I made a specific request that was ignored. Something I also consider a deflection technique of the left. Used until the original argument is lost and it becomes about the argument rather than the point.
What in heavens name are you talking about?

Government largesse will not, repeat not result in economic growth. The grants for welfare are the modern equivalent of; "give a man a fish". You feed him until the "fish: is gone than he returns for more of your "fish". Teach a man to fish and you feed him for life. Further, as your diagram shows, your economic model begins with taxes going to the Government. This money is money that is not available to GROW the economy. It provides for stagnation at best. And tends to lead to a situation where the Taxes begin to decrease. Such a decrease leaves the Government with two choices; increase taxes, (which increase the downward trend) or cut benefits (which does nothing for the economy at all.
As far as encouraging spending. Examine the "stimulus" money, most of which has yet to reach outside Washington, and you will see it did two things. Buy a single project or provide for a continuing project where future spending must come from the states. And all of the jobs are in the government ranks. The "stimulus: is only stimulating government!
True the economy seems to be based on spending but investment and saving are more durable than spending as the increase more than spending. To increase the economy by spending requires a steady increase in spending, that requires a steady increase in funding. Where is that funding to come from? Investment creates future funds!

Quote Originally Posted by SadisticNature View Post
Not only do you continue to argue your point without a single source, but you now expect me to source my challenge to your argument when you won't source either your arguments or your challenges to my arguments in this or other threads. This is a ridiculous double standard.

Furthermore you hold: The original statement stands. The original statement fails to stand because it contains a bunch of unsourced, unproven claims.

As for economic growth:

Even one time income for social service groups does create income for other businesses. Grocery stores make money because welfare recipients spend money there. Government workers spend their money on various goods in their communities, etc. In fact, in many cases the government can create faster cycling of money because it can distribute wealth into ways that encourage spending rather than saving, and spending drives economic growth at a faster rate than investment or savings do. The rate of money changing hands is a primary economic driver.

Taxes->Government->Social Security Recipients->Businesses providing essentials
is a rather quick turnover that drives a lot of economic spending.