I was listening to something on "The Takeaway" on WNYC (NPR), this morning.  They were talking about how businesses have been slow to hire people, making the recovery that much worse ... and I got thinking about the GOP's rants about unions and the Federal government in general.  Repugs have been hitting us over the head with their beliefs about unions being lazy and overpaid and irrelevant in this day and age.  They also claim that the government spends too much and the less government, the better.  So, if too much money given to the unions and too much spending by the government is so bad, how can they also think that the way to fix businesses is to give them more money?  Just as, in their scenarios, workers become less productive when paid too much, (thanks to the unions' 'unfair negotiating tactics'), won't business owners become less inclined to innovate and grow their business when they make enough money to be comfortable?  If we make the rich too comfortable, by giving them too many tax breaks and other benefits, doesn't that take away their incentive to work hard?  They tell us it does when it applies to 'Welfare Queens' and unions and the Federal government.  If these problems can only be fixed by starving them and/or making them live within their means, why aren't they arguing to give rich people greater incentives to create jobs by cutting off their tax breaks and making them uncomfortable enough to go out and grow their business?  Do they believe greed is different than the desire to climb out of poverty?  I think we need a dose of 'tough love' for the rich.  If you treat them too well, they won't be productive, they'll just sit around on their duffs, living off their tax breaks, and that'll screw up the economy.