Who is responsible for the rise in debt?
Debt is typically a major campaign issue in elections from the municipal level all the way up to the office of the President of the United States.  Candidates tout their accomplishments in balancing budgets or reducing government debt as examples of fiscal prudence while pointing to increased debts during their opponents' administrations as indicators of profligate and wasteful spending of taxpayers' money.    The chart reproduced above, which was posted to the Flickr account of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, attempted to reverse conventional political stereotypes by portraying recent Republican presidents as responsible for huge increases in the national debt, while showing recent Democratic presidents as responsible for much lower increases in the level of debt.   Flickr account As a first step in evaluating this chart, we have to determine the applicable definition of "debt."  In general, the term "public debt" (or "debt held by the public") refers to money borrowed by the government through the issuance and sale of securities, government bonds, and bills.  It includes federal debt held by all investors outside of the federal government, including individuals, corporations, state or local governments, the Federal Reserve banking system, and foreign governments. Another form of debt is "intragovernmental debt" (or "debt held by government accounts"), which refers to money that the government has borrowed from itself, such as when the U.S. government invests money from federal savings programs such as Medicare and the Social Security trust fund by buying up its own treasury securities.  A variety of names have been applied to the total of these two forms of debt, including "gross federal debt," "total public debt," and "national debt." Although this chart is labeled as presenting a "percent increase in public debt," it actually uses figures corresponding to the total described as "gross federal debt" above (i.e., a combination of debt held by the public and debt held by government accounts, rather than just the former).  We checked the numbers in this chart by using (for pre-1993 years) the U.S. Treasury's Monthly Statement of the Public Debt (MSPD), noting the total debt reported as of January 31 of each relevant year, and (for 1993 onwards) the Treasury's The Debt to the Penny and Who Holds It application, noting the total debt reported as of Inauguration Day of each relevant year. Monthly Statement of the Public Debt The Debt to the Penny and Who Holds It From these records, we gleaned the following information: Ronald Reagan:Took office January 1981.  Total debt: $848 billionLeft office January 1989.    Total debt: $2,698 billionPercent change in total debt:  +218%  George H.W. Bush:Took office January 1989.  Total debt: $2,698 billionLeft office 20 January 1993.    Total debt: $4,188 billionPercent change in total debt:  +55% Bill Clinton:Took office 20 January 1993.  Total debt: $4,188 billionLeft office 20 January 2001.  Total debt: $5,728 billionPercent change in total debt:  +37% George W. Bush:Took office 20 January 2001.  Total debt: $5,728 billionLeft office 20 January 2009.  Total debt: $10,627 billionPercent change in total debt:  +86% Barack Obama:Took office 20 January 2009.  Total debt: $10,627 billionTotal debt (as of the end of April 2011):  $14,288 billionPercent change in total debt:  +34% So, as far as raw numbers go, the chart is reasonably accurate (although our calculations produced a somewhat higher debt increase for Ronald Reagan than reported).  That said, however, we have to consider how valuable these numbers are; whether by themselves they present a reasonable comparative measure of presidential fiscal responsibility.  In that regard, one could find a number of aspects to take issue with:  The chart isn't a true comparison of equals, as it includes three presidents who served two full terms (Reagan, Clinton, and George W. Bush), a president who served one term (George H.W. Bush), and a president who had served half a term (Obama).  Obviously, the longer a president holds office the greater the opportunity for him to influence the debt, and certainly (barring a radical change in current circumstances)  the increase reported for Barack Obama would be considerably higher by the time he left office.   All presidents come into office with policies and budgets that were put into place by their predecessors in the White House and Congress, and they all pass the same along to their successors when they leave office.  Therefore, determining how much of the change in debt that occurs during a given president's administration is actually the result of his actions (rather than the consequence of factors over which he had little or no influence) would require a much more complex analysis than the one presented here.  Which is the best measure of debt for this purpose: public debt, intragovernmental debt, or a combination of the two?  As noted in the General Accounting Office's FAQ on Federal Debt, they represent rather different concepts: FAQ Debt held by the public approximates current federal demand on credit markets. It represents a burden on today's economy, and the interest paid on this debt represents a burden on current taxpayers. Federal borrowing from the public absorbs resources available for private investment and may put upward pressure on interest rates. Further, debt held by the public is the accumulation of what the federal government borrowed in the past and is reported as a liability on the balance sheet of the government's consolidated financial statements. In contrast, debt held by government accounts (intragovernmental debt) and the interest on it represent a claim on future resources. This debt performs largely an internal accounting function. Special federal securities credited to government accounts (primarily trust funds) represent the cumulative surpluses of these accounts that have been lent to the general fund. These transactions net out on the government's consolidated financial statements. Debt issued to government accounts does not affect today's economy and does not currently compete with the private sector for available funds in the credit market.   Are plain percentage changes in the national debt level a useful figure, or do they need to be placed in context to have relevance?  Some would argue, for example, that the Debt-to-GDP ratio is a better measure of economic health relative to the national debt than raw debt figures alone, and a chart which tracked the change in that ratio over the last several presidencies would paint a significantly different picture of debt levels than the one displayed above.  Debt-to-GDP chart All in all, this is a case of relatively accurate information which is of marginal value due to a lack of proper comparative context.
