Louisiana Suspends EBT Cards for Food Stamp Cheats

beezzer

beatbox

beezzer
Children are ALWAYS the ones to suffer when adults do something stupid.

That's because it is children who have to rely on parents.

If an adult breaks the law, then the adult should be punished. There should never be a caveat clause that says, "Oh. You stole, murdered, did drugs, assaulted people, damaged property. . . yaddayadda. . . . but since "the children might suffer" we'll just let it go."

how are you gonna compare murders, drugs and assaults...to food????

get off that high horse.....

edit on 8-11-2013 by beatbox because: (no reason given)

waaa

Theft is theft.

again, how CAN YOU COMPARE "THEFT" TO MURDER OR DRUGS?????

reply to post by beatbox


2 words.

"Personal responsibility."

Are you stating then, that those people should not be held responsible for their actions?

reply to post by benrl


well how about not scamming the system and thinking of your children before you go on a spending spree due to a glitch.i get it some people need welfare and that i dont have a problem with,but ANY one who scams the system needs to be made an example of perhaps if they wear a sign that says i scammed wellfare and then go beg for money they can feed their kids but they should have thought about it before trying to get a bunch of "free stuff" they weren't entitled too.you scam welfare you loose those benefits and that's how it should be

reply to post by beatbox


I'll be MORE than happy to help the children of parents who wantonly commit crimes in front of them and make a game of the whole thing. Heck, I have just what the Doctor ordered. The kids will be in much better hands than criminals.

Of course, Mom and Dad won't appreciate the Child Protective Services setting terms for visitation for a long time to come ...but if it's the kids alone we are concerned about? The kids ..alone.. can certainly be assisted. Very much so.

Now when I first heard about this problem, I was not sure what to think about it.

The first issue was where the system malfunctioned, and removed all limits on the ebt cards. Now most of the time, people got there food stamps, but it was the same amount every time. It meant that they could only spend up to a certain amount every month, and after that amount was reached the card was not usable until the first part of the following month.

These people, who took advantage of this, did not just go a little bit over the spending limit, but way over, they went wild and were like animals, and the sad part is that no matter what the reason was, they were cheating the system. So if a person is only receiving say 400 dollars a month went way over their normal allotment of funds on that day. Now if they know that they get same amount every month, then the question is why did they think that they would have gotten a larger amount. To make matters worse, they did not just take advantage of the problem, but they turned around and told all of their friends and so forth that caused this problem, leaving a mess that has to be cleaned up.

Now it has been a while, they have cleaned up the mess, and fixed the problem, except for one problem and issue, and that is the money that is due.

The Food stamp program is one that has to struggle every month and every year to come up with funds. More and more people apply for the funds, while at the same time, are not getting a raise in the amount to cover the number of new people applying on it. So it is a balancing act, where most of the funds come from the federal government and the remaining balance. It is not fair to ask Walmart to foot the bill, though they could, but what would be the result of such? If I was a VP in charge, or the CFO, I could see settling the bill, and eating the cost, but like most businesses, it also means that they would have to pass said costs off to either the consumer, or take it off of the taxes, as a loss, or both, which they will. This was not a small amount of money, but in the millions of dollars. And no one thought that there might have been a problem when shoppers who are on food stamps were pushing multiple carts away from the store.
But there is one other decision, that all of the places that were affected by this even will have to make, and it could hurt all on the food stamp program and that is to decide if they should or will continue to accept the ebt cards.

But back to the issue at hand, the cutting off of the program for all of those who abused the system. There has to be punishment for those who abused the system. But if this is as I suspect, then what they are saying is that if a person was only allowed say 200 a month, and got 2000 worth of food, then perhaps they should lose the benefits for a time, or pay back the money that they overspent by.

The bottom line is that all of these people are going to have to be more frugal shoppers, and start helping themselves, it means that they are going to have to get up in the morning and look and then do what is necessary to keep themselves fed and survive. And if I read the article correctly, they can appeal the decision, however, that process is going to take time. Something tells me that the state of Louisiana is working to repay Walmart in that state and it is using the benefits from the food stamp program to pay the bill.

StoutBroux
A year is too long. Maybe just until that spending amount was reached by offsetting of the SNAP card credits. So if they spent $700.00 in grocery's they would have to wait until they had credited it all back through their monthly allotments. Once they reached a zero balance, they would begin receiving their food funds the following month. After all, they just bought a sh#tload of food so it should last for a while.

Their is no excuse for the bad behavior and once the full carted people in line heard the glitch was fixed, they all abandoned their carts. They KNEW it wasn't a raise.

This is what they do in my state if you do something like not report income. They go back to when you received it, figure out how much you should of been receiving, and deduct it from future debits till you are paid back.

That is what they should do here.

