We have become an energy exporter for the first time ever just recently.
In a 75-minute rally speech that revisited his response to the Charlottesville, Va., unrest and scolded the national media, President Donald Trump slid in a note of pride about the United States balance of trade in energy. We're going to do an infrastructure bill, Trump said. We will build gleaming new roads, bridges, highways, railways, waterways, all across our beautiful land. Our greatest creations, our most incredible buildings, our most beautiful works of art are just waiting to be brought to life. American hands will build this future. American energy will power this future. We have become an energy exporter for the first time ever just recently. Was he correct to say that the United States has become an energy exporter for the first time ever just recently? Short answer: No. But to get to the short answer, you have to wade through several possible interpretations of what Trump meant. (The White House did not clarify his meaning for us.) One way to read Trumps statement is to take it literally -- that the United States only recently began to export energy. This is flat wrong. We have been exporting coal, natural gas, electricity, refined products and energy technologies for a very long time, said Paul Sullivan, a professor at National Defense University and an adjunct professor at Georgetown University who specializes in energy security issues. We were once, during the time of JD Rockefeller, the world's near monopoly on kerosene. Liquefied natural gas exports from Alaska to Japan have been around for a long time. Piped gas to Mexico and Canada are normal events. We have a massive electricity trade with Canada. Trump might have meant that the United States had only recently become anetexporter of energy -- meaning the total of all U.S. energy exports recently overtook the total of all U.S. energy imports. This is less wrong, but still not accurate. This has been falling, but we are still a huge net energy importer, said Jason Bordoff, who directs Columbia Universitys Center on Global Energy Policy. In its most recent projections, the federal Energy Information Administrationconcludedthat the United States would become a net energy exporteraround 2026, depending on the course of future patterns of global supply, demand and pricing. Whats clear is that the United States has not yet become a net exporter of energy, as Trumps past-tense remark indicated. If that day comes in 2026 -- and it may or may not -- that would be two years after Trump finishes a possible second term. Perhaps rather than energy, Trump meant to say crude oil. If this is what Trump meant, the statement would still be problematic. It wouldnt be the first time ever. And the relevant change was signed under his predecessor, President Barack Obama. On Dec. 18, 2015, the United Statesenacted legislationto repeal a ban on most crude-oil exports that had been in place since the energy-crisis days of 1975. (Exports of refined petroleum were not blocked by the law, just crude.) Heres a chart showing U.S. crude-oil exports going back to the 1980s. (The years between 1975 and 2015 show some export activity because trade with some countries, such as Canada, was exempt from the law.) The rapid rise in crude-oil exports near the end of the chart reflects the lifting of the export-restriction law. Its possible to substitute any number of energy subcategories into Trumps remark to see whether they make the statement more accurate. Some do, some dont. The United States has been a net coal exporter for many years. It has been a net exporter of refined petroleum products sincearound 2011. So neither of those would make Trump correct. Natural gas is a more promising option. The United States is not yet a net exporter of natural gas, but the difference between imports and exports has narrowed for nine consecutive years,according to EIA, falling to its smallest gap ever in 2016. And the agencyprojectsthat the United States will become a net exporter of natural gas once the 2017 numbers are tallied up. Energy experts say that this is a significant development, though one that Trump can take little credit for. It has been a trend that was activated by the U.S. shale boom and made possible by the Obama administration's policy on liquefied natural gas exports, said Anna Mikulska, a fellow with Rice Universitys Center for Energy Studies. Ironically, Bordoff added, a different Trump policy goal --reviewing Obama-era increases in fuel-efficiency standards for vehicles-- could make it harder for the United States to become a net exporter of energy, the very thing he applauded in Phoenix. Trumps stated intention to ease fuel economy standards actually undermines the goal of becoming a net energy exporter, because it means the U.S. will be consuming more oil than we would otherwise, he said. The EIA projections assume the planned increases in fuel economy go into effect, so the EIA projection of when we become a net exporter of energy would be pushed further out if we weaken fuel economy standards. Trump said that we have become an energy exporter for the first time ever just recently. This statement is problematic regardless of how you interpret his statement -- gross energy exports, net energy exports, gross crude-oil exports, and net natural gas exports. The closest he would come to being accurate is if he were referring to net natural gas exports, but even there, it hasnt happened yet, contrary to what his past-tense statement indicates. We rate the statement False.
Texas House Speaker Joe Straus hinted at theTexas Houses derailed push for more state education aidby asserting that absent fresh action, Austin taxpayers can count on ponying up more than half a billion dollars to schools in other places this year. The San Antonio Republican prefaced his Austin-centric claim by rehashing his view that Texas overly relies on property taxes to fund the schools. Property taxes are going up, and more and more of those dollars are going to school districts in other parts of the state through the Robin Hood system, Straus said in anemail blastdistributed two days before the July 2017 special session called by Gov. Greg Abbott. Straus elaborated: School districts are expected to send away $2 billion through Robin Hood in the upcoming year. One district alone -- Austin ISD -- is expected to lose more than $530 million in local property taxes to Robin Hood this year. Is that accurate? Straus was referring to the Robin Hood or recapture facet of state law designed for equalization purposes so districts with rich tax bases share revenue with less property-wealthy districts. In July 2017,  before Straus made his claim, the Texas Education Agencysaid that some $2 billion all told would be redistributedvia the share-the-wealth mechanism in 2017-18. In 2016,we found Truea claim by Travis County state Sen. Kirk Watson that in Austin, the average homeowner is paying about $1,300 to $1,400 just for recapture. That fact-check said the district for 2016-17 would be forwarding more than $400 million for schools elsewhere. Straus cites newspaper Asked how Straus reached the larger $530-million figure, a Straus spokesman, Jason Embry, said by email that Straus relied on a June 19, 2017, Austin American-Statesmannews storyabout the Austin districts board of trustees approving a nearly$1.5 billion budget for 2017-18. The story said the districts recapture payment this year is expected to be $534 million, an increase of 32 percent, or $127.8 million, over 2016-17. It quoted Nicole Conley, the districts chief financial officer, saying the district expects to pay more than $1 billion in recapture payments during the next two years. Austin school districts calculation When we reached out to the district, spokeswoman Cristina Nguyen specified that according to calculations taking into account expected student enrollment and tax collections, Austins estimated payments would total $533,874,730 for the 2017-18 school year. She emailed us the districts calculations,viewable here. Another district spokeswoman, Tiffany Young, sent an email pointing out a May 2017 district chart suggesting its recapture payments could top $800 million by the 2020-21 school year: SOURCE: Document,FY2018 Recommended Budget,Austin Independent School District, May 2017 (web link received by email from Tiffany Young, senior communication specialist, AISD, July 17, 2017) States preliminary analysis We also asked the Texas Education Agency how much the Austin district will be expected to forward in recapture money in 2017-18. By email, Lauren Callahan guided us to an agency estimate, last updated June 21, 2017, of $513,633,317. Thats $20 million less than the districts announced estimate. But Callahan also cautioned that the state figure is preliminary and likely to increase depending on the districts tax rate. Callahan wrote: We use different estimates of local property tax collections as well as different estimates of student counts, both of which affect the estimate of recapture. Our numbers tie together when all final data is reconciled. Our ruling Straus said the Austin district is expected to lose more than $530 million in local property taxes to Robin Hood this year. As of May 2017, the Austin district estimated that in 2017-18 it would flow nearly $534 million in local property tax revenue through the states school finance system, nicknamed Robin Hood, to help equalize school funding across the state. We rate this claim 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. As the number of confirmed cases of the COVID-19 coronavirus disease surpassed 2 million in early June 2020, the campaign to reelect U.S. President Donald Trump ended its monthslong pause on large, in-person events and announced it would host a rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma, in the coming weeks. COVID-19 coronavirus disease Despite public health officials' recommendations at the time to avoid group gatherings and crowds to limit the spread of COVID-19, the Trump campaign announced on June 10 that it would host a rally at the Bank of Oklahoma Center, which seats almost 19,200 people, on June 19. Trump told reporters at the White House: public health officials told reporters Were going to start our rallies back up now. Weve had a tremendous run at rallies. ...The first one, we believe, will be probably  were just starting to call up  will be in Oklahoma  in Tulsa, Oklahoma. A beautiful, new venue  brand-new. And were looking forward to it. Theyve done a great job with COVID, as you know, in the state of Oklahoma. Beyond the event's potential threat to attendees' health, critics including high-profile Democrats and historians saw the announcement as a call to white supremacists during a national reckoning over racism following the death of George Floyd for two reasons: Tulsa is home to one of the worst acts of racial violence in American history  the 1921 Tulsa race massacre  and the event's originally scheduled date of June 19, or Juneteenth, is a day in many communities that traditionally celebrates the end of U.S. slavery in 1865. So two days after the initial announcement from the Trump campaign, the president yielded to that backlash and said he would delay the event and instead hold it on June 20. He tweeted: Democrats George Floyd Tulsa race massacre Juneteenth He tweeted   But as critics pointed out, the massive gathering still held the potential to expose large numbers of people to COVID-19. As if to confirm the danger, reports appeared saying the Trump campaign was asking attendees to agree in advance not to hold the campaign liable for coronavirus exposure:   To investigate the claim that attendees were asked to agree to a liability waiver, we went through the steps of reserving a spot at the Tulsa rally in the days before the event. To receive a digital ticket for the event, attendees had to complete the following form:   At the bottom of the registration page, the following text appeared: registration page By clicking register below, you are acknowledging that an inherent risk of exposure to COVID-19 exists in any public place where people are present. By attending the Rally, you and any guests voluntarily assume all risks related to exposure to COVID-19 and agree not to hold Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.; BOK Center; ASM Global; or any of their affiliates, directors, officers, employees, agents, contractors, or volunteers liable for any illness or injury. In other words, to reserve an entry ticket for the Tulsa rally, people had to agree that they would "assume all risks related to exposure to COVID-19" and agree not to sue Trump or any organizers of the event if they got sick. That agreement essentially clears the campaign of any responsibility should attendees catch the virus. At first, campaign leaders declined to elaborate on their plans to protect attendees' health once they were at the event. Then, on June 14, White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow told reporters that attendees should wear masks. And campaign manager Brad Parscale said the following day that event organizers will hand out hand sanitizer and face masks (though they're not necessarily required) and check attendees' temperatures for fevers. He tweeted: Larry Kudlow should wear masks. said tweeted   Still unclear is if, or to what extent, the event will promote social distancing. It's possible people will stand or sit less than six feet apart from each other, despite recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to avoid that close of contact with people to prevent the virus' spread. Additionally, as of June 16, the CDC urged everyone to wear cloth face coverings when they leave their homes, stating on its website: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Considering the ongoing health risks due to COVID-19 and an upward trend in cases statewide, Tulsa Health Department Director Bruce Dart said he would rather the president hold the event at a later date. He told Tulsa World: an upward trend in cases statewide Tulsa World I think its an honor for Tulsa to have a sitting president want to come and visit our community, but not during a pandemic. ...Im concerned about our ability to protect anyone who attends a large, indoor event, and Im also concerned about our ability to ensure the president stays safe as well. As of June 15, Oklahoma had tallied 359 deaths and 3,417 non-fatal cases due to the virus. The Trump campaign had last held a big rally on March 2 in Charlotte, North Carolina, before much of the country shut down to curb the pandemic. In sum, given the substantiating evidence that, in order to receive a ticket for the Tulsa event, people must click a box agreeing they would not hold the Trump campaign or event organizers liable should they catch COVID-19 at the June 20, 2020, rally, we rate this claim "True". Fox, Joe, et. al.  "At Least 112,000 People Have Died from Coronavirus in the U.S."
