The economy is creating jobs at the fastest pace since 1999.
President Barack Obamas State of the Union address was notable for its celebratory language about the state of the economy, following a recovery that was widely considered long and slow. Heres one of the claims Obama made: Tonight, after a breakthrough year for America, our economy is growing and creating jobs at the fastest pace since 1999. We initially read this to mean that both the economy and the number of jobs had been growing at the fastest pace since 1999. That would have been a problematic claim, since the final figures for growth in gross domestic product in 2014 arent in yet. However, when we asked the White House press office for clarification, they responded that the president was making two separate claims -- first, that the economy is growing, and second, that the United States is creating jobs at the fastest pace since 1999. The first of those claims is clearly true -- except for one quarter of negative growth in the first quarter of 2014, the economy has been expanding -- but we werent sure about the second part. So we decided to take a closer look at Obamas claim that the economy is creating jobs at the fastest pace since 1999. Looking at job growth over the course of the calendar year We looked at total nonfarm employment from December of one year to December of the next, using official figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Heres what we found: Time period Total job growth Dec. 1998 to Dec. 1999 3,177,000 Dec. 1999 to Dec. 2000 1,946,000 Dec. 2000 to Dec. 2001 - 1,735,000 Dec. 2001 to Dec. 2002 - 508,000 Dec. 2002 to Dec. 2003 105,000 Dec. 2003 to Dec. 2004 2,033,000 Dec. 2004 to Dec. 2005 2,506,000 Dec. 2005 to Dec. 2006 2,085,000 Dec. 2006 to Dec. 2007 1,140,000 Dec. 2007 to Dec. 2008 - 3,576,000 Dec. 2008 to Dec. 2009 - 5,087,000 Dec. 2009 to Dec. 2010 1,058,000 Dec. 2010 to Dec. 2011 2,083,000 Dec. 2011 to Dec. 2012 2,236,000 Dec. 2012 to Dec. 2013 2,331,000 Dec. 2013  to Dec. 2014 2,952,000 So Obamas on target: The job growth during calendar year 2014 was higher than any year going back to 1999. Adding some context That said, the current recovery is hardly perfect. There have been three clear periods of job growth over the past quarter century. We looked at the gain in employment between the low point in jobs and the high point (or, for the current period, the most recent month). As this chart shows, these periods of expansion were quite consistent while they lasted. SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics Heres the breakdown of the three job expansions: Time period Total jobs created Jobs created per month May 1991 - Feb. 2001 24.5 million 207,847 Aug. 2003 - Jan. 2008 8.2 million 152,167 Feb. 2010 - Dec. 2014 10.7 million 181,220 This shows that the current jobs recovery, while more robust and longer than the one from 2003-08, pales in comparison to the one that lasted from 1991-2001. Indeed, it pales in two different ways: The current job expansion has created 13 percent fewer jobs every month on average than the one in the 1990s, and it has so far lasted only half as long. The earlier expansion lasted for almost a full decade. Our ruling Obama said the economy is creating jobs at the fastest pace since 1999. The current jobs recovery isnt perfect, but Obama is correct that its the fastest since 1999. So we rate the claim True.
On 3 December 2016, Politicops published an article reporting that Alaska's former governor (and 2008 vice presidential pick) Sarah Palin called for a boycott of the Mall of America after it hired a black man to play Santa, because the character was always "white" in the "Bible": article The announcement that Mall of America was welcoming its first black Santa Claus was greeted in many quarters as a good thing but, as might be expected in a country that has become increasingly more comfortable saying any racist thing that comes to mind, many were highly offended ... Among many who were offended by this move was former half-term governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin. The sharp-tongued Republican wasted no time in condemning the companys actions, going on social media and posting comments that called for boycotting and running Mall of America into the ground, on the basis of Santa always having been white in the Bible. No, I refuse to believe that they went this far in trying to cater to the minorities, I thought the company had some backbone but I guess I was wrong, Palin told the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. She also argued that hiring a non-white Santa Claus was the last straw in corporate Americas twisting of traditional, conservative Christian values, because they realized they couldnt make any more money off of the usual scams and techniques theyve been using so far. She added, Thats why they had to come up with something new and out of the box, at least something that appeared that way in their minds. But, this proves that they have no morals and that they wont shy away from even the most blatant twisting of traditional Christian values, just so they could make more money. I understand having to make a profit in order to get by and have a good life, but I dont understand stomping on things that are holy and sacred in order to accomplish that ... Americans, especially white ones, need to boycott the company and need to run it into the ground, so that they never ever come up with such an offensive and sacrilegious idea again, Palin added.  Like all items published by Politicops, (and sister sites Religionlo, Politicalo, and Politcops), the article's first paragraph referenced a real debate over the Mall of America's black Santa. However, Palin made no such remarks about a boycott, and the tacked on fabrication is standard for this particular family of fake news outlets. Articles from Newslo and its sister sites typically begin with a paragraph of fact-based information before launching into fabricated details. Santa Newslo Newslo's fake news sites often display under the lesser-known Politicops domain on social media, but all include a button allowing readers to "show facts" or "hide facts" to highlight the truthful material in the article. fake news However, all articles display by default in "hide facts" mode, so most readers view articles (or their headlines on social media) without embellishments marked:  Prior Newslo fabrications included claims that Chris Christie thought that a female Viagra would cause an uptick in "lesbianism" (and separately that he voted down a gender pay parity bill for Bible-based reasons), an Alabama politician tried to implement saliva-based "hunger tests" for food stamp recipients, Ted Cruz affirmed he'd run as a Democrat if something affected Hillary Clinton's candidacy, Mike Pence said that if abortion was legal in cases of rape women would try to "get raped" in order to obtain an abortion, the father of Brock Turner lamented the absence of punishment for the victim in his son's sexual assault case, and that televangelist Pat Robertson claimed David Bowie did not die, but was kidnapped by demons. Viagra Bible-based hunger tests Ted Cruz Mike Pence Brock Turner David Bowie On Sept. 14, 2022, a user on the Telegram social media platform shared a quote meme that claimed writer Thomas Paine once wrote, "The duty of a true patriot is to protect his country from its government." We also found that the quote had been widely shared on Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, and Truth Social. However, there's no evidence that Paine, who was perhaps most famous for his pamphlet titled "Common Sense," ever penned these words. Twitter YouTube Facebook Truth Social  The Thomas Paine National Historical Association published that the "true patriot" quote appeared to have been spun out of a sentence in Edward Abbey's book, "A Voice Crying in the Wilderness (Vox Clamantis in Deserto): Notes from a Secret Journal." published book The quote appears in bold below: Chapter 3: Government and Politics The distrust of wit is the beginning of tyranny. In history-as-politics, the "future" is that vacuum in time waiting to be filled with the antics of statesmen. No man is wise enough to be another man's master. Each man's as good as the nextif not a damn sight better. A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. All forms of government are pernicious, including good government. Some of my ancestors fought in the American Revolution. A few wore red coats, a few wore blue coats, and the rest wore