Point is, Steve, that by your own evidence, France took measures. They were unpopular, and people protested and more came in, and then the government changed, but the new government has not committed to reversing all of those measures.

My facts (why inverted commas, Steve? Do you have evidence that the French deficit has not fallen? Do you have evidence that they didn't pass a budget last year with further measures? If not, can we accept these as actual facts, and avoid the snark?) refuted your assertion that France had not taken measures. They don't refute the assertions you are making explicit now, bit they were not intended.

Anyway, I accept your apology and I forgive you.

danivon wrote:Point is, Steve, that by your own evidence, France took measures. They were unpopular, and people protested and more came in, and then the government changed, but the new government has not committed to reversing all of those measures.

My facts (why inverted commas, Steve? Do you have evidence that the French deficit has not fallen?

The guy just got elected. He did so on an anti-austerity platform. It might take him more than a week. I'm just taking him at his word and factoring in his political views. If the French people wanted to continue down Austerity Avenue, they would not have given Sarkozy the boot.

Anyway, I accept your apology and I forgive you.

Thanks, but I did nothing I needed to apologize for. Whatever offended you was of your own creation.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Point is, Steve, that by your own evidence, France took measures. They were unpopular, and people protested and more came in, and then the government changed, but the new government has not committed to reversing all of those measures.

My facts (why inverted commas, Steve? Do you have evidence that the French deficit has not fallen?

The guy just got elected. He did so on an anti-austerity platform. It might take him more than a week. I'm just taking him at his word and factoring in his political views. If the French people wanted to continue down Austerity Avenue, they would not have given Sarkozy the boot.

So basically when you write in the past tense that something did not happen, what mean is that in the future it will unhappen.

clear as mud.

Anyway, I accept your apology and I forgive you.

Thanks, but I did nothing I needed to apologize for. Whatever offended you was of your own creation.

Well, you did tell me to '"pesky" with yourself', which I think uncalled for. In the spirit of asking me to respond to stuff you didn't say, I figured I'd reply to you obvious subtextual contrition.

danivon wrote:So basically when you write in the past tense that something did not happen, what mean is that in the future it will unhappen.

clear as mud.

So, basically, when France changes governments because of what changes in the name of "austerity" Sarkozy put into place, that means nothing of substance will change.

Clear as mud.

I guess I WAS responding to you. Your use of the word if, was too ambiguous for me. I wanted to hear you say that the Dems do it too. After all, I hear enough of the Dems good, Repubs bad from RickyP, and the opposite from Steve.

They both lie. Quite honestly, the only one who has not is Congressman Paul, and his son Rand, not to mention Kucinich.

You say you would not sign that pledge. I respect you for it. I would sign it, and would vote NO on any bill that had tax increases on them. There needs to be more people who stand on principle. I think we would agree on that.

danivon wrote: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.

Really? You see my defense of being willing to compromise as partisan politics? I thought it was the exact opposite.

danivon wrote:[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 ..

Well I don't see them as liars because I don't take campaign pledges are a moral promise. Rather, a campaign pledge is a guide on how the candidate would like to govern. However, I also recognize governing is compromise. Therefore, as long as they stick to a core principle, I have no problems with compromises if it helps further governing.

It appears as if you would rather an elected official stick to all pledges no matter what and cause legislative grid lock.

danivon wrote: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'?

How many times do I explain that I don't view as lying. Further, anybody who expects an elected official to stick by every single campaign pledge is screamingly naive.

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

and again, I am not saying they make the pledge with no intension of keeping it. Rather, if those members of Congress could get a deal for real cuts imposed before taxes are raised in exchange to minor tax increases, many would take the deal and I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Obama changed positions on the insurance mandate. He opposed it during the election and made a campaign pledge that it would not be included in his healthcare legislation. However, once he got into office, he had to accept it. Does that make him a liar or a realist?

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:So basically when you write in the past tense that something did not happen, what mean is that in the future it will unhappen.

clear as mud.

So, basically, when France changes governments because of w hat changes in the name of "austerity" Sarkozy put into place, that means nothing of substance will change.

Clear as mud.

I acknowledged there would be a change in my initial response. It was in point 3. I know that Hollande wants to increase income taxes for the very rich, and to heavily restrict the pay of top public employees. Both would appear to me to be intended to further help reduce the deficit, so would help counter any measures the other way. If, as is perfectly likely, he doesn't get a friendly parliament on June 10/17, it won't be completely up to him, will it?

bbauska wrote:They both lie. Quite honestly, the only one who has not is Congressman Paul, and his son Rand, not to mention Kucinich.

Hmmm. Not sure I think Paul was entirely honest about his newsletters to be fair.

You say you would not sign that pledge. I respect you for it. I would sign it, and would vote NO on any bill that had tax increases on them. There needs to be more people who stand on principle. I think we would agree on that.

Exactly. Quite why somehow a promise is less important to keep if it's made for winning an election eludes me. Especially one explicitly signed and witnessed.

