Federal spending is the highest it's been as a share of our economy in 60 years (and) revenue is the lowest it's been as a share of our economy in 60 years.
With the rise of the fiscally conservative tea party and the recent release of a draft report by the presidentially appointed National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, the nation's fiscal challenges have rocketed up the list of urgent agenda items in Washington. We'll take a look at two comments on federal spending made on the Nov. 14, 2010, Sunday talk shows -- one by Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., and the other by Sen.-elect Rand Paul, R-Ky. We'll address Conrad's here.In an interview on ABC'sThis Week With Christiane Amanpour, Conrad -- who chairs the Senate Budget Committee and serves on the presidentially appointed panel -- said, If you look at our spending, it's the highest it's been as a share of our economy in 60 years, revenue is the lowest it's been as a share of our economy in 60 years, so we're going to have to work both sides of the equation.Let's take a look at Conrad's numbers.As we did with Paul's item, we turned to a historicaltablefrom the Office of Management and Budget that shows tax receipts, spending and the deficit as a percentage of GDP -- essentially, as a percentage of the nation's economy as a whole.In 2009, the last full year available, federal spending accounted for 24.7 percent of GDP. That's higher than it's been in any year since 1949 -- 60 years prior. You have to go back to 1946 to find a higher percentage -- 24.8 -- and that was a year in which the nation was winding down high rates of spending for World War II. (From 1943 to 1945, the height of the war, federal spending ranged from 41 percent to 43 percent of GDP. )Clearly, recessions have an impact on how high this percentage gets. The only other years since 1946 in which federal spending exceeded 23 percent of GDP came in 1982 and 1983, with 23.1 percent and 23.5 percent, respectively. That was during and immediately after the 1981-82 recession -- the last one that rivaled today's in severity. Economic downturns tend to affect this statistic because theyslowGDP growth and increase the demand for government services. Even without special stimulus measures, spending goes up for mandatory items such as food stamps.Either way, Conrad is correct on spending. What about tax revenue as a percentage of GDP?In 2009, tax receipts accounted for 14.8 percent of GDP. According to the table, tax receipts as a share of GDP were always higher all the way back through 1950, when they accounted for 14.4 percent of GDP. That would be 59 years -- not quite 60, but very, very close.The recession factors into the tax revenue statistic as well. Both the 2008 stimulus package under President George W. Bush and the 2009 stimulus under President Barack Obama included tax breaks as a major component.Because the statistics show a number so close to 60 years -- and because Conrad was speaking during a television interview rather than a prepared speech or written statement -- we'll give him some leeway and rate the statement True.
ATV adreleased Aug. 28, 2014 by the Greater Wisconsin Committee, a group funded by labor unions and Democratic ideological groups, starts with three children looking into the camera and each asking: Why? Then an adult narrator says: Why did Scott Walker cut school funding more per student than any governor in America? Where did the money go? To Scott Walker's friends. Walker gave his corporate friends half a billion dollars in tax breaks and giveaways. We've alreadyrated Falsean earlier Greater Wisconsin Committee claim, that Walker gave $570 million in job-development incentives to his cronies or corporate friends. Much of that money went to firms whose employees have given to Democrats in the past, many of the donations were small and Walkers jobs agency has a limited role in dealing with firms associated with a big chunk of the $570 million. But what about the claim of Walker cutting school funding, on a per-student basis, more than any other governor? What we know There's no dispute that shortly after taking office in January 2011, Walker made a dramatic reduction in school funding. In fact, in February 2012 werated Truea broader claim -- that Walker had enacted the biggest cuts to education in our state's history. The $1.2 billion in reductions included $792 million in direct state aid to kindergarten-through-12th grade schools, which is the focus of the new Greater Wisconsin Committee ad. But that fact-check didn't calculate the K-12 school cuts on a per-student basis in comparison to other states. And Walker later restored some of the state aid to schools. The committees evidence Before we dig in, a few words about wording. The Greater Wisconsin Committees claim refers tofundingof public schools. But, as well see, the evidence the committee cites isoverall spendingby the schools -- in other words, what was spent in total from state, federal and local money. So, in addition to checking the overall spending figures the committee cited to us in support of its claim, well examinestate revenuefigures -- the amount of money given to public schools strictly from the state. What the Greater Wisconsin Committee cited isa tablefrom a solid source, thelatest annual reportfrom the U.S. Census Bureau comparing all 50 states (and the District of Columbia) on public school financing. Issued in May 2014, the report covers the Wisconsin state fiscal year of 2011-12, which is the first full fiscal year during Walkers term in office. (The states fiscal year runs from July 1 through June 30; in other words, roughly the same as the traditional school year.) On a percentage basis, Wisconsins reduction in overall per-pupil spending -- of state, federal and local money -- was at the top of the chart when compared with the previous year. In terms of cuts, here are the top five:  State/District Per-pupil SPENDING in 2011-12 from ALL sources Change from 2010-11 Wisconsin $11,042 -6.2 percent Florida $8,372 -5.8 percent District of Columbia $17,468 -5.4 percent Texas $8,261 -4.7 percent South Dakota $8,446 -4.1 percent  In contrast, the census report shows that in the four years before Walker took office, Wisconsins per-student spending rose -- by 3.6 percent in 2010-11, 2.6 percent in 2009-10, 3.7 percent in 2008-09 and 4 percent in 2007-08. In terms of blaming Walker for the cuts, the governor, along with the Republican-controlled Legislature, had direct control over state money, which amounted to 48 percent of the spending by Wisconsin schools in 2011-12. Through the Act 10 collective bargaining reform law, Walker and the Legislature required employees to pay more toward their pension and enabledschool districts to charge employees more for health insurance as a way to offset some of the state aid cuts. But as we noted in rating the biggest cuts in state history claim, the Greater Wisconsin Committees statement was not about net impact, just the state funding side of the equation. Walker and the Legislature also had significant influence over local funding, which amounted to 44 percent of the schools spending, because they essentially froze the amount of property tax revenue that local school districts could raise. Walker had no real control over federal funding, which amounted to 8 percent of total spending by Wisconsin schools. Other measures Now, using the same census report, lets look at the revenue figures, focusing on how much state money went to Wisconsin schools. Once again, Wisconsin was at the top in terms of cuts. State Per-pupil REVENUE in 2011-12 from STATE GOVERNMENT Change from 2010-11 Wisconsin $5,544 -8.33 percent Idaho $4,630 -6.79 percent Arizona $3,018 -6.46 percent Wyoming $9,466 -5.05 percent Florida $3,273 -4.84 percent  So, the state revenue measure also supports the Greater Wisconsin Committee claim. But there some newer figures available. AMay 2014 reportfrom the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal think tank in Washington, D.C., examined state funding of schools in 2013-14. Those figures show Wisconsin was among 15 states that reduced state per-student spending from the previous year. Wisconsin's 0.6 percent reduction (adjusted for inflation) wasnt the largest cut, but rather the third-smallest. (Alaskas 3.2 percent cut was the largest.) Wisconsin state funding was $5,747 per student in 2013-14, versus $5,783 the previous year. As for comparing states on school funding for the entirety of Walkers term, those figures simply arent available yet. Our rating The Greater Wisconsin Committee said: Scott Walker cut school funding more per student than any governor in America. Based on the latest census figures, for 2011-12, the Wisconsin cuts were the largest based on two measures -- state revenue provided to local schools and overall spending by schools of state, federal and local money. But more recent figures indicate that Wisconsins school spending cuts are no longer the largest, at least for a more recent period. For a statement that is accurate but needs additional information, our rating is Mostly True. Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here Facing Democratic rival U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris for a debate in October 2020, Vice President Mike Pence attempted to give credit to his boss, President Donald Trump, for developing policies that rebounded the economy after unprecedented losses due to the COVID-19 pandemic. COVID-19 pandemic In particular, Pence said the U.S. workforce added millions of jobs since the early days of the outbreak because of Trump's fiscal and regulatory policies. He said: We're going through a pandemic that lost 22 million jobs at the height, we've already added back 11.6 million jobs, because we had a president who cut taxes, rolled back regulation and unleashed American energy, fought for free and fair trade. [...] We literally have spared no expense to help the American people and the American worker through this. In other words, he claimed the Trump administration spearheaded a variety of initiatives that added 11.6 million jobs in summer and fall 2020, regaining nearly half the roughly 22 million jobs lost at the start of the pandemic. The comment echoed multiple statements by Trump in which he, too, attempted to praise the administration's successful balance of public health and economic interests. "Our strategy to kill the China virus has focused on protecting those at greatest risk while allowing younger and healthy Americans to safety return to work and safely return to school," he said in August. "We added 1.8 million new jobs in July, exceeding predictions for the third month in a row, and adding a total of over 9.3 million jobs since May." said To determine the legitimacy of such assertions, we referred to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) "seasonally adjusted nonfarm payroll," which is the standard measurement for determining how U.S. wage and salary jobs change over time. The payroll data are compiled monthly via a survey of about 145,000 businesses and government agencies across the country, excluding people who are self-employed, or work for farms or private households. compiled When a news story stated that, for instance, the economy added "661,000 new workers," that number was typically a reference to the month-to-month change in nonfarm payrolls  661,000 more jobs were added in September compared to August 2020. 661,000 new workers We obtained monthly nonfarm payroll data, which showed:   According to our analysis of the month-by-month statistics, the economy tallied almost 1.4 million less jobs in March compared to February. Then, the recession deepened, and April recorded 20.8 million less jobs than the month prior  the steepest decline since the Great Depression. since While Pence did not provide an explanation for his labor statistics at the debate, we assumed he was referencing the sum of job losses in March and April, showing employers cut about 22 million jobs during those two months, per the BLS data. Then, after that, the country started a slow, steady recovery. The data show the following increases in job totals, all approximations, on a month-by-month basis: (We should note here: The monthly employment figures for August and September 2020 were both preliminary and subject to revision, as of this writing.) Looking at the data, yes, about 11.4 millions jobs were added to the U.S. economy between May and September  and the Trump administration's comments about the economy showing significant job growth since the early weeks of the pandemic were true at face value. However, that upward trend had little to do with the White House and everything to do with how businesses on a grand scale adapted to new rules on social distancing to curb the spread of the deadly virus. In March, for instance, California issued the first statewide "stay at home order" and New York City closed all non-essential businesses  both decisions that contributed to April's historic job loss. March Then, over the weeks, employers developed plans for operating under public health officials' recommendations to curb the spread of COVID-19 and, as a result, were able to bring back workers who had been furloughed or reopen after a temporary shut down. Those trends significantly impacted job growth in the U.S.  not Trump.  Additionally, a Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan  which was developed by Congress, not the White House, via the March Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act  helped some small businesses bring back lost positions or keep workers who would otherwise have been laid off. That stimulus packages direct payments to Americans who earned 75,000 annually or less (or families that made up to $150,000 annually) may have also driven spending in the summer months and, consequently, kept some employers afloat after initial shock to their profits earlier in the year. Paycheck Protection Program Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act stimulus package All of that said, no evidence showed that the Trump administration enacted policies  whether related to taxes or trade  that "added back" the jobs but rather economic trends shifted from the early days of the outbreak, during mass furloughs and business closures. Here's the bottom line: Presidential administrations often exaggerate their influence on the economy  especially when employment is showing somewhat positive signs  no matter if they're leading the country during a crisis like the COVID-19 outbreak or comparatively normal times. As Neil Irwin wrote for The New York Times in January 2017, just days before Trumps inauguration: wrote The reality is that presidents have far less control over the economy than you might imagine. Presidential economic records are highly dependent on the dumb luck of where the nation is in the economic cycle. And the White House has no control over the demographic and technological forces that influence the economy.  Additionally, the White House had little influence on how businesses quickly adapted recommendations by public health officials to safely operate during the pandemic.  For those reasons, we rate this claim a "Mixture" of truth and falsehoods. It was true that the country added back about half of the jobs lost during the early months of the pandemic, though it was a false misinterpretation of economic conditions to tie that job growth to Trump policies  or that he "cut taxes, rolled back regulation and unleashed American energy, fought for free and fair trade," like Pence alleged, and that those moves directly added jobs.  Here's video footage of Pence making the claim on the vice presidential debate stage, courtesy of C-SPAN: https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4913299/user-clip-vp-pence-jobs-claim   Factba.se. "Press Conference: Donald Trump Holds A Coronavirus Pandemic Briefing In Bedminster - August 7, 2020."