no coats at all. We never did figure out who won that war. Grown men do not need leaders. Democracyrule by the peoplesounds like a fine thing; we should try it sometime in America. The "true patriot" quote was wrongly attributed to Paine by at least two far-right Telegram accounts named Patriot Force and We the People Declare Freedom. Paine Telegram The latter showed its purpose as centering around baseless conspiracy theories: "Go to this website and sign the petitions to take back our country and world from the DEEP STATE ACTORS." In addition to debunking the origins of the "true patriot" quote, the Paine association's website also shed light on four other quotes that they say also did not originate with the author. four other quotes When it comes to fake or misattributed quotes, we recommend doing a bit of poking around online to find out if the words and attribution are correct before deciding to click the share button. However, readers may have a difficult time with researching quotes, as many websites that collect famous quotes don't bother to ensure their words and authors are correct. Unfortunately, such websites often show up at the top of Google search results. We recommend instead looking to online libraries, official institutions dedicated to preserving the legacies of famous people, books written prior to the birth of the modern internet, and other historical records. These sources are often more reliable than websites that do nothing other than collect quotes from famous people. 1776: Paine, Common Sense (Pamphlet) | Online Library of Liberty. https://oll.libertyfund.org/page/1776-paine-common-sense-pamphlet. Abbey, Edward. A Voice Crying in the Wilderness: Vox Clamantis in Deserto: Notes from a Secret Journal. Rosetta Books, 2015. Did Paine Write These Quotes? The Thomas Paine National Historical Association, https://thomaspaine.org/pages/resources/did-paine-write-these-quotes.html. Having lost his early lead in the delegate count to Joe Biden, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., has a lot riding on his appeal to blue-collar workers. Speaking days ahead of the Michigan primary on NBCs Meet the Press, Sanders said his opposition to major trade deals marked a sharp difference between him and Biden, the former Delaware senator and vice president. Trade agreements like NAFTA and permanent normal trade relations with China, which forced American workers to compete against people making pennies an hour, have resulted in the loss of 160,000 jobs here in Michigan, Sanderssaid from Grand Rapids on March 8. I helped lead the effort, as you may recall, against these disastrous trade agreements. I worked with the unions, not with the CEOs of large corporations. On the other hand, Joe Biden strongly supported these agreements. While he voiced some reservations at the time, Biden voted for both bills  the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1993, and normalization of trade with China in 2000. In this fact-check, we look at whether the two agreements cost Michigan 160,000 jobs. Teasing out the impact of trade deals can be difficult. Theres lots going on in the economy regardless of tariff agreements, including the 2008-09 financial crisis that plunged two of Detroits hometown auto companies into bankruptcy. But overall, studies back up Sanders claim. Sanders point hinges on trade with two countries, Mexico and China. But of the two, U.S. trade with China was much larger, and with that came a bigger impact. The studies Sanders relied on estimated Michigans job losses at nearly 44,000 (as of 2010)due to NAFTA, and about112,000 due to China(as of 2018). Well get to those estimates in just a bit, but add them together and you get 156,000, which is essentially Sanders number. But first, focusing just on China, thelatest research by a group of economists from four universitiesoffers a broad picture of what took place after 2000 when the United States gave it permanent normal trade status. The groups study doesnt put a number to Michigans losses, but it does highlight its struggles. Interestingly, the study found that the ultimate effect on jobs nationwide was neutral, neither a gain nor a loss. But among regions of the country, the upheaval was substantial. Both the type of jobs and the location of jobs shifted. Chinese competition reallocated employment from manufacturing to services, and from the U.S. heartland to the coasts, the report said. A Midwest state like Michigan was on the losing end of the deal. This research dug down to the level of individual companies and found that large multinational companies offshored manufacturing jobs and expanded service jobs, in areas such as research and management, in the U.S. The study also found that the China effect disappeared after 2007. We find strong employment impacts from 2000 to 2007, but nothing since from 2008 to 2015, the authors wrote. Sanders is correct that both NAFTA and permanent normal trade relations with China exposed Michigan to competition from factories that paid their workers much less and spent less on worker safety and environmental protection. But the manufacturing employment numbers reveal one of the challenges to drawing quick conclusions on the impact of the two trade deals. The job numbers show different paths after passage of each trade agreement. (Passage of trade bills is marked in red.) After NAFTA, the number of manufacturing jobs rose to 888,000. After the China deal, the number fell to 638,000 (as of 2006 and before the Great Recession), a decline of 250,000 jobs. The raw numbers support the idea that the China impact was great. For NAFTA, the analysis is more complicated. Economist Susan Houseman at the Upjohn Institute for Employment Research in Kalamazoo, Mich., said those rising manufacturing job numbers after NAFTA passed dont tell the whole story. She said the studies Sanders used are valid. The country was experiencing record job growth in the 1990s, so you wouldnt necessarily expect the number of manufacturing jobs to fall, Houseman said. Rather you might expect for them to grow more slowly. The fraction of all jobs that were in manufacturing did fall by one percentage point between 1993 and 2000, suggesting that NAFTA did more for sectors other than manufacturing. Houseman also said that the NAFTA impacts would play out over time, as companies built new plants in Mexico, something that could not happen overnight. The analysis Sanders relied on came from economist Robert Scott at the Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning think tank. For NAFTA, Scott took the rising U.S.-Mexico trade deficit and teased out how that translated into job effects at the state level. Between 1993 and 2010, and accounting for the Great Recession, Scott found a loss of 43,600 jobs in Michigan. Houseman said that is a conservative figure. The types of calculations in this, if anything, may understate job losses, she said. I dont believe there is any basis for calling the Sanders claim of job losses for Michigan wrong. The primary caveat for Scotts estimate is that its for 2010, which is a decade ago. Michigans manufacturing sector has recovered a bit since then. However, for workers who lost their jobs during the first decade of the 2000s, the disruption was real. And even after rebounding, manufacturing remains well short of where it stood before NAFTA. Multiplestudies also lend weight to Scotts overall findings of the impact on the Midwest from trade with China. Research by economistsJustin Pierce at the Federal Reserve and Peter Schott at YaleUniversity, suggests over 1 million jobs nationwide have been lost due to trade with China. Some economists argue that productivity gains played a major role in displacing manufacturing jobs, but recent work casts doubt on how productivity has been calculated. Studies of the impact of automation find that it has been significant, but muchless than competition from China. The latest studies go to great lengths to filter out the various factors that have shaped jobs in states like Michigan, and the trade deals emerge as a potent force. Sanders said that NAFTA and normalized trade with China cost Michigan 160,000 jobs. The studies he cited produced nearly that result. While precision is challenging, one economist said if anything, those studies underestimate the job loss due to trade. We found four studies that concluded that both trade agreements hurt the manufacturing sector in Midwest states like Michigan. We rate this claim Mostly True. In December 2019, readers asked us about reports that claimed the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump had proposed changes to the way Social Security disability payments are made, which could cause thousands, even hundreds of thousands, to lose their benefits.  