By its own stated objectives (unemployment peaking at 8%), the stimulus was an epic fail.
It's also quite representative of why most government programs fail - they don't meet a measurable objective. In the private sector, such programs would be cancelled due to being Bad Investments.
Prove that first sentence.
And while you are failing to do that, maybe you can compile the total amount of state government workers who have been laid off by wingnut governors, and see if that accounts for the other 1-2% of unemployment.
From Wikipedia:
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
Acronym ARRA
Colloquial name(s) The Recovery Act, Stimulus
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, abbreviated ARRA (Pub.L. 111-5) and commonly referred to as the Stimulus or The Recovery Act, is an economic stimulus package enacted by the 111th United States Congress in February 2009 and signed into law on February 17, 2009 by President Barack Obama.
To respond to the late-2000s recession, the primary objective for ARRA was to save and create jobs almost immediately. Secondary objectives were to provide temporary relief programs for those most impacted by the recession and invest in infrastructure, education, health, and green energy. The approximate cost of the economic stimulus package was estimated to be $787 Billion at the time of passage. The Act included direct spending in infrastructure, education, health, and energy, federal tax incentives, and expansion of unemployment benefits and other social welfare provisions. The Act also included many items not directly related to economic recovery such as long-term spending projects (e.g. a study of the effectiveness of medical treatments) and other items specifically included by Congress (e.g. a limitation on executive compensation in federally aided banks added by Senator Dodd and Rep. Frank).
Me:
President Obama, speaker Pelosi, Leader Harry Reid, and every other democrat within shouting distance of a microphone told us the stimulus bill would lower unemployment to below 8%. That was the supposed to be the primary objective as stated above. One can argue that many jobs were saved or created, but as you no doubt know the fact is that we have some 2 million fewer people employed now than we did then. Most people would label that as a failure.
Gotta ask, we were supposed to spend money on infrastructure out of this bill, where'd that money go? Why do we need more money on infrastructure?
I think that number is actually 3 million more unemployed.
As for the infrastructure jobs? The reason Democrats want "more" money for infrastructure is that they panicked last time when the process started taking too long on the supposed "shovel ready" jobs and ordered stimulus money spent on whatever could be done quickly. So instead of getting bridges and schools repaired...we got lots of road paving done...even where road paving wasn't really needed. So my question is...if those infrastructure jobs weren't shovel ready last time? What makes anyone think they'll be anymore shovel ready THIS TIME? They say one definition of insanity is someone who keeps repeating the same thing over and over while expecting a different result.
In regards to the claims that the stimulus worked? If you'll recall, Obama called on Germany to do a huge stimulus like the one he was asking for. Chancellor Merkel declined, saying she didn't think it was fiscally prudent. So we went out and spent a trillion dollars and Germany didn't. Fast forward two years later and who's economy is in better shape, the US or Germany?