this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2023
597 points (98.9% liked)

politics

19148 readers
1933 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Altimont owns Carmen’s Corner Store in Hagerstown, Maryland, a community where around 20 percent of people rely on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to buy their groceries. But a federal agency decided that Altimont can never accept SNAP as a form of payment at Carmen’s.

That decision isn’t because Altimont has done anything wrong as a business owner, but rather because of unrelated crimes from 2004, for which he’s already served his time.

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) permanently bans anyone with drug, alcohol, tobacco, or firearms convictions from participating in the SNAP program—a harsher punishment than the agency dishes out to those who have actually defrauded the program. That’s not just irrational, it’s also unconstitutional, which is why Altimont teamed up with our organization, the Institute for Justice (IJ), to file a federal lawsuit against the agency on Tuesday.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 70 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Seems like a natural consequence of the 13th amendment. Why would you make it easier for an escaped slave to remain free? There are literally shareholders who have a vested interest in recidivism.

Edit: In case it wasn't clear, I find the situation monstrous. Just stating my thinking behind why it happens at all, and might be hard to change.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Imagine investing in for-profit prisons, as a regular person. You're hoping that society tears itself apart so you can watch line go up. Monstrous indeed.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

A sane society would accept that finance is inherently sociopathic to some degree and explicitly prohibit speculation, regulatory capture, and other overtly destructive practices - rather than make the fines for such things a minor cost of business. That's without even getting into legalized slavery loopholes written into the actual constitution.

America is not a sane society.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

I don't think you even have to go that far - a sane society would ensure that you don't create incentives at odds with the good of the society

It's pretty basic stuff - some of our most ancient laws touch on the subject

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 year ago

It's plenty sane, just not built for the success of regular people.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

“Well, I’m in no way part of the problem, so I should profit from what I see as the worst of society.”

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Imagine investing in for-profit prisons, as a regular person. You’re hoping that society tears itself apart so you can watch line go up. Monstrous indeed.

I have a "ethically challenged" investment set that I put money into. I hate every one of the companies, and every one of their missions. But it means when things go horribly with society, I make money... So I get to feel like a rich person, and then almost instantly feel like an asshole because I'm not making enough money to assuage the moral issues I have with it.

When the pandemic hit, I bought a bunch of food service company stock... and various pharma companies. When I found out real estate companies were gouging people's rent... I bought real estate investment trusts... and when I found out the GOP was going to revert roe v wade, I bought a bunch of health care companies stock (that particularly service the south...)

Funny thing is, every time I get a shareholder vote notice, I always vote my conscience, but it doesn't matter everyone else votes their pocketbook every time.