Do_Not_Taunt:
This is a reasonable argument to make in April 2018. It would have been absolutely delusional during the Great Recession. No harm if you don’t want to put in the effort, but if you have a cite, I’d love to see it!
You can do a search. Click the “Advanced Search” in the upper search button. Thence, you can filter specifically for posts by Sam Stone , set the range to 7 years old and older, and put in a keyword like “infrastructure”. You will get more than one hit.
However, I strongly discourage this. You would have to actually read his tedious, annoying fecal matter. For instance, this delightful excerpt is kind of close:
…
septimus:
You do hint, correctly, that productive spending is better than non-productive spending. This is why rationalists are baffled that GOP thinks highly of ammunition for Iraq, but frowns on Obama’s domestic infrastructure repair.
This is a glib and superficial analysis of the type that ‘rationalists’ like to make. I can easily give you a ‘rationalist’ response to both of these assertions. For example:
spending money on ammunition in Iraq is a good investment, because a peaceful, democratic Iraq helps stabilize the region and reduce the influence of radical islam. This eventually cause more stable energy prices, reduces the risk of an economy-wrecking WMD attack, increases trade, and ultimately paves the way for a more peaceful middle east that will require a smaller U.S. military footprint, saving money in the long run.
Spending money on a domestic infrastructure could easily lead to over-building, which in return leads to long-term maintenance costs. In the meantime, the forced infrastructure stimulus is likely to be timed to land after the recession is over, which means the useless infrastructure will crowd out investment in other things.
I’m not saying that these arguments are unambiguously true - just that your opponents are smarter than you give them credit for and likely have better arguments than the simplistic caricatures you offered.