I don't buy it. Public sentiment was decidedly against the bank bail out, but it passed anyway.

It's pretty clear that congress could give a fuck about public sentiment.

I think that even $1.3T is too low in the current environment.

I went through the numbers
here in early December, using the exact methodology Prof. Krugman ended up using a few weeks later, and came up with estimates of $1.0T to $1.6T.

However, I now think that we are facing a more serious crisis with higher unemployment than projected and that to spend over $1.0T we are going to be getting to stimulus with multipliers less than 1.2 and closer to 1.0 as Prof. K used. This will result in needing nearly 2.0T of spending to get close to full employment.

I don't think the conspiracy is anywhere as elegant as described--viewed from the inside, they never are--but Obama's "let's you and him fight" strategy is a good one for the reasons described, and one more.

It is really essential to get the Senate GOP out of the habit of voting in a bloc of 41. And once Obama has been able to generate some defections, at least a handful of Republican senators will get into every man for himself mode. (It is probably esp. important to get some of them into every woman for herself mode).

Mitch McConnell has WAY too much to say about economic policy. He rules, as we all do, by fear, and his 100%-reliable filibuster threat must be undone. If the Dems are unable to, or don't have the balls for, a nuclear-option rule change on cloture, then Obama is going to have kiss some GOP ass.

There's a lot resting on those bony 46-year-old shoulders.

Does it seem like we on the left are constantly rationalizing Obama's policy positions and decisions, or sweeping them under the rug (FISA, Rick Warren,the stimulus package) when they don't agree with what we expected or think is needed?

Any bets on how we'll feel about him a year from now?

I expect I'll feel about him just the way I feel now and felt before the election: He's a good guy, an intelligent and highly competent centrist. He's not the person we need to fix the things that really ail this country, but he was probably the best our screwed-up political system could produce just now. We can only hope he's good enough to avert complete economic disaster, which in addition to preventing a lot of agony, just might restore the reputation of government sufficiently to make way for better, more progressive Democrats in the future, who can really address our fundamental problems.

I sure hope the discussions about the economic recovery plan are FAR deeper than, "Pick a number, any number." But as I read the 14 page report yesterday, and then Krugman's analysis of it, I couldn't help but wonder just how different it really is from the "complex models" created by Moody's, Fitch, etc. before giving CDO derivitives AAA ratings.

Let's see, one of the main points Obama has been making is the John McCain "no earmarks" thing. Even if Obama were to get a huge bill passed, any earmarks that were discovered in the coming weeks, months or years would provide a constant source of material for conservatives and cable show hosts.

So instead of allowing Democrats to create a Christmas tree that only provides constant gifts to the Republicans, he decided to enlist the Republicans and encourage them to huff-and-puff about spending.

Meanwhile everyone excepting Fox News and Lou Dobbs seems to think a larger-is-better stimulus is okay and nobody thinks the starting bid is too high.

Last year's Democratic big-wigs are spending their time talking about adding all their pet legislation and worn-out ideas to the plan, like the one-time mortgage bankruptcy bill that will likely prevent people from renegotiating into lower fixed-rate mortgages if they fear bankruptcy.

It's like a snowball fight, and eventually mama-Obama will call everyone in out of the cold and serve up some soup. By then, everyone will have forgotten that Obama encouraged them to go out an play just to keep them busy and use up their energy.

Unless you're Paul Krugman or Greg Mankiw, you probably don't really have any idea
That scares me. What makes you think either of these two have a clue?

Basic Keynesian fiscal theory is a great deal better understood than those derivative risk models.

Larry Summer's head is stuck in the 20th century and he is not adaptable enough to handle the circumstances of the 21st century, some of which he himself is at least partially responsible for.

He may be highly intelligent but intelligence is not the only quality required in the current situation. Common sense, flexibility, and a larger vision than Dr. Summers owns are what is needed here. And possibly an ego that is not quite of such mammoth proportions.

