It would be nice to know how much corporate bribery it takes to get a member of congress to espouse an idea/plan that is flawed on that many levels.
More (and more risky) debt does not equal economic growth or recovery.
It will be interesting to see how the government thinks they can influence corporations to grow the US economy and provide jobs for US citizens. Once the average citizen feels well off enough they'll buy the houses and condos in question.
As long as there is cheap, exploitable labor in other countries, and that there is no tax disincentive for companies who are based in the US yet use cheaper foreign labor this disparity will continue.
Let's take a simple example. The apple juice in the office fridge here has ingredients of water and apple juice concentrate from "China, Chile, Argentina". Approximately half (per USDA statistics) of the apples grown in the US come from about 100 miles east of where I'm sitting. It is shocking to me that the cost of growing and harvesting apples is that much cheaper in China, Chile and Argnetina to make up the cost of transportation. Or conversely, how much more expensive would it be to buy apples from the farmers in the country where this corporation is based and pays its corporate income taxes? Would the foreign apples still be cheaper if the company had to be based in the country of their suppliers and deal with the (arguably less stable) sociopolitical climate or tax laws there? Should the company not be allowed to be based in the US if a majority of its people are foreign or a majority of its product is imported?
It may be a fallacy, but I am thinking under the assumption that if companies were more localized then the business, and thus the economy in the region in which they operate, would be more stable/sustainable in the long term (less money would go to transportation, more to the producers), than always having to find new sources of exploitable labor, and new markets. The reason they're mentioned separately is that the producers and consumers of so many products in the modern world are thousands of miles apart. How many Chilean/Argentinean/Chinese would pay the prices that this juice company asks for their product in the US? I'm betting it's an unsustainably small number.
There isn't an easy answer given the current global trade situation, so I can't offer much in the way of insight here... it's easier to see the unsustainability of the current situation rather than a path to a long term stable solution.