I don't know where you heard that but I can guess.

Glenn Beck University?

Hah, hah, hah.
BTW, I'm not debating that most of the funding was inneffective. That isn't the point.
...uh, yes it is exactly the point. Obama sold the nation on Stimulus mostly on the sales pitch that jobs would be falling out of the sky and that turned out to be complete bullshit, thus putting the poor results of Stimulus spending squarely on Obama's shoulders. The point is that some of it was and that some jobs were saved
(which jobs exactly? ). Nothing being 100% effective, I know to expect less than that. No one has put a number on the effectiveness and I'm not even sure it's possible given the complexity of this economy.
Its not rocket science, stop spending money we don't have and stop borrowing money we can't pay back. If Republicans were in power they would have done practically the same thing because when you are at the helm you have to do something and there is pressure to do so from everyone, including the other side of the isle.
That's also not true, not until faced with the probability of being thrown out on their asses did the Democrats then suggest that tax cuts would be stimulative for the economy. It still don't happen too easily because the Dems control both the House and Senate but its being floated to sound good before the elections. But then after you do something, when the trajedy is averted, those same people will come back and criticized the very thing they would have done themselves. Change parties and everything is substancially the same- like when Bush started all the bailouts. That's how it works every time and it's all so predictable and disingenuous. Same goes for what I read on this forum.