California's Central Valley and Inland Empire are undergoing significant growth in employment opportunities.
Gov. Jerry Brown frequently touts Californias overall job growth when telling what hes called the states comeback story. He claimed recently on NBCsMeet the Pressthat California has added 2.1 million jobs in the last six or seven years. We checked the numbers and rated that claimTrue. Later in the same interview, the shows host Chuck Todd asked Brown about inland Californias struggles, leading to another claim that caught our attention: Chuck Todd:But there are parts of your state that are struggling. You have rural counties, ones that dont touch the ocean, struggling. Housing prices are up there, while jobs dont go there. Gov. Brown:The Inland Empire, the Central Valley, they have a harder time. But they, too, are experiencing tremendous job growth. Brown makes his jobs claim at about the 2:05 minute mark in the video above. Californias job growth is normally associated with coastal hubs like Silicon Valley and San Francisco. So, we wondered whether Brown had his facts right when he said these inland regions had really experienced tremendous job growth, too. We set out on a fact-check. Inland Empire Home to about 4.5 million people, Riverside and San Bernardino counties make up whats known as the Inland Empire, a sprawling set of communities east of Los Angeles. The economists we spoke with say Browns case for tremendous job growth here is a strong one. The regions 3.2 percent job growth rate was the fastest among the states large metro areas from February 2016 through February 2017, saidJohnHusing, chief economist for the InlandEmpire EconomicPartnership. During that year, it added 47,500 jobs, which was more than the 35,700 created in the Santa Clara metro area, considered the heart of Silicon Valley, Husing said. This area is a real growth engine, he added, listing construction, logistics and transportation among the growing sectors. Over the past five years, as the region has recovered from the Great Recession, it added jobs at a rate of 22.3 percent. That trailed only the San Francisco-Redwood City-South San Francisco metro areas 22.7 percent rate among large metros. A spokesman for the Brown Administration cited the same statistics backing up the governors claim. Colin Strange of the San Bernardino Area Chamber of Commerce said San Bernardino is seeing job growth, but mainly in blue-collar jobs that pay about $15 per hour including fork-lift operators and truck drivers. Husing, who has studied the regions wages, said the Inland Empire has a lower share of high-paying administrative jobs compared with the state as a whole. He said, however, that the region is outperforming the state in its share of middle-class jobs that pay between $45,000 and $60,000. Central Valley The Central Valley stretches about 450 miles from Bakersfield north to Redding. It includes urban cities like Sacramento, Stockton, Modesto and Fresno, vast farmland and a diverse economy, making job growth trends for the overall region more complex. Areport by Stanislaus State Universityin the Central Valley city of Turlock offers some help. That report shows the 8-county San Joaquin Valley, which makes up the central and southern portions of the Central Valley, experienced a 1.56 percent job growth rate in 2016; a 1.86 percent rate in 2015 and 1.80 percent in 2014. Those averages trailed the states overall job growth average, which measured 3 percent in 2015 and about 2 percent last year. But it beat the 8-county regions 1.23 percent historical average job growth rate. SOURCE: Stanislaus State University, College of Business Administration,2016 Business Forecast Report,Volume VI, Issue 1 Within its own limits, the Valley has consistently grown. But it hasnt been a home run, Gokce Soydemir, an economics professor at Stanislaus State, said of job growth in that portion of the Central Valley. Jeffrey Michael, director of the University of Pacifics Center for Business and Policy Research in Stockton, added by email: Central Valley areas have also done very well in recent years with the exception of Bakersfield, where recent economic fluctuations are tightly connected to the oil industry. Bakersfields job growth rate was flat, at 0.1 percent, over the past year. Meanwhile, Sacramento, the biggest metro area in northern portion of the Central Valley, saw 1.8 percent growth over the past year, close to the statewide average. Our ruling Gov. Jerry Brown recently claimed Californias Central Valley and Inland Empire are experiencing tremendous job growth. Economists say Brown is right about the Inland Empire. That region experienced the fastest job growth rate among the states large metro areas over the past year, and added more jobs than the Santa Clara metro area, the heart of Silicon Valley, during that period. Job growth in the Central Valley, while its outperformed its historical benchmark in much of the diverse region, hasnt kept up with the overall state average. The governors argument here needs this key clarification. In the end, we rate his overall 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.
On 28 February 2017, Breitbart.com reported that big box retailer Target's stock had "crashed," losing a combined total of $15 billion in investor wealth, because of the chain's announcement in 2016 that it would allow transgender customers and employees to use bathrooms corresponding to their gender identity: reported Targets stock value is now down by 30 percent since it sparked a consumer boycott by embracing the transgender political agenda. That 30 percent drop has slashed investors wealth by roughly $15 billion. On Tuesday, the stock fell to $58.78, down from its April 19 high of $83.98. In contrast, WalMart is up 3 percent since April, and Kohls is down less than one percent. Company officials indirectly acknowledged the consumer boycott. Our fourth-quarter results reflect the impact of rapidly changing consumer behavior, which drove very strong digital growth but unexpected softness in our stores, Target CEO Brian Cornell said in a company statement. The company also admitted that it would likely continue to experience losses through the year. On 19 April 2016, Target announced that transgender customers and employees were free to use the restroom that corresponded to their gender identity amid a national row on the subject during the 2016 election cycle. The announcement came after North Carolina enacted the controversial HB 2 in March 2016, a law that came to be colloquially termed the "bathroom bill," and required public single-sex restrooms only be used by people of the corresponding biological sex. The controversy, and Target's definitive stance, prompted conservative groups like the American Family Association (AFA) to launch a boycott. Nearly 1.5 million people have signed the AFA's petition as of 1 March 2017. announced HB 2 boycott Target shares did plunge on 28 February 2017, but it wasn't due to its nearly year-old bathroom policy. The drop was due to 2017 guidance announced during an investor day event. Projections were far lower than expected by Wall Street analysts (the term "guidance" means projected earnings). The drop in Target stock corresponds to the announcement made at their investor event: event  Source: Yahoo! Finance  According to Edward Jones analyst Brian Yarbough, Wall Street was expecting Target to project earnings of $5.30 per share, but the company instead gave guidance of $3.80 to $4.20 per share which was "well below" expectations, prompting the drop in share value. According to Reuters, Target's dive dragged others down with it: Targets plunge prompted declines across the retail sector. Wal-Mart Stores Inc was down 2.0 percent, with Kroger Co down 1.2 percent and Macy's Inc off 1.7 percent. Dollar General Corp fell 4.2 percent. What is dogging Target and other retailers has been competition with all-online retailers like Amazon, which do not have the overhead cost of brick-and-mortar locations. Target, for example, has 1,803 stores. "Online players dont have a huge network of stores and since they dont have that cost, they can offer lower prices," Yarbough said. Customers also have the immediate ability to do price-comparisons with smart phones. These changing patterns are reflected in a statement given by Target CEO Brian Cornell: statement Our fourth quarter results reflect the impact of rapidly-changing consumer behavior, which drove very strong digital growth but unexpected softness in our stores. At our meeting with the financial community this morning, we will provide detail on the meaningful investments were making in our business and financial model which will position Target for long-term, sustainable growth in this new era in retail. We will accelerate our investments in a smart network of physical and digital assets as well as our exclusive and differentiated assortment, including the launch of more than 12 new brands, representing more than $10 billion of our sales, over the next two years. In addition, we will invest in lower gross margins to ensure we are clearly and competitively priced every day. While the transition to this new model will present headwinds to our sales and profit performance in the short term, we are confident that these changes will best-position Target for continued success over the long term. Although Target offers online shopping, profit there tends to be lower due to associated costs like shipping and price competition from the likes of Amazon. Retailers are struggling to survive with more profitable in-store sales lagging, and lower profit margins due to a growing contingency of online shoppers: Although its e-commerce operation is growing quickly, Target reported its third straight quarter of lower sales from existing stores, citing "unexpected softness" and raising new questions about the health of large national retailers in the United States. Target also forecast first-quarter profit well below Wall Street estimates. Shares sank 13 percent, on track for their biggest one-day percentage drop in more than 18 years. Target's stock has lost a quarter of its value since the 2016 holiday season started in November, and is now trading at its lowest level since August 2014. Target maintains the bathroom policy has had no effects on its business, with company spokeswoman Erika Winkels telling us in an e-mail, "We have made it clear over time that weve seen no material impact to the business based on the bathroom policy. We dont have anything new or different to share." A poor performance in the 2016 holiday season was also attributed to online sales outpacing foot traffic, but Target is, again, not the only chain feeling the effects: Department stores across the country are paying the price for underestimating Amazon this holiday season. Macy's and Kohl's both reported lower-than-expected sales during the all-important end-of-year retail period, and announced a spate of store closures that will lead to thousands of lost jobs. Sears has even been reduced to selling off one of its iconic brands after a double-digit sales slide. Industry observers blame online competition, as well as department store brands' own shortfalls in adapting to a fundamental shift in consumer behavior. Nevertheless, Neil Saunders, managing director of GlobalData Retail, told us that Target could be worse off than it is: Its in a much better position than some retailers because its balance sheet is still robust whereas Sears and Macy's are in a very difficult position. With Target, it's much more about tweaking and reinvention at the edges. [The guidance] wasnt great, but not as bad other people. Saunders told Reuters that while Wal-Mart has been buoyed by successfully offering groceries, Target has not been able to keep up on that front, calling its grocery offerings "confusing." Reuters "Target is neither a full-line grocer nor a player with lots of niche specialty products; it is neither a high-end player, nor a price focused discounter," he said. It is difficult to say with certainty whether the Target's commerce overall has been negatively affected by its policy on transgender people. Although company representatives have maintained it has not, shortly after Cornell made the announcement, USA Today reported a study that showed the percentage of people who would consider shopping there the next time they needed something dropped from 42 to 38 percent. But the retail industry as a whole is facing a dramatic shift in consumer behavior, and retailers have struggled to keep pace with it. reported Target's late February 2017 stock drop, however, was the result of announcements made during an investor day event, and cannot be attributed to their policy on bathroom use. Huston, Warner Todd.  "Target Retailer Hits $15 Billion Loss Since Pro-Transgender Announcement."
  Breitbart.  28 February 2017. Target.com.  "Continuing to Stand for Inclusivity."
  Press Release.  19 April 2016. House Bill 2.  "Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act."
  North Carolina State Legislation.  23 March 2016. American Family Association.  "Sign the Boycott Target Pledge!"
  Petition.  20 April 2016. Naidu, Richa et al.  "Target's Profit Outlook Sinks Retail Stocks."
  Reuters  28 February 2017. Target.com.  "Target Reports Fourth Quarter and Full-Year 2016 Earnings."
  Press Release.  28 February 2017. White, Martha C.  "Department Stores Are Paying the Price for Underestimating Amazon."
  CNBC.  5 January 2017. Malcolm, Hadley.  "Target Brand Perception Falls, But It's Not 'Catastrophic.'"
  USA Today.  29 April 2016. Amid an outpouring of criticism against YouTube personality Logan Paulwho broadcast video of a man who had committed suicidea fake news Twitter account leapt to his defense with made-up statements of support purporting to be made by pop music star Taylor Swift. On 5 January 2018 the user @enewsatnightwhich falsely presents itself as E! News, the news compoment of the E! entertainment networkposted: posted: Taylor Swift on Logan Paul: There are some points he has made; hes hilarious; We should FORGIVE   Swift's social media accounts have never mentioned Paul, though he tried (unsuccessfully) to generate interest in December 2017 for a request that they work together. social media tried While the quotes were fabricated, the link attached to the tweet goes to an actual E! story about Paul's puerile excursion to Japan, during which he not only filmed the body of someone who took his own life but attempted to "catch" bystanders in the manner of a Pokemon game and throwing raw fish at others. story Though that tweet had been shared around 700 times as of 8 January 2018, a separate user's post spreading it with the dismissive caption, "Bitch we hate you too lmaoo" received more than 68,000 retweets, thus giving it even more exposure: 68,000   The footage of Paul's Tokyo visit has brought about criticism against not only him but YouTube itself for continuing to allow Paul to make money off of his off-kilter and often ill-mannered content. Paul has taken a hiatus from broadcasting after releasing written and video apologies for his actions. YouTube E! News (which is actually @enews on Twitter) did not comment on the fabricated story. We also contacted police in the Yamanashi Prefecture of Japan concerning reports that they are seeking to question Paul. @enews reports The fake E! account also posted a tweet made up of fake statements attributed to another singer, Mariah Carey: tweet Mariah Carey on Woody Allen: 'He's made mistakes, sure... But so have we all, it's time for forgiveness.'   However, that tweet also redirects readers to the network's 5 January 2018 story about Paul. Heller, Corinne. "Logan Paul's Whole Trip to Japan Was Pretty Disrespectful." E! News. 5 January 2018. Matsakis, Louise. "The Logan Paul Video Should be a Reckoning for YouTube." Wired. 3 January 2018. Akbar, Jay. "YouTube Star Logan Paul Wanted by Cops Over Japan 'Suicide Forest' Video Where he Filmed a Hanging Body." The Sun. 3 January 2018. Entertainment Tonight. "Watch Logan Paul's Hilarious Plea to Collaborate with -- and Marry -- Taylor Swift!" 