Louisiana Suspends EBT Cards for Food Stamp Cheats

reply to post by RedCairo


How long was the outage? I mean if it was only a day, they could have said sorry, can't do it today. I have gone to stores before that had their credit card processing thing down, and wouldn't take any cards for that day.

Or they could have put a limit on, say sorry it's broke, we have to limit your purchases to $50 for today.

What gets me is why did they think they could get away with it in the first place. That stuff is tacked at a least a dozen different ways. I knew this wast going to happen.

reply to post by xuenchen

Maybe people actually thought they "got a raise" in benefits ?

Don't try to candy coat what was going on.
Those who participated in this know it's wrong to steal
anything and the government hates competition.

reply to post by RedCairo


Well, actually no one was going to starve to death over a few hours. Walmart could have just closed the registers down to EBT cards. With a limit, folks would have been getting in line as many times as they could. Yeah Walmart was wrong, but the people taking more than they knew they could was still theft. I guess the honor system is dead these days, huh? In a perfect world, Mr grocer 1950's could pat his good friends, the customers, on the back and say crisis averted. I wonder how many MR grocer 2013 were hovering in the corner grateful that a riot hadn't broken out yet?

reply to post by RedCairo

.......
Our culture really needs to learn to make a spectrum consideration of behavior. There are many behaviors which are objectively wrong, and may even reflect conscious intent to be wrong, but they reflect a poor judgment for which they should be responsible for compensatory behavior or payment in some fashion -- as opposed to harsh misery or prison. Starving people, just like jailing them for long terms, does not make them better people. It just makes them more desperate, more rabid, and often more successful at committing crimes they might never have devolved to had their situation not become what it did. Dealing with people with strictness yet compassion would go a long way.

Yet at the same time, we see what can happen to seemingly law abiding citizens when opportunity knocks.

Many of those 'better people' who somehow became rabid looters when the illusion of 'getting away with it' cancelled all sanity.

Another thing I just thought of. I don't watch/listen/read the news. Actually what little news I get is from forums lol. I'm more interested in 'social' politics than national politics and I detest the media so it works for me. But anyway, what I've learned over time is not to question IF what someone says on the news is true but to question, "Why do they want us to be thinking about this, and why do they want us to be thinking about this in this way?"

Is there a reason that a government glitch which sure, had some people abuse it, is such a big deal, let alone has a punishment like "ban their food/assistance for a year" as opposed to just making them repay whatever they went over, even with a % fee or something?

What do we accept and create precedent for by letting someone go $112 over on a card one month, and as a result be banned, say, $300x12 as punishment? Let alone despite having disabled, elderly and kids that money is actually for?

If I go to prison for something, my kids and elderly grandmother and disabled husband don't go to prison for it. If they must punish someone, can't they find some way to at least punish only the person who used the card, *only in accordance with the amount debited*, as opposed to punishing everyone in such a massive way?

This using a few example of worst-case-scenarios seems kind of worrisome -- that it's in the media like this tells me there is a reason someone wants it to be. Have they just completely arbitrary powers now? If you commit a crime someone has to prove you had intent generally as part of determining your punishment. This isn't part of the criminal justice system, so does that mean what amounts to nearly vigilante justice but imposed by the authority is ok?

Is the punishment the same for the $700 overage or the single guy with the oversized TV, as it is for the 5-person-household that went $112 over?

reply to post by RedCairo


Walmart had a choice. the fact is they chose to abuse the glitch themselves. They didn't give a damn about the customer, they were concerned with making their hourly sales quotas. They could have done what other retailers were doing and set a 50 dollar limit. No one goes home hungry, and those that went over wouldn't have done so by enough to outrage people. Anyway you slice this it comes down to beneficiaries knowingly stealing money they weren't entitled to and Walmart exploiting the system to increase their sales report.

And the family of 5 that went 120 dollars over would be thieves. Like I said before everyone that has SNAP and an EBT know what their balance is within a few dollars. If they don't then they make too much money to be on the program.

TKDRL
reply to post by RedCairo

 

How long was the outage? I mean if it was only a day, they could have said sorry, can't do it today. I have gone to stores before that had their credit card processing thing down, and wouldn't take any cards for that day.

Or they could have put a limit on, say sorry it's broke, we have to limit your purchases to $50 for today.

edit on Fri, 08 Nov 2013 21:34:20 -0600 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)

I agree. I don't know how long the outage was for.

elouina
Well, actually no one was going to starve to death over a few hours.

Was that it? I agree with that.

How do you deal with welfare cheats whose actions will lead to their dependants suffering also? How are you able to punish the cheat alone, when the cheat is relied upon to bring in the food?

Firstly, the opportunity arose to cheat, perhaps for some people on welfare whom may never have cheated before? The opportunity gave them a chance for something 'extra', and because they are sick and tired of doing without or so little all the time, they went on a spending spree...lol.

To be honest, I think stores have to carry some accountability. Once the bank system went down, the EBT cards should not have been able to be used, the stores should have prohibited any use of the EBT card. Yes, it would have been an inconvenient sufferance for the EBT card holder, but far less than the suffering to follow from their dishonesty. At the same time, the EBT card holder knows exactly how much they are able to spend, surely the amount won't vary from month to month unless circumstances change?

So the punishment for those that participated in the cheating will be having to face a year without the EBT card. What now is their only other alternative to feed their dependants? Well, they say crime doesn't pay, but it looks like one or two are going to be stepping on to that slippery spiral just to feed their family?

Society doesn't allow desperation to be used as an excuse for petty actions considered criminal. It may well be taken into account, but punitive punishment is still inflicted. Here in England, it's the same...

Constable on the witness stand: "Well m'lud, the accused did sneak up to the bakery window and did purposefully steal the the loaf of bread fresh from the oven cooling down."

Magistrate, turning to the accused: "I see. I have no alternative but to exile you to the colonies for the gall of your behaviour. The fact that you and your family are stricken with dire poverty is no excuse for your heinous actions. Off to Australia with him. Your wife and children will go to the poor house."

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose...

xuenchen
Yet at the same time, we see what can happen to seemingly law abiding citizens when opportunity knocks.

Many of those 'better people' who somehow became rabid looters when the illusion of 'getting away with it' cancelled all sanity.

Yes, I agree. It is hard to one-up people shooting at rescue helicopters/personnel in an emergency like the Katrina hurricane in New Orleans, so perhaps I've been made cynical, since compared to that most things seem minor...

Wrabbit2000
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.

You're damned skippy Beav!!! Best proposed measure in this entire thread. Next step: Bring back Hitler for another 'Final Solution."

Those butt-wipes were Hell-bent-for-leather on a loot. No sympathy ... no mercy. When we've concluded after a year or two of 'them' going 'without' we'll see they never really needed their hands in our pockets to begin with.

How society props these animals up just gets my goat. They are the ones raising the next generation of looters. It's gonna end sooner or later, folks, and I'm not the procrastinating kind. To Hell with anyone who disagrees with my opinion on the subject!!

KeliOnyx
Walmart had a choice. the fact is they chose to abuse the glitch themselves. They didn't give a damn about the customer, they were concerned with making their hourly sales quotas. They could have done what other retailers were doing and set a 50 dollar limit. No one goes home hungry, and those that went over wouldn't have done so by enough to outrage people. Anyway you slice this it comes down to beneficiaries knowingly stealing money they weren't entitled to and Walmart exploiting the system to increase their sales report.

And the family of 5 that went 120 dollars over would be thieves. Like I said before everyone that has SNAP and an EBT know what their balance is within a few dollars. If they don't then they make too much money to be on the program.

Well given how well I manage my bank balance, clearly I make waaay too damn much money. And ironically, I'm pretty good at basic math in my head, which doesn't keep me from chronically losing track of tax in particular (I can't believe they charge tax on food in OK. Where I'm from in CA they don't).

I actually agree with you -- that Walmart participated -- I do not believe that if this outage was extensive (I wasn't sure of the duration which kind of changes the perspective) they could have just said no, but I DO agree they could have put a limit on it (assuming they could track that. How could they track that??) and that if they COULD track that and didn't, then they probably did that for purely mercenary, not altruistic, reasons.

Maybe Walmart should have to take a loss of 50% of the overage, the full amount has to be paid by the card holder, and the government system takes the extra 50% to pay for the extra work it took them to sort through that mess.

After all if the gov't is going to "make an example of" all those people, why not make an example of the mercenary vendor(s) as well?

reply to post by KeliOnyx

The 50 dollar limit thing would have been the answer but I guess that made too much senses.

reply to post by elysiumfire


Honestly I see it no different to check fraud. If it can be shown that they knew they did not have the amount that they were trying to pay then Louisiana law looks at it like this.

Civil:

Louisiana. Drawer of dishonored check who fails to pay 30 days after written demand delivered by certified or registered mail is liable for damages in twice the amount owing but not less than $100 plus attorneys's fees and court costs. Payee may charge service charge not to exceed $15 or 5% of the face amount of the check, whichever is greater. District Attorney can collect fees for issuance of worthless check, depending on amount of check.

Criminal:

Louisiana. Check for under $100, imprisonment for not more than 6 months or fine of not more than $500 or both. A third or more such conviction, fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment for not more than 2 years or both. Check for $100 or more and less than $500, imprisonment for not more than 2 years or fine of not more than $2,000 or both. Check for $500 or more, imprisonment for not more than 10 years or fine of not more than $3,000 or both. In addition, the court may order as part of the sentence restitution of the amount of the bad check plus reasonable attorneys fees.

Linky

Am I wrong for interpreting this the same as check fraud?

I'm still trying to wrap my head around how people can get a $3000 allotment of EBT benefits. That's the highest I've seen. Second highest was over $1000. Seriously? People really need that much to live off food for a month? That's way too high in my opinion and you got homeless people down the street starving and begging for money? The system makes no sense. So backwards, it's pathetic.

Well intentional check fraud (note: a relative of mine was one of the first people in my home county to go to prison over that. Sadly. Hope it's not genetic lol) doesn't seem to be the same as debit card overage.

If I go over on a debit they either reject it or accept it, and if they accept it, then it just is a negative against my balance when money next goes in. Checks never worked the same for me, even when I had no overdraft protection, both the bank and the vendor freaked-the-hell-out if it didn't clear, but for debit cards, if it doesn't clear the vendor just waits (depending on due dates) and the bank just fines me and waits for my next deposit.

I think what I'm getting at here is that yeah, I'm sure some people behaved badly. But even then, punishment that fits the crime is punishment that FITS the crime, as in, you are $112 over and you have to pay it back, and maybe there's a fee. That is not the same as "a year of all assistance canceled." That doesn't fit the crime.

Why are we so hell-bent for leather to make people suffer for losing EVERYTHING for A YEAR over what might be just a small debit card overage in many cases? Do people feel so personally poor/oppressed that they just want vengeance against everyone assumed to be "stealing their money" or something?

I'm a stark constitutionalist conservative, I am possibly the least liberally-generous-with-money sort I know, but when you look at how to handle social issues, the question is more than just the objective question of whether this paper says that is wrong so that person should pay -- the larger question of their larger circumstance, and of the cultural issues as well, should reasonably be considered.

So Jane is irresponsible, used to being poor as hell, and goes a little nuts shopping one day when she has the chance. Yes, it was wrong. Show me a person who has never done anything wrong. I totally agree there should be responsibility for her actions. But I don't see how Jane's responsibility to pay back her $112 or whatever should equate to Jane and her entire family losing all benefits for a year. To me that is completely over the top as a response.

PS: I got food stamps (aside from a period in childhood when living with my mother who was dying of cancer) only once, when I was pregnant and actually working but nearly starving and couldn't pay rent. Thank goodness for WIC or me and the baby probably would have had some really bad results. Food stamps were not remotely enough. So I dunno where people get thousands of dollars in assistance. Is it for a huge family? For more than just food stamps? Sounds to me like the media is, again, taking the most extreme "make a drama of it" but probably rare examples and pushing those to get people up in arms. Why do you think that's happening? I mean if FOX was the only source talking about it, that would make sense LOL, but when the rest of the mainstream media does, it makes me wonder why. Is there something else going on we shouldn't be paying attention to while we're looking over at those cretins robbing their EBT accounts?

RedCairo

Well given how well I manage my bank balance, clearly I make waaay too damn much money. And ironically, I'm pretty good at basic math in my head, which doesn't keep me from chronically losing track of tax in particular (I can't believe they charge tax on food in OK. Where I'm from in CA they don't).

If you are on benefits or know people that are, they are pretty good at keeping track of their balance on those cards. Because it only gets reloaded once a month.

I actually agree with you -- that Walmart participated -- I do not believe that if this outage was extensive (I wasn't sure of the duration which kind of changes the perspective) they could have just said no, but I DO agree they could have put a limit on it (assuming they could track that. How could they track that??) and that if they COULD track that and didn't, then they probably did that for purely mercenary, not altruistic, reasons.

They didnt have to track anything. All they had to do was tell the cashiers to not ring out more than 50$ on SNAP/EBT cards. the register has a running total on it. Which other retailers were doing.

reply to post by Diabolical


Four letters is how, ADHD. The second the doctor puts that on your child's chart they are officially and irrevocably disabled. Also it is important to understand that EBT and SNAP are two separate programs that utilize the same card.

reply to post by beezzer

If an adult breaks the law, then the adult should be punished.

I agree. Cutting off the food stamps would most likely cause the child to suffer though. In the other thread you said something like 'let them watch their children's hungry faces' or something (I was unable to post there, think it was removed). I was amazed. You know I like and respect you a lot, but that was a bit appalling unless I misread or misinterpreted. That's like saying if a parent(s) are put in jail the child should have to fend for themselves. It's a child. It's not their fault. We have a duty to protect the most vulnerable, especially children.

I would like to see these jackasses required to do community service. Work minimum wage for 2x what they stole, and punish them that way. Jailing them is just going to be a burden on the taxpayer, especially those with children who would have to arrange for care or have those children put in foster care. Cutting off food stamps to those already desperate and having shown a propensity for illegal activity doesn't seem like the way to go.

These people certainly need to be punished, but creating more crime or even more taxpayer funded waste via jail cells seem like bad ideas. At the end of the day I'm more worried about the kids though.

Also while it doesn't excuse the behavior of their patrons at all, WTF was WalMart thinking? I don't get to walk out of the store if the credit card machine is down. They should have suspended all EBT transactions, had a heavy police presence (which it sounds like they already did) or alternatively closed the store. I do sort of wonder if there is some back room deal for them to recoup losses. To me it seems like a business leaving it's doors unlocked and unattended. Yeah, the real fault is with the criminals, but don't go crying when you get jacked.

I sound like Maude Flanders don't I? ETA: Oops, meant Reverend Lovejoy's wife.