Should you take the money?

[cptacek]

If you are eligible for money that is to be given away from the government that you are philosophically opposed to, should you take the money? Should you accept the money and try to change where the money is being allocated (or if it is even allocated) by your vote? Or should you reject the money?

And where do you draw the line? Subsidized student loans? Subsidized student loans for your 7 years of junior college? Subsidized micro-loans for businesses? Food stamps if your family is starving? Food stamps if you are lazy? Taking advantage of a local program that will not increase the tax value of your home if you make improvements (because they want people to move to that town/county)? Accepting the stimulus payment? Refinancing your jumbo loan to be backed by the federal government?

Someone told me that by not accepting the money, you aren't putting that money back into the general fund of the treasury, or that the government is not going to spend it. You are just hurting yourself. He said if you want to make a difference, contact your congressman and vote for someone who shares your values.

So, what do you think?

[gamecock43]

ummm....I cant think of a time I wouldnt accept the money. I guess if I was eligable for food stamps I wouldnt use those. I feel they should be used by people who really need the money.
If it was a govt handout that I did not want, I guess I would donate it to the ASPCA. They get all my 'guilt' money. Raises, ebay products made of leather, fur sales.

[cptacek]

I guess I should have prefaced it by saying I am a fiscal conservative (which in years past would mean I am a republican, but that isn't true anymore cause they ain't fiscally conservative anymore). So, I question the correctness of the government paying for any of that stuff.

Does that make a difference?

[gamecock43]

I understand you now. However I am a liberal and think we need MORE programs that are EFFECTIVE. Without getting into 'that' debate, I can see where you are coming from.
If the president wanted to buy my silence and continue his war by giving me a grand or two- thats not ok with me. I would not apply for the money. If it was being mailed to me, I would donate it to a charity for war victims or something like that.

[cptacek]

Yeah, I don't want to have "that" debate either. Pretend we are talking about your state government. Or an administration you generally approve of.

[Exile]

The OP reminds me of John McCain who says the Social Security system is broken. Yet he readily acknowledges receivng these benefits.

If it's true that McCain paid into Social Security, he is entitled to these funds. But since he is wealthy and feels so badly about accepting them, he "can just say no". According to "Mc Cain Collects Social Security, a person can in fact turn down Social Security benefits if he/she so chooses.

Then there's President Bush who wants to privatize Social Security. I wonder what he will do with his benefits, not to mention all the juicy retirement funds and perks from his terms in office in both the White House and the Texas governor's mansion--funded by the taxpayers of course.

And let's not forget the farmers, who comprise the "Republican "red" states and the rural areas of the "blue" states and who despite "freedom to farm " reforms a decade ago continure receiving subsides that can best be described as welfare. See Some Farmers Have Ultimate Cash Crop.

On a personal note, DW and I collect Social Security, and have no qualms about doing so, as we each paid into the system for over 35 years. In the matter of food stamps, I would have some hesitancy about accepting that kind of aid. But on the other hand, I have an ever greater reluctance against starving to death.

[cptacek]

Um, I was asking a philosophical question.

I am against wealthy people getting Social Security. I am against huge "farm" corporations and people who don't even farm getting huge government subsidies. I am against generational welfare. I've said that in previous posts. I really am fiscally consertative and feel betrayed by those in power who say they are as well yet vote to increase the government instead of reducing it.

However, I was asking because there are lots of programs out there for beginning farmers. Should we take advantage of them? There are programs to help move businesses and families out to rural areas. Should we take advantage of them? How about for "green initiatives" like helping you put solar cells on your house or getting a wind generator? How about if a large storm comes through and you are eligible for FEMA assistance? Where do you draw the line?

Should you "vote" with your pocketbook (or lack of application to the program) or should you vote with your vote and take advantage of programs you can?

[gamecock43]

I dont know enough about farming or those discounts to have a say in them. But from what I know of you, you farm, you work hard to make it work. You should take advantage of the assistance. Farming is a good thing. It's hard work. Not everyone can do it. or wants to do it. I would take advantage. But if you feel you dont need the assistance and the money could better benefit others that you WANT to get the money, then let them have it. Dont take it. Or give it to a charity. But I think you deserve it.

[sweeps]

You win some, you lose some. I won't turn down a tax deduction/rebate/subsidy even if I don't agree with it because the government's going to nail me with an tax or fee that I don't agree with later on.

[bjl584]

Personally, I wouldn't take it if I really didn't absolutely need it. In other words, I would only take it as a matter of life and death. I believe that our society is too socialized and that there is a dwindling sense of personal responsibility and self worth. If I accepted money that I didn't need or that I could get on my own, then I would be adding to the problem.

[noppenbd]

I agree with OP's friend. Practically speaking, turning down money that you qualify for is not going to effect any sort of change. If you want change you need to elect someone who agrees with you, or convince your elected representatives to agree with you.

[PrincessPerky]

well you asked for opinions so here are those of a lazy libertarian (me).

A. vote with your vote...call, email or write govt folk frequently.
B. don't make extra work for yourself trying to get the govt to keep money (IE that stimulus check, too much work to not get it!)
C. don't actively pester the govt for money unless you truly need it
D. take any and all tax breaks...that is your money they are giving back..so long as you don't get back more than you pay, take it.

Where that need line lies s up to you. I have qualified for WIC, food stamps and public health care, yet I have never taken advantage of them (in adult life),.

We did however take advantage of the govt whatever to buy a house with too small a down payment...not sure what part govt plays since we still have to pay the full price for the house...and if I could have I would have done it without them..but I couldn't and wouldn't wait longer. Student loans are another 'iffy' need.

As to farming..I would say try it without, if you must use the govt assistance...maybe go for the subsidized loans and the like.

[Terin]

Take the money. Nothing wrong with getting something that you can.

[moneybags]

Originally Posted by Exile

a person can in fact turn down Social Security benefits if he/she so chooses.

My FIL never collected social security. I'm not sure if it was a political choice or because he felt he didn't need it. I on the other hand, will take what I can get .

[gamecock43]

How do you not collect social security? I never thought about it, but assumed the checks will arrive in the mail starting on my 65th birthday.
*I am all for taking social security since I am paying for a social security fund every paycheck. It's like putting money in the bank for retirement.

[moneybags]

Originally Posted by gamecock43

How do you not collect social security? I never thought about it, but assumed the checks will arrive in the mail starting on my 65th birthday.

I believe you have to apply for it.

[maat55]

Originally Posted by cptacek

Yeah, I don't want to have "that" debate either. Pretend we are talking about your state government. Or an administration you generally approve of.

If you two decide to debate, i'm on your side. I won't aplly for anything. but I will better use anything they give me.

[FrugalTexan75]

Gamecock,

SS benefits won't start until around your 67 1/2 th birthday -- although probably by the time you or I qualify, that age will be higher. My dad, who was born on July 5, 1944 will not qualify for SS until January 5, 2011.

[gamecock43]

Yeah....I think I will start to look into SS in about 40 years, when it is a relevent subject to me.

BTW-OP- I learned that I do take govt. handouts without question. I thought the govt. was giving away free $7500 tax credits for 1st time home buyers and I was all ready to stand in line and sign up for that one. Of course I am not opposed to first time home buyer credits, but dont think it does much to help our national debt.
But the govt. is already a trillion dollars in debt, what would refusing $7500 do? Nothing. But it would help me alot.

[cptacek]

I think you guys are right. Vote with your vote, your email, your phone calls to your congressman, etc. Don't lie, cheat and steal to get your hands on government money that by rights you shouldn't get, but if you do qualify for it don't go screaming the other way!

Some of the things I am talking about is you can get "student loan rates" interest loans to buy land with if you can't get a bank to loan you the money. Also, they will help you put in water pipes to different parts of your pastures so you can water your cattle more effectively and manage the grass better. They will pay for half of it but they have to approve the plans and agree that it will improve the grazing. It's not like they are mailing us checks to the post office! I wish! We have two p.o. boxes

I guess I do want to have a little of "that" debate. Ted Kennedy (and many, many, many other rich democrats and republicans in power but I'm trying to prove a point here) also collects Social Security. So, which one is he:
A) Believes Social Security as it is is NOT broken?
B) A hypocrite like someone said McCain is?
I don't see any other options if you believe McCain is a hypocrite for cashing his (which I don't, but logically, that is the outcome if you do).