Latest news with #Politifact
Yahoo
19-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Democratic rep claims Mamdani isn't a socialist but an 'advocate' for capitalism
Rep. Mark Takano, D-Calif., insisted on Wednesday that self-proclaimed democratic socialist New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani was not a socialist but an advocate for small "c" capitalism. Takano spoke to reporters on Mamdani shortly after attending a breakfast meeting with him and other Democrats in Washington D.C. where he expressed enthusiasm for the candidate's ideas. "You know, the overall impression on me was this guy is not a communist," Takano said. "He's not a socialist. He's an advocate for small 'c' capitalism. And that you know, he really is fighting for the little business guy that's trying to eke out a living in New York. Half of all New Yorkers, you know, get their jobs from small business. And I thought that was a tremendous message." Politifact Declares Zohran Mamdani Is Not A Communist In Fact-check Of Trump Though Takano said Mamdani was not a socialist, he later defended the term, arguing that the word has a "different charge" for people under 40. "He's a democratic socialist that he's fighting for small business people, trying to bring down stupid regulations, criticizing Eric Adams for not moving permits faster," Takano said. "It's corruption we're fighting here, corruption that prevents the dynamism of small 'c' entrepreneurs, small 'c' capitalist entrepreneurs. No contradiction there, trying to get buses to run more efficiently and faster. These are all things that are improving people's lives." Read On The Fox News App He hesitated to answer whether he supported Mamdani's idea for city-run supermarkets but remarked that "there's not a lot of difference between the idea of some sort of public-run grocery and a co-op." Fox News Digital reached out to Mamdani's campaign for comment. Zohran Mamdani's 'Free' Promises Are Too Good To Be True, Young Conservatives Warn Mamdani has repeatedly referred to himself as a democratic socialist and remarked in June on CNN that he had "many critiques of capitalism." Though Mamdani has refuted the idea that he was a communist, several videos have resurfaced of him repeating and supporting communist revolutionary language. One recent clip that made the rounds on social media had Mamdani openly supporting the abolition of private property. "If there was any system that could guarantee each person housing, whether you call it the abolition of private property or you call it, you know, just a statewide housing guarantee, it is preferable to what is going on right now," Mamdani article source: Democratic rep claims Mamdani isn't a socialist but an 'advocate' for capitalism Solve the daily Crossword
DW
09-07-2025
- Politics
- DW
Trump's attack on citizenship by birth echoes Nazi Germany? – DW – 07/09/2025
Donald Trump wants to take citizenship away from the US-born children of temporary or undocumented immigrants. Did something similar happen to German Jews under the Nazis? When incoming US president Donald Trump moved to revoke birthright citizenship, stripping people born in the country of their US nationality if their parents are non-citizen immigrants, some saw echoes of Nazi Germany. However Germany, a nation formed in 1871 from diverse independent states, never gave automatic citizenship to those born in the country. Citizenship was ruled by the right of blood, based on the idea that German nationality was inherited, meaning one or two parents had to be German. Yet citizen rights did not depend on race and religion. Some 400,000 Jews in the country, or 80% of the population, held German citizenship when Hitler became Chancellor in 1933. And foreigners were able to become citizens after remaining for 15 years in Germany. But this changed soon after the Nazis came to power. The Nuremberg Race Laws of 1935 revoked the the citizenship and basic rights of German Jewish people. The statute was soon expanded to make Roma and Black people stateless. But is Trump's attempt to strip citizenship from US Americans whose parents were temporary or undocumented residents really comparable? Birthright citizenship was enshrined in the US constitution in 1868 by Republicans whom, after the civil war, wanted to give citizen rights to formerly enslaved African-Americans. The resulting 14th Amendment has become a defining symbol of a tolerant, multi-racial society — explaining why US states have successfully sued to block Trump's executive order that seeks to revoke the law. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video "We are the only country in the world that does this with the birthright, as you know, and it's just absolutely ridiculous," said Trump when signing the order. The fact-checking website Politifact said the president's claim was false. It noted that numerous countries in the Americas from Brazil to Argentina enshrined birthright citizenship; partly since they are former colonies that wanted to attract new citizens with lenient naturalization laws. According to World Population Review, 35 countries in the world automatically give citizenship to people born there, irrespective of their parents' residency status. Germany's birthright citizenship, for example, is restricted. Canada and the US are the two only countries with unrestricted birthright citizenship that are also in the top 20 economies. "Citizenship stripping is, of course, a hallmark of authoritarianism," said Jamie Raskin, a US congressman from the Democratic party, during a committee debate on 14th Amendment in February. He referred to the "Reich Citizenship Law," a subsection of the Nuremberg Laws that revoked both citizenship and civil rights for German Jews in 1935 — a move soon introduced in other fascist states like Italy under Mussolini's rule. "To this day, authoritarian countries deprive people of citizenship to punish them for political activism or dissent," the lawmaker added. Preserving the sanctity of citizenship by birth was something that made the US unique, he said. "Privileges of citizenship are shared by all people born in our country, not just people who fall within a certain hereditary classification by race or national origin." In recent years, Germany has updated its naturalization laws to make it easier for people born in the country to non-citizen parents to become German citizens. But now that Germany's new conservative government wants to tighten immigration rules — with the controversial support of the far-right AfD party — Chancellor Friedrich Merz also wants to reintroduce citizenship restrictions. Meanwhile, the US Supreme Court decided in June that the temporary injunction prohibiting the administration from scrapping birthright citizenship was unlawful. That said, the court is yet to rule on the merits of Trump's attempt to revoke a core tenant of the constitution. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video
Yahoo
23-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Expert turns tables on Dem critics after Musk accuses Social Security of being 'Ponzi scheme'
Democrats have pushed back after Elon Musk claimed that social security operates like a "Ponzi scheme" as he continues to argue for cuts to the federal bureaucracy, but one expert tells Fox News Digital that Musk is on track with his criticism of the agency. "Musk's statement about Social Security being the world's biggest Ponzi scheme does have validity," James Agresti, president of the nonprofit research institute Just Facts, told Fox News Digital in response to pushback from Elon Musk's claim, which included a "false" rating from Politifact. "A Ponzi scheme operates by taking money from new investors to pay current investors. That's the definition given by the SEC, and contrary to popular belief, that's exactly how Social Security operates." Agresti explained to Fox News Digital that Social Security, believed to be a target of Musk's efforts at DOGE, "doesn't take our money and save it for us, as many people believe, and then give it to us when we're older" like many Americans might believe. Expert Reveals Massive Levels Of Waste Doge Can Slash From Entitlements, Pet Projects: 'A Lot Of Fat' "What it does is, it transfers money when we are young and working and paying into Social Security taxes," Agresti said. "That money, the vast bulk of it, goes immediately out the door to people who are currently receiving benefits. Now there is a trust fund, but in 90 years of operation, that trust fund currently has enough money to fund two years of program operations." Read On The Fox News App The trust fund only being able to last for two years is not a result of the fund being "looted," Agresti explained, but rather it was put in place to "put surpluses in it" from money that Social Security collects in taxes that it doesn't pay out immediately and pays interest on. "The interest that's been paid on that has been higher than the rate of inflation," Agresti said. "So, the problem isn't that the trust fund has been looted. The problem is that Social Security operates like a Ponzi scheme." Doge's Plans To Offload Government Buildings Supported By Former Gsa Official One of the top Social Security criticisms from Republicans, including President Trump, has been a concern that individuals who are dead or listed with an age well over 100 years old are on the rolls and receiving benefits. Agresti told Fox News Digital that there are legitimate reasons to be concerned about that issue. "What's unclear to me at this moment is whether or not the people who are on the books are actually receiving checks," Agresti said. "Back during the Obama administration, there was a stimulus, and the Obama administration sent out stimulus checks via Social Security numbers to 80,000 people who were dead, and about 70,000 of them, the Social Security Administration knew they were dead. So I don't know if they've remedied that situation since then, but clearly the system is not keeping up with the pace of current data, and that provides an opportunity for fraud." Democrats have also made the case that Musk is attempting to strip away benefits that senior citizens have rightfully earned. Agresti told Fox News Digital that is not what is happening. "There's been a lot of misinformation about that as of late," Agresti said. "You know, when DOGE came in and suggested that the Social Security Administration cut, I think it was about 10,000 workers, Democrats erupted that this is going to weaken Social Security. But the fact of the matter is that Social Security pays those workers who are for administrative overhead from the Social Security trust fund. So, by cutting out the money that they're paying them, you actually strengthen the program financially." Agresti told Fox News Digital that the current administrative overhead for Social Security is $6.7 billion per year, which is enough to pay more than 300,000 retirees the average old age benefit. Questions have emerged from critics in recent years as to whether Social Security, in its current form, is even capable of remaining solvent to pay benefits to Americans who have paid in over the past few decades. Agresti told Fox News Digital that the program will "become insolvent" as soon as 2035 if changes are not made. "To give you a feel of how disconnected Social Security is from a fully funded pension plan, if to keep the program solvent and put it on the same firm financial footing as a real pension plan, it would require an extra $272,000 in additional payroll taxes from every person paying payroll taxes right now," Agresti told Fox News Digital. "I'll give you another way in which more numbers prove this point. If you retired in 1980, it took about three years of receiving Social Security benefits to get back the value of your payroll taxes plus interest. If you retired in 2000, it took 17 years. If you retired in 2020. it will take 22 years, assuming the program has enough money to pay those benefits, which it won't without another increase in taxes on another generation of Americans."Original article source: Expert turns tables on Dem critics after Musk accuses Social Security of being 'Ponzi scheme'
Fox News
23-03-2025
- Business
- Fox News
Expert turns tables on Dem critics after Musk accuses Social Security of being 'Ponzi scheme'
Democrats have pushed back after Elon Musk claimed that social security operates like a "Ponzi scheme" as he continues to argue for cuts to the federal bureaucracy, but one expert tells Fox News Digital that Musk is on track with his criticism of the agency. "Musk's statement about Social Security being the world's biggest Ponzi scheme does have validity," James Agresti, president of the nonprofit research institute Just Facts, told Fox News Digital in response to pushback from Elon Musk's claim, which included a "false" rating from Politifact. "A Ponzi scheme operates by taking money from new investors to pay current investors. That's the definition given by the SEC, and contrary to popular belief, that's exactly how Social Security operates." Agresti explained to Fox News Digital that Social Security, believed to be a target of Musk's efforts at DOGE, "doesn't take our money and save it for us, as many people believe, and then give it to us when we're older" like many Americans might believe. "What it does is, it transfers money when we are young and working and paying into Social Security taxes," Agresti said. "That money, the vast bulk of it, goes immediately out the door to people who are currently receiving benefits. Now there is a trust fund, but in 90 years of operation, that trust fund currently has enough money to fund two years of program operations." The trust fund only being able to last for two years is not a result of the fund being "looted," Agresti explained, but rather it was put in place to "put surpluses in it" from money that Social Security collects in taxes that it doesn't pay out immediately and pays interest on. "The interest that's been paid on that has been higher than the rate of inflation," Agresti said. "So, the problem isn't that the trust fund has been looted. The problem is that Social Security operates like a Ponzi scheme." One of the top Social Security criticisms from Republicans, including President Trump, has been a concern that individuals who are dead or listed with an age well over 100 years old are on the rolls and receiving benefits. Agresti told Fox News Digital that there are legitimate reasons to be concerned about that issue. "What's unclear to me at this moment is whether or not the people who are on the books are actually receiving checks," Agresti said. "Back during the Obama administration, there was a stimulus, and the Obama administration sent out stimulus checks via Social Security numbers to 80,000 people who were dead, and about 70,000 of them, the Social Security Administration knew they were dead. So I don't know if they've remedied that situation since then, but clearly the system is not keeping up with the pace of current data, and that provides an opportunity for fraud." Democrats have also made the case that Musk is attempting to strip away benefits that senior citizens have rightfully earned. Agresti told Fox News Digital that is not what is happening. "There's been a lot of misinformation about that as of late," Agresti said. "You know, when DOGE came in and suggested that the Social Security Administration cut, I think it was about 10,000 workers, Democrats erupted that this is going to weaken Social Security. But the fact of the matter is that Social Security pays those workers who are for administrative overhead from the Social Security trust fund. So, by cutting out the money that they're paying them, you actually strengthen the program financially." Agresti told Fox News Digital that the current administrative overhead for Social Security is $6.7 billion per year, which is enough to pay more than 300,000 retirees the average old age benefit. Questions have emerged from critics in recent years as to whether Social Security, in its current form, is even capable of remaining solvent to pay benefits to Americans who have paid in over the past few decades. Agresti told Fox News Digital that the program will "become insolvent" as soon as 2035 if changes are not made. "To give you a feel of how disconnected Social Security is from a fully funded pension plan, if to keep the program solvent and put it on the same firm financial footing as a real pension plan, it would require an extra $272,000 in additional payroll taxes from every person paying payroll taxes right now," Agresti told Fox News Digital. "I'll give you another way in which more numbers prove this point. If you retired in 1980, it took about three years of receiving Social Security benefits to get back the value of your payroll taxes plus interest. If you retired in 2000, it took 17 years. If you retired in 2020. it will take 22 years, assuming the program has enough money to pay those benefits, which it won't without another increase in taxes on another generation of Americans."
