I'm not sure how cutting military spending (meaning laying off engineers designing weapon systems, welders putting together weapons systems, and cutting back on the number in the armed forces), letting banks fail (laying off people), ending the drug war (which means saving money by laying off policemen) will lead to reducing the expenditures on unemployment. Maybe long term it will lead to improvement but short term, cutting government spending equates to cutting jobs.
The money the government spends doesn't just get burnt into thin air. It gets paid out in a bunch of government contracts, those contracts buy products and services provided by private companies. Those private companies employ a lot of people and buy more products from other companies that employ a lot of people.
For better or worse, you need to recognize what happens when you cut government spending (a lot of people get fired, a lot of companies lose contracts) if you want to understand why people oppose cutting it.
The money the government spends doesn't just get burnt into thin air. It gets paid out in a bunch of government contracts, those contracts buy products and services provided by private companies. Those private companies employ a lot of people and buy more products from other companies that employ a lot of people.
For better or worse, you need to recognize what happens when you cut government spending (a lot of people get fired, a lot of companies lose contracts) if you want to understand why people oppose cutting it.