- Joined
- Aug 7, 2009
- Messages
- 16,164
- Reaction score
- 5,060
- Location
- St Thomas, VI
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
The Senate blocked a bill Tuesday that would repeal about $2 billion a year in tax breaks for the five biggest oil companies, a Democratic response to $4-a-gallon gasoline that might fare better when Congress and the White House negotiate a deal later this year to increase the government's ability to borrow.
Senate blocks bill repealing $2B in oil tax breaks - Politics - Capitol Hill - msnbc.com
why? why? why do we give companies with record profits tax breaks, especially now?
how can the people who voted against this bill, in good conscience, suggest we cut, say, head start programs and food stamps?
Have you read the thread? The "tax breaks" are on FOREIGN EARNED INCOME!!! If you pay taxes on income earned in another country IN THAT COUNTRY, why should you pay taxes AGAIN on that same income???
Prices at the pump
Some GOP lawmakers argued that the bill would increase gas prices further. However, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service concluded that eliminating the tax breaks would be unlikely to result in higher gasoline prices, which are influenced by a host of factors. The report said the bill would raise about $1.2 billion in 2012. By comparison, the five oil companies had combined revenues of $1.5 trillion last year.
Senate blocks bill repealing $2B in oil tax breaks - Politics - Capitol Hill - msnbc.com
why? why? why do we give companies with record profits tax breaks, especially now?
how can the people who voted against this bill, in good conscience, suggest we cut, say, head start programs and food stamps?
why? why? why do we give companies with record profits tax breaks, especially now?
how can the people who voted against this bill, in good conscience, suggest we cut, say, head start programs and food stamps?
Prices at the pump
Some GOP lawmakers argued that the bill would increase gas prices further. However, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service concluded that eliminating the tax breaks would be unlikely to result in higher gasoline prices, which are influenced by a host of factors. The report said the bill would raise about $1.2 billion in 2012. By comparison, the five oil companies had combined revenues of $1.5 trillion last year.
I give you, THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION!! Drum Roll Please!please show that head start is crap.
Obama Administration Report Shows Head Start Ineffective | The FoundryAfter some prodding, yesterday the Obama administration released the long-overdue first grade evaluation of the federal Head Start program. As expected, the results show that the $7 billion per year program provides little benefit to children – and great expense to taxpayers.
The evaluation, which was mandated by Congress during the 1998 reauthorization of the program, found little impact on student well-being. After collecting data on more than 5,000 three and four-year-old children randomly assigned to either a Head Start or a non Head Start control group, the Department of Health and Human Services found “few sustained benefits”. From the report:
In sum, this report finds that providing access to Head Start has benefits for both 3-year-olds and 4-year-olds in the cognitive, health, and parenting domains, and for 3-year-olds in the social-emotional domain. However, the benefits of access to Head Start at age four are largely absent by 1st grade for the program population as a whole. For 3-year-olds, there are few sustained benefits, although access to the program may lead to improved parent-child relationships through 1st grade…
While these results are uninspiring, they become even less impressive when more closely examined. Heritage’s David Muhlhausen calls into question the less-than-rigorous statistical methods employed by HHS:
In some cases, HHS reports statistically significant impacts based on a standard of statistical significance is p<0.10 which is not the norm for most social scientists. The 0.05 level is the norm. With a sample of 4,667 children, there is no reason to use the easier 0.10 level. The larger your sample size the easier it is to find statistically significant findings, so using 0.10 as the standard for statistical significance is unwarranted with such a large sample size… For example, if they used the standard level of significance for the 1st grade year language and literacy measures, then the study would report no statistically measurable impact on all eleven measures. Instead, the lower standard used by HHS allows for them to report that Head Start had at least one positive impact on raised language and literacy.
In essence, had HHS not used a less-rigorous method of evaluating Head Start, the report would have shown no impact on the language and literacy outcomes for the four-year-old cohort.
Taxpayers have been on the hook for more than $100 billion for the Head Start program since 1965. This federal evaluation, which effectively shows no lasting impact on children after first grade and no difference between those children who attended Head Start and those who did not, should call into question the merits of increasing funding for the program, which the Obama administration recently did as part of the so-called “stimulus” bill.
as for food stamps, yes , i am sure there is fraud, but people are still FED.
please show that head start is crap. as for food stamps, yes , i am sure there is fraud, but people are still FED.
I give you, THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION!! Drum Roll Please!
Obama Administration Report Shows Head Start Ineffective | The Foundry
Head Start study shows no lasting gains
Busting Myths About Head Start's Effectiveness | First Five Years Fund
Head Start Earns an F
Evidence Is Clear: Head Start Is Ineffective
Who cares about fraud and waste! People be getting foods! :roll:
Why do people choose to cut their grochery budget or stop going to the movies every other weekend instead of robbing a 7-11?
We don't raise taxes on people who are doing well because of the notion that there's no reason the government should be taking their money and penalizing them for being successful. The notion of cutting spending on food stamps, head start, the military, or anything else is the belief that the government needs to get its own failure of a budget under control before it starts trying to punish people or things that are successful to get around its own failures.
Are we talking about subsidies or tax breaks? I agree, we shouldn't be providing financial assistance to oil companies, I agree with you there. But to me that's significantly different then charging them less in taxes or, as one poster stated and if its true, attempting to tax them on money on income that wasn't even earned in the United States and is already taxed elsewhere.
i read it.......and i didin't find that part. can you point it out please? and then read this:
It was in a link I posted earlier today...
If we are going to reduce the budget, then not only the poor must feel the pinch. Big oil and the rich must as well. Gas prices are spiking regardless of the tax breaks, to say the subsidies are keeping prices low is ridiculous, simply corporate welfare, which is still welfare.
Because it's symbolism over substance; it's the notion that throwing money at a problem will solve it. Head Start as a solution, is obviously not working nor well conceived. Setting aside the argument that the fed govt shouldn't be doing this anyway, if a program doesn't work it should be eliminated.i did not know about this study.....but find a little comfort in this:
In sum, this report finds that providing access to Head Start has benefits for both 3-year-olds and 4-year-olds in the cognitive, health, and parenting domains, and for 3-year-olds in the social-emotional domain.
thanks for pointing this out. perhaps this program needs to be reconsidered, although i can't imagine why it would not benefit kids. makes no sense to me.
If we are going to reduce the budget, then not only the poor must feel the pinch. Big oil and the rich must as well. Gas prices are spiking regardless of the tax breaks, to say the subsidies are keeping prices low is ridiculous, simply corporate welfare, which is still welfare.
ludahai said:Have you read the thread? The "tax breaks" are on FOREIGN EARNED INCOME!!! If you pay taxes on income earned in another country IN THAT COUNTRY, why should you pay taxes AGAIN on that same income???
ludahai said:It was in a link I posted earlier today...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?