 Accessed 9 October 2020. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. "BLS Data Viewer."
 9 October 2020. Reuters staff. "Timeline: How the Global Coronavirus Pandemic Unfolded."
 Accessed 12 October 2020. Legend:  A wife returns home from shopping and spots a pair of legs sticking out from under the car in their driveway.  Thinking that her husband is working on the car again, she playfully bends down and pulls down his pants zipper before cheerfully strolling into the house.  As she walks through living room, she spots her husband sitting in a chair watching TV.  Startled, she asks her husband who is under the car; when her husband informs her that it's his mechanic, she faints. Examples:  [Collected by Brunvand, 1969] The lady came home from the grocery store, and she saw her husband working under the car.  All that was exposed were his legs, so in passing she reached down, unzipped his zipper, chuckled to herself, and went into the house.  Immediately she saw her husband sitting in the easy chair reading the newspaper.  She cried, "Who is THAT under the car?" and her husband replied, "My mechanic."  She told her husband what she'd done, and they went outside to find the mechanic lying unconscious, in a pool of blood, because when the lady unzipped his pants he was so startled he sat up and clobbered his head under the car.  [Collected on the Internet, 2001] Be   careful what you wear (or don't wear) when working under your vehicle especially in public. From the Sydney Morning Herald, Australia, comes this story of a central west couple who drove their car to K-Mart only to have their car break down in the parking lot. The man told his wife to carry on with the shopping while he fixed the car there in the lot. The wife returned later to see a small group of people near the car. On closer inspection she saw a pair of male legs protruding from under the chassis. Although the man was in shorts, his lack of underpants turned private parts into glaringly public ones. Unable to stand the embarrassment, she dutifully stepped forward, quickly put her hand up his shorts and tucked everything back into place. On regaining her feet, she looked across the hood and found herself staring at her husband who was standing idly by. The mechanic, however, had to have three stitches in his head.  [Collected on the Internet, 2004] From the Northwest Floida Daily News comes this story of a Crestview couple who drove their car to Wal-Mart, only to have their car break down in the parking lot. The man told his wife to carry on with the shopping while he fixed the car in the lot. The wife returned later to see a small group of people near the car. On closer inspection, she saw a pair of male legs protruding from under the chassis. Although the man was in shorts, his lack of underpants turned private parts into glaringly public ones. Unable to stand the embarrassment, she dutifully stepped forward, quickly put her hand up his shorts, and tucked every thing back into place. When she got back on her feet, she looked across the hood and found herself staring at her husband who was standing idly by. The mechanic, however, had to be treated by the paramedics and received three stitches in his forehead. Variations:  Some versions of the legend feature a plumber working under a sink in place of the auto mechanic under the car.  When the wife unzips the plumber's pants, he sits up and hits his head on the pipes, knocking himself cold. Origins:  Some readers recall having heard this legend as far back as the late 1950s,  a variation on a common theme of a wife's playful licentiousness resulting in her great embarrassment. Unlike other versions, however, there is no suggestion of moral censure in this telling of the legend: the ubiquitous fondled minister has been replaced by an auto mechanic, and the wife suffers no painful humiliation.  In fact, the only one who comes to any harm is the innocent and unwitting mechanic who ends up with a bump on his head. fondled minister An early sighting of the legend features the "dropped stretcher" motif which appears in other urban legends, notably the Hind-Lick Maneuver (dog cold-noses naked man working under sink), Blew Moon (wife spritzs hairspray into toilet in attempt to kill bug; husband who aftewards lights cigarette while on throne blows himself up), and Frame Job (lady becomes stuck to freshly painted toilet seat).  Hind-Lick Maneuver Blew Moon Frame Job [Linkletter, 1967] A lady who had been after her husband for months to install a garbage disposal under the kitchen sink finally trapped him one Saturday afternoon, and he glumly got to work with his wrenches. Not wishing to listen to his colorful vocabulary as he banged his thumbs, she went out shopping. While downtown she ran into some girl friends and had a few cocktails, so she was feeling very friendly when she returned home. There was good old George still under the sink, working away, legs sticking out into the kitchen. So she bent down, reached under, and gave him a rudely familiar tweak. "Hi, honey," she said. There was a howl of surprise from under the sink as the man raised up and smacked his forehead against the disposal. It was the plumber! Her husband had given up on the job. The plumber crawled out, his forehead all bloody, and the wife ran to the phone for an ambulance. The husband helped the attendant load the poor plumber onto a stretcher. "How'd it happen?" asked the attendant as they were carrying the man out. When the husband told him, the attendant began laughing so hard he let go of the stretcher  and the plumber plunged to the sidewalk, breaking his arm. Imagine explaining that one to the insurance company. Last updated:  21 February 2009    Sources:  Brunvand, Jan Harold.  