Resolved: Current income disparities in the US threaten democratic ideals

1) I believe that the US does not have extreme income inequality, but that is based off my own personal definition of what extreme income inequality is. Voters may believe that the US is indeed in extreme income inequality and they could easily be right 2) List of things Congress and The President has done that upset a good number of Americans -Created a military draft for the war in Vietnam, -Failed to efficiently handle the nations ever growing debt -Gave bailouts to big corporations -Extended tax cuts to the wealthy -Put more troops in Afghanistan -Lied about Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD's) In Iraq And thats just a few 3) Corporations having the option to give large donations, no that is not corrupt. But if companies DO donate immense sums of money to the campaign of one politician then that could easily be considered corrupt 4) The Supreme Court is part of the government so they could later revise their own ruling in the future (its happened before, see below), also a Constitutional amendment can be created to limit corporate contributions 5) Accepting the donations isnt the act of corruption, its using all that money to give themselves more power and influence over the public and over other candidates that is corrupt. 6) Yes, income inequality poses a threat to the US government because if it rises to such conspicuous levels that the public can easily see how bad it is and decide to do something about it, they can force the US government to do something about it 7) In times like these Income Inequality can affect who gets elected to Congress or even the White House. If a candidate is fiercely against higher taxes for the rich but still considers raising taxes on the middle class then the public would not vote for that person and instead vote for someone who would act according to what the public wants. With enough elections then Congress would start to consist of enough politicians who would respect the public's wishes and action could be taken to fight income inequality 8) Obama and Nixon could have used public money but they didnt need to because the number of donations they received from corporate donations were utterly massive. If a large limit was placed on how much each corporation could donate the funds that candidates would have would be much smaller, so yes corporate funding is vital to other presidents and our future ones 9) Your second speech is riddled with misconceptions about the nature of income inequality, you believe that the Supreme Court is untouchable by the other branches of government, you were incorrect about just how money can influence politics, and you claimed victory when the debate was half over before I could even respond to the questions you asked me. So I believe that you did not help your case but whether or not I am any closer to victory because of it is up to the voters The Con thinks it is fundamentally impossible for the American public to force the government to limit the power of corporations in anyway, but today there are many things that suggest otherwise. The American public has pressured the government to limit corporate power by 1) installing a minimum wage 2) allowing workers to have unions 3) allowing workers to have weekends off 4) allowing workers an 8 hour workday 5) allowing workers to be granted overtime pay 6) forcing companies to make consumer items environmentally safe 7) forcing companies to provide tolerable working conditions I see no evidence in history that suggests that the people could NOT pressure the government to limit how much money a corporation can contribute to a campaign, unlike what the Con believes The Supreme Court is not untouchable like the Con claims, but the Supreme Court could easily overturn their own rulings over the same issue in the past and decide that corporations cannot donate unlimited sums of money to campaigns. It's happened before, 1) Lochner v. New York 2) Adler v. Board of Education 3) Pace v. Alabama 4) Oregon v. Mitchell 5) Dred Scott v. Sandford 6) And the biggest case ruling ever reversed, Plessy v. Ferguson http://money.howstuffworks.com... In 2008 Obama raised roughly a billion dollars in campaign money, and the cap limit that candidates can borrow in public money is only $20, without corporate funding Obama's campaign would have lost anywhere from $500 to $900 MILLION in corporate donations. Corporate donations are essential to candidates who need money for their campaigns in order to win Income Inequality can threaten US democratic ideals. If enough people are upset by it and pressure their governors, senators, representatives, mayors, and government to fix the issue then they will. The government has done this in the past and could do it again because with income inequality the government could remove powers from corporations that were considered democratic ideals. Could income inequality in the US today do the same? Yes Thanks for reading :D