On Dec. 12, the Philadelphia Inquirer and Chicago Tribune posted an article with the headline "Trump Administration Proposes Social Security Rule Changes That Could Cut Off Thousands of Disabled Recipients." The article reported that: Inquirer Tribune "The Trump administration is proposing changes to Social Security that could terminate disability payments to hundreds of thousands of Americans, particularly older people and children. The new rule would change aspects of disability reviews  the methods by which the Social Security Administration determines whether a person continues to qualify for benefits. Few recipients are aware of the proposal, which is open for public comment through January." The left-leaning website Common Dreams published an article with the headline "'A National Disgrace': Trump Proposes Social Security Change That Could End Disability Benefits for Hundreds of Thousands.'" That story reported: article "Activists are working to raise public awareness and outrage over a little-noticed Trump administration proposal that could strip life-saving disability benefits from hundreds of thousands of people by further complicating the way the Social Security Administration determines who is eligible for payments." On the face of it, the changes proposed by the Trump administration would not, in fact, directly or immediately strip disability benefits from thousands of would-be recipients, rather the changes would introduce more (and more frequent) eligibility reviews for those who wish to receive them. However, some critics have argued that those increased bureaucratic requirements would over-burden some would-be recipients, in particular especially vulnerable recipients, and would ultimately (albeit indirectly) result in thousands losing disability benefits.  The Social Security Administration distributes disability benefits in two principle ways: Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), which typically provides benefits to people based on their previous Social Security tax contributions and history of work, and is paid out of the Social Security insurance fund; and Supplemental Security Income (SSI), which typically provides benefits to people based on their disability status and inability to work, and is paid out of general tax coffers.  ways In order to prevent potential abuse and waste in the system, the Social Security Administration conducts "continuing disability reviews," essentially investigating whether each recipient still has a disabling condition, and if so, which kind. Those reviews take place more or less frequently, depending on the nature of each individual's disability, broken into three "medical diary categories," as follows: reviews In November, the Social Security Administration published its proposals to make several changes to the review system. The most significant proposal was to add a fourth medical diary category, "Medical Improvement Likely." Recipients placed in that category would undergo a review every two years. proposals According to a document accompanying the proposals, the decision to introduce the fourth category was made, in part, because the administration saw a pattern whereby some in the "Medical Improvement Expected" category were being prematurely subjected to re-evaluation, after six-18 months, before a medical improvement had the chance to take hold, and some in the "Medical Improvement Possible" category had successfully treated their impairment comfortably within the three-year review interval. The introduction of the new category would therefore mean the bureaucratic burden on some recipients would actually be lessened, since they would be subject to review less frequently, though clearly it would also mean others would be subject to more frequent reviews. On the whole, the administration has estimated that, between 2020 and 2029, the new category would tend towards requiring more frequent reviews for those currently in the "Medical Improvement Possible" category, rather than less frequent reviews for those currently in the "Medical Improvement Expected" category:   The administration expects the introduction of the "Medical Improvement Likely" category to lead to an 18 percent increase in the total number of reviews undertaken over the next decade. This would therefore lead to an increased up-front cost in administering the disability benefits programs, and an increased aggregate bureaucratic burden to recipients (even if some individual recipients would actually undergo reviews less frequently).  Greater scrutiny of individual cases, and enhanced enforcement of eligibility criteria, results in some recipients no longer being deemed eligible, and no longer receiving either SSDI or SSI, which saves money for the Social Security insurance fund and the Treasury, respectively. For the 2015 fiscal year, for example, the Social Security Administration calculated a 19.9:1 return on investment rate for disability benefits enforcement  meaning that for every $1 spent on performing reviews, the government would save $19.90 on disability benefits that would otherwise have been paid, over the course of a lifetime, to recipients who are now deemed ineligible. To be specific, the administration estimated that the $717 million spent on reviews in 2015 would ultimately save $14.3 billion in lifetime disability benefit payments.  calculated So the introduction of the Trump administration's proposals is highly likely to ultimately lead to thousands of disability benefits recipients no longer receiving those benefits  both because some will be overburdened by the bureaucratic demands of more frequent reviews, and because some recipients whose medical status no longer meets the eligibility criteria will have that ineligibility discovered sooner. A considerable measure of truth, therefore, exists in the reports published by the Philadelphia Inquirer and Common Dreams. However, those articles failed to mention an important component to the administration's proposals: They would not change how a recipient's eligibility is determined, only how often that determination takes place. As the proposal stated: "We are not changing the Medical Improvement Review Standard that we use to determine whether a person continues to meet the disability requirements of the Act." This means that, while the proposed increase in the number and frequency of reviews was highly likely to ultimately cause thousands to lose their benefits, that loss of benefits would not be arbitrary, or based on an application of a new and different standard for determining whether someone's health has improved. The standards and criteria for assessing whether an improvement has taken place would be the same as currently exist, and only the frequency of those reviews would change. In other words, some recipients would be subject to more frequent reviews, but if those more frequent reviews result in a finding that the recipient still has a qualifying disability or impairment  based on the same criteria as currently apply  the recipient would continue to receive disability benefits.  It could be that, as some critics have argued, the proposal represents an elegant way for the administration to save money by removing thousands from the recipient rolls without having to change eligibility criteria  the latter a move that would be more likely to cause public outrage or political opposition. However, on its face at least, the proposal involves enhanced enforcement of existing eligibility standards and criteria. That's an important distinction, and a significant omission from news articles that reported, with some justification, that the Trump administration had proposed changes to Social Security disability benefits that would cause thousands to be stripped of those benefits.  argued Lubrano, Alfred. "Trump Administration Proposes Social Security Rule Changes That Could Cut Off Thousands of Disabled Recipients."
 The Philadelphia Inquirer/The Chicago Tribune. 12 December 2019. Johnson, Jake. "'A National Disgrace': Trump Proposes Social Security Change That Could End Disability Benefits for Hundreds of Thousands."
 Common Dreams. 16 December 2019. Social Security Administration. "Proposed Rule -- Rules Regarding the Frequency and Notice of Continuing Disability Reviews."
