Under Republicans, recessions happen four times as frequently as under Democrats.
Recently, Hillary Clinton has been making the ultimate pocketbook argument for her candidacy: When theres a Democrat in the White House, she says, the economy does better. Earlier in this campaign season, she said thestock market does betterunder Democrats. In a speech to theNew Hampshire Democratic Party Conventionon Sept. 19, Clinton went even further. I know its inconvenient for our Republican friends, but the facts do speak for themselves, the former secretary of state said. Economic growth is stronger under Democratic presidents. Unemployment is lower. The stock market rises faster. Businesses do better, and deficits are smaller. And one of my favorite inconvenient facts is under Republicans, recessions happen four times as frequently as under Democrats. In this fact-check, we decided to focus the claim that recessions are four times as likely under Republicans as they are under Democrats. A look at the numbers The primary research on this question -- and the source cited by the Clinton campaign when we asked -- comes from apaperwritten by two Princeton University economists, Alan Blinder and Mark Watson. The paper, published in July 2014, found that the economy tends to do better under Democratic presidents by numerous measures. The authors looked at quarterly economic data from 1947 through mid 2013 and the National Bureau of Economic Researchsofficial list of recessionsand found that Clintons claim is pretty much on point. Since 1947, there have been 11 official recessions, totaling 49 recessionary quarters. Of those 49 quarters, just eight occurred under Democratic presidents, compared to 41 under Republicans. So, over the past 65 years, quarters in recession were about five times more common under a Republican president than under a Democratic president. Sec. Clinton is correct in her claim, Watson, one of the papers authors, told PolitiFact. Looking at how many recessionsstartedunder Republicans, the difference is even more stark, noted Blinder, the co-author. Of the 11 recessions since 1947, nine under Republicans, compared to just two under Democrats. The paper also looked further back in history to 1875 and found that the trend held, though it was less pronounced. But what does this mean? Economists emphasize, however, that Clintons claim needs some additional context. Clinton presumably wants listeners to believe that Republican policies dont work for the economy. But the research doesnt necessarily support this contention. There are far too many factors that contribute to the countrys economic health. Democrats would no doubt like to attribute the large (Democratic/Republican) growth gap to macroeconomic policy choices, but the data do not support such a claim, the Blinder-Watson paper says. In short, the paper found that half of the Democrats economic advantage is a result of factors outside the control of the White House, Congress or the Federal Reserve. The other half remains a mystery, Watson said. It seems we must look instead to several variables that are mostly good luck, with perhaps a touch of good policy, the report says. One section of the paper (its on page 14) gives an overview of booms and busts since World War II. It concludes that its difficult to draw a direct line from a presidents fiscal policy positions to economic cycles. For example, defense spending led to prosperity during the Korean War under Democratic President Harry Truman. His successor, Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower, ended the war, and thus the prosperity turned into recession. Energy price shocks are another important factor, since they can produce economic downturns. Unfortunately for the Republicans, shocks hit during the presidencies of Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and George W. Bush, compared to just once under a Democrat, Jimmy Carter. The authors add that Democratic presidents have benefited from higher total factor productivity, which is essentially a measure of technological growth and dynamism. A clear example is the technology boom under Bill Clinton, which produced significant productivity gains. The authors acknowledge that its unclear why this has been the case under Democratic presidents. And sometimes the fiscal policy of a previous administration bleeds into the next one -- so just because a recession happened when one president was in office, the prior administration might bear some of the responsibility. While Democratic President Lyndon Johnson saw no recessions, for instance, his administration had to implement anti-inflation policies near the end of his tenure. Those policies contributed to a recession early on in Nixons term. Because of all the factors at play, assigning credit for economic results is tricky, said Tara Sinclair, a George Washington University professor and chief economist for the job site Indeed.com. In fact, its possible that causation actually runs the other way. It's possible that the public votes in response to economic conditions, she added, meaning political cycles can follow economic cycles. Our ruling Clinton said that under Republicans, recessions happen four times as frequently as under Democrats. The numbers back up Clintons claim since World War II: Of the 49 quarters in recession since 1947, eight occurred under Democrats, while 41 occurred under Republicans. Its important to note, however, that many factors contribute to general well-being of the economy, so one shouldnt treat Clintons implication -- that Democratic presidencies are better for the economy -- with irrational exuberance. Clinton is right on the numbers, but her claim needs additional information to put its implication into the proper context. We rate her claim Mostly True.
Public education advocates gave a collective sigh of relief on April 28. Gov. Nathan Deal signed the 2015 state budget that day, and that action gave them hope that school systems might be able to ease up on the worst of the belt-tightening measures. Unpaid furlough days. Larger class sizes. Shorter school years. State austerity cuts to public education started in 2003 --- well before the Great Recession -- and they are not ending. But this year, they total $746.6 million, and that to educators, who can do the math, looked better than the $1 billion-plus-a-year cuts in each of the five prior years. We have been through tough times since the Great Recession started, Deal said during a candidate forum that was part of the annual meeting of the Professional Association of Georgia Educators foundation on September 15th. But just how tough? The governor told the crowd that it has taken until this year for overall state revenues to return to the levels they were in 2007. (The National Bureau of Economic Research declared that the countrys longest recession since World War II lasted from December 2007 to June 2009, although surveys show many people believe it has lasted much longer.) Given all the debate about state budget cuts through the years -- especially in education  -- we decided to run Deals statement through the Truth-O-Meter. We reached out to the Deal campaign as we always do for supporting evidence. Campaign spokeswoman Jen Talaber said Deal was relying on information from the Governors Office of Planning and Budget. OPB reports shows that 2007 was a fiscal high water mark for the state. Taxes on everything from personal and corporate income to gasoline and alcohol hit $17.8 billion that year, up $1.3 billion from 2006. Those same documents show that as the national and Georgia economies sank, so did state revenues. At the low point --- which was the fiscal year that ran from July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010 -- total tax collection were about $14.5 billion -- or $3.3 billion off the peak. It wasnt until Fiscal 2014, which ended June 30 of this year, that total state tax collections were back to -- and slightly above -- 2007 levels, budget documents show. Tax collections for 2014 were $17.9 billion -- or about $100 million over 2007 levels. The governor is right on the money on this one. We rate Deals statement as True. Claim:  E-mail reproduces interview with documentary filmmaker Pierre Rehov about the psychology of terrorism. Status:  True. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, 2006] The Psychology Behind Suicide Bombings By Pierre Rehov, documentary filmmaker On July 15, MSNBC's "Connected" program discussed the July 7th London attacks. One of the guests was Pierre Rehov, a French filmmaker who has filmed six documentaries on the intifada by going undercover in the Palestinian areas. Pierre's upcoming film, "Suicide Killers," is based oninterviews that he conducted with the families of suicide bombers and would-be bombers in an attempt to find out why they do it. Pierre agreed to a request for a Q&A interview here about his work on the new film.  Q - What inspired you to produce "Suicide Killers," your seventh film? A - I started working with victims of suicide attacks to make a film on PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) when I became fascinated with the personalities of those who had committed those crimes, as they were described again and again by their victims. Especially the fact that suicide bombers are all smiling one second before they blow themselves up. Q - Why is this film especially important? A - People don't understand the devastating culture behind this unbelievable phenomenon. My film is not politically correct because it addresses the real problem, showing the real face of Islam. It points the finger against a culture of hatred in which the uneducated are brainwashed to a level where their only solution in life becomes to kill themselves and kill others in the name of a God whose word, as transmitted by other men, has become their only certitude. Q - What insights did you gain from making this film? What do you know that other experts do not know? A - I came to the conclusion that we are facing a neurosis at the level of an entire civilization. Most neuroses have in common a dramatic event, generally linked to an unacceptable sexual behavior. In this case, we are talking of kids living all their lives in pure frustration, with no opportunity to experience sex, love, tenderness or even understanding from the opposite sex. The separation between men and women in Islam is absolute. So is contempt toward women, who are totally dominated by men. This leads to a situation of pure anxiety, in which normal behavior is not possible. It is no coincidence that suicide killers are mostly young men dominated subconsciously by an overwhelming libido that they not only cannot satisfy but are afraid of, as if it is the work of the devil.  Since Islam describes heaven as a place where everything on Earth will finally be allowed, and promises 72 virgins to those frustrated kids, killing others and killing themselves to reach this redemption becomes their only solution. Q - What was it like to interview would-be suicide bombers, their families and survivors of suicide bombings? A - It was a fascinating and a terrifying experience. You are dealing with seemingly normal people with very nice manners who have their own logic, which to a certain extent can make sense since they are so convinced that what they say is true. It is like dealing with pure craziness, like interviewing people in an asylum, since what they say, is for them, the absolute truth. I hear a mother saying "Thank God, my son is dead." Her son had became a shaheed, a martyr, which for her was a greater source of pride than if he had became an engineer, a doctor or a winner of the Nobel Prize. This system of values works completely backwards since their interpretation of Islam worships death much more than life. You are facing people whose only dream, only achievement goal is to fulfill what theybelieve to be their destiny, namely to be a Shaheed or the family of a shaheed. They don't see the innocent being killed, they only see the impure that they have to destroy. Q - You say suicide bombers experience a moment of absolute power, beyond punishment. Is death the ultimate power? A - Not death as an end, but death as a door opener to the after life. They are seeking the reward that God has promised them. They work for God, the ultimate authority, above all human laws. They thereforeexperience this single delusional second of absolute power, where nothing bad can ever happen to them, since they become God's sword.  Q - Is there a suicide bomber personality profile? Describe the psychopathology. A - Generally kids between 15 and 25 bearing a lot of complexes, generally inferiority complexes. They must have been fed with religion. They usually have a lack of developed personality. Usually they are impressionable idealists. In the western world they would easily have become drug addicts, but not criminals. Interestingly, they are not criminals since they don't see good and evil the same way that we do. If they had been raised in an Occidental culture, they would have hated violence. But they constantly battle against their own death anxiety. The only solution to this deep-seated pathology is to be willing to die and be rewarded in the afterlife in Paradise. Q - Are suicide bombers principally motivated by religious conviction? A - Yes, it is their only conviction. They don't act to gain a territory or to find freedom or even dignity. They only follow Allah, the supreme judge, and what He tells them to do. Q - Do all Muslims interpret jihad and martyrdom in the same way? A - All Muslim believers believe that, ultimately, Islam will prevail on earth. They believe this is the only true religion and there is no room, in their mind, for interpretation. The main difference between moderateMuslims and extremists is that moderate Muslims don't think they will see the absolute victory of Islam during their lifetime, therefore they respect other beliefs. The extremists believe that the fulfillment of theProphecy of Islam and ruling the entire world as described in the Koran, is for today. Each victory of Bin Laden convinces 20 million moderate Muslims to become extremists. Q - Describe the culture that manufactures suicide bombers. A - Oppression, lack