- Joined
- Nov 6, 2007
- Messages
- 66,823
- Reaction score
- 30,079
- Location
- Rolesville, NC
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Re: Food stamp glitch leads to Wal-Mart stampede
Your contention was that people who work for their money don't overspend and would never take advantage of something like this, would not overcharge their bank account or credit cards. You are wrong. Just because a person works right now doesn't make them more responsible than people on welfare/assistance. Plenty of people on welfare/food stamps didn't go overspend just because they could. Plenty wouldn't.
And I am going by who WalMart is trying to blame. It isn't the shoppers, those who overspent (not right now anyway), but Xerox. They would not win a case against the government or Xerox. Now, they do have complete legal recourse to go after those who overspent their cards. They can get their names and information and press charge, try to recoup those losses. However, from a PR position, this would be a bad idea because of what they have been saying since then about the situation. They have been saying that this was the right thing to do and that they were helping those people. So it places them in a catch 22, since going after the only ones they could legally pursue would also cause majorly bad PR for them.
Both your points are nonsense - in fact, your first point very well proves my point for me. People who consider credit as being other people's money often use it as if it's nothing and then realize the headache it causes after - people who use cash and/or debit do so much more cautiously because they see their assets dwindling.
As for banks creating overdraft protection, that was and is a wonderful scheme for banks to make additional profits - both in charging a customer for the "service" and charging the customer interest and in addition, often charges customers penalties if they spend over their overdraft limit. And it is again those people who think that the card they flash out isn't using their money but someone else's.
Personally, I have never, ever, gone over a credit limit on a credit card nor used a debit card to a greater extent than cash I had in that account. There have been times when I've needed something and have arranged an increase in my credit limit in order to purchase it, but I've never just gone into a store and bought and bought until someone tells me I can't buy anymore.
Finally, you'll pardon me if I don't rely on your "legal" expertise to determine whether or not Walmart is responsible for any overspending - they may assume a loss, for PR purposes, but I don't believe for a minute that a court would find them liable if it got that far.
Your contention was that people who work for their money don't overspend and would never take advantage of something like this, would not overcharge their bank account or credit cards. You are wrong. Just because a person works right now doesn't make them more responsible than people on welfare/assistance. Plenty of people on welfare/food stamps didn't go overspend just because they could. Plenty wouldn't.
And I am going by who WalMart is trying to blame. It isn't the shoppers, those who overspent (not right now anyway), but Xerox. They would not win a case against the government or Xerox. Now, they do have complete legal recourse to go after those who overspent their cards. They can get their names and information and press charge, try to recoup those losses. However, from a PR position, this would be a bad idea because of what they have been saying since then about the situation. They have been saying that this was the right thing to do and that they were helping those people. So it places them in a catch 22, since going after the only ones they could legally pursue would also cause majorly bad PR for them.