Some view better education as a potential solution because poverty is often directly correlated with the level of education.
"Now the problem poor people have is obvious: they don't have enough money. They can't afford food, housing, or medical care. The simple, obvious, efficient way for the government to help them is to give them money so they can buy these things. So that is not how the government does it."
This is basically the libertarian argument for a basic income: if we're going to have an expensive welfare state, it should be efficient and it should actually accomplish its stated goals.
poverty is often directly correlated with the level of education.
It's even more directly correlated with the level of money.
Actually I don't know. If it is then that's certainly a good use of it and I agree that college is not an intrinsic good but ending poverty is. I suppose it's really a two-pronged problem. (1) We want to raise everybody up out of poverty. (2) We want people to be economically mobile, aka even in the case of UBI no-one wants to be a serf on the CEO's plot.