Cat Food


A technique of politicians deploring any change to Social Security is to paint the picture of an old lady forced to live on cat food. I was always somewhat dubious of that pitch, I figured cat food might even be more expensive than other sources of protein.

In an attempt at investigative journalism, I checked prices on cat food versus tuna (a close human equivalent) and find the shocking truth.

It turns out that the politicians were correct: it is indeed cheaper to buy cat food instead of human food. At my local supermarket, the price of five ounces of cat food was 89 cents; the price for five ounces of tuna was $1.17.

While I am unlikely to change my views on Social Security, I may reconsider my purchases of tuna. The cat food is cheaper and probably has less mercury.

This is just for fun. A lighthearted bit of nonsense. Try cat food at your own risk.


6 Responses to “Cat Food”

  1. Bhetti Says:

    You sure they didn’t mean she actually ate her cats?


  2. Default User Says:

    It would be certainly cheaper than the tinned stuff. That is so expensive.

    Brings a different meaning to “crazy cat woman.”

  3. chic noir Says:

    default I remember bring up social security at R’s place but I can’t rememeber your stance. care to share?

  4. Default User Says:

    Despite all the talk of “insurance” Social Security is a welfare program. There is no magic to it. There is no “right” to it. However, it is not going away anytime soon. At least it is not going away in a peaceful manner, financial strains may mean it goes away kicking and screaming.

    Simply put, it is a transfer of wealth from the young(er) to the old. Medicaid is probably a bigger financial problem than Social Security.

    I once had the idea of using the “death tax” to fund both programs. On death, the estate would be charged for the benefits received by the deceased under both Social Security and Medicare. There would be an untaxed allowance to at least cover funeral and other expenses. Such a plan would be “progressive” (the wealthy would pay more) but it would merely continue the welfare aspect of the program. Poorer people would pay little or no “death tax.” Such a system might keep it solvent and reduce excess claims (if all that medical care came out of your estate, you might be more frugal).

    The wealthy could opt out of receiving benefits (but not recoup tax paid) and avoid the “death tax.” This would reduce current costs and the strain on the system.
    [probably a longer answer than you were expecting]

  5. chic noir Says:

    thanks default.

    probably a longer answer than you were expecting

    I like you long default 😈

  6. Default User Says:

    In that case I am glad I did not toss off a quick answer. 😈

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: