Meaning as long as it's legal, there's nothing wrong. If there's a loophole, FranchiseBlade is all for it. So if someone is embezzling money from a huge Fortune 500 company, as long as he's doing it legally, there's nothing wrong with what he's doing.
This is probably the most troubling thing I've read in this thread. Sorry Swoly, but I am not responsible for the aggregate body of social programs or the legislature, and I would like to reserve my right to "complain" or dissent against that which I don't agree with. Social Politics are not ruled like grammar. Swoly doesn't get to police them, and there is room for debate. Healthy debate.
I think most everyone here can agree that certain changes need to be made when people abuse the system. The discourse is where we draw that line between right and wrong. Most here argue that food stamps should be used responsibly, whereas you believe that once it is in their hands, they have the carte blanche to use it however. I don't agree with your point of view because I find it an abuse of the system. The food stamps are meant to feed them, and if they run out, what will they do? There should be oversight into how people budget their food stamps by looking at their receipts. If they don't use them to feed their family for a month, I think they should be dropped from the program.
It is my hope that if they run out they would learn a lesson from it, and next time not be so foolish with how they budget their money. They would have to do without some things for the rest of that month. But hopefully next time they would be wiser. If they are bailed out, or have so much restriction on what they can or can't do, then it seems they don't learn about budgeting, and other skills that may have lead them into needing food stamps in the first place.
I've never known embezzlement to be legal under any circumstances. If there are loopholes close them or they will be used just like in my county where alcohol sales are illegal. There is a state law that allows a corporation to apply for a liquor license under the private club premise but restaurants use this to open up in dry counties because there is a loophole that allows them to do so and it is legal.
I completely understand what you're saying but I don't believe that to be the purpose of a welfare system. Undoubtedly many of the people on welfare are there because they have poor money management skills. But welfare is not there to teach them money management skills. It's there to provide subsistence. Educating welfare-recipients on money management skills is definitely important but its a separate issue. I have little to no faith in a welfare recipient spontaneously learning money management skills. He needs to be taught by a social worker or class or something. If you give welfare-recipients carte blanch to spend other people's money without stipulation, they'll be just as irresponsible as they were with their own money if not more so. Several sociology studies support that notion.
That's like using my example of if I use my company's credit card to buy top shelf vodka or my own the same amount of money would be spent either way.
That's not the same. Right now, you can buy any type of food with food stamps, they allow you to do that. I doubt a company would allow you to spend money on liquor. If they did and you could pick whatever you wanted then why would there be a problem if you chose top quality?
Yes I and I think everyone here understands the law is allowing this that is why the discussion came up about the letter and spirit of the law. FYI as a co-owner in the company I could get away with using my company credit card to buy top shelf vodka. That wouldn't make it right to do so.
Again, what loophole or spirit is this person breaking by buying this? Have any of you read what the law states???? Here, I'll post if for you and bold the parts that specifically say this person or any person doing something similar did nothing wrong according to the spirit and letter of the law: http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/retailers/eligible.htm Again, how did they break the spirit of the law or find a loophole to get what they want? Guess what? THEY DID NOT!!! They did exactly what is afforded to them under the law! Again, I am all for changing the system but this person did something that is 100% legal!
Except the company isn't giving you the money. They are paying for it, but they don't set a limit on the card, and most of the time they review account expenses and will or won't pay depending on the item. In this case the the recipient is given a specific amount. There are some restrictions, but other than that they aren't told what they can or can't use the amount for. If recipient uses his cash to help the food stamp money last longer, or the food stamps to help his cash last longer, they both get spent, and the same things are purchased. If he spends food stamp $$ that amount is subtracted from what he can spend. He's out that much of his budget. If you use the company CC to buy top shelf liquor, none of your budget is used up, and you still have your cash.
And how do we know anybody starved or went hungry because of this purchase? We don't. They could have spent this and still had enough left to get food for the rest of the month by eating cheaply. Which kind of points to this being fake as my sister's receipts always tell how much she has left to spend.
If that is the case, then clearly they are receiving too much aid. They should need to eat cheaply to begin with, not after purchasing steak and lobster. You should not be able to afford steak and lobster living off of the taxpayer.
11 pages of arguing and that so called found receipt could all be propaganda. the bigger issue is lax rules with application and qualification for any welfare program not what items were purchased. do you guys want to create grocery stores that only serve the poor or welfare paying assistance? then we can force the products poor people have access to?
