More of the stimulus could have been spent on infrastructure. You yourself said:

^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^

I don't think the public needed any convincing Buck. The public knows just because you haven't reached the limit on your credit cards doesn't mean you should keep spending when your income is no longer supporting your debt.

If you're really serious about unemployment and the economy, you wouldn't support things like ramming the healthcare plan through or the political move of placing a moratorium on offshore drilling.

And you would know that postponing work on highways and bridges and airports until the economy recovers is more beneficial than continuing to spend money we don't have.

You’re probably aware of the 1990 recession in Japan. They tried the bridge building route.

^Overall during the 1990s, Japan tried 10 fiscal stimulus packages totaling more than 100 trillion yen, and each failed to cure the recession. What the spending programs have done, however, is put Japan's government in poor fiscal shape.^

Government spending does not create jobs, it provides work. When the project is done, there’s no more work. Nothing in the economy has changed.

That said, the most beneficial effect of a stimulus is making people feel the world isn’t about to come to an end. “ The Government is doing something”. And as you know, fear is what drives a recession. Part of the fear these days is knowing your government is paying off one credit card with another.