Too Good To Be .  New York: W. W. Norton, 1999.   ISBN 0-393-04734-2  (pp. 140-141).  Brunvand, Jan Harold.  The Vanishing Hitchhiker.  New York: W. W. Norton, 1981.  ISBN 0-393-95169-3  (pp. 147-148).   Bryson, Bill.  The Blook of Bunders (Bizarre World).   Great Britain: Sphere Books Ltd., 1982.  Dale, Rodney.  The Tumour in the Whale.   London: Duckworth, 1978.  ISBN 0-7156-1314-6  (pp. 37-38, 129).  Linkletter, Art.  Oops! Or, Life's Awful Moments.  Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1967  (pp. 66-67). Too Good To Be    Brunvand, Jan Harold.  The Vanishing Hitchhiker.  New York: W. W. Norton, 1981.  ISBN 0-393-95169-3  (pp. 147-148). The Vanishing Hitchhiker    Bryson, Bill.  The Blook of Bunders (Bizarre World).   Great Britain: Sphere Books Ltd., 1982.   Dale, Rodney.  The Tumour in the Whale.   London: Duckworth, 1978.  ISBN 0-7156-1314-6  (pp. 37-38, 129). The Tumour in the Whale   Linkletter, Art.  Oops! Or, Life's Awful Moments.  Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1967  (pp. 66-67).   Also told in:   Holt, David and Bill Mooney.  Spiders in the Hairdo.  Little Rock: August House, 1999.  ISBN 0-87483-525-9  (p. 43). Spiders in the Hairdo   The Big Book of Urban Legends.  New York: Paradox Press, 1994.  ISBN 1-56389-165-4  (p. 123). The Big Book of Urban Legends 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. A Once in a Lifetime Photo of a forest fire in Bitterroot Forest/Montana This awsome picture was taken in the Bitterroot National Forest in Montana on August 6, 2000 by a fire behavior analyst from Fairbanks, Alaska by the name of John McColgan with a Digital camera. Since he was working while he took the picture, he cannot sell or profit from it so he should at least be recognized as the photographer of this once in a lifetime shot.  The year 2000 brought one of the worst fire seasons in half a century to the United States. By the month of August, more than 4 million acres (an area greater in size than the states of Connecticut and Rhode Island combined) had been burned by wildfires, and dozens of blazes raged out of control in eleven western states, with nearly half of the conflagrations occurring in Idaho and Montana. On 6 August 2000, as several fires converged in the Bitterroot National Forest near the town of Sula in western Montana, John McColgan, a fire behavior analyst in the employ of the USDA Forest Service, snapped the spectacular photograph shown above with a digital camera and described the experience to a writer for the western Montana newspaper The Missoulian: Bitterroot Forest Service "That's a once-in-a-lifetime look there. I just happened to be in the right place at the right time. I've been doing this for 20 years and it ranks in the top three days of fire behavior I've seen." The day was Aug. 6, the Sunday when several forest fires converged near Sula into a firestorm that overran 100,000 acres and destroyed 10 homes. Temperatures in the flame front were estimated at more than 800 degrees. Nevertheless, McColgan said, the wildlife appeared to be taking the crisis in stride, gathering near the East Fork of the Bitterroot River where it crosses under U.S. Highway 93. "They know where to go, where their safe zones are," McColgan said. "A lot of wildlife did get driven down there to the river. There were some bighorn sheep there. A small deer was standing right underneath me, under the bridge." McColgan snapped the photo with a Kodak DC280 digital camera. Since he was working as a Forest Service firefighter, the shot is public property and cannot be sold or used for commercial purposes. After McColgan downloaded his amazing image to an office computer, a friend found it, e-mailed a copy to another friend, and by mid-September 2000 the picture was blazing its way across the Internet. Because many forwarded copies of the image lacked any attribution or explanation, e-mail recipients began to circulate rumors about its origins and authenticity  some claimed that the photo was snapped by a tourist, that it was taken during the extensive Yellowstone National Park fire of 1988, or that it was yet another digital fake. fire As John McColgan said afterwards, "I couldn't have profited from [the photograph], so I guess I'm glad so many people are enjoying it." We're happy to help him at least receive proper credit for his work. This picture has also been circulated with text identifying it as a photograph of August 2003 forest fires in British Columbia, of October 2007 California wildfires, of the June 2012 Waldo Canyon Fire in Colorado Springs, Colorado, and the November 2016 forest fires in Gatlinburg, Tennessee. Chaney, Rob.  "Mystery Solved: Forest Service Firefighter Captured Tragedy with Digital Camera."
  The Missoulian.  15 September 2000. CNN.com.  "Montana Homes Threatened by Wildfires."
