Politicians and Promises, do the public and media even care anymore?

[niko]

More than likely De Blasio will be the next mayor of NYC. Let's not discuss if this is good or bad, but what baffles me is some of the things he has promised to do he literally (by law) is not allowed to do, or it's just improbable to a degree that it's like the HS Senior campaigning promising the senior trip will be a free trip for everyone to paris or something like that.

What gets me is the media doesn't really talk about it at all. Maybe some private people, but not in general. Two cases...
1) He wants to take money from Central Park to make sure other cities parks get it as well. (Redistribute the budgeted money). What's wrong with this? Nothing. However, it's private money in a private agency. It's not city money, nor city controlled. :no:
2) He wants universal pre K in NYC. Problem? Well, it would require teachers working more hours for the same pay (sure), or a pay hike (city can't afford) plus more hours for teachers (again, they aren't doing that). Oh, and the city doesn't control the budget, the state does (who isn't approving it). It's a reasonable idea that has ZERO chance of occurring. People rep him for this all the time, it's literally impossible.

But in the campaign, no one gives a shit at all that we are electing someone who in practice will be a different person that he promises because his promises are not possible.

:no: What exactly are we voting for?

[KobesFinger]

I'm not a New Yorker but IMO most people up to a certain age don't really care about politics. Some of it is a lack of interest to find out more information and some of it is the "nothing will change so it doesn't matter" opinion

[kNicKz]

Politicians are so out of touch with reality that it angers me to give them any of my attention

[OldSkoolball#52]

Politicians are so out of touch with reality that it angers me to give them any of my attention


Actually, politicians know exactly whats up. They know who runs things and why certain things happen and dont happen. They know exactly what reality is about, even if they dont tip that hand for appearance purposes.

Its actually the public that has no concept of what is really going on.

[MavsSuperFan]

More than likely De Blasio will be the next mayor of NYC. Let's not discuss if this is good or bad, but what baffles me is some of the things he has promised to do he literally (by law) is not allowed to do, or it's just improbable to a degree that it's like the HS Senior campaigning promising the senior trip will be a free trip for everyone to paris or something like that.

What gets me is the media doesn't really talk about it at all. Maybe some private people, but not in general. Two cases...
1) He wants to take money from Central Park to make sure other cities parks get it as well. (Redistribute the budgeted money). What's wrong with this? Nothing. However, it's private money in a private agency. It's not city money, nor city controlled. :no:
2) He wants universal pre K in NYC. Problem? Well, it would require teachers working more hours for the same pay (sure), or a pay hike (city can't afford) plus more hours for teachers (again, they aren't doing that). Oh, and the city doesn't control the budget, the state does (who isn't approving it). It's a reasonable idea that has ZERO chance of occurring. People rep him for this all the time, it's literally impossible.

But in the campaign, no one gives a shit at all that we are electing someone who in practice will be a different person that he promises because his promises are not possible.

:no: What exactly are we voting for?

It works.

Look at obama,

At the very least he implicitly promised or gave the impression he would do the following:

Go after bush era torturers
end the wars
Prosecute wall street bankers
pursue single payer
pursue the public option
End the Bush tax cuts (he only managed to do so for the top 2%, for the other 98% they are now permanent)
Bring the inheritance tax back to clinton era levels.
seek congressional approval for military action (:lol )
Roll back executive privilege and overreach (:oldlol: )
More transparency in government (:oldlol: )
Protect civil liberties related to privacy and due process (:roll: )

In his second election making ridiculous statements that the ACA will not change your current insurance policy if you like your current one. How is that even possible?


http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/28/21213547-obama-admin-knew-millions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance?lite


President Obama repeatedly assured Americans that after the Affordable Care Act became law, people who liked their health insurance would be able to keep it. But millions of Americans are getting or are about to get cancellation letters for their health insurance under Obamacare, say experts, and the Obama administration has known that for at least three years.

I dont even blame obama for that. How that would even be possible is crazy. And truth be told for the majority of people the ACA will improve their insurance in terms of lowering costs. But obviously that means that richer people will have to pay more.

All presidents make crazy promises that they never really think they can keep. They will worry about it after getting elected.

[Nick Young]

Do you think this is anything new fool? It has been that way since recorded history. It is just human nature. It is just the way things are always going to be.

Politicians breaking promises isn't like some new trend. This is the way the world is. It is time you grow up and accept it.

[niko]

It's not breaking promises. I'm not naive, i get that. It's promising things that are literally impossible and no one calling him on it. I'm not getting on him, the people who are "OMG UNIVERSAL PRE K!" with it being impossible.

If i promise you $1MM and you believe me, whose fault is that?

[Immortal Bum]

Politics is nothing more than theater. This is all just a show. And if we didn't love it things would be much different, but they are as they are so we must be ok with it.

[Nick Young]

It's not breaking promises. I'm not naive, i get that. It's promising things that are literally impossible and no one calling him on it. I'm not getting on him, the people who are "OMG UNIVERSAL PRE K!" with it being impossible.

If i promise you $1MM and you believe me, whose fault is that?
This is also what has happened since the beginning of time.

People are calling politicians out on these things all the time. Most people realize there is no point wasting their time following this shit. Focus on your own. Stop getting emotional over shit that will never change.

[niko]

This is also what has happened since the beginning of time.

People are calling politicians out on these things all the time. Most people realize there is no point wasting their time following this shit. Focus on your own. Stop getting emotional over shit that will never change.
I'm not getting emotional, i'm posting a thought. You literally spend all day arguing (always your posts are arguing) over everything. You're the last person who can criticize having an opinion.

[Nick Young]

I'm not getting emotional, i'm posting a thought. You literally spend all day arguing (always your posts are arguing) over everything. You're the last person who can criticize having an opinion.
lol wut.

I'm just telling you why no one cares about this shit, because it seems like you don't understand human nature or how politicians and leaders do their jobs.

[Jailblazers7]

It's not breaking promises. I'm not naive, i get that. It's promising things that are literally impossible and no one calling him on it. I'm not getting on him, the people who are "OMG UNIVERSAL PRE K!" with it being impossible.

If i promise you $1MM and you believe me, whose fault is that?

Well, that is the same thing as breaking a promise tho. He is promising universal pre-k even though he knows it can't be done which will force him to break that promise. He is counting on the fact that nobody will know that he can't deliver, which is something every politician does at one point or another.

[RidonKs]

how is the universal pre-k literally impossible niko? he's extending a program that's already funded for 40,000 kids from a few hours a day to a full school day and he wants to add another 10,000 slots. the funding is supposed to come from hiking the city tax rate for the wealthiest residents, which has nothing to do with state or federal transfers.

from what i'm reading, and without making a value judgment one way or another, it at least seems plausible... even if upon a closer look its doomed to fail in the long run. what am i missing here?

[niko]

how is the universal pre-k literally impossible niko? he's extending a program that's already funded for 40,000 kids from a few hours a day to a full school day and he wants to add another 10,000 slots. the funding is supposed to come from hiking the city tax rate for the wealthiest residents, which has nothing to do with state or federal transfers.

from what i'm reading, and without making a value judgment one way or another, it at least seems plausible... even if upon a closer look its doomed to fail in the long run. what am i missing here?
it's not a decision for the city, it's a decision for the state, which has already been rejected previously. It's theoretically possible if he were to convince a state senate which is opposed to it, and has already rejected it to change their mind (and who also doesn't have money for it). The state controls that kind of funding for the board of ed, not the city.

the teachers also don't have a contract, and you need teachers to work what would in essence be additional hours over the summer. Or you'd need to hire more teachers. Which again, is not going to be something the union would accept unless you did other things first.

It's not happening. Is it "possible"? Yes. But it's unlikely to the point that it being a campaign platform is dishonest IMO. None of that is his fault but that's how it is. Is it plausible? Not really, it's pulling teeth to get it done now.

BTW, I'm not sure where you get the idea 10,000 more slots would do it, the number of kids rejected isn't 20% of who applies, it's a multiple of who gets accepted. Where we are there are 250 people for 40 slots. (They did a lottery.) We didn't get it so we went private.

Note: The state needs to approve new taxes, and it's a very very hard sell to do that on the wealthy as he proposes.

http://gothamschools.org/2013/08/26/as-candidates-squabble-over-universal-pre-k-funds-a-fact-check/

Yes, NY is dysnfunctional but he's not running as the person who will rectify this, he's running as the person who will do things that aren't possible with the dysfunction. BTW, nothing against him, but he's winning so he's the only candidate IMO worth discussing.

[ZenMaster]

There is pressure from companies who order commercials on the networks to help portray candidates in a decent way because the same companies are donating to that candidate.

For other networks it makes sense to not call them out on it in advance because it's a story for the media when politicians don't come through on a promise made before the election. But in order for that to happen you have to let them make the promises to begin with.

