I'm not asking politicians to only ever obtain what they campaign on. I am asking them not to make promises they don't intend to keep. It is possible to have a platform of intentions with not all of them being pledges or promises.

While I don't believe that all politicians, or even most, are going to be any more perfect than any other flawed human being, I deplore the poverty of aspiration that says hoping for better, wanting to hold people to account for broken promises is some kind of ivory tower utopianism. What depresses me about your position seems to the the expectation of cynical behaviour. The defence of it, even.

And yes, it does still matter with 1 in 100 or 1 in 435, because what happens in reality is that it isn't just one. And when it works (and the result is not opprobrium but acceptance), it only makes it more likely to spread.

On the voters, I would say that generally in a democracy the people get the politicians they deserve. But at the same time, the political class has more than a little responsibility. Treat people like fools and there are generally no good outcomes.

Of course you may be wrong, and these pledge signers are actually fully intending to stand by it.

Doctor Fate wrote:Many EU countries are taking measures, but some are not (like France).

Is this the same France:

1) That has reduced it's deficit from 7.1% of GDP in 2010 to 5.2% in 2011,
2) Last year passed a budget that was intended to reduce it to 4.5% in 2012 (which it was ahead of target for over the Jan-Mar quarter) and zero by 2016,
3) Where even the new President has promised only to loosen this slightly (balancing the budget by 2017) and has just announced pay cuts for may of the top public employees,

Or are you talking about a different France?
France Unveils 2012 Budget Bill (Tax News, Oct 2011)

French assembly approves strict 2012 budget (France24, Nov 2011l

2012 French Deficit now forecast at 4.4% (4 Traders, Mar 2012

Telegraph report on Presidential election, Apr 2012


Pesky things, facts.

What does upcoming budgets look like with the new leadership? Is there a change there?

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Many EU countries are taking measures, but some are not (like France).

Is this the same France:

1) That has reduced it's deficit from 7.1% of GDP in 2010 to 5.2% in 2011,
2) Last year passed a budget that was intended to reduce it to 4.5% in 2012 (which it was ahead of target for over the Jan-Mar quarter) and zero by 2016,
3) Where even the new President has promised only to loosen this slightly (balancing the budget by 2017) and has just announced pay cuts for may of the top public employees,

Or are you talking about a different France?
France Unveils 2012 Budget Bill (Tax News, Oct 2011)

French assembly approves strict 2012 budget (France24, Nov 2011l

2012 French Deficit now forecast at 4.4% (4 Traders, Mar 2012

Telegraph report on Presidential election, Apr 2012


Pesky things, facts.

Ever consider addressing what I said instead of projecting?

I made one argument: the French voted for a socialist because they were outraged over minimal adjustments. Get "pesky" with yourself.

You said, and I quoted it, that France had done nothing about their fiscal issues. They have, and even Hollande is not going to reverse the trend, just slow it down a little. I know it's annoying to have your prejudices blown to pieces, but there we are.

Sass has already responded to the rest of what you said in that post (which was in reply to him), and I didn't feel it would bear repeating.

I won't respond in kind to your last sentence, merely invite you to consider whether you really have changed your ways since the megaflounce.

bbauska wrote:What does upcoming budgets look like with the new leadership? Is there a change there?

well, the parliamentary elections are next month so a new budget won't come out for a while. As mentioned above, he's not looking for a radical change, just to slow down the rate of deficit cutting so it balances in five years instead of four.

He has proposed more tax increases at the top end, and more action on stimulus, but I also suspect he wants to see whether he gets a majority in the Assembly and whether he can get Merkel and others to budge on concerted action.

danivon wrote: What depresses me about your position seems to the the expectation of cynical behaviour. The defence of it, even.

I don't know why this should surprise you considering I have long said that people are selfish and will usually default to the baser insincts. But in this case, I don't see it as being cynical or selfish but rather as being realistic.

Steve

Look, anyone can take one paragraph out of anyone's mouth and spin it anyway they want.

Romney:

Well because, if you take a trillion dollars for instance, out of the first year of the federal budget, that would shrink GDP over 5%. That is by definition throwing us into recession or depression. So I'm not going to do that, of course.

Go ahead Steve. Spin it the way you want... It looks pretty clear...

Steve

So, when he endorsed the Ryan budget?

I'll refer you to Archdukes cyncial view of Romneys signature on the Grover Norquist ATP pledge...

Romney is pivoting" back to reality where he has to appeal to enough reasonable people in order to get elected. Unfortunatly the nut cases and extremists that form such a large and influential bloc within the republican party have strong armed strong commitments from him. And if he disavos those commitments they just might not turn up to vote. Like he has to tolerate the " bloviating ignoramus" that is Trump.
So who to beleive? The wink from Romney or the signed pledge by Romney?
In the interview with Halperin, Romney sounds like a realistic business man who understands proven economic levers and conditions and understands that an economy can't function on wishful thinking. That this completely contradicts his stated support for the Ryan budget is apparently not a problem for you.
You'll beleive he's what you want him to beleive.
For more main stream republicans they'll beleive that he's just humouring the extremists to get the nomination and base support for the general election ... And that he'll behave reasonably once he gets elected.
It's quite a tight rope this getting elected as a republican in Amercia.

Archduke Russell John wrote:I don't know why this should surprise you considering I have long said that people are selfish and will usually default to the baser insincts. But in this case, I don't see it as being cynical or selfish but rather as being realistic.

But aren't we supposed to be trying to override our baser instincts? You know, as moral beings.

As I said, it doesn't surprise me that many people who seek power are cynical and selfish. What I don't like is your defence of it in the name of partisan politics.

Making a promise (or a pledge) you do not intend to keep has a pretty clear shorthand synonym. It's called 'lying'. The way I read you posts it seems you are more ready to accept that your party colleagues are liars than that they really do oppose tax rises contrary to your earlier assertion. Personally I think many mean that pledge, but may find it hard to uphold, but Ricky was quoting it to counter what you said would come from any current or aspiring office holding Republican.

Forget for now that there's another party who may or not be as bad or worse. Is this really what you want to see in the people who represent your party? Don't you think that 'realism' is just an excuse for letting 'your guys' get away with misleading the voters because at least they aren't 'the other guys'?

So, am I surprised that a politician will make campaign promises but not intend to keep them? NOPE.

but, Am I surprised that you are seemingly content for people who represent your party to do so and will basically want to blame the lied to rather than the liars? YES. And frankly, a little disappointed.

Danivon,
Do you think it is only the Republicans that backed away? I don't recall hearing you comment on the many "lies" that have been told as campaign promises of the current POTUS. Remember the SNL sketch?

Brad, either you are not reading my posts, or you are replying to someone else's by mistake.

I'm not saying that the Democrats don't lie. Frankly, that's not the point. I'm trying to understand why Russell thinks we should not worry too much about lying politicians. Which side they are on, Team Elephant or Team Donkey, is sort of irrelevant, although for those who are in those teams, as Russell is, it becomes pertinent.

Besides, as I said, 'Democrats do it too" is a poor argument. If they jumped off a cliff would you do it too?

danivon wrote:You said, and I quoted it, that France had done nothing about their fiscal issues.

Sigh. No, you didn't. What I wrote:

Up in arms because suddenly they might not be able to retire at 60, but have to grind all the way to 62 (see France).

Now, I also wrote what you quoted. To review, that was:

Many EU countries are taking measures, but some are not (like France).

So, following my stream of thought, the point was France underwent some belt-tightening under Sarkozy, hated it, so elected Hollande to deliver them from the "rigors" of having to work until age 62. To Americans, that's pathetic.

And, it shows that France is going to reverse direction. They are not moving toward austerity any longer.

They have, and even Hollande is not going to reverse the trend, just slow it down a little. I know it's annoying to have your prejudices blown to pieces, but there we are.

We'll see. Was that his actual platform? "I won't reverse things, just slow them down a little?" I just read reports from Australia, thedailykos, USA Today, and other sources that indicate he is of the mindset that government must spur growth, etc.

I won't respond in kind to your last sentence, merely invite you to consider whether you really have changed your ways since the megaflounce.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Your "facts" are simply not in response to my postings.

rickyp wrote:Steve

Look, anyone can take one paragraph out of anyone's mouth and spin it anyway they want.

Romney:

Well because, if you take a trillion dollars for instance, out of the first year of the federal budget, that would shrink GDP over 5%. That is by definition throwing us into recession or depression. So I'm not going to do that, of course.

Go ahead Steve. Spin it the way you want... It looks pretty clear...

I don't need to "spin" it. It's pretty simple--that he won't cut one trillion dollars in the first year does not mean he won't cut. If he cuts $5 that will be $5 more than Obama will cut.

And, I happen to believe it will be substantially more than $5. Anyone who sides with Paul Ryan is far more responsible than our President.

That is not to say I think Romney is perfect. However, i think he gets the overall picture far better than President Obama. President Obama is like a teenage girl with an unlimited charge card and a sale at her favorite store. He can't help himself--after all, it's not his money and it helps secure votes.

Give me the full interview and I'll find some real spin for you.

So, when he endorsed the Ryan budget?

I'll refer you to Archdukes cyncial view of Romneys signature on the Grover Norquist ATP pledge...

So, absent any evidence, you choose to believe he's lying. Okay, I'm sure you are outraged by the many demonstrable lies the President has told.

You'll beleive he's what you want him to beleive.

Ironic after you just did the very thing you're accusing me of.

For more main stream republicans they'll beleive that he's just humouring the extremists to get the nomination and base support for the general election ... And that he'll behave reasonably once he gets elected.
It's quite a tight rope this getting elected as a republican in Amercia.

But, easy for the Democratic President: give Federal money to your friends, placate your allies with policies and money and promises of more, violate the Constitution, etc.

His platform (as evidenced by the Daily Telegraph link) was to have the deficit at zero by 2017.

I really don't get you sometimes. You are saying to me that when you wrote that France had not taken measures, what you meant was that they'd taken measures, which you think will be reversed.

Just because you like to respond to things I didn't say doesn't mean you can expect me to do the same. I know what you were saying about Hollande, but you made a simple declaration of fact that appears at variance with reality.

And you know what I meant in the last line. Substituting 'pesky' for something else does not mask the meaning of the phrase.

danivon wrote:His platform (as evidenced by the Daily Telegraph link) was to have the deficit at zero by 2017.

I really don't get you sometimes. You are saying to me that when you wrote that France had not taken measures, what you meant was that they'd taken measures, which you think will be reversed.

No, what I said was the French were outraged over the increase in retirement age. They voted for a socialist, which hardly presages economic austerity. From 18 months ago:

The French government's decision to amend pension reform laws has sparked outrage in France. Raising the retirement age from 60 to 62 and the age on full state pensions from 65 to 67 has set off numerous protests across the country.

And you know what I meant in the last line. Substituting 'pesky' for something else does not mask the meaning of the phrase.

No, I did not mean that at all. Your barrage of "facts" that were refuting nothing I said was what I was referring to.