5 December 2017. Update [8 January 2018]: Added accurate retweet totals for a user who spread the original post. Images reflecting an old rumor about the Rothschild Family's unimaginable accumulated global wealth hold that the Rothschilds are worth $500 trillion and hold more than 80% of the world's total wealth:   While the Rothschilds are indeed very wealthy, claims about their net worth such as the ones displayed above are grossly exaggerated. Conspiracy theories concerning the Rothschild family date back to the 18th century, and the family's wealth was largely responsible for the anti-semitic belief that "Jews control the world's money supply." The Rothschilds are frequently associated with theories about the Illuminati, the New World Order, and other dark money groups that supposedly pull the strings of world governments, and the Rothschilds have been blamed for everything from starting wars for personal gain to funding the Holocaust to assassinating U.S. presidents. Skeptoid delved into the Rothschild family history in 2012, noting that: history The greatest of these financial adepts was Mayer Amschel Rothschild, born in 1744 in a Jewish slum of Frankfurt. Not much is known about his early life, as his was one of tens of thousands of marginalized, outcast families. But once he came of age he became an apprentice at a small bank in Hamburg, where he learned the trade. Returning to Frankfurt at the age of 19, he offered his own banking services in a modest way, beginning with trading of rare coins and related investments. He was energetic, clever, and most of all he was charismatic. And he was smart, seeking out wealthy clientele, and associating with nobility whenever he could. By the age of 40, he had consolidated his most important business contact: the Landgrave William, the Elector of Hesse, one of only a tiny number of nobles empowered to elect the Holy Roman Emperor. When William was younger, he had engaged in the trading of rare coins with Mayer's father, and so the two had always known one another. When William inherited his own father's massive fortune, his friendship with Mayer Rothschild gave Mayer the ability to begin conducting larger international transactions. This was the point at which the Rothschild name became first involved with the manipulation of money behind the scenes of wars. Mayer was a firm believer in family business, and insisted on using his own sons  by then he had five  as his business partners. What he did next became the model for many powerful Jewish financiers who followed: He installed each of his five sons as his agents in the five major financial centers of Europe: the eldest Amschel Mayer Rothschild in Frankfurt, Salomon Mayer Rothschild in Vienna, Nathan Mayer Rothschild in London, Calmann Mayer Rothschild in Naples, and the youngest Jakob Mayer Rothschild in Paris. Although the Rothschild family has amassed great wealth since the 1700s, claims that they have a net worth of $500 trillion or that they own 80% of the world's wealth are problematic. For one, the world's total wealth was estimated as of 2015 to be only $250 trillion, half of what the Rothchilds alone are claimed to possess: wealth Global wealth reached 250 trillion US dollars in 2015, slightly less than a year earlier, due to adverse exchange rate movements. The underlying wealth trends do, however, generally remain positive, according to the Credit Suisse Research Institute's annual "Global Wealth Report." Also, the Rothschilds began acquiring their wealth in the 1700s, and since then the family has spawned hundreds of descendants, so there is no longer any centralized Rothschild family wealth.  The closest thing to a "Rothschild Family" business in 2016 is the Rothschild Group, a multinational investment banking company, but that firm does not in itself generate nearly enough income to back up claims about the family's wealth. In 2015, the Rothschild Group's annual revenue was approximately $500 million. In comparison, the world's largest company, Walmart, has an annual revenue of nearly $500 billion. annual Walmart It should also be noted that only one member of the Rothschild family is included among Forbes' 2015 list of the world's billionaires: Benjamin de Rothschild, who was ranked at number #1121 with a net worth of $1.61 billion.  list While the Rothschild family certainly was one of the world's most significant financial powers in centuries past, they no longer wield the same sort of influence over global affairs. Dunning, B.  "The Rothschild Conspiracy." 
  Skeptoid Media.  22 May 2012.  Kersley, Richard.  "Global Wealth in 2015: Underlying Trends Remain Positive."
  Credit Suisse.  13 October 2013. Hillary Clinton, riding a bump in the polls, kept the heat on Donald Trump during a speech in Cincinnati that marked the first time she had campaigned alongside Elizabeth Warren, a favorite of the progressive wing of her party. Risk analysts listed Donald Trump, a Donald Trump presidency, as one of the top threats facing the global economy, ahead of terrorism, Clinton said during thespeechon June 27, 2016. We dont take a position on whether Trump actuallyisone of the top threats facing the global economy. But we thought wed check to see whether Clinton has solid evidence that professional risk analysts have made that argument. So is Clinton right about how analysts have rated Trump? Basically, yes. When we asked the Clinton campaign what she was referring to, they pointed us to the periodic rankings of global risk published by the Economist Intelligence Unit. The Economist Intelligence Unit -- an affiliate ofThe Economist, the London-based newsweekly -- is aresearch and analysisfirm that supplies clients, including businesses, with information about opportunities and risks around the world. The firmmade headlines in March 2016when it listed the possibility of a Trump presidency as one of the biggest threats to companies capacity to operate at target profitability. The rankings are based on qualitative judgments of a how powerfully an event could affect the world and how likely it is to happen, the firm says. In its March ratings, the firm rated the risks from a Trump presidency as 12 on a 25-point scale. That ranked Trump sixth among the 10-item list of biggest threats, tied with the rising threat of jihadi terrorism destabilising the global economy. But the Trump threat level increased in theJuly 2016 rankings. A Trump presidency now ranks as the third-biggest global threat, with an increased score of 16 on the 25-point scale. In the meantime, the risk from jihadi terrorism has remained constant with a score of 12. In the July ratings, the only higher scores were 20 for China experiences a hard landing and, in a tie with Trump, a 16 for currency volatility and persistent commodity prices weakness. Specifically, the firm wrote that although we do not expect Mr. Trump to defeat his most likely Democratic contender, Hillary Clinton, there are risks to this forecast, especially in the event of a terrorist attack on U.S. soil or a sudden economic downturn. The writeup cited his hostility to free trade, his hard line on Muslims, his militaristic tendencies, his skepticism toward NATO, and his indifference to nuclear proliferation in Asia. The firm had never rated a pending candidacy to be a geopolitical risk to the United States and the world,an official told Politico. We checked with Robert Powell, the Economist Intelligence Units New York-based global risk briefing manager, to see whether he thought Clintons phrasing was accurate, and he said it was. Her quote does accurately describe our global risk scenarios, Powell told PolitiFact. Despite the high likelihood of more terrorist attacks, the impact on the global economy tends to be relatively slight -- indeed, most global stock markets rose on the day of the Brussels attacks, for instance. However, given that the U.S. economy is the biggest in the world, we believe a Trump presidency would have a major impact on the entire global economy. Clinton said risk analysts -- plural -- had determined Trump to be a threat, but we were unable to find any equivalent of the Economist Intelligence Unit report. (Clinton campaign spokesman Josh Schwerin said that analysts was intended to refer to the multiple analysts within the Economist Intelligence Unit who came up with the ratings.) But we did find another major economic report that painted a grim picture of what could happen to the economy if Trump wins. On June 17, Moodys Analytics, an economic research and data-services firm,published its projectionsof what could happen to the economy under Trump-backed policies on taxes, government spending, immigration and international trade. (We