Despite the title of this NYT article, it looks like a big stimulus package is coming. The original stimulus proposed by now President-elect Obama during the campaign was $175 billion of targeted tax credits for new hires + aid to states and cities.
But I think everyone acknowledges that more needs to be done, as suggested:
President-elect Barack Obama has signaled that he will pursue a far more ambitious plan of spending and tax cuts than anything he outlined on the campaign trail — a plan "big enough to deal with the huge problem we face," a top adviser said Sunday — setting the tone for a recovery effort that could absorb and define much of his term.
I think it's good that they're thinking big. China is spending nearly $600 billion to stimulate their economy, per Forbes. Our economy is still about 25% - 30% bigger.
Meanwhile, our Congressional leaders - as well as the lame duck - have been lagging. Per the Wall Street Journal, Pelosi has been pushing for $300 billion. Of course, the lame duck and congressional Rethugs have been resisting. But hey, even McSame proposed $300 billion to buy out troubled mortgages.
From the noted NYT article, Schumer has suggested that the stimulus should be as big as $700 billion. That's a politically good number, equal to the recent financial bailout.
But is that enough? If we were to do our part to reflate the world economy, we'd add a proportional stimulus - between $750 - $800 billion.
[edit]From the comments so far, I think there's a misunderstanding on the intent of the diary: I'm trying to ask the Macroeconomic question.
The subtext - I think there may be a misunderstanding on the difference between Macro and Microeconomics.
in this case, the Macroeconomic question - is how much do we need to spend (and how the spending is allocated between additional government spending - and tax cuts)
and the Microeconomic question is - what do we spend it on.[end edit]