Barack Obama's Net Worth
Claim:  Barack Obama's net worth increased over $10 million from 2008 to 2012. UNDETERMINED Example:  [Collected via e-mail, October  2012] Seen on Facebook: Tea party's photo of  President Obama on a golf cart purporting his net worth 12/31/07 and 12/31/11  Origins:  This graphic claiming that Barack Obama's net worth had increased from $1.3 million at the end of 2007 to over $11.4 million by the end of 2011 was widely circulated in October 2012.   It's fair to say the Obamas' net worth has increased significantly during the time Barack Obama has been President, but fixing a specific  dollar amount to that increase is difficult: net worth figures for politicians are typically derived from analyzing financial disclosure forms, a method which leaves room for a good deal of interpretation. financial disclosure Certainly the dollar figures displayed in the above graphic were not just pulled out of thin air: CNN/Money did peg Barack Obama's net worth at $1.3 million in 2007, and some sources (such as this Associated Press article) stated his net worth in mid-2012 to be around $11.8 million.  CNN/Money Associated Press Other sources vary widely regarding the latter figure, however.  In mid-2012 Forbes estimated the Obamas' net worth to be $5.7 million (down slightly from the previous year), OpenSecrets.org put the figure somewhere in the broad range of "$1,566,014 to $7,764,999," and other sources listed similarly broad range estimates such as "somewhere between $2.6 million and nearly $8.3 million." Forbes OpenSecrets.org other sources The Forbes report noted why the online version of its article included a considerably lower estimation of the Obamas' net worth than the print version of its article had: The current issue of Forbes magazine values the Obamas at a shared net worth of nearly $9 million, based on the May 16, 2011 financial disclosure, the most up-to-date as of press time. The day after our issue went to press, Obama released his new financial disclosure form, showing that: 1) the Obamas have taken money out of treasurys; 2) book money is decreasing; and 3) the family still owes on its mortgage, disclosed for the first time. The latest disclosure also gave new information on the familys college savings plans, which allowed us to refine our valuation and  bring the sum down. The above valuation takes all this into account. Last updated:  16 October 2012
On 8 August 2017, NewsMax author Ed Klein published an article ("Hillary's Plea Bargain") heavily insinuating that Hillary Clinton had been quietly offered a plea bargain due to the Justice Department's belief that the former candidate was prosecutable on "a number of counts." That claim rested on a solitary anonymous source, purportedly a "Clinton lawyer." That designator was not further qualified or explained, and it seems contradictory that a lawyer purportedly working on Clinton's behalf would leak such a potentially damaging tidbit about his client to the author of several anti-Clinton books. Klein claimed that "discussion" of a plea took place in July 2017 between the unnamed lawyer and "a high-ranking Justice Department" official: The Justice Department has reopened the investigation of Hillary Clinton's mishandling of classified material on her private email system while she was secretary of state, and is considering offering her a plea bargain if she will agree to plead guilty to charges of breaking the law, according to a Clinton attorney ... During the exploratory talks with the prosecutor, the Clinton attorney was told that despite former FBI Director James Comey's decision last July not to prosecute Hillary, the Justice Department has reexamined the email case and believes there are ample grounds for prosecuting Hillary on a number of counts. Under the Justice Department's plea offer, Hillary would be required to sign a document admitting that she committed a prosecutable crime. In return, the DOJ would agree not to bring charges against Hillary in connection with the email probe. Also as part of the agreement, the Justice Department would not proceed with an investigation of Hillary's pay to play deals with foreign governments and businessmen who contributed to the Clinton Foundation or who paid Bill Clinton exorbitant speaking fees. The article concluded with a stipulation that the source had "cautioned that normally a plea is offered by a prosecutor only upon arraignment," whereas Clinton had not been charged with any crime. No other news reports we located carried a version of the claim that was not sourced from Klein's article, and his Twitter header suggests that he is perhaps emotionally invested in the prospect of Clinton's theoretical indictment: header   Despite doubling down on his remarks about the Clinton investigation, there seemed to be a discrepancy in communication, because after the article was published, he told [America Talks Lives Miranda] Khan that the Department of Justice was considering reopening it, not that they had reopened it. They are seriously thinking of reopening this investigation and therefore if she doesnt take the plea agreement, which I agree with you, she almost certainly wont, I think they will then proceed with this investigation and this is going to drag on for a long time and in a way balance the investigation thats going on with President Donald Trump and his campaign advisers regarding so-called collusion with the Russians. The outlet was far from the first to take issue with Klein's sourcing and attribution. In 2012, Politico reported: reported On the other hand, his Clinton book was strewn with serious factual errors, truncated and distorted quotes, and the overall themes don't gibe with any other serious accounts of Clinton's life. The disdain for Klein's previous efforts haven't necessarily broken along political lines. Of the same tome, conservative New York Post columnist John Podhoretz said in 2005: said Curious and revealing. Because if any book in recent memory reads as though it has been written out of greed  a greedy hunger to separate millions of conservative book buyers from their hard-earned 25 bucks  it is Ed Klein's "The Truth About Hillary." This is one of the most sordid volumes I've ever waded through. Thirty pages into it, I wanted to take a shower. Sixty pages into it, I wanted to be decontaminated. And 200 pages into it, I wanted someone to drive stakes through my eyes so I wouldn't have to suffer through another word. It's June 2005. Hillary Clinton has been a major public figure in the United States for nearly 15 years. Somehow I imagine that if, indeed, she had "embraced" lesbianism "as a revolutionary concept" during her college years  years that have been written about exhaustively  we would have heard about it before now ... We also probably would have heard by now that Bill Clinton learned Hillary was pregnant with Chelsea by reading about it in an Arkansas newspaper. This detail is offered up by a single source  an "investment banker from New York"  in the course of a story about how Bill "raped" Hillary while on vacation in Bermuda in 1979. Coupled with the claim was a second assertion that Clinton never bothered to inform her husband she was pregnant. In 2005, Klein (in his own words) "dial[ed] back" during an interview about the passage on C-SPAN2, essentially retracting the claim in its entirety: interview HOST: OK. Is it true that Bill Clinton found out that his wife was expecting by reading the newspaper? KLEIN: Yes. HOST: Tell us a little bit more about that. KLEIN: Well, let me actually dial back. HOST: All right. KLEIN: I suspect that Bill Clinton knew that his wife was pregnant since she was pregnant for three months by the time the announcement came out. But it is true that the announcement was not made in the names of Governor and Mrs. Clinton or Governor and Ms. Rodham as she was then known, but was made in her name alone, and that she made the announcement and Bill Clinton said to my source, whom he was speaking to on the phone, "Guess what, you'll never  you'll never believe this, but I'm sitting here reading that Hillary has announced she's pregnant." That's how he found out that she  HOST: The announcement had been made. KLEIN: The announcement had been made. In 2014, The Guardian reviewed a subsequent Clinton book, Blood Feud: reviewed On a sunny afternoon in May last year, we are told, Hillary Clinton gathered six girlfriends from Wellesley's class of 1969 for a boozy lunch at Le Jardin du Roi, a bistro near her home in Chappaqua, New York. Recently liberated from the State Department, Clinton is said to have let loose on her erstwhile boss, accusing President Obama of having no hand on the fucking tiller. Klein discloses breathlessly that the wines had been carefully chosen by Roi, the owner of the restaurant, and that Roi waited on Hillary personally and prepared a special vegan dish for her after the former first lady told him that she was trying to lose weight. There is, however, a problem with this centrepiece of Blood Feuds prologue. Le Jardin du Roi was not named after the backyard of a man called Roi. It means The Garden of the King, or The Kings Garden in French. Its just the name of the restaurant, a puzzled staff member told the Guardian when reached by telephone. The name of the man who owns the restaurant is Joe. This is not the first glaring factual error to have made its way into Kleins reporting. It is not even the first time a mistake has been made in the very first anecdote of one of his books ... Two publishing industry sources familiar with the situation confirmed a report by BuzzFeed [in 2014] that Blood Feud had been dropped by its original publisher, William Morrow, because the content did not pass a vetting by in-house lawyers. When youre at an imprint of HarperCollins, which is part of NewsCorp, they take that stuff very seriously, and they check all of your sources and notes and they want to know where you got stuff, said one. Klein's suggestion that Hillary Clinton was to be indicted and had already been offered a plea deal quickly travelled through hyperpartisan corners of the Internet, but a number of criticisms of Klein's relationships with facts and sources have dogged his work from at least 2005, with numerous prominent conservative journalists among his most vocal critics.  Klein, Ed.  "Hillary's Plea Bargain."
  NewsMax.  8 August 2017. Podhoretz, John.  "Smear For Profit."
  New York Post.  22 June 2005. Swaine, Jon.  "Edward Klein: The Difference Between The Truth And A Lie."
  The Guardian.  14 July 2014. Taylor, Sarah.  "Report: Hillary Clinton Email Investigation Reopened  Clinton Purportedly Offered Plea Deal."
  The Blaze.  9 August 2017. Thrush, Glenn.  "Ed Klein's Obama Book Debuts At #1 On Times List -- Knocks Caro To #2."
  Politico.  24 May 2012. Claim:  Alabama mom's Obamacare horror story gives America a glimpse of government run healthcare. CORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED Example:  [Collected on the Internet, December 2013] My family's journey with securing our new insurance under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) started on October 1, 2013.   I have decided to write this letter to let the American people know what it has been like for us.   We are a family of four, with two little boys' ages seven years old and three years old.   My husband and I have had full time jobs for 6 years and 13 years respectively.  We have been with the same two companies for those years.  We are a middle class family; we own our three bedroom two bath house, we own two cars, and previously provided our own insurance for the four of us.  We have coverage through Individual Blue from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama until 12/31/13. Our premiums have been $380.00 a month, which also included dental coverage for all four of us.  On October, 1, 2013 we received our letters like other Alabamians about our new premiums and plans for 2014 from Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) of Alabama.  When I opened our letter to say I had sticker shock was an understatement.  Our premiums for the Blue Saver Silver would now be $753.26. This included the ACA tax but did not include the additional $75.00 we would need to pay in order to keep dental for me and my husband.  So we would need to pay total $828.26 to keep health and dental insurance for the four of us.  This payment is roughly $64.00 less than what we pay for our mortgage each month.  I was outraged that anyone thought we could afford this.  Sure we have some savings, but with that price tag we would whittle it down to almost nothing very quickly.  I consider savings as a rainy day fund, a start to saving for the kids college, our retirement, etc.  I never dreamed in a million years we would need to use it to pay our insurance premiums each month  how in the world could this help the economy too?  [Rest of article here.] here Origins:  The item referenced above, an open detailing one Alabama woman's extreme difficulty and frustration in obtaining ACA-compliant health insurance coverage for her family (including her 7-year-old son with ADHD) was posted under the name of Karri Kinder on 23 December 2013 as the sole entry in a blog and was republished (without additional comment) by the Independent Journal Review on 31 December 2013. blog republished Certainly her experience is not unique in kind, as many residents of Alabama covered by Blue Cross and Blue Shield (BCBS) of Alabama (an insurer who has an 88% share of the state's health insurance market) found out at the end of 2013 that they would be paying much higher premiums for ACA-compliant coverage through BCBS: Doug Hoffman, who works statewide to help people sign up for benefits through the Affordable Care Act, just received a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama notice in the mail to find health insurance rates for his family have doubled. And  he's mad  at Blue Cross. "I just got my benefits renewal from Blue Cross for next year and they doubled my rate!" he wrote AL.com in an email. "I was paying $675 for a family premium (2 adults, one 22 yo dependent) with a $1,500 deducible. The new rate for a comparable plan is $1,360 with a $3,000 deductible. Basically they have doubled my costs." "It appears as though Blue Cross is taking advantage of the ACA by hiking rates big time," said Hoffman, who is based in Birmingham with Enroll Alabama. Others, who have received the notices from the state's