I'm too lazy to look up the numbers, but I think the premise of this argument is rather weak.

Money spend on social welfare, vastly improves poor people's lives. When you spend it on corporate welfare, the money tends to go into the pockets of people who are already pretty comfortable.

This is a simplification of a multifaceted issue, but by and large I think this holds a lot more water than just comparing numbers.

Also: There was a pandemic in the time period given, so there might be some selection bias.

It depends on what exactly you consider social welfare and corporate welfare. There's all sorts of ways to split the data.

Let's be more specific and find out how much public money was spent on sugarry snacks for fat people, which is his ridiculous complaint. I'll assume we're not psychopaths who are generally against a social safety net.