[RidonKs]

good info niko, i was just curious to hear your response after reading a few articles. i dunno one way or the other, but as for why politicians promise the impossible? they assume they can get away with it.

of course they don't always necessarily get away with it, regardless of how big or small the lie. it takes people who organize and educate and push the issue into the limelight for anybody to give a shit. it's unfortunately really hard to do... but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try.

[niko]

good info niko, i was just curious to hear your response after reading a few articles. i dunno one way or the other, but as for why politicians promise the impossible? they assume they can get away with it.

of course they don't always necessarily get away with it, regardless of how big or small the lie. it takes people who organize and educate and push the issue into the limelight for anybody to give a shit. it's unfortunately really hard to do... but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try.
Yeah, but it's hard. This race actually was decided by weiner's weiner and De Blasio acting like he was the one who got stop and frisk defeated (he had nothing to do with it).

I once when I was younger met Ferrer (anyone remember him?) I was at an event and someone introduced me to him because we are both Puerto Rican. He told me about some of the problems of the city and told me "you wouldn't understand really the problems hispanics face in NY". Note: My name is hispanic (dead giveaway) and I look hispanic. Apparently he didn't look at my face, hear my name, or anything I said because he thought i was a white person and for some reason put me down in a patronizing way. Basically he heard "finance, succesful" saw the asian wife and decided I was white (and felt that was a problem). :lol He's such a dick.

[MavsSuperFan]

good info niko, i was just curious to hear your response after reading a few articles. i dunno one way or the other, but as for why politicians promise the impossible? they assume they can get away with it.

of course they don't always necessarily get away with it, regardless of how big or small the lie. it takes people who organize and educate and push the issue into the limelight for anybody to give a shit. it's unfortunately really hard to do... but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try.
Give me one example of an American politician that made a huge promise to his base as was punished for not delivering on it?

I cant think of one instance in my lifetime where over promising has hurt a candidate or been the major reason they failed in their next election. At the very least the penalty for under promising is much higher than over promising.

[RidonKs]

Give me one example of an American politician that made a huge promise to his base as was punished for not delivering on it?

I cant think of one instance in my lifetime where over promising has hurt a candidate or been the major reason they failed in their next election. At the very least the penalty for under promising is much higher than over promising.
presidential politics don't really offer many examples since every first term pres inevitably turns into a second term pres... or so it seems. why did HW or carter lose? i have no sweet clue lol

i can give you an example from my neck of the woods though. fyi i'm canadian

in 2009, right smack in the middle of the global recession, nova scotia elected its first NDP government. that's the only sizable leftist party we have in the country. their major promise, probably because the classic attack on the left is "tax and spend", was that they wouldn't raise the sales tax. within a year that's exactly what they did, out of necessity imo. and in spite of pretty reasonable governance, the electorate tossed them out last month... and that lie was definitely on its mind.

they weren't perfect of course. i was disappointed and there were plenty of reasons to give them the boot. but they did balance the budget during tough economic times in one of the most depressed areas of the entire country which is admirable. and they certainly remain more credible than the other two mainstream parties that won majority and opposition seating.

i imagine if you ask around from people all over your country, there will be loads of examples of governors and mayors who were booted out of office because they failed to fulfill their mandate. people pay attention to local politics because they matter more and in tangible ways. federal politics is guaranteed bullshit in every country. most of all yours.

[KevinNYC]

Look at obama,

At the very least he implicitly promised or gave the impression he would do the following:

Go after bush era torturers
end the wars
Prosecute wall street bankers
pursue single payer
pursue the public option
End the Bush tax cuts (he only managed to do so for the top 2%, for the other 98% they are now permanent)
Bring the inheritance tax back to clinton era levels.
seek congressional approval for military action (:lol )
Roll back executive privilege and overreach (:oldlol: )
More transparency in government (:oldlol: )
Protect civil liberties related to privacy and due process (:roll: )

You can check how Obama's doing on his promises here. (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/)

The Obameter Scorecard
Promise Kept 241 (45%)
Compromise 131 (25%)
Promise Broken 118 (22%)
Stalled 5 (1%)
In the Works 31 (6%)
Not yet rated 6 (1%)


You are also misremembering what Obama actually promised. In 2008, he promised to draw down troops in Iraq and send more troops to Afghanistan. He kept both of those.

If you can point to when he promised to go after Bush officials on torture, I would like to see that. He promised to end torture and signed a directive on that in 2008.

As for the the Bush tax cuts, in 2008 he promised to keep the cuts on folks making less than $250,000. Dunno what he promised since then.

