Maybe if it was an abstinence program they would see it as stimulus?

The problem is that most Republicans don't know what the term stimulus means.

Giving more money to Medicaid allows the poorest of Americans to pay for medical care, and have at least a little more money left to spend on consumer goods, which most certainly IS a stimulus for the economy.

As we say in Medicine, a lot of Republicans have nothing upstairs but 2 neurons connected by a spirochete--and those neurons can only communicate the 2 words "tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts."

To many Republicans, the term "stimulus" is defined as more tax cuts for the rich.

I think we distinguish between unexpected government countershocks and government transformation of its products.

The difference is that now most of us accept, I think, that government is going to transform, so we now judge according the the Ricardo principle, not the Keynes principle.

Don't count on the media to call the GOP on this because they are just as ignorant. Have you seen any of CNN's coverage of this? They keep insisting that things like extending UI benefits or increasing food stamps is not stimulative. They seem to be under the impression that unless you are building something, then it isn't stimulus.

If the goal is only to get people to spend, why not send every American a check for $20K or so.

The type of spending matters, and Obama sold this program as an "investment" in infrastructure that would have long term and short term effects on our economic health as a whole. Spending on state governments, random programs, and other liberal wish list items hardly qualifies.

What Republicans mean is that it is clear from the Democratic spending plan that the chief priority is spending money on pet causes, with economic considerations a distant secondary factor.

Not all stimulus is the same. Some spending is more stimulative than others. This is why Obama talked up infrastructure during the campaign, because most people get the connection that improving it not only helps but people to work but also helps the nation's commerce and economy.

I can't figure out if you are really that ignorant or just incredibly partisan. Either way, it is yet further evidence of how far you lot should be kept from the reins of power.

Speaking as a conservative, I am concerned that the types of stimulus spending that are being included will require continual federal government support on an annual basis.

I do differentiate between spending to build a tangible, physical asset (a bridge, dam, highway, whatever) that will be there for 50 years without requiring similar future outlays, versus spending that supports only the current year's budgetary needs of something.

I don't consider myself ignorant or incredibly partisan, frankly, I'm very happy with what Obama has done thus far, speaking as someone who did not vote for him.

John Boehner ridiculed the stimulus plan because "the government would buy cars." Well, somebody better buy them!

It isn't clear if they are just dumb, or whether they are seeking poll-tested talking points. But it is clear that 30 years of economic conservative preaching has dumbed down the policy debate. Someone told me that Greg Mankiw's macro text doesn't even mention Keynes?

Dean,
Based on your post it appears that you think that all spending is stimulus.

Why isn't the $3 TRILLION of annual government spending doing the trick? Why should we think that we are just another trillion away from salvation?
I think you are the one who doesn't understand what stimulus is.

Here's a clue it's got nothing to do with spending money and everything to do with providing incentives to increase production.

Best regards,
Dave

This stimulus package has turned into one big piece of pork with the Democrats paying off their special interest groups. 1/3 of the “stimulus” will not even happen before 2011. By then this recession will probably be over and we will be left with pork and a huge debt.

fuck you all

This blurb -- hardly a commentary -- makes me wonder if Dean Baker has any clue about economics.

so we should give money to the poorest segment of society b/c we think that's the way to jump start the economy? you morons are actually suggesting that these plebs who spend 12% of their yearly income on lotto tickets will wisely invest this surplus cash (generated by the $ they save in healthcare costs) rather than waste it as they have invariably done in the past on porn and beer. I'm not against public spending. It's clearly superior to tax cuts in a recession b/c 90% of the tax rebate would simply be saved rather than invested in the market. But by arguing that government investment in Medicaid allows the poorest segment of society to use their excess cash to invest, you are essentially making the same stupid argument as Republicans make in favor of corporate tax cuts (and rebates for the middle class and rich). The liberals' best argument is that providing excess cash (in the form of tax cuts) will not work--that the only answer is public spending on infrastructure. This is absolutely correct. But by arguing that saving money in medicare costs will stimulate the economy, idiot lefties essentially (and wrongly) concede the Republicans' primary argument. And this argument makes even less sense than tax cuts b/c, rather than provide excess cash for the most productive segment of society, you're throwing money at the plebs who will spend it on bullshit.

