Did Bush evade $2.4 million income tax on his 1998 filing? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

host · 10-18-2004, 11:02 AM

(I apologize in advance for re-hashing what some will consider "old news".
I am aware that many younger TFPers may not have followed all of this,
including the author of the "Kerry only paid 12% tax rate" thread. <br>That thread subject is a compelling catalyst for this thread subject. Some reference<br> links come from sources which will surely be labeled partisan by some. The facts contained<br> are easily verifiable elsewhere, if this info triggers any further curiosity.)

In 1998, Bush and his partners sold the Texas Rangers baseball team. Although Bush originally invested just 1.8% of the purchase price for the team, his partners "rewarded" Bush by compensating him with an additional 10.2% ownership interest. When the team was sold, Bush allegedly filed a federal tax return that stated all of the $14.9 million that he received from the sale, as a "capital gain", taxed at just a 20% rate, instead of the 39.6% rate that $12 million of his income should have been taxed at, since the IRS classified this portion of Bush's "ownership" of the team as compensation, and not as the "basis" for a capital gain:

Quote:

According to IRS Revenue Procedure 93-27, “…The receipt of a partnership capital interest for services provided to or for the benefit of the partnership is taxable as compensation.”

Bush was also accused of using his influence as Texas governor to enhance the value of the baseball team via a complicated land purchase for the construction of a new baseball stadium for the team, and a special sales tax referendum intended to publically finance the cost of the land and the stadium. Bush rewarded the lead partner of the group who purchased the
team from Bush's group:

Quote:

R. Steven Hicks and his brother Tom both founded major radio companies that merged in ’99 into AMFM, Inc. After Clear Channel Communications devoured AMFM later that year, Tom Hicks became its vice chair. Tom Hicks made Bush a millionaire 15 times over when he bought the Texas Rangers in ’99. Just as local taxpayers enhanced the value of Bush’s Rangers by paying $135 million for their stadium, Hicks and Ross Perot, Jr. got Dallas taxpayers to spend $125 million on a stadium for their Dallas Stars and Mavericks in ’98. Tom Hicks heads the corporate raider firm Hicks Muse Tate & Furst (Bush’s No. 4 career patron). Hicks Muse long wanted to tap the $13-billion University of Texas (UT) endowment for its takeover deals. As Bush assumed office in ’95, Hicks was confirmed as a University of Texas Regent and hired lobbyists to push a bill creating the UT Investment Management Co. (UTIMCO). With Hicks as its first chair, UTIMCO began doling out contracts to private investment firms to manage portions of the endowment. A scandal blew up when the media discovered that UTIMCO awarded many of these lucrative contracts to firms tied to Hicks and Bush—including one that former President Bush reportedly owns a piece of. The UTIMCO board doling out these contracts included Clear Channel Chair L. Lowry Mays and the Pioneers Tom Loeffler, A.W. Riter, and A. R. Sanchez. Ed Bass and Pioneer Charles Wyly owned two firms that landed some of these contracts. <a href="http://www.tpj.org/pioneers/r_hicks.html">http://www.tpj.org/pioneers/r_hicks.html</a>

Did Bush commit similar crimes to those that Illinois Governor Otto Kern was
prosecuted for commiting in 1972?

Quote:

...........In 1972, Gov. Kerner was convicted of income tax fraud for influencing public policy that benefited his holdings in a race track corporation. On the advice of his accountants, Gov. Kerner treated the proceeds ($180,000) of his race track stock as long term capital gain subject to the reduced tax. The U.S. Attorney, James Thompson, prosecuted Gov. Kerner for falsely treating these proceeds as a capital gain because Gov. Kerner’s public policies had a substantial effect on the appreciation of the stock................<a href="http://www.makethemaccountable.com/tax/SaleOfBaseballTeam.htm">http://www.makethemaccountable.com/tax/SaleOfBaseballTeam.htm</a>

Quote:

BUSH MAY HAVE EVADED TAXES ON SALE OF BASEBALL TEAM

By the Anonymous CPA

Published August 19, 2002

A review of George W. Bush’s 1998 tax return reveals that he reported the sale of his share of the Texas Rangers baseball team as a long term capital gain. As a result, he paid a tax on the more than $15 million proceeds at a tax rate of 20%, as opposed to the 39.6% rate on ordinary income. According to a press release dated June 18, 1998 from the Dallas Morning News, Bush paid $606,000 for about 1.8% of the team and became the managing general partner of B/R Rangers Associates, Ltd., a limited partnership that owned the team. Under the terms of the agreement, Mr. Bush was given an additional 10.2% of the proceeds as additional compensation if the team was sold. The incentive compensation became effective if the other partners received their entire investment back plus a 2% return per year.