 Federal Register. 18 November 2019. In his latest film,Capitalism: A Love Story, Michael Moore takes more than a few swipes at President Ronald Reagan, essentially asserting that under Reagan's watch, the rich got richer at the expense of everyone else. During the Reagan era, he said, the richest Americans had their top income tax rate cut in half. Moore is correct that the top marginal tax rate  the rate of income tax charged to an individual on their last dollar of earnings  decreased from 70 percent in 1980 to 28 percent in 1989. That's not the same as saying the richest had their taxes cut in half. In 1980, the top marginal tax rate was 70 percent on earnings over $161,300. The rate was substantially lower for the income earned below that. For example, that year, there were no taxes on the first $2,300 of income; 14 percent on income between $2,300 and $4,400; and on up via a graduated scale. So if you made $162,000 in 1980, for example, you paid far less on average than 70 percent of your income in federal taxes. The marginal tax rate also doesn't take into account various available deductions and tax credits, said Bob Williams of the Tax Policy Center. When Reagan revamped the tax code and dropped the top marginal tax rates to 50 percent in 1982, and then down to 28 percent by 1988, he also closed some of the tax loopholes available to people at the top. It's much fairer, we think, to look at effective individual income tax rates. That's the actual percentage of income that people paid in income taxes, factoring in not only the graduated percentages along the marginal tax rate scale, but also the deductions and tax credits that people were entitled to. In 1980,the effective individual income tax ratefor the top 1 percent of earners was 22.3 percent. In 1989, that rate dropped to 19.9 percent. That's a decrease of 2.4 percentage points, which works out to an 11 percent drop. That's sizable, but nowhere near 50 percent. If you widen the field and consider the top 10 percent of earners, instead of just the top 1 percent,the drop in effective individual income tax rate was about the same, just over 10 percent. For middle incomes, the effective individual income tax rate also dropped, from 8 percent to 6 percent. That's a 25 percent decrease. In other words, it wasn't just the rich who saw their income tax rates drop under Reagan. One more thing. When the top marginal tax rate dropped between 1980 and 1989, it went from 70 percent on earnings over $161,300 in 1980 to 28 percent on earnings over $128,810 in 1989. Obviously, that's not an apples-to-apples comparison. Did the rich get richer during the Reagan years? Yes. And Moore is technically correct when he says that the richest Americans had their top income tax rate cut in half. But we suspect some may mistake that for the richest having their taxes cut in half. In fact, we first began to look at this claim from a fact sheet provided on Moore's Web site before the movie was publicly released. And in the fact sheet, it states that the richest had their taxes cut in half. We were prepared to give that a False, as the effective tax rate for the richest was cut by about 10 or 11 percent. But in the movie, Moore describes it as the top income tax rate, apparently referring to the highest marginal rate. As we said, some may misinterpret that, but we think Moore has been careful enough with his words to get a Mostly True. A set of gruesome photographs supposedly showing the aftermath of a "pico jackfruit snake" bite is frequently shared online. We'll be posting these photographs below. As they show a severe hand injury, this article may not suitable for all viewers. The photographs first went viral in August 2017 after they were posted to the Facebook group Faculty of Veterinary Medicine in New York. The first photograph in the set shows what appears to be a small cut on a person's thumb. Subsequent photographs show the injury worsening, due to the snake's venomous bite, until eventually the thumb is amputated. Again, the following photographs may not be suitable for all viewers:   We haven't been able to uncover too many specifics about these photographs, such as where they were taken or the identity of the snake-bit victim. When these images first started circulating on Facebook in 2017 (the original post has since been deleted), the snake was identified as a "sharp-nosed viper," not a "pico jackfruit snake."  In fact, we found no snake by the latter's name. It likely refers to a bushmaster snake, another genus of venomous pit-vipers, which is known by a variety of names across South America, such as the pineapple snake, the silent rattlesnake, and the stinging jackfruit.  Regardless of the specific species of snake, these photographs appear to provide a genuine look at the painful aftermath of a venomous snakebite. News.com.au talked to Brian Fry, an associate professor in the school of biological sciences at the University of Queensland, when these images first went viral:  News.com.au That type of snake [Sharp-nosed viper] has a venom that is extremely tissue destroying, Dr Fry told news.com.au. The reason for this is that they kill their prey by haemorrhagic shock, where some parts of the venom damage the blood vessel walls, while other parts destroy the ability of the blood to clot, leading to a state of massive internal bleeding in a prey animal. As Associate Professor in the School of Biological Sciences at the University of Queensland, Dr Fry said because it is a Chinese snake; antivenom for a bite like this might be hard to come by in remote areas. If it was in a private collection somewhere, they probably didnt have it and likely none of the nearby zoos would either, he explained. Thus, theyd have to suffer through the full effects. While we haven't been able to find much information about this specific set of photographs, we have found other snake-bite cases that resulted in similar injuries. A 2015 article from the BBC explained some of the science behind deadly venomous snake bites: cases resulted similar injuries BBC Snake venom is made up of several hundred proteins which all have a slightly different toxic effect on the human body. One snake's poison may not be like another's, even if they are from the same species. But, on the whole, there are two main ways snakes make us suffer  by attacking the circulatory system (ie. the blood) and/or the nervous system. Haemotoxic venom goes for the bloodstream. It can trigger lots of tiny blood clots and then when the venom punches holes in blood vessels causing them to leak, there is nothing left to stem the flow and the patient bleeds to death. Other venoms can increase blood pressure, decrease blood pressure, prevent bleeding or create it. They are all bad news. Neurotoxic venom tends to act more quickly, attacking the nervous system and stopping nerve signals getting through to the muscles. This means paralysis, starting at the head, moving down the body until, if untreated, the diaphragm is paralysed and the patient can't breathe. A classic sign of this is ptosis, when people can't keep their eyes open. Around the area of the bite, necrosis can set in. That happens when the venom destroys nearby muscles, tissues and cells. Long-term, this can lead to amputations, the loss of the use of a limb or the need for multiple skin grafts. In sum, the above photographs most likely show the gruesome aftermath of a snake bite, but because we were unable to uncover specific details about the pictures, we've rated this claim "Unproven." Brown, Vanessa.  "Horror Snake Bite Causes Victims Thumb to Turn Black Before Being Amputated"
  News.com.au.  15 August 2017. Weisberger, Mindy.  "What Should You Do If You're Bitten by a Venomous Snake?"
  Live Science.  2 June 2019. BBC.  "The amazing science behind fatal snake bites."
  13 September 2015. New Jersey doesnt just need a lot of federal aid to rebuild a coastline ravaged by Hurricane Sandy, the state also deserves it, according to Gov. Chris Christie.NBC Nightly News host Brian Williams asked Christie recently if its fair for people who have no interests in the Jersey Shore to ask, Why the money? Why the effort, if this is the new normal?Well, listen, it's fair to ask it but I have the answer, Christie said during the Oct. 30 interview. The answer is that for New Jersey, which gives so much to this country -- by the way, 50th in return of our federal tax dollars. So New Jerseyans send more than any other state in America in federal taxes, getting back less. When that's done and you see that our state is a state that needs this to contribute to our economy and also to the soul and the vibrancy of our state, I think we have very good answers and arguments to make. And you count on one thing: you're looking at the guy who is going to make those arguments.With Christie building part of his case for federal assistance around the states return on federal tax dollars, PolitiFact New Jersey wondered whether his premise is true.Add Donor State to the list of New Jerseys monikers.Depending on the year -- and whether adjustments are made to federal data -- New Jersey ranks at or near the bottom nationwide in this category.The Tax Foundation, a business-backed group, tracked how much the federal government collected through taxes and returned through expenditures to states every year from 1981 to 2005.The Washington, D.C.-based foundation calculated the federal tax burden -- a measurement meant to account for taxes that are assessed in one state, but impact taxpayers elsewhere -- to conduct its analysis.In 17 of those 25 years, New Jersey came in last place, receiving 70 cents or less for every dollar it sent to the federal government.In 2005 -- the most recent year analyzed by the Tax Foundation -- the federal government gave New Jersey 61 cents for every dollar it took. That was the smallest return of any state.But that was seven years ago. Though the Tax Foundation hasnt updated its findings, other studies show New Jersey still ranks near the bottom.The Northeast-Midwest Institute, a research organization based in Washington, D.C., that promotes 18 states in the region, released a May 2011 report on federal spending and taxation patterns that focused on New Jersey.New Jersey ranked 48th in the nation. Only Minnesota and Delaware received smaller returns on their federal tax dollars in 2009, according to the report, which relied on raw, unadjusted data.PolitiFact New Jerseys analysis of federal data from 2010 also put New Jersey in 48th place. So even the raw data put New Jersey near the bottom in this category.But Colleen Cain, a senior policy analyst with the Northeast-Midwest Institute who prepared the 2011 report, said in an e-mail, that the news behind this is not all bad.In the report, Cain attributes the low ranking to New Jerseys relatively high income levels and greater-than-average business income tax contribution, coupled with a relatively low need for federal aid.It does, however, underscore the importance of states like New Jersey in supporting the fiscal health of the nation generally.Our rulingChristie said that New Jersey is 50th in return of our federal tax dollars.The Tax Foundations analysis of 2005 data, which was adjusted to reflect each states overall federal tax burden, ranked New Jersey 50th in the nation in this category.The state received 61 cents for every dollar it sent to Washington, D.C. that year.Though that research is outdated, more recent analysis of raw data shows New Jersey still ranks near the bottom.On the Truth-O-Meter, Christies statement registers as Mostly True. To comment on this ruling, go toNJ.com. Scam:  Callers pretend to be fraud investigation agents for Visa and MasterCard in order to obtain credit card security codes. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2003] We all receive emails all the time regarding one scam or another; but last week I REALLY DID get scammed! Both VISA and MasterCard told me that this scam is currently being worked throughout the Midwest, with some variance as to the product or amount, and if you are called, just hang up. My husband was called on Wednesday from "VISA" and I was called in Thursday from "MasterCard". It worked like this: Person calling says, "This is Carl Patterson (any name) and I'm calling from the Security and Fraud department at VISA. My Badge number is 12460. Your card has been flagged for an unusual purchase pattern, and I'm calling to verify. This would be on your VISA card issued by 5/3 bank. Did you purchase an Anti-Telemarketing Device for $497.99 from a marketing company based in Arizona?" When you say "No". The caller continues with, "Then we will be issuing a credit to your account. This is a company we have been watching and the charges range from $297 to $497, just under the $500 purchase pattern that flags most cards. Before your next statement, the credit will be sent to (gives you your address), is that correct?" You say, "Yes". The caller continues ... "I will be starting a fraud investigation. If you have any questions, you should call the 800 number listed on your card 1-800-VISA and ask for Security. you will need to refer to this Control #". Then gives you a 6 digit number. "Do you need me to read it again?" Caller then says he "needs to verify you are in possession of your card. Turn the card over. There are 7 numbers; first 4 are 1234 (whatever) the next 3 are the security numbers that verify you are in possession of the card. These are the numbers you use to make internet purchases to prove you have the card. Read me the 3 numbers." Then he says "That is correct. I just needed toverify that the card has not been lost or stolen, and that you still have your card. Do you have any other questions? Don't hesitate to call back if you do." You actually say very little, and they never ask for or tell you the card number. But after we were called on Wednesday, we called back within 20 minutes to ask a question. Are we glad we did! The REAL VISA security dept. told us it was a scam and in the last 15 minutes a new purchase of $497.99 WAS put on our card. Long story made short ... we made a real fraud report and closed the VISA card and they are reissuing as a new number. What the scam wants is the 3 digit number and that once the charge goes through, they keep charging every few days. By the time you get your statement, you think the credit is coming, and then its harder to actually file a fraud report. The real VISA reinforced that they will never ask for anything on the card (they already know). What makes this more remarkable is that on Thursday, I got a call from "Jason Richardson of MasterCard" with a word for word repeat of the VISA Scam. This time I didn't let him finish. I hung up. We filed a police report (as instructed by VISA), and they said they are taking several of these reports daily and to tell friends, relatives and coworkers.  Origins:  There are five points we generally try to apply in evaluating warnings about possible criminal schemes or activities: 1)  Is the phenomenon outlined in the warning technically possible as described? 2)   Is the phenomenon outlined in the warning plausible?  (That is, some criminal schemes are technically possible, but they're too difficult, cumbersome, or expensive to plausibly enact on anything more than a very limited basis.) 3)  Are there any verifiable instances of people having been victimized in the manner described by the warning? 4)  Is there evidence that the criminal activity described in the warning is widespread? 5)  Is the criminal activity described in the warning something the average person might fall victim to? The scheme outlined in the message quoted above might be categorized as a "social engineering" scam  a technique which preys upon people's unquestioning acceptance of authority and willingness to cooperate   in order to extract from them sensitive information (such as computer passwords or credit card numbers). In this case the scammers' target data are the three-digit security codes found on the back of MasterCard and Visa cards.  Just as the Internet and other technologies have greatly expanded the possibilities for making credit card purchases without the need to physically present a card to the seller, so have they created additional opportunities for identity thieves to make profitable use of purloined credit card numbers. After getting their hands on credit card numbers (often through such simple expedients as rummaging through trash to find discarded receipts or statements), crooks can then employ a variety of means (e.g., mail order, phone order, Internet purchases, posing as merchants) in order to obtain money and merchandise by charging against the cardholder's account  even though the credit card itself remains snugly inside the cardholder's wallet.  