For government to spend money it must first suck it out of the economy. You can stimulate a specific sector of the economy with government money but you can never stimulate the economy as a whole.
Furthermore, massive government spending massively reduces liberty; when O spends a trillion of your money, he has substituted his vision for yours. And paid for it with your money.
Government's only function is to provide and protect the basic infrastructure the economy depends upon, which is to say, roads and police to protect people and commerce. Once they start investing in enterprises they suffocate the overall economy because they use money stripped from other enterprises, and substitute their will for the will of the people.
Laffer was in town this past Tuesday and I got to go see him. In his remarks, he pointed out that the traditional Keynesian theory goes something like: if the government gives money to someone they will likely spend more than they otherwise would have. Their spending goes to businesses that would not otherwise have received it and they, in turn, spend more. And on and on.
Laffer pointed out that this is true, but it leaves out the other half of the equation. That is that the same thing happens in reverse from the person from whom the mone was taken. They will likely spend less than they otherwise would have. Their spending DOES NOT go to a business that would have otherwise received it and they, in turn DO NOT have the money to spend. And on and on.
The whole exercise makes a grand total of zero difference in economic stimulus.
Charging it on the national credit card doesn't help this equation because it merely delays the taking (while adding to the amount to be taken). Cranking up the printing presses doesn't help either since that merely divides the existing wealth into more pieces of paper representing that wealth.