  7 August 2000. Sen. Marco Rubio defended past support of a cap-and-trade bill in the Florida House by saying it was an attempt to protect the state from future federal regulations. Fox News moderator Bret Baier asked Rubio about the issue at a Republican presidential primary debate in Des Moines, Iowa, on Jan. 28, 2016. Baier said Rubio had wanted Florida to get ahead of other states and establish a cap-and-trade system while he was House speaker in 2008, and asked why Rubio had changed his mind. Rubio denied he backed a popular plan supported by then-Gov. Charlie Crist, claiming he was looking to insulate Florida from restrictions a future president might impose. I have never supported cap and trade, and I never thought it was a good idea, and I was clear about that at the time, Rubio said. Rubio has been very outspoken during this campaign abouthis opposition to cap and trade, which lets businesses trade pollution credits if they don't meet emission caps. But is his retelling of what happened in 2008 accurate? Cap and trade mission We literally went to the tape to find out, because the key evidence in this claim is a snippet from aMarch 13, 2008, appearanceRubio made on WFSUsFlorida Face to Face. Rubio was discussingHB 7135, an energy and climate change billchampioned by Cristthat included the Florida Climate Protection Act. That part of the law allowed the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to formulate a cap-and-trade program for greenhouse emissions from electric utilities. Florida should position itself for what I believe is inevitable, and that is a federal cap-and-trade program. Florida should do everything it can to be an early complier so it can access early compliance funds and so that it can help influence what that cap-and-trade looks like at the federal level, Rubio said on the show, which ran during the legislative session. And so Im in favor of giving the Department of Environmental Protection a mandate that they go out and design a cap-and-trade or a carbon-tax program and bring it back to the Legislature for ratification some time in the next two years. Crist used a portion of this clip during his 2010 Senate primary campaign against Rubio in an attempt to show Rubio favored a cap-and-trade program. WFSU, which operates The Florida Channel covering state government, demanded Criststop using footage of the showbecause of a law barring use of its footage in political campaigns. This limited portion of the show has been resurrected online during the presidential primary, leading someconservative sitesto question Rubios stance on the issue. But wait, as they say, theres more. Rubios campaign had complained the clip was out of context, and it appears it really was. They havepointed to a longer edit of the footagethat shows Rubio going on to say: Im in favor of them designing it. Im not in favor of them designing it and implementing it. Im in favor of them designing it and then bringing it back to the Legislature. The way were going toclean up our environment, the way were going to lower carbon emissions, is not through government mandates. That certainly changes the context of his statement. Rubios campaign did not respond to PolitiFacts questions about his potential support of cap and trade, but they haveaddressed this issue before. In 2007, Rubio wrote anop-ed for theMiami Heraldthat said Crist should be applauded for his efforts, but the government mandates he has proposed will not only fail to achieve their desired result, they carry actual negative consequences. Rubio did cite proposals from his book100 Innovative Ideas for Florida's Futureto increase ethanol production, develop bio-fuels and provide tax incentives for better fuel efficiency. But he concluded that instead of adopting measures that will have little if any impact on our environment and make life in Florida more expensive, we need a strategy that encourages environmental conservation, fuel efficiency and energy diversity, while continuing to stimulate our economy. Rubio also said in aMarch 2007 speechthat Florida was ripe to change energy policy because it was both environmentally sound and potentially lucrative. This nation, and ultimately the world, is headed towards emission caps and energy diversification, he said. Those changes will require technological advances that make those measures cost effective. The demand toward such advances will create an industry to meet it. Florida should become the Silicon Valley of that industry. Rubio did seem to change his tune a bit by 2009, when he was being criticized for his full-throated opposition of cap and trade after presiding over the passage of HB 7135. Environmentalists and scientists noted Rubio had shepherded the entire process as House speaker. The legislation was passed to move forward on cap-and-trade policy, and certainly Marco Rubio didn't stand in the way of that legislation passing and my understanding was that he was supportive of the process, John Reilly, a leading climate change expert from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology hired by Rubio to advise lawmakers,told theMiami Herald. He certainly seemed to accept the science of climate change. Rubio argued then that he wanted to take executive authority away from Crist, although the DEP countered they would have always needed legislative approval. Cap and trade planning fell by the wayside as Crist waged a losing Senate primary battle against Rubio. It has worked out as it was designed to work out, which was to stop a cap-and-trade system in Florida, Rubio said in 2009. Some critics at the time doubted that was Rubio's true plan, as it was a big gamble that the Legislature would shut down any proposed DEP cap and trade proposal. But a2015 article in theNational Journalsaid that while the bill passed (and it passed the House and Senate unanimously), Rubio did add wording that prevented the plan from being implemented. The final bill indeed only allowed DEP to develop a potential plan, and required legislative approval to become practice. TheNational Journalquoted former House minority leader and state Rep. Dan Gelber, D-Miami Beach, who said, I fully credit him with the gutting of the bill. Our ruling Rubio said, I have never supported cap and trade. As House speaker in Florida, Rubio did preside over the unanimous passage of an energy bill that allowed the state to develop a cap-and-trade plan for electric utility emissions. But it appears his comments on the bill have been taken out of context, and that there may have been some legislative craftiness afoot. Rubio said he wanted Florida to cook up a plan of its own before federal regulations were imposed on the state. He also voiced opposition to government mandates and inserted a roadblock to letting any plan actually be implemented, details that get left out when Rubio is accused of supporting the measure. He now is much more vocal in his opposition of cap and trade, but it looks as if he has always favored a largely hands-off approach from government. We rate Rubios statement Mostly True. Some political issues, it seems, are so emotionally charged that proponents of one side or another will promulgate anything that reflects their viewpoint, no matter how irrelevant, inapplicable, outdated, or erroneous it might be. The ongoing debate over U.S. immigration policy is one such issue, and for years claims about asylum seekers and refugees settled in the U.S. receiving financial assistance from the federal government that amounts to almost double the stipends provided to American retirees have been widely disseminated online:   Pensioners should apply as refugees! It is interesting that the federal government provides a single refugee with a monthly allowance of $1,890.00 and each can also get an additional $580.00 in social assistance for a total of $2,470.00 This compares very well to a single pensioner who after contributing to the growth and development of America for 40 to 50 years can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012.00 in old age pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement. Maybe