No food stamps for people convicted of violent crimes

reply to post by Cabin

No food stamps for people convicted of violent crimes

I agree that this seems entirely the wrong avenue, especially for those who have served their time and paid their debt to society. How does one reason that causing someone to go hungry is going to serve an ounce of justice (as we as a nation supposedly see it)?

The next step from here would be to withhold medicines... what kind of society are we devolving into?

Originally posted by Cabin

On Wednesday, the 2013 Senate Farm Bill was amended by to make those convicted of certain violent crimes ineligible for SNAP (Supplementary Nutrition Assistance Program) benefits, popularly known as food stamps. The amendment was passed by unanimous consent, meaning that neither Republicans nor Democrats objected to the bill.

tv.msnbc.com...

This seems as very bad idea to me. Most criminals start because they have no money to live. This will only make things worse and is likely to make somebody who made something stupid when being young turn back to crime after getting out after the jail punishment. After jail it is not easy to find a job and the need for staying alive might send lots of people back to the negative path. I do not see any benefits in this one... Just makes restarting one´s life and crime even worse.

edit on 25-5-2013 by Cabin because: (no reason given)

This is how it starts folks. First it's "certain violent crimes" then it's "drug crimes", next it will be "oh you didnt pay your phone bill this month". Pretty soon the govt will use any little excuse to cut off your welfare.

This is a slippery slope and if the farm bill passes it will set the stage for govt to use the nations food supply as a means of controlling us further.

Originally posted by ButterCookie

Finally a voice of reason

Nature is the best character in this story. Nature allows those who do not 'chose' to be a positive force in society to die off, because it then becomes a burden to society. Look at the animal kingdom.

It is evolve or die.

You know what irony is?
You support Survival of the Fittest and so do the violent offenders by taking or killing whoever they want.

Your no different than the ones you are judging.

Originally posted by jacobe001

Originally posted by ButterCookie

Finally a voice of reason

Nature is the best character in this story. Nature allows those who do not 'chose' to be a positive force in society to die off, because it then becomes a burden to society. Look at the animal kingdom.

It is evolve or die.

You know what irony is?
You support Survival of the Fittest and so do the violent offenders by taking or killing whoever they want.

Your no different than the ones you are judging.

In other words, you support these offenders' actions and feel that society actually owes them and should be taxed more to support them?

Irony??

I didn't realize people who committed violent crimes were eligible in the first place. But what happened here is that they just they just trimmed the eligibility circle of who gets food stamps.
This comes up every year and Democrats try the same thing every year to paint Republicans as heartless meanies and themselves as the compassionate heroes of society. This is a trick, as if they weren't destroying the rest of the economy, we wouldn't be having to make such difficult decisions.
Let me tell you, I started researching this farm bill thing. Farm subsidies as we know them started with FDR as part of the New Deal. It was meant to help small farm families struggling. I guess some of you remember reading about the Dust Bowl and various things which had made things bad for farmers crops for years and there may have been a real reason to subsidize farmers for a time, but we've institutionalized it so much that wealthy corporations get money too.
Agricultural subsidies take taxpayer money and give it to farmers to even out costs. In other words, it's government meddling in commodity prices. If the price of something goes down in the marketplace, the government will use taxpayer money to help out the farmers make up the difference.
So now we are paying to keep prices artificially stable.
Now let's get to the interesting stuff. If Republicans want to cut food stamps, the program spending is attached to the farm bill, and since people like agricultural welfare, they try to keep farm subsidies going. Democrats like Organic farming subsidies because it's part of the "Sustainable Development" plan of Agenda 21, and Organic Farming sounds so darn "Sustainable", but they don't want to give up food stamps for children of illegals, so this is what they cut....food stamps for violent criminals.
Now I checked out a particular NGO which opposed last year's farm bill, and it was all the whole Sustainability thing which screamed Agenda 21 to me, so I found a PDF which outlines this organization's agenda. WIC was part of it, it's in the outline. Why is a Sustainable Development organization concerned about women and children getting food stamps? Well, because social and economic justice is what Agenda 21 is all about and NOT reducing pesticides from crops. You see Income Redistribution is what it is about, and reforming people's ideas about our behavior(which includes food, water, and land resources). Agenda 21 is all about controlling the resources, especially the land, and the distribution of food.
What else is on that outline of the Sustainable Coalition? The Wetlands project. What does that have to do with agriculture farm bills? Well since Agenda 21 is really about getting people off their lands and into the big cities for easier management(see Rosa Koire's book "Behind The Green Mask"), and the Wetlands Project is all about doing that through the mask of "preserving the lands" for spotted owls and such.
What else is there? Why it's an endorsement of President Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

