Republicans do not favor the rich anymore than the Democrats wanting to spend us into oblivion.  Neither is true - they are just politics.  Republicans want people to have "personal responsibility" where we use our individual energies to create a life for ourselves, so that we are all better off - and for those who are unable, the Republicans clearly will be sure to take care of them, as an absolute.  Democrats want to achieve good also, tending towards believing that the government can do the job.  No harm, no foul, no bad people, just different philosophies and differerent beliefs.

If we only could keep that in mind, just a difference in thinking, then we could work together to create something that works for us all.

BOTTOMLINE (See deeper discusion:  The Economic Effects Of Increasing Taxes On The Rich)

Every 1% in tax rate increase creates a 3% decline in growth, per numerous studies.

Closing loopholes instead, to raise revenues, does not have such an effect. 

The Republicans aren't favoring the rich, they are favoring being intelligent, rather than using short sided strategies not based on sound reasoning or facts.

The Republicans have a plan voted in place where social security and Medicare benefits are taken away from the higher income people and given to the lower income people.

School vouchers help poor children access schools with higher achievement standards, and will help them escape the "go nowhere", failed schooling.



Though it is possible to attribute motives to the Republicans that they are interested in "benefits" (contributions) from the rich, such assumptions and mind reading aren't provable and probably, with a few exceptions, not the reality. 

Republicans do not favor the rich, but they do favor the opportunity to get rich as a major incentive to do things that make America better off and favorably effect growth and job ands of not driving money away from investing!  They know it is investing that creates jobs.  


We couldn't form so many companies that would be large enough to attain "economies of scale" (sufficient size to be efficient)) if we didn't have money to do that with!   That money is called "capital" and the  gathering of capital and the ability to do it is called "capitalism."  

The only catches to capitalism are there must be protection of property rights and sufficient safety from dangers.  The only excesses of capitalism happen when there isn't sufficient competition to drive prices down and/or there is abuse of power when too much power is created - therefore, the anti-trust laws.  (The abuse of power is always to be controlled, whether it be an abusive union or an abusive company.) 

If we need capital to start and/or grow companies, then generally more capital available means more companies and thus more growth and more jobs.  And since "corporations are people", or more accurately since investors are ultimately owned by individuals, companies benefit the wealth of the investors, so we all get to share directly in the benefits, once we start investing.   However, anyone with a pension plan or a tax-deferred account or a mutual fund gets to share in the growth.  Thus, it is true that corporations are really just people, gathered together to provide the capital to invest well and make money.  (Romney was assailed for saying this, but he was correct - and the media attack was just capitalizing on people not understanding this basic truism.).

For those people who do not save and then invest, they will benefit by having a job that might not otherwise exist if no companies or fewer companies had been created. 


If you actually look at what the Republican representatives say, there would be more revenue from the rich, but the tax rates would not be increased. 

Top conservatives are suggesting that it is not appropriate that super-committee Republicans are considering raising revenue by doing away with certain tax loopholes and personal deductions in exchange for keeping individual tax rates at or below the levels enacted during the President George W. Bush era.

Those conservatives need to understand that this is the right way to proceed if the money is needed (which it appears to be) for fiscal responsibility.  Wishful thinking that only cutting spending will solve the problem is not helpful.  And sticking to a "surface" idea of "not increasing revenues" is not practical.


The change in age for eligibility for those below 55 years of age is insufficient to make social security and medicare solvent.  So, and this is in writing in Paul Ryan's plan approved by the house, they "take from those who are able to afford their own:  They do a "means-tested" doling out of the "entitlements", so that the very high income people would receive no benefits and those with progressively higher incomes will have their benefits reduced proportionately.  This makes more available for the poor and saves the entitlements money.    Isn't this the same effect as taxing the rich, since it takes something away from them and helps others who can't afford to pay for it themselves?


Part of the strategy is to avoid giving more money to the Democrats because they will just spend it.  The Republicans are attempting to force discipline that would not otherwise happen (note that. Obama's budget didn't deal with it at all and was rejected 97-0 in the Senate, with the Dems obviously objecting to!)


The Democrats talk more about this, but the Republicans walk their talk more.  They contribute more, regardless of wealth, to charitable causes than do Democrats. 

The Republicans are absolutely committed to helping those who are unable to help themselves.  However, they also believe that most answers lay with the people rather than with the government.

The Democrats look towards equality under a federal government and a Republican looks towards people looking after themselves. A Democrat stands for government-supported programs like healthcare and giving government subsidies to business, schools and hospitals, which means levying more taxes. A Republican wants decisions to be made at the state level with less government involvement.  They both want to create good.  They just vary on their viewpoints on how to do that. 

And we are ending up in a financial bind that no longer permits alot of government spending. 


Government can take over and take away our rights.

Republicans are very aware that these liberties can easily be taken away, and they fight to protect them.

The question is "Where is the best mix?"    



Republicans also believe that every person is capable of becoming whatever is desired. Of course, accomplishing your goals doesn't come for free. Republicans believe that the only way to accomplish goals and to have success in life, whatever a person's definition of success, is through hard work, dedication, and discipline.

Many people believe that because Republicans are against heavy taxation that they do not believe in helping others.  However, it is actually not true. Republicans do believe in helping the community and the less fortunate. However, they think that people should individually decide the manner in which they wish to do this and that giving should not be forced upon them.

Republicans also believe that government should be kept small. This is because Republicans think that if a government becomes too large or too powerful, it may grow to infringe upon the rights of its citizens, and they want to avoid that whenever possible.

As mentioned briefly above, Republicans are in support of very low taxes. They believe that the person who earns the money should be able to spend it as he or she sees fit. These are just a few of the basic Republican beliefs, and the best way to find out who Republicans really are is to research and to get to know a few Republicans.

