You don't seem to understand how trade works. Country A gives good X to country B. Country B gives country A good Y in return is a rough summation. Both countries benefit as a result, and restricting that trade wouldn't be in either country's economic interest. If China started to play political games with the goods it provides, not only will the US then just look to other countries goods as alternatives, but they may return the games on the chinese, meaning both countries end up hurt. I would go into a more detailed explanation of comparative advantages, but something tells me there wouldn't be much point.

Government can't "create" jobs because it takes its money from those who are better at making jobs. So you always end up with a net loss of jobs when the government does something.

I swear its Ms polosi here I mean he/she defends EVERYTHING .... kinda scary

The money's borrowed, i.e. the government is borrowing the money as opposed to taking it (at least, it's not taking it from anyone at the present), it then spends it on various things, creating demand. That demand causes the firms to hire more people to fill the jobs to meet with the increased demand. Because the economy is in a recession the jobs and capacity is there, and hence you don't just cause an inflationary spiral. As a result if done correctly you can avoid or greatly reduce the negative effects of the recession, and then when the economy is back on track you can pay back the debt from some of the growth.

As to the millions, if looking at the number of jobs either saved or created in comparison to the situation resulting from the alternative (of no stimulus), given the sums of money we're talking about I think it's quite feasible that millions of jobs will be created (although it does require such a definition of created in order to reach those sort of figures).