Friday, May 2, 2014

Pets on public assistance?

There has been a lot of debate flying around regarding pets and public assistance.  Should people with pets, particularly multiple, large pets be eligible for public assistance?  I.E. Welfare, food stamps, WIC, Section 8 housing, Medicaid, etc...

I guess it depends on A) Where you stand politically, and B) Is owning a dog a core necessity?   Pursuant to (B) should dog owners be eligible for public assistance?

Some folks  indicate that the poverty stricken should not have to give up everything.  I agree with this sentiment in a very limited sense.  However, dog ownership is nothing more than a lifestyle choice and a luxury for most people.  The majority of the population does not own a dog and get by just fine.

Let me expand into allegory.  Would/should I be eligible for public assistance if I:
- Own an expensive, fuel inefficient car?
- Own a large home in an expensive neighborhood?
- Continue to pursue expensive hobbies such as scuba diving, flying airplanes, or golfing?
- Make sufficient income to meet my core needs?

I'm sure the vast majority would say NO to public assistance for any of the above.  Should I be collecting welfare/food stamps/section 8/etc... so I can keep my Mercedes/beach house/and country club membership?   You need to keep in mind that everyone paying taxes is not some Scrooge McDuck with a silo full of money.

Again, I personally don't think that anyone should be allowed to starve, die from exposure, or lack basic/emergent health care.  However, if you continue to pursue expensive lifestyle choices, you should not be asking for a handout.  Why should I be forced to give money to someone who has something I don't have?   I should not be on the hook for someone else's frivolities.

Demolish counter-argument #1:  Crony capitalists and other types of government fraud/waste are a red herring and irrelevant to the conversation.  For example, the fact that Haliburton raped the taxpayer during the Iraq war was a travesty that should not have happened and should not happen again BUT completely irrelevant to this discussion.  The point is, whether or not I, or anyone else, should be forced to subsidize (directly or indirectly) pet ownership in others.

Demolish counter-argument #2:  What about kids?  Should I be forced to support someone else's children, especially if I don't have any?  A couple of things... 1)  Dogs are not kids, and 2) again, not really relevant to the discussion.

Demolish counter argument #3:  To dog lovers (and perhaps others) on the left half of the political spectrum, ponder this:  When pet owners receive transfer payments, you need to consider where those tax dollars ultimately wind up - let me give you a hint - that tax money winds up in the pockets of breeders, pet food manufacturers, big retailers, veterinarians, and various other top 1%-ers.  (ok, maybe only top 20% in some cases).

Owning a dog (or 10) means one has voluntarily assumed the following liabilities:
- Food
- Additional housing space
- Veterinary bills
- Licensing fees.
- Misc

Now, if one were to surrender those liabilities (or had not taken them on in the first place) they might not NEED public assistance.  I.E. if they weren't on the hook to feed 10 dogs, they may then have ample funds to cover their own nutritional needs.  That, or their need for public assistance would be lessened.

Demolish counter-argument #4:   To some of those still not getting it (and I have seen this argument bounced around a lot), any household budget is basically a pot.  The funds are fungible.  By subsidizing one thing, you are indirectly subsidizing everything.  So, if you say "but, I pay for my dog's needs with my OWN MONEY, public assistance pays for MY needs!".  OK, now substitute "Dog" with "Swimming Pool" or "RV" and you now finally get the point.  When you pay for someone's food, housing, medical care, etc.... you may be freeing up funds for that individual's frivolous extras.

Personally, I think that disqualifying pet owners from public assistance is a capital idea for a multitude of reasons.  Pets consume a lot of resources and create a lot of pollution.  The government should not be enabling pet ownership of any kind.  Pet ownership is NOT a public good, such as infrastructure or law enforcement.   Owning a pet is a PRIVILEGE not a core civil right or a basic necessity.  Government enablement of pet ownership via transfer payments lowers the quality of life and standard of living of all.

Am I a mean bastard?  Of course I am.  Nice guys finish last, and nice people do not solve problems.  In any case, everyone needs to realize that things suck all over and hearing a sob story from someone with a lot of "wealth" stored in pets does not gain a lot of traction with me, nor should it anyone else. 


  1. Good grief! I don't know how I even remember this, but I do remember in some class in, middle school I think, learning about the differences between luxuries and necessities when it comes to surviving. Now, no one wants to just survive, but owning a dog or any other type of pet is considered a luxury. You don't need one to survive, in fact, if you're trying to WORK and get back on your feet, or get a better job, a dog and it's needs would probably hamper you.

    1. Hi Dayna,

      Excellent comment, particularly " if you're trying to WORK and get back on your feet, or get a better job, a dog and it's needs would probably hamper you."

    2. In a study the cost of keeping a MEDIUM size dog for a year, eating only average food (and who feeds their precious furbaby only average kibble! The horrors!), and getting only routine vet care, was about $1200 a year. If your dog lives to 14 that is over $16,000 blown. I can't think of a worse use of this money than a dog, particularly for someone who is struggling financially.

  2. Have been enjoying your site for a while, but never commented till today. Don't have any pets now, and want to be as far away from dogs, especially pits, as possible.

    I agree about not owning large dogs or 10 dogs, but can't fully agree with everything you wrote. For instance, think about old / lonely / ill people with a small lap dog or a cat, who get public assistance. Researches have shown that a pet often prevents health from worsening (because of psychological reasons) in old people, for instance. Even from purely utilitarian point of view, feeding a small pet costs much less than treating a person, whose health doesn't improve or even worsens because of mental suffering. One could also argue that a pet could help its (not very old) owner find mental strength to succeed in gettting back on one's feet.

