President Obama has not benefited the United States during his presidency thus far.

Topic Analysis The resolution asks us to analyze if Obama’s time in office has established a net-benefit to the United States. Thus I propose that the most accurate to determine this is by comparing the effect of our policies at the end of the Bush era to the current effects during the current Obama era. Contention One: Foreign Policy A. Under Bush, America practiced torture constantly. This is clear acts of War Crimes 1. “Zubaydah was waterboarded. That much we know - it was confirmed recently by a former CIA agent, John Kiriakou, who even used the plain English word “torture” to describe what was done. ” [1] 2. “Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba served as the deputy commanding general for support for the Third Army for ten months in Kuwait during the early days of the Iraq occupation. In a statement released today, he bluntly accuses the Bush administration of war crimes and lays down a challenge for prosecution. In 2004, Taguba released a classified report detailing abuses committed at Abu Ghraib Prison. The "Taguba Report” urged Pentagon officials to follow up on its findings by enforcing adherence to the Geneva Conventions in interrogations. ” [2] B. We sanctioned and even created worse instances of torture through Extraordinary Rendition. “Abu Omar says his torture lasted 14 months; the worst of it taking place at the secret police headquarters in Cairo. To date, more than 60 prisoners are believed to have been sent there by the United States. This is the dark story of “extraordinary rendition,” says Grey, a secret program in which the United States captures terror suspects around the world and flies them to countries like Egypt, Syria or Morocco, where, critics say, torture is routine. ” [4] C. The damage of such actions is extremely severe, not to mention that little information produced is extremely inaccurate. 1. The Bush administration Monday formally renounced its obligations as a signatory to the 1998 Rome Statute to establish an International Criminal Court (ICC). Critics say the decision to "unsign" the treaty will further damage the United States' reputation and isolate it from its allies. [3] 2. Now released from jail, Abu Omar maintains his innocence, saying he’s willing to defend himself in court if the Egyptians or the Americans ever charge him with a crime. Guilty or not, Abu Omar and his rendition have become a disaster for the CIA. Italian police investigating the case were able to identify the CIA agents involved. They are set to go on trial, in absentia, on charges of conspiracy to kidnap -- a rare and politically embarrassing instance of a U. S. ally in Europe trying CIA agents in court. For the last four years, Stephen Grey has been investigating stories of extraordinary rendition like Abu Omar’s. The Bush administration hasn’t spoken about Abu Omar, but under increasing pressure to reveal information about terror suspects apprehended and jailed secretly, they’ve officially acknowledged dozens of cases like his. They claim that when they send terror suspects to other countries, they get assurances they won’t be tortured, but even former CIA officials admit those claims are worthless. [4] 3. A high-level American Special Ops interrogatorsaysthat information obtained from torture is unreliable, and that torture just creates more terrorists. Indeed, hesays that torture of innocent Iraqis by Americans isthe main reasonthat foreign fighters started fighting against Americans in Iraqin the first place. A former FBI interrogator -- who interrogated Al Qaeda suspects -- says categorically thattorture doesnothelp collect intelligence. On the other hand he says that tortureactuallyturns people into terrorists. [5] Contention Two: Economy A. Trickle down economics is a joke. 1. “So-called supply-side economists don’t like raising taxes on anyone, of course, and argue that raising them on the well-off will slow economic growth. They say people at the top will have less incentive to work hard, invest, and invent. Unfortunately for supply-siders, history has proven them wrong again and again. ” [6] 2. Bush’s strategy of giving more money to the rich failed to provide an incentive to create jobs with it. There was never a lack of supply (money) in our country, but rather a lack of demand (job creating opportunities). Bush merely increased supply (unnecessarily), while Obama has increased demand. B. Comparative evidence of Obama and Bush economic policies. 1. “For no matter your view of President Obama, he effectively saved capitalism… Suppose you had $100,000 to invest on the day Barack Obama was inaugurated. Why bet on a liberal Democrat? Here’s why: the presidency of George W. Bush producedthe worst stock market decline of any president in history. The net worth of American households collapsed as Bush slipped away. And if you needed a loan to buy a house or stay in business, private sector borrowing was dead when he handed over power. As of election day, Nov. 2, 2010, your $100,000 was worth about $177,000 if invested strictly in the NASDAQ average for the entirety of the Obama administration, and $148,000 if bet on the Standard & Poors 500 major companies. This works out to returns of 77 percent and 48 percent. ” [7] 2. “Saving the American auto industry, which has been a huge drag on Obama’s political capital, is a monumental achievement that few appreciate, unless you live in Michigan. After getting their taxpayer lifeline from Obama, both General Motors and Chrysler are now making money by making cars. New plants are even scheduled to open. More than 1 million jobs would have disappeared had the domestic auto sector been liquidated. ” [7] 3. “Interest rates are at record lows. Corporate profits are lighting up boardrooms; it is one of the best years for earnings in a decade. All of the above is good for capitalism, and should end any serious-minded discussion about Obama the socialist. ” [7] 4. “The three signature accomplishments of his first two years — a health care law that will make life easier for millions of people, financial reform that attempts to level the playing field with Wall Street, and the $814 billion stimulus package — have all been recast as big government blunders, rejected by the emerging majority. ” [7] His Case: Contention One merely shows that Obama is spending more: 1) He isn’t spending that much more. 2) He provides no warrant as to why this is a bad thing. 3) The aforementioned evidence shows how this has actually saved capitalism. 4) The spending of Obama is better. Bush gave loads of money to the rich in which they gave to themselves in bonuses rather than helping out the economy. Contention Two argues that he has not “changed” our country: 1) The changes he has provided is enormous (probably more than any President). 2) Even if his change is little, it does not prove that he has failed to benefit our country. Refer to my topic analysis where I show that I only need net-benefit. As a fair warning, for round 2 I will be going into depth about the magnitude of each argument I have made. Sources [1] . http://www.timesonline.co.uk... [2] . http://www.truth-out.org... [3] . http://www.alternet.org... [4] . http://www.pbs.org... [5] . http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com... [6] . http://www.salon.com... [7] . http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...