Can NASA also protect us from Republicans?

Nattering Naybob: The Red Ranger, I was heartened to read in the HuffingtonPost today that NASA is appointing someone they call a “Planetary Defense Officer” as part of an overall effort to defend our earth from asteroids, meteors, and other space-based projectiles that threaten the very existence of us Earthlings. I guess they are trying to do whatever they can to try and protect us from threats from space, while Republicans from the Fringe Lunatic Right (which are about 99.7% of Republicans, lately) do their best to destroy our Earth by rejecting all evidence of global warming (“I’m not a scientist, BUT….”) and scoffing at attempts to reduce carbon emissions, etc. Question for NASA: Can you also protect against Earth-bound threats such as Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Chris Christie, The Koch Brothers, and the NRA?

 

Artists rendering of us all getting killed

The Red Ranger: What a great idea, I suggest we round up some far left radicals and assign them to patrol the universe.  I say we send DiBlasio, Sanders, the Clintons (Bill and Hill) and the Obama’s into space on a never ending search for asteroids, meteors, etc.  The cost of providing them a one-way trip through the universe will surely be less than the cost they would inflict on humans should they remain on earth.

Speaking of costs, in the article it indicates that the cost of this effort is budgeted at $50 million in 2016 which is up from $4 million in 2010.  This is a 52% compound annual growth rate. That is outrageous even by Obama’s standards.  I am sure that if they identify an object on a collision course with the earth some bleeding heart liberal will argue against destroying it claiming we must not have borders and these alien objects have every right to enter the earth.

Nattering Naybob: You have proven yourself a true deficit hawk. You would rather save money than help save the world, literally. I’m surprised you aren’t supporting an idea that your Conservative icon and God, Ronald Reagan, first proposed. One of his few good ideas.

The Red Ranger: I am not a deficit hawk just one for sound fiscal policies.  I am not against spending just want to make sure money is spent wisely with the highest benefit return for all.

Nattering Naybob: One would think that saving the planet from getting hit by an asteroid that would potentially cause the mass extinction of most or all animals and human beings, would be something with a high benefit attached. But that’s just me…

 

 

 

Suzy out of Favor, apparently

Nattering Naybob: Red Ranger, I believe you may have heard that the former women’s distance running star Suzy Favor Hamilton was discovered this past December to have begun a new career as a $600 an hour escort in Las Vegas. Yesterday the Big Ten removed her name from their Athlete of the Year award for each of the three years Favor Hamilton won it (1988 thru 1990).

I find the Big Ten’s decision completely outrageous. Apparently the decision comes from people who are themselves beyond moral reproach in every respect. How in the world can they negate an athlete’s accomplishments that took place roughly 25 years ago because of what she is now doing with her life? Favor Hamilton stated that choosing this lifestyle was in part a coping mechanism in response to “depression and other personal issues”.

Red Ranger, I know that during the nearly one year our little blog has been on cyberspace, you have demonstrated what I would call a zero-tolerance policy for anyone who displays human weakness of any kind, whether involving drugs, unemployment, or the management of their personal finances. So I am interested in your reaction to this story. Maybe you’ll surprise me. May I remind you in advance that prostitution would not be necessary if (frequently, married) men did not find it acceptable to hand over money to engage in an activity that is best conducted free-of-charge between consenting adults in a mutually respectful relationship, whether that relationship lasts one evening or 50 years.

The Red Ranger: One point of clarification, I think the award was named for Suzy Favor and they took her name off of it not that they took the award away from her.  However, I could be reading the story wrong.

I do not think I have shown zero tolerance, however, I do like to hold those in public positions to a higher standard.  In this case, I really do not consider Suzy Favor to be a public figure though.  She had her fifteen minutes of fame and I would doubt that if you asked 1,000 people on the street if more than one knew who she was.

In regard to this case I really do not consider it to be a big deal.  What she was doing was between two consenting adults.  It is not like she was holding a gun to these men and forcing them to have sex with her.  The Big Ten has Probably overreacted here.  I wonder if the award was named for some football or basketball player who was later arrested for domestic violence or DUI if the outcome would have been the same.

Being a married man I would not have any inclination to visit a prostitute but if a vote came up in regard to legalizing it, much to your surprise, I would probably favor it.  If the two people involved were consenting adults I really do not see the big problem.  I know the morality, etc. but that is something the two people involved would have to deal with themselves.  In addition, these services could be taxed and raise money to help pay down part of the trillions in debt that has been run up in the past few years.

Nattering Naybob: Just as we will be celebrating our wonderful nation’s independence tomorrow (my wife and I will be watching the corny but strangely hypnotic movie “1776” as we do every Fourth of July), I will also be celebrating your take on this subject (except for the part about the debt “that has been run up in the past few years”… make that past 12+ years, all post-Bill Clinton.)

You are right, I misunderstood the relation of her name to the award. Even so, I still feel that they should have left the award in her name. It is not a situation like Lance Armstrong’s, where the athletic accomplishments themselves were tainted by cheating during the actual competition. I think in retrospect it was probably a dumb idea for the Big Ten to have named the award after a specific person anyway.

Plus, Favor Hamilton engaged in an essentially victimless “crime”, if that is even what is should be referred to as. I believe working as an escort is legal in Las Vegas. I do not say this with any direct knowledge since I have never been to Las Vegas and the closest I have come to an escort is when the elderly crossing guard Mr. Labriola escorted me across 91st Street on my way to school when I was in first grade. He was a nice man but so old that midway across the street I wound up having to shield him from an oncoming truck. Have a happy Fourth of July, Red Ranger.

The Red Ranger: Having been to Vegas a number of times I know that prostitution itself is illegal in Las Vegas, Clark County but is legal outside of Clark County.  However, the strip is usually inundated with hawkers handing out pamphlets for escort services. They even have those little trucks with mini-billboards travelling up and down the strip advertising escort services.

Our Government

The Red Ranger: Here is a quick quiz:

1. Post WWII what year saw government spending at its highest percent of GDP?
1) 1974   2) 1985   3) 2009   4) 1950

2. Post WWII what year had the second highest government spending as a percent of GDP?
1) 1974   2) 1985   3) 2010   4)  1950

3. Post WWII what year had the third highest government spending as a percent of GDP?
1) 1974   2) 1985   3) 2011   4) 1950

4. Post WWII what 3-year period was the only period to see revenue as a percent of GDP be below 16% for each of the years?
1) 1964-1966   2) 1953-1955   3) 2009-2011   4) 1980-1982

5.) Who was president during the period of highest government spending and lowest revenue as a percent of GDP since WWII?
1) Bush   2) Clinton   3) Obama   4) Nixon

Answers:

1) C

2) C

3) C

4) C

5) C

Quite a record for the Big O.  I know that your canned response will be to blame it on Bush, however, even the OMB is forecasting spending as a percent of GDP to only come down to the highest end of post WWII spending levels.  My guess is that even those estimates are too rosy.

Can financial ruin be far behind…

Nattering Naybob: First, a housekeeping matter. You said that the answer to each question below was “C”. The third option in each of your list of potential answers, was in fact labeled “3)”, not “C)”. Don’t worry, I will not ask you for a revised blog entry with corrections, I will base my reply according to your confusing presentation of facts. But please remember that such sloppiness undermines your credibility right out of the gate.

On to the (ostensible) substance of your case. The dip in “revenue” referenced in Questions 4 and 5, is clearly because Obama, despite the lunatic, saliva-spewing rantings and protestations of the Survivalist, uh I mean, Republican Party, is actually reducing taxes to their lowest point since the 1950’s. So I imagine you should be happy that the recent Fiscal Cliff negotiations resulted in higher tax rates for certain segments of our nation that have not been pulling their weight with respect to taxes, while keeping them low for the middle class.  Regarding questions 1 thru 3, there is no secret that spending has been historically high in the first 2-3 years of Obama’s administration. You are re-litigating old news, because you have no new news about Obama’s so-called failings. You may consider this to be “blaming Bush”, but the fact remain that Obama was left with a historic financial meltdown, plus an unfunded, unnecessary war (Iraq), whose United States involvement Obama has effectively ended. I see that there was no mention made of “spending as a percent of GDP” (there you go again trying to confuse me with your fancy lingo), for CY 2012. That may be because this data is not published yet, or it could also be that federal spending is now on its way downward, as Obama promised.