dominant health insurer are mad as well  at Obamacare. "Obama thinks that he is making insurance affordable," wrote one reader to the Mobile Press Register Sound Off feature. "I just got a letter from my Blue Cross Blue Shield that if I want to keep their insurance it's going to cost me $300 more a month. I already pay $300 a month now and they're wanting right at $600 a month for this Affordable Care Act." Blue Cross posted an explanation for the rate hikes to its Facebook page, maintaining that several reasons are behind the increased premiums: more taxes and fees, a requirement to rate family members individually, and the elimination of health underwriting and waiting periods for preexisting conditions: explanation The new law requires all health insurance companies in the individual and small group markets to use a consistent rating method called "member level rating." For the individual market, this means each person on an insurance policy will now be rated based on age, whether he or she uses tobacco, and the county in which the policy holder lives. In the past Blue Cross was able to offer one family premium, no matter the size.  For family plans, most family members will now be rated individually. Once each person has been rated, the amounts are added together to get a family's premium cost. For children age 20 and younger, the oldest three children will be individually rated and included in the family premium amount.   As a result, larger families may experience higher premiums. As Mike Oliver noted in an article for AL.com, the elimination of health underwriting may have a substantial effect on health insurance premiums in that state: article "Alabama has allowed medical underwriting  you're going to be quoted a high premium if you have something wrong with you," said Michael Morrisey, director of the University of Alabama at Birmingham Lister Hill Center for Health Policy. "The Affordable Care Act abolishes medical underwriting." This means that those with expensive health problems will likely now jump in and buy coverage because it will be less expensive for them  or if they already have coverage  their rates will go down. But that also means rates will go up for everyone else as the insurer spreads that new cost around. "The thing that happens when you eliminate underwriting is that you lump dissimilar people together," Morrisey said. "When you combine groups, one group is better off and the other group is worse off"  in terms of premium prices. As a policy, the elimination of medical underwriting and preexisting condition clauses helps broaden access to health care coverage and that was the aim of its inclusion in the Affordable Care Act. Reformers say it eliminates insurers from "cherry-picking" and reduces uncompensated care. Karri Kinder subsequently posted followups to her original blog entry about her insurance issue, the update of 4 January 2014 stating that: Karri Kinder blog entry I do have some good news.  Because I decided to write my letter and speak out, people stepped up and helped us.  We were contacted on January 1, 2014 by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.  I was told by the woman I spoke with that she had read my letter and wanted to get her team involved and see what they could do to help us.  I recounted to her what was happening and that I had been advised to go ahead and sign me and my husband up for a plan on healthcare.gov.  We went with a lower cost plan because it was going to just be the two of us.  We had no idea what it was going to cost for the children once we got some answers.  So we went with BCBS Blue Value Saver plan.  The cost of the plan is $459.19.  We qualified for $255.00 in subsidies so the final cost of the plan to us is $204.19 each month.  I told the lady that I would cancel that plan if I needed to.  What we wanted was to have all of us on one plan like we always have been.  She said, "If the kids qualify for All Kids then I am pretty sure they have to go that route or you will have to buy them a plan at the normal rate."  So again we were told more than likely we will have to go through All Kids.  She took the rest of our information down and said she was getting her team to work on it and would either call us back or All Kids would contact us. Last updated:  4 January 2014    Oliver, Mike.   "Blue Cross in Alabama: We Didn't 'Cancel' Health Policies."   AL.com.  2 December 2013.    Walsh, Alex.   "Obamacare, Big Blue, and You."   AL.com.  31 December 2013. In mid-October 2018, Facebook users shared an inaccurate meme asking "Were any of you aware that ALL the Democrats voted AGAINST the 2.8% Social Security cost of living increase?":     No Democrats, or any other legislators for that matter, voted for or against the 2.8 percent cost of living allowance (COLA) increase that Social Security recipients will see beginning in 2019. Since 1975, COLA increases have kicked in automatically and are based on changes in the consumer price index, a figure calculated by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. figure Here's how the Social Security Administration has summarized the history of COLA increases: summarized Most people are aware that there are annual increases in Social Security benefits to offset the corrosive effects of inflation on fixed incomes. These increases, now known as Cost of Living Allowances (COLAs), are such an accepted feature of the program that it is difficult to imagine a time when there were no COLAs. But in fact, when Ida May Fuller received her first $22.54 benefit payment in January of 1940, this would be the same amount she would receive each month for the next 10 years. For Ida May Fuller, and the millions of other Social Security beneficiaries like her, the amount of that first benefit check was the amount they could expect to receive for life. It was not until the 1950 Amendments that Congress first legislated an increase in benefits. Current beneficiaries had their payments recomputed and Ida May Fuller, for example, saw her monthly check increase from $22.54 to $41.30. These recomputations were effective for September 1950 and appeared for the first time in the October 1950 checks. A second increase was legislated for September 1952. Together these two increases almost doubled the value of Social Security benefits for existing beneficiaries. From that point on, benefits were increased only when Congress enacted special legislation for that purpose. In 1972 legislation the law was changed to provide, beginning in 1975, for automatic annual cost-of-living allowances (i.e., COLAs) based on the annual increase in consumer prices. No longer do beneficiaries have to await a special act of Congress to receive a benefit increase and no longer does inflation drain value from Social Security benefits. In 1972 legislation The latest increase will affect 62 million Social Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) recipients starting in January 2019. It's the largest increase since 2012, when beneficiaries saw a 3.6 percent boost. affect largest Konish, Lorie.  "Your Social Security Check Will Get a 2.8% Boost in 2019."
  AL.com.  16 October 2018. Social Security Administration.  "Historical Background and Development of Social Security."
