Louisiana Suspends EBT Cards for Food Stamp Cheats

With regard to Walmart - what were they supposed to do? Say no - we think your card doesn't have that much so to away? They could get in trouble for that too and such a statement would hit the papers as profiling. They did call the police so although I don't care for this corporation I feel for the managers who had to figure out how to handle this mob.

I saw those pictures online (large screen televisions - more than one in some carts). It was theft and I'm sure it sent confussion and panic through those who worked there. The people knew they had no limit before they went shopping. If someone went over by 50.00 I would say that is reasonable. But what the others did - will likely ruin something for millions with new policies from stores. God forbid it ever happens again - "no one will be granted access to food" because of these people. It's this stuff that give reasons for more safeguards (policies, laws).

It's a tough call for those dependent on these fools. Isn't 500.00 a felony? Or is that for bounced checks only? Because I believe they should be prosecuted while their dependents continue to be fed. I believe it is standard to sanction benefits if you commit fraud but it is the kids and elderly who ultimately suffer for these poor choices. Maybe be required to pay it all back (sanction until paid back), and face the music on the theft side of things.

reply to post by KeliOnyx


Well, the cheaters could have come back a few times, gone to a different register I suppose. At least it would have been an attempt to be reasonable, then it would be all on the cheater in that case. They can't say oh yeah, I forgot a already spent my money.

reply to post by Domo1


Fuzzy kitty, what I meant was that if a parent broke the law that resulted in the loss of food for the persons child, the adult responsible (parent) should have to look the child in the eye and say, "It is my fault".

Maybe you guys haven't had kids or something.

If my kid was hungry, I would do anything to feed her. Especially when she was very young, when hormones made me aware of where that "mama-bear" legend comes from.

I would have done anything to keep her safe which includes getting her food. If that had required becoming a criminal because I had no food, couldn't get a job, and was banned for a year whether it was for my intentional fault or genuinely a small accident, I would have done it. That guy or my kid? Guy loses. This is why humanity survived, because nature helped us evolve with parental instincts that are absolutely ruthless about survival of our children.

This puts people in the situation of literally *having* to become criminals -- BIOLOGY demands that parents protect and feed their children, this is hormonal and directly affects the physiology and related psychology, it is not merely a whim one can just ignore and watch their little kid starve.

They really must find a way to deal with this that does not involve pulling all food for a year from an entire household.

reply to post by beezzer


Feeling relieved. I'll go ahead and put you back on your pedestal now. Completely misunderstood and thought it seemed quite out of character. Long day man.

What do you think appropriate punishment would be? I think they deserve a swift kick in the behind, I just don't want to see the kids end up shipped off to foster care or unable to eat. I do sort of agree though that parents of that caliber are most likely not fit for the job.

My apologies for thinking the worst. I'm facepalming now if it's any consolation.

ETA: Man I accidentally said constipation instead of consolation. I was trying not to type constellation, and the brain went blank. 'Well that's a word and spellcheck agrees, and it isn't constellation'. Ugh.

reply to post by RedCairo


Having kids don't put people above the law. Even worse, what kind of message is this sending to the kids? Acting like it's christmas early and a broken EBT system is santa clause. I hope none of those kids were witnesses to that sad display. Some of those people were genuinely ridiculous.

reply to post by Domo1


I still think the parents should be "bitch-slapped" and then taken out back and shot.

THIS IS HOW YOU SECURE YOUR CHILDS FUTURE?

Really?

What a f###ing example we set for the young!

reply to post by Domo1


Unfortunately for every crime those around them suffer. Can you think of one punishable offense where a family member didn't suffer? So a woman blows someones head off, should she not got to jail because she has children? Same principle here.

Now everyone may be assuming something here and I mentioned this earlier. Did anyone say that the children or even spouses would be cut off? Last I heard, if you do a crime your kids and spouse don't go to jail with you.

reply to post by beezzer


Agreed. And as you say, they are setting an example, a horrible example. Let's make them work for WalMart for a month for free. That my sound severe, but they need to learn a lesson. Somehow.

Thanks for understanding that I was not understanding you. This is why I love you. You soar above the ignants.

TKDRL Having kids don't put people above the law.

Totally agree. You take the fall for what you gotta do.

I hope none of those kids were witnesses to that sad display. Some of those people were genuinely ridiculous.

Sounds like it.

Walmart spokeswoman Kayla Whaling said Walmart decided to let the crowds go ahead and buy rather than cut them off.

Walmart is 50% responsible for this fraud and should be held accountable. I am a point of sale tech. I install these systems. It is absolutely ludicrous to use the card redundant backup system for EBT payments. That is fraud committed by Walmart ON PURPOSE. They knew they would get paid and committed the fraud knowingly. What the majority of people do not know is that when they are swiping their credit cards their is a little system in the back, we call it the "back of house".

This system files your data into an encrypted .txt file for card processing at a later time. Before it does so it runs a pre-authorization charge on your account to make sure that the funds are there. That gets removed when "the cards", as we call it, are processed. There is a switch that is ONLY used when your back of house INTERNET connection is down NOT YOUR EBT SYSTEM. That switch is up to the consumer to use. You can turn it on or off but you have to choose at the time of the incident. It takes admin rights usually the manager has this.

That switch will then process all transactions as if they were pre-authorized. Its like the Walmart's store manager went back and flipped the switch to help his friends out or something. This does not happen by accident. Yes the people stealing are at fault but the store manager or Walmart are 50% to blame for willingly taking part in this fraud. Again the card redundant backup system was never, and is not designed for EBT! That's why when you check out they immediately have a balance for your account.

You do not EVER, use the redundant system for these cards. This makes me so mad I could start calling the MSM and offering to do interviews. I was angry at the thieves at the time because the MSM (uninformed) said that it was an error in the EBT system that gave them all free money, when in fact it was Walmart who gave them a free shopping spree. This is directly Walmart's doing and Walmart should not be paid.

Walmart should be made an example of in this case and given the balance of what was on the cards. Then individuals who stole should then be suspended from the system for a year.

reply to post by RedCairo


The system was down for only hours...how is it that your kid or any of these ppls children would be "starving"? Wal Mart went and did something they didnt need to do but they did anyway to help some ppl out and not a single one of those carts was half way full or just full enough to get by...they were stacked to the BRIM from greedy, thieving criminals. Omg my child hasnt eaten in 4 hours omg what do we do were all gonna die!! hah bs...they all knew they were doing something wrong and they all should be punished, kids or no kids and if the kids are hungry im pretty sure no ones gonna let them die of starvation. I mean which court judge says "oh you just robbed that store but its ok you have kids so you wont be punished just go home and ya know what here is some free money on a debit card for your troubles"....these ppl are a dead weight in society.

reply to post by elouina

Unfortunately for every crime those around them suffer. Can you think of one punishable offense where a family member didn't suffer? So a woman blows someones head off, should she not got to jail because she has children? Same principle here.

That's an excellent point. I agree, people shouldn't be let off the hook. I suppose I think that this is a rather petty crime all things considered, and that people shouldn't starve. If someone qualifies for food assistance, I would assume (and I may be wrong here) that they don't have any other means of feeding themselves. So to take that away seems too harsh a punishment. I'd rather be whipped than starve.

Now everyone may be assuming something here and I mentioned this earlier. Did anyone say that the children or even spouses would be cut off? Last I heard, if you do a crime your kids and spouse don't go to jail with you.

Fair point. The problem is that the kids don't get to go shopping and have control of their food though. I don't think that most that are willing to rob a store are going to sit there and only use the food to feed the kids. They're probably at the very least going to be dipping in.

I'm also not sure how food benefits work, or how this 1 year ban is going to work. I thought that the 'provider' was the one that was allotted a certain amount of money, based on dependents. So best case scenario is a confirmed scumbag loses his or her portion of the EBT money, but still gets what the kids were entitled to and somehow manages to forage for themselves. I just don't see that happening. I see kids going hungry.

Listen, I really think people need to be held accountable, I think there are some real problems with food benefits, but I don't think we should put our trust in those that LOSE their food benefits because of criminal activity to actually feed their children. I'm trying to be realistic and this is a multi faceted problem. I don't think there is a magic wand wave type of fix, and I would rather dirtbags go unpunished than see the innocent suffer.

WalMart will have to pay for hundreds of thousands of dollars of groceries bought by Louisiana food stamp recipients after a computer glitch gave them unlimited funds on their government-issued credit cards. The Louisiana Department of Children and Family Services, which oversees the Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) card program in the state, said WalMart could have instituted an emergency $50 limit for each customer, but chose not to - and as a result, the retail giant must foot the sizable bill.

Oh thank God. I don't have to have a stroke. Thought I might from pure anger. When we install these systems we explain to the consumer that if they flip that switch and take blind purchases they are responsible for the debt and will eat it if they take a bad card. Looks like EBT isn't stupid and placed the blame where the blame should be. Going to have breakfast maybe some blood sugar will calm me down.

reply to post by benrl






Ya wanna know why so many people have no pride and must leach off of others. Attitudes like yours are the real reason and this is the cold hard truth.



Why not just say it for what it is..........THEY ARE CRIMINALS. They deserve to go hungry and if they can not provide for the poor children then take there kids away until they step up to the plate.



Maybe after seeing some real hard times these people might gain some pride in themselves and pull themselves out of this birth to death cycle of handouts. The progressive minded people are enslaving the poor for generation after generation all in the name of helping out the poor people.

I attempted to post this a few hours ago at work, but of course my tablet got retarded.......

I'm surprised....absolutely surprised at why this hasn't been brought up before.

I agree, having utilized EBT for a brief period, you know exactly what is on that card and those that purchase 2, 3, 4, 10 times what their monthly allotment is did it with the intent to defraud the system. Sorry, but they knew and did it....when it happened, I knew as soon as it broke that they would be punished.....it is a card in their name for Pete's sake.....it was easy to figure out that Bob used his card and racked up a $1,000.00 purchase on EBT when his monthly was $235.00.

Now to the surprised part, why is no one talking about this was a complete setup, total setup, not that I'm excusing the actions of those that 'stole' from the system.

"Glitches" happened in 15ish states, some states had EBT turned off completely, and some with unlimited draft. It was a test, it was an experiment to see what the populace reaction was. Well, they got their data. Combined with the fact that DHS has been ramping up to protect against civil unrest....combined with the target population. The new homeless relocation laws and FEMA camps.

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.....if a family can't feed themselves, they don't care about education or what we are doing in Syria.....The idea is that the POTUS is only going to be able to initiate martial law by popular demand, that is proven time and time again.....the only way that will happen is natural disaster, emergency or civil unrest....something so severe and widespread, that he is begged to do it by the population....once turned on....never turned off.

So the idea, in some of the glitched states, EBT was tested both ways, and the reaction was entirely different....and data received.

However, now.....Do we really think that those thousands that have their EBT turned off for a year or more will say, 'You got me, i was wrong, i broke the law, i will take my punishment and sit here quietly.' ......Not a chance......given the population they aimed at, stressing their resources farther......They effectively took food out of their children's mouths......What do you think is the desired response?

More states will follow, and this is exactly the response desired.....and you can't tell me walmart was not 'guided' in their acceptance of this scenario......a normal business with a credit card that didn't 'clear' would not have been accepted.....a debit card that was accepted and overdrawn.....the consumer pays a high price on overdraft....a bounced check, the business is on the hook for accepting a rejected check.

This was the test bed from the word go.

NiZZiM
reply to post by RedCairo

 

The system was down for only hours...how is it that your kid or any of these ppls children would be "starving"? Wal Mart went and did something they didnt need to do but they did anyway to help some ppl out and not a single one of those carts was half way full or just full enough to get by...they were stacked to the BRIM from greedy, thieving criminals. Omg my child hasnt eaten in 4 hours omg what do we do were all gonna die!! hah bs...they all knew they were doing something wrong and they all should be punished, kids or no kids and if the kids are hungry im pretty sure no ones gonna let them die of starvation. I mean which court judge says "oh you just robbed that store but its ok you have kids so you wont be punished just go home and ya know what here is some free money on a debit card for your troubles"....these ppl are a dead weight in society.

I did not know initially that it was only hours. I have about three posts in this thread where I said that and agreed that under this condition, the circumstances are pretty different.

I do still feel the punishment should fit the crime, and that people who aren't the card-user shouldn't be punished, but I totally agree that starvation is not involved in that case. ;-)

I don't know about dead weights on society. A lot of people are. Some of them pay taxes but probably cost society in other ways. I was kinda trying to keep the discussion to the point of the story and not the larger point of welfare.

Domo1
reply to post by elouina

 

If someone qualifies for food assistance, I would assume (and I may be wrong here) that they don't have any other means of feeding themselves. So to take that away seems too harsh a punishment. I'd rather be whipped than starve.

Why must we assume that these are helpless people that can't do more than watch soap operas and talk on their phones all day? All those people were quite able bodied to push heaping full carts of food around a store and unload them at home. And heck, maybe even run back for more. Did you watch all the videos available online? I never saw such energy.

If they need food, then maybe they need to look for another way to get it. A job would be a good start. Or how about mowing lawns, cleaning homes, raking leaves, sewing, knitting, etc.. They could do all those misc small jobs under the table. The only people that I could see not being able to earn some spare cash by say sewing, would be those without arms. And they very well would not be out pushing a heaping cart full of groceries. Get my point?

Another idea would be state work for EBT money. You know community service, litter patrol etc... Until their one year fine or more is paid off.

SubTruth
Maybe after seeing some real hard times these people might gain some pride in themselves and pull themselves out of this birth to death cycle of handouts.

Why yes, years of prison makes everyone a better person.

It doesn't make them even meaner, better trained at meanness, and even more dependent than ever on a 'system' they were trapped in utterly for years. Where would people get that idea?

pointr97
Now to the surprised part, why is no one talking about this was a complete setup, total setup, not that I'm excusing the actions of those that 'stole' from the system.

I did, regarding the media; that there is some reason this is being sold as it is with the hype.

It was a test, it was an experiment to see what the populace reaction was.

Perhaps so. I don't know anything about all the FEMA et al. stuff you mention, but I often think that major media things are intentionally set up to see the population reaction to something, and sometimes to test, to see if you can swing popular opinion in a given direction by this or that little technique.

Of course, I sometimes think threads at ATS are intell experiments too, so it's entirely possible I am just incredibly paranoid or something. :-)