of freedom, brain washing, organized poverty, placing God in charge of daily life, total separation between men and women, forbidding sex, giving women no power whatsoever, and placing men in charge of family honor, which is mainly connected to their women's behavior. Q - What socio-economic forces support the perpetuation of suicide bombings? A - Muslim charity is usually a cover for supporting terrorist organizations. But one has also to look at countries like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran, which are also supporting the same organizations throughdifferent networks. The ironic thing in the case of Palestinian suicide bombers is that most of the money comes through financial support from the Occidental world, donated to a culture that utterly hates and rejects the West (mainly symbolized by Israel). Q - Is there a financial support network for the families of the suicide bombers? If so, who is paying them and how does that affect the decision? A - There used to be a financial incentive in the days of Saddam Hussein ($25,000 per family) and Yasser Arafat (smaller amounts), but these days are gone. It is a mistake to believe that these families would sacrifice their children for money. Although, the children themselves who are very attached to their families, might find in this financial support another reason to become suicide bombers. It is like buying a life insurance policy and then committing suicide. Q - Why are so many suicide bombers young men? A - As discussed above, libido is paramount. Also ego, because this is a sure way to become a hero. The shaheeds are the cowboys or the firemen of Islam. Shaheed is a positively reinforced value in this culture. And what kid has never dreamed of becoming a cowboy or a fireman? Q - What role does the U.N. play in the terrorist equation? A - The U.N. is in the hands of Arab countries and third world or ex-communist countries. Their hands are tied. The U.N. has condemned Israel more than any other country in the world, including the regime of Castro, Idi Amin or Kaddahfi. By behaving this way, the U.N. leaves a dooropen by not openly condemning terrorist organizations. In addition, through UNRWA, the U.N. is directly tied to terror organizations such as Hamas, representing 65 percent of their apparatus in the so-called Palestinian refugee camps. As a support to Arab countries, the U.N. hasmaintained Palestinians in camps with the hope to "return" into Israel for more than 50 years, therefore making it impossible to settle those populations, which still live in deplorable conditions. Four hundred million dollars are spent every year, mainly financed by U.S. taxes, to support 23,000 employees of UNRWA, many of whom belong to terrorist organizations (see Congressman Eric Cantor on this subject, and in my film "Hostages of Hatred"). Q - You say that a suicide bomber is a 'stupid bomb and a smart bomb' simultaneously. Explain what you mean. A - Unlike an electronic device, a suicide killer has until the last second the capacity to change his mind. In reality, he is nothing but a platform representing interests which are not his, but he doesn't know it. Q - How can we put an end to the madness of suicide bombings and terrorism in general? A - Stop being politically correct and stop believing that this culture is a victim of ours. Radical Islamism today is nothing but a new form of Naziism. Nobody was trying to justify or excuse Hitler in the 1930s. We had to defeat him in order to make peace one day with the German people. Q - Are these men traveling outside their native areas in large numbers? Based on your research, would you predict that we are beginning to see a new wave of suicide bombings outside the Middle East? A - Every successful terror attack is considered a victory by the radical Islamists. Everywhere Islam expands there is regional conflict. Right now, there are thousands of candidates for martyrdom lining up in training camps in Bosnia, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Inside Europe, hundreds of illegal mosques are preparing the next step of brain washing to lost young men who cannot find a satisfying identity in the Occidental world. Israel is much more prepared for this than the rest of the world will ever be. Yes, there will be more suicide killings in Europe and the U.S. Sadly, this is only the beginning. Origins:  Pierre Rehov is an Algerian-born filmmaker (his family left Algeria for France in 1961, when he was nine years old) who has Pierre Rehov  produced a number of documentaries about the Middle East, primarily focusing on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  In the wake of the 7 July 2005 terrorist bombings in London, he made a number of appearances on television news programs to discuss the causes and nature of terrorism and his experiences in producing films about the subject.  Those appearances included a 15 July 2005 interview for MSNBC's Connected: Coast to Coast, the text of which is reproduced above. documentaries bombings appearances Connected We haven't yet been able to obtain a transcript of the 15 July 2005 Connected program, so we can't guarantee that what is reproduced above is a 100% complete and accurate reproduction of Pierre Rehov's interview.  However, we have verified that he was interviewed on Connected that day, that the substance of his remarks matched what is contained in the e-mail quoted at the head of this page, and that he offered substantially similar comments on other news programs around the same time as his Connected appearance. comments Last updated:  17 August 2006    Sources:   CNN Live Saturday.   "The Psychology of a Suicide Bomber."   CNN.com.  23 July 2005. Nearly two years into the pandemic, the world saw a resurgence of COVID-19 cases and with them, reiterations of unfounded claims that have pulsated through the global community since early 2020.  In response to a rise of U.S. case counts, parts of the nation saw an increase in the use of the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin, which has been falsely touted as a potential treatment for the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, and online claims that the anti-parasitic drug could cure the virus since at least April 2020. April 2020 That debate was sparked again in early September 2021 when the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued a health advisory following a spike in ivermectin dispensing at retail pharmacies, as well as over-the-counter veterinary formulations not intended for human use.  Some social media users seized the health agencys announcement as an opportunity to peddle misinformation surrounding the drug, including a citation in a 2011 study that claimed to find that 85% of men treated for river blindness with ivermectin were found to be sterile. The purported study was shared to Reddit and Twitter where the post received thousands of engagements across both platforms.  Reddit Twitter  Ivermectin tablets are approved by the FDA for human use to treat river blindness and some parasitic worms (intestinal strongyloidiasis). Prescribed topical formulations are also used to treat some external parasites like head lice and rosacea. A different formulation is FDA-approved for animals to prevent heartworm disease and to treat internal and external parasites.  Ivermectin A spokesperson for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said that it continues to monitor reports of all adverse events with ivermectin, and infertility in men is not a known side effect of it and, as such, is not included as a side effect in U.S. labeling. Ivermectin was also shown to have no adverse effects on the fertility in rats in studies at repeated doses of up to three times the maximum recommended human dose, the FDA added.  labeling The claim that Ivermectin caused infertility in rats is based on findings published in a questionable study hosted online by the Archives of Applied Science Research. study Archives of Applied Science Research According to the publication tracking service Publons, Archives of Applied Science Research is a peer reviewed, open access journal published by an institution known as Scholars Research Library  but as of this writing, the organizations social media account had been suspended by Twitter for violating the platforms rules. Additionally, Scholars Research Library is self-described as a self-supporting organization that does not receive funding from any institution or government. And while it does not require submission charges, study authors are required to pay a fair handling fee for processing their articles of up to 1000 euros.  Publons suspended self-described The webpage is also riddled with typos, for example: riddled   Snopes contacted the Scholars Research Library for further information on the peer review and vetting processes but did not receive a response. In an email to Snopes, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, an international non-profit organization that promotes collaboration amongst scientists, declined to comment on the credibility of the journal but did refer our team to the indexes at Clarivate, which requires a review of a journals peer-review process. A search of Archives of Applied Science Research did not return any results. Clarivate The study was written by four researchers including Blessing Idonije, or Idonije O.B., who is described as a professor of clinical biochemistry at Ambrose Alli University in Nigeria. Snopes contacted the university but did not hear back in time for publication.  described The study authors wrote that they screened a total of 385 patients diagnosed with river blindness, a tropical disease that the CDC noted as being caused by the parasitic worm, Onchocerca volvulus, and transmitted through the bites of river-breeding blackflies. Infection can result in visual impairment or blindness and cause rashes, itching, and nodules under the skin and is most often treated with ivermectin. But because ivermectin only kills the fly larvae, the anti-parasitic is given every six months for the lifespan of the adult worms, which can be between 10 and 15 years, or for as long as the person shows signs of skin or eye infection. noted treated Of those 385 patients, just 37 individuals between the ages of 28 and 57 at the onset of the study were deemed to have normal sperm counts. The sperm counts of those 37 patients were analyzed before and after an 11-month treatment of ivermectin, including data on motility, morphology, volume, viscosity, and liquefaction time.  We observed significant reduction in the sperm counts and sperm motility of the patients tested. On the morphology there was significant increase in the number of abnormal sperm cells. This took the forms of two heads, double tails, white (albino) sperms and extraordinarily large heads, wrote the study authors, adding that such alterations could only have occurred as a result of their treatment with ivermectin.  But the study has several blaring issues. Firstly, it did not include a section dedicated to limitations that could have been relevant to its findings. Limitations are important for other scientists to understand the context of study findings to interpret the validity of the scientific work. Not only do limitations help scientists to replicate future studies, but it also covers questions that may influence the findings, such as whether the reduction in sperm count could have been caused by river blindness infection.  limitations There were also typos present in the study that should have been caught by scientific editors publishing in a credible journal:    Experts warn that serious harm could result from using either the human or animal medications outside of their intended and prescribed use  but that hasnt stopped some from self-treating with the anti-parasitic. As ivermectin usage spiked, so too have adverse effects and overdoses associated with it. Since July 2021, outpatient ivermectin dispensing increased by 24-fold from before the pandemic. That same month, the U.S. also saw a five-fold increase in the number of calls to Poison Control Centers.  warn  Data was collected from the National Prescription Audit Weekly database, which collects data from a sample of approximately 48,900 U.S. retail pharmacies, representing 92% of all retail prescription activity. Ivermectin dispensed by mail order and long-term care pharmacies, prescriptions by veterinarians, and non-oral formulations were not included. CDC  CDC   Ivermectin is not authorized or approved by FDA for prevention or treatment of COVID-19. The National Institutes of Healths (NIH) COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel has also determined that there are currently insufficient data to recommend ivermectin for treatment of COVID-19, wrote the CDC.  As Snopes previously reported, preliminary results of several studies showed potential for effectiveness as an antiviral in the treatment and prevention of COVID-19, but as of this writing, the FDA had not authorized or approved ivermectin for the use in preventing or treating COVID-19 in humans. Further clinical trials are needed for guidance on ivermectin treatment of COVID-19 and clinical trials assessing such ivermectin uses are ongoing. reported not authorized Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO Sources UPDATE [Sept. 9, 2021]: This article was updated to include reference to Clarivate indexes.  UPDATE [Sept. 10, 2021]: Language was added to clarify a 2002 citation included in the 2011 study. Claim:  No buyers can be found for a beautiful but cheap car because of the horrible smell that permeates it. LEGEND  Origins:  The story is told of a car sold for a fantastically low price, its only flaw being a persistent disagreeable odor. Someone had met the Grim Reaper in it and the remains were not discovered for many months. The smell clinging to the car was that of decomposed flesh; no amount of washing or scubbing would make it go away. Buyer after buyer was lured by the bargain, but each of them invariably returned the car. The possible source for this "death car" legend is explained in a 1959 book on folklore: In 1953 I was collecting Negro folklore in the tiny community of Mecosta in central Michigan, where a colony ofcolored people had Settled on the sand barrens shortly after the Civil War. Called on to speak on folklorebefore the crowd that gathered on Old Settlers Day, I related the case of the depreciated Buick, as an instance of contemporary folklore. That evening some of the young fellows pulled me aside and politely explained that the incident had occurred in their town. A white man named Demings, who owned a 1929  Model-A Ford, committed suicide in it in 1938, after his girl, Nellie Boyers, had a spat with him on a date. He chinked up all the cracks under the seat and on the floorboards with concrete, and then sniffed a hose he had connected to his tailpipe, while the motor ran.  This was in August, and the car and the body were not found until hunting season in October. A guide kept returning to the spot where Demings had pulled the car off the road into the brush, and seeing the car would say, 'That fellow's always hunting when I am.' Finally he investigated. This Model-A was painted all over with birds and fish, and was quite an eye-catcher. A user-car dealer in Remus sold the car to Clifford Cross, who tried every expedient to eradicate the smell. He reupholstered and fumigated the interior, in vain, and finally had to drive around in midwinter with the windows wide open. At length he turned the car in for junk. I talked with Clifford Cross and his friends who had ridden in the Ford. Here was the first verified case of the Death Car. Did this modern big-city legend originate with an actual incident in a hamlet of two hundred people in a rural Negro community and by the devious ways of folklore spread to Michigan's metropolises, and then to other states? Unlikely as it seems, the evidence from many variants, compared through the historical-geographical method of tracing folktales, calls for an affirmative answer. Though this would appear to be the beginning of the legend, folklorist Jan Harold Brunvand said of it, "Richard M. Dorson thought he had traced   'The Death Car' to a 1938 incident in the small town of Mecosta, Michigan, but later study turned up prototypical elements earlier in Europe." Though the make of the car continues to update as time marches on (Model A, Buick, Cadillac, Corvette, Jaguar), astute readers will note that the vehicle is almost always described both as new and of a model deemed to be highly desirable in the time of the story's telling. Unsellable or not, this is yet another of the "cheap car" legends in which a young lad's wet dream of a car is sold at a bargain basement price. (Another legend of this genre can be found on our $50 Porsche page.)  $50 Porsche Various homilies can be guessed at as the moral of the tale. "You get what you pay for" and "Don't attempt to profit from another's misfortune" being but two. Gail de Vos provides us with an especially intriguing one:  The offensive smell is perhaps not only the smell of death but that of filthy lucre. The prestigious sports car symbolizes wealth; the legends suggests that the only way working-class people can obtain such a product is if it is defective  in other words, if it stinks. Barbara "heaven scent" Mikkelson Sightings:   An episode of television's Seinfeld ("The Smelly Car," original air date 15 April 1993) featured a car whose stink (from a valet's B.O, not a decaying corpse) made it undriveable and unsellable. More smelly cars (of the rotting flesh variety) can be found in the movies Christine (1983) and Mr. Wrong (New Zealand, 1985). Christine Mr. Wrong Last updated:  12 March 2011 The Baby Train    Brunvand, Jan Harold.  The Choking Doberman.   New York: W. W. Norton, 1984.   ISBN 0-393-30321-7   (pp. 212-213). The Choking Doberman    Brunvand, Jan Harold.  The Mexican Pet.   New York: W. W. Norton, 1986.   ISBN 0-393-30542-2   (pp. 12-13). The Mexican Pet    Brunvand, Jan Harold.  The Vanishing Hitchhiker.   New York: W. W. Norton, 1981.  ISBN 0-393-95169-3  (pp. 20-22). The Vanishing Hitchhiker    Brunvand, Jan Harold.  The Study of American Folklore.   New York: W. W. Norton, 1998.  ISBN 0-393-97223-2  (p. 208). The Study of American Folklore    Czubala, Dionizjusz.  "The Death Car; Polish and Russian Examples."    FOAFTale News.  March 1992  (pp. 2-5).     de Vos, Gail.  Tales, Rumors and Gossip.   Englewood: Libraries Unlimited, 1996.  ISBN 1-56308-190-3  (pp. 109-112). Tales, Rumors and Gossip     Dorson, Richard.  American Folklore.   Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1961  (pp. 250-252). American Folklore    Emrich, Duncan.  Folklore on the American Land.   Boston: Little, Brown, 1972.  ISBN  0-31623-721-3  (p. 338).   Folklore on the American Land    Smith, Paul.  The Book of Nasty Legends.   London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1983.  ISBN 0-00-636856-5  (p. 79).  The Book of Nasty Legends The Big Book of Urban Legends Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO As hospitals continued to be overwhelmed in 2020 by a surge in COVID-19 cases across the United States, false information surrounding the management of the disease and patients continued to circulate. overwhelmed One post in particular, shared on our Facebook group, Snopes Tips, claimed that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released a statement alleging that "anyone who walks into the hospital is counted as a Covid case, no matter why they come to the hospital, as the government pays the hospital extra money. post  There are two parts to this claim: Firstly, that hospitals are inflating their COVID-19 numbers, and secondly, that the government is allocating more funds based on coronavirus cases. Snopes covered the second part of the claim back in April. We learned that it was possible that Medicare was paying hospital fees for some COVID-19 cases, but Medicare stated that it does not make standard, one-size-fits-all payments to hospitals for patients admitted with COVID-19 diagnoses and placed on ventilators. covered The CDC highlighted in a statement how the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act (CARES), the Paycheck Protection Program, and Health Care Enhancement Act provided $175 billion in relief funds to hospitals and healthcare providers on the front lines of the coronavirus response: highlighted In the first round of the High Impact Allocation, $12 billion was distributed to nearly 400 hospitals who provided inpatient care for 100 or more COVID-19 patients through April 10, 2020. $2 billion of these payments was distributed to these hospitals based on their Medicare disproportionate share and uncompensated care payments. In the second round of funding, $10 billion will be distributed to hospitals having over 161 COVID-19 admissions between January 1 and June 10, 2020. For the first part of the claim, we looked through CDC statements and reports about people admitted to hospitals around the country and were unable to find a case where the CDC said that the hospital was inflating its COVID-19 case numbers in order to get more money. We reached out to the CDC, and the agency referred us to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), but did not confirm whether it had ever made such a statement about hospitals counting everyone who enters as a COVID-19 case. U.S. President Donald Trump promoted another version of this conspiracy theory at a rally in October, where he said hospitals were inflating the numbers of COVID-19 deaths, and was roundly debunked by news outlets and rejected in a statement by the American College of Emergency Physicians.  promoted debunked statement To imply that emergency physicians would inflate the number of deaths from this pandemic to gain financially is offensive, especially as many are actually under unprecedented financial strain as they continue to bear the brunt of COVID-19. These baseless claims not only do a disservice to our health care heroes but promulgate the dangerous wave of misinformation which continues to hinder our nations efforts to get the pandemic under control and allow our nation to return to normalcy. The dire situation in hospitals paints a very different picture, far-removed from claims that they are profiting financially from the pandemic. A New York Times report from Nov. 27, 2020, highlighted how surging coronavirus numbers were resulting in a crisis-level shortage of beds and staff around the country. In some cases, hospitals were facing shortages in protective equipment, forcing healthcare workers to buy their own. As of Dec. 3, 2020, hospitalizations from the virus topped 100,000  an all-time high since the pandemic began.  New York Times Dec. 3, 2020 An April Washington Post report described how hospitals were also suffering from financial losses on account of their deferring or cancelling non-urgent surgeries to free up bed space for the pandemic, cutting off income, and forcing them to lay off workers. At the time, relief packages for hospitals were widely described as insufficient. Washington Post financial losses insufficient Hospital-reported data on COVID-19 patients have addressed a range of issues around the country. A July 2020 ProPublica report detailed how the Trump administration had told hospitals to stop reporting data to the CDC and instead report it to HHS. The move resulted in widespread confusion. While the number of infected patients was soaring nationally, for a period of time it was unclear how many were being treated in hospitals for COVID-19. A few states like Idaho and South Carolina experienced temporary information blackouts, and the COVID Tracking Project reported issues with its figures. July 2020 A Nov. 29, 2020, investigation by the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences (AAAS) magazine found the federal system for tracking COVID-19 patients was continuing to carry questionable data. HHS collected hospital patient data in two ways  through HHS Protect, and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR). Their two sources of data on the usage of Intensive Care Unit (ICU) beds for COVID patients conflicted sharply in at least six states. HHS data also diverged sharply from state-supplied data, and showed that over the last two months, COVID-19 in-patient tally in 14 states was consistently lower than HHS Protects. investigation consistently In at least 27 states, the tally was alternating between being lower and higher than HHS. And recently, in 16 states, the tallies grew closer. The over-arching conclusion for this analysis was that hospitals are going to be over-stressed in the upcoming months, with inaccurate information systems in place. We have reached out to the HHS to learn more, and will update this post with more information. Additionally, if the language of the claim is taken at face value, CDC guidance for hospitals references providing necessary in-person clinical services for conditions other than COVID-19 in the safest way possible, minimizing disease transmission to patients [...]. This leads to the conclusion that the CDC itself is not stating that hospitals are classifying everyone who walks in as a COVID-19 case. guidance While it is true that the government did provide relief funds in various forms for COVID-19 cases to hospitals in need of aid, little evidence exists that numbers were being inflated by hospitals for this reason. We thus rate this claim as false. In the summer of 2018, the Trump administration's implementation of a "zero tolerance" immigration policy  which saw thousands of children separated from their migrant parents, often in difficult and uncertain circumstances  provoked widespread and often impassioned opposition and public debate. One such discussion around the issue of immigration sparked a wave of outrage after screenshots went viral online which appeared to show an employee of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) calling for immigrants into the United States to be shot at the border.  ODOT In a 19 June 2018 Facebook post, Angela Ochoa shared a screenshot which appeared to show Lori McAllen, an employee of ODOT, writing: post I personally think they should shoot them all at the border and call it good...it'll save us hard working AMERICAN'S [sic] billions of dollars on our taxes!! ;)   The post went viral.  A spokesperson for ODOT confirmed that the agency was "looking into a posting that was connected to ODOT." Without naming McAllen, the spokesperson said the employee had been "put on administrative leave" while ODOT investigates the facts surrounding the post, as well as its authenticity.  "We take this very seriously and very personally," the spokesperson told us, adding that the post "does not reflect the values of ODOT," and that its content was "deeply disturbing and hurtful." We can confirm that McAllen's post is authentic. We spoke to a person with knowledge of the posts and whose identity we were able to verify. That person told us that McAllen made her remarks during the course of a 19 June 2018 Facebook debate involving several people about the ongoing "zero tolerance" immigration policy, and the separation of children from their parents. The conversation was held on the Facebook page of another user.  We also received multiple screenshots from that conversation, which both corroborate the authenticity of McAllen's post, and show excerpts from the exchanges that led up to, and came after, her "shoot them all at the border" comment. We have edited these images only to preserve the anonymity of other participants.    Some time after McAllen posted the comment in question, another participant, outraged at its content, warned that they would make her "famous." In this screenshot, McAllen responds mockingly to a reference to her own offending remarks:    Another screenshot shows a third person, supportive of McAllen, acknowledging the fact that she did indeed post the remarks in question ("ONE comment Lori made") and attacking another participant in the conversation.     Another series of screenshots sent to us clearly shows McAllen responding to further references to her "shoot them at the border" comments.  McAllen has deleted her social media profiles and we were unable to contact her for comment. The one thing an already gaffe-prone politician running for high office most wants to avoid is saying something impolitic about race. But that's exactly what happened to former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden on the presidential campaign trail, according to one quote meme: gaffe-prone  In this case the meme is accurate. While speaking at a town hall event in Des Moines, Iowa, hosted by the Asian & Latino Coalition on Aug. 8, 2019, Biden let slip with a statement that poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids, thereby implying that economically disadvantaged persons are all non-white. The unfortunate remark by Biden was reported on by The New York Times and captured on video: reported Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. raised eyebrows during a speech in Iowa when he said that poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids, an apparent gaffe for a Democratic presidential candidate whose record on race has come under intense scrutiny during the primary. Mr. Biden was speaking on education and the need to challenge students at a town hall hosted by the Asian & Latino Coalition in Des Moines when he made the remark, and then quickly sought to recover from it. We should challenge students in these schools, Mr. Biden said. We have this notion that somehow if youre poor, you cannot do it. Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids. He paused, then added: Wealthy kids, black kids, Asian kids  no I really mean it, but think how we think about it.  Kate Bedingfield, Bidens deputy campaign manager, later issued a statement asserting that the candidate "misspoke": Vice President Biden misspoke and immediately corrected himself during a refrain he often uses to make the point that all children deserve a fair shot, and children born into lower-income circumstances are just as smart as those born to wealthy parents, Ms. Bedingfield said. Joe Biden has spent his life fighting for civil rights and the dignity of all people. Stevens, Matt.  "Joe Biden Says Poor Kids Are Just as Bright as White Kids."
  The New York Times.  9 August 2019. In September 2016, Facebook pages (including "Mobile Trend" and "Lady Trend") purportedly kicked off tiny house giveaway contests: Mobile Trend Lady Trend     As with all like-farming Facebook scams, the purported tiny house contests adhered to a simple format: users were instructed to like a separate page, like the original post, and share the post on their own Facebook timelines (thereby validating its legitimacy and enticing others to do the same). Although the tiny houses purportedly up for grabs appeared visually different in various posts, the instructions for "winning" them were virtually identical. The first clue these tiny house giveaways were not legitimate were the images of the homes used in the Facebook posts. The red "tiny house" was a Getty stock photo commonly pinned to Pinterest (and unlikely to be a contest prize), and the second was likewise a stock photograph of a tiny house:      Moreover, neither page was linked with any major home improvement company or other commercial entity (e.g., Home Depot, HGTV, or a real estate firm) one might imagine would offer up a free tiny house in exchange for social media advertising. Were any legitimate company to engage in such a giveaway, their incentive would be exposure, yet no attendant promotional return on advertising investment was evident in these Facebook giveaway claims. The manner in which users were lured was similar to scams involving Costco, Kroger and Amazon gift cards, but the six-figure jackpot attached to some of the tiny house scams proved a far more difficult-to-resist enticement for some users, advancing the hoax more quickly than those which linked out to sketchy signup pages. The contests bore all the hallmarks of standard "like farming" gambits, intended to quickly build and sell popular Facebook pages to the highest bidder. Costco Kroger Amazon like farming Even if the page creators intended only to build an audience, participation in the scam created an environment amenable to scammers of the same ilk seeking to exploit users' desires and needs to pump and dump a relatively new Facebook page. A large audience could also be exploited by scammers' mining varying levels of personal data from those who have liked pages of dubious origin. Facebook users enmired in like and share fake giveaways not only unwittingly help spammers litter the social network with scams, they may also risk being exposed to malware, clickjacking, or other unpleasantries (such as finding their names and identities endorsing a scam, hate page, or other undesirable activity). Legitimate product giveaways, particularly of high-value merchandise, are exceptionally rare and are almost always conducted through the official channels of major brands and related large companies. Claim:  Publix is giving away $100 grocery coupons to Facebook users.  Origins:  In July 2015, Facebook users began seeing posts advertising a "Get $100 in Free Groceries when you spend $120 or more" coupon offer for the Publix supermarket chain.  These posts were the latest iteration of the common "free coupon" or "free gift card" scams that frequently plague social media.  On 12 July 2015 Publix took to Facebook to warn customers that these coupon offers are not an authorized promotion and advise them not to visit sites promoting them: Facebook  There is a fraudulent Publix coupon circulating on social media that states "$100 off your purchase of $120 or more"....Posted by Publix on Sunday, July 12, 2015There is a fraudulent Publix coupon circulating on social media that states "$100 off your purchase of $120 or more". This is not supported by Publix and this coupon is not valid at any of our locations. We recommend not participating in the promotion or providing your personal information. Thank you for your patience as we investigate this situation.  This coupon is a form of survey scam that typically instructs shoppers to follow "three simple steps" in order to get a free gift card. Once the steps are completed, however, users are not greeted with a coupon code. Instead, they were asked to fill out a brief survey and provide personal information such as home address, telephone number, e-mail address, and date of birth. Users were also required to sign up for credit cards or enroll in subscription programs in order to obtain their "free" gift cards.These fraudulent surveys are quite popular on Facebook, and if you frequently use that social network, there's a good chance that you'll run into one of these survey scams again. A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureau lists key factors for identifying fraudulent Facebook posts:Don't believe what you see. It's easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender. Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure there's a link to their privacy policy. When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organization's real website may have further information. Watch out for a reward that's too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions. There is a fraudulent Publix coupon circulating on social media that states "$100 off your purchase of $120 or more".... Posted by Publix on Sunday, July 12, 2015 Publix Sunday, July 12, 2015  There is a fraudulent Publix coupon circulating on social media that states "$100 off your purchase of $120 or more". This is not supported by Publix and this coupon is not valid at any of our locations. We recommend not participating in the promotion or providing your personal information. Thank you for your patience as we investigate this situation.   This coupon is a form of survey scam that typically instructs shoppers to follow "three simple steps" in order to get a free gift card. Once the steps are completed, however, users are not greeted with a coupon code. Instead, they were asked to fill out a brief survey and provide personal information such as home address, telephone number, e-mail address, and date of birth. Users were also required to sign up for credit cards or enroll in subscription programs in order to obtain their "free" gift cards. These fraudulent surveys are quite popular on Facebook, and if you frequently use that social network, there's a good chance that you'll run into one of these survey scams again. A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureau lists key factors for identifying fraudulent Facebook posts: article Don't believe what you see. It's easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender.  Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure there's a link to their privacy policy.  When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organization's real website may have further information.  Watch out for a reward that's too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions. In May 2018, right-wing blogs pounced on a New York Post story concerning alleged campaign contribution violations by actress and comedian Rosie O'Donnell. According to the Post, the former co-host of The View exceeded the $2,700 limit on individual campaign contributions in donations to several Democratic Party candidates via the fundraising web site ActBlue, while using five different New York addresses and four variations of her name. According The report also said that O'Donnell donated $90,000 to 50 different committees and candidates for federal office. O'Donnell reportedly told the Post via email that she did "nothing nefarious," adding that she did not choose to donate over the limit. The newspaper also quoted her as saying: My anxiety is quelled by donating to those opposing trump [and] his agenda  especially at night  when most of these were placed. Conservative bloggers seized on that remark to accuse O'Donnell of "pleading insanity": accuse Trump-hating liberal Rosie ODonnell has accused President Trump of many bogus crimes. She has been obsessed with trying to accuse President Trump of nonsense. She has became completely obsessed with President Trump. Her Twitter feed is filled with incohrrent [sic] rants. Now the Trump curse continues as she is pleading insanity in hopes of not paying the penalty for breaking campaign finance laws. She is facing criminal charges thanks to a campaign finance scheme. In fact, there has been no announcement of an investigation into the alleged donations, let alone "criminal charges." The Federal Election Commission did not comment on the Post's report. While the Post's report has been aggregated by blogs and other news outlets, no second source has emerged corroborating its findings. An ActBlue spokesperson, Chris Fleming, did not comment on the story, but did tell us: ActBlue does not allow over the limit contributions in any one transaction, and ActBlue offers donors the option of saving all their info in an account where they can track their cumulative giving through ActBlue and compare/add to offline giving. While the Post reported that FEC violations only rarely lead to penalties, Loyola Law School professor Jessica Levinson said that it can depend on the jurisdiction. "For instance, some cities and states are much more aggressive about finding and fining people for these violations than others," said Levinson, who focuses on campaign finance in her work: On the federal level, it is true that the Federal Election Commission is a model of inaction. I think it would be fair to say that fines are not common, but I'm not really convinced that these types of violations are terrifically common. For her part, O'Donnell accused the Post on Twitter of employing "sinister ways to warp the truth." She also posted a photograph depicting her contributions on the ActBlue platform, listed at 66 donations totaling $75,500: Twitter   She told the Post that candidates should refund donation money that exceeds the individual limit, adding, "I don't look to see who I can donate most to.... I just donate assuming they do not accept what is over the limit." FEC regulations state that campaign committees that receive individual donations over the $2,700 limit have 60 days to refund the excess amount, redesignate it toward another election, or reattribute the money to someone else. In the event of a redesignation or reattribution, the contributor must be notified of the committee's intent and offered the chance to collect a refund instead. state The newspaper's report centered on contributions from O'Donnell to two current Democratic congressional candidates  Lauren Underwood in Illinois and Omar Vaid in New York  as well as campaigns for three current lawmakers from the same party: Rep. Adam Schiff from California; Doug Jones of Alabama; and Conor Lamb of Pennsylvania. Lamb's campaign will reportedly contact O'Donnell and offer to either refund or redesignate her excess contributions; Vaid's told the Post that it would amend its filings. A spokesperson for Underwood told us: Because of the data point differences in name, address, and employer, our systems did not flag these contributions as totaling above the limit. In the coming weeks, we will be amending our report. Bloggers also attempted to compare O'Donnell's purported violations to the outright illegal donations that led to the 2014 conviction of right-wing documentarian Dinesh D'Souza. D'Souza was sentenced to five years probation and eight months in a halfway house after pleading guilty to making illegal contributions in the names of others. D'Souza asked two friends and their partners to donate $10,000 apiece in 2012 toward Republican Wendy Long's senatorial candidate. sentenced "I do think we could find a distinction between what D'Souza was charged with  making a contribution of about 10 times the legal limit  with what O'Donnell is accused of  making a total of $5,400 in contributions over the legal limit to five different candidates," Levinson said. "O'Donnell's error seems more believably to be one of ignorance, while it is hard to believe that D'Souza believed a $20,000 contribution was legal." Sanders, Anna. "Rosie O'Donnell's Campaign Donations to Dems Went Over Legal Limit."
  New York Post. 5 May 2018. Federal Election Commission. "Remedying an Excessive contribution." Federal Bureau of Investigations. "Dinesh D'Souza Sentenced in Manhattan Federal Court to Five Years of Probation for Campaign Finance Fraud."
  23 September 2014.