I could really attack this argument a couple of different ways...
First, let's go with WHO does the rendering of this help/support/opportunity.
Since the 60's, the who has been assumed by the government, who is an uncaring, unfeeling entity. It simply "gives" and has, at this point, created a system of generational poverty and dependency. To the point that it eats up a large percentage of the yearly budget that therefore could be used to benefit more people if it went to roads, etc.
Put it back into the hands of the family/community and then things would change. This is what conservatives want to see happen. If Joe Smoe doesn't want to work after family and friends have helped, then Joe Smoe can starve or freeze. When a deadline is put into place, people tend to start getting motivated. When it isn't... they aren't.
Second, the term "given" is problematic. Suppose you're hungry. I give you a something to eat. We both go away feeling better. However, tomorrow you're back to being hungry again. If I give you something without any conditions, the problem is fixed only temporarily. If I show you the way to get the food for yourself, then turn you loose to get it, we both win. This is what conservatives try to do. Sadly, they often get crucified for being unfeeling for doing so by those who depend upon the downtrodden staying downtrodden.
Thank you for biting and proving my point so clearly.