Replies

No you are wrong.

First he's giving the money to something important. By turning the money away he's taking a chance that someone greedy will do nothing with it.

So in effect he's turning it right around to charity.

Second he's also speaking out in the article. If he wanted to keep things the way they are he would say nothing and keep doing whatever he wants to do.

Instead he's saying "Hey! We have a problem. Let's go fix it."

So he's not gaming at all because he's not hiding the fact that he gets money he shouldn't.

He's advocating change.. not keeping it the same.

I respectfully have to disagree with your position.

We will disagree on this.

It's easy to take the government money and then do something noble with that money.

The question becomes - is that the function of government? - to transfer wealth as being discussed in the article?

His giving away money in the manner so described is an awful inefficient way to provide for the people Mr. Matthews is helping with his donations. Writing a check using *his* funds may provide more satisfaction.

I've received two such payments from USDA in the past. But I realized afterwords that if we can't make it without government assistance then maybe we need to not be involved in the business of agriculture. The funds received were paid back, albeit to the Bureau of Public Debt. Corny - maybe, but it was best for our situation, and made the situation as right as we could.

If Mr. Matthews believes he should not be getting the money, he should not take it. Taking the money in one action and then in the next saying there should be change in the program so that folks like him are not eligible for ag payments from this perspective seems nonsensical.

But again, that is from this perspective.