• 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

Poor Wal-mart. I'm sure they won't be able to possibly wont be able to make up the money they lost.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.

Why do you view it as an either/or scenario and ignore the impact such benefit fleecing has on people who rely on them? Again, this is what made the original thread so funny, because you had two groups basically willing to bend over backwards to excuse and justify the actions of their pet political interests, while completely vilifying the other.

Talk about your complete absence of balance and reason
 
I thought louisiana was a conservative state. Shouldn't they be *rejecting* food stamps at every opportunity? Whenever i hear those deep southerners say they'd rather starve than rely on government, i know they're full of it.
 
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.

Not entirely. Many contribute for decades and get nothing back, because they didn't live to retirement, or they're in jail, or whatever. To an extent it is actually welfare, because people collect it disproportionately, from the work of others.
 
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.

Not according to the Supreme Court.

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.

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 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.

excellent rejoinder
that one is eligible to benefit from a government benefits plan until the government modifies the requirements such that they do not
that so changes the matter under discussion [/snark]
 
Not tough enough. They should lose their foods stamp eligibility, AND go to jail. It was theft, plain and simple.

And the corporations who facilitated these transactions with full knowledge? Nothing? Jail for them too?
 
$700 worth of groceries, seriously lady?!? The absolute nerve of some people.

Well her children deserve prime rib every night, don't they? :mrgreen:
 
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.

Election assure the Ponzi Scheme remains intact.
 
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 do think a line needs to be drawn. If someone ony overdrew by a few dollars, I say it's probably an honest mistake. Anyone overdrawing by hundreds of dollars... "Book'em Danno..."
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
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

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.
 
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
 
(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

Now are you trying to say the buyers that bought ítems that value more than what they have ever had on their card did not know they didn't have the money on their account?

This would be the same as a checking account. The account holder is responsable for not over spending what they have in the account, even if somebody lets them do it.
 
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
 
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

I would agree with you if the overage was within a reasonable amount but to go over by hundreds is criminal.

These people knew how much they get per week and they wen way over even that amount.

Did you see the cartfuls left at the register when the system came back online?

Who gets thousands of dollars per month on their card legitamately?
 
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.

Again, this is the narrative you tried to paint previously and it was shown to be born from nothing but ignorance: 1) Walmart knew the system was down, 2) walmart knew the EBT cards were not showing limits, 3) Walmart knew the proper route of dealing with the situation 4) Walmart knew there was a frantic run on EBT eligible products. 4) Walmart thought the funds would be covered by a third party account

Thus, your narrative, has absolutely nothing to do with reality

Honest people do not steal from the program or the store.

Do you even bother reading what you reply to? The original post that brought about our discussion was about BOTH parties being dishonest and trying to take advantage of a faulty system. Do you just not understand what the term "both" means or is this just another demonstration of how your ideology trumps reality?

Honest people do not steal from the program or the store.[/QUOTE]
 
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

lol, 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 should they have their benefits rescinded

Why is it that mindless ideology seems so entwined with willful ignorance here: Jindel's proposal explicitly accounts for this
 
lol, 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
 
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

<<<“We must protect the program for those who receive and use their benefits appropriately according to the law. We are looking at each case individually, addressing those recipients who are suspected of misrepresenting their eligibility for benefits or defrauding the system,” Sonnier said in a prepared statement.>>>


<<<The Jindal administration said Wednesday that problems occurred with people who spent more than their balances and with people who weren’t even eligible for food stamps.

Violators can expect to get a letter about disqualification along with an offer to appeal through an administrative hearing.

Anyone who waives or loses an appeal will lose food stamp benefits for as little as a year and as much as permanently depending on the number of prior offenses.>>>
 
Back
Top Bottom