Like Causes?

Install the App
TRY NOW

senate Bill S. 2416

Should States be Allowed to Use Federal Funds for Poverty Alleviation Pilot Programs?

Argument in favor

Federally administered poverty alleviation programs aren’t flexible or tailored enough to address the unique challenges that face poor families and individuals at the state or local level. Giving states flexibility to use federal funds for pilot poverty alleviation programs could help them design programs that effectively reduce poverty and respond to local needs.

Ayush's Opinion
···
10/03/2019
Poverty needs a solution, and it makes ethical sense to divert some federal funds to feeding and clothing the homeless. It should be the States’ decision how they wish to deal with this problem.
Like (36)
Follow
Share
Azrael's Opinion
···
10/03/2019
Feed the hungry Clothe the naked Provide shelter to those in need Anyone read that 2000 year old book they all like to thump?
Like (27)
Follow
Share
Donna 's Opinion
···
10/03/2019
We must address three main problems: income inequality ( poverty ), global warming, and the return of fascism.
Like (14)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

The claim that poverty rates haven’t gone down since the start of the war on poverty is nonsense. On many measures, social safety net programs have reduced deep poverty and helped the working poor. Allowing states to divert funds from existing federal poverty relief programs through this bill could hurt the neediest and most vulnerable Americans.

jimK's Opinion
···
10/03/2019
If States don’t want federal funding, they should not accept it. States should not be able to reprogram tax payer allocated funds. I do not trust this intent if this bill since it essentially sends the our taxpayer dollars to States to manage as they choose, without having accountability to tax payers for meeting an agreed to standard.
Like (44)
Follow
Share
Sean's Opinion
···
10/03/2019
We don’t need federal funds going to California, New York and others because it’s run dry with liberal policies. This is what happens when you always vote D, you get the D. There are consequences to elections. Residents and the media need to ask the tough questions and vote responsibly.
Like (23)
Follow
Share
burrkitty's Opinion
···
10/03/2019
Textbook Economic Poison Bill. This won’t help people. It doesn’t address the actual problem at all. It’s just a way for Republicans to damage the social safety net. The phase-offs need to be reworked to prevent the poverty trap. ALSO RAISE THE MINIMUM WAGE.
Like (16)
Follow
Share
    Poverty needs a solution, and it makes ethical sense to divert some federal funds to feeding and clothing the homeless. It should be the States’ decision how they wish to deal with this problem.
    Like (36)
    Follow
    Share
    If States don’t want federal funding, they should not accept it. States should not be able to reprogram tax payer allocated funds. I do not trust this intent if this bill since it essentially sends the our taxpayer dollars to States to manage as they choose, without having accountability to tax payers for meeting an agreed to standard.
    Like (44)
    Follow
    Share
    Feed the hungry Clothe the naked Provide shelter to those in need Anyone read that 2000 year old book they all like to thump?
    Like (27)
    Follow
    Share
    We don’t need federal funds going to California, New York and others because it’s run dry with liberal policies. This is what happens when you always vote D, you get the D. There are consequences to elections. Residents and the media need to ask the tough questions and vote responsibly.
    Like (23)
    Follow
    Share
    Textbook Economic Poison Bill. This won’t help people. It doesn’t address the actual problem at all. It’s just a way for Republicans to damage the social safety net. The phase-offs need to be reworked to prevent the poverty trap. ALSO RAISE THE MINIMUM WAGE.
    Like (16)
    Follow
    Share
    We must address three main problems: income inequality ( poverty ), global warming, and the return of fascism.
    Like (14)
    Follow
    Share
    Enough with the federal welfare redistribution scam. Cut federal taxes and allow states to fund and manage their own welfare programs.
    Like (13)
    Follow
    Share
    NO...JUST ANOTHER WASTE OF DEMOCRATIC FEDERAL SPENDING The claim that poverty rates haven’t gone down since the start of the war on poverty is nonsense. On many measures, social safety net programs have reduced deep poverty and helped the working poor. Allowing states to divert funds from existing federal poverty relief programs through this bill could hurt the neediest and most vulnerable Americans. SneakyPete.......... 👎🏻👎🏻👎🏻👎🏻👎🏻. 10.3.19..........
    Like (11)
    Follow
    Share
    Most government is corrupt, wasteful and inept.
    Like (9)
    Follow
    Share
    There isn’t one blanket solution that works in every state. Let the states decide what’s the best option for them.
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    Relieve poverty with whatever funds you can find. Put in programs that change the system.
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    Considering whose idea this is, I have to say no. She’s a big Pig lover! Got to be something fishy about this.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    There's nothing more important than helping poor people, and I'm not even interested in arguing about Federal versus state. Instead, I want our country not to ignore the least of these. None of us should be able to rest easy so long as our fellow human beings are hungry.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    No. The federal government should not be funding state programs. If the state wants to run them, they must pay for them.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    Yep. I believe in a strong form of central government, especially when States become so partisan to the point that they neglect citizens by assuming that the lower socioeconomic demographics are supporting a political agenda other than the legislators.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    While I support the sponsor’s stated goal, I cannot support this proposal. My reasoning follows: Positive attributes 1. It has a positive sounding title. 2. When read, it sounds like it is intended to allow local flexibility in developing solutions when tailoring safety net programs. Negative attributes: 1. This current version and the original version are republicant sponsored endeavors. This is an important negative attribute because republicants don’t believe in, support or propose safety net programs. As a result, any such republicant proposal that is not co-sponsored by certified REAL public servants has no credibility; none. 2. I did not see co-sponsorship or endorsement of any REAL public servants. Without certified REAL public servant co-sponsorship probability is extremely high that any resulting solutions will fall prey to republicant conditional logic for safety net programs: If Program helps people THEN kill it OR make it so difficult that people can’t use it THEN divert Program funds to rich via tax cut. ELSE give Program a patriotic name THEN divert funds to rich via tax cut. 3. republicants have been trying to kill the most successful safety net program in existence (Social Security) since it’s conception. As I have stated before, reputations matter. If republicants want to be taken seriously when they propose safety net solutions they should start with fully funding Social Security.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    I like the idea of flexibility, but when it comes to protecting people against poverty and hunger, I don't trust the states. States should have rights and some independence, but there needs to be a guaranteed baseline for a quality of living for all Americans, and that can't be left up to the states. We have states in this country that do not want their low-income populations to have healthcare, do not believe in high quality nutritional standards, and refuse to treat all their citizens equally. We can't trust these types of states to enact programs like these to care for the poor.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    Siphoning funds for a designated program inevitably dilutes the effectiveness of those programs. The way to help folks is to avoid increased bureaucracy - not encourage it.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    No, if they would like to try a pilot program then they should.use state funds to do so.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Republicans just can not face up to our continuing poverty through out America. They just want a one size fits all. This is not a good option, money could be allocated in the wrong way, which could and would effect the most needy.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE