... and thus proved no point other than your tendency to read and interpret selectively on this topic, Baldurama.

Social program spending did not dwarf pentagon spending. Safety net spending was a mere 13%, considerably less than that spent by other First World countries, who can afford to spend a lot more because their "defense" (read: military) budget isn't nearly as huge.

Social security is considered separate from safety net spending, and is only given to the elderly and those who can prove they are legally disabled. Yet, the amount received per month is still a pittance compared to what it actually takes to live on (the average allotment for SSI to the disabled is a mere $158.00 per month; SSD is more, but still a fraction of what it takes to rise above what is considered the poverty level, with many receiving it not making more than $800.00 per month).

Medical spending is also considered separate, as it came from a different set of legislation than the social safety net spending. Medicare is also available only to the elderly and legally disabled. Medicaid availability depends on the state, and many individuals cannot get on it because they make just enough to be ineligible to receive it, but not enough to be able to afford expensive private insurance. Hence, millions are still uninsured or poorly insured in the U.S. Further, Medicaid often covers just the basics. CHIPS is hardly adequate either.