>I did not say it was inappropriate to disagree with anyone, including the top experts in the field. What I did say was that disagreement should be on the basis of the argument made by the individual, not simply an assertion they are wrong. When a client says your program doesn't work, you ask for specifics: what, when, where, how, etc. That's all I'm saying. It is beyond the pale to assert that someone who has provided details is wrong without addressing their details. It is not beyond the pale to disagree, in itself. Your client says "the program doesn't work because no software ever works right." There isn't any room for discussion there, without getting back to the details.

Thank you for clearing that up.

>And I did include the Government actions in the cause of the meltdown, specifically back to Clinton, through Bush (it's in the second paragraph). Their actions opened the door to the henhouse. They didn't push the fox in the door, however.

Your inclusion of government actions was limited to "lax oversight (going back to Clinton and continuing through Bush)". I was pointing out that there were direct governmental actions which contributed to the mess. In addition, I would go further back than Clinton. A more appropriate starting point would be 1938 with the creation of Freddie Mac.

>The CBO actually projected a savings; I believe their current estimate is in the neutral range. I'm certain of the former, uncertain of the latter.

1) What do you mean when you assert a "savings". The CBO's final pre-vote analysis put the cost at just under a trillion dollars over 10 years. It was limited to 10 even though there are provisions in the bill which do not kick in until later than 10 years.
2) The CBO's projections follow a limited set of rules. Namely, their numbers are based upon what's presented to them rather than applying interpretation for real world application. For instance, during the health care reform debate the so-called "doc fix" (this is the money that is allocated every year to make up the difference for the 21% pay cut doctors would receive for accepting medicare patients. The fix has passed every year since 2003 so there's a reasonable assumption that it will continue to pass going forward. The CBO did not include that cost in their analysis because it was not included in the main bill.
3) Since the bill's signing the CBO has revised their figures to include an additional $115 billion, pushing their total over $1.1 trillion

>(And notice: because you provided a data point, we can discuss the point quite easily.)

I'm not used to being accused of not having a point. ;)

>Hank
>
>
>>>Or as Mork (of Mork & Mindy) put it, "would you like a little wine? Whine, Whine..."
>>>
>>>The vast majority of economists agree on 3 conclusions regarding the government and the financial messes we have: 1) the government's lax oversight (going back to Clinton and continuing through Bush) allowed the financial mess to happen, as corporate greed overcame rational analysis (which was presented to these greedy corporations, and ignored);
>>
>>Really? Somehow the governmental policies in regards to subsidized housing, lending and the implicit backing of GSEs has escaped your reading on the "vast majority of economists". "lax oversight"? How'd that happen? Maybe through campaign contributions and other interesting payments to key members of the right committees? How does one conclude that "greedy corporations" actions contributed to the meltdown without including the very powers who allowed it through said lack of oversight, or directly contributed to it through policy?
>>
>>>2) the government's intervention saved the tax payers a lot of money, when all is considered
>>
>>The jury is still out. Remember, those "too big to fail" are now bigger. No regulatory changes regarding regulation of CDSs nor reform of Fannie/Freddie is being considered. We cannot consider "all" because we are not out of the mess, we are still neck deep.
>>
>>>; and 3) the healthcare bill will be revenue neutral at worst.
>>
>>You're going to have to back that one up. I only saw one analysis which claimed revenue neutrality, which was the CBO prior to the vote and it has since been revised upwards.
>>
>>>Now, anyone is free to disagree with their conclusions, but to do so honestly would require one to engage their data and their reasoning, not just assert the wrongness of their conclusions or the superiority of one's conclusions.
>>
>>In my posts I try to provide a great deal of information through links and references regarding the genesis of my opinions. The current economic climate has historical precedence as do the "solutions" being proffered. Belief that the results will be different is insanity.
>>
>>>Nobel winners, in particular, have earned that kind of respect, to be disagreed with based on their analyses, not on their conclusions. One can disagree with that also, but then one has passed beyond the pale, and genuine discussion on that topic is no longer possible with that person.
>>
>>Am I reading that correctly? Those of us who question a Nobel winner's conclusion are beyond the pale? That very concept is so foreign to my intelligence that I struggle to believe anyone in a free society could hold that belief. The idea suggests there are elites amongst us who's judgments are sacrosanct and the rest of us should hush up and let the our betters decide what's best for us. Please tell me I've interpreted this wrong.
>>
>>>Hank
>>>
>>>>Read/listening to people, not only here, who are having their constitutional rights ripped to shreds and whose children and grandchildren will be robbed blind by the byproducts of fiscally irresponsible actions of the federal government today, leaves me concerned for the future of our country, at least as much as those who, oblivious to the data, complain about how much corporations do to them, while ignoring the real problems.
>>>>
>>>>fyp ;)