4 ms·

That was essentially the slogan of the current coalition and they failed completely.

atoav 2y ago
I have a deep dislike for Scholz (SPD), but this is for the biggest part the fault of Lindner/finance minister (FDP) who was an absolute disgrace and unable to make a compromise. You can't tell me he didn't negotiate before with the other two parties about what the compromises would be. Leave it or stick with it.
qwertox 2y ago
"Schuldenbremse". "Debt"+"brake", brake as in what forces a car to stop. Keep in mind that Russian's attack on the Ukraine, which lead to the destruction of the Nord Stream pipeline, didn't happen until after the election. I don't understand how people blend this out so easily. Let's assume your important car breaks down because of a strange, non-technical reason, which isn't covered by any insurance. If you don't have enough money, you will have to borrow some, you will have to go into debt, unless you are able to reduce your expenses otherwise. During the entire time of this coalition you had the finance minister saying that the debt brake is holy, therefore restricting in cash those in the coalition which his party disliked the most, always saying: "But the debt brake." - well knowing that those affected by the constrained cash flow would get bad publicity because they can't do their job, corrected: because they're personally unfit to do what they should do, because "they are losers". All this, while not proposing a real solution to the problem. They suggested to decrease government spending, which is - of course - something every government should strive for, but this is something which cannot be done in a few years if it means to reduce bureaucracy. This requires modification of laws, which always is a slow process, and firing officials, which is a no-go for absolutely every party. Their reasonable expectation of lowering financial support for those who are too lazy to work or are illegal immigrants, which are able to live without working because of it's better for them to just cash-in from the government, isn't something which would free up a significant amount of cash. Nevertheless it's something which should be done to send a signal. Cheap gas had become the foundation of Germany's economy, which is why the USA and other European countries rightly always pointed out that Germany is too reliant on Russian gas. So it's kind odd if now the opposition blames the current government for all the problems. There are also enough videos which show the finance minister saying that the automotive industry has no problems in competitiveness. This was pre-pandemic, post Dieselgate. Because that was what the automotive industry paid him for to say. And now they are surprised that they are collapsing.
- somedude895 2y ago
  > "Schuldenbremse". "Debt"+"brake", brake as in what forces a car to stop. No. Schuldenbremse limits the amount of new debt that can be taken on per year. So the correct comparison is that it's a limit on how quickly the car can accelerate. > Let's assume your important car breaks down because of a strange, non-technical reason, which isn't covered by any insurance. If you don't have enough money, you will have to borrow some, you will have to go into debt, unless you are able to reduce your expenses otherwise. Again, no. Your example describes a one-time expense, and the German Schuldenbremse has exemptions for that. Increased military spending is a running expense, and if the energy price problem is to be solved through subsidies, that's also a running expense. Germany has been gutting the military and breaking their obligations toward NATO for decades, believing that the US would forever be footing the bill. With that "peace" dividend – or rather, through their parasitic behaviour – they funded generous social programs. They can keep funding all of this by increasing debt (again: not a one-time increase, but debt increasing every year), like Argentina did. Or they can admit they have a structural problem and act in a fiscally responsible way, like Lindner was advocating for.

I have a deep dislike for Scholz (SPD), but this is for the biggest part the fault of Lindner/finance minister (FDP) who was an absolute disgrace and unable to make a compromise. You can't tell me he didn't negotiate before with the other two parties about what the compromises would be. Leave it or stick with it.

qwertox 2y ago

"Schuldenbremse". "Debt"+"brake", brake as in what forces a car to stop. Keep in mind that Russian's attack on the Ukraine, which lead to the destruction of the Nord Stream pipeline, didn't happen until after the election. I don't understand how people blend this out so easily. Let's assume your important car breaks down because of a strange, non-technical reason, which isn't covered by any insurance. If you don't have enough money, you will have to borrow some, you will have to go into debt, unless you are able to reduce your expenses otherwise. During the entire time of this coalition you had the finance minister saying that the debt brake is holy, therefore restricting in cash those in the coalition which his party disliked the most, always saying: "But the debt brake." - well knowing that those affected by the constrained cash flow would get bad publicity because they can't do their job, corrected: because they're personally unfit to do what they should do, because "they are losers". All this, while not proposing a real solution to the problem. They suggested to decrease government spending, which is - of course - something every government should strive for, but this is something which cannot be done in a few years if it means to reduce bureaucracy. This requires modification of laws, which always is a slow process, and firing officials, which is a no-go for absolutely every party. Their reasonable expectation of lowering financial support for those who are too lazy to work or are illegal immigrants, which are able to live without working because of it's better for them to just cash-in from the government, isn't something which would free up a significant amount of cash. Nevertheless it's something which should be done to send a signal. Cheap gas had become the foundation of Germany's economy, which is why the USA and other European countries rightly always pointed out that Germany is too reliant on Russian gas. So it's kind odd if now the opposition blames the current government for all the problems. There are also enough videos which show the finance minister saying that the automotive industry has no problems in competitiveness. This was pre-pandemic, post Dieselgate. Because that was what the automotive industry paid him for to say. And now they are surprised that they are collapsing.

somedude895 2y ago
> "Schuldenbremse". "Debt"+"brake", brake as in what forces a car to stop. No. Schuldenbremse limits the amount of new debt that can be taken on per year. So the correct comparison is that it's a limit on how quickly the car can accelerate. > Let's assume your important car breaks down because of a strange, non-technical reason, which isn't covered by any insurance. If you don't have enough money, you will have to borrow some, you will have to go into debt, unless you are able to reduce your expenses otherwise. Again, no. Your example describes a one-time expense, and the German Schuldenbremse has exemptions for that. Increased military spending is a running expense, and if the energy price problem is to be solved through subsidies, that's also a running expense. Germany has been gutting the military and breaking their obligations toward NATO for decades, believing that the US would forever be footing the bill. With that "peace" dividend – or rather, through their parasitic behaviour – they funded generous social programs. They can keep funding all of this by increasing debt (again: not a one-time increase, but debt increasing every year), like Argentina did. Or they can admit they have a structural problem and act in a fiscally responsible way, like Lindner was advocating for.