I agree we need to end the wars and come home, and we need to close our bases all over the world. But while we spend way to much on the military, at least it's what we are suposed to spend federal dollars on.

The federal governments job it to protect the US from foreign countries. It's not the responsibility of the federal government to make sure the people eat. Nothing in our founding documents said anything about taking care of anyone.

Taking care of people is a relatively new concept (last 100 years). When we fall, and one day we will fall, historians are going to look back and see why, and they will equate the beginning of the end, to the day we chose to provide for our citizens. 

This is the preamble to the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,^[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

While you can say the government has no role to insure that people are able to eat, I believe the preamble, and "promote the general Welfare" says something about making sure the citizens don't starve.  There is a problem that happens when people feel they can't survive, get food to eat, and have a chance to "secure the Blessings of Liberty" for themselves and future generations.  Starving people refuse to care about anything, and the well being of the country.  Liberty without blessings will end up not really being liberty at all.

...So how many welfare programs did Washington, Adams, Jefferson or any of the other founders that wrote the preamble build when they were president?

Stop/reduce the rate of immigration. Stop the freeloaders coming to the country and taking away Americans jobs. Send the immigrants back. America is full. Visa over stayers need to be arrested and kicked out of the country. Illegal boats are invading America not much of a  terrorist threat but an economic threat. These free loaders come in and damage the economy. 

Stop the boats. Tighten immigration laws. 

Promote the general welfare of the country.   As in... make sure the country as a whole is running optimily.

Improved efficiency and improved technology is fancy talk for job cuts. This will save companies on labour costs, increase production rates, increase profit margins for companies and higher return for share holders of the company. Corporate Communists are starving the people, more job losses, governments fudging the figures to support the Corporate Communists. 

If you are on the wrong side of the equation you are totally screwed.

Until the shovel was invented it took 10 men with their bare hands and crude tools to dig the same hole as quickly as 1 person with a shovel could, and until the back-hoe was invented it took 1000 men with shovels to dig the same hole as quickly as a back-hoe can. Did the thousands of back-hoes in the United States make 99% of the population unemployed, or did they free 99% of the population from wasting their time digging holes with their bare hands and crude tools?

Since the beginning of the industrial revolution there has been a fairly steady rate of people’s jobs becoming obsolete as machines are developed which can do far more work at a lower cost. While this produces a fairly stable percentage of the population who is unemployed and needs to transition to a new career, there is very little evidence to suggest that anyone is unemployed long term because of productivity gains.

Welfare in 1776 didn't remotely mean what it means today. If it did, it would not have taken 150 years to use the world in the way it's interpreted today.

You can't change the meaning of words, and then say that's what the constitution meant.

Before you speak, you really need a few lessons on economics. Or else, your going to continue to look very uninformed.

As Happy Squirrel has stated, productivity gains always have had net benefits to everyone in the end. Look through history, and you find that people will gain and lose jobs over new technology. Overall, it increases the standard of living, because the gains allow for more product to be made at a lower cost, which will inherantly reduce the cost of the product, making it more available to everyone. An example would be air conditioners. In the 1970's, cooling units inside of poverty-striken American's houses was just 5% of the total base of people in poverty (5% had air conditioning). Today, its 75%. This isn't because government did it, but because AC units dropped in price, relative to earnings by those in poverty.

For a current example, look at indians in the Amazon - they have no infrastructure, few tools, ect, but 100% employment rate. Do they live better day to day than we do? Personally, I think not.

Another case and point: Would you be against the invention of a free energy device? Something that would give clean, free, unlimited energy to everyone? According to your statements, you would be against such a device, because of the millions of jobs lost in energy companies.

The American Unemployment rates peaked at 30% during the Great Depression in the 1930s. Full employment during the World War 2. Dropped down to around 5% towards the 1960s. Oil crisis during the late 1970s- unemployment drifted upwards.  Since 1980 the government records have been fudged. Unemployment and inflation have been made to look as favourable as possible for the government and its power brokers.

The economic boom in the last decade was primarily due  to rising house markets and excessive consumption of imported consumer goods. The US economy has been in a recession since the onset of 9/11/01, but the house market and share market covered things up. Huge government debts and deficits every year. Fiat capital system and 100% finance loans(sub prime loans) played a huge role in the credit crunch.

The following decade will be of slow growth as the economy recovers in the US. 2  to 3% economic growth every year. The worst of the recession is over and a double dip recession has been avoided in the US. 

Taxes will need to be decreased and government spending will need to be reduced. Immigration will need to be decreased.  Decreasing taxes would increase employment and boost business investment. Wages will need to be lowered and the unemployment rates will fall.