• 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

Deuce said:
Oh god the "filthy poors with smartphones" meme.

You know you can get an iphone for free, right?
Click to expand...

yes, by signing a cell phone contract that costs money on a reoccurring monthly bill ...
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
No, just calling a spade a spade



No, because as is obvious from this discussion and the one previous to it I fully endorse punishing such individuals, as well. What paints you as not liking people on assistyence is your need to make them totally at fault here, turning more balanced perspectives into attempts to excuse them 9as you did here), and your need to paint walmart as a victim




Well, besides a reasonable and balanced perspective ...



Yeah, and I see the welfare moops as intentionally trying to defraud a system. What is your point? That I am granting neither side the benefit of doubt?



Of course not, that is acomplished by your constant characterization of them as victims




your empty platitude isn't an argument and rests on you ignoring what has actually been stated and pointed out to you numerous times
Click to expand...


You want to cry racism, then use a racial slur?
 
apdst said:
You want to cry racism, then use a racial slur?
Click to expand...

a "spade a spade"?

1) I never cried racism

2) if that offended you, then good.
 
Deuce said:
Oh god the "filthy poors with smartphones" meme.
Click to expand...

:) Strawman ad hominem much?

You know you can get an iphone for free, right?
Click to expand...

Yeah? That's interesting - i'm actually in the market. How?

Incidentally, a good chunk of my family is poor, inasmuch as poor means "on public assistance". They bought theirs.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/11...ose-benefits-over-wal-mart-free-for-all-86692

As someone who collects food stamps-- and needs them to survive-- this absolutely sickens me and I think it's a goddamned shame that criminal charges are not being pursued.
Click to expand...
It is absolutely theft and fraud and a damn shame that people would do this. If I wrote a large check that returned NSF or a continuing series of such in full knowledge that would be a felony, so this should be considered one too.
 
cpwill said:
Wow. Impressive move, Jindal. Good for you.


But hold on to your hat. You're about to get accused of everything in the book.
Click to expand...
They can try to accuse him of things, but the fact is that those who abused the system committed very serious crimes, at minimum they should forfeit future access to programs.
 
Fisher said:
Yes that is exactly what I think they were doing. Stores in my area posted the "EBT SYSTEM IS DOWN!!!!" signs and lost nothing.
Click to expand...
It's possible, very possible. If that is the case then the stores that tried to game the glitch should eat the cost.
 
specklebang said:
That is also my assumption. I'd hope that any PLAUSIBLE excess would be forgiven. But if they went hundreds over, that is knowingly wrong. Should be easy to tell the good from the bad.
Click to expand...
I can agree with that. A person who was 20$ short and a bit over their limit is a forgivable situation, someone going hundreds over is willful.
 
Deuce said:
What was the crime? According to Korimyr the taxpayers didn't pay anything for this.
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter in the grand scheme. If there is no loss even the attempt at a fraudulent act is fraud in itself. If someone writes a bad check over a little bit, it can be dismissed as a mistake, intentionally doing so is a crime, and if the dollar amount is sufficient to be proven willful it's a felony. Same thing with debit cards.
 
Fisher said:
Unfortunately, it was the retailer's fault for allowing it to happen. I think it would be a hard sell criminally since the retailers are the ones that overrode the protocols designed to protect them, and based upon what I have seen from some of it, there is no way you could convince me that the retailers did not know exactly what was going on.
Click to expand...


Wait, you are blaming the retailer for the person who had the EBT card abuse? Excuse me? EBT cards have a set limit, these people were knowingly, willingly and with intent going well over the limit. No, they are fully responsible for their behavior and should be held 100% accountable for their actions.
 
I had to use food stamps for a period of my life. I left like $300 on the account for a year because I didn't need it once I found a job and they eventually closed the account. People thought I was crazy not to just go ahead and spend it and now I see why.
 
CriticalThought said:
I had to use food stamps for a period of my life. I left like $300 on the account for a year because I didn't need it once I found a job and they eventually closed the account. People thought I was crazy not to just go ahead and spend it and now I see why.
Click to expand...
You did the honest thing, nothing to regret IMO.
 
MrVicchio said:
Wait, you are blaming the retailer for the person who had the EBT card abuse? Excuse me? EBT cards have a set limit, these people were knowingly, willingly and with intent going well over the limit. No, they are fully responsible for their behavior and should be held 100% accountable for their actions.
Click to expand...

And the retailers know that there is a limit and they know that if the system shows "no limit" as it did on that day, they are supposed to implement the emergency procedure, allowing only a set amount to be purchased by the EBT cards. That is what they agreed to. So yes, the retailer in this case is to blame because they failed to abide by the agreement. The users hold some responsibility, but only to use their cards responsibly, not to know at all times exactly how much they have on them. That is why the retailers get guaranteed access to that information with the EBT agreement.
 
roguenuke said:
And the retailers know that there is a limit and they know that if the system shows "no limit" as it did on that day, they are supposed to implement the emergency procedure, allowing only a set amount to be purchased by the EBT cards. That is what they agreed to. So yes, the retailer in this case is to blame because they failed to abide by the agreement. The users hold some responsibility, but only to use their cards responsibly, not to know at all times exactly how much they have on them. That is why the retailers get guaranteed access to that information with the EBT agreement.
Click to expand...

