debate on topic

In the United States, current income disparities threaten democratic ideals. My partner and I are on the pro side. Before continuing it is important to define some key terms pertaining to the resolution. The definition of income as defined by the free dictionary.com is "The amount of money or its equivalent received during a period of time in exchange for labor or services, from the sale of goods or property, or as profit from financial investments". The definition of disparities as defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary is the markedly distinct quality or character between persons or objects. Lastly, the definition of threaten as defined by Princeton University is to "pose a threat to; present a danger to". Our points are: 1.Income inequality makes it more difficult to participate in an election equally with richer people 2.The government favors the rich 3.Money is power My first point is that income inequality makes it more difficult to participate in an election equally with richer people. Rich people can use money to start a campaign. Where poorer people cannot run as easily. Why? Well, according to mybudget360.com, the average person in the United States earns $46,326 a year. It would be very difficult to have enough money to start a campaign with the money left over after paying for Taxes, food, and other items you would need. Say Bill Gates was running for president, he earns $2.64 billion dollars a year. He could make donations to have companies run ads about him. It would be so much easier for him to run and win then it would be for us because he has the money to do that. My second point is that the government favors the rich. Our society as a whole tends to favor the rich over others. People with nice cars, big homes, and the finer things in life get extra perks and privileges. They get the better seats and all that goes with them. They are different (in a good way) and thus given preference. The poor, on the other hand, are often despised and ignored. They are often seated in the back or aren't even invited to events. They don't get the nicer seats and extra perks. They are different (in a bad way) and thus shunned. This is the same way with government. According to Oregon Live.com the rich do not have to pay as much tax money as the poor. The amount the rich pay in taxes went down 9% from 1992 to 2007, whereas the middle classes and the poor went down only 0.6%. In other words, this is the Bush tax cuts. It should have expired long ago, but congress keeps voting to keep it in place. The rich people keep persuading congressmen and women to pass this and other legislation to benefit them, in the expense of the poor. My third point is that money is power. In the United Sates, a small portion of people control a large portion of the countries money. According to Professor G. William Domhoff from the Sociology Department at the University of California at Santa Cruz, as of 2007, the top 1% of households owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth. With the bottom 80% of households hold only 15% of the money. The top 10 richest people in America, according to Forbes.com, have 291 BILLION DOLLARS shared between them. Due to this fact, they will have more political and social influence due to their wealth. This is bad, because they can bribe congress to vote things their way. Without this, Congress would have stopped or not passed the Bush tax cuts and other legislation that where passed. For these reasons I have presented to you, I strongly urge an affirmative ballot.