- Joined
- Dec 17, 2011
- Messages
- 1,981
- Reaction score
- 806
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Poor Wal-mart. I'm sure they won't be able to possibly wont be able to make up the money they lost.
As much as recipients of government handouts might talk about it being "their money", it's not their money. They have no right to claim ownership of it just like recipients of Social Security have no right to claim ownership of those payments. They are payments you receive if and only if the government in its magnanimous generosity deigns to provide you with such.
I would have done the same thing. Business deals are shady all the time and nobody calls them out on it. But when a regular every day person who is just trying to make ends meet and feed their family does it, then the world ends. You have probably heard it before, but why is it easier to believe that millions of Americans are lazy than a select few are greedy? Money is not always a direct indicator for work ethic.
Social Security isn't welfare. Social Security is an insurance program and everyone who collects Social Security earned that money and bought and paid for the program that pays them that money-- it is their money.
Social Security isn't welfare. Social Security is an insurance program and everyone who collects Social Security earned that money and bought and paid for the program that pays them that money-- it is their money.
One of the most enduring myths of Social Security is that a worker has a legal right to his or her Social Security benefits. Most workers assume that because they pay Social Security taxes into the system their whole working lives, they have some sort of legal guarantee to its benefits.
They assume wrong. In two landmark cases, Flemming v. Nestor and Helvering v. Davis, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that workers have no right to receive Social Security benefits. Congress and the president may change, reduce or even eliminate benefits at any time. Retirees must depend on the good will of 535 politicians to determine whether and how much they will receive in retirement.
Not according to the Supreme Court.
Kind of gives a warm feeling inside, doesn't it? I mean to say, a person drawing an annuity from a bank has way more protection than that.
Not tough enough. They should lose their foods stamp eligibility, AND go to jail. It was theft, plain and simple.
$700 worth of groceries, seriously lady?!? The absolute nerve of some people.
Not according to the Supreme Court.
Kind of gives a warm feeling inside, doesn't it? I mean to say, a person drawing an annuity from a bank has way more protection than that.
Wow. Impressive move, Jindal. Good for you.
But hold on to your hat. You're about to get accused of everything in the book.
I think the government is stiffing them on the tab.And the corporations who facilitated these transactions with full knowledge? Nothing? Jail for them too?
I think the government is stiffing them on the tab.
which is reasonable if we are simply removing and suspending benefits. But there are people calling for the welfare moops to be jailed, this puts a disproportionate amount of punishment on them, when it clearly took two to tango
The decisión to commit the crime was theirs and theirs alone.
Giving someone else the opportunity to commit a crime does not make them libel for the crime.
ugh, we already covered this, and besides showing that you were completely ignorant on the details of the story (making your assessment of it worthless) I also explained how walmart facilitated the purchases, how they knew the system wasn't working properly, and how there was an obvious run on EBT items
So I am unsure how simply repeating yourself ten pages later changes anything from our original exchange
The decisión to commit the crime was theirs and theirs alone.
Giving someone else the opportunity to commit a crime does not make them libel for the crime.
(1)what makes you know which of those who overdrew their account balance decided to knowingly perpetrate that crime and which ones went over only because the system was unable to show their available SNAP balance
or
(2)are you telling us that all of them should have their benefits eliminated
if you are unable or unwilling to share the process to option #1 then it must be concluded that you have opted for outcome #2, and have no problem removing food from the mouths of innocents
card holders can ask the cashier to check their account balance before check out to assure they will not exceed their account balance
however, since the system was down, that was not possible
which tells us that some of those customers who had overdrawn their account may have done so without criminal intent, and only due to the inoperable system
why should they have their benefits rescinded
O know the story.
If you leave your front door open and even advertise you did that and a theif steals everything in the house you cannot be held responsable for the theft.
Honest people do not steal from the program or the store.
card holders can ask the cashier to check their account balance before check out to assure they will not exceed their account balance
however, since the system was down, that was not possible
which tells us that some of those customers who had overdrawn their account may have done so without criminal intent, and only due to the inoperable system
why should they have their benefits rescinded
and then there are some who demonstrate their ignorant belief that all those who are subject to having their benefits cease are those $700 overdrawnlol, you don't miscalculate your balance by 699.50. You're just as bad as mason and neither of you give a fig about the facts here. Also, in day to day shopping we do not see the frantic "run" on EBT eligible items that we saw here. So while there may be some who made honest mistakes, there was undoubtedly those actively working to defraud the system
Why is it that mindless ideology seems so entwined with willful ignorance here: Jindel's proposal explicitly accounts for this
and then there are some who demonstrate their ignorant belief that all those who are subject to having their benefits cease are those $700 overdrawn
under the governor's decree, all who were overdrawn will lose their SNAP benefits