Claim:  The four major U.S. credit bureaus will be allowed to share your private information with anyone who requests it as of 1 July 2003 unless you specifically request them not to. Status:  False. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2001] Just wanted to let everyone know who hasn't already heard, the four major credit bureaus in the US. will be allowed, starting July 1, to release your credit info, mailing addresses, phone numbers etc. to anyone who requests it. If you would like to 'opt out' of this release of info, you can call 1-888-567-8688. It only takes a couple of minutes to do, and you can take care of anyone else in the household while making only one call, you'll just need to know their social security number. Be sure to listen closely, the first opt out is only for two years, make sure you wait until they prompt you to press '3' on your keypad to opt out for good. Origins:  There is truth in the issue which seems to be uppermost in the minds of most of those who receive this message  that is, whether the phone number provided above is valid for the stated purpose or whether it's some sort of information-collecting scam.  The phone number listed (1-888-5OPTOUT) is indeed legitimate; it is a shared number set up with the cooperation of the Associated Credit Bureaus to establish a single point of contact for consumers to call to request that all four major U.S. credit bureaus (Equifax, Experian, Trans Union, and Novus/Innovis) remove their information from the marketing lists and pre-approved credit offer lists sold to third parties.  Yes, they automated system will ask you to enter your phone number, Social Security number, and other personal information, because it needs that information to locate your record.  If you are uncomfortable supplying this information to an automated system, you will have to call each of the four major credit bureaus individually and speak to real people at each one of them, a cumbersone and time-consuming ' process. However, it is not true that consumers must call this number before 1 July 2004, nor is it true that recent legislation allows credit bureaus to share private information with "anyone who requests it."  This misinformation has been circulating since 2001, and the same message keeps getting get dusted off and sent around every year with an updated deadline.  (In fact, if you call the number listed above, the first option you're presented is to listen to a message explaining why the e-mail quoted above is false.) Contrary to the text of the dire warning quoted above, credit bureaus cannot sell your non-public personal information (e.g., Social Security number, employment history, bank account information) to "anyone who requests it."  Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1997, businesses seeking to obtain personal information from credit bureaus must have a "permissible purpose" in order to access credit reports.  (Permissible purposes include checking the backgrounds of persons to determine their creditworthiness before selling or renting property to them, extending them loans or credit, or considering them for employment.)  This restriction remains in force, it did not change on 1 July 2001, and it still applies whether or not you call the number listed above.    Credit bureaus can, however, create lists containing the names, addresses, and phone numbers of consumers with good credit and sell them to telemarketers and direct-mail marketers.  (Names, addresses, and phone numbers are not considered "non-public personal information" because they may be obtained from a variety of publicly-accessible sources, such as phone directories.) Consumers may call the 1-888-5OPTOUT number to request that all four major credit bureaus not include their information on these marketing lists.  There is no deadline for this process  consumers may call the number at any time. What did change back in 2001 was that due to the implementation of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act) the banking, insurance, and securities industries were allowed to operate under the same corporate affiliation.  (This act set aside legislation passed during the Depression era, which had created legal barriers to prevent mergers between banks, insurance companies, brokerage firms, and other financial institutions.)   Because of consumers' concerns that new financial conglomerates allowed under this legislation might pool their resources to compile huge databases of sensitive customer information and share them with third parties, Congress added a provision to the act requiring that all financial service companies send privacy notices providing a "reasonable opportunity" for their customers to opt out of this information-sharing by 1 July 2001.  (These notices had to provide consumers with details about all the kinds of information the companies collected about them and how they used that information.)  The 1 July 2001 deadline applied only to the sending of notification to customers by financial institutions, and it had nothing to do with credit bureaus.  Some key points of this "opt-out" process are:  Unlike credit bureaus, financial institutions can share your private information with third parties by default.  In order to stop this sharing, you must specifically invoke your "opt-out" privileges to request that they not do it.  Privacy notices had to be sent to customers by 1 July 2001, but there is no deadline by which customers must respond.  Your right to "opt out" of the information-sharing process is ongoing and may be invoked at any time.  Most importantly, you must contact every financial institution with which you do business to completely "opt out" of the information-sharing process.  The phone number given in the message quoted above (1-888-5OPTOUT) applies only to credit bureaus. Calling this number will not affect the ability of any banks, insurance companies, credit card companies, brokerage firms, or any other financial institutions with which you do (or have done) business from sharing your information. The bottom line is that laws regarding the selling of personal information by financial institutions have become more stringent recently, not less.  The changes may not have made the laws as stringent as we'd like them to be, but at least they're a step in the right direction, not the scare stories these messages make them out to be. Additional information:        Consumer Credit File Privacy: The Real Deal   (Federal Trade Commission)        Protecting Financial Privacy   (Privacy Rights Clearinghouse)        E-mail Sends Wrong Message   (Associated Credit Bureaus)   Last updated:  3 December 2007    Sources:   Buggs, Shannon.  "Don't Be Fooled on Privacy Issue."   The Houston Chronicle.  16 July 2001  (Business; p. 1).     O'Harrow Jr., Robert.  "Credit Firm Told to Stop Selling Data."   The Washington Post.  17 April 2001  (p. E1).     Yip, Pamela.  "Now Is Time for Consumers to Opt out of Sharing Financial Data."   Associated Press.  9 June 2001.     Newsweek.  "Money Notes."   2 July 2001. Adam Hasner, fake conservative? That's the contention being made by George LeMieux, as the two Republicans vie for the GOP nomination to take on incumbent Democratic U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson. LeMieux, a former U.S. senator, is challenging Hasner, a former Florida House majority leader, on two core issues: taxes and spending. LeMieux campaign e-mails and Web posts on Aug. 1, 2011,show a cartoon Hasnerwearing a joker hat and holding a mask in his hand. He is attending his own masquerade ball  one where hes only pretending to be conservative.The Masquerade Ball gown Hasner has chosen on the key issues of taxes and spending is a prime example. Hasners rhetoric simply does not match his record. Hasners record includes: Increasing Spending  A 40% increase during his time in the legislature. Requesting over $92.2 million in earmarks. Billions in new taxes and fees. Voting to accept Obama stimulus money.The earmark claim caught our eye. Hasner, elected to the Florida House of Representatives in 2002,served as majority leaderfrom 2008-10 before term limits ended his run. That means plenty of time to rack up requests for pet projects. But did he request over $92.2 million in earmarks? And if he did, how did that compare with requests by other lawmakers?A more detailed look at Hasners record atGeorgeForFlorida.comclarifies the LeMieux campaign was talking about Floridas twist on the earmark, the Community Budget Issue Request. As weve written inother earmark fact-checks, its a way state legislators use to request funding for local projects. Lawmakers had to file requests  for a local park, say, or a new community wastewater system  and attach their names to each one.The Legislaturestopped the practicein 2009 as budgets got tighter. But the Florida House keepsan archive of such requests, funded and unfunded, at FloridaHouse.gov.A PolitiFact Florida analysis oflawmakers requests from 2003-08shows Hasner indeed made use of CBIRs to ask for state funding for everything from acommunity child care center in Delray Beach($25,000) to support for amedical cluster and research institutein the Miami area ($20 million). He requested $1 million for manatee avoidance technology, made regular requests on behalf ofbrain injury prevention effortsamong seniors ($199,450) and asked for taxpayer aid for drainage improvements, boardwalk replacements and reclaimed water systems.Over six years, his requests total just over $92.2 million.Well mention that the archive doesnt make it clear which projects ultimately won funding, and indeed some requests may have been made year after year precisely because they failed to attract lawmaker support. Rep. Adam Hasners Community Budget Issue Requests 2003-08 That means the amount of local funding Hasner requested for his district was in the bottom half of lawmakers in four out of six years, though it jumped to the 60th percentile in 2006, the year before he served as deputy majority leader, and the 86th percentile in 2007, the year before he took the top seat.But even in 2007, the amount Hasner requested was eclipsed by top CBIR filers, such asRep. Marti Coley, R-Marianna,who wanted $202.3 million for projects in her district  nearly four times Hasners total.A couple of other notes.First, we feel we should at least mention that LeMieux has a record of voting for earmarks while he was in the U.S. Senate. LeMieux, whohadnt held elected officebefore he was appointed to U.S. Sen. Mel Martinezs seat in 2009 by his former boss, Gov. Charlie Crist, has claimed henever requested a single earmark. But he didnt have to: Earmarks bound for Florida were already packed into appropriations bills before LeMieux took over for Martinez. LeMieux voted forseveral such bills. He also activelylobbied for local stimulus projects. Later, he voted for a moratorium to ban federal earmarks through 2013  but so did Sen. Bill Nelson.Meanwhile, as the Florida economy faltered, Hasner cut his own local funding requests in 2008 to a single item  $385,000. That put him last among more than 100 lawmakers who made local funding requests. And he was in the leadership when the decision was made to stop such requests altogether. Hasners campaign, for the record, thinks its unfair to call Community Budget Issue Requests earmarks, which campaign spokesman Douglass Mayer said evokes last-minute congressional handshake deals.The difference here is transparency, Mayer said. CBIRs are submitted with full accountability and voted on in the light of day. Earmarks are snuck in the backdoor of the federal budget process to avoid accountability.But CBIRs are often referred to as Floridas version of the earmark, and documentation from the LeMieux campaign makes the reference clear.Where does this leave us?LeMieuxs campaign says that (Adam) Hasners record includes  requesting over $92.2 million in earmarks. On the numbers, LeMieux is right -- from 2003-08 Hasner requested $92.2 million for projects through a process called Community Budget Issue Requests. But we think there are a couple of caveats worth noting. First is the CBIR process itself -- which was open and transparent. Legislators made requests for dollars in writing and were forced to explain what the money would be used for. Second, it's important to note that Hasner wasn't particularly aggressive in requesting money through CBIRs and more than 100 House members asked for more than he did in 2008. Lastly, it strikes us as hypocritical for LeMieux to attack competitors over earmarks when his own record  where it exists  shows votes and personal lobbying for local spending. We rate this claim Mostly True. At the end of June 2019, a video supposedly showing a large cloud of pollen dropping from a fallen tree went viral on social media, with one iteration posted by the Facebook page BigDawgsTv racking up several million views within a week of its upload date: https://youtu.be/u7JHwplUAnESome viewers were so shocked to see so much pollen emitted by a single tree that they were skeptical of the clip and questioned whether or not it had been doctored. With our sympathies to those who suffer from allergies, we note that this video is authentic. This video was first posted to the Facebook page of the Washington-based company Matts Tree & Landscape in May 2019, along with a message announcing the start of "allergy season":  A small portion of a company sign can be seen at the start of the video displaying the first three digits of a phone number (425, a Seattle area code), a logo, and the first two letters of the company name ("MA"). The same sign can also be seen in a photograph posted to the company's Facebook page: photograph   While this video may have been shocking to some viewers, this wasn't the first time that an online video captured a large pollen cloud falling from a tree. In May 2018, a Kentucky Facebook user posted a similar video showing a machine shaking the pollen off of a tree, and that clip was picked up and shared by several local and national news outlets: posted picked shared local  Sheila McCormick, an adjunct professor of plant and microbial biology at the University of California, Berkeley, talked