Democrats & Liberals Archives

The latest innocent victim of Bush's Economy: Our Pets

Our nation’s pets have become the latest, in a long line of iinnocent victims, to be caught in the middle of this economic mess. A growing number of cats and dogs are being abandoned by their owners because they can’t pay their bills. (link)

This nation's pet owners have already cut back in several areas during an economic slowdown, from combining local trips to the grocery store to save on fuel to the 'staycations' that families decided on this summer. But a real telling effect of Bush's economy (where the war economy will pay for everything) comes from the scores of pets roaming our nation's streets or being donated to local rescue shelters. People are giving up their family pets in order to pay their bills.

There's also a local government effect too; local SPCAs are now inundated with the overcrowding in their facilities. Local municipalities that capture the former family member are overworked and the cost of supporting both are soaring.

There are some animal rescue organizations that have a 'no kill' policy, but the reality is that most of the cats or dogs captured or donated will be euthanized. Also, SPCA workers have noticed that it's taking much longer for pets to be adopted. So the fact that more pets are coming in and less going out means that more pets will be killed.

There are many hard choices made by many families throughout this country; a couple years ago it was the decision between having health care for your family or putting food on the table. It shouldn't come down to a choice between feeding your family or having a pet.

Posted by john trevisani at August 11, 2008 11:52 AM
Comments
Comment #258228

Every one of my animals has been a rescue. Either a stray or from a shelter or rescue group.

My husband and I have volunteered at the local shelter.

It doesn’t say much for us as a country when things get this bad.

Now waiting for the Republicans to come in and say how it is all irresponsibility on the part of those suffering this economy. After all, if they were responsible, they would be rich. Right Republicans?

There is so much about this and other problems that make me just heartsick.


Posted by: womanmarine at August 11, 2008 11:54 AM
Comment #258232

Another place the rescue groups are getting hit is with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. LOTS of military people are having to give up their pets because of being sent over there.

I came across this link this weekend, and I really wish I’d known about them (and the dog group listed under Information For The Military) sooner.

This is the cat rescue side of things:

http://operationnoblefoster.org/

Posted by: Donna at August 11, 2008 12:03 PM
Comment #258233

This one I’ll have to disagree with, socialist commie gun-hating flower-loving anti-military elitist Starbuck’s-quaffing wide-eyed naive retired-Navy Dem-blue-to-the-core left-wing liberal though I may be.

Why?

My wife once told me that one the things that amazed her was the attachment we had to our pets. Where she comes from, one’s a lot more worried about feeding one’s family than about animals…and the animals are meat.

And she was right. As kind and loving and thoughtful as she may be, her culture regards animals - whether they be dogs, cats, whatever - with a logic much more Darwinian than…dare I say “Goodallian” (after Jane Goodall)?

Don’t get me wrong - I love dogs and cats as much as the next guy…but if the family is hungry, those pets are meat.

Pass me another serving of dog adobo please - yum!

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at August 11, 2008 12:03 PM
Comment #258234

And a quick disclaimer - I DO draw the line on endangered animals, of course.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at August 11, 2008 12:06 PM
Comment #258239

Glenn:

You admit it’s a cultural thing and you don’t understand it? It’s just another indication of this tanking economy. Perhaps you could move to your wife’s country of origin if you disagree?

Not my usual response to suggest someone move, but your obtuse response left me feeling I had to. Enjoy your dog, I believe it is illegal in most if not all of this country.

Posted by: womanmarine at August 11, 2008 12:24 PM
Comment #258240

Now waiting for the Republicans to come in and say how it is all irresponsibility on the part of those suffering this economy. After all, if they were responsible, they would be rich. Right Republicans?

Not really. However, if they were responsible they wouldn’t have bought animals they couldn’t afford. If people don’t rip themselves off, they can save more money and have better credit. It won’t make you rich, but you will live more comfortably in the long term.

Likewise, if the government didn’t buy a lot of stuff it couldn’t afford, we’d have a better economy. Our money is worth less because of the debt. Our government has no value to back up its money. So how can we have a good economy? It’s a basic fact that neither of our idiot presidential candidates realize. They both promise to cut taxes and spend more money the government doesn’t have.

Are Obama and McCain talking about fixing social programs that spend more money on running the programs than on the people they are trying to help? No. Are they talking about streamlining one of the most bureaucracy-laden militaries in history? No. Quit complaining about Bush, because we’re going to get four more years of his economy no matter who we elect.

Posted by: Value at August 11, 2008 12:34 PM
Comment #258242
if they were responsible they wouldn’t have bought animals they couldn’t afford
Quit complaining about Bush, because we’re going to get four more years of his economy no matter who we elect.

I rest my case.

And the economy is because of Bush and if it gets fixed by either candidate it will be a miracle.

Posted by: womanmarine at August 11, 2008 12:40 PM
Comment #258245

And the economy is because of Bush and if it gets fixed by either candidate it will be a miracle.

Only partially. I’d blame it on all the presidents and congresses since the end of WWII. And, of course, the people who voted for Obama and McCain in the primaries.
We needed a “Change Candidate” and we didn’t get one.

Posted by: Value at August 11, 2008 12:53 PM
Comment #258247

Value:

Not really. However, if they were responsible they wouldn’t have bought animals they couldn’t afford.

You’re making quite a leap of faith there, Value, claiming that people bought their pets at some store or farm. It’s very common for responsible people to do, as WomanMarine did, go to a rescue and get a pet.

But one thing you should know:

It wasn’t the families of America that was saying that the economy was great while thousands of jobs were being lost; it was Bush.

It wasn’t the families of America that was saying that the economy is resilient and is bouncing back as the cost of living skyrocketed; it was Bush.

It wasn’t the families of America that was saying that it’s okay for the federal government to bailout corporations while families are losing their homes to foreclosure; it was Bush.

It’s not the fault of the families of America that has put this economy in a death spiral; it was Bush.

Although there’s about 1% the country that will have a completely different opinion on the state of the economy.

Posted by: john trevisani at August 11, 2008 12:57 PM
Comment #258249

Some people see abortion in everything. Absolutely freaking amazing ignorance. Oh, well, moderator, if you have to remove my post, so be it.

Posted by: womanmarine at August 11, 2008 1:05 PM
Comment #258250

John:
Hmmm… i wonder; if the economy was doing well and everyone in America had affordable health care, had good jobs and the dollar was valuable…. would you give Bush the credit?

For some strange reason; i think you would.

Posted by: John Trevisani at August 11, 2008 1:06 PM
Comment #258252

womanmarine -

“America - if you don’t like it, leave it?” I’ve heard that before, but never from the ‘blue’ side.

One thing I’ve noticed about America: culturally, since we’ve been on top for several decades, we’re normally eager to learn lessons from other countries and other cultures. That’s a big weakness…but it’s quite normal. Fortunately, due to the diversity of our population, we’re not quite as susceptible to that weakness as other superpowers have been throughout history.

My wife’s culture has, IMO, a more sensible attitude towards animals. For instance, they have no ‘puppy mills’ as we do. Nor do they force-feed cows until they can produce no more milk and then kill them for their meat.

If anything, my wife’s culture is in many ways more HUMANE towards farm animals than we are. That’s why, when I can afford it, I buy free-range chicken and eggs.

And as for myself, there’s very few insects I’ll kill out-of-hand - mosquitoes, roaches, the monster centipedes in Hawaii - but the rest I try to capture and release outside. I don’t even like catching fish. But that makes me (and every other non-vegan) a hypocrite because of the meat I eat, huh? And, like you, I am offended at any cruelty for cruelty’s sake towards animals and even insects…and even trees, for Pete’s sake!

womanmarine - just because I see animals as meat, please don’t see that as a callous attitude, but as a realistic attitude. I value life - any life - as much as you do, but if your children need food and you can’t get it any other way, YOU TOO would go hunting for Fido.

This is but one of the lessons we should be eager, rather than reluctant, to learn from other cultures; and just because other cultures may have traditions that are offensive to us, sometimes those traditions are more sensible…and better than our own.

“America - love it enough to make it better.” Personally, I like this slogan better than the other one….

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at August 11, 2008 1:10 PM
Comment #258257

Have no fear guys!
Anyday now, Obama is going to promise free healthcare to all animals and a $1000 tax break to help offset the cost of owning sharing our life with them.

Posted by: kctim at August 11, 2008 1:58 PM
Comment #258259


I remember the 70’s and early 80’s when old people were eating JoBo to stave off starvation.

My cats and I are pretty certain that we will not be able to heat our home this winter. I guess we will have a lot of four cat nights. And, T. Boone Pickens wants to run our cars on natural gas. Imagine what that will do to the price of heating your home, especially for the low income people.

Glen: Our darwinian ways are what we have to overcome to become civilized beings. Otherwise, we are just smart manipulative animals near the top of the food chain.

Darwinian is the perfect description for conservative as well as liberal economic philosophy. The only true difference is that liberals believe it is necessary to throw a bone to their pets, the poor.

Liberal politicians used to believe that they had a responsibility to protect and grow the middle class. Now, their priorities have shifted and they only give lip service to the middle class. They now see their responsibility as protecting the service economy, Mexican peons, THE NEW WORLD ORDER, and their own portfolios.

The only middle class the liberals are interested in protecting now is the college educated elitist middle class and they will continue to do that by restricting the number of college educated immigrants to protect the jobs and salaries of those. They are for enforcing the law in this reguard.

The voters have a history of rejecting Democratic liberal elistists presidential candidates. The only reason Obama has a chance in this election is because of the disgust for the Republicans, especially over the economy. They may elect Obama but, for many of them, it won’t be with enthusiasm or great hope for the future.

Voting for Nader won’t bring about the changes we need for the future in a direct way because the liberals in Congress would never cooperate with him. However, if Nader were president, he could use the bully pulpit to educate the American people and I believe they would actually listen and learn, something that conservative and liberal politicians refuse to do.

The only purpose that liberals in government have served in the last 40 years is the prevention of mass civil unrest with a minimum wage and food stamps. Even conservative politicians understand this in practice if not retoric.

As long as the American people are going to depend on liberal and conservative politicians, as long as they are unwilling to educate themselves and above all, as long as they are unwilling to take responsibility for their pitiful government, they deserve worse than they are getting because they have denied their duty to their Constitution in a country that is supposed to be governed by We The People.

Very few people even bother to defend communism anymore. Most of us agree that communism is an undesirable and unobtainable goal.

