Is this what leftists are defending?

Diogenes said:
Salty Walty makes shit up.

No, Politico did not make over $4 billion in revenue. According to the available information, Politico's revenue figures for recent years are significantly lower:

  • In 2023, Politico's peak revenue was reported as $7.2 million
Click to expand...
So somehow Politico was paid $8.2 million from one customer, and only had revenue of $7.2 million? Your math is ain't mathing.

Politico is the brand name used in the USA for Axel Springer SE. They made 3.9 billion Euros in 2022, which at the time was $4.36 billion. They are making more these days. They just got $17 million more from ExxonMobile.

www.statista.com

Axel Springer SE revenue Germany 2022 | Statista

In 2022, Axel Springer, the media group, generated a revenue of over 3.9 billion euros.
www.statista.com www.statista.com
 
Diogenes said:
USAID has paid $44,000 for subscriptions to Politico over the two years covering fiscal years 2023 and 2024.
Click to expand...
So only half that was paid per year? So they have $4.36 billion in revenue per year, and got $22k per year from the USAID subscription. That is a whopping 0.0005%.

How much do you think it would cost to collect all that data and process it ourselves?
 
Diogenes said:
It ain't "my math", Salty Walty.
Click to expand...
You claimed they received $8.2 million from the government, and only got $7.2 million from all sources. That does not work.

I just do not buy your claims that revenue has been overstated by 100,000%. To make things worse, you claims are self contradictory.
 
Yes, Politico received money from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Specifically, USAID paid Politico $44,000 for subscriptions to POLITICO's E&E News service in the fiscal years 2023 and 2024.

In addition, Politico received much larger sums representing the total spending by all federal agencies on Politico subscriptions, not just USAID.


@Grok
 
Diogenes said:
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation primarily derives its funds from:

  1. Endowment: The foundation's endowment was initially built from donations by Bill Gates, co-founder of Microsoft, and his then-wife Melinda Gates. A significant portion of these funds came from Bill Gates' personal wealth, which was largely accumulated from his Microsoft stock.
  2. Donations from Bill Gates: Bill Gates has pledged to give away most of his wealth to the foundation. Over the years, he has donated billions of dollars worth of Microsoft stock to the foundation.
  3. Donations from Warren Buffett: In 2006, Warren Buffett, one of the world's richest individuals, pledged to give away more than 99% of his wealth to philanthropy, with a significant portion going to the Gates Foundation. This has been one of the largest donations to the foundation, consisting of shares in his company, Berkshire Hathaway.
  4. Investment Income: The foundation manages its endowment like an investment fund, earning returns from investments in stocks, bonds, and other financial instruments. These returns contribute to the foundation's operational funds.
  5. Other Donors: While the vast majority of the funding comes from Gates and Buffett, the foundation occasionally receives contributions from other donors for specific initiatives or in response to fundraising campaigns.
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation does not typically receive direct federal grant monies for its general operations. However, there are nuances to consider:

  • Indirect Funding: While the foundation itself does not receive federal grants directly, its initiatives or partners might. For instance, the foundation often collaborates with public health initiatives that might receive federal funding independently or in conjunction with foundation grants.
  • Influence on Federal Funding: The foundation has been known to influence federal funding priorities, particularly in areas like global health. For example,the Gates Foundation's initiatives, such as the Grand Challenges for Global Health, have led to increased NIH funding in related areas, suggesting an indirect influence on how federal funds are allocated.


@Grok
Click to expand...
Wow, you are able to say where the money comes from. That means it is not coming from money laundering.
 
Walt said:
Wow, you are able to say where the money comes from. That means it is not coming from money laundering.
Click to expand...

Poor Salty Walty. His ignorance is boundless.

Is money laundering a possibility even if the sources are supposedly known?

Yes, money laundering is still a possibility even when the sources of funds are supposedly known. Here's why:
  1. Layering: Money laundering often involves multiple stages, including placement, layering, and integration. In the layering stage, funds are moved through various transactions or accounts to obscure the audit trail. Even if the initial source is known, through numerous transactions, the money can be "cleaned" by making its origins harder to trace.
  2. Complex Financial Structures: Criminals might use complex corporate structures, shell companies, or trusts to hide the beneficial ownership of funds. Even if the initial source is known, these layers can make it difficult to prove that the funds are still illicit once they've been moved through these entities.
  3. Mixing Legal and Illegal Funds: If someone has both legitimate and illegitimate income, they can mix these funds. For example, if a business is known to have some legal earnings, it can be used as a front to launder illegal earnings, making it appear as if all funds come from legal activities.
  4. Use of Legitimate Business: Criminals might invest dirty money into legitimate businesses. This not only cleans the money but also provides a plausible explanation for the source of wealth if questioned.
  5. International Transactions: Moving money across borders can further complicate tracing efforts. Different jurisdictions have varying levels of financial regulation, transparency, and cooperation, which can be exploited. Even if the initial source is known in one country, tracking it through international transfers can be challenging.
  6. Digital and Cryptocurrency: With cryptocurrencies and digital transactions, anonymity can be maintained even when funds enter the digital ecosystem. Although blockchain transactions are transparent, the identity of the sender or receiver can be obscured, making it difficult to link transactions back to known sources.
  7. Tax Havens and Offshore Accounts: Money can be laundered through accounts in jurisdictions with strict secrecy laws or through offshore accounts where oversight might be less stringent.
  8. Smurfing: Breaking down large amounts of money into smaller, less suspicious amounts can bypass reporting thresholds. This technique, known as smurfing or structuring, can be used even with known sources to make transactions appear less significant or connected.
  9. Trade-Based Money Laundering: Over- or under-invoicing goods in international trade can be used to move money around the globe, disguising the true nature of the transactions. Even if the source of money is known, this method can make it difficult to trace the laundering process.
  10. Regulatory Loopholes: Sometimes, the legal framework might not be robust enough to catch all forms of laundering, or there might be loopholes that can be exploited, especially in emerging markets or sectors with less regulation.
In all these scenarios, even if the initial source of funds is known, the subsequent steps or the structuring of transactions can make it challenging to prove money laundering. This is why anti-money laundering (AML) efforts focus not just on identifying the source but also on monitoring the behavior of funds through the financial system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top