  The Washington Post. Accessed 12 June 2020. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "How to Protect Yourself & Others."
 Accessed 12 June 2020. Sprunt, Barbara.  "Upcoming Trump Rally In Tulsa Faces Backlash Over Race, Coronavirus."
  National Public Radio.  11 June 2020. Bierman, Noah. "Trump Says He Will Resume Campaign Rallies June 19 in Tulsa."
  Los Angeles Times.  10 June 2020. White House.  Remarks by President Trump in Roundtable Discussion.
  10 June 2020. Oklahoma State Department of Health.  "Current Situation."
  Accessed 12 June 2020. Chiacu, Doina.  "Trump Economic Adviser Urges Wearing of Masks at Tulsa Rally."
  Reuters.  14 June 2020. U.S. Sen. Mark Warner joined the ranks of Wall Street critics during a recent radio interview, by complaining that investors increasingly are focused on reaping quick profits from companies at the expense of long-term value. The average time someone used to hold a share of stock back in the 60s was eight years. Now, the average time is four months, he said during aninterviewon Cats Roundtable, a New York City radio talk show hosted by John Catsimatidis, a billionaire businessman. We wondered whether Warner, D-Va., is right about the plunge in share-holding time. Warners office sent us a variety of articles by academics, investment strategists, newspapers and magazines that contained similar statistics to the ones cited by the senator. The source of thehistoric datais the New York Stock Exchange which, for most of the 20th century, was the dominant U.S. stock-trading venue. Heres the NYSEs average holding period for stocks at the start of each new decade, beginning at Warners mark in 1960: 1960, eight years, four months; 1970, five years, three months; 1980, two years, nine months; 1990, two years, two months; and 2000, one year, two months. But many new trading venues have opened and expanded in recent decades - E*Trade and NASDAQ, for example - and the New York Stock Exchanges dominance has diminished. About 25 percent of all U.S. trading now occurs on the NYSE, which has high financial requirements for the companies it lists and generally deals with large, stable stocks. In 2004, the NYSE changed its formula for calculating average share-holding periods to focus on its own listings. Credit Suisse that year began computing share-holding data that reflect the broader U.S. stock market. Credit Suisse figures show that in 2008 and 2009, when the nation was mired in the Great Recession, shares turned over an average almost five times a year. Thats slowed to about three times a year since 2013 or, as Warner put it, once every four months. The World Bank offers more conservative figures, saying U.S. shares, on average, turned over four times a year during the Great Recession and that slowed to 1.65 times a year in 2015 - or about once every eight months. Stock market analysts and academics note a variety of reasons for the quickening turnover of shares. Many say the days of small ma-and-pa investors have given way to an era of mutual funds and hedge funds that exert strong pressure of companies to produce short-term profits. The growth of e-trading also is cited; so are federal laws passed in 1993 that tied the bonuses of executives to their achievement of measurable performance goals in order for the bonuses to be tax-deductible for their companies. Warner said the consequence of activist investors is that corporations pay less attention to training workers and to research and development. He said Congress should explore offering tax incentives to companies that embrace those long-range goals. Many activist investors, to the contrary, say their actions have been beneficial and note that the stock market has continued to rise over the decades. Our ruling Warner said, The average time someone used to hold a share of stock back in the 60s was eight years. Now, the average time is four months. The gist of Warners statement is undeniable: The average holding period for stocks has eroded greatly during the past 56 years. The specifics of Warners statement, however, need a little elaboration. Estimates by Credit Suisse jibe with Warners claim that shares, on average, now are held for four months. The World Bank estimates the holding period now is about eight months. So we rate Warners statement Mostly True. In August 2016, at the height of the presidential campaign, a Reddit user programmed a robot to respond to any mention of the words "tax return" with a comment insinuating that Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump refuses to release his tax returns because he has donated millions of dollars to an organization that promotes pederasty. The bot called AutoModerator responds to every comment in the sub-reddit EnoughTrumpSpam with the phrase: EnoughTrumpSpam Speaking of tax returns, did you hear Donald Trump is refusing to release them because Donald Trump has donated to NAMBLA? That's what all the best sources, the most tremendous sources are saying, and if they're all saying that Donald Trump donated to NAMBLA, well, I can see why Donald Trump would want to cover up his donations to NAMBLA. I'm not claiming that Donald Trump donates to NAMBLA, but that's what these excellent sources are alleging, that Donald Trump does indeed donate to NAMBLA. The phrase is accompanied by a disclaimer that it was generated by a bot. But that hasn't stopped the oblique accusation that Trump may be a member of the North American Man/Boy Love Association from making its way around the Internet: Also, @seanhannity? Look into this disgusting Trump/NAMBLA nonsense. So gross how the left lies.Trump.NAMBLA.Say that every night. @seanhannity  Patton Oswalt (@pattonoswalt) August 9, 2016 August 9, 2016  A Reddit user who calls himself J. Peterman  possibly a reference to a character on the television sitcom Seinfeld  said he created the bot to mock Trump for his habit of making claims that he attributes to nameless "people:" character claims I created it by taking advantage of an existing bot, /u/automoderator, made available for all moderators to use to automate certain tasks, and you can make custom code for the subreddit's configuration of auto moderator. I did that and I made it reply to the trigger word "tax returns" with the copy/paste you see. /u/automoderator For example, in June 2016, Trump hinted that President Barack Obama may have had a connection to the shooting at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida, saying: saying People cannot, they cannot believe that President Obama is acting the way he acts and can't even mention the words 'radical Islamic terrorism.' There's something going on. It's inconceivable. There's something going on... He doesn't get it or he gets it better than anybody understands  it's one or the other, and either one is unacceptable. A Reddit moderator who goes by "Faiz" and claims to have helped launch the bot told us that he believes it turns Trump's own manner of generating suspicions against his opponents against him: We didn't expect it to take off like this, but the community effort on EnoughTrumpSpam really helped it go viral. The joke spread off Reddit and began confusing people so much so that some news outlets even began picking the story up. I think it's success is, in a way, emblematic of the way Trump spreads lies and gets people to believe them by constantly repeating them. A random user originally posted the block of text and it became instantly popular on Reddit. We all loved it because of how much it imitated Trump's style of making unsubstantiated accusations. You really can't tell the difference between some of the text in the meme and some things Trump wrote during Obama's birther conspiracy. As for why Trump, we picked it up mostly because, as suggested by the name (EnoughTrumpSpam), we are an anti-Trump community and we found this to be a perfect foil to highlight the way Trump spreads conspiracy theories. J. Peterman said he was taken aback by how much attention the bot generated. The prank seems to have caught fire, with someone jumping in to create a fake Fox News page with the title: "NAMBLA neither confirms nor denies Trump's donation allegations."  page Now that it's taken off, I'm quite surprised. I'm surprised by how much press attention the bot's coding has garnered as well as the meme in general. I cannot take credit for creating the meme, that was around for a week or so before I did the bot, and it was everyone else who kept the meme going. Faiz, the moderator, said he hopes that the prank goes far enough that Trump's campaign is forced to respond to it. The ultimate coup de grce, he told the Daily Beast, would be if it forces Trump to do something he has adamantly refused to do: release his tax returns. Daily Beast The only logical conclusion would really be Trump releasing his tax returns but he would never do that because hes hiding donations to NAMBLA, Faiz told the Daily Beast. Thats what Ive heard from some very smart people anyway. You can see the bot in action in the screenshot taken from Reddit here: Reddit    It's worth noting that even if the story were true, NAMBLA is not a nonprofit organization, and so donations to the group would not show up on Trump's tax returns. NAMBLA returns 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 In mid-March 2020, social media users posted a message cautioning that scammers were victimizing elderly people amid the COVID-19 pandemic by impersonating Red Cross volunteers:  A variation of this meme contained a similar warning, along with an image of people clad in white biohazard suits. (We cropped the image out for the sake of privacy.)   This is indeed a scam. Red Cross chapters have warned of criminals exploiting the coronavirus disease in various ways, which has sickened and killed thousands globally and isolated people in their homes worldwide. In a statement emailed to Snopes, a Red Cross spokesperson said: The American Red Cross has seen widespread reports of this scam across the United States, along with other countries, on social media platforms. We would like to emphasize that this rumor is not true. The Red Cross is not going to people's homes to offer coronavirus tests. If someone comes to your house claiming that they work for the Red Cross and that they're authorized to do coronavirus testing, do not allow them in your home. Our most important guidance is for people to please be safe. Should such an incident occur, we ask that you call the police as soon as possible. The Oklahoma chapter, for example, advised the public to be wary of scammers impersonating Red Cross volunteers offering coronavirus testing door-to-door: advised A similar warning was issued by the British Red Cross Northwest Branch. "We would like to make it clear that the Red Cross is not conducting coronavirus tests in Northern Ireland or anywhere else in the UK," the statement said.  warning Likewise, the Canadian Red Cross issued an alert that scammers impersonating the organization were exploiting the pandemic by sending out text messages offering to sell or give away protective masks.Unfortunately, scams like these are not new. In a rather cruel variation of this scam during the coronavirus pandemic, a message posted to social media falsely claimed that if you lacked health insurance to pay for a coronavirus diagnostic test, you could donate blood as an alternative because donors must have a blood test. alert  like these variation The U.S. government has since taken steps to roll out widespread testing for the coronavirus disease at no cost to patients. steps Updated with statement from Red Cross and variation of the meme. On June 11, 2022, former Starbucks employee and self-described union organizer Laila Dalton (@lailaddaltonn) tweeted a picture of a blue garbage dumpster with the caption, "Food-share bags that Starbucks supposedly donates found in a dumpster in Grand Prairie, Texas." Starbucks employee union organizer tweeted Starbucks Texas In order to learn the facts behind the picture, we reached out with several questions for Dalton, Starbucks, and the Feeding America charity. Feeding America partners with Starbucks on what's known as FoodShare, a program that provides food for those in need. We received information from Dalton and Starbucks but are still awaiting a response from Feeding America. Starbucks Feeding America Starbucks Starbucks We have so far found no information that could conclusively identify the items seen in the dumpster in the photograph, nor did we locate details that would explain why the bags were thrown away. During our investigation, we learned that the picture was not recent. We were told that it was not captured behind a Starbucks store, something some users may have believed to be the case after glancing at the photograph. In fact, we received information from a Starbucks company spokesperson who said that local officials who represent Feeding America in Grand Prairie told them that they knew of no issues with recent daily deliveries. They also reiterated the positive impact of its FoodShare program on a national scale. Here's what we know. Starbucks Starbucks Grand Prairie According to the tweet's caption, the picture of the garbage dumpster that supposedly contained Starbucks FoodShare food donations was taken in Grand Prairie, Texas. However, little else could be gathered from just the text and photograph. Starbucks  By email, Dalton told us that she did not take the picture, but said it was captured by an "anonymous past partner" around 7 p.m. on Aug. 3, 2021. That made the photograph somewhat close to a year old by the time it was tweeted on June 11, 2022. According to Dalton, the location of the dumpster in the photograph that purportedly contained Starbucks FoodShare program donation bags was said to be at a building occupied by Penske Logistics. We reached out to Penske Logistics to see if the company handles any distribution for Starbucks in the area, or if that role belonged to a different organization located at the same address. We will update this story if we receive a response. Starbucks Starbucks The tweet received well over 200,000 total retweets and likes in just 48 hours. For those unfamiliar with Twitter, this was an extremely massive amount of people engaging with the tweet. The tweet was also shared as a screenshot on Reddit, where it received more than 18,000 points. This was likely enough positive interaction (upvotes) to land the post on the website's front page.  Twitter shared as a screenshot Reddit In 2016, Starbucks partnered with the Feeding America charity on a program called FoodShare. According to a Starbucks company spokesperson with whom we spoke over the phone, the FoodShare program's process begins when refrigerated trucks pick up the unsold food from stores. That food is then delivered so that it can be distributed by Feeding America to people in need. Starbucks FoodShare Starbucks The spokesperson added that the FoodShare program has helped to deliver more than 36.8 million meals nationally to those in need since it started six years earlier. Perhaps more important was that Starbucks said that, regarding the picture of the dumpster, people who represent Feeding America in the Grand Prairie area said that daily deliveries were being received and there were no known issues, as of early June 2022. Starbucks According to a 2021 presentation that's hosted on the Starbucks website, the company donates unsold food from "100% of its U.S. company-owned Starbucks stores." presentation Starbucks  The document also broke down the donation process into three main steps: Donate Food Instead of being thrown away, unsold food is rescued and donated to the Feeding America network of food banks and agencies to get into the hands of those who need it most. Tax Benefit Per the U.S. Enhanced Tax Deduction, companies receive a financial benefit for pounds of food donated, which can be used to fund backhaul logistics for food rescue. Backhaul Logistics Utilizing existing delivery trucks and routes to pickup food donations and return to a central site for consolidation unlocks consistent and efficient food rescue. According to the presentation, the tax benefit received by Starbucks from its FoodShare program is used to self-fund the initiative. Starbucks This story will be updated if we receive any further information about the picture of the dumpster. @lailaddaltonn. Twitter, 11 June 2022, https://twitter.com/lailaddaltonn/status/1535730614082469888. Scheiber, Noam. U.S. Labor Board Issues a Complaint against Starbucks. The New York Times, 15 Mar. 2022, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/15/business/economy/starbucks-union-nlrb-arizona.html. spiegel_im_spiegel. Food-Share Bags That Starbucks Supposedly Donates Found in a Dumpster in Grand Prairie, Texas. r/LateStageCapitalism via Reddit, 12 June 2022, https://www.reddit.com/r/LateStageCapitalism/comments/vamg8s/foodshare_bags_that_starbucks_supposedly_donates/. Starbucks Coffee Company. Starbucks Food Donation Guide. Apr. 2021, https://stories.starbucks.com/uploads/2021/09/Starbucks-US-Food-Donation-Guide.pdf. As the 2012 elections loom and President Barack Obama pushes for his jobs plan, a key issue is how middle-class families have fared over the past generation.Obama and other Democrats would like to see the Bush-era tax cuts expire for couples making more than $250,000 and also raise taxes on hedge-fund millionaires paying relatively low capital gains tax rates. For their part, Republicans claim Obama is engaging in class warfare against job creators.In a Sept. 27, 2011 speech at St. Anselm Colleges New Hampshire Institute of Politics in Manchester, David Axelrod, one of Obamas top strategists, said there has been a hollowing out of the middle class in this country in recent decades as wages have essentially flat-lined for many workers.There was a census report just a couple of weeks ago, and what it said was that the average white male worker, the typical white male worker in this country, is making in real terms what he was making in 1973, said Axelrod, a former White House aide and now a senior adviser to Obamas political campaign. In total, the average worker is making what they were making in 1996, but we know prices havent gone along accordingly.If true, thats quite a ride back in time. Asked for substantiation, Katie Hogan of the Obama campaign referred us to a U.S. Censusreportreleased last month, and articles in theNew York Timesand theNew Yorkerwebsite crunching some of the numbers.The report itself didnt have the precise numbers to back up Axelrods first claim -- that the typical white male worker made the same amount -- adjusted for inflation -- in 1973, when Richard Nixon occupied the White House.But a related censusspreadsheetshows that real wages have not only failed to grow but have actually declined slightly for white males working year-round and full time. But first, a semantic point near and dear to the heart of economists. Even though Axelrod said average in his statement, its clear by his subsequent use of the word typical and the reports to which we were referred that median income, not the mean, is what applies here.In 2010, according to census data, the median earnings for a full-time white male worker were $50,074. By comparison, in 1973, the median for that category, in 2010 dollars, was $50,513. So Axelrod not only was correct that white men were no better off, adjusted for inflation, in 2010 than they were 37 years ago, they were taking home about $8.44 less per week.And when measured by the purchasing power of those dollars, the gap is even bigger. Because wages havent kept up with prices, as Axelrod asserted, the typical white male worker's purchasing power has eroded by almost 11.5 percent in 37 years.Heidi Shierholz, a labor market economist for the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal think tank in Washington, said Axelrods statement about white male workers is unambiguously true, and that wages havent kept up with major gains in productivity.The growing wealth of the country actually didnt translate into higher standards of living or wages for typical workers, she said. Where it [the wealth] went