I’d give the same amount whether it was deductible or not.
And you are typical in that respect, you see …
Listen to the segment from yesterday’s Here & Now:
http://www.hereandnow.org/shows/2009/02/rundown-227/?autostart=true
http://philanthropy.com/news/updates/index.php?id=7244
This probably isn’t anything to worry about, just a Republican’s red herring.

Well…ummm…yeah.
Donations will go down, liberals will accuse conservatives of “immorality” for not giving “enough” – a new crisis is produced and the government will step in to “help”.
My donations will not be affected either…but the set up and delivery is predictable.

Just another cynical attempt to make people dependent on the government rather than each other.

$164,500 is the ceiling for individual taxpayers. Quite a rebuttal Orszag put forth. Only why the extra red tape (even though Michelle already answered correctly)? Guess they’re creating yet more jobs to supplement the stimulus bill (and I’m a monkey’s uncle).

My take on this one is that the $100 million in federal funding is a drop in the charitable bucket, and probably we’d all be better off if it were left out entirely. As for the changes in the tax laws, there is also a change in alternative minimum tax that can–but won’t necessarily in every case–offset the reduction in charitable contributions. Many high-income taxpayers already could not take all their deductions because of alternative minimum tax, which has been around for decades. In other words, I don’t see this change in tax law as affecting contributions even if they are motivated by taking a tax deduction.

Right now CNN is getting ready to show the results of trying to live on food stamps for a month

It’s a good thing that charities have food trucks, churches have food pantries, etc. People don’t have to live on food stamps for a month.

It is a big picture issue.
MzEllen frequently talks about opinion/belief, while I try to stay with verifiable facts. At least “facts” with support from typically reliable sources, the more sources the better to provide support. With the charitable tax deductions, I am starting with belief.
I trust in Pres. Obama to do the best possible for charities. Obama has about a 67% approval rating; therefore, I am not the only that thinks he is doing a good job. He inherited the worse situation since the depression.
His rational seems logical to me – that using the savings for health care reform will be more beneficial for everyone.
The health care situation is at a crisis point, which is being compounded by the continuing increases in unemployment.
The tax change does not happen until 2011
“The evidence suggests that many factors affect charitable contributions, including the desire to help the charity and overall economic conditions,” he wrote.
The proposal would limit to 28 percent the tax break that families making more than $250,000 can get for itemized deductions on their federal returns, including donations to charity. That means they could save up to 28 cents in taxes for every dollar donated —compared with up to 35 cents now.
What about tax fairness for people that cannot itemize deductions?

His rational seems logical to me
That sounds verifiable.
I trust in Pres. Obama to do the best possible for charities.
Also a verifiable fact.
I’m sure you do.

It’s a good thing that charities have food trucks, churches have food pantries, etc. People don’t have to live on food stamps for a month.
I guess you’re right. The notion that charities have food trucks and churches have food pantries is a mere “opinion”.
(I’ve worked on both types of projects.)
I’ve been the recipient of food stamps.
I know that if a person lives on food stamps alone, it’s because they’re not accessing other alternatives.

MzEllen,
I prefaced what I said by saying I was writing MzEllen style. What I said was just as factual as, “Of course it will be to charities that Obama deems worthy. Another example of the intrusion of the Obama big government into our business.”
The intrusive government has always given or taken away tax exemptions. In return you get a military, air traffic controllers, safety controls on your food, etc, etc.
The intrusive Bush administration needlessly invaded another country and put us into a huge hole.
Moonshadow provided two great links. The information is good because it presents opposing views.
I have high respect for conservative author David Brooks at the New York Times. Even though I disagree with many things he says, Brooks often does a good job at reviewing positives and negatives.
If you are interested in broadening your prospective or seeing how someone can disagree with others, but still find worthy part, I highly recommend Brook’s The Uncertain Trumpet http://tinyurl.com/csnxo5
A view positive statements from Brooks, see the negative at the link
“On Thursday, he offered a budget of his own, and the question arises: Will he really change all that?
The answer is somewhat, but not enough. Obama’s budget is far more honest than the ones that preceded it. It imposes real pay-as-you-go rules on future outlays. Intellectually serious efforts are made to pay for at least half of the cost of health care reform.
The bigger problem is health care. This is an issue where everybody wants benefits they don’t pay for, where perverse incentives have created an expensive system that doesn’t deliver results. This is an area where aggressive presidential leadership is mandatory. …
Even though the budget is not all one would have hoped, I’d trust the folks in the Obama administration to craft a decent health care plan before I’d trust the Congressional Old Bulls. Obama blew a mighty trumpet Tuesday night, but after you blow the trumpet, you actually have to charge.
I recommend reading Rod Dreher’s “The AIG cancer and the depression”
grim realities of everyday American life was enhanced on Friday, as the Commerce Department gave a harsher assessment for the last three months of 2008.

yes ma’am.
(In factual terms, of course) what is “best” for charities? Who gets to pick?
Is is “best” for charities to be prohibited from hiring those whose beliefs are in line with the organization (whether they be Muslim, Christian or Atheists?)
Who gets to pick (just the facts please).
You see, it is a fool who believes that what they believe politically is based purely on factual information. I can take in facts, but what I end up with is my opinion…based on facts, certainly.
I can spew many facts – and they will support my opinions. I can regurgitate statistics. I can cut and paste with the best of them.
But in the end, in order to have a “conversation”, it boils down to our opinions and how we support them. Only a fool believes otherwise.

