Krugman makes a good point yesterday, putting it all in perspective:

the stimulus plan … [will] cost substantially less than either the Bush administration’s $2 trillion in tax cuts or the $1 trillion and counting spent in Iraq

Think about that. It’s too much money to spend to try and revive the economy!

But in Iraq? It’s not enough.

Let me say up front that I myself am somewhat nervous about the size of the stimulus package. I am, at heart, fiscally conservative, and nervous at the idea of incurring more debt to save our nation from a crisis… caused, in large part, by too much debt.

But Sullivan the other day had a quote from FDR:

“The country needs and, unless I mistake its temper, the country demands bold, persistent experimentation. It is common sense to take a method and try it: If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something.”

And I do believe that.

Bill Bonner notes that what we’re now seeing in the economy is what used to be called  “panic.” He opposes the stimulus plan; but he also says this:

This is a depression, not a recession (we know you are getting tired of hearing it; but it’s an important distinction). Private debt rose from only about 2% of disposable income in 1945 to about 15% in 2006. That huge, long trend has come to an end. People realize that went too far. They haven’t enough income…or collateral…to support that kind of debt. What’s more, incomes are falling…and so is the value of the collateral. This puts almost all businesses in danger…and millions of households too.

 FDR is right. We do have to try something.

And here’s the thing. If I thought Republican opposition to the stimulus bill was rooted in unyielding principle - that they too have serious misgivings about the plan, and their actions are rooted in their concern that the country, in “doing something,” could be doing the worst thing possible - that would be one thing. And maybe, if you peel the onion of the opposition - you would ultimately come to this sentiment.

But conservative opposition to the stimulus plan seems to have far less to do with principle than it does with politics. Undermine Obama - no matter what. Why undermine Obama? Not because we have deep philosophical differences, though perhaps we do - but because he is the enemy.

I get that it’s the job of the opposition party to oppose. But never have I been more convinced that this is opposition for the sake of opposition. Never have I been more convinced that the Republican Party is specifically downplaying the severity of the economic situation specifically because they realize that to acknowledge how bad things are puts them at a political disadvantage.

Never have I seen a party so interested in politics above the overall welfare of the country.

You may see something different. But if there can be no “bipartisanship” if Republicans flat-out refuse to work with the majority party, if those few who do (like Arlen Specter) are to be demonized as traitors - there is no sense in Obama trying to involve Republicans in the process.

At this time of national crisis, let the public see that one party has tried to reach out - and the other has bitten its hand. Let the public see that Obama has been gracious - but Republicans have been ungracious.

Let the public see that one party seems more interested in ensuring that the president “fails” than addressing the most severe fiscal crisis in 80 years.

For how, the public may conclude, can these people possibly govern in a manner that benefits all Americans - rather than their own nasty little clique?