Sind Bill Gates und Warren Buffett Sozialisten?


03-07-20 07:58:00,

Das „Geschäftsmodell“ der philanthropischen Multimilliardäre. Zweifellos gelten Bill Gates und Warren Buffet als Philanthropen. Beide sind Multimilliardäre. Sie haben bedeutende Stiftungen ins Leben gerufen und firmieren als Wohltäter. Beide stehen in enger, freundschaftlicher Verbindung zueinander. Die Stiftung des Groß-Investors Warren Buffett verfügte 2018 über ein Stiftungskapital von 36 Mrd. US-Dollar. Der Stifter, dessen persönliches Vermögen auf weitere 83 Mrd. US-Dollar geschätzt wird, kündigte 2006 an, 85 Prozent davon an fünf Stiftungen zu verschenken, vier kleinere Teile an Stiftungen der Mitglieder seiner Familie, den Großteil aber an die Stiftung von Bill und Melinda Gates.[1] Der Microsoft-Gründer Bill Gates wiederum plant, dass er zu Lebzeiten 96 Prozent seines gegenwärtig auf 110 Mrd. US-Dollar geschätzten Vermögens an die nach ihm und seiner Frau benannte Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) übertragen wird.[2] Von Rudolph Bauer.

Der folgende Beitrag untersucht exemplarisch[3] die Aktivitäten von Bill Gates und Warren Buffett. Zunächst werden die philanthropischen Ansätze der Stifter beschrieben. Am Beispiel der mit einer Schenkung von Buffett aufgestockten BMGF wird über eine Stiftungspolitik berichtet, deren Hauptanliegen es ist, weltweit Entwicklungen im landwirtschaftlichen und medizinischen Bereich zu fördern. In einem weiteren Abschnitt wird eine Auswahl von Investitionen vorgestellt, die aus dem Vermögen von Buffett und Gates bzw. ihren Stiftungen finanziert und mit der Absicht einer Gewinnsteigerung – d. h. einer Maximierung des persönlichen Vermögens bzw. des Stiftungskapitals – getätigt wurden. In einem dritten Schritt des Beitrags wird ein Resümee gezogen und eine kritische Bewertung der Investitions- und Stiftungsmaßnahmen vorgenommen. Sind Bill Gates und Warren Buffett Sozialisten?

  • Die philanthropischen Stiftungsprogramme der Multimilliardäre
    Die Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation[4] ist nach Selbstauskunft in drei Bereiche gegliedert: Globale Entwicklung, globale Gesundheit und das United-States-Programm. Letzteres fördert vor allem Projekte im Bereich der Bildung. U. a. werden Digital-Initiativen unterstützt, welche die Nutzung von Computern und des Internets in öffentlichen Büchereien zum Ziel haben. Ferner werden Stipendien an Jugendliche aus Familien mit geringem Einkommen vergeben, damit den als förderungswürdig geltenden Jugendlichen der Besuch einer weiterführenden Schule ermöglicht wird.

    Das Engagement der Gates-Stiftung im Rahmen der landwirtschaftlichen Entwicklungshilfe fördert agrarwirtschaftliche Maßnahmen sowie entsprechende Forschungs- und Entwicklungsprojekte. Für Vorhaben, die als landwirtschaftliche Entwicklungshilfe ausgegeben werden, wurden bis 2011 rd. 1,8 Mrd.

  •  » Lees verder

    Trump Vs. Warren, & The Fake Battle Against The Elites


    22-11-19 09:06:00,

    Authored by Brandon Smith via,

    It seems like a simple and easy to identify pattern, but for some reason the public keeps falling for the same old globalist tricks. A well-worn tactic the money elites use to endear certain puppet political candidates to Americans is to encourage those candidates to use anti-elitist rhetoric, only to then flood their cabinets with those same elites once they get into office. The rule of politics seems to be, “Say whatever you want to get the people on your side, but once you’re in office, you do as we tell you…”

    These candidates will aggressively attack the banks, corporations and wall street, lamenting the rapid decline of the middle class or “working class”. They will point out that a mere handful of ultra-rich, the top 1%, control more wealth than nearly half of the population combined. They will seize upon the travesties of the poor and argue for “change” to bring balance back to the system. They will pretend to expose the crimes of the banking cabal and the upper echelons of Wall Street. They will put on a grand show; and then, they will do the bidding of their masters and play the role they were groomed for…

    Americans are suckers for fake “people’s candidates” and always have been.

    But perhaps I should expand on this with some real world examples. How about Jimmy Carter, who started out his presidential campaign with a dismal 4% in the Democratic polls. Carter would go on to explode in popularity after attacking what he referred to as the “Washington insiders”, the elites that ran the show from behind the curtain. A widely distributed paperback book that promoted Carter during his campaign called “I’ll Never Lie To You: Jimmy Carter In His Own Words” quoted the candidate as saying at a Boston rally:

    “The people of this country know from bitter experience that we are not going to get … changes merely by shifting around the same group of insiders.”

    His own top aide, Hamilton Jordan, promised:

    “If, after the inauguration, you find a Cy Vance as Secretary of State and Zbigniew Brzezinski as head of National Security,

     » Lees verder

    Sanders, Warren, Ocasio-Cortez, and Other Lawmakers Sign Pledge to End America’s “Forever Wars”


    04-03-19 06:32:00,

    Eight members of Congress have taken a pledge to work to bring ongoing U.S. global military conflicts to a “responsible and expedient” end, the result of a first-of-its kind lobbying effort by military veterans on Capitol Hill.

    The pledge was written and organized by a group called Common Defense, made up of veterans and military families, which advocates for scaling back U.S. military commitments overseas. Common Defense boasts of more than 20,000 veteran members in all 50 states, and it threw its endorsement behind almost 30 candidates in the last midterm election cycle.

