Infrastructure projects still have some value, primarily because they are implemented by private contractors, i.e. some tangible results would be produced. On the contrary, 'future/lasting benefits' ideas are not practical. To be precise, 'future benefit' euphemism is used exactly because no real benefits could be expected, i.e. just another waste of resources, borrowed resources in this case.
I already conveyed to you what another euphemism 'minimize dependence on foreign oil' means in plain English.

>The record shows that Japan continued to take half-measures. In addition, as you indicate, they picked projects that did not have lasting benefit, in contrast to the current efforts to minimize dependence on foreign oil. Those are the two big differences, and they are important ones. Yes, the current plan has some infrastructure projects, but ones that were already on the books, not ones dreamed up as a way to spend money.
>
>>Japan used very similar measure to what current administration proclaims, i.e. they really launched big infrastructure projects (roads, bridges, etc). Obviously, one should not equate it to Obama actual plans (infrastructure projects account for less than 20% of spending, if counted in the most optimistic way) but still intention was/is identical. It is correct that Japan plans didn't bring them much success, though world economy continued growing mostly by US consumer (borrowed) spending so Japan did so-so; Japanese critical industries are export-oriented. Who is going to save current US plans?
>>
>>>Absolutely not. And he would head us toward a decade of stagnation, as Japan had when "moderate" measures were tried.
>>>
>>>>Do you think that Mccain would go forward with trillion dollars spending programs at this point?
>>>>
>>>>>Apples to apples: yes, it's always looked at as a forward projection. But the forward projection in 2000 was one heck of a lot better than the one in 1994. And the one in 2008 was one heck of a lot worse than then one in 2000.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Small point of fact...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The government of the United States of America has not had a budget surplus since approximately 1960.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>In the last year or two of the Clinton administration, President Bill Clinton "declared" a budget surplus and the press reported it as such, which may be where you got the idea. But Clinton's supposed budget surplus was a ten year future projection showing the "near" years with the typical large deficits and the "far out" years with projected surpluses.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No matter what you hear reported, the United States has operated on budget deficits for over 4 decades... without exception. It's a myth that George W. Bush inherited a budget surplus.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Anyone can verify this by looking at official government accounting data at the OMB web site. if you actually take the time to research this, be sure to distinguish between operating funds of the government versus trust funds (like Social Security Fund, Highway Fund, etc).