Or...maybe they are all tuckered out from having the Senate do all the heavy lifting after two years of saying 'No' to jobs bills and 'Yes' to renaming Post Offices and Airports - and especially last week when Boehner had to ask McConnell to step up to the plate for the Fiscal Cliff negotiations.

Its HARD work to sit with your arms crossed and say 'No' to any attempt to get an economy moving in a positive direction. Poor babies.

Watching Peter King get hoist on his own petard is a worthy bit of schadenfreud, but he did get one thing right when he excoriated the Southerners in the GOP and said they "aren't Republicans."

Here's proof of what they are, in the speech given 150 years ago by Traitor #2, Confederate VP Alexander Stephens, glorifying the new Confederate Constitution:

Again, the subject of internal improvements, under the power of Congress to regulate commerce, is put at rest under our system. The power, claimed by construction under the old constitution, was at least a doubtful one; it rested solely upon construction. We of the South, generally apart from considerations of constitutional principles, opposed its exercise upon grounds of its inexpediency and injustice. Notwithstanding this opposition, millions of money, from the common treasury had been drawn for such purposes. Our opposition sprang from no hostility to commerce, or to all necessary aids for facilitating it. With us it was simply a question upon whom the burden should fall. In Georgia, for instance, we have done as much for the cause of internal improvements as any other portion of the country, according to population and means. We have stretched out lines of railroads from the seaboard to the mountains; dug down the hills, and filled up the valleys at a cost of not less than $25,000,000. All this was done to open an outlet for our products of the interior, and those to the west of us, to reach the marts of the world. No State was in greater need of such facilities than Georgia, but we did not ask that these works should be made by appropriations out of the common treasury. The cost of the grading, the superstructure, and the equipment of our roads was borne by those who had entered into the enterprise. Nay, more not only the cost of the iron no small item in the aggregate cost was borne in the same way, but we were compelled to pay into the common treasury several millions of dollars for the privilege of importing the iron, after the price was paid for it abroad. What justice was there in taking this money, which our people paid into the common treasury on the importation of our iron, and applying it to the improvement of rivers and harbors elsewhere? The true principle is to subject the commerce of every locality, to whatever burdens may be necessary to facilitate it. If Charleston harbor needs improvement, let the commerce of Charleston bear the burden. If the mouth of the Savannah river has to be cleared out, let the sea-going navigation which is benefited by it, bear the burden. So with the mouths of the Alabama and Mississippi river. Just as the products of the interior, our cotton, wheat, corn, and other articles, have to bear the necessary rates of freight over our railroads to reach the seas. This is again the broad principle of perfect equality and justice, and it is especially set forth and established in our new constitution.

Some things never change, and Southerners never stop being The Problem.

I think the phrase you are looking for is "Damned Yankees"

Even though most people have problems with the fiscal bill that did pass... at least it was grumblings on both sides. It was feeble, but effective attempt at some bi-partisanship.

So, we have the Northern States that had most of the Sandy damage. Major, heart-breaking damages where over one hundred people lost their lives. Houses gone. Businesses gone. No heat. No electricity. These people are in major need of help. I cannot believe they just couldn't bring up the bill and pass it??? They were all there! They are so concerned about jobs and the economy... Uhm, wake the hell up! They care so much about the people of our country... Uhm, once again... WAKE THE HELL UP!

Absolutely disgusting.

Let's just add this to... how many lives lost this past year in regards to mass shootings throughout the USA? This, of course is a taboo subject for them. Heaven forbid, we don't have enough guns in the hands of Americans! Pardon me, while I throw up.

But... how much money has the GOP media arm (FOX NEWS!) spent on the Benghazi idiocy? How much in tax-payer money has been spent on all of the investigations? I am sure they don't bat an eye on that! Case in point, in my five minute FOX NEWS visit today... what is the subject... Benghazi. Who was on? Oh, Megyn (BRAINLESS) Kelly and some Rejerkican congressmoron saying they are getting to the bottom of it.

