Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,610,214 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Please cite the cases.
Point being is the safety net wouldn't have come about in the first place if you had grounds, some busybody lawyer with your mindset would have brought a lawsuit that would have gone through the federal court system and stopped them. But that didn't happen, did it?
You're the one who cited 70% - so the onus is on you to provide the source. A newspaper owned by Mormons is not a credible source. If you want to quote something from a PEW research study, YOU provide it. That's how it works in debate. Or did you not take that in school?
This is what it concludes:
Quote:
Research shows that parental savings can have a significant impact on upward mobility, and these data reinforce that finding. The parents of those who moved up from the bottom quintile had almost double the median wealth ($30,733) of the parents of those who remained at the bottom ($16,636). Parental wealth of those who made it to at least the middle, however, was only about $5,000 higher at the median ($28,253) than for those who did not make it that high.
And...
Quote:
...This research highlights the synergy between income and wealth, providing further evidence that economically secure families are more likely to be economically mobile. Wealth mobility and high liquid savings are connected to movement up from the lowest rung of the income ladder.
DUH!
But I'm so glad you that used that as your "argument", because what you did was make the damn argument for those of us out here telling you all that many times, it has a LOT to do with circumstances beyond the person's control. In this case, the parents of the person didn't have much money, therefore, it was dang near impossible for the child to get out of that.
What you did here was prove our point. The parents didn't have much money, therefore, the child of those parents didn't have much of a shot moving up the ladder.
WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK PEOPLE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO TELL YOU FOR PAGES ON END?
Point being is the safety net wouldn't have come about in the first place if you had grounds, some busybody lawyer with your mindset would have brought a lawsuit that would have gone through the federal court system and stopped them. But that didn't happen, did it?
Honestly, WHAT are you all NOT getting about the fact that of the 48% of those born into poverty (Medicaid's own stats), 70% of them will never even rise to middle class, ever?
I read that entire article. There was no link to the PEW research study in that article. There was a single link to some economist from Madison, WI. When they introduced their basis for the article, at the very beginning, where was the link? Where was the link throughout the entire article? Not even at the end did the link show. It was just links to their email, twitter, and facebook.
Please show me which paragraph linked that study. I went over it with my mouse, line by line, in case the link wasn't highlighted, and still no link came up other than Timothy Smeeding, and that link was a bio on him, not a link to the PEW research study.
Honestly, WHAT are you all NOT getting about the fact that of the 48% of those born into poverty (Medicaid's own stats), 70% of them will never even rise to middle class, ever?
Since you only quoted one part of my post about the link, and not the rest of my post, allow me to repeat myself:
AGAIN:
This is what it concludes:
Quote:
Research shows that parental savings can have a significant impact on upward mobility, and these data reinforce that finding. The parents of those who moved up from the bottom quintile had almost double the median wealth ($30,733) of the parents of those who remained at the bottom ($16,636). Parental wealth of those who made it to at least the middle, however, was only about $5,000 higher at the median ($28,253) than for those who did not make it that high.
And...
Quote:
...This research highlights the synergy between income and wealth, providing further evidence that economically secure families are more likely to be economically mobile. Wealth mobility and high liquid savings are connected to movement up from the lowest rung of the income ladder.
DUH!
But I'm so glad you that used that as your "argument", because what you did was make the damn argument for those of us out here telling you all that many times, it has a LOT to do with circumstances beyond the person's control. In this case, the parents of the person didn't have much money, therefore, it was dang near impossible for the child to get out of that.
What you did here was prove our point. The parents didn't have much money, therefore, the child of those parents didn't have much of a shot moving up the ladder.
WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK PEOPLE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO TELL YOU FOR PAGES ON END?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
