Food Stamps ... For Pets?

A new donation-based program called Pet Food Stamps aims to provide food stamps for pets of low-income families and for food stamp recipients who otherwise could not afford to feed their pets, reported ABC affiliate KVIA in Las Cruces, N.M.

Based in New York, the program is open to anyone in the United States. More than 45,000 pets have already been signed up in the past two weeks, according to the program's founder and executive director Marc Okon. Once need and income is verified, the families will receive pet food each month from pet food retailer Pet Food Direct for a six-month period.

"We're not looking for government funding at this point," Okon told ABCNews.com. "Should the government be willing to provide assistance further down the line, we will look into it."

Oh, I think I took it right. That statement gave me insight as to what kind of person you are.

As for the other posts, just the usual FR unconcern and deep-seated fear that someone somewhere might be generous. The reference is to the organization trying to help these animals.

While your reply doesn't tell me everything about you, it does tell me enough to know, that you think you know all about me and my generosity or lack thereof. For instance, do my prior posts tell you that I support the Illinois Baptist Children's Home, my church and particularly its food bank, with 12 to 15% of my gross income?

Help animals all you want with your money, that's been my theme on this thread, I will continue to support people. We each make our own choices with what God has given us, with the exception of what government takes from us, no choice there.

I apologize for my remark about "fools and their money", it was a poor choice of words.

I will continue to respect your choices and opinions and hope that God blesses you and your family as he has me and mine.

After contemplating for another moment, I must ask you for your definition of “cold-hearted.” Ask yourself, is it more cruel to the animals (cats and dogs) to perpetuate a behaviour that puts their care at risk or is it more cruel to perpetuate a behaviour that understands that if you can not care for your own needs, then you are not likely to care well for a pet?

Will the pets be hungry more often in the hands of food stamp recipients or if they are adopted by folks that can care for themselves AND their pets?

By supporting this irresponsible behaviour, this charity is ACTUALLY supporting situations that lead to more animal cruelty. Yet, by pointing this out then I am the “cold-hearted,” well, at least to stage one thinkers anyway.

Thanks for the supportive post.

It seems that there is a group of Freepers who have a knee-jerk reaction to any program of help. I am very conservative myself and I do not agree with the food stamp program as constituted and administered, but I “go off the reservation” when the matter of helpless pets is concerned. I would not object to government help here. Some of these people such as the lady you referenced have heart-wrenching decisions to make when, with a little temporary help, they could keep their beloved dogs.

Then you have people like CSM, who took a cheap shot at me, and I responded in kind. That was the first time that I have used a vulgarity towards anyone on FR but I think he deserved it.

Sometimes dogs are very superior to the people you run across.

What would be the root cause for such a scenario? It would be that those in that scenario did not have a 6 month emergency fund and very likely had a lot of debt. So, by not being under financial control while they were employed, they set themselves up for such pain.

At the same time the Feds are loosening the requirements for food stamps and the result is that we are carrying more deadbeats than ever. It is not heroic to rely on the government for your sustanance. If you can’t feed yourself, then you should at least be smart enough to understand that you shouldn’t take on more costly responsibilities.

Actions have consequences, when we shield people from the pain of thier actions, they don’t learn to act differently.

The fact that you said “Stage two thinking” shows me that you do not understand the concept.

“Then you have people like CSM, who took a cheap shot at me,”

Show me the cheap shot.

You are the one that started with the name calling and you progressed rapidly into vulgarity. Why?

Here is why:

“I am very conservative myself and I do not agree with the food stamp program as constituted and administered, but I “go off the reservation” when the matter of helpless pets is concerned. I would not object to government help here.”

In this statement, you clearly admit that this is an emotional issue for you. You are reacting out of emotion and not out of logic. You indicate that you are against the food stamp program, yet the same recipients of those food stamps are worthy of getting money to pay for the food for their pets. So, you are not only reacting of pure emotion, but you also have created a hypocritical conundrum for yourself.

Yes, I will admit to extrapolating what is currently being done by a private (good) charity into the scenario of they begin receiving government funds (bad.) However, the charity itself admits that it is possible, which is an admission that it is their desire.

Here’s the insult: “at least to stage one thinkers anyway.”

If you cannot discern how that statement would be insulting, well, your attempt to identify yourself as a logician fails.

And shame on those middle-class people who lost their jobs and their income—quite unexpectedly, I would think. Since they failed to have a six-month emergency fund, they should have to lose their pets because of their stupidity. Sarcasm, of course.

I was not putting myself into an illogical position since I did not amplify on what I was talking about. No, I do not want the taxpayers to provide food for the violent and ignorant inner city people. What I am concerned about are those in the middle class who are struggling in this economy and who could use some temporary help with their own food needs and those of their pets.

I realize that this position creates a problem for the pets in the inner city, so I’ll have to punt on that one. In a perfect world, the pets would be fed and their owners wouldn’t.

I confess to an emotional viewpoint when it comes to pets (dogs particularly) but I think it morally superior to your standing from above and condemning all who fail to meet your exacting logical standards. You strike me as a prick with a superior attitude and I would bet that those who know you would agree.

I don’t care to hear from you anymore.

“Here’s the insult: “at least to stage one thinkers anyway.”

Yep, that merits a response of calling me an asshole.

“If you cannot discern how that statement would be insulting, well, your attempt to identify yourself as a logician fails.”

The fact is that “stage one thinking” is a term that is taken from Thomas Sowell. It is in reference to people who promote policies with good intentions, yet they fail to consider the potential problems. To be more specific, it is the examination of “policies not simply in terms of their immediate effects but also in terms of their later repercussions, which are often very different and longer lasting.”

So, my terminology confirmed that you, and the charity, have good intentions and that warrants calling me an asshole. Got it.

“And shame on those middle-class people who lost their jobs and their income—quite unexpectedly, I would think. Since they failed to have a six-month emergency fund, they should have to lose their pets because of their stupidity. Sarcasm, of course.”

Yes. People should be MATURE enough to act their wage. If not, then they have painful choices to make. If they can not feed themselves, then they should not take on additional responsibilities. However, like I said previously we no longer live in a world where logic and personal responsibility matter.

“I confess to an emotional viewpoint when it comes to pets (dogs particularly) but I think it morally superior to your standing from above and condemning all who fail to meet your exacting logical standards.”

You think your emotions are enough to make you morally superior. That is what is called moral relativism. Even by your own admission, you consider pets to be a higher emotional priority than your fellow man. Then you admit that this is because some are behaving badly and you are angry at me for expecting people to be responsible for themselves and then when that is accomplished they can take on extra responsibilities.

“You strike me as a prick with a superior attitude and I would bet that those who know you would agree.”

Vulgarity aside, you couldn’t be more wrong about how folks percieve me. As a dog lover myself, I know that I must be in a position financially to properly care for my pets. In addition, as a trained financial counselor, I get to see a lot of foolish choices that people are willing to put on a higher priority than preparing for emergencies. Once I get folks to shift that thinking, they could not be more amazed at the peace that they have.

That is what happens when one realizes that morality is not relative. For example, it is biblical to become strong financially before you start helping others (beyond a tithe.) You can do much more when you are acting with strength. Between a person spending more than they make every month and someone that is living below their means and has an emergency fund, who can offer better care for the life of a pet? Who could adopt more pets or help support the local shelters more?

“I don’t care to hear from you anymore.”

Fine, but if nothing else I hope that you sit back and consider where moral relativism leads. It is a dangerous road indeed.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.