Don't tell me they can come back and fix it later. Once a bad law gets on the books, it's almost impossible to remove it.

That would mean Harry Reid signed off on it personally.

Ready to give it a try. So let's starve them, to nearly assure recidivism.

Nuts!?

I honestly think they are TRYING to achieve chaos at this point, like they know the things they are suggesting will create violence and problems, and then they try to enact it.

Send those chaotic thoughts out to Republican politicians. (Sadly, watching The Secret, which I think sounds kind of ridiculous)

unrest, crime, racial and class tension, and reaction -- like militias, mass shootings, proto-fascist groupings. and the hits just keep on coming. everywhere you look, in every area of life, they're pushing the envelope.

We aren't yet a police state, not openly, but we most definitely are a prison state

Same agenda as the judges convicted of selling youthful offenders into the private prison system.

are not Democrats.

government teat that is.

Why are republicans so mean? Were they all bullied as children? Abandoned by their parents? Abused by their parents? I just don't get what is with these people.

"Democrats accepted it without trying to modify it to address its most ill-considered aspects."

Thanks for that.

Given the '60 vote' rule, note all dems have to put their necks out there to prevent this. But they clearly either are too chicken, or agree with, the proposed law.

Another reason to support tossing them all out (all multi-term incumbents in both the house and senate) and starting over.

Dire music.

Dark ugly picture of candidate.

*Insert name of Democrat* voted to provide free food, paid for by taxpayers, to murderers, pedophiles and rapists.

It's a Willie Horton thing.

Part of me wishes that our Democratic politicians would stop worrying about how a given vote is going to "look" come re-election time, and focus more on just doing the right thing.

That said, I do understand their dilemma, and I would like to see most of them re-elected. I have argued, however, that standing on strong principles is the best way to win at the polls. Obviously, I am in the minority with that opinion.

-Laelth

Seems to be the only thing that guides democrats these days.

Any asshole with a pile of money can put up a dozen attack ads calling a politician an enabler of pedophiles and someone who wants to give "yer tax dollars" to ... MURDERERS! Yeah, that's the ticket.... and while we're at it, So-and-so supports FOOD STAMPS FOR RAPISTS!

And you know how that shit works. Ask Mike Dukakis about Willie Horton.

It takes a TON of money--and more mud to fling back--to overcome those kinds of nasty accusations.

I'm just always baffled whenever I turn on the MSM, it's ALWAYS a Republican yelling from the rooftops, with nary a Dem in sight. As a Canadian who sees Liberals and New Democrats on TV against the conservatives on a regular basis, it's baffling - unless Dems have been trying to get on the same shows and are shut out - in which case, they can take to social media to let everyone know it's rigged. They have the means to do something about it. I know it's a shitty deal with fucked up campaign donation laws and voting machines for Americans, but the Democrats have shown themselves to be anything but leaders. Maybe, like I said, it's because I see the left here actually LEAD (although it's true they've been out of power for awhile, but that's because of the split b/c of the parliamentary system) and get on tv and get in Conservatives' faces. The leaders are suppose to be the ones to stop the population from getting scared, they aren't supposed to be the terrified children themselves. The contrast between what I see on CBC or CTV and what I see on CNN or MSNBC for political debate is just astounding to me.

I dunno. I just see the Dems as unherdable fraidy cats.

due to prison mostly unemployable people doing desperate crimey things in order to eat and/or feed their families?

Pete Hoekstra (her unsuccessful R challenger last year) might as well be a surrogate senator on this issue!

ex-cons, either, what do they think will happen? They gonna simply lay down and starve??

NO. THEY ARE GOING TO ROB BUSINESSES AND STEAL FOOD AND HURT PEOPLE.

Effing dumbasses.

Because other dumbasses vote for them.

They have what they deserve. Too bad the rest of us have to suffer.

huge blind spots authoritarians have in their self-defeating "beat 'em with the a stick" mentality. Forgetting the older reformed convict for a moment, think about the young, angry, violent convict that hits dead end after dead end until he sees your wife get into her nice new car in a parking lot. Do they think he's going to be worried about maybe going back inside?

Or, if they keep making the penalties more and more draconian, why not just kill her? Why leave a witness when the risk is virtually the same?

I know someone who is a felon, and he can't get hired for shit - and he has never harmed a person (it was a theft thing), and if it wasn't for the assistance he gets, I feel he would resort to stealing to not die... and frankly, can you blame people for that? but as for the bad people (the violent ones who are going to lose food assistance), they are going to rob with guns and harm in anger. I don't know wth they're thinking allowing this through.

and even if repubs played commercials against dems for stopping this, the dem coulda played a commercial showing them robbing homes because they couldn't even get food assistance. So sick of dems cowering to repub bastards.

They'd better hope their families never get hungry.

thanks to his deep pockets from selling car alarms.

Vitter: he did NOT commit the violent crimes his bill covers

Such a right-wing party now.

