‘It’s a Lie’: Michele Bachmann Slams the Progressive Tax System

The Blaze ^ | February 11, 2016 | Billy Hallowell

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Former congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) recently joined historian David Barton on the show “Foundations of Freedom,” where she spoke out against the progressive income tax system, saying that class warfare rhetoric leads people to “violate the 10th Commandment.”

“It’s appealing to the lower interest of man, and it appeals to the American people to violate the 10th Commandment,” Bachmann said. “We are told, ‘Don’t covet’ — in other words don’t be jealous and don’t want what your neighbor has … Instead politicians say, ‘Oh no, no. Your neighbor is rich, because he stole it from you.’”

She continued, “That’s not true. It’s a lie.”

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Video in original.

[KC_Lion]

Michele Bachmann would be a Gaint Talking to Ants.

Sadly this will fall on too many deaf ears.

If you understand below, you understand everything.

Plutarch-"Having received the government of Farther Spain after his praetorship, he came to a little town in passing the Alps; and his friends, by way of mirth, took occasion to say, "Can there here be any disputes for offices, any contentions for precedency, or such envy and ambition as we see among the great?" To which Caesar answered, with great seriousness, "I assure you I had rather be the first man here than the second man in Rome."

Julius Caesar would rather have been Chief among a Tribe Wearing Goat Skins and Scalping people for Giggles than a mere Citizen in a Civilization that had Hot and Cold running water.

Liberals/Progressives/Communists, would burn this country to the ground so long as they could be Kings of the Ashes.

[DoughtyOne]

[P.O.E.]

Hayek’s “Fatal Conceit”

[ichabod1]

Great point, Michelle, but at this point, what difference does it make?

[ClearCase_guy]

"It's a lie! It's a lie!"

[lee martell]

I miss Michelle Bachman. If she endorsed somebody’s campaign, I would hope she wouldn’t come back all shrill, over the top keyed up and full of specious propaganda like some other past candidates have.

[aimhigh]

Interesting article. It could be expanded to show who liberals want us to violate all the commands.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

PING!

[ChessExpert]

She’s right. No surprise there.

[supercat]

Political arguments that cite a religious text are only going to be meaningful to those who accept the text in question. Many such arguments could, for purposes of the political arena, be better expressed in secular terms.

I also think the Parable of the Talents might be a better basis for argument, though one needn’t actually cite the parable. If one gives $100,000 to two people, one of whom uses it to buy a small factory and produce a new product, and the other of whom spends it on expensive luxury goods for himself, which of those people would likely have more money after ten years? Would society benefit more from having money in the hands of the first person or the second?

While there are some people who are rich despite spending money poorly, and there are others who would invest wisely any money they acquired but who because of genuine misfortune have nothing to invest, for the most part people who invest resources wisely are apt to end up with more than those who don’t, and society is likely to thrive more when its resources are in the hands of those who use them productively than when resources are in the hands of people who don’t.