Just so you know who those skewed stats are coming from:

The Hoover Institution is influential in the American conservative and libertarian movements. The Institution has long been a place of scholarship for high-profile conservatives with government experience. A number of Hoover Institution fellows had connections to or held positions in the Bush administration and other Republican administrations.

Here's the summary of these conservatives about the stimulus:

To sum up: the federal government borrowed funds that it mainly sent to households and to state and local governments. Only an immaterial amount was used for federal purchases of goods and services. The borrowed funds were mainly used by households and state and local governments to reduce their own borrowing. In effect, the increased net borrowing at the federal level was matched by reduced net borrowing by households and state and local governments.

While I'll acknowledge more direct federal purchases would have been better, there were political reasons that didn't happen. Mainly the GOP somehow convincing the public that cutting spending during a deep recession was a good idea, despite 70 years of evidence to the contrary.

And sure, borrowing from households dramatically decreased after the market meltdown, since so many lost so much. If there had been NO federal borrowing then to match the decrease the economy would be in far worse shape, because there would BE NO STIMULUS. An obvious point these guys completely ignore.