Somebody: Well, with due respect, you're misconstruing Krugman's argument. Sure, he stresses how the money could have been better spent, but his main criticism is of the size of the stimulus. More importantly, the stimulus was not only tax-cuts and bailouts. Infrastructure accounted for $100 billion of the bill, $150 billion went to health-care in large measure to make up for the loss of coverage for the unemployed, $100 billion went to the states for education, and $80 billion went for unemployment benefits and food stamps. So, sure, the stimulus did consist of bailouts: of the unemployed, for health care, for education, and for rusty bridges. I hear Lenin bailed out the Russian peasantry by offering them peace, land, and bread.
I know you won't agree, but I'll state it again anyway: the chances that a $787 billion dollar stimulus bill would have been passed under McCain are nill. Similarly, under a more conservative Democrat, the stimulus would have been much smaller, as Blue Dogs in Congress were urging. This may not matter in world-historical terms, but does for all those working folks who you disparage as belonging to political patronage groups.
The self-conscious working class is not a major political patronage group of the Republican Party. It still has a seat at the back of the bus with Democrats.