    In addition to old people and invalids, there are also many Americans, who work full time and still get public assistance because of too low wages. Think about Walmart workers. Not everybody who gets assistance is lazy. Feeding a small pet doesn't cost much, and adds something positive to otherwise very hard lives. Think about things like scraps from a table, not about super-costy special animal food. Whether they have a pet or not, they still need this assistance, while honestly working full time! Forbidding those families to have a small pet will only hurt their quality of life, without minimizing the number of workers on assistance.

    1. Interesting comments, but nothing you say means anything.

      For example "Not everybody who gets assistance is lazy. " I never said they were. That is not the point. The point is, if you want a non-essential luxury such as a dog, or mercedes, or boat, or whatever, YOU should provide the means for that. Again, you are assuming that owning a pet is somehow a core civil right and that either the employer and/or the taxpayer should be forced to cover it. There is never going to be a meeting of the minds here, because we fundamentally disagree on the role of pets in society.

      In regards to poor wages/sucky economy - On a variation of Dayna's point, perhaps if they had invested (or were to invest) the time and money they invested in their dogs on job training, they might not be stuck working at Walmart. I'm not stuck working at Walmart, so why are they?

      You also wrote: "Researches [sic] have shown that a pet often prevents health from worsening". What research? How about the health and safety hazards related to biting, barking, and dog crap in our waterways? Again, why should tax payers fund that? Again, for many, this is a net negative.

      See, I do not have the means for everything I want, either. I had to sell my house and give up flying lessons due to a job loss a decade ago. Where are the tears for me? I went from upper middle class to middle. If I don't get to have everything I want, why do they? Particularly, when that "need" is a net negative for me, personally.

      Small animals aren't necessarily cheap, either. What if it needs thousands of dollars in veterinary care? Who pays for THAT? Hell, they could dump the mutt, re-train to be a plumber and make six figures.

      Thanks for writing.

    2. // What if it needs thousands of dollars in veterinary care?

      Than the right solution is to humanely PTS, and give home to another homeless pet.

      // I'm not stuck working at Walmart, so why are they?

      "I'm not sweeping streets, removing garbage,etc, so why are they?" -- I reworded it, but think the idea remained the same. Society needs people to do all kinds of jobs, and I see solution in government forcing Walmart to provide a living minimum wage by passing laws, instead of letting 1% to get richer by pushing costs into us/ government.

      // What research?

      Results of a three-year study of 5,741 people at the Baker Medical Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia, show that pet owners had lower blood pressure and triglyceride and cholesterol levels than did non-owners – a result that could not be explained by such personal differences as cigarette smoking, diet, weight or socio-economic profile…

      One can find more by googling.

    3. Can you back up your claim that pets have beneficial health effects? I think such research is suspect, at best. In fact, pets can carry pathogens that are detrimental to human health.

      Stories abound of people losing body parts after being infected by their dog, especially when bitten. Research shows a link between dogs and breast cancer. If anything, your health is likely to improve if you get rid of your pet.

      Any benefits, if real at all, are purely psychological, and the same or better can be accomplished by HUMAN companionship. If you're so concerned, go and volunteer to spend time with old people at a retirement home. You might enjoy it, too.

    4. Study proves dog owners are lonely people:

  3. "So, if you say "but, I pay for my dog's needs with my OWN MONEY, public assistance pays for MY needs!". OK, now substitute "Dog" with "Swimming Pool" or "RV" and you now finally get the point."

    years ago, another high density low income housing project was being considered for my neighborhood. the city held a hearing. the developer/builder presented his case. during his spiel, he mentioned the space for RV parking. WHAT THE FUCK?!

    "Am I a mean bastard? Of course I am. Nice guys finish last, and nice people do not solve problems. In any case, everyone needs to realize that things suck all over and hearing a sob story from someone with a lot of "wealth" stored in pets does not gain a lot of traction with me, nor should it anyone else."


    animal uncontrol, killer post. for as long as i can remember i have felt that people who smoke cigarettes should not be eligible for public assistance. once i became aware of the pit bull problem, i started to view them in the same vein. not only are cigarettes and pit bulls NOT a public good, they have devastating economic effects. i have been on the fence about this very issue for a while, for the reasons stated above with the elderly and disabled. you almost succeeded in pushing me off of the fence. i'm still there but i think you have the ability to push me over. give it another go.

    fyi, i still believe that owning pets is a luxury, even though there is scientific evidence to support the health benefits of owning a companion animal.

    1. Dawn, 200% agree regarding cigarettes. Smoking is expensive (OK, partly the government's fault). I figure, if you smoke 2 packs a day, that's at least 10 bucks in most places. I rarely spend more than 10 bucks a day on food.

      "during his spiel, he mentioned the space for RV parking. WHAT THE FUCK?!" Yes, RV parking, Butler's pantry, and maid's quarters are a core necessity. I couldn't possibly imagine any less.

    2. Right now I am working with a woman who would be in good health had she NOT smoked her youth away. She is not that old but uses a rolling walker and oxygen tank due to advanced emphysema. And every few weeks she ends up in the hospital for a few days or a week due to breathing problems. I can only imagine what the cost of this is to the taxpayer as she's on disability too.

