EBT benefit card glitch sparks Walmart shopping sprees in Louisiana

[jakeXT]

Source: CBS

The Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) system allows recipients of government food stamps to purchase goods using a digital card with a set spending limit, but for a few hours over the weekend, that limit disappeared for many users visiting Walmart stores in Louisiana.

Walmart and local police in Springhill and Mansfield confirmed to CBS affiliate KSLA that officers were called into the stores to help maintain order Saturday as shoppers swept through the aisles at two stores and bought as much as they could carry.

....

Walmart workers phoned their corporate headquarters to ask how they should handle all the shoppers with unlimited, government-funded spending limits, and were told to keep the registers ringing.

...


Shoppers gave mixed reactions to the incident, with one man in the Springhill store told KSLA it was simply "human reaction" to stock-up when given the opportunity. Shopper Stan Garcia was more critical of the unscrupulous shoppers, however, saying that taking advantage of the brief glitch in the benefits system amounted to "plain theft. That's stealing, that's all I got to say about it."

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57607332/ebt-benefit-card-glitch-sparks-walmart-shopping-sprees-in-louisiana/

[Orrex]

1. I expect that the over-spending will be offset by reductions in future benefit disbursements

That is, if you get $500 per month and spent $750, then next month you'll get $250, or you'll get $450 for the next five months, etc.

Worst case, the "theft" will amount to a drop in the bucket compared to corporate subsidies, but it will still be used as a sledgehammer to bash the poor.

[AllyCat]

5. Of course. But when it's a pallet of greenbacks in Iraq

whoever wants to help themselves to million on Friday afternoon walks away unmolested. I was thinking exactly the same thing Orrex.

[Berlum]

12. "Move along. Nothing to see here." - Corporate Media Hacks, Inc. (R)

How the US sent $12 billion in cash to Iraq. Then watched it vanish

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/feb/08/usa.iraq1

[luvspeas]

22. Always be suspicious of a Drudge Banner...

I smell a big old rat with this story. The population of Springfield is 474 and the population of mansfield is 5027. It just doesn't make sense that people would flock to these particular Walmarts in the span of 2 hours. Unless the population is desperately desperately poor. Plus, the food stamp cards have not been working at all. If I depended on food stamps and my card did not work any where else, I would do exactly the same thing. Stock up where I could for fear that I'd never get anything else.

[Orrex]

23. That is a terrific analysis from start to finish (nt)

[AngryAmish]

25. This was on the front page of Reddit last night

And how could reddit be wrong....


Anyway. this is going to be used to paint ebt users as thieves.

[GreenStormCloud]

31. The Drudge link takes you to a local TV news station, with video.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57607332/ebt-benefit-card-glitch-sparks-walmart-shopping-sprees-in-louisiana/

Notice that the story is CBS news.

When the EBT glitch was fixed and the cards started showing balances again the EBT card users abandoned their carts full of food and left the store. Much of the food is frozen or refridgerated and will spoil.

[Gormy Cuss]

34. Why would the food spoil? Were there no Walmart workers available to restock? n/t

[GreenStormCloud]

35. Watch the video.

ALL the food in the store was in the carts. ALL OF IT. The frozen/refrigerated sections were emptied. It takes a LOT of time to restock all of that. Each of the carts has to be reverse-shopped, meaning it has to be wheeled around to the different sections. That is slow and inefficient. During that time ice cream will melt, frozen stuff will thaw, refrigerated will warm up.

[Gormy Cuss]

37. It wouldn't ALL spoil.

In fact, if management wanted to save as much food as possible the merchandise would just be put back in the nearest refrigerated/freezer section until all the carts were empty then set about reverse-shopping it.

There will be some loss, for certain. Whether there is a massive loss is up to the store management.

[GreenStormCloud]

40. You're right. I wasn't thinking. Thanks. N/T

[bunnies]

56. Its not up to store management at all.

Stores, especially big chains, have very strict rules on food that has been out of refrigeration. If it is not know how long perishable items have been out, they are automatically thrown away. At Hannford, for example, anything found out of the refrigeration units can not be sold. Even in the event of a power outage, the coolers are sealed shut at one hour into the outage, and after 4 hours all food in refrigeration is thrown away.

There is zero wiggle room at these stores for managers to interpret the policies. I was a merchandiser for a company that put me in many different grocery stores. Their policies are nearly identical.

[Gormy Cuss]

63. I didn't mean to suggest that the local manager could make policy.

However, the managers do know how to salvage as much food as possible using those strict guidelines. Then there's the difference between rules on what can be sold and what can be salvaged for donation. To categorically state that ALL the food is spoiled was hyperbole.

Hannaford's is a good chain. I worked for them eons ago.

[bunnies]

65. I actually think the amount that was literally spoiled...

was probably very, very low. But the policies are incredibly strict, so Im sure perfectly good food went to waste (like it does all the time in grocery stores). I wouldnt be surprised if Wal-Mart lost as much as they gained by allowing people to go crazy with the cards. Seems like a lose-lose for everyone involved.

[MelissainKC]

51. Since when has Walmart been

adverse to selling spoiled food?

[GreenStormCloud]

62. Please back up your accusation with evidence. N/T

[Bradical79]

91. Google search might back up the comment

Saw links to something about Wal-Mart getting fined for selling spoiled fish, some customer complaints, and a video that had a pretty nasty description. I googled it because I was curious, but I'm not curious enough to spend my evening reading the gross details, lol.

[JimDandy]

45. Those fully-loaded abandoned carts are evidence

of intent to defraud the government. It would be too difficult to prove, though, that those who abandoned the carts were EBT cardholders AND that they intended to try to use their cards (and not cash, for instance) to purchase the abandoned products, AND that the value of the products in the cart exceeded their EBT balance, AND that the cardholder knew their balance would be exceeded.

But those who actually got out of there with loaded carts and used their EBT cards and exceeded their benefits by amounts that clearly show they knowingly commited fraud, should not just have to repay the government (us really) but should lose future benefits, as required by law.

Shameful happening and plenty of blame to go around.

[notadmblnd]

78. I would also think that Wal-Mart was in on the defrauding the government thing too.

They knew something was wrong and questioned it and was told to keep cashing customers out. If it hadn't been for their greed, not one EBT card holder could have made a purchase. If Wal-Mart had done the right thing, no one whould have been allowed to use their EBT for purchases once Wal-Mart discovered there was a problem.

You can't just blame this on the card holders.

[wellstone dem]

80. If fraud is proven

The recipient can lose benefits for 6 months, one year, and then a lifetime disqualification. Even where fraud is not proven, the recipients will have to pay back the amount received. FS recipients who receive to much in FS, have to pay it back, even where it was clearly not their fault.

[wellstone dem]

81. Of Course Walmart said, go ahead an sell.

There is no penalty to the seller if the card works, and the person using the card is an authorized user.

The buyers will find themselves with a FS overpayment at the very least. This will reduce their food stamps in months to come. If fraud is shown, fraud can result in temporary or even permanent disqualification from the program depending on if there has been prior fraud.

[cosmicone]

26. Are you condoning the theft? n/t

[Orrex]

30. Is it theft?

You would need to prove it in each and every case, and the claim would be made in each and every that the recipient made purchases without keeping track of the remaining balance.

Further, since the overpayments will almost certainly be reimbursed in the way that I described, then I don't see the problem. There are measures in place to enable the system to recover from fraudulent or erroneous overpayment. Let these function as they are intended to function.

[cosmicone]

38. Oh man

You can rationalize it any way you want. These people knew that the system was exploitable and they did.

So if I rob a bank and since the bank can collect from me in the future, it is not really a robbery?

[Orrex]

42. Your analogy is nonsensical and circular

You argue that the current case is theft by assuming that it is theft. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.

If money is mistakenly deposited into my account and I unknowingly withdraw it in good faith, then the bank has made an error and I have made an error, and the bank will contact me to correct the error. If they can demonstrate that the I have taken money that is not mine, then at that point it becomes theft.

I once deposited a $150 check in my account at an ATM but accidentally entered $1500 on the keypad. The bank informed me of my error and adjusted the balance to correct it. If I had withdrawn money from that incorrect balance, I would have been required to repay it. Simple.

Customers make erroneous overpayments to my company all the time for monthly charges. If they request reimbursement for these overpayments, then we reimburse them. Otherwise these overpayments are applied as credits to future billing.

The situation here is remarkably simple, commonplace and easily resolved. Unless willful fraud can be proven, then there's no need (or benefit) to pursue this as theft, unless the goal is to punish people of low income.

[cosmicone]

43. speechless

This is not a case of a deposit in a bank account. Everyone knows how much one is entitled to and it definitely doesn't allow buying carts after carts full of merchandise. They KNEW that they could exploit the system with money they were not entitled to.

If someone gives me a $100 gift card and I know there is a glitch in the system so I use it to buy $1000 worth of merchandise with that card, it IS theft. Open and shut.

[Orrex]

46. It is exactly a case of a deposit into a bank account

Last edited Mon Oct 14, 2013, 01:34 PM - Edit history (2)

Everyone may or may not know how much they are likely to receive via SNAP, but those amounts are subject to periodic adjustment, and the amount carries over from month to month, so it's easily possible to accrue a balance far in excess of one's monthly benefit.

A local gas station recently suffered a glitch in which the pumps didn't correctly charge customers' credit cards for for the amount of gas actually pumped. People were driving away with full tanks for which they paid $0.17. When the error was corrected, the cards were re-billed for the outstanding balance.

Your gift card analogy also fails because there is no record of identity in that transaction, whereas the identify of the EBT recipient is firmly and repeatedly validated. Therefore the user of the gift card could complete the transaction with no inherent way to find them afterward, while the EBT recipient can be tracked easily. Care to try again?


Your argument is entirely destroyed by your failure to craft a logical analogy, your apparent inability to grasp the nature of the transaction, and your outright assumption that these people are guilty of theft.

[moriah]

74. If you know you are only supposed to have $100, and suddenly have $1100, don't you question it?

Those who put amounts on their cards in a certain amount of excess of their maximum normal benefit more than once that day could be reasonably presumed to have engaged in fraudulent activity, IMHO.

The problem I see is the person who buys $500 in groceries that day, and has $300 in cash to buy part of it, and $200 in food stamps. They ring their card first, and it all goes to FS. They probably can't reverse the transaction easily, and so they go through. This person may not have intended to defraud when they started out.

It'd be the person who had that happen to them and then went back for another grocery load that I'd think deserved fraud charges.

[7962]

52. So the next story we'll hear is all these people bitching about reduced benefits next month

If the system does what you suggest. Which I agree with you, thats what normally would happen. But if they DO handle it that way, get ready for a flood of "We're starving" stories in a month or so.
These people knew exactly what they were doing or they wouldnt have left the full carts as soon as the store announced that the system was back running properly.

[Orrex]

59. On the bright side...

If they left the carts, then at least they didn't commit theft.

These people knew exactly what they were doing or they wouldn't have left the full carts as soon as the store announced that the system was back running properly.

That's probably true in most cases, but it may also be the case that some people left their carts if, upon learning of the error, they feared that their own correct benefit amount would not be reflected in the transaction, and they wanted to avoid error or the appearance of fraud. There's a lot of knee-jerk cynicism in this thread, so I know that this explanation will be dismissed, but it seems entirely reasonable to me for at least some of the people involved.

At this point the most humane solution IMO would be to reduce the scheduled monthly benefit in installments until the overpayment is reimbursed, rather than reclaiming the amount in one big chunk. And if someone exits the EBT program before the repayment is complete, then they would be liable for the oustanding amount or else would have future benefits reduced in order to cure the debt.

[Gormy Cuss]

29. Yep.

Unless of course the conservatives make a stink about this event and FNS is pressured to treat it as a criminal misuse of benefits.

n.b. it WAS a misuse of benefits, but there is a choice in how to respond to the event.

[dotymed]

2. "Theft, pure theft."

That is what I think daily about our corporate governance.

All money out of politics now.

[Demeter]

3. Jeezus! Little people treated like banksters, and it's called "theft"?

[Democat]

4. Will this cause DUers to bash poor people for a change?

Or can only rich people be evil still?

[Orrex]

7. "For a change?"

Poor people are routinely bashed on DU. Not by everybody, of course, but food stamp receipients and impoverished victims of predatory student loans are perennially favorite targets.

[iamthebandfanman]

8. i dont buy that...

not the food stamp part, at least...

now the loans, I could see that happening on du...

[Orrex]

16. The food stamp argument bubbles up from time to time

Typically it follows the predictable "they shouldn't buy soda" pattern or the like. The sentiment has waned lately, since it's more fashionable to blast Republicans for their anti-poor tactics, but it will return soon enough.

The broader mindset is the same as the student loan argument, which amounts to "I got screwed, so everyone else should get screwed, too."

[ag_dude]

84. Really?

Do you not see the difference between bashing recipients of foodstamps and arguing for responsible use of the benefits?

Are those really the same to you?

[Orrex]

85. Yes, in fact they are nearly identical

I say "nearly" because arguing for "responsible use of the benefits" is in fact the same as "bashing recipients," except that it's more presumptuous and carries a greater air of self-satisfied condescension.

[ag_dude]

87. Serious question then...

...at what point do you draw the line with what can be done with the money?

Would you be in favor of just giving cash that could be spent for anything they want?

[Orrex]

88. Well, that's what the cash benefit is already

And the food benefit has multiple restrictions under the current program. For instance, EBT can't be used to by alcohol or food prepared on site (fast food or cafeteria menus). These seem like pretty good guidelines to me, in that they enable the recipient to make his or her own choices without being preached to.

I oppose a WIC-style program to replace SNAP because it would be effectively unworkable, and it would treat the recipient more or less like a child. A tighter, more heavy-handed restriction is equivalent in my view to requiring SNAP recipients to be drug-tested for eligibility.

Also, if we impose such restrictions (SNAP recipients can't buy a Snickers, etc.) then we immediately and necessarily must subject all recipients of public welfare to the same restrictions, or else we're simply discriminating against the poor. And I'm referring to such recipients as people who get the Earned Income Credit or who claim a mortgage tax credit, or who receive(d) federally subsidized student loans, or who benefit from public roads, and so on.

I'm all for preventing and prosecuting fraud when it occurs, but that doesn't mean forbidding a SNAP recipient to buy 1.5 quarts of mint chocolate chip ice cream.

[ag_dude]

90. So you're okay with restrictions on alcohol and value added food?

...but you think others are "bashing" those on food stamps when they have a more strict interpretation of what should be considered healthy and/or worth spending food stamp money on?

How did you come to your conclusion regarding where exactly the line between "pretty good guidelines" and "bashing those on food stamps" is?

[Orrex]

93. I reject that framing. All food is "value added" unless you eat it right out of the ground

Further, alcohol is excluded because it's not food. You might as well ask why food stamps won't pay for cigarettes or a new set of tires.

you think others are "bashing" those on food stamps when they have a more strict interpretation of what should be considered healthy and/or worth spending food stamp money on?

Why might you require such restrictions on food stamp recipients but not, for example, upon people who receive federally subsidized student aid? This singling-out of food stamp recipients is discriminatory and amounts to "bashing" them.

How did you come to your conclusion regarding where exactly the line between "pretty good guidelines" and "bashing those on food stamps" is?

Before I answer, I must ask what you would identify as "pretty good guidelines" and how you would choose these.

[ag_dude]

94. I'm ignoring the straw men.

Further, alcohol is excluded because it's not food. You might as well ask why food stamps won't pay for cigarettes or a new set of tires.

Okay, I’m asking that. Where DO you draw that line?

You obviously believe there should be a line and you think that people who believe that line should be placed elsewhere are “discriminatory” and “bashing” the poor.

Where do you draw that, based on what criteria, and why do you believe those who have a different interpretation should be labeled the way you have labeled them?

Why might you require such restrictions on food stamp recipients but not, for example, upon people who receive federally subsidized student aid? This singling-out of food stamp recipients is discriminatory and amounts to "bashing" them.

You keep bringing up straw men arguments like that. Try to stay on the subject. If you are arguing for restrictions on student aid, this probably isn’t the conversation for it.

Before I answer, I must ask what you would identify as "pretty good guidelines" and how you would choose these.

The five basic food groups would be a good start.

You’re the one that mentioned sodas; no I don’t think food stamps should be used for sodas. Spending money on such empty calorie sources isn’t a responsible use of funds.

[Orrex]

95. It's not a straw man at all

I am asking on what basis certain beneficiaries of federal aid should be subject to tighter, nanny-esque restrictions while others are not. You dismiss this as a straw man, but in fact it is the essence of what I have identified as "bashing" SNAP recipients.

