Quote:
Originally Posted by Jorn
Nothing is being missid here and I'm not sure why you're busting my balls about this, did I not say in post #5: ... "Stores should be fined when violating the restrictions". ... But besides that; the reason I posted both articles in #1 and gave it the title "trickle up economics" is that by reducing the funds for food stamps it has significant effects on the economy. ... Sometimes you have to give a little to get more of the pie.
|
Jorn: In Post #9, I "quoted" your post directly, so the "Stores should be fined when violating the restrictions" quote is a direct OD-Paste.
Enough on that. BTW, that part I agree with...I just want to see the pain of the fine on the order of 3 or better.
My b!tch about the EBT matter is in that, as a Nation, we need to get p!ssed about the fraud going on. Do you get to keep money a perp gives you if the money was part of a sting operation? No.
Then, if the store is guilty of an illegal sale based on the premise that the "money" used for said purchase is illegally obtained by fraud (didn't need the EBT-Card to begin with or the conditions the card said are "forbidden" was bypassed anyway...) why shouldn't the spender get nailed to the wall too?
Because we're pussies and think that the BIG BAD CORPORATION needs to suffer the consequences alone?
If it takes two to make a baby then AFAIC, it takes two to perpetuate a fraud.
You're not being repulsed by either one, let alone both?
Then I begin to wonder where we're heading as a Nation that others have been looking up to for the past 237+ years.