The Red Ranger:  Thank you for not asking for a re-post.  I was feeling so sick after looking at these numbers I wasn’t thinking clearly.

I did not mention 2012 because it is an estimate at this point.  And by the way the estimate is higher than 2010 and 2011.  George Bush was also fighting wars during his tenure but his spending was a good 4 to 5 percentage points below Obama.  By the way, how long have we been out of Iraq now?  Where are the benefits of ending that war showing up in our spending?  Obama has effectively taken these savings and spent them on other programs to ensure that the democratic voting bloc is addicted to the government thereby almost guaranteeing reelection from this point forward.

Since 1950 up until Obama was elected spending as a % of GDP averaged 19.8%, Obama’s average spending is 24.5%.  Since 1950 revenue as a percent of GDP has averaged 18%, Obama is averaging 15.2%.  Even you with your rudimentary understanding of mathematical concepts have to admit that this is a dismal performance.

Any raising of the debt ceiling MUST be accompanied by meaningful spending cuts if we are to ever get back to any level of fiscal responsibility.  I am including defense spending in possible spending cuts.    If the Republicans do not demand this then there truly is no one watching out for the good of the country and we are doomed.

Nattering Naybob: The below is an extract from FactCheck.org, which is a non-partisan “referee” for claims made regarding governmental activities, spending, et al. I believe The Red Ranger himself has cited this website in the past, both prior to and after the birth of our little blog.

The truth is that the nearly 18 percent spike in spending in fiscal 2009 — for which the president is sometimes blamed entirely — was mostly due to appropriations and policies that were already in place when Obama took office. That includes spending for the bank bailout legislation approved by President Bush. Annual increases in amounts actually spent since fiscal 2009 have been relatively modest. In fact, spending for the first seven months of the current fiscal year is running slightly below the same period last year, and below projections.

Here is the link to the article. Extra credit if you read the whole thing. It is a long read, but very rationally concludes that while Obama is certainly not blameless, he also should not be pointed out as the villain that you and your Republican friends would have us believe… and that by many metrics, spending has been slowed over the last year or so.

Another fact: George W. Bush inherited a $281 billion SURPLUS left over from Bill Clinton’s stewardship of the economy. Eight years later, when Obama took office, that had turned into a DEFICIT of $1.2 trillion. What’s that you say? That was because of the free-spending Democratic Congress under Bush? Well then why are you not blaming the Republican-controlled House for any alleged spending increases after 2010?

Finally, please offer proof that Obama has “addicted” his “Democratic base” to higher government spending as a tool to ensure he remained in office. That ridiculous claim does not pass any sane logical rigor. Why would Obama try to “bribe” his rock-solid constituencies by offering them increased government spending? Would these voters not already be supporting Obama regardless? And if you claim that Obama is instead luring Independents and Republicans by his so-called higher spending, would both of these supposedly clearer-minded voters reject his, again “alleged” spending promises and vote for Romney anyway? The Red Rangers needs to stop leaning on Sarah Palin-esque platitudes and slogans, go into a quiet, darkened room perhaps with a modest lamp, pen and legal pad, and spend a few hours thinking these things through on his own and come out of that room prepared to draft and deliver a heart-felt apology both to Nattering Naybob and our readers for his misleading screeds.

The Red Ranger: So the article basically supports my premise that spending is out of control as a percent of GDP.

The article seems to cherry pick some specific spending initiatives to assign to Obama but fails to identify significant spending reductions that should have taken place.  It seems like every time Obama has a one-time spending program it is just replaced by another one-time spending program even though the original spending program was supposed to solve our problems.  I would have thought that after the recovery summer things would have gotten back in line with historical spending levels but I guess the recovery summer really wasn’t.

Also, please do not forget that as one was brilliantly outlined in one of first blogs the blame for the financial meltdown can be placed squarely on policies implemented under Clinton.

If Obama was originally elected with Hope and Change, where is the change?

Also, while I was looking at some figures for spending on the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan it appears that even though the war in Iraq is over total spending in the two countries has not been reduced significantly.  So whatever money was saved in Iraq is being spent in Afghanistan.  I would love to know how that money is being spent at this point.  Not blaming Obama for that it just seems like the military may have gotten used to a certain spending level and is now just finding ways to justify that spending level.

Finally, the numbers I have seen indicate that these wars make up about 10% – 15% of the budget deficit.  Hopefully, the spending can be significantly reduced over the next two years and Obama and Congress can work meaningfully on the other 85% – 90%.

Nattering Naybob: Just as you claim President Obama has not indicated what spending he wants to cut, neither have any Republicans. They just talk about cutting spending in the abstract. Finally, I noticed that you said nothing of the $1 trillion worth of spending cuts that took place after the earlier round of fiscal cliff negotiations to summers ago. I have nothing more to say on this subject, my good man. Good day to you.

The Red Ranger: I believe the spending cuts you are referring to are reductions in the rate of spending increases and not actual cuts.  Typical liberal ploy.

Nattering Naybob: I believe I said “GOOD DAY TO YOU”!!  (to paraphrase Willy Wonka…)

Our biggest problems, Part One

The Red Ranger: Just sitting around thinking about the issues impacting us at this time. I see seven specific areas of trouble, and will detail each one in this post, and a Part 2 post in a few days: These issues are: 1) lack of jobs, 2) rising government debt levels, 3) stagnant home prices, 4) rising food prices, 5) rising gasoline prices, 6) stagnant wages 7) the coming fiscal cliff

Nattering Naybob: Very thorough and imposing bill of particulars, Red Ranger. You must have been curtailing your viewing of the Deluxe DVD version of “Sarah Palin’s Alaska: Season One” to devote your time to more studious pursuits. OK, lay it on us:

The Red Ranger:
Issue 1: Lack of jobs.
There is no job creation in the US.  We no longer manufacture much of anything.  The service industry can only go so far if there is no one able to afford service since they are not working.  Our number one goal needs to be to bring back some well-paying manufacturing jobs to the US. In addition, we need to implement some serious efforts to keep jobs that we have in the US and not offshore them and to try to bring back other jobs that may have been off shored already. This would probably require some serious tax incentives which of course any good liberal would reject. We desperately need to increase the monetary pool of created value in the United States, otherwise we are just continually trying to redistribute the same shrinking pool of dollars. The Red Ranger rating on this issue: SEVERE.

Nattering Naybob: Agree on the corrosive effects of outsourcing, off-shoring, or whatever one wishes to call it. However I suggest you contact your Presidential candidate Mitt Romney (I know you have him on speed dial), who seems to be against the concept of bringing jobs back to America. This past January, after President Obama proposed the very same type of tax incentives you suggested, to bring manufacturing jobs back home, Romney said that this was not in the best interests of companies’ profitability, and that Obama’s proposal showed he is “hostile to free enterprise”. Perhaps if you tell Romney that your Red Ranger rating on this issue is “Severe”, he will call you immediately after he tells his next lie or flip-flops on his latest issue, now that his underwhelming Republican National Convention is over (more on the two conventions forthcoming soon.)

The Red Ranger: Did Obama propose those tax incentives at the same time he was vetoing the Keystone Pipeline that would have created thousands of jobs for the US? I fear that Obama has gotten us too comfortable with an unemployment rate of slightly more than 8%. The US citizenry has been brainwashed into believing that without Obama’s efforts the unemployment rate would have been so much higher so we should just be grateful at where it is now. Are your ready for my second issue?

Nattering Naybob: I suppose….

The Red Ranger:
Issue 2: Rising government debt levels
We cannot continue to spend at the levels we are. The deficit is a spending issue and not a revenue issue.  However, the situation is so severe that an increase in revenue is probably required to help get things stabilized.  We must control spending now.  This means not just reducing the level of growth but also reducing the total spending level.  This is one of the simpler things to fix but no one is willing to bite the bullet. The Red Ranger rating on this issue: SEVERE.

Nattering Naybob: I don’t think there is much debate that we need to curb long-term spending. However neither should we implement a European-style austerity program, as this has proven to be a dismal failure so far for the Euro countries. Nor should we cut spending just to then give millionaires yet another tax break, which Romney and Ryan (‘Ayn Rand’, as pointed out in a previous SGM post…?), want to do. I too am disappointed that Obama could not bring back the nation to the same surplus that we were left with under Democratic President Bill Clinton, a surplus that was promptly frittered away by George W. Bush. Perhaps you forgot about your most recent Republican President. The Republican National Convention, concluded to huge yawns last week in Tampa, certainly seems to have.

The Red Ranger: Can you provide an example of a European country where a fully implemented austerity program has been a dismal failure.  If this is true, than to use your frequent argument to explain why the stimulus failed (it was not big enough) then I would say that the austerity program was not austere enough. 

Please see this article, I like the headline: “Estonia and Austerity: Another Exploding Cigar for Paul Krugman”

Nattering Naybob: Now you have really crossed the line, Red Ranger. You have insulted Paul Krugman, America’s most accurate pundit!! Ordinarily nobody insults Paul Krugman to me and gets away with it, but since I know you are still smarting over the Giants’ Week 1 loss to the Cowboys, I will let you off the hook this one time. Watch it in the future though.

The Red Ranger:
Issue 3: Stagnant home prices.
I say “stagnant” only because home prices have already fallen 20-50% from their peaks and probably will not fall much further.  Given that interest rates are already near rock bottom and they will probably rise in the future, interest rates should not be looked at as a potential boon to the housing market. The only thing that would drive up home prices at this point would be an increase in worker’s wages.  However, that is unlikely. The Red Ranger rating on this issue: MODERATE (only because the majority of the damage has already been done.)

Nattering Naybob: I believe in our inaugural “Second Grade Minds” blog, The Red Ranger blamed the housing market crisis on Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter (you spared Franklin Delano Roosevelt from your wrath, for which I am grateful.) But since you and your lovely family own your own home (as does one of my brothers), I sincerely hope home values rebound.

The Red Ranger:
Issue 4: Rising food prices
Drought is wreaking havoc with corn, wheat and soybean crops driving up prices that will ultimately be passed along to the consumer.  The Red Ranger rating on this issue: MINIMAL for now. However, future years of poor harvests will rapidly raise the impact to moderate or severe. We should be planning right now based upon the assumption that we may have another year of poor crop output.  At least then we can hopefully avoid a crisis situation and if it turns out the next crop is a bumper one then at least we should have learned something from our preparedness.  One thing we have not had to endure in the US is a full-fledged food shortage and I hope we never do. 

Nattering Naybob: Beyond the specific issue of prices (I need to run some more pricing algorithms based on the past 100 years of food pricing based on region, climate, etc.), I see two central issues with food: a) most Americans today, including probably myself, eat too much of it, and b) too much of it is wasted. Amazon.com can now get the latest iteration of “Grand Theft Auto” to a customer anywhere in the country on a same-day basis, yet we cannot get surplus food routed to people who need it. A terrible failure of the vaunted American Ingenuity, if you ask me.

The Red Ranger: Yes, we do all probably eat too much.  I know I have been known to down a few White Castle Cheeseburgers in my day.  One of the things that I firmly believe is that no one should go hungry in the US unless of course you are a lazy Occupier who wants food delivered to their encampment. I would love to know how much food is discarded by supermarkets. One of the things that I would like to see would be to have the food stamps program (now known euphemistically as SNAP) transitioned into a food delivery program so that people are actually getting healthy food with their benefits. This should be fully supported by loons like Bloomberg since then the government can fully control what people eat. Oh well, time to head over to Burger King for my super colossal bacon cheeseburger with a giant Slurpee and mega fries cooked in trans-fat and smothered in salt.

Nattering Naybob: Your dietary choices, like your politics, is unfortunate. Question: Why is it OK for the government to dictate what lower-income people eat, via SNAP, but not OK for the government to dictate what people eat if they buy it on their own? I think I know what your answer will be, The Red Ranger, but we will wait for next time on that. I think we have given our small but loyal band of readers enough to chew on for now (get it? “Chew on”?….)

The Gift of Giving

The Red Ranger: A recent study has shown that people in states that voted for John McCain contribute more to charities than those that voted for Obama. No surprise here, conservative Republicans have always shown themselves to be more caring about their fellow humans than those that call themselves liberal Democrats. It amazes me that conservative Republicans allow themselves to be portrayed in the media as the evil ogre ready to eat their own young. I chalk this up to the fact that they are comfortable with their own efforts to help their fellow man and rely on their own personal satisfaction as opposed to having to have someone constantly stroke their egos telling them how wonderful they are like the liberal Democrats require.

14 of the top 20 giving states were red states with Utah leading the way. What is the predominant religion in Utah? Mormon. What is presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s religion? Mormon. Instead of the media vilifying the Mormon religion they should try to understand why they seem to be the most supportive of their fellow humans. I guess to the media it is acceptable to have your minister shouting, “God Damn America” during a sermon a la Obama’s minister of 20 years, Jeremiah Wright but it is not acceptable to belong to the most giving religious organization in the country.

Not only does this phenomenon hold true in terms of $ but it is also true for donated time and donating blood. Can you imagine the horror to a liberal realizing that the blood transfusion that just saved their life had a high probability of coming from a conservative.

Nattering Naybob: First, I applaud any Republican who gives to charity and does something noble. I guess even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Second, I don’t know why you say people are vilifying the Mormon religion. Do you really think that has been going on? I’m sure there are always ignorant, mis-informed people who criticize other people based on their religion. Are you claiming that has been coming from the Obama campaign? I have not hard or read so much as a whisper of this coming from Obama or his campaign spokespeople. I would denounce anyone who criticized Romney for being a Mormon. On the other hand, I do not think that too many Republicans would likewise denounce anyone who criticized the Muslim religion.

Thirdly, Jeremiah Wright is not “my” minister, nor has he ever been. He has been rightly dismissed by most reasonable individuals. This can be filed under “Old irrelevant issues, continually brought up by Conservatives”.

The Red Ranger: I am not saying Wright is your minister, I am saying that he was Obama’s minister for an extended period of time and Obama did not stand up to his anti-American rhetoric.

Nattering Naybob: To paraphrase Bill Clinton (again), I guess it depends on what your definition of the word “yours”… is. I accept your apology, Red Ranger.

The Red Ranger: “I guess to the media it is acceptable to have your minister shouting, “God Damn America” during a sermon a la Obama’s minister of 20 years.” That is what I wrote, no apology is required as my thoughts were clearly stated, however, your feeble liberal mind is having trouble comprehending them.

Aurora, Part 3: Wash, Rinse, and Repeat

Nattering Naybob: Red Ranger, back in July we exchanged some thoughts about the Aurora shootings. In the intervening period we have seen yet another mass shooting in Ohio upon a Sikh Temple; the intended victims were chosen (apparently) because of the headwear worn by this peaceful sect. As a nation, indeed virtually as a society, we have become numb to these events to the point where their aftermath(s) have evolved into a well-rehearsed ritual, complete with the same tired rhetoric, talking points, and imagery.

While sensitive to the “healing” qualities that these rituals represent, these symbols have supplanted the search for solutions. I wonder if it is time to move past these symbolic gestures and try to somehow come up with ways to prevent these events from taking place. Below are some of the most prevalent symbols and dialogue that we now see by default in the aftermath of these mass shootings:

1. “Police are still trying to determine a motive for the shootings” Is there ever a cogent motive in these killings other than someone who had some type of serious mental or social problem, wanting to mow down innocent people as twisted retribution for some perceived slight imposed upon them by society?

2. “Now is not the time to talk about gun control; now is the time to mourn the victims and allow the community to heal” This has grown into a convenient way to defer this difficult but necessary conversation, by implying people who want to raise the issue of how these gunmen acquire mass quantities of weaponry and ammunition–whether legally or not–are being insensitive to the victims. Then once the “recovery / healing” periods passes, the initial outrage over guns has passed, and people move on to something else. I maintain that this gambit is employed mostly–but not solely–by Republicans, and I (begrudgingly) admit it makes perfect “tactical” sense for them to do so.

3. “The media should not be giving publicity to the gunman, instead they should be celebrating the lives of the victims.” Wrong. It is not the media’s role to shine a light on how much the victims loved to take long walks on the beach, what they planned to study when they went to college next year, whether they emigrated to the United States twelve years ago and just finished their first tour of duty in Afghanistan. The focus should be on the crime itself, and the perpetrator of that crime. Again, the aftermath of the shootings has itself become the story, rather than the crime itself, and what led up to it. If the media has any desire to provide a public service as part of their coverage–and I’m not sure they should–they should be shining on a light on the background and habits of the shooter, as well as publicizing which members of Congress accept contributions from the gun lobby, and the amounts of these contributiions.

4. (Typically said by liberal Democrats who are anxious to display their “seeing both sides of the issue” chops): “Hey, I’m a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment. In fact, I own a gun, and there’s nothing better I like than going deer hunting or bird hunting whenever I return to my home district. In fact, I’m teaching my grandson to shoot squirrel next weekend”. This kind of statement is so irrelevant and offensive that no further comment of mine can serve any purpose.

5. Imagery of people attending candlelight vigils for the victims (Wash, rinse, and repeat.)

6. Imagery of people embracing and hugging (Wash, rinse, and repeat.)

7. Somber, tinkling, piano music accompanying the soft-fade in and soft-fade out to and from the two above sets of imagery, during commercial breaks by news networks (Wash, rinse, and repeat)

Red Ranger, I know I am being cynical here, hopefully not to the point of insensitivity, but in response to these all-too-frequent shootings, we need to find new solutions, not rely on old (and tired) rituals. Your thoughts.

The Red Ranger: While we started this blog to have some back and forth banter about interesting topics (including the “occasional” opposing viewpoints), on this one I have to say I pretty much agree with you.

1. The motive behind these shootings is pretty much irrelevant since as you say they boil down to simply someone wanting to extract revenge on those who they perceive to have slighted them.

2. What better time to talk about gun control than right after one of these events.  Have the discussions while everyone is still riled and wanting to act.  It is always easier to do nothing than to actually take some action.

3. Not to sound callous about the victims but they are all always portrayed as almost God-like.  Only the good people seem to be killed in these shootings.  That is why I am not worried about ever being a victim of one of these shootings since I am an evil, vile Republican and no one will ever say anything good about me.  And why do people only seem to get shot the day before their birthday or the week before they are getting married.

4. Candlelight vigils have lost their meaning and impact at this point.  There is one for every event (not just mass shootings).

5. Like you I do not want to sound insensitive but let’s take some action to minimize the chances of these events happening again rather than honing slick productions of what transpired during and after the events.

Nattering Naybob: I guess we are at heart just a couple of cynical old coots, each channeling our inner H.L. Mencken. In conclusion (to quote Bill Clinton at the 1988 Democratic Convention), I also never understand the disproportianate amount of attention that gets paid to shootings involving multiple people, as opposed to the garden-variety senseless shootings of individual, equally innocent victims throughout the country, that take place every single day.

Community Reinvestment Act: How government policies impact a stable market environment

The Red Ranger: While the United States is currently in the midst of the Great Recession, much of the blame for the core problems that ail us today can be placed squarely at the feet of past Democratic presidents. Three main legislative failures come to mind. They are 1) the passage of the Community Reinvestment Act by Jimmy Carter, 2) the signing of NAFTA, and 3) the repeal of Glass-Steagal by Bill Clinton.

The CRA, which was initially intended to eliminate redlining (a process which I do not support) by banks, was an early example of the government trying to expand home ownership to a larger percentage of the population because they felt everyone deserved to own a home. This was clearly an example of the government enacting a policy that upset the equilibrium of the free market. By forcing banks to lend to less credit-worthy individuals (those that would not have normally qualified for a loan) the government caused a larger than normally acceptable amount of capital to flow into the housing market.

Over time this artificially raised the prices for homes and the demand for home loans bringing less scrupulous lenders into the mortgage business who were not as highly regulated as the standard bank lenders. Every Tom, Dick and Harry was more than willing to refinance their home time and again to withdraw cash from the inflated equity balances to fund a new car or fancy vacation. However, once the prices of homes reached their breaking point (as always happens in a bubble) these folks were left with mortgage balances which were substantially more than their homes were worth and banks and mortgages lenders were left with loans that would never be repaid thus causing the financial meltdown that started the Great Recession.

Nattering Naybob: First, Red Ranger (hope you don’t mind that I drop the “The” when addressing you directly), it’s great to finally be putting our thoughts in blog form. It was chiefly your idea to take the plunge, so I salute your entrepreneurial spirit. I would expect nothing less from a die-hard Republican. Over the coming weeks and months, I am going to try and look under Red Ranger’s “hood”, if you don’t mind a metaphor there, to finally see what form your Republicanism takes– Eisenhower? Reagan? Bush? Cain? Bachmann? After all these years, I still can’t figure it out.

I have no doubt that your analysis is credible regarding who-did-what, and when, but at the same time I am curious as to why you dredge up presidential acts from the era of Disco Demolition Night. What’s next, an attack on Harry Truman as a “jobs killer” for invoking the Taft-Hartley Act? But beyond that, Red Ranger, even if I stipulate that Jimmy Carter tore himself away from managing the White House tennis court schedule long enough to pass the CRA, what about the bankers and investment “specialists” that facilitated these loans? Do they not share any blame, and if so, how much?

Passing legislation that at the time was honestly thought to open home ownership to a wider segment of Americans is like the “apple” to the “orange” represented by the predatory bankers who should have known better.

The Red Ranger: Where were these bankers and investment specialist before the CRA was passed? Were they just sitting around collecting unemployment waiting for the government to pass the CRA? No, they did not exist because there was not a government-created artificial demand for mortgage products that needed to be funded via the redirection of capital. Their existence only came about due to the government’s passage of this legislation. Unless these bankers and investment specialists held guns to homeowners heads forcing them to take on these loans that they knew they could not afford I do not see how you can blame them.

Like any true liberal you are ignoring the need for any personal responsibility. It was the greedy homeowners who were forcing the bankers and investment specialist to devise new and increasingly complex mortgage products to allow the homeowners to borrow as much money as possible. Given the government requirements that they lend more money and the homeowners demanding more loans what else were they to do without bringing down the wrath of the government upon them. Over the years many people identified the eventuality of a housing bubble but they were disregarded by the MSM and probably called racists to rile up even greater hatred toward them.

Having worked for a large money center bank for many years I can clearly remember how anytime a merger or acquisition was announced, a certain organization (your beloved ACORN or some other similar organization, I believe) would almost immediately require the companies to commit a large dollar amount (Usually $500 million or more) to increased low-income lending or face a legal challenge to the merger based upon the CRA. This was nothing more than government sponsored extortion.

Nattering Naybob: You say that the “greedy homeowners” forced bankers to “devise new and increasingly complex mortgage products”? I can see it now: Mr. and Mrs. Front Porch, sitting nervously in the cubicle of a poor, innocent banker who is skeptical of lending so much money, and Mr. Front Porch saying, ‘Aw, c’mon Jim! We go way back. I just know that you’re capable of devising a new and complex mortgage product for me and the Missus to buy that old Williams place on the corner of Maple and 5th!”

Really, blaming the Carter administration for the mortgage crisis is like saying that Henry Ford is responsible for all vehicular homicides that have occurred since the dawn of the horseless carriage. And let me guess: This “government-sponsored extortion” only occurred during the Carter, Clinton and Obama administration, right? Not during Reagan, Bush I and Bush II ? Red Ranger, I have a feeling you have more to say on this topic, care to wait for your next time at bat or do you have any closing remarks?

The Red Ranger: I never said or implied that the issue only occurred during Democratic administrations just that the whole thing started from the enactment of legislation by a Democratic president. However, whenever a Republican raised concerns about the burgeoning crises they were roundly viewed as unintelligent and unable to accurately grasp the complexities of the situation or they were denying affordable housing to the masses. Typical liberal strategy– Just say whatever you want regardless of the issue.

Frankly, I was expecting a little more than fictional situations and references to non-existent events from the Nattering Naybob. I will chalk this to up to his inexperience and his diminished mental capacity due to years of watching one-sided discussions on MSNBC. Hopefully, he can rebound in the next round and this blog will be something that people can read for intelligent discussions of today’s issues.

Nattering Naybob: Well, had I known your first blog topic was going to involve so many acronyms, I would have called my research staff back from vacation to do some ghostwriting. Since Republicans usually hate intellectuals, I am surprised at the depth and breadth of your arguments (fundamentally specious though they be). I guess now I know why you chose to remain anonymous. Nattering Naybob signing off.

The Red Ranger: I anxiously await your first topic.