The information is good because it presents opposing views.
Actually, they are an identical view.
Tax breaks are not motivation for charitable giving, as michele and MzEllen have both attested. Neither is my husband thus motivated, despite my attempts at persuasion.
to make people dependent on the government rather than each other.
Anyone who believes state charity instills dependency must recognize that parochial charity does likewise.

Though-provoking, to say the least (and where the excerpt reads ‘Catholic Charities,’ feel free to plug in the name of your favorite agency):
State funding cuts hit Catholic Charities programs; more expected -
“the recent elimination of nearly $100,000 in [CA] state funds — some 48 percent of her budget — has nearly devastated …”
“The economic stimulus bill recently passed by Congress and signed by President Barack Obama has funds to help states meet the growing need for social services, but Father Snyder said how soon that money makes its way to the agencies is unknown.”

Moonshadow,
The second link you provided has links to charities that are concerned about the proposal. The second paragraph is Obama’s position :
“Independent Sector, a coalition of charities and foundations, and the Council on Foundations were among the nonprofit groups that lined up to express concern that the proposal would prompt donors to pull back.
But others say the effect could be limited or should be viewed in the context of the broader goals the president is trying to achieve with his budget proposals.”
MzEllen said, “prohibited from hiring those whose beliefs are in line with the organization (whether they be Muslim, Christian or Atheists?”
Do you want your tax dollars going to a group that would recruit people to be atheists? The last I read, the Obama administration was rethinking the hiring issue.
MzEllen (Michele) said, “You see, it is a fool who believes that what they believe politically is based purely on factual information. I can take in facts, but what I end up with is my opinion…based on facts, certainly.”
Matthew 22:38-40
38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
MzEllen is calling someone a fool loving your neighbor?
CBS Poll
63 percent said that Congressional Republicans opposed the stimulus package mostly for political reasons

Julie, here’s the thing.
I think that you take in facts and form an opinion based on those facts. That would make you “not a fool”.
You need to be the judge of whether or not you have no opinions; whether all you can do is regurgitate facts without forming ideology with them.
Are you a fool that only has facts, with no beliefs that are based on them?
I think not. I think you have beliefs and opinions.
Are you that arrogant that you believe that everything you believe politically is based on absolute truth? I think not…
That may be a difference between you and I. I leave room for acknowledging that what I believe is based in opinion – leaving the room for being wrong.
If you believe that you have no opinions (only truth), then you (by definition) do not have any room for mistakes. Does that describe you?
MzEllen is calling someone a fool loving your neighbor?
If it’s done as a warning. If it spurs a little soul searching.
Love rejoices in truth.
Do you want your tax dollars going to a group that would recruit people to be atheists?
Sorry, Julie, bait and switch won’t work.
The question is not about recruiting people to the belief -
The question is about whether or not a charity should be allowed to hire people with their ideology/beliefs. Hire vs. serve. I’m sure you know the difference.
And yes. I do believe that Muslim charities should be allowed to HIRE people who have Muslim beliefs.
I also believe that gay rights activists should not be forced to hire (HIRE) fundamental Christians who disagree with them politically.
63 percent said that Congressional Republicans opposed the stimulus package mostly for political reasons
So did I. My political belief is that putting our country into massive debt (via how many bailout packages are there now?) is not a good thing.
The things we do for political reasons are based on our political beliefs. Frankly – I’m glad that most Republicans have discovered their testicular fortitude enough to stand up for their “political reasons”.
MzEllen (Michele) said
what is this?

The problem about the deficits is this: The Democrats didn’t create these deficits; George Bush did, with his massive tax cuts for the rich in a time of costly adventures in Iraq AT the same time.
And now these economical policies have almost destroyed the economy and the lives of almost all ordinary Americans- and the lives of people outside of the US- its up to the US government to put in money into the fiscal cycle, because the zombie private sector in the US are all pulling back.
I am studying economics; I know how this cycle works. And if you think starving the government will help the economy to grow, while the private sector comes back, you forget that the private sector works on trust and if trust and confidence aren’t restored to the system, which private sector company will want to risk their financial futures to hire people, sell goods?
If the government doesn’t put in more money, doesn’t revive the banking sector by putting in reforms to fix the banks, and restore trust and confidence, how will the economy recover? You starve the beast that is the government, and then you hope the zombie private sector will somehow revive. If you ask me, that’s probably hope against hope. That’s not a viable economical policy direction.
Besides, if its the Republicans who created the deficits in the first place- when they inherited a huge budget surplus from Clinton, then they shouldn’t tag Democrats as “socialists” and fiscal liberals when it was your top guys who created the current difficult situation in the first place.
And as for the limit on charity deductions, while your concerns are worth a closer look, and while I do agree with your concerns, I think there are also measures that help charities, while there are those who don’t. But there are many Democrats in the private sector who are equally rich, and I’d expect a few to protest- as with conservative Democrats as well.
Besides whether or not it would survive the Congressional and Senate process is also another question.
Finally, I think religious charities should hire those of their own faith or of those who believe in the same cause. In this aspect, we have to be clear about this.

If the government doesn’t put in more money, doesn’t revive the banking sector by putting in reforms to fix the banks, and restore trust and confidence, how will the economy recover?
A few days ago I references a $50,000,000.00 earmark in the “stimulus package” for a “people mover” at the San Jose airport. Net jobs: 200.
How does this restore confidence? The package is full of these things.
You starve the beast that is the government, and then you hope the zombie private sector will somehow revive. If you ask me, that’s probably hope against hope. That’s not a viable economical policy direction.
If the beast that is the government is the one making the jobs (instead of making an environment where the private sector is encouraged to make the jobs, that is not a viable direction either.
I live in Michigan. The automakers are not going to be revived by the government money flowing into them. It’s like trying to cure a decapitation with a bandaid.
Besides, if its the Republicans who created the deficits in the first place- when they inherited a huge budget surplus from Clinton, then they shouldn’t tag Democrats as “socialists” and fiscal liberals when it was your top guys who created the current difficult situation in the first place.
That is debatable. Deficits – yes. Whether or not “Clinton” gave us a surplus, or whether the budgets that came from Republicans in congress gave us the surplus is a matter for the history books.
I remember the Carter years…they were not pretty. And there is indication that the beginnings of deregulation (airlines, phone companies, trucking, banking) started in the Carter years.
Finally, I think religious charities should hire those of their own faith or of those who believe in the same cause. In this aspect, we have to be clear about this.
Julie apparently disagrees. Or maybe she disagrees with me, and thus whatever it is that I say, no matter what it is that I say.

Tim – Outstanding comment! You did a great job of using layman terms to explain an extremely complicated issue.
Tim said: “If the government doesn’t put in more money, doesn’t revive the banking sector by putting in reforms to fix the banks, and restore trust and confidence, how will the economy recover?”
Alert – MzEllen Changes the Subject
MzEllen said: “A few days ago I references a $50,000,000.00 earmark in the “stimulus package” for a “people mover” at the San Jose airport. Net jobs: 200.
How does this restore confidence? The package is full of these things.”
The people mover has nothing to do with Tim’s subject of fixing the banks. The banks have to be fixed.
Do you have any idea of how close to the edge some of the major banks are sitting? Do you understand the dominos that will fall if these banks collapse?
Analysts: Citigroup’s Third Bailout Probably Not Its Last
Rating Agencies Sign Off On Revised AIG Bailout
Obama ‘gearing up for a fight’
Biggest obstacle for Obama: Congress
I know that you will come back with an unrelated attempt at a rebuttal. The thought that Obama could actually be trying to do something good is a concept currently blocked.
Yesterday, Obama’s comments in his weekly address were also aimed at Democrats. Obama is upset about the Democrats and the Republicans putting earmarks in the stimulus bill. He knows it will be a challenge to end a very profitable practice for Congress, big businesses, and lobbyists. All 435 seats in the House as well as 36 Senate seats are up for election in 2010. They want something tangible to take home rather than promises to cut the federal deficit in half four years from now.
“I know that the insurance industry won’t like the idea that they’ll have to bid competitively to continue offering Medicare coverage, but that’s how we’ll help preserve and protect Medicare and lower health care costs for American families,” he said.
“I know that banks and big student lenders won’t like the idea that we’re ending their huge taxpayer subsidies, but that’s how we’ll save taxpayers nearly $50 billion and make college more affordable. I know that oil and gas companies won’t like us ending nearly $30 billion in tax breaks, but that’s how we’ll help fund a renewable energy economy that will create new jobs and new industries.”
“I know these steps won’t sit well with the special interests and lobbyists who are invested in the old way of doing business, and I know they’re gearing up for a fight as we speak,”
With strong emphasis “My message to them is this: So am I.”

Tim said, “Finally, I think religious charities should hire those of their own faith or of those who believe in the same cause. In this aspect, we have to be clear about this.”
MxEllen said, “Julie apparently disagrees. Or maybe she disagrees with me, and thus whatever it is that I say, no matter what it is that I say.”
From a church and separation perspective, I agree with Obama’s original statement about nondiscrimination in hiring.
I think there is considerable risk of misuse by putting strings on how the individual receives the benefits, such as pressure to hear or attend religious activities.
Realism – Will It Work
As Moonshadow said about something, I do not think the cost of policing compliance would be worth it. It would also be an issue for smaller entities. I think there should be controls to allow complaints and spot check audits to ensure the money is spent correctly.

MzEllen said,
“I remember the Carter years…they were not pretty. And there is indication that the beginnings of deregulation (airlines, phone companies, trucking, banking) started in the Carter years.”
The current situation in our country is unlike anything we have faced in the past, which is why it is extremely difficult to predict exactly what will work. The economist do not all agree on different aspects of how to fix the problem. I have heard several economist say we are not spending nearly enough.
I am not close to being an economist; therefore, I do not have the information to think I know more than the economists do. It is my opinion that admitting not knowing something demonstrates a confident person. Admitting being wrong takes an even more confident person.
Making negative statements about the bill as a whole or about specific items without providing an analysis for how an opinion is reached does not add any value to the blog.
I do not expect absolute non-refutable facts.
Preponderance of the Evidence: That degree of relevant evidence that a reasonable person, considering the record as a whole, would accept as sufficient to find that a contested fact is more likely to be true than untrue.
You will not even accept the long list of independent sources that verified that Obama did not pall around with Ayers – ABC, CBS, politifact, factcheck, Newsweek, Sun Times, etc.
MzEllen answered the following question “is calling someone a fool loving your neighbor?
If it’s done as a warning. If it spurs a little soul searching. Love rejoices in truth.”
Your above statement is arrogance at its worse. Your conclusion is not based on “truth” or fact. It is your opinion.
Under the Burris blog MzEllen said, “Accusing her of “slander”, via generalizations. Jesus spoke of “all”, when “all” was clearly not met.”
News Alert for MzEllen – You are not Jesus nor are you following his instructions.
Picking verses out of context while ignoring the many verses were Jesus taught us how to treat other people is hypocrisy that causes people to think poorly of Christians.
63 percent said that Congressional Republicans opposed the stimulus package mostly for political reasons
MzEllen said, So did I. My political belief is that putting our country into massive debt (via how many bailout packages are there now?) is not a good thing. The things we do for political reasons are based on our political beliefs. Frankly – I’m glad that most Republicans have discovered their testicular fortitude enough to stand up for their “political reasons”.”
The question was not intended to be a political position on a specific issue. It was meant to be – was the Republican opposition for their own personal gain – make Democrats look bad in hopes of getting more votes in the next election.
Give me some facts that Obama’s proposition to reduce charitable giving and I will admitting being wrong. At this point no one knows for sure. As Tim said, it has to be approved by Congress.
Another possibility:
Since the tax change would not occur until 2011 – people might donate more in 2009-2010 at a time when charities are hurting for more.

Making negative statements about the bill as a whole or about specific items without providing an analysis for how an opinion is reached does not add any value to the blog.
Then get your own blog. Then you will get to pick what adds to it.
Sounds like a plan. Blogger’s free.
Your above statement is arrogance at its worse. Your conclusion is not based on “truth” or fact. It is your opinion.
Like your accusation of slander. Hypocrite. Yes. That IS my opinion of you.

MzEllen/Michele,
Yes it is my opinion that your statements that I am a fool were arrogance at its worse.
Opinion: a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter
Fact
the quality of being actual : actuality evidence> 4 a: something that has actual existence
Truth : the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality
MzEllen said: But in the end, in order to have a “conversation”, it boils down to our opinions and how we support them. Only a fool believes otherwise.
You have not provided any support for your opinions, which has been my major point. In addition, you ignore reliable facts/evidence to continue your hate for Pres. Obama.
Repeating non-factual information Obama when there is a long list of evidence from reliable sources that show you are repeating false information is slander.
It may be your opinion, but repeating malicious gossip is a sin. That is not only my opinion – it is the word of God.
Timothy 6:3-5
3 If anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching,
4 he is conceited and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions
3 John 1:9-11
9 I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to be first, will have nothing to do with us. 10 So if I come, I will call attention to what he is doing, gossiping maliciously about us. Not satisfied with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers. He also stops those who want to do so and puts them out of the church.
11 Dear friend, do not imitate what is evil but what is good. Anyone who does what is good is from God. Anyone who does what is evil has not seen God.
Romans 1
28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.
29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips,
30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents;
31 they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

We Answer Kindly
Disagreeing with someone is much different than calling them a fool or the many other things you have said to people on this blog.
Giving up the unjustified hate would improve your ability to fight cancer. It could give you a positive look at life instead of constant negativity.
1 Corinthians 4:12-14
12 We work hard with our own hands. When we are cursed, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure it;
13 when we are slandered, we answer kindly. Up to this moment we have become the scum of the earth, the refuse of the world.
14 I am not writing this to shame you, but to warn you, as my dear children.

I think the issue about jobs offered by all 50 state governments for infrastructure projects(roads, bridges, sewerage, power and telephone lines, mass transit, internet broadband, weatherization etc) are only for a few years while the projects are being in the process of being built.
Once these shovel-ready projects are complete, the likelihood of the recession now probably would recede by then. These projects are after will take 2-3 years to complete.
Also, infrastructure to quickly send information, power and water, goods, and services- and most importantly, people- to the respective locations where commerce is located, where jobs are located- usually have lasting benefits for current, and future generations.
Even up to now, the infrastructure projects created by Presidents FDR and Eisenhower, a Republican, still have helped many people, and many businesses and have had a lasting impact on the US economy over the decades. These infrastructure, if handled properly and be approved in places which really need these projects, will also help the people in local, state and federal context.
Last but not least, at least once these projects are finished, the recession has ended, these folks can return back to private sector employment. All will learn new skills through these projects, and might even become managers, and entrepreneurs(an upgrade in rank). All of this will help the economy in the long run too.

Tim,
Too many people have been very short-sighted and negative about many of Pres. Obama’s proposals.
An example of your “have had a lasting impact on the US economy over the decades.”
I have been to Hoover Dam two times. It was named after Herbert Hoover, who played an instrumental role in its construction, first as the Secretary of Commerce and then later as the President of the United States.
The project not only provided jobs and a source of energy, it has been a major tourist attraction.
The Bureau of Reclamation has conducted tours through the Hoover Dam and powerplant since 1937. Today, close to 1,000,000 visitors a year take the tour and millions more drive across the dam.
Parking fee: $7.00
Price
Adults (Ages 17-61) $11.00
Seniors (62+) $9.00
Juniors (ages 4-16) $9.00
U.S. Military (Active Duty and Dependents) $9.00
U.S. Military (in Uniform) Free
Children (Ages 0-3) Free
Food and Gift shop concession are available.
Hoover Dam is one of the Bureau of Reclamation’s major dams constructed on the Colorado River. These projects control floods; store water for irrigation, municipal, and industrial use; and provide hydroelectric power, year-round recreational opportunities, and fish and wildlife habitat.
My state has several projects ready to roll. One project is much needed repairs to a crumbling bridge. It will provide jobs and potentially prevent injury or death.

Example of Republican Hypocrisy
Senator Kit Bond (R-Mo) has been bragging about passing a provision in the stimulus that would earmark $2 billion for affordable housing nationwide, of which Missouri could see about $40 million, the senator said. The money is expected to create 3,000 jobs statewide and build more than 700 affordable housing units in the state — at a time when low-income families need it the most.”
Problem
Senator Bond voted against his own earmark as did all but three Republicans. In the future if things go wrong, they can claim, “I never voted for it, it was those Democrats.”

Getting back to the original subject of Michelle’s post, the assumption is just plain wrong because of how the tax law has treated deductions by higher-income individuals for decades.
I probably should phrase my comment more directly.
The proposed budget does not discourage charitable giving. Due to alternative minimum tax, for some higher-income taxpayers, and some not so high-income taxpayers
The more you deduct, the more tax you pay, not less.
The less you deduct, the less tax you pay, not more.
It’s counterintuitive, but it also means you just plain don’t understand the proposal, and what is more distressing, a lot of members of Congress apparently don’t, either.
It’s one of the peculiarities of the tax law, and it’s been patched, not fixed, by the new budget proposal. So for many higher-income givers, the reduction in the percent deductible is actually irrelevant.

Disagreeing with someone is much different than calling them a fool or the many other things you have said to people on this blog.
So is accusing them of slander, calling them liars, questioning their salvation. But it’s okay for you to do those things. What do you call it when it’s okay for you to do something that you judge others for? I think I know what it’s called.
You accuse Michele of slander and question her salvation…
and when I say that somebody is a fool for believing himself/herself so sure of being right that they have no opinions, only facts (you are the one who saw yourself in that description)…
you “whine” about me not being “loving”. Perhaps you are only being treated the way you treat you host here.

Disagreeing with someone is much different than calling them a fool or the many other things you have said to people on this blog.
Here’s the thing…what I was hoping for was some sort of admission that you really do have opinions…and that you have a thought that sometimes you might be wrong.
But it seems you really do believe that you really always are that right – thus, the defensiveness.

I give most all my charitable giving to my church. When the president says he will make up the shortfall in giving by government giving he probably won’t give to my church or any other. And I don’t want him giving government money to my church with stipulations that always come with government handouts. I don’t want government giving me anytyhing other than national defence and freedom of movement for citizens and commerce. The smaller the government the better its citizens. Just read what some of founding fathers warned us about with big government.

MzEllen/Michele said:
“You accuse Michele of slander and question her salvation..”
When someone makes statements that are malicious false statements to harm another person, they are slandering, which is a sin.
Continuing to repeat false statements that have been shown to be false by a large number of reliable sources is slander and lying.
It is not a complicated or disputable fact that the above two examples are sin according to the Bible
Trying to justify sinful statements as opinion does not fly. It is a clear example of not being able to deal with reality and lying to yourself.
Repeating information from other websites with a reckless disregard for the accuracy of the information is gossip or worse.

Julie said, “Disagreeing with someone is much different than calling them a fool or the many other things you have said to people on this blog.”
MzEllen, “Here’s the thing…what I was hoping for was some sort of admission that you really do have opinions…and that you have a thought that sometimes you might be wrong.
But it seems you really do believe that you really always are that right – thus, the defensiveness”
What do I need to admit being wrong about?
Why do you continue to ignore what I say?
I have explained many times that my opinions on complicated issues are based on facts and attempting to know the complete picture before jumping to conclusions. I have already explain the facts do not have to be absolute, but the facts have to come from usually reliable sources – the more sources the better. I would never base an opinion on NewsBusters, Shawn Hannity, Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Glen Beck, etc. I verify facts from liberal sources to other sources. I do not let the media spoon feed me what I should think.
I think forming opinions without knowing the complete picture is not a wise thing to do.
Not knowing facts can cause a person to make minor and major bad decisions. For example, not understanding the dangers of adjustable rate loans.
I am open to the possibility that reducing the tax credit for the wealthy may be either positive or negative.
The possibility that reducing health care cost would provide more overall benefit seems to be a logical argument that should be explored before jumping to a conclusion.
Robert’s statements about the alternative minimum tax (AMT) for some higher-income taxpayers, and some not so high-income taxpayers is another area to explore before jumping to a conclusion.
I have not taken the time to learn about AMT. I do not what “some” means. I will wait until there is more available analysis to make an informed opinion.
MzEllen – it is my opinion based on reading the reasoning provided for reducing the tax credits that you do not have the knowledge needed to make the comments below are accurate. Neither of us have the knowledge at this point to know that donations will go down. The rest of the statement is an inflammatory attack against those bad “liberals.”
MzEllen February 28, 2009 2:05 PM
“Well…ummm…yeah.
Donations will go down, liberals will accuse conservatives of “immorality” for not giving “enough” – a new crisis is produced and the government will step in to “help”.
My donations will not be affected either…but the set up and delivery is predictable.

“Anyone who believes state charity instills dependency must recognize that parochial charity does likewise.”
an excellent point.
also, i really enjoyed your last comment, moonshadow. particularly the quotes and the linked story. i wonder how that squares with michele’s “knowing:”
“I’m actually more concerned for the charities because I know they’ll lose money under this plan.”
it could well be that obama saves many charities. ironic (if one were to believe that he was out to destroy them). michele, herself, admits that her donation levels will not change, as do a couple others in the comments.
“Giving Institute noted in a statement that 53 percent of high-net-worth donors surveyed in a 2006 study for Bank of America said their giving would stay the same, or even increase, if the tax deduction for charitable gifts fell to zero.

Giving Institute members have found that “the most important factor in how much people give is how committed they are to the purpose of the request,” the statement said. Furthermore, giving will increase when wealth is created and “if the president’s plan generates more wealth for Americans then giving will go up.”

it’s a pathetic belief that americans won’t give unless they have a financial incentive (in the form of a tax break). and that incentive is being reduced by measly 5-7 percent of the charitable amount… AND this is for the few who don’t already fall into the 28% tax bracket due to the alternative minimum tax (those who would otherwise have to pay taxes from the 30-35% tax brackets often use mortgage payments to qualify for the lower amt rate of 28% which automatically limits their charitable tax savings to 28% anyway).
“Of course it will be to charities that Obama deems worthy.”
again, ironically, michele complains about this possiblity but not when it was a reality under the bush administration (which insisted that 1/3 of aids relief funds be allocated to abstinence only education which has no record of actually working). i guess this choice, like other choices, go to the one who won the election.

What do I need to admit being wrong about?
It appears absolutely nothing. I get it. Never mind.

MzEllen,
If you want someone to admit they are wrong. The first step is to provide factual support for why they are wrong.

Julie, you have just indicated that you have no opinions, only facts. Why interact with somebody as arrogant as that?
If you want someone to admit they are wrong.
What I was looking for was the admission of the mere possibility that you could (possibly maybe) be wrong (at some points). You appear to think that’s out of the question – you having only facts and no opinions and all.
I. GIVE. UP.
You also are not Jesus. Your choice of whether or not to follow Biblical guidelines (such as Matthew 18 – approaching Michele privately first) is clear. Very clear.
You are now getting what you have dished out.
You accuse Michele of slander, yet “cry out” “You’re not Jesus!” when I apply a standard to you. That is a very nice illustration of “refusal to apply to ourselves the same standards we apply to others”.
You might want to give that a try. But again, I give up.
It is clear why you are here. When you speak of Michele’s hatred of Obama, you might want to apply the same measure to yourself when you think of Michele. The words you use to her – personally, on her personal blog, to her…what you say to…but again – I give up.
You believe that you cannot be wrong. I see nothing to believe otherwise.
Humility is another attitude that appears to elude you.

MzEllen,
“You accuse Michele of slander,”
You can pull out various Bible verses to attack me, but that does not change the fact that MzEllen/Michele slandered.
As previously provided, slander has a definition. It does not take Jesus to know whether someone is saying something that is not supported by fact.
I worked up to the slander statements by providing considerable facts with reliable sources. MzEllen/Michele continued with the false statements even though there is absolutely no facts to support the statements.
I will argue for the truth. It does not matter if the person is a conservative/liberal; Democrat/Republican; a murder or close to a saint; or someone I like or someone I do not like.
Truth is the foundation of Christianity. Without a foundation, the rest does not stand.

That’s nice. Pot, meet kettle

MzEllen/Michele
Are you attempting to say that Michele and MzEllen are the same person?
I worked up to the slander statements by providing considerable facts with reliable sources.
And I believe that the earth could implode before we see any evidence of self-examination from you.

MzEllen said, “And I believe that the earth could implode before we see any evidence of self-examination from you.”
The subject is MzEllen/Michele slandering even though there are many reliable sources to dispute the statements. The best defense is an offense
MzEllen said, “Are you attempting to say that Michele and MzEllen are the same person?”
I believe the odds are very high. For example, a recent MzEllen comments said she had control over how much someone could cut and paste. Other statements indicate one in the same.
It does not really matter. MzEllen has slandered far more in recent comments than what has been in the blog. Michele used to make many comments; however, I have not seen any Michele comments for a long time.

MzEllen said, “That’s nice. Pot, meet kettle”
That would be an admitting that MzEllen/Michele are the kettle. An admission of slander.
MzEllen previously said, “You also are not Jesus. Your choice of whether or not to follow Biblical guidelines (such as Matthew 18 – approaching Michele privately first) is clear. Very clear.”
First you make an assumption that MzEllen/Michele is my brother (sister). I would like that to be so, but until MzEllen/Michele can acknowledge slandering statements about Pres. Obama’s relationship with Bill Ayers, I have high doubts that it will happen. I am not going to argue the entire Ayers issue again, but one example, Ayers appointed Obama to the Annenberg Challenge. Considerable evidence says your statement is false. No evidence exists that your statement is true. Ayers is just one of many false statements about Obama.
It is one thing to disagree on positions, but a Christian does not use slandering statements against someone. As I said before, a reckless disregard for whether what you are saying is repeating malicious gossip.
Second, even though I do not know the church membership for MzEllen/Michele, it is highly probable that we do not belong to the same church.
The Bible says you owe Pres. Obama an apology.

http://mzellen.com
email me privately – the link is in the sidebar. I’m sure you’ll figure it out – it’s under “contact me”.
I’m not surprised that you judge others to be “not a Christian”. Not surprised at all.
Is that a 2×4 in your eye?

The Bible says you owe Pres. Obama an apology.
I’ve outlined my reasons for believing that the Obama/Ayers connection goes deeper than the media portrays.
How…very…liberal…of you to use the Bible to bully somebody into an “apology” for daring to disagree.
I’ve not judged your salvation…but rest assured that the same measure by which you judge others…that will be measured unto you.

“I’ve outlined my reasons for believing that the Obama/Ayers connection goes deeper than the media portrays.”
yeah… “outlined.” just as many can, many who bought what the radical right peddled your way. no evidence. no proof. just nefarious feelings and beliefs. they threw out some falsehoods to build a boogie man and a lot of people ran with it.

I’ve taken facts of factual events, factual speeches given, factual articles; I gave actual links and formulated an opinion.
If you missed all that, you were only paying attention to one side.
I guess Julie has zero interest in following up on an accusation – if there’s a possibility she might be wrong – her only having facts and all that.
here: my email is ellen@mzellen.com. Julie, email me and look at the headers. go to geektools.com and plug my IP address into whois. I believe you’ll find that my city is a rather large commute to Michele’s seminary.
Or is this another “hit and run” accusation? I’m thinking it is. You thrive on making accusations.

“How…very…liberal…of you to use the Bible to bully somebody into an “apology” for daring to disagree.”
aw, is that another not-so-disguised dig? isn’t that the job of social conservatives in general – to use the bible to bully those who stray from their dogma? i mean, i feel sorry for any gay christians or any christian women who choose to have an abortion. heck, they don’t even have to be christians and social conservatives still want to beat them with the bible and force everyone to live by their interpretation of scripture. what’s that saying you use… 2×4 in your eye?
another off-topic point:
as a person skilled enough in computer security, i can say that ip addresses mean very little when proxies can be used. they provide little to no proof of where one lives. i think julie’s claim can go on without a scratch or dent.
her claim is just as credible (that is, backed up with just as little credible evidence) as your claim that obama and ayers have a deeper, more ominous relationship than anyone can prove. or that ayers is even a “terrorist” for that matter.
you provided snippets of quotes that prove nothing and links to stories that prove nothing and a bunch of misinformation (that i disputed) and some hokey, right-wing conspiracy theory.
golly, you know… if you could prove your claim it would be HUGE news. what a shame that nobody is interested in that sort of fame any more. apparently, the entire press is “too liberal” to come to the same fact-based conclusion that you have after reading a few blogs and websites. i mean… it’s all right there! you should write editorials with everything you know, all the hard facts that led you to your conclusion. claim your fame… get your name out there as the one to uncover this evil connection that will surely destroy our country! i await the announcement of your emmy award for excellence in journalism.

aw, is that another not-so-disguised dig?
I didn’t mean to disguise it.
My website has photos from my hometown. Michele is open about her real name.
Will Julie reconsider? Doubtful. Highly.
I never said that the Ayers/Obama connection was “ominous” – that’s your strawman. I never said that I thought Obama was a terrorist. That’s another one of your strawmen.
I remain convinced that as two men who ran the CAC, they were more than casual acquaintances. I understand that you disagree.
If you didn’t pay attention, that is your issue, not mine.

MzEllen
I see you pick links that agree with what you want to believe. You used factcheck for a negative against Obama, but did not use the factcheck articles that debunked the following link on your website:
“Obama and Ayers Pushed Radicalism On Schools” STANLEY KURTZ Wall Street Journal
Kurtz made many accusations and claims of evidence, but the evidence did not exist. Factcheck, “But after days of poring over the records, he failed to produce any evidence of that in his Wall Street Journal article.
“He Lied” About Bill Ayers? October 10, 2008
McCain cranks out some false and misleading attacks on Obama’s connection to a 1960s radical.
“A “Radical” Foundation? Hardly.”
Voters may differ in how they see Ayers, or how they see Obama’s interactions with him. We’re making no judgment calls on those matters. What we object to are the McCain-Palin campaign’s attempts to sway voters – in ads and on the stump – with false and misleading statements about the relationship, which was never very close.
Obama never “lied” about this, just as he never bragged about it. The foundation they both worked with was hardly “radical.” And Ayers is more than a former “terrorist,” he’s also a well-known figure in the field of education.
Kurtz originally claimed that Ayers somehow was responsible for installing Obama as head of the board, speculating in his “cover-up” article that Obama “almost certainly received the job at the behest of Bill Ayers.” But after days of poring over the records, he failed to produce any evidence of that in his Wall Street Journal article.
To the contrary, Ayers was not involved in the choice, according to Deborah Leff, then president of the Joyce Foundation. She told the Times, and confirmed to FactCheck.org, that she recommended Obama for the position to Patricia Graham of the Spencer Foundation. Graham told us that she asked Obama if he’d become chairman; he accepted, provided Graham would be vice-chair.
The bipartisan board of directors, which did not include Ayers, elected Obama chairman, and he served in that capacity from 1995 to 1999, awarding grants for projects and raising matching funds. Ayers headed up a separate arm of the group, working with grant recipients. According to another board member, Ayers “was not significantly involved with the challenge after Obama was appointed.” One possible reason had little to do with Obama himself, but instead was related to cautions about conflicts of interest; the group was funding some of Ayers’ own alternative school projects.

MzEllen said, “How…very…liberal…of you to use the Bible to bully somebody into an “apology” for daring to disagree.”
I quoted the Bible. Are you saying the Bible is liberal?
anonymous reincarnate is correct that your ip addresses does not mean necessarily indicate where you live. I also have no idea where Michele attends school. I said there are indications that you are one in the same. I did not say it was a fact.

“I never said that the Ayers/Obama connection was “ominous” – that’s your strawman.”
it’s not a strawman argument. perhaps you should study that. so, maybe you can clarify what you wouldn’t say before… what is the nature of this connection between obama and ayers that you think the media is covering up but which you believe exists? is it your belief that this connection is innocuous?
“I never said that I thought Obama was a terrorist.”
of course not! that was what we are all to infer from the accusations that “obama pals around with terrorists.” that’s how guilt by association is supposed to work. first, you claim that person A is a terrorist. then you claim that person B is closely associated with A, therefore B must also be a terrorist or condone A’s actions or share A’s radical ideology.
“I remain convinced that as two men who ran the CAC, they were more than casual acquaintances. I understand that you disagree.”
of course you do, because your leaders told you so. and of course i disagree, because you’ve provided nothing but incorrect information and speculation. here’s the thing about conspiracy theories, it’s convenient to leave out ALL THE OTHER PEOPLE who “ran” the annenburg challenge because they’d all have to be part of the deal to, and that’s just too hard to sell, especially since some happen to be republicans and conservatives and prominent business people. keep it simple, keep it vague, let weak minds fill in the blanks. when people think they’ve connected the dots on their own, then they’re convinced! hook. line. sinker.
if you’re such a gullible follower, that’s your issue, not mine.

I read what you’re saying…I see no reason to interact with one who accuses, while objecting to receiving the same treatment.
I said there are indications that you are one in the same. I did not say it was a fact.
Right.
I see no reason to interact with you.

MzEllen, “I read what you’re saying…I see no reason to interact with one who accuses, while objecting to receiving the same treatment.”
MzEllen does not want to interact because she knows that using “But after days of poring over the records, he [Kurtz] failed to produce any evidence of that in his Wall Street Journal article.” The link you use to support false statements about Ayers and Obama.
As I said many comments ago, you hold yourself out to be a Christian. You give all Christians a black eye when you lie. Your lying drives people away from Christianity. It makes it more difficult to reach the unchurched when they see the hypocrisy of people like yourself and Palin making malicious lies to harm a persons reputation and sway their opinion.
It is not an occasional false statement or other blogs/comments negativity, slandering and negativity toward Obama is a mission for you, Michele, and others like Michelle Malkin (link on your website)
You said Bill Ayers appointed Obama to the board – provable that it was not a fact.
“I believe that Ayers was a terrorist and I believe that he does not regret it.” (Ayers said he regretted it in 2001 Sun-Times)
“I believe that you will call me a liar even though it is a belief, not an intentional untruth. ”
It does not matter if it is “not an intentional untruth” you have the obligation to not smear someone with a belief that has no supporting evidence and there is significant evidence that the statement is false.
MzEllen states on her website, “If a person tells me that something is permissible, but the Bible says that it is not – the Bible wins (example: homosexuality).”
Why did the word homosexuality not appear any in Bible until the 1946 RSV 1 Corinthians 6:9?

No, Julie, I do not wish to interact with you because of your hypocrisy and false accusations.
I have an answer, I’ll be glad to give it, if you make a commitment to a civil conversation without accusation. Not that I’m planning on it.

MzEllen – it is sad that you cannot admit your false statements.

As I said, when you commit to civil discourse without accusations, I’ll interact with you. Maybe in heaven; I do not question your salvation.