I'm not sure what's funnier, that you think Obama promoted "Democrat-left solutions to economic downturns" or that you're crying in your coffee that the GA didn't publicly flog union members in front of the State House.

Here's Stiglitz...

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/feb/06/obama-us-economy-joseph-stiglitz

As I wrote in my new book Freefall, Barack Obama took a big gamble at the start of his administration. Instead of the marked change that his campaign had promised, he kept many of the same officials and maintained the same "trickle down" strategy to confront the financial crisis. Providing enough money to the banks was, his team seemed to say, the best way to help ordinary homeowners and workers...

Trying to "square the circle" between the need to stimulate the economy and please the deficit hawks, Obama has proposed deficit reductions that, while alienating liberal democrats, were too small to please the hawks. Other gestures to help struggling middle-class Americans may show where his heart is, but are too small to make a meaningful difference.

That's center-right neoliberalism, hardly an example of the policies of the left.

This is the ultimate ‘partisan’ debate. The current economic situation is no more proof that the “blue vision” for government does not work anymore than 2008 proved that the “red vision” does not work.

It seems Russ is trying to argue that Obama’s policies haven’t been left-enough. I would contend that the policies he has pursued have been rather left-of-center but the ones enacted have been ‘center-ized” by having to deal with congressional passage. Even the Health Care Bill was not near as left as he likely wanted and that with a ‘super majority”. Rarely does a President get the laws as they want. Quoting a Guardian article is sort of like quoting National Review. Does giving money to the auto makers’ count as “trickle down” or is that considered different because of the UAW? Do you suggest the best way is to have no deficit reductions and no tax increases? Greece anyone?

I’m from Ohio where the voters just overturned legislation that limited collective bargaining. Bottom line is simple; everyone – right-left-center – wants what is best for them.

"Quoting a Guardian article is sort of like quoting National Review..."

Yes, and I picked Stiglitz intentionally as a former Obama advisor and left-economist who was passed over for the Wall Street insiders who continue to run the show.

"The current economic situation is no more proof that the 'blue vision' for government does not work anymore than 2008 proved that the 'red vision' does not work."

I disagree. The blue/red vision clearly didn't and hasn't worked. I took objection to Justin's fantastic theory that third way neoliberalism represents the views of the left not that the Democratic plan was a massive failure except possibly in comparsion to the disaster of the Bush years.

btw, the idea that Obama's bank bailout was forced on him by Congress is just nonsense.

"Stiglitz Says Ties to Wall Street Doom Bank Rescue"
www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=afYsmJyngAXQ&refer=home

On the bank bailouts...

The Obama administration’s bank- rescue efforts will probably fail because the programs have been designed to help Wall Street rather than create a viable financial system, Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz said.

“All the ingredients they have so far are weak, and there are several missing ingredients,” Stiglitz said in an interview yesterday. The people who designed the plans are “either in the pocket of the banks or they’re incompetent”...

Stiglitz was also critical of Obama’s other economic rescue programs.

He called the $787 billion stimulus program necessary but “flawed” because too much spending comes after 2009, and because it devotes too much of the money to tax cuts “which aren’t likely to work very effectively.”

“It’s really a peculiar policy, I think,” he said.

Well, if the Nobel Prize winning economist believes that tax cuts have no effect on the economy, I am glad he is a “former” advisor. Of course, there are economists who believe in government spending like Krugman & Stiglitz and also many who believe in tax cuts. Obviously we’d disagree on who to believe.

I do agree that the stimulus package & bank bailouts were bad ideas but again – not just because of the tax cuts – but this is as usual partisan-cherry picking. There is also a side that says that the Bush economy was great until Democrats won Congress in 2006 and the Clinton economy was due to the 6 years Republicans controlled Congress.

Count me among those who believe neither side has a clear claim as proven successful-economic policy. But I’m also a capitalist and while it is not perfect and there are inequities, I do believe it is superior to socialism and I think there is a case to be made that history bears that out.

"Obviously we’d disagree on who to believe."

Yes, yes, but my point being that the Obama administration didn't implement the plan preferred by the left. When center-right is defined as left, the term left kind loses any real meaning.

"But I’m also a capitalist and while it is not perfect and there are inequities, I do believe it is superior to socialism and I think there is a case to be made that history bears that out."

Well, depends on what you mean by capitalism and socialism. I may need to buy Stiglitz's book...
www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj16n2-10.html

Casual observation would suggest that market socialist economies are not identical to capitalist economies, not even remotely so. The model of market socialism underlying that theorem is seriously flawed.

But our contention is that it is equally important to observe the model of the market economy--underlying not only that theorem but also the fundamental theorems of welfare economics--is seriously flawed. With a bad model of the market economy and a bad model of the socialist economy, no wonder that any semblance of the equivalence of the two could, at most, be a matter of chance.

I agree with your point that the Obama administration did not implement the plan preferred by the left. That plan would not have passed even the Democrat-dominated Congress. The absurdity is that if the same exact plan would have been passed by a McCain administration, we’d be hearing the same things – except from different sides. Partisan rules. I agree that political terms ‘left’ and ‘center-right’ have arbitrary meanings.

I’m not sure what the above means – like what is the difference between socialism and market socialism? But just the fact that you quoted anything from CATO is surprising.

"...what is the difference between socialism and market socialism?"

Section in here on different socialist economic models (short answer, read "Chinese model")...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism#Economics