One too many people shared this recently.
I vaguely remember seeing it before. This was my initial response. I sort of made it into a joke:
It only makes sense if every person in the United States had access to land that is large and fertile enough that it could be farmed, fished, or hunted (not to mentions tools for doing so) – without being force-ably removed.
Also, one of the reasons to avoid feeding animals is not dependency of the individual, but increases in population that the land cannot support. So, if that support goes away (you stop feeding them) – there is a die-off due to lack of resources.
Instead of targeting the food-stamp program (which is a means to distribute resources we already have (food) to those that need it as a band-aid to a non-well-functioning economy, a supplement to businesses that pay non-living wages, or to people unable to work or who are not compensated for the work they do), they could use the same analogy more effectively to say that we should quit relying on non-sustainable resources and discourage over-population to avoid die-off.
One way to do that is to make larger National Parks. See – it’s a circle. 🙂
Then someone else pointed out the dehumanizing nature of the newspaper clip. It didn’t hit me until he mentioned it. Holy crap – the author is directly relating feeding animals with feeding people. I responded:
That too […]. I mean, to quote one of our more esteemed and highest leaders, “Well, don’t obligate yourself to that. Why…you know?” [source] (…and of course, by “that” he was referring to getting healthcare services even if you are unable to pay.) So, if you aren’t able to pay for food – starve. If you aren’t able to pay for medical care – suffer and possibly die
And if people are sitting on their asses raking in capital gains and living in luxury off the labor of the working class while the poor (many of whom are part of that working class) are starving, suffering and dying – obviously the privileged are doing everyone a favor by not making them dependent on charity.
However, the article has a point. If it weren’t for social programs like Medicaid and food stamps – there would have been a rebellion a long time ago.