical data collected from nearly 20 million patients across America at multiple times before, at the onset of, and during the pandemic, as explained in the July 2021 publication: research paper These data come from Cosmos, a HIPAA Limited Data Set of more than 111 million patients. [...] Data are pooled from 128 healthcare organizations representing 640 hospitals that span 49 states and cover 19,573,285 patients. This includes 15,663,833 patients in the year prior to the pandemic and 14,922,615 patients over the course of the pandemic. Cosmos, its website says, is the "largest integrated database of clinical information in the United States." Composed of anonymized clinical records, the dataset is a product of a software company that manages medical records in many American hospitals. Epic Research is an arm of this collection of companies publishing papers based on their Cosmos dataset. says many American hospitals In the study, the researchers found that an almost equal number of individuals gained weight as lost weight during the pandemic: found We evaluated weight change for adults during the pandemic compared to weight change for adults in the year prior to the pandemic. A weight loss or gain of 2.5 pounds, which we define as a normal fluctuation or "no change," was most common, both pre-pandemic and during the pandemic. Nearly as many patients lost weight (35%) as gained weight (39%) during the pandemic. By utilizing data from before the pandemic, from the start of the pandemic, and from during the pandemic, the researchers were also able to compare rates of weight gain or loss year by year. As described in the study, the period of time from the onset of the pandemic into May 2021 brought slightly higher average body weight than the preceding time period, but this was in line with a national trend of increasing average weight: described The average adult weight over time has increased, as shown in Figure 3 [below]. The slight increase in the average adult weight during the pandemic period of less than one pound is consistent with the previous trend. Weight change patterns were similar regardless of age and sex.  Their findings also put the extremity of Kennedy's claim in perspective. The clinical data indicates that only about 2% of individuals gained more than 27.5 pounds during the early pandemic: only about 2%  Because no study actually says that the average American gained 29 pounds during the early pandemic, because the study used to reach that conclusion  even if interpreted correctly  is ill-suited for the purpose Kennedy used it, and because nationwide clinical data suggest otherwise, the claim is False. Alban, Chris, et al. Pandemic Pound Theories Don't Hold Weight. https://epicresearch.org/articles/pandemic-pound-theories-dont-hold-weight. Accessed 6 July 2023. Epic Cosmos. https://cosmos.epic.com/. Accessed 6 July 2023. Jennings, Katie. "The Billionaire Who Controls Your Medical Records." Forbes, https://www.forbes.com/sites/katiejennings/2021/04/08/billionaire-judy-faulkner-epic-systems/. Accessed 6 July 2023. "One Year on: Unhealthy Weight Gains, Increased Drinking Reported by Americans Coping with Pandemic Stress." APA, https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2021/03/one-year-pandemic-stress. Accessed 6 July 2023. Slightly More Than 6 in 10 U.S. Adults (61%) Report Undesired Weight Change Since Start of Pandemic. https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2021/03/march-weight-change. Accessed 6 July 2023. "Stress in America." APA, https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/stress. Accessed 6 July 2023. Former President Bill Clinton raised a hot-button issue while stumping for his wife in Los Angeles this week: Americas mounting student loan debt. Student debt in the United States has reached $1.3 trillion, which trails only the amount Americans owe on their mortgages. Its often blamed for preventing young people from buying houses and cars, which fuels the countrys economy. Undergraduates in the class of 2015 finished school with anaverage of $35,000in student loan debt, the most in history, according to Edvisors.com, a financial aid website. If elected president in November, Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton would remove a unique barrier related to college loans, the former president claimed. A college loan is the only loan in the United States that you cannot refinance when interest rates go down, Bill Clinton said, speaking at a recent campaign rally at Los Angeles Trade-Technical College. We wondered: Is refinancing really off-limits for all college loans? With student loan debt such a big issue this election year, we decided to check the facts. Past efforts at change Both Hillary Clinton and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, her rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, have pledged to allow student loans to be refinanced. But they werent the first to call for this change. In June 2014, Senate Republicans rejectedlegislationby Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., that would have let student borrowers refinance their federal loan debt. Homeowners are refinancing. Small businesses are refinancing. We just want young people who got an education to have their shot, Warren was quoted as saying in aWashington Post news articleat the time. Republicans said they were not convinced the legislation would have resulted in lower borrowing costs, and labeled it an election stunt. The bill would have let people with federal and private loans issued prior to 2010 refinance at 3.86 percent, the article said. It added that the Obama administration estimated that the bill could have helped 25 million borrowers save $2,000 each over the lifetime of their loans, or $50 billion. Former President Bill Clinton speaks during a campaign stop for his wife, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, Tuesday, Feb. 16, 2016, at the West End Community Development Center in Greenville, S.C. (AP Photo/Paul Sancya) Our research As theyve campaigned