RalagaNarHallas
reply to post by benrl

 

well how about not scamming the system and thinking of your children before you go on a spending spree due to a glitch.i get it some people need welfare and that i dont have a problem with,but ANY one who scams the system needs to be made an example of perhaps if they wear a sign that says i scammed wellfare and then go beg for money they can feed their kids but they should have thought about it before trying to get a bunch of "free stuff" they weren't entitled too.you scam welfare you loose those benefits and that's how it should be

Its really easy to judge and hand out punishment on a full stomach.

Im all for personal responsibility, but at the point innocents are harmed than something else needs to be done.


I don't see criminal charges be brought against these people, so its not "criminal" just yet, the act may have been fraud, but the state would rather not "anyalzye " it too much to bring about proper restitution.

This is a reactionary politician looking to appear like hes handling the problem.

HOW hard would it have been to calculate the amount and deduct the fraudulent amount over a reasonable time scale.

In effect getting back what was taken, or more like making it a loan against future benefits...

Yeah cutting them off is clearly the humane thing to do...

searching411
All actions have consequences. This is another reason to place welfare at the local level, more control I do not accept excuses for the misuse of the system. These people deserve to be called on the carpet. They are spending money the working class could use to send their children to college, help their parents in their old age, etc. Instead we are allowing people to continue to "use" the system. Worse still, most people on the welfare road have no appreciation and no plan to become self sufficient. Those of you who will rapidly jump on my case about my lack of charity -- open up your own wallets and take care of the the people for whom you fill such sympathy . Put your own money where your heart bleeds. Then there would be no poor.

Almost half the people who receive food stamps are working. They are the working poor. When I worked for social services, we would have people who had 2 full time jobs and still didn't make enough to get by. Now that is criminal. But those who want to criminalize the poor never actually look up the facts surrounding it.

beezzer
reply to post by beatbox

 

2 words.

"Personal responsibility."

Are you stating then, that those people should not be held responsible for their actions?

I could not possibly agree with you more.

Excuse after excuse on all levels...always a reason "why" people CHOOSE not to make a simple right/wrong decision that is morally sound.

I know about "grey area and exceptions" but it's been my experiece first hand that many things DO boil down to "right or wrong" and it IS that simple much of the time. They chose to try and scam the system that fed them.

I am not talkign about the "working poor" but this incident in particular.

I hear it day after day: "What about the children?" Damn...I come from a family of 8 kids and we were cared for as best my parents could manage, sometimes we had more, sometimes less but there was ALWAYS an "accountability" on the part of my hard-working parents that THEIR kids were THEIR responsibility to care for.

They never took a dime or a handout in any form...sometimes they took another job though.

I have great empathy for the kids who suffer and I knowmany do because their parents make terrible choices on many levels...however...it's also a choice to have these kids in the first place (and let's be honest, in this day and age you do not "have to" become pregnant) and it's simply an exhausting and overwhelming moral and civil responsibility to expect the rest of us to "take care of everyone..."

I d a lot with the local Food Bank and also am the first one to donate gifts for kids at Christmas, etc...I do what I can, where I can but to throw a blanket over some TRULY awful judegements on the part of these "parents" and say that's it's just so tragic is just that...very tragic.

Another huge sign that the changes that need to happen need to start at a very basic level.

No one ever wants to talk about that.

I didn't see any of this footage. Now some of you are claiming that they had tvs and other such things in their carts. If that this the case, that is all on Walmart, as they are agreed to accept the EBT cards and it is up to them to enforce it. If they were allowing people to by tvs, and other stuff, that isn't food on an EBT card, Walmart should swallow that cost.

reply to post by benrl


again quite frankly i dont care i turned in two of my own friends for scamming welfare and lost one of them custody of their children(help that she was dating a sex offender who she left her children with)and i knew her since childhood.

You deliberately scam(steal) from the system that is set up to help the poor get a leg up and feed their kids i say throw the book at them.i don't hate the poor in fact im quite poor my self and yet i dont have to steal to take care of my self and the few other low income people that i help feed on my own because they are my friends,if i see people begging for money for food i dont give them money i give them food (and dog food when begging with their pets) the only people i give cash to are people who's signs are either honest(i just want a five for beer for example) or amuse me (consider it paying for a service)

if you want welfare to continue and be the good usefull program it should then throw the scammers under the bus and make PUBLIC examples of them hell if legal in state post their pictures for all to see like some states show off drug offenders arrests,and do this not just to shame them in the public eye but to get other people on wellfare who may know of crimes to turn in those that would scam the system and risk the program THEY need to feed THEIR kids.

hell give people on wellfare a bounty (extra money) for turning in the frauds and scammers. examples of these people need to be made or else those that rely on it just to survive run the risk of loosing what they actually need.you make it so the risk of scamming the system is so pain full no one would even consider it for fear of consequences and it would cut down fraud if every fraudster had to worry about getting turned in by people they brag about scamming the system to.yeah i get it i come off as hostile i make no apologies for this but its how i feel and nothing will be changing it any time soon i guess we will have to agree to disagree on this matter

reply to post by nixie_nox


It's not "on Walmart": Walmart is a corporation in business to make money, not moral decisions of what is "right and wrong."

I have NO love for Walmart but it is NOT their responsibility or fault for what theis bunch "chose" to load their carts with during this mess.The cashiers were most likely "told" to simply "process the transactions"...they were'nt given a print out of what was "okay" to buy I'm sure.

Once again, it is about personal responsibility.The people who CHOSE to scam are entirely to blame.

reply to post by benrl


Lets not base our ethics on what banks do.. Banks and individuals alike should held responsible for what they do, instead of pardon one because no body held the other responsible. Two wrongs don't make a right.

irishchic
reply to post by nixie_nox

 

It's not "on Walmart": Walmart is a corporation in business to make money, not moral decisions of what is "right and wrong."

I have NO love for Walmart but it is NOT their responsibility or fault for what theis bunch "chose" to load their carts with during this mess.The cashiers were most likely "told" to simply "process the transactions"...they were'nt given a print out of what was "okay" to buy I'm sure.

Once again, it is about personal responsibility.The people who CHOSE to scam are entirely to blame.

No one forces a company to take EBT cards, they agree to it.

When they take it, they know that they are supposed to enforce that it is for food only. They are given lists of what is or is not acceptable.

So if they were allowing people to buy TVs with an EBT card, that is all on them and their cashiers to enforce that. Period. No one forced the card on them and made them accept the terms and conditions of the state.

Small stores used to call me all the time about what is/is not acceptable.


So as much as you want to make it only the poor people responsible based on your own peronsal anecdotal evidence, that is all on walmart for not enforcing what they agreed too.

irishchic
reply to post by nixie_nox

 

It's not "on Walmart": Walmart is a corporation in business to make money, not moral decisions of what is "right and wrong."

I have NO love for Walmart but it is NOT their responsibility or fault for what theis bunch "chose" to load their carts with during this mess.The cashiers were most likely "told" to simply "process the transactions"...they were'nt given a print out of what was "okay" to buy I'm sure.

Once again, it is about personal responsibility.The people who CHOSE to scam are entirely to blame.

Same argument for banks then I guess?

Its not their fault they where irresponsible with their goods and services, by giving them to untrustworthy people...

Walmart wasn't helping these people by doing this, They where protecting their daily numbers from a potentially huge hit.

Its a risk all retail takes when the power goes out, To stay open and use manual receipts (risk fraud) Or close and lose sales (protect inventory) .

Stores have rules about this all designed to maximize profits and minimize risk, it was a calculated risk on Walmart part to keep taking EBT.

reply to post by nixie_nox


As some were explaining at the time, some EBT cards serve a dual purpose with another type of assistance money on them and both balances were down. The TVs were "legitimate" in the sense that they are a type of good that could be purchased, although the size and number of them in the carts were not at all legit.

kx12x
reply to post by benrl

 

Lets not base our ethics on what banks do.. Banks and individuals alike should held responsible for what they do, instead of pardon one because no body held the other responsible. Two wrongs don't make a right.

And the disparity between Corporate accountability vs Citizen accountability is not a discussion worth having, got it.

I'm confused.

If a corporation (or bank or business) is irresponsible, then that does not give allowance for individuals to follow suit.

Personal responsibility is not predicated on another's (lack of) responsibility.

reply to post by benrl


Not talking "about the banks" here...that is a WHOLE other can of worms, just as ugly or uglier.

This is an issue of "personal responsibility" and I certainly realize that many involved in banking are sorely lacking as well.

I think this "incident" sets a precedent: IF there are NO reprecussions, it will happen again the next time there is a glitch in the system and it's almost inevitable there will be at some point.

Now I'm not sure that making those those hold the EBT cards in their hands "responsible" will change much but it may just give a few pause for thought and in a "perfect world" they might just respect the system that is supposedly designed to "give them a hand when they are in need" just a tiny bit more?

It was a very ugly incident overall as I see it...shows just how morally reprehensible things have become on both sides and on many levels.

BUT I adhere to the notion that if your name is on the card, you are responsible for it's use.

Damn...they sure hold me accountable for my credit cards

beezzer
I'm confused.

If a corporation (or bank or business) is irresponsible, then that does not give allowance for individuals to follow suit.

Personal responsibility is not predicated on another's (lack of) responsibility.

Simply pointing out the Disparity in treatment for the surfs, and how readily everyone defends that paradigm.