The victim may not even know anything is amiss until he receives his next statement in the mail several weeks later.   Although safeguards have been enacted to catch most of these types of fraud, they're often defeated by a combination of lax security and clever crooks who know how to work around them.    One of the those safeguards is the addition of three-digit security codes (known as CVC2 or CVV2 codes) to every MasterCard and Visa card, codes which are indent-printed in the signature panels on the backs of the cards  but are not encoded in the magnetic stripes and do not print on sales receipts.  Many vendors cannot process credit card transactions without obtaining these security codes from their customers, thereby ensuring that persons placing orders have physical possession of the cards being used (and haven't simply scammed the sixteen-digit account numbers imprinted on the front of cards somehow).  Thus the scheme described above might be used by identity thieves who have managed to collect credit card numbers but need to obtain the associated security codes in order to process charges against the accounts. So, back to our five points: 1) Is this possible?  Yes, it's possible that scammers might  get hold of credit card numbers and then use the technique described above to obtain security codes and process phony transactions against the accounts. 2) Is this plausible?  The scam as described above is not extraordinarily difficult or expensive to pull off; all it requires is access to a telephone and the establishment of a merchant account for processing credit card transactions.  It also assumes the scammer already has the names, addresses, phone numbers, and credit card numbers (plus expiration dates) of his victims, but that information might be obtained in a variety of ways (such as breaking into and stealing customer data from merchant web sites).  Whether the same scammer could process more than a handful of phony charges before complaints caused his merchant account to be shut down is problematic, though, and most credit card issuers now have checks in place to prevent the shipping of merchandise to anywhere other than the card's registered billing address and other "card not present" (CNP scams). CNP 3) Are there known instances of this occurring?  We talked with a representative of MasterCard, who told us that although she couldn't verify the specific details of the message reproduced above, this type of scam does occur and isn't new; it's been going on ever since MasterCard started putting CVC2 security codes on all its cards back in 1997.  (Visa did not add CVV2 codes on all their credit cards until 2001.)  She also reiterated that MasterCard would not ask a cardholder to disclose security codes or provide any information verifying physical possession of a card; any such inquiries regarding security matters would come from the financial institution that issued the credit card, not from MasterCard itself. 4) Is this a widespread phenomenon?  Unfortunately, neither MasterCard nor VISA would provide us with any statistics regarding the specific scam described here or confirm any actual instances of its occurrence (other than to note that using the telephone to trick cardholders into divulging their security codes is a type of fraud that has been occurring for several years and is ongoing).  However, numerous readers have informed us they've received calls from persons identifying themselves as fraud investigation agents and asking for sensitive personal data, so (even allowing for the possibility that some of those calls were actually legitimate) we'd have to say anecdotal evidence indicates this scam is still being perpetrated, if only infrequently. 5) Is this something that might affect the average person?  Yes, anyone who holds a credit card is a potential victim of this type of fraud. The best protection against these types of telephone schemes for obtaining sensitive credit card information is to always verify the identities of the people with whom you speak.  If you have security questions or concerns about your credit card, call the financial institution who issued your card directly.  If someone contacts you by phone about your credit card, ask the caller to provide his name, department, and extension, then hang up and call him back through the phone number listed on your credit card or billing statement.    Additional information:        Recognizing Credit Card Fraud   (Consumer @ction)   Last updated:  1 April 2015 Claim:  "Make the Pie Higher!" poem is composed of actual quotes from George W. Bush.  Status:  True. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2002] MAKE THE PIE HIGHERby George W. Bush  I think we all agree, the past is over.This is still a dangerous world.It's a world of madmen and uncertaintyand potential mental losses.  Rarely is the question askedIs our children learning?Will the highways of the Internet become more few?How many hands have I shaked?  They misunderestimate me.I am a pitbull on the pantleg of opportunity.I know that the human being and the fish can coexist.Families is where our nation finds hope, where our wings take dream.  Put food on your family!Knock down the tollbooth!Vulcanize society!Make the pie higher! Make the pie higher! Origins:  We certainly didn't need to write a piece to inform the world that, like his father, President George W. Bush is not a strong public speaker.  Particularly when speaking   extemporaneously, he often uses words similar in sound but different in meaning to what he intends tosay (e.g., "vulcanize" for "Balkanize") or uses incorrect forms of words (e.g., "resignate" for "resonate"), garbles familiar phrases by transposing words (e.g., "where wings take dream"), and makes a variety of grammatical mistakes (e.g., "how many hands have I shaked").  The point here was not to rehash the numerous lists of "Bushisms" to be found in a variety of media, but to perform a sort of investigative experiment into the accuracy of information transmission in the Internet age. A common phenomenon in the world of the printed word is that once a public figure  whether he be an athlete such a Yogi Berra, an entertainment figure such as Samuel Goldwyn, or a politician such as Dan Quayle  acquires a reputation for spouting malapropisms, people quickly begin to put words into his mouth. All sorts of humorous misuses of words and phrases that sound like something that person might have said are soon attributed to him as something he "really said"; newspapers run the erroneous quotes without verification and are later cited as documented proof of their veracity, thereby enshrining apocrypha as  fact. Only when someone undertakes the chore of trying to track the quotes back to their sources are the misattributions discovered, usually far too late to dislodge them from the public consciousness. So, we thought we'd tackle a project to see whether the increased availability of information in the Internet age has had any effect on this phenomenon; whether quotes are less likely to be misattributed when nearly every utterance of a public figure as prominent as a presidential candidate is recorded and stored in one form or another.  As a test example, we chose the "Make the Pie Higher!" piece reproduced above (generally credited to "Washington Post writer Richard Thompson," a satirist and illustrator who produces the "Richard's Poor Almanac" feature appearing in the Post's Sunday edition) and attempted to trace every statement listed therein to its source to determine how many of them were actually uttered by George W. Bush.  Our standard was that in order to consider a statement to be a genuine "Bushism" we had to find at least one major newspaper article that quoted the actual words spoken (rather than paraphrasing them), included specific information about when and where the statement was made, and was printed within a few days of the event at which the statement was offered. In this statistically insignificant non-random sample of one, we found that yes, the accuracy of quote transmission was remarkably high: All but a couple of the items in this piece could be reliably traced back to the mouth of George W. Bush. Here are the results:  "I think we all agree, the past is over." In March 2000, Texas governor George W. Bush locked up the Republican presidential nomination, beating out his chief rival, Senator John McCain of Arizona, in a rancorous primary campaign marked by personal attacks and charges of dirty tactics on the part of both sides.  