Well looky here, guess Bush was a "timber owner"

Originally posted by Crakeur
Actually, that timber income was not timber at all:
"A check of Bush's 2001 tax return shows that he claimed $84 in income from the Lone Star Trust, a blind trust.
Note to factcheck.org: The tax return says the income came from "oil and gas production," not timber. "

www.nydailynews.com...

Interesting...

I looked at his returns - they can be found here. You are right they show no income from a timber business.

They do show three distributions from his interests in an oil and gas producing trust - Lone Star.

Where did Kerry get this was "timber" income?

Originally posted by Crakeur
Actually, that timber income was not timber at all:

"A check of Bush's 2001 tax return shows that he claimed $84 in income from the Lone Star Trust, a blind trust.

Note to factcheck.org: The tax return says the income came from "oil and gas production," not timber. "



www.nydailynews.com...

Wow thanks for the link. VERY interesting. Maybe factcheck.org is not so great after all huh?

Bleys, the line for oil producing income is right above or below timber on the k-1 (the form that shows income from partnerships, s corps, trusts etc). Perhaps one of Kerry's researchers saw the word timber and read across the line incorrectly.

While I am neither a bush supporter or a kerry supporter, I do find his attempting to make bush look like a fool over $90 worth of income to be sad. Generally, partnership or trust income shows a total number on the first page of the K-1. The line showing the portion of said income coming from timber comes on either page two or three (can't recall). I receive a few of those forms from various investments and all I look at are the total income lines. I could care less if it says 80% is derived from prostitutions and drug trafficking somewhere in the back. I'm sure Bush was aware of the blind trust and I would venture to guess that he knew it had oil interests. His response "want some wood?" is why he's almost likeable.
Kerry is wooden as hell, not that Bush was trying to imply that but it hit me immediately that his little joke was a bit funnier for that.

Another local paper had an article about the debate and talked about how Bush managed to avoid the face making but Kerry "appeared to almost smirk, which is odd because his face shows almost no movement ever."

I found that one pretty funny too.

Two clowns arguing over a war. One is arguing that being there is the right thing and we must finish the job. The other is arguing that we shouldn't be there but we will see it through to the final goal. If we shouldn't be there, what's the goal?

The country is overheated over a war that, based on comments by both candidates, isn't going to end so quickly. Where's the big difference there? Vote for Bush, he likes to fight. Vote for Kerry, he'll unwillingly fight.

Screw em both. Vote for me. I'll handle it all.

Taken from factcheck.org:

Bush got a laugh when he scoffed at Kerry's contention that he had received $84 from "a timber company." Said Bush, "I own a timber company? That's news to me."

In fact, according to his 2003 financial disclosure form, Bush does own part interest in "LSTF, LLC", a limited-liability company organized "for the purpose of the production of trees for commercial sales." (See "supporting documents" at right.)

So Bush was wrong to suggest that he doesn't have ownership of a timber company. And Kerry was correct in saying that Bush's definition of "small business" is so broad that Bush himself would have qualified as a "small business" in 2001 by virtue of the $84 in business income.

Kerry got his information from an article we posted Sept. 23 stating that Bush on his 2001 federal income-tax returns "reported $84 of business income from his part ownership of a timber-growing enterprise." We should clarify: the $84 in Schedule C income was from Bush's Lone Star Trust, which is actually described on the 2001 income-tax returns as an "oil and gas production" business. The Lone Star Trust now owns 50% of the tree-growing company, but didn't get into that business until two years after the $84 in question. So we should have described the $84 as coming from an "oil and gas" business in 2001, and will amend that in our earlier article.

So for those with the mind-span of a carrot, in summary:

Bush does own part of a timber company.

Bush did receive $84 from what currently is an oil/gas/timber company, but when he received the $84 it was from the oil/gas ventures of said company.

Kerry was right when he said Bush would count as a small business owner, and anyone that thinks it is so stupid to argue over $84 is simply agreeing with Kerry's point, even if they don't realize it.

[edit on 9-10-2004 by W_HAMILTON]

Originally posted by W_HAMILTON
So for those with the mind-span of a carrot, in summary:

A little snotty there Hamilton...but whatever.

Bush does own part of a timber company.

As factcheck is now clarifying the "timber" venture was not organized until February 10, 2003 and not expected to generate sales until 2007. Jumped the gun a little soon did they?

Bush did receive $84 from what currently is an oil/gas/timber company, but when he received the $84 it was from the oil/gas ventures of said company.

He received almost $90,000 from the Oil and Gas venture not $84.00. Look at his entire return.

Kerry was right when he said Bush would count as a small business owner,...

It's just too bad Kerry forgot the rest of the income from the business. If Kerry is grasping at straws to make his point - maybe the point he was trying to make wasn't that good to begin with.