Last edited Thu May 23, 2013, 09:05 PM - Edit history (1)

On one hand, we have a
Conservative, Big Business, Privatizing, De-regulating, Free Trading,
Perpetual WAR, Police State, Anti-LABOR,
Fuck the Working Class, 1% Party,

AND

On the other hand, we have the Republican Party.

With the job market not showing much improvement there's probably a fair chance they'll be unemployed due to their prior criminal record.

So if they want to go on EATING they'll have to succeed in stealing some food and/or get convicted of another crime and go back to prison where they have to feed you?

Is this a backdoor way of keeping the prison population up? Or a stealthy attempt to starve people to death?

Onion, is that you?

ratcheting up the desperation level should cut down on recidivism.

Ahhhhhhhh...Retroactive *shit-baggery.*

Next up,DUI convictions for beers chugged in the '70s.Fuck the statute of limitations!!

*Yes I know it isn't an actual word.I take license.*

Article I Section 9 of the Constitution.

"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed". Meaning after the fact.

Unconstitutional as hell.

they passed the law that made it illegal for anyone convicted of misdemeanor Domestic Violence to own a gun, and then made it retroactive? Lots of cops, armed security guards, and if I recall correctly, even some members of the Military lost their jobs.

Several groups have been fighting it as unconstitutional sunce the day it was passed, due to it being made retroactive, but the US Supreme Court has upheld it so far...

Ghost

They would have to pass the law, then arrest people for owning a firearm because they owned the firearm before the law was passed. So long as the regulation allows people to comply they're not guilty of a crime.

As is,I strongly suspect,the "double jeopardy" element,in what these lowlife bastards want to pull...

I'm not exactly sure, but I think it means yeah...

Is this really going to work well in practice?

being released from penal custody and incarcerated into economic custody. This increases the odds of their being reincarcerated, often for profit and places the public at unnecessary risk.

And to think how the right is populated with hatred of anything France knuckleheads.

still bothersome that it was.

to deny government retirement from those engaged in prostitution scandals.

Though I would prefer barring anyone from office who legislates morality on the rest of us and is then found to be engaged in ANY immoral act...

I seem to be using that word a lot lately...

From my understanding, here in Maine, if you are an ex-con, you can't get into a homeless shelter. So now they're banning various violent criminals from even getting food anywhere other than (maybe) a soup kitchen. Say a man kills a man or a woman kills a man that rapes their daughter. This person is now imprisoned for a number of a years, convicted of murder, then upon leaving prison, if they are fortunate enough to survive that long... likely won't be able to find steady work, can't get into a homeless shelter, can't get food stamps in order to, well, EAT.... chances of a return to prison are extraordinarily high for most. Were I in that position myself, I'd probably deliberately commit some kind of crime to get myself back in prison.

These crimes are generally terrible, but there are varying degrees of circumstance.

Democrats? Those who accepted this do not have the right to refer to themselves as democrats.

We desperately need COMPLETE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM (CCFR)!!! Lets get our Representative Democracy back!

Bipartisan evil by purchased politicians.

It will continue and escalate for exactly as long as we tolerate it.

the general welfare and otherwise expresses American ideals. Yeah!

That little ratfucker is a mean son of an asshole.

Congrats Dumbasses on a mean spirited measure to hurt the weakest among us.

In which Valjean, for the rest of his life, was supposed to hand everyone he met, every place he went a note saying he was "on parole"- everyone who read it would abuse him, deny him work, deny him lodgings, deny him food, so that the "parolee" would be getting, in effect, perpetual punishment WITHOUT imprisonment.

And Vitter will probably go to church this Sunday feeling that he does God's work in the Senate.

Since this is an add on, I would think so.

Or has it even made it to the House?

It's called job security.

They are well aware that starving people will turn to crime. They love it.

We get rid or one jerk and here comes another! http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022892908

"Sen. Vitter also proposed an end to the so-called “Obama Phone” program, which started under President Ronald Reagan to help elderly and low-income with cellphone service, particularly in rural areas."

Vitter's looks to be doing a one-man "Cripple the Poor More" party!

I think some reporters need to follow Vitter. I think he's still perving around...

I know violent criminals are denied the right to own weapons in some places and that felons in some states have their voting ability denied.

Will this be considered the same as those or is it really an additional sentence added on over and above what the courts decided and, therefore, unconstitutional?

the mugshot remains ...forever.

... if one is convicted of a crime and enters prison, his/her life is over. Unless he is independently wealthy. And how many who enter prison are independently wealthy? 0%. What happened to "paying their debt to society" by serving a sentence in prison? It now appears that one's slate can never be wiped clean, that there will never be any more second chances. Looks like we're all Republicans now.

without a job and needing all the help they can get just to make it and stay straight, here's another kick in the teeth.

SA 1056. Mr. VITTER submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 954, to reauthorize agricultural programs through 2018; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the end of subtitle A of title IV, insert the following:

SEC. 4019. ELIGIBILITY DISQUALIFICATIONS FOR CERTAIN CONVICTED FELONS.

Section 6 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2015) (as amended by section 4004) is amended by adding at the end the following:

``(s) Disqualification for Certain Convicted Felons.--

``(1) IN GENERAL.--An individual shall not be eligible for benefits under this Act if the individual is convicted of--

``(A) aggravated sexual abuse under section 2241 of title 18, United States Code;

``(B) murder under section 1111 of title 18, United States Code;

``(C) an offense under chapter 110 of title 18, United States Code;

``(D) a Federal or State offense involving sexual assault, as defined in 40002(a) of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13925(a)); or

``(E) an offense under State law determined by the Attorney General to be substantially similar to an offense described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C).

``(2) EFFECTS ON ASSISTANCE AND BENEFITS FOR OTHERS.--The amount of benefits otherwise required to be provided to an eligible household under this Act shall be determined by considering the individual to whom paragraph (1) applies not to be a member of such household, except that the income and resources of the individual shall be considered to be income and resources of the household.

``(3) ENFORCEMENT.--Each State shall require each individual applying for benefits under this Act, during the application process, to state, in writing, whether the individual, or any member of the household of the individual, has been convicted of a crime described in paragraph (1).''.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r113:1:./temp/~r113ARLKxV:e339048:
---------

So, if say a grandfather was a convicted rapist but is raising his grandchildren he can get food stamps for them but not for himself. His income does count as household income in the calculation for eligibility though. So if there are 2 working adults and 3 grandchildren only 4 people would be eligible for food stamps but both incomes would have been added in, which obviously reduces how much they're eligible to receive.

In practice, this will increase fraud cases. The person who's been convicted of mine of these crimes will simply pretend not to live there. But worse, it could break up families by forcing the person to leave. If there weren't such a terrible history of African Americans and other minorities being wrongfully convicted perhaps this wouldn't be such a horrible thing. But there is that history. Not only that, it's not even history; it happens today.

David Vitter knows that. Haha! My autocorrect changes Vitter to Birther! Just had to thrown that in.

If any of them did, and knew about Victor Hugo's social commentary on how poor societal treatment of ex-felons results in recidivism, then they're even bigger corporate tools than most of us assume on a regular basis. And that is scary. So much for making up for past actions and becoming a changed person, eh?

The bottom line: it's discrimination, ESPECIALLY when it comes to family of ex-convicts. They may not have done anything wrong and yet they're being punished just by association! What the hell? How does that even come close to being logical?

Just...just...URGGHH!!!

You know, what really sucks is that, if this were targeting just about anyone else, the Internet would be up in flames right now. It isn't, because barely anyone else thinks about criminals (even EX-criminals) as humans. Damnit...

plus no stat of limitations is BS I agree
wtf

A man like you can never change,
A man...such as you...

this is exactly what is wrong with this country. We are such hypocrites. We say that after you serve your sentence, there is redemption and your debt is paid....no wonder the rest of the world doesn't trust a god damn thing we say!

since anyone with a criminal conviction already has a hard enough time finding a job and earning enough money to live on the obvious thing to do is make them ineligible for any benefits and increase the likelihood they'll have to steal to live, or end up living on the streets. I can feel the Christian compassion.

This is bullshit. These people have PAID THEIR DEBT already. So they're expected to go hungry for the rest of their lives? Fucking disgraceful.

So let me get this straight; republicans claim that convicts cannot be trusted with food, but can be trusted with high powered gunz.
What's wrong with this picture? Doesn't this whole scheme seem to be the result of manufactured fox "news" right wing outrage? Right wing gun groups, with the support of other extremist cultural warfare wagers have re-armed thousands of violent felons over the last two decades, now they claim these convicts are responsible enough for gun ownership, but untrustworthy with food.
hypocrisy much?

-Laelth

unless you can verify you have been assessed as chemically dependent and are in a SAP, or have already completed a SAP and can provide a certificate.

Due to the work of senate republicans and the NRA, wife beaters and child abusers are routinely getting thier gun rights reinstated after serving thier time. Studies show that the accumilative results of republican/NRA gun rights reinstatement legislation is responsible for automatic reinstatement of gun rights for almost all convicts that request relief from gun ownership disability (what gun nuts call it when they commit crimes that require the revocation of the perp's gun rights)- yeah- they call reasonable restrictions of gun rights for criminals, a disability. The language of victimhood is being used to describe criminals that do not deserve the right to ever carry or own a gun again.

So right winger extremists are all about re-arming violent felons; but they are nervous about allowing these same felons the right to food.
The extreme right wingers are even confused by the amount of cognitive dissonance they have spewed into our political and social discourse.
Gunz for felons? Okayed by republican senators.
Food stamps for felons? No way republican senators will trust them with food.
If you look up the word "hypocrisy" in the dictionary you will find that websters is describing this sort of behavior.
Why do teabaggers hate America?

. . . make it even harder for persons who have been convicted of a crime and who have served their sentence to reintegrate and survive in society, thereby practically guaranteeing that they will return to crime as a means to survive.

That Democrats have accepted this makes me want to throw up.

When does it become cruel and unusual?