When the US was still considered a collection of neighborhoods, cities, and states (rather than one federally controlled mass), private charities and churches were the primary providers of welfare. When your next door neighbor, pastor, and relatives were the ones donating clothes, food, or shelter to you; your incentive was to show your appreciation for their help by eliminating the need for it. This still works when tried today.

The locus of responsibility was close to the recipient of the aid. The recipient saw the faces of the people who were helping them every day. People felt ashamed if they were not doing everything they could to improve their situation and the donors would follow up when they thought people were not doing their part. Those with the means to help felt a personal obligation to help.

The Progressive movement changed all of that.

As populists campaigned for government paid benefits, the roles of private charities and churches was reduced. When Progressives got elected, their tax increases reduced the money available to donate and increased the demand for government assistance. Government bureaucrats have neither the time nor incentive to effectively hold recipients of aid responsible for improving their condition. In fact, the politicians have an incentive to increase the number of people who see themselves as reliant on them for their basic needs. Over the years, politicians have used these people to solidify their voting blocks and drive wedges between the voters.

What was once seen as a personal problem has become distant and less human. Tax payers resent all who receive aid because some flaunt their ability to game the system. The "welfare queen" reputation prevails. At the same time, recipients do not respect the individual tax payer’s right to what they earn. The "greedy capitalist" reputation prevails. Politicians benefit as the people spend so much time fighting each other that they fail to place blame where it belongs – with the Politicians.

Effective welfare is funded by private citizens freely giving their own money to the charities of their choice. Effective welfare does not threaten the benefactor with prison time if they choose not to contribute money to the beneficiary. Effective welfare holds the recipients accountable for getting themselves up on their feet. The goal of effective welfare is eliminating the need for its own existence, not creating and fostering intergenerational dependency for political gain.
References :

how many sister Driscolls are there?

and perhaps the most important… what about the children of the people that don’t want to be a part of a program like that?

it’s a great idea… now let’s do it on a grand scale… instead of peacemealing it together randomly at the whim of this church or that…

how about making a real difference instead of one nice story?

that’s the problem with conservative ideas… they take a lot of time, a lot of money and a lot of patience… yet there seems to be a lack of all of those things coming from conservative party members… sure there is this one or that one that does it… but relative to the need, it’s grains of sand on the beach…
References :

That phrase, "teach a man to sell fish for an inflated price while other peons do the fishing for him at a slave labor rate so he can sit around and complain about being taxed for ever" is more akin to the "Conservative way".

(No, the best way to help the poor is by educating them.)
References :