Bush misleads public: In debate denied owning timber company


Bush's Timber Company

Kerry: 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?

That's news to me.

(LAUGHTER)

Bush's Timber-Growing Company

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.

"Florida Patriot" wrote in message

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.

That was 2001. This is 2004. Does he still own an interest? If not, his
answer was correct.

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
m...

"Florida Patriot" wrote in message

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.

That was 2001. This is 2004. Does he still own an interest? If not,
his
answer was correct.

The article is from factcheck.org, the site Cheney cited in his own defense
during the televised debate with Edwards.

"Jeff Harper" wrote in message
...

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
m...

"Florida Patriot" wrote in message

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.

That was 2001. This is 2004. Does he still own an interest? If not,
his
answer was correct.

The article is from factcheck.org, the site Cheney cited in his own
defense
during the televised debate with Edwards.

The site does say that the Lone Star Trust owns a timber company (though its
holding of LSTF, LLC). However, the $84 was from 2001. Since the tree
company has had no income to date, it can't generate a profit. More
importantly, the Lone Star Trust is the blind trust that Bush's holdings are
in, so by the virtue of it being a blind trust, Bush should not be aware of
its holdings. This seems like a rather big omission from the factcheck.org
site, which is usually pretty fair IMHO.

todd

Todd Fatheree wrote:
"Jeff Harper" wrote in message
...

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
. com...

"Florida Patriot" wrote in message


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.

That was 2001. This is 2004. Does he still own an interest? If not,

his

answer was correct.

The article is from factcheck.org, the site Cheney cited in his own

defense

during the televised debate with Edwards.


The site does say that the Lone Star Trust owns a timber company (though its
holding of LSTF, LLC). However, the $84 was from 2001. Since the tree
company has had no income to date, it can't generate a profit. More
importantly, the Lone Star Trust is the blind trust that Bush's holdings are
in, so by the virtue of it being a blind trust, Bush should not be aware of
its holdings. This seems like a rather big omission from the factcheck.org
site, which is usually pretty fair IMHO.

todd


Just so you know, factcheck.org does give information on why the
confusion. Honest error on Bush's part even if it is the case.

So who gives a flying ****?
Alex

I'm trying to picture that.

AAvK wrote:

So who gives a flying ****?
Alex

On 13 Oct 2004 03:52:45 EDT, Mark and Kim Smith
wrote:
I'm trying to picture that.

AAvK wrote:

So who gives a flying ****?
Alex


Mile High Club?

Well, you'll probably need to finger joint it to get the length . . .
might try turning 528 ten-foot pieces and finger joint the ends.

I'm not sure how you're gonna swing the sucker, but it's be impressive.

Mark and Kim Smith wrote in message ...
I'm trying to picture that.

AAvK wrote:

So who gives a flying ****?
Alex


http://67.15.5.133/beyond.html

--

FF

On 12 Oct 2004 15:48:37 -0700, (Florida
Patriot) wrote:

.... snip
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.

... and this $84 would have influenced Bush's decisions how?

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
news:1097726011.XmOIVZjVbAPtfP+y1kB6MQ@teranews...
On 12 Oct 2004 15:48:37 -0700, (Florida
Patriot) wrote:

... snip
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.

... and this $84 would have influenced Bush's decisions how?


Uh, Kerry used Bush to illustrate that the Bush stats considered Bush a
small business owner.

"Jeff Harper" wrote in message
...

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
news:1097726011.XmOIVZjVbAPtfP+y1kB6MQ@teranews...
On 12 Oct 2004 15:48:37 -0700, (Florida
Patriot) wrote:

... snip
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.

... and this $84 would have influenced Bush's decisions how?


Uh, Kerry used Bush to illustrate that the Bush stats considered Bush a
small business owner.

Remind me why this is important.

todd

(snip) Uh, Kerry USED Bush to illustrate that the Bush stats considered Bush
a
small business owner.

The key word here is "used". Kerry used this as a diversion so the focus
wouldn't be on all the legitimate small business owners that would suffer
under Kerry's tax rollback. In essence, what Kerry stated was, "I want to
impose a higher tax burden on a man who's reported income is over $200k so
that rich people can't use these deductions to avoid paying miniscule taxes
on "odds and ends" income. So what if that means a successful self-employed
individual gets hurt?"

If he is successful, part of the tax burden will fall onto those individuals
who run small businesses. In the rhetoric that's spewed about the concerns
for jobs, what Kerry wants to do is in fact encourage the spread of
"corporate giants" and limit the ability for success for the individual.
Especially those individuals who keep potential workers from becoming
dependent on large corporations for jobs.

To put it in simpler terms..... Kerry doesn't want you to be encouraged to
start your own ketchup company.

"mel" wrote in message
...
(snip) Uh, Kerry USED Bush to illustrate that the Bush stats considered
Bush
a
small business owner.

The key word here is "used". Kerry used this as a diversion so the focus
wouldn't be on all the legitimate small business owners that would suffer
under Kerry's tax rollback. In essence, what Kerry stated was, "I want to
impose a higher tax burden on a man who's reported income is over $200k so
that rich people can't use these deductions to avoid paying miniscule
taxes
on "odds and ends" income. So what if that means a successful
self-employed
individual gets hurt?"

If he is successful, part of the tax burden will fall onto those
individuals
who run small businesses. In the rhetoric that's spewed about the
concerns
for jobs, what Kerry wants to do is in fact encourage the spread of
"corporate giants" and limit the ability for success for the individual.
Especially those individuals who keep potential workers from becoming
dependent on large corporations for jobs.

To put it in simpler terms..... Kerry doesn't want you to be encouraged to
start your own ketchup company.



That interpretation is plain wrong, crazy even.

"Todd Fatheree" wrote in message ...
"Jeff Harper" wrote in message
...

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
news:1097726011.XmOIVZjVbAPtfP+y1kB6MQ@teranews...
On 12 Oct 2004 15:48:37 -0700, (Florida
Patriot) wrote:

... snip
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.

... and this $84 would have influenced Bush's decisions how?


Uh, Kerry used Bush to illustrate that the Bush stats considered Bush a
small business owner.

Remind me why this is important.


Bush can afford to pay more taxes.

You're welcome.

It is not unimportant that numerous OTHER small busines owners
are less able to afford that.

But it is absurd to suppose that taxes should never be raised
(or lowered). A reasonable consideration of which, when and
on whom and what would be nice but I abandoned all hope of
that happening long ago.

--

FF