When you are telling a functioning adult that he or she is incapable of making sensible choices, then you are bashing that person. It is also presumptuous, because you take it upon yourself to declare what decision is right for that person's circumstances.

The five basic food groups would be a good start.

To what extent can these basic foods be processed, or must they be in pure form, such as a sack of wheat, a can of untreated milk, and a bushel of apples? You obviously think that there should be a line, so tell us exactly where that line is to be drawn.

You’re the one that mentioned sodas; no I don’t think food stamps should be used for sodas. Spending money on such empty calorie sources isn’t a responsible use of funds.

I may be the one who mentioned it here, but so what? Someone mentions soda in nearly every discussion of this topic.

By what authority do you declare someone's purchase to be "a responsible use of funds?" Do you likewise appoint yourself the overseer for course-selection and textbook purchases by students receiving federal subsidies? Why do you presume to single out the poor?

[ag_dude]

96. You're obviously just here to argue.

1 - I've answered your question regarding where I think the line should be but you have repeatedly avoided doing the same.

2 - Your repeated attempts to make the discussion about student loans is about as straw man as it gets and you (I hope) know it.

The "authority" is basic nutritional science. It's not just me that calls sodas empty calories, ask virtually any nutritionist.

That "sack of wheat" comment is a pretty clear indicator you're just trying to argue rather than rationally discuss it.

If you have no desire to explain where you draw the line between reasonable restrictions and bashing, have a nice day.

[Orrex]

97. You have convinced me that you don't know what a straw man is

1. I have stated outright that the current guidelines strike me as adequate. You have asked why I draw the line there, and I have answered that the guidelines empower the individual to make their own choices about food purchases. You, in stark and unmistakable contrast, have not answered specifically, even when asked.

2. I have not attempted to make the discussion about student loans. Instead, I have asked why one form of federally subsidized aid (specifically targeting the poor) is singled out for nanny-esque restrictions, while other forms of federally subsidized aid are not. I used student loans as an example, but I'm happy to discuss mortgage subsidies or any other kind of federally subsidized aid that doesn't inspire the same frenzy for personal oversight. That's not a straw man; it's a call for consistency.

If you have no desire to explain where you draw the line between reasonable restrictions and bashing, have a nice day.

That is an attempt to distance yourself from assertions that you can't defend. I have repeatedly stated what I believe "reasonable restrictions" to be, and I have repeatedly explained what I mean by "bashing."

As is typical in discussions of this type, you demand specifics from me but then cry foul when you are held to the same standard.

[Democat]

17. You're right!

But when Demeter said that poor people were acting like bankers, it made me think heads exploding on the "all rich people are evil" DUers.

[Orrex]

18. Ah, ok.

Of course, the fact that some rich people are evil doesn't mean that some poor people can't also be evil!

[Demeter]

48. And here I was thinking that if Jamie Dimon can freely put his big hand in the public purse

then maybe the poorest public citizens should get a whack at it, too.

Plus, there's the fact that the funds given at the grassroot will boost the economy, unlike those going to JPMorgan, which are busy inflating another paper asset bubble due to pop any minute....


The only jobs Dimon can take credit for are lawyers....he bought $9.2 B in legal services last quarter...

[7962]

9. It's not "bashing poor people", they were stealing

The fact that the fat cat assholes do it doesnt excuse it. Putting 700.00 in your cart when you only have .49 on it? Watch the video of it. They knew damn well what they were doing. That store was looted. The end result is that next time this happens, Wal Mart wont allow any shopping at all on EBT.

[cosmicone]

27. Exactly my thoughts as well.

It is sad to see that on DU, crimes by poor are just fine because the rich do it all the time.

[uppityperson]

47. Theft is theft. Banksters or people with an inaccurate amount on a card.

Just because banksters do it does not excuse others.

[7962]

53. Thank you. And good to see from someone with a LOT of DU posts!

[uppityperson]

60. Having scraped by before, I understand the temptation to take when you can. And know what I

would do if faced with theft or starvation, or need to do what I need to do to keep my kid alive and healthy. But still. Just because bankers do it does not excuse people. And doing it with plastic cards is not very bright due to being tracked.

Once my bank made an error and entered my deposit as $10,000 rather than $100. Back in the days before internet. I got a notice from them that they were going to withdraw $9900 from my account as it was an error and I freaked, called and understood. If I'd noticed at the time, I still would not have gone and spent that extra money, even though it would've been great to have it.

[Yo_Mama]

67. In the wake of 9/11

Telecom lines and banking infrastructure was down, so to give people access to their money in the area the banks & CUs just left the ATMs running with the previous balances (which could not be updated). And sure enough, some people kept withdrawing and withdrawing money.

There were prosecutions, because it WAS theft.

People from all walks of life will do this sort of thing. Being poor doesn't make you a saint, and being rich doesn't either! And middle-class people do exactly the same thing:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/19/nyregion/118-charged-in-atm-thefts-after-9-11.html

That CU was the biggest case, but there were plenty of others.

[fredamae]

6. The fact that EBT

cards Exist at the insistence of corp wall street which Pays bankers/wall street a subsidy for EVERY transaction, does it not?
So-what pray tell, have these people done wrong or different from what the 1% usurps from us 24/7/365.
And what about wall marts scheduling practices (manipulation) that intentionally force tax payer subsidies for Their workers- by (fixing) creating work environs so inadequate that folks can't afford food/medical care yet are Forced by regulations of federal/state to accept these working condition over threat of losing other benefits? And what about the corp tax breaks that allow them to pay less than their workers in taxes?

etc. etc. etc.

[leftyohiolib]

32. have these people done wrong? stealing is wrong even if everyone does it

[fredamae]

44. Of course it is

And I fully expect these folks will feel the full brunt of law, as they were tracking who bought what---and They might quite possibly face prison time while the 1%/corps/banks, as always-goes without any accountability to these very laws....

[crim son]

10. Common sense would say

that acting as if there is no limit, even for a few hours, is going to cause trouble in the future. Their choice, but I would have chosen differently.

[safeinOhio]

11. Blame the victims?

"Walmart workers phoned their corporate headquarters to ask how they should handle all the shoppers with unlimited, government-funded spending limits, and were told to keep the registers ringing."

They knew something was amiss and still cashed in. So, who are the crooks?

[Raine1967]

13. I noticed this as well.

Wal-Mart, it appears, willfully engaged in an act of fraud.

[melm00se]

19. damned if they do, damned if they don't n/t

[cosmicone]

28. What were they supposed to do?

A store cannot unilaterally disallow a transaction that is going through on a payment source.

[7962]

55. I think Wal MArt could've said "the system is down but we'll allow up to X dollars"

That way people could still shop and get food. Everyone knows what they get on their card every month and I bet most knew what their balance was too.

[Raine1967]

68. I don't know.

But I'm not in the business of defending WalMart.

They took the money.

They sold merchandise knowing what was happening.

[Blue_Tires]

82. If they have reason to believe the payment source may be flawed, they sure can...

What if it was Wal-Mart gift cards or something similar? I promise you that after the third or fourth person in the same store walked out with a grand in merchandise, the regional office would've locked everything down (even if they had to invent some kind of "servers down for maintenance" story for the customers) -- And the "But the machine says the funds are good" -excuse wouldn't fly at all...

[Blue_Tires]

79. Funny how no one wants to discuss that part...

[Myrina]

14. Huh, so people getting food with gov't money is bad ...

... unless they're spending all those gov't dollars at Wal Mart. Then it's "keep the registers ringing".

Go figure.

[watoos]

15. Who would have imagined

Louisiana red neck Tea Bag Wal-Mart shoppers on food stamps. Here I thought it was just libruls that were on food stamps. (insert that sarcasm thingy)

[Doctor_J]

20. Looting without all of the shards of glass flying around

I am sure these folks would rather rip off millions like the banksters do, but you have to take what you can get.

[DRoseDARs]

21. Corporate headquarters knew there was a problem, and they chose to aid and abet.

Open and closed, and not a damned one of those fuckers will see the inside of a jail cell. Those shoppers sure as hell will, though.

[JimDandy]

41. Only the EBT cardholders knew their benefit amount.

Walmart, did not. If the system failure was not due to their equipment, the store might have encountered legal problems if they had denied all EBT cardholders access to their benefits.

That said, there is no doubt Walmart knowingly benefited from what was probably a SNAFU by the EBT contractor. As much as I have problems with Walmart, though, the cardholders who spent above their entitlement limits are the culpable parties, and those who knowingly went above their limit can rightfully be called thieves.

I have been a grateful EBT recipient, so I know that over the next few months, those EBT users who exceeded their limits WILL have their accounts reduced by the amount they stole (Assuming this shopping trip at Walmart was the first use of their EBT benefits this month, and let's say their benefits are $250/month and that they purchased $600 in goods, then they will not receive their $250 in benefits for Nov and will receive only $150 in Dec in order to reimburse the government for the $350 they stole.)

Some may lose their EBT benefits due to their fraudulent behavior and cause their children to be denied needed benefits over the long-term, because of their short-sighted greed.

[uppityperson]

49. I was wondering that, figured there was some way of tracking what was bought, or even amount, with

each card.

I understand the temptation but still, it is wrong. And those who gave in and bought more will end up in trouble, like you say.

Paying cash, there is no tracking. With plastic? Yes, there is.

[JimDandy]

50. Yes, my EBT amount was tracked and account balance

remaining was printed on every one of my receipts, so without a doubt, the majority of these Walmart shoppers had to have been commiting fraud knowingly.

And, although I was never advised, verbally or in writing, that everything I bought on my EBT card would be tracked and retained in a database (indefinately?), it undoubtedly was.

[7962]

57. Agreed, Jim

[Yo_Mama]

70. Whoa, whoa - what reason do you have to think that?

Wal-Mart was just letting people access their benefits. Should they have told some crying woman that oh, yeah, her EBT card would work but because they didn't know her benefit balance she couldn't buy food for her kids?

Surely that would have been MORE wrong?

[DRoseDARs]

75. Because it says right there in the article that they were TOLD there was a problem?

When one person has a glitchy card, it will likely go unnoticed. When a bunch of people have glitchy cards such that police have to be called in to maintain order, they had the opportunity to put the brakes on. The people are corporate aren't stupid, they know EBT cards are fund-limited. They don't know individual limits and don't need to. Near-riot conditions at their stores is all the reason they need to protect themselves and the shoppers using the glitchy cards from making a bad situation much worse. Walmart had a chance to mitigate the damage these people were going to do to themselves and corporate chose not to intervene for their sakes, choosing instead to let the shoppers ring up a large tab that would end up being paid by the government. Now, every single one of those people will likely face charges. Well, not anyone at corporate.

[flamingdem]

24. OMG Supermarket Sweep!!

I loved that show.

[Conium]

33. Wal~Mart execs exploited a computer glitch for personal/corporate gain.

taking advantage of the brief glitch in the benefits system amounted to "plain theft. That's stealing

[center][img][/img][/center]

Walmart workers phoned their corporate headquarters to ask how they should handle all the shoppers with unlimited, government-funded spending limits, and were told to keep the registers ringing.

They probably announced the glitch over the P.A. system, so shoppers all knew.
Yep, Wal~Mart stole from our government.

[Yo_Mama]

69. That is the wrong interpretation

This was part of the broader outage, and when the system began to come back online, it did so partially.

So Wal-Mart had two choices - send people away without food (remember, this is a welfare benefits program for the needy), or allow them to buy food and take it home for their families.

Clearly they made the right decision. To do anything else would have left people with the right to benefits and access to benefits unable to buy food, and when you are getting food stamps, you need them to feed your family. And those who have the cards knew about what they had on them, so most should have been able to buy stuff without causing themselves a problem.

If Wal-Mart had made the other decision - to reject the cards - I'm sure you'd be justly criticizing WM for being heartless subhuman sociopaths.

And a lot of the people who were probably there waiting for the EBT system to come back up would have gone ahead and bought what they needed and knew they were entitled to, and then left. Blaming the store for the misdeeds of individuals is not fair.

[DRoseDARs]

76. You're implying this was an either/or situation.

The third option was to limit how much an individual EBT user could ring up at any given store until the situation was resolved. I'm not going to pretend to know how the EBT system works, but I'll throw out this: Walmart could have told EBT users OK, we know there's some kind of problem with the system, but you need to eat so here's what we'll do until this gets figured out. We're going to limit your purchases to $100 a day until the system is back to normal. We don't know how much you have in your account, and with the system down you probably don't know for sure either, but please keep your purchases to a reasonable amount.

Walmart went with FUCK YEAH BUY AS MUCH AS YOU CAN! WE GET PAID EITHER WAY!

The EBT users are the ones that will face fines/jail time. They just wanted to eat and went a bit crazy with the glitch. Walmart was fully cognizant there was a problem and took full advantage of it.

[GreenStormCloud]

36. No sympathy for Wal-Mart.

They knew what they were doing. They knew the risk.

No sympathy for the people who abused their EBT cards either.

[Conium]

39. I feel sorry for their kids.

Last edited Sun Oct 20, 2013, 08:55 AM - Edit history (2)

Many of these people have diminished capacities. That's why some of them are on relief. Unfortunately, most of them probably have children and the children deserve to be fed. Wal~Mart, on the other hand, is a greedy monster.

Make Wal~Mart repay the government. Then make EBT shopping spree participants work at Wal~Mart to repay them. This way the guilty are punished without also punishing the innocent.

I wonder how many shopping spree revelers are already Wal~Mart associates? A possible explanation is the "glitch" happened when Wal-Mart interfaces read the main account balance of the payer (U.S. Government) instead of the sub-accounts set up for the beneficiaries.

Just this one store? Sounds like an inside job.

[Drunken Irishman]

54. This is a bad story all around.

No real winners. It just adds fodder to those on the right who slam those on assistance as lazy takers.

I won't even delve into the comments of the CBS article because I'm sure they're vile.

[bunnies]

58. Yep.

And I'd be surprised if those who took advantage of the glitch dont have their future benefits garnished. Doesnt seem very wise to me.

[Drunken Irishman]

61. Odd. I responded to you in another thread just as you responded to me here...

Whoa!

But you're right. Not smart at all. They should have known they would easily be tracked.

Look, my mom is on food stamps and I've used the EBT card a lot at the grocery store. If I knew there was a glitch, I would not take advantage of it for that very reason (that and it's wrong, but I'll be upfront that I'd be more nervous over any legal ramification than moral complexities - tho, that'd still weigh on me).

[bunnies]

64. lol. And it just happened again.

Your "my posts" tab is yellow.

Im with you on this. Id be too afraid of getting caught to have taken advantage of the glitch even if I were tempted to do so. Then theres adding to the fodder, as you already pointed out. It really reflects poorly on everyone involved.

[JimDandy]

66. All EBT recipients who have benefits coming to them

over the next few months and took advantage of the system failure, by law, MUST have their future benefits reduced until the government is paid back. EBT recipients know this is the process. Apparently a lot of them at this Walmart were willing to exchange short-term gain for not just longer-term suffering, but also potential benefit sanctions due to their fraud and, although less likely, possible criminal charges.

But I hope every one of those EBT recipient who also knew that this was the last month they were due to receive benefits and then ran up their card knowing full well there would be no future benefits for the govt to garnish--well those are the people I hope the govt concentrates on, as far as filing fraud charges are concerned.

[wickerwoman]

71. How did the shoppers find out about the glitch?

[Blue_Tires]

83. good question

I'm also interested in knowing how or why this happened in such a specific, remote, sparsely populated location

[AnneD]

72. It is all a matter of perception....

A bankster on Wall Street rigs the sale of a high dollar account to sell at the top dollar price but the stock that you sell gets sold at the lowest price. I won't even get into the LIBOR scandal. These folks are not even punished but held up as smart businessmen, but some low income person that takes home extra food is prosecuted to the fullest.

I know theft is theft but let's prosecute all crimes equally (or weighted by amount gained). We should be seeing Jamie Dimon in an orange jumpsuit.

[jakeXT]

73. Legal problems aside

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017148990

[CBGLuthier]

77. That is weird because here EBT was out of order all day Saturday

Some even blamed it on the shutdown but it turns out it was merely incompetent zerox employees.

[JI7]

86. how were shoppers able to find out about this glitch ? and in a way that spread to others

in the area and resulted in people going in ?

[GreenStormCloud]

92. Same way flash mobs learn when to gather - cell phones. N/T

[Mojo Electro]

89. These people screwed up their EBT benefits.

I'm not saying I don't see the temptation to do it. But do they think that they government is just gonna let this slide? What they basically did was spend up their future EBT benefits on credit. Uncle Sam is sure to square this up somehow.