    The group’s involvement in electoral politics and Capitol Hill lobbying makes it an oddity in anti-war circles, as peace groups have historically concentrated on mobilizing opposition to war through street protests and marches. Jose Vasquez, the group’s executive director, joined the Army in 1992 and was honorably discharged as a conscientious objector in 2007, having joined the anti-war movement while he was still serving. He said that most anti-war groups believe that “all the politicians are corrupt and we’re not going to make change that way,” a mindset that goes back to the protests against the Vietnam War.

    “It’s kind of the same-old, same-old anti-war: standing up, doing vigils, standing outside and yelling at the buildings, coming on a Saturday to D.C. when nobody’s here. We’d much rather be here and talk to folks,” he said as he and other vets walked the halls of the Longworth House Office Building, on their way to a meeting with staff for Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn. “Protest is important; you’ve got to show your strength in numbers, but having a seat at the table is important as well.”

    “Protest is important; you’ve got to show your strength in numbers, but having a seat at the table is important as well.”

    All of the signatories so far are members of the Democratic caucus, and most of them are associated with the left wing of the party: Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren; Omar and other freshmen Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ro Khanna, and Rashida Tlaib; and Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chair Mark Pocan. Common Defense is also courting more moderate lawmakers, particularly those in swing districts and Democrats. So far, the group has also gotten the support of Montana Sen.

     » Lees verder

    Elizabeth Warren Unveils Radical Anti-Corruption Platform

    Elizabeth Warren Unveils Radical Anti-Corruption Platform

    21-08-18 02:58:00,

    Elizabeth Warren on Tuesday unveiled a sweeping set of reforms that would radically restrict and publicly expose corporate lobbying in Washington.

    In a major speech at the National Press Club, she laid out the parameters of what she is calling the “Anti-Corruption Act.” If just half of it were implemented, it could transform the political economy of Washington and fundamentally upend the lawmaking process as it currently exists.

    Warren began her speech by noting that only 18 percent of the American people now say that they have trust in the government. “This is the kind of crisis that leads people to turn away from democracy,” she said. “The kind of crisis that creates fertile ground for cynicism and discouragement. The kind of crisis that gives rise to authoritarians.”

    In broad strokes, Warren is attempting to take the profit motive out of public service by making it extremely difficult for former lawmakers and government officials to cash in on their government experience, while simultaneously giving Congress and federal agencies the resources needed to effectively govern without the motivated assistance of K Street.

    In 1995, when Newt Gingrich and the “Republican Revolution” took over Congress, he systematically dismantled the intellectual infrastructure of the institution, defunding major functions of Congress and slashing budgets for staff. The public-facing explanation was to cut back on wasteful spending, but the true intent was to effectively privatize lawmaking, forcing Congress to outsource much of the work of crafting legislation to K Street. What followed was an explosion in the lobbying industry in Washington.

    Warren proposes much stricter restrictions on the revolving door between public service and lobbying, but, more fundamentally, flat-out bans on any lobbying on behalf of foreign governments, an industry that has come under increased scrutiny as a result of the trial of Paul Manafort, who made his fortune carrying water for foreign governments in Washington, often whose interests ran against those of the U.S.

    Under current law, foreign agents must register and disclose any contacts with government officials — they would now be banned and under Warren’s law, all lobbyists would have to do what foreign agents do now.

    Her bill would also mandate that the IRS release tax returns for candidates, and that the president and vice president be subject to conflict-of-interest laws.

     » Lees verder

    Elizabeth Warren Demands in Letter That U.S. Military Explain Its Role in Yemen Bombings

    Elizabeth Warren Demands in Letter That U.S. Military Explain Its Role in Yemen Bombings

    15-08-18 07:49:00,

    In the wake of a U.S.-backed bombing last week that killed dozens of children on a school bus in north Yemen, Sen. Elizabeth Warren is demanding answers about how U.S. military advisers support and oversee the Saudi and UAE bombing campaign in Yemen.

    Warren sent a letter on Tuesday to Gen. Joseph Votel, head of U.S. Central Command and top commander for U.S. forces in the Middle East, requesting that he clarify past congressional testimony about the U.S. role in the Yemen war. Warren’s letter referenced an article by The Intercept about an airstrike in May, based on a U.S. intelligence report that recounts in detail, minute by minute, how the strike unfolded and American munitions were used.

    Votel has previously suggested that the U.S. has little knowledge about how Saudi Arabia and the UAE use American weapons, and does not track the aircraft missions that the U.S. helps refuel. During a congressional hearing in March, Warren asked Votel whether CENTCOM tracks what aircraft do after the U.S. refuels them. He responded, “Senator, we do not.” Votel also denied knowing whether U.S.-produced munitions were used in specific strikes when the media has reported on civilian deaths.

    However, earlier this month The Intercept published a detailed article about a coalition airstrike in May, which targeted a site in Yemen’s Northern Saada governorate where a dozen family members slept in tents; the bomb happened to miss the tents, so the civilians survived. The article quoted an intelligence report that includes “what appear to be comments from an American intelligence analyst” who closely supervised the strike from a coalition command center in Riyadh, suggesting that U.S. military observers have detailed information about how strikes unfold.

    Eric Eikenberry, an advocacy officer for the U.S.-based Yemen Peace Project, told The Intercept that the existence of an intelligence report shows that coalition airstrikes are more closely supervised than Votel had indicated. “When it comes to Yemen, the priorities of General Votel and the rest of the administration are obscene,” he wrote in an email. “We knew that the United States was providing the fuel, weapons, and intelligence for coalition strikes, and now we know that the U.S. is perfectly capable of assessing strikes on civilian targets that use U.S.

     » Lees verder