The stock market does better when you have a Democratic president in the White House.
Does the stock market boom under Democratic presidents? Hillary Clinton said so during a town hall in Nashua, N.H., on July 28, 2015. You know the evidence is pretty clear that under Democratic presidents, going a ways back, people do better, Clinton said,at around 5:30 in this video. And not only working people, middle class people. Even the stock market does better when you have a Democratic president in the White House. We wondered: Is it true that the stock market does better when you have a Democratic president in the White House? We took a closer look. Scrutinizing the stock ticker There have been a couple studies addressing this question, and they all agree: For whatever reason, going back more than a century, the stock market has done better under Democratic presidents than Republican presidents. A2012 report by CMC Markets, an international financial firm, found that since 1900, the United States stock markets have posted an average annual return of 15.31 percent under Democratic presidents, compared to just 5.43 percent under Republicans. Anotherstudyfrom 2012 by Adviser Perspectives newsletter, using somewhat different methodology, found that since 1900, the Dow Jones Industrial Average has gained 8.7 percent annually under a Democratic president, compared to 5.7 percent under Republicans. AndcalculationsbyThe Economistfound that the Barclays U.S. equity index gained a cumulative 300 percent under Democratic presidents between 1929 and 2011, compared to about zero under Republican presidents. To bring the data up to date, we checked in with Sam Stovall, the chief investment strategist at S&P Equity Research in New York. He hadpreviously founda big Democratic advantage in stock market gains through 2012. From 1901 through July 31, 2015, Stovall found, the stock market gained 8.7 percent under Democratic presidents, compared to 5.3 percent under Republican presidents. The same pattern held in Stovalls data since the end of World War II  in fact, it was even more pronounced. Since 1945, the markets gained 11.2 percent under Democratic presidents and 6.3 percent under Republican presidents. And it wasnt just the stock market that chalked up better performance under Democratic presidents, according toa July 2014 paperby Princeton University economists Alan Blinder and Mark Watson. They found a performance gap between the parties that was startlingly large over a wide variety of economic metrics. The U.S. economy not only grows faster, according to real GDP and other measures, during Democratic versus Republican presidencies, it also produces more jobs, lowers the unemployment rate, generates higher corporate profits and investment, and turns in higher stock market returns,Blinder and Watson wrote. Indeed, it outperforms under almost all standard macroeconomic metrics. What does this mean? So, multiple studies show that Clintons claim is numerically correct. But what, if anything, can we conclude from it? Experts said its best not to go overboard in drawing conclusions about White House control and stock market performance. Here are some of the reasons why. A lot of this stems from luck and timing.Republicans are cursed by having Herbert Hoover on their presidential roster. The stock-market decline was so quick and deep under Hoover that it continues to hobble the partys stock-market performance all these decades later. Meanwhile, starting at such a low point was a huge help to his Democratic successor, Franklin D. Roosevelt. In fact, if you remove Hoover from the GOP column, the average monthly return for Republicans improves significantly, from a 0.38 percent average monthly return to a 0.61 percent monthly return. The Hoover-free GOP number is within striking distance of the Democratic mark of 0.73 percent, said Lawrence J. White, a professor at New York Universitys Stern School of Business. White doesnt argue that its fairest to remove Hoover from the GOPs calculation. Rather, he said, its a reminder that relatively small changes due at least in part to unlucky timing can have big effects on the end result. Partisan labels are only somewhat helpful.What matters is the relationship of policy to the stock market, not partisan labels, said Dan Mitchell, an economist with the libertarian Cato Institute. Economic policy under Bill Clinton was far more market-oriented than it was under either Bush or Nixon. A good stock market is harder to define than one might think.For instance, a healthy year-over-year increase in the stock market may sound good, but if it comes with high volatility throughout the year, that can be a lot less pleasant for investors, said Tom Arnold, a professor of finance at the University of Richmond Robins School of Business. Meanwhile, down markets are buying opportunities and up markets are selling opportunities for the purpose of cashing in on profits, possibly from securities purchased in a down market, Arnold said. Better in one market is usually at the cost of another market. Market results dont align neatly with presidential terms.The stock market makes an anticipatory assessment of a president and his policies shortly after his election  or even before the election, White said. So the market's anticipation of what an incoming president will do occurs during the last few months of the incumbents presidency. He noted that this factor was even stronger prior to 1936, when the new president was inaugurated on March 4, leaving four months of stock market anticipation in the previous presidents column. A president is only one factor in determining stock market performance.Perhaps most important, experts urge caution in ascribing too much credit to a president for how the stock market performs on his watch. Often  including now, during a period of strong stock-market gains  Congress is held by the opposing party. Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve, which plays a crucial role in the economy by directing the nations monetary policy, operates independently once appointments are made by the president and confirmed by Congress. And a host of other factors that a president cant control, including technological advances and international economic trends, play a role as well. In their paper, Blinder and Watson focus on two factors as most important in determining economic performance. One is the presence or absence of an energy price shock -- something that, unfortunately for the GOP, hit during the presidencies of Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and George W. Bush, compared to just once under a Democrat, Jimmy Carter. The other factor they pointed to is what economists call total factor productivity,defined asthe portion of economic output not explained by the amount of inputs used in production. Think of it as the economys special sauce, or its extra bang for the buck. Although its unclear why, Democratic presidents have benefited from higher total factor productivity, most clearly during the technology boom under Bill Clinton, which produced significant productivity gains. Hillary Clintons campaign emphasized to PolitiFact that she didnt say that the president is the only factor that went into stock market results. Still, our experts agreed that while the numbers to back up her claim are clear, the meaning and significance of those numbers should be taken with a grain of salt. I wouldn't place much weight on it, one way or the other, White said. Our ruling Clinton said that the stock market does better when you have a Democratic president in the White House. The numbers back her up, but its worth noting that luck, timing and several other factors in the broader economy also play a role in determining stock market performance. The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, so we rate it Mostly True.
Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO On Dec. 21 2020, the U.S. Senate passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021. Its aim was to merge a COVID-19 relief bill with the annual appropriations bill that allocates funds for the federal government. For COVID-19 relief, the bill authorized a one-time payment of $600 to most Americans  an amount criticized as inadequate compared to the economic suffering it seeks to mitigate. passed most Americans criticized One popular tweet expressing this frustration asserted that each member of "Congress made almost $100,000 during the time they were arguing whether or not we deserved $600." popular tweet   The veracity of this statement depends at least in part on how the assertion is specifically defined, but in general it is factually defensible. Members of Congress  both senators and representatives  each get paid $174,000 per year. What remains to be defined is the amount of time they spent "arguing" over the bill that provided a $600 stimulus check. $174,000 per year In our view, it is fair to say that the fight for a second stimulus check began the moment after the CARES Act (which included authorization of a $1200 stimulus payment) was signed into law on March 27, 2020. There was bipartisan recognition that this massive spending bill would be insufficient to combat the economic problems caused by COVID-19. "The minute were done with phase three," Senate Republican Policy Committee Chairman Roy Blunt said to The Hill on March 27, referring to the CARES act, "well start talking about phase four because all of us know that phase three cant have included everything that needs to be included. For Democrats, this explicitly included a desire for further direct payments to individual American citizens. Even before CARES officially became law, on March 25, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told CNN, "We'll get more direct payments in another bill." CARES Act said told CNN The "fight" over these direct payments, then, started as the first checks were authorized. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 was approved and sent to the president for his signature (or potential veto) on Dec. 21, 2020. potential veto Dec. 21, 2020 Using these endpoints, the period of time "during" which this debate occurred would be 269 days. This represents 74% of the year. The most straightforward solution to the question would be to take 74% of the annual $174,000 salary. By this math, each lawmaker made at least $128,760 "during" the time it took the bill to pass. 269 days $128,760 More restricted definitions might argue for a shorter time period of debate or argue that only days in which Congress was in session should count. The fact that politicians were talking about a second check even before CARES act was signed, however, makes that argument a hard sell. Because debates surrounding COVID-19 stimulus are not limited to session days, the latter argument does not make much sense either. As such, a simple approach that looks only at the amount of time it took members of Congress to pass a second bill suggests earnings of over $100,000 each, leading us to rank the claim  in session Claim:  Account describes women manipulating the short sales of properties. PROBABLY  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, January 2013] Recently, our good friend Michael (a local realtor) shared his experience with Leisa and I about an "Obama supporter" he encountered while showing homes to a low income, working family in Pontiac, MI. We asked him to please write it down so we could share it with you. As a Realtor for the past 28 years I thought Id seen or heard it all. Until now. I was showing homes in Pontiac, MI. one afternoon recently and showed up at a home at the 4:00 pm time my appointment was scheduled for. After I woke up the homeowner, she let us in and then proceeded to tell my buyers and I that she has already entered into a contract to sell the home on a short-sale. (A short-sale is a sale where the banks accepts less money than is owed on the home). After some chit-chat, she proceeded to tell us that she and her sister (who also lived in the area) were buying each others homes via the short-sale process. I mentioned to her that I thought relatives could not be involved in those transactions. She smiled and said "We have two different last names so no one knows the difference". She went on to tell us that each of them owed over 100K on their homes and were in the process of buying each others homes for about 10-15K cash. To top it off, they were each receiving $3,000.00 in government provided relocation assistance at the closing. My buyers and I were amazed that she was outright admitting to fraud and yet, she continued. She began to tell us that the best part of her scheme was that because they currently were not working that they (both) are now receiving Section 8 Vouchers. I said I thought those were for renters and she said "Thats the best part; me and my sister are going to be renting each others homes so we dont even have to move, and Obama is going to give us each $800.00 a month to pay the rent!" She then picked up a picture she had framed of Obama and did a little happy dance around her living room and while she kissed the picture she was singing "Thank you Obama.... thank you Obama." So here is the bottom line Both of these scammers got at least $80,000.00 in debt forgiven, $3,000.00 in cash for relocation (when in fact they did not relocate) and to boot, you and I will now be paying (through our taxes) $1,600.00 in rent for each them each and every month .... perhaps forever! And I also would not be at all surprised if they are receiving food stamps and whatever other programs are available for anyone who is willing to lie to get assistance. These women went from working and paying about $900.00 each in mortgage payments to staying home and getting paid $800.00 each per month to live in the same home they had been living in and all they had to do was lie on a few papers. This craziness has to stop! Im sure this kind of fraud is going on each and every day all across the country and no one wants to touch the subject of entitlements because they might OFFEND someone or lose a vote or two. By the way ... she had an almost new SUV in the driveway, three flat screen TV's and a very nice computer set up in her living room which was furnished entirely with nice leather furniture. 'TIS THE NEW 'AMERICAN WAY' Origins:  The terms "under water" and "short sale" in reference to home mortgages have entered common parlance in recent years due to a severe downturn in the housing market.  The first refers to a mortgage that is greater than the property's current market value: If a home buyer owes $600,000 on a property that he originally bought for $900,000 but that is now valued at only $300,000, his property is described as being under water. The second refers to a process which has been used by some borrowers to keep afloat financially by shedding their under water properties. When a property owner holds an under water mortgage and can no longer make his mortgage payments, one remedy is for the lienholder to agree to a short sale: that is, to allow the owner to sell the property for less than the amount still owed on the loan.  A short sale leaves the lender taking a loss, but it is often preferable to the alternative of the lender's having to foreclose on the property and resell it  themselves (with no guarantee the resale would bring in any more money than the short sale did).     The unpaid balance still owed to a lienholder by the property owner after a short sale is known as a "deficiency."  If the owner with the aforementioned $600,000 mortgage short sells his home for $250,000, he has incurred a $350,000 deficiency.  A short sale may or may not relieve the borrower of the obligation to repay that deficiency: whether it does depends on the agreement made between the lienholder and the property owner prior to the short sale.  (The amount of a deficiency is considered by the IRS to be a benefit which is taxable as income, but the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007 currently allows taxpayers to exclude income from a discharge of debt on their principal residence.) The January 2013 item reproduced above purportedly tells of two women who are supposedly gaming the system by agreeing to buy each other's homes at short sales (in contravention of the rules), then collect a monthly housing assistance stipend for being renters in the homes they formerly owned.  The item contains no verifiable details such as names, dates, or addresses (only the mention of a city or state which changes from version to version), but the scenario described would require a number of implausibilities to all be true:  A woman who was engaging in a scheme to defraud multiple lienholders and government programs would openly admit to that scheme and describe it in detail to a stranger.  The buyers and sellers involved in short sales are required to provide full financial disclosures and are subject to asset checks,making it highly unlikely that this cross-buying scheme could work.  A lienholder would almost certainly refuse to proceed with a short sale by an owner who had just bought another property, or to agree to a short sale home purchase by a buyer who herself currently had a property in short sale.  The $3,000 in relocation assistance provided to those who short sell their homes under the  Home Affordable Foreclosure Alternatives  (HAFA) program also requires financial disclosure and is not available to those who have purchased a house within the last 12 months, so neither sister would qualify. HAFA  Section 8 assistance offered under the Housing Choice Voucher Program (which provides payment of rental housing assistance to private landlords on behalf of low-income renters) is income- and asset-based.  