It is uncomplicated to come up with suggestions that will use lazy sources (criteria 1) and can be began easily (criteria 2). A popular example of this is the recommendation to pay jobless employees to dig gaps and complete them in again. However, this would clearly breach our third requirements - that we get something useful for our cash. If we add the need that the plans also offer value for the cash, our options become more restricted. So as restricted we almost certainly reduce one of the other two requirements.
Fiscal Incitement that is Fast and Excellent Value
Let's assume, for plenty of moment that the govt can begin to build facilities easily - streets, medical centers, connects and that kind of thing. This is not likely to be the case, but for plenty of moment we will give authorities the advantage of the question.
In purchase for a venture to offer value (in a chance price sense) you would want to put them where they are most required. Your new streets, new medical centers and new educational institutions should go into geographical areas that have growing people - places that are easily growing in inhabitants. These are the places that can use more schools; a town decreasing in inhabitants is likely ending educational institutions, not starting them.
What kinds of places usually have easily growing populations? Almost always, it is places that are doing well, with flourishing financial systems and plenty of job possibilities that entice employees from less effective places. To be able to offer stimulus, however, we need lazy sources, which are generally an issue in these places. Unless the govt programs on momentarily going tens of a large number of employees, the two objectives would seem to be incompatible. The stimulus objective would recommend that your new 2009 street improvements should be put in Flint, Mich whereas a cost-benefit research would likely put Flint near underneath of the list.