Resolved: Current income disparities in the US threaten democratic ideals

Answers to Con's questions in round 2 1) Extreme inequality is based on opinion. I personally believe that extreme income inequality is where the rich are fabulously wealthy and a large majority (70%) of the rest of the population live in poverty2) There are many former democracies in Africa that experienced revolutions where there was a great deal of income inequality,Ghana underwent revolutions between 1966 to 1981Nigeria underwent revolutions in CONSECUTIVE years in 1984 and 1985Zambia underwent revolutions in the 1990's which were driven by many economic factors including income inequalityAnd that was just a few...Its happened in the past in other countries too....France in the late 1700's experienced one hell of a revolution when the middle class, the bourgeois, protested the massive inequality between them and the noble class...The Russian Revolution in 1912 was also driven by a number of economic reasons, one of them being the income inequality between serfs/peasants and the landowning nobles 3) The US will probably not experience a revolution, however the debate is about if income inequality threatens US democratic ideals, which they certainly do. It is possible that income inequality could combine with other economic woes and trigger the public to pressure the government into sacrificing democratic rights of some corporations to address the income inequality (I can elaborate how, but there's a character limit)------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1) Democracy is not based on "blindly" appeasing the public. Blindly is a very ugly term and does not apply in these circumstances. The public though are very knowledgeable and if the government does not do a favorable job in the views of the public then they will be voted out and replaced by those who will get the job done. 2) Democratic ideals encompasses many things, the ones at risk from income inequality include taxing the rich, taxing corporations, removing any benefits to the rich by the government etc. The democratic ideals that are at risk in these cases could be freedom of enterprise, overturning the ruling that made corporations people, etc. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1) Corporations can provide unlimited sums of money, here are multiple sourceshttp://mmproject.org...http://www.expressmilwaukee.com...http://www.huffingtonpost.com...http://www.democracynow.org...2) - 4) because the law states that corporations can remain anonymous and contributions are private and anonymous I cannot give an answer to these questions. Summaries1) If the government were to reverse the Supreme Court decision then the corporations first amendment rights to free speech would be compromised since the Supreme Court declared money = speech, and if the government puts a cap limit on contributions it would limit speech.2) Voters would probably be satisfied at seeing the richest people either pay a larger proportion of their income in taxes or reverse the ruling that made corporations into people. The government could appease people if they did that.3) Political corruption occurs when government officials use their hold on power to extract from the private sector, from government revenues, and from the economy at large. In this case corporations are just GIVING huge sums of money to candidates and now they can use this money in any way. If that doesnt satisfy the Con these sources of corruption might.http://newsjunkiepost.com...http://prospect.org..."I never said that big business was solely to blame for income inequality"but in the first round you said"It is big business, and not the government, that we should blame for such large income disparities."Did you change your mind?I have shown that income inequalities pose a threat to governments and that income inequality does affect politics and nations. The Con has not refuted my questions and I am very disappointed that he only asked for sources and examples or just asked more questions instead of providing well thought out answers to my questionsIn 2008 Barack Obama became the first president since Nixon to win the presidency without using public money, he won completely with contributions. They ARE essential, contrary to what the Con believes...By the way Con, its only the third round, dont cry victory when you havent answered all of my questions and your contradicting yourself, its rather immature