In the U.S. current income disparities threaten democratic ideals

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Because my partner and I agree with these immortal words of democracy, we firmly negate that resolved: In the United States, current income disparities threaten democratic ideals. First allow me to provide some definitions to clarify today's debate: Threaten: to be a menace or source of danger to Democratic Ideals: the beliefs in which a democratic state is founded upon. Observation 1: The resolution's reference to the United States suggests that we must uphold the democratic ideals that relate to the United States specifically. This means that the democratic ideals that are to be discussed are the ideals expressed within the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights because our democratic state was founded on these documents. Observation 2: An emphasis on the word threaten within the resolution is a necessity for today's debate. What we need to look at is if Con can prove that income disparities or the causes of income disparities strengthen democratic ideals more than they deter them, then those income disparities don't threaten said democratic ideals. So essentially the word threaten will be the overall interpretation of the cost-benefit analysis that income disparities have on democratic ideals. Contention 1: Inequality does not threaten democratic ideals. Current income disparities are only problematic if you observe what OTHERS have opposed to what a person DOES have. Peter Schwartz, author of The Foreign Policy of Self-Interest observes, "the alleged problem is not that some are becoming poor--but that others are too rich. The complaint is that while the bottom tier enjoyed a 4% rise in income, the top tier enjoyed a 34% increase. The complaint is that over the past 25 years, the share of income of the top fifth of households climbed from 42% to 50%, while that of the bottom fifth fell from 7% to 5%. This development represents an injustice only if we use a perverse standard of evaluation. It is unjust only if we measure someone's economic status not by what he has, but by what others have." The poorer class of America alone, according to the U.N. Center for Human Settlements, has a larger floor area per person than high income countries such as the United Kingdom, France, Japan and Germany which shows how the "poor" class of America is more privileged than the majority of the world. Prosperity amongst the "poor" class shows how the democratic ideals of liberty and the pursuit of happiness are upheld, even amongst people that supposedly have unequal opportunity. Furthermore, I would also like to point out that income inequalities don't deprive anybody of their constitutional rights. Therefore, income inequalities do not in fact threaten democratic ideals. Contention 2: Capitalism strengthens democratic ideals. Sub-point A: Capitalism promotes a person's right to the pursuit of happiness. Peter Schwartz observes that "Income inequality is an effect. The cause is the difference in people's economic production." This difference of economic production is a result of the free market system in America. Schwartz goes on to say "Criticizing income inequality is like complaining that a computer carries a higher price than a paper clip. Price reflects an object's market value--and the money someone earns reflects the market value of his work. There is no fixed, pre-existing glob of income that somehow oozes disproportionately into the pockets of the rich. Wealth is created. The top fifth of the population have ten times more income than the bottom fifth because they have produced ten times more. Income inequality represents something good. It means that exceptional individuals are free to do their productive best, and to reap their rewards." Individuals have the opportunity to create their own wealth underneath the capitalistic system of America which inevitably results in income inequality. However, it also results in the democratic ideals of liberty and the pursuit of happiness being upheld. Sub-point B: Capitalism promotes the general welfare of the nation. According to John Stossel of 20/20, households with incomes exceeding $1 million (about 7 percent of the population) make 50 percent of all charitable donations. The donations of the rich promote the general welfare of the rest of the nation. The wealthy that have achieved their economic success through the capitalistic system are donating their wealth to poorer classes which promotes the general welfare of the people. Furthermore, the rich actually drive and sustain the economy which creates wealth for the people in the middle and lower classes. . Jeannine Aversa, AP Economics Writer, says, "Think of the wealthy as the main engine of the economy: When they buy more, the economy hums. When they cut back, it sputters. The rest of us mainly go along for the ride…" Through the wealth that the rich obtain through the capitalistic system, the American economy grows, which means that the richer the rich get, the richer the poor get as well.