Does the U.S. need a second economic stimulus package to help struggling Americans and invigorate the economy by putting more money into circulation?

Does the U.S. need a second economic stimulus package to help struggling Americans and invigorate the economy by putting more money into circulation?
  • We could use a stimulus, if it would be handled correctly.

    Yes, we could use another stimulus package, only if it is handled correctly and different from the last one. Instead of bailing out businesses, we need to help the people. I think they should make a stimulus loan program available to the public only, and not businesses. Each American tax payer should be allowed to borrow the money needed to help them through these tough times. They gave or loaned big businesses millions, but won't loan the people anything. The loan should be capped at no more then one year's salary.

    Posted by: Ci3nInvader
  • I believe a second stimulus package would help invigorate our economy, because the first was effective, yet incomplete.

    The first stimulus package was effective, but incomplete. The depth of the problem turned out to be greater than was originally expected. The first stimulus helped, but it was not enough. A second stimulus package would continue to put more money into circulation, and give our economy the "jolt" it needs to become more healthy.

    Posted by: 5l4y3rChr
  • I oppose a second stimulus package, because the first one did no good.

    The first stimulus didn't work, so why would a second? If history is any indicator, why in the world would we want to repeat failure? The first stimulus did nothing to create interest in buying anything, other than inflated over-priced groceries and gas. We need the government to let this recession run it's course, naturally. Yes, it will take time. But, such is life.

    Posted by: MoaningElroy
  • I believe that the US needs a second economic stimulus package to put more money into circulation--but it needs to something much more than a simple "handout".

    The original stimulus package was introduced soon after Barack Obama's election--and was spent so quickly that many Americans didn't even notice the difference. The second stimulus package would have a greater impact if it was used to pay off student loans, or pay off credit cards, or pay off mortgages for qualifying citizens. If any or all of the payoffs were implemented, there would be billions in "freed-up" cash that could easily stimulate the economy beyond the expectations of economists worldwide.

    Posted by: ElwBoardin
  • Yes, there needs to be a stimulus package where people would be more apt to spend it than stick it in the bank.

    If there was another stimulus package introduced to the country, it would need to be one which would give people incentive to spend it, not save it. If we want to help the economy by spending more money, the government should come up with a plan that would encourage people to spend, rather than put it in the bank. Give people some kind of inspiration for what they can do with the money to help improve their lives and to help boost our economy at the same time.

    Posted by: PinkMych
  • Printing More Money is Not the Answer.

    That is right, Americans are already struggling and that is the point. Printing more money and adding it to the existing money supply devalues the money we already have. If Americans are already struggling how does anyone think higher prices for everyday living is going to help anybody? With the lack of accountability and mismanagement of funds that has been happening for some time now, no one should expect another stimulus to benefit struggling Americans.

  • Prolongs the Weak Economy

    A stimulus package, mostly consisting of additional spending, would not improve the economy. The mutliplier is around 0.8, which means that the economy has a net loss of $0.20 for every dollar spent. Spending now using deficits just means harming the economy later with higher interest rates and less money to spend. To reinvigorate the economy, food stamps have a strong multiplier and could be used in the short term, and tax cuts with spending cuts will stimulate the private sector, as confidence will be created, and the private sector will perform the services through the market efficiently, as private spending is usually more efficient, and of better quality, and better allocated via prices.

  • The government needs to stimulate the economy legitimately, not with band-aid approaches.

    America's economy is in shambles due to over-dependency on foreign money and products. A stimulus program does nothing to fix this fundamental issue. Also, the government is already drowning in debt. Where is the money for a stimulus package going to come from? Band-aids are not going to fix this economy.

    Posted by: KevonA
  • We do not need more government intervention and money printing.

    Driving down the value of the US dollar by printing more of it will not help stimulate the economy. More government regulation and involvement will also further exacerbate the problem by stopping the inevitable decline of companies and industries that should be allowed to follow the healthy cycle of a free market economy and live or die on their own merits.

    Posted by: MariaR
  • No, I think they need to start getting these companies to work with the people.

    They need to force these companies to stop practicing by means of payments of outrageous amounts of money to their leaders, and instead take that money and use it to help people. If these companies would use money to generate wealth to the people they could actually make more business for themselves and generate more revenue.

    Posted by: SlipArnal
  • I oppose putting more money into circulation, because the amount of money we have in circulation doesn't ensure American families will be helped.

    Putting more money into circulation does more harm than good. Our dollar has dropped significantly in the last few years, due to the fact that we have already printed more money than we can legitimize. Additionally, a stimulus package does less to help American families than it does to fund businesses yet again, as most Americans will spend the money as fast as they receive it. Finally, stimulus packages are temporary fixes, that don't address the root of the problem, which is more likely to be greed and illegal activities of the business owners.

    Posted by: daveyxh
  • No, we do not need another stimulus package that will do no more good than the first one, which only created an illusion of surplus.

    That's all we need is to incur more debt. This country is on its way out economically, and it's due to spending money that we don't have on things we don't need. A stimulus package doesn't help the economy at all. It just creates an illusion of surplus, when really it's a deficit.

    Posted by: N3vinFace
  • Circulating more money will only lower the value of the dollar bill more.

    US money is valued by the amount of gold represented, well, originally was supposed to. Now there is already more money than gold in reservation, why further dampen the value of the US dollar in comparison to other countries?

    Posted by: JamesonF
  • Although the US economy appears to be slowing, it is not yet clear that a second stimulus is needed.

    Economists disagree on the effects of the first stimulus, but the general consensus seems to be that, while it might have been the right thing to do at the time, and it may have prevented us from falling into a depression, it doesn't seem to have had all that much effect (much of the money hasn't even been spent yet). Aside from this, stimulus distorts market incentives and crowds out private investment. It also increases government debt dramatically, and it is not yet apparent that governments can pay off that debt in the long term. Because of these problems, I don't believe a second stimulus should be enacted.

    Posted by: VultureDer
  • The first one didn't work!

    Absolutely not! The first stimulus package didn't do anything for the economy. It makes no sense whatsoever to therefore have a second one when the first didn't do anything. It was costly, extremely costly, basically money wasted. The US can no longer afford to play these "maybe it'll work" games.

    Posted by: R34d3Homey

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.