• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Louisiana Food Stamp Abusers Will Lose Benefits Over Wal-Mart Free For All

they clearly attempted to defraud an assistance program

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.

2 parties working in league to defraud a third doesn't magically absolve one party of what they have done. Again, try harder
 
I think WalMart clearly attempted to defraud an assistance program but nobody seems to be demanding the managers there be put in jail.

Indeed, and was something I already made claear (maybe try reading). But No one is demanding the individuals on assistance be jailed either. What is being done is their assistance status is being removed. Which seems a just pairing with walmart eating the cost
 
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.

:( 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.

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...

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.
 
They approve the transaction when someone writes them a bad check, too.

To correct your analogy, they would have to know the checks were bad beforehand.
 
Well, he's probably protected by being Indian from being accused of racism.

Or... the fact that he's told the white GOP to stop blaming minorities when they lose elections...
 
:( 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.

I usually go with canned tuna, box dinner (tuna or chicken), and frozen vegetables.

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.

You've got a point. I suppose what I'm trying to say is that there's a certain margin of error that can be assumed to be error, but the shenanigans in this story were obvious shenanigans.
 
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.
 
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.

People were stocking up like a hurricane was on the way. They knew.
 
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.

clearly we need a "keep it fly" program to go along with wic
 
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.

:( That is all too common. Smartphones, too.
 
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.
 
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.

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.


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.

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
 
:( That is all too common. Smartphones, too.

Yes unfortunately it's become very common. The past 5 years the Federal government has really encouraged people to sign up for food stamps. When the Democrats had control of both the houses of Congress, they shoved through all that stimulus spending which included funding for food stamps. And on top of that they used millions to advertise it and encouraged people to sign up. Well the stimulus money is long gone and a lot of these folks are still collecting. Every program the Federal government tries to run nationally is riddled with fraud and waste costing taxpayers billions. The Founders believed in a safety net and encouraged one at a state/local level where local charities and the local governments worked together to take care of the truly downtrodden. And even then it often involved the recipient of the charity, if able, work in return for the handout. Instead of the Federal government making the collective one size fits all rules, all welfare programs should be the responsibility of the states. They can best decide who is truly in need within their own state, cutting out a lot of fraud and wastefulness.
 
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.

They know that EBTs are not "unlimited" as was being shown to them by the system that day. This was an issue that is covered as a time when they were supposed to implement a "$50 limit" agreed upon policy, just like so many other places did, including other WalMarts. That was their responsibility. They also knew that by not implementing that plan, they would responsible for covering any purchases beyond $50.
 
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

Come on Chuckles - what's my political motivation here? You make the accusation, spill it out.

All I'm doing is pointing out that Walmart has this gigantic "hit me" sign painted on their backs and regardless what they do they get bashed. As I said, if they didn't allow people to shop, they'd be charged with being racist haters of the poor - you know it's true - why do you bend over backwards to claim Walmart is just like any other business when you know full well that only a Walmart would be criticized because they are an easy media target. And we are talking Louisiana here, where looting is a regular passtime.

And to be clear, you're the only one who wants to identify victims here. I never once said Walmart was a victim - I simply stated they did what they felt was best for their corporate identity under the circumstances. I remember pictures in the media during Katrina and the aftermath of the "good citizens" of New Orleans smashing Walmart windows and filling shopping carts with TVs, stereos, DVDs, all the usual necessities of survival in the aftermath of a serious hurricane. Did Walmart go after these people? I never heard anything about it if they did - they chalked up the loss to the weather and the caliber of citizen they served in New Orleans.

So, save your naive championing of the "good citizens" of Louisiana and your bashing of that evil empire known as Walmart for someone who's just fallen off the turnip truck and hasn't quite regained intelligence.
 
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.

not to sound too much like an ass, but I seriously doubt that the system being down for a couple of hours would mean anyone on foodstamps couldn't eat.
 
But hold on to your hat. You're about to get accused of everything in the book.

Because he's going after an abuse like this?

Thats a stupid claim CP. 99% of people, regardless of politics, will support this move.

Typical right wing trash response. They cry about being victimized falsely so often it's getting ridiculous. For every honest complaint that they have there are a dozen non-existent things they cry about.
 
Back
Top Bottom