It's not correct to say that America isn't a welfare state, and if you're a Democrat (which it sounds like you are), then you should not be offended by that term.

This is the distribution of federal spending: https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/images/pubs...

Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid consist of almost 50% of the federal budget. If you include "Other," which includes other welfare programs such as veterans benefits, federal food stamps, as well as "Non-defense," which includes additional veterans benefits/housing/health, you can see that a very large percentage of the federal budget is on welfare programs.

Military budget in the US is obviously absolutely atrociously massive, but it is only about 15% of the budget.

If you look at the federal debt, you can see that the trajectory doesn't look great: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/Total_US...

So I don't think it is at all fair to say that the US is not a welfare state, particularly when compared to the foundation of the country being rooted in laissez-faire classical liberalism. I am all for the discussion of mitigating attempts on economic distribution of wealth, but what we have in place even now already far surpasses what the budget is capable of facilitating (in terms of cost, not strategy or outcome).

I'd like to add that the military itself is kinda looking like a welfare program. The US isn't at war. The military is often considered a fall back carrier path. If we even get 10 cents on the dollar in return for military labor, I'd be surprised.

When I step back and look at it in a larger picture, I kinda see a welfare program that demands its recipients stay in shape and follow some special rules.

Not a bad point. Military service is actually one of the most reliable paths for upwards economic mobility, and it is absolutely not tied to any natural demand or market. In practice it does serve a welfare-like function, albeit inefficiently.