Uniqueness comparison

WILL PASS Debt Ceiling Will pass- after the republican walkout Obama is key Condon 6/23/11 (Stephanie, reporter for CBS News, Deficit talks implode as GOP negotiators drop out, http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20073730-503544.html#ixzz1Q824KnR8, MM) House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi told reporters, "Yes, we do want to remove tax subsidies for big oil. We want to remove tax breaks for companies that send jobs overseas. I don't know if that's a reason to walk away from the table." Biden has been leading the negotiations (with the two Republicans, four congressional Democrats and three other members of the administration) with the hope of forging a deficit reduction plan as part of a deal to raise the nation's debt ceiling. The group wanted to reach an agreement before Congress leaves for its July 4 recess -- giving Congress a month to actually pass a bill to raise the debt ceiling without risking a great strain on the economy. The Obama administration and several economists have urged Congress to raise the debt limit by Aug. 2 to avoid economic catastrophe. The Treasury Department has taken accounting steps to keep the government from defaulting since it hit the ceiling May 16, but it has said Aug. 2 is a hard deadline. Democratic Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, one of the Democrats involved in Biden's talks, said, "people are playing with fire and really putting the very fragile economy at greater threat" by threatening to vote against raising the debt limit. Republicans have insisted that raising the debt ceiling without also making significant spending cuts would be fiscally irresponsible. Pelosi, however, said today that there's no reason why a vote to raise the debt limit must be tied to deficit reduction. "Somehow, in an amoeba-like fashion, these two merged together," she said. Van Hollen suggested Republicans were more concerned with keeping taxes low for corporations than they were with deficit reduction. "The reality is until our Republican colleagues are more concerned about the need to reduce the deficit than they are worried about what [conservative anti-tax advocate] Grover Norquist will say, we will have a very difficult time," he said. The Republicans' decision to stall the negotiations puts more pressure on Mr. Obama to take responsibility -- and possibly the blame -- for the hard decisions Washington must make to bring down the deficit. The move also takes some of the pressure off of Cantor and Kyl, leaving House Speaker John Boehner to cut a deal with the president. A recent CBS News poll found that 63 percent of Americans think raising the debt limit is a bad idea. Speaking on the Senate floor this morning, McConnell said Mr. Obama has up to this point "stood in the background." "He has acted as if it's not his problem," he said. "Well, it is his problem. This is his problem to solve. America is waiting." Will pass- Obamas influence is key to get Republicans back on board Jackson 6/23/11 (David, congressional reporter for USA Today, Republicans leave debt talks as Obama meets with Democrats, http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/06/obama-talks-federal-debtwith-house-democrats/1, MM) Two Republicans pulled out of high-profile budget talks today, saying President Obama needs to address Democratic demands that tax increases are needed to reduce the nation's debt. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., said talks to raise the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling while cutting the budget won't go anywhere until Obama weighs in on requests for tax hikes Republicans oppose. "Given this impasse, I will not be participating in today's meeting, and I believe it is time for the president to speak clearly and resolve the tax issue," Cantor said. "Once resolved, we have a blueprint to move forward to trillions of spending cuts and binding mechanisms to change the way things are done around here." Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., also withdrew from the talks. In a joint statement with Republican leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., Kyl said, "The White House and Democrats are insisting on job-killing tax hikes and new spending." "President Obama needs to decide between his goal of higher taxes or a bipartisan plan to address our deficit. He can't have both," said the two Republican senators. "But we need to hear from him." Will pass- cooperation but capitals key Washington Post 6/18 (Felicia Sonmez, staff writer, More civility less anger in debt ceiling talks Lexis) Something's missing in the debate over raising the country's debt ceiling: anger. The highest-stakes political battle to date in the 112th Congress has been surprisingly absent the partisan rancor, name-calling and - for lack of a better term - blamesmanship that typically mark most spending fights in Washington. The civil tone that's emerged in the battle over raising the $14.3 trillion debt limit this summer appears to be a product of the cordial working relationships that have developed among the principals in the White

House-led talks, particularly between Vice President Biden and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.). But it

also might stem from the tacit acknowledgment among all sides that even raising the specter of a federal default could have a catastrophic effect on the global economy. Joining in the bipartisan goodwill this weekend are President Obama, House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R), who are slated to hold their first "golf summit" Saturday. No policy details are likely to be engaged on the links, but goodwill toward reaching a real deal might be enhanced. The bonhomie is a far cry from the loud
and personal attacks that have characterized most big Washington debates in recent years. Consider recent statements made by some of the group's principals as the debt-limit negotiators wrapped up their eighth meeting Thursday evening.

WONT PASS Congress has no hope for debt ceiling Miller 6-23 (Zillie Miller, 6-23-11, Congress Skeptical Debt Ceiling Negotiations Will Meet Deadline,
http://www.businessinsider.com/congress-skeptical-debt-ceiling-negotiations-will-meet-deadline-2011-6) Members of Congress are not optimistic that the ongoing debt ceiling negotiations will produce deadline set by Vice President Joe Biden, according to a National Journal poll of Members of Congress. Asked

a deal by the July 1st whether they thought the "Biden Group" would reach a bipartisan deal by July 1st, 52% of Democrats, and 79% of Republicans answered no. Wont pass- Republicans dropped out Condon 6/23/11 (Stephanie, reporter for CBS News, Deficit talks implode as GOP negotiators drop out, http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20073730-503544.html#ixzz1Q824KnR8, MM) Vice President Joe Biden's deficit reduction talks imploded today after the only two Republicans involved in the negotiations announced they are halting their participation because of their objections to Democratic demands for "tax increases." Democrats meanwhile, suggested Republicans are "playing with fire" by holding up a vote on raising the debt ceiling. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor announced this morning that he would skip today's scheduled meeting because "Democrats continue to insist that any deal must include tax increases." Subsequently, Republican Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona announced he was pulling out of the negotiations. Kyl and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell released a statement saying, "The White House and Democrats are insisting on job-killing tax hikes and new spending. That proposal won't address our fiscal crisis, our jobs crisis, or protect and reform entitlements." Cantor, Kyl and McConnell all put the onus on President Obama to inject himself in the talks and come up with a plan for reducing the nation's deficit. Democrats, meanwhile, learned about their Republican colleagues' revolt after walking out of a White House meeting regarding the deficit. Despite negotiations, talks have hit a wall AP 06/25 (AP, 06/25/11, Obama, Boehner Held Secret Debt Ceiling Meeting At White House, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/24/obama-boehner-debt-ceiling-talks_n_883707.html ) WASHINGTON (AP/The Huffington Post) -- Efforts to find a bipartisan agreement blending huge budget cuts with a must-pass measure to increase how much the government can borrow have entered a new phase after Republican negotiators pulled out of talks led by Vice President Joe Biden.The exit of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor from the talks on Thursday means the most difficult decisions have been kicked upstairs to GOP House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio and President Barack Obama. The Biden-led group had made solid progress in weeks of negotiations but was at an impasse over taxes.

whats wrong with this evidence?

U.S. leadership prevents a global nuclear holocaust Khalilzad, 1995 analyst at the RAND Corporation (Zalmay, Washington Quarterly, Spring, lexis) Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system. Economic decline turns the case it spreads famine and poverty globally Lopez, 1998 (Bernardo, 9/10, Business World, lexis) Certainly, global recession will spawn wars of all kinds. Ethnic wars can easily escalate in the grapple for dwindling food stocks as in India-Pakistan-Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Ethiopia-Eritrea, Indonesia. Regional conflicts in key flashpoints can easily erupt such as in the Middle East, Korea, and Taiwan. In the Philippines, as in some Latin American countries, splintered insurgency forces may take advantage of the economic drought to regroup and reemerge in the countryside. Unemployment worldwide will be in the billions. Famine can be triggered in key Third World nations with India, North Korea, Ethiopia and other African countries as first candidates. Food riots and the breakdown of law and order are possibilities. Unemployment in the US will be the hardest to cope with since it may have very little capability for subsistence economy and its agrarian base is automated and controlled by a few. Iraqi instability sparks nuclear war Corsi 7 (Jerome R. Corsi, Jerome R. Corsi is a staff reporter for WND. He received a Ph.D. from Harvard University in
political science in 1972, War with Iran is imminent January 08, 2007) If a broader war breaks out in Iraq, Olmert will certainly face pressure to send the Israel military into the Gaza after Hamas and into Lebanon after Hezbollah. If that happens, it will only be a matter of time before Israel and the U.S. have no choice but to invade Syria. The Iraq war could quickly spin into a regional war, with Israel waiting on the sidelines ready to launch an air and missile strike on Iran that could include tactical nuclear weapons. With Russia ready to deliver the $1 billion TOR M-1 surface-to-air missile defense system to Iran, military leaders are unwilling to wait too long to attack Iran. Now that Russia and China have invited Iran to join their Shanghai Cooperation Pact, will Russia and China sit by idly should the U.S. look like we are winning a wider regional war in the Middle East? If we get more deeply involved in Iraq, China may have their moment to go after Taiwan once and for all. A broader regional war could easily lead into a third world war, much as World Wars I and II began.

