If you turn that argument around you get Bush's corporate socialism. If you take money from consumers and give it to corporations so they can employ more consumers and make more products then that would be equally absurd. In fact though both these things do work when the economy is in trouble or unbalanced.

Unforeseen disasters can create economic recessions in a country where either capital formation or consumers are badly affected. To recover from this Keynesian economics states the government redirects money to stimulate the damaged area. So if the economy is suffering from a lack of money for consumers to buy products then there are two alternatives. One is to do nothing and eventually enough producers will go bankrupt, their assets sold at a discount, and asset redistribution occurs to the lower classes. The other is higher taxes for the wealthy redistributes money that the producers then work at trying to earn back.

The idea is to get everybody working hard. When there is little money in the lower classes people can't do much, can't buy much, can't retrain, etc. With too much money in the higher classes they can't sell products to people who can't afford them. So they are also inefficient because their factories and abilities can't be utilised because they can't be afforded.

Money is like blood in the body, it needs to circulate to create wealth. Lending money is not the same, it doesn't help people buy things they consume because then they couldn't pay the money back.