Yeah these are not uncommon.
This assumes the (fallacious) notion that “aggregate spending” (which, has its own problems in itself) is what drives economic growth. In other words, this argument assumes that money simply being spent is “good for the economy”. For information on why this is false (which, this is basic Keynesian economics, so you will find mountains of refutations here) you might start here and here and here.
For basic argumentation treatment on this area, see Argumentation:Consumerism and for more detail, The Failure of the New Economics.
However, that argument is so bad, we can even assume the false premise it rests on, and it still fails. Think…if the problem is not enough spending (which is the whole point, right? The argument is, giving unemployed people money they didn’t earn is a good thing because they tend to spend it rather than invest it or save it), then why don’t we give them more money? Why don’t we have the government write a check to every unemployed person for a million dollars? That would create some spending, wouldn’t it?
And furthermore, if that’s a good idea, why do we allow anyone to have a job? All you have to do is outlaw employment and self-employment, (i.e. make it so that it is illegal to work), thus making everyone unemployed, and then provide “unemployment benefits” to everyone. This way, you make sure that everyone is spending money instead of saving and investing it. Would that not provide an even greater stimulus? Afterall, we’d have a lot more people spending.
Check out the discussion in this thread. I think it may help greatly…
Three questions from a clueless high school student
Quite a few good resources here.
P.S.
Welcome to the forum! See the beginner thread here for helpful tips.