Re: Debate Scorecard

[Clyde Slick]

"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
>
> 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.
>
> 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, he got $84 from a holding company that owns part of a timber company,
and he wasn't aware of the particulars.
WOW!

[Michael McKelvy]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
> link.net...
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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, he got $84 from a holding company that owns part of a timber company,
> and he wasn't aware of the particulars.
> WOW!
>
Not a big deal to me. I can see how it could easily be forgotten.

The claims that Bush has lost jobs is altogether specious IMO since
Presidents don't have power to gain or lose jobs.

The same applies to any criticism of any aspect of the economy. Nothing
Presidents do has any real effect on inflation, hiring, firing, or funding
of any program. They can propose things, but Congress must vote the funds.

The claim about increasing the dependent deduction strikes me as another
non-issue. Sometimes people leave out words when speaking even if not in
front of millions of people and TV cameras. I'd bet that Bush simply left
out the word "to" $1000.00.

[jeffc]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> So, he got $84 from a holding company that owns part of a timber company,
> and he wasn't aware of the particulars.
> WOW!

That was Kerry's point. Bush tried to make a point about businesses would
have more taxes under Kerry's plan. Kerry said, yeah, like your lumber
business. In other words, Bush tried to make a big deal out of it. Then he
walked right into Kerry's trap, but proving Kerry's point for him. It WAS
no big deal. So small, Busy didn't even know he had that income, let alone
the meager $20 taxes on it, or whatever it would be.

[ScottW]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> Kerry made the big deal out of the ';umber' thing.
> And he didn't even get the facts right.

I found it interesting that Kerry disputed Bush's estimate of the cost of
Kerry's plan but declined to provide his own estimate. Clearly, whatever
reasonable figure he provided wasn't going to match the tax revenue nor
support his claim to halve the budget. Kerry also has vowed to increase the
active duty troop count to relieve pressure from the guard and reserve. This
too will cost.

ScottW

[Clyde Slick]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:NI4ad.16383$_a3.8628@fed1read05...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Kerry made the big deal out of the ';umber' thing.
>> And he didn't even get the facts right.
>
> I found it interesting that Kerry disputed Bush's estimate of the cost of
> Kerry's plan but declined to provide his own estimate. Clearly, whatever
> reasonable figure he provided wasn't going to match the tax revenue nor
> support his claim to halve the budget. Kerry also has vowed to increase
> the active duty troop count to relieve pressure from the guard and
> reserve. This too will cost.
>
> ScottW
all I heard from him was a bunch of inconsistent garbage, I have never seen
a person contradict himself so often.

[JBorg]

> Clyde Slick wrote
>
>
>
>
>
> What Kerry point, about his so called tax plan?
> Kerry says he has lots of plans, he has a plan for
> everything. Of course, there are no details.
> As far as taxes, all we know is that he will roll back
> the Bush tax cuts
>
> Kerry made the big deal out of the ';umber' thing.
> And he didn't even get the facts right.


I was just reading around and wonder, as before, if there's some
way you could comment on other matter aside from the current
political events on this ng?

[JBorg]

> Clyde Slick wrote

>
>


Just a follow up comment having read down and still
wondering.

[Clyde Slick]

"JBorg" > wrote in message
m...

> I was just reading around and wonder, as before, if there's some
> way you could comment on other matter aside from the current
> political events on this ng?


if and when the spirit moves me.

[Clyde Slick]

"JBorg" > wrote in message
om...
>
>> Clyde Slick wrote
>
>>
>>
>
>
> Just a follow up comment having read down and still
> wondering.
>

"Please Let Me Wonder'

Beach Boys, 1965

[JBorg]

> Clyde Slick wrote
>> JBorg wrote
>
>
>
>> I was just reading around and wonder, as before, if there's some
>> way you could comment on other matter aside from the current
>> political events on this ng?
>
>
>
> if and when the spirit moves me.


Did you have a chicken filet so early this morning ?

[JBorg]

> Clyde Slick wrote
>> JBorg wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
>> I was just reading around and wonder, as before, if there's some
>> way you could comment on other matter aside from the current
>> political events on this ng?
>
>
> if and when the spirit moves me.

Yeh, I think it's time it moves from hovering the speck of dust on
my screen.

[jak163]

On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 17:19:25 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> wrote:

>Nothing
>Presidents do has any real effect on inflation, hiring, firing, or funding
>of any program.

Now there's a howler. Are you brain-dead?

[Michael McKelvy]

"jak163" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 17:19:25 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> > wrote:
>
>>Nothing
>>Presidents do has any real effect on inflation, hiring, firing, or funding
>>of any program.
>
> Now there's a howler. Are you brain-dead?

I'll amend that to one thing, and that's who they pick as Fed Chief.

List any others you think apply.

[Michael McKelvy]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> jak163 said:
>
>> >Nothing
>> >Presidents do has any real effect on inflation, hiring, firing, or
>> >funding
>> >of any program.
>>
>> Now there's a howler. Are you brain-dead?
>
> He does eat bugs, you know.
>
>
>
>
And you eat ****, was there a point?

[dave weil]

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 19:41:09 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> wrote:

>
>"jak163" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 17:19:25 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>Nothing
>>>Presidents do has any real effect on inflation, hiring, firing, or funding
>>>of any program.
>>
>> Now there's a howler. Are you brain-dead?
>
>I'll amend that to one thing, and that's who they pick as Fed Chief.
>
>List any others you think apply.

So, this means that when people complain about the rampant inflation
of the Carter administration, they really had no complaint against the
Carter Administration, right?

[Michael McKelvy]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 19:41:09 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"jak163" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 17:19:25 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Nothing
>>>>Presidents do has any real effect on inflation, hiring, firing, or
>>>>funding
>>>>of any program.
>>>
>>> Now there's a howler. Are you brain-dead?
>>
>>I'll amend that to one thing, and that's who they pick as Fed Chief.
>>
>>List any others you think apply.
>
> So, this means that when people complain about the rampant inflation
> of the Carter administration, they really had no complaint against the
> Carter Administration, right?

Haven't I been saying as much? It wasn't Carter, it was Congress, Carter
was just the idiot accomplice who signed the spending bills. I don't
remember who the Fed chairman was then, but I would say whoever it was,
bears a LOT OF RESPONSIBILITY.

[Lionel]

Michael McKelvy wrote:

>
> "dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 19:41:09 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"jak163" > wrote in message
...
>>>> On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 17:19:25 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Nothing
>>>>>Presidents do has any real effect on inflation, hiring, firing, or
>>>>>funding
>>>>>of any program.
>>>>
>>>> Now there's a howler. Are you brain-dead?
>>>
>>>I'll amend that to one thing, and that's who they pick as Fed Chief.
>>>
>>>List any others you think apply.
>>
>> So, this means that when people complain about the rampant inflation
>> of the Carter administration, they really had no complaint against the
>> Carter Administration, right?
>
> Haven't I been saying as much? It wasn't Carter, it was Congress, Carter
> was just the idiot accomplice who signed the spending bills.

Just like Bush is signing the declarations of war ?
So, Carter was more sympathic ! :-)

> I don't
> remember who the Fed chairman was then, but I would say whoever it was,
> bears a LOT OF RESPONSIBILITY.