- Joined
- Nov 6, 2007
- Messages
- 66,862
- Reaction score
- 30,126
- Location
- Rolesville, NC
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Both your points are nonsense - in fact, your first point very well proves my point for me. People who consider credit as being other people's money often use it as if it's nothing and then realize the headache it causes after - people who use cash and/or debit do so much more cautiously because they see their assets dwindling.
As for banks creating overdraft protection, that was and is a wonderful scheme for banks to make additional profits - both in charging a customer for the "service" and charging the customer interest and in addition, often charges customers penalties if they spend over their overdraft limit. And it is again those people who think that the card they flash out isn't using their money but someone else's.
Personally, I have never, ever, gone over a credit limit on a credit card nor used a debit card to a greater extent than cash I had in that account. There have been times when I've needed something and have arranged an increase in my credit limit in order to purchase it, but I've never just gone into a store and bought and bought until someone tells me I can't buy anymore.
Finally, you'll pardon me if I don't rely on your "legal" expertise to determine whether or not Walmart is responsible for any overspending - they may assume a loss, for PR purposes, but I don't believe for a minute that a court would find them liable if it got that far.
Your contention was that people who work for their money don't overspend and would never take advantage of something like this, would not overcharge their bank account or credit cards. You are wrong. Just because a person works right now doesn't make them more responsible than people on welfare/assistance. Plenty of people on welfare/food stamps didn't go overspend just because they could. Plenty wouldn't.
And I am going by who WalMart is trying to blame. It isn't the shoppers, those who overspent (not right now anyway), but Xerox. They would not win a case against the government or Xerox. Now, they do have complete legal recourse to go after those who overspent their cards. They can get their names and information and press charge, try to recoup those losses. However, from a PR position, this would be a bad idea because of what they have been saying since then about the situation. They have been saying that this was the right thing to do and that they were helping those people. So it places them in a catch 22, since going after the only ones they could legally pursue would also cause majorly bad PR for them.
Two points:
1. It was not my contention at all that "people who work for their money don't overspend and would never take advantage of something like this" - you can have your own opinion, but in no way are you entitled to assign opinions to me simply because it moves your argument forward. What I did say is "most people who work for what they own know exactly what they have in the bank and what credit they have available on their credit cards or what's available for spending on their debit cards, etc. It is the people who are spending other people's money, people who are spending something given to them, who don't know how much they can spend and when they should stop, thus the need for the system to continuously remind them of their available balance". I never once contended that people who work for their money are all pure and honest - I'm not that stupid - I simply indicated that most people who work for their money know where they stand financially. I believe that's correct and your suggestion I'm wrong is based on your faulty, bastardization of the opinion I expressed.
2. Again - I never claimed Walmart would be going after customers - I did indicate the government should go after the customers who absoluted defrauded the government by taking advantage of a glitch in the system that gave them access to purchasing power they didn't have and knew they didn't have. I fully believe that Walmart would blame XEROX, as the government's agent, managing the system, if the system was approving purchases that Walmart processed through the system. If Walmart didn't follow the contracted process, then Walmart is responsible for their own losses. If Walmart followed the contracted process and the system managed by XEROX approved the purchases whether in error or not, then Walmart clearly has a case against XEROX, as the government's agent, and the government itself, for not honoring the process they put in place. It's that simple.
You seem to claim that the system was down and Walmart took advantage of that and processed sales with no approvals. I say that's nonsense. I claim that Walmart received authorization for the sales through the electronic system until such time as XEROX stopped the system from processing approvals, having recognized a glitch in the system. Once the system stopped authorizing purchases, Walmart also stopped processing purchases.
In the end, we'll see how it turns out.
No matter how you see it, authorization of EBT transactions simply does not work how you believe it does. It operates much more like a combination of the old credit card system (with the slide thing) and our new system, where the money in the EBT account is put on hold to be reimbursed to the store when they file necessary receipts with the government showing that they authorized the transaction with restrictions they agreed to with the government.
I would contend that this is not possible and you're just making it up to fit your position.