our pensioners should apply as refugees! Lets send this to all Americans, so we can all be ticked off and maybe we can get the refugees cut back to $1,012.00 and the pensioners to $2,470.00 and enjoy some of the money we were forced to submit to the Government over the last 40 or 50 years. Please forward to every American to expose what our elected politicians have been doing over the past 11 years  to the over-taxed American. SEND THIS TO EVERY AMERICAN TAXPAYER YOU KNOW American Government Seniors Policy Virtually everything claimed in the textual example above is wrong: the information is fifteen years old, it was originally about government policy in Canada and not the U.S. (someone merely substituted the word 'American' for 'Canadian' throughout the text), and it wasn't true (about either Canada or the U.S.) when it was written and still isn't true now. The "pensioners vs. refugees" brouhaha began back in March 2004, when the Toronto Star published an article about plans for Canada to work in conjunction with the United Nations to settle asylum-seekers from a Somali refugee camp in some smaller Canadian cities (outside the usual immigrant magnet communities of Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver). As the Star's ombudsman later explained, a single paragraph in the midst of the article was somewhat ambiguous about the amount of financial assistance the Canadian government would be providing to these refugees: Halfway through the 1,500-word article, unforeseen trouble was lurking. In paragraph 16, the story said single refugees are eligible for $1,890 from Ottawa as a "start-up allowance, along with a $580 monthly social assistance, depending on how soon the person is able to find employment." In addition, they get "a night lamp, a table, a chair and a single bed from the government," the story said. In painful hindsight, those details could have been clearer. Actually, the $1,890 "start-up allowance"  including a $580 monthly social assistance cheque from Ottawa  was a one-time payment for basic household needs such as furnishings, pots and linens. The furniture is used. Unfortunately, one Star reader who misunderstood the issue set loose an e-mail polemic about refugee entitlement without waiting for clarification, and the author of a follow-up letter to the editor published in the Star repeated the erroneous claim that the African refugees would be collecting monthly government allowances nearly double those provided to pensioners: In quick order, two things happened after the article ran. First, a reader sent a nasty e-mail to the reporter. Among other things, it said charity begins at home and Canada should not "roll out the welcome mat" for refugees. The e-mailer assumed  erroneously  that the refugees would collect $2,470 a month. They'd be better off than Canadian pensioners. More worrisome, the polemicist sent his rant to 100 recipients, some of whom likely spread the word to wider audiences. Ah, the wonders of the Internet! Alarmed by the e-mail, reporter Keung tried to contact the sender. It was too late. Having spread the misinformation, the e-mailer already had changed his address. At the same time, a second development occurred. The Star ran a letter to the editor that said the $2,470 "compares very well to a single pensioner who after contributing to the growth and development of Canada for 40 years can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012 in old age pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement. "Maybe our pensioners should apply as refugees?" reasoned the writer. In short order, e-mail forwards like the following began winging their way into the inboxes of thousands of Canadians (and a good many Americans to boot): Only in Canada. Do not apply for your old age pension. Apply to be a refugee. It is interesting that the federal government provides a single refugee with a monthly allowance of $1,890.00 and each can get an additional $580.00 in social assistance for a total of $2,470.00. This compares very well to a single pensioner who, after contributing to the growth and development of Canada for 40 or 50 years, can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012.00 in old age pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement. Maybe our pensioners should apply as refugees! Let's send this thought to as many Canadians as we can and maybe we can get the refugees cut back to $1,012.00 and the pensioners up to $2,470.00, so they can enjoy the money they were forced to submit to the Canadian government for those 40 to 50 years. Please forward this to every Canadian you know. By November 2004, the Star noted that: It [has] became increasingly clear a disturbing urban myth has been born. Various offices at the Star have been getting e-mails from around the world, usually one or two a week. Many quote from the erroneous letter to the editor, expressing varying degrees of curiosity, dismay, envy or anger. "Let's send this to all Canadians," one e-mail roared, "so we can all be pissed off and maybe we can get the refugees cut back to $1,012 and the pensioners up to $2,470 and enjoy some of the money we were forced to submit to the government over the last 40 or 50 years." Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) attempted to set the record straight about the amounts of financial assistance from the federal government provided to refugees vs. pensioners: CIC Refugees don't receive more financial assistance from the federal government than Canadian pensioners. In [a letter to the Toronto Star], a one-time, start-up payment provided to some refugees in Canada was mistaken for an ongoing, monthly payment. Unfortunately, although the newspaper published a clarification, the misleading information had already spread widely over e-mail and the internet. In truth, about three quarters of refugees receive financial assistance from the federal government, for a limited time, and at levels lower than Canadian pensioners. They are known as government-assisted refugees. We have to remember that many of these people are fleeing from unimaginable hardship, and have lived in refugee camps for several years. Others are victims of trauma or torture in their home countries. Many arrive with little more than a few personal belongings, if that. Canada has a humanitarian role to accept refugees and help them start their new lives here. For this reason, government-assisted refugees get a one-time payment of up to $1,095 from the federal government to cover essentials  basic, start-up needs like food, furniture and clothing. They also receive a temporary monthly allowance for food and shelter that is based on provincial social assistance rates. In Ontario, for example, a single refugee would receive $592 per month. This assistance is temporary  lasting only for one year or until they can find a job, whichever comes first. This short-term support for refugees is a far cry from the lifetime benefits for Canada's seniors. The Old Age Security (OAS) program, for example, provides people who have lived in Canada for at least 10 years with a pension at age 65. The Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) is an additional monthly benefit for low-income pensioners. The Canada Pension Plan (CPP), or Quebec Pension Plan (QPP) for people in Quebec, pays a monthly retirement pension to people who have worked and contributed to the plan over their career. In July 2006, Canadian seniors received an average of $463.20 in OAS benefits and $472.79 in CPP retirement benefits ($388.94 in QPP). Lower income OAS recipients also qualified for an average of an additional $361.94 in GIS benefits. In 2015 and 2016, the same statements began once again circulating around social media, this time focusing on refugees coming from Syria. The claims were getting so widely spread that the Canadian government once again addressed it on the CIC web site, saying: CIC No. Refugees do not get more financial help from the federal government than Canadian pensioners do. A widely circulated email makes this false claim. The email