The team was purchased for $86 million in 1989 and sold in 1998 for $250 million to Tom Hicks, a person with whom Bush had prior official business while governor. As reported by Tom Kruger in his July 16, 2002 article, Tom Hicks had a relationship with Mr. Bush that afforded Hicks the opportunity to use $9 billion of the University of Texas endowment fund without any accountability. The management fee to Hicks for investing the $9 billion could have exceeded the $250 million he paid for the Texas Rangers. In effect, Bush handed Hicks the money to buy the team as part of his official duties as governor.

In addition, the team received funding for the new stadium built by the City of Arlington. More than $150 million was funded by the City of Arlington with a new sales tax imposed on its citizens. The team leased the stadium from a development corporation that was exempt from any school district tax. The tax exemption directly reduced the lease cost to the team by a substantial amount. In addition, as governor, Mr. Bush supported legislation that would have reduced the team’s school tax by $920,000 if the team exercised its option to purchase the stadium. Furthermore, this proposed tax reduction would have benefited Bush in another entity in which he had an equity interest with some of the partners of the Texas Rangers.

As reported in the Houston Chronicle on April 22, 1997, “The tax reform bill supported by Gov. George W. Bush would have saved at least $2.5 million in school property tax for a company founded by Bush’s billionaire business partner and top campaign contributor, Richard Rainwater of Fort Worth.” Mr. Rainwater headed a public company that was a real estate investment trust traded on the New York Stock Exchange. Bush himself had 4,222 shares of this stock when he proposed the tax reduction that would have benefited this company, Crescent Real Estate Equities, by more than $2.5 million. This same company owned psychiatric hospitals throughout the country that were closed down because of scandalous and fraudulent activities as reported by 60 Minutes and various publications, all before the presidential election of 2000.

As if that was not enough, Bush’s policies as governor further benefited Crescent by:

1. Allowing it to receive an extra $10 million stadium tax for a sports stadium used by the Dallas Mavericks

2. The State of Texas sold three office blocks belonging to the teachers’ retirement fund—to Crescent—the sale of one block costing the pension fund system $44 million.

3. The trust fund for the Texas University Public School invested $20 million in Crescent during Bush’s first term as governor.

Mr. Bush sold his interest in Crescent through his “blind trust,” the Lone Star Trust. Lone Star’s trustee was Mr. Bush’s personal CPA, Robert A. McClesky. Bush’s shares in Crescent were sold at its peak of $40/share, yielding him proceeds of $168,800. Shortly after the sale, Crescent’s stock plunged to $21/share.

Besides the Harken transaction previously reported, Bush has had an excellent record in investing in rapidly appreciating assets. Prior to Harken, he had a rather miserable record of success. However, it is clear that his success was based upon more than normal market appreciation. His political influence before and after he became governor substantially contributed to his personal wealth. The question now rises as to whether this political influence reaches the level of public corruption.

Returning to the sale of the Texas Rangers, it is clear that Mr. Bush earned his additional 10% of the team by adding considerable value to the team because of his political influence. Incentive clauses such as the one granted to Bush are common for managing partners adding value to their partnerships; however, such incentive clauses exercised on behalf of a sitting governor, even if he was not governor when the agreement was written, raises some serious tax questions in addition to the question of public policy conflicts of interest.

According to IRS Revenue Procedure 93-27, “…The receipt of a partnership capital interest for services provided to or for the benefit of the partnership is taxable as compensation.” As most people know, compensation is taxed as ordinary income, subject to the highest tax rates; in this case 39.6%. Mr. Bush treated the incentive portion of his proceeds as long term capital gain, and accordingly reduced his tax liability by at least $2.4 million. Mr. Bush may defend this aggressive tax position by pointing to aggressive planning by his accountants and lawyers. This by itself may be subject to dispute, and even though it is likely that the IRS would treat this incentive payment as ordinary income, Bush could possibly look to his accountants and lawyers as a defense. However, there is a further problem. It involves Otto Kerner, governor of Illinois from 1961 to 1968. <a href="http://www.makethemaccountable.com/tax/SaleOfBaseballTeam.htm">http://www.makethemaccountable.com/tax/SaleOfBaseballTeam.htm</a>

Quote:

In Kerner's case, his interest in the racetrack was passive; until his election as governor of Texas, George W. Bush was the active managing partner of the Rangers.

The wealthy Kerner's holdings in the track were a small portion of his investment portfolio; after his numerous business failures (we could go into the tax shenanigans surrounding Harken Energy, but that's a whole nother story), selling the Texas Rangers to Tom Hicks made George W. Bush into a wealthy man.

No specific policies or actions by Kerner as governor demonstrably raised the value of his racetrack investment; as governor, Bush supported legislation that gave the Rangers and the city of Arlington favorable tax environments for building a stadium using taxpayer dollars.

The Kerner case, while obviously a precedent for tax treatment of the profits from Bush's sale of the Rangers, is actually a far less clear-cut situation than is Bush's. If multiple federal convictions could result from a case as equivocal and ambiguous as the one against Otto Kerner, the case against Bush would seem to be open-and-shut.

But let's assume, just for argument's sake, that the case could be made -- despite the strong Kerner precedent -- that George W. Bush's $17 million profit from selling the Rangers actually was a capital gain. My second counterargument to Dubya's treatment of his profit is that it was not a long-term gain. I can, in fact, see no conceivable way to construe a capital gain (if we believe that it's that, rather than fully taxable compensation) as anything but short-term for George W. Bush. Oh, the Rangers had been controlled by Bush and his partners for some 10 years, but Dubya didn't receive his extra 10.2% of the stock in the club until the team was sold. Thus, George W. Bush held that incentive payment for only a very short time, probably no longer than the few seconds or perhaps as much as a few minutes, between signing the legal documents transferring the additional team stock to him, and signing the legal documents selling the team's stock to Tom Hicks and his group.
<a href="http://peacetreefarm.org/comments.php?id=60_0_1_0_C">http://peacetreefarm.org/comments.php?id=60_0_1_0_C</a>

<a href="http://www.makethemaccountable.com/tax/BushTaxes1998.pdf">Link to 1998 Bush Income Tax Return (.pdf format)</a>
Relevant pages are: Page 2, Page 4 - line 13, Page 11 - lines 15-27

Willravel · 10-18-2004, 11:07 AM

Honestly, it sounds about right. I trust Bush with money about as much as I trust Tony Soprano with law and order. Heh.

Ustwo · 10-18-2004, 11:30 AM

Host or should I say host, this is called obfuscation.

ob·fus·cate ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bf-skt, b-fskt)
tr.v. ob·fus·cat·ed, ob·fus·cat·ing, ob·fus·cates

1. To make so confused or opaque as to be difficult to perceive or understand: “A great effort was made... to obscure or obfuscate the truth” (Robert Conquest).
2. To render indistinct or dim; darken: The fog obfuscated the shore.

You are taking valid current info about Kerry avoiding taxes, and paying less then someone in the middle class % wise, and trying to justify it by saying Bush is just as bad using dubious sources. I'm sorry but I don't trust the content of any site that has

Quote:

'BUSH REMOVAL
NOVEMBER 2, 2004

The end of an error

as the headline on their home page. Just face the fact that Kerry is a tax hypocrite and move on.

host · 10-18-2004, 11:36 AM

Ustwo, your response is similar to throwing the baby out with the bath water.
I stand by the facts in the statements that were presented in the quotes.
It is much easier for you to post a few line in an attempt to discredit the
sources that I used. Yes, this is a complicated set of circumstances. I
quoted sources where the crux of the facts in my argument were best
assembled. Why not do as I suggested in the thread opening; do your own
research and refute the core of my argument. I believe that Bush profited
from a deal that he made, using his authority as Governor to help his
friend, Tom Hicks, to make signifigant profits via the award of the right
of Tom Hick's investment company, Utimco, to manage a huge amount of
Texas University's endowment. Hicks rewarde Bush by organizing a partnership that paid an attractive price for Bush's baseball team. Bush then
evaded taxes by stating an earned bonus as a long term capital gain, which
was taxed at half the tax rate that earned income is taxed at. Bush saved
at least $2.4 million in federal income tax by erroneously categorizing the
bulk of his gain from the baseball team sale as a long term capital gain, instead of what that income really was; earned income.

Now.....Ustwo, impeach the source of the following quotes instead of doing
the work of refuting the facts. The source is the University of Texas
Watchdog Group, www.utwatch.org .

More on UTIMCO, the University of Texas endowment portfolio manager
that was created while Bush was governor of Texas, at the behest of
Bush friend Tom Hicks, who later paid $250 million to Bush and his partners for the Texas Rangers baseball team......

Quote:

UTIMCO has proven itself to be caught in a web of tit-for-tat political favors, and ethically questionable appointments that can be traced back to both big Texas money and George W. Bush.
In addition, the <a href="utimco_performance.html">performance</a> of UTIMCO's investments have been bleak.
The company has lost over $1 billion in the last year alone, including substantial losses from its ties to the scandal-ridden corporations <a href="/corporations/enron.html">Enron</a> and WorldCom.
Even if UTIMCO can post profits for certain investments, UTIMCO has continually performed well below the Dow Jones average.
<a href="http://www.utwatch.org/utimco/">http://www.utwatch.org/utimco/</a>

Quote:

UTIMCO Secrecy

Since its inception in 1995, UTIMCO has operated in secret and attempted to shield itself from public visibility and accountability. With the former chairman Tom Ricks at the front line, UTIMCO argued that secrecy was important in making sound business decisions, and public knowledge would threaten the board's ability to strategize. UT Regent and UTIMCO board member Woody Hunt commented "We are appropriately open. There are some proceedings that shouldn't be open because it might hurt our investment strategy. However, all decisions we make are open to the public." (Univ. Wire, March 30, 2001)

In 1999, Don Evans, then the chairman of the Board of Regents, urged UTIMCO to obey open meeting laws of Texas. Despite his pleas, the board continued to hold meetings in private.

In the spring of 2001, State Representative Ron Wilson from Houston amended his education bill to declare UTIMCO as a public institution, requiring it to comply with the Texas Open Meetings Act (TOMA). This move was prompted by a growing skepticism on the part of legislators and the public regarding the decision process of UTIMCO's investments and the relationship between those decisions and the substantial financial loss the company had taken in recent months.

In October of 2001, UTIMCO passed its own resolution agreeing to comply with TOMA. Further rules applied requiring that the names and the value of assets invested must be made public as per the Texas Open Records Act.

Despite these attempts at opening up the company to public accountability, UTIMCO has continued to be scrutinized for not publishing its meeting times and locations and using such methods as teleconferencing or obscure locales such as the Ballpark at Arlington, home of the Texas Rangers, or the offices of Hicks, Muse, Tate, & Furst, the firm owned by Tom Hicks, to hold those meetings. <a href="http://www.utwatch.org/utimco/secrecy.html">http://www.utwatch.org/utimco/secrecy.html</a>

daswig · 10-18-2004, 11:36 AM

Hey host, was 1998 more than 3 years ago? If so, then the IRS didn't think it was worth prosecuting, since the SOL has expired.

Just out of curiosity, why aren't you on DemocraticUnderground.com? Or are you, and you get your talking points there?

hannukah harry · 10-18-2004, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Host or should I say host, this is called obfuscation.

ob·fus·cate ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bf-skt, b-fskt)
tr.v. ob·fus·cat·ed, ob·fus·cat·ing, ob·fus·cates

1. To make so confused or opaque as to be difficult to perceive or understand: “A great effort was made... to obscure or obfuscate the truth” (Robert Conquest).
2. To render indistinct or dim; darken: The fog obfuscated the shore.

