logibate your place to debate
Just a heads up - we may not look great with your current browser :( we're working as fast as we can to support more, but Chrome works best at the moment. Please send us feedback if anything looks amiss! got it, don't show this message again

Would falling off the "fiscal cliff" meaningfully damage the American economy?

Permalink to this item: http://logibate.com/debatable/94002

All over the news lately, we've heard that if Congress does not broker a deal, automatic tax hikes and spending cuts will "bankrupt America" as we know it. Are these claims substantiated?

[view additional explanation]

watching  political  economic policy 

  • The Treasury Department's "extraordinary measures" would give Congress enough time to enact a retroactive deal, ergo the Jan 1st date is relatively inconsequential. (3,0,0)
  • Nobody's made any arguments against this yet. Log in and be the first!
  • The "fiscal cliff" was designed to damage the economy, in order to be unpalatable to both parties. (0,0,0)
  • The Bipartisan Policy Center posits that falling off the cliff will indeed impact the economy at large. (1,0,0)
  • Major media outlets seem to agree. (4,0,1)
  • Nobody's made any arguments for this yet. Log in and be the first!
  • Nobody's made any arguments against this yet. Log in and be the first!
  • Nobody's made any arguments for this yet. Log in and be the first!
This claim is irrelevant
This claim doesn't logically follow
This claim is spam or a troll
This evidence is irrelevant
This evidence doesn't logically follow
This evidence is spam or a troll
Tell us why:

Some things to consider:
  • If there are unstated assumptions, add them here
  • Otherwise be specific about what's wrong
  • Focus on the facts, not the author
First, pick from our handy fallacy gallery...

Trolling is the attempt to derail the discussion by making inflamitory statements that do not advance the discussion. Statements that you strongly disagree with are not always trolling. If you disagree with a statement on moral grounds, it might have an unstated assumption. If the statement doesn't follow logically, it might involve a fallacy. If it is promoting a product, it might be spam. It might not be relevant to the current discussion.
Spam is content that attempts to promote some product or website. If it looks like:
  • argh
Then hit the spam button.

Mentioning relevant products or evidence (in the form of links to other websites) is OK as long as it contributes to the discussion.

If the claim is not promotional in nature, but still not relevant, click here instead.
That the answer to this existing debate:

Is: Hang on, I'm confused... Got it! Close message
Submitting assumption...
Every statement has some assumptions behind it. For example, the question "Should talking cows be allowed to vote?" assumes that talking cows exist. On Logibate, an assumption is just a link to another debate, but with a pre-chosen answer. So, when talking about talking cow suffrage, it would be appropriate to add an assumption linking to the debate about whether talking cows exist, with a chosen side of yes/agree.

Assumptions can be factually untrue, which makes it possible to debate about hypotheticals. For example, by assuming that the Harry Potter books were nonfiction, one can ask moral questions about Harry's actions.

Your feedback makes us better! Please be detailed and specific.

Thank you for your feedback!