If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Remember when the Lousiana EBT system crashed and people went all "RAID WALMART NO EBT LIMITS? Nothing bad can come from this, right?" Well, according to the Governor, you were wrong   (freedomoutpost.com) divider line 254
    More: Followup, EBT, High Price, Bobby Jindal, System Crash, raid, Louisianna, insufficient funds, Department of Children  
•       •       •

18138 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Nov 2013 at 4:49 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



254 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-13 08:56:27 PM  

unreasonable ass: Smelly Pirate Hooker: Barfmaker: Even though the accepted policy is to allow benefits recipients to purchase $50 worth of groceries in the event that cards malfunction, many stores did not limit purchases.


So the stores got their money but no punishment for them?

Yeah, this. I say they eat the overages, just like they'd do with other forms of fraud that they don't bother to prevent.

Geez .. does nobody read the farking articles

WALMART HAS TO ABSORB THE LOSSES

damnit, I didn't want to yell but shiat .. read a few lines of the article or maybe read the farking comments in this thread


Heh, you're new here, welcome to Fark dot jpeg.
 
2013-11-13 09:01:14 PM  

Phins: DrunkWithImpotence: And on the other hand, people should know that in the event of a major cluster dark, you don't get to keep the money that was erroneously given to you. Have your paycheck direct deposited? Guess what, if the payroll people or the bank make an oopsie with a decimal point they actually have a short window of a couple days to debit the extra money right back out of your account. Get a bank statement that says you have a billion dollars? You'd better cash out and move to Bolivia before they catch on and correct it. This is a classic case of people seeing an error and thinking it means "Hey, free money!" and frankly, they should know better. It's really as dishonest as noticing a cashier giving you a twenty back in change instead of a five and not correcting them.

There are people who sincerely, passionately believe that they should get to keep that money. They're outraged when the mistakenly credited money is taken out of their accounts, I've seen it. "uh-uh, if it's their mistake, they have to let you keep it, they can't take money out of your account once it's in there."

I used to work in a field where most of my co-workers were not very educated and not very bright (lots of fun trying to manage!). They are quite certain about so many things that are just wrong. And you can't explain to them that they're wrong, because then "you think you're better than me because you went to college." They were outraged when income taxes were deducted from a bonus check, lot's of "they can't do that" and complaints about messing with "my" money.


I know exactly what you mean.  I used to do payroll for a temp agency that dealt mainly with blue collar contracts- warehouse workers, oil field guys, et cetera.  We had to call the cops a couple times when irate employees tried to insist we were "screwing them".  And no, we weren't, as long as I was there at least, we followed the law and ran the operation completely above board.

But the "white college boy in a tie and an office" thing just seemed to set off some sort of nerve.  Even though, to be honest, most of them were getting paid better than I was.
 
2013-11-13 09:03:16 PM  

Gyrfalcon: As always, it's going to be the kids of the crooks who end up suffering, which is sad.

I don't feel sorry for the crooks, just the kids.


That is a simple solution.  You don't feed your kids, your kids get taken away from you.  I'm not going to say it will happen, but do thieves really make the best role models?
 
2013-11-13 09:07:41 PM  

Southern100: DrunkWithImpotence: Actually, if I were governor, I'd be punishing both sides.  It appears that the rule states that the cards are limited to fifty dollars in the event of a system malfunction.  I can see the cashiers ringing stuff, but pretty quickly it should have been apparent to management what was going on.  They chose to let people do it though, since hey, a sale is a sale.  I don't know how much it would hurt, but how about revoking certain stores participation in the program?  Like they do when they catch bodegas trading food stamps for cigarettes.

Can you imagine the outrage if a store like Walmart were dropped from the program?  How many thousands, if not millions of people would be affected because in some cases there ARE no other stores (except gas stations) in a neighborhood that accept SNAP?

No, dropping them wouldn't be a good solution; making them liable for their own losses works for me.

Now, if they're cutting hours to cover the loses (as a few other posters have implicated), that's not right either.. but short of a class action lawsuit (and we all know how well THOSE turn out -- for the lawyers, anyway), I'm not sure what could be done about that one..


Actually, your point is possibly the greatest reason I think Walmart is truly evil.  Beyond screwing over suppliers and employees and customers.  They do that because they can.  It's like the Company Store in the old days sometimes.  No one dares yank their chain because they have some small communities by the throat, there is *no* real competition in some places.  The have the clout to just close up and walk away, just to send  *a message* to cities, and even some states.  I'm not even sure Louisiana could realistically get away with fining them, not given the pressure they can exert.

So yeah, the stupid greedy poor people get screwed, and the smart greedy rich people walk away with a bucket of money.
 
2013-11-13 09:08:03 PM  
They should just make the offenders work at Wal-Mart until they work off the debt.

Or even better, work in the government offices that are struggling financially. In so many cities, there are no budgets for libraries, custodial staff or waste management. Make the people who stole the food/money work off their debt in the library or cleaning the fire station or doing clerical work at the DMV. There are plenty of state agencies that could use some free labor.
 
2013-11-13 09:16:38 PM  

HillshirefarmsGOMEAT: They should just make the offenders work at Wal-Mart until they work off the debt.

Or even better, work in the government offices that are struggling financially. In so many cities, there are no budgets for libraries, custodial staff or waste management. Make the people who stole the food/money work off their debt in the library or cleaning the fire station or doing clerical work at the DMV. There are plenty of state agencies that could use some free labor.


Good way to ensure employees that work for a living lose their jobs.
 
2013-11-13 09:31:02 PM  

DrunkWithImpotence: Phins: DrunkWithImpotence: And on the other hand, people should know that in the event of a major cluster dark, you don't get to keep the money that was erroneously given to you. Have your paycheck direct deposited? Guess what, if the payroll people or the bank make an oopsie with a decimal point they actually have a short window of a couple days to debit the extra money right back out of your account. Get a bank statement that says you have a billion dollars? You'd better cash out and move to Bolivia before they catch on and correct it. This is a classic case of people seeing an error and thinking it means "Hey, free money!" and frankly, they should know better. It's really as dishonest as noticing a cashier giving you a twenty back in change instead of a five and not correcting them.

There are people who sincerely, passionately believe that they should get to keep that money. They're outraged when the mistakenly credited money is taken out of their accounts, I've seen it. "uh-uh, if it's their mistake, they have to let you keep it, they can't take money out of your account once it's in there."

I used to work in a field where most of my co-workers were not very educated and not very bright (lots of fun trying to manage!). They are quite certain about so many things that are just wrong. And you can't explain to them that they're wrong, because then "you think you're better than me because you went to college." They were outraged when income taxes were deducted from a bonus check, lot's of "they can't do that" and complaints about messing with "my" money.

I know exactly what you mean.  I used to do payroll for a temp agency that dealt mainly with blue collar contracts- warehouse workers, oil field guys, et cetera.  We had to call the cops a couple times when irate employees tried to insist we were "screwing them".  And no, we weren't, as long as I was there at least, we followed the law and ran the operation completely above board.

But the "white college boy in a ...


" Now you listen here. I've been telling you since you were four years old, it's okay to be smarter than everybody else but you can't go around pointing it out. "
                                                                        Mary Cooper
 
2013-11-13 09:33:51 PM  
Why don't they do this with the Defense Department?  When some greedy contractor absconds with a billion dollars, they should cut off all funding of the military.  Think of the money we'd save!!
 
2013-11-13 09:39:39 PM  

Oakenhelm: sabreWulf07: Great_Milenko: It's a good thing they have such a good xian governor down there to put them back in their places.

What?  He's a dirty papist what takes his orders from a king in a pointy hat.  America will never elect a Catholic president, his loyalties would always be in question.

Also, do NOT read the comments on that article.

Kennedy was Catholic.


At first I thought that was sarcasm, but you're probably right.
 
2013-11-13 09:46:42 PM  
Instead of cutting of benefits to people who may need to feed children with the credits, why doesn't the govenor just give the offerenders the chance to admit responsibility and appologise as a first step toward "justice".

The store was stupid for letting the shoppers spend money not on their account.  The customers did, however, do wrong.  Instead of going to a somewhat harsh punishment, especially since it looks like the government doesn't have to pay for the mistake, why not just give people the chance to fess up and move on?
 
2013-11-13 09:47:52 PM  
For many years my tax dollars have been subsidizing food stamps and other entitlements yet not one recipient has sent me a thank you card


/The nerve of some people.
 
2013-11-13 09:50:28 PM  
You know if Walmart had just stuck to the rules there would be no problem, folks would not have come in to loot the store with multiple shopping carts because it would not have been worth it.  Would some people overrun their cards certainly, but but less than $50, and this could have been taken care of by adjustments to the next month or two instead of banning people outright which you know is just going to hurt the kids (and I hate saying "why won't someone thing of the children").

The people who did this bought stuff for themselves, and with the loss of their EBT it is the kids who will suffer because none of these clowns has the brains to actually buy food on a budget, hence the need for school lunch programs and things like blessings in a backpack.
 
2013-11-13 10:27:50 PM  

HeadLever: Steal - you may want to look that definition up regarding context of that first use.  It does not matter if you are rich, poor or middle of the road - stealing is wrong.


Except, in philosophy courses you'll learn, it's generally accepted that stealing food to feed your children is less of a crime than stealing money to add a 14th bathroom to your house.  (That's what made me so angry when Martha Stewart claimed it wasn't a big deal she was insider trading because the amount of money involved wasn't that big a deal to her.)

Here is my argument, if I'm defending these people... the government is in shutdown mode and you are worried you aren't going to get benefits for a while, and suddenly someone tells you you can get lots of food.  What's worse, it looks like there is a run on the supermarket (and people get in a panicky mode).  So, the question becomes, if the system was down, did Walmart still have a way to keep track of what was bought?  Okay then, charge them for what they bought.  On a food stamp sort of budget that is still going to hurt people who bought Ho-Hos, since the Ho-Hos are probably long gone, but it's probably manageable, and it's exactly proportional to the how much was stolen.  It also is much simpler administratively.  You just give them a negative balance based on what they spent.  When their benefits pay it off, fine, they have paid what they took.  In the meantime, give a little more to the food pantries, because these people will be looking to feed their kids, and nothing is as humiliating or degrading as having to eat Cheriopes or Ross Crispies off brand food, and that's what the way we give out Welfare is ultimately about... making sure poor people know that we are giving them handouts because we are good people and they are failures.
 
2013-11-13 10:53:15 PM  
How dare the poor people attempt to get food beyond a bare minimum for survival. The nerve of those people.
 
2013-11-13 11:12:57 PM  

HoratioGates: it's generally accepted that stealing food to feed your children is less of a crime than stealing money to add a 14th bathroom to your house.


They were not stealing to feed thier childern.  The EBT system was not going away anytime soon and they knew they could feed thier kids in the future.  These folks were greedy and taking advantage of the glitch to thier own personal gain.

In fact, by willingly committing fraud and theft, they were placeing thier kids in greater danger of starving than doing nothing.
 
2013-11-13 11:16:28 PM  

HoratioGates: HeadLever: Steal - you may want to look that definition up regarding context of that first use.  It does not matter if you are rich, poor or middle of the road - stealing is wrong.

Except, in philosophy courses you'll learn, it's generally accepted that stealing food to feed your children is less of a crime than stealing money to add a 14th bathroom to your house.  (That's what made me so angry when Martha Stewart claimed it wasn't a big deal she was insider trading because the amount of money involved wasn't that big a deal to her.)

Here is my argument, if I'm defending these people... the government is in shutdown mode and you are worried you aren't going to get benefits for a while, and suddenly someone tells you you can get lots of food.  What's worse, it looks like there is a run on the supermarket (and people get in a panicky mode).  So, the question becomes, if the system was down, did Walmart still have a way to keep track of what was bought?  Okay then, charge them for what they bought.  On a food stamp sort of budget that is still going to hurt people who bought Ho-Hos, since the Ho-Hos are probably long gone, but it's probably manageable, and it's exactly proportional to the how much was stolen.  It also is much simpler administratively.  You just give them a negative balance based on what they spent.  When their benefits pay it off, fine, they have paid what they took.  In the meantime, give a little more to the food pantries, because these people will be looking to feed their kids, and nothing is as humiliating or degrading as having to eat Cheriopes or Ross Crispies off brand food, and that's what the way we give out Welfare is ultimately about... making sure poor people know that we are giving them handouts because we are good people and they are failures.


IF YOU DON'T WANT WHAT YOU ARE GIVEN, GET THE FARK OUT OF LINE.
 
2013-11-13 11:19:45 PM  

starsrift: How dare the poor people attempt to get food beyond a bare minimum for survival. The nerve of those people.


There is no GET. There is EARN.
 
2013-11-13 11:19:56 PM  

starsrift: How dare the poor people attempt to get food beyond a bare minimum for survival. The nerve of those people.


Now they will be getting 3 round meals a day while in prison.  Too bad they can't feed thier kids while behind bars.  If they wanted to get additional food, maybe they should have worked within legal means.
 
