Could you expand on why this makes such a big difference? I’m not very knowledgeable in this area. Is medical debt treated differently than other debts by lenders?
My first thought was that medical debt, like any other debt, has financial obligations that lenders would have to know about to determine the amount of credit a person is eligible for. Wouldn’t medical debt payments impact the amount of additional debt you can afford?
I get that the law is the law, and the jury has to rule as such (barring nullification), but this is such a stupid law.
None of our other constitutional rights are contingent on not using controlled substances.
I think your last paragraph is pretty much the goal. It makes sense to me. Just don’t post partisan articles from partisan sources.
My comment and this thread has nothing to do with rightly or wrongly voting for anyone. Nor does it have anything to do with how anyone should justify their vote.
I only reinforced the claim that anyone with a “D” next to their name is “fine enough” for progressives to vote for. A claim that you initially disagreed with, but are now proving to be true.
Actions speak louder than words. Who do these progressives keep voting for?
Time will tell if those people will still vote for Biden or if their hatred will be reflected in how they vote.
A Very Brady Sequel.
That’s pretty much my thinking too. I mean, what’s the less biased alternative to get to the truth here? The law firm has an incentive to satisfy the people paying them, but they also have their own reputation to maintain.
So I guess I’d be inclined to skeptically believe their findings. Although, it would be better if the firm released their own summary (or endorsed this one).
That’s the case now, but not historically. The big 3 were making garbage cars until foreign companies expanded their US presence with domestic manufacturing. Widespread foreign makes built in the US is relatively recent.
What are you talking about? American made cars (majority of historical volume) were notoriously bad until recently. Hondas and Toyotas were the exception. Now the expectation is that every make/model makes it to 200k miles.
And rust was an issue because they used inferior paint on older vintages. I don’t see how blaming it on material deficiencies supports your point.
Due to cost or reliability improvements? Or both? Because cars are definitely operational a lot longer than they were 25-50 years ago.
Do you have any more information about illegal slavery until the 1980s? I’m not doubting it, I’ve just never heard that and would like to learn more.
I think you’re confusing me with other commentors. I haven’t suggested this research in particular is being actively used to support policy decisions. Nor have I suggested this research is advocating for policy.
In my initial comment I simply said policy in general (at least with gun control) shouldn’t be based on people’s feelings/anecdotes.
I think this study asked a very interesting question, and I find the results to be very interesting. I don’t really have any issues with this research by itself.
I can’t read the entire article since it’s behind a pay wall for me, but graph alone doesn’t support or contradict the headline. It simply shows the full time employment of Zoomers is comparable millenials at when they were the same age. It doesn’t show anything about income.
I could understand the argument for factoring people’s feelings into policy in some cases, but let’s take this study as an example.
Handguns are responsible for far more harm than AR-15s, but this study shows people “fear” AR-15s more. A policy that is based on these findings and not empirical data may attempt to reduce gun violence by addressing AR-15 ownership. Thereby not having a major effect on reducing actual gun violence.
A policy focusing on reducing handgun ownership would be much more effective at reducing gun violence, despite people not fearing them as much.
I’m trying to understand your argument against the article and what point you’re trying to make by using their chart.
I don’t get the point you’re trying to make with your graph. Obviously there wouldn’t be many Zoomers working full time; most are still in school.
Zoomers born after 2006 haven’t graduated high-school, and those born between 2002-2006 are in college. That’s leaves only a 5 year window of people you’d expect to be employed full time.
The line for millenials looks about the same as Zoomers.
So you spend $400/month on restaurants?
$150 x 4 = $600/month.
AR-10s have been gaining popularity for deer hunting in my area recently.
Ah, that makes a lot of sense. Thanks for explaining. I’ve been fortunate enough to avoid major medical expenses or debt, so I hadn’t thought of the situation you’ve described.