It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Do the wealthy phlanthropists have TOO much power?

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Everyone knows that the wealty, the elite, movie makers, musicians and actors are the 1 percenters. They have enough disposable income to "buy" their way. Period. Real estate,medicine, health care, attorneys and whatever their choice of substance may be.

Is is going to far? corporate elite make the rules , they purchase votes, control big Pharma and the banks.

The article says that now, 28 billionaires, now totaling 143 people from 15 different countries -- have signed the Giving Pledge.


Today, the wealthiest 400 Americans are worth over $2 trillion. Together, it's been reported they own as much wealth as the bottom half of American households combined.

While resentment towards the super rich grows, there may be a silver lining taking shape. It turns out a lot of those rich people are giving staggering sums of money away, in what is being called a golden age of philanthropy.

Much of it is the result of an ambitious and targeted campaign called "The Giving Pledge." It was started by an influential trio: Bill and Melinda Gates and Warren Buffett. Two years ago, Charlie Rose had the opportunity to get them together to learn more about their new club for billionaires. Membership comes with just two requirements: be worth at least a billion dollars and be willing to give half of that away.



But that does raise the question: do these billionaires have too much power?

Charlie Rose: There's some people who say big philanthropy is not such a good idea, meaning that somehow you have enormous power and you're not elected and, and that that may not be such a good idea to have people with enormous wealth to have so much influence.

Warren Buffett: Well, would they prefer dynastic wealth? Pass it on. Or would they prefer, you know, obscenely high living? There's a couple other ways to get rid of money, but I-- I-- I-- think it's better if you're helping other people, using a good bit of it for helping other people.

Charlie Rose: OK, so there's no instance in which somebody could say, "Look, I mean, we got too many people of huge wealth who are having too much influence."


The giving pledge
edit on 27-3-2016 by ReadLeader because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 07:22 PM
link   
a reply to: ReadLeader

Influencing people vs influencing law and policy are two different things.

Now I'm sure Warren Buffet gets calls from the CEO's of major banks asking what he thinks about stuff, I'm certain. Does that equate to the same kind of power the Koch brothers have funneling almost a billion dollars of their own money into an election cycle?

I don't think so and that's where I draw the line. It's not the ammount of money you have, its whether or not the system you choose to flood with that money is built to help YOU personally and YOUR interests, or the people at large.

Political donations and financial power in politics are most often self serving and not altruistic.

Meanwhile donating 80% of your wealth for example to hundreds of different organisations is certainly a better way of using your monetary influence.

~Tenth



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 07:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: ReadLeader

Influencing people vs influencing law and policy are two different things.

Now I'm sure Warren Buffet gets calls from the CEO's of major banks asking what he thinks about stuff, I'm certain. Does that equate to the same kind of power the Koch brothers have funneling almost a billion dollars of their own money into an election cycle?

I don't think so and that's where I draw the line. It's not the ammount of money you have, its whether or not the system you choose to flood with that money is built to help YOU personally and YOUR interests, or the people at large.

Political donations and financial power in politics are most often self serving and not altruistic.

Meanwhile donating 80% of your wealth for example to hundreds of different organisations is certainly a better way of using your monetary influence.

~Tenth


Funny how you pardon Buffet, condemn the Koch's and never mention Soros..........

I hate Soros and the Koch's equally. They all buy the Gods of government that we fight over like children as if they were our new religion.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: seeker1963

I just hate anyone worth over $1billion dollars.




posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 07:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: BigScaryStrawman
a reply to: seeker1963

I just hate anyone worth over $1billion dollars.



I don't!

I just hate those with enough money to influence our elected officials and use their money to do so!

Any wealthy person who lobbys elected officials to pass laws that harm the people who elected those said officials into office, should be hung, along with the elected officials who took their money!


I am old school!



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 07:38 PM
link   
Giving money to NGO that in the end further their plans while looking like heroes. If they where moral then they would never have had that kind of money since they would have one way or another made sure other people had it better either by lowering the cost of what they sell/control or pay more to the ones they employ so that the money would trickle down instead of up.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 07:42 PM
link   
a reply to: ReadLeader


Everyone knows that the wealth, the elite, movie makers, musicians and actors are the 1 per centers.

No they aren't. Celebrities are rich, the guys that own Exxon are wealthy.

Big difference. between bling and wealth to control nations.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: seeker1963

I could care less about George Soros. He's just the same as the Koch brothers, I just had them in mind at the time.

Omission of his name doesn't equate to acceptance of his tactics.

Citizens United should be struck down for EVERYBODY, even the ones I may agree with, but neither Soros nor Koch get on that list for sure.

~Tenth



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 08:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: seeker1963

I could care less about George Soros. He's just the same as the Koch brothers, I just had them in mind at the time.

Omission of his name doesn't equate to acceptance of his tactics.

Citizens United should be struck down for EVERYBODY, even the ones I may agree with, but neither Soros nor Koch get on that list for sure.

~Tenth


Thanks for the clarification.

I agree! Citizens United is pure and utter BS that is nothing more than promoting the Corporatocracy that many confuse as Capitalism......




top topics



 
3

log in

join