Resolved: Current income disparities in the US threaten democratic ideals

(Hello, I am familiar with PF Debates but im not quite an expert on them, if I screw up somewhere just let me know and I will refrain from making the same mistake again) 1) Income inequality is natural like the con said. However in cases of extreme income inequality, democratic ideals can be at risk. In times of extreme income inequality, nations are prone to quick and radical government change. If you look at any democracy in Africa for example, you will probably find a very large amount of income inequality within that nation. It may exist for any reason but when income inequality becomes large enough, the public will protest to their governments to either A) tax the rich, or B) create laws that raises the living standards of the poorer classes. If the government can do either or both of those, then the public will be happy and keep their democratic governments. If the government fails to do so, makes the problem worse, or openly denounced the lower classes, that could be the spark of revolution. Income inequality does not directly lead to the loss of democratic ideals. However income inequality if severe enough will start to anger the public, if the government cannot appease them than a revolution could occur over class warfare. It happened before in the middle ages when the working peasant class were upset by how their lords taxed them almost to death while their taxes were spent on luxury. It also happened in many modern African nations where income inequality fueled such anger that it allowed a warlord or warlords to recruit gunman and seize power. Does the current income inequality in the US threaten the US democracy today though? There are many reports showing how the current income in the US is now similar to levels prior to the Great Depression and the Gilded Age. Both times before Congress started to pass laws to regulate banks and allow workers to form unions, receive overtime pay, work only from 9-5, have weekends off, etc. Many of these laws in the past seemed like a violation of democratic ideals to corporations back then. It is possible that the current level of income inequality could fuel public resentment and cause the government to pass laws that in the views of some people, could infringe on the democratic ideals of the nation. 2) The government does not favor the rich, that is a fact, but the working class may not see the truth or interpret government actions differently than from what they truly are. During the bailouts, that was the government investing tax dollars to save jobs in massive corporations, many people saw that though as the government favoring the wealthy over the middle class. Whether they are right or wrong, such actions fuel public anger so an honest move by the government could be interpreted as favoritism. If the government would try to appease the middle class by for example, taxing bonuses, that would appease the public even if it hurt the economy more. taxing bonuses on banker employees could be seen as a threat on democratic ideals by those working within the banking system, but if the public is happy about it then the changes will stay. Big businesses are responsible for income inequality, not the governments. However people will always turn to the government to try to remedy the problem, and depending on the outcome a change in democratic ideals could occur. Income inequality influences politics in many ways, buying actual votes was just the first tactic to be used. Today campaign finance reform is a big issue because corporations can now donate unlimited sums of money to candidates they favor to try to influence legislation. It only takes one report to show how much money a corporation has given to one candidate for the public to become upset about it and soon call for the government to do something about it. Again if the government ignores it or makes it worse, a change in government could happen, if they do then corporations will see their democratic ideals violated (democratic ideals in this case is that money = speech, limiting campaign contributions = limiting speech which goes against the first amendment) Current income inequalities threaten democratic ideals because, 1) If severe enough the public could rise up and demand reform (look at the occupy wall street protests) which could cost corporations right they consider to be sacred 2) The government must take action over income inequality if they feel pressure from voters to address the issue 3) Money can influence political will and political power