View Full Version : The "anti- Soros" has stepped up to the plate
Team Sergeant
10-12-2012, 11:52
Read the article (yes it's from CNN, and I am amazed!) then watch the youtube. George Soros now has a nemesis and his name is Thomas Peterffy.
It's unbelievable that hundreds of millions of Americans just don't get it but a native born Hungarian does.
Well said Mr. Peterffy.
TS
Thomas Peterffy - Freedom To Succeed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnX7TNFIELg
Rich, worried and buying ad time
Posted by
CNN's Ashley Killough
(CNN) - He's not running for office. He's not part of a super PAC. He's not lobbying for or against any ballot measures.
But billionaire Thomas Peterffy is spending millions on television ads this election season with one cautionary message: Avoid socialism.
– "I grew up in a socialist country and I have seen what that does to people. There is no hope, no freedom, no pride in achievement," he says with a soft Hungarian accent in the ad. "The nation became poorer and poorer, and that's what I see happening here."
Peterffy told CNN he expects to spend $5-$10 million on the ad buy, depending on its effectiveness. The spot will run on CNN, CNBC, Bloomberg, and test markets in Ohio, Wisconsin, and possibly Florida.
The one-minute spot, which began airing Wednesday and will continue through Election Day, has no mention of any specific politician or lawmaker. It's simply a plea for an end to what he sees as growing hostility to personal success - and to vote Republican.
"America's wealth comes from the efforts of people striving for success. Take away their incentive with badmouthing success and you take away the wealth that helps us take care of the needy," he says in the commercial.
Peterffy was born in Budapest in 1944 during the deadly Soviet offensive that ended in the capture of Hungary's capital the following year. From then, the republic remained under communist control until it gained independence in 1989.
The new ad features images of Peterffy as a child in Hungary and the impoverished conditions in his native country.
"As a young boy, I was fantasizing about one day going to America, making a success of myself. The American Dream," he says.
Peterffy left his country and moved to New York in 1965, where-without knowing English–he got a computer programming job on Wall Street. He later purchased his own seat on the American Stock Exchange in 1977 and, fast forward a few years, found himself the creator of Interactive Brokers, one of the first electronic trading firms.
Forbes Magazine now estimates Peterffy, 68, has a net worth of $4.6 billion.
Peterffy is not alone in his fear of a socialist America. Some Republicans have launched vocal accusations against President Barack Obama for pushing what they call socialist policies. In part, they're referring to Obama's tax proposal that would ultimately raise taxes on the wealthiest two percent of the country but maintain tax cuts for households making under $250,000 per year.
Obama and his re-election campaign argue they're not attacking success, rather they have a different viewpoint on how to create success. At the debate last week, Obama repeated his signature line, saying he wants to make sure everyone is "getting a fair share, everybody's doing a fair share, and everybody's playing by the same rules."
Peterffy, however, says such policies lead to a "slippery slope."
"I’ve paid $1.9 billion in taxes in my lifetime, now I am being told that I am not contributing my fair share?" he said in an interview.
"When you trash the leaders of businesses, they stop working hard. They go on vacation," he continued. "I even see that within myself, I used to be proud of building Interactive Brokers. I would look forward to work each day. Now I’m being told I’m not doing my fair share."
According to filings with the Federal Election Commission, the billionaire donated more than $60,000 to the Republican National Committee last year and contributed to Republican candidates including Mitt Romney, Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts, Linda McMahon in Connecticut, and House Speaker John Boehner.
Other billionaires, such David and Charles Koch, as well as George Soros, have played prominent roles this election, spending millions on ads for their respective candidates. But the titans maintain a low-profile, never appearing in the ads themselves.
Asked why Peterffy wanted to personally take out the ad buy–and star in the spot–he said he was concerned that Americans were unaware of the "downside" of a "less stratified society."
"If people want to go that way, I want them to go with eyes wide open, aware of all possible consequences," he added.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/10/rich-worried-and-buying-ad-time/
Badger52
10-12-2012, 12:23
"America's wealth comes from the efforts of people striving for success. Take away their incentive with badmouthing success and you take away the wealth that helps us take care of the needy," he says in the commercial.
There it is. It remains incomprehensible to me that anyone who's seen the effects of despots up close & personal could ever not understand that. Thanks for posting.
Barbarian
10-12-2012, 12:26
Excellent article. From CNN no less (go figure).
Thanks.
CNN...I'm surprised. Great article.
From the article:
"I’ve paid $1.9 billion in taxes in my lifetime, now I am being told that I am not contributing my fair share?" he said in an interview.
If you've owned some real property for some time - particulalry commercial real property - (or maybe a family farm) add up what you have paid in income, property, sales and other taxes over the years - relating specifically to such real property.
A couple of decades of taxes can quickly add up to quite a contribution.
Moreover, the owner basically shoulders all the risk - assessments can even go up when costs sky-rocket and incomes go down.
Not contributing your fair share my ass.
Badger52
10-12-2012, 14:05
Moreover, the owner basically shoulders all the risk - assessments can even go up when costs sky-rocket and incomes go down.
Not contributing your fair share my ass.[Belushi Arab voice]"Nonono. I want the tax due on your inventory too. I like the inventory, it's very pretty. How much for your inventory? What? Nonsense, e-NOUGH! I don't care that you paid tax when you purchased it. I want the worth of your inventory. Every year."
[Belushi Arab voice]"Nonono. I want the tax due on your inventory too. I like the inventory, it's very pretty. How much for your inventory? What? Nonsense, e-NOUGH! I don't care that you paid tax when you purchased it. I want the worth of your inventory. Every year."
Not to mention a tangible personal property tax in some jurisdictions (or other excise taxes) on all your business office furniture and equipment - ANNUALLY !
What ? You've already paid sales tax on all those purchases...no matter.
That ANNUAL excise tax might also act as a disincentive to upgrade to new "stuff" (as Uncle Joe says) -- even though you would pay a sales tax at the time of purchase on the new "stuff" which would help merchants and contribute to revenues.
...the beast is insatiable.
Lets all have a moment of silence for Thomas since his feelings were hurt. Funny how I don't see Elon Musk going on vacation and dismantling SpaceX because of this "hositility". Personally, "these" politically minded billionaires (i.e Soros and Thomas) can go on vacation permanently.
Lets all have a moment of silence for Thomas since his feelings were hurt. Funny how I don't see Elon Musk going on vacation and dismantling SpaceX because of this "hositility". Personally, "these" politically minded billionaires (i.e Soros and Thomas) can go on vacation permanently.
Did you not understand the premise of the article?
Team Sergeant
10-13-2012, 09:14
Bruce Kovner is kind of like a right-wing George Soros, along with the Koch brothers. I think that the GOP makes a mistake in calling Obama a socialist though. The way to fight Obama is to say that his view is just one in which the government plays a much larger role in American society than what is the norm, the European type of role that is bankrupting much of Europe right now.
obama and his cronies are socialists and practicing their version of socialism on America. The individuals that support and protect the Constitution of the United States have every right to call obama a socialist. Please amuse me and tell me what you'd call him? And please tell me what is bankrupting the EU right now?
"Rich, worried and buying ad time"
If you only read that title you would have to believe that the story was about some rich guy whining about Obama thinking that he may not be paying his fair share. Someone scared about protecting their wealth. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is a story about a man who has been there and has done that. He appreciates from first hand experience what it is to realize the American dream, and he appreciates the erosion and the assault that is currently taking place on that dream by our own government. This country needs rich people, I and many of you work for rich people. I have done ok in my lifetime, I am comfortable but not multi-millionaire comfortable, but that was my own choice. If you are not happy with your lot in life then do something about it, at least while you still can. Yes very well said Mr. Peterffy
Sir, the reason I say that I think it is a mistake to call Obama a socialist is that the independents do not see him that way. Calling him a socialist puts the GOP in the light of being on the far right-wing. That is the last thing we want, as it will play right into the Democratic party's hands. The GOP needs to stick to a message that Obama is of a political philosophy that calls for a much larger role for government in American society and explain in clear terms why that is bad (.ex Europe), without calling him a socialist. I would have to disagree with you that Europe is going down due to socialism so much as social democracy, where they have promised themselves the moon in terms of freebies without generating anywhere near enough economic output to pay for it. Social democracy is related to socialism, but isn't the exact same thing.
So you are advocating beating around the bush, rather than straight to the point because some might be offended......I am an Independent and I rather them say what they are thinking instead of having a circle jerk of words, and a host of Talking Heads dissecting what it all means for weeks on end..
Also remember numerous studies have shown Americans to have short attention spans, so getting to the point simply, quickly and directly would seem to be an advantage for those who are not fearful of stepping across the PC line.
I have no problem with offending people, I have a concern about people perceiving the Republican party as too far right-wing and thus voting President Obama a second term. And the media will make sure that Americans do not forget anything that will hurt Republicans that they have a short attention span on.
It also would not be beating around the bush, as one can very much hold the view that Obama is not a socialist, but rather a European social democrat, one who believes in a much bigger role for government in American society than the Republicans do. An example could be that Julia video, where the government is holding a person's hand through every step of their life, whereas the Republican concept is that the government is there with a safety net if you need it, but otherwise wants you to be independent.
From what I have read, a social democracy is a form of socialism, which in theory is an evolution from a capitalist economy to a socialist economy. And according to some most social democracies are members of Socialist International. And there are some who believe that Social Democracy is related to Keynesian welfare capitalism, which is what Helicopter Ben, Turbo Timmy and both parties prescribe to, and the reason why we have 16 trillion (and growing) in national dept.
So....
By portraying Obama and/or Social Democracy in such a wordy manner you are in effect putting lipstick on a pig, thus disguising it for what it truly is.
Merely.......a European social democrat.....that is nothing short of nauseating to me. So do we as a nation want to follow in the foots steps Europe.....that is a good question.
As for what the Republican concept is...I don't see a secondary safety lanyard from either party anywhere around me......They say and promise whatever it takes to get re-elected, that is the concept of both parties embrace.
ZonieDiver
10-14-2012, 18:00
Yeah, but the man's point was that by shouting 'Socialist' at Obama, the Rs are going to play into the D's hands - allowing them to scream - "Far Right Wingers!"
Given the proclivities of the MSM, at least according to what I read here repeatedly, shouting 'Socialist' will not get traction, but "Far Right Wingers!" will.
Dozer523
10-15-2012, 06:40
...shouting 'Socialist' will not get traction, but "Far Right Wingers!" will.
Wanna see traction?
Try " Mordorian right ring-nuts "
I stand by my earlier statement, "The President can't lose, you ( the Republicans) won't let him."
Yeah, but the man's point was that by shouting 'Socialist' at Obama, the Rs are going to play into the D's hands - allowing them to scream - "Far Right Wingers!"
Given the proclivities of the MSM, at least according to what I read here repeatedly, shouting 'Socialist' will not get traction, but "Far Right Wingers!" will.
Okay, then it would seem to me that based on that the D's are defining the ROE, minimizing the your use weapons and thus controlling the battlefield. And in this case the D's can dropped verbal JDAM's at will, but the governing body of the ROE, the MSM puts harsh sanctions on the R's when they attempt to use the same weapons. In addition the MSM continues to change the ROE to minimize other avenues of attack and effectiveness of the R's.
And all the while the R's keep taking the hits.......kind of reminds me of 'Troops Ordered Not to Shoot Taliban at Night Because It Might Wake Up The Locals'.
Broadsword.......I believe we have had this discussion on Social Democracy before. We won't agree.
Descriptive terms like Socialist and Neoconservatives draw my interest, terms containing Far and Wing generally kill my interest.....as do long windy explanation's that don't get down to the nuts and bolts.
ZonieDiver
10-15-2012, 12:32
Okay, then it would seem to me that based on that the D's are defining the ROE, minimizing the your use weapons and thus controlling the battlefield. And in this case the D's can dropped verbal JDAM's at will, but the governing body of the ROE, the MSM puts harsh sanctions on the R's when they attempt to use the same weapons. In addition the MSM continues to change the ROE to minimize other avenues of attack and effectiveness of the R's.
And all the while the R's keep taking the hits.......kind of reminds me of 'Troops Ordered Not to Shoot Taliban at Night Because It Might Wake Up The Locals'.
Broadsword.......I believe we have had this discussion on Social Democracy before. We won't agree.
Descriptive terms like Socialist and Neoconservatives draw my interest, terms containing Far and Wing generally kill my interest.....as do long windy explanation's that don't get down to the nuts and bolts.
IF that is the way it is... that's the way it is. If the Rs refuse to understand what's going on in the battle, what the enemy is up to, and how the enemies' allies operate... how the hell are they ever going to win?
It's like walking into the same ambush time after time after time.
I'm beginning to think that Dozer is correct:
POTUS can't lose, cuz the Rs ain't going to allow that.
Team Sergeant
10-15-2012, 13:17
IF that is the way it is... that's the way it is. If the Rs refuse to understand what's going on in the battle, what the enemy is up to, and how the enemies' allies operate... how the hell are they ever going to win?
It's like walking into the same ambush time after time after time.
I'm beginning to think that Dozer is correct:
POTUS can't lose, cuz the Rs ain't going to allow that.
The GOP cannot win when the Teleprompter and Chief refuses to enforce the immigration laws and adds millions of democratic voters seemingly overnight by giving them amnesty. I have given this a lot of thought and have come to the conclusion that this country will in fact become socialist state in the next 50 years or sooner.
We have fed the bears from the picnic table for too long to turn this around. The bear population has grown far too big to stop feeding them now. 50 years or sooner.
Badger52
10-15-2012, 14:07
POTUS can't lose, cuz the Rs ain't going to allow that.Not just POTUS. In what had been shaping up to be a winnable Senate seat, Tammy Baldwin (D) had been doing a not-too-shabby job of painting former Gov. Tommy Thompson (R) as the former guv-turned-fatcat-lobbyist. Believe me when I say you don't want her socialistic agenda with her spending habits in the Senate, but she was doing OK, even as beloved or at least respected as local boy Thompson is. Baldwin made little attempt to hide what was obviously the standard gambit of fostering class warfare.
However, over the weekend Thompson's 38-yo son pledged at an event their goal was to "send Obama back to Chicago...or Kenya." Naturally there was a Dem operative in the room and nanoseconds later (probably) the film is on the net.
No need for Baldwin to look any further for something to deflect those who would scrutinze her actual Congressional record. Thompson had plenty to go after in terms of moderates suffering from 2008 buyer's remorse; people who may only have been vaguely familiar with him. But when you keep giving the other side 4 outs, they're gonna base-hit your ass to death & you're toast.
What a freakin' circular firing squad.
Okay, then it would seem to me that based on that the D's are defining the ROE, minimizing the your use weapons and thus controlling the battlefield. And in this case the D's can dropped verbal JDAM's at will, but the governing body of the ROE, the MSM puts harsh sanctions on the R's when they attempt to use the same weapons. In addition the MSM continues to change the ROE to minimize other avenues of attack and effectiveness of the R's.Your interpretation is in accurate. As Lexington (the pen name of the Economist's observer of American politics and society) reminded us late last month, both parties are taking the same approach to electoral politics (http://www.economist.com/node/21563746). Meanwhile, that same newspaper has pointed to another ongoing dynamic practiced by both parties (http://www.economist.com/node/21564590). (IIRC, these two dynamics were discussed at length back in 1992 at the LBJ School of Government.)
...[A]s do long windy explanation's that don't get down to the nuts and bolts.Then again, maybe pieces from The Economist aren't for you.
It's like walking into the same ambush time after time after time.
Yeah. So I am wondering why the R's keep playing by the same rules time after time after time and end up looking like they have been neutered.
Then again, maybe pieces from The Economist aren't for you.
I am sure there is some sarcastic humor there, but You lost me Sig....I was discussing BS2004 comments not anything from The Economist.
XngZeRubicon
10-22-2012, 18:31
I've caught about half of that ad twice now and got pretty emotional watching it. My dad's parents came over on the boat from Poland and as a merchant seaman for 40 years, my dad would tell stories about pulling into communists and socialist countries to include Poland where he could understand the conversations on the streets. He would then bring home the stories about how much pain the Soviets were causing in places like Poland.
I also ended my Air Force career in 1990 when Communism basically collapsed, and never did I think I'd ever see the debate again over a centralized economic system versus the decentralized market entreprise system in my lifetime - which this election is about IMO. When I saw his ad, I thought to myself, "Finally! Somebody who actually understands the history."