[Klath]

Taken directly from Wikipedia:

As I said before, the specific information I quoted included references. See those two links at the end of the text on the wiki page?

On the very area you have used as your only source

If you’re going to include the reference to the ad from Cato then at least include the reference to the response:

“On February 8, 2009, a letter to Congress signed by about 200 economists in favor of the stimulus, written by the Center for American Progress Action Fund, said that Obama's plan "proposes important investments that can start to overcome the nation's damaging loss of jobs," and would "put the United States back onto a sustainable long-term-growth path."[60] This letter was signed by Nobel laureates Kenneth Arrow, Lawrence R. Klein, Eric Maskin, Daniel McFadden, Paul Samuelson and Robert Solow. The general consensus among non-partisan economic sources including IHS Global Insight, Moody's.com, Economy.com and Macroeconomic Advisers is that the economy "could have been worse" without the ARRA.[“

The Stimulus cost more than the entire 8 year Iraq War.

That's a gross underestimate of the cost of the war (talk about a complete waste of time and money). I’ll even use a source from Cato:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=13436

"Just to date the study has found that appropriations have been between $2.3 and 2.7 trillion; with an additional $884 to $1,334 billion already incurred for future costs for veterans and their families. This makes a total, incurred thus far, of from $3.2 Trillion to $4.0 trillion in inflation-controlled 2011 (constant) dollars through FY 2011. The final bill, going out to 2020 will run at least $3.7 trillion and could reach as high as $4.4 trillion."

If the Stimulus was such a success, why is our Government running and accumulating such debt and deficits?

One can legitimately make the argument that the stimulus did not live up to expectations. It didn't. It was an imperfect bill that was diluted in order to get it to pass. And, to be fair, for a variety of the factors you've mentioned. However, we also didn’t get a picture of just how bad the recession was until this year.

If you were expecting the stimulus to reverse deficit spending then obviously you're going to be disappointed. My hopes for the stimulus were that it would prevent a collapse of the economy into a depression or a prolonged recession. Many economists believe it did exactly that.

that is adversely affected when the Government taxes private investors to employ people in public jobs

Tax rates are at near-historic lows and investors are doing pretty well. Companies are sitting on historic stockpiles of cash.

The CBO also released a report that says each "saved or created job" in the Stimulus cost US taxpayers more than 200K PER Stimulis job. What a bargain.

Those costs include the equipment and materials to carry out the job. Making a highway, for example, has a high cost in materials. When all is said and done you've not only employed someone, you have a better highway.

I'll refer to my points in my previous post you have still failed to properly address for my evidence to confirm what the above source is stating. Lower median income. An expanding poverty rate. A shrinking job market.

Employment and jobs market are lagging indicators which appear to be improving (slowly). If you look at leading indicators, the outlook is better.

The Conference Board Leading Economic Index
http://www.conference-board.org/data...ntry.cfm?cid=1

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

“The unemployment rate fell by 0.4 percentage point to 8.6 percent in November, and nonfarm payroll employment rose by 120,000, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today.” The rate hasn’t been that low since March 2009.

See those billions next to Solyndra?

I see $527 million (with an M, not a B) next to Solyndra. Still, poor use of the money.

One thing the Stimulus did do was expose hacks and frauds like Stiglitz and Krugman.

Krugman wasn’t particularly happy with the stimulus bill and predicted that it wouldn't live up to expectations due to the way the money was apportioned. The parts of the stimulus that were most successful were the parts that Krugman pushed hardest for, like infrastructure spending. In any case, it's nothing but conjecture on the part of the Austrian Schoolers that their approach would have left us any better off.