When talking about VAT... I grew up in a European country where we had one of those. Sure the taxes were high because we had all the other taxes a well (income, property, etc)

But, the idea was sound: the VAT tax was different depending on what it applied to. Food had the lowest tax (appr. 6%) then there were separate category for clothing and household necessities,the rest, and an 8% luxury tax on anything above a certain value (excluding housing) A 'normal' car would be taxed at 25% but a luxury model would be 33% Something like that would instantly reduce the need for Ferraris, Bentleys, Roll Royces, Aston Martins, high end Mercedes, BMW, and Audi brands, or at least make the people who can afford them pay extra.

Now I don't agree with high rates for VAT, but if you kept them all 'reasonable' it could be workable, provided you also eliminate income taxes on any income that constitutes 2 or 3 x poverty level as defined by the Federal government.

I feel that the ceiling on SS taxes should be eliminated. It would make sure that CEO's and upper management pay their fair share of the SS burden. That will go a long ways towards offering universal healthcare coverage to all.

In regards to universal healthcare, it should NOT be a welfare program. In my opinion, even the poorest would have a co-pay. Allowing people who can't afford healthcare to walk into a emergency rooms and failing to pay for their healthcare can no longer be acceptable.

People who complain that poor people shouldn't have to pay $5-10 dollars to see a doctor, should take into account that that same 'poor' person probably has at least 1 TV, cable, a cellphone, a car, and many more items considered to be 'needs' but really fit in the 'want' category.

It's all about choices and sometimes we definitely confuse what our needs are with what our wants are. If health care is considered a 'need' that everybody is entitled to, then it only seems fair that some of the 'wants' may have to be sacrificed by those who 'need' it.

I'd say that Joan does not need to worry about talking about Limbaugh's physical appearance and past behavior.

Usually it's Republicans who are obsessed about appearances; remember some of the following instances:

Hillary's cleavage - Edwards' hairdo - skinny Obama - Sarah "Palin is someone I'd like to bed with (Deutch)" - "Palin winked at me" - "When I saw Sarah, I sat up a little straighter" - "You can land a jumbo jet on his shoulders" - Edwards is effeminate - etc...

... and those are the nicer ones, there are ample examples of derogatory comments directed towards Democrats from the Republican camp.

It's funny how they don't like their appearance to be questioned, yet it's OK for them to do it anytime they see fit.

I don't understand why people keep referring to Rush as being dumb, a fool, etc...

Even if you don't agree with his ideology, or if you don't like what he stands for, I don't think he's dumb.

Sure he plays his followers, not unlike any cult leader, but that doesn't mean he's a fool.

A while ago, he signed a contract for $400,000,000.00 which breaks down to roughly $1 million dollars a week.

Sure there is something wrong when his listeners don't comprehend that Rush has not been 'one of them' for a few decades now. Rush is just milking it for as long as he can.

The stock market is also hurting Clear Channel. Clear Channel has laid over quite a few employees. Advertising revenue is down.

I wonder if anybody on the board of Clear Channel has the nerve to walk up to Rush and ask if he'd be willing to take a little pay cut in order for the radio stations to stay solvent?

That would be an interesting discussion. Maybe someone in the media could pose that question to him; instead of trembling in his presence.

All good things come to an end. I don't think Rush has that much longer to go. Yes, 'good' is relative in this case.

Sorry if someone posed that question earlier: Shouldn't this rule change for mark-to-market be retroactive?

Didn't those financial wizards base their huge bonuses on 'mark-to-market' rules? I mean they based their very own bonuses on grossly over estimated values of homes.

It's kind'a hard to swallow, that they can have it both ways. first they rake in the millions by overvaluing - without complaining about that rule. Now they can reduce their losses, by changing the rule, so they can overvalue the assets, once again.

something is wrong with this picture. I think someone in Congress needs to raise the question and ask for those bonuses to be re-evaluated on the new rules as well, instead of exaggerated prices.