I'm not sure I understand your point, Randy1949. Would you consider trying again?

Other than a medical plan which is less socialistic than that of Germany or Great Britain, what 'socialism' is threatening Mr. Peterffy? He did well under a system that required the well-off to pay higher taxes than they do now.

The problem with his native Hungary was not so much the economic system of socialism, but the political system of totalitarianism.

I wish you could meet my wife's relatives from Potsdam Germany (used to be in East Germany). More than 70% of them have never been fully employed. They live off of the system and are happy about it.

My wife asked one relative who was touring the US and Canada what he does for money, and he explained that he has severe agoraphobia, so he gets permanent disability. Hhhmmmmmm.

Umm... just a little teeny thing about this commercial.

It's bullshit.

If he says Hungary was socialist when he "immigrated" to the US, that is a complete lie. From 1949-1956 Hungary was STALINIST (I wouldn't associate the name STALIN with socialism). Second, if he says he just "up and decided to immigrate in 1956, that's bullshit too. Do you know what happened in Hungary in 1956? The start of the HUNGARIAN REVOLUTION... when the Soviets rolled tanks in to Budapest.

This is exploiting people's ignorance of the difference between socialism and communism.

@Leica
WTF are you talking about!?? Stalinist? Stalinist, communist, socialist - its all the same thing generally speaking. They are all against capitalism, which is the whole point of the video.

You are exactly what this video is referring to: people who have no idea about history, and how they are voting to reduce america to poverty.

He does not do that Craig. He is exploiting people's ignorance. As I have said to other posters here, he lied about leaving a socialist country (in 1956). Hungary in 1956 WAS NOT socialist. It was Stalinist. It was Stalinist (communist) from 1949-1956, until the Hungarian Revolution in 1956. He did NOT escape socialism. He escaped Stalinist communism. He did not "immigrate".

I don't care what you want to call it. It is admirable that he achieved so much here in this Country. He came here legally, something that is also admirable considering our President's past actions.

Our President's past actions? You mean, like being born in Hawaii to an American citizen mother?

Or are you talking about his support of the Dream Act?

Randy: I am talking about his college records indicating he was not an American and getting a free ride. I am talking about his Grandmother being there when he was born- in Kenya. True she may have cognitive disorders, but she claims he was born there. Despite that, he spent most of his life outside the US growing up. Learning about the dreams of his father.
The problem is we do not know who BHO really is. It is apparent that he has an agenda and is not trustworthy. We know he lied about the embassy attack, I wonder and worry what else he has lied about?

Leicaflex - everything I learned says Stalin worked under and "perfected" socialism, so to say Stalin wasn't socialist means you have to share what you are smoking with the rest of us.

Furthermore, what the hell? Why in the world would you be so hung up on this one point when so much of the other discussion has proffered a number of points to fight about?

@Cindy -- If governmental abuse of power was indeed his point, that's not socialism. It's also been a long time in coming. The Patriot Act allowed much more government intrusion into our lives and our rights.

However, I did hear him saying something about how the President had demonized him and other successful people. He should at least acknowledge that he was able to prosper in a time when those who were fortunate enough to be extremely wealthy did pay a higher marginal tax rate and capital gains taxes were much higher.

It isn't only Medicare and Social Security. Mr. Peterffy made his fortune in a country that had Medicaid and AFDC -- something he'd probably call socialism.

You know, I didn't know who he was at the beginning. That opening shot of the 'going out of business' sign on the store made me think he was some kind of Mom & Pop small business owner. He's actually richer than God's banker, and as a computer programmer in 1965, he probably had a better shot at success than his equivalent would nowadays under current harsher business practices.

Oh, I get it. He should be punished because he worked hard and used his talents well. And it's just not fair, darn it, that he was wildly successful.

He'd be punished no more than the very well off who were paying their taxes back in 1965. He'd be punished no worse than he was back before 2001, when the country was in pretty good shape fiscally.

And please, don't talk about punishment. My family managed to take an absolute bath on capital gains several times before the rate was lowered.

@St. Swithin -- I have noticed a widening in the distribution of wealth over the past forty years.

You're right, he was saying, "Vote GOP and we'll put an end to this creeping socialism." To which I say, WHAT socialism? Not all that much has changed in the way of social programs since 1965, when America was the land of opportunity.

Its called hard work and working smart, Randall. I know these concepts of rugged individualism and hard work are foreign to you and your kind, but if you wanted to be a billionaire, you could do it. You would rather bitch and moan and enjoy jealously and envy than getting off of your rather large rear end and taking a chance.

Now Pennypacker knows the size of my behind? Keen are the eyes of the Pennypackers!

As for working 'smart' I guess that means steering clear of bosses like . . . Pennypacker.

Ok , let's take a look at "socialist countries": Spain, Greece, Italy... All bankrupt, all with an unemployment of 20%+, all with values lost, all demoralized... And their citizens are the new emigrants looking for better lands. I'm from Spain, and I see the same path for America, if Obama stays. America will look so different that it would be irrecognizable. First he will make more people dependable of the government. The he will make an enormous government that get into every aspect of our lives. Then he will take the education. And then there is nothing he won't be able to reach.

@Randall Sadly Randell we live in a country that fosters ignorance like Mr Pennypacker. Otherwise the current republican party would only pose a marginal threat to the security of our economy and the well being of our people. One ignorant person stupidly said socialism and communism are the same thing when in fact they are not as history shows. One ignorant person tried to defend a point by saying Stalin was a Socialist when he was not. As Mr Pennypacker pointed out why should the rich be penalized for being rich. In point of fact they pay less per dollar than anyone else. People like that don't really care about facts. All they care about are what they want inspite of the facts. They would put Romney in office in spite of the fact that the cons greatly out way the pros. Simply because all they know is he is republican. I am an independent and my republican friends are voting for Obama. Not because they are suddenly democrat but because they are informed and choose to make informed choices. Heck I would vote republican, but Lincoln was unavailable. He was the sixteenth president for anyone who might not know.

I think both you and Mr. Romney need to check your facts and your reading comprehension. 47% of American taxpayers owe no federal income tax. That includes soldiers whose combat pay is exempt.

49% of American households have at lest one member who is receiving some form of government assistance, but that includes Social Security and Medicare, which the recipient usually paid for. Take in Gramma to save money and --voila! -- your household belongs to that 49%. But Gramma may be only one person out of six in that household. So that doesn't add up to either 47% or 49% of all AMERICANS being on some form of assistance.

The irony is that Mr. Peterffy would feel punished if this country returned to the tax and social policies that were in play when he was able to start his business and make his fortune.

Mr. Peterrfy is more American than Obama and Biden combined!

Sorry Phyllis, but that is pure b.s. See, this is what liberals would like everyone to think. They believe that for every person that becomes wealthy, it translates into more in poverty. As far as I can tell, the wealth of America is not a zero-sum game. Economics 101, people.

One only has to look at the number of people unemployed or out of work to understand that the gap in middle class is widening. 23 million are unemployed. That is a large percentage of are economy that is driving the gap. Moreover, the government is propping up companies that employ more outside the U.S. than here at home. of the 252,000 GM employs, 152,000 work and live outside the U.S. Chysler, now 61% owned by the Italian company FIAT, employs 203,000 with 74,000 in the U.S. Obama's government is very good at getting good paying jobs; outside the U.S.

This ad just shows with hard work, determination and the willingness to succeed, the U.S. economy isn't a zero-some plutocracy. What else you are not seeing that because of the artificial wage inflations by the unions in the 60's, 70's and 80's. Companies chose to automate once high paying-low skilled jobs. Those that are whining the most, did it to themselves and now want a bailout of their own, via the more than willing Obama administration.

My 'take' is that labels mean very little. Peterffy seems worried that President Obama will return the country to the taxation system under which Mr. Peterffy managed to do very well for himself. Those 'socialist' programs that President Obama wishes to preserve are those in place when Mr. Peterffy made his fortune. It has also been correctly pointed out that Hungary was not 'socialist' but rather communist, and there is no real application to the American experience.

Someone usually takes a bath in a bankruptcy. Who would it have been if Mitt Romney'd had his way and let Detroit go bankrupt?

Hey, Pennypacker -- zombies hunger for brains, right? You should be safe.

Obama zombies go after other peoples money, since they are too lazy and do not have any.

Thank you for the slogan, Pennypacker. I'll slip that note in with my property tax payment and my estimated taxes next time, but I don't think it will be persuasive.

I saw that a couple of weeks ago, Weachater. Good grief I hope that was an actress for the benefit of my amusement. Otherwise you are correct, we are so freaking screwed.

I can't help but think, Leicaflex, that you are implying one is better for America than the other?

Leicaflex
"It takes one to know one" You are an ignorent fool, wonder which is worst?

Thank-you for your scintillating comment, Tibor.

1) You do not need quotation marks for a common figure of speech unless you are citing the person from which it is derived.
2) "It takes one to know one". I am quoting you now. Do you see how quotation marks work?
3) That figure of speech is most commonly used by four-year-olds. The reason that primary school children use it is owing to their lack of education. More importantly, they use because they do not have a proper rebuttal or witty come-back. In general four-year-old parlance and nomenclature, persons that use that come-back are regarded to be imbeciles.
4) You appear to be ignorant of the proper spelling of the word ignorant.
5) The word you were looking for is worse. You misused the word "worst".
6) You needed to insert the proper pronoun I before the word wonder.
7) Your first and last names are nouns. They are capitalized. I shouldn't have to tell you how to spell your own name.
8) How many mistakes can you make in one sentence?
9) Why should I take your opinion -about anything- seriously?

Boy, L, talk about a snarky comment! And who appointed you grammar and spelling czar on Patch? And what office do you hold in the Teachers' union anyway? You take all the fun out of posting on Patch. Get a life, or at least an opinion.

Oh, I see. You are a socialist. You are also so freaking arrogant that you tell another man he is lying as he conveys his life story.

Something tells me you are so much smarter than I am that I probably don't have the courage to talk to you any longer. (I'm not rolling my eyes at you. I am having a darn tough time not flipping off my computer screen, though.)

Oak Creek and Cindy:
Whether I am a socialist or not, is irrelevant. What "is" relevant is the manner with which this message is being sold to you. THE FIRST SENTENCE in his video is (quote) "I grew up in a socialist country." (end quote). That's bullshit. Hungary was STALINIST from 1949-1958 when he was growing up, and then "immigrated" at the outbreak of the Hungarian Revolution (which he kind of "forgot" to tell you).

Here. I'll tell you what. We are a "teevee culture". Here, watch some teevee. Watch the Soviet tanks roll down the street.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iU3xY-h_uGk

It's up to you. If you want to accept half-truths and what is tantamount to propaganda, then go live in it.

There is more truth in Mr. Peterffy's add than anything Obama has said to us.
You get your undies in a bunch over the definition of Socialism, but you don't seem to care that Obama has lied to the US time and time again.
One might be led to believe you are an intern.

Thomas Peterffy arrived in the USA in 1965, when the top marginal federal income tax rate was 70%. Federal corporate tax rate was 48%, and the top rate on capital gains was 25%. Despite this, he managed to become a billionaire. Those tax rates didn't discourage him from working hard, now did it?

This from the guy who cried because his family had to pay on Capital Gains before the rate was lowered.
If I can't get mine, noone else can?

@Craig, it was in 1994, when the rate was 28%. But we didn't have massive deficits like we do now. There's a lesson to be learned there.

The lesson is the Government spending is a runaway train. When a country adds more and more social programs like food stamps there needs to be cuts to offset the new expeditures.
When one's minimum payments on the credit cards exceed one's income, they are faced with two choices: Stop spending or go bankrupt.

Leicaflex,
Why waste time argueing with folks that demonize socialism when we have socialistic programs in place already. Programs they sponsor with their own paycheck, and to which many of them would be outraged if it went away. If Cindy and Oaktree feel socialism is so awful and decide to put Hungary and England in the same demonic perspective then it is there loss not yours. After WW ii England decided to turn away from its more monarchistic governmental system and focus on its people. They chose the route of socialism and thus far it has worked well for them. It is a country where people can say what they feel and can vote people they don't like out of office just like we can. Does everyone get taxed more? Oh yea? In the end, however, they are unwilling to sacrifice the social programs in place that have made there lives a little more bearable. Of course they rank above us in education, which may have something to do with it. We are a country of me's not we's, and until that changes nothing else will.

That was beautiful 235301. And yes, I saw the A123 news. I do hope it comes up tonight in the debate.

Amen!
These leftist nuts seem to think the 1% should bear everyone's burden. Let's look at the wealth disparity globally. Every civilization has had wealth disparity, as time marches on- the gap grows wider. It doesn't take an economist to understand this: Wealthy people save money and invest money- the money grows even in crapppy economies. While the middle class work and live paycheck to paycheck- they have no wealth to grow. The middle class has to accept accountability for their own spending habbits, and not worry about the 1%.
The middle class has to look to the 47% and find a way to get them to pay their own way. Only then will the middle class have the money to save or invest. Of course when economic times get like they are, many middle class people will throw in the towel, and join the ranks of the 47%. Why work so hard when I can get a free cell phone, food cards, heat and energy assistance?
This is what Mr Peterffy is trying to warn us about- it plays into the hand of cards Obama is holding. Once Obama lays all his cards on the table it will be too late.
Don't give him another 4 years to play those cards!

On that note, here's an interesting article about the dangers of lobbyists in the Whitehouse...

"Oh no! We can’t let Romney win, he’ll let lobbyists in the White House!!!"

http://washingtonexaminer.com/oh-no-we-cant-let-romney-win-hell-let-lobbyists-in-the-white-house/article/2510879#.UH3PTKPAET4

Germany may currently have a lower unemployment rate than the US, but that hasn't been the case for much of the past decade.

Germany had an unemployment rate around 8% or above from mid-1993 until 2008...

The unemployment rate in the US peaked at 8% in June of 2002 and was well below that until 2009.

http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z8o7pt6rd5uqa6_&met_y=unemployment_rate&idim=country:de&fdim_y=seasonality:sa&dl=en&hl=en&q=germany+unemployment+rate#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=unemployment_rate&fdim_y=seasonality:sa&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=country:de&ifdim=country&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false

http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_&met_y=unemployment_rate&idim=country:US&fdim_y=seasonality:S&dl=en&hl=en&q=united+states+unemployment+rate

So what happens after all of the wealth has been taxed away? Who will the government steal money from after that?

cowdung - since when does Germany have a system of national health care? Let's see: since... the 1880s! Time for the U.S. to join modern nations.

So? Despite our lack of government provided health care, we still have comparable life expectancies to Germany...

Besides, in 1880's Germany, it wasn't really nationalized healthcare. Workers paid into a pool, and payments were made from that pool to take care of sick workers. That's called insurance. Bismark made it mandatory for people to pay into the insurance plan and carry insurance...

OMG -- the Individual Mandate! The horror!

Ludo: Just for the sake of argument, let's pretend that taxing the rich at 70% will not affect the economy adversely. Let's pretend that it will not cause more unemployment. Let's pretend that it will not cause the rich to become disgusted and take their wealth elsewhere....
Even with taxing them at 100%, it will not do a thing to help the defecit or Debt. We could take all of savings from every US citizen and it still is less than the National Debt.
The problem is spending!

Since I haven't made any comments about people being raped, it must be my misspelling of Bismarck's name that gives you the impression that I'm stuck in the dark ages. My apologies to the former Chancellor--I know how he feels. People sometimes spell my last name incorrectly as well.

Please lay off the personal attacks if you wish to have a civil discussion.

What is the difference in years between #23 and #38? From my view, it looks to be not many (1.2 years maybe?). I'm also not sure that I'd use infant mortality as a true indicator of how good our health system works. This country ends up birthing lots of crack babies and the like. When they don't make it, it isn't necessarily a failing of our healthcare system. Besides, Germany has an insurance based system similar to what we have in the US. It isn't really a national healthcare system like Britain has...

CowDung: You cannot define away almost 2 years as insignificant. The main difference between almost any industrialized, civilized society is not, of course, whether there is socialized insurance or socialized medicine (to your credit, unlike many Reps. you seem to know the difference), but whether each and every citizen has a right to health insurance, regardless of income. Guess what: Germany has it, the U.S. does not. And no: the abysmal picture in terms of infant mortality is not due to crack babies. That is another pseudo-reason Republicans spout that can only resonate with the braindead. Number 1 reason for the U.S. doing horribly: no guaranteed access for prenatal care. And no, you ain't gonna be able to go to the emergency care unit for that. Your blaming-the-victim argument shows the typical Rep. approach to health care for the poor: it's their fault; let them die. Remember the applause during the Republican debate?

Actually, we're number 37: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVgOl3cETb4

Ludo:

Not sure what kind of math you use to translate 1.2 into 'almost 2 years'.

We have health insurance for those who are employed and we have Medicare/Medicaid (along with a bunch of state level programs like Badgercare) for those that aren't.

U.S. has a disproportionate number of individuals who die as the result of fatal injuries compared to the other wealthy nations of the world. Fatal injuries occur independently of the condition of the general health of the individual. They do not reflect upon the quality of health care in the USA .

If one accounts for non-natural causes of death, such as those resulting from fatal injuries, which include motor vehicle accidents, falls, homicides, etc-- the USA has the HIGHEST life expectancy of the wealthy nations.

Our(USA) low ranking in life expectancy is often pointed to as being the result of the deficiencies of the health care system in the U.S. However, that statistic does not account for the fact that we have a notably higher rate of accidental deaths.

http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2007/09/natural-life-expectancy-in-united.html#.UIqcMW9ay1w

No, CowDung, we don't have health coverage for everyone. Medicaid and Badgercare take care of the poorest. Employer-based insurance takes care of the lucky and the well off. But there exists in the middle those folks who make just a little too much to be truly poor but not enough to buy coverage on their own. And some of them have homes and bank accounts to lose in the event of a catastrophic illness.

cont... First off, how is that money going to go into the hands of the middle class? I haven't heard a single word from Obama how that will happen. My guess is that it will mean marginal tax cuts for the middle class. But the math doesn't add up. At least in a risk/reward scenario.

What is the reward? Using simple numbers; for every 100 people that make over $250,000, there are 5,000 middleclass workers. On $100, the corp. will now pay $104. $4 now needs to be spread over 5,000. How is that leveling the playing field? That is an 8 cents tax break. That does nothing for the middle class.

Risk- In an already volatile marketplace, the corp. will now have to raise the price, provided they can and still sell their goods or services, or will have to reduce the number of workers to cover the cost. The result is either artificial inflation (inflation that was not necessary), or more unemployed. Let's also understand that Obamacare is going to cost employers more already. And this comes from a President that said it is never a good idea to raise taxes on anyone in a recession.

And by the way, by the above definition, Lenin and Stalin qualify as socialists. This is what the left calls moderate, and Republicans are radical. Please...

Brian: I am not a Dem but an Independent. You had friggin' believe it that I have the right to dig into someone else's pocket to purchase it. It's called living in modernity, or being emancipated from Neanderthalland. Some are still stuck in in.

Hey Ludo, then I guess in you new land, I have the right to dig into your pocket to own a gun as I am guaranteed the right to bear arms by the 2nd Amendment. At least by your "new world order of "gimme, gimme, gimme". Try passing the "I'm and independent" crap off to someone who will actually buy the crap your selling. You are an extreme liberal if you believe that government is there for you to get free stuff. Pathetic socialist pig. Move to France if you want free stuff.

Sorry, Ludo, I should have specified that the #37 referred to the quality of our healthcare system overall according to the World Health Organization's ranking. Considering what we pay per capita, that stinks.

Thanks for linking me to the stats on life expectancy, though.

Sure keep trashing our healthcare system. May I suggest that you untraveled liberal rubes leave your basement in Cudahy and try the other forms of healthcare in the US? Our system is the best, but you goons would rather believe the likes of Mr Maddow and Special Ed Schultz

Been a while since I have stopped by. Happy to see Average White Trash you are still howling at the moon.

Brian, you are an obvious product of no education, or a skull too thick to absorb it.