Socialism isn't about just spending money, it's about using collective resources for collective benefit. Infrastructure bills would be an example, as would various social welfare programs. I agree that the easiest money flows to the military in some form since no one seriously asks "how are we going to pay for it?" prior to sending weapons or otherwise participating in military action.

Corporate subsidies would not be socialist spending since it aims to benefit a corporation, but the typical capitalist narrative is that by benefiting a corporation you benefit society. A market based solution. Both Democrats and Republicans use this narrative, but Republicans also endorse tax cuts for corporations, while Democrats mainly favor subsidies. Obamacare is an example of the subsidized method and would be considered "neo liberalism." Socialism would just be medicare, or alternatively fully state operated healthcare. Socialism is not centered around making space for a "market" or other corporate involvement. That is why I said military contractors throw a wrench into the concept of the military being socialist. The need to cater to contractors in most government projects is itself counter to socialism.

I'm not trying to make an argument for anything, just trying to explain the concepts without hyperbole. In general, when a market is used as the basis to implement something, or there is a push to make something "affordable" that is not socialism because socialism doesn't revolve around markets, you simply have the function. It's like saying making police or fire fighter calls affordable, it implies a market requirement and is contradictory to socialism.