Russ:

I agree that you can't always call any politician who reneges upon a campaign pledge a liar (although many people do just that, which is why the 'all politicians are liars' meme has gotten such traction). I do think in this instance your position is a very odd one though. You're effectively saying that all the Republicans who sign the Norquist pledge (or most of them anyway) are doing so for entirely cynical reasons while fully intending to break their pledge as soon as they strike a good enough deal. How could you possibly say this isn't a lie ?

Quite often when a politician makes a specific pledge they do intend to honour it but circumstances are such that it eventually has to be broken. That's regrettable but nevertheless understandable, and better that kind of politician than somebody who's so dogmatic they refuse to bend in any circumstance. There again you also get people who genuinely change their mind, and therefore renege on a pledge they no longer agree with. This is also fine (although most people seem not to believe a politician who claims to have changed his mind). But changing your mind is one thing and openly setting out to deceive is another entirely.

Btw, you also haven't really addressed the political difficulties it would entail. I'm not at all convinced that many Republican Congressmen would be able to back down on their pledge. It's not immediately obvious that these guys would find it easy to back out of the pledge now that they've signed it. They did so in order to avoid the prospect of being beaten with the issue during the primary season. So how is that threat going to be any less if they were to consider reneging ? Wouldn't it in fact be several orders of magnitude worse ?

Sassenach wrote:I do think in this instance your position is a very odd one though. You're effectively saying that all the Republicans who sign the Norquist pledge (or most of them anyway) are doing so for entirely cynical reasons while fully intending to break their pledge as soon as they strike a good enough deal. How could you possibly say this isn't a lie ?

This is not what I am saying. How many freaking times to I have to say this. They didn't agree to the pledge INTENDING TO BREAK IT. I am sayin they agree to the pledge because that is the basic principle upon which they want to govern. However, if given a choice between REAL AND ACTUAL CUTS IN SPENDING they would most likely agree to increased taxes.

Seriously, it comes down to the question of which is the more important of the two issues. Real and actual cuts in spending or not raising taxes. If you can have one but not both, which would you choose. Does a Republican say no to real and actual cuts because it might raise taxes or do you accept the tax increase to get the spending cuts?

Sassenach wrote:Btw, you also haven't really addressed the political difficulties it would entail. I'm not at all convinced that many Republican Congressmen would be able to back down on their pledge. It's not immediately obvious that these guys would find it easy to back out of the pledge now that they've signed it. They did so in order to avoid the prospect of being beaten with the issue during the primary season. So how is that threat going to be any less if they were to consider reneging ? Wouldn't it in fact be several orders of magnitude worse ?

Because they can sell it as a net positive. While I did vote to increase taxes, I was able to cut the federal budget by X% as a result. Which means Social Security and medicare will be around for you.

Hey, I know... why don't you two bet on it.

This is not what I am saying. How many freaking times to I have to say this. They didn't agree to the pledge INTENDING TO BREAK IT. I am sayin they agree to the pledge because that is the basic principle upon which they want to govern.

Russ, with all due respect, this is not what you said. What you said was this:

Because bonehead, just because they signed the thing doesn't mean they are going to follow it. It's a expediency during election time to keep a nutcase off your back.

How exactly was I supposed to draw any other conclusion from that ?

Archduke Russell John wrote:This is not what I am saying. How many freaking times to I have to say this. They didn't agree to the pledge INTENDING TO BREAK IT. I am sayin they agree to the pledge because that is the basic principle upon which they want to govern. However, if given a choice between REAL AND ACTUAL CUTS IN SPENDING they would most likely agree to increased taxes.

Ah, I see the nuance. These people, many of whom are already elected to office can't be expected to think about more than one question at a time. Are you saying they won't have considered the possibility of having to break the pledge in order to get a deal on spending from the Democrats in Congress?

I doubt all 200+ of them are really that dumb, don't you?

Seriously, it comes down to the question of which is the more important of the two issues. Real and actual cuts in spending or not raising taxes. If you can have one but not both, which would you choose. Does a Republican say no to real and actual cuts because it might raise taxes or do you accept the tax increase to get the spending cuts?

So, if they are open minded, why sign a pledge that says they will only take one? If it's just to keep Norquist off their back so they can keep office for another term, how is that not cynical in the extreme?

Because they can sell it as a net positive. While I did vote to increase taxes, I was able to cut the federal budget by X% as a result. Which means Social Security and medicare will be around for you.

Oddly enough, I'm not sure that the ART are really that concerned about SS and Medicare. And the Tea Party can be said (by someone on here) to stand for 'Taxed Enough Already'. Why would these influential taxpayer lobbies be happy about a broken pledge to keep taxes down if it was simply to help those too feckless to get their own Health Insurance and private pension and keep hold of a job?

Sassenach wrote:Russ, with all due respect, this is not what you said. What you said was this:

Because bonehead, just because they signed the thing doesn't mean they are going to follow it. It's a expediency during election time to keep a nutcase off your back.

How exactly was I supposed to draw any other conclusion from that ?

Or I? Should we just give up on reading what people actually write?

Sassenach wrote:How exactly was I supposed to draw any other conclusion from that ?

Because I have posted how many times in this conversation clarifying the point? Perhaps by actually reading the follow up posts and not focusing on just the original? Unless of course the whole point of the excerise is to not actually discuss the topic but just have the reverberations of the echo chamber increase in volume.