@georgeob1,
Quote:hey have created dependency rather than reducing it; rewarded self-destructive behavior rather than behaviors that will increase individual development and achievment; and brought the wrong leaders to the forefront --- all under the supposed benevolent guidance of self-appointed progressive "leaders" whose careers derive from these programs and who in fact are the real beneficiaries of them
I agree with the outcome of what is being done. Namely that politicians are not interested in really solving the social problem of poverty..
Where we may diverge is that I don't believe this to be a democrat/republican thing. The republicans pretend to play outside of the what you refer to as the democratic sandbox of 'keeping people down whilst giving them aid' all the while they and the democrats economic policies create that sandbox so that those things are necessary..
So, while the economics remain as they are, its necessary to give as they do. What else is there? If they stopped, the economic machinery and the inequalities that machinery creates would threaten to destroy those people for whom that machinery helped to compromise in the first place. There would likely be chaos, riots on a scale we currently don't see. 3rd world ****.
Your less protection and more freedom only works in a society engineered to ensure that less protection actually means more freedom. That's the crux of this argument. I don't believe that we have created a society where removal of protections means equality for all. This society rigs the 'game' and its balance is not in favour of the poor (including whites) and minorities.
I do believe strides have been made though to change that. The civil rights movement was one. There were other policies designed to try to change the shape of economics as well. But on the whole, those things in that regard have started to go south. There is a real push back to push things backwards. But these gains are seen from a framework where help like what is given is made to seem 'normal'.
Trump is no less a leader in that regard than Clinton (both) and Bush and all the other presidents. The basic shape of the system remains the same. Not that there aren't other priorities, but for this discussion, priority uno is economics. Change that shape (however that looks - it would probably have to be experimental - not 'communism'), making it more equitable. Money = power.
There is too much monetary unbalance now and that does not come 'naturally'. There may be a natural law that says someone is born more energetic, with more natural (human) intelligence than another. In that regard we will forever be unequal. But there is no natural law that says someone ought to earn 400 times more money than another. That is human made, human sanctified and for known reasons.
Financial inequality is equivalent to political inequality which makes people unequal in the eyes of the law.
I don't pretend to know what the perfect system is. I'm not advocating any type of ism. I am seeking consistency and clarity in what we have. Whether or not I make a coherent argument, I fell that understanding needs to come first before anything can be discussed; we have to agree on the playing field and the parts in it or we talk at cross purposes..
