Pets to get food stamps while children in America Starve each day...

Link

Here is a thought...if you are too poor to feed yourself...don't have a pet. It is not a right. You have a choice. If you want Federal Assistance you should not have a pet, especially if you have children.

Anyone receiving public assistance through the United States Food Stamp program is prohibited from using the funds to purchase pet food and supplies. “There is zero ability to use food stamp money in any state in the U.S. for any pet food whatsoever, even though you are able to use food stamps for unhealthy things like Coca-Cola (which gets about $4 billion a year from food stamps),” Okon said.

No way to use EBT for pet food. Uh, really. How about you use if for FOOD...

reply to post by esdad71

Here is a thought...if you are too poor to feed yourself...don't have a pet.

OR

If you are too poor to feed yourself.....don't have children.

reply to post by esdad71


While I wouldn't put it past the Govt. to start giving foodstamps to animals, this is not Govt. funded.
Pet Food Stamps FAQ

Q. How is this program possible?
A. The Pet Food Stamps Program is made possible through individual donations and grants. It is not a Government sponsored program.
Q. Is Pet Food Stamps a legal charity?
A. Pet Food Stamps is an registered NYS, non-profit corporation.

Nope , this is a privately funded charitable program and the headline by Drudge is deceiving.

While I do not agree with government paid food stamps for pet food, I think it is unreasonable to say people who are struggling should not have pets.


You you deny the senior citizen on social security what might be their only source of companionship?
Or what about a pet that has been with the family for several years before the family fell on hard times? Do you feel they should give that that pet up after years of developing an irrevocable bond?

Edit to add government paid, and to say that I think the charity is a great idea, but give it a different name.

Originally posted by esdad71
Link

Here is a thought...if you are too poor to feed yourself...don't have a pet. It is not a right. You have a choice. If you want Federal Assistance you should not have a pet, especially if you have children.

You do understand that sometimes things happen AFTER someone has kid, or buys pets, that causes them to lost the ability to financially take care of them, right?

Originally posted by bluemooone2
Nope , this is a privately funded charitable program and the headline by Drudge is deceiving.

Of course it's deceiving. Drudge makes his money by telling lies to the gullible low information fools who believe them and, worse, repeat them.

reply to post by esdad71


To be honest it sounds crazy to me. I can understand people love their pets. But they look after themselves before anyone else. Just my two cents.

I didn't read the article and saw after it was a non-profit thing for pets. Sorry, my bad.

Whoa whoa whoa...I did not say anything about the government. I said food stamps for dogs is nuts. Read people read. You are taking 2 and 2 and making 6...There is a link to the whole article so nothing is being hidden.

My point is that there are children dying from starvation and no, I do not put a pet above the life of a human being. I have a dog, 2 cats and some fish. If it came down to it the kids get fed and if needed we eat the pets.(j/k)

I also understand that things can happen, lose your job, etc, but you should choose to feed yourself and other human beings before a dog or cat. It is not an argument and you have no defense. None. If you can take the time to start an organization that feeds animals you can create one that will feed kids.

If you as a human being have the choice to donate 10 dollars to a local food bank or to give dogs food stamps, and you choose the dogs, there is something wrong with you.

Oh, and Drudge is the devil....

OP, you obviously didn't read the entire article you posted as the basis for your thread. It is a totally PRIVATELY-FUNDED program (that means it's not taxpayer money). Last time I checked, it was legal for private, non-profit entities to fund any kind of charity they wish.

Secondly, no children in the US are "starving". Bet you can't find even ONE. If you do find one, call CPS because that parent is obviously too stupid to fill out a benefit form. I know this because I'm a recently retired social worker.

Lastly, many poor people have pets because they are not the easiest people to get along with (many have personality disorders, especially the homeless) and have little to no human support system. Having a dog for love/companionship is all some of these folks have, and I'm sure the dog would rather not be euthanized in a shelter.

ATS is the "deny ignorance" website. Be honest and thorough when you post here and don't twist stuff to whip up outrage over nothing!

reply to post by esdad71


You didn't specifically say it was tax-payer funded, but by only saying food stamps, one is led to think of Govt. funding. It is reasonable to believe it is implied.

A lie of omission is still to be frowned upon.

This is a privately funded program, your thread title is VERY misleading.

So are you then of the opinion that if someone becomes disabled instead of being allowed to use their foodstamps on their pets they should then just get rid of them all together, or their kids maybe? Harsh don't you think. Do you people even own pets? They become part of your family you don't just up and leave them because you fell on hard times and you shouldn't be forced to feel like crap about needing help either. It's one thing if it's a 20 year old mother of four who can work but chooses not to, it's another when someone lost theit job because of downsizing or a senior on a fixed income.

I don't see anything wrong with pets getting food stamps. In fact I think it's a great idea, maybe now they'll be less pets let lose, or left for dead, or starving. There is no worse feeling than that of not being able to provide for those whom you love, this is a great idea. I get that a lot of people misuse their foodstamps but that is not the case for everyone.

People get sick, people lose jobs and because of the economy they need supplemental help. The older you are the harder it is to get a job.

I think this is a great idea!

I dont really understand your angle on this OP. I think its a pretty cool idea for a privately funded non-profit group to help animals. what is so bad about that? theres another program here that assist with cost of expensive medical procedures for pet owners who cannot afford them on their own. Is that bad too?

reply to post by captaintyinknots


You do understand that some women already on food stamps/welfare continue to have more children?

That title is everything that is wrong with ATS. If people want to donate money to help feed the pets of people who have lost jobs then so what?

Originally posted by Carreau
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

You do understand that some women already on food stamps/welfare continue to have more children?

Absolutely. So, because there are some out there, does that justify the blanket statement that "if you are poor, dont have pets or children"?
And do you really think that the children should be punished, even if the parents made a poor choice by having them?

reply to post by captaintyinknots


I said if you are too poor to feed yourself, don't have children. And yes I stand by that statement. I see nothing wrong with that policy. How is that punishing the kids?

If someone is low income with a disability they may have a service animal. Which in turn the companion animal helps then with their disability or disabilities. What's so wrong with a non -profit donation(as brought up in above replies) towards helping them feed the animal in times of need, which may in turn get them back on track to work again etc., not even to mention cope better?

Ive knwn lots f lonely misfits in my time who chose to go hungry to feed a pet they had a long time.....
At least some people are loyal to the entities they get to depend upon them........