> "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 t

> "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.