2013-11-13 11:29:12 PM  

lockers: The punishment for abusing the system is to starve peoples kids. This makes people happy? Meanwhile all those companies who did not follow policy gets a pass? Man you guys are cruel and greedy.


Unlike the parents who deliberately cheated, thus risking their benefits.
 
2013-11-13 11:32:10 PM  

Silverstaff: HeadLever: Tigger: What do you think all those desperate starving people will do when they lose their assistance forever?

Move to North Dakota and get a real job?

. . .because people who can't even afford food to eat can afford to move their entire family across the country to another state and get work in an industry where they have no experience or training, with no guarantee of work once they got there.

Yeah, that's a great plan.

/sarcasm.


6/10
 
2013-11-13 11:33:12 PM  

gilgigamesh: MemeSlave: It's a vast conspiracy for those with wealth to want to stop giving it away with nothing in return? What sick planet do you live on where this that's expected?

They absolutely get something in return: not being dragged from their homes by angry, starving mobs to have their severed heads jammed onto a spike.

Public welfare is the price we pay for a peaceful, modern society. Given the return on investment, I'm surprised so many constantly gripe at the cost.


Or we just kill the poor and have a peaceful, modern society.
 
2013-11-13 11:40:13 PM  

cc_rider: Here's a more recent study:

Low Wages at a Single Wal-Mart Store Cost Taxpayers about $1 Million Every Year

http://democrats.edworkforce.house.gov/press-release/low-wages-singl e- wal-mart-store-cost-taxpayers-about-1-million-every-year-says-new


In other words, Wal-Mart is engaging in rent seeking behavior.  Eliminating state benefits for people employed at companies over a certain size would go far in fixing this.  Wal-mart's "edge" would be eliminated and they would either have to pay more OR deal with a workforce exodus or worse (for them), a unionized workforce.
 
2013-11-13 11:50:22 PM  
canceling the benefits cards for every person suspect [sic] of participating

Suspected not convicted.  This is why Kenny is a jerk.

/dude, your blog still sucks
 
2013-11-13 11:58:34 PM  

Gentoolive: walrusonion: As someone who works 40/hrs a week and pays taxes but begrudgingly still had to get EBT (a whole $86 dollars a month) I am very happy these scumbags are getting punished.

When the govt sends you that refund check every year, that is not "paying taxes"


Most people get only a partial refund of the amount withheld for taxes, so they do indeed pay taxes.
 
2013-11-14 12:16:41 AM  

JuicePats: lockers: The punishment for abusing the system is to starve peoples kids. This makes people happy? Meanwhile all those companies who did not follow policy gets a pass? Man you guys are cruel and greedy.

Wal-Mart lost a shiatton of money on the deal.


no, no they did not. they said that their decision was a bad one that they would fix, so the state lost nothing.  however, this was not a national problem, so you can bet your ASS what they DID do was sell those markets' payroll budget's left kidney, making stores cut hours, which is the only way to end up with less money spent to cover wages and benefits to make their budgeted payroll numbers work...  you can also bet the prices on alot of their rapidly changing product like clothing, meat dairy and produce, etc.  has gone up as well.  black friday sale prices are probably adding to the profit as well...

that being said, the cut hours also means the hourly staff is having their paychecks cut.  not their wages, because they can't do that unless your position changes, but the end-result paycheck.  this means you're going to have more walmart employees finally saying "fark it" and applying (and easily qualifying) for benefits.  same goes for any public assistance that would allow them to still retain insurance benefits...

HairyNevus: ferretman: [imokaywiththis.jpg]
Me three (or 18th or whatever). I worked at a grocery store for 2.5 years, and EBT users were the most self-entitled brats you could possibly serve. Not every EBT user was, but of the worst customers (especially the repeat offenders) 95% were also EBT users. Basic things like telling them prepared meals weren't food-stampable would lead to a hissy fit where I would get threatened and by the time my boss showed up, they'd just key in the override and run away. Therefore, the fit was rewarded and an unlawful precedent was made. Funny thing was, I really liked working there, but EBT customers killed it for me.


umm, as mentioned up the thread with the comment about legos and press-on nails... no.  there is no override associated with ebt.  it is possible to get something with an odd barcode not associated with wic to have THAT approved, but if the inventory system does not consider something a FOOD item, it will under NO circumstances, charge it to ebt.  the wic one covers, say a new brand of bagged apples to be purchased if the barcode got skipped for the *W* tag when it got added to the system.  same thing happened when  skippy had their promotional spiderman peanut butter.  same exact item as the normal approved one, BUT- different upc, flagged as not approved.  (sorry, spiderman on the label does NOT disqualify it from meeting wic standards...)  that override then goes in the system so the folks in charge of groceries can tack the wic approval on.  but yeah, even if something doesn't scan or the upc won't key in, using the department key and price will still prevent an ebt card from purchasing it.  so regardless of the unlimited ebt, they still would have had to pay actual dollars for anything that wasn't food.  heck, a bunch of the energy drinks aren't even considered food items anymore, darn right anything hot and ready to eat won't work either...