across the country, Hillary Clinton and Sen. Sanders have each pledged to allow for refinancing of college loan debt. What they, and apparently Bill Clinton, are talking about is refinancing federally backed student loans, which account forabout 90 percentof all student borrowing. We turned to the nonprofit college planning group American Student Assistance for some advice. They and other groups say federal student loans can be refinanced into private loans. But doing so can remove federal protections such as fixed interest rates and the ability to pause repayments. Also, private student loans can be refinanced into new lower-interest private loans. But theres no provision in federal law allowing the refinancing of a federal loan to another, lower-interest federal loan. There is no federal refinancing. Congress sets the interest rate for federal student loans, and most of these rates are fixed by law, no matter how solid your credit or income becomes post-graduation, American Student Assistanceadvisespotential borrowers. PolitiFact Texasexamined a similar claimin 2014 and rated it Mostly True. They spoke withHeather Jarvis, a North Carolina attorney specializing in student loan law, who told them some graduates may be able to refinance student loans at lower rates through private lenders. But, she said, this would only happen in cases in which borrowers have substantial income. Jarvis added that refinancing federal loans with a private loan is risky. The borrower gives up important protections that accompany federal loans (like flexible repayment and discharge provisions). Students repaying federally backed loans, Jarvis said, are effectively barred from refinancing opportunities because federal law makes no provision for the government to make such offers. Asked about the former presidents statement, Bill Clintons press secretary said in an email its very safe to say that the vast majority of students with debt have federaldebt. She pointed tostatistics from the College Boardshowing federal loans account for about 90 percent of student borrowing. She said a small percentage of borrowers can refinance a federal student loan by making it a private loan. Our ruling Former President Bill Clinton said at a recent campaign rally in Los Angeles: A college loan is the only loan in the United States that you cannot refinance when interest rates go down. Borrowers of federally backed student loans, which account for about 90 percent of student loans, cannot refinance those into lower-interest federal loans. Congress sets the interest rate on these loans, and theres no provision in federal law that allows for them to be refinanced. Depending on factors such as income, some borrowers can refinance their federal loans into lower-interest private loans, though they risk losing their federal loan protections. Clinton most likely was referring only to federally backed loans when he made his statement, but a clarification about private loans would have helped. We rated his claim 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. In January 2016, a quote attributed to first U.S. president George Washington, about the importance of an armed citizenry, started recirculating on the internet:  This statement had been making the online rounds for several years, but it regained popularity in January 2016 after President Obama announced new measures on gun control. announced George Washington never uttered the phrase in question. The first ten words ("a free people ought not only be armed and disciplined") are taken from the former president's annual address to theSenate and House of Representatives on 8 January 1790, in which he argued in favor of an armed citizenry and self-sufficiency in production military supplies as a deterrent to war: annual address Among the many interesting objects which will engage your attention that of providing for the common defense will merit particular regard. To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace. A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies. The proper establishment of the troops which may be deemed indispensable will be entitled to mature consideration. In the arrangements which may be made respecting it it will be of importance to conciliate the comfortable support of the officers and soldiers with a due regard to economy. A page dedicated to fake quotes attributed to George Washington on theMount Vernon web site addressed this passage as follows: addressed This quote is partially accurate as the beginning section is taken from Washington's First Annual Message to Congress on the State of the Union. However, the quote is then manipulated into a differing context and the remaining text is inaccurate. Although this meme does include a portion of Washington's first annual addressto members of theSenate and House of Representatives in1790, the majority of the quotewas never utteredby the Founding Father, and does not accurately represent his views on gun control. Nonetheless, its apocryphal nature doesn't hinder its continued reproduction as a genuine expression from George Washington: On 11 September 2018, our readers asked for verification of a meme circulating on social media that reported Donald Trump had helped with search-and-rescue efforts in the rubble of the Twin Towers after the 9/11 terrorist attacks 17 years prior: "2 days after the September 11th attacks Donald Trump was at ground zero with hundreds of workers that he payed for to help find and identify victims. Share this photo to remind people exactly what kind of American our President is!"   Although the image used in the meme above was taken on 18 September 2001 outside the New York Stock Exchange, the meme reflects comments Trump made two days after the attack, when he told an interviewer for a German television station about his efforts to help: taken Well I have a lot of men down here, right now. We have over 100 and we have about 125 coming. So we'll have a couple of hundred people down here. And they are very brave and what they're doing is amazing. And we'll be involved in some form in helping to reconstruct.   