I peeked, forgive me. But, a sensible comment!
The poor don't stay poor necessarily; I'm above the amount where you are a net contributor now
. So in that sense, treating things like healthcare as a cost over your whole life is not fair comparison. In my 20s I was below that amount, also in my 20s I didn't use the NHS once, so clearly I personally was not subsidised in that part of my life when on that low salary, anyway. I imagine when I'm old and using the NHS I'll have contributed rather more.
Similarly infrastructure and the like, well... the benefits of that don't flow into the hands of people completely evenly. For example, things like roads will increase the value of the land around it, which means landowners get a dividend, poor folks who don't own land however might actually lose out if rents go up. Similarly, governments supporting business where poor folks work, much of the benefit for that presumably disproportionately goes to whoever is making the profits. Maybe in something like a cafe run by a family that's pretty much the same thing as the people who actually work in it but in many cases it's not, so again the poor aren't getting an equal share of the wealth the government is showering on an area.
And on top of that, if you don't use public services you're not getting the benefit of them. If you never use a library, the libraries budget is irrelevant for you. The fact you're charged for it and deemed 'not contributing' is not fair either. People are only subsidised if they actually use the services being offered, otherwise they really are not. And nebulous socialistic bullshit about how the fact libraries exist improve the lives even of those who don't use them is utter BS IMO.
So, in short, it depends. I have no idea how things work in the US, but to make some inferences based on how it is here and attempt to conjure up an example, lets consider, I dunno, Kansas. I bet the US has plenty of big agricultural subsidies because all western countries do. I'm sure some people in Kansas are coining it in in agricultural subs. I'm sure this expenditure makes the 'expenditure per head' in Kansas look pretty high compared to tax taken. OTOH, most ... Kansanians? are not going to be benefiting from that, at least not directly. I guess the shoeshine boy of a rich farmer is indirectly but if Pammy really thinks like that one wonders if the term 'left wing' means anything at all in the modern age.