Out of the car magazines, I like Automobile and Petersen’s 4Wheel & Offroad
Petersen’s has fairly good tech articles, in my opinion. But they seem to heavily promote certain products
Automobile magazine seems to have good writers. Definitely SEVERAL notches above Motor Trend
I used to avidly read all car magazines available; Motor Trend, Motor Life, Car & Drives, Road & Track, etc. I learned a lot about handling and comfort but almost nothing about reliability and ownership costs.
I started my own tallies and after reading Consumer Reports and participating in surveys, I started getting some real data.
I have not bought a car magazine for the last year; when I do this usually to answer a question from a friend on how suitable this car is for him and his family. I use CR data mostly to assess reliability. The combination always works.
If you are interested in motorcycles, the Motorcycle Consumer News is very useful. No ads at all.
Wish Petersen still put out an engine annual,
If you are interested in motorcycles, the Motorcycle Consumer News is very useful. No ads at all.Yes indeed, one of the best motorcycle journals out there, and many articles on riding, helmets, riding gear etc. I started wearing non-cotton UnderArmor underwear thanks to an article about avoiding "monkey-butt" on long rides from that magazine.
Actually, one of the best places to learn about the idiosyncrasies of a model of motorcycle you may be considering is internet forums dedicated to a model of motorcycles, such as the ZRXOA (Kawasaki ZRX owners association).
Between the usual opinions and BS, there’s lots of information about common issues, cures for them, and links to aftermarket upgrades.
A pox on all government subsidies. they are implemented by either left wing tree huggers or right win fat cats who want their ideas paid for by my money.
Yes, so let’s start by eliminating government subsidies for oil companies. Every one in favor after reading the article, raise your hand.
Great article. For those wanting to know what makes up that $4 billion of oil subsidies we hear so much about, this is a good summary:
"The summary of oil-related subsidies in the U.S. for 2010 totals $4.5 billion. That is a number often put forward; $4 billion a year or so in support for those greedy oil companies.
But look at the breakdown. The single largest expenditure is just over $1 billion for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is designed to protect the U.S. from oil shortages. The second largest category is just under $1 billion in tax exemptions for farm fuel. The justification for that tax exemption is that fuel taxes pay for roads, and the farm equipment that benefits from the tax exemption is technically not supposed to be using the roads. The third largest category? $570 million for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. (This program is classified as a petroleum subsidy because it artificially reduces the price of fuel, which helps oil companies sell more of it). Those three programs account for $2.5 billion a year in “oil subsidies.”"
First let’s get by that really lopsided article. I know conservatives think it’s honest fair reporting.
To HONESTLY say that if you cut oil subsidies you end up cutting all these other subsidies that help lower income families and independent drillers is NOT being honest at all. It seems that it’s an ALL or nothing approach.
So let’s assume the breakdown from that article is correct. So why is the gas break to low in come people in that mix…BECAUSE THE OIL COMPANIES WANT IT THERE. When you have them all tied in TOGETHER it becomes very difficult to kill one without the other.
Those tax breaks and subsidies should be separated into separate bills that Congress can vote on. Not lumped together.
Exxon gets $600 MILLION annually in tax breaks. This has NOTHING to do with low income oil subsidies or independent drillers. This is just for Exxon.
Why not pass a bill to just eliminate those subsidies?
I disagree completely that oil and gas are huge recipients of tax benefits. According to this complete-looking analysis from the New York Times, they’re one of the heaviest-taxed industries:
Click on the “show industries” button, looks like ‘information technology’ is where our attention should be focused.
I can think of no reason the NYT would choose to fabricate this information.
That’s an excellent graphic from the NYT. I’m a liberal-leaning regular NYT reader and I had no idea that Exxon’s and Chevron’s effective tax rate is nearly 40%. I must have missed that article.
This is a classic example of being able to find plenty of well-written and reasonable articles to support multiple viewpoints
There can be no winner, and nobody’s going to change anybody’s mind
Just like hydraulic fracturing
There is “overwhelming evidence” that it is destroying the environment
There is “overwhelming evidence” that is has absolutely no effect on the environment
I won’t bother mentioning my personal opinion, because it can serve no purpose
Poor argument Texas…Glad you argued against something I never said.
So WHAT if their tax rate is 40%. the point is (and always has been)…they are given tax breaks. That is an undeniable FACT. I know you have self interest in OIL and your view point is very skewed.
Stop giving ALL tax breaks to these companies (Exxon, Microsoft…etc). Because any tax break we give them means the tax burden shifts towards the tax payers. If you don’t think companies should pay that much tax…then change the tax structure…instead of this pick and choosing by special interest groups on who should get a reduction in taxes based on how much they spend on lobbyists.
But taxes paid by corporations are passed on to the consumer. It doesn’t really matter who “pays” a tax: if a nickel out of every dollar is taken, $1.05 is charged, and whoever gets to toss the nickel in the tax barrel is a trivial matter.
But taxes paid by corporations are passed on to the consumer. It doesn't really matter who "pays" a tax: if a nickel out of every dollar is taken, $1.05 is charged, and whoever gets to toss the nickel in the tax barrel is a trivial matter.
That statement MIGHT be valid if there weren’t foreign investors. Because the foreign investors into Exxon get to reap the tax break via stock dividends yet no extra tax burden to them.
Based on your logic then corporations shouldn’t have to pay taxes since it’s ALWAYS passed onto the consumer. Very Liberal idea…since when this country was founded only crop producing landowners and companies paid taxes. The individual citizen didn’t pay taxes directly.
Making all bills single issue votes will make it impossible to get things done. It will take too much time. Certainly unrelate issues should not be voted on at the same time, but related issues should be.
Making all bills single issue votes will make it impossible to get things done. It will take too much time. Certainly unrelate issues should not be voted on at the same time, but related issues should be.
I agree that’s how it’s done…doesn’t make it right.
Looks like they still make plenty of money however.
I like they way you think here, @MikeInNH . If we required Congress to vote on all legislation separately, then we could drastically REDUCE the overall .umber of laws, and intrusiveness of Federal Gov’t…simply because there wouldn’t be enough hours in the day to do it all! With some well-timed filibusters, I bet we could reduce “output” to 10% of what we have now!
For once, we’re in perfect agreement.
For once, we're in perfect agreement.
That wasn’t my intent…8*)
Maybe when the government gets back to serving the citizens instead of big-business they can actually pass laws that are meant to do something.