So that's it. There's no debate about what constitutes the exact welfare at all. We have a program where we distribute tax dollars to people and call it welfare and that's it that entirely fits into what the general welfare was supposed to mean from the framers in the 1700's. I'm sure after literally fighting a war to regain independence over the issue of excessive taxation the framers totally intended for us to take from people who work to give to people who don't
Even this is making an unjustified leap. The general welfare clause is a qualifier on the taxation power. The statist's wedge depends on the proposition that the taxation power has, hidden within it, an
implied spending power, a power limited only by the vague concept of 'general welfare'. A taxation power, without a complementary spending power, is incomplete and pointless (or so the argument goes) - so we must assume that the taxation power is also a spending power, and the clauses aren't limitations on the taxation power, but instead justifications for a broad, general power to spend.
But the claim that, since no spending power is specified, we must assume it's an implied part of the taxation power is specious. The "necessary and proper" clause authorizes Congress to perform the required actions to perform their enumerated powers, including spending money to finance those efforts. The difference is that the necessary and proper clause still limits Congress to the enumerated powers.
but that isn't what we see among the majority of people calling themselves "libertarians".
Poll registered Libertarians. I think you'll be surprised. Your boogey-man is imaginary.