And don't conflate arguments about deficits with arguments about spending, they aren't the same thing.

I'm a believer in counter-cyclical spending, which does imply higher deficits during the down-cycles in the economy. Your expanded unemployment benefits are a form of automatic spending that produces that effect, and less spending and reduced deficit in the up-cycle.

Now, how much to spend in the down-cycle is a harder question, but I think it is at least reasonable to think that it will be more in harder down-cycles, and less in milder ones.

I think the hopes that this might be a mild, or even a typical, recession have been dashed.

(If we want to go back to the errors of the Bush administration, one would be that they pushed strong deficit spending during a (mild) recovery. They never produced that counter-cyclical surplus. That's the reason we ride into this Great Recession with our pockets empty.)

And don't conflate arguments about deficits with arguments about spending, they aren't the same thing.

Sadly, before things get much better you may be wishing for only ten big bank failures and 15% unemployment.

And yet, at the same time, you oppose spending. Is there any economic logic for withholding spending in this kind of downturn?

It seems to me you are saying you choose the hard bottom, with no counter-cyclical brakes applied.

Explain to me the other path, the one no politician of either party was willing to take, without "called or not" Stimulus, and how it would work?

Would you just tough it out through 10 big bank failures and 15% unemployment?

It's a bad, bad joke and if you want to be taken seriously you might want to think how much effort you want to put into trying to defend it. If you think $100M is a good test case for saving money before trying something more meaningful, why not rescind the so-called Stimulus package and instead pass one of about $8B or so and let's see how it works before deciding to bet the farm... and the factory... and the finanical system... and the schools... and our future...?

And Obama's only, what, 3 months in? So at this rate perhaps he'll continue to find new ways to cut spending at about $400 million a year = $1.6 billion over term 1. Slacker. You should see how much GWB cut when he was in office!

IMF sees steepest drop in global activity in 60 years

At least try to put "spending" in that context.

I am generally in favor of any budget cuts and trying to spend the money that is allocated more efficiently, so on one hand I think asking them to make the cuts is a good thing. I think the disconnect comes when you consider the budget as a whole and the spending that is proposed.

The budget needs, to borrow a term from the computer science domain, to be refactored.

If they are serious they'll do this $100M, and then keep going. Given the complex nature of spending, with congressional micromanagement down to which part of which plane is built in which state ... there's the possibility that this kind of thing needs to be a permanent ongoing process.

What you'd be happier if they just didn't try?

Because if your attitude is that they should go further, than you rational position should be "Fine, thanks, what's next?"

Obama looked at the Tea Party protests and recognized

Stop it. You made me blow Pepsi through my nose.