You are taking valid current info about Kerry avoiding taxes, and paying less then someone in the middle class % wise, and trying to justify it by saying Bush is just as bad using dubious sources. I'm sorry but I don't trust the content of any site that has

as the headline on their home page. Just face the fact that Kerry is a tax hypocrite and move on.

yeah, that sounds about right... it's what you guys do everytime you yell "but clinton did it too!" just felt the need to obfuscate a bit more.

and dawsig, i thought the statute of limitations for tax was 7 years? (i could very well be wrong, i'm not a tax guy).

daswig · 10-18-2004, 11:57 AM

I'm not a tax guy either, but recall that they have three years unless they ask for and you give them an extension to review it (effectively waiving the SOL voluntarily).

beofotch5 · 10-18-2004, 06:25 PM

Kerry estate paid a total of 12% taxes, they are able to hire accountants and lawyers to shield their assetts from most taxes through returns on dividends and capital gains...

onetime2 · 10-18-2004, 06:41 PM

Just as it's alright for Kerry and his wife to avoid paying taxes through all legal means available, it is legal for Bush to do the same. The difference of course, is that Kerry is on the stump saying that the rich should be paying more while he chooses not to.

host · 10-18-2004, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onetime2

Just as it's alright for Kerry and his wife to avoid paying taxes through all legal means available, it is legal for Bush to do the same. The difference of course, is that Kerry is on the stump saying that the rich should be paying more while he chooses not to.

No, onetime2, the difference is that there is considerable evidence that Bush
used the authority and influence of his office of Governor of Texas to trade what was in the best interest of the people of Texas whose interest should have been first and foremost to him, for personal enrichment. The entirety of Bush's wealth comes from the sale of that baseball team. Did you review the linked copy of Bush's 1998 tax return, he filed a return that misrepresented his earned income as a lower tax rated long term capital gain. Here is some more reporting on this accusation.......where are your linked excerpts to refute this ?

Quote:

FORTUNE'S CHILD

As George W. Bush's wealthy admirers continue to pack cash into the largest presidential war chest in American history (at last count a staggering $58 million). perhaps the time is ripe to examine how the would-be president became rich himself--quite rich, in fact, if not by the standards of H. Ross Perot or Steve Forbes, at least by the measure of most Americans. Bush, who received $15 million for his share of the Texas Rangers franchise, would be the richest Democratic or Republican nominee since Lyndon Johnson. On the June 1998 day that the baseball team was sold, Bush told reporters, "When it is all said and done, I will have made more money than I ever dreamed ..."

Indeed. The sum represented an enviable 2,400 percent increase on the $606,000 investment Bush had made in the team nine years earlier, with borrowed money, and a considerable improvement on his own record of losing millions invested by others. Together with his elation about the windfall there may also have been a feeling of vindication for the eldest scion of the Bush family. Although twice elected governor of Texas (in 1994 and again in 1998), the son known as "Dubya" had lived through nearly two decades of business failures, embarrassing bailouts, and eyebrow-raising favors that had besmirched his family's reputation..................(Long article, but it covers UTIMCO and Bush's relationship with Tom Hicks and wealthy Texas Bush campaign contributors <a href="http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1111/is_1797_300/ai_59086099">Notes On A Native Son</a>

Quote:

How Is Arthur Sulzberger Jr. Like George W. Bush?
When it comes to real estate, he likes to play crony capitalism, too.
By Jack Shafer
Posted Tuesday, July 16, 2002, at 2:39 PM PT

New York Times op-ed columnist Nicholas D. Kristof properly excoriates George W. Bush today ("Bush and the Texas Land Grab") as a practitioner of "crony capitalism." In the early '90s, Bush and his Texas Rangers business partners convinced local government to help them acquire land at a steep discount and to subsidize the actual construction of their new ballpark. Kristof writes:

Essentially, Mr. Bush and the owners' group he led bullied and misled the city into raising taxes to build a $200 million stadium that in effect would be handed over to the Rangers. As part of the deal, the city would even confiscate land from private owners so that the Rangers owners could engage in real estate speculation.

"It was a $200 million transfer to Bush and Rangers owners," complains Jim Runzheimer, an anti-tax campaigner in Arlington.

Elsewhere on the same page, Paul Krugman similarly chronicles the Bush and Rangers shakedown of local government in "Steps to Wealth."

Kristof and Krugman, I must say, have Bush dead to rights. And I can only hope that the columnists will continue their muckraking by publicizing a similar case of crony capitalism being practiced in New York City by Arthur Sulzberger Jr.'s New York Times Co., which publishes the Times, and its real estate partner Forest City Ratner Companies. <a href="http://slate.msn.com/?id=2068127">http://slate.msn.com/?id=2068127</a>

cthulu23 · 10-18-2004, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beofotch5

Kerry estate paid a total of 12% taxes, they are able to hire accountants and lawyers to shield their assetts from most taxes through returns on dividends and capital gains...

Kerry and his wife file seperately....it may make a good soundbite to claim otherwise, but that is the truth. The 12% figure is completely meaningless outside of the propaganda context.

cthulu23 · 10-18-2004, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

as the headline on their home page. Just face the fact that Kerry is a tax hypocrite and move on.

If you are so concerned about the truth, why do you sport a sig that is so misleading as to be completely dishonest?

host · 10-21-2004, 10:45 AM

New media coverage on this story today.....

Quote:

......Returning to the TR sale, Bush earned an additional 10 percent of the team by his "added value" of political clout. It once again smacks of conflict of interest. According to IRS Revenue Procedure 93-27, "The receipt of partnership capital interest for service provided to or for the benefit of the partnership is taxable as compensation." As a result of filing the Ranger $12 million as long-term capital gains, Bush screwed the U.S. government out of at least $2.4 million in taxes. Buy me some peanuts and cracker jacks. I don't care if we never get back, etc. So stay tuned as the song and saga play out. And let's see if the American people get just who the creep is sitting in the White House. His very presence stains it, every which way. Let's hope on November 3, he gets the rousing, "Yerrr Out!" he so richly deserves—for this and all his other strikeouts worldwide. <a href="http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/102404Mazza/102404mazza.html">http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/102404Mazza/102404mazza.html</a>

Lebell · 10-21-2004, 10:53 AM

I personally don't know many people (ok, I know none) who don't work every dime they can out of the current tax code.

To have anyone point a finger at anyone else for doing this seems silly to me.

filtherton · 10-21-2004, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onetime2

Just as it's alright for Kerry and his wife to avoid paying taxes through all legal means available, it is legal for Bush to do the same. The difference of course, is that Kerry is on the stump saying that the rich should be paying more while he chooses not to.

Yeah, that's like a libertarian using public streets.

host · 10-21-2004, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

I personally don't know many people (ok, I know none) who don't work every dime they can out of the current tax code.

To have anyone point a finger at anyone else for doing this seems silly to me.

Aren't you overlooking the comparison of what Bush appears to have
accomplished, traded his influence and authority as the elected executive
of Texas, to achieve an attractive sale price and profit on the baseball team,
to the description of the charges that Illinois Governor Otto Kerner was
convicted of? The difference between the cases is that Kerner was convicted
of much less serious abuse of his power, for a much smaller reward. an amount
small enough ($180,000) to be insignifigant to his total net worth; whereas
the bulk of Bush's current net worth stems directly from the proceeds of the
sale of the Texas Rangers, combined with the $2.4 million he "saved" by
misstating $12 million of earned income as a long term captial gain.

Do not forget that $40,000,000 was spent in an investigation by a special
prosecutor (an estimation of the portion of the $60,000,000 total investigation expense.....) in an attempt to find the Clintons culpable in
a criminal wrongdoing in a real estate fraud, at the instigation of partisan
Republican legislators, on a less visible or convincing availability of evidence,
initially and later in the special prosecutor's final report.

Were your comments prompted more out of weariness of the never ending
partisan exchange of accusations, or because you think that Bush is being
unfairly singled out?

A large part of my motivation for highlighting this chapter of Bush's past
is that the uncontested, verifiable details of this situation are that they
obviously show an hypocricy on Bush's part. He seems to have one, conservative standard of what governments role should be in providing subsidies aimed at improving the lives of the common American, and providing a safety net for working people in times of economic downturn and in the crises that randomly affect individual families, yet a much more benevolent
and forgiving standard when it came to using his personal influence, power of elected office, and that of his family connections, to improve the value of
his own private partnership's equity, first, at the expense of the taxpayers of
the city that hosted the Texas Rangers baseball team, and then later, all of
the taxpayers in the state of Texas. What happened to the concept of
avoiding even the appearance of impropriety.

