Remember that the Fed's most important power is its ability to influence interest rates. The Fed's interest rate is basically zero now. Here's how Krugman explained quantitative easing:

The Fed is [. . .] creating a new liability: the monetary base it creates to buy these bonds. In effect, it’s printing $1 trillion of money, and using those funds to buy bonds. Is this inflationary? We hope so! The whole reason for quantitative easing is that normal monetary expansion, printing money to buy short-term debt, has no traction thanks to near-zero rates. Gaining some traction — in effect, having some inflationary effect — is what the policy is all about.

But quantitative easing simply is not an effective tool in this zero bound environment, with aggregate demand dead in the water. Indeed, Krugman himself has said that for quantitative easing would require 8 trillion dollars in purchasing. And even that, said Joe Stiglitz, is a fools errand. The problem is not that credit is not available at the highest levels, it is that the credit is not getting to the economy. Indeed, he argues that QE2 basically decoupled the financial market from the rest of the economy:

Joe Stiglitz and Joe Gagnon Debate QEII from Roosevelt Institute on Vimeo.

The issue remains quantitative easing, at least at the levels that it can be done, simply has no discernible effect on aggregate demand. The answer lies in fiscal policy, not monetary policy.

Hence, Matt Yglesias just gets it wrong, imo. when he writes:

[P]art of what we’re seeing here are the policy consequences of the progressive movement’s strange monetary policy blindness. For the Fed to do anything “unorthodox” naturally opens the institution up to criticism. And if nearly 100 percent of the criticism is either from the hard money right or else is vague condemnations of “bailouts,” then this biases policy toward inaction. People need to understand that in economic policy terms, the Fed’s monetary policy committee is the single most important institution in the country. It’s not the only thing that matters, but it matters a lot. Talking about jobs without talking about the FOMC is like talking about the legal system and forgetting there’s a Supreme Court.

Obviously the Fed is extremely important. But the current Fed is doing all it can do or will do. To expect that more could or would be done is beyond the bounds of political realism. Indeed, it is an inefficient focus. The only policies worth discussing at this time are those involving fiscal stimulus.

Now Yglesias would no doubt respond that that is not politically realistic. He's probably right but it is the place where the solution lies, not the Fed's monetary policy.

Speaking for me only