Developing space industries will radically decrease unemployment and corporate control of government prevents extinction Collins and Autino, 10 - * Life & Environmental Science, Azabu University AND ** Andromeda Inc., Italy (Patrick and Adriano, What the growth of a space tourism industry could contribute to employment, economic growth, environmental protection, education, culture and world peace, Acta Astronautica 66 (2010) 1553 1562, science direct) In the capitalist system, companies compete to reduce costs since this directly increases their prots. However, reducing the number of employees through improving productivity raises unemployment, except to the extent that new jobs are created in new and growing industries. In an economy with a lack of new industries, increasing so-called economic efciency creates unemployment, which is a social cost. In this situation, governments concerned for public welfare should either increase the rate of creation of new industries, and/or slow the elimination of jobs, at least until the growth of new industries revives, or other desirable counter-

measures, such as new social arrangements, are introduced. These may include more leisure time, job-sharing, and other policies designed to prevent the growth of a permanent under-class of unemployed and working poora development which would pose a major threat to western civilization. One of the many ill effects of high unemployment is that it weakens governments against pressure from corporate interests. For example, increased restrictions on such undesirable activities as arms exports, unfair trade, environmental damage, corporate tax evasion, business concentration, advertising targeted at children, and anti-social corporate-drafted legislation such as the codex alimentarus, tort reform and compulsory arbitration are socially desirable. However, when unemployment is high, corporations arguments that government intervention would increase unemployment have greater inuence on governments. As outlined above, the opening of near-Earth space to large-scale economic development, based initially on passenger space travel services, promises to create millions of jobs, with no obvious limits to future growth. At a time when high unemployment is the most serious economic problem throughout the world, developing this family of new industries as fast as possible should be a priority for employment policy. To continue economic rationalisation and globalisation while not developing space travel is self-contradictory, and would be both economically and socially very damaging. SSP is a death ray Rako, 08 technical editor of Electronics Design, Strategy, and News (Paul, Solar power in space, a really stupid idea, 7/25, http://www.edn.com/blog/1700000170/post/1830030583.html
This is a flat-out lie. Its a lie in so many places it hurts my teeth. Sweeping all the alternative energy sources under the rug, without looking at the complex analog tradeoffs involved is an affront to reason and decency. That is a bad enough lie. But to then follow that absurdity with the assertion that space solar power is somehow economically possible and environmentally friendly is complete madness. Now I am going to give some sources you can read that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this proposal is clinically insane, but first I wanted to share an epiphany I had. Pauls epiphany came about 5 hours into a wasted Thursday night where I should have been in downtown San Jose having fun at the free concert. Instead I spent all night reading all the sources I could find regarding SPS. I am embarrassed because it took five hours to realize something that was plainly stated in the comments to the article that I read five hours before. Someone pointed out that the technology of this proposal did not matter. This space-panel

