[Brenda]

I guess taxthis just missed the whole point

[Brenda]

to me then?

[Brenda]

taxthis taxthis:

Brenda Brenda:

to me then?

yup..

Haha, ya think I have a 1300 $ rent, and a 1500 $ income?

I have sunk low, but I was never stupid sweetcheecks

And, you are right, I would not have a pet if I was in that situation

[ShepherdsDog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Brenda Brenda:

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

Brenda Brenda:

$1:

That doesn't mean Pets...
Pets are NOT a Luxury, they are a family Member!!!!

I absolutely disagree with this statement. A pet is an animal, and you CHOOSE to have one, just as you CHOOSE to buy a flatscreen.
A pet is a CHOICE, and you have to look after it and take care of it for the rest of its life. If you cannot afford that, you should not be able to have one. For the pets sake, and for your own.

A pet is a luxury, no necessity.

It depends on where you live and what secondary, or in some cases primary, purpose the pet serves. It has been proven that pets provide a therapeutic benefit those who are alone. That being said, I would only extend this to larger dogs......I don't really like cats or toy breeds of dogs..........actually, I can't stand toy breeds.

I always pictured you with a Chihuahua in your arms

I always pictured him as a chihuahua.

While I pictured you as a chihuahua chew toy

[Scape]

Brenda Brenda:

Scape Scape:

Brenda Brenda:

Then your dog is no pet, but your eyes, thus an employee.

An employee? Just can't see it. Also, pets have an emotional link and provide stability and companionship you can't say the plasma TV is family.

A dog when you are blind, is a worker. It works for you. Same goes for a dog that helps you when you are disabled.
People on the streets are not allowed to pet it, like a normal pet. It is sponsored too, and if it isn't, it should be. It is trained as well.

A pet just for fun, is just for fun. If you are on welfare, it is kinda hard to pay the the vets bills, right? Also, not everybody on welfare is alone or lonely.

A pet is a pet, not a family member. IMHO, that is. I had pets. Cats as well as dogs. All my life. But they are absolutely not the same as my family members. Not even close.

A dog is a dog, full stop. The animal may be trained but it is still an animal and can't cash a cheque they do not have rights. We have laws to prevent cruelty but they are not seen as priority and so you will have situations where abuse is rampant.

Animals are not toys. A soccer ball may react to being kicked but it will not yelp in pain. Pets do communicate even though they do not have vocal chords, opposable thumbs or stand upright. They do possess free will of their own and are sentient not inanimate material possessions.

The homeless on the street do not have stable family situation, probably have a history of mental illness and don't have a large circle of friends to relate to. For some of these people the pet is the only real family they have and an anchor. It may not be much but to them it is their world. You take away you could be taking away the will to live as well. To them a pet is not a simple luxury.

[DangerMouse]

[font=Comic Sans MS] Hey Sheperdsdog and others in here? Going thru this stuff--AHEM-DO you thinks it's possible that you spend a little bit too much time in here? I mean like really--arguing about the meaning of pets? Get A grip--pleaseeeeee! [/font]

[Knoss]

$1:

Then your dog is no pet, but your eyes, thus an employee.

Disabilty is taxable income seperate from welfare.

[wolfwithin]

Hey DangerMouse (hi by the way), it is a valid point that when "someone says" people on low income assistance should not be allowed to have a Pet because it is a luxury - well, it is worth the debate... personally, even though it is a tad off the topic - but really isn't - it is interesting to hear the sometimes abrupt opinions or ignorance of the meaning of animals in a person's life, especially for those on low incomes that need gov assistance or those who are moreso housebound... who obviously have some kind of assistance.
Testing people for Drugs (or Alcohol) is a waste of Tax Payers money. Why create a division that costs us more money in the long run (even tho it "creates" jobs)? when it is evident - or would be evident - that someone is spending their money on "drugs or booze" after 2-3 months!
If after 2-3 months, their bills or rent is not getting paid... it's pretty evident that they are spending the money on "something else"
The government already has programs in place that recipients MUST follow through on - such as job searches and initiative programs -and if an idividual is not attending these assigned programs, they get cut off right now.... and I mean right now.
Who are we to say that a Pet is a luxury when the cost is below $10 a month? "If" (small word - big meaning) if a pet needs medical assistance, the Humane Society - SPCA usually have programs for those on low income - on my website, I have a couple of links that lead to orgs that help with Spaying and Neutering (Calgary and High River) http://www.arf.ab.ca/cats/SNAP.shtml and Heaven Can Wait that offer such programs for under $50. These programs offer payment plans if the $50 is too much up front - so that being said, if someone choses to walk to work (ride a bike or thumb) as opposed to buying a bus pass because they are taking care of their pet's medical needs, then we have no right to condemn them for that. Besides, Pets do not stop people from working, but they are there when the person comes home, to greet them and makes a home more like a home.
The Humane Society, the SPCA and most Vets, also offer plans for pets who are sick and need medical attention....
Having a Pet is certainly nothing like smoking pot, doing meth or crack or drinking and certainly do not cost as much - not even close!
So, to waste money taking drug tests when it is evident after ONLY a couple of months if someone has a habit - is a waste of money and time. No one needs to be hired when it comes to light only after a short time if someone is spending their money on things they shouldn't be and the government already has that under control with programs that people need to attend or get the boot.

[Zipperfish]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Brenda Brenda:

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

Brenda Brenda:

$1:

That doesn't mean Pets...
Pets are NOT a Luxury, they are a family Member!!!!

I absolutely disagree with this statement. A pet is an animal, and you CHOOSE to have one, just as you CHOOSE to buy a flatscreen.
A pet is a CHOICE, and you have to look after it and take care of it for the rest of its life. If you cannot afford that, you should not be able to have one. For the pets sake, and for your own.

A pet is a luxury, no necessity.

It depends on where you live and what secondary, or in some cases primary, purpose the pet serves. It has been proven that pets provide a therapeutic benefit those who are alone. That being said, I would only extend this to larger dogs......I don't really like cats or toy breeds of dogs..........actually, I can't stand toy breeds.

I always pictured you with a Chihuahua in your arms

I always pictured him as a chihuahua.

While I pictured you as a chihuahua chew toy

Ooh, do I feel little Chihuahua teeth on my pant cuffs?

[sasquatch2]

I have no problem with a welfare recipiant having a pet.

I believe the problem is when they have a house full of cats or something.

The social/health benefits of pet ownership, vastly outweigh the monetary cost.

A dog or a cat is sometimes the only glue that keeps the soul together.

[ShepherdsDog]

$1:

Ooh, do I feel little Chihuahua teeth on my pant cuffs?

More like ..........skirt hem.

[Zipperfish]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

$1:

Ooh, do I feel little Chihuahua teeth on my pant cuffs?

More like ..........skirt hem.

Yeah, pretty sure I hear some yipping...from a Chihuahua that's punted into a wall one too many times.

[ShepherdsDog]

thanks for sharing your childhood traumas