Orange County Register: Hit the brake on bullet train, before we're broke

This, specifically, sounds more like social engineering. And, once you start down that track (get it?) we're back to not worrying at all what something costs as long as a greater good it served. Right?

The other parts of your argument sound fairly reasonable, by the way. As long as they can be done in a cost-effective way. This is not an argument that the existing system is nirvana, just that change to something completely different, for its own sake, is not always a good thing.

Boy any policy that might help the poor, elderly or handicapped really gets you angry doesn't it?

Instead of "social engineering" how about if we just spend our dollars mindlessly with no thought on things like quality of life, the environmental impact or strategic impact on things like the oil market where a good portion of what we spend goes to our enemies? Social engineering or thoughtful allocation of resources combined with strategic thinking.

How about you decide what to do with your own fucking money, and I'll decide what to do with mine? Deal with pollution punitively, and rely on influencing free will through voluntary means to discourage sending money to our enemies.

Got any proof of that underlined part?

For the record, I'm generally opposed to welfare programs (of any kind) that are dressed up as things they're not. If they're good ideas, then they should stand on their own merits.

An emotional appeal to support an idea smacks of desperation, don't you think?

As well, if we are going to spend on welfare, I still demand that the programs be run efficiently and have cost justification. Do you deny that those things are important? Or are you still relying on your emotional arguments to carry the day here? Next you'll be making some kind of religious argument in favor of welfare, I'll bet, in spite of the fact the we're supposed to have a religion-neutral government.

uhh....you're babbling....

One would think you'd recognize it with all your experience. Sadly, no.

No more so any type of progressive income tax.

This favors no one type of transport over another. All it does is make sure is that one people actually have to start paying for the services they use it doesn't disproportionately fall on our most vulnerable groups (a $3 toll effects a dude making 20k a year a lot more than it does a guy who makes 200k). At the same time it still uses the free market to allocate resources more efficiently.

Yeah, it's a decent plan, but it will never happen until some major changes occur in Washington (DC).

Artificially tailoring price to means, either directly or through subsidy, distorts demand. Higher demand leads to higher prices and bigger subsidies, in a continuous spiral directly up the taxpayers' asses. Then when the gravy train starts to run out of steam, you can shift blame from the terminally flawed scheme, to greedy citizens who don't pay enough taxes.