Was a banknote featuring Karl Marx issued in Germany?
In March 2018, an image showing a young woman holding what appeared to be an official piece of European currency featuring the face of German philosopher and Communist Manifesto co-author Karl Marx started making its way around the Internet: Communist Manifesto Karl Marx Internet   "Zero Euros" are a popular souvenir item in Europe. Richard Faille started producing the realistic currency (which is authorized by the European Central Bank) in 2015, with the help of an official banknote printer called Oberthur Fiduciaire. Faille's operation expanded over the years and now Zero Euro notes are available in a number of European countries and commemorate a variety of topics, such as anniversaries, historical locations, city events, and notable individuals:  authorized 2015 commemorate The Zero Euro is a souvenir banknote with authorized printing by the European Central Bank (ECB) and is on queue to be a popular in 2017 banknote collector markets. Its origins stem from France in 2015 after Richard Faille, creator of popular French currency souvenirs, decided to create euros that promote tourism. The banknotes are printed at a private fiduciary facility and they share many of the same characteristics of a real Euro except that they are marked as 0, hence the name, and are tested to ensure they cannot enter circulation as legitimate financial currency. The front of all zero euros is the same and it includes a white zero followed by the Euro sign to denominate no financial value. Then (from left to right) Brandenburg Gate, Big Ben, the Eiffel Tower, the Colosseum, Sagrada Familia, Manneken Pis and the Mona Lisa. The pictured item is a souvenir that was produced by a tourism company in Trier, the German town where Marx was born, in honor of what would have been the author's 200th birthday in May 2018. The bill can be purchased for 3: bill On 5 May 2018 the city of Trier celebrates the 200th birthday of its famous son Karl Marx and on this occasion we have a bill from Trier Tourismus und Marketing GmbH. Norbert Kthler, the Managing Director of Trier Tourism and Marketing, acknowledged the humor in putting Marx on a worthless piece of currency: acknowledged Norbert Kthler, Geschftsfhrer der ttm, sagt zu dem Null-Euro-Schein: Das Souvenir setzt sich spielerisch mit der Marxschen Kapitalismuskritik auseinander. Und natrlich passen die Null-Euro-Scheine auch hervorragend zu Marx als Geldscheinmotiv. Norbert Kthler, Managing Director of TTM, says about the Zero Euro note: "The souvenir playfully deals with Marx's critique of capitalism. And of course, zero-euro bills also fit perfectly with the Marx motif." Satirical web site the Sacramento Brie also used an altered version of this image in an article that facetiously claimed that the zero value Marx bill was being used in Venezuela to boost the country's economy. Sacramento Brie Numis Magazine.  "Zero Euro Banknote Creator Richard FAILLE Strikes Again!"
  25 June 2017. Lokalo.de.  "'Das Geld Wird Abgeschafft!'  Trier Bietet Zum 200. Geburtstag Von Karl Marx Einen Null-Euro-Schein An."
  17 March 2018.
Claim: Kohl's is giving Facebook users a coupon for 50 percent off any purchase for liking and sharing a status.  Example: [Collected via e-mail, October 2015] There is a Yes pass from Kohl's, saying that everything is 50% off. You need to share and comment Thanks Kohl's. Is this true?? _______________________________________________________________________ Happy Thanksgiving from Kohl's. 50 % OFF of everything. Origins: In mid-November 2015, links began circulating on Facebook promising users a Thanksgiving coupon for 50 percent off all Kohl's purchases:  The appended links involved a variety of URLs (above, "couponbits.com"), and users who clicked through to claim their coupon landed on a page titled "Complete these steps below to get KOHL'S Reward!" While the page mimicked the style of Facebook-based content, it was hosted on a non-Facebook URL:   As with many similar coupon lures on Facebook, the dangled bait was based upon an actual Kohl's coupon (albeit one whose savings were far more modest):   In response to an avalanche of Facebook complaints from frustrated users who hadn't received coupons after completing the steps, Kohl's verified account replied: Please know this is not a valid Kohl's offer. Social media users are largely acquainted with survey scams of this type; Kohl's (previously), Costco, Home Depot, Lowe's, Kroger, Best Buy, Macy's, Olive Garden, Publix, Target, and Walmart are among retailers used as scam bait (by folks mining personal information and valuable page likes from Facebook users). Kohl's Costco Home Depot Lowe's Kroger Best Buy Macy's Olive Garden Publix Target Walmart bait A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureau illustrated how folks might spot and avoid bad actors utilizing the reputations of brands on social media: article Don't believe what you see. It's easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender. Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure there's a link to their privacy policy. When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organization's real website may have further information. Watch out for a reward that's too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions. It's likely Kohl's planned to release Black Friday coupons on or around Thanksgiving, but the retailer was unlikely to do so by forcing its customers to like and share a Facebook status update.   Last updated: 19 November 2015 Originally published: 19 November 2015 A leading Democrat predicts devastation if Gov. Scott Walkers proposed $300 million cut over two years to the University of Wisconsin System is adopted. For UW-Madison its a major issue, Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca, D-Kenosha, said in a March 12, 2015Wisconsin Eye interview. Its penny wise and pound foolish there. Barca added: The average faculty member at UW-Madison brings in close to a quarter million dollars a year. So you cut them and theyre leaving. They have plenty of opportunities to go to Harvard or Princeton or Stanford. Barca was joined on the Wisconsin Eye program by Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester. He thinks the university cut is too large, but says Democrats are overreacting. Lets remember that the cut thats happening under Gov. Walker is about the size of the one that happened under (former Gov. Jim Doyle, a Democrat), and I didnt hear Democrats complaining about the loss of the university and how the world was going to come to an end. Well test Vos claim soon. For now, lets examine Barcas statement about the prowess of the Madison faculty in attracting research grants. Researching the research When we asked Barca to back up the claim, spokeswoman Laura Smith pointed to apage on the UW-Madison websitethat answers frequently asked questions about the 2015-17 budget -- at least from the UW Systems perspective. The page asserts that asking professors to teach more classes -- as Walker suggested -- would cut into critical functions of the university: Research is central to their jobs. According to university statistics, each faculty member is bringing in approximately $242,000 on average to support their research in a highly competitive national environment. Faculty and staff brought in more than $500 million in federal research awards in 2012-13, money that would not otherwise come to Wisconsin. So theres Barcas close to a quarter million figure. We asked UW-Madison about the numbers. They are from 2012-13, and were published in March 2014 in theuniversitys Data Digest. The document provides a detailed look at various aspects of the campus and is put together by three offices: Academic Planning & Institutional Research, Office of the Provost and the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Finance & Administration. UW-Madison is one of the leading research institutions in the country as measured by total grants from outside sources, mostly the federal government. Out of its 2,173 faculty members, 1,275 (or 59 percent) secured research grants in 2012-13, the latest year available. So theres a point of clarification: Barca frames his claim around the idea that any cuts will hurt the universitys ability to bring in research money. But in the year examined, 41 percent did not bring in grants. The university says it uses the total number of faculty when calculating the per-professor grant haul because all faculty members are expected to do research. In all, professors pulled in a total of $525.7 million in grants from outside sources. The grants are in these areas: biological sciences, humanities, physical sciences, social sciences. Spread over 2,173 faculty, thats the $242,000 figure. If you spread it out over just the faculty receiving grants, the average is $412,000. Jocelyn Milner, a UW official who helps prepare the Data Digest, told us that grant productivity is calculated in another way as well. Theres another $355 million in grants that are not awarded to individual professors, but to a dean or other official even though professors end up doing the research. When you add those in the per-faculty grant figure rises to $399,000 per year, Milner said. UW prefers the more conservative methodology that is behind the $241,935 figure, Milner said. We found that ranking universities on research prowess often turns on how much money they pull in. There areother factors that can help judge research prominence, such as journal articles published, endowment assets, faculty awards, and so on. Our rating Barca said, The average faculty member at UW-Madison brings in close to a quarter million dollars a year. He referred to research grants won. UW-Madison figures back up the claim, but theres one point of clarification, in that not all faculty get grants. We rate Barcas statement 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 March 11, 2021, U.S. President Joe Biden signed the American Rescue Plan, a $1.9 trillion stimulus package to provide relief to Americans who have been struggling during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the days leading up to this bill's passage, a number of Republican lawmakers and pundits criticized the bill, arguing that only 9% of the relief package had anything to do with COVID-19.  signed Conservative author Melisa Tate, for example, wrote on Twitter that the bill "only gives 9% to the American people" while the rest went to politicians and their cronies. Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., said that she voted against the "COVID relief" bill because "only 9% of this bill is COVID-related" while "the rest is allocated to liberal pet projects and blue state bailouts." Twitter voted against   The claim that only 9% of the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan is going to COVID relief is largely false. The vast majority of this bill will provide financial relief to people, businesses, and governments who have struggled during the COVID-19 pandemic.  The argument that only 9% of the measure will go to COVID relief appears to be an exaggeration of the fact that the American Rescue Plan will provide approximately $160 billion (about 8.5% of the total) for testing, protective gear, vaccine production and distribution, and other measures to directly combat the virus. $160 billion (about 8.5% of the total) for testing While it's true that only about 9% of this bill goes to fighting the virus directly, that figure does not include the vast majority of funds aimed at providing financial relief to those who have struggled through the pandemic. For example, the 9% does not include the most famous part of the American Rescue Plan, the $1,400 stimulus checks for individuals, which is expected to amount to around $400 billion (or about 21% of the total). This 9% figure also doesn't account for items such as unemployment insurance, a child tax care credit, funding for schools to re-open, rent assistance, and other measures aimed at providing relief to Americans.  $400 billion account for items Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, told NPR that there were two parts to the American Rescue Plan. The first dealt with combating COVID directly, while the second aimed at dealing with the financial crisis that resulted from the pandemic: NPR "There are really two pieces to this bill. One is directly related to the health crisis, but the other, and the larger piece, is related to the economic crisis that the health crisis has created." The vast majority of the American Rescue Plan is concerned with providing relief to people, businesses, and governments that have suffered during the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, about $300 billion (or 15% of the bill) "is spent on long-standing policy priorities that are not directly related to the current crisis." In other words, about 85% of the bill is related specifically to the impacts of COVID-19.  Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget In short: The American Rescue Plan is a multi-faceted, $1.9 trillion to bill that provides financial relief to those struggling during the COVID-19 pandemic. While it's true that only 9% of this funding will be used to directly combat the virus (via vaccine distribution and other health measures), this bill provides relief to Americans in several other ways. The $1,400 COVID-19 relief checks, for example, account for more than 20% of this $1.9 trillion bill. In April 2021, an image went viral on social media platforms that was represented as follows:"This is not a painting. It is the most detailed image of a human cell to date, obtained via radiography, nuclear MRI, and cryoelectronic microscopy." As we'll explain below, that description is completely inaccurate. First, here's an example of the miscaptioned image as posted on Facebook in late 2022:  Contrary to what the caption claims, this is a painting of sorts -- a digital illustrationby an artist named Russell Kightley. It is not the most detailed image of a human cell to date -- in fact, it is, in Kightley's words, a "generalized animal cell," not specifically a human cell. Nor was the image obtained via radiography, nuclear MRI, or cryoelectronic microscopy. All of that was made up out of whole cloth. Kightley created the image with graphics software. digital illustration Russell Kightley As Kightley has written on his blog, the image has repeatedly gone viral since April 2021, almost never with an accurate description or proper credit to the artist (AFP fact-checked viral versions of the image in July 2021). Kightley wrote: has written on his blog AFP fact-checked The image was created twenty years ago for an educational poster for BioCam. It took six weeks of full-time work to create using Painter (Fractal Design's Painter as it was, now it's managed by Corel). Since then, it's appeared in lots of places, including Richard Dawkins's book, The Greatest Show on Earth (plates 12-13 c). It's available on prints and merchandise and for licensing (publication, academic use, etc.). If you want to print it out for your home or office you can buy the digital file here. If you want it for teaching, you can get the 700-pixel file here. BioCam prints and merchandise 700-pixel file Of the conception and design of the illustration, Kightley wrote: I wanted it to look like an opened jewelry box, for the glint and sense of wonder at the inner workings. The colors are arbitrary, but I've used greenish-blue for plasma membranes and red or purple for DNA for many years. It's a generalized animal (including human) cell, with no specializations and was designed as a basic biology teaching tool. I have spent many years creating cell and virus illustrations and animations, including pioneering work on animating the HIV life cycle back in 1990-1991, where I created internal cellular landscapes (using electronic paint on a Quantel Paintbox) and originated this style of illustration. You can learn more about the artist and view more of his work on RussellKightey.com. RussellKightey.com "Animal Cell on White by Russell Kightley." Russell Kightley - Website, https://russell-kightley.pixels.com/featured/animal-cell-on-white-russell-kightley.html. Accessed 12 Jan. 2023. "Illustration of Animal Cell Misrepresented as 'Most Detailed Image of Human Cell.'" Fact Check, 27 July 2021, https://factcheck.afp.com/http%253A%252F%252Fdoc.afp.com%252F9GD4Z3-6. Kightley, Russell. "Animal Cell Goes Viral AGAIN." Russell Kightley, 25 July 2021, https://www.russellkightley.com/post/animal-cell-goes-viral-again. "Russelly." Russell Kightley, https://www.russellkightley.com/russelly. Accessed 12 Jan. 2023. For much of this gubernatorial campaign, Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland has been defending his record against charges from Republican challenger John Kasich that he has done too little to stem job losses in Ohio and responding to accusations that he still oversees a bloated state government.Stricklands running mate, Yvettee McGee Brown, in her own campaign speeches has echoed the governors. Recently she tackled a charge by Republicans that Ohio still has too many employees on the state payroll by evoking the name of one of the GOPs favorite sons.Ohio today has the fewest number of state employees since the Reagan administration, McGee Brown said in an Aug. 4 speech at a candidates forum in Columbus.Clearly, recent well-chronicled state layoffs and hiring freezes almost assure Ohio has fewer state employees than when Strickland took office in 2007. But could it be fewer than in the 1980s when Reagan was president, as Brown contends?The Strickland campaign is looking to reverse long-held Republican opinion that Democrats favor higher taxes and bigger government.The higher taxes issue will loom for whomever is Ohios next governor, given that the state faces up to an $8 billion budget deficit in the next operating budget with seemingly few options other than raising personal income taxes.But the big government question is something Strickland has dealt with since 2009 when the last biennial budget was set and the administration laid off state workers, froze hiring in some areas and otherwise shrunk government by attrition.Now McGee Brown has gone a step further by stating that under Strickland, Ohio now has the fewest state employees since Reagan, who was president from 1981 through 1988.Stricklands campaign communications team offered uneven explanations for where McGee Brown got her information. It first stated it came from a state data chart that officials could not find until, PolitiFact began inquiring three weeks after McGee Browns speech. It then said the information was in an October 2009 news release from the Strickland administration that the campaign never produced.But the Ohio Department of Administrative Services bailed them out. It discovered annual employee data in a trends report that contained information dating back to 1983 and updated to include recent years.The report shows that as of December 2009, Ohio had 58,622 employees, the lowest number since 1983 when the state had 60,292 workers. That 28-year stretch includes a period from 1991 through 2006 when Ohios governors were Republicans and the state had more than 65,000 employees.We rate McGee Browns statement as True. Comment on this item. A nine year-old viral Facebook post that portrays the United States as soft on illegal immigration enjoyed something of a resurgence in early 2018, most likely in light of ongoing negotiations between President Donald Trump and Congressional Democrats over the fate of immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children by their undocumented parents and who have previously been allowed to stay in the United States under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. The wording of the post, which was turned into a meme, has been repeated since at least 2009, and has been adapted for Australian and Canadian audiences over the years. There have been small variations here and there, but it typically goes something like this: Australian Canadian this   Undocumented immigrants do have some rights and entitlements, but the meme vastly overstates these entitlements, and omits to mention the many burdens and disadvantages placed on these immigrants, including the constant possibility of arrest and deportation.  