He’s not exactly coming out against taxing the rich…it’s more like he wishes they were making money so that he could tax them more.
As for avoiding income, if it’s merely a matter of working fewer hours, there are more than enough people to step up.
If it’s a matter of creativity and ambition, there is not as much of that to go around. In punishing success, we may be hindering creativity.
As for Whoopie, there’s always the option of giving it away (lest she be branded “not a Christian” by those who choose to make those accusations). My opinion is that it’s her money – she can spend it or give it away as she wishes. But if she votes a liberal ticket, she should be expecting liberal policies to be enacted.

hey dummy, two things:
1. i suppose if taxes were the only voting issue (yes, let us ignore the wars, the economic crisis, stem cell research, energy woes, human rights issues, …) then maybe some “lefties” wouldn’t vote for “lefties.”
2. whoopie also said that she has no problem paying higher taxes. but don’t include that, because it doesn’t fit the point you’re trying to make.
“People are already admitting that they plan to work less so they don’t get hit with the higher tax (yes, that’s right they want to avoid taxes). So, under Obama our productivity will take a nose dive as people actively work to avoid tax increases.”
there you go… we’ve just found the difference between the lazy rich and the hard working middle class, those of us who work two jobs and take all of the hours offered to us so that we can keep food on the table and clothes on our backs. good thing michele is talking about a lazy elite few.

Anonymouse Reincarnate, I recognize your apparent need to stoop to calling names. Congratulations.

“Obama for keeping his campaign promise of hitting those making $250,000 filing jointly and $200,000 for singles.”
Once again – no change has been made – Congress will fight about it for months or years.
“People are already admitting that they plan to work less so they don’t get hit with the higher tax (yes, that’s right they want to avoid taxes). So, under Obama our productivity will take a nose dive as people actively work to avoid tax increases. ”
What people? There are many unemployed people that would love to replace them. Most people in higher income jobs work far more than 40 hrs a week.
Just read about 700 applications for 1 janitor job.
I highly recommend Rod’s (Cruncy Con)

What does financial collapse mean?
Someone provided interesting answers to my questions – highly educational – great examples of the complexity of the situation

“Your Name” – you are saying that (for a liberal), a commitment to not call names is embarrassing? I can see several liberals here that would be embarrassed if they had to communicate without accusing people or calling names.
Sad, that the call for civility is called childish.

Any one of the “idle rich” who claim they will work less, due to Obama’s tax “increase”, is a liar.
It is not a “lie” until the specific person who made the claim fails to follow through.
Until then, logic says that the accusation cannot be true.

Ellen, Michelle called the president a “jerk” in the previous thread. When will you be calling her out on that? Hypocrite!

Your Name sounds suspiciously like Julie.
I’ve said that I’m better off not responding to Julie/You because I tend to respond in kind.
Thank you for the insults.

MzEllen may have some conservative views, but she’s earned them, and she tends to be polite and Christian to some not-so-nice attacks on her. Why don’t we stick to issues?

“Your Name” (it would be nice to have an identifying feature), it would be most helpful if you noticed that I was the first comment – and I addressed the issue in the original post.
What false witness against Julie? That she accused Michele of slander? Uh…she did. That she questioned our salvation? Uh…she did.
The biggest difference is that I call a difference of political opinion a “difference of opinion”…Julie calls it “lies”.
I recognize that I fall to reacting in kind when I see others treated poorly. My first reaction to Julie’s accusation of Michele was…well, it went downhill from there.
And yes…Michele should not have called Mr. Obama a “jerk”. “Astute leader who have oh-so appropriate gifts to our (questionably) more important political ally” would have been a better choice of words.
Personally, I think that we (conservatives) would be better served by letter liberals be the worst behaved people here. Being human, we fail.
Michele, is there a setting by which you can clear the “Your Name” from the field and require an actual identification?

Where you accused Julie of writing the “Your Name” comment. I am “Your Name” and I am not Julie, so I know that you bore false witness right there.
There are two precedents here. The first is when I was in IE and forgot to change the name field. The second is when Julie persisted in saying that there was an indication that Michele and I were the same person and used Michele/MzEllen in her address…oh…but that would mean calling Julie a “false witness”. You might want to reconsider that, “Your Name”.
Just like every other Republican.
Are you sure you want to paint with that broad of a brush? Julie calls those sorts of generalizations (at least when conservatives make them) “slander”
“Your Name”, again, the time stamp is very close to your comments. If somebody is going to use my name, they should watch the time stamp and not play that trick so close to their own comment.
And if they’re going to play that game, they should attempt to use language that I would use. I don’t “apologize” – ever. Seriously.
I am a Jay E. Adams fan and I take “From Forgiven to Forgiving” seriously. I believe that “apologizing” is a cheap substitute for real repentance. If I believe I am wrong, I use a very specific formula that involves real repentance, not cheap apologies. The formula uses the word “repent” and the specific request: “will you forgive me?” I blogged about it on my blog, in fact.
The person who is using my name should be ashamed. And I will make a commitment to not call “political disagreements” slander (they are disagreements) and I will not call “political opinions” lies. They are opinions.
And while I continue to believe that only a fool believes they have such a corner on “truth” that they have only facts and no opinions (a stance that leaves no room for error), it is up to the reader to decide whether or not they see that attitude in themselves. Frankly, I was surprised that Julie saw herself in that sentence…I thought ahead of time that she (Julie) would simply say, “no, I do think that there’s a possibility that I could be wrong here…but I don’t think that I am.”

“Anonymouse Reincarnate, I recognize your apparent need to stoop to calling names. Congratulations.”
i have no need to call names – sometimes it’s simply well earned.
yes, michele often stoops to name calling. i can of course take another approach, a different one used by you and michele here – maybe half-truths or outright untruths. just let me know which you would prefer.
or maybe michele could post the whole whoopie clip. or maybe you would for her?
“And I will make a commitment to not call ‘political disagreements’ slander (they are disagreements) and I will not call ‘political opinions’ lies.”
you can slander and call it a political disagreement. you can lie and call it a political opinion. some of us know the difference, but you’ve demonstrated that you don’t.

So, I read a variety of articles and blogs (including Bill Ayers blog), conclude that the relationship goes deeper that a “casual” business relationship and it’s a lie instead of an opinion. Got it.
Obama was the first chair of the CAC that Ayers founded, but Ayers is not somebody that Obama shared ideas with on a regular basis…got it.
I saw an article on “liberal speak” a few weeks ago. The definition of “Lies” = “Policy Differences” I thought it was funny at the time.
i can of course take another approach, a different one used by you and michele here – maybe half-truths or outright untruths. just let me know which you would prefer.
If you use the same information and come up with a different opinion, why would I condemn that as “lies”? That would be your job.
I have been very vocal about the way that conservatives have been treated in the last few days, specifically by Julie. I know what her political beliefs are and I have not scolded or attacked her for her beliefs, only her attacks on Michele (and now – because I object to her attacks on Michele, me).
It is her treatment of Michele (personally) that I object to, not her beliefs. Or yours (beliefs, not behavior). As for your “dummy” label, frankly I mentioned it more for the fact that Julie’s scolding are absolutely one-sided.
One standard for liberals, another standard for conservatives. I have had very minor disagreements with my boyfriend – with me contending that liberals are not like that – that they can be even handed. I owe him an apology for disagreeing with him.

Oh…on the “whole clip” thing….
Whoopie (as with most of us) pays more than federal income taxes. I pay city taxes, state taxes, federal taxes, gasoline taxes, yada, yada, yada.
Whoopie lives in a liberal area and it seems that she’s feeling a little “piled on”.
Michele said in the original post: no wonder your city, state and federal taxes are going up…
How does that misrepresent the entire clip? I did watch the entire clip – I loved the part where she gets “that look” that I love and says, “Get off me…”

“So, I read a variety of articles and blogs (including Bill Ayers blog), conclude that the relationship goes deeper that a “casual” business relationship and it’s a lie instead of an opinion.”
i read on a blog once that 2+2=0. i’m sure that the person who stated that might certainly have believed it to be true, therefore making it that person’s opinion. unfortunately, no matter how many times the person repeats the claim that 2+2=0, it doesn’t make the statement any more true. so if that person continues to make that claim, spreading that untruth after being told the facts to the contrary… you call that one thing and i call it another. we get that.
you are entitled to your opinions, of course. so, in your opinion, at what point does spreading an untruth about someone become slander?
“One standard for liberals, another standard for conservatives.”
there’s no double standard on my part here. neither you nor michele make no attempt at civility in her posts, so i’ve given up on trying to have civil discourse with michele (and now you, too). michele and you report one-sidedly on an event so i comment from the other side. michele “stoops to name-calling” so i see no reason why i cannot fairly use the same tactic. were you first to jump on michele or on me for name calling? no, you waited until someone put you on the spot before criticizing michele (if you want to call it that – your snarky alternate for her calling obama a jerk isn’t an improvement). if you want to accuse someone of having a double standard, i suggest that you gaze into a mirror.
yes, this liberal is even-handed. so as long as michele is prepared to dish out rudeness, anger, and nastiness, i suppose you should expect to get some back… even-handedly.

“Michele said in the original post: no wonder your city, state and federal taxes are going up…
no, she said “You’ve got a Democrat mayor (yeah, he says he’s independent and has called himself a Republican in the past, but no one in their right mind bought that) and city council, a Democrat governor, and a Democrat president, no wonder your city, state and federal taxes are going up.”
“How does that misrepresent the entire clip?”
because she belittles and mocks whoopi. she misrepresents what whoopi said by only telling part of the story. then, she leads the readers of this blog to believe that only democrats raise taxes (which is not true) and that democrats always raise and never lower taxes (also not true). michele doesn’t point out that whoopi states clearly up front that she doesn’t mind paying her share, saying, “i don’t mind paying a little more tax, because i make a good living. … everybody wants to help. everybody wants to do the right thing.”
i suppose michele could also have mentioned hasselbeck calling the tax increases [or maybe she was talking about the stimulus bill] a necessity… she could have mentioned the applause that supported what behar said about spending some money here instead of on an ill-gotten and poorly managed war in iraq.
finally, are republicans single-issue voters? i don’t think so. so then why should michele expect anyone else to be? regardless of which party raises or lowers taxes, there are multiple reasons that people voted for democrats in recent elections. it’s dumb to believe otherwise.