"Obama's plan...calls for an immediate $75 billion investment..."

Does this mean that Paul Krugman is lying about Obama's platform again, by stating that Obama's plan consists of nothing but tax credits?

Krugman his misleading in other ways. He says:

"The Edwards and Clinton proposals both contain provisions for bigger stimulus if the economy worsens."

Obama's plan does as well, but Krugman does not tell you that. From Obama's Sunday press release:

"The plan also reserves an additional $45 billion of stimulus that can be injected into the economy quickly in the future if the economy continues to deteriorate."

This, and the context of the piece which compares the Edwards & Hillary's plans first with the Obama campaign's "initial response" (which he deems disreputable) rather than the full plan, suggests an anti-Obama bias.

The above commenters speak with forked tongue and also don't know how to read.

Today's Krugman:

"The Obama campaign’s initial response to the latest wave of bad economic news was, I’m sorry to say, disreputable: Mr. Obama’s top economic adviser claimed that the long-term tax-cut plan the candidate announced months ago is just what we need to keep the slump from “morphing into a drastic decline in consumer spending.” Hmm: claiming that the candidate is all-seeing, and that a tax cut originally proposed for other reasons is also a recession-fighting measure — doesn’t that sound familiar?

Anyway, on Sunday Mr. Obama came out with a real stimulus plan. As was the case with his health care plan, which fell short of universal coverage, his stimulus proposal is similar to those of the other Democratic candidates, but tilted to the right.

For example, the Obama plan appears to contain none of the alternative energy initiatives that are in both the Edwards and Clinton proposals, and emphasizes across-the-board tax cuts over both aid to the hardest-hit families and help for state and local governments. I know that Mr. Obama’s supporters hate to hear this, but he really is less progressive than his rivals on matters of domestic policy."

Fellas, the next time you want to bust on Krugman, have the decency to provide actual quotes. Krugman can run circles around both of you.

Kate

You seem to subtly playing with words here to hide an embarassing fact...just as Krugman stated in his article

There is a difference between a 70 BILLION SPENDING PACKAGE(actually spending money out of the Treasury in a Keynesian stimulus package) than a $75 billion investment in which the INVESTMENT IS ACROSS THE BOARD TAX CUTS.

And what exactly does infusion mean.....how the money will be infused is pretty crucial to deciding whether it's progressive and whether it will be effective.
More across the board tax cuts would be a Republican solution not a keynsian one.

I'm sure both plans are fine ways to spend massive amounts of money (although, since they aren't up to the trillions yet it's not that much).

However, in some ways I'm sure the plans conflict.

Therefore, both plans must not be correct and/or do the most good.

So, shouldn't TAPPED look into who's right/would do the most good? For instance, have a face-off between policy wonks from across the spectrum. Lock them in a room with a video camera, and then upload it to Youtube. Just check them for knives and brass knuckles first.

Corinne:

My anonymous post from before WAS using quotes. Read it again.

And Debcoop: Obama's plan also has actual SPENDING, even going towards state and local govts (albeit in lesser amounts). Don't take Krugman's word on everything. Read the plan.