  4. No one should own pit bulls and similar dangerous dogs if they cannot properly contain them, keep them away from the public, and insure them. Anyone that cannot do this must have those maulers removed ASAP, because it is a safety hazard, and I don't care if they are on assistance or not. I prefer an all out ban, of course, but this would be a smart bare minimum.

    However, as a dog hater, but a socialist leaning liberal, I am torn on this question.

    Anything that reduces the number of dogs in the population is a good thing. I loathe most them, their noise, their shit, the danger they cause, and their ODORs. Fewer people with dogs, the better. Personally, if they all disappeared, I would be happy, as I could finally choose where to live based on actual attributes of the area and housing, instead of on the noise and danger level from local dogs (which ruin even the nicest of places).

    But, politically, I just cannot be OK with policing the spending of the poor, as righteous as it may feel to you. We do not own the poor just because they get some food, medical or (rarely) housing. As much as it pains me to say this, the poor can have their dogs.

    We have already decided how much assistance we will give, and how little you have to have, in order to get it. You cannot have any assets, no savings, no valuable belongings like a car over $2k, or a boat, and very small amounts of income and cash on hand. We DO let people have "fungible" money, in small amounts.

    Because we do allow small amounts of cash, it comes down to whether you think it is YOUR duty to tell everyone on assistance (of any kind) how to spend the money they are allowed to have. If you do think it's OK to police spending like this, then you can complain about anything you want: cigarettes, dogs, ferrets (in my case), smart phones (OH THE HUMANITY), beer, or a toy for your kid.

    If you do, I will think you are a total douchebag, and hope you lose everything, and get to experience life at the bottom (don't be too smug, its more common than you think!), but at least this argument makes sense. It really is part of the "If you aren't living in a hovel, you have too much for assistance" attitude. I think its disgusting, and doesn't belong in any advanced nation, but hey, its your right to be an utter piece of shit. I sure hope you apply this attitude to ALL that get government cash, but I doubt you do.

    Are dogs a luxury? Sure, if you consider *anything* over bare necessities a luxury. I don't. I think there are the very basics you need to actually survive, then lots of things in-between this, and luxury. I think they are in the in-between category, unless you have a house full of costly ones, which would edge into luxury.

    I also think its more responsible to keep your pet when times get tough, as long as it isn't hurting your ability to improve your situation, or making you worse off (like that family that is homeless because they won't give up their pit bull). Otherwise, how responsible is it to dump them onto others to care for? Or PTS? You bought/adopted a pet, it is your responsibility to them to care for them for life. I do think that care can be basic, as long as its humane.

    (I stayed on topic, amazing)

    1. Yes, I am a complete douchebag. Anything else you want to know?

      See, douchebags get things done. Douchebags win, nice people lose.

      If you were to query my neighbors, they would agree that I am the biggest douche on the block. By a big margin. I am confident if YOU were my neighbor, you would think I was a douche, too. I wrote about this in the past. That said, they have peace in their homes and an improved quality of life thanks to me. If YOU were my neighbor YOU would not be here because *I*, by myself, rid this block of dog nuisances. How? Because, I was the only one douchy enough to stand up to the backyard breeder on the block. I basically out-douched them.

      This is the problem with this "movement". Everybody (except me and a handful of other people) want to keep everything nice. Many want everybody to have everything they want, shake hands and be friends forever. Unfortunately, that is not the way the real world works.

      Now, going back to the topic at hand, why should I subsidize an interest that is damaging to my own? Sure, subsidizing health care, housing and food assistance picks my pocket, but does not break my leg.

      On the other hand, barking, pooping and biting RAISES the blood pressure of millions of people every year (take that, Anon). Not to mention the half a million or so that wind up in the hospital. Again, pet ownership is NOT a social good. Thanks to many irresponsible dog owners, every time I see a dog, my butt clenches - how does that fit into the equation?

      When the rubber meets the road, you have to be ready to HURT people. Placing real standards on pet ownership means that some people, and some pets, are going to get hurt. You are going to have people paying fines, perhaps going to jail, and pets going to shelter euth. It MEANS that people are going to be discriminated against economically - if you can't house the pet properly, you can't have it., just like they can't have an airplane, either. AND that includes paying for it, NOT externalizing the cost onto others.

      And externalization of costs is what this is about. When Deanna Blitch's Pit Bulls Killed Roy McSweeney, what was she doing? She was externalizing the costs of keeping her pets.

      If you want pets, be it a Pit Bull or a Gerbil, you should INTERNALIZE those costs 100%. Don't kill your neighbors, or keep them up all night, or cover their yard in dog shit, or expect them to buy your pet food. Its that simple.

      Hell, how about net tax paying ex-dog owners? Should THEY be subsidizing the dog that killed their dog? I am sure they don't have a better use for their money.

      But, hey, if you think public assistance money should go to feed dogs while kids all over the world starve, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

      If anybody has a problem with anything I wrote above, perhaps you should go back to watching bugs bunny videos and leave the problem solving to the adults.

    2. " *I*, by myself, rid this block of dog nuisances. How? Because, I was the only one douchy enough to stand up to the backyard breeder on the block. I basically out-douched them. "

      I love it!

  5. When we went from the upper end of the solidly middle class, down to having nothing and needing SNAP, after a job loss and long period without work, we kept our pets without spending much of anything but some time and a little effort.
    You just need to be creative. I volunteered at the local ferret shelter, and took in one of their fosters that needed a place, and in return, I got my ferrets their food, flea meds, and a discount on vet care. My son and I volunteered to trap feral/stray cats for another organization, and they gave us cat food. No need to dump them, devastate the animals, burden others, and hurt me and my kids too.

    Animals are not the same as other property, like a boat or a nice car. Fighting to keep one is not in the same category, IMO. Going out and getting one knowing you have nothing, that is a dick move, but keeping ones you already had? Not a problem. Now that we are back to earning, but not back to where we were, I am glad we kept them. It would have been an unnecessary hardship.

    1. A *responsible* pet owner makes sure that the pet will be taken care of if anything happens to them. Sort of like a last will and testament - In other words, your pets need a backup "person". Forget about losing a job, what if you die? No backup person, no pet.

      I have a cat who has a TRIPLE backup. How is that for responsible?

    2. O.k., so what if you had to go on public assistance.. and you go to your backup people about your cat. And they tell you THEY will pay for your cat's stuff, but you can keep the cat. So, your friends buy all your cat's stuff, but you are still on public assistance and having a pet. Is that all right by what you are saying?

      Because if I was your backup person, that is what I would do. Losing all your $$ would be bad enough, I wouldn't want you to lose your cat as well.

    3. A triple backup for something I would run over in a heart beat.

  6. Excellent post, and I agree entirely.

    I can just hear the whiners now: "But pets are family members!" Um, NO. They're not. You think that because the pet industry has led a major campaign for you to think that, so you'll spend top dollar on your pets, so that it will line THEIR pockets. (Yes, it's true. I'm not making this up.)

    1. You mean spend MY top dollar on your pets.

    2. Yes, and that's the crux of the argument, isn't it?

      You are not trying to say that the poor can't have pets. What you are saying is that you and I should not have to subsidize those pets. There is nothing wrong with that position. I don't think it's "mean" even. I think it's reasonable.

      If you're holding yourself out as someone who needs help feeding yourself and/or your family, then you surely can't afford to feed a dog or cat either.

      I used to sponsor a child in South America, and as part of the sponsorship program, he wrote me a letter every so often. In one of his letters he mentioned that his family had a pet dog. Back then I was not the confirmed dog hater I am now, but even then I felt a bit put off by this revelation. His family signed up for the program by holding themselves out as in need of help providing for their son... but they were taking care of a dog? Were my contributions to his family going into a pot of fungible funds that were being spent on dog food? I signed up as a sponsor to help care for a HUMAN CHILD, not a dog.

    3. whiners? your the one who comes off as a whining cheapskate with no regards for wonderful pets among us! no wonder some people put animals above humans cause of ignorant trash such as yourself! pets r indeed like family members, when I come home from a bad day my little Guy is always happy to see me,when I'm sick in bed he doesn't leave my side, if everyone hates me he never does,when I'm yelling at someone he barks at them even if I'm wrong, he has no expectations of me only to be By my side,when I'm crying he licks my tears! your an asshole is what you r! where do you come up with this childish shit?

  7. Absolutely intelligent and very well presented case which I endorse.

  8. Any veteran could have been ordered to put their life on the line for you. The very least you can do to thank them is allow them a companion, and if it's animal, oh well. People living on veteran's benefits EARNED them and provided it's not illegal have the right to spend the money however they damn well please.

    1. Veteran's benefits are more or less a pension, and thus earned. However, if the vet can't meet some basic standards, then they can't have the pet. Being a vet does not exclude you from the rules of good behavior. NOBODY should be above the law, including Rambo.

      If I am a vet, may I kill all of my neighbors? That should answer your question.

    2. I said as long as it's legal. Anyway, the money becomes their money, once it's collected it's no longer yours. You don't get to tell them how to spend it. Letting kids on Medicaid have a hamster, a cat, or even a small dog provided the animal is properly cared for isn't hurting anybody. Are you going to tell congress they can't own pets? After all they're supported by our money and how much they earn it is arguable since they do a shitty job of representing most people and are masters at getting rid of jobs that would keep people off of public assistance.

      You're question makes no sense. How does spending money on things that are legal even compare to killing people?

    3. Many people are faking being vets with PTSD or are vets faking having PTSD so they can drag their shitty dogs around with them. Unnecessary. We have drugs, therapy and particularly the Emotional Freedom Technique for PTSD. It works, I've used it. It's based on neuroscience. A dog only REINFORCES the conditions. EFT cures the condition.

  9. Excellent post, Animal UnControl.

    I travel to lots of places and when I occasionally get to a 'ghetto place', what do I encounter? Lot's of people on the streets, many fat people, looots of kids, and hordes of dogs roaming free.

    No need to say but a large portion of those people are on public assistance but still have dogs.

    They are not looking for a job/better job but still have dogs.

    They are not getting any formal education, or going to school at all, but still have dogs.

    They are not getting any training but still have dogs.

    No one should be subsidizing those people to have dogs. You have a dog, you lose public assistance. My opinion.

    1. I'm glad your opinion won't be able to amount to anything...dogs have nothing to do with a persons not getting an education or training, or job nor asking their owners to apply for public assistance! that's their own stupidity not because they still have dogs! your ridiculous

  10. As someone pointed out, the people who push dog ownership are Bernie Maddoff's neighbors, not yours.

    1. Madoff went to jail. My neighbors did not.

      However, you are right, most of the dog bucks wind up in the pockets of Madoff types.

  11. The majority of people on public assistance do not have pets. The majority of people on public assistance do not abuse alcohol or drugs. The majority of people on public assistance stay at home and take care of the pets if they have them. The majority of people NOT on public assistance have pets. The majority of people NOT on public assistance abuse alcohol and drugs. The majority of people NOT on public assistance are never home to take care of the animals they have.

    Your argument has no merit.

    1. Prove your case by providing some statistics to back you up. Otherwise you're just blowing hot air.

    2. I used to live next to a public housing unit as well as a single family home where the 3 (in their 50s) brothers lived with mom. LOTS of drugs, lots of pit bulls, lots of break-ins and muggings from the people that lived in those places on public assistance. I saw it with my own eyes. Where do you get your opinion from?

    3. *note: An individual receiving cash assistance CANNOT purchase commercial pet food, alcohol and tobacco with their cash assistance EBT card. They CANNOT purchase the same with their Food EBT either. To give any validation to your argument... 98% of people receiving Public assistance would have to be feeding their pets a nutritional diet of meat, fish and vegetables from their grocery store..

      So lets get to the stats to validate my previous statement. I decided to use the stats for one of the most populated places in the United States. New York City.
      "As reported in the survey, pet ownership varies with demographic factors such as household income—households with higher incomes tend to have more dogs—household size, and race."

      When we collate the data found in the articles...The more people receiving public assistance in NYC have fewer or no pets. The people not receiving public assistance in NYC have more pets.


    4. So does that just apply in NY or the entire country? If that is true then HOW are these people feeding their useless mutts? Are they selling their welfare binnies for pet food? Or drugs maybe? This still is dancing around the crux of the argument-dog ownership is NOT a right or a public good and we, the working taxpayers, should NOT have to subsidize it.

    5. Lets see, we have the stats for the east coast. Now the stats for a populated city in mid America and the west coast. Pretty much the same as NYC.. Employed individuals have more pets. Only comes to reason they have more bites,barks and nasty diseased cats too. More animals left outside in the yard with no supervision while mr and mrs taxpayer go to work. .

      "Pet ownership is highest among those working full time and among those who own their own home."

      Los Angeles
      "Households that own houses (as opposed to apartments or other types of dwellings) are
      much more likely to have dogs and significantly more likely to have cats.

      You're subsidizing welfare for the rich and corporate America. Everything from the meat, fish, the corn, wheat, soy, rice, that goes into making pet food. Your paying the ranches and farmers to feed their pets! Your also paying them not to work the fields. Hey you're even subsidizing the aluminum company and the paper company and the chemical company that make foil lined doggie bags and styrofoam containers. . You know the ones. They are the bags/containers employed people request to bring steak bones and leftover frozen chinese salmon home to the numerous pets they have... FROM the restaurants where undocumented workers work with wives and kids on public assistance because Juan Doe is paid below minimum wage and cant speak english, comprende? . (They dont have a pet cause they cant afford it.) You do realize selling public assistance benefits gets a 50 cent return, if that, on the dollar.

      Makes one want to cash out that EBT card for 50% of its value and buy that gallon of Ernest and Julio Gallo swill, who's winery you are subsidizing.

    6. So Anonymous @ 3:09 PM, you sent me a link from, Russia Today the article is about how the CIA got poor blacks hooked on crack...? WTF is that and how does it pertain to the discussion?

    7. Talk about Lulz... I should lock all of you in a room for a couple of hours and then step in and wet-vac out all the blood.

      That said, I agree with Dayna.

      Thanks for posting.

    8. @Dayna You're the one complaining about the drugs in the ghetto where you lived. Im only pointing out to you that tax payers subsidized the CIA and the drugs for a select demographic. It's understandable the difficulty you have digesting the information and it is excusable that you cannot regurgitate a simple cumulative hypothesis. It is a known fact that schools in your low income demographic do not meet the tax payer subsidized educational benchmarks.

      In simpler terms, why 'yo so stupid Bitch? yo yo

    9. @ Anonymous at 7:50 AM. My point was simple, you provided a link from a blog site that is RUSSIAN. That wouldn't be biased a little bit would it? The information they gave is highly suspect for that reason, and not really worth the time it takes to skim through it. Glad to see you're able to speak with a ghetto dialect. I'm sure it's helpful to you in YOUR life.

    10. See? You failed to complete the assignment. You didnt take the time to read through it. You failed to digest the information given to you and failed to regurgitate a simple hypothesis. You failed to meet the tax payer subsidized benchmark for your demographic. Twice. tsk tsk

      But I knew you would be able to read and understand ghetto.

      Now try to understand and read big words in English. I know you can. All you have to do is try. Maybe someone will knick-knack paddy whack and throw you a bone.

  12. I can't afford the costs of having a pet. So, I do without pet ownership. It's really that simple.

    1. Oh, come on Moneybags! Step up and adopt a pit bull or FIFTY! Pit bulls are hurting because BAD people like us do not adopt an unlimited amount of them. C'mon... a pitbull per 2 square feet should do it!!!

  13. I do think there are probably some dogs on public assistance. Thing is, they belong to single mothers with multiple kids. So, that person gets a lot of benefits. But, the problem with cutting them off is the kids...

    However, I don't know what is wrong with a woman who would take some food out of their kids' mouths to feed maulers. Those things eat a lot more than a kid. SNAP doesn't really handle the all-carnivore diet. You HAVE to mix in some cheaper stuff, I'd think.

    IDK for sure since I have never really fed little kids. I have been a cashier (car payment needed paying, so I needed a job right that minute), so I've seen different amounts people get.

    One person, for example, who qualified for SNAP could only feed a tiny, tiny pet that could eat a big variety of things. This was about 2005, but some individual people would get less than $40 for the whole month. A help, to be sure, but they wouldn't have tons of extra food to share with animals.

    Though I was a cashier, I received no assistance. IDK if I would've qualified or not. Probably not if they took yearly income into account since just before that job I made more $.

    1. And what about when their shitty dog mauls their kid? Who ends up with the six digit hospital bill? The taxpayers, again. No one on welfare NEEDS a pet. Period.

    2. They weren't ever buying anything a dog could eat and they didn't have kids. These were adults who qualified for SNAP, but because it was only one person didn't get much money. If they'd had kids, they would've gotten more. This is my point, I don't think they could have fed themselves and an animal on those benefits unless it was tiny. Not a dog. Like a hamster or mouse. I am not saying they had such a thing because they weren't buying any pet food at all. But, just that it would have to be a pet that tiny or they would have starved.

    3. BTW, I don't know if they were on welfare. I only know they got SNAP. They seriously did not buy anything 'luxury'. They just bought food for themselves. Cheap food.

    4. Sorry, I forgot that I had been talking about people with kids at first.

      I did think of a particular case that is something that happens...

      This really old woman came in all the time. She and her husband, being old and very poor, got SNAP. But, just for the two of them.. so not that much money. One of her kids or grandkids was constantly making her babysit and feed their children. AND not giving her money for this. She bought a lot of the very cheapest hot dogs. The buns were a luxury for her.. she'd buy a few. There was another thing she'd buy that was very cheap, but I don't remember. She was always in anxiety about having enough to feed everyone (I know this is against the rules, but she couldn't really not feed the kids if they were there). She had trouble reading the receipt. I helped her figure it out and she had a little more money that she thought, so she got another pack of cheap hot dogs and was very happy to get it.

      But, the person who was actually claiming those kids and not feeding them... if that person was on SNAP (I have no idea, I never saw that person) then she could have fed a mutant because she would only be feeding herself and the mutant having pawned her kids off on her extremely poor (and very skinny) mother without having the courtesy of letting her mother claim the kids as dependents so that they could freaking eat.

      But, IDK how to stop things like that happening. I do think if someone gets SNAP and has a mutant or any other dog that eats very much that is a sign of fraud happening somewhere. Such as in my example, the daughter who birthed the kids (if on SNAP, which IRL IDK) could claim them then not raise them and feed a mutant instead. And I guess she could take the mutant over to maul her kids and her grandparents since mutant owners are insane like that.

      But, that is a person committing serious and causing other people to starve. I wish such a person could be rooted out.

      BTW, the really poor lady never mentioned any kind of pet. So, I do not think she had anything. She never bought anything extra at all. Not even the cheapass honeybuns we always had on sale though she looked at them a few times.

  14. I asked this in a reply, but i guess you never saw it.

    Your cat has triple backup. So, you go on public assistance because something awful happens (just hypothetically, I am not wishing for this). And you go and tell your three backups you need them to take your cat.

    But, they say to you they will pay 100 percent for all your cat's needs, but it can continue to live with you. Because, if I was your backup and I could afford it (wasn't on public assistance, poor, whatever other disqualifiers... in this example, I would be someone with a good income earned via labor and few bills and no kids or anything, so NO REASON I couldn't do this), this is what I would do. I would want you to have your pet. You and it would be happier if it was with you rather than me, and I'd be paying either way (if I kept it or you kept it). The other two people also pitch in, so your cat is covered by us with our money we can all afford to spend on it.

    So, under those circumstances... if you were on public assistance, could you own a pet?

    Now, if someone had a mauler I would never, ever be their back up.. not even in an example. I can't really own a cat either (I am allergic), but they are a decent pet. So, I will pretend adopt one in an example (I figure you'd never give me your cat anyway since I am Anonymous and I could be anyone, but we will pretend you know and like me and feel I am perhaps a good cat guardian.. I'm not allergic in this example).

    1. I saw that the first time and didn't feel it was worth replying to. Your points are irrelevant.

    2. What points am I making? I am only asking a question. I am only trying to find out how devoted you are to NO one on assistance can have a pet no matter what. I can't imagine that the situation I described would be common, but it happens. Not with pets that are expensive probably... but cheaper pets to maintain.

      That is all I am asking. I don't have any kind of complicated point to make or any big thing to present.

      I am just asking this... NO PETS no matter what? If that is what you think, then fine. But, I can't tell.

    3. OK, I am going to say this one time for the benefit of other readers but not you since you are an obvious fucking moron:

      There is a BIG difference between aid voluntarily given and aid involuntarily given. In your scenario, my backups would be VOLUNTARILY offering assistance to keep my pet in my home. Hey, you want to pay me a million dollars to keep my cat GO AHEAD, I will not stop you.

      Now, THAT is NOT what is being contemplated here. Currently, I am being FORCED BY LAW to pay benefits to people who are held to NO STANDARDS WHATSOEVER. They can shit all over my lawn, keep me up all night, and attack me in the street WITH NO RESTRAINT WHATSOEVER. I PAY and they PLAY. I am locked into a social contract of which they are currently free... see the problem now?

      And, I don't give a flying fuck if its one person or ten million. One person is one too many.

      In fact, I am going to up the ante... not only should they get no welfare, they should have ALL protections of law removed 100%... if you were an actual reader of this blog, and not some retard refugee from the Daily Kos, you would know that.

      THEY want to drop out of society, so fucking let them. Enough said.

    4. O.K., thanks. I agree with some of what you say, but some of your comments made me wonder exactly how far this goes.

      There is no need to be so rude.

      I have never posted on Daily Kos, BTW. My position on this issue is a little hazy... I am undecided.

    5. Yes, I should be so rude... I am rude, IT IS WHAT I DO.

      Hey, if the ODORS can use that excuse, why can't I?

  15. Here is my position...

    If someone already owns a SMALL pet, then that is fine. If they are homeless, they have to get rid of it.

    If someone buys a kid on public assistance a hamster and provides all the stuff for it (and continues to because I would do this), then that is fine.

    A big dog, not fine unless it is a REAL service dog (therefore trained and safe) OR the person lives on a farm and has a farm dog (a real one). No dangerous dogs like maulers, ever due to liability. The two exceptions for large dogs are rare.

    If someone disagrees with me, then they can. I am not going to try to argue my position.

    Livestock like horses, for example, might be allowed if they are needed to maintain a farm. I can't imagine that such a person would qualify for public assistance or, if they did, this would provide enough money for them to have such animals. So, I have no idea if this would even be an issue. Probably not unless there was an old person who lived on a farm, but someone else owned the farm and animals and that person maintained those things. In that case, if the old person ate their meals separately from the person with assets (which might happen as they would be indoors while the other person was elsewhere working), then the old person might qualify for SNAP. But, this is the only way I can think of to put something so expensive to maintain partially on public assistance.

    1. It's NOT fine if the taxpayers end up footing the bill for it. The majority of the cost of owning any pet is in its upkeep over its lifetime; not the upfront cost. You can get a dog for damn near free-the REAL cost is $1200 a year after that, year after year. If you can't afford to pay for it then you can't have it. It's really that simple.

    2. I don't have a dog, so I don't know how much they cost.

      I will tell you my rabbit does NOT cost anything like $1,200/year. OMG. I could not afford that and wouldn't pay it not even when I could have flushed $1,200 down the toilet (not that I would) and still be o.k. I was raised to be frugal as heck. So, I don't know what stupid people throw away on pets. I'd have to be a millionaire before I threw around that kind of dough every freaking year.

      When I saw 'small' I mean SMALL as in not a dog or even a cat if they cost as much. A small, indoor pet that cannot maul anyone or shit all over people's lawns or generally make anyone miserable.

    3. My two large dogs have cost me $4420 over the span of 12 years. One dog is 12 years old and the other 10. That figure represents food, vet care and licensing. The best 0.9909502262443439 cents per day I have ever spent.

    4. Thank you for this information. It helps.

    5. anon your solution is to pts people's beloved pets over costly vet bill? I wished your parents did the same for you when at some point you needed costly medical treatment! pets r not toys to be replaced when one is broken that's horrible! n as for stupid people wasting money on pet supplies, your the stupid one, pets bring joy n happiness to people n we return the favor!! I feel sorry for your rabbit having you as it's owner, id run away! douche bag is what you r!!!

  16. I`m actually one of those people I have a couple cats and one medium large dog,frankly I had the cats before I went on public assistance but their old and I can't exactly get rid of them now. I do not have a car of any sort,I do not go on vacations,I do not go golfing or the sort,I have hardly any clothes and buy used,I do not drink or do drugs,I live in a cheap neighborhood in a run down trailer,I've sacrificed as much as possible for this animals,because of my depression and suicidal nature I would probably not survive without a dog. They are the reason I exist. I`m sure less money goes to him than some people with small dogs anyways. A car costs way more for gas,initial purchase and fix ups and does more pollution and all that than the $40 a month my dog does. So should poor people not have cars either,how can we make them more miserable for our own convenience?

    Although looking at the comments people seem to think small dogs magically never poop on peoples yards,eat garbage or harass/bite people. Not sure why I`m commenting at all.

    1. I'm talking about small animals. They don't get walked, so they can't poop in yards.

      No one agrees with me, but I mean a hamster.

      When you already have a pet and it's old anyway... I can understand. I hope things get better for you. It sounds if you are saving up for your own treat to buy food for your pets.

    2. demiandogs, I can totally relate about not being w/o your dog, I suffered a tragedy n Boo boo rescued me as I did him n no amount of money would I take to part with him!! people who know me know's my cellphone no(518)seven 64 8938 text me your address along with your clothing sizes n shoe size (new clothing n shoes with tags on) n names of brands of cat n dog foods n also brands of treats they like n from time to time I will send care packages til your back on your feet! I only ask not to feed a pit if you have one, I'd rather not feed a breed I detest! It would make me happy to try. to help out!

    3. demiandogs, I can totally relate about not being w/o your dog, I suffered a tragedy n Boo boo rescued me as I did him n no amount of money would I take to part with him!! people who know me know's my cellphone no(518)seven 64 8938 text me your address along with your clothing sizes n shoe size (new clothing n shoes with tags on) n names of brands of cat n dog foods n also brands of treats they like n from time to time I will send care packages til your back on your feet! I only ask not to feed a pit if you have one, I'd rather not feed a breed I detest! It would make me happy to try. to help out!

    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

  17. You ever flush the toilet after your "Daily Deuce" and there is this little turd that just doesn't want to go down? You keep hitting the handle, and it keeps floating to the top of the bowl no matter what? You know that, sooner or later that little turdlet will be gone, but it annoys you just the same?

    That describes many of the dognut posters on this thread. You keep posting, I keep flushing.

    Who do you think is going to win in the end?

    1. A few years ago when I was submitting an application at the public assistance office, I was told by the interviewer "Since there is no public transportation in your area going to the mandatory skills training program, you have to get a drivers license and a vehicle so you can attend the program." I asked her if the public assistance program would pay for the drivers license, insurance, gasoline, a child care provider and a vehicle to attend a skills training program. BOC the answer was no. I then asked her if I could speak to her supervisor. When the supervisor came to the desk I asked if there were any openings for interviewers at this location because I KNEW I could do a better job than (pointing) this one. Needless to say, my application for public assistance was approved (without the mandatory job skills training), my application for part time employment as an interviewer was approved and the interviewer I had sees me waiting for the bus everyday and hasnt spoke a word to me for 3 years.

      Public assistance with benefits AND a paycheck from the state to buy dog food with.

      Who do you think is going to win in the end?

  18. I understand the difference between voluntary and involuntary.

    But, you mentioned Section 8 housing. I wondered if you wanted it to be pet free (no matter what). I was trying to determine the extent of your position. But, since you're doing it for the LULZ, some of what you say makes that a little hazy.

    I do not have a position. I am not a liberal. If you think Section 8 housing should be pet free, that is fine with me. I just wanted to know.

    But, it seems that, for you it is more the question of feeling you have to pay taxes for things you do not think people should have. O.k., if that is your position, then it is.

    I am not arguing an alternate position. I don't know how you would really enforce this outside of Section 8 housing.

    Being rude and nasty to me is not going to make it happen.

    I AM a reader of your blog. I wasn't even arguing with you. But, it's for the LULZ. So, what does it even matter.

    I may as well say I think everyone in America should be delivered a dog of no less than 150 pounds that will be maintained at tax payers' expense.. Including doggy day care and air condition dog houses. I don't believe it. But, LULZ.

    1. "I understand the difference between voluntary and involuntary."

      No, you don't. And, quit moving the goalposts, you are insulting everyone's intelligence.

  19. I don't know about welfare recipients. However, I think that renters on short-term leases should never own pets. Dogs and particularly cats get traumatized when they have to move all the time - as do children. But most renters don't care. They cart their dog off to the local refuge or pound or just dump it. And cat-owner renters simply leave their cats behind for the next tenant to cope with.

  20. Thought you should see this comment from the Grandmother of pit bull murder victim Jordan Ryan: "I am this boys grandma and I have demanded answers and I get swept away saying that I am bitter Hell yes I am BITTER and pissed the fuck off not only does she love "her bentley" and her rescue animals more then her 5 children it seems to me all of different fathers it makes me sleep better at night knowing I have to get up in the morning and go to work to pay my taxes to keep the wefare system going so BITCHES like her can feed all their rescue animals on the states bill when she cant even afford to feed her children and now Im giddy inside to find out that my taxes are going to pay her $500.00 fine that she got to kill my grandson so whoever you are that says the family isnt outraged you are sadly mistaking I am one outraged and pissed grandmother"

    1. Good point, KaD: Should we be forced to pay their fines, as well? Particularly given that they essentially got away with MURDER? Unfortunately, the modern zeitgeist is such that these dog owners must not be held to any standard whatsoever. Thanks for writing.

  21. A a person who has BEEN in poverty before and needed assistance from time to time but not something I'd be proud of or live off of:
    I agree with everything you say here. HOW does someone living off of very limited means afford a dog? I wanted for a short time til I saw what dogs are: a small dog...but then the vet bills monthly just to keep fleas off of a dog that size, the grooming expenses, the food etc I figured in all the factors of owning that particular dog and I Was like
    "That's a BIG portion of 'my money'"

    I was GENUINELY in poverty. Not lazy just struggling.
    And if people did the math on their fur baby: they'd see what percent their income goes to the animal...
    And be like "Whoa." and might set it aside as something to get when their means are better met.

    I don't understand society's attachment to animals. I just don't and my dad made his living when I was little: raising greyhounds for the races. You'd think I'd be head over heels for animals. I totally dislike dogs. I don't have much for cats either.

    I'd make a concession....for a poverty stricken person...If you want a pet badly enough get a hamster... low cost low maintenance and if it is so sick it needs a vet just let it die.

    Dogs are extremely expensive.So are cats.
    And I think any hogwash study that says a person who can barely feed themselves has a right to keep a dog is phony baloney. You'll be REAL lonely if you can't turn on your lights in the morning because the dog's food and medical expenses came before your electric bill.

    I don't believe dogs serve a purpose for people's depression, anxiety etc. I believe actual disabled people need a service animal. Other than that...I don't have a dog. I don't want a dog and I get along just fine. I don't have to be greeted when I come home by a whiny ass fool of a dog. I don't have to worry if the shit for brains is gonna stain my carpet when I wanna take my kids to the park for a few hours. I don't have to worry if my neighbors dog is gonna fight my dog. I don't have to have a vet visit for flea control all summer long etc.. I think dogs in rural homes usually serve little to no purpose other than to allow the co dependent people to feel good? Dogs around here are 95% of the time a big huge ugly nuisance...whose owners are OBVIOUSLY codependent. "I have to bring poopsy everywhere..."
    No you want to because you're a societal asshole and leech. You have no people skills and therefore have no idea what it means to interact with people. People who think your dog is cute are other codependent anti social assholes. I do not like Poopsy. Poopsy can kiss my ass.

    The end.

    1. I should add that I don't think those in poverty should give up every comfort just because they need a little help. But dogs are ridiculous...

    2. That is the general consensus Rhea. Thanks for writing.