to Live Science shortly after the latter video went viral in 2018 and explained that while the scene may have been unsettling to some viewers, such pollen clouds aren't unusual: Live Science Pollen is a grainy, plant-produced substance that carries the tools that seed-plants need to create male gametes  aka, sperm. While pollen is not actually sperm itself, pollen grains do contain the cells necessary to transfer the male half of the plant's DNA to a compatible plant's female counterparts (like the pistil and female cones). You could say, as Live Science writer Natalie Wolchover once did, that pollen is plant sperm powder ... "This [scene] is not unusual," Sheila McCormick, an adjunct professor of plant and microbial biology at the University of California, Berkeley, told Live Science. "In general, most plants produce much more pollen than is needed. For example, a single corn plant produces 2 [million] to 5 million pollen grains, and an ear of corn has a few hundred seeds. This is especially true for plants that are wind-pollinated." Pine trees, like the ones in the video above, are no exception. Some species of pine can produce up to 5 lbs. (2.2 kilograms) of pollen in just a few weeks, according to Robert Bardon, associate dean for extension in the department of forestry and environmental resources at North Carolina State University. Why make so much pollen? Call it offspring insurance. Specktor, Brandon.  "Watch a Massive 'Pollen Cloud' Explode from Late-Blooming Tree."
  Live Science.  9 May 2018. Katz, Brigit.  "Watch This Pine Tree Unleash a Huge, Fluffy Pollen Cloud."
  Smithsonian.  10 May 2018. It's a story that seems like it was dreamed up by science fiction writers: An alien satellite has been orbiting Earth for thousands of years, and the government has kept it a secret. Or so the story goes. According to Space.com, the "Black Knight" conspiracy theory goes like this: For about 12,000 years, an alien satellite orbited Earth, surveilling humanity. It was discovered about 120 years ago, but was the subject of a cover-up. Space.com Then in 2017, UFO conspiracy theorists claimed, it was shot down by the Illuminati, a clandestine group they believe secretly controls the world. claimed The "Black Knight" satellite conspiracy theory continues to get attention online. Here's one example, posted to Twitter on Jan. 3, 2022, with the user's name cropped out for privacy:   If there really is an alien craft orbiting Earth and it's the subject of a cover-up, the government is doing a very bad job of it, considering the images that catalyzed the conspiracy theory were taken and shared by NASA. And contrary to what the above post says, the origin of the object in question is known. images We will explain more below, but the object is essentially space junk, and it wasn't shot down, it burned in Earth's atmosphere. According to a debunking of the conspiracy theory published by James Oberg, a former NASA engineer, the image was taken during STS-88, the first shuttle mission to the International Space Station in 1998. The crew of the space shuttle Discovery was sent to space to help assemble the space station. debunking During a space walk in which astronauts were placing thermal covers over trunnion pins, one of the blankets came loose and, to the dismay of the astronauts, drifted away into space. Oberg pointed to video of the moment the thermal cover mishap, which can be viewed here: trunnion pins here  Crookes, David and All About Space. The Black Knight Satellite: A Hodgepodge of Alien Conspiracy Theories. Space.com, 17 Dec. 2021, https://www.space.com/what-is-the-black-knight.html. Oberg, James. "Phantom satellite? What IS it? What ISNT it? WHY the confusion?" 21 Oct. 2014, https://www.jamesoberg.com/sts88_and-black-knight.pdf During the 2021 holiday season, internet users enthusiastically shared articles and posts that described a fascinating episode from the history of a classic American Christmas movie, "It's a Wonderful Life." On Dec. 21, for example, the London Independent reported that: "'It's a Wonderful Life' was once considered communist propaganda by the FBI," while various outlets shared their own accounts of the story. Independent reported that shared own accounts Those accounts were broadly accurate, and based on high-quality primary documentary evidence. Although the FBI did not ever formally, as an institution, declare "It's a Wonderful Life" to be communist propaganda, FBI agents and informants investigated the movie, and the people behind it, as such. As part of a sweeping investigation ordered by bureau director J. Edgar Hoover, a special agent in 1949 included the film in a list of "motion pictures disclosing communist propaganda therein." We are issuing a rating of "true." That description of the movie, which was released in December 1946, can be found in an archived and redacted copy of the FBI report on "Communist infiltration into the motion picture industry, available here. Specifically, it can be found on Page 12 in the ninth of 15 dossiers released under the Freedom of Information Act at some point in the ensuing decades. available here The sender of this 1949 update to the report is listed as one "H.B. Fletcher," but it's not clear who specifically wrote the "It's a Wonderful Life" entry: listed   Although the FBI does not appear to have ever "officially" declared or designated the film as communist propaganda, it's quite clear those agents involved in the investigation of Hollywood (codenamed "COMPIC") were far from agnostic on the socialist, even Soviet inspiration behind the Christmas classic. Indeed, Hoover instructed Richard Hood, special agent in charge at the Los Angeles field office, to limit his team's criticism and reviews to films "which are obviously communist propaganda in nature." instructed The entry on "It's a Wonderful Life" appears in the fourth section of the report ("Communist Influence in Motion Pictures"), under a sub-section entitled "Analysis of Motion Pictures Disclosing Communist Propaganda Therein." entitled According to the author(s) of the briefing, Frank Capra's movie is noteworthy because: the two credited screenwriters, husband-and-wife team Frances Goodrich and Albert Hackett, were supposedly close associates of known communists; the film negatively portrays the villainous local businessman Mr. Potter, which is "a common trick used by communists"; and the storyline appears to have been borrowed from a putative earlier Russian film entitled "The Letter." The first two sections of the briefing can be read in full below: According to the Informants [redacted] and [redacted] in this picture the screen credits again fail to reflect the Communist support given to the screen writers. According to [redacted] the writers Frances Goodrick and Albert Hackett were very close to known Communists and on one occasion in the recent past while these two writers were doing a picture for Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Goodrick and Hackett practically lived with known Communists