I happen to think Mitch McConnell is right that there has to be some fiscal responsibility in government. And I will take him seriously when he reduces his government salary, health benefits and pension to ZERO, NADA, ZILCH. Because he's is just like the CEOs of large investment banks that paid themselves handsomely while their firms went tits up. He IS ONE OF THE REASONS President Bush spent TEN TRILLION DOLLARS (latest estimates as total cost for Bush Presidency). Until then, he can s&*k my c&*k.

Basic Keynesian fiscal theory is a great deal better understood than those derivative risk models.

The problem isn't the theory, it's the reliability of the models. Not all gov't spending is equal. Not all tax cuts are equal. And do models reliably reflect people who merely pay off debt or buy foreign-made goods?

And do models reliably reflect people who merely pay off debt or buy foreign-made goods?

It is clear what we need to do - put money where it will generate demand and jobs not into the pockets of people who will save it or buy foreign goods, like they did with Bush's failed tax rebate.
The public needs to understand why this matters. During the primaries Obama touted his ability to convince people to make the hard choices, yet at this critical juncture he appears to be playing politics instead of selling the public on what he has to know is the right course of action. This shows a worrying timidness, in my opinion.

And I deeply resent him telling me "we all" need to make sacrifices. The mega-rich assholes who were partying all this time, at a party the rest of us weren't invited to but for which we paid the bills, should be the ones sacrificing.

I agree with the idea that this is all political theater and am glad that they've figured out the necessity of it. It was dumb to let Republicans do all the play-acting. And for as much as I'm fine with the grassroots putting pressure on from the left, I just hope it stays as pressure and isn't used as the typical "See, Obama's sold us out, like I've been saying all along" stuff that we've been getting so far.

These people are NOT our friends. They don't want to see liberal policies. They want to bitch about how liberal policies are impossible because the system is corrupt and the "Establishment" will never allow it to happen. In other words, they just want to be proven right about their cynicism towards politicians.

I realize that this is a radical idea, but perhaps Mr. Obama is merely trying to get Congress to do its job: legislate for the nation.
The Executive, according to the Constitution, is supposed to see that the laws are executed, there is nothing about that portion of the government being responsible for the legislation that Congress enacts.
There is nothing wrong with a President informing Congress that a problem exists and providing some suggestions for tackling said problem. There is something decidedly wrong about expecting the President to do everything - decide what the problem is, announce what needs to be done to meet it and then spend time and effort marshalling enough votes to pass the required legislation.
If members of Congress don't want to do their job, why don't they quit and go home?

Thanks, Steve, for citing Nate Silver's "The Price Is Right" theory. I read his entire blog the other day and it made total sense to me -- especially when 41 GOP senators suddenly fear budget deficits and massive government spending. Where were they the past 8 years as Bush and company wasted billions?

Also, Silver was right on target with his 2008 election projections.

In the meantime, several economists (including Paul Krugman) fear Obama hasn't gone high enough in his federal-spending estimate.

Again, Nate Silver's take on this makes total sense.

They want to bitch... -Biobrain.

It's all about the bitching. I'm beginning to see it as some sort of PTSD or battered supporter syndrome. They've bitched for so long they can't stop themselves. Maybe in a couple of years, they'll be sitting at a cafe' somewhere and it'll occur to them, "things are looking a little brighter today". Not holding breath.

We need to match cash & actual product. To that end we can stimulus all we want if it's to put people to work on real things. Beyond that we need cash to unemployed and other similar things. That is good too.

Where we'd get into trouble down the road is in passing out cash for bridges to nowhere and that kind of pork.

We need real product or the extra cash just morphs into price inflation later on.

We've already seen what price inflation did in the financial markets: the market rose and crashed when people realized it was built on hot air.

I'm fascinated that the people complaining about "bitching" are precisely the ones who waste the most time attacking anybody who doesn't docilely toe the mainstream centrist Democratic Party line. Project much?