Clerk Loses her job for Refusing to Sell Cigarettes on an EBT Card

[Chuckiechan]

Clerk loses job over stand - SentinelSource.com: Local News: electronic benefit transfer, ebt, debit card, cigarette, jackie whiton

“I made the statement, ‘do you think myself, that lady and that gentlemen should pay for your cigarettes?’ and he responded ‘yes,’ ” Whiton said.

Typical freeloader.

[Whir]

EBT cash cards can be used to buy anything. Do I like it? Nope. Does her job require that she accept the cards as legal tender? Yep. If she couldn't accept that, then she made the right choice in quitting.

On the other hand, the company handled it like a pro, firing her. That's going to get them some backlash. Not that the story won't be forgotten in two days.

And that dude is the reason that real families in need get so much shit for being on assistance. Cigarettes and alcohol should not be able to be purchased on any assistance program in my opinion. It's a well-meaning program run by a bunch of morons.

However, do you know what they do when they can't buy cigarettes with their cards? They buy bulk cheap soda, dump out the cans, and then return them to buy the cigarettes. Crummy people are going to be crummy no matter what.

[Chuckiechan]

I had no idea you could by tobacco or booze with public assistance. It's not like out media is bringing it up.

[Whir]

You've always been able to with cash assistance. The only difference is now they don't send you a paper check to cash to get paper money, they just load up a debit card for you. Saves the govt. money.

With the food EBT card, you can only buy food and no hot food at that. You can't even buy bottled water. I've seen in some places you can use your EBT food card to purchase things at KFC, but I assume that's just for coleslaw or something since you can buy that at the grocery store. You can buy frozen Papa Murphy's pizzas with them here, but holy giant waste of money.

What kills me is people that obviously don't need to be on assistance, but are. I watched a girl buy $20 worth of lottery tickets and then pay for milk with a food card. IF YOU CAN BUY LOTTERY TICKETS, YOU DO NOT NEED ASSISTANCE. I wanted to deck her. Luckily I managed to just frown and rant about it later.

[Theophylact]

I had no idea you could by tobacco or booze with public assistance. It's not like out media is bringing it up.

You had no idea that money could be used to purchase things? You're a lot dumber than I ever thought.

Cash is fungible. You can deposit funds in a bank with your EBT card, you can get cash from an ATM, you can spend cash on what you want.

There is no law requiring the poor to spend money on what you think is good for them.

For someone who thinks it's an infringement on your liberty to be told the calorie content of your happy meal, you're pretty damned willing to direct the most intimate aspects of the lives of others.

[de_day]

I do believe that ALL public assistance should be regulated as far as what tax dollars can buy. A family goes on and qualifies for assistance based on a need for necessities (and NO cigarettes and booze are not necessities). The whole program is a money pit and mis-managed, but I think the rules on what a family can buy should be amended.

A family that needs help, needs food to eat, not lottery tickets, cigarettes or booze.
And only as long as it takes for them to get back on their feet with all the able bodied members working.

And I'll add while I'm here.... while people are on public assistance, there is no reason to pay any government employee to pick up trash, clean public buildings, cut grass on public land or paint. They should work as they can while on assistance to get those things done.

[Theophylact]

In other words, bring back the Poor Laws.

Boy, you guys really believe in progress, don't you?

[Theophylact]

And this is what your idea of health care looks like:

Trying to equalize health care consumption hurts the poor, since most feasible policies to do this take away cash from the poor, either directly or through the operation of tax incidence. We need to accept the principle that sometimes poor people will die just because they are poor. Some of you don’t like the sound of that, but we already let the wealthy enjoy all sorts of other goods — most importantly status — which lengthen their lives and which the poor enjoy to a much lesser degree. We shouldn’t screw up our health care institutions by being determined to fight inegalitarian principles for one very select set of factors which determine health care outcomes.

[Epidemic]

Theo,

So you believe it is progress to allow people on the public dime to spend money on cigarettes, booze, and cable bills?
It is progress to allow the misuse of Money from productive citizens in the form or taxes, with the expressed purpose of assisting people with their welfare?

I still like the idea of Welfare not being given unless you show up in a govenment building 8 hours a day.

I think they should open public buildings set up cubicles and if you are on welfare you have to report to these building 8 hours a day to receive their check. Similar rules to business. No personal reading material. the only reprieve from sitting at a desk and doing nothing would be to take job training/education 8 hours a day. This would create daycare jobs, it would not undercut jobs currently performed by state workers.

