It is a major fallacy to consider the "poor" as an aggrieved class. People are poor for a great variety of reasons. Many lack any of the essential aptitudes for success; others may have had the aptitudes, but suffered some setback, which for another great variety of reasons, they were never able to overcome. Then there are those, who have simply lost the incentive to apply themselves. Some may have violated some law or standard of conduct, which led to their ostracism from respectable contacts. The old Church managed Welfare system, discussed by Jefferson in his Notes On The State Of Virginia, & reprinted in Chapter 1 of the Debate Handbook (see below) could differentiate among those "in need," in ways that the present Welfare State can not. It could make ethical judgments, invoking traditional moral values--the now largely discarded incentives to constructive behavior.
Can any proposed reform, promoted by Government, actually provide a net social benefit? And, if so, what type of reform?
There is no great mystery here. While political efforts to alter society--to engineer major cultural changes--are virtually certain to do more harm than good because of the intellectual confusion discussed; when Government seeks to reform itself, it deals with what it actually knows or should know, with infinitely greater likelihood for success. This is the essential difference between the Reagan reforms in America and the "New Deal," "Great Society" & Clinton/Bush eras. It is the difference between what Margaret Thatcher achieved in Great Britain & what the Social Reformers in the Labour Party have wrought whenever they had the chance.