Okay, I am so glad that the priorities of CONTINUING to look after the welfare of the citizens of the USA is so damned important to the GOP.

You know, instead of showing up make schoolyard threats all the time on every tv show on EARTH, perhaps the GOP should actually do their damn job! Losers.

Sorry for the grammar, etc. Got some really bad news in regards to a good friend.

Footnote... Glad that some of their own party is LIVID with them. Great news. More in-fighting.

It only costs a little over $4M for each member of congress, I think that comes out to $2.15B per year. I know we haven't been getting our money's worth. This is the direct cost, when you factor in all the others cast it is a whole lot more. The republicans should be ashamed to take all the money to do nothing but obstruct the government.

These turds should NOT be getting paid. They want to cut so bad, let them start with their own paychecks and benefits. We are paying them to @!$%# up the country. None of them should get anything but the fricken boot.

I can't remember them off the top of my head but there were a few things in there that had nothing to do with Sandy.

I really really hate siding with the GOP but I think an aid package should be just an aid package. All excess should be left out.

Sandy is the "pork" in this bill. It was added in. And to all of a sudden claim purity against pork in this instance is truly craven...

it's not s"truly craven", it's just proof that West Virginia has a higher proportion of inbred morons than anywhere else.

If Liberals ACTUALLY cared about their fellow Americans...they would n ot load "Relief" bills up with pork. Get your head out...

The last time I checked liberals weren't the only ones who took the pork.

Yes , because the army transport planes filled of pallets of cash , and flown over to iraq , never happened on the gop watch either

but but those dam liberals!!!!

You might remember that when aid for Joplin came up, it was shiny little putz Eric Cantor who said they could only give aid to Joplin if it was taken from somewhere else. They never change.

Great thing about being a Cubs fan...you should be use to losing.As the nation's credit rating get's downgraded AGAIN, and the deficit continues to swell and the Economy continues to tank...we will see what the mid-terms bring.

It is disingenuous that the people who voted for Bush and the Republicans who created the debt and deficit are the ones who are complaining/screaming the loudest.

This guy has single handedly surpassed the spending of ALL of his predecessors...you have to be kidding. Handouts all around and then socialized medicine off of the taxpayers back for all the deadbeats and illegals...you HAVE to be kidding.

Thanks again little scotty, for your demonstration of the fact that lacking a brain is a prerequisite for being one of you wingnut scum.

Scott is trying to change the issue to Obama's purported handouts that exist only in the poster's head rather than discuss my counterpoint on what created the huge debt and deficit which existed even before Obama was president. Classic move when you have no substantive reply--change the subject. Didn't work.

Only because the truth never "works" for Liberals. California is the most generous state with benefits and their Financial situation reflects exactly that. WHO is "The wingnut" when the truth is right in front of you and all you do is shake your hollow head and deny the truth of my statement.

The truth of your statement about California is irrelevant because it is one state and not the government of 50 states. And even if it was relevant, California was not in charge of the federal government between 2001 and 2008. But thanks again for trying to change the subject.

Quit loading "relief" bills with B.S. and the East coast would have had the money on the way. Money for "Green energy" and even money for a recap of the Japanese Tsunami tracking is what sank the relief bill. Quit spewing BS about those mean old Republicans and blame the Liberals feathering their pockets with a RELIEF bill. Silly,silly Liberals.Way to add another 4 Billion with this "deficit cutting" bill....see you at the debt ceiling crisis.

Scott: Do a little research. Sandy is the "pork" in this bill. At least as a wingnut you should claim ownership to the very crap you are peddling...

I think you would have a hard time proving that liberals are the only ones who add non- germane money to bills. It is an age old way the congress gets money that couldn't be gotten any other way. Both party's are guilty of Riders for their pork.

I agree with you, but the Republicans WILL kill the spending though. Liberals keep right on loading debt on future Americans and to hades with Financial responsibility.

You guys need to stop having an intellectual argument with an unarmed opponent. It's unseemly. :-)

No, Scott, liberals are the "tax and spend" group. At least that's what we've been called for the past couple decades. Which means, we are not the ones loading up the debt as we want to raise the money we wish to spend. It's the conservatives who are the "borrow and spend" types.

When was the last time one of these programs actually cost LESS from one year to the next...and THEN to stack more and more on top of this never ending debt.

When was the last time one of these programs actually cost LESS from one year to the next

Apparently scott does not understand that the dollar value decreases as total GDP increases. To answer you question directly scott: these programs cost the least when the dollar value increases (which means when GDP growth goes down I.E. in recessions). Otherwise you'd assume that the dollar amount would go up...because the value of the dollar goes down every year that the economy grows.

Really you should take a basic macroeconomics class, scotty.

Liberals keep right on loading debt on future Americans and to hades with Financial responsibility.

Please explain to me and provide evidence to support your claim why exactly debt is bad and why future generations having debt at the national level is bad?

It's been their main thing since 1934: kill the New Deal.

Not to mention the ridiculously rich oil industry, still raking in outdated tax incentives.

But as to the farm subsidies, I know so many people out here who keep a half-dozen cows or a few cherry trees or leave their 80 acres natural to get huge tax breaks as "agricultural land." These are people who are not farmers or do not rely on the land for their income in any way, but they're happy to have their hands out to accept this government largesse. And you can bet that they're voting Republican straight down the ticket come election time.

No, there's plenty of fat to trim from the government budget without hacking away at the very lifeline for so many people who are barely hanging on as it is.

Medic: By your logic we should also abandon the midwest because of tornados and the west because of earthquakes. You know, most of Wyoming sits atop a volcano that might erupt, and Mt. Rainer certainly could erupt. Maybe we should move all 300 million to Nebraska...

And your lack of logic and a general disdain for personal responsibility is enough to make any sane person gag.

The only place you get that insurance is from the government. Thanks for the demonstration of the fact that the average "Medic" is a moron.

First off, what private industry business is ever going to do flood insurance for folks/businesses on coasts, lakeshores, and river banks?

Second, the reason folk are in these places is because they are some of the most fertile lands available. Telling a farmer not to farm a 100-year flood plain is saying you want to live with less food. The reason folks and businesses are in the coastal regions is because coasts (and river banks) are places where travel is easier. So saying folks shouldn't have a business at a coast is saying you don't want to have ports and travel-by-ship commerce.

Since we all benefit from farmers in flood plains, port cities taking care of transported goods, etc. it only makes sense that we all contribute to rebuilding them when the inevitable happens.

Of course, New England really shouldn't have to be worrying about hurricanes, but since we won't invest in green energy and continue to load the atmosphere with too much CO2...

Medic, everyone in NJ and NY and many in PA are required to have flood insurance AND homeowners. The problem is, all insurance requires a deductible. First you use the flood insurance deductible, which tends to be somewhere between $1000 to $5000+, THEN you are required to also use the homeowners deductible, which also is anywhere between $500 and $10,000. Because the damage is so great, insurance companies cannot keep up and most people STILL have not received their checks from insurance. Even if they have, they cannot find a contractor to do the work. Car insurance also has a deductible. Most people have to pay out of their own pockets to have debris removed from their own property or from in front of their home. Debris such as sheds, boats, etc. These people need help. As much help from as many resources as possible and they need it now. I don't know where you live Medic, but your very fortunate to never have anything bad happen to you and your family.

Flood insurance, fire insurance, and other such programs only exist due to government subsidies. The US government foots the bill regardless if it goes directly to you or through insurance companies (who are middle men).

In the case of both 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina those were man-made events. In the case of 9/11 that was literally a man-made catastrophe. In the case of Katrina that event happened because of poor planning on behalf of the US Army Corps of Engineers combined with years of soil erosion along the Gulf of Mexico

Gee... could it possibly be that people turn to the government because thats what it is there for... could it possibly be that New Yorkers pay for Kansas...

Is THAT "what it is there for"? Mix in a history book occasionally. Excessive Government and taxation started the Revolutionary war. Leeches are detested by most Americans...get it?

Thanks for demonstrating "what's the matter with Kabnsas?" All the intelligent people moved away, leaving the small town morons and idiots on their own.

This from a walking advertisement for bankruptcy due to excessive social program spending. Last time I checked...people are LEAVING California due to the financial situation in the socialist haven that is Kalifornia....

Taxation and government in general were not the reasons for the revolution. Having no locally grown representation to the government, and the form of the government itself, were the issues.

Why can't states solve problems at the local level or at least attempt to

Because states do not have the revenue generating ability or the ability to print money or the ability to tax enough people to fund relief efforts. States only generation a few billion dollars every year- but natural disasters do 10's of billions of dollars worth of damage. That's just the way it is. The damage is greater than the ability of the state to respond to so the state asks for help. For me, as a Catholic, I find this all particularly ironic because you're entire complaint boils down to you resenting the fact that you're being asked to help your fellow man and you don't like it. Or if you don't mind helping, you resent the fact that you're mandated to help as opposed to having the option of dangling money above someone's head and making them grovel before you in order for you to help.

It does not at all surprise me that the party of "moral values" lacks anything resembling morality or values.

Does ANYBODY understand it is time to quit allowing pork in every bill passed? Don't be ignorant on the world around you.

Scott, I don't mean to offend, but you're just embarrassing yourself here. If you're getting your info from the conservative echo chamber (FOX, Limbaugh, Drudge, WSJ, and so on), it's the dumbed-down version of reality. Sorry.

For instance, we're going to start hearing that Congress will NOT (stamps its foot here) tolerate all this spending and will refuse to raise the debt ceiling in a couple of months. But you see, it's just paying the bill that has been presented for spending that already was authorized and accomplished. Like saying, "I spent too much on Christmas gifts and think I'll just throw away the Visa bill." Uh-uh. No can do. But you'll hear the FOX folks saying it's patriotic to stand firm on this issue. Just understand that's a head-fake. Congress has already spent the money, now the bill has to be paid. It's that simple. But the conservatives will use that opportunity to make it sound like they're just being responsible. See why the folks on this site are frustrated?

Don't you find it curious that you have to limit yourself to the right-wing talking heads to get your view of reality? They may say they're "fair and balanced," but does it even make sense that so many independent and unrelated news outlets--including BBC, for instance--say the opposite?

I can NAME the pork projects in the bill...spouting BS about "echo chambers" does NOT change the contents of that relief bill...anything about that you DO NOT understand?

Your arguments just don't pass the sniff test, Scott. If the problem is actually that pork projects are the principle for Congress rejecting Sandy relief, then why doesn't someone simply take them out and get on with it? There's a really easy fix if they're serious about wanting to help the people who are still suffering there.

I want to help people! Except when I have a convenient red herring to turn to! Then I can't because my desire to help is less than my desire to whine about pork! And pork is a much bigger issue to me than rebuilding homes!

Scott you do realize that your "defense" of Republicans makes Republicans seem morally bankrupt, petty, whiny, and incapable of governance, yes? This is why red herring arguments fundamentally fail: because you implicitly give away that your position is the weak position in attempting to shift blame/distract from the topic. Simply put: stop embarrassing Republicans.

And hello idiots and cretins of 2013.

"Consider a congressman, then consider an idiot; ah, but I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain, 1872

I think Boehner just ditched the vote because he really needs to be on a bender when they vote him out as Speaker tomorrow. Well that, and he figures that not bringing Sandy relief to a House vote is the most certain way to get voted out. I don't think he can take four more years of it.

I wonder if Lonegan felt the same way when the financial sector of the economy collapsed?

It was done and ruled unconstitutional. Congress writes laws; the job of the president is to either approve or veto.

And I've seen the effects of LIV here in NJ: the legislature goes to all the trouble of hashing out deals to pass laws or budgets, with promised by the governor to abide by them. Then, once they get their concessions and pass a law, the governor simply LIVs all the compromise items.

I always thought the President should get an amendment veto.Thus being able to keep the bills and all the compromises but get rid of the pork or anything not related to the original bill.

Thanks for posting this, Rich. That "pork argument" that Scott has been talking up on this thread is just a fig leaf.

I'm completely in favor of constituents having their say when an important piece of legislation is being considered, but this plutocratic do-as-I-say tactic is ominous for the continuation of government of the people, by the people and for the people. That means all the people, not just the privileged few.

David Koch is a boil on the ass of humanity.

Well put, KJ! If he had a higher objective for doing what he's doing, I could almost accept it. But it's plain that the motivation is pure selfish greed. Yuck. . .

So...you still having problems with the math that leads these programs to insolvency? To even say such stupids things in the light of day is embarrassing. These programs ARE going to be changed...like it or not because the math does not sustain these programs made up as they exist today.

Provide any evidence that social security or medicare will become insolvent. You do realize that in order to be insolvent that would mean that the US government no longer had any money, yes? What you mean to say is that these programs will no longer be revenue neutral which is a very big difference. And that only applies so long as the Baby Boomers are on retirement (when they die off the problem fixes itself). These programs do not need fundamental changes in order to be sustainable. They only need some changes if you want them to continue being revenue neutral.

That's TMI for some folks, Cartoon. There are certain catch-phrases intended to be sprinkled liberally into conversation to make FOX viewers sound knowledgeable and informed, but once they get past the sound bytes, they're lost. Oh, well.

Well I'm not trying to be an ass by saying let the Baby Boomer's die off- obviously I want my parents taken care of as much as I'm sure everybody else wants the Baby Boomer's taken care of. My whole point, though, is that if you actually look at the charts that project social security and medicare going on into the future there's this huge bump for about 20 years covering the Boomers. That bump, however, doesn't carry on exponentially. The conversation keeps getting framed as though the anticipated bump will continue on and be the permanent case for SS/Medicare. That's simply not true. All we need to do is figure out how to make SS/Medicare revenue neutral during that bump. Once the bump is over with then we can repeal those temporary measures and keep the program exactly as it is today. I am sick and tired of the right falsely framing these conversations as though there's this huge doomsday threat to be faced with SS/Medicare when that's not genuine to the data.

Bravo Cartoon. Exactly right.

It's a bump. If we get employment and wages up for the generations coming after mine (I'm a Boomer), we can keep SS and Medicare for the future generations. Privatizing/Personalizing/cutting is for drowning them.

Oh, I'm actually agreeing with you, Cartoon. Just saying their eyes glazed over about midway through your comment is all.

I know I'm "talking to the void," because most of our reading audience has already cruised through these conversations and moved on to the next MaddowBlog post. But think of the US government less like an employee getting a bi-weekly paycheck and more like an entrepreneur. The income isn't always the same from month to month or year to year. And the entrepreneur has to spend money (and time and talent) to make more money. It's the same with the government, except of course, the creative forces aren't the legislators but the tax payers.

Can you imagine an entrepreneur saying, "There was a fire in the plant last night. It's going to cost so much to fix it, we'll just walk away from that part of the business and forget about it." No!!! He pays the insurance deductible, absorbs the collateral losses and fixes it. It's in his interest to do so. And if this year's profits are down because of the interruption, he's hopefully used this opportunity to fix whatever bugs that have become apparent since the plant was originally built. With luck and hard work, next year will be better. Meantime, the people who were brought in to make the repairs have more money in their pockets to buy his widgets. It's the way the world works.

