I have an economic policy that will facilitate economic progress

CaseGreetings! So the first thing I noticed: is that all of these would trade off with eachother. If we increase investment in spending, infrastructure, and education - we won't have the $1.6 trillion regardless of growth.To begin with, let's start with their first policy:Empirically, the spending process hasn't worked. Ever. The article starts off with: "In a throwback to the 1930s and 1970s, Democratic lawmakers are betting that America's economic ills can be cured by an extraordinary expansion of government. This tired approach has already failed repeatedly in the past year, in which Congress and the President: Increased total federal spending by 11 percent to nearly $3 trillion; Enacted $333 billion in "emergency" spending; Enacted $105 billion in tax rebates; and Pushed the budget deficit to $455 billion in the name of "stimulus." Every one of these policies failed to increase economic growth."This isn't the first time, either. "Massive spending hikes in the 1930s, 1960s, and 1970s all failed to increase economic growth rates. Yet in the 1980s and 1990s-when the federal government shrank by one-fifth as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP)-the U.S. economy enjoyed its greatest expansion to date. Cross-national comparisons yield the same result. The U.S. government spends significantly less than the 15 pre-2004 European Union nations, and yet enjoys 40 percent larger per capita GDP, 50 percent faster economic growth rates, and a substantially lower unemployment rate. When conventional economic wisdom repeatedly fails, it becomes necessary to revisit that conventional wisdom. Government spending fails to stimulate economic growth because every dollar Congress "injects" into the economy must first be taxed or borrowed out of the economy. Thus, government spending "stimulus" merely redistributes existing income, doing nothing to increase productivity or employment, and therefore nothing to create additional income. "(http://www.heritage.org...)---And on their third point: there are multiple reasons that infrastructure building is bad, not only for the investment - but suburban communities. First off, my article says: "Infrastructure projects are quickly overtaken by new and unanticipated technological improvements. The federal government spent a lot of money building and maintaining coastal lighthouses—until GPS technology made them obsolete. Cities spent lots of money acquiring land for reservoirs and building aqueducts—but advances in desalinization and wastewater treatment technology today can make some of those earlier investments look shortsighted." and then states that it displaces the people right after in the next point: "[...] Building interstate highways through the middle of cities destroyed functioning neighborhoods, hastening suburban sprawl (and enabling both white flight and school re-segregation). If you believe that car exhaust fumes contribute to global warming, then the interstate highway system is a contributing factor in that, too."What's interesting, however - is this infrastructure project puts the money in the hands of the CEOs and might even give the government a harder time to borrow for later projects, including the education portion of the pro with low interest rates: "Big infrastructure projects enrich the powerful at the expense of the powerless. Big, politically connected construction contractors do well, while the little guy with the misfortune to live in the path of “infrastructure” gets told to get lost. 9. The mere fact of low interest rates is not sufficient reason to borrow. If the government uses its borrowing capacity up now on infrastructure, it may have a harder time borrowing in the future for some more urgent need."(https://reason.com...)Capitalism KritikTo begin with, transportation infrastructure "facilitates growth", sure. However, this sustains capitalism and is really just an orthodox part of capitalism. Iowa State Daily, December 7, 2011, “Road, Rail Infrastructure is Part of Orthodox Capitalism,” Michael Belding, http://www.iowastatedaily.com... However, this expansion of infrastructure is only oriented to accumulation and growth. It ensues socioeconomic and political crises which will lead to extinction. Meszaros, prof Philosophy & Political Theory, 95 Istvan Meszaros, 1995, Professor at University of Sussex, England, “Beyond Capital: Toward a Theory of Transition” Their encouragment of ethics - or the encouragagement of the capitalist attitude is basically refortifying the slavery and genocide of founding American ideas. Lindsay 10—(Peta, She is a Youth and Student “Columbus Day: US Capitalism Built on Slavery, Genocide”, Red Ant Liberation Army News, October 11, 2010, http://redantliberationarmy.wordpress.com...) –Singh The alternative is to reject the pro. The only way to destroy capitalism is “an inside attack” which necessitates total rejection of all capitalist relations. This ensures we destroy the system at its source and do not merely reform it in the short term Herod, Columbia graduate and political activist, 07 (James Herod, “Getting Free: Creating an Association of Democratic Autonomous Neighborhoods,” Boston, 2007, http://www.jamesherod.info...) Resisting reliance on capitalism is the ultimate ethical responsibility – the current social order guarantees social exclusion on a global scale. [This better solves for education because some people are so low in class they can't even go to a public school.] Zizek and Daly 2k4 (Slavoj and Glyn, Conversations with Zizek page 14-16)