Who is issued the EBT card?

That is the responsible party.
 
MrVicchio said:
Who is issued the EBT card?

That is the responsible party.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't the only "responsible party". The retailer holds some responsibility because it is their responsibility to stop purchases that they know are beyond the person's agreed upon benefit amount, and they didn't.
 
roguenuke said:
No, it isn't the only "responsible party". The retailer holds some responsibility because it is their responsibility to stop purchases that they know are beyond the person's agreed upon benefit amount, and they didn't.
Click to expand...
They have been held responsible, by eating the cost of their failure, but the original crime was the EBT card holder trying to purchase far more then they were allotted. Please correct me if I'm off on this, but I get the impression you are saying the fraud of the EBT holders isn't really their fault cause 2 Wally World stores did something stupid...
 
MrVicchio said:
They have been held responsible, by eating the cost of their failure, but the original crime was the EBT card holder trying to purchase far more then they were allotted. Please correct me if I'm off on this, but I get the impression you are saying the fraud of the EBT holders isn't really their fault cause 2 Wally World stores did something stupid...
Click to expand...

And those that abused it (as in went way over what they had available) lost their benefits. Seems fair.
 
roguenuke said:
And those that abused it (as in went way over what they had available) lost their benefits. Seems fair.
Click to expand...
I do wish there would be a fraud investigation on the people who milked the glitch. The retailers certainly paid in losses, but like I said earlier if I had done that with a personal check, I would be in prison for a while.
 
LaMidRighter said:
I do wish there would be a fraud investigation on the people who milked the glitch. The retailers certainly paid in losses, but like I said earlier if I had done that with a personal check, I would be in prison for a while.
Click to expand...

Why do you seem so lenient in your view with those who facilitated the sales? personally, you can hardly justify pursuing criminal action and not seeking remedy from the party that facilitated such actions.
 
LaMidRighter said:
I do wish there would be a fraud investigation on the people who milked the glitch. The retailers certainly paid in losses, but like I said earlier if I had done that with a personal check, I would be in prison for a while.
Click to expand...

It would be more of a theft, but one allowed by the retailer. But given this particular retailer's statements about this so far and their past stance on shoplifters, it isn't likely to be pursued by them, and it would be their responsibility to do so, since they are the ones out the money. The government did their job (according to this article anyway). They took away the actual abusers' benefits altogether.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
Why do you seem so lenient in your view with those who facilitated the sales? personally, you can hardly justify pursuing criminal action and not seeking remedy from the party that facilitated such actions.
Click to expand...
They already paid in lost inventory and aren't going to be compensated. What else would you want to do to them as they didn't really do anything except ring it up, would you punish a business owner who was given a fraudulent check?
 
roguenuke said:
It would be more of a theft, but one allowed by the retailer. But given this particular retailer's statements about this so far and their past stance on shoplifters, it isn't likely to be pursued by them, and it would be their responsibility to do so, since they are the ones out the money. The government did their job (according to this article anyway). They took away the actual abusers' benefits altogether.
Click to expand...
The reason it would fall under fraud is because it's a wire transaction because of the EBT card, though theft could be applied as a reduced charge. I know if I used a card in bad faith my butt would be in prison quick, fast, and in a hurry.
 
LaMidRighter said:
They already paid in lost inventory and aren't going to be compensated.
Click to expand...

right, and the ebt moops are already losing their benefits ...


What else would you want to do to them as they didn't really do anything except ring it up
Click to expand...

They knowingly facilitated these fraudulant sales. To use your bank analogy, if someone used their position at the bank to facilitate you passing bogus checks, they would fall under legal scrutiny as well

would you punish a business owner who was given a fraudulent check?
Click to expand...

depends on the circumstance: if the business owner knew it was fraud and took it with the intent to pass it on to a third party, as to personally benefit from the sale, then yes, indeed....
 
LaMidRighter said:
The reason it would fall under fraud is because it's a wire transaction because of the EBT card, though theft could be applied as a reduced charge. I know if I used a card in bad faith my butt would be in prison quick, fast, and in a hurry.
Click to expand...

Not likely if it was an error with the system and instead of stopping you from using it, the retailer went ahead and accepted the card, despite you not having funds. It would be seen as a joint error. Now, you might be expected to pay back the amount, but it would depend. Let's say it was a gift card. If the retailer accepted the card showing no limit on it (something no gift card, like EBT cards should ever show), then that is on them and you have a legitimate defense against fraud unless you manipulated the card to show something different (which is not what these people did).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom