quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic


The shopping frenzy was triggered when the Electronic Benefits Transfer system went down because a back-up generator failed at 11 a.m. EST Saturday during a regularly-scheduled test, according to Xerox, a vendor for the EBT system and based in Norwalk, Conn. The outage erased limits on the EBT cards.


http://abcnews.go.com/Business/walmart-food-stamp-shopping-spree-choice/story?id=20579980

quote:

We get people trying to use their cards and finding out they have no more money on a regular basis. My favorite was the chick who started screaming at me about how was she was going to make it another 2 weeks without food stamps. I suggested she stop buying 5 dollar sandwiches everyday and start packing a lunch. Strangely enough that just seemed to piss her off even more. Now I have a lot of sympathy for the ones who honestly try to make ends meet and I would do what ever I could to help them out. But the ones who blow it at high priced convenience stores and then can't understand why they are now broke, not so much.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
In many cases they likely are. First off Wal-Mart has driven many small businesses out of business which reduced living wage employment. This was particularly bad in rural areas. Second Wal-Mart pays its retail associates minimum or near minimum wage and many find themselves needing SNAP to survive.

Oh, horseshit. If there was another competitor selling products for the same price and paying higher wages, WalMart would have to follow suit or not have enough labor available to fill their needs. Why do you think WalMart has been successful? What do you think the consumers want? If low prices is what the consumer wants, why is WalMart bad for filling that?

quote:

ORIGINAL: hlen5

I wonder if WalMart was trying to buy a public relations sort of good will for the company?

quote:

ORIGINAL: sloguy02246

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic


The shopping frenzy was triggered when the Electronic Benefits Transfer system went down because a back-up generator failed at 11 a.m. EST Saturday during a regularly-scheduled test, according to Xerox, a vendor for the EBT system and based in Norwalk, Conn. The outage erased limits on the EBT cards.


http://abcnews.go.com/Business/walmart-food-stamp-shopping-spree-choice/story?id=20579980

What type of IT person programs "a regularly-scheduled test" of a system dealing with grocery store purchases for 11:00 AM on a Saturday morning? (Grocery stores around here are loaded with people on Saturday mornings.)
I thought system tests (and uploads) are normally scheduled on days and at times when normal use of the system would be at a minimum.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterCaneman

The most that will happen is they'll have their future benefits reduced by a percentage until the balance is cleared. You know who gets to do that? Us. The only ones who'll get further punishment were the ones caught in line when the system went back up and showed the correct balance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: hlen5

I wonder if WalMart was trying to buy a public relations sort of good will for the company?

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

I think there is plenty of blame to go around, with the lion's share going to Walmart, who chose to not follow the documented procedure for outages.

I've been thinking about this and have finally put my finger on what was niggling me about it. While I agree that Walmart failed to follow protocol and should be responsible for overcharges, I don't believe that lessens the culpability of the cardholders in the least. What they perpetrated was theft, plain and simple.

While someone may argue that Walmart assisted them by allowing unlimited use of their cards... or at the very least did nothing to prevent it... I don't believe that mitigates the crime of theft on the part of the cardholders.

Think of it this way... if you leave your car or house unlocked and your belongings get stolen, are the thieves any less guilty of stealing because you did not do what you could have to discourage them?

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama
I think there is plenty of blame to go around, with the lion's share going to Walmart, who chose to not follow the documented procedure for outages.

I've been thinking about this and have finally put my finger on what was niggling me about it. While I agree that Walmart failed to follow protocol and should be responsible for overcharges, I don't believe that lessens the culpability of the cardholders in the least. What they perpetrated was theft, plain and simple.
While someone may argue that Walmart assisted them by allowing unlimited use of their cards... or at the very least did nothing to prevent it... I don't believe that mitigates the crime of theft on the part of the cardholders.
Think of it this way... if you leave your car or house unlocked and your belongings get stolen, are the thieves any less guilty of stealing because you did not do what you could have to discourage them?

I agree that the shoppers were morally wrong. Are they legally responsible? I don't know enough to comment. I did a quick and non-comprehensive scan of http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/programs/tanf/laws-regulations and did not find anything on point.
It appears that since Walmart corporate advised the stores to not follow procedures, Walmart is legally responsible. They may be morally responsible as well, if the reason they chose to not follow procedure was greed.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
In many cases they likely are. First off Wal-Mart has driven many small businesses out of business which reduced living wage employment. This was particularly bad in rural areas. Second Wal-Mart pays its retail associates minimum or near minimum wage and many find themselves needing SNAP to survive.

Oh, horseshit. If there was another competitor selling products for the same price and paying higher wages, WalMart would have to follow suit or not have enough labor available to fill their needs. Why do you think WalMart has been successful? What do you think the consumers want? If low prices is what the consumer wants, why is WalMart bad for filling that?

You're not actually familiar with the Wal-Mart strategy for moving into a new area I see.
They build a bunch of small stores, one on the edge of every town usually. They open with prices far below their competitors, prices far lower than Wal-Mart stores in other areas. Once they have wiped out most of the small businesses in the towns they close the small stores in favor of a few Super Wal-Marts (or whatever they're calling them nowadays) and prices go up to just low enough that no small business will be able to compete. The result is lots of shuttered businesses and lots of people working for Wal-Mart at less than the jobs Wal-Mart destroyed. And almost all of those associates are eligible for SNAP. I saw it firsthand in the 80's in north Alabama and in the 90's in suburban Atlanta. Hell, it's happening right now in Chicago where we're losing a large supermarket chain as Wal-Mart expands into the area.
As to prices, Costco destroys Wal-Mart and Sam's Club and Costco definitely pays higher wages.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

The other part of the issue is what to do with those that abused the situation. Heretic posted that CA has a process that deals with this kind of stuff. It's likely to end up coming down to the process the State and/or more local levels of governance have in place (depending on where the funding for the program is coming from).

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

The other part of the issue is what to do with those that abused the situation. Heretic posted that CA has a process that deals with this kind of stuff. It's likely to end up coming down to the process the State and/or more local levels of governance have in place (depending on where the funding for the program is coming from).

ummmm... there is no other part of the issue.. there is nothing the State will or can do about those that (allegedly) abused the situation.. the State has already washed its hands of the situation when it said it wont pay walmart for anything over $50 so if they wont pay walmart, they have no right to do a dam thing to those people that got more than $50 in groceries.. The State would only have the right to "punish" those people (financially, morally) if the State paid walmart in full..

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

quote:

We get people trying to use their cards and finding out they have no more money on a regular basis. My favorite was the chick who started screaming at me about how was she was going to make it another 2 weeks without food stamps. I suggested she stop buying 5 dollar sandwiches everyday and start packing a lunch. Strangely enough that just seemed to piss her off even more. Now I have a lot of sympathy for the ones who honestly try to make ends meet and I would do what ever I could to help them out. But the ones who blow it at high priced convenience stores and then can't understand why they are now broke, not so much.

My sympathies for the rude customer. Perhaps she is like my brother, who is on SSDI due to mental and learning disabilities, and receives food stamps. He is completely unable to budget. On the day his benefits arrive, my mom goes with him to the bank and takes out a certain amount with which she buys Stop & Shop gift cards, which she doles out on a weekly basis. He spends over twice the amount I do on groceries, as he buys more prepared and processed foods, red meat vs chicken, drinks, etc. Except for when he's in the hospital, it's a monthly struggle trying to get him to live within his budget. Mom had to take his ATM card away because although he knows the electric company and Comcast will be taking money out later in the month, if he sees a balance in his account, he'll take money out.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

ummmm... there is no other part of the issue.. there is nothing the State will or can do about those that (allegedly) abused the situation.. the State has already washed its hands of the situation when it said it wont pay walmart for anything over $50 so if they wont pay walmart, they have no right to do a dam thing to those people that got more than $50 in groceries.. The State would only have the right to "punish" those people (financially, morally) if the State paid walmart in full..

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Simply not true. Jaywalking is illegal whether or not there is financial damage.
Now wll the state do anything - of course not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

ummmm... there is no other part of the issue.. there is nothing the State will or can do about those that (allegedly) abused the situation.. the State has already washed its hands of the situation when it said it wont pay walmart for anything over $50 so if they wont pay walmart, they have no right to do a dam thing to those people that got more than $50 in groceries.. The State would only have the right to "punish" those people (financially, morally) if the State paid walmart in full..

Criminal prosecution is not dependent on whether the State was damaged.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Simply not true. Jaywalking is illegal whether or not there is financial damage.
Now wll the state do anything - of course not.

if trying to buy something with more money than is in your account/card was illegal then nearly every bank customer would be in jail, cuz most people have done that accidentally at some point.. show me (in some law) where its illegal and where the State could do f*ck all to the people buying groceries.. Its already been stated in an article (& I quoted in a previous post) that the shoppers "did nothing illegal"..

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

ummmm... there is no other part of the issue.. there is nothing the State will or can do about those that (allegedly) abused the situation.. the State has already washed its hands of the situation when it said it wont pay walmart for anything over $50 so if they wont pay walmart, they have no right to do a dam thing to those people that got more than $50 in groceries.. The State would only have the right to "punish" those people (financially, morally) if the State paid walmart in full..

Criminal prosecution is not dependent on whether the State was damaged.

and yet (as I pointed out in a previous post) that Springhill Police Chief Will Lynd has already stated "The shoppers broke no laws".. I would expect a Police Chief would know what is legal and what isn't, since its his job to know these things..

http://news.msn.com/us/wal-mart-xerox-blame-each-other-for-food-stamps-spree

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Um, it may have escaped your attention - but buying something with a check for more money than is in your account
*is* illegal.