If you read the details of the Constitution, you find that defense is mandated, social safety sofa is not. Donate if you want, sure. It’s called charity, and use of the State to deliver it is not charity.
Reading the actual document in the words and arguments in context at the time of debate, so as to avoid bait and switch in meanings, we find the general welfare clause is constrained within the other articles and limits, and even the authors point this out. If you reverse this, you wind up with a govt with total power limited only where expressly stated, instead of a limited govt with power only where explicitly authorized within the document. (This was emphasized by Jefferson, or was it Madison, I forget.)
I get complaining about spending, sure. But let’s make sure it stays within the context of the document as written. Not as reinterpreted instead of amended, the sole legitimate method for changing it.