I don't understand the distinction you are making here. Can you explain? If people are paying less taxes as a result of the plan, then they are paying less taxes. Who cares what you call it?
I agree that a significant part of the stimulus went to the states, and that was a bailout, after a fashion. Since a large fraction of state income comes from income taxes, stock market earnings, property taxes, etc, it is inevitable that when people start losing their homes, their jobs, and the stock market tanks, the state budgets are going to start going way into the red. Unlike the federal government, most states are not allowed to run a deficit, even temporarily. So they would either have to drastically raise taxes, or drastically cut important programs. These funds that you call bailouts, therefore are used to keep teachers and doctors employed, while preventing education and health care services from being interrupted. Food stamps are another good example. You could certainly call them bailouts, but this is a direct injection of spending into the private economy, keeping jobs for food-services employees, while keeping people from starving. The extension of unemployment benefits serves a similar function. So I would call all of this a stimulus, compared to the much worse economic situation that would arise without it.
Agreed, but without that spending, many more people would be unemployed right now, and more companies would now be out of business. If the economy recovers before the stimulus ends (a big if) then those businesses will no longer need government funding because people will be buying things again.
You can call these things bailouts if you want, but this is very different from supporting antiquated technology, or bailing out banks that have over-extended themselves. Roads need to be built, kids need to learn, and the poor need to eat and to see doctors when they get sick. These spending projects do not seem wasteful to me, and they keep people employed, at least for the time-being.