Two months later Senator McCain somewhat reluctantly endorsed Governor Bush for president during a joint appearance at the Westin William Penn Hotel in Pittsburgh, where both men tried their best (somewhat unconvincingly) to assure the press that they had put their differences behind them: Both sides swapped charges of dirty campaign tactics. McCain aides accused Bush supporters of personal attacks, and Mr. Bush denounced McCain forces for suggesting that the governor was guilty of anti-Catholic bigotry. On Tuesday, the pair told some 200 journalists that they had discussed policy, not personal history. "There's no point," Mr. McCain said. "I hold no rancor. Others will be the judge of this campaign, not me."  Mr. Bush said the McCain challenge toughened him for the fall campaign against Mr. Gore.  "We had a tough primary," Mr. Bush said. "I told him point blank: 'You made me a better candidate.'"  Later, on his campaign plane, the governor described the discussion as "very cordial, very frank, very open." He added: "I think we agree, the past is over."1 "This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses." On the campaign trail in South Carolina while pursuing the Republican nomination in January 2000, Governor Bush spoke before 2,000 loyal Republicans at a well-attended oyster roast held on a plantation outside Charleston and mystified his audience when, during his discourse on the need for a strengthened U.S. military, he made reference not to "mental" losses (which itself would have sounded odd in the given context), but to "mential" (pronounced "men-shul") losses: During his visit to South Carolina this week, the first Bushism exploded as the governor painted a passionate picture of the military dangers facing the US, and the pressing need for protection against rogue missile launches. "This is still a dangerous world," he told more than 2,000 supporters at an oyster roast. "It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mential losses." Bush's spokespeople could not immediately explain what a mential loss was, but it seemed only distantly related to missile launches.2 "Rarely is the question asked, 'Is our children learning?'" During that same South Carolina campaign swing in January 2000, Governor Bush committed another grammatical mix-up while wrangling a sentence containing both singular and plural subjects, this example occurring (with a modicum of irony) during the portion of his stump speech dealing with education: That's not to say Bush hasn't had his share of flubs. Part of his stump speech focuses on education. On Tuesday, talking to a crowd of several hundred at a cavernous civic center in Florence, S.C., Bush decried those who ignore educational programs that produce no results  inadvertently revealing a temporary shortcoming in his own grammar skills.  "What's not fine is rarely is the question asked, are, is our children learning?" Bush said.3 "Will the highways of the Internet become more few?" During his January 2000 push to win the first primary election of the campaign, held in New Hampshire, Governor Bush was asked to comment on the recently announced merger of media giants Time Warner and AOL, and he addressed concerns over its potential monopolistic effects with some unusual phrasing: When asked about the Time Warner/America Online merger, the candidate took an unexpected detour on the information superhighway. The key question in considering the merger, Bush said, is "will the highways to the Internet become more few?"4 "How many hands have I shaked?" By October 1999 Republicans were noting Governor Bush's relatively rare appearances in New Hampshire and were beginning to question whether he had assumed he had the nomination sewn up and could afford to take the February 2000 New Hampshire primary for granted.   When reporters persistently questioned him about that possibility on 22 October 1999, during his first campaign swing through New Hampshire since early September, Governor Bush expressed the notion that the important factor was not the number of appearances he made, but the number of people he reached during those appearances: Asked repeatedly today about why he had not been around more, Mr. Bush at one point interrupted a reporter's question to say, "The important question is, How many hands have I shaked."5 "They misunderestimate me." The misuse of 'misunderestimate' for 'underestimate' seems to be one of  George W. Bush's more common elocutionary mistakes.  We can't pin down exactly when he used 'misunderestimate' for the first time in a public statement as a presidential candidate; the earliest print reference we could find appeared in the Chicago Sun-Times on 13 November 2000, but it didn't detail where and when he said it.  Nonetheless,  Bush was still using the word (and catching himself at it) after his inauguration as President, as demonstrated by this excerpt from a 29 March 2001 news conference: Look, it is in our nation's best interests to have long-term tax relief, and that has been my focus all along. I'm confident we can have it, get it done. I believe not only can we get long-term tax relief in place. Since our country is running some surpluses in spite of the dire predictions about cash flow, I believe we have an opportunity to fashion an immediate stimulus package, as well. The two ought to go hand in hand. Those who think that they can say, "We're only going to have a stimulus package, but let's forget tax relief," misunderestimate ...  or, excuse me,  underestimate  just making sure you were paying attention  underestimate our administration's resolve to get this done ...6 "I am a pitbull on the pantleg of opportunity." This line is a retrospective statement Bush uttered during an interview about his involvement in a partnershipthat bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in 1989: George W. Bush has frequently claimed to have cobbled together the deal to buy the Rangers in 1989. "I was like a pit bull on the pant leg of opportunity," Mr. Bush said in a long interview about his past. "And I just grabbed on to it. I was going to put the deal together. And I did." The initiative, Mr. Bush acknowledges, came from Bill DeWitt, a businessman and friend of the family. Mr. DeWitt had heard that the Rangers were on the market and wanted to recruit Mr. Bush as a partner to buy the team.15 "I know that the human being and the fish can coexist." On Friday, 29 September 2000, Governor Bush was on the stump in Saginaw, Michigan, and deviated from his prepared speech to reassure the business community that he would not support the tearing down of energy-producing dams merely to protect threatened fish species, an issue he had recently covered while campaigning in the Pacific Northwest:    Friday, feeling the need to explain his statement during a speech on energy policy that he intended to maintain dams in the Pacific Northwest, he departed from his text and added, "I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." He did not elaborate.7 Mark Crispin Miller noted in The Bush Dyslexicon that: This remark is striking not because it's silly but because it casts a threatened creature as a national enemy.  A relic of the Cold War, the phrase "peaceful coexistence" was a predtente Soviet coinage, meant to pitch conciliation between the world's two rival superpowers. "Families is where our nation finds hope, where our wings take dream." Swinging through Wisconsin in mid-October 2000 en route to a debate with Democratic presidential challenger Al Gore, Governor Bush was discussing the importance of tax cuts to American families when he transposed a couple of words in a well-worn phrase: The Texas governor and GOP presidential nominee tangles up words often enough that he sometimes jokes about it, and the phenomenon has acquired a name  Bushism. On the campaign trail Wednesday, he let one fly: "Families is where our nation finds hope," he said, "where wings take dream."8 "Put food on your family!" On 27 January 2000, speaking in Nashua just a few days before the New Hampshire primary, Governor Bush was trying to illustrate the economic plight of single working mothers and again transposed (and omitted) a few words in the familiar reference to putting food on the table for one's family: At a breakfast meeting with the Nashua Chamber of Commerce, Bush illustrated his brand of compassionate conservatism by urging his listeners to put themselves in the role of a single mother "working hard to put food on your family."4 Since these words are difficult to