fact-checked thepolitical backgroundof one of the Moody's authors in another report.) Four basic conclusions regarding the impact of Mr. Trumps economic proposals can be reached, the Moodys team wrote. One, they will result in a less global U.S. economy; two, they will lead to larger government deficits and more debt; three, they will largely benefit very high-income households; and four, they will result in a weaker U.S. economy, with fewer jobs and higher unemployment. Our ruling Clinton said, Risk analysts listed Donald Trump, a Donald Trump presidency, as one of the top threats facing the global economy, ahead of terrorism. The analysts at one firm, the Economist Intelligence Unit, have declared the possibility of Trumps election to be the third-greatest global risk in its current rankings, a risk level that has only grown since the firm began including Trump in its rankings in March. And Clinton has accurately noted that the risk factor given to a Trump presidency is higher than the rating for Islamic terrorism on the firms list. We rate the statement True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/99685807-e596-4fa7-ad2e-de8cc4063c57 FACT CHECK: Has FEMA warned Americans that a catastrophic natural disaster will devastate the Pacific Northwest in 2015?      Claim:  FEMA confirmed that a massive natural disaster will level the Pacific Northwest in 2015.   Example:   [Collected via Twitter and e-mail, July 2015] There is convincing footage that a huge earthquake is set to hit  the Pacific Northwest soon and that FEMA is preparing for it. Many of the  details were supposedly printed in the New Yorker magazine. US emergency agency (FEMA) prepare for mega-quake in Pacific Northwest, estimated to kill at least 13,000 people... https://t.co/xf8VGZ8s6T https://t.co/xf8VGZ8s6T  PacificGuardians (@FatuTauafiafi) July 18, 2015 July 18, 2015   FEMA AttendeeWarnsOfComingEvent Bank Holiday, Social Unrest And Martial Law! Scientist Warn https://t.co/VKoglRrAkJ pic.twitter.com/7RqAJizi17 https://t.co/VKoglRrAkJ pic.twitter.com/7RqAJizi17  Tamra (@emortal_the) July 18, 2015 July 18, 2015   FEMA Meeting Attendee Warns Of Coming "Event" - Bank Scientists Warn Of "Worst Natural Disaster In History Of Nation" https://t.co/Nx0u7zKQPY https://t.co/Nx0u7zKQPY  ICU (@constancevaugh1) July 19, 2015 July 19, 2015   Origins:  During the summer of 2015, doomsday prophecies seemed to become relatively fashionable; in addition to the ongoing conspiracy jambalaya of Jade Helm 15, rumors of a giant comet also captivated the purveyors and viewers of caterwauling YouTube videos. (Martial law and FEMA death camps were rumored to be invariable components of your apocalypse of choice.) Jade Helm 15 giant comet Martial law FEMA death camps invariable Many (ostensibly unrelated) things fueled the multiple, ambient conspiracies; among them was a 20 July 2015 piece in The New Yorker titled "The Really Big One," subtitled "An earthquake will destroy a sizable portion of the coastal Northwest[, the] question is when." That article focused on the Cascadia subduction zone, a convergent plate boundary spanning Vancouver Island to Northern California, and one of its most frequently quoted portions stated: piece Just north of the San Andreas, however, lies another fault line. Known as the Cascadia subduction zone, it runs for seven hundred miles off the coast of the Pacific Northwest, beginning near Cape Mendocino, California, continuing along Oregon and Washington, and terminating around Vancouver Island, Canada. When the next very big earthquake hits, the northwest edge of the continent, from California to Canada and the continental shelf to the Cascades, will drop by as much as six feet and rebound thirty to a hundred feet to the westlosing, within minutes, all the elevation and compression it has gained over centuries. Some of that shift will take place beneath the ocean, displacing a colossal quantity of seawater. The water will surge upward into a huge hill, then promptly collapse. One side will rush west, toward Japan. The other side will rush east, in a seven-hundred-mile liquid wall that will reach the Northwest coast, on average, fifteen minutes after the earthquake begins. By the time the shaking has ceased and the tsunami has receded, the region will be unrecognizable. Kenneth Murphy, who directs FEMAs Region X, the division responsible for Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Alaska, says, Our operating assumption is that everything west of Interstate 5 will be toast. Inarguably, the prognostications were grim and the tone suggested a sooner-rather-than-later timeline: In fact, the science is robust, and one of the chief scientists behind it is Chris Goldfinger. Thanks to work done by him and his colleagues, we now know that the odds of the big Cascadia earthquake happening in the next fifty years are roughly one in three. The odds of the very big one are roughly one in ten. Even those numbers do not fully reflect the dangeror, more to the point, how unprepared the Pacific Northwest is to face it. The truly worrisome figures in this story are these: Thirty years ago, no one knew that the Cascadia subduction zone had ever produced a major earthquake. Forty-five years ago, no one even knew it existed. Naturally, the article's alarming claims moved swiftly across social media sites and blogs (particularly those with a primary interest in apocalyptic scenarios and looming martial law). On 18 July 2015 the unreliable web site All News PipeLine published an article titled "FEMA Meeting Attendee Warns Of Coming 'Event' - Bank Holiday, Social Unrest And Martial Law! Scientists Warn Of 'Worst Natural Disaster In History Of Nation,'" followed by an article (published to the website of Facebook page "Operation Jade Helm and Beyond") titled "FEMA Warns Of Mega Natural Disaster Expected To Hit The U.S. Northwest!!! Martial Law Not Far Behind..." article website Facebook page The latter article primarily rewrote the former, but added that "FEMA has outlined some of what they expect to happen here" and that "[t]his is expected to happen in the next 6 months or so in the Pacific Northwest." All News PipeLine's article linked to the website of conspiracy theorist Steve Quayle. In a 17 July 2015 "alert," Quayle seized upon interest in The New Yorker's predictions and built upon it with a claim that he received additional information from an unknown source linked to FEMA: Steve Quayle I have a long time friend, who is in law enforcement in one of the Jade Helm states. He is totally logical and factual (sheeple) while I think more out of the box. I have tried to help him see whats going on, but he always calls me a nutjob with too much time on my hands. I just got a phone call from him, he has been attending FEMA Training, and he is now having a meltdown after what they learned. The FEMA team revealed: -There is going to be an "Event" within the next 6 months.  -The nature of the "Event" is believed to be a Natural Disaster, such as a Solar Flare, but could be something else.    As the excerpted portion illustrates, Quayle purportedly spoke to a "friend who is in law enforcement" (that we'll presume exists for the purposes of this discussion) and not anyone directly affiliated with FEMA. Moreover, the "event" his friend described is either a natural disaster or not a natural disaster (and in no way necessarily linked to the July 2015 article published in The New Yorker). From there, other websites conflated the article about the Cascadia subduction zone and a vague claim from a fellow who hawks conspiracy and doomsday stories for a living. Quayle's claim didn't even hint at then-ongoing discussion of a possible future earthquake affecting the Pacific Northwest, it simply also referenced a natural disaster (or something else entirely). It's true that the subject of a West Coast faultline was featured in an article in The New Yorker, and it's even true that FEMA Region X Kenneth Murphy surmised that in the event of such a calamity much of the Pacific Northwest "would be toast." However, Murphy's comments were clearly not made on the basis of information pertaining to the certainty of any such looming disaster, and are akin to observing that if a tree fell on your car it would likely sustain serious damage. In the complete context of Murphy's remarks, he clearly referenced a "what if" scenario and not a current situation for which FEMA was actively preparing. FEMA has not issued any warnings about seismic activity or any other natural dangers that line up with the claims in the linked articles. And while geologist Chris Goldfinger discussed the possibility of a "mega-quake" in a July 2015 article, neither Goldfinger nor any other entity stated with certainty that such an event would occur in 2015 or any other point in the near future. In fact, research (on which Goldfinger worked) completed in 2012 determined that there is a "40 percent chance of a major earthquake in the [affected] region during the next 50 years." Chris Goldfinger Last updated:  21July 2015 Originally published: 21July 2015 During Russia's invasion of Ukraine in early 2022, American social media users enthusiastically shared posts that called for a boycott of Lukoil gas stations on the East Coast, on the basis that they were Russian owned. As one very widely shared tweet summarized: social media users enthusiastically shared posts called boycott Russian summarized "#BoycottRussia. Lukoil gas is Russian owned."   wrote "Fill your tank elsewhere. Lukoil is a Russian multinational corporation headquartered in Moscow. Their CEO, Vagit Alekperov, is a Russian oligarch worth an estimated $19.6 billion. Lukoil gas stations are all over PA, NJ and NY." These posts undoubtedly contained a significant element of truth. Lukoil is indeed a large Russian-headquartered multinational petroleum and natural gas producer, with a U.S. subsidiary that oversees a network of gas stations, primarily in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New York. Moreover, the company's billionaire president, Vagit Alekperov, has ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin. has ties However, Lukoil typically does not operate those U.S. gas stations itself. Rather, it operates on a franchise basis, meaning any successful boycott of Lukoil-branded gas stations would likely have a negligible effect on the parent company or its billionaire president, but could prove financially devastating for dozens of U.S. franchise owners and their hundreds of local employees. In brief, Lukoil itself might be "Russian owned," but its U.S. gas stations are U.S.-operated and locally staffed. As such, we're issuing a rating of "Mixture." Lukoil emerged from the dissolving Soviet Union in the early 1990s, and entered the American market a decade later. According to the company's website, Lukoil acquired the American company Getty Oil in 2000, taking over and rebranding its existing network of gas stations. the company's website The first Lukoil-branded gas station was opened in the Chelsea neighborhood of Manhattan in September, 2003. Notably, the grand opening was attended by Putin himself  who was in the U.S. at that time for talks with then-President George W. Bush. In the photograph below, Putin can be seen outside the Manhattan Lukoil, with Alekperov to his right, and U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., to his left: attended by Putin himself  Russian President Vladimir Putin (C) and Lukoil President Vagit Alekperov (L) listen as U.S. Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) (R) gestures as he speaks about U.S.-Russian relations during the opening of Lukoil's gasoline station September 26, 2003 in the Chelsea neighborhood of New York City. Lukoil, a Russian oil company, acquired Getty Petroleum Marketing Inc. and its 1,300 stations in November 2000. (Photo by Stephen Chernin/Getty Images)  At the time, Lukoil was reported to have taken over Getty's existing network of 1,300 gas stations, but by 2022, the number of Lukoil-branded gas stations in the United States had declined to around 230  most, if not all, located in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New York.  Importantly, most  if not all  of those gas stations are operated as franchises. Franchising is a popular business model in the United States, with the best-known examples being fast food restaurants such as McDonald's and convenience stores like 7-Eleven.  popular business model in the United States Roughly speaking, the franchisee (local entrepreneur) pays the franchisor (main company) some fees: typically an up-front franchise fee, and regular royalties  usually a percentage cut of their income from sales. In return, the franchisor gives the franchisee the right to operate a business using their well-known brand, for a defined period of time, usually several years. The company might also provide advice or assistance with logistics, advertising, marketing, and so on. The local entrepreneur is also contractually obliged to operate the business in accordance with certain prescribed methods, customer service models, and so on. Lukoil  or more specifically, Lukoil North America, a Delaware-registered LLC with an address in Moorestown, New Jersey offers three-year leases to franchisees in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New York. In fact, as of March 2, the company's website listed for lease 13 different gas station sites in those states: Lukoil North America, a Delaware-registered LLC 13 different gas station sites   offer to lease" document The aforementioned Bidder is submitting the below rental offer to lease the LUKOIL branded service station listed above, and is prepared to enter into an Agreement with LNA for the lease of the same, subject to the conditions specified below. The lease term is generally three (3) years, however a longer term can be approved, at LNA's discretion, provided a sufficient site improvement or supply commitment is made to justify a longer term.   Google post "LUKOIL gas stations in the United States are independently owned and operated by local business owners who are members of the communities they serve, and 100% of the gasoline and diesel fuel sold is sourced from American oil refiners." Snopes asked Lukoil for details on the exact number of Lukoil-branded gas stations in the United States, and the number of those operated on a franchise basis, if not all. We also asked for precise details about the company's revenue from franchise fees, royalties and/or rent paid by U.S. franchisees, but we did not receive a response in time for publication.  However, Lukoil's 2021 financial results, which were published on March 2, gave an indication of the relatively small role of U.S. gas station revenue in the company's overall income, most of which stems from oil and gas exploration and production inside Russia. Lukoil's 2021 financial results In 2021, according to Lukoil, the company had total sales of 9.4 trillion rubles ($88 billion), and its earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) were 1.4 trillion rubles ($13 billion). Of that $13 billion, just 8.3% ($1 billion) was made up of "refining, marketing and distribution" outside Russia. Although a more detailed breakdown is not available, it is reasonable to suppose that income related specifically to U.S. gas stations made up an even smaller fraction of that $1 billion, given that Lukoil refines, markets, and distributes petroleum in several other countries throughout the world.  It's also not clear whether, in the event of an effective widespread boycott of U.S. Lukoil-branded gas stations, franchisees would still be obliged to continue paying fees and rent to Lukoil North America even if they had no income from gas or convenience store sales. Therefore, a successful boycott could require financial devastation  if not ruination  among many dozens of local entrepreneurs in the United States, as well as sudden unemployment for their hundreds of workers, in order to achieve what would be only a very small financial impact on the Russian parent company, or its bosses in Moscow.  On March 3, Lukoil's board of directors issued a statement in which they expressed their "deepest concerns about the tragic events in Ukraine," and called for an immediate end to the conflict and a "lasting ceasefire." issued a statement Maass, Peter. The Triumph of the Quiet Tycoon. The New York Times, 1 Aug. 2004. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/01/magazine/the-triumph-of-the-quiet-tycoon.html. PRESS RELEASE MARCH 02, 2022 LUKOIL RELEASES FINANCIAL RESULTS UNDER IFRS FOR 2021 PJSC LUKOIL Today Released Its Audited Consol. https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3AnFU75r0Wkh4J%3Ahttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.lukoil.com%2Fapi%2Fpresscenter%2Fexportpressrelease%3Fid%3D577486+&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us. Accessed 3 Mar. 2022. Updated [March 4, 2022]: Added reference to the Lukoil board of directors March 3 statement about the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Back in December 2016, the America's Last Line of Defense junk news website published an article falsely reporting that First Daughter Malia Obama had been indicted on food stamp fraud charges (emphasis ours): article A member of the First Family will face fraud charges early in 2017, but it isnt who you might think. President Obama is certainly guilty of fraud for his use of a fake birth certificate and for pretending hes a Christian and Michelle Obama is certainly guilty for the $180 million in lavish vacations and 200 staffers she keeps to walk her dog and weed her garden on the taxpayers dime, but they seem to be impervious to any kind of action against them. Malia, however, isnt going to be so lucky. It seems that while putting in her paperwork to go to school at Harvard, the oldest Obama daughter, who recently turned 18, lied on her financials and failed to disclose the $9 million she has ion the bank. Thats not an issue with the school, as shes going on a full scholarship for being the daughter of a president, but it didnt bode well with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Thats because Malia decided that she would fail to disclose her assets when she applied for food stamps. Yes, you heard that right. Obama has trained the youth of America to be so dependent on the government that even his own daughter thought she was entitled to free stuff just because shes not technically working. This item was a fabricated report that originated solely with America's Last Line of Defense (LLOD), a junk news website that frequently publishes political misinformation as "satire." A number of clues on the site indicate the satirical nature of its content, such as the "you're an idiot" tag at the top of the article, the disclaimer in the site's "About Page," and a special note beneath the article mocking its conservative targets: About Page   DISCLAIMER: The Resistance may include information from sources that may or may not be reliable and facts that dont necessarily exist. All articles should be considered satirical and any and all quotes attributed to actual people complete and total baloney. Pictures that represent actual people should be considered altered and not in any way real. While this story is ridiculous and can in no way be verified, conservatives tend to not reads below the pictures of Patriotic pets. It is here that we can gather to point at them and laugh as they head back to the Facebook page to make an immediate connection between Malia, food stamps and black people. Yes, it really is that predictable. Although the rumor that Malia Obama was indicted on food stamp-related fraud charges originated with a 2016 junk news article, several social media users have continued to spread the false rumor in the ensuing years. In April 2019, nearly two-and-a-half years after this fake article was originally published, we encountered a meme asking, "What happened to Malia Obama's Food Stamp Fraud Charge?": meme   The answer to the question posed in this meme can be answered quite simply: Nothing, because those charges never existed to begin with. America's Last Line of Defense has published a number of articles offering false claims about Malia Obama. We've previously covered items asserting that Malia once said white people will be "blended out," that she was expelled from Harvard, that she was busted for streaking at college, that she founded an anti-Trump website, that she attacked an old woman, and that she was arrested for purchasing marijuana. None of the aforementioned stories was true. blended out expelled streaking anti-Trump website attacked purchasing marijuana. America's Last Line of Defense.  "An Obama Was Just Indicted for Fraud -- But Its Not Who You Think."
  December 2016. Claim:  President Obama signed an executive order to lend $2 billion to a Brazilian oil company, with no financial gain for the U.S. false Example:  [Collected via e-mail, November 2009] This is a perfect example why many refrain from watching the news on ABC, NBC, CBS, or MSNBC. Today on a segment of the "Glen Beck Show" on FOX (Fox Cable News) was the following: "Today, even though President Obama is against off shore drilling for our country, he signed an executive order to loan 2 Billion of our taxpayers dollars to a Brazilian Oil Exploration Company (which is the 8th largest company in the entire world) to drill for oil off the coast of Brazil!  The oil that comes from this operation is for the sole purpose and use of China and NOT THE USA! Now here's the real clincher... the Chinese government is under contract to purchase all the oil that this oil field will produce, which is hundreds of millions of barrels of oil". We have absolutely no gain from this transaction whatsoever! Wait, it gets more interesting. Guess who is the largest individual stockholder of this Brazilian Oil Company and who would benefit most from this? It is American BILLIONAIRE, George Soros, who was one of President Obama's most generous financial supporter during his campaign. If you are able to connect the dots and follow the money, you are probably as upset as I am. Not a word of this transaction was broadcast on any of the other news networks! Forward this factual e-mail to others who care about this country and where it is going. Also, let all of your Government representatives know how you feel about this. Is this the kind of "transparency" you want from your government? Below is the Wall street Journal article to confirm this. Wall Street Journal editorial Wall Street Journal editorial Origins:  The above-quoted article references a segment attributed to Fox News Channel host Glenn Beck criticizing President Obama for signing an executive order to lend $2 billion to a Brazilian oil company to finance offshore drilling, all without securing reciprocal oil exports from Brazil or any other benefit to the U.S.   Nearly all of the substantive claims made in that article are false, as detailed below:  [President Obama] signed an executive order to loan 2 Billion of our taxpayers dollars to a Brazilian Oil Exploration Company This statement is false: President Obama signed no such executive order.  On 14 April 2009, the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im), an agency whose mission "is to assist in financing the export of U.S. goods and services to international markets," issued a preliminary approval for a $2 billion loan to Brazil's national oil company, Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. (Petrobras), to help fund offshore oil exploration and development. Ex-Im preliminary approval The approval of the loan was an action undertaken not by officials who had been appointed by President Obama, but by his predecessor, President George W. Bush, as Ex-Im itself stated: The Bank's bipartisan Board unanimously approved the preliminary commitment to Petrobras on April 14, 2009, before any Obama appointees joined the Bank. In fact, at the time the Bank's Board consisted of three Republicans and two Democrats, all of whom were appointed by George W. Bush. Despite the claim that the money committed to Petrobras is "taxpayer dollars," Ex-Im notes that "the vast majority of our financing consists of guarantees of loans made by commercial lenders," that "the bank is self-sustaining and does not receive any appropriated funds from Congress," and that "the Bank's activities do not cost the American taxpayer a dime."    We have absolutely no gain from this transaction whatsoever! This statement is also false, one predicated on the mistaken assumption that the only tangible financial benefit of lending money to Petrobras was to guarantee a supply of Brazilian oil for the United States.  