/cashier story bro
 
2013-11-14 12:37:36 AM  

cynicalminion: JuicePats: lockers: The punishment for abusing the system is to starve peoples kids. This makes people happy? Meanwhile all those companies who did not follow policy gets a pass? Man you guys are cruel and greedy.

Wal-Mart lost a shiatton of money on the deal.

no, no they did not. they said that their decision was a bad one that they would fix, so the state lost nothing.  however, this was not a national problem, so you can bet your ASS what they DID do was sell those markets' payroll budget's left kidney, making stores cut hours, which is the only way to end up with less money spent to cover wages and benefits to make their budgeted payroll numbers work...  you can also bet the prices on alot of their rapidly changing product like clothing, meat dairy and produce, etc.  has gone up as well.  black friday sale prices are probably adding to the profit as well...

that being said, the cut hours also means the hourly staff is having their paychecks cut.  not their wages, because they can't do that unless your position changes, but the end-result paycheck.  this means you're going to have more walmart employees finally saying "fark it" and applying (and easily qualifying) for benefits.  same goes for any public assistance that would allow them to still retain insurance benefits...

HairyNevus: ferretman: [imokaywiththis.jpg]
Me three (or 18th or whatever). I worked at a grocery store for 2.5 years, and EBT users were the most self-entitled brats you could possibly serve. Not every EBT user was, but of the worst customers (especially the repeat offenders) 95% were also EBT users. Basic things like telling them prepared meals weren't food-stampable would lead to a hissy fit where I would get threatened and by the time my boss showed up, they'd just key in the override and run away. Therefore, the fit was rewarded and an unlawful precedent was made. Funny thing was, I really liked working there, but EBT customers killed it for me.

umm, as mentioned up the thread with the comment about legos and press-on nails... no.  there is no override associated with ebt.  it is possible to get something with an odd barcode not associated with wic to have THAT approved, but if the inventory system does not consider something a FOOD item, it will under NO circumstances, charge it to ebt.  the wic one covers, say a new brand of bagged apples to be purchased if the barcode got skipped for the *W* tag when it got added to the system.  same thing happened when  skippy had their promotional spiderman peanut butter.  same exact item as the normal approved one, BUT- different upc, flagged as not approved.  (sorry, spiderman on the label does NOT disqualify it from meeting wic standards...)  that override then goes in the system so the folks in charge of groceries can tack the wic approval on.  but yeah, even if something doesn't scan or the upc won't key in, using the department key and price will still prevent an ebt card from purchasing it.  so regardless of the unlimited ebt, they still would have had to pay actual dollars for anything that wasn't food.  heck, a bunch of the energy drinks aren't even considered food items anymore, darn right anything hot and ready to eat won't work either...

/cashier story bro


Yes, there is. Both for soda, energy drinks, and food prep ped on site and put in the coolers for grab 'n' go (the last of which is certainly not food-stampable). I know because my store actually sent out memos to employees saying we now had authority to over ride ourselves within reason. I'm not arguing it wasn't lazy management and unlawful, but it was the case.

Oh, and I wasn't arguing people in this case bought anything besides food with the glitch, the anecdote was tangential.
 
2013-11-14 01:07:24 AM  
HairyNevus:
Yes, there is. Both for soda, energy drinks, and food prep ped on site and put in the coolers for grab 'n' go (the last of which is certainly not food-stampable). I know because my store actually sent out memos to employees saying we now had authority to over ride ourselves within reason. I'm not arguing it wasn't lazy management and unlawful, but it was the case.
Oh, and I wasn't arguing people in this case bought anything besides food with the glitch, the anecdote was tangential.

not in the walmart system.  soda automatically qualifies for ebt, as does the deli's cold case, and some energy drinks do or do not (i think it has something to do with which brands they are).  so unless their operating systems vary from state to state, regardless of what you try to do from the cashier's side of the registers, you cannot make the system charge an item to ebt that it does not already consider to be food.  the receipts are even kind enough to include little "F"s behind the items it's charging to ebt so that if you DO have someone who says "what didn't get charged?" you can show them the list and figure out why they still owe you money (had MANY customers in that situation give stuff back, or realize that while they were ringing out, they had forgotten that they picked up toilet paper with their groceries)

pretty sure where you're at needs a system upgrade.  either that or you're somewhere where the company's not going to get biatchslapped by the state for charging ebt for non-food products

/alternately, i suppose the difference may be the flex spending? there's no such thing here, ebt's food only, but other states do provide money for other things, but even then, it still shouldn't be an override as much as it is "run your card again, but select ebt cash instead of ebt food and see if THAT covers it"

//either way, stealing or not, these people willfully misused their benefits, and state law provides penalties for that.  nobody's going to jail, since everything's been paid for one way or another... however, the "one-year, two-year, never again" suspension of benefits three-strike thing seems to be exactly the answer for it.
 
2013-11-14 01:36:35 AM  

HairyNevus: by the time my boss showed up, they'd just key in the override and run away.


your boss was a farking moron.

accepting SNAP for prepared food will get the store fined and banned from accepting SNAP payments
 
2013-11-14 01:43:18 AM  

Southern100: Perhaps if they only went after the obvious abusers (those who exceeded their limit by hundreds of dollars) I'd be more ok with it, but the article doesn't stipulate..


I would like to assume that is what is being done.

however Bobby Jindal is an insufferable coont so i cannot assume that to be the case.
 
2013-11-14 01:59:25 AM  
"Freedom" Outpost?

imageshack.us
 
2013-11-14 02:11:29 AM  

libranoelrose: I will never understand how people can be mad at poor people who catch a break.

The rich steal and they get the taxpayers to give them billions of dollars.

Poor people steal and the middle class morons get pissed off because the poor people are trying to steal their cookie!!!!111


Wow. Aren't you a special brand of Special.

Ok Derpy, let's run you through this. Someday, you'll grow up to be a Grownup. As you may (or may not) know, Grownups get things call "jobs." (Well, most do, you, being special, might not.) Anyways, because these grownups have jobs, they make money. Money that the government takes a huge chunk out of to operate. Grownups aren't particularly happy about this, but it's a necessary evil. So when-

You know what? Fuggit. I just reread your comment and realized even if I made this a monosyllabic popup book, you wouldn't understand the concept.
 
2013-11-14 02:11:34 AM  

Lehk: Southern100: Perhaps if they only went after the obvious abusers (those who exceeded their limit by hundreds of dollars) I'd be more ok with it, but the article doesn't stipulate..

I would like to assume that is what is being done.

however Bobby Jindal is an insufferable coont so i cannot assume that to be the case.


it sounded like they're basically cutting off EVERYONE who went over, en masse, and the people in the "i thought i had sixty left" who only actually had fifty-something just have to call their case handler to have them call up their "overdraft statement" reasses, and reinstate it.
 
2013-11-14 02:34:45 AM  
Clearly SNAP is teh ebul zOMG SOOOOOOCIALISM! and needs to be abolished, while Monsanto continues to get those subsidies because Job Creators®.
 
2013-11-14 02:41:50 AM  

weemonkey: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Anne.Uumellmahaye: Mutant Five-Handed Comment Monster.

You have a five handed comment monster, I have six fingers on my right hand.

I have three nipples, the three of us should start a death metal band!


and call it SHKARAMANGA
 
2013-11-14 05:23:26 AM  

unreasonable ass: Walmart hates poor people though, so they should have just not let them use the EBT cards, they would be money ahead now.


Why not just have kept to the standard $50 limit when the system is down?
 
2013-11-14 05:28:19 AM  

Firethorn: unreasonable ass: Walmart hates poor people though, so they should have just not let them use the EBT cards, they would be money ahead now.

Why not just have kept to the standard $50 limit when the system is down?


because profit.
 
2013-11-14 05:31:13 AM  
I'm of two minds on this.

Stealing is wrong.

Yet we haven't prosecuted the fraudulent bankers who stole the nation blind for their illegal actions, which involved trillions instead of hundreds.

However, if you're willing to prosecute Wall Street first, then I will be perfectly fine with going after the nickle and dime fraud we're talking about here.
 