People are confusing stimulus with investment. Stimulus can be investment but does not have to be. Investment can be stimulus but is not necessarily. Unemployment is still stimulus even though it is not investment. Paying down debt is investment even though it is not stimulus. Yes, some stimulus is more effective than other stimulus. Republicans have a penchant for the least effective stimulus because they are not interested in stimulus at all; they want investment. But they want private, not public, investment, so nothing but tax cuts qualifies. Democrats want stimulus above all. If it can be investment too, so much the better, and if anyone has any better ideas for stimulative investment let them offer them. But stimulating private investment during a recession is next to impossible and only public investment is likely to take up the slack. But don't hold stimulus captive to investment. The former is more important than the latter. And confusing the meaning of terms is also unacceptable.

"What Republicans mean is that it is clear from the Democratic spending plan that the chief priority is spending money on pet causes, with economic considerations a distant secondary factor."

What you consider a pet cause are practical quality of life and economic relief issues - the cost of healthcare, the availability of transit, keeping state services running. A lot of pople don't have enough money to cover all their bases, so even though you view it as welfare that money that will be spent that is needed to stimulate people's spending they otherwise wouldn't have. Again, you may not like it, your preferred pet project may be upper-bracket tax giveaways, but just because I think that is inequitable doesn't mean it isn't stimulus.

This whole approach gets back to whether your Grand Old party is on good faith footing and, ultimately, whether your party's votes in Congress will even matter. Based on initial GOP strategies and rhetorical posturing, it's not that there is anything wrong with opposing this particular bill so much as your party is making choices that actively make its role in shaping policy irrelevant - is THAT what you want?

Dean, your bias continues to amaze me. Congratulations on how much of a stooge you are. Hoisted into prominance spouting pessimistic and liberal garbage. You helped usher in the absolute discredit of the economy during bush's time, and you're whitewashing us in bama's time. If I ever met you in person I would wipe that stupid grin off your face. You look like Michael Scott with a beard. I assume you have a "beard" in your personal life ("mrs." Baker), and I hope you manage your personal finances in a manner that is superior to the economic skill you exhibit in the public realm.

Good day.

Haha, looks like some right-wing nutjob blog must've linked to Dean's post.

I love how some of them seem to think that only "tangible physical assets" can possibly be of any long-term benefit to the economy, as if proper health care and education are indulgent, short-term "liberal pet projects" that couldn't possibly be of any long-term benefit.

For people who supposedly value workforce flexibility, they seemed determined to maintain a health care system that keeps workers trapped in jobs simply because they can't afford to lose health coverage.

dingbat,
The porn and beer you sneer at are made in the USA.
Why do you hate America?

"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." (P.J.O'Rourke)

Government involvement generally guarantees a decline in efficiency with which wealth is being used. It seems to be on the order of 10:1. That is, one dollar's worth of benefit out for every 10 dollars in.

The Republicans appear content to give the Democrats enough rope to hang themselves.

Its the Dems who are running a huge risk by throwing good money after bad.

There's an axiom that every political party begins to lose power immediately after achieving victory. I see no reason to believe the Dems will be an exception.

If just spending money is what is needed to provide stimulus, why not let me spend my own money rather than the government confiscating my money, taking its cut, and then spending it? This whole exercise is about increasing the power of big government rather than empowering our citizens (as in a tax cut). Liberals admire the example of the planned economy in the Soviet Union and want to emulate it.

Golly, it looks like the whole economics faculty of Wombschool Normal University is out to bag themselves a Baker!

Happy days.

Man, the extent of the ignorance betrayed by the right-wing commenters here is amazing. Witness:

"If just spending money is what is needed to provide stimulus, why not let me spend my own money rather than the government confiscating my money, taking its cut, and then spending it?"

It's enough to make any intro to macroecon student laugh out loud.

"It's enough to make any intro to macroecon student laugh out loud."

If you ever make it past the intro course, actually learn something, and then become self-supporting, you will realize that your laugh only exposed your ignorance.

"Actually, this program involves spending money, therefore it is stimulus."

I really am about as liberal as they come, but this sentence is incredibly ignorant.

"This money will employ people in the provision of family planning services, just as highway spending employs people in the constructing or repairing highways."

If you were trying to qualify your first sentence with this, OK. But you didn't. The idea that entitlement spending is stimulus because you have to hire people within the bureaucracy to pass out the money is a real stretch and regardless, represents a poor return on the money. (Either not enough is going for the intention of the funds, i.e., to the safety net, or such a small % of the money truly acts as a simulus and therefore your return is abysmally low.)

Further, to argue that it's stimulus because it will induce spending over and above health care is the exact same argument the right uses for tax breaks for the rich, that the left dismisses.

This isn't to argue that such spending is wrong, it's just to argue that it's stimulus is pretty disingenuous.