Skip to comments.
La. disqualifies food stamp recipients for overspending (Wal-Mart Looting Update)
The (Baton Rouge, LA) Advocate ^
| February 24, 2014
| Staff
Posted on 02/24/2014 10:07:03 AM PST by abb
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-56 next last
To: abb
21
posted on
02/24/2014 10:27:16 AM PST
by
Red Badger
(LIberal is an oxymoron......................)
To: Dr. Ursus
Walmart lays down with dogs, they’re gonna’ get fleas.
Walmart’s business model and EBT cards is nothing more than Walmart assisting the government in wealth redistrubution. Let them pay for it.
22
posted on
02/24/2014 10:27:22 AM PST
by
VerySadAmerican
(".....Barrack, and the horse Mohammed rode in on.")
To: tuffydoodle
"So if someone is rich and is stolen from then oh well, they had enough money anyway. Just, wow."Who stole from who? Walmart didn't follow the state's procedures for when the system was down. How is that the state's responsibility? It was Walmart who decided to let the people have free reign. Walmart should eat it.
23
posted on
02/24/2014 10:29:04 AM PST
by
DannyTN
To: tuffydoodle
"So if someone is rich and is stolen from then oh well, they had enough money anyway. Just, wow."Who stole from who? Walmart didn't follow the state's procedures for when the system was down. How is that the state's responsibility? It was Walmart who decided to let the people have free reign. Walmart should eat it.
24
posted on
02/24/2014 10:29:04 AM PST
by
DannyTN
To: DannyTN
Ya. In the end, I wonder if it would just be passed on to the consumer.
25
posted on
02/24/2014 10:30:02 AM PST
by
dhs12345
To: DannyTN
According to the article, Walmart had procedures given them by the state that they didnt follow.
The instructions were probably like the Affordable Care Act. 1800 pages of indecipherable bureaucratic gibberish.
To: abb
27
posted on
02/24/2014 10:30:25 AM PST
by
Red Badger
(LIberal is an oxymoron......................)
To: VerySadAmerican
"Let them sue. "Civil suits against welfare recipients is just going to cost lawyer fees without any payback whatsoever. But Walmart knew there was no recourse unless the state ponied up, when they made the decision to ignore procedures.
28
posted on
02/24/2014 10:30:41 AM PST
by
DannyTN
To: abb
Dey dint no...dem maths iz hard
29
posted on
02/24/2014 10:33:48 AM PST
by
bigbob
(The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly. Abraham Lincoln)
To: tuffydoodle
Lol....your comment reminded me of this...
Let them touch those things...!
30
posted on
02/24/2014 10:34:30 AM PST
by
Jane Long
(While Marxists continue the fundamental transformation of the USA, progressive RINOs assist!)
To: Red Badger
31
posted on
02/24/2014 10:34:52 AM PST
by
JPG
(Yes We Can morphs into Make It Hurt.)
To: abb
Democrats: There’s a liberal judge for that.
32
posted on
02/24/2014 10:35:33 AM PST
by
Know et al
(Spill chick want ketch awl yore miss takes.)
To: JPG
I posted that pic the first time and it was cut off................
33
posted on
02/24/2014 10:36:02 AM PST
by
Red Badger
(LIberal is an oxymoron......................)
To: DannyTN
And it sounds like it was their fault anyway.That arguable, but for sake of discussion, less assume it's true.
Which is cheaper, eating the $300k, or rebuilding a store burnt down by feral humans?
34
posted on
02/24/2014 10:38:33 AM PST
by
Balding_Eagle
(Over production, one of the top 5 worries for the American Farmer every year.)
To: VerySadAmerican
Walmart accepts a considerable amount of theft anyway.
My sister has worked for Walmart for some 20 years and says that they’re supposed to look the other way on petty theft up to $100 dollars. If its a chronic shoplifter they bar them from the store and if they keep coming back they have police remove them from the store. Its an escalating thing where someone really needs to steal thousands of dollars worth of merchandise before things get serious.
However she does point out that the bulk of the theft comes at the hands of employees.
35
posted on
02/24/2014 10:38:51 AM PST
by
cripplecreek
(REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
To: AuditTheFed
They appear to still be pursuing other individuals. I predict more disqualifications will be announced in the future.
36
posted on
02/24/2014 10:40:14 AM PST
by
WayneS
(Respect the 2nd Amendment; Repeal the 16th (and 17th))
To: abb
If you overspend on your credit card or if the bank screws up and gives you too much money, you are required to pay it back. So I don’t see anything wrong with cutting off peopel who spent too much. They should have to pay it back too. Better yet, the state should do a better job of forcing these people to work at real, paying jobs.
37
posted on
02/24/2014 10:40:28 AM PST
by
Opinionated Blowhard
("When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.")
To: abb
38
posted on
02/24/2014 10:41:43 AM PST
by
Cheerio
(Barry Hussein Soetoro-0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
To: DannyTN
Walmart should have imposed a reasonable limit.
What am I saying? Should these cards exist at all? I dunno enough about EBT cards and who gets them.
39
posted on
02/24/2014 10:43:44 AM PST
by
3Fingas
(Sons and Daughters for Freedom and Rededication to the Principles of the U.S. Constitution)
To: DannyTN
The person who decided to honor the unlimited SNAP cards likely saved lives. When gibsmedats riot, they take no prisoners. Just the store damage alone would have been more than the SNAP overages.
40
posted on
02/24/2014 10:56:40 AM PST
by
goodwithagun
(My gun has killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-56 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson