No. That's simply not true by any macroeconomic definition of "value". You're making the classic (and wrong) assumption taht there is only a certain amount of "stuff" available, and spending it in one place means that you can't use it elsewhere. That works for checkbooks. It doesn't work for economies.
There is a finite amount of funding in the federal "checkbook"/budget for a given year. Spending that money means that it can't be used on projects that will pay much better dividends in the future, even if it just means paying off a debt, reducing future interest payments.
A useless bridge will be a drain on the budget in subsequent years for little economic payoff in terms of improved productivity. It's an extremely inefficient allocation of resources, to the point that it's very likely that it's worse than almost all alternatives that don't involve building something.
So what happens to those dollars you pay the bridge builders? Do they just turn into nothing? Or do they use them to pay their mortgages, and shop, and eat? What happens when those bridge builders are not paid for that bridge? That's right, their banks and local stores see less revenue.
Look, just read a textbook or two on macroeconomics. This isn't a new idea. You're just uninformed, sorry.
Yes, I'm well aware of trickle down effects and how it would feed money from the federal budget back into the economy. Yes I've read a couple macro textbooks and even taken more than a few college macro courses in my time, you can cut the condescension and stop appealing to authority, thanks.
There are just always better things to do with that money than making something useless. There are lots of projects that could actually make business more efficient and attractive to conduct in the US.
But failing finding something useful to do with it, they could produce nothing and we'd still be better off. What you're talking about with building a useless bridge is a terribly inefficient form of welfare.
Think about it this way: By having those bridge builders watch the grass grow and sending them the money you would have paid them as welfare, sending the suppliers the money you would have paid them, you get the trickle-down effects you mentioned without the future cost obligations that come with actually producing a bridge to the middle of a lake.
So my original point stands. It's worse to produce something completely useless than it is to not produce anything at all.
