Have been reading a book about flood control in California. Very strange - the totally bollocks viewpoint expressed here was very characteristic of DEMOCRATS until the mid-20th Century. Something changed, switching the don't-care-about-facts-I-know-better viewpoint (belief-based, not affected by reality) to the Republicans, who previously were pro-big business (that hasn't changed), pro-planning (that has changed), and pro-big-government (that has changed, in spades), with the Democrats largely adopting the previously Republican viewpoint. Prior to the Great Depression, the Tea Party would have been mainstream Democrats.

1. I agree that there is no (using a quasi-religious term) "accelerated global warming." There is, however, demonstrated and documented global warming, compared to c.100 years ago when decent weather records began to be kept. The science behind the effect of CO2 concentrations on global temperature has been settled by well-documented experiment for well over 100 years. The warming caused by the change so far in CO2 concentrations is approximately (given measurement and interpretation errors) what the lab experiments would suggest. So claiming that warming doesn't exist makes no sense; it does. Is it caused by human activity? You can only argue that on the margins; after accounting for all natural sources, the only credible source for the large increase in CO2 over the last 100+ years is human activity, and it's consistent with the use of fossil fuels which (surprise!) release fossil CO2 when burned. The rate of increase in both CO2 and temperature, though there are some details that don't follow the standard models perfectly (we don't know everything about how the world works), is much greater than over any comparable period that can be studied in the geological record. Whether or not you want to call that "accelerated by human activity," it is notable. Oh wait - the world is 4000 years old, too, right?

2. Obama (with all his faults, and they are many) has actually reduced (with a little help from a partially Democratic Congress, before the present one) the Federal Govt's operating deficit, with no help from the current Congress. Granted, most of the benefit came from an improved economy - again, not during the Bush administration, so something since then has been going right. So looked at objectively, Obama has not saddled us with NEW unrecoverable debt - though as with all Federal administrations since the Clinton era (and for quite a while before Clinton, too) he's not been able to generate a surplus so you're technically correct in that there is more debt incurred than paid off each year. Economists disagree as to whether or not it's unrecoverable, or even just sustainable; many think that a debt-free Federal government is in fact a BAD thing to wish for, unless you want a totally dysfunctional economy. And the level of debt depends greatly on what you count as part of it.

3. You're generally correct regarding funding of freight railroads, though most haven't been reluctant to use public funds made available in recent years to advance projects that might not otherwise have been done for a long time (like Colton Crossing and many Amtrak corridor projects in California). The Highway Trust Fund (and similar state fund) problems, though, have very little to do with diversions to mass transit, bike paths, and environmental mitigation - the dollar numbers might look big to the average person, but compared to the program or even the typical project cost they're small (and provide some useful benefits). The problems are almost all a result of 2 things: the last gas tax increase happened in the early 1990s (there has been some inflation since then, which reduces the value of the money), and the regulations for better gas mileage (and, until recently, high gas prices) have been successful (so people are driving more miles, in heavier vehicles, faster, on less fuel). At the very edge, the fact that some vehicles (for policy reasons) don't pay any gas tax (electrics and some alt fuels) just makes it worse. Essentially, the transportation beast has been starved, the the results are now painfully (and jarringly, at the potholes) evident. Starving beasts, once they can no longer do anything about it, usually die, and that's what's happening to the road and transit systems. It.Makes.No.Sense to lay the cost of providing non-local (arterial) transportation facilities and services on the general taxpayer, which is what's been happening since the gas tax issues became impossible to ignore; the cost should be allocated back to the users in some way, as the gas tax was originally intended to do.

Get your head out of the Fox News bubble and look at reality, please.