I mean, a trillion spent is a trillion spent: it'll trickle down regardless of how you spend it, the question is if you could have spent it some other way that would have given more jobs?
A trillion spent building factories, highways, public housing, schools, etc. may employ exactly as many people as a trillion spent building weapons, dropping bombs, and killing people.
What you end up with after spending that trillion is a bit different though.
> it'll trickle down regardless of how you spend it
That's an article of conservative dogma dating from the Reagan and Bush eras, and it's pretty-much discredited now. For most major capital expenditure programmes, the majority of the money trickling down stops trickling once it reaches shareholders and executives.
