PF Topic for December 2011:In the US, current income disparities threaten democratic ideals.

"I have to agree with you on that one. However, I showed that study because I thought in that case they did a pretty good job. I do not have the book with me right now, but that is not necessary for our debate to continue. I suggest you to read it, you can read just the chapter about money and elections. A lot of the rest is just BS." Because my opponent has conceded the fact that freakonomics is inherently unreliable without offering information as to why this "study" is valid, we can disregard it as an invalid and inaccurate piece of data. "In 2010 the Republicans gained 63 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, recapturing the majority. In 2008 the Democrats gained 21 seats, increasing even more their majority. I ask you, those two elections alone was a result of money shifting hands? Or the fact that the people's sentiment changed? In 2008 people voted Democrat because of Bush's policies, wars, bailouts, and lies, right? In 2010 people voted Republican after realizing that Obama and his mandates and more bailouts was a very bad choice too. I think the govt just reflects TOO MUCH the people's sentiment. Just go around this website, nobody agrees with nobody, half of the people here want more stuff while the other half are tired to pay for: that is exactly how the govt is working now." It is true that nation-wide sentiment has had a hand in the election. However, money can change the sentiment of the people. In 2010, 115 republican candidates declared that the way government held BP responsible was "a shakedown," even though the majority of their constituents thought that BP should have payed more than they already had. And, when they went home to be reelected, although opinion differed, they won by a 20% margin average. In this case, money and positive advertisement was able to combat sentiment. "Things work like this: Big business and big labor give money to politicians that are winning, and are capable of win an election. They do not give money to politicians in a attempt to prop up their campaigns, because that is just impossible and considered a waste." Let's assume for a moment that you are right, then because of these people giving money to candidates it will influence how they vote in congress no matter how the people eel about that issue. You have already admitted this. However, it is not true. Allow me to re-address the Obama v. Clinton campaign. Obama going into the campaign was at a serious disadvantage at the start of the campaign. He was an unknown senator from Chicago who had a very small support base. The fact that he was able to raise money to within only $1 Million of Hillary Clinton is astounding, and that, coupled with his fantastic oratory powers is probably what gave the campaign the push it needed to beat Clinton's. However, if you'll recall, he only beat Clinton by a very narrow margin, showing how critical money is. "Not only big business, but everybody tries to capture politics and politicians. Labor unions represent workers, and they, like big business, come with a lot of money for their favorite candidates, those that are more likely to represent the workers. The difference is that if you are raising in the polls, money will come." Yes, I agree, everyone TRIES to capture congress, but who succeeds? According to open secrets.org, the top lobby sectors from 1998-2011 are Health (at $4.7 Billion) Finance/Insurance/Real Estate (at $4.7 Billion) Misc. Business (again at $4.7 Billion) Communications (at $3.9 Billion) and Energy ( $3.5 Billion with oil and gas at $1.1) Billion with Labor and Construction 2nd and 3rd from the bottom respectively and $479 Million and $525 Million. Not even close to enough money to counter-balance the smallest of large lobbies, Energy. In response to your quotes, what was meant by democracy at that time is different than how it is used now, and we must consider what is currently meant by democracy as well as ideals that are commonly held by the American people. Chief among these is that our congressmen should represent us. They, however do not as explained previously. That is the first part of my definition of Democratic Ideals, as was agreed upon by you in the opening debate.