Someone who not only owned her own residential property but was also functioning as a Section 8 landlord could not possibly qualify for Section 8 housing assistance.  Moreover, in many areas the waiting list for renters seeking to obtain Section 8 funds is years-long. Also, little of what is referenced here has any direct connection to President Obama. Although the HAFA program which provides $3,000 in relocation assistance was introduced by the Treasury Department under the Obama administration in 2009, the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act (which exempts deficiencies in short sales from being considered taxable income) was passed in 2007 during the administration of George W. Bush, and Section 8 housing assistance was established under the Housing Act of 1937 passed during the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Last updated:  7 February 2013 For several years an image allegedly depicting a "front fin bones of a Grey whale" circulated on social media platforms such as Reddit, 9GAG, Facebook, and X, formerly known as Twitter, reaching (at least) hundreds of thousand of views. Reddit 9GAG Facebook X ? Whales have arm, wrist & finger bones in their front fins. This is the front fin bones of a Grey whale.byu/Browndog888 inNatureIsFuckingLit ? Whales have arm, wrist & finger bones in their front fins. This is the front fin bones of a Grey whale. u/Browndog888 NatureIsFuckingLit  The copied-and-pasted description of the viral image read "Whales have arm, wrist & finger bones in their front fins. This is the front fin bones of a Grey whale." We tracked down the source of the image. TinEye and Google reverse-image search results indicated that the image has been shared online at least since 2017.When we investigated further, we found out that the photo was authentic and it dated back to February 15, 2017. The image was shared on various Chinese-languagenewswebsites and in numerous social media posts. TinEye Google various Chinese-language websites posts Bone of whale's fin, spine section & teeth. Good proof that humans evolve from marine lives https://t.co/eQwqFioBL6 pic.twitter.com/5HoI2ISNd9 https://t.co/eQwqFioBL6 pic.twitter.com/5HoI2ISNd9  China Xinhua News (@XHNews) February 15, 2017 February 15, 2017  Xinhua News Agency, an official state news agency of the People's Republic of China, andChina Central Television(CCTV) were among the first to share the picture of this seemingly unlikely discovery. "Bone of whale's fin, spine section & teeth. Good proof that humans evolve from marine lives," the X caption of Xinhua News Agency's post read. However, the in-question photo did not show the fin of a gray whale, but rather that of a sperm whale. The CCTV post with the image in question read: Xinhua News Agency China Central Television Two sperm whales became stranded near the Yangkou Port in Rudong County, East China's Jiangsu Province on Feb. 14, 2016, and they were later made into specimens in Shanghai and Dalian. Now, one specimen has returned to the port for exhibition. A 2018 research paper with the title "The myodural bridges' existence in the sperm whale" referenced the 2016 incident, as the whale was shared by Chinese authorities for the purpose ofscientific research: research paper A 15.1-meter long sperm whale was acquired opportunistically examined in this study from stranding with the permission of Chinese Authorities for Animal Protection. It died naturally in the beache of Nantong (Jiangsu province, China). The cadaver was permitted for scientific research under the approval of the Ethics Committee of Dalian Medical University. Some social media users were surprised that whales' bones had a so humanlike appearance. American Museum of Natural History explained that "the sperm whale's flippers, or pectoral fins, help the animal maneuver through water." explained   (American Museum of Natural History) Moreover, the museum underscored that the sperm whale's bone structure is similar to human bones: They also share bone structure with the human arm and hand.In fact, the bones of cetacean flippers are the same kinds of bones as in the human arm, with an upper arm bone, two forearm bones, and hand, wrist, and finger bones. In whales, fingers are elongated and may have additional bones. The joint between upper arm and forearm is immobile, creating an effective paddle. Whales Online, a magazine published by the Group for Research and Education on Marine Mammals (GREMM), published an articlereferring to the whales' front limbs (emphasis ours): article The front limbs of whales' land-roaming ancestors grew much shorter and transformed into pectoral fins. The bones are no longer articulated and do not allow for any movement. The only point of articulation is the shoulder. These fins serve both as a stabilizer and a rudder. Five digits for toothed whales and right whales, four for rorquals: some are very long, with many more phalanges than in land mammals. The bones of the hand are embedded in a fibrous, rigid and resistant tissue and do not appear at the surface of the skin. And here's what the whale's full skeleton looks like: looks like   (baleinesendirect.org screenshot) Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/cctvcom/posts/sperm-whale-specimen-transported-back-to-porttwo-sperm-whales-became-stranded-ne/10155111753959759/. Accessed 7 Sept. 2023. "https://Twitter.Com/XHNews/Status/831759371986153472." X (Formerly Twitter), https://twitter.com/XHNews/status/831759371986153472. Accessed 7 Sept. 2023. Liu, Pei, et al. "The Myodural Bridges' Existence in the Sperm Whale." PLoS ONE, vol. 13, no. 7, July 2018, p. e0200260. PubMed Central, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200260. "Skeleton." Baleines En Direct, https://baleinesendirect.org/en/discover/life-of-whales/morphology/skeleton/. Accessed 7 Sept. 2023. Joe Biden does not support the call from racial-justice activists to defund the police. In a USA Today op-ed, he proposed other policies for rooting out systemic racism in American laws and institutions, focusing on economic opportunities. Homeownership is key to financial stability and building generational wealth, Biden wrote, yet the share of African Americans who own their homes is significantly lower than for whites. Today, the gap between African American and white homeownership is larger than it was in the late 1960s,Biden wrotein the June 10 op-ed. We have to give local officials the tools to combat gentrification, end discriminatory lending practices, and eliminate exclusionary zoning laws designed to keep low-income people and people of color out of certain communities. Is Biden right about the homeownership gap being larger now than in the late 1960s? His op-ed linked to an October 2019reportfrom the Urban Institute, a nonpartisan think tank. Researchers there told PolitiFact that Biden accurately referenced their findings, and their data aligned with the U.S. Census Bureau numbers, which also backed Bidens claim. RELATED: Seeking reparations, Ta-Nehisi Coates says typical Blacks have one-tenth the wealth of whites The homeownership rate refers to the share of households living in owner-occupied homes, rather than renting. The Urban Institute said that in 2017, the white homeownership rate was 71.9% compared with 41.8% for Blacks. (The gap was similar in 2019 and during the first quarter of 2020.) The Black homeownership rate in 2017 was at its lowest level in 50 years and also the lowest of all racial and ethnic groups, according to the Urban Institute. The racial homeownership gap between Black households and white households is more than 30 percentage points, which is greater than it was before the passage of the 1968 Fair Housing Act, the Urban Institute report said. Its difficult to say what the homeownership rate for Black and white Americans was in a given year in the 1960s, because the Census Bureau does not have yearly data on homeownership by race for that decade. (That detailed data is available for the 1970s and later.) Still, the available data show the homeownership gap was lower in 1960 and 1970 than it is now. Homeownership rate by race, according to a1994 Census Bureau report: 1960: white 64.4%, Black 38.4% (26-point gap)1970: white 65.2%, Black 41.6% (23.6-point gap)   The Urban Institute provided similar figures to PolitiFact for the 1960s and 1970s. The homeownership rates for non-Hispanic Blacks and non-Hispanic whites generallydecreasedfrom 2007 through 2016. Since then, the rate for whites has been ticking back up, while Blacks have had a mix of up and down years. RELATED: Fact-checking Mike Bloombergs response to redlining attack Among the factors cited for the racial homeownership gap, according to the Urban Institutes report: Black Americans have lower median household income. Black households are less likely to have a bachelors degree or higher education level, limiting income potential. White households tend to have higher credit scores and longer credit histories. Marital status has a strong association with homeownership rates, and residents of Black households are less likely to get married. The racial gap in homeownership is also rooted in federal housing policies, created in the 20th century in response to the Great Depression, that explicitly discriminated against African American, Latino, and other families of color by denying them access to federally insured mortgage programs because of their race, Nikitra Bailey, executive vice president of the Center for Responsible Lending,tolda House committee in May 2019. The recession of 2008-10 also wiped out 30 years of homeownership gains for African Americans, Bailey said. Evidence shows that a large number of borrowers of color were targeted and steered into toxic mortgages, even when they qualified for safer and more responsible loans with cheaper costs. Biden said, Today, the gap between African American and white homeownership is larger than it was in the late 1960s. This claim is supported by research from the Urban Institute and data from the Census Bureau. We rate Bidens statement True. FACT CHECK: Was Nick Hanauer's 2012 TED Talk about income inequality banned because it was "too politically controversial" to release?  Claim: A 2012 TED Talk video featuring wealthy entrepreneur Nick Hanauer speaking on the subject of income inequality was banned because it was deemed "too politically controversial."    Example: [Collected via e-mail, July 2015]   There are several articles that claim "TED Banned This Billionaire For Exposing Capitalism's Biggest Lie" or some similar wording. This is about the speech of Nick Hanauer, apparently a Seattle venture capitalist. The language of this sensational claim makes me suspicious, as does the unlikelihood of the claim. Is it true? What is the source of the rumour?   Origins: On 1 March 2012, Seattle-based venture capitalist and entrepreneur Nick Hanauer participated in the global conference series of "TED Talks." The video of his six-minute talk, widely circulated since its release, captured him addressing a spate of issues pertaining to income inequality and capitalism from the perspective of a very wealthy individual:  Not long after Hanauer's March 2012 talk was filmed, rumors began circulating claiming that TED had deliberately suppressed the clip due to its potentially offensive (to rich people) nature. On 16 May 2012, National Journal published an article contending that TED's organizers had quashed the groundbreaking talk because its content was simply too controversial to release, an odd assertion considering the 2011 emergence of a well-known (and widely reported upon) protest movement known as Occupy Wall Street): article Occupy Wall Street TED organizers invited a multimillionaire Seattle venture capitalist named Nick Hanauer  the first nonfamily investor in Amazon.com  to give a speech on March 1 at their TED University conference. Inequality was the topic  specifically, Hanauer's contention that the middle class, and not wealthy innovators like himself, are America's true "job creators." "We've had it backward for the last 30 years," he said. "Rich businesspeople like me don't create jobs. Rather they are a consequence of an ecosystemic feedback loop animated by middle-class consumers, and when they thrive, businesses grow and hire, and owners profit. That's why taxing the rich to pay for investments that benefit all is a great deal for both the middle class and the rich." You can't find that speech online. TED officials told Hanauer initially they were eager to distribute it. "I want to put this talk out into the world!" one of them wrote him in an e-mail in late April. But early this month they changed course, telling Hanauer that his remarks were too "political" and too controversial for posting. In the years since 2012, Hanauer's TED clip has paradoxically been viewed millions of times while remaining the focus of articles describing it as described as "banned," "too controversial," or the speech TED "doesn't want you to see." While it's difficult to determine the accuracy of statements about its online availability in March 2012, the clip clearly became widely available and was frequently viewed on sharing sites such as YouTube shortly thereafter, and it has remained popular ever since. But in 2015, many social media users continued to assert Hanauer's talk was banned: Banned TED Talk: Nick Hanauer  Rich People Dont Create Jobs (VIDEO) #news https://t.co/wmlAmaIZ48 #news https://t.co/wmlAmaIZ48  Hannah Kennison (@HannahKennison1) July 6, 2015 July 6, 2015   Nick Hanauer on His Banned TED Talk & Why the Middle Class are the Job Creators https://t.co/KKQOqIK5PQ https://t.co/KKQOqIK5PQ  Jonathan Goodman (@GoodmanJonathan) July 20, 2015 July 20, 2015   if you are interested in #economics, then it is worth listeningBanned TED Talk: Nick Hanauer 'Rich people don't... https://t.co/00E6rlPF1g #economics https://t.co/00E6rlPF1g  Mudassar Bashir (@mb62020) June 15, 2015 June 15, 2015   Nick Hanauer too politically controversial: rich people dont create jobs, consumers do - via Reese Jones https://t.co/9xzs0vn1kz https://t.co/9xzs0vn1kz  VritTV (@Verite_TV) June 11, 2015 June 11, 2015   In late May 2012 a contributor to TED's forums specifically asked why Hanauer's talk had been "banned," prompting a lengthy discussion during the course of which individuals affiliated with TED linked to a statement issued by TED curator Chris Anderson on why Hanauer's talk had not been promoted.     The service by which Anderson published the explanation (Posterous) shuttered in April 2013, taking Anderson's remarks with it. However, a cached version revealed the date (17 May 2012), title ("TED and inequality: The real story"), and content of Anderson's rebuttal. asked shuttered version Anderson opened by stating that "TED was subject to a story so misleading it would be funny... except it successfully launched an aggressive online campaign against us." He described an ensuing "firestorm of outrage" on sites including Reddit and Huffington Post, wherein TED was "accused of being cowards ... in the pay of our corporate partners ... [and] the despicable puppets of the Republican party." Anderson's account of the decision not to release Hanauer's talk differed dramatically from the circulating rumors: Here's what actually happened. At TED this year, an attendee pitched a 3-minute audience talk on inequality. The talk tapped into a really important and timely issue. But it framed the issue in a way that was explicitly partisan. (The talk is explicitly attacking what he calls an article of faith for Republicans. He criticizes Democrats too, but only for not also attacking this idea more often.) And it included a number of arguments that were unconvincing, even to those of us who supported his overall stance, such as the apparent ruling out of entrepreneurial initiative as a root cause of job creation. The audience at TED who heard it live (and who are often accused of being overly enthusiastic about left-leaning ideas) gave it, on average, mediocre ratings  some enthusiastic, others critical. At TED we post one talk a day on our home page. We're drawing from a pool of 250+ that we record at our own conferences each year and up to 10,000 recorded at the various TEDx events around the world, not to mention our other conference partners. Our policy is to post only talks that are truly special. And we try to steer clear of talks that are bound to descend into the same dismal partisan head-butting people can find every day elsewhere in the media. We discussed internally and ultimately told the speaker we did not plan to post. He did not react well. He had hired a PR firm to promote the talk to MoveOn and others, and the PR firm warned us that unless we posted he would go to the press and accuse us of censoring him. We again declined and this time I wrote him and tried gently to explain in detail why I thought his talk was flawed. So he forwarded portions of the private emails to a reporter and the National Journal duly bit on the story. And it was picked up by various other outlets. As Anderson noted, income inequality was the subject of at least one [uncensored] TED Talk video in 2011. video Much of the rumor regarding Nick Hanauer's purportedly banned TED Talk segment hinged upon the differing assertions made by TED and Nick Hanauer at the time of the controversy in 2012. However, Anderson's claims (that TED curators are tasked with promoting only the most impactful clips) weren't implausible or suggestive of a coverup. It would be difficult to determine whether Hanauer or anyone working on his behalf threatened a public relations offensive, but TED maintained that quality and not content was behind the decision not to feature the video (which clearly was not "banned" from public view but was simply not promoted by TED). Since