WordInterrupted
Troll Kingdom Ambassador
Stereotyping? False attribution? These are things you do to me, my dear, not things I do to you. I'm scrupulous about not dismissing people based on stereotypes--even if, as in your case, they don't pay me the same courtesy.
At any rate, I find this question interesting because there are several ways one can argue against government intervention in the economy. One argument is that poor people deserve to be poor, for whatever reason, and therefore shouldn't be given assistance. This claim doesn't rely on empirical evidence, but on a certain conception of political morality and the purpose of government. The argument you seem to suggest is different in that it does rely on an empirical claim: the notion that government intervention makes people worse off. It conceeds, at least implicity, that government ought to promote the welfare of people at the bottom; the only question is how best to go about it.
Personally, I think arguments against government based in political morality are more successful. There are strong libertarian arguments against redistribution, for example. Empirical arguments against government are more difficult, at least in a broad sense, because you actually have to show that poor people are better off when government ends redistribution. That's a difficult argument to make, considering that over the last quarter century, redistributive programs have contracted, minimum wage has stagnated, while at the same time those living in poverty have done slightly worse. Of course, one can still convincingly argue that specific programs are harmful to public welfare.
