Borzo, it depends on what school of economics you belong to. Mainstream economics which is has been dominated by the neo-classical school does not consider it good strategy. Neo-classical economics focuses on economic efficiency and supports policies that distribute resources to the most productive use. It has a very libertarian bent to it, and believes that the only efficient distribution can be achieved through market forces, and that government welfare causes distortions in that market. It is a misallocation of resources and creates false incentives, they claim. Government policies should be focused on easing access to capital and creating a stable environment for firms to operate in, which also means minimal regulation.
A major problem with the above is that the only criteria for productive use is whatever generates profits regardless of how many people may actually benefit from that production. So five million dollar homes are considered productive as long as there is a buyer willing to pay for it. It claims that economics is purely a positive discipline - i.e. purely descriptive and value-free. Or rather the only value that matters is the extrinsic value of a good in the market place, and that its price exceeds its cost. Any attempt at normative values, i.e. what ought to be, is futile.
Several critiques of neo-classical economics exist and it is losing the hold it has had on the mainstream for the last sixty-odd years.
The most relevant is probably the development economics school where the main figure is Amartya Sen. I highly recommend Development as Freedom which proposes that the focus of economics should not be efficiency but the development of capabilities for each person to act as their own agent for change.
It focuses as much on human development as economic development. The majority of the work has been focused on developing third world economies, but much of it is applicable to populations of any economy, especially the lower classes. It gives the government and other institutions a much greater role than neo-classical models in creating an infrastructure for that development, and the allocation of resources should based on the capability of increasing human welfare - education, health, environmental wellness, human rights, as well as economic opportunities. It is highly normative - it posits a model of human wellness and advocates policies to achieve that model.
I started athread not to long ago which is similar - that money spent at the bottom would be more effective than money spent at the top. But I was focusing on micro-businesses, not on traditional welfare, but I agree with your sentiment. A million dollars given to the poor would have a stronger multiplier than a million dollar tax break to the rich. The claim is that they have a greater propensity to invest, but most of it goes to passive investments such as previously-issued stocks or existing real estate, or worse, to conspicuous consumption which uses up assets without creating new ones, and not to productive investments such as new factories or equipment. The poor will spend it, which means that businesses will still receive those funds, but first it will spent on goods that people actually need, not on items to impress those at the country club.
Providing welfare should not be seen as an entitlement - at least no more than the right to live without fear of dying from preventable conditions should be considered an entitlement - but as increasing a person’s capabilities to take risks and decide their own path, such as the example Voyager gave.
Unfortunately the political climate suggests that the poor are lazy. In my experience it is the rich who are lazy - they only do the bare minimum necessary. Urban blight and industrial wastelands don’t exist because of the poor, but because of the rich pulling their money out and letting a property fall into disrepair because it is cheaper for them to take the money and run, and stick the costs of cleanup and redevelopment onto the buyer of last resort - i.e. the government - which is also now poorer since it no longer earns tax revenues from those properties being in use.