the time of the initial debate over whether or why the TED talk was "banned," the clip has been distributed both by TED and other outlets and widely viewed by a large online audience. In August 2014, Hanauer returned for a TED Talk titled "Beware, fellow plutocrats, the pitchforks are coming." titled While it's true that TED opted not to promote Hanauer's initial appearance (during which he discussed income inequality) his segment was not banned, and the organization cited his lack of substantive content alongside his primary reliance on partisan ideas as the reason it was not curated alongside other featured TED Talks. At no point during the immediate controversy did TED appear to deny the existence of the video, remove it from the Internet, interfere with its distribution, or otherwise thwart the ideas advocated by Hanauer from spreading. The group simply chose initially not to promote the clip (as they do for a large number of TED Talks) in favor of other content selected by their curators. Last updated:  27July 2015 Originally published: 27July 2015 Candidate for California governorDelaine Eastinsays she wants to create an economy that works for everyone. But with the states affordable housing crisis and deep poverty, Eastin believes thats not happening now, especially for young people. People become cynical, she wrote in an Oct. 11, 2017op-edin theSan Francisco Chroniclebecause the path to a brighter future is becoming more remote. Eastin continued: Ninety percent of people born in the 1940s ended up doing better financially than their parents. But those born in the 1980s, the much-maligned Millennials, have only a 50-50 chance of doing better (financially) than their parents, despite being the best-educated generation in our history. Millennialsare typically considered the children of the Baby Boomers and older Gen Xers. They were born between the early 1980s and the late 1990s. We wanted to know whether Eastin was right about this dramatic decline in children doing better than their parents. We set out on a fact check. Eastins background Eastin is one of several Democrats vying to succeed Gov. Jerry Brown in 2018. She served in the State Assembly from 1986 to 1994 and then as State Superintendent of Public Instruction from 1995 to 2003. She was the first, and remains, the only woman to hold that position. In addition to her desire to create a more equitable economy, Eastin has advocated for greater investment in education, the adoption of universal health care and continued work on climate change during her run for governor. Our research We asked Eastins campaign for evidence supporting her claim about millennials and their financial prospects. Jon Murchinson, her campaign spokesman, told us the statement is based on conclusions in aDecember 2016 studyby the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research. The study is called The Fading American Dream: Trends in Absolute Income Mobility since 1940. Its findings, indeed, show that the fraction of children earning more than their parents has plummeted -- from 90 percent for children born in the 1940s to 50 percent for those born in the 1980s. The study accounted for inflation, taxes and other changes between the generations. Its basically a coin flip as to whether youll do better than your parents, Stanford economistRaj Chetty, one of the studys authors, said in anews releaseannouncing the studys publication in December 2016. SOURCE:The Equality of Opportunity Project Reached by email this week, Chetty told us Eastins characterization of this trend appears accurate. David Grusky, the studys co-author and director of Stanfords Center on Poverty and Inequality, added that Eastins statement is a fair summary of our headline conclusion. The Stanford study doesnt examine whether millennials are the best-educated generation in our history. That part of Eastins statement, however, was substantiated in a recentsurveyby the Pew Research Center. It found 27 percent of millennial women and 21 percent of millennial men had completed at least a bachelors degree by age 33. That was slightly higher than the percentages for men and women at the same age from Baby Boomer to Generation X populations. Inside the study While Eastin appears to have correctly represented the reports findings, we wanted to know how the Stanford researchers came to their conclusions and whether other researchers agreed with them. Grusky told us the report used millions of Internal Revenue Service records and Census data to compare income between parents and children. The report specifically looked at people born between 1940 and 1984 and measured household income for parents and children when both were 30 years old. Even after accounting for changes between the generations, such as millennials entering the workforce at an older age than their parents, Grusky said the findings on upward mobility did not change significantly. Only slightly more than 50 percent of children at age 40 had higher income compared with their parents income when their parents were 30 years old. Unequal growth The Stanford study also accounted for the rapid economic growth experienced during the Baby Boomer generation, when the nations post-World War II economy created a surge of new jobs and industries. Assuming both generations had experienced the same economic growth rates, Grusky said only 62 percent of millennials would do better than their parents. The key factor holding back broader financial success of this younger generation, the report concluded, was todays inequality of growth. Financial success, Grusky said, has become concentrated among a smaller share of families compared with the recent past. Ensuring that financial success is distributed more widely would make a lot of headway toward millennials doing better than their parents in future years, the researcher added. The report found declines in upward mobility for millennials across all 50 states. The biggest drops took place in Rust Belt states such as Ohio, Illinois and Michigan, Grusky said. Millennials in states such as California, New York and Massachusetts saw, on average, less substantial declines. SOURCE:The Equality of Opportunity Project For this study, Grusky said, researchers were not able to factor in student debt or address how people of different races and ethnicities are affected by the mobility trends. Behind the starting line Tom Allison, deputy policy and research director atYoung Invincibles, said the Stanford research is right in line with theconclusions reachedby his Washington D.C.-based group. Young Invincibles advocates for expanding economic opportunities for young adults and encouraging them to get involved in the political process. Allison said the Stanford study is both transparent and relies on credible public data. Factors from the Great Recession to student debt to globalization have all put millennials behind the starting line compared with their parents, he said. That is a cornerstone of the American Dream, Allison continued, that if you work hard and play by the rules, then you can exceed the living standards of your parents. And weve seen a precipitous decline in that. Our ruling Delaine Eastin recently claimed millennials have only a 50-50 chance of doing better financially than their parents, while those born in the 1940s had a 90 percent chance of doing better than their parents. Her claim is supported by a 2016 Stanford study, The Fading American Dream: Trends in Absolute Income Mobility since 1940. Stanford researchers found stronger economic growth combined with a broader distribution of that growth during the Baby Boomer generation drove greater upward mobility for people born in the 1940s. They said financial success has become more concentrated in recent decades, leaving millennials with much lower odds of doing better than their parents. Even after accounting for changes, such as inflation and millennials starting work at older ages, they found todays younger generation faces comparatively smaller odds of earning more than their parents. Other research, notably by the advocacy group Young Invincibles, agreed with the Stanford findings. We rate her claim True. TRUE The statement is accurate and theres nothing significant missing. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. As memes of U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders wearing hand-crafted mittens at Joe Biden's presidential inauguration plastered the Internet in early 2021, rumors surfaced alleging that the creator of the mittens had stopped selling recycled wool products because of high federal taxes. U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders Snopes received numerous inquiries to investigate the validity of the claim, which attempted to expose hypocrisy of people who support the Vermont senator's goals of imposing new taxes to pay for various proposals, including free universal health care. imposing new taxes   Here's some background: Jen Ellis, a Vermont elementary school teacher, said she made the mittens out of discarded wool sweaters and gifted them to the senator after he lost the Democratic presidential nomination to Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential race. "I sent him these mittens kind of as a shoutout to who he is, and I put a note in that said something to the effect of, 'I hope you run again,'" she told Slate. Hillary Clinton Slate  (Photo by JONATHAN ERNST/POOL/AFP via Getty Images)  The viral image of Sanders wearing Ellis' gift and sitting with his arms and legs crossed made the teacher famous by the viral standards of 2021. She gave multiple interviews to news outlets including NPR and Slate in which she discussed her support for Sanders and reaction to the memes; social media users and other websites republished those comments, in part to harness the virality of the moment. teacher famous NPR Slate republished those comments Among the latter group was The Federalist, an online hub of articles with a conservative bent. Two days after the inauguration, the website published a page with the headline, "Woman Behind Bernie Sanders' Iconic Mittens Quit Making Them Because High Taxes Killed Her Business," reading: page The Vermont school teacher who made Bernie Sanders mittens, featured in the most recent viral meme, said she had to stop making them after the federal government taxed her too much. viral meme To support the claim, The Federalist cited a portion of Ellis' interview with Slate. According to a transcribed version of that conversation, which Slate published on Jan. 21, the elementary school teacher indeed told writer Rachelle Hampton: interview with Slate Hampton: Speaking of bittersweet, you supported Bernie. How did you feel about watching Biden be sworn in as president? Ellis: Oh my gosh, I cried. Im 42 and Ive waited four decades of my life  Im tearing up just thinking about it to see a woman be vice president. I wish that she was president, although I think Biden is pretty great. [...] And then there was this little side nagging thing of every five minutes I was getting several hundred more emails about the mittens. A year ago, when Bernie was on the campaign trail, he was wearing those mittens and Twitter buzzed about it then. Im not really on TwitterI have an account, but I dont really participate  but a lot of my younger colleagues do and they were like, 'Youve gotta check this out.' [...] So I put it out there that I made the mittens, they were a gift, and theyre not knitted, theyre sewn from repurposed and up-cycled sweaters. At that time, I had 30 or 40 mittens for sale and being a little nave about Twitter, I put my Gmail account on that, which someone picked up yesterday and retweeted it. People have been contacting me thinking that they can get mittens, and actually they cant. I dont have any more, and I dont have much of a mitten business anymore because it really wasnt worth it. Independent crafters get really taken for a ride by the federal government. We get taxed to the nth degree, and it wasnt really worth it pursuing that as a business, even as a side hustle. I mostly just make them as gifts. 30 or 40 mittens for sale In other words, Ellis said she did not "have much of a mitten business anymore," or that she previously sold the handmade items for a price and then mostly stopped. She implied that federal taxes were a leading factor in her decision to make that change. On Jan. 20, as social media lit up with the memes following the inauguration, she confirmed on Twitter that she was not selling mittens like the senator's. confirmed on Twitter   Snopes reached out to Ellis to learn more about her history of trying to sell mittens for profit and paying federal taxes as a self-described independent crafter. We have not yet received a response, but we'll update this report when or if we do. All of that said, the size of Ellis' former business was unknown, as well as how long or via what methods she sold the handmade mittens. U.S. tax code requires all independent contractors  no matter if they use online marketplaces such as Etsy to sell handmade products  to pay local and federal taxes based on net profits. U.S. tax code Etsy Also, we should note here: Sanders' proposed changes to the country's tax system would repeal aspects of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act so that taxpayers who earn between about $9,500 and $250,000 would pay about 4% more, and taxes on the country's top earners would generate the majority of revenue. Additionally, he wants to impose a new payroll on businesses that earn more than $2 million annually, a change that intends to protect ventures like Ellis' from paying more. (See here for a detailed breakdown of Sanders' tax proposal by Forbes.) 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act here So while it was true that taxes played a role in Ellis' decision to stop charging people money for mittens prior to her viral fame, it was false to claim that she "quit" making them all together, like The Federalist headline alleged. Between Jan. 23 and 24, she said in a series of tweets that she made three more pairs of "Bernie mittens," two of which she donated to Passion 4 Paws Vermont and Outright Vermont for fundraising and one that she was auctioning off to benefit her daughters college fund. Passion 4 Paws Vermont Outright Vermont daughters college fund   After that, Sanders' official campaign began selling merchandise with the senator's meme-worthy image that Ellis made possible. The so-called "Chairman Sanders" sweatshirts, T-shirts, stickers, etc. helped raise $1.8 million for charitable organizations in Vermont over the course of five days, The Associated Press reported. The Associated Press reported On Jan. 24, Ellis tweeted that the senator called her to tell her that "the mitten frenzy" had raised "an enormous amount of money" for the charities. Besides that evidence, it was unclear how, or to what extent, the teacher was involved in the making or selling of the campaign-official products featuring her mittens. tweeted campaign-official products   As further proof to debunk claims that she had ceased all mitten-making, the teacher on Jan. 27 announced that she had partnered with entities including Darn Tough Socks to make socks inspired by the viral mittens, and the following day she said she was in the process of another project "to get Bernie Mittens for ALL." announced Darn Tough Socks she was "Im not opening a mitten factory or quitting my job as a second grade teacher! However, I am going to choose a new adventure on the side," Ellis said on her official website and GoFundMe page. "Never fear  I will make more mittens, but I won't be selling them for myself. I will be donating them to Vermont Charities to help them fundraise and make up for the funds lost due to the pandemic." official website GoFundMe page In sum, while it was true that, prior to her viral fame, Ellis mostly stopped charging people for handmade mittens due to costs including federal taxes, she was still creating the recycled wool products and people were spending money on them, as of this writing. For those reasons, we rate this claim a "Mixture" of truthful and misleading information. Claim:  Dee Lee penned a screed opining that blacks 'don't read.' INCORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED Example:  [Collected via e-mail, January 2002]  Blacks Don't Read This is very deep, and unfortunately, very true! This is a heavvvvy piece and a Caucasian wrote it. THEY ARE STILL OUR SLAVESWe can continue to reap profits from the Blacks without the effort of physical slavery. Look at the current methods of containment that they use on themselves: IGNORANCE, GREED, and SELFISHNESS.  Their IGNORANCE is the primary weapon of containment. A great man once said, "The best way to hide something from Black people is to put it in a book." We live now in the Information Age. They have gained the opportunity to read any book on any subject through the efforts of their fight for freedom, yet they refuse to read.  There are numerous books readily available at Borders, Barnes & Noble, and Amazon.com, not to mention their own Black Bookstores that provide solid blueprints to reach economic equality (which should have been their fight all along), but few read consistently, if at all.  GREED is another powerful weapon of containment.  Blacks, since the abolition of slavery, have had large amounts of money at their disposal. Last year they spent 10 billion dollars during Christmas, out of their 450 billion dollars in total yearly income (2.22%). Any of us can use them as our target market, for any business venture we care to dream up, no matter how outlandish, they will buy into it. Being primarily a consumer people, they function totally by greed. They continually want more, with little  thought for saving or investing. They would rather buy some new sneaker than invest in starting a business. Some even neglect their children to have the latest Tommy or FUBU. And they still think that having a Mercedes, and a big house gives the "Status" or that they have achieved the American Dream.  They are fools! The vast majority of their people are still in poverty because their greed holds them back from collectively making better communities. With the help of BET, and the rest of their black media that often broadcasts destructive images into their own homes, we will continue to see huge profits like those of Tommy and Nike.  (Tommy Hilfiger has even jeered them, saying he doesn't want their money, and  look at how the fools spend more with him than ever before!). They'll continue to show off to each other while we build solid communities with the profits from our businesses that we market to them.  SELFISHNESS, ingrained in their minds through slavery, is one of the  major ways we can continue to contain them. One of their own, Dubois said that there was an innate division in their culture. A "Talented Tenth" he called it. He was correct in his deduction that there are segments of their culture that has achieved some "form" of success. However, that segment missed the fullness of his work. They didn't read that the "Talented Tenth" was then responsible to aid the Non-Talented Ninety Percent in achieving a better life. Instead, that segment has created another class, a Buppie class that looks down on their people or aids them in a condescending manner. They will never achieve what we have. Their selfishness does not allow them to be able to work together on any project or endeavor of substance. When they do get together, their selfishness lets their egos get in the way of the goal. Their so-called help organizations seem to only want to promote their name without making any real change in their community. They are content to sit in conferences and conventions in our hotels, and talk about what they will do, while they award plaques to the best speakers, not the best doers. Is there no end to their selfishness? They steadfastly refuse to see that "TOGETHER EACH ACHIEVES MORE (TEAM)! They do not understand that they are no better than each other because of what they own. In fact, most of those Buppies are but one or two paychecks away from poverty. All of which is under the control of our pens in our offices and our boardrooms.  Yes, will continue to contain them as long as they refuse to read, continue to buy anything they want, and keep thinking they are "helping" their communities by paying dues to organizations which do little other than hold lavish conventions in our hotels.  By the way, don't worry about any of them reading this letter, remember,  'THEY DON'T READ!!!!'  (Prove them wrong. Please pass this on!) Origins:  Our earliest sighting of this polemic which excoriates "buppies" and other blacks for their presumed lack of literacy and bling-motivated consumer choices dates to October 2001, when it appeared as an unattributed item in the New York Beacon, a newspaper that focuses on African-American issues. It subsequently arrived in our inbox in January 2002 prefaced by the claim that it had been  written by a Caucasian. In October 2002 we began receiving versions stating radio personality Dee Lee had read the item on air that morning on a New York station. (A "buppie," says the Urban Dictionary, is "A highly sophisticated and upper class black person. Usually a black city or suburban resident with a well-paid professional job and an affluent lifestyle: b[lack] + [y]uppie.") buppie While the question of who wrote the piece remains murky, we can rule out two people who have often been erroneously pointed to as its author. Radio personality Dee Lee, then of Philadelphia's Power 99 FM's "Dream Team" and Saint Louis' 100.3 "The Dee Lee Morning Show," firmly asserts he is neither the item's author nor did he ever read the piece on air. He said in a 28 January 2007 blog post that "I NEVER wrote nor read this article on NYC radio!!," adding that he "would in no way write or support such ignorance, especially degrading my own race." Dee Lee blog post Likely as a result of African-American radio jock Dee Lee's name having become attached to the screed, a Caucasian certified financial planner of the same name has been mistakenly pointed to as the source of the item. (The Internet-circulated piece, after all, always contained the claim that it had been written by a white person.) Dee Lee of Harvard Financial Educators, author of numerous books in the financial planning field, including Let's Talk Money, has seen the piece circulated with not only her name and business affiliation attached, but also her e-mail address and photo. She emphatically denies any association with the screed, stating "I did not author nor did I read the article in question on the radio." denies Although the actual author of the piece is still unknown to us, Dr. Arthur Lewin of the Black and Hispanics Studies Department at Bernard M. Baruch College of the City University of New York claims to have edited the article into its present form many years ago and titled it "They Are Still Our Slaves." However, pointing to him as the original author of the piece is problematic, given that he claims his involvement was limited to editing an item titled "How to Make an Economic or Ghetto Slave" into "They Are Still Our Slaves," which he states he "received" (but not how or from whom). As to what to make of the item, some analysts have expressed doubt that it was penned by a white racist, instead finding in the text reason to believe it the work of an African-American laboring to make a point. Said Tony Norman of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: "Besides its didacticism, this letter is full of the racial self-loathing that permeates much so-called 'uplift' literature these days. There is no substantive critique of a community's behavior here. It relies on stereotypes to make what are, at best, questionable points. It was, in all likelihood, written by a black person who was trying a little too hard to be 'deep' and righteous." Barbara "deeply disturbing" Mikkelson Last updated:  22 June 2010    Smokes, Saundra.  "E-Mail Decries Slave Mentality."   The [Syracuse] Post-Standard.  1 December 2002  (p. C2).    The New York Beacon.  "Negativity or a Wake-Up Call: They Are Still Our Slaves."   17 October 2001. In late 2019, readers asked us about blog posts that were widely shared on social media and falsely claimed that the reality television star Duane Chapman, known as "Dog the Bounty Hunter," had died either by suicide or from a pulmonary embolism.  Those reports were false. Beginning on Nov. 20, admirers of Chapman and his late wife, Beth, who died in June after herself being the subject of death hoaxes, began posting tributes to him and sharing one of two blog posts.  hoaxes The first purported to be hosted by a website with the domain name whatnow.actual-events.com, but when internet users clicked on the story on social media, they were redirected to the domain newspanel.suzeraincollections.com. There, the story carried the headline "Duane 'Dog' Chapman Died of Pulmonary Embolism. He Didn't Survive His Second Attack. He Was 66 -- WGN."  first   The highly dubious website falsely attributed the claim about Chapman's death to WGN America, a real U.S. television network that broadcast the Chapmans' most recent reality show "Dog's Most Wanted." The hoax article also misleadingly used WGN America's logo in a sharebait video that purported to be a television news report about Chapman's death, but that paused after a few seconds and required users to share the article on social media in order to continue watching:   In reality, WGN America had no connection to the story and did not report on Chapman's death in November 2019, because Chapman did not die in November 2019. The specific claim that Chapman had died from a pulmonary embolism (a blocked artery in the lungs) was rather insidious. At first glance, it appeared especially plausible to many fans of the television star because he was in fact diagnosed with that very problem in September 2019. diagnosed The second blog post shared by social media users was even more distasteful than the first. It falsely and misleadingly used the logo of BBC News, a highly reputable and widely trusted information source, to report that Chapman had taken his own life.  In this instance, social media users shared an article that appeared to be hosted on the domain bbc-newsroom.actualeventstv.com, but which redirected to news-room.easystepsdiy.info. On social media, the post carried the headline "Duane 'Dog' Chapman Died of Suicide After Depression Attack on His Sickness -- BBC News" but when users redirected to the source, the article's headline proclaimed: shared proclaimed "Breaking: (Actual Suicide Video) Duane 'Dog' Chapman Died of Suicide After Depression Attack on His Sickness -- BBC News." Despite the extremely distasteful claim that the video in the article contained footage of Chapman's suicide, it contained nothing of the sort and, just as in the first article, the video stopped after a second or two and required viewers to share the post on social media in order to continue watching.     The claim that Chapman had taken his own life was, like the claim he had died of a pulmonary embolism, particularly insidious. In the season finale of "Dog's Most Wanted," broadcast by WGN America on Nov. 6, Chapman spoke about the recent death of his wife from cancer, and the considerable difficulty he was experiencing in coping with her loss.  At one moment in the episode, he reportedly discussed how he had contemplated taking his own life, such was his grief. People magazine quoted Chapman as saying: People "I just hope that I dont live very much longer without her, because now she made the first step, shes through the gate," he added. She paved a way for me. I want to take a [god damn] pain pill so bad. I feel like if I did something to myself right now and passed away suicidal and I got to heaven and was like, Hi honey, and would she go, You [dumb ass], why would you do that? Or would she go, Wow, youre here. Ill be like Of course Im here. You left me. Im here. So, am I obligated to do that?  Because of that widely reported revelation, a report that Chapman had died by suicide would have appeared somewhat plausible to many readers.  The dubious nature of the websites involved, and the absence of any corroborating evidence or reports by actual news organizations, meant that some readers would have immediately recognized the stories as hoaxes. However, a significant number were taken in by them, and shared them on social media, to the extent that Chapman himself intervened. He provided the gossip website TMZ a photograph of himself holding the Nov. 19 edition of the Denver Post, and a handwritten sign that read "I'm alive!" Chapman then posted a screenshot of that article to his own Instagram page the next day. photograph Instagram If you need help, call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline: 1-800-273-8255. Or contact Crisis Text Line by texting HOME to 741741. Kasprak, Alex. "Outdated: Beth Chapman Death Hoax."
 Snopes.com. 22 April 2019. Lee, Ashley. "Dog the Bounty Hunter Reveals Pulmonary Embolism Diagnosis."
 The Los Angeles Times. 28 September 2019. Dugan, Christina. "Dog the Bounty Hunter Contemplates Suicide After Wife Beth's Death on 'Dog's Most Wanted' Finale."
 People. 6 November 2019. TMZ. "Dog the Bounty Hunter: Nope, He's Not Dead...Look, I'm Alive!"
 20 November 2019. Here at Snopes, celebrity doppelganger rumors are very common. In 2023, a rumor targeting actors from different eras had the internet abuzz: TikTok videos and Reddit posts compared the remarkably similar appearances of actors Jeremy Allen White and Gene Wilder, who died in 2016. The posts alleged a familial connection between the two. doppelganger TikTok Reddit 2016 Online ads spread the rumor with photos of the two actors and clickbait headlines such as, "[Photos] These Grandchildren Look Exactly Like Their Celebrity Grandparents," or the claim that Wilder was White's father.   (Screenshot via People.com)  There was no publicly available evidence to confirm, a consanguineous connection between Wilder and White. We reached out to Wilder's nephew, filmmaker Jordan Walker-Pearlman, through his production company (Harlem, Hollywood), as well as representatives for White via his talent agency, to pose the question. Walker-Pearlman, through a spokesperson for his production company confirmed that Wilder and White were not related. As such we have updated our rating to False. The spokesperson told us, "Jordan can confirm with you that as much as he admires the talent of Jeremy Allen White and believes Gene would have as well, and clearly sees the family resemblances, they are in fact not related." Wilder whose real name was Jerome Silberman  was known for his portrayal of Willy Wonka in the 1971 movie, "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory," as well as roles in "Young Frankenstein" and "Blazing Saddles." While he adopted a stepdaughter during his second marriage in 1967, he died without any biological children, according to The Guardian and his IMDb profile. He was reportedly estranged from his stepdaughter later in life, according to The Guardian. name known adopted without The Guardian profile reportedly In a 2002 interview with Larry King, he discussed her: "I had a daughter and lost her a long while ago. That's too sad a story to go into." He added that he "lost" her when she was 22 or 23 years old. discussed However, Wilder has at least one nephew, Walker-Pearlman. When Wilder died in 2016, Walker-Pearlman announced the news in a statement for the public. In an interview with NPR around that time, Walker-Pearlman mentioned other relatives, a cousin and aunt of his, who were also in the company of Wilder when he died. nephew announced mentioned It is unknown, at present, whether Pearlman has biological children of his own, though there's no indication of a link between him and White. White, a Brooklyn native, is known for his roles on television shows "Shameless" and "The Bear." He was born in 1991, and his mother, Eloise Zeigler, is of Ukrainian descent, according to his IMDb page. native known 1991 Eloise Zeigler IMDb Meanwhile, according to the New York Times and IMDb, Wilder's father was a Jewish immigrant from Russia, and his mother was reportedly of Russian descent. immigrant Russian In other words, not only is there no evidence of a familial connection between the two actors, Wilder and White seemingly do not share the same ancestry. White is aware of the comparisons, though. In an August 2022 video interview with InStyle magazine, he mentioned the rumor  saying he agrees, "I look a lot like Gene Wilder"  though he did not outright deny or confirm its legitimacy. He said: interview Yeah I've been made aware of some of the stuff out there. There's one in particular. Everyone's decided I look a lot like Gene Wilder, which I agree. But I guess someone called me 'Ketamine Gene Wilder.' Or called Carmy 'Ketamine Gene Wilder,' which I thought was weird and funny. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxxG_AoRTlo&t=150s There is no proof of a familial connection between the two actors  regardless of whether that hypothetical link was through marriage or blood. Wilder also had no biological children, and White, when publicly referencing the rumor, did not confirm or deny its legitimacy. Given that Wilder's nephew has also refuted the rumor, we rate this as  "Alum Call Board: January 2021." VCUarts, 13 Jan. 2021, https://arts.vcu.edu/community/news/alum-call-board-january-2021/.Accessed 2 Oct. 2023. Evon, Dan. "Is Morgan Freeman Really Jimi Hendrix?" Snopes, 26 Sept. 2019, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/morgan-freeman-jimi-hendrix/.Accessed 2 Oct. 2023. "Family: Wilder Passed to 'Somewhere Over the Rainbow.'" USA TODAY, https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2016/08/29/gene-wilder-death-statement/89556566/. Accessed 2 Oct. 2023. "Gene Wilder | Actor, Writer, Director." IMDb, https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000698/. Accessed 2 Oct. 2023. "Gene Wilder Death: Star of Willy Wonka Dies Aged 83." BBC News, 1 Sept. 2016. www.bbc.com, https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-37248049.Accessed 2 Oct. 2023. "Gene Wilder's Nephew Remembers Late Actor Who Starred In 'Willy Wonka.'" NPR, 29 Aug. 2016. NPR, https://www.npr.org/2016/08/29/491856240/gene-wilders-nephew-remembers-late-actor-who-starred-in-willy-wonka.Accessed 2 Oct. 2023. "Interview With Gene Wilder." CNN.Com, May 2, 2002. https://transcripts.cnn.com/show/lkl/date/2002-05-02/segment/00. Accessed 2 Oct. 2023. "Jeremy Allen White | Actor, Writer, Producer." IMDb, https://www.imdb.com/name/nm2087739/. Accessed 2 Oct. 2023. Lewis, Daniel. "Gene Wilder Dies at 83; Star of 'Willy Wonka' and 'Young Frankenstein.'" The New York Times, 29 Aug. 2016. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/30/movies/gene-wilder-dead.html.Accessed 2 Oct. 2023. Sidahmed, Mazin. "Gene Wilder, Star of Willy Wonka and Mel Brooks Comedies, Dies Aged 83." The Guardian, 30 Aug. 2016. The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/29/gene-wilder-death-willy-wonka-mel-brooks-comedy.Accessed 2 Oct. 2023. "'The Bear's' Jeremy Allen White Has a Crush on Carmy, Too." GQ, 11 July 2022, https://www.gq.com/story/jeremy-allen-white-the-bear-profile.Accessed 2 Oct. 2023. Nov. 30, 2023: The story rating was updated to "False" along with a statement from Wilder's family member denying the claim.