The system is electronic, otherwise XEROX would not be involved and cards would not now be used. The system requires, as per the contract information you and others provided, that the retailer at the completion of every sale provide the EBT card holder with a receipt that lists the items purchased, the cost of each item, the total charge for that sale and the balance remaining on the EBT account.
If the system isn't electonic, as you contend, how is it possible for the retailer to provide this detailed receipt to the EBT card holder after each sale? Are you claiming that the cashier has to manually, by phone, or some other means contact XEROX for an updated figure? That's just asinine on its face. The whole problem was that the system was coming back with an electronic authorization but on the part that was to show a remaining available balance, no figure was being printed on the sales slip.
I would've done the same thing. Anything I can do to show the ineptitude of government, I say do it.
Only thing I didn't like was when it was announced that it was fixed, people just left full carts sitting there and went for the exits. I would've done something about that.
I can't say I would have done the same thing because frankly I'm a chicken**** about getting in trouble and I'd be afraid they'd actually come after the money, causing more hardships for me.
If you drop a steak on the ground and your dog rushes over and eats it, is it your fault or the dog's? In my world, it's yours.
I definitely won't hold it against these people for capitalizing on a government error.
Is it responsible? No. Is it respectable? No. Is it understandable? Absolutely.
I say the people hold some responsibility, but not nearly as much as WalMart because I do understand that many of these people probably lived much of their lives with either very little food or at least not the best food choices. I can see how they could see this as an opportunity to either save up food or to get "better" food. Not all, certainly, but many.
But, although I highly doubt WalMart will seek to recoup their losses directly from the people, which legally seems to be their only recourse in this situation, I also wouldn't think that if it were me having such a decision to make. I would fail on the side of caution. Extreme caution, especially when I likely wouldn't have all the information that we do now when it happened.
It would be a legitimate defense if food was all they were getting. In the picture on that link, the empty shelf was NOT in the grocery section. They were essentially looters in a riot.
These people are still complete scum, but in this case, scum whose actions are justifiable because of government ineptitude.
That is even more then a huge problem on WalMart's fault since they absolutely know they cannot get reimbursed for non-food items if they were authorizing such items. But I have a hard time believing that they authorized non-grocery items even when they were doing it.
It wasn't government ineptitude here though, but Walmart ineptitude and inability to understand the arrangements they have made when it comes to the EBT/SNAP system.
I say the people hold some responsibility, but not nearly as much as WalMart because I do understand that many of these people probably lived much of their lives with either very little food or at least not the best food choices. I can see how they could see this as an opportunity to either save up food or to get "better" food. Not all, certainly, but many.
I blame them too. The only people I don't blame are the ones who abused the glitch. If the powers that be (whether they be corporate or government) knew what they were doing, it wouldn't be an issue.
all systems are prone to error and failure. it's just a matter of when and how often
There is some blame for those who abused the glitch.I blame them too. The only people I don't blame are the ones who abused the glitch. If the powers that be (whether they be corporate or government) knew what they were doing, it wouldn't be an issue.
There is some blame for those who abused the glitch.
I would expect them to know how much in EBT funds they had available - and not try to overcharge that.
all systems are prone to error and failure. it's just a matter of when and how often
Off topic, but I have to add - which should make anyone relying upon the federal government exchanges under the ACA quake in their boots.
I doubt anyone relying on these exchanges will quake. Good evening jcj...
Good evening V1.1
I would think there are a lot of people working in small and medium sized business who are finding themselves without employer subsidized/provided healthcare insurance these days and if they are in a state that has refused to create an exchange under the ACA they will be at the mercy of the federal exchange. From the glitches I've been hearing about in that website, I wouldn't be feeling too confident about now.
Anyway, wrong thread for these comments - bad me.
Yes, those terrible inhuman creatures hoarding all that.... food...
Now they'll have more food than they're supposed to have.
[SUB][/SUB]
I believe it's within the law for these people to be denied SNAP for 3 years now. The question is, will anyone in the government attempt imposing the penalties for abuse?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?