Stimulussing

I have to admit that I have only followed the economic stimulus package from a distance. I’ve read posts editorializing on the good and the bad of the package (mostly bad from the blogs I frequent), but much less which simply describes what is actually in it. I write this in the hope it will provide some context if what I’m about to ask is really stupid. In short: I don’t really know what I’m talking about.

That being said, my question is this: I totally understand how the new stimulus may be ineffective and pointless, but why is that so bad? Giving tax payers $600 may not do anything to address in the short term the causes for the fiscal slowdown/recession/whatever, but so what? I think we can all agree that your average American is concerned about the economy. It’s also fair to say, that they would like government to do SOMETHING about it. From what I can tell, the people criticizing the stimulus approach are basically saying we should just wait it out, or undertake some changes with a long-term focus. However, I’m just not sure if that’s politically feasible. I also think there really could be some value to reassuring some Americans that something tangible is being done to actively address the economy.

And while I understood in the abstract that throwing $140 billion dollars at a problem when we have a good sense that it probably won’t fix the problem is not good public policy. But I also believe that it’s also not good public policy to let your average citizen think that we’re careening headlong into a recession that will primarily impact the middle and lower class and that government isn’t doing anything about it.

One last question. From my understanding, as of now the package does not include expanded food stamp benefits. In a post today Megan McArdle listed some reasons why such an inclusion would be a bad idea. I understand (though am not totally convinced) by all her reasons but one. I don’t understand this one:

The limits on the type of goods available to food stamp consumers, and the growing season, mean that some (it's hard to say how much) of the food stamp spending will simply draw down perishable stocks rather than generating new economic activity. Eventually this will probably generate more economic activity, but probably well after your stimulus is needed.

I just don’t get that – it strikes me as total crap (again, not the argument that increasing the benefit is an ineffective stimulus), but I may just not be understanding what she is saying.