Jobs Plan Needed More Than Cash

» 5 Comments | Post a Comment

For several weeks now, officials in Washington have been openly discussing the possibility of another federal stimulus package to boost the nation’s lagging economy.

The federal government already has taken two aggressive steps this year to prop up the economy. In February, Congress passed a $150 billion stimulus package of rebate checks for middle- and lower-income taxpayers. And in October, President Bush signed a $700 billion financial rescue bill, which included $250 billion for troubled banks.

Now, government officials are discussing the merits of a third economic intervention.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, testifying on Capitol Hill late last month, said Congress should consider another stimulus package.

“The uncertainty currently surrounding the economic outlook is unusually large,” Bernanke said. “Any fiscal action inevitably involves trade-offs – not only among current needs and objectives, but also because commitments of resources today can burden future generations and constrain future policy options. That being said, with the economy likely to be weak for several quarters and with some risk of a protracted slowdown, consideration of a fiscal package by the Congress at this juncture seems appropriate.”

Bernanke added that any stimulus should be crafted to boost spending in the short term without significantly adding to America’s long-term deficit. Despite being prodded repeatedly by legislators, Bernanke declined to say how much money should be spent or specify what the package should contain.

They were right to question and push for a figure. And we all should wonder how a package could boost spending without adding significantly to our country’s long-term deficit. We are still paying debt associated with Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal. Bush just signed the $700 billion bailout bill. And when Americans got their stimulus checks earlier this year, many people banked them, versus spending the money as the government had hoped.

Bush has said he is “open to the idea” of another stimulus package, but that the administration would have to see how Congress formulates it. And still to be seen is whether Congress will pass a package while Bush is still in the White House or will wait until Barack Obama takes office in January.

It is likely that Americans will get another round of economic stimulus checks – how much and which president gets to take the credit remains to be seen.

But consider this: While a check in the mail or an extra direct deposit is a welcome surprise, the stimulus money is like a cash advance on a credit card. When you go get quick cash and spend it, you are still saddled with paying it back over time.

This nation needs a jobs package to offset more than 2 million lost just this year. The only way to turn this economy around is to create new, lasting jobs, not to send $600 checks to citizens. And to force banks to loan again.

Advertisement

 
View More: No tags are associated with this article
Not what you're looking for? Try our quick search:
 

Advertisement

Reader Reactions

Flag Comment Posted by captainkona on November 11, 2008 at 1:51 pm

We took the first step in relieving the Jobs problem. Voted in a Democratic gov’t.

Bush lost over 1 Million jobs. Obama will restore as many as he can.
The stimulus is an excellent idea and we should have two of them per year on a permanent basis.
It’s a good way to help small businesses and it gets us back a little more of our tax money. It also helps people to maybe save and that’s good for the country as a whole.

And before some clown whines “where will the money come from?“, stop spending 12 billion a month on the Lie in Iraq and there will be plenty for the country.

Flag Comment Posted by dadw5boys on November 11, 2008 at 9:46 am

Virgil would it not be nice if he could do it the other way ?
If everyone who wanted a job he could get a job for them.
Thousands of Employment agancys are out there that will find you a job. But most charge $14,000 or more per corporation where he is only charging $9,000.00.

Flag Comment Posted by dadw5boys on November 11, 2008 at 9:33 am

It would be nice if we had Free Trade actually. But when the Big Corporations control the market, the suppliers and even the raw materails. How do you get a Free Market ?
Take a look at all the laws passed by the Republicans 90 % of those laws passed in the last 16 years that they controled Washington put limits on competition. Why do you think Big Corporations support enviornmental groups or have groups of their own.
The new laws are called in the Industry and Banking circles BARRIERS TO ENRTY !
That mean any new companys must spend a great amount of money on new technology to enter into competition woth the older established business. The Old Businesses are allow to use old cheaper Technology.
Gore wanted to force even old businesses to meet new requirements with laws that said if you replace equipment it had to be with new technology. But then we had the takeover of the U.S. Government by Private Enterprize in 2000. I am really suprized Bush even allowed us to have an election.

Flag Comment Posted by allen on November 09, 2008 at 3:36 pm

Free trade created this problem.  We have to do away with free trade to solve the problem.  I am an uneducated red neck, hillbilly truck driver and I can debate this subject with anyone and win.  There is no logical defense for free trade.  Even an uneducated dummy like me can figure that out.

Flag Comment Posted by vbierschwale on November 09, 2008 at 6:22 am

There is a way to create lasting jobs that will fix our economy without incurring further debt that we cannot pay if we continue on the current path.

I wrote an article titled “Save America” yesterday at http://www.KeepAmericaAtWork.com that would be a great start to restoring the economy and our confidence.

Virgil
http://www.KeepAmericaAtWork.com

Post a Comment(Requires free registration)

The commenting period has ended or commenting has been deactivated for this article.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement