why are the religious right? (Page 3)

I see a lot of people in this thread saying that they'd rather donate the money for helping the poor themselves. If you step back though, a large part of the right wing base looks down upon poor people. Why do you think Romney used his 47% comment when he did? He said it because that's what his donors wanted to hear. They want to have someone tell them that half the country is poor and lazy. Nothing about that speaks of wanting to help the less fortunate on their own. 

I think there are a lot of different views on Christianity in this country. The fundamentals almost always vote right.. based on a very limited set of issues. 

More liberal Christians ( meaning they are open to other belief systems) go either way. And what religion someone is might be very different than their actual "religious belief".

My husband is a fundamentalist, and he will ALWAYs vote Republican. 

The interesting thing is, 2/3 of young people today are agnostic. In Europe it's even higher. The churches there are becoming museums. 

Being in a swing state and a registered voter in a high-income county, I get solicited for campaign contributions via phone, door to door, and electronic means.  I reply to all solicitations the same way. "I will NOT be contribute to the $3 billion that it takes to choose our elected officials every 4 years.  This is a huge problem to which I will not participate."

My wife (who sometimes shares my "different" view of the world) sarcastically commented the other day,"No wonder the economy is suffering.  All of those poor consumer goods companies can't get their ads on TV."  I added, "And we are missed all of the car 'end of the model year' sales promotions."

I'm not religious and I am basing my comments on religious sound bites in the media and overheard comments from the vocally religious.

It seems the vocal religious are opposed to the social views of the Dems.  Namely abortion and gay rights.

It also seems that during GW Bush's run in office, the Republicans decided to nurture the religious vote.  I assume it is because they are a powerful voting block. 

One post already called Obama an atheist.  I thought one of the issues about Obama was the church he went to.  Again, not being religious, but I assumed if you went to church you were not an atheist.

FWIW, I am politically independent and not supporting Obama.  I just find some of the things said about him to be interesting and not based in fact.  But neither side seems to be interested in facts, just what garners votes.

I respectfully couldn't disagree with you more.  If you split the US down the middle and looked at a percentage of income that is given to the poor I suspect the upper 50% would far exceed the lower 50%.

I grew up on the poor side of the spectrum and it was all about what are you going to give us, and there was never any "we're going to give to others".  I'm on the upper side of that spectrum now and everybody I know gives quite a bit to some sort of charity based on causes that are important to them.

On what do you base your premises above? To say that a large group of people looks down on another large group of people, without any supporting evidence, is being close-minded.

I consider myself a fiscal conservative.  I know that I could never run my own home using the spending strategy that our government uses.  I'm a social moderate though, and firmly believe that we who are blessed should help those who are in need.  My family was a beneficiary of some of those programs when I was a kid, and so I fully support them.

I don't agree at all with your opinion that conservatives want to hear that half the country is lazy and poor.  In fact, I would suggest that they would rather hear about people moving from welfare recipients to self-supporting, financially-contributing members of society.

Believe it or not, self-sufficiency, hard work and charity is a pretty common thread among the "right wing base" that you criticize. 

Again, I referenced the Romney comment. Why did he say it if it's not what his supporters wanted to hear? Look at the response when the comment was made public. I didn't hear one conservative/right wing person say that his comment was wrong. Most of them defended it. If you think half of the country is lazy and can't be bothered to take care of themselves, that doesn't sound like you really just want government out of the way so you can help them out yourself.

ETA: I'm not referencing the individuals in this thread. This just seems to be an attitude that the right wing is presenting.

I do not think you can classify 47% of this country as poor.  I think it has more to do with the fact that half of this country, including those who are not poor are not paying taxes and that is a problem.

Thanks, Mary. I'll be more careful with my tone in the future.

My hope rests in these new currently undocumented immigrants moving the value vote needle to the right.
They have a lot to teach elite mostly white secularists, both men and women.

A high profile Cuomo candidacy will elevate the values issue and increase the conversation,
starting with the new crop of bishops, to the pastors, to the people in the pew.

The undocumented immigrants probably won't be voting by then,
but the message will resonate in those communities, including with citizens who do have the right to vote.

The 47th percentile is around 30k. I'd consider that fairly low.

That's also not what Romney said though. He said that half the country wouldn't take responsibility for themselves and he couldn't do anything about it. As I said, if you looked at the reactions when his comment became public, it was mostly vitriol directed at them, calling them lazy good for nothing government leeches. Nothing about that indicates that "I'd prefer to help the poor out on my own instead of the government". 

In other news, Texas can now officially defund Planned Parenthood, which primarily exists to help out low income women. Another conservative effort to help the poor out, but not through the government I'm sure.

What I think you have to consider with Romney's comments is his audience.  He was not speaking to your average conservative voter, he was talking to people who could afford a $10,000 a plate dinner and who want to hear rationalizations about why their tax rates shouldn't be raised (ie, because it will go to lazy leeches on society).  It's a different message that what you'd tell to most conservative voters who aren't facing having their taxes raised.  It's politics 101 that you tell you're audience what they want to hear, especially when they can write you a 6 figure check.  I think a lot of the knee jerk defense of the statement was just because the criticism was coming from "the enemy".  Most of the conservatives I've come across, on this board at least, agree that there needs to be some sort of a social safety net, they just want to make sure that it isn't wasteful and people who don't need the help don't get it.  Which really I think is something everyone would agree with.  

You're saying that Republican policies hurt many U.S. citizens and put them in an income category that is not federally taxed?  Not arguing, just clarifying.  But isn't the Republican criticism aimed at the fact that those income categories pay no federal tax (not paying their "fair share" or no Biden "skin in the game").....rather than what their policies did? 

From what I have seen it is closer to 40K a year and means that you are in the top 7% of income earners in the world.  I am sorry but 40K is not poor.  I remember living on that and less and still being relatively comfortable.  I still do not consider 30K poor.  Whether you like it or not those who do not pay taxes because of government rebates, tax credits, etc. do not want that to change and are unlikely to vote for someone who says it is time to pony up something to pay for all the services you enjoy.  How is that any different than what Obama says about how the rich don't pay their fair share and the greedy bankers and the spoiled rich people etc. and how they don't want to elect someone who will raise their taxes?

Ya, instead of arguing polices and "sides", I find that to be true. I do agree there needs to be a safety net. And, there is going to be a level of fraud and abuse that can't be eliminated. It is just part of all programs.

The argument is always that the children should not suffer... but in real families, if they are stretched, and decide to have another kid, their income does no increase. If they have a crappy job, they know that isn't going to change unless they change it. I think it is wrong to have any government system that rewards having more kids when you can't afford the ones you have. And that asks nothing in return for subsistence and then does nothing to move them to independence or meaningful employment. There is something very wrong with generations of welfare families.

If 47% of this country needs a social safely net then either there is something very wrong or our expectations of what is a middle class standard of living need revision.

Just one of the more recent reasons I choose not to vote for the democrat.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/democrats-rapidly-revise-platform-include-god/story?id=17164108

http://www.facebook.com/TheChristianLeft

To get back to the OP again!

Weird, I swear I read something the other day that the 50th percentile was 32k.

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at with the rich people's taxes. I don't like Obama either. My point is the right wing was being extremely critical of the 47% who don't pay taxes and a large majority of those people are in the bottom income brackets. 

Which is why I am disgusted with politics.

This isn't "news" it is "olds"  From the Democratic convention, which is actually the beginning of the campaign.

I'll drink to that!

My point was that the left wing is slamming people they want to pay more taxes the same as you are saying the right wing is doing.  Both sides are playing the game.

And from a quick google search form the NY times of all people.

For example, the difference in income between a household at the 50th percentile and a household at the 51st percentile is $1,237 ($42,327 versus $43,564).

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/24/where-do-you-fall-on-the-income-curve/

So not aimed at religion.... I have always held the belief that scavenging is a perfectly legitimate survival strategy. Most like to think humans are great hunters and gatherers, but the truth is we are just as good at scavenging off others.

Our country was the shining beacon to those that wanted to be there own destiny and make their own way. I would have to assume, that also drew the attention of those that were willing to take the scraps from the land of milk and honey. I have always assumed that is what drives where we are today. We have people that are very independent and self sufficient, and those that are not.

I don't really think that religion drives that. Both sides can be religious. Religious people are charitable, even if those very same people happen to deride government handouts.The discussion going on about money and politics.... well that is a never ending argument. The American people will argue over tax dollars and what they should be spent on no matter how well off we are. The only problem is right now we are not as well off and are worried about our futures and that makes the argument even more contentious.

We are social animals. We are better off together than apart. Helping each other out is in our blood. But people get tired of those that are not willing to help themselves. It's gone on for a long time. People get tired of institutionalizing handouts to those that are not willing to help themselves, and giving assistance without any expectation of anything in return. Religion and politics gets involved just because people are involved.

I personally don't have much of an issue with those in lower income brackets paying no taxes.  However, I do have a issues with:

That percentage being 47% of the population; and

People who receive a rebate that exceeds the amount of money that they put in.  

We have become a nation that is increasingly dependent on government support.  The "system" isn't sustainable now.  Making it worse has zero chance of success.