was to the top.In the second part of Axelrods statement -- that the average worker is making what they were making in 1996 -- it appears that the Obama strategist got some numbers mixed up.A censustableshows that median earnings for all full-time workers who clocked at least 50 weeks of labor increased by about 7 percent in real terms between 1996 and 2010, to $41,919. This came as earnings by women, and their participation in the labor force, grew at a faster rate than that of men, though the female-to-male earnings ratio was still 77.4 cents to the dollar in 2010.Given the report Hogan, the Obama campaign press aide, cited, however, along with a number widely reported in the press last month, what Axelrod apparently was referring to when he spoke of average workers making what they did in 1996 were census numbers that showed total household income, adjusted for inflation, has barely increased. Median household income in 2010 was $49,445, only a $333 increase, or 0.7 percent, in inflation-adjusted dollars from 1996.Some important factors are at play in household income numbers. For starters, households are smaller now, meaning there are fewer wage-earners to be counted. But womens participation in the labor market has also increased. What that means, essentially, is that wage-earners in middle-class American households are working more  to maintain the same level of income.One of the ways families made up the difference was more work, Shierholz said of the stagnant wage issue. Its largely an hours story.A paper Shierholz co-authored after the new census numbers were released also showed that median income for working-age households fell by more than 10 percent in the past decade, to $55,276.Given such factors, she said the second half of Axelrods statement captures the flavor of what the EPI and others have labeled a lost decade in terms of income.Our ruling Axelrod was on the money in talking about the erosion of earnings for white male workers since the early 1970s, and basically on track in comparing how things stand today for the typical American family compared to 1996. We rate his statement Mostly True. In January 2017, an image macro circulated via Facebook taking aim at Muslim refugees in Canada by misstating the nature of several benefits available to them. The misleading nature of the macro begins with suggestion that a smiling gentleman depicted in the image actually entered Canada with "two wives and six children," even though this photograph has actually been used by various "funny pictures" web sites for several years. funny pictures The "two wives" claim appears to play off of reports of Muslim male immigrants secretly practicing polygamy, even though the practice of having more than one spouse at a time is illegal in Canada. The Supreme Court of British Columbia upheld that law in a November 2011 ruling involving a non-Muslim polygamous sect. reports ruling According to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, a federal agency that helps both immigrants and refugees, that law is taken into account during the immigration process. helps The agency told us: Polygamy is illegal in Canada, and therefore multiple marriages are not recognized under Canadas immigration laws. This means that a permanent resident or Canadian citizen can only immigrate with one spouse after having dissolved other marriages to convert their polygamous marriage to a monogamous one. Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) has advised the [United Nations Refugee Agency] that individuals in a polygamous marriage should not be referred for resettlement to Canada. As well, IRCC officers assess privately sponsored refugee cases against Canadas immigration laws, including monogamous marriage requirements. Therefore, individuals practising polygamy would be inadmissible to Canada. United Nations Refugee Agency The reference to "privately sponsored refugees" concerns a separate program, though Syrian and Iraqi refugees are currently exempt from having to show documentation recognizing them as such. Regarding the claim of a "government-owned townhouse" and "a three bedroom government-owned apartment," the agency said: program, The government does not own apartments or townhouses which are then given to resettled refugees. Immigration officials also provided examples of regional average payments for refugees and their families distributed through the Resettlement Assistance Program (RAP), which can be seen below:   The agency said: Resettlement support normally includes a one-time start-up payment to assist the refugees in establishing a household in Canada, as well as monthly income support to help them get through their first year in Canada. Monthly support is provided to cover the costs of food and incidentals, shelter and transportation. This amount varies depending on the family size and is guided by the prevailing provincial social assistance rates in the province where the refugee(s) reside. Income support for most resettled refugees is provided for their first year in Canada by the federal government, private sponsors or a mix of both. When income support ends, it is normal for some refugees in need to transition to provincial or territorial social assistance support. The program also provides referrals to agencies in the country's various provinces who can help them acclimate themselves after emigrating. According to the agency: provides Among other things, these service provider organizations help newcomers to find and retain employment, including referrals to assess foreign credentials. They also offer free language assessment and training to help newcomers contribute to the economy. Support Services, including child care, transportation assistance, translation, interpretation, crisis counselling and provisions for disabilities, are offered across the Settlement program to enable access to direct settlement services. The reference to immigrants' being given "health cards" is a possible allusion to the Interim Federal Health Program (IFHP) which provides "limited, temporary coverage of health-care benefits" to refugees until they qualify for the country's public healthcare system, which is administered through provincial and territorial governments and not funded by the federal government. IFHP public Immigration officials noted that as of 1 April 2016, IFHP beneficiaries are also eligible for urgent dental care (meaning "conditions involving pain, infection or trauma"), and limited vision care. As noted above, the benefits payments distributed to refugees do cover the cost of buying foods, but the macro's statement regarding "access to a halal-only food bank" misleadingly presents that as another government service. In