Got Wood?

[island911]

Originally posted by Tyson Schmidt
.. I'm going to see what he was getting at by the point of his statement, ...

Just so you know, "factcheck.org" is thee most-likely place that Kerry got this $84 pyrite nugget . . .the same place that "Actually it was proven by fact checkers right after the debate." (gee, imagine that?

btw, Today, one day after the event, factcheck.org had to release a CORRECTION to that hit-piece on Bush. They screwed-up . .. how do ya like that nugget?

Let me also point out (again) that factcheck.org is operated by the Annenberg foundation. (hardly unbiased)

So if you really want to get to the point of his statement, you have to wade thru all sorts of distortions. Or you can buy into the Michael Moore "points" and join the spoon-fed crowd of Bush bashers.

"The president got $84 from a timber company that he owns, and he's counted as a small business. " John Kerry

So he is saying that GW is guilty of creating a tiny little shell-business for tax evasion/avoidance purposes.

Kerry wants you to believe that this BLIND TRUST that Bush in vested in is some BS on-paper-only "timber company".

The thing is, that BLIND TRUST . . . "Most of Bush's money now sits in a blind trust called the Lone Star Trust. It generated more than $395,000 in interest income for the president last year."

Oh, and pay no attention to John & THK's $600,000,000. . .cuz they won't let you.


. . .and that G&L Bush paid $227,490 in federal income taxes.

Kerry, He paid $90,575 in federal income taxes.

Kerry sez "I a lib .. . I'm your buddy, looking out for the little-guy . . .I'll make the RICH pay the way for YOU."

--Suckers!

[techweenie]

...and that chain of non-sequiturs is supposed to add up to what?

[ubiquity0]

Island- I really don't think that Kerry was trying to insinuate anything as 'woody' as you think. Why would you gather that he was trying to argue that Bush was setting up some phoney timber business on the side?

Really his point was that the administration has been saying that any tax increase for the top 2% would mean a tax increase for xxx,xxx small businesses and that would be bad because that means this many 'businesses' won't be hiring as a result. (That was what had come out of Bush's mouth immediately before the woody moment.) This count is based on tax return filings, & the methodology that the administration is using to create this count is such that it includes Bush as a 'small business owner' based on his return. The administrations own standards for counting the number of small businesses affected would define Bush as an 'owner' of the timber company. This is obviously ridiculous- the fairly distant relationship of Bush to the company mentioned above by others.

If Factcheck.org is the internets' (plural) liberal propoganda machine why did Cheney suggest that tens of millions of viewers use it?

[island911]

ubi, yeah, I know Cheney sent people there . . .well actually he screwed-up and sent them to ".com" . . .not ".org"

Anyway, I stand by what I have been saying, for some time now, about factcheck. They are not to be completely trusted. They have an agenda. Sure they have to get stuff right . .. just like 60-Minutes does. But I get annoyed be those who think that since the name says fact check . .that they are somehow the arbitartors of all truth.

So, the debate. . .
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: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.

From personal experience I know what Bush is talking about. He's right. And 900,000 small businesses effected by Kerrys plan, sure seems reasonable if you check http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/smallbus.html

By contrast, Kerry's nugget, which he pulled from an INCORRECT Bush hit piece, is . . .how did Kerry say: "That's just not right. "

[BillyIdaho]

Bravo Ubi! You hit the nail on the head!

It could not have been put any clearer than that.

Bush walked into a trap last night, and WAS NOT AWAKE enough to realize it.

Period.


Kerry made TWO points in springing this trap on Bush:

1. The tax point, of course.

The bigger point made:

2: That Bush is really nothing more than a beligerant meglomaniac that does not recognize how to size up his adversary (JFK in this instance) and recognize his strategy.
He walked right into an ambush, and ONLY saw it at the time as an opportunity to MAKE A JOKE for a few laughs from the audience. That's how oblivious he is - and this is nothing more dangerous than a civilized debate! Now imagine this guy "leading" our troops in the field!?


YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!

What is the question the people of this country need to ask themselves before voting in this election?


"Which one of these candidates do I want representing MY COUNTRY in crucial negotiations regarding global issues?"

[island911]

Originally posted by ubiquity0
Island- I really don't think that Kerry was trying to insinuate anything as 'woody' as you think. Why would you gather that he was trying to argue that Bush was setting up some phoney timber business on the side? . ..

Just to be clear (I thought the insinuation stood on its own -- clearly)

KERRY: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.

AN $84 timber company ! (what?. . .paid out in 28 3-dollar-bills?) . .. that sounds phoney to me. .. . it was designed by the Bush hit-piece, Paroted by Kerry, to sound like Bush is making-up phoney businesses.

But alas this is a HUGE red-herring from Kerry, so no one talks about HIS hidden OFF-SHORE accounts.

[ubiquity0]

I still don't believe that Kerry was attempting to insinuate that Bush is involved in some dodgy sham timber company, and think that most people watching the debate (as opposed to reading clipped quotes) would agree.


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.

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.

GIBSON: Senator, I want to extend for a minute, you talk about tax cuts to stop outsourcing. But when you have IBM documents that I saw recently where you can hire a programmer for $12 in China, $56 an hour here, tax credits won't cut it.

KERRY: 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.

BUSH: I own a timber company?

(LAUGHTER)

That's news to me.

(LAUGHTER)

Need some wood?

You're removing a soundbite from the context of the discussion and then picking insinuations' out of it. Bush claimed that 900,000 small businesses would be affected and that these very same small businesses are job creators. Kerry refuted by referencing WSJ findings that 96% of small businesses are not affected and making the case that not all of those taxed are potential 'job creators' by putting forth the examples of Bush & Cheney. The insinuation is that the administration's count of 900,000 is bs and thats about it.

I have no idea who's bs-ing & who's not regarding these numbers. If 900,000 are affected that could still mean that 96% are not affected (if there are ~ 20 million small businesses in the country). They could both be pulling the big plank out of their a$$es.

There was no insinuation that Bush is involved in illegal woody business. Hell, $84 profit is probably better than the past performances of most of his other companies!

[ubiquity0]

btw- looks like ebay pulled the 'wood' auction linked above. Maybe they found out the Timber Co. is a tax-evasion scam?

[RoninLB]

Kerry's tax and business policies are a horror waiting to happen.

fwiw.. you don't tax your way out of a deficit. You grow your way out.

[ronin]

yes. no nation has ever taxed itself into prosperity

[kach22i]

This topic has been buzzing inmy head, and with the debate tonight, I though that I would finally look into the Timber Company comment Kerry made.

This is what I found, looks like Bush lies again:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-10-08-debate-fact-check_x.htm
Kerry startled Bush by saying that the president is counted as a small business for tax purposes because he once earned $84 from a timber company he owns. ……………………………."I own a timber company?" Bush asked. "That's news to me." Then he paused and added, "Need some wood? ………………………………… That baffling exchange arises from an analysis by the Annenberg Public Policy Center's FactCheck.org debunking Bush's claims that Kerry's plans to raise taxes on the richest Americans would increase the tax burden on 900,000 small businesses. …………………………..The analysis said even Bush qualifies under that definition because he reported $84 in income from his part-ownership of a timber enterprise on his 2001 federal tax return.

[widebody911]

Originally posted by RoninLB
you don't tax your way out of a deficit. You grow your way out.

Maybe, but not when you're spending at a rate that's exponetially faster than which you can grow, and when the foundations of said growth have been sent to India and China for better short term profits for a handful of people.

[RoninLB]

Originally posted by widebody911
Maybe, but not when you're spending at a rate that's exponetially faster than which you can grow, and when the foundations of said growth have been sent to India and China for better short term profits for a handful of people.

you mean that Bush shouldn't have spent it. Your right about Not spending it to begin with.. I think Bushed pissed off both parties by taking away almost all the cash that could be hustled. He didn't leave much for the pork dinners that's for sure. Objectively it's still managable or you would have seen the bond market react. The bond market is currently reacting to inflation expectations, not the budget. Please don't say the deficit causes inflation in todays market.

fwiw.. I think there will be a major push to control congress' spending in Bush's second term.

[CamB]

I've posted this before, and I'm so excited by it I'm going to post it again.

Big swinging dick economist states that tax cuts were a particularly crappy way to try and grow the economy:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/comment/story/0,14259,1320804,00.html

(edit) Sorry, I only just read Ron's bit carefully:

fwiw.. I think there will be a major push to control congress' spending in Bush's second term.

Hasn't he already promised a whole lot of spending though (at the RNC) - something like $3 trillion over X years.

[RoninLB]

Originally posted by CamB

Big swinging dick economist states that tax cuts were a particularly crappy way to try and grow the economy:

don't use that for a clear pic. That group has interperped the situation to defend their position. It's a former treasury sec Robert Rubin group think. Clinton's Rubin still defends his wrong position about NAFTA and Mexico. An easy clear pic of that article can easily be seen if you look at the forecasting history of the Congressional Budget Office. It has creditibility for fact finding, not forecasting. It's almost a given that if it says the direction is going one way that it will probably go the other. Todays US inflation is a direct result of US Fed Reserve Chairman Greenspan's lack of reacting to the increasing prices of commodities. He was more concerned about an economic slowdown instead of the dollar value. Greenspan is reacting now somewhat, but he's about a year late. His slowly raising of the Fed Funds rate is not leadership but of following the present market's position. His concern has been stability as seen from raising the Fed Funds rate and 10yr note interest rates falling. The weakness of his position is the failure to attack inflation by a noticable increase in the Fed Funds rate and causing a belt tightning.. The Fed Reserve has historically been reluctant to disturb the markets during Presidential elections. It doesn't matter what party is in office. Party politics manipulates info for their own political gain. An attack on inflation will probably cause an increase of unimployment which will be blamed on the current president who is in office. The associated uncertainity will ripple into the markets. Markets do not like uncertianity.