ENDI 20101
File Name
***CAMP TOURNY UPS ENDI 10 – 6 WEEK***
Iraq - Econ Advantage
Debt 1AC
Debt 1AC- Alternate Impact Senario
Debt Add-On
EXT-Solves
A2: Afghanistan
Neg Cards
Iraq - Terrorism Advantage
Terror 1ac
Terror Add-On
Ext- Terrorists Can get the bomb
Ext- Attack soon
Neg Cards
Iraq - RMA Add-on
RMA Add-On
RMA Good-Terror
RMA Good-Heg
EXT-Plan Solves Rma
Politics - Climate Bill
Will Pass
A2: Economy turn
Won’t pass
Doesn’t solve warming
No modeling
Economy turn
Politics - START
Will pass
Start Good – Russian Relations k2 North Korea
Start Good – Russian Relations Extension
Start – A2: Start Bad
Won’t pass
Start Bad – North Korea
Start Bad – Russian War
Politics - Immigration Reform
Bipart key
Internal Links
Polcap high
Obama Popular – International polls
Obama Popular – Domestic Polls
Polcap low
Polcap low (Climate Specific)
A2: Financial Reform boosts capital
Bipart – Low
Obama Unpopular – Polls prove
Obama unpopular – Lowest ever
Poltics - Midterms
Dems Majority – Obama key
Dem Majority – GOP falling
Dems Majority – GOP falling
Dems Majority – GOP divided
Dems Majority – Momentum
GOP Win – Economy
GOP Win – Obama declining
GOP Win – Voter enthusiasm
GOP Win - Senate
GOP Win - House
GOP Win – Independents key
AT: Too far right
Econ k2 Midterms
Economic - Growth Good/Bad
Growth good – generic
Growth bad – enviornment
Growth bad – enviro/VTL
Growth bad – fuels war
Economy - United States
High – 1NC
Econ High Extensions
A2 Jobs Down
Low – 1NC
Econ Low Extensions
Low – inflation
Low – deflation
Growth down
Economy - South Korea
High – general
High – exports
High – growth rates
High – industrial exports
High – fast growth
Low – currency decline
Low – OECD
Economy - Japan
High – general
High – capital spending
High – bond advances
Low – general
Low – deflation
Low – unemployment
Low – debt
Economy - Russia
High – general
High – mining industry
High – farmers
High – NAFTA
High – growth
High – banks prove
High – foreign investors and MOD
High – growth underway
High – industrial consumption
Econ stable – foreign policy
Russia trying to build econ
Low – climate change
Low – minimal growth
Low – growth exagerated
Econ On The Brink
Economy - Iran
High – general
High – stock market
Econ Stable
Econ Growing
Econ Right in the Middle
Econ On The Brink
Low – general
Low – inflation
Low – government
Low – oil
Low – barriers
Low – subsidies won’t solve
Low – multiple reasons
Low – gov’t Fails
AT: Stock Market High
Relations - China-Taiwan
High – domestic advances
High – ECFA
Low – AT: ECFA
Low – missiles
Impact – Warming
Impact – Taiwan Econ
AT: China-Taiwan war
Relations - US-NATO
US-NATO Alliance Resilient
NATO UP
US-NATO Alliance Weak Now
Democracy Good
Good – Democratic Peace
Good – Kant
Democracy Bad
A2 DPT – Empirically Denied
A2 DPT – Realism
A2 DPT – Statistics
Bad – Public Opinion
A2: Common Values
Bad – A2 Trust Other Democracies
Bad – A2 Conflict Resolution Norms
Bad – A2 Trade Solves
Democractic Transitions Bad
Transitions Bad – 1NC
Transitions Bad – Elite Takeover
Transitions Bad – Integrates Opposites
Transitions Bad – Logrolling
Transitions Bad – National Prestige
Transitions Bad – Weak Central Authority
AT: DPT – new democracies aren’t
AT: Authoritarian Worse
Stability - Middle East
Middle east Stable
Middle east unstable
Peace process prevents US-Iran war
Stability - Afghanistan
Stability high
Instability high
Multilaterism
Yes Multilateralism
No Multilateralism
Heg – on the brink
Military
Yes – recruitment
No – readiness
No – morale
No – recruitment
Defense Spending
Spending high – defense
Spending low – general
Spending low – defense
Oil Prices
Oil prices high
Oil prices low
Warming
No Warming – generic
No Warming – multiple factors
No Warming – long term
No Warming – exaggerate
No Warming – studies flawed
Yes Warming – generic
Yes Warming – risk high now
Yes Warming – big threat
a2 climagate
Prolif
Prolif High – China arm sale
Prolif High – Iran Sanctions
Prolif High – Risk high
Prolif High – US proliferating
Prolif Low – No arm sales
Prolif Low – Start key
Immigration
Immigration Rates Low
Terrorism
Terrorism impact – 3nr
High – India
High – Afghanistan
High – cyberterrorism
Low – generic
Deforestation
High – general
High – illegal timber
High – carelessness
AT: Chatham Report
Low – general
Low – studies
Low – private sectors
Low – opposition
Low – global warming
***NEW IRAQ ADVS***
**Econ ADV**
Debt 1AC
Contention______- Economy
Current Obama spending make the debt high and financial collapse inevitable
Lochhead 10
[Carolyn Lochhead, Chronicle Washington Bureau SFGate “National debt seen heading for crisis level” 4/5/10,
Health care may have been the last big bang of the Obama presidency.With ferocious speed, the financial crisis, recession and efforts to combat the recession have swung the U.S. debt from worrisome to ruinous, promising to handcuff the administration. Lost amidlast month's passage of the new health care law,the Congressional Budget Office issued a report showing thatwithin this decade,President Obama's own budget sends the U.S. government to apotential tipping point where the debt reaches 90 percent of gross domestic product. Economists Carmen Reinhart of the University of Maryland and Kenneth Rogoff of Harvard University have recently shown that a90 percent debt-to-GDP ratio usually touches off a crisis. This year, the debt will reach 63 percent of GDP, a ratio that has ignited crisesin smaller wealthy nations. Fiscal crises gripped Canada, Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Ireland when their debts were below where the United States is shortly headed. Japan's debt is much higher, but most of it is held domestically, and Japan's economy has been weak for 20 years. "I really don't think we want to be like Japan," said UC Berkeley economist Alan Auerbach.
We are on the verge of a super debt cycle- NOW is key to solving national debt
Reynolds and Goodman 10
[Garfield Reynolds and Wes Goodman, Bloomberg Financial Analysts, “U.S.'s $13 Trillion Debt Poised to Overtake GDP: Chart of Day” 6/4/10,
PresidentBarack Obamais poised to increase the U.S. debt to a level that exceeds the value of the nation’s annual economic output,a step toward whatBill Grosscalled a “debt super cycle.” The CHART OF THE DAY tracks U.S. gross domestic product and the government’s total debt, which rose past $13 trillion for the first time this month.The amount owed will surpass GDP in 2012, based on forecasts by the International Monetary Fund. The lower panel shows U.S. annual GDP growth as tracked by the IMF, which projects theworld’s largest economy to expand at a slower pace than the 3.2 percent average during the past five decades. “Over the long term, interest rates on government debt will likely have to rise to attract investors,”saidHiroki Shimazu, a market economist in Tokyo at Nikko Cordial Securities Inc., a unit of Japan’s third-largest publicly traded bank. “That will be a big burden on the government and the people.” Gross, who runs the world’s largest mutual fund at Pacific Investment Management Co. in Newport Beach, California, said in hisJune outlookreport that “the debt super cycle trend”suggests U.S. economic growth won’t be enough to support the borrowings “if real interest rates were ever to go up instead of down.” Dan Fuss, who manages the Loomis Sayles Bond Fund, which beat 94 percent of competitors the past year, said last week that he sold all of his Treasury bonds because of prospects interest rates will rise as the U.S. borrows unprecedented amounts. Obama is borrowing record amounts to fund spending programs to help the economy recover from its longest recession since the 1930s. “The incremental borrower of funds in the U.S. capital markets is rapidly becoming the U.S. Treasury,”Boston-based Fuss said. “Do you really want to buy the debt of the biggest issuer?”
Failure to reduce debt causes U.S.-China leadership switch
Seib 10
[Gerald F. Seib, assistant managing editor and the executive Washington editor of The Wall Street Journal, “US status, security weakened by deficit” 2/3/10, lexis]
THE US federal budget deficit has graduatedfrom pressing national concerninto a fully fledged national security threat, as theUS government this year will borrow one of every three dollarsit spends, with many of those funds comingfrom China. The budget plan released yesterdayby the WhiteHouse shows a $US1.6 trillion ($1.8 trillion) deficit this year, $US1.3 trillion next year,$US8.5 trillion for the next 10 years combined -- assuming congress enacts US President Barack Obama's proposals to start bringing it down, and that the proposals work. The numbers are seen as an economic and domestic problem but they have ramifications for the US's ability to continue playing its traditional global role. Experts warn theUS government's heavy borrowing from foreign countries will weaken the US's standing and its freedom to act, while it strengthens China and other world powersincluding cash-rich oil producers. It puts long-term defence spending at risk and undermines the US system as a model for developing countries-- it reduces the aura of power that has been a great intangible asset for presidents for more than a century. ``We've reached a point now where there's an intimate link between our solvency and our national security,'' said Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations and a senior national security adviser in both the first and second Bush presidencies. ``What's so discouraging is that our domestic politics don't seem to be up to the challenge. And the whole world is watching.'' The classic, narrow definition of national security threats already has expanded in ways that make traditional foreign policy thinking antiquated,with the list of US security concerns now including dependence on foreign oil and global warming, for example. But the budget deficits also threaten Americans' national security as they make the US vulnerable to foreign pressures. The US has about $US7.5 trillion in accumulated debt held by the public, about half of that in the hands of investors abroad. Each American next year will chip in more than $US800 just to pay interest on this debt and the situation means the US government is dependent on the largesse of foreign creditors and subject to the whims of international financial markets.A foreign government, through the actions of its central bank, could put pressure on the US in a way its military never could.Even under a more benign scenario,a debt-ridden US is vulnerable to a run on the US dollar that begins abroad. Either way, Mr Haass says, ``it reduces our independence''. Chinese power is growing as a result. A lot of the deficit is being financed by China, which is selling the US many billions of dollars of manufactured goods, then lending the accumulated dollars back to the US. The IOUs are stacking up in Beijing. So far this has been a mutually beneficial arrangement, butit is slowly increasing Chinese leverage over American consumers and the US government. At some point, the US may have to bend its policies before either an implicit or explicit Chinese threat to stop the merry-go-round. Just last weekend, for example, the US angered China by agreeing to sell Taiwan $US6.4 billion in arms. At some point, will the US face economic servitude to China that would make such a policy decision impossible? This year, thanks in some measure to continuing high costs from wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,the US will spend a once-unthinkable $US688bn on defence. Staggering as the defence outlays are, the deficit is twice as large. The much smaller budgets for the the US's other international operations -- diplomacy, assistance for friendly nations -- are dwarfed even more dramatically by the deficit. These national security budgets have been largely sacrosanct in the era of terrorism. But unless the deficit arc changes, at some point theywill come under pressure for cuts. The US model is being undermined before the rest of the world. This is the great intangible impact of yawning budget deficits. The image of an invincible US had two large effects over the last century or so. First, it made other countries listen when Washington talked. And second, it often made other peoples and leaders yearn to be like the US. Sometimes that produced jealousy and resentment among leaders, butoften it drew to the top of foreign lands leaders who admired the US and wanted their countries to emulate it. Such leaders are good allies.The Obama administration has pledged to create a bipartisan commission charged with balancing the budget, except for interest payments, by 2015. The damage deficits can do to the US's world standing is a good reason to hope the commission works.
The Switch leads to a massive power war
David, Zweig, Director of the Center on China’s Transnational Relations at Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, and Bi Jianhai, post-doc at the Center, 05, Foreign Affairs, “China’s Global Hunt for Energy”, September/October, proquest
Although China's new energy demands need not be a source of serious conflict with the Westin the long term, at the moment, Beijing and Washington feel especially uneasy about the situation.While China struggles to manage its growing pains, the United States, as the world's hegemon, must somehow make room for the rising giant; otherwise,war will become a serious possibility. According to the power transition theory,to maintain its dominance, a hegemon will be tempted to declare war on its challengers while it still has a power advantage. Thus,easing the way for the United States and China--and other states to find a new equilibrium will require careful management, especiallyoftheirmutual perceptions.
US/China war causes extinction
Straits Times 00 (“No One Gains In War Over Taiwan”, 6-25, Lexis)
THE DOOMSDAY SCENARIOTHE high-intensity scenariopostulates a cross-strait war escalating into a full-scale war between the US and China. If Washington were to conclude that splitting China would better serve its national interests, thena full-scale war becomes unavoidable. Conflicton such a scalewould embroil other countriesfarandnear and -- horror of horrors --raise the possibility of a nuclear war. Beijing has already told the US and Japan privately that it considers any country providing bases and logistics support to any US forces attacking China as belligerent parties open to its retaliation. In the region, this means South Korea, Japan, the Philippines and, to a lesser extent, Singapore. If China were to retaliate,east Asia will be set on fire. And the conflagration may not end there as opportunistic powers elsewhere may try to overturn the existing world order. With the US distracted, Russia mayseek toredefine Europe'spoliticallandscape. The balance of power in the Middle East may be similarly upset by the likes of Iraq. In south Asia,hostilities between India and Pakistan, each armed with its own nuclear arsenal, could enter a new and dangerous phase. Will a full-scale Sino-US war lead to a nuclear war? According to General Matthew Ridgeway, commander of the US Eighth Army which fought against the Chinese in the Korean War, the US had at the time thought of using nuclear weapons against China to save the US from military defeat. In his book The Korean War, a personal account of the military and political aspects of the conflict and its implications on future US foreign policy, Gen Ridgeway said that US was confronted with two choices in Korea -- truce or a broadened war, which could have led to the use of nuclear weapons. If the US had to resort to nuclear weaponry to defeat China long before the latter acquired a similar capability, there is little hope of winning a war against China 50 years later, short of using nuclear weapons. The US estimates that China possesses about 20 nuclear warheads that can destroy major American cities. Beijing also seems prepared to go for the nuclear option. A Chinese military officer disclosed recently that Beijing was considering a review of its "non first use" principle regarding nuclear weapons. Major-General Pan Zhangqiang, president of the military-funded Institute for Strategic Studies, told a gathering at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars in Washington that although the government still abided by that principle, there were strong pressures from the military to drop it. He said military leaders considered the use of nuclear weapons mandatory if the country risked dismemberment as a result of foreign intervention. Gen Ridgeway said that should that come to pass, we would see the destruction of civilisation. There would be no victors in such a war. While the prospect of a nuclearArmaggedon over Taiwanmight seem inconceivable, it cannot be ruled outentirely, for China puts sovereignty above everything else.