The problem with your assertion (other than it being a shallow, sarcastic, critical project) is that it does not square with history.
It is accurate that the failure of the Iraq war was sold as something similar to the allied liberation of France. Of course invading a sovereign nation is not analogous to this. They sold butchery as a humanitarian effort.
However, the point remains that just as there are wars where invaders play more of a liberator role, so are there government subsidy and remediation programs that end up earning profits or remuneration for the general fund (and, in theory the taxpayers). There is existing precedent for this. Consider some of FDR’s programs.
After seeing the “just trust us” assertions of the executive branch proven wrong in repeated fashion (war, energy, economy, housing)I am also suspicious.
The part I find compelling is that everyone agrees. At least everyone that matters. After hearing Buffet, Paulson, and Bernanke all say similar things and hearing most economically minded friends start fretting about commercial paper, it starts to beg the question of what if? The answer seems to keep coming back that most major employers would suddenly contract spending and lots of jobs would disappear.
On the “good” side, imagine how many jobs would stay in the US if everyone was so poor that other countries came to us for their cheap labor.
