• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Government fund pays to spay stray animals in order to fight human obesity.

RabidAlpaca

Engineer
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
25,566
Reaction score
36,346
Location
American Refugee in Europe
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Below is a recent article from the washington examiner where a federal health program targeting obesity paid for city wide spays for stray animals because they discourage people from working out. The article didn't mention how much was actually spent on the spaying itself, just that it was part of a 7.5 million dollar slushfund.

I think when we're spending so frivolously on such ridiculous things, asking america for more money is not the answer.

Obama anti-obesity

In the release, the city said, “This targeted effort aims to address residents’ concerns that identify stray dogs as a barrier to outdoor physical activity.” It concluded, “the Nashville Public Health Department Communities Putting Prevention To Work campaign is funded fully by the Department of Health and Human Services, as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.”

Explaining the federally-funded program, the paper said, “it wasn’t fair to ask residents to get outside and walk for fitness when they had to worry about stray dogs nipping at their heels.”
 
everytime youthink things cant get dumber,a new level of stupid is introduced that beats out the last one.
 
While it is important to spay stray animals it is idiotic to claim that doing so will help fight obesity.
 
Sometimes is positively amazing what kind of logical contortions liberals will engage in to justify their corruptness.
 
Why is this surprising?

If the US really wanted to cut spending, what they need to do is establish a benchmark budget year, and then give employees of each cabinet or divison a percentage of the money they are under that reference budget. Now, employees have an incentive to spend less, and managers will see to it (especially if you give them a larger percentage). Now you are introducing a modicum of fiscal responsibility in government employees.
 
The connection is tenuous at best but that doesn't make either aspect a bad idea, so what's the problem? I've never really skipped a walk because of feral dogs, hell, I didn't know there was a feral dog problem. However, I don't understand the relationship to corruption.
 
The connection is tenuous at best but that doesn't make either aspect a bad idea, so what's the problem? I've never really skipped a walk because of feral dogs, hell, I didn't know there was a feral dog problem. However, I don't understand the relationship to corruption.
We're not talking about corruption, we're talking about ridiculous government waste in an age where people are screaming to increase taxes like it will fix the problem.
 
Last edited:
That's what I was addressing.

Sometimes is positively amazing what kind of logical contortions liberals will engage in to justify their corruptness.
 
I'm also saying that this type of wasteful spending is hardly important when compared with the billion dollar boondoggles in process.
 
This is infuriating. I think the way it works is this: Congress allocates the money to the slush fund. Then, non-elected federal employees are charged with approving grants as a method of spending the money. While it would take a congressional action to de-fund the slush fund, it does not require Congress to act to change how the money within the fund is spent. And there aren't enough valid grant requests submitted, so the bureacrats have to approve bull**** like this in order to make sure all the money is spent. (Because if it isn't spent, it would be obvious that there were overages that need to be re-allocated next year.

Since Congress doesn't have to act to change the beneficiaries and/or amounts of grants issued from within the slush fund, the President or his people can then stop approving the grants and re-allocate the money wherever they wish. As long as it is all spent. Ridiculous and corrupt.
 
I'm also saying that this type of wasteful spending is hardly important when compared with the billion dollar boondoggles in process.

Actually, this wasteful spending is the most important. There's no easy fix to our budget problems. The idea that we could solve a trillion dollar deficit with just a handful of cuts is foolish. Both Republicans and Democrats have one-lines about taxing the rich or dissolving the Department of Education, but none of these budgets go very far in dealing with anything. I mean, even if you cut the military in half, that wouldn't solve the problem. And to cut the military in half, it's not like you can just take a knife to it. Individual programs and people would have to be identified and disbanded.

Ultimately, the only way to get our fiscal house in order is to cut a few million here and a few million there until we can close the deficit.
 
Usually area's where there is a lot of stray animals running loose are in poor neighborhoods, where I don't think there's too much jogging going on...running from yes, jogging no.
 
Below is a recent article from the washington examiner where a federal health program targeting obesity paid for city wide spays for stray animals because they discourage people from working out. The article didn't mention how much was actually spent on the spaying itself, just that it was part of a 7.5 million dollar slushfund.

I think when we're spending so frivolously on such ridiculous things, asking america for more money is not the answer.

Obama anti-obesity

Well - I do know for a fact that strays can be a danger to drivers, children and the elderly in places like my town.

However - the strays I'm referring to aren't being born *wild* - they're ditched by **** owners who don't want them anymore and they eventually group with other rejects and roam the town scouring for food.

I've taken in so many over the years - it's hard to find them homes and train them and often they have ailments like parvo and their owners should have justp ut them down.

I'd like to be able to catch these ****s when they ditch their dogs off and hold them accountable.
 
But why is TNR (spaying) not important? At least the money is spent domestically and results in an improvement in quality of life. I hate to say it but a million here and a million there doesn't end up being real money in context.

I'm still waiting for any proposal about getting our fiscal house in order. Both parties intend to spend, spend, spend. It's just different beneficiaries.

And a related question - have you ever heard of TNR for dogs? I haven't. Cats, yes, certainly but as far as I know with dogs it's off to the pound and the blue juice. THIS IS A REAL QUESTION.


Actually, this wasteful spending is the most important. There's no easy fix to our budget problems. The idea that we could solve a trillion dollar deficit with just a handful of cuts is foolish. Both Republicans and Democrats have one-lines about taxing the rich or dissolving the Department of Education, but none of these budgets go very far in dealing with anything. I mean, even if you cut the military in half, that wouldn't solve the problem. And to cut the military in half, it's not like you can just take a knife to it. Individual programs and people would have to be identified and disbanded.

Ultimately, the only way to get our fiscal house in order is to cut a few million here and a few million there until we can close the deficit.
 
But why is TNR (spaying) not important? At least the money is spent domestically and results in an improvement in quality of life. I hate to say it but a million here and a million there doesn't end up being real money in context.

It's all about opportunity cost. If we had unlimited dollars, I'd say go right ahead. But I can thing of at least a hundred better things to do with that money.

I'm still waiting for any proposal about getting our fiscal house in order. Both parties intend to spend, spend, spend. It's just different beneficiaries.

A sad state of affairs. But any serious proposal about getting our fiscal house in order will have to deal with a million here and a million there. Once we allow a million dollars, or a hundred million dollars, or even a billions dollars to be "just spare change" then there is no way to get our fiscal house in order. Drastic reforms to military and entitlements can only go so far. Completely cutting the DoD would be insufficient to balance the budget. Ultimately, you have to do it like Clinton did it: a million here and a million there.

And a related question - have you ever heard of TNR for dogs? I haven't. Cats, yes, certainly but as far as I know with dogs it's off to the pound and the blue juice. THIS IS A REAL QUESTION.

No, but there's a good reason why. Cats provide a valuable offset against small rodent populations common in urban areas. Dogs, however, are inefficient killers at best, and they really have no appropriate prey, and therefore no appropriate service. Society benefits from feral cats. Dogs, not so much.
 
But why is TNR (spaying) not important? At least the money is spent domestically and results in an improvement in quality of life. I hate to say it but a million here and a million there doesn't end up being real money in context.

I'm still waiting for any proposal about getting our fiscal house in order. Both parties intend to spend, spend, spend. It's just different beneficiaries.

And a related question - have you ever heard of TNR for dogs? I haven't. Cats, yes, certainly but as far as I know with dogs it's off to the pound and the blue juice. THIS IS A REAL QUESTION.

First of all, if I read the article correctly, the fund from which this money came is slated to increase to $2 billion, with the additional funds coming from Obamacare. I think it that is a substantial sum of money. As a matter of fact, stating that a million here and a million there "is not real money in context" assumes that this instance is isolated. It is not isolated. Most people would not argue that government waste was not rampant.

In an economic period of recovery, every penny counts. Things that that are not top priorities ought not to be funded, because there is not enough money to go around.

As for the spaying or neutering of dogs, that is beside the point. The point is the ridiculous linking the breeding of feral animals to people becoming increasingly fat. Hopefully you will agree that that argument of causality is a bit flawed, or, more likely, intentionally dishonest. Without trying to connect the spaying/neutering to people's fitness, the grant would have had to be rejected.

Additionally, local governments are able to better identify when they have a feral animal problem, and they are able to expend local funds to combat it. Feral animals are not a federal problem when the economy is thriving. It is especially ridiculous now- even if the grant weren't ridiculously linked to obesity.
 
Sometimes is positively amazing what kind of logical contortions liberals will engage in to justify their corruptness.

The corruptness arises because we have here a group that wants to control animals. Instead of going through the normal processes and getting the money from their citizens, they make up this **** and bull connection between the animals and obesity in order to get money that SHOULD have been spent on an entirely different purpose. It is tantamount to stealing from the nation's taxpayers in order to benefit some local citizens...and virtually lying in their justification.
 
That's what I was addressing.
Seems like you should quote someone then instead of addressing the entire thread.

I'm also saying that this type of wasteful spending is hardly important when compared with the billion dollar boondoggles in process.

But why is TNR (spaying) not important? At least the money is spent domestically and results in an improvement in quality of life. I hate to say it but a million here and a million there doesn't end up being real money in context.
It's this very attitude that is the cause of the problem. They're nickle and diming us to death. 7.5 million may be a drop in the bucket to us comparatively, but this isn't an isolated incident. You have to realize there are thousands, and thousands and thousands of such instances where this kind of waste takes place. And you have to remember, this was for only ONE city!

I'm still waiting for any proposal about getting our fiscal house in order. Both parties intend to spend, spend, spend. It's just different beneficiaries.
I guess that's your problem, you refer to our political system as two parties and consider there is no alternative. The libertarian party has plenty of solutions, you just don't care to hear them. Hell, Ron Paul has been screaming about drastically reducing the deficit for well over a decade now, and this is exactly why he doesn't belong in the republican party, he's a black sheep.

Next election we can vote for the socialist left (Dems) or the socialist right (GOP), or we can go for an alternative that actually will try to make real cuts to our deficit.
 
Reducing the number of feral packs in a city is a positive, isn't it?
 
Reducing the number of feral packs in a city is a positive, isn't it?

Yes - but their logic is silly. . . they could just leave it basic: it's an overall safety concern - stray dogs are a danger to children, etc.

It's always been that type of safety concern.
 
The connection is tenuous at best but that doesn't make either aspect a bad idea, so what's the problem? I've never really skipped a walk because of feral dogs, hell, I didn't know there was a feral dog problem. However, I don't understand the relationship to corruption.

i walk daily for exercise and have been attacked twice in the past year. my dad was attacked by a boxer wile helping me with my fence a week ago. hard to know if the dogs were feral, but i'm for spaying strays. it's a hard life for them, and it can turn into a real problem.

as for owners who let their mean, territorial dogs run, the fines should be serious and significant.

i carry pepper spray and a knife when i walk now. as i am a non-violent person with a tender heart, i truly hope that i never have to use either one.
 
i walk daily for exercise and have been attacked twice in the past year. my dad was attacked by a boxer wile helping me with my fence a week ago. hard to know if the dogs were feral, but i'm for spaying strays. it's a hard life for them, and it can turn into a real problem.

Are you saying that the boxer wouldn't have attacked if he had been fixed? That's absurd. The only way to stop feral dog attacks, which are hardly common anyhow, is to remove the feral dogs entirely. Spaying them won't make a difference. Go out and shoot them. But no... that would be unpopular with the public so they don't even try.
 
Are you saying that the boxer wouldn't have attacked if he had been fixed? That's absurd. The only way to stop feral dog attacks, which are hardly common anyhow, is to remove the feral dogs entirely. Spaying them won't make a difference. Go out and shoot them. But no... that would be unpopular with the public so they don't even try.

i'm arguing that the boxer might not have existed in the first place if feral dogs were fixed.
 
i'm arguing that the boxer might not have existed in the first place if feral dogs were fixed.

The majority of feral dogs are not bred in the "wild" but abandoned or escaped. It almost certainly wouldn't have made any difference.
 
Sometimes is positively amazing what kind of logical contortions liberals will engage in to justify their corruptness.
And the same can be said for conservatives. No one gets off this hook because all politicians and all groups do the same thing. "We all know" it's for the health of the women that they need an internal, invasive scan before getting an abortion, right? :roll: Who doesn't see through that kind of crap? Or are conservatives so blind they honestly can't see it when it favors their position?


Ed:
And isn't it conservatives who are always screaming "put it in the hands of the State"? Well, this is what sometimes happens when locals decide how money is to be spent.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom