[mccookgazette.com] Fair ~ 69°F  
High: 74°F ~ Low: 53°F
Saturday, Sep. 20, 2014

The Good Side

Posted Tuesday, October 11, 2011, at 8:56 PM

(Photo)
As a professional truck driver, (gear jammer, trucker, etc.) I have a terrific opportunity to meet fantastic people around the country.

In the blue collar world in which I travel and work, the folks are real, and basic, and funny, and amazing.

Harvey for example works 12 hour graveyard shifts at a sugar factory. He supervises the unloading of 110,000 pound trucks carrying sugar beets straight from the fields. This time of year, the trucks come in day and night, every few minutes, a new truck arrives with 40 tons of beets. The huge hopper roars as the beets move on for processing. It is raining when I meet Harvey, his long grey hair hanging wet from underneath his hard hat. Harvey smiles and explains that he has always liked to work, and "I don't like sittin' 'round much."

Harvey is 81 years old. Although you might think he was 60. I watch as he takes time to be patient with a rookie driver, (warmly, they are all rookies to Harvey) and tells the man, 30 years younger, "we'll make a truck driver out of you yet".

"Why are you still out here?" I ask.

"When you cease to be productive, you cease to enjoy life," his eyes very serious and thoughtful.

A sincere pleasure to know you Harvey.

Not to far down the road from the factory where Harvey works is a 24 hour restaurant, part of a national chain. When you walk in, you notice a plaque on the wall that congratulates the manager for being at this restaurant fifteen years.

Her name is Debbie, and you can tell she loves her job. The restaurant is almost family to her. She told me how she enjoys working with older teenagers, helping them learn the "benefit of hard work." And obviously the rewards of hard work.

Debbie has actually been at the restaurant for 20 years. She first began work there as a waitress.

Doesn't that represent a part of American that is seldom talked about today? The idea that with effort, the right attitude and determination, that anyone can succeed. From waitress to successful manager. That is the spirit of America that we so desperately need to be lifted up.

Some on the left tell us that America has lost that benchmark, the foundational belief that success is available to all.

I don't think so.

Then there is Grant. A tall, handsome broad-shouldered young fella, (age 30 is young to me) with a pleasant smile and excellent sense of humor.

Grant tells me that after high school, he asked a local construction company if he could work for them and learn how to drive the big equipment. Now Grant manages a huge shipping operation most days from four to midnight. Dozens of workers, equipment operators, and drivers, are given their minute by minute instructions, and Grant handles it with ease and grace.

When I talked with Grant, he had just returned from a episode outside where a piece of big equipment had failed. Quickly under Grant's direction, four men, all older than him, work to fix the emergency.

Grant smiles. "I really like it when there are challenges like that. Things happen, somethin' breaks or needs fixin' in a hurry. Gets ya pumped up."

I bet it does Grant.

I look at young people like Grant when the media wants to show me the Occupy Wall Street young people.

I think folks like Grant better represent the future of this country than the spoiled crybabies we see squatting on Wall Street.

And under a system of freedom one must choose to be productive.

Some people Grants' age made the decision to borrow forty or fifty grand to get a degree in Women's Studies or Philosophy. (What are you gonna do, open a Philosophy Store?)

I see folks like Harvey, Debbie and Grant everyday, and if you take a look around, you run into them too.


Comments
Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

I worked with people like these all my life. People with lots of backbone. I don't see you mentioning that any of these people felt that society owed them something. It doesn't appear as though they were waiting for handouts. I didn't hear any bitterness, either.

-- Posted by Leo.Pold on Tue, Oct 11, 2011, at 9:35 PM

Hey Stef - you are right on the media. Remember how that CNN reporter covered one of the very first Tea Party Patriot rallies in Chicago. She was rude in her comments to the people she was interviewing, and dismissed them in her so-called "news report" as a bunch of anti-government types."

That is another of the great Liberal lies, the idea that Conservatives do not want government. That is not true. Conservatives want a Constitutional government with very limited but firm powers, not a bloated greedy obscenity full of hate, racial tensions, bearing down into the daily lives of private citizens.

Check out Hank Jr's answer to the whole ESPN nonsense.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkEJEnAFX...

-- Posted by sameldridge on Tue, Oct 11, 2011, at 11:51 PM

Sam,

Good post! You have some talent for writing...But I do have to challenge your opinion that liberals are under the impression that conservatives do not want government. You write:

"That is another of the great Liberal lies, the idea that Conservatives do not want government."

As far as I know, having friends that are both liberal and conservative, and being somewhere in between the two myself, I can say with some degree of certitude that liberals understand the conservative position reasonably well. The same can be said of conservative understanding of liberal positions. This is of course just my experience.

I am a little like you, I tend to fall on the side of a strong, but smaller, more efficient federal government, with state/local governments enjoying expanded rights and responsibilities.

But in defense of liberals (since they seem to be underrepresented on this website), I certainly understand their skepticism of state/local governments adequately fulfilling their Constitutional responsibilities to their citizens, since many states throughout history have enacted laws reducing civil rights and even harming their populations (Alabama and their recent undocumented students law is yet another example of a state violating a Supreme Court decision). In these cases, a large and strong federal presence is necessary to ensure that equal protection under constitution is actuated. Most conservatives know that liberals would love to have a small and efficient government, but they just don't see that as a pragmatic or feasible given the growing US population, diversity, nationwide problems, etc.

Again, I don't necessarily agree with this argument. The 2nd Bush administration was a shinning example of what happens when the Feds expand too much. He grew federal government bigger than it has ever been and as a result our country is in shambles.

However, that people need protection from state and local governments, and that the only entity that can provide such protection is the federal government, is an acceptable argument.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Wed, Oct 12, 2011, at 1:14 PM

The country is by in large the same as it was when Obama took office in 2008. My opinion, Stefffanie, is that the Obama administration has been an inert element in recovery of the nation, in large part because Obama's administration (a la Bush) has continued to grow government, spend trillions on war and defense, and insisted on giving billions to banks and corporations who for the most part have saved the money, rather hiring more workers, or expanding production. So to answer, not ruin, but certainly shambles. Still.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Wed, Oct 12, 2011, at 5:44 PM

Our debt is a result of the continuation of Bush era policies. War with no tax increases (which was unprecedented) is the A-1 reason our debt began and continues to grow. You want to shrink our debt? The wars need to end and defense spending needs to shrink. After that, the culture of Bush era stimulus spending and bailouts has to end. We aren't worse off, not in terms of housing, the stock markets, unemployment, production, etc., by all these metrics, nothing much has changed.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Wed, Oct 12, 2011, at 6:04 PM

That is correct.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Wed, Oct 12, 2011, at 8:39 PM

Grandmajo,

Admittedly, I need all the help I can get in the looks department. But lipstick and makeup won't help me afraid.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Wed, Oct 12, 2011, at 9:22 PM

Too true, grandmajo. Apologies. What were you commenting on then, if I may ask?

-- Posted by Benevolus on Wed, Oct 12, 2011, at 9:50 PM

I think you are being cheeky. But its fine with me if you think I am a pig, they are very smart (and delicious) animals.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Wed, Oct 12, 2011, at 11:30 PM

Market should sell off slightly today and into Friday. Looks like 1260 is a good number for S&P expect to see that number sometime around November 3-7. We should then distribute for a period before resuming the downtrend.

Oil is looking like it might breakout to the upside. Demand is looking like 91 million bbls a day in Q1 next year. Supply is maxed out at 89 million bbls a day so we could see a big shortfall very soon.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Thu, Oct 13, 2011, at 5:37 AM

Benevolus, I have no major issues with your opinion as to why the debt continues to grow. I dont agree, but have no issues with your opinion. A question though, I dont understand why you think housing, unemployment and production havent changed appreciably. Is it just my misunderstanding? BTW, I didnt approve of all of Bush's policies either.

-- Posted by doodle bug on Thu, Oct 13, 2011, at 9:46 AM

Doodle Bug,

May I ask, what do you disagree with? In terms of the debt growing, I wasn't stating an opinion, the largest expenditures on our ledgers have to do with war and defense. Moreover, in wartime it has always been customary to raise taxes. For approximately a decade we have been at war and taxes over that period have gone down. Bush financed his tax cuts by selling US Treasuries to China (who as a result now owns over $1 trillion of our debt). Obama has continued to follow in Bush's footsteps. These are not my opinions. These are the facts as I understand/remember them.

Regarding housing:

In the graph below, notice that the housing market booms in 2006 and 2007, then drops precipitously in 2008, and has flatlined even since.

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.c...

Regarding unemployment:

In May of 2008, unemployment was at 9.4%. Unemployment is currently at 9.1%. Here too you can see the relative flatline since 2008.

http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore...

Regarding production:

It does appear that production appears to be trending upward, thought the ISM predictions have yet to come true. You can the the flatline trend I am talking about from about mid 2009 to present.

http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/...

-- Posted by Benevolus on Thu, Oct 13, 2011, at 11:37 AM

Benevolus, thanks. Now we can agree. I dont have the exact timeline but I believe there was another precipitous event in 2008. As I stated, I didnt agree with all of Bush's policies either. I believe the war was correct but should have ended some time ago. I believe it was TR who summed up my philosphy on war - speak softly and carry a big stick. War should be the very last resort, but if it is instigated, go in with overwhelming force. Conventional, not nuclear. And I will give the Obama administration kudos for the drone attacks.

When it comes to housing, I always think of Barney Frank who assured America there was no trouble with Freddie and Fannie.

And I will state here that I would willingly go along with closing the tax loopholes and shelters.

And thanks on the unemployment date; I didnt realize or remember that it had been at that point in May 2008.

-- Posted by doodle bug on Thu, Oct 13, 2011, at 12:33 PM

Doodle Bug,

I am with you regarding Frank, but we can probably agree that he knew (knows) nothing. I suspect he was just parroting the voices of more knowledgeable men and women at the Federal Reserve, Freddie, private economic think tanks, etc., and his fault lies in his spinning their optimism for housing into good ole fashioned politicking.

For me Clinton, Greenspan, Bernake, Syron (CEO of Freddie Mac) and a general culture of reduced oversight after the boom of the 90's are all far more culpable than a mouthpiece politic junkie like Frank. Just my opinion, of course.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Thu, Oct 13, 2011, at 1:23 PM

Without the government pushing Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae and the banks to make all those bad housing loans, we would not be in this mess. The banks made the loans at the behest of the government, and because the two GSEs, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae would buy those loans no matter what.

It wasn't lack of oversight--it was government sponsored foolishness!

Here is more foolishness from government. You can't buy used clothing at flea markets if you pay cash anymore, at least in one state. Can you believe legal tender transactions can be banned with approval of the Supreme Court?

http://dailyreckoning.com/louisiana-law/

We're doomed, I tellya!

-- Posted by Boomer62 on Thu, Oct 13, 2011, at 4:53 PM

You make a fair point Boomer. But government oversight is different from government collusion. The relaxation of federal regulations, in particular the repealing of the Glass-Steagall Act had as much to do with creating the environment for it to be possible for the screwballs in Washington to force banks to serve two masters: their shareholders and the good of the people (or, the reelection of several key senators and congressmen, if you like).

But don't get too carried away with the likes of Fannie and Freddie, the housing bubble may have begun with the enormous profits being generated by these two firms, but once it caught on that there was serious money to be made in the exploitation of the poor, well...history speaks for itself.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Thu, Oct 13, 2011, at 5:54 PM

Benevolus - I see no Constitutional mandate for the Feds to install the nanny state. This is where I get mad a libs, because they create need with over-taxation, over regulation, and stickin their noses into every ones business, then they demand that someone else pay for the messes they create.

I have told you libs this before, and I say it again. If any lib out there knows of a starving child in this country, then by GOD, email me through this paper with the name and address, (or bridge) where that child is, and I will go feed that starving child. Give me their names.

Libs - actions speak louder than words. With you guys, intentions are suppose to count for actions. But, intentions doesn't feed anybody. Can you dig it? I knew that you could.

-- Posted by sameldridge on Thu, Oct 13, 2011, at 7:29 PM

Sam,

I don't remember arguing for a nanny state. Nor do I remember advocating for over-taxation, or over-regulation. Like you remarked previously, we agree that government has its place, and we can probably agree that some taxation has to occur, and we might likewise agree that there needs to be some regulation of the market. Where you and I draw the line in these instances is probably closer than you might think.

Beyond that, I admire your willingness to help. I know, and work with plenty of hungry parents and kids. Lincoln being a refugee collection point there are many folks from war torn areas who are given a new start here but not a lot of start-up capital so to speak. I don't feel comfortable giving their names/addresses over the internet, but perhaps we can figure out a way to get in touch privately?

-- Posted by Benevolus on Thu, Oct 13, 2011, at 11:34 PM

Grandmajo,

Ann Coulter is extremely partisan and way off her rocker. It is disappointing that you respect such a mouthpiece.

More importantly though, I remember arguing that the Tea Party has certain constituents that have tainted the movement with the odor of extremism, when (as I also said) most of the people who populated the movement were simply normal, politically aware citizens who were mad at the government (rightfully so). I also remember conceding the point to Stefffanie that most of the Tea Party protesters revolted peacefully at the polls...so I am not sure that your questions is very relevant.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Thu, Oct 13, 2011, at 11:44 PM

Who did that?

-- Posted by Benevolus on Fri, Oct 14, 2011, at 1:00 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-YtqVIKT...

Watch this and see if it doesn't remind you of the past.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Fri, Oct 14, 2011, at 5:30 AM

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/m...

2004 story on housing.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Fri, Oct 14, 2011, at 5:33 AM

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/bu...

This discusses the problems going back to 1998. As with everything you can't blame the housing collapse with the players that were involved at the end. This issue started in the 1990's and ended in 2007.

I can remember putting 20% down in 2001 and people making less than me - and buying a more expensive house in 2002 putting nothing down and getting money at closing. I was stunned.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Fri, Oct 14, 2011, at 5:40 AM

Here is a little humor for everyone to enjoy. A decades old description that explains the Occupy Wall Street Movement.

http://slyoyster.hypervocal.com/cheap-th...

-- Posted by Geezer on Fri, Oct 14, 2011, at 11:54 AM

or this

http://washingtonindependent.com/66799/p...

-- Posted by president obama on Fri, Oct 14, 2011, at 12:06 PM

Whoops! That kinda ruins the 'holier than thou' peaceful Tea Party argument.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2...

http://www.politicsla.com/home/item/79-f...

-- Posted by Benevolus on Fri, Oct 14, 2011, at 12:43 PM

so its ok of tea partiers get arrested because they shower. WOW, you totally refuted my point, well played stuffany.

I too have had it up to my ears with the FAKE violence. I love the fact that you are talking about them and know so much about them. I kinda figured that you would think that to notice them or talk about what they are doing was beneth you.

granpablow, Why did you not say "they broke the law, they were arrested" to the links stuffany posted? you dismiss it in one instance and fail to in another.

-- Posted by president obama on Fri, Oct 14, 2011, at 1:25 PM

grandmajo

It reminded me more of BP begging for an Environmental Remediation Expensing Allowance so they could write off their costs of the Gulf Oil Spill - which indeed they received.

Which one do you think cost our country the most in lost tax revenue - Solyndra @ $535 million or BP at $14 to $20 billion.

-- Posted by Geezer on Fri, Oct 14, 2011, at 2:53 PM

Grandmajo,

I am seeing a double standard, you are right. And it is predictable. Those on the right support the protestors whose beliefs they value and abandon reason in their denouncing of other protestors, and those on the left do likewise. Meanwhile, I am stuck in between two groups who very often appear to be the same brand of insane.

By the way, what's Diane Sawyer got to do with anything? Just because liberals have their mouthpieces doesn't mean Coulter is any less of a nutjob.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Fri, Oct 14, 2011, at 3:10 PM

The Tea Party demonstrations were day-long events at which citizens proposed "less government", "less tax", and "less regulation". They want their country back. At the end of the day they went home.

The Flea Party demonstrations have lasted almost 30 days in a private park, no less. They don't go home at night. They don't have a political message, except that they're unhappy. I listened to some audio of them trying to explain what they stand for. Asked if they favored cutting the defense budget, one said, "Yes, there's too much emphasis on defense and not enough on offense!" Another said "Cut defense by 80% and give that 80% to the Department of Peace!" On illegal immigration they were all over the place, some wanting to block illegal immigration while others want to make all of it legal.

These Occupy Wall Street demonstrations don't stand for anything, except whining. And it's leadership desperately want violence and bloodshed. They want Bloomburg to send in the cops to bust it up, just like Daley did in Chicago outside the Democratic convention years ago. They are daring officials to come after them.

I expect they will get their wish soon.

Obviously, people who can do a sit-in for 30 days are not working, but are supported by the rest of us--yet they complain.

-- Posted by Boomer62 on Fri, Oct 14, 2011, at 3:17 PM

Right Stefffanie, and the Tea Party was funded by Fox News. This is fun for me, because now the folks on the right sound exactly like the folks on the left did 2 years ago. It's just that nobody realizes it.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Fri, Oct 14, 2011, at 3:38 PM

Grandmajo

Here is the link to the legislation that included the Environmental Expensing Allowances - see section 745.

Notice the date of the bill becoming law - Dec. 17, 2010.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111pub...

-- Posted by Geezer on Fri, Oct 14, 2011, at 3:42 PM

grandmajo

Actually the president had to sign the bill in order to get the Unemployment Extension - he didn't really have a choice.

How many other provisions were post dated to include the BP oil spill timeline?

Yes, it is a wild stretch on your part.

-- Posted by Geezer on Fri, Oct 14, 2011, at 4:27 PM

I also remember how upset member of the Tea Party would get when referred to pejoratively as "Tea Baggers." But calling people "fleas" that's fine. Classy grandmajo and stefffanie. Just like Ann. No double standard here.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Fri, Oct 14, 2011, at 4:29 PM

benevolus,

let me sum it up for you since you just dont seem to get it

everything bad that has ever happened is because of liberal democrats. everything bad that has ever happened was fought aginst by conservitave republicans.

everything good that has ever happened is because of republicans. everything good that has ever happened, happened is spite of democrats trying to stop it.

if you dont believe it just ask stuffany, or grandpamoblo

-- Posted by president obama on Fri, Oct 14, 2011, at 4:46 PM

Tea Bag is slang for a sexual thing Ben. Not like fleas but I don't like that either.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Fri, Oct 14, 2011, at 6:08 PM

This is not my words, but from a blogger I was reading somewhere else, I just copied. I liked the last paragraph.Take it for what it is. I don't care if you agree or not

The lack of solidarity and organization, as well as a clear message, has allowed ultra-liberal - and often violent - organizations to move to the forefront. This is no longer about corporations. This is about communists taking over a weak government, and there are political ties directly to BHO in this list of prominent organizers:

http://occupywallst.org/

They obviously don't know the difference between a right and a privilege. The world doesn't owe anyone a job. A job is a privilege, not a right. Jobs are a benefit of other people trying to make the world what they think is a better place. It's supposed to be a win-win for everyone. Does that get abused? Sure. It doesn't happen all over though.

They don't seem to mind biting the hands that feed them. I guess that's a failure of education or parenting, or both. They want jobs, but then claim that corporations don't pay enough to the government. That money they want to pay to the government could be used to hire people and expand businesses, but they can't because the government is trying to take that money. So do they want jobs or not?

While it seems to be a valiant effort on the part of people who would otherwise be sharing bonghits and STD's and collecting government checks, the lack of organization and a clear message has allowed this to turn into more of a circus than a protest.

What they want is what the Greeks have had for a few decades now. Ask them how its working for them.

-- Posted by Keda46 on Fri, Oct 14, 2011, at 7:13 PM

My point is that "fleas" and "tea baggers" are both meant as injurious speech. And as such, the user of either term shows their inability to reason and argue in equal portion to their lack of class. We are talking about people, American citizens to be more specific.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Fri, Oct 14, 2011, at 7:48 PM

thats odd grandpablomo, i noticed that people have seemd to stop responding to you, then you post that. i guess you are correct

-- Posted by president obama on Fri, Oct 14, 2011, at 10:32 PM

The protesters have every right to do what they're doing.You can tell who the faux news watchers are and the hannidiot listeners are just by their comments on here. I'm so sure that their appearance and personal lives takes precedent over their message right? You hear the righties saying that they don't want to hang a massive debt on "our children and grand children," so here they are("our children and grand children") trying to bring national attention to this problem in their own way and they get attacked by ignorant comments because the attackers dislike democrats so much that their willing to cut of their noses to spite their face.Show me where that just ONE of the many many many right winger pundits that have vilified these people has actually gone to any of these people and talked to them face to face,you can't because they haven't!! Why hasn't Boehner or Cantor done anything but block anything that has been proposed to get the economy moving? Why are they so opposed to tax equity? They can't just keep coming back with the old "job creators" line because it just plain isn't true.The "job creators" have had 10 years of bush tax cuts so where are the jobs that were supposed to appear because of the cuts? There weren't any, in fact we LOST jobs during the bush years, and now the right wants to give them MORE tax cuts.But hey who cares because these protesters look like they need a bath and a haircut,a line right out of the 70's. A lot of these protestors have college degrees but can't find work because the "job creators" haven't been creating.Instead they've been shipping our jobs to cheaper labor markets overseas and banking the tax cut benefits.Try to remember that the protestors are not invaders,bums or malcontents they're our children and grandchildren and citizens of America just like you and I.

-- Posted by Wildhorse on Sat, Oct 15, 2011, at 1:48 PM

stefffanie

Why do you consider that comment laughable? Please explain.

-- Posted by Geezer on Sat, Oct 15, 2011, at 3:18 PM

The protestors are a bunch of people with no purpose gettin' together.

Heard that this afternoon. Made me laugh.

Most of the people I have seen in the news look like 1960's hippies. I find it hard to believe that college degreed folks would stay in a park with human feces and urine stench everywhere. These are the same people that wanted to start a fight when people were going to clean it up.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Sat, Oct 15, 2011, at 3:31 PM

Wallis

All the rooms at the Hilton were already taken.

-- Posted by Geezer on Sat, Oct 15, 2011, at 3:51 PM

stefffanie

Do you have any data that represents IRS information based on actual filings?

-- Posted by Geezer on Sat, Oct 15, 2011, at 4:03 PM

stefffanie

Tell me, what do you think the average tax rate is for the top 400 tax payers in our country? Was does you data say?

-- Posted by Geezer on Sat, Oct 15, 2011, at 4:17 PM

So tell me Mr Marsh which protest site did YOU visit to get your info on it's conditions or is this just your "educated" guess?

-- Posted by Wildhorse on Sat, Oct 15, 2011, at 4:28 PM

John W who was in NYC from Tuesday- Thursday for business.

He stayed at the Ritz Central Park - The Hilton on 6th (Ave of the Americas) isn't his first choice. He normally stays at the Plaza but got a deal.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Sat, Oct 15, 2011, at 4:38 PM

We are going to NYC the week before Christmas. Hopefully the cold will keep these guys out of our way.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Sat, Oct 15, 2011, at 4:40 PM

I also have a friend that works in NYC the weekends. He stays in Midtown as well.

He is the source of the quote that I used earlier today.

But I HAVE NOT been to NYC in the last month. I am solely basing my comments about the park smelling like a feed lot from my friends who told me that info.

I would guess that with little to no public restrooms and the 100's of people that have been camping for weeks that it must be true. Because Republicans and Democrats have to go.

Wildhorse are you going to dispute my statement that both Republicans and Democrats have bowel movements?

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Sat, Oct 15, 2011, at 4:52 PM

I know a few of the Occupy protestors in Lincoln this morning (the husband of one of the ladies there was born and raised out there near McCook actually).

I sent a message to a friend who was there, asking about the protest. From what this person could gather, it may be fair to say that the protestors there did have varying complaints, as well as varying degrees of animosity (though there was never any danger, whatsoever). A few were there because it was such a nice day and they wanted to check out the protest and express their anger at Washington in general. One thing that we can say is that the complaints being levied, while perhaps not unified, are every bit as legitimate as the complaints issued by the Tea Party. There is no question about that.

What is intruiging to me about the two movements in question (Tea Party and Occupy) is that they seem to reflect something I have noticed about the GOP and DNC writ large. That is: the GOP is typically highly organized and moves with a clear purpose ("lock-step" is the term I hear), while the DNC is often disjointed and its member are even at odds with one-another on occasion. These two movements (at least to some degree) appear to share similar qualities.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Sat, Oct 15, 2011, at 5:43 PM

stefffanie

Every category of tax payer has a marginal tax rate established which is the starting point for all tax calculations. There are standard deductions that all citizens are eligible to receive, regardless of their income -- such as dependent children. When these standard deductions are increased along with various credits established in the two Stimulus Plans (one by Bush, one by Obama) it does create a situation where some on the lower income side have more credits than tax obligation. In the case of lower income earners this amounts to a 10% - 15% savings of their income.

Now let us take a look at the upper income bracket -- say the top 400 tax payers by AGI, the marginal tax rate for this category is 35% currently. To equal the same percentage of savings as the lower income realized, they would need to reduce their tax obligations by 10% to 15% and would end up with an effective tax rate of 20% to 25%.

Since 1992 the IRS has published data on the top 400 income earners and the following represents the 2008 tax year findings.

30 paid between 0% and 10% = 7.5% of total

101 paid between 10% and 15% = 25.25% of total

112 paid between 15% and 20% = 28% of total

52 paid between 20% and 25% = 13% of total

46 paid between 25% and 30% = 11.5% of total

59 paid between 30% and 35% = 14.75% of total

Over 60% received a larger % decrease of tax burden than those at the bottom realized. In fact, those falling in the 0% to 10% range received almost 3 times greater reduction of tax obligation than those at the bottom realized.

See table 3, page twelve of the following link.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/08intop40...

-- Posted by Geezer on Sat, Oct 15, 2011, at 7:27 PM

stefffanie

Anytime I can help, just let me know. Like I said before, I post and let the readers decide.

-- Posted by Geezer on Sat, Oct 15, 2011, at 9:20 PM

And the convenient ignorance of facts proceeds. This is what fanaticism breeds, I suppose. I am beginning to see what Michael was so frustrated by.

Never mind that I have demonstrated that more than 97% of all Americans pay some combination of (or all of the following) state, local, payroll, property, wheel, and sales taxes "to live in this great nation." If it is inconvenient to the persistence of an extremist narrative, then reason and logic are shuffled off.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Sat, Oct 15, 2011, at 9:31 PM

Are you yelling with your caps lock? Hysterical. Signs of fanaticism and extremism. But still, hysterical.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Sat, Oct 15, 2011, at 10:04 PM

The 47% who don't pay federal income tax are also those who receive most of the proceeds through the various welfare programs.

They are allowed to take without having to do anything but have a pulse. And it is breaking us economically, along with crony capitalism, and the bailouts of everyone politically connected.

I know the liberals think that is uncaring. I don't see how telling the truth is uncaring while avoiding the truth is deemed to be a sign of benevolance.

But you would be wrong to blame those taking the benefits. It's the government providing the benefits that is to blame.

The Tea Party just wants less gov't, less taxation, and more freedom. The Occupy Wall Street members don't know what they want exactly, but they do want attention. And I think they want more opportunity, but our government continues to destroy the economy which could provide such opportunity.

-- Posted by Boomer62 on Sat, Oct 15, 2011, at 10:36 PM

Unlike Michael, I will not bang my head against the wall arguing with unreasonable people. If you wish to persist in your errors in rational and logic, I will not interfere with you, one way or the other. You can remain as incorrect as you like.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Sat, Oct 15, 2011, at 11:31 PM

No, I am not done. I will simply engage in argument those posters who are open-minded and here to act like adults. All other posters I just won't argue with.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Sat, Oct 15, 2011, at 11:48 PM

welcome benevolus,

enjoy the rantig and ravings. these people wont let facts and reason stand in there way.

I would say that everyone pays taxes and the money that goes out in taxes from the 47% means more to them then the money that the other 53% pay in federal income tax

I would also say that the people on welfare are not saving this money, they are spending it which is good for the economy. It seems to me that if they spend what they take in then no one is out anything. Like I stated earlier, I think stuffany is upset that she works and a few others dont. All she has to do is quit her job, get on the system and start living the high life.

-- Posted by president obama on Sun, Oct 16, 2011, at 7:26 AM

bigdawg,

I hear what you are saying. Although, I have found that Doodle Bug, SWNebr Transplant, Boomer62, and a few others are actually thoughtful and challenging, and they manage to get their points across without acting like children. I have found myself, on more than one occasion, agreeing with what they argued.

And I am with you regarding taxation. It is pretty clear to me that Reagan's Earned Income Tax Credit (which by Reagan's admission is a redistribution of wealth) was meant to alleviate the tax burden on the bottom 47% who own just 2% of the nation's wealth by some metrics.

And I further agree that in the vast majority of cases, the money goes straight from the government and right back into diapers, groceries, clothes, rent/mortgage payments, car payments, utilities, etc.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Sun, Oct 16, 2011, at 12:05 PM

Stefffanie

Many of the people you say do not pay a single dime have in fact provided you the very opportunity to pursue your own career. A good percentage of the people included in the group you seem to despise, are in fact our senior population and those with disabilities. After a lifetime of working and paying their taxes which has provided you a sound footing for your ambitions, you now find it prudent to denigrate these same people.

Seniors that collect Social Security have been paying into an insurance program for most of their adult life, if not all of it. They are now beyond their productive years and depend on their earned Social Security benefits to provide them the bare necessities of life.

-- Posted by Geezer on Sun, Oct 16, 2011, at 1:37 PM

Geezer,

You raise a terrific point. Almost all of federal and state expenditures on programs that we might agree are broadly "welfare programs," are aimed at benefiting those within the ages of dependency (Plane & Rogerson, "The Geographical Analysis of Population," page 42-43, 1993). Meaning, those children under the age of 14 and those adults over the age of 65.

Reducing money spent in these programs would clearly harm our most vulnerable (kids) and most venerated (retirees) citizens, because these are the groups gaining the most from welfare, social security, tax credits, etc.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Sun, Oct 16, 2011, at 2:00 PM

fear not, stuffany will not let facts stand in the way.

-- Posted by president obama on Sun, Oct 16, 2011, at 3:03 PM

Benevolus

Thanks, and welcome to the Gazette Blogs.

It is just sad that the report which brought to light the 47% of households not paying Federal Income Tax; was never fully read by many. It has been hijacked for political purposes in the same manner the GAO report that 55% of large Corporations paid no Corporate Income Tax between the years of 1998-2005. The Devil is always in the details.

Over 17 percent of people who did not pay federal income taxes in 2009 are people aged 65 or older. The main option to make these individuals pay federal income tax would be to subject their Social Security benefits to taxation.

An additional 13 percent consists largely of students, people with disabilities, the long-term unemployed, and others with very low taxable incomes. To make these people pay federal income taxes, policymakers would have to tax disability, veterans', and similar benefits or make full-time students and the long-term jobless individuals borrow to pay taxes on their meager incomes.

Another aspect of the EITC is seldom talked about. Over the past several decades, policymakers have essentially relied more on the EITC to supplement low wages and less on the minimum wage, which they have allowed to decline by 19 percent in purchasing power since 1970 (i.e., the minimum wage has fallen by 19 percent in inflation-adjusted dollars).

-- Posted by Geezer on Sun, Oct 16, 2011, at 3:39 PM

OK Geezer, let's just raise the minimum wage and see how many more people are out of work. Let's raise it to say $50 an hour so every one of us gets a "living wage". Whoopie, we all dance for joy!

But, of course, the "living wage" argument would then be irrelevant, as 95% of us would be unemployed and drawing unemployment benefits (few of us are worth $50/hour eh?). The Unintended Consequences of a Nanny-State Government strike again! Thus, the very people who are intended to be helped by the minimum wage, are harmed by it instead. Just as common sense dictates has always been true.

To pay for it all, just tax everyone making over $250,000 a year at 100% of their income. Just one problem. There aren't enough of them to cover all the cost of government, and who would work if the government took it all?

The politics of envy, which our current president invokes at every stump speech, only makes everyone poor in the end. Have you read the 10th Commandment from Exodus 20 in your Bible?

-- Posted by Boomer62 on Sun, Oct 16, 2011, at 6:38 PM

Stefffanie

Are you calling me a liar?

-- Posted by Geezer on Sun, Oct 16, 2011, at 8:25 PM

Boomer!

It looks like my predictions are coming true even faster than I thought. I was kinda hoping I was wrong, that maybe these folks in the Democrat Leadership really did care for America.

They do not, and that is becoming increasingly obvious with each passing day.

These vermin in the streets, spoiled, brainwashed, and incapable producing anything but vile, are what Obama wishes for all of us.

Keep the people stupid - should be the motto of the Democrats. And here, in the streets are the people they cater too, if only in words. The useful idiots, so necessary in any Socialist revolution.

For many years, Democrats use to deny that they were Liberals. "Don't label me!" They would cry, and yet we all knew they were Liberals. Now, they have moved on, and are Liberals no more. They are Socialists, Fascists and Communists. And again, we have to play games.

I could produce video after video in which they proclaim their hatred of America, their calls for its destruction and so forth.

I use to say that Liberalism is a mental disorder, but the more I thin about it, Liberalism, and leftists thought in general, is a SPIRITUAL disorder.

The left loves the things that God hates.

And in the end, The Apostle Paul was right, once again, "For the love of money is the root of all evil."

And we see, who it is in America that truly loves money. The spoiled, the unionists, the greedy leftist government types.

Leftists greed runs a world in need.

-- Posted by sameldridge on Sun, Oct 16, 2011, at 8:33 PM

You just absolutely nailed it Sam. Liberalism being a spiritual disorder.

It is liberalism that promotes government as it's god.

It is liberalism that that wants us to bow to government/environment/etc.

It is liberalism that want us to take the Lords name in vain.

It is liberalism with all it's burdensome taxation and hedonistic activities that forces many to work seven days a week.

It is liberalism that excuses murder.

It is liberalism that excuses adultery.

It is liberalism that excuses theft.

It is liberalism that excuses lies.

It is liberalism the promotes coveting.

Conservatism, without including God, is no better. But for some reason, true conservatism seems to include God.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sun, Oct 16, 2011, at 11:11 PM

Oh my...the hysterics abound now!! Where are Doodle Bug and SWNebr Transplant when we need them?

Well, I have heard it said that fanaticism is nothing more than overcompensation for doubt. I have also heard that moderation and the love for one's enemies and neighbors alike is righteous and moral. But clearly, the aforementioned do not apply to the "kind folks" on this blog who are doing a less than admirable of job of representing conservatism, morality, or even something so simple as respecting human dignity.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Mon, Oct 17, 2011, at 12:35 AM

Though I am no longer blogging something really does stick out to me Sam. When the TEA Party really started to get going you championed them and called them true patriots that were fighting for what's right in America. Now that the Occupy people are standing up you say that they are "vermin in the streets, spoiled, brainwashed, and incapable producing anything but vile..."

It seems odd, to me, that while the TEA Party were holding their protests and interrupting town hall meetings you were saying very loudly that they deserved to be doing all of that. That anyone who stood against them or disagreed with them were horrible, corrupt liberals and they just needed to shut up.

Here's the thing. The original TEA Party that started up while Bush was still in office shares many of the ideas that the Occupy people are protesting today. The original TEA Party did not like Wall Street.

Karl Denninger, who is a co-founder of the original TEA Party (before the corporations took it over and before in his own words the Republican Party took over) expressed support for the Occupy movement and suggested ways that they could learn from mistakes that the TEA Party made.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/10/14/te...

Will this change your mind? Perhaps not. You view these people as liberal because you have been told to. You see them as pot smokers and bongo players because you have been told to. You see them as causing problems and breaking laws because you have been told to do so. You have been told one side of the story and you believe it on full faith because your selected politicians and talking heads have told you this is what you are supposed to believe.

You talk a lot about brainwashing and the inability of liberals to think for themselves. You seem to be guilty of living the way that you preach against.

The beginning of the TEA Party movement was not a political one, it was a pure movement of people fed up with the government. Then the political system got involved and it turned into a simple political movement against anything seen as liberal. The TEA Party was destroyed when they joined forces with the Republican Party and their ideas and what they believed in were co-opted by Republicans and what they believe in.

To this point the Occupy movement is a true movement that has not allowed itself to be co-opted by politics. The politicians will attempt to co-opt this movement. We shall see if the Occupy movement can take Karl Denninger's words to heart and not allow the political system to take over.

For once, Sam, do what you constantly preach to others about doing. Think for yourself instead of allowing your political leaders to do it for yourself.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Oct 17, 2011, at 7:39 AM

Haha...very well played Rattletrap! I got a good laugh out of your response.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Mon, Oct 17, 2011, at 1:45 PM

Went to Occupy Houston yesterday. Talked to about 6 of the guys. Asked to talk to the leader, visted with him for about an hr.

They are all what I would describe as fringe. Most of the guys had long hair and facial hair. The woman were either obese or self proclaimed lesbian. They were sleeping in tents and giving away hygiene products that were supplied to them. A few were playing guiters and there was even a dog running around with a bandanna.

The signs were protesting a lot of things. Oil companies, Google, Bankers and even some Enron signs.

The leader told me that free college was the answer. The leader had a political science degree but was on disability because he hurt his back. I asked him if sitting on a lawn chair for 18 hrs was good for his back. He didn't answer.

Another one of the guys told me that fortune 500 companies do background checks on employees because they do not hire people with loans. He explained to me that Rich people don't need loans so that was a way for the Rich to take care of the Rich.

The bottom line is that these people have different ideas on why they are protesting. Most of them will work at Starbucks or a book store but will not have a real career. Most have some college. The overriding theme was the government ought to give them something.

Wallis Marsh

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Mon, Oct 17, 2011, at 3:55 PM

Wallis,

I'm not sure I understand why your second paragraph about the protesters is germaine. You seem to imply that there are no obese lesbians.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Mon, Oct 17, 2011, at 4:13 PM

Occupy Houston was at tranquility park on Bagby. I parked my car next to the old Texaco building and a Hotel. The place that I parked was metered but for commerical traffic Monday-Friday. I crossed about 2 streets before I got to the park. I am sunburned on the face from my time there.

Anymore details that you ask and I will try to provide.

Wallis Marsh

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Mon, Oct 17, 2011, at 5:21 PM

stefffanie,

I did find it funny that Michael's blog on Kos talked about his failed efforts to get Wallis banned after all of his fierce denials that he had ever tried to remove any poster, but that is probably enough about that poor soul.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Mon, Oct 17, 2011, at 5:22 PM

Wallis

Who was the leader you talked with?

-- Posted by Geezer on Mon, Oct 17, 2011, at 6:16 PM

Wallis,

The Occupy folks in Lincoln were mostly normal looking. Not an over-abundance of scragginess, though certainly a few unkempt folks were there. I thought they added an interesting and important counter-point to the generally well-ordered and polite crowd.

The signs I saw protested oil companies, Wall Street, etc. The people I talked to were all employed or in college, some of whom were working two jobs to pay for college so that they could get a better career in the future. Protestors came and went as other obligations needed tending to, some had taken the day off.

There were many issues being protested. Some I agreed with more than others.

My impression was that the overall theme was: the rich have had two great decades, and in the wake of the turmoil caused by deregulation and the country's near financial collapse, it is time for government to get serious about untangling itself from the big businesses that control the country.

A fair critique.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Mon, Oct 17, 2011, at 6:30 PM

The leader was from Northern Maine. He claimed to be a Nevada delegate for John Kerrey in the 2004 election. He also claimed to have worked on 200 elections. He said he is a registered Democrat but lends far to the left. He was wearing a blue T-shirt and was about 6'-6" to 6'-8" and very skinny. He told me his name but I don't remember it. I am bad at names.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Mon, Oct 17, 2011, at 6:49 PM

The people in Houston were not that well organized.

If the Lincoln folks had 2 jobs how is it they can hang out in the park on a Monday?

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Mon, Oct 17, 2011, at 7:53 PM

Wallis

I was just wondering who it was you had talked with since you had made a request to talk with the leader in person - I thought you might remember the guys name if you talked with him for an hour.

Egberto Willies did an interview with one of the organizers (Andy Meyer) on Saturday and he mentioned that they hadn't been allowed to use tents but the Police hadn't give them too much trouble with using sleeping bags on the ground under tarps. It is at 2:23 of the following youtube clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nj7VrLx5Q...

Egberto did another interview with Vanessa Edwards Foster and I think she did a pretty good job of summing up her concerns and why she is participating in Occupy Houston.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGtEuOwmj...

-- Posted by Geezer on Mon, Oct 17, 2011, at 8:25 PM

Wallis,

The Occupy Lincoln event took place over the weekend, and it wasn't at a park. It took place in front of the capital. I attended briefly on Sunday. I am not sure if they are still at the capital today/tonight. It wouldn't surprise me though because it is fall break for UNL.

Also, bear in mind that I said "some" of the folks here had two jobs, some just worked one, and others were in college or even high school (from what I could tell that is--it's getting hard for me to distinguish high school seniors from college underclassmen).

I remember a well dressed college student who was able to articulate exactly what he was doing there; he said he was studying business administration. That kinda of struck me as odd.

Here is an interesting article in USA Today. The following quote sums up my arguments above quite succinctly:

"Support for the Tea Party movement and its conservative agenda is roughly the same as Occupy Wall Street's, the poll found. About a fifth of Americans (22%) describe themselves as Tea Party supporters and 27% as opponents. Almost half (47%) say they're neither."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/stor...

I am with the 47% that supports neither. Maybe we need a protest. Maybe the: 'zealotry in this debate isn't helping' movement.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Mon, Oct 17, 2011, at 8:37 PM

Whoops, bit of a typo in my last...the business admin student wasn't at Occupy Lincoln to study business admin as the wording above seems to indicate. Rather, that's what he told me his major was when I asked.

He said he was there to protest the inextricable amount of leverage Wall Street, banks, big corporations, have over pretty much everyone in federal government.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Mon, Oct 17, 2011, at 8:44 PM

Ben - What is your Major?

Geezer - I shook the man's hand and told him my name. He told me his name. I probably talk to 30-150 people in a day. My wife prompts me on people's names as I am terrible with names.

Sorry.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Mon, Oct 17, 2011, at 9:18 PM

Expanding on Sam's liberalism as a spiritual disorder. Only liberals can justify misogyny, as long as the target of hatred is a conservative woman. Don't engage her on ideology, attack her because she is a woman.

The same for racism. As long as the target for hatred is a conservative man of color, don't engage him on his ideas, instead attack him for his color.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Mon, Oct 17, 2011, at 11:13 PM

Wallis,

I earned my bachelors degree in criminal justice and my masters in demography. I am currently working on an advanced degree in Geographical Information Systems. You probably use ArcGIS or some version of it in your line of work, no?

-- Posted by Benevolus on Tue, Oct 18, 2011, at 12:49 AM

Is ArcGIS used in surveying for staking oil well locations? If so we do use that. We also use GPS all the time.

I have never heard of a Masters in Demography. What department is that in?

Did you drive to Lincoln to the visit the Occupy Lincoln? I live about 15 minutes from downtown Houston so it was a quick trip before the Cowboys and Texans game. I had to return home to set up a radio deal.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Tue, Oct 18, 2011, at 5:50 AM

Benevolus: idle curiosity question: are you new, never before responded, to this venue? By new, I mean within the last three or four months.

And I am interested in your proposed (t.i.c.) protest movement. LOL

-- Posted by doodle bug on Tue, Oct 18, 2011, at 10:02 AM

Wallis,

Yes, ArcGIS is absolutely used for staking oil well locations. I could be wrong, but I suspect that if you are doing any remote sensing, studying the locations of natural resources, using GPS to geolocate possible sites for future oil wells, that ArcGIS or one of its counterparts is involved. If not, you ought to look into getting yourself a GIS specialist. You wouldn't be sorry.

The department was FSU's Center for Demography and Population Health.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Tue, Oct 18, 2011, at 12:01 PM

By the way Wallis, the Texans played the Ravens on Sunday. The Cowboys played the Pats.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Tue, Oct 18, 2011, at 12:12 PM

Doodle Bug,

My first post was in the vicinity of mid-September, about a month ago. So I am within your window of newness. May I ask you why you were curious? I wasn't reading along and not posting if that's what you were implying.

Let's get started on the movement right away! What will constitute our mission?

Here is a potential slogan: Children! Go outside and play and let the adults talk.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Tue, Oct 18, 2011, at 12:23 PM

Benevolus, I truly didnt mean to imply that you were reading and not replying. I have done that several times and see nothing wrong with it. Many times these threads get so ridiculous there is no point in attempting to maintain a reasonable conversation.

The real reason I asked was because, occasionally, you sound a lot like an individual who used to post on this blog, and seemed reasonable but deteriorated to sounding too much like Michael. And I am not implying that I believe you are going down that road.

I like your potential slogan for the movement, but, alas, I also doubt that it is possible.

Both sides of the political aisle has/can posit good arguments; the problem lies in the other side, seemingly, to be unable to accept that fact.

-- Posted by doodle bug on Tue, Oct 18, 2011, at 12:44 PM

Doodle Bug,

Oh I see what you meant. Funny, I completely misinterpreted what you meant by the question. I thought you were really asking me if I had been reading the blog for several months and only now just decided to post...I went back and read your question again and it's clear that I misunderstood. Sorry for the confusion.

As for Michael, I don't really know what he sounds like. The only critique I can fairly make of him is that he does seem to paint in broad strokes. But I would anticipate that Michael and I think more alike than Sam and I...and if you read above, I have gotten a little taste of what Michael was complaining about regarding the conservative posters here. They can get ugly.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Tue, Oct 18, 2011, at 1:33 PM

Benevolus,

Yes posters on both sides can get ugly. For me the problem isn't with what a person thinks, but how they act. If one acts like Sam or Michael, he should be prepared to be treated like Sam or Michael.

If you don't mind the question, what did bring you to our little corner of the world?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Tue, Oct 18, 2011, at 1:48 PM

Wallis

Isn't the Houston Downtown Redevelopment Authority working to convert the old Texaco building owned by Kimberly-Clark Corp. into 240 apartment units? I think it falls in the 60 block tax increment investment zone, where a portion of the property taxes are set aside for future reinvestment -- a downtown revitalization program to upgrade the historic buildings that are not being utilized to full potential, etc.

If my memory serves me right, the old Texaco Building is at the corner of Rusk and San Jacinto, across the street from the Post Office/Customs Building. That is almost half a mile from Tranquility Park, 7 city blocks. You would have had to cross at least six streets if you went straight down Rusk Street to the Park entrance.

Better pack a sandwich and wear a hat next time, or look for a closer place to park. There is usually parking on Walker Street at the Southwest End of Tranquility Park, and also on Rusk Street at the Northeast end of Tranquility Park. There is also ample parking along McKinney Street on the Southwest side of Rainy City Hall Park, which is just one block Southwest of Tranquility Park.

Stay out of the sun until that sunburn heals a little.

-- Posted by Geezer on Tue, Oct 18, 2011, at 1:49 PM

SWNebr Transplant,

Not a turn the other cheek type, eh? Fair enough.

I don't mind your question, though the answer is boring. I was doing a small GIS project centered around the Republican River. I was looking at how local communities along the river make decisions regarding water allocations, for irrigation and the like. I was reading a lot of small town newspapers, minutes from various things like McCook city council meetings, etc. The Gazette covers the MRNRD pretty well actually, and I was snooping around the website, wondering if any of the locals were talking about the occupation tax levy for irrigated acres, etc.

It turned out nobody was talking about the MRNRD tax levies. But I did find Michael and Sam.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Tue, Oct 18, 2011, at 2:40 PM

Geezer your age is showing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritage_Pl...

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Tue, Oct 18, 2011, at 6:19 PM

Ben - I have 3 Tv's in my Houston living room. Each has it's own direct Tv. Therefore I watch both the Cowboys and the Texans at the same time.

so it was a quick trip before the Cowboys and Texans game.

Therefore Ben I am telling the truth. I also showed Geezer I am telling the truth.

I can also forward you an email from Mayor Parker's Chief of Staff if you want proof I went to Occupy Houston.

Wallis Marsh

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Tue, Oct 18, 2011, at 6:24 PM

Geezer the Hotel I parked across the street from was the Doubletree.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Tue, Oct 18, 2011, at 6:25 PM

Wallis,

I didn't accuse you of not telling the truth, your wording was misleading. That's all.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Tue, Oct 18, 2011, at 6:56 PM

Wallis

Your wording was misleading Wallis.

The building known as the old Texaco Building was built prior to 1908 when Texaco moved from Beaumont to Houston. Texaco vacated the building in the 80's and relocated to the Heritage Plaza where they leased.

http://www.chron.com/business/article/Ol...

Thanks for clarifying this and I will continue to value your opinion.

-- Posted by Geezer on Tue, Oct 18, 2011, at 8:19 PM

Geezer - As a former Texaco employee that was hired in June 1990 I always called Heritage Plaza "the Texaco building". Since Texaco merged with Chevron and Chevron left the building sometime around 2003-2004 I and others have since referred to Heritage Plaza as "the old Texaco building". Sorry we have caused confusion.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Wed, Oct 19, 2011, at 6:08 AM

Ben - When were you at Florida State? I met Coach Bowden last year at the Bryant Awards. He has "it" but seemed a little uncomfortable in Houston.

I did not attend the OU/FSU game this year but the report I received was it was hard to get to Tallahassee which struck me as odd. People were flying into "Gainesville or Jacksonville?" and having to drive for a couple of hours.

I have a friend that received her undergrad from Florida and Masters from Florida State. Her undergrad was in Geography and her Masters was Meteorology.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Wed, Oct 19, 2011, at 6:22 AM

Wallis,

I was there in 2006-2008. That's great you met Bowden. I was born and raised a Husker fan, so I felt a bit like Benedict Arnold going to FSU. Needless to say, I took a lot of crap down there...especially because the Huskers were so down. The 2007 season was particularly rough, although not watching the games on Saturday did allow me to get more studying done.

It doesn't surprise me that people didn't fly into Tallahassee. It was sometimes cheaper to pay for a tank of gas and have a buddy pick me up from JAX. The drive is just a little shorter than something like Lincoln to Kansas City, which I will drive if the flight is cheaper than the tank and a half of gas it takes to get there and back, parking, etc.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Wed, Oct 19, 2011, at 10:12 AM

Yeah baby! Thanks stefffanie and grandmajo for the kudos...I had a feeling about this one. The man is addicted to blogging - aside from that; he is addicted to his own ego.

Now that the dike has sprung a leak - it won't be long until the flood comes forth.

-- Posted by Mickel on Tue, Oct 25, 2011, at 1:06 PM


Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.


Hot topics
Elizabeth Warren's Eleven Tenants of Moonbattery
(7 ~ 5:23 PM, Sep 1)

The Politics of Divsion
(4 ~ 6:40 PM, Aug 13)

They Are in it Together
(9 ~ 8:47 AM, Aug 6)

The Savage Truth
(3 ~ 10:08 PM, Aug 2)

Eric Holder Draws The Race Card, Again
(3 ~ 10:47 AM, Jul 22)