Well, economists say the best way to stimulate the economy is to maximize welfare payments. Poor people spend their checks even before they come in, at places that turn the money over quickly.
The second best way is to hire as many unskilled and poorly skilled people as possible in make-work projects, minimizing use of any labor saving equipment. No Tunnel Boring Machines need apply, that's for sure.
Some economists--those subscribing to Keynesian economic theory.
Others, including those subscribing to the Chicago or Austrian schools of economics, say just the opposite: government interference in the market is precisely what
causes inefficiency and recessions.
IANAE, and I don't claim to understand even the slightest bit about economics: I'm just noting that it's disingenuous to claim that all economists agree that giving my paycheck to someone who hasn't made the same responsible choices I have in order to secure a job like I have is what is needed to move the country forward.
At least
some respected economists hold the view that the massive federal work projects initiated by FDR and others in the Depression era did virtually nothing to move the country out of it and that it was really the massive economic engine of World War II that pulled us back on our feet. Given their view, I'd be cautious of spending money we don't have on an unproven assumption that likely won't help the nation at all (and will probably hurt us by saddling us with an unbearable debt load). I don't advocate bombing Canada or anything to get our economy going--I'm just saying that there are two (or more) sides to every story and we should carefully look at the situation before commiting such tremendous resources. It sure doesn't seem like we've given it much careful thought recently.