I’ve criticized Hannity for a variety of “sins” especially his hokey schtick. But where he is ABSOLUTELY OUTSTANDING is when he gets a liberal on the phone and he gradually gets them through this process:
- state that they want Big Gubmint to pay for more or less everything
- get them to admit that the government gets money from taxpayers and only from taxpayers
- query them on exactly how much of their income those taxpayers should be permitted to keep
It always evolves to a sputtering liberal mouthing indefensible, unworkable utopian nonsense and Hannity saying “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” but it’s really, really enjoyable to hear him go through the process. Once you get them past the “warm fuzzies” i.e. everybody is entitled to ____, and into the “how you gonna pay for it, sport?” the cognitive dissonance is a thing of beauty.
This is about the only part of Hannity’s show that I enjoy. I really like hearing him walk them through it as well.
Hannity and Savage both try to do this, but Savage’s insulting and condescending attitude, along with his MASSIVELY unfunny ego, have turned me off his show.
I’ve heard Beck doing it once or twice, but not very often.
Limbaugh doesn’t really bother trying to convert them – but he does listen and respond rather well.
Just figured I’d post what I’ve noticed from the Big 4 I get here in Tyler, TX.
The statement “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” sounds like a paraphrase of Acts 4:32 -35.
32. And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.
33. And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.
34. Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
35. And laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.
The US government as well seems to embody this Communist ideal, eg. people are taxed based on how much they earn (“from each according to his ability”) and such taxpayer money is then given as bail-outs to big business based on how much in debt and in need they are (“to each according to their needs”).
It does sound something like that, Mousey, but voluntary sharing and charity in Acts are nothing at all like compulsory redistribution at the point of a gun. And if you think I’m exaggerating, try a tax protest. The government will eventually seize anything of value you own and ultimately put you in jail. I do think you’re right in that the US gov’t. has drifted into embodying the Communist redistribution ideal – Obama said plainly on campaign that he thought wealth redistribution was a good idea. We’ve gone well beyond any rational notion of a safety net and into a full-on welfare state, where nearly half the country literally pays no taxes at all, and the bulk of tax money collected comes from a mere 5% of the population. It’s disgraceful.
Our honorable Senators and Congressmen were NOT at the point of a gun when they voted to redistribute taxpayer wealth to the poor big businesses in need. It was an act of Christian-Socialist love and charity towards their less fortunate brothers, who just happened to have fallen into bad times. It was for the good of the nation as well. And completely legal. Just ask them.
This redistribution of wealth of the people by the Congress to needy big business is a beautiful example of the Communist ideal in action. Both Democrats and Republicans joined hands to present this shining example to the nation.
I thank George W. Bush for being the first President with the guts to show his Socialist tendencies and ask for the bail-out of big business in September of 2008.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/20/bush-asking-for-700-billi_n_127926.html
Funny. Bush was hardly the first, though. They’ve been doing this more and more, with full Congressional approval and cooperation, for decades. Sadly, it’s not Congress at the point of the gun (nor this administration – yet another tax cheat caught yesterday, and Rangel, good grief…) but the taxpayer… As for Congress, a pox on BOTH their houses – and political parties.
Of course the congressmen did not vote at the point of a gun. The congressmen were the ones SUPERVISING the gunmen.
Laura was correct to distinguish coerced socialism from free charity. (For example, Peter made it clear when dealing with Ananias and Sephira that they were free to keep their real estate if they wanted to.) But aside from Laura’s point about coercion, some other important distinctions also deserve to be made:
1. America is an enormous COUNTRY, whereas the Jerusalem church was a small community. You can far more easily pinpoint corruption and laziness in a small community.
2. Paul made it clear in his letters to Timothy and to the Thessalonians that churches were to be extremely careful in how they distributed charity, and that they should not subsidize laziness or promiscuity.
3. A majority of Americans do not believe in Jesus, whereas the Jerusalem church was made up of saved and relatively God-fearing individuals. God-fearing individuals would work diligently while maintaining relatively stable families. Thus, the need for charity would be limited, and very few people would be completely leeching off the community. Churchmembers who sinned flagrantly (e.g., through promiscuity) were to be kicked out of the church. When the American government gives in to socialism, by contrast, the government subsidizes promiscuity, broken homes, drug use, etc. And because America allows all those life-destroying activities, the need for charity is much higher than it is in a church community.
Good points, Drew.