It depends on how you use your wealth.

Our founders exclaimed that the US constitution and Bill Of Rights would only work in a moral and Biblical Nation.

Wealth without personal responsibility and compassion for others is not sustainable.

Free enterprise is the American way. The socialists want what others have worked for so they don't have to work for anything.

The major part of the problem is spiritual. Our nation has adopted humanism, relativism, and every other ism to replace Christianity. Our leaders and people in high places do not seek God's guidance but do as they want without regard to consequences. Our downfall is prophetic and our lack of principals based on the ten commandments will be the demise of our country. Until we stop doing what is right in our own eyes, our nation will destroy itself from within.

In a free society, does any class have legal obligations? Moral and ethical, of course, but a free society encourages hard work, thrift and investment. Socialist economies all have the same anti-incentive, what reason is there to give any extra effort if you achieve the same results as the slackard?

I care exactly as much for the poor as they care about what my family has to do to cope under a tax burben used to support their do nothing life styles....which is to say, nothing.

"For everyone to whom much is given, of him shall much be required." -- Luke 12:48

Two things today:

Mr. Alexander, you are so right-on concerning the conservative message being lost within the wealth-related rhetoric thrown toward Republican candidates and conservatives in general. But I suspect many conservatives and independents are now wise to that rhetorical shiboleth.

The second thing I would like to mention is your timely, oh so timely use of metaphor: " Obama's classist rhetoric on economic disparity has been very effective, and will be central to his political strategy in the upcoming general election. Like a cruise ship captain who detours from the authorized course, Obama's detour from the course of Liberty and free enterprise authorized by our Constitution, with the help of Leftists and Republicrats in Congress, will sink our ship."

Let us all begin righting this ship of state and let us not become the SS Costa Concordia!

The problem with wealthy politicians is that they can essentially buy an office. Clearly we have seen how many good candidates have to suspend campaigns because they have run out of money. The fact that some of these same candidates may resort to obtaining money with promises to the big money donations for promises that are usualy not about the people's business but some shady payback deal or advancement of some lobbyist group agenda. E.G. SEIU. Romeny spent a large amount of his own money in 2008, yet McCain let his 22 million war chest intact when he gave the election to his "good man" opponent Mr. Obama. Money talks and priciples walk and it is time we consider term limits. It is a fact he that can afford the most ads has the edge.

Accumulation of wealth is not wrong when those whom God has so blessed understand the eternal accountability (like it or not - believe it or not - is absolutely irrelevant) attached to that blessing. Example of wealthy Texas family leader who decided to reverse tithe - 90% to God's work and he kept 10% for his family comes to mind. He became reknown for having a "Midas Touch". Virtually everything he invested in made money like crazy. He knew he could never out-give God. Without this fundamental rock-solid understanding, great wealth becomes the camel that will not fit through the eye of a needle. Great wealth panders to our basest insecurities or exposes the image of our Creator in out lives.

When you watch the full length 28-minute You Tube video about how Romney destroyed the fortunes of others through his efforts at Bain, you see a heartless candidate who should not take the nomination of the party of compassionate conservatism. With Perry out of the race now, my vote goes to Iowa primary winner Rick Santorum for President this November!

Free enterprise, and liberty in general, is not the highest good; rather, it arises out of these Truths we hold to be self-evident, that men "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights", the same one who gives and asks much of us.

"Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure than they have it now, They may change their Rulers and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty. They will only exchange Tyrants and Tyrannies."

-John Adams

The uncompassionate use of accumulated wealth is a wrong that the rich need to address on their own consciences, definitely a biblical mandate. But the forcing of the rich to it's use is also as bad or worse since it is a usurping of the very authority of God over our lives, not to say the start of a slow death to any nation the tries to enact those controls.

Those with wealth, whether a large amount or only a bit more than 'average' have a moral obligation to those who are less fortunate. It's strange though that most conservatives contribute far more to charities of one kind or the other than wealthy liberals who believe that it's government's obligation to care or everyone.

The individual is much better able to see who really needs help than the government who wants to give to everyone no matter why they might be in need. If someone is "less fortunate" because they're drunk, drugged, too lazy to work, or any similar excuse, well too bad.

Who defines what amounts to wealth? Am I wealthy simply because I have some savings, planned for my retirement, and am currently able to pay my bills? There are those who would claim that since my house is paid for that I am wealthy and should do more for those less fortunate. Then, there are those who might be fortunate enough to make one million dollars a year. Are they wealthy?

I refuse to apologize for planning but I do not see it as my responsibility to care for those who do not. The definition of wealth seems to be a moving target and that those who I consider to be wealthy might not consider themselves to be so. The desire to share wealth should be a personal decision and not something mandated by some liberal bureaucrat.

The scriptures are very clear on the subject of the wealthy. Those who have two coats should give one to the man who has none. Likewise food must be shared. Jesus said "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into Heaven". What Jesus was trying to tell us is that we come into this world with nothing and can take nothing when we leave, so use what you have in life to help others.

The aggregation of wealth has nothing to do with morality. The way it is aggregated and the way it is used once aggregated have everything to do with morality.

The founding fathers knew that our liberty was underpinned by nothing less than a moral and virtuous citizenry. There are no moral "obligations", people either are or are not moral; it is a choice. Once it is imposed by other men, liberty is gone.

Historically and today, we see the great economic leaders pursue their business until they have completely won. Their next step is always philanthropy. The Carnegies, Fords, Vanderbilts and all of the alleged "robber barons" all followed that path. Today we see the same behavior in Bill Gates and Warren Buffet.

Unhappily, in the absence of Christianity, they turn to socialism for their moral compass.

The key point is that our liberty and free will are gifts from God. Once the public can be turned away from God and lose understanding of the value of those gifts, they no longer are more precious than the gifts of man. They will seek tyranny in exchange for security, and that is what we are seeing.

We see in the Bible that God does not always reward the virtuous and moral people with ease and wealth; sometimes He heaps travail upon the most virtuous. As long as they retain their believe in Him, they cannot be corrupted by any hardship or any temptation.

Unless we have another great awakening, tyranny is our destination. And that is why the socialists and budding tyrants all seek to destroy faith in God above all of their other efforts.

Best regards,

Gail S

http://www.backyardfence.wordpress.com

I can say that Romney gives more to charity than the average person. As a Member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints he gives 10% of his income in Tithes alone. I live in Salt Lake City I was here when Romney was Hired to fix what was going so terribly wrong with the Olympics he turned things around and staged the most successful winter Olympics the State of Utah came out far better than it was and would have been had it not been for his leadership. He can do the same thing for our country.

Jesus would say to give it to the needy.

There are "tests" for each person in wealth or poverty.

In poverty, one may fail the test by coveting that which others have, considering it to be unscrupulously earned and seeking to expropriate it to themselves, by whatever means.

One may pass the test by striving for improvement in their circumstances and expressing gratitude and appreciation for any assistance given them, by others.

_________

In wealth, one may fail by ignoring the poor, judging that all have brought it upon themselves, giving no concern to their well-being and by providing little, or no, charitable assistance to them. They may even "grind" their wealth in the faces of the poor.

One may pass the test by expressing gratitude for their own economic success and those who have made it so, including customers; by providing a generous portion of charity in ways that strengthen and build the recipient in the future; and by mentoring and showing compassion for their fellow men.

If someone is sufficiently intelligent, ambitious, and hard working to accumulate wealth more power to them. If someone accumulates wealth through thievery, conniving, and skullduggery, like George Soros and John Corzine have done they need to be consigned to the lowest levels of Hell stoking the furnaces for perpetuity.

Who defines what amounts to wealth? Am I wealthy simply because I have some savings, planned for my retirement, and am currently able to pay my bills? There are those who would claim that since my house is paid for that I am wealthy and should do more for those less fortunate. Then, there are those who might be fortunate enough to make one million dollars a year. Are they wealthy?

I refuse to apologize for planning but I do not see it as my responsibility to care for those who do not. The definition of wealth seems to be a moving target and that those who I consider to be wealthy might not consider themselves to be so. The desire to share wealth should be a personal decision and not something mandated by some liberal bureaucrat.

I believe that the veiwing or reading of 1984 Novel by George Orwell should be required by all of Congress and Senate and House of representives. This story will be the story of this nation if "We The People" don't wake up! This story is dark and gloomy and the people are hopeless and godless! The rich will not be rich for long IF those in power keep passing bills that take away the rights of the citizens, they will be next. GOD save this nation from the godless left and the gutless right!

Why was this not an issue when (as Bill O'Reilly said) the Kennedys and other former "rich" candidates were elected?

Obligations of those with wealth do not really differ from the obligations of every other adult.

1. It should be obtained honestly and fairly.

2. The government should treat the earnings and possessions of a wealthy person in the same way, at the same rate, as the earnings and possessions of every other person.

3. They should recognize their obligations to others, as we all should, regardless of monetary wealth.

Excellent article!

The obligations that come with wealth are

1 invest wisely

2 live within your means, whatever they are

3 give to YOUR choice of charities

4 dont ever become a "welfare case"

The narrative of the good Samaritan teaches us, as an individual,to be aware of those around us that are in need, and to assist those in need as we are able. He not only took care of the immediate needs of the individual, but also provided financial resources so the individual could continue on his journey. So the assistance we provide is to remedy a current need so the individual may continue his life. It is not assistance that encourages the individual to remain in a needy situation and become dependent on others to sustain his life. Hope that is helpful RADDAD

The problem with Socialism is Socialism - as Maggie Thatcher pointed out, "You always run out of other people's money". The problem with Capitalism has always been Capitalists, implying that Capitalists have moral obligations by virtue of their wealth. It even says so in the Bible in LUKE 12:48 "....For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more." It's not a sin to have wealth, but all wealth is a gift from God and we would do well to cultivate virtue so that we give a good account of our stewardship when we stand before God.

The aggregation of wealth by itself no. The way some individuals with wealth abuse the power their wealth gives them while they hide behind legal fictions, definitely yes. Wealth without religious standards of what is right (and not the Calvinist type morality that whatever those with the wealth want to do is right) is no less pernicious than the socialists.

Wow,

Who would have thought this coming from The Patriot.

There are many opinions across the idealogocal spectrum about value provided to the public by individual capitalist projects.

Mark draws his moral line here.

Having used payday lenders ib the past. I know, they were there when the local B of A was not anxious to see me thru till Tuesday and the hamburger was needed NOW.

The difference between Mark and the hamster in this intense seems a matter of degree.

From the temporal perspective of existing on this earth as a human being with certain abilities that allow you to acquire wealth above the abilities of your fellow human beings; there is no inherent moral obligation to do anything to serve the greater good with your acquired wealth. YET as a CHRISTIAN business person with those same abilities there is a completely different set of obligations that rest on our shoulders, and as you already know the motivation for doing good with your personal gifts and or the things or wealth you have acquired using those gifts, is to serve GOD and your fellow man.

Should the gifted CHRISTIAN choose not to be generous with their abilities and wealth then,(as you already know), GOD will hold them accountable.

In this life no amount of legal or political or social pressure,(read PC guilt),will ever correct the ills we all struggle with in this life.

Either to GOD be the glory or if it is "To intelligent humans and government be the glory"; then GOD help us all !!

Anyone who is a Christian (in the true sense)has a spiritual obligation to share with the truly needy. For anyone who is not a Christian, they would have an ethical responsibility to assist the needy whenever they can. However, there is no place in Scripture that relegates provision for the needy to the government.

Stewardship, Gratitude, Responsibility and Sharing to name several.

I am afraid you have fallen into the democrats/liberals/MSM game plan. Focusing on an issue that is Not central to why romney Should Not be our president. Just take a look at his previous stance on important conservative issues, that he now has had a "change of heart" on. He is a dishonest man who will say and do whatever it takes to get what he wants. Why is what is so clear, so hard for supposed liberty loving, God loving Americans to see??

“The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat", 2 Thess 3:10

There are multiple moral obligations related to those who acquire wealth. The Gospel of Wealth put forth by Carnegie is a good start. Wealth is power and anyone with power has a general obligation to use that power in ways that promote good for community. Pay day loans I believe is an example of a legal, but immoral business that ought to be more tightly related by governments, perferable at the state level. Good discussion...thanks.

Probably the most important (& most often forgotten in today's society) is that there are people who made that fortune for you. I am talking about the employees that in a forgotten era were treated like family & assets to the company, consequently some of that wealth was shared to improve the lot of those who worked for you. Today, however, the employees have been relegated to the level of liabilities that need to be 'trimmed' as often as possible to maximize company (owner) profit. In addition, it is inherent upon those who have to help those who lack & have no means to work to acquire sufficient for their needs. Granted, I am not talking of passing one's wealth entirely to others, but a relative share should be considered.

The problem with wealth distribution started in the early 70's when Unions and Business realized they couldn't sustain the increasing payroll of their employees and decreed that from that time on all new employees would start at a significantly lower pay rate. In doing so the emphasis of the employers earnings went instead to share holders and the top eschelon management and for the past 42 years this has not changed and therefore they have eliminated the middle class. What is the middleclass in todays society, too live with the dream of owning a car, buying a house and sending your kids too college hovers around 80 to 100 grand a year. Do all eletist think that a person can live on 12 dollars and hour, the answer is yes. The second thing that was done was dumb down the specialist. At one time we had electrician, plumbers, welders etc, now to get hired you have to know all these trades or your chances of getting an 18 dollar an hour job is impossible. I lived through these years and am telling you this because I was there the whole ride.

Romney's 15% tax rate ( and Warren Buffet's as well) are lower than the rate on earned income, because they do not recieve earned income.

Guess who else has no earned income and pays at the same low rate on Capital gains as Romney and Buffet -- The vast majority of RETIRED PEOPLE.

Retired people are not criminals or greedy because they pay a lower rate on investment income. That is the investment of their lifes work - which has already been taxed once when they earned it as a paycheck -- And will be taxed again when they die because liberal, progressive greedy bastards want to suck the blood out of anybody that works and contributes.

Now I do have a problem with some of the portfolio managers that are allowed to invest other peoples money and then take thier payment in the form of capital gains - paying low rates claiming no "earned" income. I'd be willing to bet that they would say that they "earned" the money by directing wise investments, so they should be taxed at the "earned income" rate like the rest of us.

Also. I think that rate should be a flat/fair tax of about 20%.

Rich or Poor: Be a good and responsible citizen.

The aggregation of wealth without a basis in honor and integrity ... an updated and enlightened free market noblesse oblige ... is self-destructive. We see GE and other corporations, and the super wealthy willing to sell out the Nation that shaped and sustains the conditions permitting their prosperity in order to enhance their bottom lines. See Jeffery Immelt and George Soros.

There are Patriot CEOs out there but they, for unfathomable reasons, remain mute on these historic happenings.

What obligations are associated with wealth (i.e., free market capitalism)? Always honor your word and respect the rights and property of others. Beyond that, it’s between you and your Maker.

I think Romney is a Good Man, however, he is once again showing us his weakness with his stumbling and hedging in his answer that he might, or probably, will submit his tax returns by April. In my opinion, that is just another one of his "political dances". Again, he is showing us he doesn't have the strength to get our country back on track.

Dear Mr. Alexander,

In regards to your friend who has amasses a fortune in payday loans, his only secular obligation is to honor the contracts that he has with his clients.

You are only looking at his business in one dimension. Yes, the interest rates are astronomical, if you only look at the raw math. However, consider the risk that he is taking.

Your friend's clientele is not exactly the epitome of solid credit. Lending to his clients entails a great amount of risk. There is a good chance that your friend may loan money to someone,and never see it again. The interest that he charges is his reward for assuming that risk.

Is the interest rate high? Yes. However, you must consider the basic structure of the loans. A $100.00 payday loan will cost the borrower roughly $25.00 to $30.00 in interest. The loan will be payed back over a 30 day period usually. If you run those figures with a calculator, of course the the interest rate would seem large. However, we are looking at a short term loan to a high risk clientele. To give you an idea, $100.00 borrowed over 12 months would pay him only $3.00 at a 6.0% interest rate. If he charged those types of interest rates, he would not stay in business very long.

Now let us say that your friend goes out of business because the state legislature wants to help the poor. They are shocked that greedy people like your friend are profiting off of poor people! So the state shuts him down. However, the market for a short term loan is still there. The clientele cannot go to a bank, because of credit issues. So they go to scary looking guys who charge a lot more interest as well as points on the loan. If the client defaults, it will not go on his credit report, but the hospitol bills for the broken leg will.

What your friend does with his profits is between himself and God. However, before you chastise his business, consider all of the alternatives if he was not able to provide that service.

Sincerely,

John Conner

Mark Alexander:

"I asserted that one of his partners, who amassed a great fortune from "payday loans," a particularly egregious form of usury akin to loan sharking but targeting mostly those with low income, had ethical and moral obligations associated with his wealth."

Bill R:

"The issue with your payday loan friend is not his conscience but the conscience of a legislative body that allowed those type loans. PS it is not any of your or anyone else's business what he choses to do with his legal earnings."

The problem is that some people just are not future-oriented enough to make their money last from one payday to the next. The need won't go away. Without the visible payday loan stores, they'll just go to the loan sharks.

Wealth that comes from hard work and being successful in enterprise is a blessing and should be encouraged. With it comes the need to use it in ways to make society and the culture a better place. Accumulating wealth and the power that comes with it has the potential to do great damage to the recepient and the environment around those that use power without compassion.

Obligation to the poor is to educate and uplift. No one should be pushed up a hill that does not want to go. However by showing that improving their lives and offering help to educate and uplift the HILL will seem like a goal they can and will reach. Modern education has forgotten that everyone DOES NOT learn the same way. No one is unteachable except our school system it seems. We are all not book learners,doctors,lawyers. Many really great citizens land in jail because they are our children with dyslexia, Adhd,etc. When will we learn to allow them to learn the way their brains are wired ??? Maybe it is because someone would have to admit the mistakes we keep making in education !!

What is it you want to know about the underneath meaning of the Book of Mormon? I will answer all your queries. If I can't answer it I will contact my church headquarters and get the answer for you.

Historically, however, it is the voluntary Christian context for wealth that is most compatible with Liberty. Long before the tyranny of statist Marxism emerged, a far superior framework for the ethical and moral obligations connected to wealth was outlined in the Gospel according to Luke, "From everyone who has been given much, much will be expected; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked."

It is that context to which Romney subscribes, with the subscript of the Book of Mormon. That he should make plain and do it now.

I have no doubt, even for a moment, that those of us with means have a moral obligation to provide assistance for the poor. Not only Christianity, but many religious traditions encourage philanthopy. It is the job of those moral leaders of these institutions to teach the moral imperative of helping those who are in need.

However, it is not, nor has it ever been, the proper role of government to provide that assistance. The governement's proper role is to protect individual freedom and individual property rights. Once those are secure, it is the responsibility of the individual to help those around him in need and to provide sufficiently for himself that no one else needs to provide for him.

When circumstances force someone to accept charity, then he should make every effort to regain his independence from that need as quickly as possible and then when he is financially stable to remember that there are others who now may need his support as he once needed such aid.

What obligations are associated with wealth? The obligation to take care of yourself and your family. Period. Whether you CHOOSE to give money to those less fortunate is no one's business but your own. You worked for the money and it should be no one else's business what you do with it.

Above all, THE REALIZATION that God owns it all, and every human being is a little trustee on whatever God allows her/him to have in thsi world.

With that, one can easily and surely assume that the person will then SEEK TO DISCERN God's will and purpose for their lives on this earth and ACT AS HE/SHE MAY BE LED to bring glory and nhonor to God's Holy name. HE will still own it and control it long after we are all gone.

There are no obligations, only opinions. Obey the law and follow your heart. Hopefully the wealthy will contribute to charity and to their faith. Yet I would hope that for all income levels.

Mack

From the 10/29 Essay.

Of course, a well-kept secret is that there are plenty of rich on the Left, and because of the seductive nature of wealth and its influence on those who hold it, I believe they have wealthy conservatives badly outnumbered. Inheritance welfare liberalism, like welfare liberalism and dependence upon the state, has produced generations of Useful Idiots. In terms of their foundational character, liberals who are dependent on inherited wealth and welfare recipients who are dependent on the state for their sustenance never embraced self-reliance as the essential ingredient of a free society.

As a welfare recipient, I must take exception with the last part of this statement from your 10/29 essay. I am on welfare because of the failure of my business, due in part to government intrusion and my failure to react in time to avoid it. I begain working at the age of 10, and other than my time in the service I was never without a job and I worked hard all my life. I am a faithful reader of "The Patriot Post" and believe in it, and your commttment to Essential Liberty. I am a 79 year old Korean War Vet, a Ronald Reagan Conservative, live on Social Security only, my medical needs are provided by the VA, get assistance for my phone and heating bills, so I really one of the "welfare recipients" and I wish I were not. Even though I am receiving all of the above, I am still a staunch supporter of our Constitution and want Obama out. He is ruining our Country.

I believe there are many more welfare recipients like me than you think there are.

Thank You,

Philip Nielsen

p-niel@att.net

Mitt Romney, as a full tithe payer to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, donates at least 10% of his "increase" to the Church. In his case, that amounts to millions of dollars. Since the LDS Church has no paid ministry, all of that money then goes to building churches and temples around the world, to feeding, clothing and housing the poor,disaster relief around the world, and much of it is given by the Church to other charitable organizations such as the United Way, Salvation Army and others. His hesitancy to disclose his tax return is most likely a result of not wanting to put on display his generosity, as would a Pharicee.

1 Corinthians 13:4 "Charity is the true light of Christ. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

"Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up".

"I care exactly as much for the poor as they care about what my family has to do to cope under a tax burden used to support their do nothing life styles....which is to say, nothing." Texas Cookie.

HEAR HEAR TEXAS COOKIE! RIGHT ON!

Instead of talking about rich Republicans and furthering a leftist talking point why not talk about the overwhelming support of wall street banks and companies for Democrats and Obama. People think these huge organization contribute only to Republicans but the majority have supported and still support Democrats. The whole truth would be nice for a change and yes any business person Republican or Democrat should follow ethical behavior. Maybe you should investigate Democrat business owners while your at it.The whole rich versus poor mantra by Obama and Democrats shows clearly the only way they can get support is by trying to divide Americans along economic lines. Appealing to envy is un-American and is used consistently by despots and dictators to gain power. Chauvez is the perfect example of this.

I agree to most of what you have stated in this dialogue on wealth; however, the major area that you did not prey upon was 'how do those who have wealth use that wealth to the betterment of their fellow man.' Romney does not need to disclose his income tax record (unless it shows some degree of error on his part) nor does he need to disclose his donations to the Church. Instead, he should be willing to display how he has used his wealth for the betterment of mankind. An example of such is Jon Huntsman. Although he makes a tremendous amount of income from his various holdings, he at least has used a substantial amount of wealth to build & finance cancer research centers. These are most obvious as you look around the country where they bear his name identifying him as the principle investor. While I agree that this type of self promotion can be improper, I don't believe it to be the case in all such men. Romney needs to show how he as used his wealth (preferable without seeking recognition) to better the lot of others.

This was really refreshing to read and I passed it on to my leftwing liberal brother. I doubt he will enjoy it as much as I.

What a good balanced article. Thank you.

I have been critical of a number of essays in the Patriot Post that rather blatently stated that Rebublican Conservatives are right, everyone else is wrong. Moreover, if one is an American Patriot, s/he must be a Rebublican.

As an Independent, I always took exception to that. Moreover, I always took exception to the lack of true ethics and morality in the money game.

It is very good to see that not all rich, Rebublican Conseratives are ethical and moral.

Well done, Alexander.

Is the aggregation of wealth a threat to Liberty? Absolutely not. In fact, the more accumulation of wealth – corrupting political influence aside – the better it is for everyone’s standard of living and liberty. “A rising tide lifts all boats.”

When I watch Romney during the debates I find that his method of speaking is halting. He is not a polished public speaker. Second, If the information about Bain & company giving so much to the Democrats then one could question his real agenda. For example, I would think he could describe what Bain did when he ran it, how and why an investment was made. On all these questioned subjects he seems unable to clearly defend himself. Now a new charge has surfaced with regard to the Caymen Islands. It would seem to me that he could at least say the accounts are Family asset protection Trusts set up to protect the assets from predatory Attorney's lawsuits. Also, he might mention that the Kennedy's all have similar trust as well a many other wealthy Democratic families.

"As a welfare recipient, I must take exception with the last part of this statement from your 10/29 essay. I am on welfare because of the failure of my business, due in part to government intrusion and my failure to react in time to avoid it" Phillip Nielson.

I am so sorry to hear of your plight Phillip. You personify what i firmly believe. We wouldn't have so much need for welfare etc. if the gov't would just go back to its true Constitutional purpose and leave individuals and businesses to run themselves as they see fit and also stop taxing us to death. We could have more wealth in this country than anyone could imagine if the gov't would just get the heck out of the way! The gov't is like a giant leach, sitting over the country, slowly sucking the life out of it.

"I hope enough Independents are prepared to vote against Obama, regardless of who is on the Republican ticket."

This is a poor goal and one I feel destined to fail. Voting for someone who is less bad is still voting for bad. One either lives by their oath to, "support and defend", or they are guilty of treason. This is why I will have to think heavily on voting for anyone but Obama vs. voting for a sound Constitutional canidate.

Under the US constitution we all have the right to pursue wealth and do what we wish with it. For the Christian we have the Biblical mandate to share our good fortune with those we have need. It is unfortunate that some nonChristians find it easier to share their wealth with the poor and needy than some Christians. Statistics indicate that a very small percentage of people, including Christians give unselfishly.

I believe they have the obligation to contribute to worthy charities; to help those who are trying to help themselves, but are in need; and to live without an egregious display of ostentation.

It does not sit well when they bequeath millions to their dog or cat.

Yes those who can afford to support the republic owe it to their nation to do so. I can think of no better example of this than the current matching offer to repair the Washington Monument: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20120119/D9SBPE401.html

If there is any problem with rich Republicans then there is also a problem with rich Democrats because both groups exist and operate within the bounds of our capitalist system.

Yes, even the Hollywood elites. So much criticism has been levied upon Wall Street fatcats. But if they are fat, then the Hollywood crowd is absolutely obese. Ditto, with sports elites. Those two groups make Wall Streeters look like pikers.

I think we all should realize that much of this classist envy is being generated by the unholy collusion between politicos and the main stream press. And they're doing it to make us suspicious and jealous of each other, in order to destroy societal unity. Politicos fear societal unity. How do we know this? Just look at their methods. Look at who gets demonized and who doesn't. Hollywood works hard and earns their millions while certified financial planners and other financial experts don't work hard enough to earn their hundreds of thousands. Sports stars work hard enough to earn their millions but the doctors' hundreds of thousands is too much money.

The difference is that we worship Hollywood and Sports elites while we only need investment professionals and doctors. We have a sick society.

I don't believe there is shame in accumulating wealth within the framework of the law and accepted business ethics. I believe it is a Constitutional right. Most charity and civil culture in the United States is funded by donations of the wealthy. We all have the right to spend our money as we determine best.

I am so tired of the demonization of payday loans. Most often, these are made to people who simply have a short-term crisis and need $50 or to tide them over. Taking a one-time fee and extending it over the course of a year to arrive at an outrageous percentage rate is disingenuous. To the borrower, 10 bucks is a small price to pay for enough money to keep food on the table for the weekend.

Obligation of wealth Builders is to continuously invest the accumulated wealth in new start ups in basic manufacturing jobs that will, in effect, provide semi-skill entry level jobs, as well as knowledge based jobs with the intent that...

""True" Capitalism, as practiced by our forefathers, works by inducing people to satisfy the needs of others in imaginative ways. The "true" capitalist succeeds to the extent that other people succeed and to the extent that he responds imaginatively to the needs of others. In other words, not self-interest but Altruism is the crux of the "true" capitalist's triumph. This does not mean that every capitalist is altruistic or generous, but it does mean that the system can succeed (be sustainable) only to the extent that producers respond imaginatively to the needs of others. In turn, "true" capitalism succeeds to the extent that it grants, to those people who have shown the ability to forgo immediate gratification in order to pursue long-term goals, the resources to continue the process.

In other words when the 1% focuses on providing a local environment that provides 99% an opportunity

then we have no "guilt" around those who will not take/grasp their opportunity and their words will fall on deaf ear.

Mark, thank you so much for your very accurate appraisal of the responsibilities of liberty and wealth. A republic is the very best form of government because it holds that the rights of the individual are supreme SO LONG AS those rights do not tread on anyone else's supreme rights.

Further, and I teach my children this continually, a republican form of government calls forth the highest possible character, integrity and virtue from the individual. It does so by requiring of the individual, in order to succeed completely, to give of themselves with diligence to the endeavor(s) of their choice while simultaneously taking care to preserve (or at least not usurp) those precious rights of fellow human beings. This is the embodiment of more than one Biblical admonition: "Look not every man on his own things, but every man ALSO on the things of others." Philippians 2:4, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Matthew 7;12, Luke 6:31

Mark, I agree with most of what you said, but I'm interested in your criticism of your friend's "payday loan" business. A high interest rate isn't inherently "usurious" -- it depends on how it is related to the lender's costs of doing business and whether the borrowers are coerced or misled. I'm not saying he doesn't have ethical or moral responsibilities associated with his wealth --but you imply moral disapproval of a business that may provide customers with their only opportunity to get needed funds.

I think alot has to do with common sense beliefs that don't complain about another's wealth and pull, earn this for yourself. But this doesn't compute for Democrats, they only want to redistribute, the earnings of others. But what I do resent is this President and First Lady abusing their power and the peoples' and the taxpayers funds being squandered on lavish vacations, misuse of military aircraft, too many employees for First Lady, etc. In this time of severe austerity,this in your face extravagance andit it is almost obscene. I appreciate and salute the Patriot Post for allowing our comments and realize how fortunate we are living in country where we have the freedom of speech, which by the way is being tampered with by this administration and it no longer guaranteed. It has been said many times, this is the most important election of our lives. Please America, I plead with you--get it right this time. Our Candidate may not be perfect but he isn't this mysterious President who has everyone investigated but his own past is sealed. Enough said.

I think the danger comes in when you start attempting to define "moral obligation." I feel no moral obligation to help someone simply because I have more than they do and they exist. If I CHOSE to do so, I must be free to do it how I chose, with what conditions I chose. If I give to the Salvation Army or Catholic Charities, I cannot be told that isn't acceptable because they have policies regarding gays, abortion, whatever. If the successful have an obligation to help the less-successful, then beggars have an obligation not to be choosers. They must take what's offerend and accept all conditions attached without argument and remember it's charity, not something to which they're automaticaly entitled by virtue of existing regardless of how they behave. If I accept a loan, I am required to pay it back on the lender's terms. If I don't like it, I am free not to take their money. If someone is given a handout, they're obliged to agree to the giver's terms, or not expect to be given anything.

Likewise, I really am uncomfortable with the idea of someone ever being OBLIGATED to give away what they've legally earned. It's not my place to tell someone what they can do with their property. It's a short step from that to being told "You have to buy a hybrid/electric, it's immoral to not think of future generations." "You cannot breed your animal or keep it intact, it's *immoral* to possibly create unwanted animals that might end up in a shelter." I don't really like bringing "moral" into questions that should be "legal".

I also believe that the more the government taxes to take away that choice of how charity is distributed, the more those being taxed are entitled not to give elsewhere. People who attempt to use "A Christmas Carol" against conservatives miss what Scrooge says to the private charitable collectors: "Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses? My taxes go to pay for those, the poor and destitute must go there." Scrooge is the natural end result of forced charity--he IS taxed, there ARE services offered he's already paid for. Scrooge is only able to help when he participates in free-market self-determined charity of his own choosing.

Please don't forget the historical fact that a large percentage of the wealth created in the United States was due to the labors of black slaves.

I am afraid that Romney is no choice at all. This seems remarkably like the last election in which the media endorsed a rhino to run against the "obamanation". Unsurprisingly, Obama won. Here we go again. We have a choice here between a man, who thinks he is the messiah and one, who thinks he is going to be a god. I do not find that to be a choice at all. Here is a man, who has destroyed the nation, versus one who has only destroyed a state. Again, I see no choice. Here is a man, who supports the democrats and here is another. No choice. If either gets elected, it is time to find another country. I say this as a vet, who served, but who can no longer identify with a nation that has abandoned our constitution and the God who made us great.

We take a look at two people who live among us in this world who have great wealth.

1st we have William (Bill) Gates

2nd we have George Soros

One uses their wealth for the purpose of building a stronger America and the other uses his wealth to inhibit, derail and destroy the American way of life.

Both have the freedom in this country to do what they please with their wealth.

Romney's wealth has created a similar attitutde in him as we find in the entertainment wealthy. An unaddressed sense of guilt that he is so much better off than others that wealth must be sjhared. He, an "the entertainers" can share without hurting themselves. and feel good about themselves.

Noe of this makes him qualified to be ot not to be a candidate. He shouold get rid of his guit.

His business experience as good. His reaction to it is not.

Mr. Romney is an active member of a church which understands and obeys the law of tithing as stated in old and new testaments. It is also stated in the Book of Mormon and other canons unique to the LDS Church. In addition to tithing active LDS members make contributions to local funds for the poor and disadvantaged, education funds, and substantial funds which provide relief service in the USA and abroad - all at no charge to the recipients.

The reason Mr. Romney's charitable donations are not public knowledge is that LDS church members follow the counsel of the Savior who said "let thy left hand knoweth not what thy right hand doeth".

If Mr. Romney'w income is millions you can be sure that his tithing and other offerings are also in the millions.

More a question than a comment.

If left unchecked, what is the difference in the eventual outcome of socialism/marxism vs. capitalism? In the end, both would result in power and wealth accumulated in the hands of a very few elite with everyone else in poverty or just above poverty. The difference there being those just above poverty are the ones with jobs and those in poverty are the ones without jobs. What am I missing here?

More detail:

Under socialism/marxism, the government owns the resources and production, and redistributes based on its perception of what are the peoples needs. The elite are the top government officials and those closely connected with them (bankers and key business people). They will have and control everything while the rest have nothing or very little...

Under capitalism, resources and production are privately owned. But through competition, mergers and consolidation (forced and unforced), everything is eventually owned by a very small number of huge multi-nationals all of which collude to force costs down. Barring the moral/ethical arguments for the moment, people and labor are costs. The elite are those controlling the multi-national corporations and those closely connected with them (bankers and key politicians). They will have and control everything while the rest have nothing or very little...

Thanks.

Don't generalize. Rich people are people, and people are infinitely varied. And don't lecture anyone until you have walked in their moccasins.

Romney absolutely must use your script as a template with which to frame his counter points when the accusations from the left become their mantra. Sadly, far too many sheep believe what the liberal talking heads and the mainstream media have to say about class warfare and it is, in my opinion, a big reason why conservatives are and have been losing to the socialist movement in this country for far too long.

I have no problem with payday loans. I'm guessing that the lender takes a fairly large risk due to default on the loan. If there wasn't a high interest rate no one would take the risk of giving the loan. The people who take out the loan aren't forced into the deal and I assume mafia style enforcement isn't used to collect on over due payments. Maybe I'm missing something. What's wrong with this. Would the people who take out the loans rather have no possible loan available because the risk is too high for a small return for the lender?

I suggest that Romney frame the discussion around what he has done (contributed), not what he hasn't done. And this should focus on real numbers, not percentages. In addition to the substantial amount he has given to his church, he doubtlessly has supported other humanitarian efforts. Dollar amounts (rounded?) should be expressed.

Another point is that capital gains revenue flows from previous earnings that have already been taxed and subsequently invested, not earned income.

Amazing essay Mark. Amazing in that you sound a bit bigoted, non Conservative, and and not so American.

Why the Mormon comment regarding Mitt Romney, and reference to the Book of Mormon. He believes in the Bible too, just as you do. Have you read the Book of Mormon Mark. You might be surprised how "American" and "Christian" its teachings are.

A true conservative doesn't require a religious litmus test Mark, just like the founding fathers and the constitution doean't. Why are you? Or is that your religious bias coming into play? It has to be your religion the way you see it?

And to belittle capitalism. Wow!! That surprised me. As long as the guy is following the rule of law, where's the complaint? People who use his services are free to choose, aren't they?

And, lastly....Christians are true Christians when they want to share their wealth, not when they're forced to.

In one sense I am writing out a theoretical construct because I have not amassed millions and I pretty much depend on my daily labor to sustain my family. I am not destitute but I remain afloat by the grace of God. I am rich in untangibles though. I give financially what I can. I give of my time and my talents to my church and my community and share the light and knowledge that God has given me. My objective is to make the world a better place and help as many as I can live an abundant life. It is not only my objective but it is my sacred, God given duty. I don't see that changing in any respect if I should find myself in a position of greater wealth than I have now. My responsibility to serve and to bless others would only be greater. The minute I withold from others and hoard my gains is the minute I shut the door of opportunity in the most important direction there is.

Wealth is like guns; it all depends upon how it is used. God is the judge!

One more thing Mark. I bet Romney has given far more money than you ever thought about giving to charity, as well as physically volunteering to help people. How about you giving us your tax returns and charitable donation amounts?

The other candidates need to support capitalism and each others good ideas and attack the Euro-Socialist Administration. Also, they need to propose specific programs to get us out of the mess we are in.

Since the Book of Mormon was cited, I thought I would add a section from the book on wealth, provided by Mormon prophet Jacob around 500 B.C. in the Americas:

Book of Mormon http://lds.org/scriptures/bofm/jacob/2?lang=eng

Jacob 2:12 And now behold, my brethren, this is the word which I declare unto you, that many of you have begun to search for gold, and for silver, and for all manner of precious aores, in the which this land, which is a bland of promise unto you and to your seed, doth abound most plentifully.

13 And the hand of providence hath smiled upon you most pleasingly, that you have obtained many riches; and because some of you have obtained more abundantly than that of your brethren ye are alifted up in the pride of your hearts, and wear stiff necks and high heads because of the costliness of your apparel, and persecute your brethren because ye suppose that ye are better than they.

14 And now, my brethren, do ye suppose that God justifieth you in this thing? Behold, I say unto you, Nay. But he condemneth you, and if ye persist in these things his judgments must speedily come unto you.

15 O that he would show you that he can pierce you, and with one glance of his aeye he can smite you to the dust!

16 O that he would rid you from this iniquity and abomination. And, O that ye would listen unto the word of his commands, and let not this apride of your hearts destroy your souls!

17 Think of your abrethren like unto yourselves, and be familiar with all and free with your bsubstance, that cthey may be rich like unto you.

18 But abefore ye seek for briches, seek ye for the ckingdom of God.

19 And after ye have obtained a hope in Christ ye shall obtain riches, if ye seek them; and ye will seek them for the intent to ado good—to clothe the naked, and to feed the hungry, and to liberate the captive, and administer relief to the sick and the afflicted.

20 And now, my brethren, I have spoken unto you concerning pride; and those of you which have afflicted your neighbor, and persecuted him because ye were proud in your hearts, of the things which God hath given you, what say ye of it?

21 Do ye not suppose that such things are abominable unto him who created all flesh? And the one being is as precious in his sight as the other. And all flesh is of the dust; and for the selfsame end hath he created them, that they should keep his acommandments and glorify him forever.

22 And now I make an end of speaking unto you concerning this pride.

I would rather hand $100 to a needy person than depend on a government agency that uses 80% of what it takes in taxes to run the bureaucracy that gives less than $20 to the person.

It is MY obligation to help the poor. I have NO obligation to support government bureaucracies!

We can have an academic discussion about the moral and ethical standards of capitalism - but that is all it would be - an academic discussion.

The fundamental nature of capitalism actually involves hard work, innovation, pursuit of happiness, liberty to act, productivity, wealth creation, self-direction and self-satisfaction, among many other positives.

Compare that to what Obama and the Democrats stand for - socialism - which equates to idleness, lack of initiative, lack of reward, redistribution of wealth, command to act, forced charity, entitlement mentality, economic stagnation, poverty, and many other negatives.

In my opinion, Obama, with the help of useful-idiot liberal Democrats, is on a mission to tear down America from within, to rot it out by generating envy, jealosy, and class warfare across the nation. He is doing this with every policy decision he makes. Look back on his record. He has done nothing to spur economic activity. Any market or employment gains we've made have come in spite of Obama policies, and have come because people are just too sick and tired of failure. He is selling out our sovereignty, bartering away our wealth for votes, and doing everything he can to demonize wealth producers and anyone or any organization that wishes to act independently of the White House. He's even suing border states for trying to enforce federal immigration laws within their own territories. He is aiding and abetting criminal activity. And he is doing everything he can to expand his voter base of entitlement recipients, by creating and/or expanding existing entitlement programs to more people. Oh, and then there's the debt, and food stamps. And it goes on and on.

Of all this, and more, I have no doubt. My only question is whether America will wake up from its apathy, take a long hard look at this, and remove these scoundrels once and for all.

The wealthy have a moral obligation, if nothing else, to help the truly less fortunate. Not the people who chose to not work or game the system. Those who by no fault of their own struggle to get a head.

A person or family of persons only require a limited

amount of wealth to live comfortably and respectively in this life which is limited and is sometimes dictated by the inviroment. Why waist this life persuing such things as wealth and goods only to die and leave them just as the poor begger on the streets. Good Living requires a modicum of responsiblity and respect for others of our kind in this world if it is worth living....

Wow – A first. I disagree with your view on PayDay loans. Along with Mr. Boyer, I perceive a 'need' for this type of enterprise. Yes, the interest rate is high - but, if not PayDay - Who?

How many of us would not like to be the CEO of a Mortgage company offering 4% on home loans of $250K and above? After all, 4% is certainly a low enough figure to fly under the radar of "Social Justice" folks. But, figuring with simple math 4% on $250K is $10,000 in interest payments. I would enjoy having many clients in that area.

While 20% on $200 to allow a guy to pay for his electric bill and buy some groceries would net PayDay only $40.

Gee, it would take a lot of those kinds of loans to induce me to operate a PayDay loan enterprise.

Bottom line: They serve a purpose that otherwise would be ignored - but, I guess armed robbery would be an alternative.

I have noticed Mr. Romney's demeanor has not been as chipper the past week, or so. It seemed to change when Bain became the attack point from his fellow Republicans. If he thinks Newt and Rick hit hard on Bain, wait until 0bama opens up with a billion $ gun.

I am in total agreement with these words above! I came across this article by looking for righteousness done with wealth and riches, not in greed!

It's disappointing that discussions such as this never bring up Distributism as an econonomic system; a good site to have it explained is distributistreview.com. The last time I tried to post a comment about this, it was edited away; we'll see if this shows up today.

Since everything we have on earth is a gift from God, we should use whatever we are given to help others to the glory of God.

RE: What obligations are associated with wealth?

Answer:

1)Virtue (its important what u do for others with your wealth)

2)work (how many selfish cruel spoiled people with a better than thou attitude have you encountered who have only inherited wealth?)

3) Ethics (goes with out saying..)

Ghandi's 7 Dangers to Human Virtue

Wealth without work

Pleasure without conscience

Knowledge without character

Business without ethics

Science without humanity

Religion without sacrifice

Politics without principle

The traditional capitalist view is that it is the duty of a corporation to maximize profits for its shareholders. In Dodge v. Ford Motor Co., 170 NW 668, 1919 Mich. Lexis 720, the court held that discretion of corporate directors must be exercised to that end.

In an article entitled "The Social Responsibility of Business Is To Increase Profits", New York Times Magazine, September 13, 1970, the esteemed Dr. Milton Friedman opined that there is but "one and only one social responsibility of business - to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits as long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception and fraud."

In recent years, commentators have suggested that corporations have moral obligations which extend beyond simply making a profit for its ownership. Couched in amorphous terminology such as fairness, good citizenship, and like ilk, an argument is oft made that a corporation must ignore its primary responsibility to its investors and devote its capital to utopian ends. What nonsense!

Clearly a corporation has a "social obligation" to be a good neighbor. This benefits not only the community, employees, other stakeholders, as well as the corporation itself. But to equate such obligations with irresponsible use of corporate capital to prolong the life of a dying company or thereby failing to compete in the market is not only a derogation of its primary responsibility - to make a profit for stockholders - but in the end is a betrayal of the very community which it ostensibly is attempting to help.

In a capitalist system there will always be those who are financially successful and those who fail. It is precisely this process which ensures economic, thus social, progress. It is easy to fall prey to the specious, yet attractive arguments of the anti-capitalist: "Let's just be fair to the little guy." That always proves to the benefit of the advocate, and the "little guy" somehow always remains in the same or worse condition.

Mitt Romney only needs to address his wealth was gained in a legal manner. Most of his "takeovers" ended up hiring back most of the workers laid off. Companies were able to stay afloat longer due to Bain Capital. It did not always work out but, that is what the risks of business are.

Business donates to Democrats to influence policy. Business does not need to donate to Republicans to influence policy.

Therefore most business donations are to Democrats.

I believe the obligations depend on the method(s) wealth was accumulated. If wealth was gained through running a business, the moral obligation would be to take care of the employees who assisted in making your company successful. Those obligations could be met via premium health care benefits, good retirement packages, etc. If wealth was accumulated through a windfall (such as lottery, inheritance, etc.) your moral obligations may be to ensure your senior family members are cared for. Additionally, there are numerous charity organizations that can use donations. I personally donate when I can (I am not wealthy) to veterans groups such as Paralyzed Veterans of America, Disabled American Veterans, and the Wounded Warrior Project. And if you are independently wealthy and have time on your hands, you can volunteer at any number of places in your community that need help, either physically or monetarially. The last thing I would consider as a moral obligation would be to financially support the politicians who support following our Constitution and the freedoms that our founding fathers envisioned for this great country.

If people make their money from the poor like "pay day loans" then they better be willing to use it to help those less fortunate. The Bible is very specific about abusing the poor and taking advantage of the poor. Payday loans sre worse than the Mob and should be outlawed.

Apparently people that have not been involved in business do not understand venture capital. Banks do not make loans to start up business or business losing money. That comes from investors that are willing to take the risk and entitled to get a reward for taking a big risk. If a business is bankable they do not need venture capital. That produces GDP increase and increases jobs.

Payday loans are a prime example of Crony Capitalism at its worst. You have to be given permission to be in the business then the government sets the rates effectively monopolizing the process.

It would seem that a fine business could be made moving in next door to an existing payday loan business and undercutting them by a large margin. I

Obligations are a matter of individual conscience and love of others whether one is wealthy or not. Charity is a voluntary individual or corporate act of love for others that; if made involuntary in violation of our Constitution; is no longer Charity. So many people criticize 'Greed' of others while wanting handouts to satisfy their own 'Greed'. 'Greed' is the essential survival instinct of every life form to achieve necessities of life such as food, shelter, clothing, status, & ability to reproduce. The economy of the U.S. is based on Greed leading to efforts of individuals and businesses to satisfy their various goals that might let them achieve their dreams.

Unfortunately I don't see enough independents voting against the current regime.

It is not the idiot that is currently in that office, but the mass of idiots that still believe in him that truly scare the hell out of me.

All humans have an obligation to love thy neighbors as themselves. I find the suggestion that wealth or lack thereof increases or decreases that obligation to be offensive. Extreme poverty is not an excuse to take advantage of a neighbor, neither is extreme wealth.

Nothing! It is a shame people think they need to see a candidate for president's tax returns and financial statements.

Somehow it appears a badge of honer to be broke and run for president. Other than Commander In Chief the most important job of president is financial.

Would we rather have a 60 something year old person run for president tht could not make it in life but is going to run the wealthyist country in the world.

Capitalists owe their customers a fair deal. If I offer for sale a 3 wheeled Yugo for $100,000, I can do that with a clear conscience. If I falsely claim the Yugo was once the limo of Marshal Tito, then I become a crook. Payday lenders and pawn brokers do not take advantege of their customers, their customers do that to themselves. Offering the best possible product or service at the best possible cost will help a business to prosper. Cheating customers will not in the long term but we can't protect people from themselves.

Let's stop with the discussion of Obama and his drive for socialism. You have to watch what he does not what he says.

His handlers want to destroy the Republic known as The United States and bring on a totalitarian form of government. In that success we will see a leveling of everyone to be nothing more then serfs and the elite, rich govt. official, and their business cohorts our rulers.

When the Russian Revolution began, the people wanted a new govt. that was socialist but good for the people. Kind of sounds like a Utopian dream. What they got was the Union of Soviet Social Republic. Sounds great in print but 40 millions dead later one can see just what the freedom lovers received.

This same nonsense happened in Germany with the rise of Hitler. Read a history book or two and you can understand that to change a bureaucratic govt. you have to destroy it first, then and only then can you creat a new govt. as you see fit.

These men, George Soros and Mr Lewis who founded Progressive Insurance must be stopped and it must be done this year. If Obama is re-elected say goodby to the good old U.S. of A.

exodus 20:17 thou shalt not covet thy neigbors house,thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife , nor his manservant , nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbors . these are the 1st two usages of the word covet in Gods word. clearly those that promote covetessness are ungodly and are contrary to truth, and those who preach covetessness to the people is a multiplyer of evil who have no judgement worthy of political position. kenneth j atkins

Luke 12:48 states, "For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required". To me, that is a fairly straight command to be generous with the gifts that we have been given. However, it does not mean the government is granted the right to confiscate one's personal wealth and property, but that each person who is provided abundance is "required" to help out his brothers and sisters in need. Americans remain the most generous among the world's inhabitants and their generosity increases exponentially to the lowering of their tax burden.

First and foremost, Charity can only be an individual responsibility. Money given under the threat of the force of the state is anything but Charity!

Secondly, the high standard of living that we enjoy is due to high productivity supported by specialization of the various trades and professions. This is also true of charitable organizations - they are the specialists and have a significant comparable advantage over governments and corporations at providing charity. This fact was clearly displayed by the effectiveness of the various churches in providing disaster relief to Katrina victims as compared to that provided by the government organizations. Corporate and government charity simply wastes charitable resources.

The problem is that Obama will not release his charitable donations and will be given a free pass by the liberal press. Romney or any other consertative will be hammered. Obama is very generous with others money. I would bet he is not with his own. It also seems, as a general rule, those who have a very high income do not necessarily give generously(Al Gore for example). I hope if Romney is the candidate, he has been generous to more than his church.

I get so fed up with you fake conservatives who keep making excuses for the poor. The vast majority of the so-called poor are that way becaues the choose to be. Where were they as teenagers when people such as this writer were working and paying for school at the same time. They were out in bars, or sitting on their front porches, drinking beer watching the working stiffs like me driving home at 7 pm after putting 10 or more hours into whatever work was being completed. I think all that anyone needs is a semi-equal chance to start at the bottom and work his/her way up through the ranks, sometimes working two or three jobs at the same time. He/she can not sit on his/her hands and fuss about how rough they have it and cry when someone else has earned the right to drive a newer car. I am really out of patience with those of you who spend all day saturday resting from all the work you did all 40 or less hours you worked during that gruling days of the workweek. Sundays watching football while others are doing the books so that you will have a paycheck next week.

Get over it, some people are just not going to push themselves to get further than they have to. They will buy raffle tickets and hope for some lucky break. A person earns the lucky breaks...they are not won from a ticket at the corner grocery.

for those same reasons, people squander their funds at Las Vagas rather than planning for the future and paying off a mortgage then securing their futures by investments. None of thsi requires some rich dude to give to anyone. Let all the rich dudes keep their money. If they invest it, so much the better, but it is theirs to do with. Neither any of you nor the U.S. Government has any right to commit my money to aiding someone who sits on his porch watching me work while he/she is resting.

This is the United States of America. Let's get on with it. All true Americans have ever needed was a chance to better themselves, not look to others to provide for them. Forget the idea that some rich person has a responsibility to others. Keep the laws favorable to all and all will be well.

Perry has put forth a good idea. His idea of a part time congress would serve America better than the system we now have. When they are present as much of the time as they are currently, they get into too much mischief.

Wealth limits liberty in the sense that the accumulation of wealth proscribes life choices that do not contribute to that accumulation of wealth.

An aescetic cannot become wealthy any more than a wealthy individual can adopt a life of aesceticism and contine to pursue wealth.

I do belive that it was said by Ben Franklin "The best way that I can help the poor is by not becoming one of them."

I have a problem with the author's perception regarding "Payday Loans". One can always fault just about everything.

While in Mark's eyes they are "a particularly egregious form of usury akin to loan sharking targeting mostly those with low income with what amounts to a 360 percent annual interest rate", for many it is a perfect service for them that actually saves them money.

Most poor can't afford the costs associated with a traditional bank. Most could never get a loan from a traditional bank. So to fill this void, certain individuals risk their money running a business that provides loans that have an unusually high rate of default.

What about the traditional banks who will charge $5 for a cash advance from a machine when they just need $10 or $20... now calculate the cost on that - what say you now?

Obligations associated with wealth are, self reliance, hope, faith, loyalty, honesty, work, wholesome recreation, generosity and respect.

The truly moral person does what he or she believes is "right" regardless of whether any one is watching, or whether they get government approval, irrespective of poverty or wealth. To suggest that the "wealthy" however you define them -millionaire, billionaire, trillionaire (do we have any of these yet) have moral obligations that the rest of us do not have is absurd. Their wealth gives them more visibility but their moral obligations are the same as for the rest of us. They either meet them or they don't; and of course they can afford better tools with which to meet them.

Steve Jobs told Playboy magazine, "It's a large responsibility to have more than you can spend in your lifetime-- and I feel I have to spend it. If you die, you certainly don't want to leave a large amount to your children. It will just ruin their lives. And if you die without kids, it will all go to the Government. Almost everyone would think that he could invest the money back into humanity in a much more astute way than the Government could. The challenges are to figure out how to live with it and to reinvest it back into the world, which means either giving it away or using it to express your concerns or values."

Mr. Rugg commented that "wealth without personal responsibility and compassion for others is not sustainable." The very fabric of our civilization depends on the poor- as well as the wealthy- acting in this way. In any "free" state personal responsibility is the imperative duty of all citizens and the government may be able to hold its citizens personally responsible for their actions- and it should- but compassion and concern and love of one's brethren cannot be legislated despite what some politicians from both sides of the aisle tell us.

We all have ethical responsibility to society at any levels. The moral code should prevail to leave the world better than what we started with. No person should rape and pillage society all for the riches even if they can call it capitalism. All CEOs, Billionaires, and socialites (Hollywood, Music, Sports genre) should look for ways to help society by finding those folks looking for help out of poverty then to sit there and throw barbs at Capitalism or Conservative ideals... We should all be responsible with our money and/or business without government interference.

The Truth! He is all but finished if he does not win the nomination anyway. Stand up and say to the Democrats that they benefited from the Bain money.

This is contradictory to your other statements: I believe that conservatives fail to acknowledge the moral and ethical responsibilities related to material wealth at great peril to Liberty.

If conservatives give away what they work for are we not helping the poor be poorer? Giving them jobs is the only answer, not give up wealth. It is not a crime to work hard and accumulate wealth and it is a crime to expect anyone to take care of the unwilling to work!

Did Jesus throw the money lenders out of the temple because He objected to the lending of money or the fact that they were doing it in the temple??? Is morality a fast and single standard for all or is it a totally personal standard?

I happen to be familiar with Allan Jones, the founder of "Check Into Cash" -- a pay day loan company with hundreds of outlets. As far as I can tell he runs an honorable business and provides a useful service. The cost of a pay day loan is about the same as the cost of a bounced check. So if I had to pay the rent with a bounced check or a payday loan, I'd go for the loan. I also happen to know that Allen is a great contributor to charity, has helped his hometown of Cleveland, TN, made large donations to various colleges, etc. So to be brief, one must be careful about lumping everyone in the pay day loan business into the same category.

Wealth should not place any greater burden of citizenship,than it does for the less fortunate.

Why does Romney need to explain his wealth? Anyone ask Sorros,about his wealth?

Sorros is not running,but he sure funds alot of negative anti-America programs.

Being "rich" is evidence of work and tenacity and has no connection to morality.

Great editorial on wealth. I give a lot of money away, but I prefer to choose which causes get it, rather have the government take it and give it to recipients of their choice.

Your writing is excellent, which made it more amusing to read "truer than ever in this election." Isn't truth absolute?

In today's essay you wrote about pay day loans and "360 percent annual interest rate". I suspect you are referencing agenda-driven arithmetic similar to that which Thomas Sowell wrote about on 2 Nov 2011. He reported reading in a local newspaper ... "In California lenders charge up to $45 in fees on a maximum $300 loan. This amounts to an interest rate of 460 percent." Sowell explains, "The 460 percent figure comes from imagining that the borrower is not just going to borrow the money for a couple of weeks, but is going to keep on borrowing every couple of weeks all year long." In this example, the loan amount was $300 and the fee was $45. To get to 460%, you have to multiply 45 dollars times 26 periods, then divide that $1170 by $255 (300 - 45). This kind of arithmetic is nothing short of willful misrepresentation. I think it belongs at level 8 on the Draft ISO 7-layer Mendacity Scale ...

5. Benchmarks

Back to the larger domain (pay day loans) -- calling the industry's profit component "interest" instead of "a fee" is the source of all subsequent obfuscation.

Gov. Romney doesn't need to say anything about his wealth, other than to assure the American people that the tax laws were followed in completing his tax returns. What is needed to address to problems of America today has nothing to do with how much income Gov. Romney has earned. The problems we face are far beyond this petty subject. It's time we all face up to the consequences of our debt and our ruined economy and their causes.

If there is a moral obligtion on the wealthy, I hold that it is for them to SHOW, or CREATE, the means for the poor to join them, but not to injure their working strengths by giving everything to them.

Assume that every day, you must carry a l00 pound load a given distance. You can barely do it, but you get it done every day. Along comes a strong guy, who says, "I'll help you move the load." so he lends a hand, and you both carry the load for a month. Then the guy says,"I'll help you carry the load halfway, and if you get tired, I'll carry it the rest of the way." He does that for a month. Finally, he says, "I'll carry your load all the way". He does this for a few days, and then leaves town. By this time, your muscles are so atrophied that you must find someone else to carry your load. And there's nobody around.

QUESTION: Did he really do you any favors?

The American Superlative:

I am thrifty.

You are cheap.

He is greedy.

I know what must be done.

You need education.

He is an idiot.

My way is best.

Your way will get us in trouble.

He is trying to kill us all.

I think an argument can be made for policing ourselves (HA! I speak as though I am one of the rich - although I most assuredly am not!) if only to avoid the envy that will cause others, like the liberal left, to engage in class warfare against us.

However, there is a simple and viable argument to be made for the wealthier among a society being obligated to do what they can to assist their fellow citizens, especially when they come upon others in need. This kind of altruistic behavior is intrinsically beneficial to society as a whole, as well as to the individual who engages in it.

To use an analogy: Suppose I am a larger than average citizen, with training in the martial arts, or perhaps one who carries a concealed firearm. While walking to my car one night, I encounter a woman being assaulted in the dark parking lot. By virtue of my size, training, or weaponry, I am uniquely suited to assist her. If I do so, our whole society benefits: the society becomes a little safer (because a miscreant is arrested - or perhaps killed or disabled), the woman survives the assault intact, and I can feel a justified sense of virtue for my clearly honorable behavior. I will be lauded by most of my fellow citizens (although not by the socialist fringe) for my behavior. No one will be angry at me for the time or money I have spent in the dojo or at the shooting range, developing my skills (my assets in a sense).

By the same token, if I am uniquely suited to assist another individual in dietress by virtue of my wealth, and do so, would it not be reasonable to expect the same public reaction, for the same reasons? And sure enough, when someone drops a hundred dollar bill into the Salvation Army's bucket outside Walmart at Christmas time it makes the news as virtuous behavior (although it is also news because of its rarity).

However, in either case, should I opt NOT to assist, for whatever reason (fear, greed, indifference, etc.), it would be reasonable to expect social oprobrium to follow in the wake of my behavior, because I have chosen not to help my fellow citizen, and (s)he has then been injured (either physically or financially); I have chosen an action that did not benefit the society in general, and was not what would be considered honorable in virtually any society in existence today. Simply because I had the ability to help and chose not to do so. While I have done nothing illegal, I have put a stain on my character, have not comported myself well as a man, and I will be reviled for that whenever and wherever it becomes known. Keep in mind that I am neither obligated nor expected to stalk dark allies looking for trouble or damsels in distress; nonetheless, if I encounter one, I AM morally obligated to assist.

Only in the area of money, does anyone consider it acceptable to behave in this way, and this belief is usually justified by the rationale that behaving in such a selfish way is beneficial to the whole society because it "helps the free market economy." This reasoning is fundamentally wrong, and much akin to that of the cowardly person who watches (or even videotapes) another person being beaten and argues that (s)he had no obligation to help, and might even have been sued for interfering. Cowardice and indifference come in many forms and many places, but only in the realm of money does anyone attempt to make it look like a virtue.

One example of what "The Wealthy" do:

When Cornelius Vanderbilt passed, he bequeathed the largest portion of his estate to "the people," keeping some 5,000 acres for the surrounds of Biltmore Estate.

What he left to "the people" became the Pisgah National Forest.

On a smaller scale, he built a railroad on which the materials for his home were transported. He built "Biltmore Village" to house the workers -- each of whom was expected to be a craftsman -- and Vanderbilt paid them proportionately.

Yes, there are "robber barons" a-plenty but, they have always been in the minority -- even though they become the focal point of Liberal muckrakers.

How much money has the Gates family given to Charity? How much good has the P.C. done?

Then, there's John C, Garand who refused payment for his design of the M1. Wondering how many lives that rifle saved and how it helped to shorten WWII.

And The Beat goes on.

P.S. For anyone interested, what happened to the Founders as a result of their participation in The Rebellion makes fascinating -- almost unbelievable -- reading.

I don't need to see anything in detail about Mitt Romney's wealth. I take him as I see him. Wealthy people have been instrumental in building this country and I don't want to bring them down. The Capitolist system under which we live, allows anybody to make as much money as they can.

Until a way is found to regulate greed, there is no answer to the problems between "haves" and "have nots". When wealth becomes too consolidated, those who are left too far behind will always resort to what methods will appear best for survival.

My wife and I traveled extensively across England and Europe.

My life style as a retired educator rises above 95% of what we've seen outside of this Nation.

Our cabin, on our blue mountain, would be the envy of the hoi polloi of Europe.

To them, we'd be "rich" -- and, I suppose, we'd be criticized for our "wealth."

The Founders understood the answer to the inveterate greed of the two-class system of Europe was individual achievement freed from the exigencies of government "need."

As a 15 year-old boy in 1908, my Dad emigrated from a tiny Mediterranean island for the sole purpose of gleaning from the promise of "The Golden Door."

After he was cleared through Ellis Island, like the 2,000,000 other immigrants that year, he did what he had to do to learn the language, earn and save money by taking what jobs were available, eventually graduating from The Gymnasium, as they called it then.

In 1924, he matriculated from the University of Louisville, KY, with his Doctor of Dental Surgery degree and practiced for 55 years.

He invested wisely in securities and in land. (One parcel was in a backwater town in Florida known as Kissimmee.) He sent money back to the Old Country. He became the president of the local Lion's Club and a 32nd Degree Mason.

And he taught my two sisters and me the virtue of honest work, scrupulous saving and investing and, most importantly, delayed gratification.

The Founders based this Republic on the debt which they owed to The Creator for their "inalienable rights" and for the opportunity -- not the guarantee -- of wealth and the independence which wealth brings.

Nowhere in this world's history has such an offer been laid before common men. In no other Nation has such wealth created such freedom.

Wealth, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. When an individual looks "left" he will see people less fortunate. When he looks "right" he will see people more fortunate. The truth lies some where in between. Out government is a system of laws designed for each individual to decide where he wants to be in the economic world but it should not be an issue for deciding our future. Changes in how we select leaders aren't as important as changes in how they are required to perform. Live by the same system they create and term limits would be great!

Class envy has always been with us. Rich people should not go around in sackcloth and ashes, but they do need to abstain from the appearance of being haughty, arrogant and rich liberals need to stop acting like they are smarter than anyone else in the room.

Wow – A first. I disagree with your view on PayDay loans. Along with Mr. Boyer, I perceive a 'need' for this type of enterprise. Yes, the interest rate is high - but, if not PayDay - Who?

How many of us would not like to be the CEO of a Mortgage company offering 4% on home loans of $250K and above? After all, 4% is certainly a low enough figure to fly under the radar of "Social Justice" folks. But, figuring with simple math 4% on $250K is $10,000 in interest payments. I would enjoy having many clients in that area.

While 20% on $200 to allow a guy to pay for his electric bill and buy some groceries would net PayDay only $40.

Gee, it would take a lot of those kinds of loans to induce me to operate a PayDay loan enterprise.

Bottom line: They serve a purpose that otherwise would be ignored - but, I guess armed robbery would be an alternative.

Romney owes no explanation about his wealth. At best, he may choose to offer a "How Too" seminar. As long as he has obeyed the law and paid his taxes, he should be applauded for his success. More important is every American has the same opportunities. Romney just got a head start due to the prior success of his family. (No different than Ted Kennedy). Some of us make good choices and are succesful. Some of us do not make good choices and suffer the consequences. I grew up poor, on a farm in west GA. I put myself through college (without student loans). And, I have made the most of my education. I now work 7 days a week, and I have to turn work away. I do not remember my last vacation. But, I also enjoy a great life! And, I enjoy a 22% return on my pay day loan investments. I obey the law and I pay my taxes. I have no moral obligation to anyone but my God and my family. I may choose to contribute to various charities like the Boy Scouts or St. Jude's. But, I do not owe anything to anyone. I got myself here by hard work and taking advantage of the opportunites made available to me as an American citizen. the most important point is we all have the same opportunities, that is what makes America the great country it is.

Responsibility and moral convictions are associated with wealth. "If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom; and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money that it values more, it will lose that too." -- Somerset Maugham

I don't want to specifically comment to the obligations but do want to throw out a phrase that has always stuck in my mind when studying our Founders and the establishment of our government. The two words that always come to my mind are Christian Capitalism. I think the values of Christianity woven through wage earning is how we are to do it.

charity

enabling people you work with skills to better themsevles. Give responsibilty to do things on their own. example of leadership. Trust and care for those around . freedom to fail.

Jobs requiring resonsibilt to become higher skilled

Hopefully we should be charitable toward our fellow man whether we are rich or poor. I have met mean spirited rich people as well as mean spirited poor people and vice versa. I am opposed to the idea that just because I have more than another person, then he should get some of what I have. That is my decision to make. Some believe that "rich" is anyone who has more wealth than they do--"Obamaism."

Communism or socialism will never be successful because it goes against human nature. There will always be those who want to work more or invest to become wealthier. This is considered a virtue by most people. And there will always be those who don't have that drive and are willing to do just what it takes to get by. Some even think others should take care of them.

I am convinced if all wealth could magically be redistributed equally, it wouldn't be too long before things would be back to what they are today.

I don't consider my wife & I to be rich or poor financially. But we tithe and do give to charity, and we know that we are blessed.

The accumulation of wealth imposes no obligations. Apart from lottery winners and thieves, wealth is obtained by providing something of value to others or by putting one's capital at risk. The word "obligation" implies the rule of law. As God saw no need to include a commandment related to such "obligations", neither do I. a more appropriate discussion would derive had the word "ought" or the question of what would constitute more virtuous behavior been used.

I believe Mr. Romney should explain in his own words the details of his job at Bain. I also believe Mr. Obama should explain in his own words exactly how he financed his college tuition.

Obligations associated with Wealth.

Those that have persevered to reach financial freedom and have amassed significant wealth have many obligations, among them:

1) Not let the wealth go to his/her head,

2) Not flaunt their wealth before the employees without whom there would be no wealth,

3) Be willing to invest in the individuals that helped build their wealth,

4) Support non profit organizations when possible

5) Consider the establishment of a charitable foundation(s) that may be a passion for them,

6) Be willing to fight for the right of others to obtain a similar position in life,

7) Be exceedingly thankful to God for His blessing upon them.

I am sure many other considerations could be made but most of all that the government not create class warfare for the purpose of destroying that which is obtained.

"To whom much is given, much is expected." Free enterprise is not an excuse for dishonorable and egregious behavior. Freedom itself comes with responsibilities and duties and among them are to live a virtuous life.

We fail to teach our children virtue and we wonder why they are not virtuous. C.S. Lewis handled this very well in his book, "The Abolition of Man" and we are living out his prophecies.

There is no special obligation placed on the rich, certainly none that would be the concern of the government.

It should be noted, that God loves a cheerful giver, and that the bible notes that bragging about charity is the only reward you will get - in other words, donate in secret.

If a wealthy person is a true Christian, he will understand that he is to give to God first of all, through his church, a tenth. Then he will joyfully give to causes that help others, find many ways in which he can fill all sorts of needs and in the process he will find that the more he gives the greater his joy and desire to give. I am not wealthy but this holds true for anyone who has even a little more than they need for daily living.

Talk about rich/corrupt Dems, check this out. I received this today from my State Treasurer. The link is a must read-

Dear Friend,

Six months ago, MSHA was asked to disclose the details of vendor payments via a Freedom of Information Access Act request filed by the Maine Heritage Policy Center (MHPC).

http://www.themainewire.com/2012/01/luxury-hotels-magicians-massage-maine-housing-vendor-list-reveals-questionable-expenditures/

On Tuesday, MHPC released the incomplete data provided to it by MSHA.

At tomorrow's Maine Housing board meeting, I expect the commissioners will ask why the vendor payment information does not include dollar amounts, when the payments were made, or why the money was spent.

MSHA is a quasi-independent "instrumentality" of state government. It has a staff of 140; an annual operating budget of $14 million; and $1.6 billion of outstanding bonds it has sold to fund some of its programs.

Unlike at all other quasi-independent Authorities, the MSHA executive director does not report to or serve at the pleasure of its board. During the 4-year term appointed by the governor (in this case, Governor Baldacci in 2010), the executive director does not report to any person, committee, or other body. Currently, there is a bill working its way through the Legislature that would hold the MSHA executive director accountable to the board for wisely spending taxpayer dollars.

Best wishes,

Bruce Poliquin

Maine State Treasurer

Wealth per se has no obligation in the sense that it requires some behavior on the part of the posssessor.

The only moral principle is that wwealth is not accumulated at another's disadvantage; nor used to harm another.

He needs to be up front about and not be embarrassed. If he can't make a case for the work he did to become wealthy then I think he does have a problem. Compared to what Obama became, Romney should smoke him in a debate.

This is not exactly on the subject but I believe is true in general. Most Conseratives, like myself, keep calling these left wing nuts - Democrats as Socialists. I believe that very few of them, the President included, are not Socialists but actually Faciests (spelling). I do not believe that they actually want to own the means of production but simply to control the means of production. I remember when Kennedy was President and a CEO of one of the steel companies wanted to raise prices. Kennedy expressed his anger about this and soon after when this man and his family were sleeping, there came a knock on the door and a number of government agents came in. They went through all his papers took what they wanted and indicated that this was just the start. Shortly after this the man pubabicly recended his proposed price raise and was never bothered again. I believe this is called fashism.

We are not rich ....our gross income is about $76,000 a year. Last year, 2011, we gave in excess of $29,000 to our local church and to other Christin ministries (Wycliffe Bible Translators, Answers in Genesis, Hope Resource Center, Compassion International, American Bible Society, to name but a few). Our desire is to see the monies the Lord has supplied us with will glorify His Name through our obedience to love others as He has loved us and them.

My personal opinion is that there is no "obligation" with wealth. The obligation exists in parents teaching by example care, compassion and concern for our neighbors. If children were taught that life is less about "me" and more about "us" there would be no need for conversation about sharing wealth or the "haves vs the have nots."

Generosity, like education, begins at home and cannot be successfully forced upon us by government rules because those who influence the rules will always assure that the rules do not apply to them.

I agree with this article. There use to be an unspoken social contract in America that if you grew wealthy by whatever means you had a moral obligation to help out your less fellow man. Now people get wealthy to acquire power or live decadent lifestyles. Part of the anger coming from the supposed '99' percent is that the see wealthy people use their power and wealth in ways that are not moral.

As a Christian, I agree that there are moral obligations to wealth. I understand that Romney will be judged on his personal fulfillment of these obligation - both in the election and in his own final Judgement. But what should he say about these obligations? What does the law say? I'm a Santorum guy myself, but if we vote against Romney because we see the moral obligations of the wealthy as a requirement rather than an ideal, then we are demanding rule of men over the rule of law.

The obligations of wealth are those of everyone - to make decisions that will benefit the greatest number for the greatest good. This does not mean that one cannot be an oil driller who disrupts a lizard's territory, when drilling that well will bring jobs and energy to many. But if one goes in and just for the hell of it exterminates lizards, with no benefit, that is wrong action. Morality cannot be legislated, and charity that is enforced is pure robbery. Ethics, on the other hand, are the innate goodness I really believe dwells in everyone, and can be tapped for the benefit of all. It is not wealth that is 'evil,' it is the misuse of power.

I absolutely agree with you. Responsibility, honest, honorable business ethics are crucial to healthy free enterprise. Unfortunately, there's no such thing left.

Have you ever read any Charles Dickens? The wealth have a responsibility to promote the free enterprise system that allowed them to reach their status through the support of honest labor leading to economically supportable and justifiable rewards. Loan sharking, drug dealing and other predatory behavior is destructive to social contract between people of different wealth levels. A rich man enabling poor money handling practices - while charging high interest rates and providing no educattional benefit to prevent repetition of the practice and to educate to generate responsible fiscal behavior is like the early practitioners of the "company town - company store" attitude. Keep poor and keep them in debt so you can make them you economic slaves.

Nothing unless Obama quits lying about where his wealth has come from.

Why should Romney have to apologize for his wealth. He certainly has earned it. John Kerry's

wealth was never questioned and he married into his wealth. John & Ted Kennedy were wealthy and never

critisized for it. Why is it that only

Republicans are questioned and critisized.

1. To be conscious of the fact that historically too great a dichotomy between the rich and the poor will always lead to social revolution ... which is about what we are experiencing now.

2. To avoid ostentatious display

3. To give back to the community all that is reasonable.

Have not read the posts, just finished the editorial.

Remarkably cogent, a most cerebral conclusion and expression, most well described. Thank you, Mr. Alexander. The "candidates" are being decimated. Funds drying up, left-wing sources spending bags of money digging up something to denigrate the Republican contenders. Yet nothing done by a Democrat is attacked, but overlooked. Most curious! Any lie, any deceit, any impropriety is pushed under the carpet, so to speak. KKK (Byrd), anti-Negro, anti-civil rights, yet he, as similar Democrats, is "passed" and re-elected. By blacks! We who claim the conservative jacket, if we are to survive, must vote out Democrats, and most especially reduce Harry Reid to a minority role. At least! The Prez is important, but the Congress, in my view, is more important in this year of our Lord two thousand twenty and twelve

That is where we "conservative" must defend our Republic--in the Congress. No "Skipper" can maneuver a reluctant crew! The Congress is our key to righting the Ship of State. Please, do Vote!

To: Rifleman

Your words are eloquent as ever. I appreciate you.

Do you have a concise reference that you would share with us, that covers what happened to the Founders as a result of their participation in the Rebellion?

Thank you, Mr. Hamilton. Well, and most accurately said. Robert, above, also has it right. Vote! Get friends to vote, transport, whatever. And, NO third party, Mr. Trump, or Mr. Paul. That will absolutely guarantee a second Obama tenure. Congress, as mentioned, is the key this year.

Responsibilities? None. Do you have to pay taxes on your wealth? Of course. Other than that, you are "responsible" for yourself. The whole problem with our country right now is there are too many people who are not responsible and they rely on other people to provide them with the basics they should be working for. I am a single-parent and I teach middle school in Texas. I take care of myself and my son and I do not expect any help from anyone else!

I don't know/care where Romney got his money. But I am sick of hearing about how he "understands," "relates," "is just like," the common man. The common man is not worth in excess of $200,000,000.00. If Romney was so concerned about the "common man," then he should be willing to live off of his money and not accept any gratuity (or the ripoff perks) that he would receive as President of the United States. That's what a real Patriot would do. Don't think so?? Check out what the Founding Fathers gave up for the freedoms we all enjoy today.

Rifleman; Amen to that piece, and most particularly to Mr. Garand. Did not know he would not accept payment. Remarkable! The Garand M1 is considered the very most efficient, useful implement ever put to use by those that carried it. I carried the M1 in three wars, would not part with it. Still have one, and keep it in good working order. Just in case. Hmmm?

To: Robert E8 USN, Ret

Just saw your post pop in. Good thoughts. I suggest to you and everyone else that the reason why Democrat improprieties keep getting ignored, even racist ones - all of it - the entirety of what you observe, is because of one main reason: vested interest.

We cannot forget the passage of time. Our government is nothing like it was in the beginning. The generations upon generations of politicians have layered law upon law on top of the Constitution. In the process, they have suffocated liberty; they have also created government coffers and opened them to "needy" private citizens. The number of "needy" people has done nothing but expand. Every "needy" person has a vested interest in the continuation of any and all entitlement programs to which our immoral government obligates taxpayers.

This is a giant collusion of "needy" people who look at the treasury as a giant pinata. Whichever special interest group has the biggest bat, gets the most goodies. And many a useful-idiot taxpayer buys into the rhetoric that there are so many "needy", and votes for candidates who will expand entitlements. Other taxpayers, who predominantly make up the shrinking middle class, feel powerless at the polls. All this while conservatives keep trying to take away the bats.

This has never been a situation where the "needy" need ever-increasing assistance. This is a situation where the politicians barter away taxpayer dollars for votes, creating more dependency, and consequently, more "needy".

For the good of the country Romney should drop out of the race asap. He is the bane of the Republican party and will be the cause of four more years of obamination. We need a man of principles and not a flipper the likes of RINO Romney But then I do not expect Romney to do the right thing and therefore I refuse to vote for him in November.

I work hard, I pay my taxes per the IRS regulations, and you have the audacity question me about how I invest or "shelter" the profit I earned by hard work, is the most insulting and demeaning thing I have ever heard and furthermore my personalfinacial affairs are of no concern of anyone but me and my family.

If you're wealthy in OUR country, regardless how you obtained that wealth, & have EVERYTHING that you really NEED & the things that you JUST WANT, then Please, by all means, give some of your money away to those who really could use a "wind fall" from a perfect stranger. Keep it anonymous. While the HYPOCRITE Obama's & his commissars would demand that you do this for everyone who is not as fortunate as yourself, know that you will not be able to help everyone in this nation, even if you were to give away every cent of your wealth. But do help out the less fortunate GOOD, DECENT, LEGAL, LAW ABIDING American citizens in your little corner of our nation. You'll sleep a Hell of a lot better! You'll be blessed by the Religous Entities above.(If they're still there, which I now doubt) And you'll have a very deep, positive impact on another GOOD, DECENT, etc., etc. American familie's life.

If I'm ever lucky enough to hit one of our LARGE Lotteries, before I'd spend ANY BIG MONEY on myself, I'd give a large portion of that MOOLAA away to... 1. Family. 2. Friends. 3. Four Churches I USED to attend. 4. My community. 5. Certain worthy charities. 6. Certain organizations I've been involved with throughout my life.

Then I'd get "STINKING DRUNK" on the BEST Booze I could buy. After I'd sobered up, I go to Maine, buy a few acres (100) of North Woods land on an un-inhabited lake, build a COMFORTABLE Log Home with an attached two vehicle garage, a big, two story out building with a workshop, an inground generator, (when the weather knocks out my usual electric power) a small dock to fish off of, a gezebo at the head of that dock, then I'd leave the "Free State" (Free State My Butt) of Mary-Land & put the rest of the world behind me! I'd Hunt, Fish & enjoy the rest of my life without the hassle of any federal, state or local government intrusion or intervention.

My Dear Wife of 45 years said... "I'll Sure Miss You!"

J.J.B.Jr.(USN.RET.)

Maryland.

Several years ago I read "Uncommon Sense - the Real American Manifesto," written by the late Wm James Murray (1942-1992). He described the differences between the Real Americans and the Socialistic Americans (loyalists) who lived during the time when Thomas Paine wrote "Common Sense," and described the negative effects of socialism in the early settlements of Jamestown (1607) and in Plymouth (1620). According to the information in Pages 200-210, Government was the boss and socialistic people allowed Government to control them [supposedly] for everyone's benefit.

One negative aspect of human nature tends towards socialism: no private property, no rights, no ambition. But there is a more positive aspect of human nature. I believe small Government, mature citizens, private property and free capitalism is the best "Economic Stimulus Package” for America.

P200¶1: We are free to buy or sell our produce, or keep it. High standard of living is the result of freedom to produce more basic material.

P201¶1: Government is good [only] for protection from criminals and enemies, and for establishing standards [for regulating society].

P201 bottom: Freedom from interference - motive to produce our high standard of living - these standards came from free people.

P202-203: Jamestown 1607 (Capt John Smith, Council Compact) and Plymouth 1620 (Wm Bradford, Mayflower Compact) Socialistic Government was the boss, people allowed Government to control them (supposedly) for everyone’s benefit. All food and goods put into common storehouse. All was dispensed on equal basis (regardless of how much they worked). All began starving because lazy people realized no matter how little they did, they would still get equal share. Then [because of the added burden of providing for all] ambitious people slowed down. Diseases began spreading and people began dying from starvation.

P206 ¶: Free economic system began in Jamestown then in Plymouth. Free use of [private] land, more productive, more food, more health. Became forerunner of our Republic. Greatest incentive = Private property and self-reliance [only works for mature people]. Opposite of socialism [which works best for lazy immature people].

P208 ¶3: Bradford quote: “When the system of private ownership was established, and self-reliance became the rule, the housewife came out of her kitchen and the children gave up some of their play time to work in the fields so the family could produce more, and have more and live better.”

P209 ¶3: Four steps to higher standards: Incentive, labor, production, abundance.

P211 ¶2: All other nations of the world have socialism and lower standards of living.

Mark has touched the core problem of living in a free society, the relationship of FREEDOM and RIGHTEOUSNESS. One may possess either without the other. Our political forefathers saw the value of having both and linked them, fighting and dying for the RIGHTEOUS cause of FREEDOM. Free men don't always do right; tyranny CAN make people do right. The ballot box can only make us FREE. Our RIGHTEOUSNESS must come from another source.

If we REALLY want all people to be FREE, we must be willing to let them have it, for good or ill. The "egregious" actions are the very ones we must be careful about infringing. Unrighteous living provides its community with sufficient warning by its consequences when unmitigated by governmental protection. Society best benefits from the example of wisdom, which is revealed when one lives RIGHTEOUSLY of his own FREE will.

Romney needs to point out how many businesses, and jobs, Bain Capital saved from bankruptcy. If Bain Capital did not exist we would not have Staples stores. How many people work at Stpales?

Many obligations but probably the main one is stewardship of the wealth. That is using it in wise ways which might include investments, charity, education, research and so on. In charity it includes the obligation to not perpetuate poverty and ignorance.

Unfortunately, I believe Romney voices so-called conservative ideas, yet votes for more big government and suppression of liberty, much as did GW Bush (and G Bush); and much as many republicans have been doing for most of my life. The Republican Party has had several opportunities to make corrections but has repeatedly chosen to grow the budget, and still worse, to destroy our liberties (NDAA). I have been a staunch conservative for most of my life, yet when I read what our government has been doing in the Middle East since at least 1950- and particularly in Iran and Iraq I am disgusted. The" war on terror" is looking more and more like a war "of" terror. What goes around comes around; and it certainly is coming around now. I cannot fathom how people are not up in arms over the recent developments of NDAA and murder of American Citizens by the Chief Executive. It is painfully obvious that both the Republican and Democrat party leaders are collectivist at heart in spite of the rhetoric. "You shall know them by their deeds".

Keep in mind, this authority is being given by the congress to the administration. That is the US Office of the President which has under its belt, Transportation of guns into the hands of Mexican criminals under the guise that they were attempting to catch the criminals; the Abu Ghraib atrocities in the NAZI style, Waco Texas, Ruby Ridge, and it is looking more and more like OKC bombing smells bad. Certainly an innocent man was tortured and murdered while in federal custody; the same federal custody that tortured Congressman George Hanson (who wrote a scathing book about the illegal nature of the IRS). There is mounting evidence ATF may have been involved in the facilitation of the actual bombing through operation PATCOM. This office will now direct civil police activities within the several states using military forces and may arrest and detain indefinitely and without trial, citizens for "suspicion" as determined by whom? The office of President. The office of President under whose aegis the agencies that brought us murder in Oklahoma City, torture & murder at Abu Ghraib, murder of who knows how many Mexican civilians and a US Boarder agent via Operation Fast & Furious, murder in Waco and murder at ruby Ridge acted and shielded from responsibility. Apparently our judicial system is not trustworthy so we need to dispense with it. Who in there right mind could vote for these people again?

At least Republicans & Democrats, liberal as well as so-called conservative media pundits, and republican candidates seem to agree on one thing. That is that the worst thing that could possibly happen would be for Ron Paul to get the nomination. This is for a number of often repeated reasons. Aside from the repeated assertion that "he'll never make it", his biggest crime is that he wants to cut defense. Except he has repeatedly said he believes in defending the country. Just not in preemptive war. In fact I am sick of hearing his position distorted by the media. He would not vote for the Federal gay marriage ban so my conservative Christian brother told me he supported Homosexuality. This is the same method used by Saul Alinsky liberals the Republicans have been crying about for years. Where this kill Paul rhetoric leads is to the statement "we have to vote for the best Republican available. It's our only hope to save the country". The truth is, God is our only hope. And if you believe that, you vote for the only principled man running. That is Ron Paul. If we support men who support Gay Rights (whether they personally disapprove or not is irrelevant), or thievery (transfer of wealth under any pretext), or unjust weights and measures or any violation of natural rights (most of what the federal government has been doing is a violation of natural rights), then God will not support us. This is the strategy that got us here in the first place. Our only hope, in my humble opinion is to support a candidate who would please God. Then God will have our back. So as a conservative I can no more vote for Gingrich or Romney than I could vote for Obama. Any of them will lead us to destruction. The only moral candidate is Ron Paul. It is truly sad to think independents would be forced "to vote against Obama, regardless of who is on the Republican ticket".

Mormons worship and serve their god we know as MONEY. In other words, MORMONS LOVE MONEY. MONEY is necessary to survive in our world which is why the bible says MONEY is for a protection...shelter, food and other life necessities. The bible also says the LOVE of MONEY is the root of all sorts of EVIL. MORMONS LOVE MONEY and which can lead them into all sorts of EVIL. Mormons believe they will all eventually be GODS over their own world. SATAN the DEVIL wanted to be GOD over the earth and led humanity to rebel against GOD and plunge man into ages of untold suffering and evil. Jesus said true christians are "no part of this world" yet MORMONS seek out rulership in our political system, disqualifying them as true christians. MORMON'S love of MONEY and POWER leads them to side with GOD's arch-enemy SATAN the DEVIL and brings down evil upon those they rule over. An excellent eye opener into the EVIL of the MORMON cult is the book titled ** "The MORMON MURDERS" written by two detectives that investigated a MORMON that murdered fellow MORMONS to cover up his financial fraud that involved the MORMON church and it's leaders.

** From the Back Cover

"A FIRST-RATE TRUE CRIME THRILLER AND DETECTIVE STORY OF THE HIGHEST ORDER...THE KIND OF BOOK YOU GRAB EAGERLY AND CAN'T PUT DOWN."

-Detroit Free Press

On October 15, 1985, two pipe bombs shook the calm of Salt Lake City, Utah, killing two people. The only link-both victims belonged to the Mormon Church. The next day, a third bomb was detonated in the parked car of church-going family man, Mark Hoffman. Incredibly, he survived. It wasn't until authorities questioned the strangely evasive Hoffman that another, more shocking link between the victims emerged...

It was the appearance of an alleged historic document that challenged the very bedrock of Mormon teaching, questioned the legitimacy of its founder, and threatened to disillusion millions of its faithful-unless the Mormon hierarchy buried the evidence.

Drawing on exclusive interviews, The Mormon Murders reconstructs a secret conspiracy of God, greed, and murder that would expose one of the most ingenious con men in the annals of crime-and shake the very foundation of a multibillion-dollar empire to its core.

"SENSATIONAL!

-Washington Post

"A REMARKABLE STORY."

-The New York Times

Romney's wealth is a huge concern to me. He has been reluctant to discuss his money, his taxes and he has not offered up any information about charities or causes he supports besides the Morman Church - which by the way I don't begrudge him for supporting his Church. Today when asked if he new the tax rate he pays he replied about 15%. As the commentator said - that will be bait for the Obama and Axelrod to feed on. Romney needs to continually remind the media that he has broken no laws, that he files his returns by the rules in place, and that he has no issues with the IRS for unpaid taxes or undeclared income. (I hope) He also need to discuss and embellish on any charities, groups or causes that he is involved with both financially as well as volunteering his time. The wealthy are seen as above the less fortunate. Many feel as long as they write a check once a year, their obligation is over. i would hope that Romney not only donates a substantial amount of money but also a decent amount of time to charities and causes that are needing assistance. Hopefully they are causes that are current. (like rebuilding homes for wounded warriors) Working with veterans would be wonderful cause for a candidate to be involved with.

I'm worried that the fact that Obama and his henchmen seem to have been pushing for Romney to be the GOP nominee means that they have already stocked up on amunition and are ready to take fire and take him down. That alone would be a good reason to nominate a different candidate in my opinion.

Keep up the great work !!!!

Outstanding Commentary Mark! Someone needed to elucidate on this issue, and you have opened the door to some 'right thinking' on the subject. Hopefully, the Brit Hume's, Rush Limbaugh's and others will explore this thought line and take a serious role in discussing this with the nation.

David Crowe

Restore America

www.restoreamerica.org

With respect to wealth, one should understand, be able to articulate, and ultimately reflect, the values it takes to create it. Specifically, the values of character necessary in a free society to produce and trade the materials values of life.

In the subsequent use and disposal of said wealth, one should, with an ever-vigilant awareness, retain and continually reflect those values of character it required to aquire it.

The thought like for doctors should always be "do no harm". People should have freedom to make their money work for them. Payday loans are detrimental to any family. With an alcoholic, it's called "tough love" and should be practiced in all things. Payday loans are just another form of shark loans which do nothing but trap people in a vicious circle they can almost never get free of.

Mormons give 10% of their income to their church. The church provides welfare assistance to the needy. Before government started providing welfare, churches across the nation assumed their responsibility of caring for the needy. We need to return to that model.

I don't covet Romney's money as those who would redistribute the wealth. I would like to learn from Romney how to fish (not give me fish).

The government imposes regulations on small business who lack lobbiests(bribers)that warrrant joining large organizations.

The purpose is to promote larger businessesa that can justify campagine contributions and other perks.

Campaign contributions should be limited to residents of the district. Any violation should be treated like treason.

Any violation of the election laws should be punished with a min of 5 years in State prison at hard labor.

Any misapproriation of public or charity funds should have a mandatory 5 years in State prison.

Whether or not he wins the nomination, Romney should dig deep into Robert Caro's trilogy on Lyndon Baines Johnson, the father of the Great Society (welfare statist) and proclaim publicly what Caro published; and that is this: LBJ was perhaps the wealthiest president we have ever elected. And to boot, Romney might dig out a few of the ways he amassed such a great fortune. Caro's research supports your narrative.

Solomon was not only the wisest man in history but also the wealthiest. Under him the people prospered and there was peace throughout the land. It is implied that there was no poor and no one on welfare.

I wish to have a president that is wealthy from his own labor, not from inheritance nor from graft or bribery. I want someone who knows how to accumulate wealth and provide for his own - someone who is used to wealth rather than arriving at the presidency as a child who for the first time is in the candy store by himself and raids every candy bin. I want someone I can trust. Integrity is the most important

qualification and the next the ability to handle money to save the country from bankruptcy.

The obligations asociated with sharing one's wealth ortion are very strong inoculated into western culture. I, for one, have always been in favor of this sharing being done on a voluntary basis. However, as the population grows in greater numbers than avilable employment, I am not opposed to very limited, focused and responsible government intervention on a short term basis to help those in need. I am opposed the giving so called tax credits on income earnings to those who make charitabvle deductions. Any goverment intervention must require the recepients to respond with behavior that shows that they are seeking meaningful employment ond or further eduction and job training and that they will pay back the goverment a portion of the assistance that they receive. Finally I think that one of the best forms of governemtn intervention would be the reestablishment at the state and federal levels of financial assistance for the development and/or redevelopment of voctional education/training centers, so that high school students have a vialble option --since all should not attend college. I also strongly support the reinstatement of the military draft.

Its Envy, the worm at the core of these discussions. Have you read any articles about Envy? Not surprising, because no one speaks about it.

And it is not just about money, it is about beauty too. Ever hear "mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the fairest of them all"?

It's not a joke, or tale, Envy is pervasive.

Mark,

The issue is what are the rich to do with their wealth. And nobody has the answer. The rule must be that he who has it gets to decide what to do with it. That is simply because nobody has any legitimate claim to a "superior" method of distribution or a "superior" moral or ethical idea as to how much should be distributed. As C.S. Lewis said, the only "fair" gauge for knowing "how much to give" in charity is "enough that it makes you uncomfortable." For every person, this line will be different. Bur for anyone to claim where that line is for me or for you is presumptuous and hopelessly arrogant. That is the fault exhibited by liberals; they claim to know "how much" I should give, or said another way, how much I "deserve" to keep, and they are not above forcing their unfounded opinions on you and me by force of law.

Honesty, humility, fairness,integrity and nonpreditory. Earn it in an ethical manner and set examples that others may follow

This essay was so right on, I promptly made a new donation to The Patriot Post. Keep it up!

The Golden Rule- or the Great Commandment - are the guidelines to be followed by everyone. If you doubt that this "works", then you are likely dishonest and can't be trusted. If you know that these guidelines work for individuals and society as a whole, then you are able to honestly evaluate your true needs, as well as ability to share! Honesty and responsibility cannot be legislated.

Wealth acquired by honest means and hard work (intelligence helps) is OK. Greed is one of the cardinal sins of the Old Testament,Mr.Gecko. Wealth amassed by devious means is no better that bank robbery.

Mitt Romney from his Mitt Romney 2012 Site:

After going to both Harvard Business School and Harvard Law School simultaneously, he passed the Michigan bar, but never worked as an attorney. As a venture-capitalist, Romney's first major business deal involved investing in a start-up office supply company with one store in Massachusetts that sold office supplies. That company, called Staples, now has over 2,000 stores and employs over 90,000 people. Romney or his company Bain Capital (using what became known as the Bain Way) would go on to perform the same kinds of business miracles again and again, with companies like Domino's, Sealy, Brookstone, Weather Channel, Burger King, Warner Music Group, Dollarama, Home Depot Supply, and many others.

Got your calculators handy? Let's recap. Volunteer campaign worker for his dad's gubernatorial campaign 1 year. Unpaid intern in Governor's office 8 years. Mormon missionary in Paris 2 years. Unpaid bishop and stake president for his church 10 years. No salary as president of the Olympics 3 years. No salary as MA governor 4 years. That's a grand total of 28 years of unpaid service to his country, his community and his church. Why? Because that's the kind of man Mitt Romney is.

There are no obligations associated with wealth because there is no way to objectively quantify such obligations. Alexander correctly notes that the question, "Who are the rich?" can only be answered with a subjective opinion but fails to see that the same is true with regard to the supposed "obligations" associated with wealth. The determination of what those obligations is completely subjective.

It does not clear up the matter to quote Luke: "From everyone who has been given much, much will be expected; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked." This does not quantify the supposed "obligation." And unless God is going to come down and decree what these "obligations" are for each person, then some earthly person is going to try to claim he or she is the "voice of God" and decree it - resulting in a tyrant - or it will have to be determined by a democratic vote - resulting in Democratic Socialism. It is the height of immorality for "the masses" to claim that the few rich have "obligations" to them.

The only rational solution is to dispel the notion that people are born with obligations to each other. Rather, each person must deal with other people through honest trade, offering the value of their products and services for the values (products and services) they want. And that there are no other obligations beyond that trade.

By the way, the payday loan industry that Alexander so despises provides a valuable service to people who don't yet have the credit to get other loans.

If rich, pay your required taxes, give to charities as liberally as you are able. Even set up a responsible charity.

Treat everyone equally, help your family as needed.

This is basic

being wealthy is no threat to anyone unless you are abusing your power.

Romney must open up about his wealth, not all the details, just the truth. I really do not think he has done anything that would be detrimental to him

I believe that people who have succeded and make more wealth and others get jobs. I don't believe that the Government makes jobs. (especially this administration)

Gretchen Munday

Becoming wealthy is not a bad thing,In fact even the Bible says so. Greed is the evil.As long as A person produces a good or service that others feel they need then the opportunity exists to garner wealth. The problems arise when it is less free market and more government intervention that gives rise to monopolies(postalservice),mandates(Obamacare)and bailouts or handouts to friends(Unions,solandra,freddie,fannie)Those people get rich off the wealth of others,taken from them by force.Thats criminal if not unethical and immoral. Business using unethical practices and deception in marketing their product or service joins those also.

Better to be wealthy than poor as the huge debts will make our next generation. I have heard of being born into wealth and also of being born poor but it pales in comparison to the expectation that the yet unborn will be expected to pay for the ignorance and extravagance of those before them. The price is Inflation and lower standard of living. That is the #1 moral obligation of government(not the wealthy) and when you think it through who is the government but us. Occupy That, government dependancy.

Why are so many obsessed with Romney's money? When JFK was running, did anyone say, 'The Problem with Rich Democrats? On top of that a Catholic!

Of course not; would the liberal press have allowed that! Not! Remove the dollar signs from you eyes and focus on a candidates abilities.

The liberal press is doing a bang-up job with their smear campaigns hoping to blind our citizens to the truth regarding this current administration.

Romney should state matter of fact that his wealth was earned the American way, that it was legally and morally gained and that it's no ones business how much he made. Did Obama show his tax statements,overseas donors,etc. Let's see how much Newt's worth and were it came from. Come to think of it Why do politicians make more than their constituents by such a huge margin and why don't they do the job in the spirit of public service instead of the retirement pension and insider deals like FrankenDodd?

Not a damn thing.

Morally, not legally, a wealthy person has an obligation to help others in need, but only those others chosen by the wealthy person, and only to the extent that s/he wants to do so; the first obligation is to the family. The government and 99%'ers have no claim to any money legally earned by others.

I used to think as you do, that payday loans were common usury. As an employer trying to be "helpful" to my men, I became aware of their money problems and the manner in which their often dubious actions fed these problems. When I began to advise them regarding those problems, they suggested that I loan them the money against future paychecks. As I pondered that course of action, reflected on their past stupidities and tried to assess a proper risk(interest) associated with the loans, I realized it was the very same rate that the payday companies were charging. Once again the free market had developed the correct price without my do-gooder intervention. My intentional inactions un doubtably saved me the loss of both the loans and the employees. As Polonius said, "neither a borrower nor a lender be, for a loan oft loses both itself and a friend, and borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry".

I would answer by asking questions. Should the government take (steal) more from a rich man simply because he is rich? If so then just exactly how much? How do you know that is the proper amount? What does the rich man cease doing as a result of the governments theft? If the poor man really better off by the government paying him to remain poor? Does the poor man bear any responsibility in him being poor? If so then what is responsibility to the poor man?

Obama's answer; We must encourage the poor to resent the rich. We must covet what the rich man has. We must encourage jealousy.

I am a senior ++ and I would like to print your essays, but am not able to without cutting off part of the essay. Is it because you have it set this way??

Thank you

"payday loans" were nothing other than the "educated" taking advantage or better yet stealing from the uneducated, taking from the poor in time of need, taking advantage of anyone caught in a bind for many reasons etc it is nothing other than fraud & or loan sharking & should be outlawed & treated as stealing! there are other ways to make money the rich have a moral duty too

From whom much is given, much will be expected. Luke 12:48

The only obligation a rich person has is the same as any other person; don't cheat anyone. Keep your word and treat others the way you would want to be treated. That's it.

There used to be usury laws limiting the interest rates. Today we see the effects of powerful interests changing or removing laws which protected the weak from the powerful. So often in the course of human governments the powerful have become so corrupt, there is a backlash against the abuses. Sometime this backlash is a correction to the proper benefit of people similar to the Magna Carta. Lately the backlash leads to worse ends like the communism or the rise of Nazism. I do not believe it the proper role of government to help the needy. This is more the role of religious organizations. But as we are a pagan society in a Christian shell, and this process of moving away from religion has been going on for a long time, to reverse is very hard in deed.

I don't think we were put here to collect wealth. Accumulate and then use wisely. To him to whom much is given much is required.

If you earn your money you should be able to do what you want with it. If you rob or steal than you should have to repay. I can't belittle anyone just because he makes more than me. More power to them. I just keep trying to earn my keep.

Why should he say anything? There is no mention of the rich black man running. I believe it should be a non issue. But thats me a poor white boy who is tired of the garbage being spread around.

AS one accumulates wealth, he is morally obligated to donate a portion of it to assist in the improvement of society. Those donations might be to improve the arts and their performance or presentation, to organizations that help the needy (Red Cross, Salvation Army, Union Gospel Mission), thier church (should be first on the list), etc. The goal should be to take benevolence back from the government and put it in the hands of individual citizen organizations.

While I totally agree with the article regarding

wealth creation and its moral/ethical obligations within a free society, I always wonder why not one, to my knowledge, ever mentions womens freedom within the context of the market economy and the rule of law that upholds it.

Always a radical feminist who participated in and organized Feminist Conferences in the US and UK,

I have ever wondered at the leftist leanings of feminists(those who worked hard and risked everything to become strong and free) which secures them a place within the Obama Marxist mentality.

If ethical free market conservatives took a look at the fact that womens freedom - education, progression and success - rely exclusively on the economic and political freedoms ONLY possible within a free market that works well, wouldnt

more women, realizing their utter dependence on ecnomic freedom for political opportunity, all become Conservative?

Conservative does not mean: keep women down and inferior as it did in the past. Today, free market

democracy has heralded more freedom for women than

any time in human history. How is this lost in the debates surrounding the value of ethics, morals and right action of the wealthy, or of anyone else,

in America?

Real Feminists need to understand that without economic freedom, social/political/personal freedoms are impossible. History proves this. The smaller the government, the more the people speak.

The moral obligation is upon ones own shoulders of course, as it should be. However (I have no lost love of payday loan companies)to slant an article to defame a legit business is wrong and immoral.

Yes the customer base is the financially strapped, they make no excuses for it. It is their business to lend money to risky loan makers. Like every other loan co (bank or otherwise) the rate of interest goes up as the risk goes up. (bo not withstanding)

There was a time when 22% interest was a usuary rate and illegal in this country but thanks to the legal bribes made to politicians (no morals there) the cap on interest rates were removed. Loan givers have been reviled through history. Even the great Bard weighed in on this in the "Merchant of Venice". Seems like an old storey but at the end of the day you have to take responsibility for yourself.

I am simply a retired teacher, living on a teachers' pension and Social Security, but by careful money management, I feel I have "dined sufficient". The opposite of wealthy is not necessarily poverty. A Central American mother, after benefitting from the services of a visiting church team, answered that the opposite of wealthy is "enough". I am working at ways to help the elderly, the immigrants, and the poor in my community as the satisfying concept of "I have enough" is sinking in.

All comments are refreshing. From a spiritual point, is it the symptom or the disease?

Of course even Mr. Alexander is not a supporter of Ron Paul, who is the only true American because he defends the Founding Fathers in words and actions, and if America had always obeyed the Founding Fathers this article would not now be a matter of fiery discussion. America has bedeviled itself with Socialism/Communism begining a long time ago and that is why, that riches in America is in the hands ever more in a small percentage of Americans. If America were not bedeviled with Socialism/Communism labor unions would not exist and are actually the best proof of such! On yes, Gingrich and Rommney want to really give it to Obama and my question to both of them is this: Why is Obama now President anyway? May I suggest that if Mr. Republican that of George W., had not made a true mess of America, Obama would not now be the Commander in Chief, right Mr. Alexander? And sadly all this time the Republicans have worked very hard at it, to make things even worse than how things were when George W. left office, so that one of them, now can walk in but will find it very tuff to improve things. If this present fight amongst Repbublicans is a true American way to elect a Commander in Chief, as stated by Gingrich that he will run an American election and not a Republican election, God Almight have mercy upon America. Yes, and for the record: I, as a staunch Conservative Republican will only spend time to vote if the Republicans end up with Ron Paul the nominee. Yes, some Republicans call Ron Paul and isolationalist, right? Simply because he wants to do things as madated by one of the Founding Fathers: "Peace, commerce, amd honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none". By Thomas Jefferson. Sadly, most Americans in reality do not know the difference between a Constitutionalist and an Isolationalist; both parties are guilty of such ignorance, otherwise Ron Paul would have been the Commander in Chief years ago! Yes, if any American wants another war please do not vote for Ron Paul? You will have another war with any of the others!

Greetings!

In Sunday's paper (Chicago Sun-Times), there was a political cartoon of a reporter asking Romney what he was worth,as if that was a reason to be ashamed or embarrassed, as of a person could only become wealthy through immoral or illegal means, as if a truly virtuous, admirable person would not or could not be rich.

I have written here what I would like to hear Romney say in response to such inquiries.

I have enough money so that I don't have to do this. I could spend the rest of my life in ease, indulging my personal whims, but I would rather endure all manner of petty, invidious, and spiteful scrutiny for the sake of serving my country in the capacity I believe can do the most good.

I have enough money that no campaign contribution or lobbyist can tempt me or influence me to do things not in the best interest of my country.

I have enough money that I don't have to give favors to companies, people, or special interests so that they can take care of me when I get out of office.

I am rich, because I am good at what I do, and you would only want a successful person to be the leader of this country.

Thank you.

Larry Craig

1938 Schiller Ave

Wilmette IL 60091

847-251-1324

w 847-478-8150

RE: H.D. Scmidt. I would love to defend against him but I can't. Conservatives hate to comment on anything that makes them look bad.Of course the Liberal do the same but we have been taking a beating by not doing the will of the people and we view things in the short term.

Romney said, let Detroit go bankrupt. today GM is Number one. Do we want to be so ideologically pure that we can't see the overall picture?

Alexander Essay hit part of the problem on the head. Again I ask, is it the disease he is describing so eloquently or is it a symptom of a disease?

the commentator said war. this seems to be a Conservative stance and answer for everything. Mich as a communist state, another answer or is it a form of greed. yes power and my way only is greed.

RE: RK Sprau. For your information, I agree with many of the things Obama did. Yes, I was all for helping GM. Did George W., not make the greatest mess of the USA during his 8 years and leaving the nation with two very bogus and unfinished wars. The very fact that they are still going is the sure proof that they are bogus. I do not know what else RK Sprau would like to hear from me? By the way, I am also a legal immigrant now going on 56 years, who learned a lot about evil governments during my years as a young man!

It's a very difficult life for the rich. While it seems like a life on Easy Street, there's always the possibility that someone is out to get your wealth one way or another. You have to be wary of every contact, relationship, etc.

As with freedom, so it is with wealth. It comes with a great amount of responsibility towards your fellow man. That responsibility isn't one that should be forced. It's not up to the government to take from the rich to give to the poor. It is the responsibility of the rich to do so on their own. This represents the character of the individual. Forcing the rich to pay for the government's ventures is also not right. There isn't any equality.

Power and wealth (they usually go together these days) has gone unchecked in the USA for over 30 years. The rich have rigged the system to make them richer by "buying" those in power to make policies to benefit them. Bye - bye middle class - The 1% is a real threat to our republic folks! It is clear that many of them have no real concern for their fellow countrymen or ethical/moral virtues.

Venture Capitalists are not inherently bad. They take over troubled companies, and attempt to fix the problems. MANY times the problems are bloated staffing and poor planning and management. That people get laid off or fired is NOT a social issue or even a moral issue, it is a business issue. NO one wants to put people out of work. To fire a few, to keep many more working is a good thing. One might even consider that the ones fired, shouldn't have been working there in the first place. If the company had made good decisions- likely they would not have been hired!

How often that Bain FAILED may be an issue.. There are a lot of very wealthy people that got their wealth on the backs of the recently jobless- buy buying companies, stripping assets selling everything and shutting them down. They did so with no intention of trying to keep the business going. Likely the business was a competitor of another one owned by the group. This eliminated one problem, and solved another one at the same time.

Capitalism is NOT a benevolent idea like Socialism. It weeds out the weak. I was told that anyone can make money is a business in good times, if they can stay in business in bad times, then they are very likely a good strong business that is well managed. Just like not every idea is a good one, not every business venture is a good idea. Many, many businesses fail from lack of funding, the rest from lack of management. There are idea people and there are managers. You need both to succeed. Look at Kodak- 130 years in the business and they failed to manage their ideas properly to the point that the film business will be their downfall and they INVENTED it!!

Montgomery Wards is no longer. because they decided to quit rather than change. Sears, may well not stay in business if their business model cannot adapt to the new markets. Ditto GM or Ford or Chrysler.

Romney on his wealth? that he is a successful businessman and politician. Not every venture succeeded, not every campaign won, but he did not quit and he has been successful.

Of course, I do not WANT Romney to be the GOP candidate he a way too Liberal. Should be on the Democrat ticket with Hillary instead of the GOP ticket.

Romney on his wealth? that he is a successful businessman and politician. Not every venture succeeded, not every campaign won, but he did not quit and he has been successful.

Of course, I do not WANT Romney to be the GOP candidate he a way too Liberal. Should be on the Democrat ticket with Hillary instead of the GOP ticket.

Romney on his wealth? that he is a successful businessman and politician. Not every venture succeeded, not every campaign won, but he did not quit and he has been successful.

Of course, I do not WANT Romney to be the GOP candidate he a way too Liberal. Should be on the Democrat ticket with Hillary instead of the GOP ticket.

The main point in discussing YOUR societal obligations as a person who has obtained wealth is that they are YOUR obligations, not someone elses by governmental dictation. It is pure hypocrisy believing that "generosity" dictates supporting redistribution of wealth governmental policies, then turn around and demonstrate pathetic stinginess in your personal giving practices. Ironically, this is precisely the state of American society today. The "most stingy" citizens in America, if measured by per-person charitible giving criteria, reside in states with redistribution policies favored by Democrats (the supposed party of the compassionate), while the most generous with their own money reside in states that are largely considered Republican strongholds and oppose redistribution policy.

Check out a map comparison of the most charitable versus stingy states and how each voted in the last election to see the validity in what I am saying. So are the Dems "compassionate" or have they merely found that it is a lot easier being generous with other peoples money than their own?

Obligations Associated with Wealth?

No different than one's primary obligation - follow the path the Lord has laid out as best you can. Such dictates lie in one's heart and we are instructed that we cannot truly know what that is. This is the essence of life and dictates the freedom our founders understood. The only restriction on one's pursuit of that path that makes sense is that you do not interfere with the ability of another to pursue theirs.

Accumulating wealth, giving everything away something in between is not for anyone but the owner to say. Paying higher interest when having poor credit is sound business and as long as the parties voluntarily make such agreements each is following His path. Who knows if that loan allowed purchase of a lifesaving medication?

HE should be honest and proud of his success and in turn do it for his country.

It is no sin to have accumulated wealth; it is just harder to get into heaven. The question is what sinful acts, if any, has one performed in getting it. Right and wrong become confused when the rules of the game are rigged by endless and ever changing legislation and administrative regulations. in an ever more complex economy. How can one be faulted by taking advanatage of what is wholly lawful if one is only smart enough to know what it is? Onemight concede thatmust lawa and regulation is well intended. Most has some rational justification. Romney pays appo.x 15% on his earnings. directly but as a shareholder he is an owner and the business which pays him a dividend has from its profits (and importantly without a deduction for having done so)has paid ostemsibly 35%% of Romneys ownership share of the profits to the Feds already so his effective rate on those corporate profits which get taxed twice is about 40%. To avoid this double taxation Sub-chapter S corporations were and are permitted and then limited partnerships became the thing because they permitted single taxation to not permitted under sub chapter S corporations whose shareholders included non- us citizens. So where lies the sin or the wrong? As Romney says there is nothing wrong in not paying more tax than you owe. I am not rich, nut I have a few shares Why should my corporate stock profits be taxed twice and others not? Justice and fairness become more elusive the more compicated things become. When things become so complicated that almost no one has an understanding democracy and justice both dissapear.

Did Mitt Romney And Bain Plunder Howard Hughes? http://romney4president.us/Mormonmafia.html

Obama says he is a christian but only gives 1% of his income to the church and the poor. My bible says to give 10% and to be a joyful giver.

Biden the multimillionare gave $300.00. That is the left for you they talk but don't walk.

The obligations associated with wealth are summed up in how the wealthy want themselves to be preceived -- understanding the differences between Wealth with humility vs. Wealth with decadence is the key to understanding what is acceptable and what is not in ethical and moral obligations of the rich.

Wealth with humility would most likely be represented by someone with an enduring work ethic not prone to squander their money. This would be a person who would anonymously support charitable causes and send money to missionaries. This would be a person that no one knew was rich but when they passed, they left a small fortune to a good cause. An example is the lady who recently died and left $1.7 million to the salvation army of Mendocino, CA. No one outside of her close personal acquaintances knew she was well off.

An example of wealth with decadence would be any politician running for office. They show an "in your face" attitude about throwing money around.

The difference is represented by the biblical example of the widow who donated her last two mites to the synagogue as an offering to God. It was her entire fortune. No one but Jesus knew of that sacrifice. However everyone at the synagogue knewe how much the Pharisees dropped into the coffers when they made a show as they put it in -- the pride they had as they showed everyone was their only reward.

We are morally obligated to help others commensurately with how much we have been blessed. We are to do it out of the abundance of our hearts NOT out of the pride of our souls. We will never need the approval of another person to perform a good deed or bless other people with a gift of kindness. The only reason to give publicly is to feed the immorality of an ego. Mr. Franklin's observation is spot on that giving financially without requirements of responsibility is futile and makes dependency. The desired independence will come if you help people to help themselves not just give them financial "aid".

The obligations associated with wealth are summed up in how the wealthy want themselves to be preceived -- understanding the differences between Wealth with humility vs. Wealth with decadence is the key to understanding what is acceptable and what is not in ethical and moral obligations of the rich.

Wealth with humility would most likely be represented by someone with an enduring work ethic not prone to squander their money. This would be a person who would anonymously support charitable causes and send money to missionaries. This would be a person that no one knew was rich but when they passed, they left a small fortune to a good cause. An example is the lady who recently died and left $1.7 million to the salvation army of Mendocino, CA. No one outside of her close personal acquaintances knew she was well off.

An example of wealth with decadence would be any politician running for office. They show an "in your face" attitude about throwing money around.

The difference is represented by the biblical example of the widow who donated her last two mites to the synagogue as an offering to God. It was her entire fortune. No one but Jesus knew of that sacrifice. However everyone at the synagogue knewe how much the Pharisees dropped into the coffers when they made a show as they put it in -- the pride they had as they showed everyone was their only reward.

We are morally obligated to help others commensurately with how much we have been blessed. We are to do it out of the abundance of our hearts NOT out of the pride of our souls. We will never need the approval of another person to perform a good deed or bless other people with a gift of kindness. The only reason to give publicly is to feed the immorality of an ego. Mr. Franklin's observation is spot on that giving financially without requirements of responsibility is futile and makes dependency. The desired independence will come if you help people to help themselves not just give them financial "aid".

I agree with you on virtually everything. The idea that capital gain is taxed after corporate tax of 35% is not generally correct, however. Man buys land for $1,000, it appreciates to $3,000, sale, tax the growth at 15%. there was no 35% before. On the corporate side, man buys stock for $100, other people think stock is good company (often based on possible dividends which ARE after the corporate tax of 35%) and buy stock for $120, man pays tax on $20: no 35% paid before. Careful portrayal of our side demands that you reconsider this statement. Don't need it to make your case, and it undeines your devotion to truth.