Trump made similar remarks to an NBC News reporter: NBC News Trump: I have hundreds of men inside working right now and we're bringing down another 125 in a little while. And they've never done work like this before. And they're hard-working people but they've never seen anything like it. And they've never done work like this before, it's terrible. Reporter: Have you spoken to any of your men? Do you know how they're reacting to this, because emotionally this must be so incredibly difficult. Trump: Well there are a lot of them but they've never seen bodies like this -- bodies all over. The great thing is when they find somebody that's alive like the five firemen that they just found a little while ago. So that's the great thing, and that's what they were all striving for. But generally speaking that's not the case. So, they are working very, very hard, but it's a very depressing situation for these folks.  President Trump described it a little differently during a speech at the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2019, saying he went down to Ground Zero on the day of the attacks "with men who worked for me to try to help in any little way that we could." described it a little differently Trump's statements were vague, so they didn't provide any specifics that would help verify who the men he referenced were, what their relationship to him was, and whether he "paid for" their labor, making it difficult to tease out the accuracy of what he said. His claims about what he did and witnessed on the day terrorists flew jetliners into the World Trade Center buildings have been sources of confusion or consternation since the real estate mogul launched his bid to seek the presidency in 2015. Richard Alles, a retired deputy chief with the New York City Fire Department (FDNY), who now serves as director of 9/11 community affairs for the law firm Barasch McGarry Salzman and Penson, told us that in all the hours, days and months he spent at Ground Zero as an FDNY battalion chief starting 20 minutes after the buildings collapsed, he never witnessed a large group of workers hired by Trump at the site helping with search and rescue. "This is the first Im hearing of it," Alles told us by phone. "There would have been no need for that. Between police, fire and the construction crews, we had it all covered." Alles added that the construction crews he saw at Ground Zero who came to help rescue workers were from the trade unions and were not hired by Trump. John Feal, founder of the 9/11 first responder health advocacy non-profit the FealGood Foundation, responded to Ground Zero on 12 September 2001 as a construction demolitions expert. He also told us he didn't see evidence of hundreds of workers hired by Trump at the site, and added that by 15 September 2001 the area was on lock down. "There was no way anyone could get in and out of there without a [government-issued] badge," he told us. (Feal was forced off the site as of 17 September 2001 when he suffered a life-threatening injury caused by a 4-ton piece of steel falling on his foot, crushing it and resulting in a major infection.) non-profit forced off According to the New York Times, the entire Trump organization didn't even encompass enough people in 2001 to have assisted in the manner described: New York Times [Timothy] OBrien, the author [of TrumpNation: The Art of Being the Donald], said the size of the Trump Organization at the time was a little bit over a dozen people, which would have made it impossible to send hundreds of people to participate in the relief effort. At the time, Mr. Trump had a large number of casino workers based in Atlantic City, but there is no documented evidence of him marshaling his resources to aid in the relief effort. Hes very comfortable propagandizing that event for political purposes, Mr. OBrien said. Even in the face of tragedy, he cant help but self-promote and self-aggrandize. We reached out to the White House Press Office and the Trump Organization asking for corroborating evidence of these claims but received no response, although we don't know of anyone who raised questions about the veracity of his statements at the time they were made. But now that Trump is president, his political opponents seized on the opportunity to proclaim that he was lying about having helped in the aftermath of 9/11: Heres video of @realDonaldTrump claiming he helped look for survivors & clear rubble on 9/11. He didn't. He was lying. #NeverForget pic.twitter.com/gvc3MsbaJZ @realDonaldTrump #NeverForget pic.twitter.com/gvc3MsbaJZ  Scott Dworkin (@funder) September 11, 2018 September 11, 2018 It's not the first time Trump's accounts of his experiences in New York related to the 11 September terrorist attacks have been called into question. In the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election, some critics cited a TIME magazine report that placed Trump in Chicago at the time of the attacks -- but that was due to an error in the report. For his part, Trump claimed at a campaign rally in 2015 that he watched from his apartment in Trump Tower as people jumped from the burning WTC buildings to their deaths, but multiple news organizations pointed out that would have been an impossibility because Trump Tower is four miles away from Ground Zero: some error pointed out I have a window in my apartment that specifically was aimed at the World Trade Center, because of the beauty of the whole downtown Manhattan. And I watched as people jumped, and I watched the second plane come in Trump also famously but falsely claimed repeatedly that he witnessed Muslim Americans in New Jersey celebrating as the WTC buildings came down: falsely claimed Hey, I watched when the World Trade Center came tumbling down. And I watched in Jersey City, New Jersey, where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down. Thousands of people were cheering. Keneally, Meghan and Liz Kreutz.  "Where Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton Were on 9/11."
  ABC News.  9 September 2016. Waldman, Paul.  "Trumps Long History of Lying About 9/11 and Exploiting It for Personal Gain."
  The Washington Post.  11 September 2018. Hind, John.  "21 Awful Truths About 9/11."
  The Telegraph.  5 September 2001. Neilan, Terrence.  "Hopes Are Raised, And Dashed, About Rescue of Firefighters."
  The New York Times.  13 September 2001. Balsalmo, Michael and Nancy Benac.  "Trump's Claims About 9/11 Don't Hold Up to Scrutiny."
  Associated Press.  20 April 2016. Rogers, Katie.  "Fact-Checking Trumps Claim He Spent a Lot of Time With 9/11 Responders."
  The New York Times.  29 July 2019. Alan Grayson, an Orlando Democrat and former U.S. Representative running to reclaim a seat in 2012, emerged a big-time supporter of the Occupy Wall Street movement after appearing on HBO'sReal Time with Bill Maheron Oct. 7, 2011.A couple of Maher's panelists, and even Maher himself, mocked the protesters for their worrisome bathroom situation, lack of media spokesperson, name choice, and proficiency (or lack thereof) in economics. Saying he was a former economist, Grayson jumped in, saying he had no problem understanding the protesters' grievances.They're complaining about the fact that Wall Street wrecked the economy three years ago and nobody's held responsible for that, he said. Not a single person has been indicted or convicted for destroying 20 percent of our national net worth accumulated over the course of two centuries. They're upset about the fact that Wall Street has iron control over the economic policies of this country. And that one party is a wholly owned subsidiary of Wall Street. And the other party caters to them as well. That's what they're upset about.It gets more interesting. P.J. O'Rourke, a political theorist and author, said, Get the man a bongo drum. They've found their spokesman, okay. Take your shoes off, get a bongo drum, forget where to go to the bathroom, and it's yours. He got a few laughs. Then Grayson shot back with this:Listen, if I am a spokesman for all the people who think we should not have 24 million people in this country who can't find a full-time job, that we should not have 50 million people in this country who can't see a doctor when they're sick, that we shouldn't have 47 million people in this country who need government help in order to feed themselves, and we shouldn't have 15 million families who owe more on their mortgage than the value of their home, okay, I'll be that spokesman.Maher's audience gave Grayson a standing ovation. His retort popped up on YouTube and then spread through Facebook and Twitter. Liberal bloggers praised him for his succinct explanation. You can see the video cliphere.We decided to check Grayson's litany of claims about the economic plight of many Americans. (We previously checked a claim from Michael Moorethat gets at Grayson's other major point, that no one associated with the 2008 economic collapse was arrested or indicted. )We'll take the economic claims one by one.24 million people in this country can't find a full-time jobA similar claim -- More than 25 million Americans are unemployed -- was presented in an article in the protester-producedOccupied Wall Street Journal, which we examined in a fact-checkhere.Grayson was wise to distinguish between the number of people who are unemployed and those who can't find a full-time job.According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 14 million Americans were unemployed as of September 2011, which is how officials determine the unemployment rate. We pointed out in our fact-check that BLS methodology has been criticized for not expanding the definition of unemployment so that it includes people who have stopped looking for work or who are working part time, even though they would rather have a full-time job.An alternative measure called the U-6 paints that picture. As of September, an additional 2.5 million Americans were deemed marginally attached to the labor force, and another 9.3 million are working part time but would prefer a full-time job. That adds up to 25.8 million people.In our item, we pointed out theOccupy Wall Street Journalarticle described the expanded definition of unemployment, not the traditional one. Grayson's statement is a little low at 24 million but more precise in its definition.50 million people in this country can't see a doctor when they're sickAgain, this is close to what is cited by theOccupied Wall Street Journalarticle but is a little different. That story claimed more than 50 million live without health insurance, and we found that they were almost exactly right. A U.S. Census Bureau study called Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage: 2010,found that49.9 million Americans were uninsured in 2010. That's about 16 percent of the population.While Grayson's statement isn't exactly the same, his point seems clear enough to us.47 million people in this country need government help in order to feed themselvesGrayson is talking about what we know as food stamps, which has been called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program since 2008. The U.S. Department of Agriculture funds SNAP and the states administer it, sometimes by other names. The economic recession has forced more people into the program since 2008, and the numbers are climbing, according to thisannual summary.In fiscal year 2008, 28.2 million people received nearly $35 billion worth of