I'm an outsider looking in, and that my understanding of US politics is entirely dependent on the internet. I'm aware of this, and I'm also aware of my left-leaning beliefs, which is why I make a point of at the very least following Fox News as the main conservative news source and opinionmaker.
Which country?
The thing is, when I look at policy proposals and public statements by GOP politicians, I see a refusal to increase the minimum wage yet complaints that 47% of American workers do not pay income taxes. I see the poor being blamed for their poverty, yet a staunch refusal to acknowledge that many many poor Americans are working two, even three, jobs just to survive. I see an insistence that the poor can escape poverty through education and hard work, yet a refusal to provide enough financial resources to struggling inner city and rural school districts to provide a competitive education. I see a condemnation of labour unions, yet a concerted effort to decrease the superrich's tax burden even more. I see a fanatical assault on Obamacare, yet a failure to come up with a workable alternative.
On the Democrat side, while I certainly accept your opinion of at least a portion of the liberal political establishment (after all, liberals can be among the most obnoxious self-righteous power mongers out there), I also see policy proposals that seek to divert government funds to programs that are nominally purported to provide more equal opportunities to the poor. Whether those programs actually work is an entirely different matter, of course, but the fact of the matter is that poverty is so often so deeply entrenched that only outside assistance can break its hold on the lives and futures of millions of poor people. Nothing I see from the GOP side is aimed at breaking that hold. Sanctimonious or not, self-serving or not, at least the Dems acknowledge the problem's seriousness and are willing to do something about it. That means a lot.
Everything is not as it appears. The Democrats say the right things but they do NOT care about the poor. Actually neither do the Republicans, but at least they're not hypocrites. (I'm referring to the movers and shakers in the parties here, the ones with actual power. Many ordinary people in both parties do care for the poor.)
You have a long list of issues.
Minimum wage - Republicans sound harsh by saying that a minimum wage increase will hurt the poor, but under the current climate they are right. If the minimum wage is increased there are some poor who will benefit, for example service employees such as waiters who's jobs can't be moved overseas. Unfortunately, the poor working jobs which can be moved overseas (call centers, what's left of manufacturing etc) will see their jobs disappear. And those in companies who are marginal now whose companies genuinely cannot afford the increase will lose their jobs when the company closes since it can't afford the new mandate. The job losses wouldn't matter if there were new jobs to move to, but there aren't. Now the Republicans aren't being angels, they don't care about the poor they want to block the minimum wage because of their ties to the business community which doesn't want the cost increase and also doesn't want to deal with the disruption of moving overseas. But nonetheless they are correct here, it will hurt the poor. Now if they actually wanted to help the poor they'd look at renegotiating the lousy trade treaties we keep getting sucked into. Neither Democratic negotiators nor Republican ones care about the low end of the USA economy when they negotiate these things. If we had a decent trade policy, then perhaps the minimum wage could be raised without actually hurting the poor.
47% who don't pay taxes - Republicans are right here as well. Human nature is such that people value what they have worked for / paid for far far more than things that they are entitled to / have been given for free. There are multiple psychological studies that show this. And it matches personal experience as well. In my own life this was the most obvious when observing my fellow college studies. Those who paid for their own education without exception worked very hard and valued that education (their grades did not always reflect this as they were juggling school and work) but those whose education was paid for by mom and dad, well it was hit or miss. Some of them valued it, some didn't. I'm sure you can think of similar earned vs given examples in your own experience. So because human nature is the way it is in order to get more members of that 47% to care that the country is spending wisely is for part of that spending to come from their own hard earned dollars triggering that psychological quirk of the human mind.
poor being blamed for their poverty - Republicans and Democrats are both right on this issue and both wrong on this issue. Just like with any other group of people there is a great deal of individual variation among the poor. I know some poor people whose poverty is absolutely their own fault. I know others whose poverty is not. And I know some for for whom it is a mix. Both sides can point to antidotes supporting their own positions. One size fits all governmental policies have been monumentally ineffective because one size does not fit all. One of the big problems is that most of the policies are designed for feel good and sound good reasons not be good. Outcomes are virtually never assessed. Some anti-poverty programs work as designed. Most don't. If Democrats and Republicans genuinely wanted to help the poor, they would examine the programs closely keeping those that work and ending those that are less effective freeing up those dollars for more effective programs. Neither party is interested in doing that. Republicans want to eliminate ineffective programs to save tax dollars. Democrats care more about potentially unemployed people in the poverty industry (government employees, community organizers, "poverty pimps" etc) than they do about the poor they are theoretically trying to help.
poor schools - The vast majority of the worst schools are located in areas wholly owned and controlled by Democrats. They care more about their friends in the teachers unions than the poor children who can't read. Because of union rules which make it virtually impossible to be fired, there is a certain percentage of less than effective teachers and even many completely ineffective teachers who can never be fired. Those teachers are shunted into the schools the poor kids attend. The good teachers in those schools do their best but they are struggling to compensate for the bad teachers in schools where half or more of the teachers can't / don't teach well. These are Democratic school in Democratic areas and have been this way for decades. The politicians only care about the teachers union and in making public statements that sound good. Funding isn't the problem, per pupil spending is higher in a lot of these poor performing schools than some countries spend. It's how the money is being spent / stolen that is the problem. Republican solutions to this problem are effective. Vouchers - parents take a % of the tax dollars being spent on their child (usually about half) in the form of a voucher and use it to pay for the private school of their choice. This has been incredibly effective. These families can't afford private schools on their own now they can send their kids to the same schools that the middle class families in their district do (in bad school districts what little middle class there is send their kids to private schools (or charter schools)). When vouchers are limited the waiting lists are enormous. Democrats hate this both because their friends in the teachers unions hate it and because many of the parents are voluntarily choosing religious private schools. Charter schools - these are public schools where the official rules handcuffing the principals / teachers are reduced. Details vary by school district but generally principals can hire / fire teachers; school hours are often increased; school year may be lengthened; often parents sign contracts promising attendance; thug students who are ruining the education of others can be expelled; curriculum choice isn't dictated by central authority; teachers are empowered; etc. Largely these have been successful, although there are some exceptions. New Orleans is the best example of success. After hurricane Katrina, the school system was significantly disrupted: students and teachers were living in temporary housing or with relatives, schools were physically damaged, half of the people were still in Texas etc. So the city switched virtually all of their schools to charters to accommodate the disruption. It worked before they had the typically terrible schools associated with the inner city, now they have good schools.