and were observed eating luncheon daily with such Communists as Lester Cole, screen writer, and Earl Robinson, screen writer. Both of these individuals are identified in Section I of this memorandum as Communists. With regard to the picture Its A Wonderful Life, [redacted] stated in substance that the film represented a rather obvious attempt to discredit bankers by casting Lionel Barrymore as a scrooge-type so that he would be the most hated man in the picture. This, according to these sources, is a common trick used by Communists. In addition, [redacted] stated that, in his opinion, this picture deliberately maligned the upper class, attempting to show the people who had money were mean and despicable characters. [Redacted] related that if he had made this picture portraying the banker, he would have shown this individual to have been following the rules as laid down by the State Bank Examiners in connection with making loans. Further, [redacted] stated that the scene wouldn't have suffered at all in portraying the banker as a man who was protecting funds put in his care by private individuals and adhering to the rules governing the loan of that money rather than portraying the part as it was shown. In summary, [redacted] stated that it was not necessary to make the banker such a mean character and I would never have done it that way. Magazine, Smithsonian, and Kat Eschner. The Weird Story of the FBI and Its a Wonderful Life. Smithsonian Magazine, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/weird-story-fbi-and-its-wonderful-life-180967587/. Accessed 22 Dec. 2021. On 28 December 2015, an image purportedly showing a shark attacking two motorists stranded on a flooded Missouri highway started going viral on Facebook:  Before we examine the origins of the above-displayed image, let's take a moment to judge the authenticity of the photograph based on simple common sense. The man in the above-displayed picture is standing in about thigh-high water, and since the average male in the United States is about5 foot 9, we can reasonably assume that the water is no more than a fewfeet deep. The rest of the lane is visible in the upper left-hand corner of the image, so it appears that this flood only affected a small portion of the roadway. Also, Missouri is a landlocked state in the central U.S. far from any ocean, so any flood waters in that area would likely be fresh water and not salt water. All of these factors make the pictured site a highly unlikely habitat for the ocean-going great white shark species. average In fact, a larger version of the image clearly shows that entire road is not flooded:  The text accompanying the image alleges that the incident took place in Missouri, a Midwestern state located about 400 miles north of the Gulf of Mexico:  While that is not an impossible distance for a great white shark to travel, it is highly implausible that a large sea creature such as a shark would be able to traverse a fresh water river all the way from the ocean up toMissouri. (A story earlier this year about a bull shark caught in the Missouri River turned out to bean April Fool's joke.) story The Facebook post also mentions that the shark attack victims pictured were recent recipients of Mark Zuckerberg's alleged $4.5 million giveaway. This is another indication that the photograph is a jape, since the claim that the founder of Facebook was giving away money to random people on Facebook was itself a hoax. money While Bill Tennison scored a viral hit in December 2015 when he claimed that a motorist was attacked by a shark on a flooded highway in Missouri, he wasn't the first person to sharethis fake photograph. This image has been circulatingonline since at least 2000 and has been attached to flood waters in Ireland, Houston, Englandand New Orleans. Ireland Houston England New Orleans Also, as many commenters have pointed out, the license plates, road signs, and cars seen in the image indicate the pictured road is more likely located somewhere in the United Kingdom than Missouri. Update: We received the following comment on 31 December 2015 from Stephen Rushbrook. Rushbrook This was taken by Computer game Artist Russell Hughes when he was working for Stainless Games back at our farmhouse offices in the Isle of Wight That spot is infamous for flooding. So on that stormy day we were all by the roadside laughing at those who didn't know how to drive through a flood. Later (after the pub, blacksmiths arms just up the road) he turned his photo into this. He then sent it to the company. It escaped when Matt Edmunds sent it to his friend at Reuters. It then became 'news picture of the day' and that was that. Within the day we were getting emails from our friends from round the world saying have you seen this ? Btw it was taken here Dropped pinnear The Middle Rd, Newport, Isle of Wight PO30 4HPhttps://goo.gl/maps/noY1ehkSvcS2 https://goo.gl/maps/noY1ehkSvcS2 Claim:  African-Americans are entitled to a $5,000 slavery reparation tax credit.  Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2002] This goes out to all my friends, family, and everyone in the African American community. Once you receive this message please write down the number and then pass it along to every AfricanAmerican you know. As you my know, all African Americans living here in the United States are descendants of slavery,therefore our government has finally passed a bill to pay all descendants back. The way they are paying us back is through a refund called the, "Black Inheritance Tax Refund/40 Acres and a Mule". When you call this number you'll give them your name, address, and phone number and they'll send you out a packet, which includes further details and information on how to receive the refund. I was informed that it will take only two weeks to receive the packet and then two weeks to receive themoney. Now, if you know our government I bet they are not expecting a lot of people to call for this refund, and they may be right, because many of us will not be informed of this. Therefore, this is why I am taking it upon myself to pass on this information, so our community will soon be informed through word-of-mouth about what has been owed to our ancestors all these years. Black Inheritance Tax Refund 1-800-441-5629 press #3 to direct you to the appropriate line open betweenEast Coast: 8am and 12amWest Coast: 5am and 9pm Expect to wait anywhere from 5mins-25mins (There will not be any music to entertain you while you wait!) Ps: You must be 18 years or older and I'm assuming a legal residence of the United States. So, request an application for yourself, husband, wife, sister, brother, father, mother, etc, or just pass the number along. God Bless You All and please check this out!!!!!!!! Origins:  In 2000, bogus letters claiming certain senior citizens were eligible for slavery reparations or higher Social Security payments were circulating in black churches in the South and elsewhere. The letters claimed blacks born before 1928 were eligible for a $5,000 "Negro Inheritance Tax Refund" due to a "Slave Reparation Act," and folks born between 1911 and 1926 might be entitled to higher monthly Social Security payments.  This was but one of the many forms the "slavery reparation tax credit" misinformation has taken over the years.  An April 1993 Lena Sherrod commentary entitled "Forty Acres and a Mule" which appeared in Essence magazine dealt with the concept that reparations were owed to the descendants of African-Americans who were forced to work unpaid for 246 years, and that African-Americans were owed a tax rebate for years of legalized racial discrimination.  Sherrod wrote: The government also owes African-Americans a tax rebate for the 60 years of segregation and Jim Crow that followed slavery. Although we were consigned by law to second-class citizenship, we were still forced to pay first-class taxes . . . the delinquent tax rebate [is] now estimated . . . to be at $43,209 per household."  Since de facto racial discrimination continues to function as a hidden Black tax, it ought to be deductible. So when income-tax time rolls around, on line 59 of form 1040  which asks you to list 'other payments'  simply enter $43,209 in 'Black taxes' and compute accordingly. This commentary undoubtedly helped to foster the belief that a real income tax deduction was available as a form of reparation to the descendants of slaves. In 2002, people were being urged in e-mail to call an 800 number. Yet it's all the same  hoax. No matter whether you got the letter from your church or read about the give-back in a magazine, the "reparations credit" does not and never has existed. Those who claim the deduction because they are black can be subject to fines and penalties, so really, really think twice before trying to wring it out of Uncle Sam. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) can fine a taxpayer $500 for filing a frivolous claim. Moreover, if the tax department fails to catch the erroneous deduction at the time of filing, it has an additional six years to right its error. Upon catching the error, the taxmen would not only strike off the deduction, but would calculate interest owed on the new balance of tax due, dating it to the year of the original return. (For example, if you claimed the credit in 1994, and the IRS caught it in 1998, your 1994 return would be re-computed to remove the effect of the bogus deduction. You'd now get a bill from the IRS for the re-computed difference between tax paid and tax due, plus all the interest that had piled up on it across those four years, and maybe even a $500 penalty for trying to pull the wool over the tax department's eyes.  Eeesh.) IRS offices across the nation have received thousands of requests daily for Form 2439, which some people have been mistakenly led to believe reimburses the descendants of slaves. Form 2439 is actually for shareholders trying to claim undistributed capital gains.  Form 2439 Though word of the phony benefits is most often spread by well-meaning individuals whose only motivation is ensuring those who are supposedly in line for the break hear about it, at times unscrupulous tax preparers have stepped in to turn what is already a heart-wrenching disappointment into an out-and-out fraud perpetrated on the unwary by charging fees of hundreds (sometimes thousands) of dollars to "help" people apply for these nonexistent benefits.  In a common version of this take-down, a con man promises his unwary clients that he can obtain up to $40,000 in "slave reparation" credits for them from the government and offers to file the necessary tax forms on their behalf in exchange for a percentage of their refunds.  He then loads up his clients' tax returns with all manner of deductions and credits they're not entitled to take and thereby scams the government into sending them refund checks.  When the IRS later goes over the returns more thoroughly and starts clamoring for their money back, the victims are left holding the bag. The $43,209 "Black tax refund" figure one sometimes hears bandied about is said to be based on the estimated value of "40 acres and a mule," a reparation supposedly laid out in an 1866 bill which lore claims was passed by Congress but was vetoed by President Andrew Johnson. The truth is a bit more complicated than that. The origins of the belief that the U.S. government promised 40 acres of land and a mule to freed slaves after the Civil War are indefinite.  One possible source of this claim is Special Field Order No. 15, Special Field Order No. 15 Sherman was neither a humanitarian reformer nor a man with any particular concern for blacks. Instead of seeing Field Order 15 as a blueprint for the transformation of Southern society, he viewed it mainly as a way of relieving the immediate pressure caused by a large number of impoverished blacks following his army. The land grants, he later claimed, were intended only to make "temporary provisions for the freedmen and their families during the rest of the war," not to convey permanent possession. Understandably, however, the freedmen assumed that the land was to be theirs, especially after Gen. Rufus Saxton, assigned by Sherman to oversee the implementation of his order, informed a large gathering of blacks "that they were to be put in possession of lands, upon which they might locate their families and work out for themselves a living and respectability." Debate continues over whether Sherman acted solely on his own authority in issuing Special Field Order No. 15 or whether he had the approval of the War Department (or even President Lincoln himself), but the end result was that a new policy (known as Howard's Circular 15) issued by the White House in September 1865 ordered the restoration of land to pardoned owners and thereby took away from freedmen the land appropriated for them by Sherman under Special Field Order No. 15  (The order made no provisions for giving mules to freedmen, but Foner notes that after issuing it, "Sherman later provided that the army could assist [freedmen] with the loan of mules.") Another possible source of the "40 acres and a mule" belief is the creation of the Freedmen's Bureau (originally the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands), a federal agency established as a subsidiary of the War Department  in March 1865 (a month before the end of the Civil War) to deal with issues concerning refugees and freedmen within states under reconstruction, including the management of abandoned and confiscated property.  One of the provisions of the Freedmen's Bureau Act directed that the bureau's commissioner should "have authority to set apart, for the use of loyal refugees and freedmen, such tracts of land within the insurrectionary states as shall have been abandoned, or to which the United States shall have acquired title by confiscation or sale, or otherwise, and to every male citizen, whether refugee or freedman, as aforesaid, there shall be assigned not more than forty acres of such land."  