bassplayrr

iTrader: (9)

Remember the most recent debate, where Kerry said Bush owned a timber company? Bush claimed that he did not, and said his side splitting joke "want some wood?" Well it appears Bush does own 50% of a timber company, but didn't even realize it because it shows up on his tax return under it's parent company's name. Also, bush claims that 900,000 small companies will have increased taxes with Kerry. Not true. What Bush is trying to consider a "small business" to inflate the numbers is a bit of a joke. Read up at factcheck.org.

"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://factcheck.asc.upenn.edu/article.aspx?docid=265

-Chris

motoracr22

iTrader: (2)

I also liked how Bush mentioned this about our forests:

"What happens in those forests, because of lousy federal policy, is they grow to be -- they are not -- they're not harvested. They're not taken care of. And as a result, they're like tinderboxes."

"They're not harvested"?! I guess it's true, there wouldn't be any forest fires if there wasn't a forest...god logic Shrub!


anybody but Cheney/Bush 04'

deyes

Yeah, lets not harvest them and put out all the fires so that there is no mechanism, natural or otherwise to maintain a healthy forest. Harvest does not mean clear cut, our forest should be managed better to suit the interests of people in the industry and conservation minded citizens.