reality, those services are often operated by private organizations such as the Canadian Muslim Women's Institute, or CMWI. We were unable to get in touch with CMWI for more information prior to publication, but the group's president, Yasmin Ali, explained the circumstances facing many of the people they help in a September 2016 interview: CMWI interview When [refugees] come here, yes, they are given help by the government, but they have to start afresh. They are given some basic furniture, but they have to buy every single thing to equip themselves in a home, from a broom to pots and pans to sheets to every single thing, so the money doesn't stretch very far. With the kids going to school and needing clothing and ... school supplies, the extra food that they can get through Winnipeg Harvest is a good help to free up some money so they can actually access other necessities, pay other bills and get other things that they need. The macro closes by stating that "voicing your opinion" could open people up to hate speech charges. In reality, the country's anti-hate laws do not address just general "opinions," but hate speech: laws Under section 318, everyone who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an offence punishable by up to five years imprisonment. The term genocide is defined to mean killing members of an identifiable group or deliberately inflicting on an identifiable group conditions of life calculated to bring about the groups physical destruction. Section 318(4) of the Criminal Code defines an identifiable group as any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation. No prosecution under this provision can be undertaken without the consent of the provincial Attorney General. Under section 319(1) of the Criminal Code, everyone who, by communicating statements in a public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of an indictable offence punishable by up to two years imprisonment, or of a summary conviction offence. Section 319(2) makes it an offence to communicate, except in private conversation, statements that wilfully promote hatred against an identifiable group. Section 319(7) defines communicating to include communicating by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means. Public place is defined to include any place to which the public has access as of right or by invitation, express or implied. Statements include words spoken or written or recorded electronically, electromagnetically or otherwise, and also include gestures, signs or other visible representations. IRCC also provided the following statement: The ongoing conflict in Syria has triggered the worst humanitarian crisis in the world today. The Government of Canada remains committed to upholding its humanitarian tradition to resettle refugees and offer protection to those in need. Canada has a long and proud tradition of providing protection to those who need it the most by providing refuge to the worlds most vulnerable people and has welcomed generations of newcomers who have helped us build our society, culture and economy in long lasting and enduring ways. Immigration from all streams provides significant benefits to Canada and to the immigrants who have come here to build their new lives. When we come together to welcome and integrate newcomers, it strengthens our communities and contributes to our countrys successit helps build our society, culture and economy in long lasting and enduring ways. The agency also noted that  according to preliminary findings  53 percent of privately-sponsored adult refugees living outside of Quebec by 1 March 2016 had already found employment. IRCC said the employment rate for adult refugees taking part in government assistance programs outside of the same province was around 10 percent, which it attributed to "substantially lower language skills." Javed, Noor. "GTA's secret world of polygamy." The Toronto Star. 24 May 2008. CBC News. "Canada's polygamy laws upheld by B.C. Supreme Court." cbc.ca. 23 November 2011. Lee, Donna. "New food bank helps Syrian refugees as they settle in Winnipeg." CBC News. 19 September 2016. As is the case for many Western democracies, the Canadian government's formal efforts to help refugees settle in the country have been the subject of much speculation, criticism and misinformation in recent years. In the fall of 2017, a viral Facebook post spread yet more misinformation about the benefits received by refugees in Canada.  On 1 September 2017, Facebook user Mike Marcoux posted what appears to be a photograph of an itemized breakdown of benefits associated with the Resettlement Assistance Program, along with the message: "This is what 1 illegal refugee gets with the federal assistance program $3874 per month." posted We have modified the image to obscure the name of the recipient, which was included in the original photograph:   Although this document appears to be authentic, according to the Canadian Council for Refugees, a national nonprofit organization dedicated to supporting and advocating for refugees, its representation on Facebook was highly misleading: The document details payments to a family of five (not a single person) who were refugees accepted by Canada (and therefore are not in the country "illegally"), and most of the listed payments are one-time only resettlement assistance payments and not monthly benefits. A spokesperson for the Council told us the document showed "a start up breakdown of costs for a newly arrived Government-Assisted Refugee (GAR) family" and that the amounts shown were consistent with benefit rates in the province of British Columbia. Despite the apparent authenticity of the document, Marcoux's post grossly misrepresents the contents. Firstly, contrary to Mike Marcoux's post, there is no such thing as an "illegal" refugee in this context. By definition, beneficiaries of the Canadian government's Resettlement Assistance Program are individuals and families formally recognized by the Canadian government as refugees before they travel to Canada. According to the Canadian Council for Refugees, Government-Assisted Refugees such as those to whom this document appears to relate are "referred by the [U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees] to Canada because they have been identified as being in need of resettlement." recognized refugees Secondly, the document does not relate to one refugee, as the Facebook post falsely claims. The document clearly shows that these benefits are for a family of five people:   Third, the grand total value of the benefits ($3,874 CAD or $2,748 USD as of 28 January 2016) is not a recurring monthly payment, as the Facebook post falsely claims. The document clearly shows that the majority of benefits