Yahoo
17-02-2025
- Automotive
- Yahoo
The truth about the Trump administration killing a $400 million Cybertruck deal
The Trump administration is spiking a plan to purchase $400 million in EVs in September, which many people assumed would be for armored Cybertrucks. This news comes after a document detailing federal contracts for fiscal year 2025 was made public. After this document was discovered, the State Department said it had no plans to fulfill any contract to purchase EVs from Tesla, even though the document listed Tesla by you believe government officials, the State Department was never pursuing Cybertrucks. The $400 million plan was made during the Biden administration in order to 'explore interest from private companies to produce armored electric vehicles,' a State Department official said late last week. In broad strokes, government contracts require a rigorous vetting process. First, companies express interest in being considered for the contract. Then, the government creates an 'official solicitation' for each company it would like to work with on the project. From there, companies present plans to the government, and the government selects a plan it feels fits the project's scope. According to the State Department, Tesla was the only company that expressed interest in this document publicly listed Tesla as the manufacturer selected, with one row noting 'Armored Tesla (Production Units)' and a valuation for the deal between $100 million and $500 million. On February 12, the document was quietly edited to remove all mention of Tesla. Elon Musk claimed on X that he was not aware of the deal, saying, 'I'm pretty sure Tesla isn't getting $400M. No one mentioned it to me, at least.' The State Department confirmed that specifying 'Tesla' on the spreadsheet was an error and suggested Tesla was listed because it was the only automaker to show interest in the armored vehicle contract. Speaking to Politifact, a State Department representative confirmed that Tesla was never selected for a government contract to deliver armored vehicles. The representative reminded everyone that former president Joe Biden signed an executive order in 2021 encouraging government agencies to purchase EVs whenever possible and that the former administration pursued an armored vehicle purchase plan. Tesla isn't the only automaker named on the sheet. BMW is (or was) also slated to deliver armored X5 and X7 SUVs to the government in a deal worth $20 million to $50 million. The government also planned or plans to purchase an 'Armored Sedan' and 'Armored EV (Not Sedan),' but no manufacturer is can only 'armchair quarterback' things at this point. Still, the point of contention here is that the spreadsheet only shows the government was planning to buy, or at least interested in, 'Armored Tesla' vehicles. We don't know if it specified truck-like vehicles, but given that there are more specific callouts for EVs elsewhere, it seems like a reasonable assumption. Furthermore, Tesla was the only company that showed any interest in this particular contract and, as such, was noted on the document as a placeholder of sorts. We suspect the same is true for BMW. We should also accept that many were outraged upon hearing about this deal because of Elon's current tampering with government affairs, particularly government spending. This struck us all as some handshake deal. The Cybertruck is also not as great a truck as it was supposed to be and has failed to live up to its hype. It doesn't make sense for it to be a State Department vehicle. Bad deals for bad vehicles will always cause outrage, and this one just surfaced at a particularly sensitive time in the United States. Luckily, the US government buying Cybertrucks doesn't seem to be a reality. We'll take an armored X7, though. That would be incredible. Love reading Autoblog? Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get exclusive articles, insider insights, and the latest updates delivered right to your inbox. Click here to sign up now!