How long do we continue with this fiasco of government incompetence and a capitalist economic roller coaster of booms and busts, which only serves the purpose of concentration wealth and power into the hands of a few before we come to the conclusion that Democracy is also an undesirable and unobtainable goal?

Posted by: jlw at August 11, 2008 2:23 PM
Comment #258260

Well john, your article has managed to wake a few people up, not that they make sense in that state, but they’re talking.
Kagogi….was one of the first words my husband learned when he arrived in Korea on an inspection tour. We are dog and cat owners, and responsible ones. Our animals are companions and part of the family, and some have been rescue animals over the years. He was sickened by what he saw over there, even though he was aware at the time that it was a cultural thing. What was the hardest for him to stomach was the display, and “conditioning” of the animal prior to its’ slaughter. Since that first trip over there 20+ years ago, I understand the sale and preparation of dog for food has seriously declined. Bottom line is, that it’s their culture and not ours.
I know a couple of people personally, who have not given up their pets, but who won’t take on any new ones because of the uncertainty of our economy, and uncertainty of their own situations.
As an aside, this is a great organization that I have contributed to for several years now…
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/clickToGive/home.faces?siteId=3&ThirdPartyClicks=ERA_081108_ARS

Posted by: janedoe at August 11, 2008 2:24 PM
Comment #258262

Animals

Posted by: Jack at August 11, 2008 2:37 PM
Comment #258266

John asks “John T are you really so uneducated that you think George bush makes laws and policy’s without the approval of the Congress?”

Well not the past year and a half John but the 6 years before that it certaingly was questionable dont you think. Speaking of uneducated do you recall W sending budgets to congress for approval and Congress then reviewing it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget

Please let me Edumacate you.The U.S Senate and the U.S. house of Representitives have this old power called the Vote.George Bush can not do squat with out their approval.

John have you heard of the unitary executive theory this administration has been all aglow about since ‘00? If you recall the 109th marched lockstep with Bush as if they were one. Why he couldnt find a veto pen for 6 years.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 11, 2008 3:07 PM
Comment #258268

Let me get this straight, according to the original post, we can blame Bush for cats and dogs being abandoned and everyone is upset about it. How can you be so upset about cats and dogs and yet not care that women abort (murder) babies because they can’t afford them, or don’t want them because they interfere with a promiscuous life style. There is something sick about this post.

By the way, abortion does come up a lot because it is the litmus test for any politician or judge on the left. Therefore fair game.

Posted by: The Old Guy at August 11, 2008 3:25 PM
Comment #258269

Actually, abortion has nothing to do with the topic.

Posted by: womanmarine at August 11, 2008 3:35 PM
Comment #258270

Let them eat cats. :)

Posted by: googlumpugus at August 11, 2008 3:54 PM
Comment #258273

Are you guys feeding your pets gold nuggets? I can get a large bag of dog food for around $20 and it lasts about 3 months. That works out to less than $1.50 a week. The start up cost for a leash, collar and a couple toys may be around $50. Even if you’ve been brainwashed into the vet scam, the basic shots are only $40 a year.

Posted by: clark griswold at August 11, 2008 4:03 PM
Comment #258275

who here has seen Gummo?

Posted by: angrymob at August 11, 2008 4:05 PM
Comment #258276

“Liberalism will be the death of the U.S.A.”


Wow… because this conservatism thing is really holding up. Why does everyone bash liberals for wanting to balance the budget, promote education and healthcare, reduce poverty, and generally help other people

as opposed to the conservative perspective of free markets untill they need a bailout, maintaining an unnecessarily high ‘defense’ budget, reducing social service, education, and health funds, privitizing social security, and placating special interest above national interest.


btw. what if Bush had privitized social security and then the market lost 22% or more as it currently has since Oct. 2007? Would he blame American’s for not making the right investments or balancing their budgets correctly (as he recently said that the economy is strong and needs no help, rather the people just need to learn to balance their own budgets… what a role model)

Posted by: angrymob at August 11, 2008 4:20 PM
Comment #258278

You’re making quite a leap of faith there, Value, claiming that people bought their pets at some store or farm. It’s very common for responsible people to do, as WomanMarine did, go to a rescue and get a pet.

Ok, they “acquired” anamals they couldn’t afford. Not really much difference…

It wasn’t the families of America that was saying that the economy was great while thousands of jobs were being lost; it was Bush.
It wasn’t the families of America that was saying that the economy is resilient and is bouncing back as the cost of living skyrocketed; it was Bush.
It wasn’t the families of America that was saying that it’s okay for the federal government to bailout corporations while families are losing their homes to foreclosure; it was Bush.
It’s not the fault of the families of America that has put this economy in a death spiral; it was Bush.

By himself? You don’t really think that do you? Bush just continued the failed policies of his father, Clinton and most of the presidents of the 20th century. Of course, they had a lot of help from Congress.
Unless someone pulls off an upset at one of the conventions (very unlikely at this late date), the policies of spending nonexistent money on growing the bureaucracy will continued to be followed by our next president.

I think we both have the same problem with the economy, but because of your abject partisanship, you complain about one link (Bush) while I complain about a whole chain of politicians dragging on our economy, Obama and McCain included.
As for people acquiring pets they can’t afford… Can there be an issue that should be of less interest to a government that has the whole economy to worry about? If this is something the government is looking into (it wouldn’t surprise me), it just brings us back to my point about usless bureaucracy.

Posted by: Value at August 11, 2008 4:35 PM
Comment #258279

“restricting the number of college educated immigrants”

all parties are involved in this hate mongering, and unfortunately I witnessed Missouri pass an egregious bill (see http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/education/story/3972537B5BE0B8108625740B0011FF6D?OpenDocument)

along similar lines, under another bill you could also be prosecuted for transporting an ‘illegal’ (e.g. just have one riding in your car) Missouri is going the way of the stone age and tribal warfare. Gross racism. I wonder if the illegal Canadians ever get looked at twice.

Posted by: angrymob at August 11, 2008 4:35 PM
Comment #258281

Why does everyone bash liberals for wanting to balance the budget, promote education and healthcare, reduce poverty, and generally help other people

I bash most politicians for saying they want these things while either doing nothing or making things worse in practice. It has nothing to do with Liberal or Conservative.

Both sides consistently put forward uneducated candidates (btw, having been to college does not make someone educated. Even Bush and Kerry squeaked through Yale and they might have been the two worst candidate choices in our history) and expect them to fix and regulate education and health care.
Fighting Poverty? Expensive programs that (at best) do nothing but keep the status quo is what “poverty fighting” almost always amounts to.
As for balancing the budget, please don’t joke about that. We all know it isn’t going to happen with these candidates.

Posted by: Value at August 11, 2008 5:00 PM
Comment #258284

John T:

Great and informative post. Too bad it went to hell. Folks just can’t seem to deal with the topic at hand and for some reason this brought some strange and extreme responses out of the woodwork.

Thanks for the great post though.

Posted by: womanmarine at August 11, 2008 5:47 PM
Comment #258289

womanmarine:
Thanks.
The story, about the desperation of the many Americans throughout this country forced to make the horrible decision to give up their pet because they can’t afford them, seems to have been summarily lost in the noise of the loud finger-pointing. The ‘Sofie’s Choice’ decision that people were faced with in giving up a member of their family all because they, NOW, can’t afford to put food on the table for whatever reason (fuel prices, health care costs, food costs, mortgage rates, etc…) is a horrible story and i thought would have universal appeal.
i really thought that there were some people on the Republican/Conservative side would put humanity over party, but alas i was proven wrong, yet again. i guess it’s just the eternal optimist in me.

Posted by: john trevisani at August 11, 2008 6:48 PM
Comment #258290

John,

Could we not equally blame Nancy Pelosi?

She decided it was better to “work with” the Republicans than to impeach a POTUS that’s not only violated his oath of office but committed murder on an international level, which has now led to another “super-power” invading a sovereign nation.

No democrat or republican is blameless in this current mess! And none will ever get my vote again!

Whether it’s domestic or international we’re in deep shit ………… right where we belong for listening to the crap from the two parties! The animals we need to worry about are those we elected!

Posted by: KansasDem at August 11, 2008 7:20 PM
Comment #258291

KansasDem -

Before you make assumptions about Pelosi…how about you consider WHY she decided not to pursue impeachment for Bush? Is it impossible that she might have had a good reason?

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at August 11, 2008 7:57 PM
Comment #258293

John and woman, a couple others of us get it..!

Posted by: janedoe at August 11, 2008 9:50 PM
Comment #258311

Glen Contrarian:
Pelosi and impeachment is way off base for this discussion, but to answer your question, ‘does she have a good reason not to impeach?’

The easy answer is no. She shouldn’t have an opinion one way or the other; it is her responsibility to follow the constitution. And if the President committed ‘treason, bribery or other high crimes or misdemeanors’ then it is her RESPONSIBILITY to prosecute. She shouldn’t weigh her political future; she should do what she is elected and required to do as part of the duties of her position. Politics shouldn’t play into it at all. For if she puts politics in front of her responsibility then she is just as much at fault as Bush and Cheney.

i recognize that my opinion (in your eyes) is slanted toward one side, but the facts surrounding the lies presented by this current administration leading the US into a war are quire overwhelming. If Pelosi was doing her job and performing her responsibility, she would have brought impeachment papers against Bush. The fact that she didn’t, in my opinion, opens her up to impeachment charges against herself.

Posted by: john trevisani at August 12, 2008 8:14 AM
Comment #258312

WOW!!! Very interesting to read the comments on this topic.

I am a pet lover. I currently have 2 dogs and 2 cats all rescues. I agree with a good deal of the sendiment here and of course disagree with some.

1) People should not have pets when they can’t afford them. To properly care for a pet in this day and age reguires money and some forethought and planning. Never get a pet if you think that some time in the future you may not be able to handle the financial burden.

2) If you get a pet then you are making a commit to care for that animal until its life is over. I would have died in Katrina with my pets because I would NEVER have left them behind but I would not have stayed in N.O. because I am lucky and would have had the ability to leave.

3) I am tried of this same old stuff that they are just animals so are we. Just because we stand on 2 feet, have thumbs, and higher brain functioning doesn’t make us better or more valuable in the grand scheme of things. If anything it should make us better animals more intune with nature and taking care of those that can’t take care of themselves.

Posted by: Carolina at August 12, 2008 8:15 AM
Comment #258313

one last thing on the pet issue: a story


Once upon a time a man had a dog. He no longer wanted the dog and decided to kill it by taking it out in a boat on a great lake and throwing it overboard and letting it drown. Once out in the middle of the lake the boat began to take on water. The man could not swim and the boat sank. As the man began to drown the dog grabbed him by the collar with its mouth and swam to shore dragging the man with him and saving the man’s life.

Posted by: Carolina at August 12, 2008 8:23 AM
Comment #258314

To Carolina and all who say that people shouldn’t take on pets they can’t afford.

Bullshit.

If you have a good job and a secure home, it would be rediculous not to own a pet because “something” might happen down the road: loss of a job, major expensive illness, and the list goes on. None of us can predict things like this, nor the crap economy and high prices caused by the oil speculation. I’m quite sure those pet owners thought they COULD afford their pets, and are devastated by the loss of that ability and by the loss of thier pet. To makes such a blanket statement about people is ignorant.

Posted by: womanmarine at August 12, 2008 8:40 AM
Comment #258315

John

womanmarine No some people Blame George Bush for Everything!Can you say,Self Responcibility?Absolutely freaking amazing ignorance!

As in all things in life John, the buck stops at the top. It has been under his watch that our economy has tanked. While he may not be directly responsible for the ills of each and every person who is feeling the crunch, he is responsible for irresponsible policy which has led us down this road. He is the man that signs the legislation and okays the bailouts.

There is no ignorance here. Maybe a vague generalization of motivating factors, but in the end whichever president is sitting at the time of failure must assume accountability. Once again the buck stops at the top.

And no, no one really expects Bush to admit accountability. It is something he seems to struggle with. That is alright. History will view him as a president of denial not mired in the realities of this world.

Posted by: RickIL at August 12, 2008 8:45 AM
Comment #258317

I have a friend that owns a local horse rescue ranch. Her business is booming, currently has 21 horses. The middle class is dropping these 5k to 15k horses on her for 1 dollar each because of the skyrocketing cost of feed and stabling. It is not difficult to judge the state of the economy by her business success. In good economic times there are only a few horses on her ranch. Currently she has had an influx of horses that drwafs previous “bad years” and it has been a steady increase as well.
Hold on to your butts I say, it’s going to get much worse before it gets better.
Good post John, Thank you.

Posted by: napajohn at August 12, 2008 9:39 AM
Comment #258318

I have a friend that owns a local horse rescue ranch. Her business is booming, currently has 21 horses. The middle class is dropping these 5k to 15k horses on her for 1 dollar each because of the skyrocketing cost of feed and stabling. It is not difficult to judge the state of the economy by her business success. In good economic times there are only a few horses on her ranch. Currently she has had an influx of horses that dwarfs previous “bad years” and it has been a steady increase as well.
Hold on to your butts I say, it’s going to get much worse before it gets better.
Good post John, Thank you.

Posted by: napajohn at August 12, 2008 9:40 AM
Comment #258320

napajohn:
What you’re describing is that someone is profiting on someone else’s downturn.
It’s like in the movie: It’s a Wonderful Life; Potter is buying up shares of the S&L with pennies on the dollar. Your friend is doing the horses well, by giving them a home and feed, but based on your description, is just an adjunct advantage to the actual intended purpose of your friend’s business. Which is to make a profit on the selling/renting of horses.

Posted by: john trevisani at August 12, 2008 10:00 AM
Comment #258322

John,
She actually is a horse lover and started the business to keep those horses from becoming dog food. The profits involved are secondary and do not play into the business. It is a non profit and all profits collected go back into the ranch to further care for the often abused and neglected animals.
My friend is independantly wealthy from a very large inheritance and does this because of her love of horses. She does not seek out these people they come to her. Also she goes to auctions where the animals are slated to be destroyed and rescues them there.

The reality of it all though is that she is taking the horses from basic middle class people that are falling on economic times, rehabing them, Which is very expensive, and then finding good homes for them.
It is a very expensive and greuling process. One horse as an example, had a broken leg, it cost her 1 dollar to buy it, 3000 to mend the leg and I dont know the cost of the rehab plus stabling, feed. But she resold the horse for 5k so tell me how it is profiteering.

also no business can be sustainable without profits be it an altruistic one or one purely for profit.
I am not trying to make an argument to refute your statement, just attempting to clarify my post.

I will concede though that yes her business depends on the failure of others to a certain extent. Often though she deals with neglected and abused horses , at times confiscated by local law enforcment, and the local shelters have no facilities to deal with these animals, so she pays the 1 dollar legal transfer fees and takes the animals.

Posted by: napajohn at August 12, 2008 10:15 AM
Comment #258325

Good article, John T. And great posts, womanmarine. All my dogs have been rescue dogs, too.

napajohn, in my view, your friend sounds like she’s doing great work with those horses.

Btw, I’m not at all surprised by the hard-hearted responses from the righties in this thread. These people give the same kind of responses to poor folks who have trouble making ends meet for their families, too. It’s as though they’re missing the compassion gene, or something.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at August 12, 2008 11:09 AM
Comment #258326


This problem and the other problems that this country faces are not going to be solved until Democratic voters come to the realization that George Bush and that Republican Congress that he had are a direct result of liberal politicial failure.

The amount of progressive legislation passed by predominately liberal Congresses in the last fourty years would fill volumes, NOT!

Posted by: jlw at August 12, 2008 12:24 PM
Comment #258334

jlw

This problem and the other problems that this country faces are not going to be solved until Democratic voters come to the realization that George Bush and that Republican Congress that he had are a direct result of liberal politicial failure.

If you are implying that GW and companies stint in office were the result of too many years of liberal rule? Could be. However I fail to see how the realization of what most already know will solve anything. We just experienced 10 years of a republican rule congress coinciding with 6 years of an extremely republican president. Republicans made and controlled all policy during that time. What we see now is the result of those policies. Of course no one expects republicans to accept accountability. It is not in their nature. Accountability to them should only pertain to that other party.

Almost eight years later and I am still amazed that Bush managed to get elected even once, let alone a second time. Taking into consideration the current state of our nation and the fact that GW is a total buffoon really does not say much for the judgment of those who supported him does it. Now you have the ridiculous tenacity to try and tell us that if we just let republican policy continue all will be well with the world. That would be kind of like using a gun with all chambers loaded to play Russian roulette.

Posted by: RickIL at August 12, 2008 1:39 PM
Comment #258336

woman marine, carolina

I to have a rescue dog and cat. I am as emotionally attached to them as I am my human family. It would be very very difficult to have to let them go. There are some people who should not have pets simply because they do not have the time and expect their pets to be not much more than a piece of furniture. The shelters I got my pets from do a good job of screening and advising potential owners and for the most part avoid the complications of placing pets with unprepared and inadequate owners. It must be very hard for those who have little choice but to let their furry friends go. I don’t think it is fair as a few have done here to blame those unfortunate folks. The situation for most was unforeseeable. Many rental residences do not allow pets. And I would imagine that family members who are taking in relatives may already be burdened with their own pets. I imagine there are some who simply can no longer afford to maintain them. They can be quite expensive to keep properly. It is indeed a dilemma indicative of our times and I feel for each of those unfortunate owners and their friends who only expect a little love in return for their total devotion.

Posted by: RickIL at August 12, 2008 2:14 PM
Comment #258337

John

Carolina sounds like what the Democrats did to George Bush,Threw him and America in to drown.Then old G.W. saved America!

Are you or real? What reality are you living in? I suspect you might be suffering with delusional issues.

Posted by: RickIL at August 12, 2008 2:19 PM
Comment #258340

John

Looks like I was correct in my assumption.

Posted by: RickIL at August 12, 2008 3:01 PM
Comment #258358

John, you must be dizzzzzy from all that spin and BS….or maybe it’s just the kool aid. Either way, you need to try and find your way back to solid ground and reality.

Posted by: janedoe at August 12, 2008 5:25 PM
Comment #258366

You’ll rue the day I rule the world.

Posted by: dogbert at August 12, 2008 7:43 PM
Comment #258367

In 1973, after college, I went to work for an import/export company in Chicago, and was surprised to find out that the largest export from Ohare at that time was horse flesh, being shipped to Amsterdam, Paris, Brussels, Frankfurt, and Copenhagen in large quantities. Animal rights people have tried to abolish that business here, but I think there is still one company in operation.

Really, how hard is it to feed a small pet? If you are eating, it seems like your dog or cat can have part of what you eat. What Would Siddhartha Do? It seems more likely that people would abandon their pets because they are moving into some place that doesn’t allow them, or charges a higher security deposit.

http://www.stfrancisanimal.org/index.html

Posted by: ohrealy at August 12, 2008 7:53 PM
Comment #258373

Ohrealy

I think you are correct in that many in foreclosure are forced to move into rentals or with family and simply can no longer have them. I would imagine there are also some who are at the breaking point and must make a choice. Food for the critters or gas and food for the family. Also it is not a good idea to feed your animals the same food we eat. That is if one is concerned about their health.

I live about a half mile from that last horse meat processing plant. It has been closed for probably six months or more now. It is now illegal to process horse meat for consumption in the US.

Posted by: RickIL at August 12, 2008 9:03 PM
Comment #258389

It is extremely cheap to feed a dog (dog’s being my only reference to this topic). If people are giving them up for financial reasons that’s their own selfish move. It’s very cheap to own/feed a dog, but I’ll tell you what they are awesome.

I miss the days when our family dog was able to roam the neighborhood all day but would always be around when you needed him, or to be more honest when he/she was hungry. Charles and Laura, from Little House on the Prairie, had a great dog but I’m not sure if he had his proper shots or not. And you can feed them table scraps or whatever the hell else you want to feed them….they won’t care. Loosen up lefties.

Posted by: andy at August 12, 2008 10:38 PM
Comment #258423

so this it what it’s come to john ? pets are the newest group of victims, of THE EVIL REPUBLICAN EMPIRE….. LOL! ? say it aint so john.

Posted by: dbs at August 13, 2008 11:49 AM
Comment #258424

john

i have to wonder. how many of these poor suffering people who’ve abandoned thier pets because of this HORRIBLE ECONOMY, still have cell phones, and satellite tv ? sorry john, but this is just silly. there’s really no other way to look at it.

Posted by: dbs at August 13, 2008 11:58 AM
Comment #258425

Talk about assumptions. I live in a very rural, relatively poor area. No cell phones or cable or satellite here much. Sorry, you can sometimes be so wrong in your assumptions.

Posted by: womanmarine at August 13, 2008 1:22 PM
Comment #258428

I rescued a litter of wild kittens, had them neutered and then tamed them. We kept two. Last year we had to leave our home due to the terrible economy in Michigan. They went to the shelter.
I was raised on a farm and butchered my own animals. Part of being a man is facing up to an animal being sick and euthanising it yourself.
Renting property and repairing homes, you will find how animal ownership is out of hand in our country. Some of my friends have three large dogs in small apartments. What a terrible existence. The absence of children might be one reason. Are pets really as important as children? I noticed you were claiming humans are equivalent to animals. Do you really believe that?
To me, that is a vicious thing to say about children. Glad I am not your child…

Posted by: Kruser at August 13, 2008 1:58 PM
Comment #258433

Kruser:

You do read between the non-existant lines. Glad you’re not my child too.

Posted by: womanmarine at August 13, 2008 2:42 PM
Comment #258434

“What Would Siddhartha Do?”


Haha. He wouldn’t buy food, nor ‘own’ an animal.

Posted by: angrymob at August 13, 2008 2:49 PM
Comment #258445

John T. and KansasDem -

My apologies to both of you and to all for taking things so far off topic in the discussion about Pelosi, but I think it is important.

Pelosi’s refusal to impeach, from what I understand, is completely out of character with her past. If that is true, then what was it that caused her to refuse to do something that she had obviously wanted to do?

Look at it from Bush and Cheney’s point of view - if they knowingly did something they knew could land them in prison here or overseas, would it be in their best interests to ensure that doesn’t happen? Of course it is. And given their past history of giving no consideration to truth or justice in their drive to accomplish their goals, I wouldn’t put much past them.

Something is not right in the state of Denmark, IMO. Something stinks like last week’s fish. I really, truly don’t want to sound like a conspiracy theorist…but I think it may be that “the fix is in”. That’s just a guess and should be seen as only that…and I sincerely hope I’m wrong.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at August 13, 2008 4:23 PM
Comment #258446

womanmarine

your point is well taken. what i have to ask though, would yours be the rule, or more the exception ? my guess would be the majority of people who abandond thier pets do it for other than economic reasons. irresponsible pet owners come in all shapes and sizes, and political colors. this being the case would point to this being mostly a non-issue, and just another reason to whine about republicans.

Posted by: dbs at August 13, 2008 4:32 PM
Comment #258449

Womanmarine,

No satellites? That IS rural….like the moon.

Kruser,

I agree that large dogs without a place to run seems cruel. My grandfather used to gather up kittens when they overpopulated the barn, put them in a feed sack, and throw them in the river. Seems cruel to me, but it was a different time. Cats were rat catchers. If you can’t support your pet find it a home or take it to a shelter.

Cultures vary. Pets could feed the hungry. While I think that is a funny joke, it’s also a hard reality.

Having babies you can’t support seems cruel as well. That’s why I’m pro abortion rights. Old people living on cat food pushing shopping carts seems crueler than freezing on an ice floe or slipping into a long slumber from Dr. Kevorkian.


Posted by: googlumpugus at August 13, 2008 4:37 PM
Comment #258454

My family always had dogs, when I was a kid. As a grownup, I had cats, which don’t usually require the same level of attention as a dog. When my mother was getting very old, I brought one of her dogs home with me. It was used to a lot of attention and companionship. My neighbor told me she could hear the dog crying all day, when we weren’t at home. I ended up bringing the dog with me in the truck as much as I could. Eventually, the dog had a stroke, and I brought it to the vet, and he put it to sleep.

Posted by: ohrealy at August 13, 2008 6:20 PM
Comment #258455

dbs, there have always been irresponsible pet owners who see nothing wrong in considering domestic animals as disposable. Some agencies do work very hard to screen applicants and hopefully that has lowered the numbers of abandoned animals. I know a lot of people who don’t think and feel the way I do about my fur family, and they don’t have any animals…..and that is great. But for those who do share my ( and some of the other posters) feelings, I can imagine how heartbreaking it is to have to give up a beloved pet. Of coure, there is no question if it’s a choice between feeding children or feeding pets….and am sure that with the state of the economy, those numbers grow daily. Maybe we could get Barnie’s take on this….
This article is from Palo Alto, Ca., and that is an above median income area, so would be realistic that other less fortunate citizens and residents would be experiencing a bigger need to let go of pets.
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/show_story.php?id=8703
Glen, you’re not alone with your thoughts. I’ve wondered so many times if “someone” had not gotten to certain Congressional members and have been successful in making them “see the light”. Good grief, those who could do it have been in the lying, cheating and conspirational mode for some time now! Wouldn’t you just like to be a fly on the wall sometimes?????!

Posted by: janedoe at August 13, 2008 6:28 PM
Comment #258458

I was a baby my mother couldn’t support. All eight of us kids worked our way out of welfare.
Where is the family of the old person pushing a cart? They probably own dogs.
My wife and I owned an old folks home for ten years. They are all the same people as before their mind went. We treated them just as respectfully as we would you. Due to their flesh (faculties)failing, their soul (person) has a hard time connecting to this realm. We made adjustments for it. That gives no excuse for anyone to mistreat or put them to death.
You never discuss butchering or putting things to sleep with a woman. It was that way even on the farm when they knew we were raising them for meat. Sorry about that womanmarine. It was the devaluing of a human life that I was addressing and not your ability to mother.
That is what is at issue with pro life people. The value of a human life trumps perceived rights.
That is why the order is life, liberty, and the pursuit…

Posted by: Kruser at August 13, 2008 6:39 PM
Comment #258459

I’m not sure where this got from the issue of having to give up pets due to a tanked economy, to abusing/abondoning elderly people.

Posted by: janedoe at August 13, 2008 6:50 PM
Comment #258467

The door was opened by equating the value of pets and animal life with that of human life.

Posted by: Kruser at August 13, 2008 7:25 PM
Comment #258473

Cruelty is in the eye of the beholder.

Posted by: googlumpugus at August 13, 2008 9:33 PM
Comment #258474

Kruser,

I don’t want my diaper changed in a rest home while I stare into space. Nor do I want to starve in my car.

You may have treated people well. How did you determine from a non-responsive vegetable that was what they wanted?

I’m glad your mother never stuck you in a microwave, like a parent did here to stop the child from crying.

The value of a human life trumps perceived rights.

That is why the order is life, liberty, and the pursuit…

You have proof as to why that order?

My life does not trump the rights of others, that is absurd. I have no right to demand a multi-billion dollar life extending operation at the expense of everyone else. Human life is valuable, but not above all else. If you are not willing to die for something, you value nothing.

Posted by: googlumpugus at August 13, 2008 9:45 PM
Comment #258482
The door was opened by equating the value of pets and animal life with that of human life

seems your assumptions have overloaded all that has been actually said Kruser. Nobody has placed the value of animal life above that of humans. Some of us have the ability and sensitivity to make room for pets in our lives and the priority of that placement hasn’t been questioned.
With that said, the subject of the thread is that our economy has failed to a level that some cannot enjoy the presence of a pet in their lives.

Posted by: janedoe at August 13, 2008 10:32 PM
Comment #258495

Sweet reasoning goog…
So convenience trumps life..I have to apologize for my twisted view.

I took care of both my grandmother and and grandfather until the end. My mother in law bought nursing home insurance and insists we put her in rather than caring for her ourselves.
If you have dependable respectful people in your life there is little to worry about.
Fallacy: All people who abort would have abused their children. My observance as a child was that the poor actually take better care of their children than the rich most of the time.
Fact: Many people who wanted their children abuse them.
Jane;
There isn’t a choice between feeding pets and children. You feed the children and get rid of the pets. As a builder in Michigan, we had to make the choice so we could be free to move to another state. These choices happen all the time when the commodity you provide ceases to become valuable to others. Quite a few buggymakers had to make changes when automobiles became more valuable.

Posted by: Kruser at August 14, 2008 10:48 AM
Comment #258496

Kruser,

Quite the contrary, people who have abortions rather than try to raise a child in an impossible circumstance, are making a mature and responsible decision. I don’t think abuse and neglect is confined to the poor or the rich, pro life or choice advocates.

I agree that children trump pets. No one here asserted they didn’t.

My disagreement with you was your sweeping assumptions about abortion and euthanasia, and that human life trumps all rights. My perceived right for safety trumps your life, if you point a gun at me. In Texas, your life becomes subject to loss if you commit a felony at night. Don’t come knocking on my door at two in the morning, ranting that your life trumps my rights. I have the right to take your life at that point. It’s happened here, although I’m not sure that was what the idiot at the door was ranting about. Don’t try to steal my car at night, either. Don’t rob my neighbor’s house and then move into my yard, even if you then flee. Deal with it. These situations and people were within their rights, recently, in Texas courts. The idiots and thieves are dead.

Jane Doe was making the point that there are other choices besides abusing or neglecting animals. Saying that women can’t differentiate between humans and pets is equally absurd, and tells us more about your bias than anything else.

Posted by: googlumpugus at August 14, 2008 11:45 AM
Comment #258532

You have added an additional subject by equivocating innocent life with that of murderous thugs.
My mother raised eight kids in an impossible circumstance. We are in America after all.
The premise presented was that people have to chose between feeding animals or family. Is that really a choice? I am sure neglecting children isn’t on the mind of any of the fine people who blog here.
Is it possible for any person to write a blog without bias? I am curious how you would conclude that.

Posted by: Kruser at August 14, 2008 3:08 PM
Comment #258637

Someone or several of you did indeed equate animals to humans, one not being any better than the other. Why then did you not berate the horse rescuer for selling horses? Gasp! Slavery all over again, no?

Posted by: ray at August 15, 2008 9:50 PM
Comment #258674

Innocent life? what is that?

Posted by: googlumpugus at August 16, 2008 10:32 AM
Comment #258686

ray, not sure what kind of kibbles you’re eating, but that’s an odd spin.

Posted by: janedoe at August 16, 2008 1:38 PM
Comment #258710

Not only an odd spin, but simply not true, except in their minds.

Posted by: womanmarine at August 17, 2008 10:29 AM
Comment #258712

Kruser, in my interpretation of innocent life, pets would generally fall into that category. Singled celled creatures might as well, since that seems to be what you are referencing.

Equating abortion of a non-viable fetus to murder is much worse than humanizing pets, IMHO.

So before you go off accusing others of having a bleeding heart and off based values, perhaps you should look into your own.

Posted by: googlumpugus at August 17, 2008 11:00 AM
Post a comment