Consider how these programs work in reality, and realize that they do not benefit the people that they're supposed to help. An individual who is on welfare tends to lack the education and experience that is needed to get a job to cover their cost of living, and welfare ensures that they will never receive this education or experience and ensures that they remain in poverty and dependant on the government. Food stamps act as a subsidy to employers who do not pay their employees well, as a cost to employers who pay their employees a living wage, and eliminate the benefit of paying an appropriate wage; and the net result is they eliminate well paying jobs in favour of jobs that pay poorly. Rental subsidies encourage landlords to increase their rents until the people who receive the subsidy are no better off, while the cost of rent for everyone who doesn't receive the subsidy tends to increase.

Basically, compare and contrast the money spent trying to improve outcomes in most nations and observe that (in spite of ever increasing social spending) outcomes have remained the same or gotten worse ...

With that said, if you go back before the government tried to manipulate the economy (to the extent they do today) and you will find that the vast majority of individuals were able to meet their (and their family's) basic needs by trading goods or services they provided to other individuals. The most likely outcome of reducing taxes to individuals while eliminating social spending would be an increase in demand for goods and services that could be provided by the individuals who were no longer supported by the government. A household might look for someone to provide cooking or cleaning services, an out of shape individual might look for a personal trainer, or a middle aged individual might look for a care-giver for their aging parents; and this is not an all inclusive list of the potential jobs that would be created.

I guess we should throw out the 40 hour work week, vacation, and sick pay.  Just get rid of all these worker's rights that are a hinderance to large corporations.

About the bold, how far back is that?

As far as I see, as imperfect as this world is, the lower classes (I mean globaly, sure there may be local exceptions) are far better off than at just about any other point in history. Sure one can argue why that is and to which extend the States have been actually helping or not, but still.

The lower classes are far better off today than in any point in history because technology has reduced the amount of labour required to produce the goods and services that are considered necessities.

As for how far back you have to go ... In most western countries the expansion of government entitlement programs happened primarily through the 60s and 70s.

Wind back the paltry Federal minimum wages to no minimum wage just like in China and Asian nations. Alaska minimum wage is  higher than mainland America The vast majority of Americans can barely live off their low wages as it is due to no real growth in wages for the bottom 50% of society in 30 years due to the breaking down of unions and the implementation of shock economics popularised by Reagan and Thatcher. Top 20% have experienced 83% increase in real wages over the same period of time of 30 years. 

China respects human rights and should be the way America and the western world should follow? No minimum wage in China/Asia and child slave labour and sweatshop factories set up to supply goods to the western world.  Free trade/globalisation policies must be good: all in the name of economic rationalisation. Globalisation economic policies in the name of free trade is nothing like free trade. Shock economics has worked well  in mass unemployment, civil unrest, bankrupting of nations, breaking up unions and mass starvation in Latin America and around the world. 

About technology, and mainly production, as a reason, I completelly agree.

But look at work conditions before the 60s and 70s. It was almost slavery. I'm not one for lots of taxes and all that (I'm brazilian, we have asinine tax levels around), but I do think some of it, if well spent, can help spread the goods a little bit on a basic level without taxing better off people too much. Now of course I agree with you that assistencialist programs can backfire, so I think it's more about how much you collect and how you spend it then getting rid of the idea altogheter.

Do you think that the vast majority of individuals would work more than a 40 hour work week, would not receive vacation, or would not get sick-leave if the government didn't mandate it?

Much like the minimum wage, most of the time these kinds of regulations are put in place or revised it is done at a level where the vast majority of employers are already exceeding the regulation; and most of the employers who fall short of the regulation maintain their cost structure by eliminating jobs. Essentially, compare the mandated wages and benefits within countries to the wages and benefits of the top 90% of employees; and then look at the unemployment rate (in particular the unemployment rate of the young) in jurisdictions where these mandated wages and benefits are competitive with the top 90% of employees. What you will find is that few people get these minimums, and those that do simply lose their job when the minimum is increased.

Slavery?

In relative terms, a household earning the median income has probably never been as well off as they were in the 1950 ...

Absolutely, because that's the way it was before these regulations were put in place.

We've come so far in the past 100 years, its unimaginable that people actually want to throw our rights away.