mistakenly includes the one-time start-up payment as part of the monthly payment. The amount of monthly financial support that government-assisted refugees get is based on provincial social assistance rates. It is the minimum amount needed to cover only the most basic food and shelter needs. Many refugees selected for resettlement to Canada have been forced to flee their country because of extreme hardship. Some may have been living in refugee camps for many years. When they arrive in Canada, they must start their lives again in a country very different from their own. In keeping with Canada's proud humanitarian traditions, individuals and families get immediate and essential services and support to help them become established in Canada. It's worth noting that in Canada, much of the financial assistance is in the form of loans, which refugees have to pay back with interest. Also, as of January 2016, the alleged monthly allowances of these imaginary pensioners, no matter which country they are supposed to be living in, have not changed in more than a decade. loans In January 2010, some e-mailed versions of this item were prefaced with the following introduction: From a Florida ER doctor: Today I had a 25-year old with 8 kids - that's right 8, all Illegal Anchor Babies and she had the nicest nails, cell phone, hand bag, clothing, etc. She makes about $1,500 monthly for each; you do the math. I used to say, "We are the dumbest nation on earth," Now I must say and sadly admit: WE are the dumbest people on earth (that includes ME) For we Elected the Idiot Ideologues who have passed the Bills that allow this. Sorry, but we need a Revolution, If the Illegal Immigrant is over 65, they can apply for SSI and Medicaid and get more than a woman on Social Security, who worked from 1944 until 2004. She is only getting $791 per month because she was born in 1924 and there's a 'catch 22' (notch) for her. It is interesting that the Federal Government provides a single refugee with a monthly allowance of $1,890. Each can also obtain an additional $580 in Social Assistance, for a total of $2,470 a month. This compares to a single pensioner, who after contributing to the growth and development of America for 40 to 50 years, can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012 in Old Age Pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement. Maybe our Pensioners should apply as Refugees! Consider sending this to all your American friends, so we can all be ticked off and maybe get the Refugees cut back to $1,012 and the Pensioners up to $2,470. Then we can enjoy some of the money we were forced to submit to the Government over the last 40 or 50 or 60 years. PLEASE SHOW THIS TO EVERY AMERICAN TAXPAYER YOU KNOW In September 2017, an April 2016 Facebook iteration of the rumor shared by Dan Shea began circulating once again. As of 13 September 2017, it had been shared well more than a quarter of a million times: Dan Shea   Keung, Nicholas.  "New Refugee Plan Eyes Small Cities."   The Toronto Star. 11 March 2004 (p. A1). Sellar, Don.  "Can We Dispel This Urban Myth?"   The Toronto Star.  27 November 2004  (p. H6). The Toronto Star.  "Pay Pensioners Same as Refugees?"   12 March 2004  (p. A23). With Illinois entering its 17th month without a state budget as Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner and Democratic House Speaker Michael Madigan continue their epic stalemate, Republican legislative leaders repeatedly talk about the need for a property tax freeze. They suggest the freeze, which Rauner hasmade a prerequisite for any budget negotiation, is particularly necessary, as the state will need to raise other taxes to cover itsgrowing bill backlogwhen a budget is signed into law. Rauner has called for daily meetings with Madigan and the states three other legislative leaders as the states stopgap spending authority expires at years end. As the legislative leaders began those closed-door meetings in their six-day fall veto session, both Senate Republican Leader Christine Radogno and House Republican Leader Jim Durkin again made the case for a property tax freeze by saying Illinois has one of the worst tax burdens nationwide. Radogno said, People in this state right now are suffering because they dont have jobs. We have the fifth-highest tax burden in the country. People are moving out of their homes because of the property tax burden. These are issues that have to be addressed and have to be addressed now. This is a claim weve often heard for years in Illinois, and it seems various groups are releasing rankings daily. So we decided to check this one out. Patty Schuh, press secretary to the Illinois Senate GOP staff, said the source for the fifth-worst tax burden claim was a January release of rankings by the Tax Foundation. Indeed, the nonpartisan foundation did issue rankings of the 50 states tax burdens that showed Illinois at No. 5 for its overall burden. But thats not the entire picture. Measuring the rankings What does the Foundations overall burden measure? And is that the best, most relevant measurement? Jared Walczak, a policy analyst at the Tax Foundation, noted there are many ways to measure tax systems and rates and burdens. A states own tax structure can play a big part in how it ranks compared to others. For instance, he said Alaska derives a lot of its tax revenue from oil sales, but Alaskans pay relatively little of those taxes, which are paid by all of us who use gasoline, Walczak said. The Tax Foundation does measure the overall tax burden of the people paying taxes in a state, but that overall metric includes both taxes that return to Illinois and those that are paid outside of Illinois, Walczak said. Annette Nellen, a professor in and director of San Jos State University's graduate tax program, agreed, noting that people need to understand how the rankings are calculated and what they mean. I think it gets to that legislator using that information incorrectly. A legislator should look at whats paid and what the rates are in Illinois if she is trying to make the argument that Illinois taxes are too high, she said. They should look at the rate in the state for income and sales and property taxes and how much does the middle quintile of taxpayers pay for various taxes within Illinois, Nellen added. The Tax Foundations ownwebsitenotes, Tax collections are useful for some purposes and cited frequently. However, dividing total taxes collected by governments in a state by the states total income is not an accurate measure of the tax burden on a states residents as a whole because it does not accurately reflect the taxes that are actually paid out of that states income. Walczak, the Foundation analyst, said Illinois actually ranked seventh-highest in taxes residents paid to their own state and the fifth-most overall when taxes paid outside of Illinois are included. The ranking of taxes paid by residents in their state is a more accurate reflection of the states tax structure and burden on residents, experts agreed. But theres one more thing to consider. The Tax Foundation rankings were released in January but were calculated using census data from 2012, the bureaus most recent release of that particular data. John Frendreis, a Loyola University political science professor, said the Foundations work was sound, but noted the income tax rate in 2012 was higher than it is now. The rate then for individuals was 5 percent but dropped in January 2015 to 3.75 percent. As a point of comparison, during the two fiscal years preceding FY 2012, the total state tax burden was 10.5 percent, which dropped Illinois several places in the ranking, Frendreis noted. Still, he said, In general, Illinois total tax burden puts it into roughly the top quarter of states on a regular basis. Our ruling Senate Republican Leader Christine Radogno said Illinois has the fifth-highest tax burden in the country. Its a statistic she and other Republicans cite often as they argue for a property tax freeze as one of several changes they want made before they will agree to a budget with Madigan and Democrats. While