Should you be able to use food stamps for pets???

originally posted by: makemap
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

There is a major side effect if people start feeding animals. There are other people who needs food. Where do you think all the food comes from? Food isn't an unlimited resource. It is also seasonal. When most of the food goes to pet instead of humans. The pet will become food. When people don't get food, there will be war. Animals will always be below the food chain for humanity. I ain't going to blame anyone for eating dogs or cats(Asia). They are very safe right now within our society from being extinct because they are a natural pet.

That doesn't make sense there is not a food shortage, if the poor want to feed their pets that's up to them, if they want to feed their homeless friends they can do that too.

Rice is cheap, so is Dinty Moore Beef Stew.
One could probably feed a dog and themselves for less than $15/wk.

Man, that's messed up,i really didn't need to know that which is an interesting mind set as have no issue eating lamb of beef even pig as I don't view them aspets. In saying that I likely have eaten cat or dog unknowingly during travel in Asia .

a reply to: JAGStorm

Should anyone be able to tell someone what they may and may not do, with the pitiful scraps which fall from the high table of governance?

originally posted by: seagull
Unless it's changed, the EBT program has two facets, one is food, the other is, for all intents, cash. It's to be used for "other necessities".

1) Food.

2) Other, with no definition on other. Pet food applies.

Cash assistance and food stamps use the same card but can access multiple accounts. If you're given food stamps, it only goes from account 1. Cash assistance goes from account 2. Cash assistance is much harder to get than food stamps.

Anyways, as to the OP's question. I think so. Some people who are hard up do eat pet food at times because it's cheaper. I'm also not for the restriction on hot prepared meals that all states other than California have.

Edit: Also, food stamps are meant to also care for your dependents, and pets should qualify IMO. I would say that it's a fine compromise (or perhaps common sense?) to not give more assistance based on how many pets you have, but I see no issue with being able to buy food that supports them with your share.

originally posted by: Oaktree
Rice is cheap, so is Dinty Moore Beef Stew.
One could probably feed a dog and themselves for less than $15/wk.

I don't think you understand being poor. For a single person, at least here in Ohio food stamps top out at $120/month. $15/week is half your food budget. That's a huge percentage for a dog when a large bag of dog food that can last a month is $20.

originally posted by: JAGStorm
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

If you give a homeless person money, they can spend it on drugs, or something to eat, or feed their dog, sure. You know that when you give them that money out of your own free will.

What we are talking about is different, food stamps. We are forced to pay for this through taxes. That's where I have the problem. There are many absolute animal lovers that don't have a pet (or a child for that matter) because they are being responsible, how ironic is it for them to have to pay for someone else's pet???

I worked as a nurse caseworker which required me to visit homes of people who's sole income was government handouts of various kinds. I would always marvel how they had much better electronic equipment, such as huge, new tvs and the best phones. They were much nicer than I have. If you are really system savvy you can live almost rent free with food stamps and some sort of SSI compensation.

Pet care should come out of discretionary money. If you can not afford the responsibility of caring for a pet, you shouldn't have one.

My first food stamp experience took place concerning pets. I wasn't born into a wealthy family but my dad did okay and we never did without.

That said, I was with my grandparents in a supermarket and I guess I was around 10 years old. The lady checking out ahead of us had about $300 worth of steaks and assorted meats. My grandfather who has never met a stranger jokingly remarked "looks like it's gonna be one heck of a cookout!" The lady turned around and replied "These are for my dogs. I can't afford to buy them dog food and my foodstamps don't cover it."

Nothing was said until we reached their car. It was the only time I can remember my grandfather cursing. He made sure to take the time and explain to me once we got to their house how messed up the system was and that the Bible states "if a man doesn't work, a man shouldn't eat." That day has always stuck with me.

In short, if you cannot take care of yourself then you have no right to attempt taking care of anyone or anything else. Just my .02

a reply to: Anathros

Regardless of your story about a crazy lady buying steaks for dogs (or maybe she was just giving your grandfather a smart answer) and adding the bible to it, might lend some moral credence in some folks minds but...

What if you had the dog/cat before your life went Seriously South? Kick it to the curb? Drown it in the river? Ask a friend you don't have? Hope the animal shelter doesn't euthanise it?

An honest question.

originally posted by: LightSpeedDriver
a reply to: schuyler

I guess I'm not used to how things work there. In the Netherlands, if you are on welfare you get a single monthly payment. All bills must be paid from that single deposit. I guess people could abuse the system to buy alcohol, drugs and/or hire pink-haired strippers but in 2 months you will be homeless.

No different here. If you get welfare, you get money. In some cases it's a good enough gig that having babies is a cottage industry because AFDC (Aid for Families with Dependent Children) for multiple kids gets you a steady stream of money. And, of course, with money you can buy anything you want. You want dog food? Knock yourself out. It's no different here than in the Netherlands.

But the Food Stamp program is a separate issue. There is often a correlation between welfare recipients and food stamp recipients, but not necessarily. The Food Stamp program is administered by the US Department of Agriculture. Welfare is a state-administered program that varies state by state. Don't confuse the two programs.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Yes, only with their left overs or extras like cash given by other people. Taking care of pets is like taking care of babies. Its a hard lesson. If you want a pet as a poor you either grow your own food and farm or work a small job to be able to pay for pet food. Animals are a lot stronger than humans physically. They can survive in the wild. Especially those who have carnivores as pets. They will attack the owner. Easiest pets to feed are herbivores.

Honestly, if you don't have a job, a friend, and the animal isn't likely to be rescued..the country is probably better off supporting the animal than the owner. Honest answer.

It wouldn't bother me so much, a pet might be one of the few comforts/support a person might have.
As noted early on in this, vet bills are a whole other issue with pet ownership.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: JAGStorm

Should anyone be able to tell someone what they may and may not do, with the pitiful scraps which fall from the high table of governance?

As a matter of fact, yes. When my taxes are being used to feed the animals of those those that cannot care for themselves, I have my right under the first amendment to voice my outrage. Now you're British so you may not realize that usually those collecting foodstamps (ebt) have multiple members in the same household doing the same as there is little to no oversight. I'm speaking as someone that worked for the state dealing with Medicaid, AHCA, (Obamacare) and SNAP (foodstamps) benefits. Many of those people will take someone to the grocery store and trade $400 worth of groceries for $100-$200 in cash. Meanwhile, hardworking taxpayers trying to earn a living are being taken advantage of year after year.

Now that I've said that. Let me say this. I believe in helping others but it should be in the form of a hand up as opposed to a hand out. These benefits should not be a crutch to lean on for life and the working class shouldn't have to foot the bill for the lazy.

When I was a care-worker, my understanding was, at least in Wash. and ID-though I believe it's a national rule- that the money side of the EBT benefits care could not be used for alcohol, cigarettes, etc., figuring that would include pet foods or other. Instead the cash side of EBT benefits cards is for gas, bus, etc., rides for medical needs. This is added to the cards from Medicare/Medicaid.

Other assistance cash for the disabled, low income and retired through SSI, SSDI and state provided assistance, allows the purchase of pet food. It's probably better to utilize that then try to utilize the stipend of food benefits if the pet food brands were allowed.

Yes. If the recipient wishes to share his monthly allotment to feed his pet, that's his business. Maybe it should not be figured in to the small amount they get anyway (I wouldn't care, but too many other control-freaks would object to it, so I would say no), but if they want to spend a portion of it on their pet, it's their business, and I suppose their sacrifice.

a reply to: schuyler

Thank you for clearing some things up. I can't imagine a government that gives out food stamps if it isn't really necessary but then again, McDonalds advised their employees to get a 2nd job if they didn't earn enough for a full weeks work. Globalisation doesn't help. In the Netherlands you will not earn much but you will generally earn enough to keep a roof over your head and be able to treat yourself once in a while.

a reply to: Anathros

My being British has no bearing on this issue Anathros.

Right and wrong are not different just because one is on the US side of the ocean, or the British side of the ocean. They are constant, always the same, no matter where one is. All that changes, is whether the local society recognises the difference between the two.

I'm disabled and I get food stamps. No pet owners shouldn't be allowed to buy pet food with food stamps. Thats just absurd. If you can't afford to feed your animals you shouldn't have them.

I wanted to revisit this thread after the weekend I had with my dog.

A bit of backstory. My 7yo female dog started squatting without peeing. I took her to the vet, who diagnosed her with a UTI and prescribed antibiotics. A week goes by, she's peeing normally, everything seems fine.

Saturday, as I was mowing my lawn, I noticed that she was constantly squatting without peeing again. An emergency vet visit, urinalysis, and X-Rays confirmed the diagnosis of bladder stones.

My dog had surgery today, and is fine. The bill for this weekend comes up to $1068. This is in addition to the $665 already spent this year on regular checkup, meds, and teeth cleaning. If my household didn't manage our finances carefully, this would be a hard expense to handle.

If you already have a pet and have to go on welfare, you have some tough decisions to make. If you are already on welfare and don't have a pet, you just plain can't afford one.