I'm willing to concede that I am more condemning of Bush because he has
been so vocal about common people looking more to themselves than to
government to find a way to economic stability and increased quality of life,
while promoting corporate welfare at the taxpayers' expense in exchange
for personal profit and funding for his political campaigns, than I would be
solely on the strength of the disclosed evidence of possible wrongdoing.
I cannot see how anyone who examines this does not at least conclude that
Bush talks a different game about limiting the role of government than the
game he himself as actually played.

onetime2 · 10-21-2004, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

No, onetime2, the difference is that there is considerable evidence that Bush
used the authority and influence of his office of Governor of Texas to trade what was in the best interest of the people of Texas whose interest should have been first and foremost to him, for personal enrichment. The entirety of Bush's wealth comes from the sale of that baseball team. Did you review the linked copy of Bush's 1998 tax return, he filed a return that misrepresented his earned income as a lower tax rated long term capital gain. Here is some more reporting on this accusation.......where are your linked excerpts to refute this ?

And where is your evidence of wrongdoing? Perhaps court records of conviction? Nah, why bother with evidence. Conjecture and unfounded assertions are far more fun.

Kalibah · 10-22-2004, 12:39 AM

If it were true- Dan Rather would be ALL over it.
Well- even if it wasnt...
No one is saying that Mrs. Hienz-Kerry did anything illegal - were just saying its hypocritical.

Lebell · 10-22-2004, 05:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Were your comments prompted more out of weariness of the never ending
partisan exchange of accusations, or because you think that Bush is being
unfairly singled out?

More the former than the latter.

The truth is, I can't keep up with reading all the articles you guys post and moderate as well.

Heck, I can barely just moderate this board.

I rarely visit any of the other boards, anymore...

hannukah harry · 10-22-2004, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kalibah

If it were true- Dan Rather would be ALL over it.
Well- even if it wasnt...
No one is saying that Mrs. Hienz-Kerry did anything illegal - were just saying its hypocritical.

how is kerry being hypocritical because of something his wife does?

edit: or how is mrs. hienz-kerry being a hypocrit for her husbands policies?

Flyguy · 10-23-2004, 12:32 AM

Yes.........

I'd take advantage of my own tax breaks in a second.

10-18-2004, 06:41 PM	#9 (permalink)
onetime2 Junkie Location: NJ	Just as it's alright for Kerry and his wife to avoid paying taxes through all legal means available, it is legal for Bush to do the same. The difference of course, is that Kerry is on the stump saying that the rich should be paying more while he chooses not to. __________________ Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

10-21-2004, 10:53 AM	#14 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	I personally don't know many people (ok, I know none) who don't work every dime they can out of the current tax code. To have anyone point a finger at anyone else for doing this seems silly to me. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

10-23-2004, 12:32 AM	#21 (permalink)
Flyguy Banned Location: Swooping down on you from above....	Yes......... I'd take advantage of my own tax breaks in a second. Last edited by Flyguy; 10-23-2004 at 12:35 AM..

10-18-2004, 11:07 AM	#2 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Honestly, it sounds about right. I trust Bush with money about as much as I trust Tony Soprano with law and order. Heh.

10-18-2004, 11:36 AM	#5 (permalink)
daswig Banned Location: BFE	Hey host, was 1998 more than 3 years ago? If so, then the IRS didn't think it was worth prosecuting, since the SOL has expired. Just out of curiosity, why aren't you on DemocraticUnderground.com? Or are you, and you get your talking points there?

10-18-2004, 11:57 AM	#7 (permalink)
daswig Banned Location: BFE	I'm not a tax guy either, but recall that they have three years unless they ask for and you give them an extension to review it (effectively waiving the SOL voluntarily).

10-18-2004, 06:25 PM	#8 (permalink)
beofotch5 Upright	Kerry estate paid a total of 12% taxes, they are able to hire accountants and lawyers to shield their assetts from most taxes through returns on dividends and capital gains...

10-22-2004, 12:39 AM	#18 (permalink)
Kalibah Insane Location: Padded Playhouse	If it were true- Dan Rather would be ALL over it. Well- even if it wasnt... No one is saying that Mrs. Hienz-Kerry did anything illegal - were just saying its hypocritical.