  Accessed 17 October 2018. Social Security Administration.  "Social Security Benefits to Increase in 2019."
  11 October 2018. Budget-cutting is a favorite theme for Champaign County Rep. Jim Jordan, a formerRepublican StudyCommitteechairman with themost conservative votingrecord of any Ohio Congress member. Jordan has frequentlyopinedthat thecontroversial sequester budget cutsimplemented on March 1 are a positive step toward reining in out-of-control government spending. On March 19, the House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus Oversight and Government Spending that Jordan chairs held a hearing on how several government departments decided where to make cuts required by the sequester. At the hearing, Republicans and Democratsblamed each otherfor the $85 billion in cuts to government programs that were implemented after Congress failed to agree on an alternative. Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District of Columbia's representative to Congress, rattled off the list of cuts to agencies testifying before the hearing: $2 billion to the Agriculture Department, $551 million to the Commerce Department, and $17 million to the Federal Communication Commission and concluded: This hearing really should be entitled: 'Sequestration Oversight; What Were House Republicans Thinking.' Jordan responded to her speech by saying: The reason we support reducing spending in sequestration is because we have a debt larger than our entire annual economy. We do have to cut some spending around this place and were finally taking some modest first steps. Jordans point about the national debt being larger than the entire U.S. annual economy is becoming a familiar GOP talking point. A few days before Jordan spoke at the hearing,  House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan made avirtually identical statementin a speech at Washington, D.C.s Conservative Political Action Conference, saying  Our debt is already bigger than our economy. PolitiFact has examined that statement and several other similar ones, noting that the politicians government debt tally included IOUs between government agencies, which dont affect the wider economy and credit markets as much as publicly held debt, which totals 75 percent of GDP. To find the size of the economy, PolitifFact national cited a Feb. 28, 2013 news release from The Bureau of Economic Analysis that put the GDP at just over $15.8 trillion. The governmentdefinesthe GDP -- gross domestic product -- as the market value of the goods and services produced by labor and property within the country. As for the debt, the U.S. Treasury is the go-to source. As of March 14, 2013,total outstanding public debtwas $16,708,225,460,175.14. Thats broken down into two categories: debt held by the public and intragovernmental holdings. Here are those dollar figures: Debt held by the public: $11.9 trillion Intragovernmental holdings: $4.8 trillion To explain the difference, well borrow from our PolitiFact Texas colleagues handiwork. Intragovernmental debt refers to money owed by agencies within government to other agencies -- basically an internal accounting issue. An example: Social Security surpluses that the government uses for other federal operations. Such money will have to be repaid, its presumed, but the demand is less pressing right now and it doesnt affect credit markets. In contrast, public debt reflects money borrowed from outside sources -- giving it more of a connection to the economy, Josh Gordon, an analyst with the anti-deficit Concord Coalition, told PolitiFact Texas. If your problem with the national debt is that you think its affecting the economy or interest rates or something like that, the only part of the national debt that affects the economy is the debt held by the public. Thats where the (U.S.) Treasury is borrowing money on the open market. Paul Van de Water, an economist with the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, further explained why that matters. Debt held by the public is important because it reflects the extent to which the government goes into private credit markets to borrow. Such borrowing draws on private national saving and international saving and therefore competes with investment in the nongovernmental sector (for factories and equipment, research and development, housing, and so forth). Large increases in such borrowing can also push up interest rates and increase the future interest payments the federal government must make to foreign lenders, which reduces Americans income. Achieving a stable debt-to-GDP ratio is a key test of fiscal sustainability, Van de Water wrote in a memo. So, if we just consider debt held by the public -- which is what most affects the economy -- it totals about 75 percent of GDP -- which is not larger than the entire economy, as Ryan and Jordan stated. But the pair arent entirely off-base, especially since partisans tend to disagree about the importance of intragovernmental holdings. When you dig a bit deeper, you hit a partisan debate about the portion of the debt not held by the public, most of which is held by the government in trust funds. Republicans say that the trust funds are filled with IOUs, which eventually will have to be redeemed with other funds. Democrats say that the trust funds represent binding promises that government has made to tens of millions of Americans. Theyre both right, said William Galston, an expert with the Brookings Institution who was an adviser to President Bill Clinton. When we asked Jordans press secretary if there was additional information that PolitiFact Ohio should consider in evaluating her boss assertion, she replied: The facts are correct behind Rep. Jordans statement: economy - $15.8 trillion, debt - $16.7 trillion. Jordan claimed we have a debt larger than our entire annual economy. If you count debt held by the public and intragovernmental holdings, the debt is roughly 105 percent of the economy, which makes his statement accurate. But the debt held by the public is more relevant to discussions about federal spending and the economy. With that clarification, we rate his statement Mostly True. A set of images supposedly documenting the impact of socialism on the lives of people residing in some unidentified locale(s) is frequently circulated on social media as a warning about the alleged deleterious effects of that system: circulated   The "Your City on Socialism" meme has been circulated online since at least February 2017, when it was posted to the Facebook page of the conservative nonprofit Turning Point USA along with the caption "Socialism Never Works. Never Has, Never Will." Turning Point USA Turning Point USA's point would be more effective, of course, if they used images that accurately reflected the impact of socialism. The first image ("Your City on Socialism") was not taken in any socialist country but rather in the United States. It's an Associated Press file photo shot by Paul Sancya in July 2011 that captured a row of abandoned stores in Detroit, Michigan: Associated Press In this July 27, 2011 file photo, a section of vacant stores is shown in Detroit. Michigan is getting $100 million in federal aid to demolish abandoned buildings to fight blight in Detroit and four other cities, Gov. Rick Snyder said Tuesday. Snyder said the U.S. Treasury Department has approved the aid. Detroit is getting $52.3 million, Flint $20.1 million and Saginaw 11.2 million. Pontiac is getting $3.7 million and Grand Rapids $2.5 million, while $10.2 million goes to a reserve fund for additional demolition, Snyder said. (AP Photo/Paul Sancya, file) The second image ("Your Hospital on Socialism") is the lone photograph in this meme that was actually taken in a socialist country. It was included in a 2016 New York Times article about the health care crisis in Venezuela: New York Times The economic crisis in this country has exploded into a public health emergency, claiming the lives of untold numbers of Venezuelans. It is just part of a larger unraveling here that has become so severe it has prompted President Nicols Maduro to impose a state of emergency and has raised fears of a government collapse. The economic crisis in Venezuela is frequently brought up by those arguing against the merits of socialism. While Venezuela is a socialist country, that aspect is far from the only factor that has led to the country's severe economic turmoil. As we noted in a previous article on the topic, news outlets ranging from Bloomberg, the New York Times, to Fox News have noted that plunging oil prices, government corruption, and political unrest have also contributed to the crisis. article Bloomberg New York Times Fox News Furthermore, a single photograph of a run-down hospital is not representative of socialized medicine as a whole. The following image, for instance, was taken at a hospital in Switzerland, a country with universal health care:   The third image ("Your Grocer Story on Socialism") does not document a grocery store that ran out of food due to a failed socialist economy. It actually captures a Walmart outlet in Texas that ran out of food items and other supplies as it was thronged by customers stocking up ahead of the approach of Hurricane Rita in 2005. The picture was taken by Jay Jenner for the Austin-American Statesman, and the  original caption described it as follows: "Preparing for Hurricane Rita, Maria Chavez of Austin looks for a loaf of bread Thursday in the empty shelves of a Wal-Mart at Interstate 35 and Slaughter Lane. The store was sold out." original caption Turning Point USA isn't the only conservative group to use this image to push an anti-socialism narrative. In 2015, the National Review published a doctored version of this image in an article critical of Bernie Sanders. National Review doctored version The final photograph ("Your Politician on Socialism") does not show the home of a politician in a socialist country. Again, this image was taken in the U.S. and pictures a hotel in Glen Cove, New York, called The Mansion. hotel The Mansion Rather than accurately depicting the impacts of socialism, this meme is perhaps a better example of how images can be taken out of context, re-captioned, and repackaged in order to spread a political agenda. Llorente, Elizabeth.  "Caracas, Once a Thriving Metropolis, Is Struggling as Country Plunges Further Into Chaos."
  Fox News.  4 April 2019. Malkin, Michelle.  "Ask Venezuelans How Sanders-Style Socialism Is Working Out for Them."
  National Review.  27 May 2015. Novak, Matt.  "5 More Viral Photos That Are Totally Fake"
  Gizmodo.  2 June 2015. Little Green Footballs.  "Busted! National Review Crops and 'Dirties' Photo from Austin Walmart, Claims It Shows 'Venezuela.'"
  31 May 2015. Casey, Nicholas.  "Dying Infants and No Medicine: Inside Venezuelas Failing Hospitals."
  The New York Times.  15 May 2016. This story has been corrected to reflect that Glen Cove is in New York, not New Jersey. Claim:  Former New York mayor Ed Koch delivered a radio address on anti-semitism.  Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2002] We are now going through the most virulent anti-Semitic period since Hitler and Stalin. Nearly 60 years after the end of World War II almost every country on the European continent, including England, France, Germany, Holland, Belgium and the Scandinavian countries, has seen major outbreaks of physical violence against their Jewish citizens, and against Jewish institutions, including synagogues and cemeteries. At the same time, open hostility toward the State of Israel is at an all-time high.  Only in the United States have we seen a full acceptance of Jews as citizens and the Jewish state treated as a friend and ally by an overwhelming number of fellow citizens. In the U.S., Jews have been permitted to rise and fall based on their individual talents, virtues and faults. In one elite bastion after another, Jews have been selected to head institutions heretofore seen as beyond their reach. Today the presidents of Harvard and Yale Universities are Jews, as are recent former presidents of Columbia and Princeton. Having been elected three times as mayor of the City of New York, I have been the beneficiary of this country's generosity and freedom from bigotry, and I will be eternally grateful.  Americans traditionally make New Years resolutions. Before I list my own resolutions, I want to thank President George W. Bush and his advisers, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice for their support of the State of Israel. They could easily have jettisoned Israel as a liability in their efforts to forge an international coalition against worldwide terrorism. I will be forever grateful to them, and I hope that many other supporters of the State of Israel will recognize and appreciate what they have done.  Fortunately for Jews and the State of Israel, American support of the Jewish nation has been bipartisan. Particularly helpful has been the Democratic leadership in both houses including Senator Tom Daschle, outgoing Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, as well as former President Bill Clinton and Senator Hillary Clinton. There are many others on both sides of the political aisle who deserve similar praise.  In the religious sector, I am grateful to the Reverends Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, both of whom have stood up time and again in support and defense of the Jewish nation. Regrettably, there have been many clergy who have unfairly attacked Israel for attempting to defend itself against near-daily terrorist acts against its citizens. We were made privy to the true thoughts of Rev. Billy Graham caught on tape telling President Nixon his real feelings about Jews and Israel. He has since apologized, but what is an apology without contrition and efforts to right the wrong done? Worthless.  Now to my personal New Years resolutions. I will avoid France as a place to vacation. France leads those countries in the Security Council who are the enemies of the State of Israel. So too is Mexico, joining as a consistent supporter of resolutions unfairly denouncing Israel at the U.N. Security Council.  I will not support National Public Radio in any way. NPRs reporters and management delight in unfairly attacking Israel.  I will no longer lend financial support to New Yorks Channel Thirteen public television station. That station recently showed a documentary that was blatantly biased against Israel and has refused to acknowledge the bias or to try to correct it.  I will not watch ABCs World News Tonight anchored by Peter Jennings. For many years, Jennings has specialized in vicious and unfair portrayals of Israel intended to injure the Jewish state and lionize Palestinians.  BBC News is horrifically anti-Israel and I will shun it completely.  Susan Sontag will occupy the Ninth Circle of Hell for her outrageous assaults on Israel. I will no longer read her works.  Regrettably, there are many others whom I could include on this list, but I will leave that for another day. I must confess I got enormous pleasure from the defeat of Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney and her father in the recent primary elections in Georgia. In my view, both are anti-Semitic and anti-Israel. No longer able to feed at the public trough, I doubt that either will make a comparable living in the private sector.  I must close now to get ready for my Chanukah and Christmas shopping. I enjoy celebrating those holidays with Jewish and Christian friends whose goodwill and affection I will always cherish. Origins:  Ed Koch, mayor of New York City from 1978 to 1989,   mayor  was a regular commentator on Bloomberg Radio until his death in 2013.  On 7 December 2002, he delivered a commentary dealing with his perception that western society is experiencing its most"virulent anti-Semitic period since Hitler and Stalin" and offered a list of new year's resolutions regarding people and institutions he would shun for being anti-Israel.  Transcripts of that commentary (reproduced above) have since been posted to a variety of web sites. Bloomberg Radio Just to be sure this information was accurate, we contacted Bloomberg Radio for verification and received an affirmative response: Hello and thank you for your inquiry. Former Mayor Ed Koch is a regular commentator on Bloomberg Radio.  On 7 December 2002, Mr. Koch delivered a commentary on our "Bloomberg On the Weekend" broadcast in which he postulated a growing anti-semitism in America and elsewhere in the western world.  He asserted that public broadcasting  had an anti-Israeli attitude and declared he would no longer contribute.  I hope this answers your question, and I invite you to listen to us each weekend for Ed Koch and much more.   If you are in the greater New York area you will find us on Bloomberg Radio, WBBR, 1130 on your AM radio dial. Elsewhere we can be heard on the internet at http:/www.bloomberg.net/radio. http:/www.bloomberg.net/radio Sincerely,Wes Richards, Host. Last updated:  6 January 2014 On 15 January 2016, Lisa and John Robinson stepped forward as buyers of oneof the $1.6 billion Powerball lottery's three winning tickets: Powerball John Robinson and his wife Lisa bought four tickets at Naifeh's Food Mart, a grocery store one block from their home in Munford, Tennessee, at 6:56 p.m. on Wednesday night. Robinson, a father of two, said he bought the four tickets as he always does to represent the four members of their family, with the computer choosing the winning numbers of 04, 08, 19, 27, 34 and Powerball 10. Shortly after the identity of the winner was revealed, a fake message started circulating, which claimed that the Robinsonswere giving money away to random people on Facebook. As withprevious messages featuring Mark Zuckerbergand Eminem, these Facebook messages are a hoax. John and Lisa Robinson are not giving away money to people who like, share, or comment on a Facebook post. Mark Zuckerberg Eminem It appears that the message originated on the fake news web siteDaily Media Buzz. In addition to creating the fake message,DMBalso created fake Facebook comments to make it seem like some random people had received money for John and Lisa:   A fake web site, johnandlisagiveback.com,was also started in an attempt to legitimize this hoax. These "something for nothing" hoaxesare common on Facebook. While they employ different methods in an attempt to spread on social media (some request likes, some request comments, some even display fake countdowns to give the hoax a sense of urgency), they all have one thing in common: They are potentially opening up the social media user to malware or advertising scams (as this particular one increasingly appears to be) and they don't result in cash windfalls. Facebook one Urging the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas to choose a president who prioritizes jobs and rising wages for all communities, a Texas group said African Americans in the state have fared poorly on both fronts. The Texas Organizing Project,which saysit promotes social and economic equality for low- to moderate-income residents, joined labor unions in calling on the Fed, which has kept interest rates near zero since 2008 to spur business lending, not to raise interest rates and focus instead on full employment and higher wages, according to a March 4, 2015,news storyin theDallas Morning News. The project got our attention in a March 2015press releasewith this: Although the economy is adding jobs, the unemployment rate among blacks in Texas is 9.5% -- far more than double white unemployment -- and wages have fallen for black workers in Texas since 2000. We sought elaboration. Report offered as backup To our inquiry, a project spokesman, Daniel Barrera, pointed us by email to a March 2015 report by the Brooklyn-based Center for Popular Democracy, which says it promotes equity, opportunity and a dynamic democracy. The report,Wall Street, Main Street, and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard: Why African Americans Must Not Be Left Out of the Federal Reserves Full-Employment Mandate,presents charts with the cited figures, which the Washington, D.C.-based Economic Policy Institute based on federal wage and employment data. One chart says the 2014 Texas black unemployment rate, 9.5 percent, was more than twice the states white unemployment rate of 3.7 percent; the 2014 Hispanic jobless rate was 5.3 percent. Conditions may have been better in Texas than elsewhere over those years. Nationally, according to the report, black-white unemployment disparities were greatest in Wisconsin (the black jobless rate was 4.6 times the white rate), and Minnesota (the black rate was 3.7 times the white rate). Another chart in the report indicates median hourly wages of Texas whites and Hispanics increased 8 and 2.9 percent, respectively, from 2000 to 2014 while median hourly wages of black Texans decreased 0.8 percent. We wondered if blacks saw falling wages by this measure all through those years. They did not: To our inquiry, the Economic Policy Institute provided year-by-year data showing the hourly median for black Texans decreased in six years while going up in eight years. Through the period, the real median wage for Texas African Americans bottomed out at $13.61 in 2008. It crested at $15.18 in 2012. Nationally at the end of the 15-year period, median real wages of African-American workers were down even more than in Texas alone, according to the report. That is, the national median real hourly wage for African Americans in 2014 was $13.97, about 3 percent less than the comparable median of $14.41 in 2000. Also, according to the report, other states had bigger differences between the first and last years studied. Source:Report, Wall Street, Main Street, and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard: Why African Americans Must Not Be Left Out of the Federal Reserves Full-Employment Mandate,  Center for Popular Democracy, April 6, 2015  Source:Report, Wall Street, Main Street, and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard: Why African Americans Must Not Be Left Out of the Federal Reserves Full-Employment Mandate,  Center for Popular Democracy, April 6, 2015 And why? Missing from the report: Why the differences between black workers and others? When we called to ask about that, Ady Barkan, a center official, suggested multiple longstanding factors including racism and differences between blacks and whites in education levels and rates of incarceration. By email, Barkan also pointed out aJuly 2011 issue paperfrom the liberal Center for American Progress noting, among reasons, that in each of the latest U.S. recessions, blacks were most often the first employees fired and the last ones hired (once each recession was ending). We asked the Economic Policy Institute why black unemployment in Texas appeared to be runninghigher than white and Hispanic unemployment. Josh Bivens,director of research and policy, said by email this may be because of discrimination in the labor market and pre-labor market. And whats the pre-labor market? Bivens said residential segregation can lead to blacks going tolower-quality primary and secondary schools, potentially resulting in lower levels of educational achievement and less lucrative jobs. We also sought an explanation of the cited differences from Chris King, director of the Ray Marshall Center for the Study of Human Resources at the University of Texas. By email, King said labor economists would  explain higher unemployment among blacks/African Americans nationally by pointing out that African Americans tend to have lower levels of education and be employed in lower-paying occupations and industries than whites. King elaborated by pointing out Bureau of Labor Statistics data covering 2011 showing black men more likely to work in service, production, transportation and material moving jobs. Conversely, he wrote, black men were less likely to work in professional and managerial jobs than whites; the picture was similar, he said, for black women. (See his full reply here.) Another view Separately to our inquiry, analyst Chuck DeVore of the conservativeTexas Public Policy Foundation suggested real median hourly wage estimates used by the institute may deliver an incomplete picture of economic well being. People dont live on wages alone, DeVore said, adding that a more accurate indicator of wealth would be household income, folding in Social Security, inheritances and any other financial assistance.See more on this aspect here. Our ruling The Texas Organizing Project said: The unemployment rate among blacks in Texas is 9.5% -- far more than double white unemployment -- and wages have fallen for black workers in Texas since 2000. Texas African Americans may not have been as bad off as residents of other states, and this claim doesnt acknowledge wage fluctuations over the years. Regardless, evidence shows Texas blacks having a higher unemployment rate than fellow Texans and also being the lone group with lower wages in 2014 than in 2000. We rate the statement True. TRUE The statement is accurate and theres nothing significant missing. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. In October 2018, social media users shared a meme posted by the liberal Facebook page Occupy Democrats reporting a series of events involving Gulf states were the result of President Donald Trump and his son-in-law and adviser Jared Kushner "using American foreign policy to enrich themselves":   Although the sequence of events referenced in the meme is described accurately according to reputable news reports, the motives, connections, and causality the meme ascribes to those events have not been proved. It is true that Jared Kushner, who is married to President Trump's eldest daughter Ivanka, was in need of over a billion dollars to cover the mortgage on 666 Fifth Avenue, a 41-story Manhattan building he purchased for $1.8 billion in 2007, as the New Yorker reported on 2 March 2018: reported Kushner Companies co-owns 666 Fifth Avenue with another developer, Vornado Realty. In 2007, at Jared Kushners urging, the company paid $1.8 billion for the building -- at the time, the highest price ever paid for a New York office tower. The property occupies a prime spot between Fifty-second and Fifty-third streets, but it was built in 1957 and needed extensive upgrades. It still has many vacancies, and the $1.2 billion mortgage, which reportedly has ballooned to almost $1.5 billion, is due in February, 2019. Right now, it is not entirely clear whether Kushner Companies is in a position to repay or refinance the loan. The company hoped to knock the building down and put up another, twice as tall and far more luxurious, in its place, Bloomberg reported. It sought funds from investors in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, China, South Korea, Israel and France. No investors were announced for the plan, described by many as prohibitively expensive. That same day, The Intercept reported that in April 2017, Kushner's father Charles, who runs the family's real estate firm Kushner Companies, had made a direct appeal for financing to Qatari Finance Minister Ali Sharif Al Emadi, which was followed shortly afterwards by the Saudi-led blockade of Qatar: reported The 30-minute meeting, according to two sources in the financial industry who asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the potential transaction, included aides to both parties, and was held at a suite at the St. Regis Hotel in New York. A follow-up meeting was held the next day in a glass-walled conference room at the Kushner property itself, though Al Emadi did not attend the second gathering in person. The failure to broker the deal would be followed only a month later by a Middle Eastern diplomatic row in which Jared Kushner provided critical support to Qatars neighbors. Led by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, a group of Middle Eastern countries, with Kushners backing, led a diplomatic assault that culminated in a blockade of Qatar. Kushner, according to reports at the time, subsequently undermined efforts by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to bring an end to the standoff. Middle Eastern diplomatic row subsequently undermined In May 2017, Qatar's Gulf neighbors commenced a blockade of that country, and within days President Trump tweeted his support of the blockage despite the fact that Qatar is home to Al Udeid Air Base, a key U.S. military installation: commenced tweeted During my recent trip to the Middle East I stated that there can no longer be funding of Radical Ideology. Leaders pointed to Qatar - look!  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 6, 2017 June 6, 2017  In May 2018, the New York Times reported that the Kushner family was close to reaching a bailout deal for 666 Fifth Avenue with a company possessing Qatari government ties: reported Charles Kushner, head of the Kushner Companies, is in advanced talks with Brookfield Asset Management over a partnership to take control of the 41-story aluminum-clad tower in Midtown Manhattan, 666 Fifth Avenue, according to two real estate executives who have been briefed on the pending deal but were not authorized to discuss it. Brookfield is a publicly traded company, and its real estate arm, Brookfield Property Partners, is partly owned by the Qatari government, through the Qatar Investment Authority. And, the Trump administration around that time reversed course with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo telling the Saudis in April 2018 that it was time to end the blockade against Qatar. telling It's likely the meme gained momentum on social media in October 2018 due to scrutiny over Kushner and Trump's relationship with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in light of the gruesome murder of Jamal Kashoggi.  scrutiny Kashoggi, a Saudi national and columnist for the Washington Post, went missing on 2 October 2018 after entering the Saudi consulate in Istanbul seeking documents he needed to get married. According to reports citing Turkish government and U.S. intelligence sources, the Virginia resident never left the consulate, where he was ambushed by Saudi agents, tortured and murdered, and his body dismembered. ambushed Trump has resisted calls by U.S. lawmakers to impose sanctions on Saudi Arabia in retaliation for the journalist's apparent death, comparing global condemnation of the Gulf kingdom to accusations of sexual misconduct leveled against U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Trump told the Associated Press: "Here we go again with, you know, you're guilty until proven innocent. I don't like that. We just went through that with Justice Kavanaugh and he was innocent all the way as far as I'm concerned." calls told Cassidy, John.  "Jared Kushners Conflicts of Interest Reach a Crisis Point."
  The New Yorker.  2 March 2018. Swisher, Clayton and Ryan Grim.  "Jared Kushner's Real Estate Firm Sought Money Directly from Qatar Government Weeks Before Blockade."
  The Intercept.  2 March 2018. Bagli, Charles V. and Jesse Drucker.  "Kushners Near Deal with Qatar-Linked Company for Troubled Tower."
  The New York Times.  17 May 2018. Kirkpatrick, David D. and Carlotta Gall.  "Audio Offers Gruesome Details of Jamal Khashoggi Killing, Turkish Official Says."
  The New York Times.  17 October 2018. Claim:  After a bank failure, the FDIC has 99 years to pay back insured deposits.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, July 2008] I heard an "expert" on KFI AM 640 in LA say the FDIC has up to 99 years to repay you in the event of a bank failure. Sounds like a misrepresentation but when asked by the host, she said "it's in the fine print."  [Collected via e-mail, September 2008] I have been hearing of a story of a man entering a bank week after week and making a deposit of a government check in some sort of insignificant amount (the number I heard was $0.35 per check). The teller asks why is he depositing such a small check. His response is that his bank went bust and that the checks are from the F.D.I.C. The gist of this apocryphal tale is that FDIC insurance is not a good thing and that if it does pay out it will take forever to recover your "insured" loss. This tale was repeated yesterday to my sister-in-law by a bank teller trying to dissuade her from moving an UNINSURED money market account to an F.D.I.C. insured CD with another bank. Origins:   Economic turmoil in the United States in recent years has given many Americans pause to consider just how safe their money is, especially in light of some bank failures that have reminded us that even such seemingly secure investments as ordinary savings accounts are not  completely risk-free.   And although most bank customers are aware their deposits are insured, they aren't necessarily familiar with the details of how that insurance works, a circumstance that has fostered the spread of rumors which create additional insecurity. After a wave of bank failures that came in the wake of the stock market crash of 1929 and the prolonged economic depression that followed, the U.S. federal government created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to restore public confidence in (and help stabilize) the U.S. banking system.  The FDIC provided federal government guarantees of deposits up to $100,000 per account holder per bank (and up to $250,000 per account holder for deposit retirement accounts), subject to certain conditions, at insured financial institutions.*    FDIC Bank failures in the U.S. have been a relatively uncommon phenomenon since the savings-and-loan crisis of the late 1980s, so many consumers have had little or no exposure to the process by which FDIC deposit insurance works, a circumstance that has led to the uncertainty reflected in the examples cited above.  Widely-believed rumors hold that FDIC insurance actually covers just a small fraction of the original deposit amount  (e.g., 1.5%), or that the FDIC only reimburses depositors in full over a very long period of time (e.g., 99 years), the net result being the mistaken belief that FDIC insurance isn't really much of a guarantee at all.  In fact, these rumors are so prevalent that they were both included (as numbers #3 and #4) in a list of the top ten misconceptions about the FDIC published in the Spring 2006 edition of the FDIC Consumer News newsletter, where they were addressed thusly: If a bank fails, the FDIC could take up to 99 years to pay depositors for their insured accounts. This is a completely false notion that many bank customers have told us they heard from someone attempting to sell them another kind of financial product. The truth is that federal law requires the FDIC to pay the insured deposits "as soon as possible" after an insured bank fails. Historically, the FDIC pays insured deposits within a few days after a bank closes, usually the next business day. In most cases, the FDIC will provide each depositor with a new account at another insured bank. Or, if arrangements cannot be made with another institution, the FDIC will issue a check to each depositor. The FDIC only pays failed-bank depositors a percentage of their insured funds. All too often we receive questions similar to this one: "Is it true that if my FDIC-insured bank fails, I would only get $1.31 for every $100 in my checking account?" As with misconception number 3, this misinformation appears to be spread by some financial advisors and sales people. Federal law requires the FDIC to pay 100 percent of the insured deposits up to the federal limit  including principal and interest. If your bank fails and you have deposits over the limit, you may be able to recover some or, in rare cases, all of your uninsured funds. However, the overwhelming majority of depositors at failed institutions are within the insurance limit, and insured funds are always paid in full. As noted, this type of misinformation is often passed along by unscrupulous or misinformed financial advisors who are trying to steer customers towards investments or accounts that are not insured, so if you have any doubts about exactly what is or is not covered by FDIC insurance, you may want to undertake some additional verification on your own. *Note: In October 2008 the FDIC insurance limit was temporarily increased to $250,000 per account, with that increase slated to remain in effect through the end of 2009, but subsequently extended through the end of 2013. In July 2010 the FDIC insurance limit was permanently increased to $250,000 per depositor, per insured depository institution for each account ownership category. increased Last updated:  8 April 2014