2013-11-14 05:32:08 AM  

Firethorn: unreasonable ass: Walmart hates poor people though, so they should have just not let them use the EBT cards, they would be money ahead now.

Why not just have kept to the standard $50 limit when the system is down?


seriously, whoever was in charge of saying "just go ahead and do it" is totally farked.  those stores now have probationary numbers for the quarter due to that profit loss.  walmart lost nothing.  the people working at those places are completely S.O.L.
 
2013-11-14 05:42:11 AM  

cynicalminion: Firethorn: unreasonable ass: Walmart hates poor people though, so they should have just not let them use the EBT cards, they would be money ahead now.

Why not just have kept to the standard $50 limit when the system is down?

seriously, whoever was in charge of saying "just go ahead and do it" is totally farked.  those stores now have probationary numbers for the quarter due to that profit loss.  walmart lost nothing.  the people working at those places are completely S.O.L.


If you go back to the stories at the time, the employees in some stores called corporate to see what they should do when the EBT system stopped showing limits. Whoever they spoke to at Walmart corporate screwed up and instead of telling them to let people purchase 50 bucks worth of food, they told them just ignore the problem with EBT and let them get whatever they wanted.

Corporate screwed up.

Walmart had to eat the loss.
 
2013-11-14 06:05:19 AM  

BullBearMS: cynicalminion: Firethorn: unreasonable ass: Walmart hates poor people though, so they should have just not let them use the EBT cards, they would be money ahead now.

Why not just have kept to the standard $50 limit when the system is down?

seriously, whoever was in charge of saying "just go ahead and do it" is totally farked.  those stores now have probationary numbers for the quarter due to that profit loss.  walmart lost nothing.  the people working at those places are completely S.O.L.

If you go back to the stories at the time, the employees in some stores called corporate to see what they should do when the EBT system stopped showing limits. Whoever they spoke to at Walmart corporate screwed up and instead of telling them to let people purchase 50 bucks worth of food, they told them just ignore the problem with EBT and let them get whatever they wanted.

Corporate screwed up.

Walmart had to eat the loss.


that's what i've been saying, they DIDN'T.  they said run with it, and when the state said they weren't paying for it, said "no problem, we'll just take it out of those stores' profit margins" to which the stores replied "ok, well looks like we're going to have to cut staffing and raise prices so we still have money"
 
2013-11-14 06:08:14 AM  

cynicalminion: Firethorn: unreasonable ass: Walmart hates poor people though, so they should have just not let them use the EBT cards, they would be money ahead now.

Why not just have kept to the standard $50 limit when the system is down?

seriously, whoever was in charge of saying "just go ahead and do it" is totally farked.  those stores now have probationary numbers for the quarter due to that profit loss.  walmart lost nothing.  the people working at those places are completely S.O.L.



One thing the 'followup' article mentioned is that they cut the hours of all the hourly workers, thus harming them.  I don't disagree, but I can't help but think that the salaried types aren't getting off scott free either - I don't imagine Walmarts running such a loose shop normally that they can cut hours worked by X% without harming their own business - so I figure they're demanding more hours from the salaried types as opposed to cutting their wages, which is really hard to do.  They haven't lost any income, but are working a bunch of unpaid overtime.
 
2013-11-14 06:13:49 AM  

cynicalminion: hat's what i've been saying, they DIDN'T. they said run with it, and when the state said they weren't paying for it, said "no problem, we'll just take it out of those stores' profit margins" to which the stores replied "ok, well looks like we're going to have to cut staffing and raise prices so we still have money"


OK, so the management team is not getting a bonus this year.

I sincerely doubt Skippy at corporate is getting off scott free either.
 
2013-11-14 06:18:28 AM  

Firethorn: cynicalminion: Firethorn: unreasonable ass: Walmart hates poor people though, so they should have just not let them use the EBT cards, they would be money ahead now.

Why not just have kept to the standard $50 limit when the system is down?

seriously, whoever was in charge of saying "just go ahead and do it" is totally farked.  those stores now have probationary numbers for the quarter due to that profit loss.  walmart lost nothing.  the people working at those places are completely S.O.L.


One thing the 'followup' article mentioned is that they cut the hours of all the hourly workers, thus harming them.  I don't disagree, but I can't help but think that the salaried types aren't getting off scott free either - I don't imagine Walmarts running such a loose shop normally that they can cut hours worked by X% without harming their own business - so I figure they're demanding more hours from the salaried types as opposed to cutting their wages, which is really hard to do.  They haven't lost any income, but are working a bunch of unpaid overtime.


the problem with that idea is that no-one below management pay-grade is salaried.  so those stores are likely to be the ones that will now have two registers open, three sales associates on the floor, one six-hour maintenance member for each shift, and five guys in the back trying to unload the truck and get the product out to the floor.  it's a downward spiral because now customer satisfaction goes down, people stop going there, the numbers get worse, and they have to cut back even further...
 
2013-11-14 06:20:37 AM  

BullBearMS: cynicalminion: hat's what i've been saying, they DIDN'T. they said run with it, and when the state said they weren't paying for it, said "no problem, we'll just take it out of those stores' profit margins" to which the stores replied "ok, well looks like we're going to have to cut staffing and raise prices so we still have money"

OK, so the management team is not getting a bonus this year.

I sincerely doubt Skippy at corporate is getting off scott free either.


skippy at corporate who said that, is most likely no longer at corporate.  corporate is in arkansas, however, and gives a giant walmart * about louisiana.
 
2013-11-14 06:44:40 AM  

unreasonable ass: It was reported that Walmart should have allowed only $50 to be purchased by any person. Walmart made the decision to not stop people from using the EBT system while it was down. The result is Walmart reportedly isn't being paid for their losses.

I have mixed feelings about this .. on one had, it isn't the kids fault that their parents are trying to loot the stores (did you see the aftermath, it was terrible), but it will be the kids who ultimately suffer.

that being said, if Walmart had told EBT customers "sorry the EBT system is down, no food for you" then we would be reading about how much Walmart hates poor people.

Walmart hates poor people though, so they should have just not let them use the EBT cards, they would be money ahead now.


Hang on let me feel sorry for walmart who don't pay their employees a living wage, thus creating the environment where their own employees have to utilize the EBT system to get by....oh man, you aren't getting paid for your losses? boo farking hoo, biatches.
 
2013-11-14 06:48:21 AM  

cynicalminion: BullBearMS: cynicalminion: hat's what i've been saying, they DIDN'T. they said run with it, and when the state said they weren't paying for it, said "no problem, we'll just take it out of those stores' profit margins" to which the stores replied "ok, well looks like we're going to have to cut staffing and raise prices so we still have money"

OK, so the management team is not getting a bonus this year.

I sincerely doubt Skippy at corporate is getting off scott free either.

skippy at corporate who said that, is most likely no longer at corporate.  corporate is in arkansas, however, and gives a giant walmart * about louisiana.


Cue up Oprah...

s.mlkshk.com

You get blame! You get blame! Plenty of blame for everyone!
 
2013-11-14 06:58:29 AM  

BullBearMS: cynicalminion: BullBearMS: cynicalminion: hat's what i've been saying, they DIDN'T. they said run with it, and when the state said they weren't paying for it, said "no problem, we'll just take it out of those stores' profit margins" to which the stores replied "ok, well looks like we're going to have to cut staffing and raise prices so we still have money"

OK, so the management team is not getting a bonus this year.

I sincerely doubt Skippy at corporate is getting off scott free either.

skippy at corporate who said that, is most likely no longer at corporate.  corporate is in arkansas, however, and gives a giant walmart * about louisiana.
Cue up Oprah...

[s.mlkshk.com image 500x286]

You get blame! You get blame! Plenty of blame for everyone!


sorry, can't afford to buy a vowel without foodstamps.  "B S!!!"
 
2013-11-14 08:21:08 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: As I noted when it happened: looting with your ID doesn't seem like a real great idea

/what could possibly go wrong?


Maybe this means that some walmart shopper on snap just aren't that bright?
 
2013-11-14 09:58:35 AM  

weemonkey: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Anne.Uumellmahaye: Mutant Five-Handed Comment Monster.

You have a five handed comment monster, I have six fingers on my right hand.

I have three nipples, the three of us should start a death metal band!


Keeping one in a jar on your nightstand doesn't count
 
2013-11-14 10:50:00 AM  
When the govt sends you that refund check every year, that is not "paying taxes"

I love it when people spout this old canard so much.
Person pays govt $10000.00 in income taxes.
Govt looks at everything, says "Hey, you only owed us $9000.00, so here's $1000.00 back. Thanks!"
Person gets $1000.00 income tax refund back.

Idiots look at this transaction and say "WHY YOU NO PAY TAXES??!?!?!?"
 
Displayed 50 of 254 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report