Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Only if they live like 100+ years, since you have to be married (IIRC) for at least 20 years to collect SS from an ex. My mother gets half of my father's SS benefits, because they were married for 29 years - and btw, she didn't pay into it during most of those years while RAISING their three children. She has a Master's Degree, and gave up working to care for us, since my father's job kept him traveling almost every week. So it was either that, or paying for a full-time nanny/babysitter while she worked. But yeah, she's a real mooch; especially now that she's working full-time @ age 69, as those measly benefits won't even cover the rent here.
If ASPCA thinks there should be an agency that provides food for the pets of limited-income folks, then the ASPCA should take it upon themselves to be that agency, but without using SNAP. If not the ASPCA, then some other like-minded people or civic organization could form a non-profit organization or network (on a local, or state, or regional level) that solicits donations of food and money and then distribute it to those that need it. Instead of going to the food pantry for human food (or in addition to going there), low-income pet owners could arrange to go to the pantry that has pet food or vouchers and get a month's worth of kibble, or the volunteers could deliver it or whatever.
Well, you can't stop them from buying chicken/eggs, and rice or potatoes to feed their dog, or tuna to feed the cat. If they want to budget part of the same money to feed animals it's no skin off your nose.
That's how I look at it. Let people budget the money they have/get.
Not sure I am getting this. Would there be an increase to benefits for every pet a person owns or does this just allow a part of the current payment to go towards pet food? If it is the latter it doesn't make sense to eat into indiviudal's food budget and the former would be a source of an incredible amount of fraud with every recipient claiming multiple pets.
My grandparents could not afford to have pets during the depression because they had a hard enough time feeding three kids. I see pets as a luxury and not a necessity.
So what about pet rent at apartments? Should that be subsidized via Section 8 vouchers? When does this ever end?
The whole point of SNAP is that we, as a society, decided that no one regardless of their situation or what they did should go hungry. Pet food, soda, chips, fast food, etc. do not fall into this category. You wouldn't die if you stop drinking soda, or even ice cream. There are plenty of people who are working poor, who can't afford the food people who receive SNAP benefits are getting (this is coming from someone who was on SNAP as a kid btw). If a pet improves your mood or whatever... great. Cruises improve my mood, and if all of the poor could go on a cruise once a year, their mood would improve. Should SNAP cover cruises now?
Here are my views, as someone who has actually been on SNAP benefits:
1. SNAP should only cover foods that are needed for survival. No "recreational" junk foods, no expensive steak or lobster, ice cream, soda, chips, etc. If you want these things, buy it with your own money. For some people it might actually serve as a stimulus to get a job/get a better paying job.
2. I think its simply morally wrong for the government to take money from working people who can't afford the foods that SNAP people are getting and giving it to people who are dependent on other people to feed themselves. I am not even poor anymore, and even I think twice before getting an expensive steak... and I certainly can't afford a pet living in NYC. Why should I fund someone else's steak? This is not even a question of money for me, but of fairness and justice.
This
The LBJ Great Society social welfare programs have done absolutely nothing to encourage the permanent underclass to start making better life decisions. If you're so poor that you can't afford food, getting a pet is a pathetic decision. Why would you want the government to adopt public policy to encourage that? I'm another one in the 'no soda, junk food, or luxury food' on SNAP. I think TANF should be tied to obtaining 21st century job skills. Ditto HUD housing vouchers. For someone who is truly disabled and can't work, be very generous. For able bodied adults, we have 50+ years of history with failed social welfare programs and we need to start insisting that people who fall into the safety net start taking steps to improve themselves.
No, but we (as a society) should be encouraging responsible pet ownership - which means not dumping them off like an old sweater, as soon as things get a little tough.
And that would mean not getting a pet until you are in a financially stable position. People who live paycheck to paycheck should not get a pet as one vet bill will send them to the payday loan sharks. Do we next have to expand medicaid to cover pets?
Want to do something responsible? Encourage spaying and neutering of pets so we have fewer animals spread to households who don't have the means to care for them.
I suspect they would want an increase, since the current allotment is a per person allotment, and that is where this will be headed.
A pet is luxury item, and many people cannot afford to keep them. We are already feeding the person, usually their kids they couldn't afford either, and now, they want us to feed their pets.
If the food stamp allotment is big enough to cover pets also, perhaps they are getting too much to begin with.
Geesh, let's forget all of these issues and just work on reviving personal responsibility.
As someone else stated when it came to cigarettes and finding the money, that also applies to illegal drugs and alcohol. So, pet food should fall in being equally resourceful.
Should a family be able to use the food stamps for dog food, while shortchanging the children in the house? You know they would!
Regarding unemployment insurance that is paid by employers, not employees and when a lot of people receive benefits the rates employers pay goes up and increases the price of goods and services, hence it is funded with my money. Additionally, during the recession many states spent more in unemployment benefits than they received from FUTA and as a result had to petition FUTA to waive repayment - again making me pay for someone else's unemployment.
So, why can't I keep those wastrels from buying iphones and lottery tickets and pet food since it's my money
Maybe it's different in your state, but in every state I know of, workers pay into the unemployment insurance fund directly out of their paychecks. Of course employers also pay into it.
Overall though, your point is invalid. There are many types of targeted assistance from the government.
If you get LIHEAP subsidy then you have to buy heating oil, coal, or propane with it to heat your house. So can't use it to fill up the gas tank of your car. Why not? Because that's not what the money is for. I really don't see what's so hard to grasp about that.
I do not think SNAP should cover pet food, but in the grand scheme I am sure SNAP is feeding pets.
Tuna, sardines on sale for the cat. White rice, green beans and cheap on sale ground beef or chicken for the dog.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