However, this act did not propose giving property to freed slaves (the land was to be leased to freedmen for three years, then made available for purchase by them), nor did it make any mention of mules.   Freedmen's Bureau Freedmen's Bureau Act President Johnson did not veto the Freedmen's Bureau Act, which was passed by Congress in March 1865 and signed by President Lincoln.  (Johnson did not assume the presidency until Lincoln's assassination the following month.)   Two events occurred in February 1866, both of which have been misstated as overturning the "forty acres" provision of the Freedmen's Bureau Act:  An amendment to the Freedmen's Bureau Bill (also known as the "Second Freedmen's Bureau Act") proposed by Congressman Thaddeus Stevens, to add "forfeited estates of the enemy" to the land available to blacks, was overwhelmingly defeated in the House of Representatives.  (At that time, the only group of slaveholders who were compelled to provide their former slaves with land were Indians who sided with the Confederacy.)  President Johnson vetoed the Freedman's Bureau Bill, which sought to extend the life of the bureau indefinitely (it had originally been chartered only for one year after the end of the Civil War) and to greatly increase its powers.  Congress passed the bill again (in modified form) over Johnson's veto in July 1866. The Southern Homestead Act of 1866 did in fact make land in five southern states available to freed blacks, but only public land, not plantations or other property confiscated from former slaveholders.  Unfortunately, most of the land still available in the South for homesteading was too swampy and too far away from transportation links to be of much good to freedmen, and even then the largest portion of this inferior land was claimed by whites (often for quick resale to lumber companies).   Although the notion of a "Black Inheritance Tax Refund" has long since been debunked and disclaimed, it nonetheless lives on and continues to cause headaches to the IRS and taxpayers alike.  In April 2002, the Washington Post reported that the IRS had received more than 100,000 tax returns seeking nonexistent slavery-tax credits and had mistakenly paid out more than $30 million in erroneous refunds in 2000 and 2001.  And in April 2005, the Manhattan U.S. attorney's office obtained a temporary restraining order enjoining a New York man from preparing income tax returns for others because he had "been including bogus tax credits such as reparations for African-American slavery and segregation." Barbara "taxing the imagination" Mikkelson Last updated:  27 May 2011    Brown, Timothy.  "Black Churches in the South Targeted in Mail Hoax."   The Associated Press.  31 August 2000.     Deibel, Mary.  "IRS Warns Black Taxpayers About Reparation-Claim Scam."   The Washington Times.  7 October 2000  (p. A2).     Fennell, Edward.  "Slavery Reparations Program Labeled Lie."   The [Charleston] Post and Courier.  24 September 2000  (p. B1).    Foner, Eric.  Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution.  New York: Harper & Row, 1988.  ISBN 0-060-91453-X  (pp. 70-71, 245-246).     Foner, Eric and John Garraty.  The Reader's Companion to American History.  Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1991.  ISBN 0-395-51372-3  (pp. 987-988).      Josar, David.  "IRS Warns Against Trying to Get Refund for Reparations."   The Detroit News.  28 August 1996  (p. D1).     Kessler, Glenn.  "IRS Paid $30 Million in Credits for Slavery."   The Washington Post.  13 April 2002  (p. A1).     La Hay, Patricia.  "Slavery Reparations Tax Break Is Illegal."   The Arizona Republic.  9 August 1997  (p. A1).     McLeod, Ramon.  "Even Street Gangs Are Among Those Involved in Fraud."   The San Francisco Chronicle.  13 April 1996  (p. A17).     Moore, Linda.  "League Explains Nonrole in Slavery Reparations Hoax."   The [Memphis] Commercial Appeal.  15 September 2000  (p. C2).     Oubre, Claude F.  Forty Acres and a Mule: The Freedmen's Bureau and Black Land Ownership.  Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1978.  ISBN 0-807-10298-9.     Sherrod, L.G.  "Forty Acres and a Mule."   Essence.  April 1993  (p. 124).     Stiehm, Jamie.  "IRS Official Warns of Tax Hoax Using Slave Reparations."   The Baltimore Sun.  12 February 2002.     The Associated Press.   "Blacks Targeted in Slavery Reparation Scam."   6 October 2000.     Chicago Sun-Times.  "Reparations Scam Preys on Ignorance."   17 July 1996  (p. 47).     Chicago Tribune.  "Tax Myths Don't Add Up at IRS."    23 February 1997  (p. C7).     Reuters.  "Man Barred from Making Slavery Tax Claims."    15 April 2005. An ad in the Georgia U.S. Senate race doesnt mention either incumbent Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock or his Republican challenger, Herschel Walker. But the ad, by the conservative nonprofitCitizens for Sanity, pulls no punches, and levels a charge that Democratic policies are abandoning children. In an election that features two Black candidates, the ad says that President Joe Biden and his liberal friends treat Black Americans like second-class citizens, following up with images of violent street crime and buildings in ruins. The ad also asserts that Biden and Democrats send a fortune to Ukraine but nothing for our children. (Screenshots) This is ridiculously wrong. Spending on U.S. children in fiscal year 2021 was seven times larger than federal outlays so far for the war in Ukraine. The ad comes amid plummeting Republican support for supporting Ukraine financially. The percentage of Republicans telling pollsters that the U.S. is doing too much in Ukraine hasskyrocketedfrom 6% in March to 48% today. First, lets set the baseline for how much the United States has spent aiding Ukraine in its fight against Russia. Since the war started in February 2022, Congress has spent $66 billion to help Ukraine,according to calculationsby Mark F. Cancian, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank. That is what has been appropriated by Congress, though some wont be spent immediately, he said, such as money for orders of weapons that havent been fabricated yet. Most of the votes to approve the funding were significantly bipartisan. By comparison, federal spending on U.S. children during Bidens administration has been far larger. Federal outlays on behalf of children were already significant before the pandemic and grew under Biden, according to statisticscollectedby the Urban Institute, a nonpartisan research organization in Washington, D.C. Under President Donald Trump, existing federal spending on childrens behalf  a combination of tax credits, health care, nutrition, education, child care and housing  amounted to about $7,000 per child. In 2021, during Bidens administration, that number increased by more than 50%, to $10,710. Federal spending on U.S. children in 2021 totaled $482 billion, the Urban Institute found  far more than the $66 billion thats been appropriated to support Ukraine. The increase was largely traceable to Bidens American Rescue Plan, which passed with