I don't think all opponents refer to it as the "stimulus bill".

If not for the overwhelming leftist liberal media, this bill would not have received so much public support. In fact, I think there was a lot less public support for it than the liberal media pretend.

It is a disgrace that the government can spend so much of the future generation's yet-to-be-earned money.

First, I thought this was a psychology site, not a political one.

Second, why would someone who is advocating for something name it a name that connotes negativity?

Third, the reason for the stimulus is based on historical evidence. All previous "depressions" of this size were fixed by going to war and increasing domestic spending. They decided to increase the spending without the war. (Iraq did not increase domestic spending.)

And, if you investigate the Reagan era (a strong advocate for small government), you will see that the US government grew significantly during his administration. My point being that "leftist liberal media" is a misnomer. In fact, I have heard much more AGAINST the stimulus package in the media, then for it.

In my opinion there is public support for the stimulus because the public trusts Obama much more than they did Bush.

Let's keep the politics off this site.

Many of the opponents of the current stimulus package were supporters of the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 of President Bush. So stimulus has probably become a lingua franca.

An obvious answer to your closing question has to do with the average age in the House and Senate; 53 and 63 respectively. So what does age have to do with it? Well a lot actually because their age tells us about the era in which the typical law maker got his/her training in macro economics: that would be when simple minded Keynesian cross macro was dished out as gospel. As Roger Garrison points out, in this Keynesian model investment waxes and wanes with great instability in accord with Keynes's notiong of "animal spirits." And in this model, government CAN increase its expenditures and taxes equally and still grow the economy? And in this model, increases in consumption spending lead to growth, while saving more is "paradoxically" anti-growth.

There are many infuentials in Congress and elsewhere who were, to transmogrify an Austrian term, maleducated. Many who during the 60s and 70s were fed Keynesian cross sophistry as undergrads have never taken the time and effort it takes to update their thinking about macroeconomics with the insights of Monetarism and, better yet, Austrian macroeconomics as advanced by Garrison and others. These deficiencies are not fatal to politicians because so many baby boomers were also brought up on the same Keynesian cross crappola.

This maleducation afflicts many Republicans (who augered for stimulus under Bush) and afflicts even more Democrats (who doubled down with more stimulus and now want to triple down with even more). The "economic planners" of today's stimuli remind me of the Soviet planners who doomed the evil empire to history's ash heap: How many czars have been newly empowered inside the Capitol beltway?

An obvious answer to your closing question has to do with the average age in the House and Senate; 53 and 63 respectively. So what does age have to do with it? Well a lot actually because their age tells us about the era in which the typical law maker got his/her training in macro economics: that would be when simple minded Keynesian cross macro was dished out as gospel. As Roger Garrison points out, in this Keynesian model investment waxes and wanes with great instability in accord with Keynes's notiong of "animal spirits." And in this model, government CAN increase its expenditures and taxes equally and still grow the economy? And in this model, increases in consumption spending lead to growth, while saving more is "paradoxically" anti-growth.

There are many infuentials in Congress and elsewhere who were, to transmogrify an Austrian term, maleducated. Many who during the 60s and 70s were fed Keynesian cross sophistry as undergrads have never taken the time and effort it takes to update their thinking about macroeconomics with the insights of Monetarism and, better yet, Austrian macroeconomics as advanced by Garrison and others. These deficiencies are not fatal to politicians because so many baby boomers were also brought up on the same Keynesian cross crappola.

This maleducation afflicts many Republicans (who augered for stimulus under Bush) and afflicts even more Democrats (who doubled down with more stimulus and now want to triple down with even more). The "economic planners" of today's stimuli remind me of the Soviet planners who doomed the evil empire to history's ash heap: How many czars have been newly empowered inside the Capitol beltway?

Actually, many people who now oppose the outrageously wasteful so-called "stimulus" of 2009 (and the further waste sure to come) ALSO opposed the outrageously wasteful so-called "stimulus" of 2008. Believe it or not, there really are some people in this nation who can see that waste is waste, and bad policy is bad policy, regardless of the party perpetrating it.

As for the original question, the answer is simple - positive terms so typically become attached to liberal agendas because of liberal media bias which, yes, children, really is rampant in the old-line "mainstream" media.

But if it exists, why don't YOU see it?

For the same reason many Caucasians don't really see the racism that still exists in our country, or many fundamentalists Christians don't see religious discrimination in things like organized Christian prayer in schools. When you agree with the point of view being foisted off as "Fact" and "News" by the networks and the major newspapers, its nearly impossible for you to perceive that bias even exists, much less the degree to which it contaminates most of what passes for "mainstream media" news in our society.

If you really want to see what you don't see - try visiting serious alternative media sites like Newsbusters, The Weekly Standard, HotAir.com, Townhall.com, etc.

In any case it is a great question. I always wondered why the media accepted and adopted the 'stimulus' nomenclature, while jumping all over, for example, "death panel," "partial birth abortion," etc. While the latter two were certainly questionable, 'stimulus' was equally questionable if not more.