Billionaire warns against socialism he sees as coming here.

[powderman]

Hungarian-born billionaire makes anti-socialism case in TV ad  Published October 12, 2012
FoxNews.com     

•    Shown here is Hungarian-born billionaire Thomas Peterffy, in an image from the ad he's financing.

  It's one of the more personal ads of the 2012 campaign.
But no presidential campaign or super PAC is behind it. Rather, a new TV ad and Web video that warns of the ills of socialism while urging America to vote Republican next month is financed by Hungarian-born billionaire Thomas Peterffy.
 
In the video, Peterffy recalls his childhood under socialism in Hungary, and says, "The nation became poorer and poorer. And that's what I see happening here." He warns that the United States, his adopted country, is embarking on a "slippery slope."
 
He continues: "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. Yes, in socialism the rich will be poorer -- but the poor will also be poorer. People will lose interest in really working hard and creating jobs."
 
The ad does not mention President Obama or Mitt Romney once. But in a campaign season where Obama is often accused by Republicans of attacking the wealthy, the target is apparent. Peterffy reportedly plans to spend millions to air the ad in the weeks before Election Day.
 
Peterffy -- though not as prominent as perhaps the most famous Hungarian-born billionaire, George Soros -- is the founder of Interactive Brokers and one of the richest people in this country. Forbes lists his net worth at $4.6 billion. He's contributed freely over the years to mostly Republican candidates, including to Romney in his last two presidential campaigns. And he gave more than $60,000 to the Republican National Committee last year.
Born in Hungary in 1944, Peterffy left for the United States in 1965. In America, he learned English and eventually launched Interactive Brokers in 1993. He lives in Greenwich, Conn.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/12/hungarian-born-billionaire-makes-anti-socialism-case-in-tv-ad/?test=latestnews#ixzz29BNTgkA2

[ChungDoQuan]

Well, of course rich capitalists don't like socialism--- it cuts into their profits. Personally, I'm tired of hearing billionaires whining, not because they will no longer be rich, but because they won't be able to make as many billions next year as they did last year. Especially when firing workers is the only way they can come up with to keep the money rolling in. My opinion, the fired workers ought to form a competitive business, collectively owned, that competes with the former employer--- Harley Davidson did it, though by that time, the former owners did not want to make motorcycles any more.

[mechanic]

Sure nuff Chung...it's worked well everywhere else it was tried....Cuba, Argentina, USSR, Italy, .....I could go on, but it sure gives us all something to look forward to.
 
Ben
 

[ChungDoQuan]

Without collective ownership, there wouldn't be a Wall Street. 

[rio grande]

News Flash!  Billionaire dislikes socialism.  Duh.

[Bear Rider]

News Flash!  Billionaire dislikes socialism.  Duh.

News Flash!  Loser socialists want handouts and nannies.

[nomosendero]

News Flash!  Billionaire dislikes socialism.  Duh.

News Flash!  Loser socialists want handouts and nannies.

Yes & here is yet another Duh, Freedom Lovers have no time for Socialist

[Dee]

Well, of course rich capitalists don't like socialism--- it cuts into their profits. Personally, I'm tired of hearing billionaires whining, not because they will no longer be rich, but because they won't be able to make as many billions next year as they did last year. Especially when firing workers is the only way they can come up with to keep the money rolling in. My opinion, the fired workers ought to form a competitive business, collectively owned, that competes with the former employer--- Harley Davidson did it, though by that time, the former owners did not want to make motorcycles any more.

So the fired workers, in effect became "capitalists", but their not really "capitalists", cause they were fired by a "capitalist". Good Grief!   SO is the reason that the Harley Davidson is the highest priced motorcycle in America, because it is run by "socialists"?
In your bizarre effort to demonize "capitalism", you describe a group of people "collectively buying" a business, forming a board of directors, and thru a combined effort, producing a product, and selling it for a profit, on the free market. Are they giving the profits to non-working freeloaders? Not hardly! Your reasoning makes no sense

[ChungDoQuan]

All "socialism" has elements of capitalism. (Even the Soviets had their black markets.) All "capitalism" has elements of socialism. (Drug trafficking laws, consumer protection laws, stock markets, co-ops, etc.) Neither system is workable in pure form.

[Dee]

I will let your statement, and my response regarding Harley Davidson stand. Trying to de-flea a large dog by hand with tweezers is a fruitless endeavor that will never be successful. Getting you to admit your mistake will be equally unsuccessful.

[SHOOTALL]

In capitalism you have both a free market if you will and a govt system . The govt. system of services lives off of the open system . In a soicalist enviroment you only have the govt. system and it lives off of itself not a healthy system . In America today the govt. is trying to control the free market and killing it.

[SHOOTALL]

That's what un succesful people always claim

[mechanic]

Just my curiosity...I really have never heard the story....who owns Harley Davidson now?  I know their stock is traded.
 
Ben

[DDZ]

I figure we are going to get to see how socialism California style, works out. The state debt is now about 620 billion. Some cities have already claimed bankruptcy, with others like LA on the edge. For the last 10 years roughly 225,000 leave California per year, and many of them are wealthy, and they are taking their money with them. Doesn't appear to be working out very well for the Marxists that are running the state, and the ones voting for them.
Just wonder who will get the blame for the demise of the state after all the people with money leave? Maybe California can sue some of the other states for attracting their rich guys with lower tax rates. Not only is money leaving the state, the brains are going along with it. Rich people don't become rich by being stupid. The liberals and Marxists haven't figured that out yet.
Maybe California can make a law to keep people from leaving the state. Or like in some third world countries they can set limits on how many assets people take with them. Really in principle it won't be much different than making people purchase health care. I'm sure the national health care crowd won't have any problem with the idea of forcing people to stay in a state. With socialism its all about encroachment on personal liberty.
Create socialism and blame capitalism for the problems. Have to hand it to the liberals. The lie has worked well for them.

[BBF]

Multi millionaires and even less likely billionares are worried about their money or themselves.  They move it overseas go with it themselves if need be, convert some or all of it in precious metals. Nothing new here, they won't go broke or become homeless.
 

[jimster]

Multi millionaires and even less likely billionares are worried about their money or themselves.  They move it overseas go with it themselves if need be, convert some or all of it in precious metals. Nothing new here, they won't go broke or become homeless.

Can't say as I blame them, I hide mine as best I can too...I just have less to hide.  Why would anyone with any money want the government to get it knowing what they will do with it?  It might make them feel kind of guilty knowing their money would be running guns across the border, or used to prop up bankrupt companies and then get funneled into a political party. 
Doesn't matter how much money you have...it all works the same way, try your best to keep it from going to the government because it will be used for corruption anyway. I do my best to hang on to mine...would not matter if I were a billionare, I'd still do my best to keep it from going to this government.  You would have to be some kind of idiot to want to give more of your wealth to to this beast they call government.
 

[DDZ]

Multi millionaires and even less likely billionares are worried about their money or themselves.  They move it overseas go with it themselves if need be, convert some or all of it in precious metals. Nothing new here, they won't go broke or become homeless.

Can't say as I blame them, I hide mine as best I can too...I just have less to hide.  Why would anyone with any money want the government to get it knowing what they will do with it?  It might make them feel kind of guilty knowing their money would be running guns across the border, or used to prop up bankrupt companies and then get funneled into a political party. 
Doesn't matter how much money you have...it all works the same way, try your best to keep it from going to the government because it will be used for corruption anyway. I do my best to hang on to mine...would not matter if I were a billionare, I'd still do my best to keep it from going to this government.  You would have to be some kind of idiot to want to give more of your wealth to to this beast they call government.

Its a joke that people talk like its a crime for people to hide their money from a government that can't get enough, because they can't quit spending it, and handing it out to buy votes. Like government can spend it better than the person that owns it. I've never heard any of the "tax the rich guys crowd" complain about the mountain of wasteful spending done by government. Its always yammering about rich guys trying to hide their money and not paying their fair share. Wonder when the bottom half are going to pay their fair share? The argument that the rich should pay more because we are in debt way over our heads is borderline idiotic.

Yes Jimster one would have to be an idiot to think that this government can spend their money better than they can.