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.
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 pledgeedit on 27-3-2016 by ReadLeader because: (no reason given)
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
originally posted by: BigScaryStrawman
a reply to: seeker1963
I just hate anyone worth over $1billion dollars.
Everyone knows that the wealth, the elite, movie makers, musicians and actors are the 1 per centers.
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