Essentially:   Lower taxes for all plus greater prosperity plus responsibility and hard work..


So, "why don’t conservatives just admit we hate poor people?"  Very simply, because most of them, like most liberals, don’t.

"We care deeply about the poor – some of us, myself included, have even lived below the poverty line for much of our lives – and generally we view ourselves as compassionate, reasonable human beings. We just have different beliefs about what will best serve the least among us. So in the interest of combating the notion that conservative policies are based on “stupidity and arrogance” any more than liberal policies, I’d like to offer some examples of why many people believe conservative ideas and policies are better for America as a whole, and poorer Americans in particular."

"But as Reagan said, facts are stubborn things, and the numbers don’t lie."

Pro-small business policies assist entrepreneurs trying to make a better life for themselves.


Romney walks his talk.  He delivers for people, keeping his promise. I found these quotes which I thought were pretty brilliant, though I hadn't seen this side of his humor, if in fact these are quotes, as they appear to be.

Mitt Romney Haunted By Past Of Trying To Help Uninsured Poor People    "Every day I am haunted by the fact that I gave impoverished Massachusetts citizens a chance to receive health care," Romney told reporters Wednesday, adding that he feels ashamed whenever he looks back at how he forged bipartisan support to help uninsured Americans afford medicine to cure their illnesses. "I'm only human, and I've made mistakes. None bigger, of course, than helping cancer patients receive chemotherapy treatments and making sure that those suffering from pediatric AIDS could obtain medications, but that's my cross to bear."

"My hope is that Republican voters will one day forgive me for making it easier for sick people—especially low-income sick people—to go to the hospital and see a doctor," Romney added. "It was wrong, and I'm sorry."
"I don't know what got into me back then," Romney said. "Wanting to make sure people were able to have health insurance if they left their job. Providing a federally funded website so individuals could compare the costs of insurance providers. Making certain that somebody who earns less than 150 percent of the poverty level can receive the same health care coverage as me or any government official. All I can say is that I was young and immature, and I am not that person anymore."

"The major strike against Mitt Romney is that he not only tried to help people get medical care, he actually did help people get medical care," conservative columnist Jonah Goldberg said. "No other Republican in the field has that type of baggage. And in the end, in order to defeat President Obama, the GOP needs someone who has a track record of never wanting to help sick people."

Of course, this is all ridiculous. Republicans, unlike Democrats, don’t rely on invoking class warfare in order to sell their brand of politics. To us it is not about poor or rich (or black and white for that matter), it’s about freedom and opportunity.


School vouchers and programs which hold schools accountable to achievement standards have the greatest impact on poor children who can’t afford private education as an alternative to failing public schools. Like it or not, “No Child Left Behind” was motivated by a desire to see inner city schools improve, and closing the performance gap between whites and poor minority students.


Also an interesting article:  Republicans and the poor - a conservative's perspective - good article

Some notes for later integration:

Conservatives give substantially more to charity than liberals every year. Republicans are often attacked as not being compassionate for opposing government welfare programs, but that is a function of our belief in the proper role of government, not hostility to people in lower income brackets.

"That distrust in domestic government power – possibly the definitive trait which distinguishes liberals from conservatives – is itself a very pro-poor stance.  Put simply, we believe that the less government does, the less point there is to bribing government officials. Corrupt governments are the tools of the wealthy and powerful, while a limited democratic government is responsive to voters.If a government doesn’t impose onerous regulations, high taxes, or award contracts for various social programs, then there is less for the unscrupulous wealthy to buy, and their money will go elsewhere. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. So long as the government has the power to be deeply involved in peoples’ lives and businesses, it will be a logical investment to try to buy favor, and in that game, the poor always lose."

We fight for tax cuts for everyone because we believe that it is your money, not the government’s.

“If the GOP had wanted, they could’ve used that money for more tax cuts for the poor, or even the middle class,” ask him how that’s possible considering 47 percent of Americans don’t pay federal income tax. Forty-seven percent!

As conservatives expected all along, and as should have been made clear to everyone over the past five years, weaving an enormous social safety net merely serves to trap us all beneath it. Governments the world over have found the hard way that they simply cannot support big government

promote policies that are not only fiscally sustainable, able to help future generations of poor achieve self-sufficiency, but that are full of optimistic individualism. We believe that if provided not with hand-outs, but with the tools to succeed, individuals can thrive on their own hard work and character. It’s the same principle as “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” Republicans not only want to teach you to fish, we want to make sure the government doesn’t require a lengthy permit process before you can fish.
Everything you need to know about the 2012 election is in that paragraph. Romney got it right.

The economic issue of our era is the damage done to middle and working class families by the financial disaster of the past decade. The housing crisis has destroyed the most potent method of capital accumulation available to ordinary people. The transition out of industrial era capitalism to a more dynamic information-based economy has stalled, leaving millions of workers in limbo. A culture of debt at all levels of our society is choking off opportunities for investment and fostering stagnation.

Meanwhile in the midst of the worst crisis since the Great Depression our safety net for the very poor is so strong that we have had to redefine hunger. We no longer count the number of people who starve to death, because that number is zero. We no longer count the number of people who suffer from malnutrition because that is so rare. The hunger statistic we follow now is called “food insecurity.”

As Romney correctly pointed out, the very poor have state and federal assistance available to help with housing and food. They can receive direct financial payments. They get healthcare provided by the government through Medicaid (more than 50m people in 2010). Democrats deserve credit for building this safety net and Romney in his statement makes clear his commitment to keep it working. The outcome of this election will not affect the support system for the poorest Americans.