No one should receive a check for sitting at home unless they physically are unable to do otherwise.

[Chuckiechan]

In a world run by Theo, everyone would have an EBT card for everything, and everyday would be a day at the race track, or a quiet afternoon with a brown bag in front of "Theo's liquor & Food" store! .

It's a sense of values. Forgive me for being surprised that the government gives people cash to go the the titty bar on the way home from the welfare office. I have not been exposed to quite the liberal doctrine Theo has.

I'm "dumb" for living in a "morality bubble", according the Prince Theo, HRS...(His Royal Snarkness).

[Theophylact]

No. Give them the amount of money they need, then let them spend it how they will. If they blow it on the horses or booze, they can wait till next month to eat.

(And if they won't use it to provide for their children, take the children away from them.)

[sharder8]

No. Give them the amount of money they need, then let them spend it how they will. If they blow it on the horses or booze, they can wait till next month to eat.

(And if they won't use it to provide for their children, take the children away from them.)

That would require shutting down many charities . . .

As it stands now, they can blow their food stamps and cash and then go to the food bank and other charities for food for the month. They can go to neighborhood impact for electric, heat, and rent assistance.


Harder

[Epidemic]

No. Give them the amount of money they need, then let them spend it how they will. If they blow it on the horses or booze, they can wait till next month to eat.

(And if they won't use it to provide for their children, take the children away from them.)

Why would you give someone money to waste and not put controls on it?

Why allow them to make the choices for themselves with other peoples money? Is it to keep them from having a bruised ego?

Rental assistance should go to rent. food assistance should go to food... it does not even cost the government more to administer because you just tell grocery stores what you are willing to pay for and they police to insure they get paid.


Why would we ever give an able bodied person asistance for simply sitting at home and doing absolutely nothing but enjoying other people money? Shouldn't there be an expectation of public service or at least an inconvenience as a motivator to choose an alternative route?

[tony_j15]

On the other hand, the company handled it like a pro, firing her. That's going to get them some backlash. Not that the story won't be forgotten in two days.

From the company's perspective, I'm guessing they felt they didn't have a choice. They had an employee who, instead of consulting with a supervisor, made the decision on her own to cause a scene with a customer which led to a bad experience for every other person in her line and caused a complaint to be filed that made it to the home office.
She was reprimanded and given the opportunity to continue working. She instead gave a week's notice and said she would no longer process the EBT cards.
Why would a company want to continue to employ someone who refuses to do the job?
She left them no choice but to fire her.

As to the discussion about the ethics of cash welfare in general, it seems to me people are suggesting one of two positions. Either we eliminate certain products in an effort to control behavior, or we allow free market choices to guide behaviors.
Theo seems (IMO) to be saying to allow access to the funds and people will figure it out. It implies trust and responsibility.
Chuck is saying (IMO) we have to control behavior because people are irresponsible and unable to make appropriate decisions with their money.

I find both sides have merit. I am personally disgusted when someone who is "on the dole" to use the funds to support addicitive habits. But where do we draw the line? I also find it disgusting when people suggest we have to control the purchase behaviors of those "on the dole" because that implies that they are all idiotic dead-beats incapable of making good financial decisions which is responsible for their current situation. If this recession as shown us anything, it should be that this stereotype is absolutely false.

[Epidemic]

I also find it disgusting when people suggest we have to control the purchase behaviors of those "on the dole" because that implies that they are all idiotic dead-beats incapable of making good financial decisions which is responsible for their current situation. If this recession as shown us anything, it should be that this stereotype is absolutely false.

Personally I don't think the choice should be the purchasers regardless of their reason for being on the dole. I don't care if they are a nuclear brains surgeon rocket scientist who was just layed off. You should not be allowed to spend money on anything beyond survival. It is not your money and it is meant to get you over a rough patch. You should not be able to buy one luxury item. Healthy wholesome food, basic shelter and basic clothes should be the only thing you can buy with other peoples benevolent gift, you did not earn. You should not want to buy luxuries on other peoples money. I would not expect you to take offence when I you hear that said money can not be spent on cigarettes. If you chose to keep the money in the bank, buy lottery tickets or buy booze then obviously the amount of money given you was too much.

[brandon184]

This is how I understand Epidemic's position:

Since someone is accepting money that is not theirs (i.e. someone is taking "his" tax dollars), he should be able to dictate to them how it should be spent. He has "control" and "daddy" issues, as a psychotherapist might put it, so the moment he is able to be the one in control over someone else's affairs, he'll jump at the opportunity.

Epidemic, what if someone has a food allergy that prevents them from eating the food that you dictate that they eat? "Oh, you have a gluten allergy? That's too bad. I guess you'll just be shitting your pants every day until you can get a job and support yourself, won't you?"

If you chose to keep the money in the bank, buy lottery tickets or buy booze then obviously the amount of money given you was too much.

If you're worried about welfare dollars, why not focus on improving the economy instead of making the lives of the poor a living hell?

[Theophylact]

As I said,

There is no law requiring the poor to spend money on what you think is good for them.

For someone who thinks it's an infringement on your liberty to be told the calorie content of your happy meal, you're pretty damned willing to direct the most intimate aspects of the lives of others.

[Epidemic]

This is how I understand Epidemic's position:

Since someone is accepting money that is not theirs (i.e. someone is taking "his" tax dollars), he should be able to dictate to them how it should be spent. He has "control" and "daddy" issues, as a psychotherapist might put it, so the moment he is able to be the one in control over someone else's affairs, he'll jump at the opportunity.

Epidemic, what if someone has a food allergy that prevents them from eating the food that you dictate that they eat? "Oh, you have a gluten allergy? That's too bad. I guess you'll just be shitting your pants every day until you can get a job and support yourself, won't you?"



If you're worried about welfare dollars, why not focus on improving the economy instead of making the lives of the poor a living hell?

I believe you have issues with your daddy telling you no apparently

Your what if most certainly could be maintained unless you are suggesting that booze and cigarettes are a necessity for certain people.

Were I to get all authoritarian about it I still think we could come up with a reasonable restriction on luxury that would not force the poor to eat a given food that will kill them.

How bout this, you can buy rice, beans, chicken, tuna, fresh vegetables, canned vegies, bread...milk, juice.

More specifically I think the restrictions are more important. You may not have Prepared foods, high end candied cereals, ice cream, candies, Chips, dips...cigarettes, Booze, MCDonalds, BK, KFC... These are all luxuries and should require that you fund these with work. Our job as a society is provide sustenence not enjoyment. Being on welfare/public teet, may happen for a multitude of reasons ranging from being screwed by life to people who chose it as a life style. But societies obligation is not to provide any more than the basics to keep you healthy.

Do you believe we as a society should be obligated to provide luxuries? Should we also provide enough extra so that people on welfare should be able to take summer vacations to Bermuda or Disney? If so then you are crazy please explain why we should? If not then why should we pay one nickle over what is needed for sustenence?

I am not looking to punish the people on welfare I am looking to not publish the working public by supporting peoples luxuries.

[Epidemic]

As I said,

Theo,

You may have said that but there is a basic difference. what I buy with my money at McDonalds is my money earned with my 50 hours a week away from my family. 15 of those hours are spent supporting the government.

The person on welfare spends 0 hours away from their families giving 0 dollars to the government. I believe as a society we probably have an obligation to keep someone alive but beyond that i am not sure 1 minute of my week should be spent supporting their entertainment. You believe that people on welfare deserve to have luxury/compfort foods?

Again I ask why???

Ideally were it not a logistics nightmare I would recommend that adult males be able to choose from the list of necessities 2,300 calories a day and a female 1,700 and kids an age weight caloric intake. Your card would only buy enough calories to keep you healthy in weekly increments.

When your finances were short when you were young and dumb theo, what would you do when your bank account was dangerously low. You and any other responsible person would cut back to the bone? Why would someone on welfare who is essentially at zero not be forced to cut back to the bare minimum?

[Theophylact]

When your finances were short when you were young and dumb theo, what would you do when your bank account was dangerously low. You and any other responsible person would cut back to the bone? Why would someone on welfare who is essentially at zero not be forced to cut back to the bare minimum?

Yes, I did. But I was also addicted to cigarettes (a two-and-a-half-pack-a-day habit, unfiltered high-nicotine), and that habit took me another twenty years or so to kick. You found it easy? Even living just up the road from Southland, I bet your habit cost you a pretty penny over the years, even when times were tough.