I have a few problems with this.

Firstly, you don't seem to understand what infrastructure is.

Secondly, generally when urban renewel projects happen what happens is the poor get pushed out.  Not Uplifted.

Thirdly, the areas you talked about aren't areas that were lifted up through welfare.

You seem to be conflating Infrastructure spending, Welfare spending and Urban Renewal as if they were the same thing in an attempt to make them look all Pro and no Con.

There are a few big issues

1) When people talk about infrastructure they don't mean sattelite dishes.  They usually mean big stuff like phone lines, dams, stuff like that.

2) In general actually Urban Renewel has lately been one of the biggest problems with cities.   Largely because they tend to target older poorer neighberhoods that actually tend to have the kind of buildings that companies looking back to migrate to the city might use.  They actually just had a really great guest talking about this on NPR yesterday.

In general, having a private company moving into your poor area is the best way for urban renewel because your not likely to be pushed out of your homes, because your homes are still poor, and not going to be bulldozed for new buildings.

3) Welfare spending... as in, giving people money and stuff because they're poor hurts the economy.  That's fine though.  I don't know why people try and make up numbers to try and fake and pretend it helps the economy.  As far as I know the point of welfare is to help people.  Why people try and pretend its something else i'll never get.

If welfare was to help people Republicans would have never been overwhelmingly for it.

If welfare was to help people Republicans would have never been overwhelmingly for it.

Also... Green Energy Subsidies don't increase technological advances in green energy. If anything they provide a huge incentive to NOT research.

I mean... Say your green energy costs $3.00 more on average then regular energy.

So you get a $3.00 Subsidy.

Why research further? I mean... lets say you dump billions of dollars into research so that your green energy no is only $1.50 more expensive on average.

What's going to happen? That government subsidy is probably going to be rolled back to $1.50. So you've spend billions... for nothing.

Why not just keep the status quo and collect the money?

Now you want a real incentive to create green energy products?   Pass a bill saying you plan to turn the US Military into using 15% Renewable energies and just repalce the same spending your doing on the military anyway.

Nice net neutral way to kill two birds with one stone.

Companies would  be KILLING themselves  researching for that kind of contract.

Yeah I couldn't help but think about how much it plays up to the validity of this article.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443931404577549223178294822.html?mod=e2tw

Image problems will arise, when you end up not meeting oppositon on some common ground, acknowledge some validity, and try to frame it in a way that is favorable to what you have.  What you had come out of Occupy Wall Street was repeated yelling at them that they are just lazy bums who want nothing but handouts, and villifying everything there.  Even when things are pointed out that the middle class is shrinking, and so on, it was "Get a job loser".  There was very little, if any tipping of the hat to excesses of Wall Street, just a reduction to "get a job" and it must be laziness.  Yes, the excesses of Occupy ended up fostering a degree of that (heck I witnessed first-hand the rabble), but the discussion was polarizing, and winner take all.  End result is that a side that wants to defend Capitalism does little to help itself in that regard, and opens itself, by denying there are issues, to an image problem the article spoke on.

Image problems will arise, when you end up not meeting oppositon on some common ground, acknowledge some validity, and try to frame it in a way that is favorable to what you have.  What you had come out of Occupy Wall Street was repeated yelling at them that they are just lazy bums who want nothing but handouts, and villifying everything there.  Even when things are pointed out that the middle class is shrinking, and so on, it was "Get a job loser".  There was very little, if any tipping of the hat to excesses of Wall Street, just a reduction to "get a job" and it must be laziness.  Yes, the excesses of Occupy ended up fostering a degree of that (heck I witnessed first-hand the rabble), but the discussion was polarizing, and winner take all.  End result is that a side that wants to defend Capitalism does little to help itself in that regard, and opens itself, by denying there are issues, to an image problem the article spoke on.

You must not have been looking at the right places then Richard.

I saw a lot of aknowledgement of various stuff Occupy Wallstreet was saying.

The problem was, they didn't understand the underlying causes for why things were occuring.  It wasn't "Wallstreet Excess"

For example... why is the Middle class shrinking?   It's because Middle class jobs often happen to be semiskilled labor jobs.  Which also happen to be the jobs that are being rendered obsolete by robotics. 

Finding a middleground with OWS would of been largely like finding a middle ground with the Flat Earth Society on Cosmology.   It was more of a case of being angry about something you don't understand and throwing your complaints at the first target they saw.

Occupy Wallstreet was a protest without a message, led by no one, and followed by over credentialed fools ...

It wasn't sabotaged, it was a movement that could never be successful because it had no support or understanding of the mainstream. OWS was a hodgepodge of people none of which represented the typical American. Few Americans feel much sympathy for a person who builds up $120,000+ in student debt to get a masters degree in puppetry, or for the angry radical who needed an outlet for his rage because anti-war protests aren't acceptable when a Democrat is the president.

I am not saying some sites, like Reason.com, ended up addressing the issues.  But the bulk of the Newscorp (Murdock) Fox News stuff was yelling, "Class Warfare" and not paying any credance to it.  Idea is to demonize to make is so there is no reason to listen to anything there:

Rush Limbaugh on Occupy Wall Street:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLvIBkLGFAA

Hannity and Ann Coulter on Occupy Wall Street:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1219138288001/ann-coulter-on-occupy-wall-street/

Coulter on Occupy Wall Street:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPoYTUaQK7o

Bill O'Reilly  on Occupy Wall Street:

http://observer.com/2012/05/video-oreilly-occupy-terrorists-fox-news-jesus-christ-superstar-05222012/

Do you need me to go into more here?  Could you even show where any of them trumpet any aspect of Tea Party (they say Tea Party is enemy of Occupy) that speaks towards issues with Wall Street?

Show me where issues with Wall Street corrupting EVER popped up with Fox News, or even to tip a nod by the major players on the Newscorp side that Occupy has a point.  Nope, it was just demonizing and "get a job loser".  When you don't even actively acknowledge a point, you don't get sympathy.