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

Originally posted by Bleys
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.

Oh I did, and asked you to post the exact lines and you didn't. If you don't know much about accounting and taxes it's np, just don't try to pass it off as if you do.

There's a reason Bush lists the $84 under the "BUSINESS INCOME" line. Whatever other money did not qualify as "BUSINESS INCOME," or -- surprise surprise! -- it would have been listed there. None of the other monies received from that company would qualify Bush as a small business owner. IE, he lists dividends received from the company, but receiving dividends does not count as "business income," hence it doesn't make Bush a "small business owner." The $84 amount DOES qualify Bush as a "small business owner," which is why Kerry used that amount.

As for Black Jackal, I'll be nice and explain it to you one more time. Kerry said that he would only raise taxes on people that make over $200,000. Bush said something (900,000 was it?) small businesses would be effected by his tax increase, which in turn would cause less job growth due to the higher taxes. Kerry said the WSJ figured that only 4% of small businesses would be effected by his tax increase on the wealthy. Then he proceeded to show how Bush got his 900,000 number -- by including people such as himself who made $84 from a company that he owned a small stake in. By Bush's standards, he would be a "small business owner" due to that $84, and since he makes over $200,000 thru other means, he would be negatively impacted. As WSJ correctly reported, Kerry's tax cut would only affect 4% of all small businesses in America, far from the 900,000 Bush claimed using his fuzzy math.

Understand now?

W_Hamilton

Quite frankly no I don't understand the figures Bush used came straight from a group associated with the Kerry Campaign. If you don't believe me read the transcript. Kerry tried to crawl out of it by saying the figures were fuzzy math but the fact is the numbers were produced by his own campaign.

You still haven't gotten the point yourself so WHooooooooosh! Let me guess your next post will be a "Yeah but......." post won't it. Liberals have to find a way out of every situation by bringing up something totally new.

Originally posted by BlackJackal
Quite frankly no I don't understand the figures Bush used came straight from a group associated with the Kerry Campaign. If you don't believe me read the transcript.

This is what Bush says, word for word, which prompted Kerry's response:

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.

And so when you're running up the taxes like that, you're taxing job creators, and that's not how you keep jobs here.

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

Then, as a rebuttal:

Most small businesses are Subchapter S corps. They just are. I met Grant Milliron, Mansfield, Ohio. He's creating jobs. Most small businesses -- 70 percent of the new jobs in America are created by small businesses.

Taxes are going up when you run up the top two brackets. It's a fact.

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

So where exactly in the transcript does it say that Bush was using figures posted by Kerry's campaign, hmm?

Like I said in another msg, please don't blatently lie. There are plenty of people on the "internets" just waiting to shoot you down if you do, so just don't do it. So show me where Bush said he got the 900,000 figure from Kerry people, in the transcript. If you can't do that, then just admit you lied and let's be done with it, k?

[edit on 10-10-2004 by W_HAMILTON]

Why bother arguing with spin? It's not like the mind-set of the hard-core true believer can be changed. Paradigm shift and true-believer are incompatable terms. How about the non-committed voter? How do they see the debate results? How about the Libertarian/Greenies who, in their tenacious grip on hope without reason, insist on voting for non-contenders?

If Bush really won the debates, as many Repugnants try to support, than why are all the polling numbers switching from a modest lead for Bush to a modest lead for Kerry?

It's really all quite simple: Anyone who votes Republican, who isn't already rich, has bought into the lie that they CAN become rich by supporting the Republican platform. HA!!! You have a better chance of getting rich by purchasing lottery tickets than by hard work. Besides, it is just this endless drive for success in monetary terms that has so corrupted our whole society. Happiness cannot be measured by monetary wealth alone. I submit that if one must work 80+ hours per week to be successful, than other aspects of life are being ignored. Marriges fail at ridiculous rates, families are no longer havens of support, elderly people are not respected, children are used as pawns, money has replaced God/ethics.

Regime change starts at home. Start by throwing out the unrealistic ethos that money and "things" define success. Health, happiness, love, trust, compassion are the values that spell a successful life. If you win the rat race, you are still just a rat! We as humans should aspire to higher standards. Will we? Probably not.

You know, you're right Scott.

I don't know why I do it. For all the talk of all the Kerry supporters on this site, I usually find myself the only one arguing with these guys. Maybe everyone else already realized what you are saying

Originally posted by BlackJackal
�����.. Liberals have to find a way out of every situation by bringing up something totally new.

I believe its called reframing the argument�it is about the only way that I can think of to defend an untenable position. Besides being irritating�I believe it is the reason that the left appears to be so open minded that they can not agree with themselves. And some here apply it to defend the most untenable of positions.


