What Do All Of You Think Of This?

[ChuckV986]

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@docID=275.html

Looks like both of them are rather full of it, lol.

[matt1122]

Re: timber company, the company doesn't expect to make profit until 2007 anyway, so even if bush didn't recall his half ownership of the company he most likely hasn't made a cent off of it yet. (see the supporting docs on that link)

[ChuckV986]

He made $87. Kerry's point was that under the definition that the Bush campaign is using, that counts as a small business that would be 'hurt' by Kerry's tax plan.

[matt1122]

He made $87. Kerry's point was that under the definition that the Bush campaign is using, that counts as a small business that would be 'hurt' by Kerry's tax plan.

←

I thought he had said something after the number, haha who cares about $84.00.

What are the terms for the business tax hike again? Don't make me go look since you have everything at your fingertips. ;)

[ChuckV986]

Kerry is eliminating the tax-cut for everyone that makes over $200k a year. Bush argues against it on the basis that it would hurt 900,000. Kerry's point was that under Bush's definition, Bush himself counts as a small business because of the 87 bucks he made. If you tighten the definition to people who actually have employees, it's 400,000 and change. Point being Bush's figures are overblown. That's to be expected though, it's politics.

[matt1122]

You need employees to be a small business?

Bush's figures aren't overblown, Kerry doesn't know what a small business is.

And BTW, that's an LLC, so Bush MIGHT NOT be affected. Under IRS P542 an LLC can be classified as a corporation for tax purposes. It appears GW is the Gaurantor, which eliminates the LL aspect, but not enough information is available to say whether or not they meet any of the other 3 characteristics to be taxed as a small business/partnership.

On another note, I highly doubt George W. Bush and hig partner are planning on cutting down trees themselves, so I'm sure they will have employees if they don't already.

[jroot]

The bush comment was hilarious I thought, even though I'm not huge on Bush but I'm not a anti-bush person.

But :

“President Bush himself would have qualified as a "small business owner" under the Republican definition, based on his 2001 federal income tax returns. He reported $84 of business income from his part ownership of a timber-growing enterprise. However, 99.99% of Bush's total income came from other sources that year. (Bush also qualified as a "small business owner" in 2000 based on $314 of "business income," but not in 2002 and 2003 when he reported his timber income as "royalties" on a different tax schedule.)”

http://needsumwood.com

[matt1122]

Ingenious. Those photos are all photoshopped and factcheck.org is way the sh*t off on all of this to begin with.

I bothered to check up on all of this because this seems like a load of stuff to me, so here are the facts:

The US President's funds are managed by the government, and at some point before Bush's 2001 tax statement was due the government purchased a stock in an oil deal for George W. This oil company also in some manor or another (I'm sure if you really care you can look it up) dealt with timber. George Bush did not privately purchase any stock in a Timber company, and is not an owner, he is a minor shareholder as a result of the puchasing of stock in that company. It wasn't even a direct transaction.

The bottom line, Bush is not a small business owner, Kerry should have checked his facts first. Even if he was the government had made the purchase for him, and chances are high Bush would have had no idea.

[jroot]

Ingenious.  Those photos are all photoshopped and factcheck.org is way the sh*t off on all of this to begin with.

I bothered to check up on all of this because this seems like a load of stuff to me, so here are the facts:

The US President's funds are managed by the government, and at some point before Bush's 2001 tax statement was due the government purchased a stock in an oil deal for George W.  This oil company also in some manor or another (I'm sure if you really care you can look it up) dealt with timber.  George Bush did not privately purchase any stock in a Timber company, and is not an owner, he is a minor shareholder as a result of the puchasing of stock in that company.  It wasn't even a direct transaction.

The bottom line, Bush is not a small business owner, Kerry should have checked his facts first.  Even if he was the government had made the purchase for him, and chances are high Bush would have had no idea.

←

Just curious if you have some links?

[ChuckV986]

Ingenious.  Those photos are all photoshopped and factcheck.org is way the sh*t off on all of this to begin with.

I bothered to check up on all of this because this seems like a load of stuff to me, so here are the facts:

The US President's funds are managed by the government, and at some point before Bush's 2001 tax statement was due the government purchased a stock in an oil deal for George W.  This oil company also in some manor or another (I'm sure if you really care you can look it up) dealt with timber.  George Bush did not privately purchase any stock in a Timber company, and is not an owner, he is a minor shareholder as a result of the puchasing of stock in that company.  It wasn't even a direct transaction.

The bottom line, Bush is not a small business owner, Kerry should have checked his facts first.  Even if he was the government had made the purchase for him, and chances are high Bush would have had no idea.

←

Obviously he isn't, that's the point. Bush's figured are massively inflated...that's the point.

[matt1122]

Just curious if you have some links?

←

I just asked one of my polisci friends who went into excruciating detail on the issue.

Like Chuck said, doesn't change the fact that the numbers are exagerated. What I do keep thinking about is how that means Kerry's tax increases will affect even fewer people than it would if we went with Bush's definition for his example. It will NEVER cover Kerry's spending plan.

[ChuckV986]

I just asked one of my polisci friends who went into excruciating detail on the issue.

Like Chuck said, doesn't change the fact that the numbers are exagerated. What I do keep thinking about is how that means Kerry's tax increases will affect even fewer people than it would if we went with Bush's definition for his example. It will NEVER cover Kerry's spending plan.

←

What it means is that it will affect fewer small businesses than Bush's numbers suggest. Not individuals. To be honest, I'd really like a fiscal conservative in the White House. I don't think either of them really are, and that bothers me.

[InlineTurbo]

To be honest, I'd really like a fiscal conservative in the White House. I don't think either of them really are, and that bothers me.

←

I agree with you on that. However one candiate is cleary more fiscally conservative than the other. Despite all his claims Kerry is no fiscal conservative. Remember he is the senator from Taxachusetts.

Oh, and I want to live in liberal fantasy land. Where if a program doesn't grow by as much as you want it to you can call it a cut.

Edited October 12, 2004 by InlineTurbo

[matt1122]

Oh, and I want to live in liberal fantasy land.

←

I think it's "Liberal La-La Land."

[fromtheshadows]

So basically it comes down to whose numbers you believe, well guess what guys, they are both politicians and you cant trust either of them. That said, if you still trust Bush and make over 200,000 a year then you should vote for him. If thats not the case then you must be a middle class republican who doesnt have a son or daughter that died in iraq. if youre outside of this category Id like to know cause i dont see it happening. If you look at the raw numbers and the raw facts and really think bush has been good for this country's economy youre not seeing the issue with open eyes. they must be clouded by republicanism...flat tax for everyone I say, wheres that president?.