The later rings more true. I finally figured out the problem. He does not yet get that he's the President. He's not running for office, and thus, it's time to govern.  Ultimately the buck stops with him. Some part of him still thinks he's a legislative representtive rather than an executive.

The poll numbers suggest that Obama is in the catbird seat on this one.

To me the former rings more true based on every time I have underestimated so far I have been wrong.

the "gap" between rhetoric and plan. it's already 800 billion, and Obama has intimated that this is the floor. When did asking fro 800 billion after TARP become wishy-washy?

Krug is a smart guy, so if he thinks it needs to be bigger I'll agree. But to be sure, much of this controversy is due to the fact that everyone is sort of guessing. I found this little tidbit on the net:

Tax cuts have the advantage, though, that they can be put in place quickly. There's also the more ideological, if still possibly valid, argument that they don't encourage the growth of bureaucracy. And recent empirical research - some of it by Christina Romer, the UC Berkeley economist who will be chairman of Obama's Council of Economic Advisers - indicates that tax cuts have been quite effective as stimulus in the past. All of which helps explain why 40% of the Obama stimulus consists of tax reductions

Ms Romer's paper is fairly recent, Nov 2008, and can be found here. The money quote from the paper is:

Our results indicate that tax changes have very large effects on output. Our baseline specification implies that an exogenous tax increase of 1% of GDP lowers real GDP by almost 3%. Our many robustness checks for the most part point to a slightly smaller decline, but one that is still typically over 2.5%.

So, despite the blog-wisdom, and Krugman's unshakable (and admittedly deserved) assurance, there may be real economic reasons for the structure of the stimulus.

Take a deep breath everyone--read this on 538:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/01/o bamas-price-is-right-negotiating.html

I think we all should wait until the package actually move through Congress.  Obama has been "listening" to Republicans, but he's largely shut them up, also.

Democrats, whether on the hill or in the street who oppose a payroll tax cut do so for one simple reason, it takes money out of the hands of the government.  That's it, that's all, nothing more.  It wouldn't matter if economists agreed that a tax cut would solve all the world's ills, it would still be opposed by a group of people who staunchly believe that government can spend people's money better than people can spend it on their own.  People like to dress things up, make issues seem deeper that they are, thereby making themselves appear smarter (or deeper) than they are when it just comes down to whether you believe that people should spend the money they make how they see fit or whether government should take more of what people make as government can spend it better.  All that's left is how government should spend it.   I truly believe that a small core of Democrats believed that Obama was going to announce a 4 year plan reminiscent of old Soviet 5 year plans, a path to socialism, thought it'd be given a name in the vein of New Deal or Great Society.  Obama used the far left just like Bush used the far right. Get them to rally the base, get them out to vote, then pat them on the head and say "See you in four years, who else are you going to vote for?".  Did we get prayer in school, was abortion banned? No, the Republicans use the far right just like the Democrats use the far left.   The true believers, the hardcore left progressives are going to be so utterly disappointed by Obama.  Sure, it'll be light years better than Bush, but they aren't going to get the things they want. Obama is smart, he knows that if he were to do any of the things that the left really wants he'd lose Congress like Clinton did in 94.   Here's to hoping Obama is successful, implements strategies that pull our country out of recession no matter the ideology behind them and that he never has a TV show where he sits in a red shirt and berates his cabinet members.  

Man. Obama is losing fast. No one in a crisis is looking for rule by committee - they're looking for the thing we haven't had for 8 years (really 28): LEADERSHIP.  

"Open to ideas"??? That sounds retarded.. seriously. He's the president.. lets GO! STEP IT UP BUDDY!

I am not thrilled with the stimulus as currently constituted but as a former Hill staffer I can't think of an instance where Congress did not increase the size of a tax cut, infrastructure bill, etc sent to them without the threat of a veto.  The Reagan tax cuts ballooned in 1981 as has virtually every Transportation bill ever written.

This bill is going to grow and probably substantially before we are done.  I actually think starting on the smaller side is probably a smart move by Obama.  The key question is whether or not it grows in the right areas.

Obama is going to have to do a combo of lead and legislate if Congress plays its proper role of being a partner in governing rather than just rolling over as it has done in the past 8 yrs.

The other issue is that Obama is going to need anywhere from 2-4 Repub votes in the Senate depending when Minnesota and Illinois are resolved to break the fillibuster.  I'd be surprised if any Senator is going to vote to break the fillibuster and then vote against the bill so those Rs are going to have a lot of leverage to add stuff to this bill.