Others have brought up multiple issues with your argument, and to be honest I don't use sites like this to get into pissing matches or to try in vain to change someone's opinion. Suffice to say, though, that your description of the situation is inaccurate at best and flat-out wrong at worst. A few things:
-I never mentioned anything about college (edit: my bad, I did mention it in passing, but I didn't advocate for universal college education, as you seem to imply; see below for why I think college "being a dream" is indicative of low quality education), so I'm not sure why you brought that up. When I mean "quality education," I mean education that 1) is provided in a safe environment and 2) enables students to, should they desire to do so, pursue a college education. I agree with you that the goal of universal college education is a stupid one. A college education is simply not necessary for the average person to achieve his/her vocational goals. Not to mention that it comes at a hefty price.
-You claim that "poor areas already receive all of those things but it hasn't reduced crime a bit." Based on what? Where did you get this information? How many urban centers did you look at? Where's the data? You make quite a claim there and then link to a website which itself provides no actual evidence other than "many studies say." And no offense if you're a student there, but I'm not going to accept carte blanche what some FSU professor has to say about social issues like this without some kind of substantiation - ESPECIALLY if that person is involved in criminology (versus, say, sociology or another field that actually looks at things like this). The topic is too politically contentious for me to trust sources of authority in that way. Again, where's the data?
-You're correct that social programs do exist, but can people get to them? Are they adequate and efficacious (i.e., do they actually do any good)? I'm in a major US city (one of the top 5 largest) in a state that is generally considered to be "liberal." I also happen to be a healthcare provider in an area that is racked with poverty. I can tell you from first-hand experience that the resources these people are offered by the city/county/state are pathetic and sorely lacking. As an example, the poor can get "free" medical care and medications at the large county hospital, but how can they possibly do that when it takes 2+ hours to get there by mass transit? At present, people that need meds are told to go to the county hospital and wait at the pharmacy starting at 7am and going until 5pm until their prescription is ready. There is no mechanism for dropping off and picking up prescriptions. You MUST drop your prescription off in person, and you MUST pick it up in person. If you're not there by 8-9am, the likelihood that you're getting your meds that day are next to zero. Even if these people do want to come to clinic, are they supposed to miss work for that? What if they can't afford to miss the wages they would've earned during that time? What do you say to the people that don't live within 15-20 blocks of a grocery store that provides food other than processed, manufactured crap a la chips, Twinkies, and sodas? The point here is that poverty is a multifactorial problem that cannot be pinned on one issue, be it education, employment opportunity, health, etc.. All of these things coalesce to enable or hold back poverty. Your analysis doesn't even discuss these other things - things which, I would argue, are substantially more important to one's socioeconomic status than education alone.
I'm more than willing to entertain the claims you make, but you have to show us the primary data. Otherwise your claim is nothing more than that - a claim.