Yes, I'm well aware of trickle down effects and how it would feed money from the federal budget back into the economy. Yes I've read a couple macro textbooks an

Yes, I'm well aware of trickle down effects and how it would feed money from the federal budget back into the economy. Yes I've read a couple macro textbooks and even taken more than a few college macro courses in my time, you can cut the condescension and stop appealing to authority, thanks. There are just always better things to do with that money than making something useless. There are lots of projects that could actually make business more efficient and attractive to conduct in the US. But failing finding something useful to do with it, they could produce nothing and we'd still be better off. What you're talking about with building a useless bridge is a terribly inefficient form of welfare. Think about it this way: By having those bridge builders watch the grass grow and sending them the money you would have paid them as welfare, sending the suppliers the money you would have paid them, you get the trickle-down effects you mentioned without the future cost obligations that come with actually producing a bridge to the middle of a lake. So my original point stands. It's worse to produce something completely useless than it is to not produce anything at all.