quote in the context in which they were offered, they were soon being rendered as the pithier "I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family." "Knock down the tollbooth!" Governor Bush's misuse of 'tollbooth' for 'roadblock,' in reference to eliminating tax obstacles that prevent the working poor from joining the middle class, comes from his New Hampshire campaign appearances in January 2000, but contemporary reports don't seem to agree on the exact words he used  perhaps there was more than one such incident: Things must be good here, because the mere mention of tax cuts is not enough to get the crowd cheering. What they like is when Bush worries about the working poor; they applaud vigorously when he complains that a single mother making $22,000 is being penalized by the tax system. "It's not fair!" Bush exclaims. "It's a tollbooth on the road to the middle class, and I intend not only to reduce the fees but to knock the tollbooth down."9  "The hardest job in America is to be a single mom, making $20,000 a year," Bush declared at a recent Rotary Club lunch where he promised that as president, he would reduce the struggling woman's marginal income-tax rate and "knock down her tollbooth to the middle class."10   Last weekend, fire marshals were actually turning people away from political rallies. At a high school near Nashua, you could see folks forlornly peeking in the windows, yearning to be let inside to hear George W. Bush call for "a law that provides liability to teachers who enforce discipline in the schools." All the candidates are tired, but Mr. Bush's speeches are getting particularly unintelligible  at the same high school, he announced, "I think we need not only to eliminate the tollbooth to the middle class, I think we should knock down the tollbooth." 11 "Vulcanize society! " At the very beginning of the 2000 presidential campaign, Ken Herman reported in a front-page story appearing in the 23 March 1999 edition of the Austin American-Statesman that Governor Bush had expressed his disdain for racial quotas as programs that "vulcanize" society: Sometimes this smooth operator is anything but. This was evident in a March 23 piece by Ken Herman, the Austin American-Statesman's chief Bush watcher, who wrote about the governor's "2-step around hot topics." Mr. Bush says he's against "hard quotas, quotas that basically delineate based on whatever. However, they delineate, quotas, I think, vulcanize society."12 In this instance Governor Bush of course meant to say 'Balkanize' (to divide a group into small, often hostile units) rather than 'vulcanize' (to improve the strength of rubber by combining it with sulfur in the presence of heat and pressure).  However, the issue was muddied a few days later when the American-Statesman reversed itself and issued a correction:  A front-page story Tuesday inaccurately quoted Gov. George W. Bush's position on quotas in college admissions and the awarding of state contracts. The story said Bush believes quotas "vulcanize society." Bush actually said he believes quotas "Balkanize society."13 Whether the reporter misquoted Governor Bush or whether Governor Bush really did say 'vulcanize' and the American-Statesman later printed an amended quote at the behest of his office is something we can't determine. "Make the pie higher!" This final item (a misstatement of the concept of putting more money into the hands of Americans by reducing taxes to grow the economy and enlarge the economic "pie" that everyone shares  i.e., making the pie "bigger" rather than "higher") is the phrase perhaps most often cited as an example of "Bushisms," so much so that it was used for the title of the poem quoted at the head of this page.  And it is a real quote, something Bush said during the course of a 15 February 2000 Republican debate (moderated by CNN host Larry King) in Columbia, South Carolina, between Texas Governor George W. Bush, Senator John McCain of Arizona, and former Reagan administration official Ambassador Alan Keyes: The difference between our plans is, I know whose money it is we're dealing with. We're dealing with the government  we're dealing with the people's money, not the government's money. And I want to give people their money back.  And if you're going to have a tax cut, everybody ought to have a tax cut. This kind of Washington, D.C., view about targeted tax cuts is tax cuts driven by polls and focus groups. If you pay taxes in America, you ought to get a tax cut.  Under my plan, if you're a family of four in South Carolina, making $50,000, you get 50-percent tax cut. I've reduced the lower rate from 15 percent to 10 percent, which does this  and this is important. There are people on the outskirts of poverty, like single moms who are working the toughest job in America. If she has two kids, and making $22,000, for every additional dollar she earns, she pays a higher marginal rate on her taxes than someone making $200,000.  You bet I cut the taxes at the top. That encourages entrepreneurship. What we Republicans should stand for is growth in the economy. We ought to make the pie higher. This one initially posed something of a mystery to us, because transcripts of the debate prepared by the Federal Document Clearing House and CNN attribute the block of text quoted above to Senator John McCain, not Governor Bush.  However, the immediately preceding question had clearly been posed to Governor Bush, and newspaper accounts the following morning noted the "make the pie higher" comment as something uttered by Governor Bush: Bush, shedding his sometimes goofy demeanor, was as animated and forceful as he has been in any debate, punching the air with his fist to underscore his words. He scored points among the party faithful in calling for an end to the Clinton era in Washington  one of the money lines of the night. On taxes and bringing prosperity to struggling working mothers, however, Bush mangled one metaphor: "We ought to make the pie higher."14 Moreover, at a Radio/TV correspondents' dinner in Washington, D.C., a few weeks later, Governor Bush made humorous use of the item with no indication that the words weren't his own: Now most people would say in speaking of the economy, "We ought to make the pie bigger." I, however, am on record saying, "We ought to make the pie higher." As frivolous as this experiment may have been, let's hope it's a harbinger of more accurate information to come. Last updated:  21 July 2008    Sources:    7.  Allen, Mike.  "Bush's Gaffes Are Back As Debates Near."   The Washington Post.  1 October 2000  (p. A8).    11.  Collins, Gail.  "Savor the Moment."   The New York Times.  1 February 2000  (p. A21).     5.  Henneberger, Melinda.  "New Hampshire Warns Bush, 'Don't Be a Stranger Hee-ahh'"   The New York Times.  23 October 1999  (p. A12).    12.  Hunt, Albert R.  "George W. Can Run But He Can't Hide."   The Wall Street Journal.  1 April 1999  (p. A23).     4.  Hutcheson, Ron.  "Candidate George W. Bush Sometimes Mangles Words."   Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.  29 January 2000  (p. A8).        Ivins, Molly.  Shrub: The Short But Happy Political Life of George W. Bush.   New York: Random House, 2000.  ISBN 0-375-50399-4  (p. 19). Shrub: The Short But Happy Political Life of George W. Bush     1.  Jackson, David and Wayne Slater.  "Subdued McCain Endorses Bush."   The Dallas Morning News.  10 May 2000.    16.  Kristof, Nicholas D.  "The 2000 Campaign: Breaking Into Baseball."   The New York Times.  24 September 2000.    10.  Leonard, Mary.  "Fight Intensifies for Votes of Women."   The Boston Globe.  22 January 2000  (p. A1).     8.  Mason, Julie.  "Campaign Notebook."   The Houston Chronicle.  19 October 2000  (p. A38).    14.  Miga, Andrew.  "Tight S. Carolina Race Fuels Contentious Debate."   The Boston Globe.  16 February 2000  (p. 27).        Miller, Mark Crispin.  The Bush Dyslexicon: Observations on a National Disorder.   New York: W.W. Norton, 2001.  ISBN 0-393-04183-2. The Bush Dyslexicon: Observations on a National Disorder     3.  Miller, T. Christian.  "With a Grin, Bush Answers Early Charges of Aloofness."   Los Angeles Times.  14 January 2000  (p. 20).        Smith, Zay N.  "A Small Comfort Amid Election Snafus, Quarrels."   Chicago Sun-Times.  13 November 2000  (p. 26).     9.  Von Drehle, David.  "12 Hours, 4 Contenders, Many Parallels."   The Washington Post.  15 January 2000  (p. A1).    13.  Austin American-Statesman.  "Corrections."   25 March 1999  (p. A2).     2.  The Financial Times.  "Bushed Again."   14 January 2000.     6.  The New York Times.  "In Bush's Words: 'Both Sides Must Take Important Steps' in the Mideast."   30 March 2001  (p. A12).