benefits. The program served 33.4 million in FY 2009 and 40.3 million in FY 2010.Themost recent participation figure,for July 2011, is 45,344,946 people, with the most recent monthly allotment per household at $283.68. That enrollment figure isn't the program's highest number, but it's just 65,737 people short of the May 2011 record.We are dealing with historic participation, said Regan Hopper, USDA Food and Nutrition Service spokeswoman.Grayson's figure is pretty close.He probably wasn't accounting for other government food programs, such as the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children -- better known as WIC -- in his tally. But that USDA program provides low-income pregnant, post-partum and breastfeeding women, as well as infants and children up to age 5, with checks for certain kinds of food to supplement their diets.WIC served8.9 million in July 2011, said Regan Hopper, a USDA Food and Nutrition Service spokeswoman. Further, USDA funds school lunch and breakfast programs, which provide free and reduced-price meals to some schoolchildren, and provides food and money through its Emergency Food Assistance Program to states for distribution in food banks, soup kitchens and the like.15 million families owe more on their mortgage than the value of their homeThis housing phenomenon is also referred to as being underwater or upside down in mortgage payments. We asked a few companies that keep databases of mortgages and home loans, usually public records in counties, for the financial and property industries.Seattle-based Zillow.com puts the latest figure for these homes at 26.8 percent for the second quarter, which ended in June. That amounts to 15.3 million homes. It's down slightly from Zillow's first-quarter analysis, which put the number of underwater homes at 28.4 percent, or 16.2 million.We posed the same question to CoreLogic,a Sana Ana, Calif. firm.In a study released in September, CoreLogic reported that 22.5 percent of all homes with a mortgage were in negative equity in the same period. CoreLogic's number is roughly 5 million homes fewer than Zillow's, coming in at 10.9 million. The company found another 2.4 million borrowers at the brink of negative equity, or having less than 5 percent equity. You may have noticed some disparity with those estimates. Corelogic's data includes 48 million properties with a mortgage, accounting for more than 85 percent of all mortgages in the country. Zillow.com tries to provide an estimate for the country's total number of homes with outstanding mortgages, estimated by the U.S. Census bureau to be 50 million to 55 million. So part of the difference could lie in the 15 percent of homes CoreLogic does not cover. There are also estimation errors to consider, said Zillow.com chief economist Stan Humphries, particularly in guessing the value of homes and current outstanding loan balance. A difference of about 4 percent between the companies' estimates is not really significant, he said. We think this is a critically important metric in understanding the housing market, he said. The point remains that economists have never seen housing values fall so low. Housing data is scant for the Great Depression, but Humphries believes the ongoing crisis outranks that period. He says Depression-era down payments were higher in the 1930s, giving folks some cushion as the crisis set in. Our rulingGrayson's defense of the Occupy Wall Street movement earned him praise from the left-wing blosophere and pundits for its pith. No pundit or officialin the movement's first monthhad quite articulated the protesters' qualms -- high unemployment, expensive health care, poverty and underwater mortgage payments -- as Grayson did in 20 seconds on Maher's show.We examined each of his economic claims and found them accurate, point for point. We rate his claim True. In April 2020, Facebook posts circulating online offered coupons supposedly good for two free large pizzas from the Domino's pizza chain:  Users who clicked on the offer were taken to an external website where they were instructed to answer survey questions in order to receive their coupons:  After completing the questionnaire, however, users were then required to click a button to share the "offer" with their Facebook friends before they could retrieve their coupons. Those who complied by spamming their friends were then allowed to click a "Receive the Coupon" button, but there was no actual coupon to receive. Like innumerable other "free merchandise" offers on Facebook, this offer was another variation of a common scam. other free merchandise offers Facebook We've had many occasions to alert readers to this kind of fraud: These types of viral coupon scams often involve websites and social media pages set up to mimic those of legitimate companies. Users who respond to those fake offers are required to share a website link or social media post in order to spread the scam more widely and lure in additional victims. Then those users are presented with a survey that extracts personal information such as email addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, and even sometimes credit card numbers. Finally, those who want to claim their free gift cards or coupons eventually learn they must first sign up to purchase a number of costly goods, services, or subscriptions. The Better Business Bureau offers consumers several general tips to avoid getting scammed: offers consumers