Depends on the definition of welfare. By your exclusive definition, maybe you're correct. If we use a more inclusive definition that counts corporate welfare then one only need to look to NY and DC to find fabulously wealthy neighborhoods that were former slums, neighborhoods financed exclusively through government largess.Anecdotally, with the exception of a few small gentrification projects in inner city areas, I am personally unaware of any instances in which slums have miraculously morphed into middle class neighborhoods during my lifetime. I have, on the other hand, lived in two neighborhoods where the opposite transformation has taken place. While anecdotal evidence is not conclusive, I doubt that you can find a single instance in which a poor neighborhood became a middle class one through the agency of welfare spending.
LOL! I guess I didn’t state explicitly that by “neighborhood” I meant a community of people in a location and not the mere location itself. Pricing the poor out of a zip code and replacing them with lobbyists and attorneys really wasn’t my intent – but I give you credit for thinking outside the box. My opinion of “corporate welfare” is that it is a rhetorical terms for what amounts to either a misguided attempt to manage the economy or a slimy quid pro quo. I am opposed to both. I don’t think the government is competent enough handle the former, and if I don’t think the government should be in the business of distributing wealth I certainly don’t think it should be in the business of concentrating it either.