>>509439886 (OP)Except for a little something you're not considering.
>the rich doesn't need the government to be directly involved in it's business>but when the government demands too much from the rich, the rich doesn't feel like investing>if the rich don't invest then jobs aren't created>without jobs the poor starve>the starving poor starts blaming the government for it's hunger>government now got two options: more taxes for the rich, less taxes for the richThe difference between them is quite simple. While democrats tend to create governamental jobs focused on building structure, republican gives the tools to the entrepreneurs to create all kind of jobs which brings progress and in consequence that thing called "Industrialization" which makes the american less reliant on imports and being a more active market on exports.
By example the recent deal made with Vietnam about exports. Think about electric cars, to start importing them they certainly need to build specific structures to charge them and all of it is provided by the company directly or not. The thing is: if american electric cars lose their market for chinese ones by example then america loses a huge slice of profit and domiance over a global market and so on and on.
People used to receive this kind of assistencialism doesn't really feel like they should be doing more and in a manner this is worse for them cause if the government pays for their health by example why would they work? If government pays for their food why would they work as well? And the government takes this kind of money from the people so you poor man who pays for your own healthcare by example, are also paying for the healthcare of someone who doesn't contribute to society. Certainly are exceptions such as people who cannot work but they are a miniroty within a minority.