At some point you have to figure out how to make the best tasting lemon drink you can out of the lemons you have. Making sure the rich don't get the money is l

At some point you have to figure out how to make the best tasting lemon drink you can out of the lemons you have. Making sure the rich don't get the money is less important to me than making sure the poor and less than rich actually get good outcomes. There's a word for punishing people even if it hurts you and in a way that could be avoided. It's called spite. We should care about helping the poor, and if possible, in a way that's not overly generous to those that don't need it. But we shouldn't be afraid to help the poor just because it also benefits those we deem not worthy. It's a somewhat subtle but I think very important distinction that needs to be considered in these discussions of the rich benefiting in these instances. It's almost impossible to prevent people other than those targeted from benefiting, and those with the most flexibility (which comes with money) are those most likely to be able to take advantage in some way of programs not aimed at them (if you help people in poor physical health by supplying money for physical therapy, companies that offer that service will benefit). Trying to prevent that at the expense of the people you're trying to help is not beneficial to anyone (especially since economically the input resources and output outcomes are not always linearly related).