these are the guys that I believe are genuine businessmen who are being bamboozle by organized crime, which I
might add is better known today as American Enterprise.

These guys understand that the government is needed to protect those whom they can't help financially and so needs
the government for that safety net whenever they fall, while American Enterprise does not believe in distribution.

You can put Rmoney in that American Enterprise category, yes I said it.

One of Gates idea of "charity" is privatizing public education.

for a government provided social safety net, but I'm betting that the donated funds will provide more goods and services to the needy than would be provided by the tax amount the government is losing due to the donations.

it is more about creating an opportunity, the same opportunity they had when they were struggling. It is easier to
forget where you came from once you've made it, my only hope is that they keep their organisation clean from
the real moochers.

Providing services directly, such as health care & education, is the most efficient way to provide services.

Charitable foundations will control the agenda, they will dangle money in front of cash starved public institutions with the demand that the public subsume control to that of the foundation (see conscience clause) . Also, these billionaires are making no promises that their charitable donations will reach the needy. Their are plenty of charitable organizations that supply goods and services to the middle and upper classes (orchestras, museums, opera houses, charter schools, art and wine & food festivals, farmers markets...)

The western countries that have a comprehensive and healthy social safety net are also countries that have low domestic charity programs. They don't need them and their entire society is healthier for it.

I think the pledge is great, and I think the billionaires should be applauded for it. I'm of the opinion that the money will be better spent by the charities than by the government.

I don't agree that distributing cash is always the most efficient way to distribute goods. For example, a food bank is much more efficient in distributing food to the needy than providing cash for buying groceries. Food banks are able to stretch their dollars much further and provide more bang for the buck than an individual shopper can hope to do.

And the donors get to write off the entire production cost of their failed products. I've volunteered in food banks. Stacks and stacks of sodas and snacks that didn't make the market and pounds of pounds of fresh food that, if not cooked in one or two days, would be a pile of mold and that they pack in 2'x4' bags that no "needy" person could cook in a day. Food banks are a conduit for the poverty pimps. A vessel for them to advertise that the are doing something for the "needy" by doing nothing more than writing off excess inventory.

Eliminate the poverty pimps and put that cash savings into citizens hands.

And my experience is nothing like yours. A large truck is there, full of fresh produce, there are tables full of pasta, canned goods, cereals, rice, beans, etc. And not a soda in sight.

Like I said, we'll just agree to disagree on the usefulness of charity.