Buys Ad To Warn About Socialism

Discussion in 'Economy' started by PoliticalChic, Oct 12, 2012.

  1. PoliticalChic
    Online

    PoliticalChic Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    37,384
    Thanks Received:
    9,953
    Trophy Points:
    462
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +11,063
    1. "(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.

    2. But billionaire Thomas Peterffy is spending millions on television ads this election season with one cautionary message: Avoid socialism.

    3. Peterffy told CNN he expects to spend $5-$10 million on the ad buy,...

    4. ...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.

    5. "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,"....

    6. 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.

    7. Forbes Magazine now estimates Peterffy, 68, has a net worth of $4.6 billion.

    8. 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.

    9. "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."
    Rich, worried and buying ad time – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs




    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2QtDExs6lM]Thomas Peterffy - Freedom To Succeed - YouTube[/ame]
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 3
  2. daveman
    Offline

    daveman Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2010
    Messages:
    51,272
    Thanks Received:
    5,670
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    On the way to the Dark Tower.
    Ratings:
    +5,711
    Stupid rich guy. Doesn't he know the only rich people allowed a voice in politics are those who support Democrats?

    Right, USMB lefties?
     
  3. emptystep
    Offline

    emptystep Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2012
    Messages:
    3,653
    Thanks Received:
    219
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +219
    America's wealth comes from America and he can damn well pay his fair share of taxes. He did not move to Spain and make billions. Just where did Thomas pull his billions from? The sky? He owes taxes back into the system that provided him the opportunity to make the money. No, he does have have to give up his billion so don't get stupid on the matter but he does have to pay his fair share back into the system he got his money from.
     
  4. EdwardBaiamonte
    Offline

    EdwardBaiamonte Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Messages:
    15,480
    Thanks Received:
    567
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Ratings:
    +943
    The top 1% pay 40% of all Federal income taxes!! They pay far more than their fair share.

    The middle class and poor pay almost nothing. Is that their fair share?

    Why should the wealthy pay anything since they are the ones who invent the goods and services that sustain our lives. It is the poor and middle class who make no contribution to our goods and service so make them pay the taxes at least.
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2012
  5. PoliticalChic
    Online

    PoliticalChic Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    37,384
    Thanks Received:
    9,953
    Trophy Points:
    462
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +11,063
    "... he can damn well pay his fair share..."

    Let's see how long it takes to prove how vapid both your rhetoric and your mind are....


    1. The unspoken assumption is that there is something morally wrong with inequalities. Where is the explanation of what would be a ‘fair share’ for the wealthy to give up? Irving Kristol, as editor of ‘Public Interest,’ wrote to professors who had written about the unfairness of income distribution, asking them to write an article as to what a ‘fair distribution’ would be; he has never gotten that article.
    Irving Kristol, “Neoconservative: the Autobiography of an Idea,” p. 166


    a. I challenge you to provide links/sources of Liberal/Progressives/Democrats identifying exactly what that 'fair share' is.

    If you cannot do so....it will lead to the conclusion that 'he can damn well pay his fair share' is merely an obfuscation of....

    "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need..."



    Put your money where your mouth is.....no pun intended.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. EdwardBaiamonte
    Offline

    EdwardBaiamonte Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Messages:
    15,480
    Thanks Received:
    567
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Ratings:
    +943
    I guess that since the top 1% already pay 40% of federal taxes and the lefties are still moaning they want all taxes to come from the top 5%.

    That way the bottom 95% will have no skin in the game and can just vote for higher taxes and more welfare for themselves all the time.

    Democracy as theft is the liberal idea of fairness!!
     
  7. PoliticalChic
    Online

    PoliticalChic Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    37,384
    Thanks Received:
    9,953
    Trophy Points:
    462
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +11,063
    Actually.....the Left won't allow business to proceed unless it pays to play.

    Bill Gates, case in point.
    He didn't play the game...had no lobbyists....until Bill Clinton explained the extortion game via the suit against Microsoft.


    "For many years before the lawsuit, Microsoft had virtually no Washington "presence." It had a large office in the suburbs, mainly concerned with selling software to the government. Bill Gates resisted the notion that a software company needed to hire a lot of lobbyists and lawyers. He didn't want anything special from the government, except the freedom to build and sell software. If the government would leave him alone, he would leave the government alone.

    At first this was regarded (at least in Washington) as naive. Grown-up companies hire lobbyists. What's this guy's problem? Then it was regarded as foolish. This was not a game. There were big issues at stake. Next it came to be seen as arrogant: Who the hell does Microsoft think it is? Does it think it's too good to do what every other company of its size in the world is doing?

    Ultimately, there even was a feeling that, in refusing to play the Washington game, Microsoft was being downright unpatriotic. Look, buddy, there is an American way of doing things, and that American way includes hiring lobbyists, paying lawyers vast sums by the hour, throwing lavish parties for politicians, aides, journalists, and so on. So get with the program."
    Microsoft lobbying: Corporate influence peddling part of Washington's strategic plan - Los Angeles Times



    An important lesson for anyone who believes that the economic system is based on capitalism.
     
  8. emptystep
    Offline

    emptystep Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2012
    Messages:
    3,653
    Thanks Received:
    219
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +219
    If it is unspoke why do you dare speaketh?

    You start with a false statement and then expect to be taken seriously? Seriously? Honestly?
     
  9. PoliticalChic
    Online

    PoliticalChic Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    37,384
    Thanks Received:
    9,953
    Trophy Points:
    462
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +11,063
    1. Actually, the Constitution was heavily weighted against income taxation....
    ...but war debts provided the 'crisis' that couldn't be allowed to go to waste.

    2. 1862, due to a greater need, Congress increased both the rates and the progressivity. The exemption was lowered to $600 @ 3%, and a new 5% on income over $10,000. This, then was the first “progressive,” not flat tax. The law also imposed a duty on paymasters to deduct and withhold the income tax, and to send the withheld tax to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
    Revenue Act of 1862 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    a. After the war exemptions were increased, and rates lowered, and in 1872, the tax was abolished.

    b. But, having had a taste of taking and using free money, politicians passed more than 60 bills designed to reinstate the income tax over the next 20 years.
    David G. Davies, “United States Taxes and Tax Policy,” p. 22.


    3. Socialist, Populist, and Progressive movements paralleled this move, and this desire based on “taxing the rich.”

    a. The Progressives launched a campaign that culminated with the ratification of the 16th Amendment, in 1913.
     
  10. PoliticalChic
    Online

    PoliticalChic Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    37,384
    Thanks Received:
    9,953
    Trophy Points:
    462
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +11,063


    Did you miss this:

    I challenge you to provide links/sources of Liberal/Progressives/Democrats identifying exactly what that 'fair share' is.

    If you cannot do so....it will lead to the conclusion that 'he can damn well pay his fair share' is merely an obfuscation of....

    "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need..."


    You have no answer....do you?



    You empty-headed Leftist frauds......

    .....faced with real debate, you run and hide.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1

Share This Page