Brad DeLong compared the economic projections that shaped the size and scope of the stimulus package with the data on how the economy has actually changed (read: shrunk) over the forecast period. He wrote a long comment on the subject, the main point being that the stimulus package is actually conservative relative to what we now know about the scale of the crisis and the Fed lacks the means to address it. So we shouldn't get over-eager to pull the plug on the package; if we were worried about fixing our fiscal policy, we should focus on reforming health care costs, says DeLong.

Paul Krugman also wore his Keynesian heart on his sleeve, arguing that balancing the budget could "be deadly in this kind of crisis," despite public opinion favoring such a goal. (Stimulating the economy through government spending is the alternative.) He boosts his argument by remembering history, comparing a Salon piece on recent polls with Depression-era numbers (and analysis by Christina Romer) and the negative impact of FDR's efforts to balance the budget. What's the big conclusion? "Most people don't know much about macroeconomics," says Krugman. Then again, he adds, "many macroeconomists don't know much about macroeconomics."

Barry Ritholtz started his day with a fascinating info-graphic showing the sheer magnitude of financial bailout costs over the last 12 months. From Ritholtz's account, the amount spent on the bailout over the last year surpasses funding for "WW1&2 (omitted from graphic), the moon shot, the New Deal, total NASA budgets (omitted from graphic), Iraq, Viet Nam and Korean wars—COMBINED."

Ritholtz then parsed President Obama's regulatory financial plan. He bemoaned the fact that ratings agencies went largely unaltered and that the Fed was going to receive even more power in the new agenda, regardless of its role in the economic crisis. "So much for ‘not letting a crisis go to waste,' " Ritholtz said. "The initial read on the Obama Regulatory plan was an enormous disappointment."