"A rising tide lifts all boats"

It was an early statement about what later became known as supply side economics. No, it wasn't Reagan, and yes, he was right.

As for your question:

Why would poorer people contribute to a party that gives all the breaks to the rich people?

What is more likely, poor people to vote for a party that promises to soak the rich and give the money to the poor (after removing a sizeable percentage to feed the bureaucracy, of course), or for poor people to give money to a party that says, "Here's the way millions of people have found success. If we can do it, you can, too"? The fact is, the overwhelming number of contributions and the overwhelming percentage of money donated to the Republican party comes in small amounts (under $1000) and from ordinary people.

Democrats depend on class envy and the sheer fact that the bottom 50% of income earners pay less than 5% of the taxes, so they appear to have nothing from tax cuts. Of course, the fact is that they do have something to gain from a growing economy (and tax rate reductions have a proven track record of stimulating the economy).

What is silly is to actually believe the Democrats care about the poor other than as a means to gain political power. Anyone who is gullible enough to believe their rhetoric must believe that somehow, it's possible for Republicans to gain and hold political office by only favoring the rich. It's really a stupid belief with no basis in rationality, but it's Democrat dogma so it must not be questioned, no matter how silly.

What I've love to hear is just exactly what income level qualifies someone as rich verses poor. No one seems willing to answer that question, though, because doing so would expose the absurdity of their argument.