Poor People Should Not Have Pets?

[Astrid660]

Hi all. My laptop crashed so this will take forever to type on a diff. computer, but I really want your opinions.

In last weeks' local paper there was a story about a lady who could not find a place to rent within her budget and found herself + two dogs almost homeless, living in a hotel that a friend was paying for.
I felt for the lady when I read the story, because she smokes and has pets and can't find a place to rent, which is basically where I'm at. Although, I smoke outside and my pets aren't dogs... they are still messy and needy and people don't like the idea of 9 parrots in their apartment. I've had many No's in my life when trying to rent, and I'm only 20!
(Am currently at parents house, so no immediate worries.)

My point: People wrote back to the newspaper this week (a lot of them apparently!!) saying this lady shouldn't have pets since she can't really afford to keep them, and she'd have more money if she wasn't wasting it on pet food and smokes.

Now I'm thinking of writing to the newspaper and saying, Hey Give this Poor Lady a Break! + Doesn't Kindness Exist Anymore???

I feel like, at the same time, what gives anyone the right to hoard millions (billions?) of dollars to themselves while other people go hungry, or go without many freedoms or luxuries they take for granted?
So poor people shouldn't have pets, or anything fun ?

It makes me mad that my community reacted that way to a lady's story, when I personally think people charge FAR MORE than they need to for rental places!

Thanks for listening to my rant!

[r2rusmc]

If you can afford smokes then your budget isn't that tight.

Many years ago when PA added the cigarette tax there were sob stories all over the news. I'll never forget this one lady coming on talking about how it hurt her budget and she'll have to use the local food pantry. When asked why not quit smoking her response was "Why? I can always get food".

Um, OK.

Everyone should be able to own a companion animal, she has my sympathy there BUT how can she provide stability to an animal when she doesn't even have it for herself?

Two sides of the coin.

[Halo]

Well I don't think someone shouldn't have pets because they have fallen on hard times. I mean, that's rediculous. If no one who had ever fallen on hard times could own a pet, no one would own one!

The arguments about "she could afford more for this and that if she didn't have this and that" sounds just like my parents. I am forever getting hounded that I could do so much more with my money than spending it on other people's trash (which is what she calls my rescues). My kids are fed, clothed, cleaned, and have everything they need. My husband and I have what we need as well so what else do we need? She's never been a big fan of pets though so I'm used to it. She'd freak out if she knew how many birds I have now

But, it is my opinion, that falling on hard times doesn't mean you shouldn't own a pet. Now if you don't have the money to afford the pet when you get it, that's a slightly different story. And I just mean for food and necessities. We all have unexpected vet emergencies that are hard to be completely prepared for.

[Astrid660]

^Yeah that's basically where I stand on the issue. and I do consider ''right now'' to simply be a rough patch. I don't intend to be poor my whole life... but sometimes guilt overwhelms me and I think, What am I doing with all these birds when I can't even afford a new top for myself? But then I know, if I had the money for a new top, it would go towards bird stuff anyway, and they never have starved or gone without fresh foods or new toys.Only I seem to suffer, haha (and it's not even suffering obv. because I still have them, and they still have me, so we're a fairly happy flock!) It's whatever my priorities are, and if I have to suffer through living with my parents for a bit more stability for the birds, so be it. they are always my first thought and concern during tough times.

[KimM]

That's a tough, and of course controversial subject. Sometimes the most responsible and financially stable folks have tough financial times and we don't really know this person's circumstances. She may just be having a rough patch. I think I would sell everything I had if I had tough times not to give up my babies. But I also save for "rainy" days.

If someone is purchasing pets and knows it's beyond their means, then I believe they should not have the pets. As far as smoking? I'm a smoker and can tell you it's extremely additive (don't smoke in the house with the kids). However, if it were the smokes or my "kids"? I'd quit smoking. I was raised rather in the old-fashioned way that if you can't afford it, you don't buy it.

[xafsmom]

My feelings pretty much are what Kim says above.

[r2rusmc]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying she should not have pets. If it comes down to keeping the dogs or being homeless, that should be a no-brainer though.

[MicahEspudo]

I agree... I just don't agree with smoking.
But then again I am a heath nut, so don't mind me!

Also, I don't agree with people buying pets when the can't afford it! Like when your going through hard times and you buy a pet you cannot properly take care of!

[loyallyroyal]

"I feel like, at the same time, what gives anyone the right to hoard millions (billions?) of dollars to themselves while other people go hungry, or go without many freedoms or luxuries they take for granted?"

Thats kind of a touchy statement... I can see where you are coming from, but I dont overly agree with it.

Personally, to me, smoking is a luxury (a very expensive one), sometimes when it comes to feeding, clothing, and housing yourself, its worth it to nix the addiction. So no sympathy there.

I understand rough patches, and thats no reason to get rid of your pets, but sometimes it helps to have a friend or family member watch them while you take care of yourself.

Plus, there is a sense of responsibility (now im gonna step on some toes) I personally believe children and pets are more of a priviledge than a right. If you are renting and have a low paying job i think you need to take that into consideration before getting pets. Basically dont live beyond your means.

So basically I understand hard times, but sometimes you need to think ahead to rainy days and what you would do, say if you lost your job, or apartment. For example its probably easier to find an apartment who will let you have 1 small dog, compared to 2 big dogs. Or 1 quiet bird compared to 9 noisy ones.

Ok well I'm gonna stop stepping on toes now, just my take on the situation.

[MicahEspudo]

Originally Posted by loyallyroyal

Thats kind of a touchy statement... I can see where you are coming from, but I dont overly agree with it.

Personally, to me, smoking is a luxury (a very expensive one), sometimes when it comes to feeding, clothing, and housing yourself, its worth it to nix the addiction. So no sympathy there.

I understand rough patches, and thats no reason to get rid of your pets, but sometimes it helps to have a friend or family member watch them while you take care of yourself.

Plus, there is a sense of responsibility (now im gonna step on some toes) I personally believe children and pets are more of a priviledge than a right. If you are renting and have a low paying job i think you need to take that into consideration before getting pets. Basically dont live beyond your means.

So basically I understand hard times, but sometimes you need to think ahead to rainy days and what you would do, say if you lost your job, or apartment. For example its probably easier to find an apartment who will let you have 1 small dog, compared to 2 big dogs. Or 1 quiet bird compared to 9 noisy ones.
Ok well I'm gonna stop stepping on toes now, just my take.

TOTALLY AGREE!!!!