The Ex-Im's mission statement declares: mission statement The Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank) is the official export credit agency of the United States. Ex-Im Bank's mission is to assist in financing the export of U.S. goods and services to international markets. Ex-Im Bank enables U.S. companies  large and small  to turn export opportunities into real sales that help to maintain and create U.S. jobs and contribute to a stronger national economy. Accordingly, as set forth in a 29 July 2009 press release, Ex-Im's chairman and president, Fred P. Hochberg, declared that the bank approved the $2 billion preliminary commitment not as a downpayment to ensure future oil purchases from Brazil by the U.S., but "to encourage purchases of U.S. goods and services by Petrobras": press release I chose Brazil as my first international destination for good reason: Brazil is a powerhouse among South American economies and offers tremendous opportunities for U.S. exporters in many sectors. I want Brazilians to know that Ex-Im Bank has the will and the capacity to finance their purchases of U.S. equipment, products and services. (Although Fred P. Hochberg is an Obama appointee, the President did not nominate Hochberg for the position of Ex-Im president until 20 April 2009, a week after the board approved the loan to Petrobras.) nominate    The Chinese government is under contract to purchase all the oil that this oil field will produce, which is hundreds of millions of barrels of oil. China does have an agreement to buy Brazilian oil from Petrobras, but not literally to purchase the entire output of Brazilian offshore oil fields.  In May 2009, the China Development Bank (CDB) agreed to lend Petrobras $10 billion (five times the amount of the Ex-Im loan); in exchange, "the two sides agreed to increase actual crude oil exports from Brazil to China." At the same time, Petrobras and Sinopec (the China Petroleum and Chemical Corporation) signed a separate long-term export agreement providing for  Petrobras to export 200,000 barrels of oil to China per day from 2010 to 2019. agreed    Guess who is the largest individual stockholder of this Brazilian Oil Company and who would benefit most from this? It is American BILLIONAIRE, George Soros, who was one of President Obama's most generous financial supporter during his campaign. Billionaire financier George Soros has donated large sums of money to groups that support the goals of the Democratic Party (including an estimated $23.5 million towards defeating the re-election effort of President George W. Bush in 2004),  and his hedge fund (Soros Fund Management LLC) does hold stock in Petrobras.  However, the implication that President Obama unilaterally directed the issuance of a loan to Petrobras as quid pro quo repayment to George Soros is erroneous since, as noted above, the loan was approved and made by a Republican-majority board of Ex-Im officials who had been appointed by  George W. Bush. Soros' hedge-fund firm  sold off 5 million of its 37 million Petrobras shares in May 2009, and the firm sold off another 22 million shares in August 2009, before Petrobras received any loan funds from Ex-Im. sold sold   In a letter published by the Wall Street Journal on 21 August 2009, Ex-Im president Fred P. Hochberg refuted the criticisms expressed in that newspapers' editorial of three days earlier: Your editorial "Obama Underwrites Offshore Drilling" (Aug. 18) more correctly should have read, "Obama Underwrites U.S. Jobs." That's because the mandate of the Export-Import Bank of the U.S. (Ex-Im Bank) is to help create and sustain U.S. jobs by financing U.S. exports. Our offer to provide financing to Brazil's state-owned oil company Petrobras does exactly that. That's what is behind our decision to offer at least $2 billion in loans or loan guarantees to help finance purchases of U.S. goods and services by Petrobras. This increases the likelihood that  American  not foreign   workers will be employed to satisfy part of the company's planned $175 billion investment during the next five years. Ex-Im Bank does not make U.S. policy. In fact, our charter prohibits us from turning down financing for either nonfinancial or noncommercial reasons, except in rare circumstances including failure to meet our environmental standards. We make no grants. The vast majority of our financing consists of guarantees of loans made by commercial lenders, not Ex-Im Bank direct loans. The foreign buyers that use Ex-Im Bank products pay us in full. Over the past 16 years the fees that we collect have netted American taxpayers more than $4.9 billion plus the jobs those exports have created. Thanks to the fees we charge, the bank is self-sustaining and does not receive any appropriated funds from Congress. At a time when jobs, and exports, are more important than ever in helping our economy recover, Ex-Im Bank is achieving its mission to keep Americans working, and we're doing it without burdening the U.S. taxpayer. Additional information:  Facts About the Proposed Ex-Im Bank Loans  Last updated:  10 February 2010 Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelenskyy addressed the U.S. Congress on Dec. 21, 2022, to thank them for their support and to request more aid amidst the ongoing invasion of Russia in Ukraine. Though Zelenskyy received multiple standing ovations and thunderous applause from both parties during his speech, Republicans Rep. Matt Gaetz and Rep. Lauren Boebert did not appear to share in the enthusiasm. addressed One clip from C-SPANeven went viral, in which they appeared to remain seated as others around them stood and clapped: C-SPAN  While this clip is indeed accurate, Gaetz and Boebert did stand at different points in the speech, particularly toward the end, and stood for Zelenskyy's departure. They were seen standing at the very beginning as they waited for Zelenskyy's arrival. Gaetz is in a grey suit, and Boebert is in a white dress. They can be seen standing on the upper half, toward the center of this shot. (Screenshot/C-SPAN) At around 14 minutes, Gaetz and Boebert were seen standing and chatting with other members of the House. As Zelenskyy entered and stood at the podium, the audience stood and clapped to welcome him. Gaetz and Boebert stood along with everyone else, though it was difficult to determine if they were applauding, as well. Gaetz's arms appeared to be by his side as he leaned down to speak to Boebert. 14 minutes stood (Screenshot/C-SPAN) As Zelenskyy began speaking, he received a number of standing ovations in which it was unclear whether Gaetz and Boebert were sitting. At the 32-minute mark they can be seen sitting alongside everyone else, listening to Zelenskyy. At 34 minutes, when almost everyone could be seen giving Zelenskyy a standing ovation, the camera cut to Gaetz and Boebert who were already seated as the people around them took their seats. They both appeared to be looking down at their laps. It is highly likely they never stood for the standing ovation. (Screenshot/C-SPAN) The moment took place right after the 34-minute mark in the video below: 34-minute  Zelenskyy said, "Your money is not charity. It's an investment in the global security and democracy that we handle in the most responsible way." At 35:27 another standing ovation occurred after this statement, and as people sat down, through this wide-camera shot Gaetz and Boebert can be seen seated (marked with the red arrow), having not stood up at all in that moment. (Screenshot/C-SPAN) That moment can be seen in the video, from the 35:25 mark:  The crowd got up again as Zelenskyy said, "Russia" and paused, and Boebert and Gaetz remained seated along with some other legislators. They did however join the standing ovation later on in his speech. At around 42:35, Gaetz can be seen standing up, though Boebert is not visible from this angle. At the 46:43 mark, as Zelenskyy leaves while holding the American flag, they can be seen standing along with everyone else: 46:43 mark  In this Getty Image, they can also be seen standing alongside everyone else (the top right of the frame): Getty Image  But in this one, they are seated as everyone around them gives a standing ovation: this one  They are both vocal opponents of sending Ukraine aid. Gaetz posted on Twitter soon after the speech: vocal opponents  Boebert also expressed sympathy for the people of Ukraine but demanded a "full audit" of where U.S. money for Ukraine had already gone before she would support sending more money, and called on Biden to do more "at home" to secure the "southern border."  Given that the pair did sit for significant standing ovations, but joined other standing ovations later in the speech, we rate this claim a "Mixture." Finally, we should add the pair made news for security related to Zelenskyy's visit, as well. security related to Zelenskyy's visit Baker, Sinad. "Lauren Boebert and Matt Gaetz Stayed Sitting and Looked at Their Phones While Congress Gave Zelenskyy a Standing Ovation." Business Insider, https://www.businessinsider.com/video-boebert-gaetz-ignore-zelenskyy-ovation-in-congress-check-phones-2022-12. Accessed 22 Dec. 2022. "Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky Addresses Joint Meeting of Congress." C-SPAN. www.youtube.com, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPfFYvAFlU8. Accessed 22 Dec. 2022. "Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky Speaks to a Joint Session Of..." Getty Images, https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/ukrainian-president-volodymyr-zelensky-speaks-to-a-joint-news-photo/1245778448. Accessed 22 Dec. 2022. "US Republican Reperesentative from Colorado Lauren Boebert And..." Getty Images, https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/republican-reperesentative-from-colorado-lauren-boebert-and-news-photo/1245775412. Accessed 22 Dec. 2022. "Zelenskyy Thanks 'every American,' Sees 'Turning Point.'" AP NEWS, 21 Dec. 2022, https://apnews.com/article/zelenskyy-biden-68c65b3274e552f36f16853f24fedbb9.Accessed 22 Dec. 2022. Claim:  A provision of "Obamacare" health care legislation creates a 3.8% Medicare tax on real estate transactions. Health care legislation imposes a 3.8% tax on all home sales.  Health care legislation imposes a 3.8% transaction tax on profits over the capital gains threshold. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, April 2010] 3.8% tax on real estate transactions Under the new health care bill - did you know that all real estate transactions are subject to a 3.8% "Sales Tax"? You can thank Nancy, Harry & Barack (and your local Congressmen) for this one. If you sell your $400,000 home, this will be a $15,200 tax. Remember Obamas battle cry  take from the workers and give to the drones. TAX ON HOME SALES Imposes a 3.8 percent tax on home sales and other real estate transactions. Middle-income people must pay the full tax even if they are "rich" for only one day  the day they sell their house and buy a new one.   Origins:  One of the provisions in the reconciliation bill (HR 4872) passed in conjunction with the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act (PPACA) health care legislation calls for high-income households to be subject to a new 3.8% Medicare tax on investment income starting in 2013: HR 4872 The PPACA creates a new Code Section 1411, which will generally impose a 3.8 percent tax on the lesser of "net investment income" or the excess of modified adjusted gross income over a "threshold amount" (generally, $250,000 for taxpayers filing a joint return, $125,000 for married taxpayers filing a separate return and $200,000 in all other cases). Net investment income generally means the excess of (i) interest, dividends, annuities, royalties, rents, income from passive activities, income from trading financial instruments and commodities, and gain from the disposition of certain non-business property, over (ii) allowable deductions properly allocable to such income. In determining the amount of net investment income, special rules apply with respect to dispositions of equity interests in certain partnerships and S corporations, and to distributions from certain qualified plans. This additional tax applies to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2012. This is a complicated section of a complicated piece of legislation, and the 3.8% Medicare tax has been frequently misreported as amounting to a 3.8% "sales tax" on all real estate transactions.  This is incorrect: the Medicare tax is not a sales tax, nor does it apply to all real estate transactions; it is a tax on investment income (income which may or not derive from the sale of property) only for persons who earn more than the amounts specified in the bill. First of all, the Medicare tax will be imposed only on individuals with an income above $200,000 and couples with a joint income more than $250,000, a figure which currently excludes about 97% of all U.S. households.  Second, the tax will not be assessed on every house sale, but only on real estate transactions that produce profits over a specified dollar amount.  As Sara Orrange, Government affairs director of the Spokane Association of Realtors noted in response to a repetition of the "sales tax" rumor in the Spokane Spokesman-Review: response In his recent guest column regarding the impact of the health care bill, Paul Guppy of the Washington Policy Center claimed that a 3.8 percent tax on all home sales was a part of the recently passed legislation. This is inaccurate and needs to be corrected. The truth about the bill is that if you sell your home for a profit above the capital gains threshold of $250,000 per individual or $500,000 per couple then you would be required to pay the additional 3.8 percent tax on any gain realized over this threshold. Most people who sell their homes will not be impacted by these new regulations. This is not a new tax on every seller, and that correction needs to be made. This tax is aimed at so-called "high earners"  if you do not fall into that category you will not pay any extra taxes upon the sale of your home. For example, let's assume that a couple with an income of $325,000 bought a house in 2004 for $300,000 and resold it in 2013 for $850,000, thus producing a $550,000 profit.  Since U.S. law allows a couple to exclude from their gross incomeprofits of up to $500,000 from the sale of their principal residence, the taxable gain from this sale would be $50,000 (i.e., a $550,000 profit minus the $500,000 exclusion), and the couple's taxable income would now be $375,000 (i.e., the original $325,000 plus the $50,000 of taxable profit from their home sale).   The 3.8% Medicare tax would now apply to whichever of the following dollar figures is the lesser: exclude  a)  The amount by which the couple's taxable income now exceeds the $250,000 income threshold level.  b)  The amount of taxable income gained from the sale of their home. In case (a), the dollar figure  would be the couple's taxable income ($375,000) minus the income threshold level ($250,000), or $125,000. In case (b), the dollar figure would be amount of taxable income gained from the sale of their home, which, as detailed above, was $50,000 (i.e., $550,000 profit minus the $500,000 exclusion).   The second dollar amount is the lesser of the two, and therefore the couple would have to pay an additional tax of 3.8 percent of $50,000, which would amount to $1,900.  (If the hypothetical couple had realized less than a $500,000 profit on the sale of their residence, none of that gain would be subject to the 3.8% tax.) The referenced tax is therefore not a tax on all real estate sales; it is an investment income tax which could result in a very small percentage of home sellers paying additional taxes on home sales profits over a designated threshold amount.   In short, if you're a "high earner" and you sell your home at a substantial profit, you might be required to pay an additional 3.8% tax. However, given that only about 3% of U.S. households have incomes that exceed the specified income threshold amount, the existing home sale capital gains exclusion on a principal residence ($250,000 for individuals, $500,000 for couples) still stands, and the national median existing-home price in January 2012 was only $154,700 , the Medicare tax will likely affect only a very small percentage of home sellers when it is implemented in 2013. median Additional information:      The 3.8% Tax:Real Estate Scenarios & Examples  The 3.8% Tax:Real Estate Scenarios & Examples Last updated:  15 March 2012    Sahadi, Jeanne.  "Medicare Tax Hikes: What the Rich Will Pay."   CNNMoney.com.  25 March 2010.