Who knew? Obama signed an EO and created the White House Rural Council, which basically is Agenda 21 implemented through the White House.

If you don't believe me about this stuff, let the PDF do the talking

sustainableagriculture.net...

What else is interesting, is Monsanto has joined the International Sustainable Coalition as a green company involved in Sustainable development. Any notice the protests of Monsanto in 40 countries around the world? And I don't think anybody really knows their involvement in Agenda 21 NGOs.
www.thenewamerican.com...

So that's my say in this. Bureaucratic politicians are fighting over violent criminals getting food stamps and the real issue is Totalitarian takeover of our resources Globally.

Thanks everybody for playing.

Originally posted by jacobe001

Originally posted by ButterCookie

Finally a voice of reason

Nature is the best character in this story. Nature allows those who do not 'chose' to be a positive force in society to die off, because it then becomes a burden to society. Look at the animal kingdom.

It is evolve or die.

You know what irony is?
You support Survival of the Fittest and so do the violent offenders by taking or killing whoever they want.

Your no different than the ones you are judging.

Jacob, cmon. Violent offenders likely didn't get food stamps when the Constitution was drafted and I see nothing in the Constitution which says that society has to feed violent offenders who are not in prison.
This stuff goes on every year in budget cutting committees. People are sitting here arguing about this when our government is borrowing from China for black budget ops and gun running in Syria and Mexico and our ambassadors are getting killed.
If you want to complain about Darwinian survival of the fittest, then best you look into the UN Agenda 21, as that is the real stuff here, where the plan is to run people off their rightful lands and put them into big city apartment buildings just like the Soviets did in the hey day of communism. The UN plan is to depopulate the earth down to about 500 million. The proponents of Agenda 21 have stated so in bold letters.
I've outlined where this farm bill fits in to the Agenda Sustainable crowd.

hint: there's a reason Monsanto is part of it

reply to post by Nicks87

This is how it starts folks. First it's "certain violent crimes" then it's "drug crimes",

Well, you may have a point here, but only in the bigger picture of Agenda 21 control of all the resources, the land, the food and water.

reply to post by SaturnFX


So now we are traitors if we decide to withhold food stamps from violent criminals? You see, this is the kind of thinking produced by the welfare state crowd.
If you want to help them, then why not start with some kind of program to help them get JOBS after they get out. If they can't get jobs they can't feed themselves. Who will give a job to a known murderer?
But in any case, a welfare state is not what our Founders had in mine when they drafted the Constitution.

Originally posted by AllGloryIsGods

Originally posted by jrod
If the government truly wanted to save money on the food stamp program, they would go after those who abuse the system, not deny people in need to mistakes in their past.

I was inline buying some ribs for a BBQ at a friends. Guy in front of me in more expensive clothing then me didnt speak a lick of English broke out a Lonestar card to buy his food (this is SNAP in Texas). I only had one item so I was able to get through quickly walked out right behind him and his kid. They got into a brand new Escalade and I mean BRAND NEW.

We have a SERIOUS issue is Texas and other border states with females saying they live alone and have no income and multiple kids. When in fact the husband goes out and works for cash and doesn't report or pay taxes. They do not need to be citizens it says so on the forms you fill out for TANF, SNAP, Medicaid and Obamaphone. You get it all even if you are not a citizen of this country.

If you don't have a SS# you get free care at the hospital it will never be put on your credit report or charged to you. The system is a failure. Illegals are the ones breaking the system not felons.

edit on 26-5-2013 by AllGloryIsGods because: (no reason given)

I was reading yesterday about how people come over the border for medical attention and cannot be turned away. Well, apparently there have been stories about 16 year old girls being impregnated in Mexico and then come here for a free abortion. Our POTUS advertises in foreign countries to give food stamps to these people, and so they come. That is how deeply institutionalized this welfare state consciousness is. It's part of the larger plan to bring Marxism to the States.

reply to post by wantsome

Bottom line you can't judge someone on food stamps by what they drive or how they dress

Have you not heard? We are the Food Stamp Nation since this President got in office. This is part of the Cloward/Piven strategy to overwhelm the system and bring Marxism to the country. People have lost their jobs and the jobs went overseas, outsourced to other countries, and won't be coming back soon unless we get this stuff worked out. Democrats love regulations and then pad the labor unions with tax money.
So yah a person who just lost his job may need some temporary assistance, but apparently this administration has partnered with the Mexican govt to actively promote the use of food stamps and get people enrolled on them.

story:
news.investors.com...

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

So now we are traitors if we decide to withhold food stamps from violent criminals? You see, this is the kind of thinking produced by the welfare state crowd.
If you want to help them, then why not start with some kind of program to help them get JOBS after they get out. If they can't get jobs they can't feed themselves. Who will give a job to a known murderer?
But in any case, a welfare state is not what our Founders had in mine when they drafted the Constitution.

The point is do we live in a civilized society or not. We can't be half-arsing it now can we? Either we agree that we don't live in a society and it's EVERY (not just who we don't like) man/woman for themselves, or we agree that we are civilized and we insure EVERY man/woman have the basics.

Our ENTIRE society is a "welfare state". None of us can provide everything we need in our lives. We aren't growing or raising our own food.

Who cares what our Founding Fathers had in mind. They died over 300 years ago.

1. Privatize prisons.
2. Monetize prisoners by making prisons 'for profit' corporations.
3. Create a scenario to retain violent prisoners by cutting options that promote reacclimation.
4. Profit.

Follow the actual money. SNAP costs nothing compared to the cost of keeping people IN prison.

Originally posted by DZAG Wright

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

So now we are traitors if we decide to withhold food stamps from violent criminals? You see, this is the kind of thinking produced by the welfare state crowd.
If you want to help them, then why not start with some kind of program to help them get JOBS after they get out. If they can't get jobs they can't feed themselves. Who will give a job to a known murderer?
But in any case, a welfare state is not what our Founders had in mine when they drafted the Constitution.

The point is do we live in a civilized society or not. We can't be half-arsing it now can we? Either we agree that we don't live in a society and it's EVERY (not just who we don't like) man/woman for themselves, or we agree that we are civilized and we insure EVERY man/woman have the basics.

Our ENTIRE society is a "welfare state". None of us can provide everything we need in our lives. We aren't growing or raising our own food.

Who cares what our Founding Fathers had in mind. They died over 300 years ago.

Who cares what our Founding Fathers meant when they drafted the Constitution upon which our entire US rests? Apparently you don't, and you wouldn't be the only one.
Karl Marx died over a century ago too, does that make his writings inconsequential? I guess not if you ask any number of Marxist redistributionists using his theories to create a Marxist state in the US and worldwide.
This is not about "half-arsing" the Constitution. The Constitution does not provide adequate responsibility for the State to feed, clothe, and house citizens of the US or any foreign nationals who come here for freebies, no matter how much the Marxist say it does.