independent experts say the No. 5 rank for Illinois issued by the Tax Foundation for overall tax burden is accurate, the overall burden includes taxes paid outside of Illinois and is not the best metric for the burden taxpayers carry as a result of tax policy and structure and those taxes paid within the state. Illinois actually is No. 7 nationwide by the measure that best reflects in-state tax policy set by lawmakers. The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. We rate this claim Mostly True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/f500e006-4c6e-49cb-b6c3-eada6c7ee46a 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 As the COVID-19 pandemic ravaged the global economy in 2020, resulting in growing unemployment, governments scrambled to support people and businesses to varying degrees, announcing a range of stimulus relief funds meant to help struggling businesses and furloughed employees. By December 2020, lawmakers in the U.S. were also running out of time to pass another major coronavirus relief package. ravaged running out of time A meme began circulating in late 2020 that compared the U.S. governments stimulus checks -- given to a significant portion of the U.S. population -- to coronavirus relief funds deployed around the world. The meme effectively argued that the U.S. was not giving enough money to support workers compared with other countries. We broke down the numbers below and learned that, while the numbers are largely accurate, the meme was comparing apples to oranges.   Below are the respective stimulus relief funds being provided to populations around the world, particularly across Europe, Australia, and the U.K. In March 2020, the Australian government outlined a plan to subsidize the wages of 6 million people in order to keep them in their jobs. The plan would pay employees at any company that saw a 30% reduction in revenue around $1,500 Australian dollars (the equivalent of $928 U.S. dollars according to Reuters) every two weeks. March 2020 outlined pay Reuters This calculation would amount to $1,856 U.S. dollars per month. But according to conversion rates calculated by Newsweek in April, the relief check amounted to around $1,993 per month. Based on current conversion rates calculated on Google Finance, this same amount would now be more than $2,200 every four weeks. Newsweek Australia also had a number of other social security measures including one-off Economic Support Payments of AU$750 in April and July 2020 to qualifying recipients.  Economic Support Payments The Canadian government provides $500 Canadian dollars per week for up to 26 weeks for workers who stopped working or had their income reduced by at least 50% due to COVID-19. Based on current conversion rates on Google, this amounts to around $1,565 U.S. dollars per month. The meme presumably pulled their data from Newsweek's April 2020 story, which calculated the amount as being $1,433 U.S. dollars per month at that time. provides Newsweek Overall, the Canadian government aims to spend up to $75 billion U.S. dollars in emergency aid and economic stimulus to assist members of their population who are struggling financially. Measures include boosting child benefit payments, wage subsidies for small businesses, and tax relief measures. Overall The Danish government will cover up to 75% of employee salaries in private companies as long as those companies agree to not fire people. According to Flemming Larsen, a professor at the Center for Labor Market Research at Denmarks Aalborg University, this would amount to up to $3,288 per month (roughly based on the conversion rate at the time of the interview), which lines up with the number in the meme. For hourly workers who qualify, the government would cover 90% of their wages. Flemming Larsen hourly workers The deal, which was struck between the government and trade unions, covers companies who have to lay off at least 30% of their staff, or 50 staff or more. But this particular form of coverage does not support the self-employed and other vulnerable groups. deal self-employed According to The Guardian, more than 12 million people in France are covered by a partial unemployment scheme that covers 70% of salaries when companies are forced to reduce or suspend work, which is up to 6,927 euros per month (which according to Newsweeks calculations in April were $7,575 U.S. dollars, but around $8,400 today). Employees previously on minimum wage receive 100% coverage of their salaries. The Guardian $7,575 U.S. dollars The French government is also giving paid leave to parents who cannot work from home and who are responsible for children younger than 16. paid leave The German scheme covers 10 million workers according to The Guardian, paying up to 67% of net wages lost due to shorter hours, to a maximum of 6,700 euros per month (again, $7,326.78 U.S. dollars in April according to Newsweek, but $8,125 today) for employees with children and 60% for those without children. The Guardian $7,326.78 The budget also includes a 50 billion euro program to help the self-employed and small businesses threatened with bankruptcy, giving them direct payments of up to 15,000 euros (more than $18,000). Irelands temporary wage subsidy scheme allows affected companies to recoup up to 70% of their net income up to 21,400 euros until May. After May 4, 2020, the scheme became more generous, paying an 85% subsidy up to the same amount. temporary wage subsidy After May 4, employees would be given a maximum of 350 euros per week if they earned less than or equal to 412 euros per week, and they would receive a maximum of 410 euros per week if they earned between 500 and 586 euros per week. 410 euros amounted to $448.36 U.S. dollars per week according to Newsweek in April, which matches up with the memes calculation of $1793.44. Today that amounts to around $1,987. May 4 Newsweek The Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme reimburses companies for 80% of their gross salaries up to 2,500 pounds per month (which amounts to around $3,300 U.S. dollars today, and according to Newsweek was $3,084 in April). As of August, some workers were able to return to their jobs part-time, and in November the government extended the scheme until March 31, 2021. Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme Newsweek November The U.S. government did indeed give many qualifying people a one-time stimulus relief check of $1,200, which on the surface appears to be to a small fraction of what these other countries appear to be giving workers who are unemployed or in danger of being furloughed. This check was given to individual taxpayers who made less than $75,000 in adjusted gross income in 2018. They would receive between $600 and $1,200 with the highest earners getting the maximum payment. one-time given But this meme did not account for the overall stimulus package, including unemployment benefits and additional funds granted for dependents. The data from other countries showcased relief funds for helping the unemployed or preventing lay-offs, so the numbers were comparing two totally different items. The CARES Act, a $2 trillion dollar relief bill that was passed in March 2020, increased unemployment benefits and added $600 dollars per week from the federal government on top of whatever base amount workers received from their state. The legislation also added 13 weeks of unemployment insurance. However, many of the provisions from this expired in July. The Families First Coronavirus Response Act also expanded paid family and medical leave options for some workers. A new relief bill is being debated by congress, with Republicans and Democrats disagreeing over how much stimulus the U.S. economy needs. CARES Act Families First Coronavirus Response Act debated Given that the numbers cited in the meme compare very different stimulus packages around the world, with a range of complex provisions, to a one-time payment in the U.S. that does not reflect the full stimulus relief package, we rate this claim a Mixture. 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