Wow, President Clinton is actually found guilty of obstruction of justice and the left goes nuts claiming how trivial it is that the lead law enforcement agent in the land obstructed justice�..now Kerry pulls a questionable gottcha on $84 and the left again claims that to have found an outlier in some statistical data somehow makes the data irrelevant. And that it is somehow soooooo important, hmmm. Actually to properly asses the statistical data you need to throw out the outliers and concentrate on the core data.

Point being that if the investment develops into something it will be a job creator. Are all small businesses started by an already successful in business president of the US, no. The vast majority will be started by a somewhat successful business individual who decides to start a business�..under Kerry�s plan they will face increased taxation. Were do people think small businesses get their start poor people who just decide one day to start a business then apply for and are granted large loans to cover capital expenses?

Originally posted by Bleys
As factcheck is now clarifying the "timber" venture was not organized until February 10, 2003 and not expected to generate sales until 2007. Jumped the gun a little soon did they?

Why Kerry and co. would have labeled it as a timber company instead of an oil/gas company means little to me, in fact it probably would have been more damning to say he got the money from an oil company rather than a timber company imo, but I see why factcheck.org made the mistake. They assumed the oil/gas/timber company that it is now was also what they were a couple years ago, that's understandable, they corrected their error so I don't fault them for it.

He received almost $90,000 from the Oil and Gas venture not $84.00. Look at his entire return.

Hun, you look at the rest of the tax form. It's not that difficult to understand. The $84 he received is counted as "business income." I'm not sure where you are getting the other figure, but it does not count toward his 2001 business income. And his measly $84 is what would qualify him as a small business owner.

It's like right over the head of some of you Bushies, ain't it?

Everything I said in the summary up above that you replied to is true, if you have any other questions concerning it let me know and I'll prove you wrong again.

Here is exactly what Kerry Said

You can't stop all outsourcing, Charlie. I've never promised that. I'm not going to, because that would be pandering. You can't.

But what you can do is create a fair playing field, and that's what I'm talking about.

But let me just address what the president just said.

Ladies and gentlemen, that's just not true what he said. The Wall

Street Journal said 96 percent of small businesses are not affected at all

by my plan.

And you know why he gets that count? The president got $84 from a timber company that owns, and he's counted as a small business. Dick Cheney's counted as a small business. That's how they do things. That's just not right.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

That's right Senator Kerry Bush was a small business owner but you and John Edwards still are.

Originally posted by W_HAMILTON
It's like right over the head of some of you Bushies, ain't it?

Is this really the best you can do :shk:. Granted, Kerry should have won this one and did not. You seem very focused with this $84. Are you doing this to ignore the debate? Really now, talk about being a carrot

Originally posted by BlackJackal
That's right Senator Kerry Bush was a small business owner but you and John Edwards still are.

haha

*whooooooooooosh*

That's the sound of Kerry's point going completely over another Republican's head, the sound of a Republican making Kerry's point for him and not even realizing it.

Hell, I'm gonna be happy even if Bush is re-elected, because you guys will be around to entertain me for another belly-busting four years!

*whooooooooooosh*

Originally posted by W_HAMILTON
haha

*whooooooooooosh*

That's the sound of Kerry's point going completely over another Republican's head, the sound of a Republican making Kerry's point for him and not even realizing it.

Hell, I'm gonna be happy even if Bush is re-elected, because you guys will be around to entertain me for another belly-busting four years!

*whooooooooooosh*

Over my head? or are you just out in Liberal left field with some almighty nonsense.

Kerry was attempting to make the point that Bush and Cheney took advantage of tax loopholes. Well he and John Edwards still do to this day while Bush does not. So what was his stinking point?

Originally posted by FredT
Is this really the best you can do :shk:. Granted, Kerry should have won this one and did not. You seem very focused with this $84. Are you doing this to ignore the debate? Really now, talk about being a carrot

You Repub's could just realize you can't spin this, Kerry was right. Then the issue would be dead. You all keep trying to drag it out and making me shoot you down anytime you try to get out of it.

The only thing Kerry was 'wrong' about was that it was an oil company that Bush got his income that qualifies him as a "small business owner." I'm sure he would have much preferred to say that Bush got the income from an oil company, so you can be sure the timber company thing wasn't intentional factcheck.org admitted their mistake.

Originally posted by BlackJackal
Kerry was attempting to make the point that Bush and Cheney took advantage of tax loopholes.

No he wasn't. Now you're proving both Kerry's point AND MINE.

*whoooooooooooosh*

EDIT: I would explain Kerry's point again, but apparently it doesn't help. I did it before in this thread, and I think the only one who is coming close to "getting it" is Bleys. Everyone else is all like, "he only made $84 from that company he ain't a real small business you lyin' poo poo head!!11!" -- which basically what Kerry was pointing out, lol.

[edit on 9-10-2004 by W_HAMILTON]

Well looky here, guess Bush was a "timber owner"

Brian Williams reports that Bush in fact did receive $84 back in 2001 from a timber company, and because of this, would qualify as a "small business owner." Exactly as Kerry claimed.

Another for Kerry, guess he wasn't lying after all eh?

If you watched the debate, you know the point that Kerry was making. Bush laughed it off and denied it. Some other Bushies tried to do the same. Well, Mr. Williams (verified thru factcheck.org) proved what Kerry said was RIGHT.

It's refreshing to have a candidate who, when they say something you're not sure about, you can go and check on it and lo and behold, he was telling the truth! It's a breath of fresh air after having this administration in office for the last 4 years

Bush: Now, he says he's only going to tax the rich. Do you realize, 900,000 small businesses will be taxed under his plan because most small businesses are Subchapter S corps or limited partnerships, and they pay tax at the individual income tax level.

Kerry: But let me just address what the president just said. Ladies and gentlemen, that's just not true what he said. The Wall Street Journal said 96 percent of small businesses are not affected at all by my plan. And you know why he gets that count? The president got $84 from a timber company that owns, and he's counted as a small business. Dick Cheney's counted as a small business.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aww, bet Bush didn't know that Kerry was gonna come back with that eh? Hard to throw out misleading stats out there when you are debating a man that can refute you with a comeback like that, ouch! Verdict: Kerry!

You just made Kerry's point for him, way to go!

Someone that gets $84 a year from a business they have a small stake in is NOT a small business. Using the misleading numbers Bush tried to give, that person would be counted as a small business, which in turn would make it seem like Kerry's tax cuts would negatively affect small businesses.

I'm glad we agree on this Valhall, $84 / year doesn't make a small business like Bush tried to fool everyone into believing!

That's becoming a trend, ain't it? First Edwards, now Kerry. Republicans need to realize they've got an umpteen number of people on the "internets" checking everything they say to make sure it's factually correct, so just stop lying -- you're not gonna get away with it.

Taken from factcheck.org:

Bush got a laugh when he scoffed at Kerry's contention that he had received $84 from "a timber company." Said Bush, "I own a timber company? That's news to me."

In fact, according to his 2003 financial disclosure form, Bush does own part interest in "LSTF, LLC", a limited-liability company organized "for the purpose of the production of trees for commercial sales." (See "supporting documents" at right.)

So Bush was wrong to suggest that he doesn't have ownership of a timber company. And Kerry was correct in saying that Bush's definition of "small business" is so broad that Bush himself would have qualified as a "small business" in 2001 by virtue of the $84 in business income.

Kerry got his information from an article we posted Sept. 23 stating that Bush on his 2001 federal income-tax returns "reported $84 of business income from his part ownership of a timber-growing enterprise." We should clarify: the $84 in Schedule C income was from Bush's Lone Star Trust, which is actually described on the 2001 income-tax returns as an "oil and gas production" business. The Lone Star Trust now owns 50% of the tree-growing company, but didn't get into that business until two years after the $84 in question. So we should have described the $84 as coming from an "oil and gas" business in 2001, and will amend that in our earlier article.

So for those with the mind-span of a carrot, in summary:

Bush does own part of a timber company.

Bush did receive $84 from what currently is an oil/gas/timber company, but when he received the $84 it was from the oil/gas ventures of said company.

Kerry was right when he said Bush would count as a small business owner, and anyone that thinks it is so stupid to argue over $84 is simply agreeing with Kerry's point, even if they don't realize it.

[edit on 9-10-2004 by W_HAMILTON]

Why Kerry and co. would have labeled it as a timber company instead of an oil/gas company means little to me, in fact it probably would have been more damning to say he got the money from an oil company rather than a timber company imo, but I see why factcheck.org made the mistake. They assumed the oil/gas/timber company that it is now was also what they were a couple years ago, that's understandable, they corrected their error so I don't fault them for it.
quote: He received almost $90,000 from the Oil and Gas venture not $84.00. Look at his entire return.


Hun, you look at the rest of the tax form. It's not that difficult to understand. The $84 he received is counted as "business income." I'm not sure where you are getting the other figure, but it does not count toward his 2001 business income. And his measly $84 is what would qualify him as a small business owner.

It's like right over the head of some of you Bushies, ain't it?

Everything I said in the summary up above that you replied to is true, if you have any other questions concerning it let me know and I'll prove you wrong again.

Alright W_Hamilton,

Here is every post you have made in this thread excluding the last couple of WHOOOOOOSH over your head posts. You have yet to outline what in the world yours or John Kerry�s point was.

So what in the heck is the point? What difference does it make?

FredT, you said Bush won? Hahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WTF Were you watching? Only a true Bushie could say something that funny. Wow, of the 200 million in the country, found the one person who thinks what Bush did is called winning! Hahhahahahaha!!!!

Originally posted by James the Lesser
FredT, you said Bush won? Hahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:

Yo James,

Did you mean to post it here?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Hmmm yes I did feel that Bush won. Kerry needed to put Bush away and he MISSED it. Period. Now he will HAVE to come out swinging on the third and when you do that you are more likely to make mistakes. Besides your creative use of smileys do you actually have something to contribute to this thread?

Originally posted by W_HAMILTON
Hun, you look at the rest of the tax form. It's not that difficult to understand. The $84 he received is counted as "business income." I'm not sure where you are getting the other figure, but it does not count toward his 2001 business income. And his measly $84 is what would qualify him as a small business owner.

It's like right over the head of some of you Bushies, ain't it?

That was quite the audible eyeroll. You really need to look at the whole return because it illustrates that you are wrong. Bush received three distributions from Lone Star his S-Chapter Corp. (small business) - royalties from oil and gas of $4944, ordinary income of $84797 and other income of $151. These items are included on separate forms on the tax return for the IRS's benefit - but make no mistake all three amounts are income from the same small business.

You noted in an earlier post:

Someone that gets $84 a year from a business they have a small stake in is NOT a small business. Using the misleading numbers Bush tried to give, that person would be counted as a small business, which in turn would make it seem like Kerry's tax cuts would negatively affect small businesses.

I'm glad we agree on this Valhall, $84 / year doesn't make a small business like Bush tried to fool everyone into believing!

And if Kerry had stuck to this tact - I would have no problem. But no he has to try and make a point by exaggerating it with an outright lies.

Lie #1 - Bush was a timber owner in 2001 - he wasn't
Lie #2 - Bush had small business income of $84 - it was approx. $90,000

Hun ( to use your term) you and I both know that Kerry's shot at Bush would have been much less effective had he used Bush's actual small business income of 90k.

Originally posted by W_HAMILTON

Originally posted by BlackJackal
Kerry was attempting to make the point that Bush and Cheney took advantage of tax loopholes.

No he wasn't. Now you're proving both Kerry's point AND MINE.

*whoooooooooooosh*

EDIT: I would explain Kerry's point again, but apparently it doesn't help. I did it before in this thread, and I think the only one who is coming close to "getting it" is Bleys. Everyone else is all like, "he only made $84 from that company he ain't a real small business you lyin' poo poo head!!11!" -- which basically what Kerry was pointing out, lol.

Evidentially someone should explain Kerry�s point to you as you don�t seem to be getting it. He was trying to obfuscate the truth with a personal jab nothing more nothing less. He was picking on the outliers in statistical data and saying that they represent the norm, pure lunacy. The fact is that if corporations are taxed and pay at the individual rate which they do. Then if you raise taxes on individuals who earn over 200,000 then you will be raising taxes on small businesses that are just becoming successful, and that is a fact. And that is a chitty plan�.lets see small business just becoming successful�.we could see if they are going to hire another person, or TAX�EM�.yeah that�s the ticket. Then we can use that extra revenue to buy $600 dollar hammers or what ever else we want to waste money on. As far as someone using tax loop holes you should check out Taxachusetts law and how the billionaire and his wife make sure that they pay as little as possible.

Kerry said Bush was a small business owner based on his 2001 tax return. Although he said it was a timber company (to lock in the ELF vote) it was actually an oil and gas company.

First, what Kerry said is the truth!!! Based on current tax law he would be considered a small business owner. But, As Bleys stated above, his actual loss from said small business is in excess of 90,000 dollars.

It is also true that many more "IRS defined" small businesses will not be hurt by Kerry's tax increase (calling it a "tax rollback" is plain BS) if you believe John Kerry really can keep it at that level. What Mr. Kerry doesn't want you to know is that many of the businesses he affects in his tax increase are the ones more likely to hire employees and grow the economy.

Most of the small businesses unaffected by his tax increase, if he keeps his word about the 200,000 limit, (which is unlikely) are sole proprietorships such as plumbers, electricians, etc. that hire few to no employees.

So exactly what was Mr. Kerrys point then? It comes back to this. Mr. Kerry is running on a "the rich don't pay their fair share" policy. Lets look at some fact here first. In 2001, "the rich" i.e. the top 5% of taxpayers, paid 53% of the taxes in the United States. In fact, the bottom 50% of American taxpayers paid less than 5% of all income taxes.

Lets look at this. Kerry would have you believe that raising taxes on the "elite" will help grow the economy. How??? By raising taxes on the people more likely to invest in growth, hire more workers, we will grow the economy? Sorry folks I don't think so.

Again, Kerry's point about Bush being a "small business owner" was just another poll driven quote to give the economically disadvantaged a reason to vote for him.

Some here, like W Hamilton, see this as a good thing. When in fact all it does is prove Kerry will say anything to be elected, without concern for the effect on real people.





[edit on 10/10/04 by Seth Bullock]