- Joined
- Feb 6, 2010
- Messages
- 100,428
- Reaction score
- 53,140
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
The retailers.
They approved the transactions.
The retailers.
they clearly attempted to defraud an assistance program
They approved the transactions.
I think WalMart clearly attempted to defraud an assistance program but nobody seems to be demanding the managers there be put in jail.
They approved the transactions.
Well, with $200 I usually spend about $130 to $150 immediately, and then the rest here and there for the rest of the month. I don't buy much luxury food or frivolous food, so I eat very well and I don't normally run out of benefits. ($200 is too much for a single person, in my opinion.) With $84, it was routinely spent within the first week, and then I would buy the rest of my food out of my second paycheck each month, and I'd normally end up with bare cupboards by the end of the month.
Exactly. You know how much you receive in benefits. When you plan your food budget around your food stamp allotment, you learn real quick how much you can afford. It's really easy to go over if you're not keeping track...
But No one is demanding the individuals on assistance be jailed either.
(maybe try reading).
They approve the transaction when someone writes them a bad check, too.
Well, he's probably protected by being Indian from being accused of racism.
I've been there dude. I know you have health issues - but what I found was: Potatos, and 15-Bean-Soup (delicious with a little bit of sausage chopped in). Relatively cheap (at least, it was in NCarolina), contains most of what you really need to keep going, is filling, and lasts a long time. Don't know if you even like those, though.
True. But (and I'm not saying this about you, you can be painfully rational sometimes), I would wonder if our populace on food stamps doesn't have fairly heavy overlap with our populace that doesn't budget very well.
To correct your analogy, they would have to know the checks were bad beforehand.
The store isn't in a position to know how much in benefits any given family receives, nor do they have the mechanisms to track how much any given person spends on their EBT card. I seriously doubt that they knew people were spending several times their monthly allotments on multiple shopping trips, and I even more seriously doubt that they would have allowed it to continue if they had-- store managers would have known damned well the government wouldn't honor expenditures in excess of benefits.
Uh huh.
Those who authorized the sales at Walmart that did not follow protocol costing the company millions most likely have joined the ranks of the unemployed by now.
The article stated that out of the 12,000 sales statewide during the "glitch", also revealed a number of folks that don't even qualify for food stamps. Looks like this incident helped to flush them out and their greed has got the best of them. I remember seeing a woman interviewed during the "glitch" that was going off in front of the cameras stating her babies were hungry and there was nothing at home for them to eat. As I watched her emotional plea, I noticed she had a darn good looking hairdo. Definitely professionally done. The perm and tint job combined at your average salon would run in the neighborhood of 175.00. Her eyebrows were well arched and shaped, something most need done professionally to obtain those results and on the average costs 25.00. As she used her hands for expression when she spoke, I noticed she was sporting a very nice set of acrylic nails done in a French manicure. The cost of a set of acrylic nails averages around 50.00 and the French manicure, 25.00. It was quite obvious she had plenty of money to maintain her appearance but didn't have any food in the house for her babies.
Those who authorized the sales at Walmart that did not follow protocol costing the company millions most likely have joined the ranks of the unemployed by now.
The article stated that out of the 12,000 sales statewide during the "glitch", also revealed a number of folks that don't even qualify for food stamps. Looks like this incident helped to flush them out and their greed has got the best of them. I remember seeing a woman interviewed during the "glitch" that was going off in front of the cameras stating her babies were hungry and there was nothing at home for them to eat. As I watched her emotional plea, I noticed she had a darn good looking hairdo. Definitely professionally done. The perm and tint job combined at your average salon would run in the neighborhood of 175.00. Her eyebrows were well arched and shaped, something most need done professionally to obtain those results and on the average costs 25.00. As she used her hands for expression when she spoke, I noticed she was sporting a very nice set of acrylic nails done in a French manicure. The cost of a set of acrylic nails averages around 50.00 and the French manicure, 25.00. It was quite obvious she had plenty of money to maintain her appearance but didn't have any food in the house for her babies.
Walmart has no issue with turning down purchases people can't afford in any other situation.
Problem is, we're talking about a "riot of the disadvantaged" - and I don't mean a Democrat convention - this became an issue because word of mouth spread the scam throughout the neighborhood and the looters came running.
Walmart had no way of knowing, without being accused of racism and hate of the poor, which customers were legit and which were not - better to lose a few thousand in merchandise than to have the national media claiming you kept food out of the mouths of poor babies.
That is all too common. Smartphones, too.
The store isn't in a position to know how much in benefits any given family receives, nor do they have the mechanisms to track how much any given person spends on their EBT card. I seriously doubt that they knew people were spending several times their monthly allotments on multiple shopping trips, and I even more seriously doubt that they would have allowed it to continue if they had-- store managers would have known damned well the government wouldn't honor expenditures in excess of benefits.
I fail to see why you assume they couldn't be turned away when other businesses had no issue doing so. And if trouble did start, why it couldn't be dealt with in a traditional manner. In fact, you just seem intent on excusing walmart as some type of victim here, as you did in the original thread on the topic.
If they were concerned about bad PR that's on them and isn't my problem. They, like every other store, had the option to either close or limit purchases through the system. And if for some unlikely reason trouble started, they could have easily contacted the police.
Again, why you feel the need to bend over backwards to excuse and justify their behavior, is beyond me. But like Deuce, you seem to have political motivations that are trumping anything akin to reason, and that are simply leading you to excuse the behavior of one group, while you totally vilify the other.
to say you two are transparent would be an understatement
Perhaps the store manager erred on the side of caution and employee safety, being concerned something like this might happen...
Shocking robberies inside sports stores - CNN.com Video
There's an emergency protocol in place where they're supposed to limit EBT transactions to $50 while the system is down. Strikes me as perfectly reasonable.
Stopping sales entirely while the system is down means people like me can't eat.
But hold on to your hat. You're about to get accused of everything in the book.