Public spending is a fundamental topic in any democracy, since the benefits and services which result from it (such as urban infrastructure, drinking water supply, the police, public healthcare and education) make communal life in complex modern societies possible. Yet, we are witnessing politicized disagreement about which public benefits and services deserve more, or less, funding. Movements such as Defund the Police on the left or  calls to privatize the NHS on the right showcase this trend. Previous research found that individual support for public spending comes from various personal and (perceived) societal factors: demographic characteristics (e.g., socio-economic status), political orientation (e.g., neoliberalism), attitudes towards co-beneficiaries (e.g., prejudice against ethnic minority beneficiaries), and institutional (dis)trust. In this work, we examine how these factors affect the preferences for funding various public spending goals. We distinguish two such broad goals, as being both theoretically relevant and intuitive: universal and security resources. We show that preference for spending on one or the other type of resource is upheld by a different cluster of socio-political attitudes, where prejudice against potential outgroup beneficiaries and institutional trust play a key role.