Right.  But if you look at the voting records in the Senate, especially, this never happens, especially on the Republican side, but true for both major parties.  The thought that cutting taxes for the rich will stimulate jobs and wealth trickling down to the rest of the country has utterly failed.  It only furthered the re-distribution of wealth in the upper 1/2 of 1% of the country.  And they cry about Obama or whomever "redistributing wealth" as if it's a criminal concept - - when that's what they themselves have been doing since 1980 (with the aid of Clinton, to an extent, once he had loss of the Congress midway through.)  

To be fair, there is ample proof that when Reagan slashed taxes for the rich (as well as everyone), there was a great correlation with more of the tax burden being put onto the rich. as opposed to the poor. So you are very, very wrong about the redistribution of wealth. In fact, the most egregious levels of disparity took place under Hoover and FDR's watch in the 20th century - at the time when taxes were highest.

They've squeezed out the moderates in the Republican party in a race for the money that comes from the extreme social conservatives who are trying to cling to a fundamental  Christian model for the country:  which of course is ironic in that Christians are taught to care for others and the poor and the weak and they turn around and cut every support possible and treat the poor like their own personal slave labor force.

Ah, but there is a fundemental problem with your wrong assumption:
Christians don't believe that government should redistribute wealth, help the poor, feed the hungry, ect. They think that they need to do it...Not the government.

 Their response is that the private sector and charitable organizations will pick up the slack through donations, but it's just not the case, especially in economic situations like our current one.  Charitable donations are way down except in the case of a disaster, like Katrina or Haiti.  

Don't forget that under Obama, charitable giving rules have tightened, so one could argue that the correlation between giving and the economy may not be the answer, but taxation does.

People just don't feel like they have the extra money because the short term future is so uncertain.  But the people claiming the moral purity are largely using that as a front - - they delivered very little on that front throughout the Bush years.  Their larger goals are really to protect their money and the corporate structures they all have large investment and stake in and that fund their campaigns.  (The latter is true for most of both sides.)  You only need to look at how they handle reform on Wall Street, the banking crises and the BP oil spill to see this.  

Yeah... one telling piece of information is found in the research

People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

These are percenteges of income as well.

By the way, even Greenspan has come out in favor of rescinding the Bush tax cuts.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1cd58e8c-9130-11df-b297-00144feab49a.html

True, except when you filter out giving directly to the church, it evens out greatly.

The percentage of wealth owned by the top 1% of the nation grew in large percentages throughout the Bush years, following policies laid in motion during Reagan and Bush Sr.  There is no debating that.  Find me a reliable source that says otherwise.  It doesn't exist.  

The middle class is rapidly shrinking, and it's not because people are moving up the ladder.  Under Bush II was the first time in U.S. history that children could expect to end up worse off than their parents.  And the economy tanked, and people want to pursue the exact same principles that exacerbated the problem in the first place.   Ludicrous.   

I'm actually building a studio in my office in hopes of doing that :-p