listed are one-off "start-up" benefits. The only regular monthly benefits are conveniently labelled "Regular Monthly Benefits," and consist of payments for food, rent and transportation, which, because of the size of the family, total $1,399 CAD per month ($1,094 USD as of 15 November 2017). These monthly benefits work out to $16,788 CAD ($13,132 USD) a year for a family of five (in addition to "start-up" benefits). Unless there are exceptional circumstances, these Resettlement Assistance Program benefits are only payable to refugees for one year. The amounts of benefits depend on the size of the family that receives them. If this document did relate to a single individual (as the Facebook post claims), the overall monthly payments could be expected to be significantly lower. The one-off start-up benefits which bring the total in this particular document to $3,874 also include a $375 loan for a security deposit for housing. Being a loan, that amount will have to be repaid to the federal government. Furthermore, depending on when this particular family arrived in Canada, they may be required to pay the Canadian government for the cost of their transportation into the country, which takes the form of loan debt. According to the Canadian Council for Refugees, the average loan debt between 2008 and 2012 was $3,090 CAD. transportation loan debt So while the document in the photograph does appear to be authentic, Mike Marcoux's Facebook post constitutes a gross misrepresentation of what's actually in it. The same document formed the basis of a similarly-outraged post on the right-wing blog "90 Miles from Tyranny" in December 2016. That blog post cited an earlier article by the now-defunct Magafeed web site, which is listed in the Fake News Codex as a "clickbait site with misleading, poorly [sourced], and outright false stories." post Codex It's hardly the first time that Canada's refugee policy has been the subject of false claims. For example, a factual error in a 2004 letter to the editor of the Toronto Star spawned a chain email and online memes falsely claiming that refugees in Canada receive more benefits each month than do Canadian pensioners. The rumor persisted for years. Toronto Star falsely Similar false rumors have been spread in the country's southern neighbor, the United States, often with the headline "INSANITY IS WHEN ILLEGAL REFUGEES GET $3,874 A MONTH IN FEDERAL ASSISTANCE WHILE SOCIAL SECURITY CHECKS AVERAGE $1,200 A MONTH." false rumors English, Kathy.  "A Mistake That Travelled Around the World and Back Again: Public Editor."
  Toronto Star.  11 December 2015. Canadian Council for Refugees.  "Refugees and Income Assistance - Rebutting the Chain Email ("Pensioners' Myth.")
   Canadian Council for Refugees.  July 2013.  Citizenship and Immigration Canada.  "IP 3: In Canada Processing of Convention Refugees Abroad and Members of the Humanitarian Protected Persons Abroad Classes - Part 2 [Resettlement Assistance Program (RAP.)]
  Government of Canada.  13 January 2015. Americas economy cant get a proper foothold to start growing quickly again, in part because the country is losing businesses faster than it creates them, Republican presidential contender Carly Fiorina said. Talking to George Stephanopoulos onABCsThis Weekon July 12, 2015, the former Hewlett-Packard CEO said her GOP rival Jeb Bushs talk of 4 percent economic growth is a good goal. But Fiorina said a dearth of new small businesses is preventing more than anemic growth at the moment. In fact, we're destroying more businesses in the United States now than are being created for the first time in our history, she said. PolitiFacthas looked atthis claim before, and when we asked Fiorinas campaign where they found their statistic, they pointed to the same source -- the U.S. Census BureausBusiness Dynamics Statistics data. Fiorina is accurate to say that more business firms are closing than are opening, but the data cant say for sure whether this is the first time thats happened in the 239-year history of the United States. A Fiorina spokeswoman sent us aSeptember 2014 articlefrom Gallup that examined the data, which showed that the startup rate for new businesses first dipped below the closure rate in 2008. The trend has remained through 2011, the latest year of available data. Heres a chart illustrating Fiorinas point, from aMay 2014 Brookings Institution studyof the same data:  As you might notice, the chart only goes back to 1978. Why? Because the Business Dynamics Statistics database only goes back to the 1970s. Before then, there was no official metric recorded -- by the federal government or anyone else -- for business startups and deaths. Economists say that really limits the ability to judge claims like Fiorina's, who talked about the entire history of the country. Business failures may have exceeded startups at other points, such as during the Great Depression, but its impossible to say without reliable data. Claims like Fiorinas are somewhere between plausible and impossible to prove, Robert Litman, a Brookings economics fellowwho has studiedthe number of business openings and closings, told PolitiFact. He suggested it would be more accurate to say that for the first time since the government began tracking these things, fails have exceeded starts. The reasons for this trend are harder to determine. Despite all this research, there has been no definitive answer as to why the rate of U.S. startups has declined so precipitously, the Gallup story concedes. Fiorina told Stephanopoulos the problem was crony capitalism and a very large, powerful, complicated government that made it difficult for smaller businesses to survive while bigger, established business have thrived. Litman, in his research, noted that it is clear that these trends fit into a larger narrative of business consolidation occurring in the U.S. economy -- whatever the reason, older and larger businesses are doing better relative to younger and smaller ones. As HPs CEO, Fiorina oversaw a controversial$25 billion acquisitionof Compaq in 2001. The move resulted in30,000 layoffsas the two companies merged operations. HPs board of directors fired Fiorina in 2005 for poor stock performance and missed earnings targets. Our ruling Fiorina said, In fact, we're destroying more businesses in the United States now than are being created for the first time in our history. The data shes relying on, however, only looks back to 1978, and economists say its going a bit too far to say this is the first time such a trend has occurred in all of U.S. history. The fact is we simply dont have definitive data to prove it either way. Fiorinas statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context. We rate it Half True.