debate on topic

My partner and I negate the resolution that current income disparities threaten democratic ideals. Ever since money has been used, income disparities have been involved. One can not compare people that are poor and people with over 100,000 dollars made every year. Even though the people who do make 6 figure digits generally have more, that does not mean that they are better then the people who have less money. Which brings me to my three points. My first point states that income disparities are natural. Ever since money has been used income disparities have been involved. Every civilian even the democrats have had people who make different amounts of money some substantially higher than others. In most cases richer people have had a very good education and therefore you would generally make more money if you went to Harvard as apposed to a community college so they get paid more. Education plays a big part in income people receive. So people who possess skills that other people generally get paid more because of that skill so income disparities comes naturally in the modern world and if something as simple as income disparities hurts democracy then there would be no democracy today. So the fact that income disparities threaten democratic ideals is false. My second point states that the government tries to help the income disparities: Many people believe that the government is helping big business at the peoples expense. The government gives bailout funds to businesses that are supposedly too-big-to-fail. The bailout funds are supposed to help businesses keep old employees and possibly hire new ones if they can. However, bailout funds are used not to hire new workers, but to add bonus money for a few elite employees. Who should we blame: the government whose good intentions are to hire workers and help people across America get jobs fall flat, or the corporations who greedily spend public money to the few elite employees instead of doing what the government intended? The answer to this question depends entirely on whether the government care to do anything about the bonuses. Yale professor John Macey writes: "Politicians are frustrated because they are virtually powerless to stop the flow of bonus payments to bankers. Rep. Dennis Kucinich thinks that the U.S. should levy heavy taxes on bonuses. While such action might placate some people, it is the shareholders, not the banks, who will end up paying this tax. Worse, this sort of tax will not affect banker behavior, because it will not reduce (and probably will increase) the government's proclivity to bail out banks that have made bad bets." It is clear that politicians are against large bonuses and are working towards a solution. Current US politicians are keen to the public's interests and follow the people's will as they should in a democratic government. It is big business, and not the government, that we should blame for such large income disparities. My third point is the government does not favor the rich. In the eyes of the government a person with a net worth of 250,000, or higher, is the same as a person with a net worth of 77,000, or lower. The rich is not worth anymore then the poor because the riches money does not give the government any edge at all. The government does not have any more use for the rich or than the poor and vise versa. If you are rich, or if you are poor, one vote counts the same as any other vote. My forth and final point states that income does not threaten the 3 most important democratic ideals which is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Money does not goes against your life and you have no less life then a rich person, money gives you no less liberty then a rich person, and money does no mean that you can not be happy many people who are not rich are happy. So money does not threaten democratic ideals when democratic ideals insure equality and the same rights as everyone in America. In conclusion, income disparities are a natural form of any country, the government tries to separate income disparities, the government does not favor the rich, and income disparities does not influence political power. So with these points the fact that current income disparities threaten democratic ideals is false. And with that I encourage a CON ballot.