Prestige, promises of wealth, a united europe, easier tourism spending, etc. But the currency is inflexible which makes it doubly hard to deal with recessions. The more I think about it the more I think it would probably be a good idea for Greece to get out of the Eurozone amicably for now, but I may be wrong.
What about a flat tax makes it immune to loopholes? It is simpler, but in both cases it is about supporting legislation other than the tax rates that allows people to abuse the system. One could have a flat tax rate with loopholes as easily as one could have a progressive tax system with none.
My fear is that this could undermine the reliability of the euro and influence investing in some of the weaker Eurozone economies, creating an even bigger gap there. Do you think that's unlikely, DD? Greece may have a small economy, but so do many of the European countries.
It depends on what it is being spent on, and when that amount kicks in. I don't think it is a realistic marginal rate at all. But I do not have the ideological objections you do. Frankly 50% could be far too much depending on what it is being spent on.
No, not at all. We don't know if the election would have been the same if the Sandinistas didn't censor the media. We also don't know if the election would have been the same if the US wasn't funding a civil war in the country. Hell, perhaps the Sandinistas would have lost power even sooner, if they didn't have a war to fight and an American enemy to galvanize people against. We'll never know. Regardless of what you view, international observers, people with far more credibility than either you or I, that observed the process there, said that 1984 was a free election. This is the time when Sanders visited, so it is no surprise that he had a different experience than after the country was ravaged by war for another half decade... Tens of millions of American dollars later, there was finally an end to the war, with an American-backed candidate.
Multiple impartial observers assert there was a secret ballot. Writers that weren't there claim there was not, sometimes based on comments by voters a half decade later that may have been in reference to the previous elections, which most definitely were not secret. Not all comments by voters suggested the ballots weren't secret either. We have no idea what a free press would have lead to there... but if we examine elections since, we see that Ortega continued to receive a large percentage of the electorate. It is not much of a surprise he won election in the first election, given that there was still a hope there for an end to the contras. It may have had to do with the fact that since she (the presidential candidate of the UNO) was American backed (the US spent millions or so on her campaign and lift the embargo), everyone know her election might a final end to the Contras. Also, her coalition included the communist party. After a decade of war, the people were ready for a change. That doesn't mean they were actively trying to, or even interested in, overthrowing the Sandanistas 6 years earlier. Luckily, the US did give her some money to help rebuild her country after she won. Ortega was a popular figure there and remained so for years. He received a large percentage of the votes in every single election until he was re-elected in 2006. To pretend he wasn't popular - that his support was because people were his puppets - seems unfounded both by the impartial observes and the subsequent results of the elections after 1984.
Incorrect. I am defending the statements of several international bodies that observed the election. There is no doubt many things that the Sandinistas did was terrible. But it is possible for there to have been a fair election and for that still to have been the case. Of course, who knows what they could have done if not for the contras... Are you seriously trying to argue that prior to the Sandinistas, Nicaragua was in an equivalent state, in terms of rights and freedoms, as the United States has now? Again, international observers said the election was fair. International observers said the ballots were secret. International observers said that there was no vote tampering. It is entirely irrelevant if the election was perfect, or if the election fit what we'd most like. Those who actually observed the election said it was fair. It was not perfect. Btw, it is telling that American gov't considered the El Salvador election results legitimate, but not Nicaragua. That should tell you something about why our gov't objected.