Obama, and other influential members of the Left who have a large stage and loud voice, don't seem to be doing their jobs. Is the Left's leadership in government trying to convince Americans that they are economically in favor of free enterprise, and that Obama's regulatory drive is no more than Republicans? Obama defended his support of oil in the first debate by claiming how much drilling is taking place -- it was dishonest, but why is Obama trying to convince Americans he's a free marketer in favor of drilling for oil, plus a hawk who brags continuously about killing Osama bin Laden while promoting drones which kill many innocent people? Is Obama trying to make the case that he's more conservative than Romney? This doesn't make sense, because Obama has continuously said that the policies of the past failed.
It's true that Obama is calling for infrastructure investment, but is doesn't appear to be enough. This is a small difference from what Romney is proposing. I would think that the Left would propose something grand and transformative since the economy is in such severe condition and there are more poor people and unemployed than in quite awhile.
Obama claims that cutting taxes on the middle class and small businesses is good for economic growth. This sounds like Laffer. Obama's supporters and political operatives tell us that it's ridiculous to associate Obama at all with socialism, and that to say Obama has increased regulations is silly, that Obamacare is not about government-run healthcare, and that Obama is not into central planning. So why should anyone on the Left want Obama in office? Has the Left accepted conservativism basically with only minor differences in who's taxed? I understand that orthodox socialism was discredited long ago, but the Left hasn't turned away from social democracy and socialistic policies, so why is the leadership running from the words and ideas of modern socialism?
It appears to me that if the Left is serious they will start demanding cap and trade or even more stringent reductions in oil drilling and production. The Left's representatives should push hard for policies that reward environmentally friendly production, while punishing "casino capitalism" that makes money out of nothing -- why hasn't Dodd-Frank completed the regulations and put the Banks on semi-nationalization status? The Left understands that the big banks should be broken up, so why isn't Obama putting this as a top priority? The Left should demand redistribution of wealth if they believe that recovey is a bottom up prospect. If the poor and middle class have money to spend it will spur economic growth, according to socialistic theories, so why not directly fund the poor? They might want to condition the funding on having a government job so that the poor are at least doing something for the money they receive, but if the rich are properly taxed, then government can create FDR like work projects, then supplement the pay with direct payments so that the poor have a decent living wage with which to begin their advancement in the market, and, in turn, helping all in the market.
According to Krugman's theory, spurring demand, even if it's a phony alien invasion that destroys property which has to be rebuilt, will create economic recovery. Once recovery is under way, a formula should be developed which tells us how much money each individual should have to sustain economic growth, then recessions will be a thing of the past. These are the ideas that the Left has pushed, but the leaders on the Left aren't fighting for the ideas. Why isn't Obama giving specifics regarding the Left's plan to spur economic growth and promote social justice simultaneously? Why is Obama afraid to embrace Leftist policies?