Thread: i guess bush just forgot
10-09-2004, 10:04 AM #1
i guess bush just forgot
that he owned a timber company. from factcheck.org:
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.
10-09-2004, 10:27 AM #2
Well, if you want to play that game.......
Bush doesn't own a timber company. Surely a lawyer like Kerry would understand that the explicit statement Bush made was true: He does not own a timber company. Uh oh, and it looks like you didn't post the rest of that article segment either. I'll help you out there
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 because Bush owns a company that owns PART of the timber company, two years AFTER that $84 dollars was given, I don't see how you can say Bush was incorrect to say he doesn't own a timber company, as he does not. How about instead of bringing up nit-picky things like this, we bring up something much more signifigant, say, exaggerating job loss figures:
Kerry misled when he claimed the economy has lost 1.6 million jobs under Bush. It is true that figures released earlier in the day show the economy is still down by 1.6 million private sector jobs since Bush took office, but the drop in total payroll employment -- including teachers, firemen, policemen and other federal, state and local government employees -- is down by much less than that -- 821,000. Furthermore, the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced, with the release of the latest figures, that its yearly "benchmark" revision would add an estimated 236,000 payroll jobs to the total when made final next February. That means the best current estimate is that 585,000 jobs have been lost under Bush, about one-third of the number Kerry stated.
Kerry may turn out to be correct when he said Bush would be "the first president in 72 years to lose jobs." Payroll employment has been growing at roughly 100,000 jobs per month for the past four months, and there are only four months to go -- October, November, December and January -- until the end of Bush's term in January, 2005. (The number that will actually go into the economic history books won't be known until February 2006, when the BLS publishes its final benchmark revisions of 2004 data.)......(UL's Commentary: Kerry said this like it was a fact, when we won't know this until later whether or not it is true.......not cool).
10-09-2004, 10:32 AM #3Originally Posted by UrbanLegend
New government employees? Who pays their salaries? Oh wait, ****it.
Can someone confirm this: Bush increased the size of the federal government. I'd be willing to bet that he did.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)