The government's revenue comes from tax payers, and there's more of it in boom times, so helping the economy through the recession is obviously in the interest of the nation overall. Not to mention that the proportion of Baby Boomers going onto Social Security and Medicare compared with active workers is a temporary condition that can and should be addressed through ad hoc measures. This knee-jerk reaction to never raise taxes and never agree to spend without cutting an equal expense is a childish game with serious consequences.

On the off chance scott will read this:

http://zfacts.com/p/477.html

But, hopefully there will be others reading? We need to have some links ready for the upcoming battle.

Cato think tank letter in 1983 within the above link shows the intentional effort to "mind mold" younger folks to detach from SS.

What we need is fixed asset spending- or in layman's terms infrastructure spending. There actually is an economic logic behind it, but it goes even deeper than just the idea of immediate stimulus (gotta have people to build it) and long term stimulus (gotta have people to maintain it).

Your dollar as a single bill loses value every year that more money is circulated within the US economy. So if a business like WalMart makes 5 trillion dollars this year and it only made 4 trillion last year that means the amount of currency that has to be backed/secured has to increase by 1 trillion. Thus that causes inflation. The right seems to understand that when the government prints money it causes inflation, but the right does not seem to understand that inflation exists regardless if you have a government (in other words inflation has nothing to do with whether it's the public body printing the money). Inflation has everything to do with how much currency is available. If our economy goes up from 30 trillion to 40 trillion then that has to be accounted for in each of our dollars. Each time this happens the value of each dollar goes down.

Fixed asset spending is a way to combat this inflation and quite frankly it's the only way to combat inflation. Contrary to popular belief cutting spending won't magically stop the decline of the dollar. The only way to do that is to increase the real purchasing power of each dollar. And the only way to do that is to have a tangible or fixed asset to back it up. A tangible asset, for the record, would be something like gold whereas a fixed asset would be something like a bridge or a highway.

Ever since the Reagan era we've seen a progressive shift of monies flowing from tangible and fixed properties to intangible properties (bluntly put: credit). The problem with this, of course, is that intangible assets cause the value of the dollar to go down. Every year Wall Street increases is a year where your individual dollar goes down in value. Now in and of itself there's nothing wrong with credit existing or even credit gains increasing (Wall Street closing at high gains is not inherently a bad thing). It is only a bad thing when a certain threshold is reached.

Right now we have a situation where the majority of our economy is NOT backed in tangible or fixed assets, but it is backed, instead, in intangible assets (credit). And that is bad because credit inherently devalues the dollar and credit is unstable. Credit goes up and down based on how trades are done on Wall Street, what's new and hip, etc. It's not something that reliably your dollar should be backed on or else you run into a situation where your dollar one day is worth 8 US dollars per and then the next day it's worth .00000003 US dollars per. That type of fluctuation can destroy an economy over night: especially if the credit flow suddenly collapses (sounding familiar to anyone???).

What is more if only 10-20% of the economy is able to gain access to circulating credit this will cause MASSIVE inflation on the dollar for the remaining 80-90% of the populace (meaning it causes costs to skyrocket) and this then causes a situation where only those who have access to the credit are the ones who have new income. IE it leads to the collapse of your middle class.

What has happened to our economy can simply be measured by the decrease in fixed assets as a percentage of our annual GDP when compared to the increase of intangible assets as a percentage of our annual GDP. We've gone lopsided: we've put too much of our economy into intangible properties and not enough into fixed properties. If this trend continues I personally believe you're going to see the middle class entirely eroded by the end of my lifetime. The purchasing power of each dollar is just going to plummet until it can't be saved (or rather it would take a technological revolution or a collapse of another world power to save).

This is why governments like China do not worry about spending money on infrastructure despite the cost. It has not hurt the Chinese government in the least bit. In fact the value of the yuan has increased over the past decade against our falling US dollar. Contrast this with a country like Greece that put all of it's finances into the hands of Wall Street. What is the difference that you see between them?

One is growing and vibrant because one is keeping it's monies secured with that of something valued in the real world and is thus preventing massive inflation. The other joined in the EU and then outsourced all of their services to Wall Street companies- Goldman Sachs being the biggest bidder- under the guise of "cost reduction." And then Goldman Sachs did what any company that exists entirely to buy and trade intangible assets does: it sold and traded all of Greece's finances and services. And then the global economy collapsed. And now Greece is bankrupt.

This is why I keep pushing against that "we'll go the way of Greece from spending!" meme. Because what people are desperately missing is that Greece collapsed due to privatization (read: it turned everything over to credit). If the US does this you are going to see our entire country rising and then collapsing almost identically to that of this current recession on a 10 year or so cycle as per the successes and failures of Wall Street. Credit is OK, but you should never have credit represent more than 50% of your GDP. We do and that should cause alarm to anyone serious about anything from paying down the debt, to funding our assistance programs, to just keeping the economy going and keeping us out of another Great Depression.

Whew! Went outside to do the daily maid service for the horses (cleaning up the manure--I call it S**t Therapy) and look what's here when I return. Too bad there won't be many seeing it. Maybe you can re-purpose it earlier in the cycle on another blog post. Really interesting stuff.

I follow the reasoning on this. I am not economic whiz by any means, but I can follow the logic here. Sandy relief would be infrastructure, which we need and gets people working and spending, circulating money.

That's what we need, more people working and buying stuff.

I view the Sandy relief bill is as a boon to the economy and helping people that were hit hard by Sandy, needing to repair this. There is a need for this to get back to normal.

And JL, I seem to be doing that a lot, the cycle already moved on.

Yeah I've explained I'm long winded before haha.

I'll try to explain it more simply:

Intangible good= credit...but maybe more easy to relate to as interest, savings, credit cards, stocks, loans, etc. Things that only exist on paper or electronically, but do not have a real world entity that represents them.
Tangible good= physical cash, a physical product, etc
Fixed good= a bridge, a highway, the electrical grid, etc

Scenario 1:
When taxes are higher and when regulations are tight companies/the upper income earners are then forced to put their money into the economy (intangible asset becomes tangible asset). With the money flowing it then crosses hands to, say, the laborer who can then use that money to purchase goods and services (more tangible assets). Those goods and services then create jobs and additional currency which then continues to flow throughout the economy. Fixed assets come in because they give each one of those dollars flowing within the economy a backed value that makes them capable of purchasing more per dollar. This then gives the US dollar more power on the international trade market which encourages the US to export it's own goods as opposed to importing other nation's goods. That then leads to the creation of more US jobs to meet export demand. Infrastructure then also has the benefit of allowing new businesses meet this export demand by giving them access to the things they need (roads, airports, ships, etc). Or hell to put it more bluntly: the US economy is like a colon and you need to keep it free flowing in order for it function right.

Scenario 2:
When taxes are lower and when regulations are lax this then incentivizes people to concentrate wealth into intangible assets (savings, stocks, etc) which then do not circulate into real world things (products, services, or physical cash). It just sits there accruing more value as an intangible asset (interest). This then clogs the system where credit is no longer accessible. Thus new businesses can't start or they struggle to start, payments can't be made because there exists too much intangible money (a piece of paper from a bank that says you have X), but not enough physical money. Thus it can't be traded and thus it can't go to the next person who then spends it and thus the goods and services that could be available dwindle. Couple this with a massive reduction in infrastructure spending and you further hamper the ability of non-multi-national corporations to meet demand. This then causes the international trade value of the dollar to fall which then leads to the US importing goods instead of exporting them. That then further cripples credit and further encourages the hoarding of money. Now you have an economy that will only be successful with the occasional bowel movement, but it's otherwise still a jammed colon.