Our society has added many socialist style social programs and both farm subsidies and the SNAP program are part of that, but we do still have a mixed economy, so a Capitalist economy still operates.
One can also remember that our American Revolution was fought at the same time the Enlightenment and the French Revolution. France went way more socialist than we did, so perhaps our Founding Fathers didn't believe in the welfare state to begin with. Such writers as John Locke and Adam Smith ensured that there was a much higher focus on autonomy and rugged individualism, but that has been steadily eroded with such people as John Dewey and secular humanists influencing society toward a Totalitarian State where the State rules Supreme and the individual exists for the State.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Oh I agree with you, but the reasons they are cutting them off has an agenda that is not in the best interest of the populace. You are correct that it is all about control and Agenda 21.

reply to post by ButterCookie


It is your fault if they starve... every American would be at fault. Just as it would be our fault if you lost your livelihood and we let your kids starve. These programs rose out of necessity.

Originally posted by jacobe001
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Oh I agree with you, but the reasons they are cutting them off has an agenda that is not in the best interest of the populace. You are correct that it is all about control and Agenda 21.

Ok, but we will never cut the budget if someone doesn't give up something. Democrats won't give up Organic Farming subsidies because that's about Sustainability, they won't give up food stamps for illegal aliens with children born here because of their constituency there in the voting polls, so what is going to go? Apparently Democrats wouldn't give up farm subsidies to peanut farmers either(Is carter still in the peanut farming industry?)

The same process can be seen in every category can't it?
Look at the military budget.
Democrats don't want to be seen as Empire building but they still endorse war efforts for humanitarian reasons.
We have to finally say enough is enough or the system will collapse.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

So now we are traitors if we decide to withhold food stamps from violent criminals? You see, this is the kind of thinking produced by the welfare state crowd.
If you want to help them, then why not start with some kind of program to help them get JOBS after they get out. If they can't get jobs they can't feed themselves. Who will give a job to a known murderer?
But in any case, a welfare state is not what our Founders had in mine when they drafted the Constitution.

Now, let me ask you, if a convicted criminal is not able to earn back some of the privileges of a civilized society, what is the point of prison?

If a person pays their debt, they should not be held in the same light as someone who is still paying that debt.

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee
1. Privatize prisons.
2. Monetize prisoners by making prisons 'for profit' corporations.
3. Create a scenario to retain violent prisoners by cutting options that promote reacclimation.
4. Profit.

Follow the actual money. SNAP costs nothing compared to the cost of keeping people IN prison.

Quoted for truth and reality. Well done.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

So now we are traitors if we decide to withhold food stamps from violent criminals? You see, this is the kind of thinking produced by the welfare state crowd.

Careful with your labels, sir.

I don't think we should have food stamps at all, but if we're going to offer them it needs to be consistent.

What you're refusing to think about is the line that constitutes a "violent crime".

Want an example of a "violent crime" in 'Murica?

7 Students arrested for water balloons

Another problem is, when you get out of prison.... you can't get a job. You can't get a job, you can't eat. How do you survive? Back in prison. Go commit another violent crime. Government profits off of prisons. Obvious hidden motive. Not sure it has much relation to this Marxist/communist alarmism and Agenda 21 nonsense you're ejaculating all over the forums lately.

Originally posted by MrWendal
Many places will not hire felons. It makes no difference how long ago it was when you committed that crime. In today's world of drug test and background checks to gain employment, people are forced to pay for their mistakes much longer than any prison sentence they serve. Preventing people from being able to feed themselves only guarantees that these same people will offend again by trapping them in the same hopeless circumstances.

edit on 27-5-2013 by MrWendal because: (no reason given)

This is it exactly, the system as it stands today takes a convict out of a physical prison and then expects them to be productive in an economic one. Another thing that apparently gets continually looked over is many of these violent felons are people that couldn't afford a lawyer, or their lawyer took their money and sold them up the river. People that got arrested and charged for defending themselves in their own home or defending their own property. It happens everyday in this country.