[edit on 10-10-2004 by keholmes]

Hamilton � you're still not seeing the whole picture. But I should clarify that I did make two mistakes in my earlier post. The first is that I assumed that you knew more about flow-through income. You are fixated on the Schedule C as a sole source of income for small businesses � which is not true. In addition to the Schedule C, there is also Sub Chapter S corporation and partnership small business designations that report profits and losses to the Schedule E, Part II and I noticed that both us failed to mention farmers who report their small business income on Schedule F. The second mistake was in identifying the ordinary income portion of Bush�s Lone Star small business as a gain when it was actually a loss.

Bush is a partner in Lone Star Trust an oil and gas company which is classified as a small business. Income/losses incurred by Lone Star are passed through via Schedule K-1 to the individual partners who in turn report them on their own tax returns. The K-1 Lone Star issued to Bush showed his distributive shares as ordinary losses of $84797 (line 1), royalties of $4944 (line 4c) and other income of $155 (line 7). Bush reported these amounts on several different places on his return as required by the IRS. He reported ordinary losses of $84,797 on page 9, Part II, line 27, B of the Schedule E, he reported the royalty income of $4944 on page 7, Part I, line 1, A and he reported the other income on page 5, line 1 of the Schedule C. Each of these schedules are then subject to their own set of personal deductions and thus the $151 was reduced further to $84 and the $4944 was reduced to $3133. Different places on his return but all derived from the same small business � as noted by the �Lone Star Trust� notation on each of pages.

Kerry erred (as did factcheck) when he said that Bush had small business income of $84 from a timber company � he did not. He had a small business loss of $84713 (84 � 84797) all stemming from oil and gas production. Kerry tried to draw a relationship between Bush�s comments about who would be affected by Kerry�s plan using Bush�s own income. But to do that he had to use false figures. This effectively kills his point and the larger message is lost altogether. That much is evident from a reading of comments posted to this thread.

Bleys,

What do you think you are doing posting all this factual data in a thread with whoosh as the main point�..your just not enlightened enough to see the evident fact that despite a loss bush still should have been taxed. He is one of those evil rich. They do nothing for the country besides horde wealth�.they don�t lose money investing it in small businesses�..wait time to reframe the argument�..rich people have skinny noses, ha.

Without the $84 reported as "business income," Bush would not have been labeled as a "small business owner" by the standards that he used when he said 900,000 small businesses would be affected. The other monies associated with the business fall under different categories (dividends, royalties, etc) hence are not listed under "business income." Without the $84 amount, Bush would not have been legally considered a small business owner using the standards that he does. With the $84 amount, Bush is labeled as a small business owner, and the point Kerry made is proven true.

The only part that was factually incorrect was that the current oil/gas/timber company was merely an oil/gas company back when Bush got the $84 "business income," and again, factcheck.org pointed out their error.

As a side note, if you think you know more than factcheck.org you can email your information to them and I'm sure they will throughly check it and let you know whether you are right or wrong, since apparently you don't listen to me telling you They are pretty good about checking their information thoroughly, which is why they noted their mistake about the "timber" company before anyone else got the chance to point it out to them.

[edit on 10-10-2004 by W_HAMILTON]

W_HAMILTON,

Yet again you have missed the whole point....when you are discussing small businesses and start with president bush as your example you are doing a M. Moore.....obfuscation, PERIOD. The point bush was making was that while Kerry is trying to promote the 'skin the richie riches of the world' argument he is throwing small businesses in with, them. To then use bush as the example of a small business is at best disingenuous at worst pretty stupid�.unless you are in a debate and simply trying to deflect intelligent thought from your soak the rich argument�then it is a fine example of reframing the argument.

go back to bleys last post if you want to make kerrys point then prove that small businesses are not taxed at those rates.....there is a reason you are doomed to failure and that is because they are taxed at those rates.


[edit on 10-10-2004 by keholmes]

Originally posted by keholmes
To then use bush as the example of a small business is at best disingenuous at worst pretty stupid�

I believe that deserves another *whoooooooooooooosh*

It's neither. Kerry did it tongue-in-cheek. He, like me, like you, knows that $84 in business income doesn't really correlate to a "small business owner." That was his point. Bush got that misleading 900,000 small business number by including anyone who made over $200,000, but who had any amount listed under "business income" in their taxes -- even amounts as miniscule as $84 bucks. WSJ evaluated true small business ventures to see how many would be effected by Kerry's raising taxes on the rich, and they confirmed that it would be 4% -- far from Bush's 900,000 total.

For Christ's sake, get it YET?

Got it the first time.

Unfortunately, ATS does not come supplied with a mandatory reading list including "How To Lie With Statistics".

Bush's soundbites are aimed at the LCD. This administration's policies are especially aimed at lining select specified pockets, and not at national security or the welfare of Americans. It is as cynical as all that.

Sometime, W-HAMILTON, nothing you analyse can help certain readers here appreciate the substance of what was said in a debate and why it was said and what it means when you piut it under a microscope. You can't help that, it's that target group that the Bush nonsense and rhetoric is aimed at and to which it sticks successfully.

Originally posted by W_HAMILTON
I believe that deserves another *whoooooooooooooosh*

It sure does Hamilton, yet you continue to post.

Welcome back MA, I have missed your sunny attitude around here, you're such a breath of fresh air.

It's neither. Kerry did it tongue-in-cheek. He, like me, like you, knows that $84 in business income doesn't really correlate to a "small business owner." That was his point.

As has already been explained to you by many here, George Bush's business income on his 2001 tax return was -94,644. Now you tell me Hammy, How effective would Kerry's cute little comment have been had it been accurate? He should have said:

And you know why he gets that count? The president lost almost 95,000 in business interests he 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.

Not very effective is it.

Now before you again embarrass yourself by saying amounts on Schedule E Part II are not business income, please read from the Internal Revenue Service's own information Business Income:

A partnership is an unincorporated business organization that is the result of two or more persons joining together to carry on a trade or business. Each person contributes........ A partnership's income and expenses are generally reported on Form 1065, an annual information return. No income tax is paid by the partnership itself. Each partner receives a Form 1065 Schedule K-1 (PDF), which generally allocates the income and expenses among the partners according to the terms of the partnership agreement.

And

Corporations that meet certain requirements may elect to become S corporations, which are treated in a manner similar to partnerships. An S corporation files Form 1120S (PDF), and generally does not pay tax on its income. Most income and expenses are "passed through" to the shareholders on Form 1120S Schedule K-1. These amounts are to be included on the shareholders' individual returns.

To make it plain, The partner or shareholders income is reported on a Schedule K-1, and amounts from Schedule K-1 are reported on Schedule E Part II.

There is one other important thing to note here. It is possible to have income or losses from a partnership or Sub S that may not be considered business income in the same way as an amount from the Schedule C (or, as in Bush's case, the C-EZ). This involves the difference between "passive income/losses" and "nonpassive income/losses." Nonpassive income or losses are derived from ventures you materially participate in and are generally subject to the Self Employment Tax.

Both of the entities on Mr. Bush's return were nonpassive and obviously business income.

Bush got that misleading 900,000 small business number by including anyone who made over $200,000, but who had any amount listed under "business income" in their taxes -- even amounts as miniscule as $84 bucks.

Actually, Kerry's attempt to say that most "small business owners" are not "small business owners" is the misleading fact here.

WSJ evaluated true small business ventures to see how many would be effected by Kerry's raising taxes on the rich, and they confirmed that it would be 4% -- far from Bush's 900,000 total.

Um 4% of what? I do wish you would link to this article. Your quote makes little sense.

Again, this whole issue is another perfect example of the way Mr. Kerry distorts or ignores the truth to make his points. A perfect example of how he makes things up to appeal to his base. His points are as false as his positions are poll driven.

And finally, I will ask you this....

For Christ's sake, get it YET?

The absolutely, hands-down, without a doubt, most boring evening I ever spent was listening to some guy explain the differences between term and whole life insurance and why I should buy one over the other at this or that point in my life. Nice enough guy, but he reminded me of the guy in Groundhog Day.

That was before I read this thread.

W_HAMILTON

I�m beginning to think that whoosh is your sound for the salient points made against your fruitless and baseless arguments flying right over you head.

First off look at population against wealth, 900,000 would not be the number for people with investments that made over 200,000; not even close, so your theorem that you are so proud of is just plain cow chips. Even going by the 10 control 90 dippy theory for taxes that would put the number for your sorry a$$ed theorem at ~25 million. Just a little off the 900,000 crap your spewing. Sorry that you�ll be required to such high level math as multiplication. Whoosh there goes another salient point.

As for the difference between 4% and 900,000 as there are approximately 6 million small businesses depending on definition. Just using your so utterly researched and unnamed WSJ reporter that is 250,000. not too far off the other figure that you and your clueless buddy so flippantly try to smear�.now throw in that the reporter is probably biased as I didn�t notice link�..error margin and the numbers are pretty damn close. I sure am glad that you and Kerry are so flippant about taxing the growth engine of the economy. You wouldn�t have a link to the WSJ reporter, would you or is he the political opinion writer and I can just look it up myself?

www.sba.gov...

So where exactly in the transcript does it say that Bush was using figures posted by Kerry's campaign, hmm?

Like I said in another msg, please don't blatently lie. There are plenty of people on the "internets" just waiting to shoot you down if you do, so just don't do it. So show me where Bush said he got the 900,000 figure from Kerry people, in the transcript. If you can't do that, then just admit you lied and let's be done with it, k?

You are the most ridiculous liberal I have ever talked to. Most liberals can at least hold a coherent debate but you on the other hand cannot even stay on task. As for your question If you would actually read the transcript you would realize that Kerry said Bush was.

