"Either/or" vs. "both/and"

A typical figure of speech, which, in my opinion, displays the very root of the European economic problems:
"The package, which aims to generate €20 billion ($26 billion) in cost savings through a combination of tax increases and spending cuts, is designed by the government to reassure European authorities that Italy is serious about shoring up its finances and restoring investor confidence in the country."

In short, most of the economic measures nowadays are directed at "reassuring" and "restoring investor confidence" rather than on actually shoring up the finances. Politicians naturally evade undertaking the real austerity measures, which are bound to be unpopular among their voters (reducing benefits, raising retirement age, cutting the number of state employees, etc.). Yet, I doubt that any investors are encouraged by such a half-hearted approach. 

This is a clear example of Thatcher-esque "either/or" situation:
"Optimism had always been part of Mrs. Thatcher's appeal, too, but it was of a more rigorist kind. Gain comes because of pain, she believed. Nothing can be done without personal effort. Hard truths must be told, dragons slain. Hers was the politics of "either/or." As Peter Mandelson, Mr. Blair's chief strategist, liked to put it, theirs was the politics of "both/and.""


One will not be able to keep both investors and voters happy.