DAR
Poor Blake thinks he changed his statement, but he doesn’t understand English well enough to know that he didn’t.
Both statements contain the claim “there HAS NEVER BEEN A GOVERNMENT PROGRAM THAT WAS COST EFFECTIVE,” and thus are refuted by the examples I already gave.

But he’s right about one thing. Giving him examples and refuting his errors is a waste of time. He doesn’t learn from them. Perhaps others do. Sometimes I learn new things while teaching him these basic things.

D.
—————-
Fox News busted for lying again, this time for Palin.

And Adam, the reason that most people don’t realize C&T is about the environment is because it’s not. Money is the driving factor, not the spotted owl du’ jour. If you want to help the environment and spend more on your energy then go ahead, just don’t force me to pay for your beliefs.

DAR
Of course there are no end of examples:

All of our peer countries have more government involvement in health care and reap the benefits of MUCH lower costs (and better results). Single payer is obviously more cost effective and for reasons a child can understand (one payer instead of a thousand, no ads etc.).

Many city governments, if not most of them, handle their sewage and sanitation in house (government) because they can better control costs (and thus be MORE cost effective).

How “cost effective” has it been for our government to have built our interstate highway system? Very.

As mentioned on “This Week” this morning, it is going to cost about $1,000,000 per soldier, per year, to station them in Afghanistan. This absurd amount is no doubt largely because so many military services have been out-sourced to expensive profit driven private contractors.

This is obviously stupid and Obama is already working to change this in order to be “more cost effective,” observe:

“The White House Office of Management and Budget is directing federal agencies to take a series of actions designed to reduce the government’s growing reliance on outside contractors.

In memoranda scheduled for release Wednesday and in September, the OMB will outline steps the Obama administration hopes will help save $40 billion annually through improved acquisition practices….

The employment of private tax collectors has been, for federal unions, a particularly egregious example of the misuse of contractors. In March, the Internal Revenue Service stopped using two private tax collection companies because, according to an agency statement, “IRS collection is more cost-effective than the contractors.”

More at Wash. Post article

Also:

“Frederick D. Barton, a senior adviser to the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington,… also questioned whether using contractors was cost effective, saying that no one really knew whether having a force made up mainly of contractors whose salaries were often triple or quadruple those of a corresponding soldier or Marine was cheaper or more expensive for the American taxpayer.”

LINK.

Hmmm… is it more cost effective to pay four times the price for something? Probably not.

The above examples show your claim is wrong, let me know if you would like more examples.

D.

Nobody is saying Cap and Trade will be free but my point is simply that conservative estimates distort reality on the costs and polls based on the distortion are clearly affecting public opinion to the negative.