KERRY: Well, first of all, the president's figures of $2.2 trillion just aren't accurate. Those are the fuzzy math figures put together by some group that works for the campaign. That's not the number.

A little advice for you THINK BEFORE YOU TYPE.

(1) Keholmes, please don't post more irrelevent numbers that have nothing to do with the discussion at hand. As for why I didn't post a link, I was using the information provided in the debates. If you believe I'm lying, you are free to go dig up the article yourself and read it. And the 900,000 didn't come from me, it came from Bush, during the 2nd debate. And using the number YOU spouted off -- 250,000 -- that is far from the 900,000 Bush listed, ain't it? And that's Kerry's point.

(2) Black Jackal, have you gone crazy? That Kerry comment has NOTHING to do with what we are talking about here. Nothing at all. The 2.2 trillion is a number that Bush said Kerry was going to increase spending by. This was sparked by the "look into the camera and assure the American public you won't raise taxes" question. The question we are referring to is two questions later, when the candidates are asked how can American be competitive in the manufacturing. I can't believe that you would outright lie and use some random comment from a completely different question which has ZERO to do with the 900,000 comment we are referring to, instead of just admitting you made a mistake. Amazing, really.

And to the other guy, I'll tell you like I told Bleys. I already sent an email to factcheck.org to explain the matter further on their site, or in an email response. Needless to say, I already know the answer; if they were wrong in stating what they did, they would have fixed it when they went back and corrected themselves on it being a "timber" company mistake. Go thru and post all the numbers and explanations you like; as I said before, without the $84 listed in "business income," Bush would not have met his own requirements of being a "small business" when he 'spouted off' the 900,000 number. And, hello!! that's the entire point.

Originally posted by W_HAMILTON
(2) Black Jackal, have you gone crazy? That Kerry comment has NOTHING to do with what we are talking about here. Nothing at all. The 2.2 trillion is a number that Bush said Kerry was going to increase spending by. This was sparked by the "look into the camera and assure the American public you won't raise taxes" question. The question we are referring to is two questions later, when the candidates are asked how can American be competitive in the manufacturing. I can't believe that you would outright lie and use some random comment from a completely different question which has ZERO to do with the 900,000 comment we are referring to, instead of just admitting you made a mistake. Amazing, really.

You are exactly right W_Hamilton I did indeed answer totally off base. I apparantly needed to read a little closer myself

No problem.

And since I'm in a generous mood, I'll try to be amicable again about this whole subject.

I think Bleys and Seth are basically trying to point out that Bush had much fiscal goings-on (if you will) with the company than just $84. You guys believe that either Kerry left that out, or that if he had mentioned it people would be less likely to accept his rebuttal or something. If that's not true, let me know.

But you can remove all of the extra monies involved with the company outside of the $84 "business income," and Bush would still be, using the standards that he did to get the 900,000 number, a small business owner. You're saying that Bush was more involved in the business than a mere $84 income, Kerry is saying that by virtue of just that $84, Bush would be a small business using the standards he did when he said 900,000 small businesses would be effected by the Kerry tax plan. That's what it boils down to really.

Originally posted by W_HAMILTON
(1) Keholmes, please don't post more irrelevent numbers that have nothing to do with the discussion at hand. �����.

Quick call for medical help, the reason they seem irrelevant is the Kool-Aid in you hand�..step away from the drink. There is no alien ship coming for you and your crew.

Originally posted by W_HAMILTON
��������������. by including people such as himself who made $84 from a company that he owned a small stake in. By Bush's standards, he would be a "small business owner" due to that $84, and since he makes over $200,000 thru other means, he would be negatively impacted. ������

Originally posted by keholmes
First off look at population against wealth, 900,000 would not be the number for people with investments that made over 200,000; not even close, so your theorem that you are so proud of is just plain cow chips. Even going by the 10 control 90 dippy theory for taxes that would put the number for your sorry a$$ed theorem at ~25 million. �����

whoooosh another salient point right on by�..thats ok take another drink of the Kool-Aid you�ll start to feel more relaxed.

Originally posted by keholmes
��������.. not too far off the other figure that you and your clueless buddy so flippantly try to smear�.now throw in that the reporter is probably biased as I didn�t notice link�..error margin and the numbers are pretty damn close�������.

I tried to press the post button slow for you this time so it didn�t�.whooooosh right by your level of comprehension�.as I stated if both parties listed at the max error rate in the opposited directions then the numbers are a hell of a lot closer�..much closer than 900,000 is to 25,000,000�.i put all the zeros in just for you, so you don�t need anyone to do the math for ya. Although I get the feeling there was just another whoooooosh two sentences ago��that�s alright drink some more the comet is coming salvation is just around the corner. i'm not sure what we are really arguing about as i'm sure that you believe forged documents prove what they contain


[edit on 12-10-2004 by keholmes]