In that case, the money is actually being invested by the government in "roads, schools, and other long-term projects".
Or at least some portion of it is - the rest is given to favored classes of Americans (a big chunk of govt spending is redistribution, not investment).
The Fed has been doing this as a backhanded way of recapitalizing the financial sector (lending money at extremely low rates which banks then pour into liquid but higher-paying investments like Treasuries along with more speculative leveraged plays against the USD).
It isn't hard for players with privileged access to capital to print money in this situation, and this is what makes the exorbitant compensation rankle: if the unstated justification for the money pump is to recapitalize the financial sector the constant hemorrhaging of assets on personnel compensation is parasitic and abusive.
You'd be forgiven for saying that because thats always been the case. Until 2009.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/EXCRESNS
The banks don't spend the money, they stuff it in the Fed. The bankers dont spend the money (as you point out), they put it in bank, or in treasuries, or they buy stock (and then the seller puts it in a bank, or in treasuries, or they buy stock). Or they pay off some debt. Sometimes, rarely, the money is invested in a small company that actually creates jobs. However, if I was rich and didn't give a shit about my fellow citizens, I'd be investing in emerging economies, not the USA. Any evidence bankers are like that?
New jobs come from small businesses. $5t would jump start a lot of small businesses.
The irony is that if that $5t were invested in small businesses etc, the bankers would probably be making just as much if not more.