The last time the U.S. economy suffered a crisis and needed an injection from the federal government, the Democratic Party was fighting with itself over how big rescue legislation should be.

There were those who thought something really huge over $1 trillion was necessary to get the country back on track after the 2008 financial crisis. But plenty of others believed an amount that high not only wasnt necessary, but was a political loser. Democrats didnt want to give Republicans any more ammunition to attack them as profligate spenders. Obama adviser Larry Summers actually forbade one of his colleagues from so much as presenting Obama with an option that topped $1 trillion .

Since then, a consensus has emerged among economists that President Barack Obamas 2009 stimulus package, which ended up costing roughly $840 billion , greatly benefited the economy but should have gone much further. It essentially was big enough to anger Republicans but not big enough to fully get the job done for the economy.

The lessons from that fight, as well as the negotiations over the Affordable Care Act, are now shaping the $1.9 trillion stimulus package that President Joe Biden has offered to help the country recover from the coronavirus pandemic.

The takeaways for Democrats are clear: 1) Go big, and 2) dont wait around forever for Republicans to get on board.

The history of fiscal interventions has shown us that the tendency is to go small rather than to go big. If you listen to not just the president, but Janet Yellen, who has a fair bit of experience with this sort of thing, the risk here is not doing too much, its doing too little, said Jared Bernstein, a member of the presidents Council of Economic Advisers.

The lesson of 2009 is repeated and respected even among the colleagues who werent here at the time, said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), who was his states attorney general at the time.

If you remember 2009, we know that package was too small. It being so small, it caused the economy to recover a lot more slowly, added Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.).

Biden is dealing with a different Senate than Obama did at the start of his first term. Obama had a bigger majority, but there were more than half a dozen moderates he needed to please to get anything done. Biden has a Senate divided 50-50, but there are far fewer moderates.

Biden has expressed an interest in bipartisanship, but so far, he is indicating much more willing to move forward quickly without the GOP than Obama was.

The mood has also shifted. The country appears far more unified around the idea of doing something big on coronavirus than it was on the earlier financial crisis.

In early 2009, support for an $800 billion stimulus package hovered in the 50s , with a third or fewer of Republicans expressing support. Surveys that summer that asked Americans to weigh between stimulus spending and deficit reduction found the public anywhere from near-evenly divided to substantially preferring the latter.

A survey taken this year found Americans prioritizing economic recovery and dealing with the coronavirus outbreak significantly ahead of deficit reduction. In June 2020, as the nation settled in for a long haul with the pandemic, a 57% majority of registered voters wanted the government to do more, rather than leaving things up to businesses and individuals.

The progressive groups Data for Progress and Invest in America released a poll Wednesday that found 68% of voters want emergency relief as soon as possible, and 55% say to move forward with only Democratic votes, if necessary.

Voters have been pleading for help since last spring, and with Republicans in power, it fell on deaf ears. The distinction, today, between which party is interested in digging out from this, and which party wants to sit on their hands isnt an argument we have to make or win; it is the premise of Democratic trifecta, said Eric Schultz, who was communications director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee from 2009-2010 and later worked in the Obama White House, referring to the Democratic control of the House, Senate and White House.

Even moderate senators from 2009 say that the current moment calls for substantial action.

This kind of trickling of the money doesnt give the boost that the economy needs at this time. Im kind of a go big or go home type of person, said Mark Begich, a former Democratic senator from Alaska who is now a strategic consulting adviser with the lobbying and law firm Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck.

Begich was one of the moderate Democrats who wanted the Obama administration to cap the 2009 legislation at $800 billion. He said the overall number was getting way too big to manage and expressed concerns about some of the items included in the bill.

But he argues that the magnitude of what the country now faces is so much greater than after the 2008 financial crisis.

We didnt have a worldwide pandemic several hundred thousand people in this country that have died. To be frank with you, that is the significant difference. Its not just an economic urgency which it was last time, only economics. This is health first, he said.

Current Democratic lawmakers from more moderate districts are also, so far, largely on board with Bidens strategy in no small part because of what happened in 2009.

As a moderate Democrat representing a swing seat outside Pittsburgh, Rep. Conor Lamb is the type of lawmaker who may have been concerned about the size of the stimulus package in 2009. But he immediately blasted the Senate Republicans counterproposal in a Twitter thread in which he stated that unity doesnt determine the outcome here.

An important lesson after 2008 was that the stimulus efforts were probably too small, he told HuffPost. If we know now, that the COVID-19 shock is greater than 2008, our efforts should be bigger and stronger.

Lamb, whose constituents voted for Donald Trump in 2016, also believes that a bigger recovery package is the smarter play politically. Whether it was deserved or not, Lamb believes that high growth and rising pay in the pre-pandemic economy contributed to Trumps unexpectedly strong performance this past November.

Our job is to give people that same feeling, but in a way that hits the middle class and working people even more, he said. Do it so that people really feel it.

Rep. Matt Cartwright, another Pennsylvania Democrat in a swing seat, also emphasized the importance of bold action.

The door for a bipartisan package is open, but we are the Democratic majority for a reason, Cartwright said in a statement. We are not about to keep the American people waiting for the relief they need and demand.

Still, there are details where not everyone is in agreement, and the package could be downsized.

Some Democrats have started to discuss limiting the number of people who receive the next round of stimulus checks, by lowering the annual income threshold above which people no longer receive the full payment.

This more targeted approach would be a way for the White House and Democrats to lower costs show theyre willing to negotiate, but it would also deprive more Americans of assistance and its unclear whether it would actually attract any Republican votes to the overall legislation.

You are a fool if you dont learn from mistakes. And there were mistakes that were made during the great recession, Bustos said.

House Democrats saw their majority shrink by more than a dozen seats in the 2020 elections. Bustos said that while there will be pressure on those remaining Democrats from swing districts to show bipartisan appeal, that concern shouldnt supersede passing the necessary relief.

Well listen, and theres some wiggle room on some of this, but in the end, we need to deliver, Bustos said, saying that she and fellow Democrats met with Biden over a Zoom call Wednesday morning. For the proposal from our friends across the aisle to not include one penny of help for our towns all over this country, that part of it is a nonstarter.