As such one could argue that, if for SLS for every govermnent dollar spent, 8 cent pay for the vehicle/ mission , 92 cent become a general economy subsidy, securing jobs and economic growth in entire regions or states.This statement is really what your entire argument rests on, and the numbers are obviously completely made up.
While for SpaceX, although cheaper by factor 10, 80 cent pay for the actual rocket, and only 20 cent trickle back into the economy.
The SpaceX number is obviously wrong, because you are basically claiming that 80% of money paid to SpaceX goes to aluminum imports and similar, which is completely untrue.
Also, because of multiple stages of trickle down the total increase can be greater than 100%, but your description is incomplete and ignores this. As an example, NASA spending in 1987 overall had a multiplier effect of 2.1, and some specific industries were higher such as electronic components with a multiplier of 5.9. (Your .92 of "general economy for SLS" would mean a multiplier of 1.92) Source.
SpaceX/EM has stated that raw materials (aluminum mostly) constitute 1% of the price of a launch
-- the other 99% is people and machines, plus other raw materials, some parts, etc.