microwave gizmo was also a weapon and it would be politically impossible to deploy it. Wow, hours of my personal time down the drain before the epiphany. The epiphany was that this thing was exactly that, a weapon. That is why NASA researched it in the 1980s, that is what all the feasibility studies were about and that is why it is being floated out there right now. The military industrial complex wants to test how stupid we are. If the American people are dumb enough to believe that solar panels in space is even the slightest bit possible then they can use that cover as they do what they really want to do, make a death machine. The images of the Terminator movies and SkyNet are too chilling to even contemplate. Now there may be some Pollyanna types that think our wonderful government is way too nice to ever try and develop a death machine. Sorry, for those of you that think the United States Government is more like a fluffy little fabric softener sheet tumbling around the dryer, making everything silky smooth and smelling fresh, well, news flash: Governments are about coercion. Force, killing, jails, waterboards, and the rest are the essential nature and job of the government. Sure they hand out a bunch of middle class entitlements to stay in power and keep the sheep bleating happy sounds, but the core nature and
purpose of governments is forcing people to do things. Most of the less naive among us are OK with that. After all, I am sitting on a lovely little parcel of land that was stolen from the Mexicans, who stole it from the Spanish priests, who stole it from the Portuguese priests, who stole it from the Indians, who stole it from each other for 10,000 years. Works for me, I just planted some cactus in the front yard. Of course I will be complaining about the effective 45% tax rate we engineers have to suffer till the day I die, I hate the government forcing me to do that. But I will just kind of skirt around the benefits all the killing and mayhem provided me. After all, I deserve a happy little Domicile of the Future here in sunny Sunnyvale. I have a title to prove it is all mine. I am glad my government stole the land for me, just like I am glad Burger King shoots a rod into a cows head so I can have a tasty burger with none of the emotional baggage. Who wants to drive a nail into Elsies skull?

OK, still doubtful that NASA, our beloved space program would try to fund a death machine under the cover of alternative energy? Well, you didnt have the benefit of working at several military contractors, like I did. When you
work at those places you invariable meet people who think in military terms. One of them told me twenty years ago that the entire space program was a military operation. I was incredulous. He patiently explained. See, warfare has always been about controlling the high ground. If you could control the plains while the enemy was in the ditch, you won. If you controlled the hill while the enemy was on the plain, you won. If you control the mountain while the enemy is on the hill, you won. If you controlled the airplanes while the enemy was on the mountain, you won. OK, news flash, live at five, film at eleven: If you control space while the enemy is in an airplane, you win. The military types at those military contractors told me what was already pretty apparentthat there is no sensible scientific reason to put people in space. All the science is much much much cheaper if you dont need to launch life support. Sure astronauts do maintenance on the Hubble telescope, but for what we spent developing the shuttle, especially when you count the dead astronauts, we could have sent up a dozen Hubble telescope and just let the broken ones fall out of orbit. The space station is a prototype AWAC and this solarpower death-machine is a prototype AC-130. And remember, for the $100 billion we spent on the space station, every American household could get 952 dollars for gasoline.

Trust me on this one; this solar power in space stuff is a military research project to make a death machine. Then things start to makes sense technologically and sociologically. Some of the most severe limitations of the system go away when it is a weapon. There is no need for constant maintenance since it is used intermittently. There is no need for a geostationary orbit, you want to be able to kill people anywhere, including and maybe especially inside the US borders. Keeping us in control is just as important as killing foreigners. Heck you dont even need a geosynchronous orbit. You can put the death machine in low earth orbit. That saves a huge amount of cost
and dispenses with fantasy proposals like the NASA guy that said we should build them on the moon and then bring them down. I started to ask myself if these idiots have even been in a semiconductor fab, much less one on the moon, but see, then I realized, Doctorates are not stupid. The government needed some fantasy cover story to keep the research going in the face of the fact that the power would cost not 10, not 100 not 1000 but about 10,000 times more than terrestrial based power of any form.

Terrorism addon how would you defeat it with NO evidence

SSP solves terrorism Rako, 08 technical editor of Electronics Design, Strategy, and News (Paul, Solar power in space, a really stupid idea, 7/25, http://www.edn.com/blog/1700000170/post/1830030583.html) I guess there are other objections but the sun is coming up and I have to get to work, real work with a real job at a real company that maybe the NY Times should use to vet incredibly stupid stories like this. Our government is using the Times like a useful idiot, having them print and lend credence to an idea that can only be used as a death machine. Now, I am not saying we should not have a space-based death-machine. In a world where unemployed dirtbags fly jetliners into office buildings, maybe a death machine that cooks people like Jimmy Dean pork sausages that have fallen into the campfire is a great idea. And it will leave all their buildings and stuff for us to use afterwards. But if we are going to discuss this as a free people and pay for it with our taxes, we have to make clear we are researching a death machine and not alternative energy.

Extinction Corsi 5 (Columnist, Worldnet Daily, Phd in Political Science at Harvard, (Jerome, Atomic Iran: How the
Terrorist Regime Bought the Bomb and American Politicians,April 20th Excerpted at, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=43817)

In the span of less than one hour, the nation's largest city will have been virtually wiped off the map. Removal of debris will take several years, and recovery may never fully happen. The damage to the nation's economy will be measured in the trillions of dollars, and the loss of the country's major financial and business center may reduce America immediately to a second-class status. The resulting psychological impact will bring paralysis throughout the land for an indefinite period of time. The president may not be able to communicate with the nation for days, even weeks, as television and radio systems struggle to come back on line. No natural or man-made disaster in history will compare with the magnitude of damage that has been done to New York City in this one horrible day. The United States retaliates: 'End of the world' scenarios The combination of horror and outrage that will surge upon the nation will demand that the president retaliate for the incomprehensible damage done by the attack. The problem will be that the president will not immediately know how to respond or against whom. The perpetrators will have been incinerated by the explosion that
destroyed New York City. Unlike 9-11, there will have been no interval during the attack when those hijacked could make phone calls to loved ones telling them before they died that the hijackers were radical Islamic extremists. There will be no such phone calls when the attack will not have been anticipated until the instant the terrorists detonate their improvised nuclear device inside the truck parked on a curb at the Empire State Building. Nor will there be any possibility of finding any clues, which either were vaporized instantly or are now lying physically inaccessible under tons of radioactive rubble. Still, the president, members of Congress, the military, and the public at large will

suspect another attack by our known enemy Islamic terrorists. The first impulse will be to launch a nuclear strike on Mecca, to destroy the whole religion of Islam. Medina could possibly be added to the target list just to make the point with crystal clarity. Yet what would we gain? The moment Mecca and Medina were wiped off the map, the Islamic world more than 1 billion human beings in countless different nations would feel attacked. Nothing would emerge intact after a war between the United States and Islam. The apocalypse would be upon us. Then, too, we would face an immediate threat from our longterm enemy, the former Soviet Union. Many in the Kremlin would see this as an opportunity to grasp the victory that had been snatched from them by Ronald Reagan when the Berlin Wall came down. A missile strike by the Russians on a score of American cities could possibly be pre-emptive. Would the U.S. strategic defense system be so in shock that immediate retaliation would not be possible? Hardliners in Moscow might argue that there was never a better opportunity to destroy America. In China, our newer Communist enemies might not care if we could retaliate. With a population already over 1.3 billion people and with their population not concentrated in a few major cities, the Chinese might calculate to initiate a nuclear blow on the United States. What if the United States retaliated with a nuclear counterattack upon China? The Chinese might be able to absorb the blow and recover. The North Koreans might calculate even more recklessly. Why not launch upon America the few missiles they have that could reach our soil? More confusion and chaos might only advance their position. If Russia, China, and the United States could be drawn

into attacking one another, North Korea might emerge stronger just because it was overlooked while the great nations focus on attacking one another. So, too, our supposed allies in Europe might relish the immediate reduction in power suddenly inflicted upon America. Many of the great egos in Europe have never fully recovered from the disgrace of World War II, when in the last century the Americans a second time in just over two decades had been forced to come to their rescue. If the French did not start launching nuclear weapons themselves, they might be happy to fan the diplomatic fire beginning to burn under the Russians and the Chinese. Or the president might decide simply to launch a limited nuclear strike on Tehran itself. This might be the most rational option in the attempt to retaliate but still communicate restraint. The problem is that a strike on Tehran would add more nuclear devastation to the world calculation. Muslims around the world would still see the retaliation as an attack on Islam, especially when the United States had no positive proof that the destruction of New York City had been triggered by radical Islamic extremists with assistance from Iran. But for the president not to retaliate might be unacceptable to the American people. So weakened by the loss of New York, Americans would feel vulnerable in every city in the nation. "Who is going to be next?" would be the question on everyone's mind. For this there would be no effective answer. That the president might think politically at this instant seems almost petty, yet every president is by nature a politician. The political party in power at the time of the attack would be destroyed unless the president retaliated with a nuclear strike against somebody. The American people would feel a price had to be paid while the country was still capable of exacting revenge.
Note: this is not the worst add-on of all time.