So why does all their supposed "help" for poor people have to be an after affect from helping rich people? Why can't Republicans ever just help poor people directly?
Like I said, is it so hard to understand? "A rising tide lifts all boats" and "Give a man a fishing rod and he won't need assistance anymore" have been (rightly!) called out by people here; but they are genuinely what Republicans think and I do not think it is particularly hard to understand.
For a Republican, here is how your dichotomy would work.
-On one hand, you could cut payroll taxes, income taxes and corporate taxes. This will make business and therefore the economy grow. GDP goes up, unemployment goes down and with it poor people can finally get a job and raise a family and get out of poverty.
-On the other hand, you could give out welfare checks. The economy will grow slower, which means more people in unemployment and welfare, having a harder time to find a job and what not; remaining trapped in poverty. Or as the Romans would put it, "Panem et circenses"
I definitely don't agree with that kind of reasoning and I think it is wrong (especially in the case of the US) but I don't think it is a particularly hard line of reasoning to comprehend?
