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

"freakonomics is about as reliable as Fox News"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." The politicians believe that money is power and therefore they will do what is possible to obtain money."Of course they will. But that does not mean money will make them win an election. And election donations are voluntary, so, who cares who receives more money? Clinton got a $1 million more than Obama, and she still lost.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."Your quote by Woodrow Wilson (although irrelevant) proves that politicians believe that money IS power."I quoted President Wilson because he understood what it is in govt that attracts so much lobby and big business. He knew what attracts and encourages money to buy influence inside the govt. And if you are concerned about money influencing politicians, than you should target the root of the problem. You should target what attracts so much money. Income disparities is NOT what is threatening democratic ideals, but the acceptance of the people for more govt power is causing money to be so influential inside the govt. We all want clean energy right? I don't know a single person that likes pollution, but by giving to the govt the power to dictate what kind of energy is cleaner and better, opens a door for lobby and money influence in govt; just watch the recent case with Solyndra and GE. We all want equal representation too, right? So let's limit the govt scope into those things we all agree won, and those things that we don't, let the people rule themselves.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. The public will vote in people they like. Have you ever knew somebody that did vote for candidate A because he raised more money than candidate B? So the winning candidates once in govt feels compelled to give big business and big labor some favors back, because he feels the need for reelection money. It is like an investment, you do not buy stocks in an attempt to prop up such business, you buy because you expect that such stock will grow, with or without your money. Big business and big labor give politicians money in an attempt to bend the regulations to their favor, and that is quite effective.So what you see as an income disparity being the cause of unaccountable govt, I see as excessive of demands by the people to the govt that backfires on them. That is why the founders wanted limit govt, because if govt is limited they will not be bought so easily. Just take a look at the biggest lobbies in DC. They come from the industries with the most amount of regulation."In fact, your contentions further proves my point that businesses attempt to capture politics and politicians with special interest groups and lobbyists."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."I never argued that the majority is right, simply that the majority should be able to decide the direction of the nation. NOT the 1% of people who give financial aid to politicians. And yes, the United States is a democracy.""A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%." Thomas Jefferson" Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property." James Madison"We are a Republican Government, Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of democracy" Alexander Hamilton" The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived." John Quincy AdamsEven Karl Marx understood that, he said "Democracy is the road to socialism." Thomas Jefferson almost a hundred years before him clarifies that: "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." And also Ben Franklin: "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."So the United States is NOT a democracy. The directions of the country are not guided by the majority, but by unchangeable principles of individual freedom. Democratic values, as I understood to be the ones mentioned in the declaration of independence (even though the right term would be natural rights, and not democratic values) are NOT threaten by income disparities, but by the current increasing necessity that the people have to be ruled by the govt.