In my opinion, equal protection of the law can do more to solve simple forms of poverty and help the less wealthy upgrade their skills in a market friendly manner.
Equal Protection does NOT mean forcing ALL taxpayers under liberal beliefs in centralized govt for individuals collectively (any more than it means forcing taxpayers to pay for corporate abuse of capitalist conservative policies either).
danielpalos To be equally fair and protective of all people means to hold each party to pay for the policies, promises and consequences of their beliefs principles and platforms, like holding businesses responsible for providing services they advertise.
Let's call a conference to form a Union of Taxpayers, left right and independent, and draw up an agreement that the rightwing conservatives will not force leftwing to pay for corporate welfare, damages or debts unless the Democratic party leaders SIGN for those against the objections of conservatives vetoing corporate bailouts and handouts: In other words, the people or parties Authorizing the spending over objections of others accept responsibility for the taxes to cover that policy.
Liberal/Democrats will agree to finance the educational/health care benefits through their own taxes, tax breaks, credits, deductions and donations, without relying on other taxpayers unless they CONSENT to terms of financing such as through microlending or cooperative economic development.
danielpalos Equal Protections means not discriminating by creed, not forcing one system of belief that is biased against other people. All groups should exercise equal rights to fund and follow their respective political beliefs in order to protect all people and groups, voters and taxpayers, equally. Not imposing a bias that "favors one political creed or belief over others."
www.ethics-commission.net
skews13 what is your take on this idea of holding taxpayers and parties responsible for paying costs of their policies, including consequences, debts damages and complications of enforcement
I credit
danielpalos for the idea of requiring businesses to file as religious organizations if they have beliefs that prevent them from serving all customers equally, and believe we could advocate and win support for this idea by applying it to Political Parties and require them to follow Public Accommodations when influencing policy affecting the Public. If Parties work in private to finance and promot3 their own policies, beliefs and biases (like any other Religious Organization with faith based biases in beliefs and practices) then this would not affect the rest of the public. But when Parties act as a Lobby to influence elections, campaigns, legislation, court rulings, and other govt policies, this should be neutral objective and inclusive of all people's beliefs in order to Accommodate the Public without discrimination by creed, and/or conspiring as a collective group to violate equal civil rights of others which is arguable a felony.
Can we call a truce, what would you demand of both parties to stop this warfare to force beliefs of one group or another through govt to dominate public policy and force taxpayers to comply with partisan beliefs against their own?
www.salon.com
