Perhaps you should read ALL of the Article you cited and you will find that the list is not what you report it to be. And the US Supreme Court - whose job it is to interpret that document - disagrees with you. Of course, that is their job and not yours.
no one that does not grow or hunt their own food would eat if their employer did not pay them.
And in your specific case, you employer is the same US Government that you have so much criticism and disdain for when they spend money on things other than you and your interests.
actually the point you are raising has nothing to do whatsoever on whether or not I should judge whether or not the Government should be in the business of easing the sting of poverty along with being in the business of defending it's citizens from foriegn threats. Those two functions are, in fact, completely unrelated.
Wrong again. Does the phrase "all enemies foreign and domestic" mean anything to you? It is the job of the US Government to preserve the peace and order in the USA and those programs serve that purpose. Hunger is an enemy. Starvation is an enemy. Freezing to death is an enemy. Or perhaps you view them as your friends?
incidentally, i find it especially hilarious that someone in your shoes (if there is a sector of public employment that can be credited with suckling at the teat, it's public sector unions) would accuse me of suckling at the easy teat of government, or somehow taking the equivalent of welfare.
Perhaps you should expand your attitude to accept that there are many ways that a large variety of people performing different and varied functions can all serve the interests of both the Nation and the American people. My remarks to you are to point out the hypocrisy of your contempt for government spending when it does not fall upon your blessed head.