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.

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

If there is mass starvation in the United States, due to people not having jobs, and being unable to feed themselves, would you say that the fruits of liberty are being shared?  The founders lived during a time when most people worked ojn farms, and there was plenty of land to go around.  America is no longer an agriculturally based economy.

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.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but did you think he was using the word welfare in the sense of the government program?  Because if so then you're wrong. 

Since 2001, job creation rate has remained anemic.  You hardly had any month creating more than 150000 new jobs a month in the United States.  It hasn't been there.  People who had been working had put in more hours, thus the productivity gains that were more (as seen in GDP).  Temp work increased also.  There is NOTHING that says that productivity efficiencies shiouldd result in a better life for anyone outside of the owner of the business that has productivity increased.  What the businesses did, with the increases in producitivity wasn't to redeploy people, but let them go.  To maximize profits, the trendy thing to do was to let people go.

Again, there is nothing to indicate productivity gains should benefit everyone.  Why should it, unless you are going on faith alone, to say it doess.

Throughout history there has been a relationship between increasing productivity of an economy and increased wellbeing of the average citizen. It is not an instantaneous relationship, and the productivity gains may not be the same as the ones that are currently tracked.

I’m not certain that everyone will agree with me, but I would personally argue that the reason wages have remained static (or declined) is because manipulation of the economy has decreased productivity in many western nations. In order to "Correct" the fallout of the dot-com bubble the United States (and many western nations) pushed interest rates to near record lows and increased government spending. One of the core results of this action was growth in the economy in careers that offered little or no benefit to the economy but profited from the asset bubbles that were forming due to such (insane) policies; consider the massive explosion in day-traders and real-estate flippers and how they offer no goods or services that people would willingly pay for.

With a smaller and smaller portion of the population involved in work of value, the increases in productivity went mostly towards maintaining the standard of living of everyone.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but did you think he was using the word welfare in the sense of the government program?  Because if so then you're wrong. 

Welfare in the context of the preamble, I believe means "the general state of well being of a nation".  Back in the day, it was believed churches, familes, and communities would chip in.  I spoke on cases where things happen to break down.  If the economy totally melts down, and people are without, the nation won't work.  Third-world nations have issues of property rights, crime, and civil wars, due in part due to economic lack.  What I was saying here is it is important that a nation be well-governed and the general welfare of those in the nation be lifted.  It is key that liberty bears fruit for people.  The pursuit of happiness does also refer to material wealth, according to the context of the time.

It should never be the business of government to chose a group of peoples rights to sacrifice, for the welfare of others. Government does not earn money. Every dollar they give to someone, they first have to take it from someone else.

Redistribution of wealth by the government, is an infringements on peoples rights. There is no getting around that. You can try and justify why it's the "right thing to do" all you want, but in the end, it will go against everything this country was founded on.

For some (like Obama), that's unimportant. For me however, it's very important.