No food stamps for people convicted of violent crimes

reply to post by blivey


Almost as bad is the people who take their food stamps in and buy Haagen-Dasz and Cheetos. They desperately need to reform food stamps to make buying candy and luxury items much less possible. But the candy manufacturers and retailers have a vested interest to continue the irresponsibility, so its unlikely to happen without a large public outcry. There is a pretty low threshold for ethically behaving with federal money, and who could blame people with the way the govt acts with it!!!

I have heard of a program in my home state of Michigan where if you purchase fresh produce with your foodstamps, you will get twice as many food stamps in dollar value. GREAT, great idea, whoever thought of that is brilliant!!!!!

Once the person is done with jail/probation, the sentence is up, the punishment is up, and the person is a joe citizen like anyone else.

This is how the constitution is written and what the nations ancestors have paid for in blood. To think otherwise is traitor speak and the very essence of being anti-American in this instance. But...people are used to and happy to destroy the constitution if it makes their hate and venom satiated a little bit...what better way than to take the food away from former criminals, put them on lists, restrict their rights, and destroy their lives for good.

Because its not about correcting behavior, its about catering to the darkness of society so that rights may be stripped away not with the fight of men, but at the demand of the mob.

Welcome to Democracy.

(Double Jeopardy),violent crime or not they served the sentence given them,so now they should be punished yet again,and people wonder why nasty things happen,push to hard and you will be pushed back and probably not in kind!!!

Also a large percent of the prison system has become privatized buy big corporations who have friends on capital hill who can all most likely be traced back to having their hands dirty in the pie,so its beneficial for them to pass a bill that would increase recidivism.

reply to post by WeRpeons

Local municipalities and state governments need people to maintain roads, parks, pick-up litter and many other indoor janitorial jobs. It would reduce the number of government workers, reduce the amount of government pensions, and at the same time motivate people to find work for cash instead of being paid in food stamps.

I agree with your sentiments to a certain degree, that degree being that the ex-prisoner is in gainful work to occupy his or her time in a positive and rewarding way...a reason to get out of bed and feel a little pride at a job well done so to speak...but, what are the ex-government workers going to do, who's work will effectively be given to the ex-offenders?

Layed off because there's not enough work to justify their wages probably.

Robbing Peter to pay Paul really isn't it?

Unless an area of work can be identified that is not currently being filled by any paid, non-ex-offender worker it's going to be tricky to not take work away from someone else.

Originally posted by antar
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

Poor criminals. They just may have to go to work if they want to eat.

Sorry but your post absolutely disgust me.

Let me ask you a question....

Why is crime more prevalent in lower income places?

It's about money. Money to eat, money to live. Many people turn to crime in the most desperate circumstances. I once, at the ripe old age of 18, sat outside a convenience store at 3am with a knife making a plan to rob the store and get away. I ended up changing my mind and not doing it.

Why did it consider it? I was 18. Homeless. No money. Unable to find a job. No family to speak of. No help and damn was I hungry. This was also the night I ate from a trash can for the very first time. 2 Months later I was given a job, from a man who figured out I was homeless and would purposely leave his truck unlocked in the parking lot of his business- which is where I would sleep. A job I kept for the next 10 years in an industry I would work in for the next 22 years. That 22 years of experience is what landed me the job I have today.

Let us suppose I didn't change my mind that night. Let us suppose I went through with that robbery and got caught. Want to guess how hard it would be for me to find a job even today because of my past? 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.

Originally posted by DZAG Wright


You have no pity for violent felons but are you ignoring the title "violent felon"? These are people who have been to prison and learned a "dog eat dog" behavior. Many will not hesitate to knock your head off for your purse.

While it's true that many might "knock my head off" for my purse that doesn't mean that their children should go to bed hungry because of it, and if they can't get assistance to feed those children how many more people will have their "heads knocked off" in order to buy food for them? Even a normally non-violent person will resort to formerly unthinkable acts when desperate to feed their kids.

Originally posted by grizzbear2006
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

In the near future food stamps will no longer be funded by the federal government. They will be privatized to the states and no state will be able to afford millions of people on food stamps, so they will cap it at a low percentage rate. We haven't seen nothing yet. It's going to get a lot worse.

You know, you may be onto something with that. The Federal Government may just plan to "honor" the 10th Amendment alright. In the worst possible way.

As Obamacare is already showing by trying to push off the "high risk" Government insured pool into the states to cover with no money and no printing ability to make more somehow? They could plan to do the same with Food Stamps. Now that WOULD be an economic hardship beyond bearing for states. There is no margin left in State budgets now....those few states not billions over budget already. States aren't Congress, again, so they can't just invent more money.

It will get exceptionally ugly by sheer force of math if the Feds push SNAP aid into states for the full burden of cost. Yeah, that would be the draconian way of reducing Federal spending.

Originally posted by catt3
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

Then they need to grow their own food instead of having other people giving it to them.
There are many places to grow a garden.

Really? Where? Give me a list of places that people have a right to grow food on land that they do not own, because let's be real here, these food stamps are not being given to people with the means to be able to afford to grow a garden.

Originally posted by UNIT76
well, food and nutrition, water.. basic human rights.. take these away from someone and how do you expect them to turn out?

i think this is just another example of how the new society is going to squeeze all the 'undesirables' out

..never mind all those psychopaths in washington with the drone programs, etc..

Poor criminals. They just may have to go to work if they want to eat.

yeah, what was i just saying about 'washington'

edit on 25-5-2013 by UNIT76 because: hindsight is 20/20

I LOLED! A basic human right? Pfffffft!

False.

Originally posted by MysterX
reply to post by Cabin

 

And the award for Mr or Ms stupid of the year goes to...whatever brainless twit came up with this idea.

Violent criminals...starving...no work, no food stamps equals NO CHOICE!

Things are gonna get violently ugly as soon as the cupboard shelves are empty.

Perhaps that's the idea.

No choice???

What choice did the their victims have, of their violent crimes?

Come on!!! Where is the voice of reason here??

Yes! They should not be eligible for ANYTHING! Do you all see that the bill does not target the average felon; just those convicted of violent crimes. That means crimes such of rapes, heinous murders, etc..not someone who robbed a bank to get money to his family.

Violent offenders should not even be here, let alone receive assistance from the very tax payers they have decided to violently offend.

Originally posted by Bone75

Originally posted by antar

Although I agree with this, and furthermore think that all welfare recipients should be drug tested with a no tolerance policy for life, it will probably end up not passing.

And what of their children? Should the kids starve because their sorry ass mom or dad failed a drug test?

edit on 25-5-2013 by Bone75 because: (no reason given)

If their children starve, whose fault is it really? Law-abiding tax-paying citizens, or the violently- criminal parent who decided to have them and couldn't afford to feed them??

I truly despise the whole concept of a 'victimized' criminal.

Originally posted by Gorkwj2002
To those who think this is a bad idea.

What we are doing now isn't helping on any issue.

Darwinism would suggest that those solely on the government dole are not the "fittest" and should be left to die off.

Handing them food stamps, and $300 a week wont stop them from committing violent crimes. having lived in the "ghetto" for a time when I was younger and witnessing this first hand. Despite what your told, poverty is a choice.
you can choose to give up and stay there, or buckle down, do right, and claw your way out. Many choose not too.

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.

Originally posted by ButterCookie

Originally posted by Bone75

Originally posted by antar

Although I agree with this, and furthermore think that all welfare recipients should be drug tested with a no tolerance policy for life, it will probably end up not passing.

And what of their children? Should the kids starve because their sorry ass mom or dad failed a drug test?

edit on 25-5-2013 by Bone75 because: (no reason given)

If their children starve, whose fault is it really? Law-abiding tax-paying citizens, or the violently- criminal parent who decided to have them and couldn't afford to feed them??

I truly despise the whole concept of a 'victimized' criminal.

Yet you seem to be perfectly fine with the concept of victimized children.

Hmm.

Originally posted by InstantRemedy
I'm not rich. I work. I pay my bills. I don't finish the month with too much money saved, sometimes not at all, sometimes I end up with a negative revenue (like most).
I don't have a rich family that supports me, other way around, I often support them with what I can.

I don't get free food handed to me and I don't whine that it's my right to be fed for free.

While I agree that in an Ideal world, water and food supplies will be a basic human right, currently it isn't, and I don't think violent and harmful to society people should receive free gifts that other also struggling law abiding people don't get.

What I'm saying is I support this would-be law.
Society should not fear of violent people's actions in case they get their rights revoked. If they are violent and harmful to society they need to be punished in a way that would shock others and show them this isn't the way. Jail doesn't work that well unfortunately.

Another voice of reason

The audacity that some on here have to say that "we should appeal to the criminal's demands in order to keep them from committing more offenses".

NO!!

You do not solve the crime problem by appealing to the criminal; you solve it by making no excuses.

Originally posted by warrenite
reply to post by blivey

 

Almost as bad is the people who take their food stamps in and buy Haagen-Dasz and Cheetos. They desperately need to reform food stamps to make buying candy and luxury items much less possible. But the candy manufacturers and retailers have a vested interest to continue the irresponsibility...

Not going to happen. Coca Cola and Pepsi use their lobbyist to ensure their products are covered by EBT, I am sure the big candy companies do the same.

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee


The children are the criminal's new victims; they produced them knowing that they cannot afford to feed them (if they are poor) and knowing that they are offensive to society.

Yes.

reply to post by Cabin


This is a slippery slope and you had better trust that if they get a foot in the door it will only continue to get worse. You never use anything a human needs to survive as bait or reward.





Any politician that is for this kind of crap should be tried in court for human rights abuse. Air,Food,Water,Shelter should never be used as a carrot or a stick. If you do not have these things you can not live. This is wrong on so many levels it is not even funny. I bet these are the same politicians push for more money to fight endless wars 1000s of miles away.

Originally posted by ButterCookie
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

The children are the criminal's new victims; they produced them knowing that they cannot afford to feed them (if they are poor) and knowing that they are offensive to society.

Yes.

At least you aren't shying away from your thinking that it is perfectly acceptable to allow children to starve.

Every sentence is a life sentence.

Im a felon by the way.

Originally posted by SubTruth
reply to post by Cabin

 

This is a slippery slope and you had better trust that if they get a foot in the door it will only continue to get worse. You never use anything a human needs to survive as bait or reward.





Any politician that is for this kind of crap should be tried in court for human rights abuse. Air,Food,Water,Shelter should never be used as a carrot or a stick. If you do not have these things you can not live. This is wrong on so many levels it is not even funny. I bet these are the same politicians push for more money to fight endless wars 1000s of miles away.

OMG come on...

Are the politicians holding food and water from them? Or are they holding tax-payer assisted funds to obtain these things?

Never said they couldn't eat; just saying that they shouldn't benefit from the law-abiding tax payer that they have violently offended.