Wednesday, May 16, 2012

The Mystery of Altruism

I made a post in an article asking why people think Mitt Romney is bought and paid for by Wall Street. I had one respondent who repeated that statement that both Obama and Romney have been bought and paid for. Yes, Wall Street members have donated to both campaigns. Probably a little more equally, maybe even more heavily to Romney than Obama. This is different than in the past when Wall Street heavily donates to the Democrats. Besides that, I was fired up. My response is listed out below (modified). It may come across as cheesy, and a little too heavy on the Romney-love, but it is what it is.

This is photoshopped, click for story.
ROMNEY = RMONEY = (we get to keep) OUR MONEY
It's really an ignorant, non-thought out position to think Romney will be beholden to Wall Street, or any other single large entity donor. I'm not being insulting when I say that. Think about it. Mitt Romney is worth $250 million dollars. He declares about 14% in charitable donation on his tax returns. He doesn't report all of his donations, because why report it if it is of no benefit - in other words, at 14% he's maxed out his total available deductions. He donates a lot in private, possibly anonymously. And we know that he just hands money to total strangers (Bill Gates has a similar habit). He does not need money. He is not bought and paid for by Wall Street, by anybody. If anybody, it would be by the People.

If and when he becomes President, he will likely take no salary (or the minimum $1, whatever it is the law requires). He only took a dollar/year for salary as governor as required by law. He donated $1 million to the SLC Olympics and took no salary. He went back to Bain to save it from itself and took no salary. (Not in that order)

He doesn't need power. He easily had that in the private sector. When the SLC Olympics needed saving, they went to Mitt Romney. That's power. He easily won the gubernatorial race in MA... as a Republican. That's essentially unheard of and that's power. And he ran the state conservatively and fixed its $3 billion deficit and its sagging unemployment. That's power. He nearly broke the tradition of the GOP picking the Next-In-Line against McCain, using his own money. Harvard and others use Romney's private sector successes as case studies. That's power. If he wanted, he could wield power anywhere.
ALTRUISM: Altruism is a concern for the welfare of others. Altruism can be distinguished from feelings of duty and loyalty. Altruism is a motivation to provide something of value to a party who must be anyone but the self, while duty focuses on a moral obligation towards a specific individual (for example, a god, a king), or collective (for example, a government). Pure altruism consists of sacrificing something for someone other than the self (e.g. sacrificing time, energy or possessions) with no expectation of any compensation or benefits, either direct or indirect (for instance from recognition of the giving).
Give image a click through.Many people do not understand true altruism or comprehend that anyone, especially the wealthy, can possess it. The world barely understood Mother Theresa, but she was not wealthy of herself. The world barely understood Mahatma Ghandi, though he may have been wealthy, lived a life of devotion in attempting peace through peace. Mitt Romney also displays altruism through his wealth and capacity. He wants us all to be wealthy.

Mitt Romney has stated he is doing this, running for President, to right America's course. He wants to make the place better for his children and grandchildren. He wants to make it better for all of us and he thinks he can succeed. And I have no doubt he can, because his record proves it. We're on pace to have $25 trillion in debt. No single person is going to fix that in 4 or 8 years (we've spent over 120 years building this debt), not even Romney. But he is the best person to get things moving in the right direction. He's done this before, he can do it again. Wouldn't it be great to vote in Mitt Romney as President; and, as a bonus, make it easier for a President Romney by electing a willing Representative Branch that will enact the tough decisions the budget needs to have to make the US a viable, AAA rated country? We can be that light on the hill, the standard for all nations, again.

Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.


Ohio JOE said...

Few of us dispite the fact that Mr. Romney is a well meaning good person who is charitable in his personal life and who also wants what is best for the country. However, that does not mean that he does not have issues. Yes, it is true that he does not need money for himself, but he does not money to campaign. The fact is that he owes many favors to Wall Street bankers (Mr. Obama does too.)

One of Mr. Romney's characteristics is that he is a loyal person. That is a double edge sword. He has done a lot of good for his family, friends and employees over the years. This is a good thing. However, it is not a good thing that his banker friends will have too much influence over a Romney administration. Banks are not bad things in and of themselves. Capitalism needs them, but when they start dictating public policy and acting foolish, this is chronyism.

Machtyn said...

my point is, Romney, in the past, has not shown this type of cronyism. If he has, it should have come out in the vetting process. and we have not heard about that at any point. I would have suspected Perry,Gongrich, or Santorum to have released that information.
they certainly have hit him hard in other areas, particularly on the left.

Machtyn said...

I should add, that I do understand your position and realize where you're coming from. it is a healthy thing to be suspicious of all of our politicians. I suppose I see romney through a different prism, and not a politician.

marK said...


"However, it is not a good thing that his banker friends will have too much influence over a Romney administration."

My, you really like to assume the worse in Romney, don't you.

You do realize that if in another parallel universe Sarah Palin had won the nomination, the Republican bankers and wall street people would be donating to her campaign, as well. She would then owe just as many favors to them as Mitt supposedly does now. Would you then be claiming that her so-called banker friends would have too much influence in the Palin administration?

Or are you saying that Sarah Palin isn't loyal?

Anonymous said...

I appreciate you calling it a mystery. I ponder the subject often. I think Ayn Rand doesn't believe in altruism because she defines terms in her own system. She believes Romney acts the way he does from his set of values.

I am talking semantics, but it helps if we can express ourselves and then be understood. I could agree with her by saying that Romney values America, so his labor expresses this value.

Romney is helpful with great capacity to do so. I think Ayn Rand doesn't call that altruism, but instead it is an expression of his values.

Ayn Rand objects to altruism, because in her terms, it is counterfeit for real 'charity.' I know she considers altruism the basis for statism, in other words, the basis of tyranny by the collective.

I do not believe the Democrat Party expresses charity now in building Big Government, they are making themselves tyrants (e.g. they call themselves elite, and say they've earned their 'cadillac' healthcare, etc.). Big Government is all about control, and no accountability.

I know there are sincere Democrats who think they want charity in government, but they are clashing in their party with the power hungry.

George Washington said government is force. If government 'forces' charity, it is no longer charity. The Founding Fathers knew government charity was a tremendous 'power hungry trap' for government officials, and they averted their course from anything of the kind in their time.

Private enterprise and private property are violated when government jumps in to determine who 'deserves' what. This is the detrimental effect of influence peddling. Europe is sick to death of it.

Government exceeds it's bounds when they take from one, and "give" to another. Does the givee then "owe" the government favors? Backwards.

As "V" said, the people should never be afraid of their government, the government should be afraid of their people.

"Don't feed the bears." It is a temptation we best resist.

I think Ayn would say Romney is providing service, but she would not call that altruism. She rectifies the vocabulary to help us know ourselves, and to enable individual rational behavior, and to expose self-destructive behavior.

Ayn Rand warns against altruism because it is the tyrant's age old ploy to steal from people. It destroyed rational conduct in Russia. And it destroys freedom.

As a member of an American union put it, "Our goal as socialists is to abolish private ownership of the means of production. What they won't tell you is that, at its base, the "means of production" is the individual. They mean to abolish your ownership of yourself, to enslave you to their ends."

MBA for Mitt said...

It is worth noting that Romney's estimated charitable donations increased to over 19% in 2011 (about 4 million). The 14% stated in this post refers to 2010 (about 3 million). A few related articles are posted below:

Ohio JOE said...

"My, you really like to assume the worse in Romney, don't you." No more than you guys assume the worst of non-Romney candidates, MarK. But, to address your point, I doubt that Wall Street Bankers would dump tons of money in Mrs. Palin's direction, she has make it clear that she would not be their lacky. Mrs. Palin may be loyal, but she has her limits.

Anonymous said...

Ohio Joe, you assume too much. Campaigns are expensive, she'd take their money too.


Sarah Palin may or may not be a banking industry lackey, but she certainly is a lackey of Rupert Murdoch, the man who signs her paychecks and gives her a public platform.

It's no coincidence that both Murdoch and Palin have been vehemently opposed to Romney during the GOP primaries.

He who pays the piper calls the tune.


Speaking of Rupert Murdoch, he's now in very deep doo-doo, since 'News Of The World' editor Rebekah Brooks was just charged with 3 counts of obstruction of justice in the phone hacking & bribery scandal and faces a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

Brook's personal assistant, driver and security aide were also charged.

Of course, UK prosecutors are far more interested in Rupert than they are in little ol' Rebekah and her 3 aides, and would be more than happy to give them a slap on the wrist in exchange for testimony against the big kahuna.

Anonymous said...

Why Has Sarah Palin Not Been Suspended by Fox News?

Sarah Palin is a disgrace. She is DEEPLY into crony "capitalism" in the worst way. She's cow-dancing through the media industry's revolving door, without ANY pretence of propriety. Please stop with the hanger-on sickness.

She attack greed, for heaven's sake, and earned her "Palinista" name. Let's drop it and her. She also backed the open-marriage Newt and the "public servant" Rick Perry. Her cause sank, and she's un-done. Enough.

If she's so genuine and concerned, why did she align herself with the least ethical, craziest, and dumbest? Enough.