I wanted to get your take on this proposal by a Mississippi man. If you think pets have a right to food stamps, please post why. If you do not, please post your opposing argument.
Absolutely not. People have rights. Animals are not people. Reframe the question to "should people have the right to own animals", and you might be on to something. But no, animals do not have any rights at all. But this really just sounds like trying to change the position of animals in society to "people". And the sad thing is, if you treat animals like people, you'll more often start treating people like animals.
Ugh. Ok, i can sympathize with the plight of falling on hard times and needing help caring for a pet that has become a family member. But theres gotta be a line drawn somewhere. When theres no humans starving, we can come back to this. Til then, not a chance. Sorry Fido.
I'm not that much against poor people getting some financial aid to feed their pets. A lot of vulnerable people do get a lot out of having a pet, and the cost to them, and in the end society, of them losing those pets, might outweigh the benefit of saving some money. You've probably all seen a drug addict, whose only friend is his dog. I don't think it's a good idea to take that away from him. It won't socialize him, or make him more empathetic to society. But it's also a slippery slope. Soon animal rights activists will ask for public health care for animals, and other insane stuff.
Unless its for a SERVICE ANIMAL and I mean your disabled and your animal is trained properly and recognized under law to help deal with a disability, then I can see it, but if you have a pet and can't afford to care for it don't have that pet.
Silly. For years now, people on food stamps have been feeding their pets chicken, tuna and steak... which they get for nothing, thanks to food stamps. Pet stamps would actually be a step down for poor Fido. *woof woof*
YGTBSM. A canine or feline is a very big commitment. There's going to be more expense as they get old, and all of that is the owner's responsibility. Just because a person is poor doesn't mean someone else should be trapped by the government to step in and carry their load.
There is nothing in the Constitution that gives pets any such rights. In order for any such subsidization to take place, Congress would have to create legislation that would give such rights to the pets or their owners. Through the Commerce Clause, Congress has granted subsidization to livestock and other animals to farmers by way of farm subsidies. The agricultural industry would not likely be financially feasible if it were not for these grants. Again, there is no Constitutional right for these grants - they are made at the behest of Congress.
Not for pets, I can see allowing food stamps for service animals (not comfort or emotional support animals). That, or I could see allowing dog food to be bought with food stamps, but part of the family allotment--no additional funds for it, just add dog food to the list of acceptable products. Pets are a luxury. The U.S. government shouldn't be subsidizing luxuries.
While I agree, children are a decision, the responsibility of the parents and we pay for them. Playing 'devil's advocate'.
I get it and used to know someone who got paid for golden rod, but I'm not tying it into paying for food for pets.
I know older women who live in my complex and have pets for their emotional well being or mental. It got them around the rules of no pets. Now, we have dogs of almost all kinds. Some are really too big for the homes and yards. I guess, they could have a peacock, if it was helping them somehow? Would you pay for all of those? Initially, I thought you meant only for the blind and I agree.
Yep. All sorts of socialism is coming. I think the issue will be, how do we make it fair for all? Do we all get the same and then deduct for expenses? Do some get more? It's going to be a mess in this country.
Food stamps are abused now. What's sad is, kids might go hungry when they are abused. You can eat alright, but it isn't the best quality and you have to cook yourself. You can't buy prepared foods.
I want FEDERAL licensing rules standard for all States, implants that are required to be checked by store and business persons using a low cost reader and the animals must be shown either by an examination by experts or being from a proper training center to be trained for specific disability conditions with clear tasks and aptitudes mental, physical or both. And declare comfort animals not a legitimate service animal or given any legal status. If a dog is for emotional well being there are service training options for that if its a legitimate issue they are being treated for. Does that answer the question if they are SERVICE dogs its a clear category and if not no food stamps for Fido or the name of the dog or small miniature horse serving the needs of the disabled in Florida those are the only legal animals for such status.
First, I'd like to ask why a Federal rule and not state? Second, why horses and not pigs? Yes, I'm playing 'devil's advocate'. I see all kinds of issues with any animal, other than a dog for the blind. They make meds to help those who are mentally ill. They do just fine.
Uniformity for cross state issues such as air travel and taking them on other vehicles. Second dogs are standard but I have seen a small horse to compensate for people who use the little guy for physical support with a special harness it if the person loses balance compensates a cane can't do that if the person has issues. And Psychiatric Support Dogs deal with for example PTSD as one condition which the animal usually a dog will give physical support with its body and keep people away with its body gently if the person needs space. Many such people favor not flying if they can avoid it though from my experience. Oh horses are stronger than dogs and can handle more weight and are intelligent for those who need it, its not as common as larger dogs but sometimes they are better. Skilled small monkeys should be added in time, for paraplegics.
A permit from the state in which you might travel would seem simple to get. A wheelchair works better, and an electric chair works best. I don't think that's a valid reason for a horse, or a dog. It's more like an excuse. PTSD can be controlled best with counseling and meds. Folks with a need to keep others away only have to ask others to please not touch them or to walk away from the conversation. The crutch an animal supplies will only support PTSD, not help alleviate it Meds take the edge off and counseling teaches how to handle others. Avoiding close quarters is better than having a dog stand between you, unless that dog is the size of Andre the Giant.
As the owner (or rather servant) of 2 dogs & 3 cats, "Ugh" was my first reaction too. It's neither cheap nor easy to make sure your pets are well cared for & anything can happen to adversely affect your finances. A possible compromise would be to increase funding for food stamp programs or classify pet food as eligible for food stamp purchase or at least help subsidize animal rescue organizations. I've never turned away a hungry dog or cat.....or parrot or.....
Actually they can. You can buy a cold rotisserie chicken with EBT, and you can buy sushi, for example. A local store had the sushi eligibility for food stamps on an advertisement. Also, your post is totally non-sequitur.