[MavsSuperFan]

presidential politics don't really offer many examples since every first term pres inevitably turns into a second term pres... or so it seems. why did HW or carter lose? i have no sweet clue lol

i can give you an example from my neck of the woods though. fyi i'm canadian

in 2009, right smack in the middle of the global recession, nova scotia elected its first NDP government. that's the only sizable leftist party we have in the country. their major promise, probably because the classic attack on the left is "tax and spend", was that they wouldn't raise the sales tax. within a year that's exactly what they did, out of necessity imo. and in spite of pretty reasonable governance, the electorate tossed them out last month... and that lie was definitely on its mind.

they weren't perfect of course. i was disappointed and there were plenty of reasons to give them the boot. but they did balance the budget during tough economic times in one of the most depressed areas of the entire country which is admirable. and they certainly remain more credible than the other two mainstream parties that won majority and opposition seating.

i imagine if you ask around from people all over your country, there will be loads of examples of governors and mayors who were booted out of office because they failed to fulfill their mandate. people pay attention to local politics because they matter more and in tangible ways. federal politics is guaranteed bullshit in every country. most of all yours.

Raising taxes is about the only thing that hurts politicians, Eg. why bush wasnt reelected (also case Perot took 19%+ of the popular vote).

I still think the best strategy is to implicitly promise the world, but to try to avoid explicitly doing so if possible and deal with disappointed supporters after you win.


You can check how Obama's doing on his promises here. (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/)

The Obameter Scorecard
Promise Kept 241 (45%)
Compromise 131 (25%)
Promise Broken 118 (22%)
Stalled 5 (1%)
In the Works 31 (6%)
Not yet rated 6 (1%)


You are also misremembering what Obama actually promised. In 2008, he promised to draw down troops in Iraq and send more troops to Afghanistan. He kept both of those.

If you can point to when he promised to go after Bush officials on torture, I would like to see that. He promised to end torture and signed a directive on that in 2008.

As for the the Bush tax cuts, in 2008 he promised to keep the cuts on folks making less than $250,000. Dunno what he promised since then.
I have seen that before, I would venture the total percentages of kept promises isnt all that important. If I promised you 10 things and kept the 9 small/less relevant promises and broke the major one, I would technically have kept 90% of my promises.


You are also misremembering what Obama actually promised. In 2008, he promised to draw down troops in Iraq and send more troops to Afghanistan. He kept both of those.

Im not misremembering, I know he never explicitly promised to prosecute war crimes of the bush administration or to fight for the single payer or the public option. I am saying he purposefully and intelligently gave the impression was going to do so. In the end the only whistle blowers like CIA analyst john kiriakou (who blew the whistle on the torture program), Bradley manning, who exposed various American war crimes and the pentagons ridiculous policy in accounting for civilian deaths were prosecuted.

Actual torturers like John Brennan were embraced by Obama. Eg. making him his top nat sec advisory and later CIA chief.

At the very least obama gave the impression he wasnt going to commit war crimes overseas and respect the 4th amendment at home.

I am basically complimenting Obama's political skills. He gave the impression that he was as liberal as his base, without ever having to explicitly promise them things. its what mitt Romney wanted to do to conservatives, but lacked the social skills to do so.

He also clearly gave the impression he was going to withdrawal much faster and completely from Iraq. He called it an illegal war. We still have lots of people their, in the form of official military and private contractors.


If you can point to when he promised to go after Bush officials on torture, I would like to see that. He promised to end torture and signed a directive on that in 2008.

its debatable whether we have stopped torturing people. If you mean american personnel have stopped, ok I believe the reporting on that.

However there is lots of reporting about us giving over people we capture to our allies such as the Yemeni government. And then those people being tortured and the Yemeni intelligence services sharing info with ours.

[RidonKs]

speaking of obama lying to the public, i just came across this quote from the 08 campaign on a bill moyers episode


KEITH OLBERMAN: Scrap NAFTA, Senator Obama, or fix it?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I would immediately call the president of Mexico, the president of Canada to try to amend NAFTA, because I think that we can get labor agreements in that agreement right now. And it should reflect the basic principle that our trade agreements should not just be good for Wall Street, it should also be good for Main Street. And the problem that we've had is that we've had corporate lobbyists oftentimes involved in negotiating these trade agreements. But the AFL-CIO hasn't been involved. Ordinary working people have not been involved. And we've got to make sure that our agreements are good for everybody. Because globalization right now is creating winners and losers. But the problem is, it's the same winners and the same losers each and every time.

pretty funny in light of the tpp negotiations that are confined 100% to the corporate lobbyists and executives helping to write the damn thing