You are wrong. Not mistaken; wrong.
With most of the "spending" increases, there are very intersting increases in the amounts and/or quality of who is paying attention to what. Domestic Violence? We have documented proof Islamo-obsessed trends towards assaults on females, children, and males (not associated with Islomafasicm).
And, in re the other "big expenditures", we see necessary and very needed core infrastructure maintenance, repair, and/or "refocusing" items. Not just for the sake of "infrastructure"; but for tracking domestic, USA, terrorist networks and operations.
Two terms of Clinton, predominantly focused upon "social programs and largesse" have left the US quite open to not only disrepair (in re infrastructure) but for growth in links to terrorist network operations under various guises of "corporations" and networks.
Most legit corporations, and even those moneyed liberal organizations and leaders -- are aware that following the money is the bottomline, and that they too could become quite ensnared into if not under an operation which could destroy their own financial interests.
The rule of investments is -- you gotta put the money up front.
You lost me. I can't figure out what you are gettting at.
Under Clinton, there was LESS spending for social welfare. Bush is spending more--as a % of total spending--for social welfare than Clinton did.
Bush is spending so much money on handouts both here and to foreign nations that major military weapon programs are in jeopardy, and many have already been scaled back, delayed, or canceled.
Compared to Bush, Scumbag was a fiscal conservative.