That depends on what you call "social programs". If you count Social Security, then you're correct. The problem with that, of course, is that SS is collected as a retirement fund, and actually subsidizes other government spending. Last year, for example, SS was raided for $177 billion to cover other spending. Move SS out of the general fund, as should have been done years ago, and the figures show a different picture. According to Wickepedia:
If you add together the cost of SS, Medicare, Medicaid, and "various welfare programs," then you're correct. These figures can be interpreted in a lot of ways, however.
My interpretation is that the government spends way too much on a lot of things. The one I personally resent the most is that $159 billion for interest. That is just money flushed down the toilet.
Here's another interesting little graph of government spending:
I found it here:
Regardless of how much we spend on social programs, interest, or anything else, the fact remains that we spend a lot of money on the military, way more than any other country in the world. There is no real way to argue that we underfund our military. If there isn't enough money for some essential, it is a result of poor use of resources, not of us not throwing enough money at the problem.
The jury is still out on that one. There is no proof that I'm aware of that tax cuts result in increased revenues. I believe that theory was dismissed as "voodoo economics" by the senior Bush, wasn't it? Nevertheless, tax cuts are a good idea, so long as they are accompanied by spending cuts.
Yes, I realize that, and so did not advocate attacking Afganistan. What I said was that we needed to go after the real perpetrators of the attacks of 9/11, who were hiding in Afganistan and Pakistan. The nation building in Afganistan is a questionable government project, just as the one in Iraq is not really justifiable.