only Democratic support in Congress just weeks after Bidens 2021 inauguration. One of the bills centerpieces, an effort to aid children and families, came from an expansion of the child tax credit that taxpayers could receive as a monthly cash payment, rather than waiting for a reduction in what they owed at tax time. The change was for one year only; efforts to extend it permanently have stalled. The bill also provided additional funding to states for education and child care, increased nutritional assistance under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and added federal funding for Medicaid, the federal-state health insurance plan for low-income Americans. Dozens of other childrens programs and tax credits received smaller increases, the Urban Institute said. The child tax credit expansion alone was larger than the total U.S. outlays in Ukraine. More than 36 million families who have more than 61 million children received more than $92 billion in relief through the child tax credit expansion, according to theTreasury Department. Citizens for Sanity did not respond to an inquiry for this article. A Citizens for Sanity ad said that Biden and Democrats send a fortune to Ukraine but nothing for our children. On a largely bipartisan basis, Congress has approved roughly $66 billion in assistance to Ukraine. By comparison, proposals supported by Biden and that won support of only Democrats in Congress spent $482 billion on behalf of U.S. children in 2021. The child tax credit expansion alone paid out $92 billion to U.S. families with children, or 1.5 times the amount the U.S. has spent so far on the war in Ukraine. We rate the statement Pants on Fire! On Nov. 19, 2022, the Facebook page Video Pivot posted a video with the caption, "With a heavy heart at the tearful farewell to 'Dwarf' Amy Roloff, goodbye Amy Roloff." However, Roloff was not dead, nor was there any indication she had just experienced a stroke, as the narrator in the video claimed. This was nothing more than a death hoax. Roloff is one of the stars of the TLC reality TV series, "Little People, Big World," which has often been referred to by fans with the acronym, "LPBW." The Facebook page that posted the death hoax was managed from Indonesia. Its purpose may have been "like-farming," something that the U.S. Better Business Bureau (BBB) has warned about in the past. If the page is able to build up a large following without being removed by the platform, it's possible that it will be sold on the black market in the future. It may also be stripped of its past posts and start promoting scammy products. warned As for the misleading video about Roloff, the thumbnail was doctored to show her ex-husband, Matt, holding a picture of her next to men carrying a casket. As of Nov. 21, the video had been viewed more than 53,000 times.  Note: It's unclear what the photograph originally showed, as a reverse image search for the men carrying the casket didn't find any matches for the picture. Days earlier, a video was posted to YouTube that also falsely claimed Roloff had died. The video had the title, "10 minutes ago / We announce very sad news about 'dwarf' Amy Roloff, She has been confirmed as." We found no shortage of these YouTube videos, either. Other examples of misleading YouTube videos from past months that we found were titled as"Official News/ R.I.P/ Amy Roloff Passed Away Last Night At The Hospital After A Health Battle," "Sad News Amy Roloff Is Pass Away Expected Soon Family Prepare To Say Goodbye," and "Sad News Amy Roloff Is Pass Away Expected Soon Family Prepare To Say Goodbye."  One good way to check whether a celebrity has truly died is to check the person's verified presence on social media. While Roloff hasn't posted on her Facebook or Instagram pages since Nov. 18, we note again that the misleading YouTube videos we found were all published prior to that date. We found no credible reporting that said anything about Roloff recently experiencing a stroke or dying. We previously published another story that debunked a death hoax for the Roloff couple's son, Zach.We also reported about misleading online ads that claimed the cast of "Little People, Big World" had experienced a "sudden loss." story reported "Amy Roloff." Facebook, https://www.facebook.com/amyroloffofficalpage/. "---." Instagram, https://www.instagram.com/amyjroloff/. BBB Tip: Like-Farming Is a Facebook Scam Still Going Strong. 10 June 2020, https://www.bbb.org/article/news-releases/17149-like-farming-a-facebook-scam-still-going-strong. Grinberg, Emanuella. "Stars of 'Little People, Big World' File for Divorce."CNN.Com, 6 June 2015, https://www.cnn.com/2015/06/06/entertainment/matt-amy-roloff-little-people-big-world-split-feat/index.html. Liles, Jordan. "'Little People, Big World' Posts About a 'Loss' Are Misleading." Snopes, 5 Jan. 2022, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/little-people-big-world-loss-death/. ---. "Zach Roloff Death Hoax: False Suicide Claims Came from Obscure Website." Snopes, 5 Jan. 2022, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/zach-roloff-death-hoax/. Have you heard the sweet rumor about a Napoleon Dynamite sequel? Well, don't get your hopes up. It's just another movie sequel hoax. The rumors about a sequel to the oddball cult classic have been periodically reappearing since the original film came out in 2004. This particular version of the rumor is based on a fan-made movie poster paired with an old gossip article:   As convincing as it might appear, this poster was not created by a movie studio and was never shared in an official capacity to hype a new sequel. Instead, it was created by graphic designer Jack Gambro and can be found on his web site in the "conceptual" section: Jack Gambro conceptual This section contains conceptual projects unrelated to the organizations or individuals involved. The gallery is a collection of unofficial artwork. A 2006 article from CinemaBlend.com is also frequently shared by sequel-hungry fans:   Despite the article's clickbait title and web address, it doesn't actually report that a sequel has been confirmed. Rather, it reported that "there have been talks" about making a sequel (emphasis ours):  Napoleon Dynamite cost only $400,000 to make and grossed over $46 million worldwide. When a movie sports that kind of positive cost to profit ratio, youve got to assume there will be a sequel. Evidently the folks behind the movie agree. Efren Ramirez, who played Pedro in Napoleon appeared on the Dallas radio show Pugs & Kelly this afternoon and confirmed that there have been talks about making a Napoleon Dynamite 2. He says most of the rumors circulating about other Napoleon projects, like a television show or a series of comic books are nothing but rumors, but he confirms that they are at least talking about making another movie. There may have been talks about making a follow-up to the 2004 movie at some point, but in the years since its release there have been no official announcements about a Napoleon Dynamite sequel.