A job Adults who enter the United States illegally are not provided with a job. In fact, it's illegal to knowingly hire any immigrant who isn't authorized to work in the country (whether they entered the United States illegally or overstayed a visa after entering legally.) illegal Of course, that doesn't stop the practice from happening, and according to a 2017 analysis by the Pew Research Institute, there were around 8 million unauthorized immigrants working or looking for work in the United States in 2014. analysis A driver's license This depends on where you live. As of January 2018, there are 12 states (and the District of Columbia) which allow immigrants without legal status to obtain a driver's license. Some of the states where unauthorized immigrants can drive (California, New Jersey, Illinois) have relatively high undocumented populations. 12 states populations Food stamps An immigrant who does not have a legal status in the United States is not eligible for food stamps (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), although their children might be. Indeed, undocumented immigrants do not receive most kinds of welfare benefits, even though they do pay taxes.  not eligible benefits According to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a non-partisan think tank, undocumented immigrants collectively contribute almost $12 billion per year in state and local sales, income and property taxes.  contribute "A place to live" Generally speaking, undocumented immigrants are not eligible for federal housing benefits like public housing, rental assistance, and vouchers. However, as a 2015 Congressional Research Service report outlines, some undocumented immigrants may live in a household with citizens or qualified immigrants, and thereby indirectly benefit from some public housing assistance (although the level of that assistance is reduced on a pro rata basis, due to the presence of that undocumented immigrant.) report Undocumented immigrants are eligible for emergency assistance such as homeless accomodation and domestic violence shelters.  It is possible for an undocumented immigrant to own a home, either by buying it outright with cash, or by using something called an individual tax identification number (ITIN) mortgage. This allows non-citizens (including undocumented immigrants) to bypass the usual requirement of having a social security number to take out a mortgage.  ITIN Some 31 percent of undocumented immigrants live in a home that is owned by at least one of its residents (as opposed to rented), according to a Migration Policy Institute analysis of data from the United States Census Bureau's 2014 American Community Survey.  analysis Health care Undocumented immigrants are not eligible to enroll in Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) Health Insurance Marketplace, significantly curtailing the affordable health insurance and health care available to them. not eligible However, six states and the District of Columbia have rules that allow undocumented immigrant children to avail themselves of Medicaid benefits, and undocumented immigrants are also entitled to emergency medical care.  six states emergency According to a 2017 Kaiser Family Foundation analysis, non-elderly undocumented immigrants are four times more likely than United States citizens to be uninsured, and fears about immigration enforcement and detection often cause undocumented immigrants to forgo preventive healthcare, leading to worse outcomes.  analysis Child benefits It's not entirely clear what the creator of this meme means by "child benefits," but let's take a look. Undocumented immigrant tax-payers (using an ITIN rather than a social security number) can avail themselves of a child tax credit.  child tax credit Low-income undocumented immigrants are also eligible for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), which provides food and infant formula assistance, as well as nutritional and immunization assessments.  WIC Undocumented immigrants are not eligible for TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families), a federal program that provides financial help to low-income families and pregnant women. TANF Education In 1982, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states are constitutionally barred from denying children a public school education on the basis of their immigration status. As a result, undocumented immigrant children can attend public schools for free, like any other children. ruled While attending public schools, undocumented children can benefit from federal nutrition services like the School Breakfast Program and National School Lunch Program.  Program Program Only two states (Alabama and South Carolina) do not allow undocumented immigrants to attend public colleges and other third-level institutions, and three others (Arizona, Georgia and Indiana) do not allow them to pay lower in-state tuition rates, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. allow Undocumented students are not allowed to receive federal financial aid for higher education, but they might be able to get state aid or private scholarships.  federal A tax-free business for seven years This is completely false. Undocumented immigrants pay taxes, and there is no provision in law at the federal or state level which grants them any kind of "tax holiday." false Legal Information Institute. "United States Code, Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part VIII, Section 1324a - Unlawful Employment of Aliens."
 Cornell University. 30 October 2004. Passel, Jeffrey S.; Cohn, D'Vera. "Size of U.S. Unauthorized Immigrant Workforce Stable After the Great Recession."
 Pew Research Center. 3 November 2016. Mendoza, Gilberto. "States Offering Driver's Licenses to Immigrants."
 National Conference of State Legislatures. 30 November 2016. Krogstad, Jens Manuel;Passel, Jeffrey S.; Cohn, D'Vera. "5 Facts About Illegal Immigration in the U.S."
Pew Research Center. 27 April 2017. Watson, Tara. "Do Undocumented Immigrants Overuse Government Benefits?"
 Econofact. 28 March 2017. Christensen Gee, Lisa et al. "Undocumented Immigrants' State and Local Tax Contributions."
 Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. 2 March 2017. McCarty, Maggie; Siskin, Alison. "Immigration: Noncitizen Eligibility for Needs-Based Housing Programs."
 Congressional Research Service. 8 December 2015. Kasperkevic, Jana. "The American Dream: How Undocumented Immigrants Buy Homes in the U.S."
 Marketplace. 11 September 2017. The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. "Health Coverage of Immigrants."
The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. 13 December 2017. Ollova, Michael. "More Immigrant Children in U.S. Illegally to Receive Health Care."
 Pew Charitable Trusts. 8 August 2017. Siskin, Alison. "Noncitizen Eligibility for Federal Public Assistance: Policy Overview."
 Congressional Research Service. 12 December 2016. American Immigration Council. "Public Education for Immigrant Students: Understanding Plyler v. Doe."
 American Immigration Council. 24 October 2016. Hultin, Suzanne. "Undocumented Student Tuition: Overview."
 National Conference of State Legislatures. 29 October 2015. Mikkelson, David. "Tax Holidays for Immigrants."
 Snopes.com. 23 November 2012. For nearly a decade, claims have circulated online that "The Simpsons" television character Mr. Burns, Homer Simpson's boss at the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant, was based on Jacob Rothschild, a billionaire financier and member of the BritishRothschild banking family commonly at the heart of illuminati-based conspiracy theories. A2015 post from the Instagram account nwoprophecies asserts, for example, that: Rothschild banking family 2015 post Mr. Burns from the Simpsons is modeled after the British Banker, Jacob Rothschild. The Rothschilds are one of the most prominent of the top thirteen illuminati families. The House of Rothschild is in charge of the illuminati's finance. The claim continued to circulate online. A September 2023 post on X, formerly Twitter, asserted the same: post  These claims are baseless. Mr. Burns is based on several American business tycoons  John D. Rockefeller primarily  as well as creator Matt Groening's high school teacher.According to the book "100 Things the Simpsons Fans Should Know Before They Die": According Mr. Burns is [...] wildly and opulently wealthy. A vessel for jokes and ideas about America's history of greed, Mr. Burns was modeled after famous rich American men like John D. Rockefeller, Howard Hughes, the fictional Charles Foster Caine, and Matt Groening's high school teacher Mr. Bailey, the last of whom is probably not a billionaire unless the state of Oregon has really started paying teachers more. In a 2015 article in Fortune magazine, a representative for Groening said that the best source on the inspirations for Mr. Burns was an October 2000 TV Guide story, in which the creator said that "that the twin models for Burns' personality are real-life oil tycoon John D. Rockefeller, and Henry Potter, the miserly banker played by Lionel Barrymore in the 1946 film It's a Wonderful Life." 2015 article In that same story, animator David Silverman stated that Mr. Burn's physical appearance was "based on Barry Diller, who was running Fox Broadcasting when The Simpsons debuted on the network in 1989." Silverman added that "Burns' body language is modeled on a praying mantis." added  Barry Diller (Getty Images) In addition to incorrect information about the origin of Mr. Burns, these memes misrepresent Jacob Rothschild's wealth, which stood at just over a billion dollars in 2019. over a billion Because the character Mr. Burns was not inspired by Jacob Rothschild, according to the people who developed it, we rate the assertion as  "A Rothschild Broke From Dynasty and Still Became Super Rich." Bloomberg.Com, 10 May 2019. www.bloomberg.com, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-10/a-rothschild-broke-from-dynasty-and-still-became-fabulously-rich. Goertz, Allie, et al. 100 Things The Simpsons Fans Should Know & Do Before They Die. Triumph Books, 2018. Instagram. https://www.instagram.com/p/9Wh-aByH80/?hl=en. Accessed 6 Sept. 2023. "Who Is the Real Montgomery Burns?" Fortune, https://fortune.com/2015/03/07/who-is-the-real-montgomery-burns/. Accessed 6 Sept. 2023. Claim:  Letter from Judge David Kithil provides accurate line item criticisms of "Obamacare" health care reform legislation.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, November 2009] I have reviewed selected sections of the bill and find it unbelievable that our Congress, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, could come up with a bill loaded with so many wrong-headed elements. We do need to reform the health insurance system in America in order to make coverage affordable and available to everyone. But, how many of us believe our federal government can manage a new program any better than the bankrupt Medicare program or the underfunded Social Security program? Both Republicans and Democrats are equally responsible for the financial mess of those two programs. I am opposed to HB 3200 for a number of reasons. To start with, it is estimated that a federal bureaucracy of more than 150,000 new employees will be required to administer HB3200. That is an unacceptable expansion of a government that is already too intrusive in our lives. If we are going to hire 150,000 new employees, let's put them to work protecting our borders, fighting the massive drug problem and putting more law enforcement/firefighters out there." Other problems I have with this bill include: Page 50/section 152: The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally. Page 58 and 59: The government will have real-time access to an individual's bank account and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts. Page 65/section 164: The plan will be subsidized (by the government) for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations (such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now - ACORN). Page 203/line 14-15: The tax imposed under this section will not be treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their right mind come up with that?) Page 241 and 253: Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the government will set all doctors' fees. Page 272. section 1145: Cancer hospital will ration care according to the patient's age. Page 317 and 321: The government will impose a prohibition on hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception. Page 425, line 4-12: The government mandates advance-care planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend an "end-of-life planning" seminar every five years. Page 429, line 13-25: The government will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order. Finally, it is specifically stated this bill will not apply to members of Congress. Members of Congress are already exempt from the Social Security system and have a well-funded private plan that covers their retirement needs. If they were on our Social Security plan, I believe they would find a very quick "fix" to make the plan financially sound for the future." Honorable David Kithil Marble Falls, Texas.  Origins:  A number of similar pieces presenting lists of line item criticisms of a pending health care reform bill (H.R. 3200) began circulating on the Internet in mid-2009, and they continue to circulate widely three years later as arguments to oppose the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), commonly known as "Obamacare." The versions of this item that continue to be spread via e-mail forwards and online postings are wrong in nearly every particular, however:  Although this list is commonly attributed as originating with a letter sent to Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana by Dr. Stephen E. Fraser, an Indianapolis anesthesiologist, or as a letter sent to the River Cities Tribune by David Kithil, a former county judge in Marble Falls, Texas, it is actually the work of Peter Fleckenstein, who issued Peter Fleckenstein the list as a series of Tweets and posted it to his blog in July 2009.  The bill referenced in this list, America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 (H.R. 3200), was never passed by Congress.  A   completely different bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590), became the basis for what is now known as "Obamacare."  Many of the entries in the list are therefore irrelevant and outdated, as they address aspects of health care reform legislation that were never enacted by Congress (particularly the "public option" for a government insurance plan). H.R. 3200 H.R. 3590  Virtually every statement included in this list is exaggerated, misleading, inaccurate, or outright erroneous, as detailed below:    The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally. This is false.  The PPACA, as enacted, doesn't "provide insurance" to anyone  it institutes some regulations on the insurance industry to make medical insurance more broadly available and affordable to Americans, and it requires that Americans enroll in PPACA-qualified medical plans or pay a penalty, but everyone is still responsible for obtaining (and paying for) their own insurance coverage.   Moreover, the section of the unpassed HB 3200 bill referenced in the above statement is 152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE, which simply states that "[e]xcept as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations consistent with this Act, all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services."  It doesn't explicity grant or authorize government funds for providing illegal immigrants with health care or health insurance, and another section of the bill specifically states that  "Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States."  The government will have real-time access to an individual's bank account and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts. This is false. The section of HB 3200 referenced here does nothing more than attempt to provide a framework for simplifying the use of electronic payments for health services, emulating the way that many consumers currently use to make a variety of other payments (e.g., utilities, mortgages, credit card balances).   The bill simply calls for the secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to set standards for electronic administrative transactions that would "enable electronic funds transfers, in order to allow automated reconciliation with the related health care payment and remittance advice."  Nothing in this section grants the government "real-time access to an individual's bank account" or the "authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts."  The bill doesn't even require that consumers use an electronic payment system  it simply seeks to make that an option for those who want to use it.   The plan will be subsidized (by the government) for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations (such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now - ACORN). This statement is misleading, as the section of HB 3200 referenced here is SEC. 164. REINSURANCE PROGRAM FOR RETIREES, which addresses "retirees and ... spouses, surviving spouses and dependents of such retirees" who are covered by "employment-based [health benefit] plans."  It does not specifically provide for subsidizing health insurance for "all union members, union retirees and community organizations"; it sets up a new federal reinsurance plan for any retirees and their spouses who are covered by any employer plan, not just those who are covered under plans run by unions or community groups.  The reinsurance would be available to any "group health benefits plan that ... is maintained by one or more employers, former employers or employee associations."  The tax imposed under this section will not be treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their right mind come up with that?) This statement misleadingly tries to make HB 3200 sound ridiculous by deliberately eliding the end of the statement it quotes.  What the bill actually says is that"The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax imposed by this chapter for purposes of determining the amount of any credit under this chapter or for purposes of section 55."  Section 55 is a reference to the Alternative Minimum Tax, and the purpose of this portion of the bill is to mitigate the effects that new health care-related taxes would have on persons making over $350,000 a year.   Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the government will set all doctors' fees. This is false. The section of the bill referenced here is an updating of the physician fee schedule for Medicare services, which neither states that "all doctors will be paid the same regardless of specialty" nor that the "government will set all doctors' fees."  All this section does is slightly revise the formula used for determining how much doctors are reimbursed for providing Medicare services, depending upon which of two categories those services fall under.   Cancer hospital will ration care according to the patient's age. This is false. The section referenced here is one which does nothing more than call for a study to determine whether certain classes of hospitals incur higher costs than other hospitals for the cancer-related care they deliver, with the aim of providing "an appropriate adjustment [in payments] "to reflect those higher costs." This section in no way "rations care" provided by "cancer hospitals" based on a patient's age (or any other factor); it simply seeks to pay some hospitals more to compensate for their higher costs in treating cancer patients.  The government will impose a prohibition on hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception. This is mostly false. As noted by FactCheck, forbids hospital expansion "only for rural, doctor-owned hospitals that have been given a waiver from the general prohibition on self-referral. It does not apply to hospitals in general. The bill provides for exceptions to even this limited expansion ban."   The government mandates advance-care planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend an "end-of-life planning" seminar every five years. This is false. This statement references a much-distorted portion of the bill that would allow for Medicare to cover voluntary counseling sessions for seniors with their doctors to discuss aspects of end-of-life care such as hospice care, DNR orders, life-sustaining treatments, living wills, and the like (a form of counseling not previously covered by Medicare).  Nothing about such counseling sessions would be mandatory, for Social Security recipients or anyone else.   The government will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order. This is false. The bill does not "specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order."  It merely defines an "end-of-life order" (i.e., an order for life-sustaining treatment) as a document "signed and dated by a physician [that] effectively communicates the individual's preferences regarding life sustaining treatment."  It is specifically stated this bill will not apply to members of Congress. This is false. HB 3200 did not contain a provision stating that it would "not apply to members of Congress."  The bill likely would have had little or no effect on members of Congress because they belong to a class of federal worker who have the benefit of choosing from a variety of subsidized insurance plans offered through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, but the same requirements for obtaining and having health insurance would have applied to them just as much to other citizens.  The version of the PPACA that was actually passed did indeed require lawmakers to give up the insurance coverage previously provided to them through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and instead purchase health insurance through the online exchanges that the law created.  Variations:  A later version of this piece was prefaced with the false claim that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act limits the amount of Medicare coverage provided to those over the age of 75 or 76.  This claim is covered in a separate article on this site: separate PLEASE PASS THIS OUTRAGE TO EVERYONE ON YOUR LIST!!! THIS should be readby everyone, especially important to those over 75.......If you areyounger, then it applies to your parents. Your hospital Medicare admittance has just change under Obama Care. Youmust be admitted by your primary Physician in order for Medicare to payfor it! If you are admitted by an emergency room doctor it is treated asoutpatient care where hospital costs are not covered. This is only the tipof the iceberg for Obama Care. Just wait to see what happens in 2013 &2014! Age 76 Today, I went to the Dr. for my monthly B12 shot that I have beengetting for a number of years. The nurse came and got me, got out theneedle filled and ready to go then looked at the computer and got veryquiet and asked if I was prepared to pay for it. I said no that myinsurance takes care of it. She said, that Medicare had turned it down and went to talk to my Dr.about it. 15 minutes later she came back and said, she was sorry but theyhad tried everything they could but Medicare is beginning to turn manythings away for seniors because of the projected Obama Care coming in. Shewas brushing at tears and said, "Someday they too will get old", I am sovery sorry!! Please for the sake of many good people ... be informed please.YOU ARE NOT GOING TO LIKE THIS. Last updated:  11 March 2014 On March 23, 2021, The Associated Press reported on an Oakland, California, initiative named Oakland Resilient Families "that will give low-income families of color $500 per month with no rules on how they can spend it." This "demonstration project," as Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf described it, is a test of what is known as a "guaranteed income." reported Projects like this one are part of a larger effort by a coalition of mayors to convince Congress to pass a national guaranteed income program. The Oakland program is not tax-payer funded, however. All of the funding comes from charitable donations, most of it from a philanthropic non-profit group named Blue Meridian Partners," according to San Francisco-based NPR station KQED. coalition funding according Half of the program's 600 participants will be families earning below 50% of the city's median income, and the other half will come from families earning below 138% of the federal poverty level. These cut-offs were selected based on data provided by Oakland's Equality Index, which is an effort "to develop a baseline quantitative framework that can be used by City staff and community members alike to better understand the impacts of race, measure inequities, and track changes in the disparities for different groups over time." will be Oakland's Equality Index In their coverage, The Associated Press described the project as "the first program to limit participation strictly to Black, Indigenous and people of color communities." At the time of the reporting, this was a fair representation of Oakland Resilient Families goals, as the program's website  as well as the mayor  explicitly stated the program was intended for "Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) families." website the mayor That reporting led to tabloid headlines and angry tweets: tabloid headlines angry tweets Following this latter coverage, Oakland Resilient Families changed its website's answer to the "Who is this for?" question to "families with the greatest wealth disparities per the Oakland Equity Index, with low-incomes and at least 1 child under 18, regardless of documentation status."  changed Explaining the change to KQED, Rae Oglesby, the vice president of membership and communications at the Family Independence Initiative  a partner with the Oakland Resilient Families program  said the program is targeting racial groups experiencing the largest disparities," but that "it is open to all residents." said Justin Berton, the communications director for Mayor Schaaf, told KQED that, We have not changed the program. We have had to clarify that while no family is prohibited from applying, this pilot is intentionally designed to serve and support BIPOC families, who evidence shows suffer the greatest and most disproportionate impacts of poverty." told According to Oakland's Equality Index, the median income for white households in Oakland was almost three times the median income of African American households: three times The median income for White households was highest ($110,000) and the median income for African American households was lowest ($37,500). The median income for Asian households ($76,000) was similar to the citywide median income ($73,200), while Latino households fell below the citywide median with a median income of $65,000. The program is still in its earliest phases. At the moment, sign-ups for the program are not yet available. "The goal," Oakland Resilient Families' website states, "is to begin payments to families this spring after incorporating more community feedback and to have the entire program up and running this summer."  states Because the program is "targeted" toward BIPOC families, but because  at least after some clarification on the part of Oakland Resilient Families  any family meeting the financial requirements can apply, we rate this claim a "Mixture" of truth. In April 2020, as the global death toll from the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic surpassed 100,000, social media users started to post messages about how Ivanka Trump, U.S. President Donald Trump's daughter and newly appointed member of the White House's council to reopen America, had a trademark in China on coffins: pandemic messages   While some shared this claim as if it were a "fun fact," others made a more direct connection between her company's trademark on coffins in China to the rising death toll from the COVID-19 pandemic:   According to multiple news reports, the first daughter's company, Ivanka Trump Marks LLC, was truly awarded a trademark on coffins in China. However, this occurred in 2018, long before COVID-19 started to spread around the globe.  The Associated Press reported in May 2018 that her company had been awarded 13 trademarks in China over three months. These trademarks covered a variety of products, including baby blankets, coffee, perfume, and coffins: reported 13 trademarks Ivanka Trumps brand continues to win foreign trademarks in China and the Philippines, adding to questions about conflicts of interest at the White House, The Associated Press has found. On Sunday, China granted the first daughters company final approval for its 13th trademark in the last three months, trademark office records show. Over the same period, the Chinese government has granted Ivanka Trumps company provisional approval for another eight trademarks, which can be finalized if no objections are raised during a three-month comment period. Taken together, the trademarks could allow her brand to market a lifetimes worth of products in China, from baby blankets to coffins, and a host of things in between, including perfume, makeup, bowls, mirrors, furniture, books, coffee, chocolate and honey. Ivanka Trump stepped back from management of her brand and placed its assets in a family-run trust, but she continues to profit from the business. When users in April 2020 re-shared news stories about her trademarks amidst the global pandemic, many insinuated she would be capitalizing off of people's deaths, and that people in China would be required to purchase a Trump coffin. But that's not the case.  This confusion appears to be based on the conflation of the terms "trademark" and "patent." With a trademark, Ivanka Trump has the opportunity to sell products (in this case a coffin) bearing her company's name. A trademark does not give Trump's company any sort of exclusive deal to sell coffins in China. Other companies can still manufacturer and sell coffins just as always. patent Australia's ABC News noted that companies sometimes file for a trademark as part of a "defensive" strategy to prevent competitors from squatting on a brand's name: ABC News Companies register for trademarks for a variety of reasons. They can be a sign of corporate ambition, but in many countries, like China, where trademark squatting is rampant, companies also file defensively, to block copycats from grabbing legal rights to a brand's name. This appears to be the strategy of Ivanka Trump's company. Abigail Klem, the president of the Ivanka Trump brand, said in a May 2018 statement that these trademarks were obtained during the "normal course of business." Klem also noted that trademark infringement was rampant, and that the company was trying to protect its brand: statement The brand has filed, updated, and rigorously protected its international trademarks over the past several years in the normal course of business, especially in regions where trademark infringement is rampant. ... We have recently seen a surge in trademark filings by unrelated third parties trying to capitalize on the name and it is our responsibility to diligently protect our trademark. It should also be noted that, as Snopes reported in 2019, Ivanka Trump was not running the company at the time that these trademarks were obtained. Ivanka stepped down from day-to-day operations in 2017 and announced that the company was closing down the following year: reported Ivanka Trump said in a statement announcing the closure:  statement "After 17 months in Washington, I do not know when or if I will ever return to the business, but I do know that my focus for the foreseeable future will be the work I am doing here in Washington. So making this decision now is the only fair outcome for my team and partners." While Ivanka Trump may have not had a hand in obtaining these trademarks, the government transparency advocacy group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) cautioned that these trademarks could still represent a conflict of interest in the future.  CREW wrote: wrote Ivanka announced the immediate closure of her brand in July 2018, citing her official government responsibilities in Washington, DC. However, her trademarks remain a potential conflict of interest as she continues to work on policy in the White House and meet with foreign leaders. To sum up: Ivanka Trump's company obtained several trademarks in China in 2018 that covered a wide range of products, including baby blankets, perfume, and coffins. This trademark gives the company the opportunity to sell Trump-branded coffins and prevents other companies from using the Trump brand to sell their own coffins. As of this writing, we've seen no reporting that Ivanka Trump's company (which she no longer operates) plans to manufacture or sell coffins in China.  Higgins, Tucker.  "Ivanka Trumps Chinese Trademarks Raise Questions About Potential Conflicts of Interest."
  CNBC  29 May 2018. Associated Press.  "Ivanka Trump Wins 13 New Trademarks From China in 3 Months."
  28 May 2018. ABC News.  "Ivanka Trump's Chinese Trademarks on Products From Baby Blankets to Coffins Raise Corruption Concerns."
  28 May 2018. Palma, Bethania.  "Did China Grant a Trademark to Ivanka Trump for Voting Machines?"
 Snopes.com.  9 October 2019. Zhang, Caroline.  "Ivanka Trum's Business Wins Approval for 16 New Chinese Trademarks Despite Shutting Down."
  Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.  5 November 2018.