I think that pushing demand by infrastructure spending now makes a lot of sense. Except, what does that demand purchase? A lot of it is imported “stuff” that used to be made here. Until we correct the trade imbalance, I don’t see how structural changes will come about in the economy.

Until the cost of overseas labor is equivalent to American– if not by internal motion, then by the application of appropriate (i.e., for labor law violations, environmental protection, consumer product safety, currency manipulations, and the like) tariffs– it’s hard to see how our economy goes back to one where everyone can work hard and reap the benefits of their efforts.

Hmph. Of course greater consumer demand would create jobs. Deleveraging would probably help if you could do it without reducing consumption. Then, things begin to get shaky.
A growing housing market? That just isn’t a realistic goal, and is more likely to occur after a recovery.
New innovations that create start-ups? This is pretty vague, but there is actually already a ton of capital out there for start-ups in the tech and pharma sectors (and others). Both the economics and sociology/organizations literatures have grown more skeptical about the job-creating powers of start-ups. Most are restaurants and other small businesses. Startups create a large number of jobs, but they also lose them when they are fired. And start-ups can replace existing jobs through a process of “creative destruction” in which innovation occurs but no jobs are gained. Promoting startups has been popular politically because it is cheap, easy, and appealing, but results are mixed.
Clean energy investment? It should be a priority, but it isn’t a huge job-creator.
A national program to rebuild the country’s infrastructure? Now we’re talking. Direct hiring *should* work for job creation if it was politically feasible.