If the future German Chancellor is here, here's my proposal for your new campaign: "We choose to build one million affordable apartments in four years, not because it's easy but because it's hard".
It may not solve all of Germany's problems but at least you'll energize the construction sector, alleviate the housing crisis, learn how to finish a construction project on time and you'll have to remove some bureaucracy to reach the deadline. Build them with EV chargers outside and you'll help VW too.
Interesting that 2 similar problems - water rise and population increase - are treated that differently, i.e. it is considered normal that the government would build levies/etc. while the government building housing is an abomination.
People who already have property would not be happy because the government would spend huge money on a program they are not interested. And it could make the houses prices lower (which could be not popular for people, who already paying a loan). Would attract people who are renting though.
It's unbelievably bad government behaviour. Allow mass immigration, to enjoy the boost in tax revenues and GDP, while dumping all the costs and fallout on the people.
Rents skyrocketed, utility bills getting more expensive, waiting twice as long for a doctor? Well that's not my problem, is it pleb?
It'd be one thing if they were actively clearing the path for it to minimise impact. Preemptively clearing land and building hospitals etc.
But that would imply something about these people that they definitely are not. Ruled by the worst among us.
No, it is this attitude, which was even reflected in the speeches the party leaders gave after the breakup, accusing each other of "ideology", that is the problem. Every single party in germany claims to stand for "reasoning", "pragmatism" and accuses others of "ideology". People brandmark anything they disagree with as ideology, as in "heizungsideologie" for example. (The idea that gas heating should be replaced with heay pumps.) Voting for people who are the quietest about expressing their own beliefs and loudest about denouncing other beliefs as "ideology" is exactly how germany got into this mess.
"Gesinnungsethik" - We had the purest ideas, never mind the results. A real scourge. For some reason, it seems to be most popular with those with the highest education and the corresponding parties. Intelligent people doing stupid things on the regular, that takes ideology.
I don’t think there was ever much reasoning. What changed is the scale at which emotions can be exploited nowadays. I just obliterates any reasoning happening…
As a German I'm quite happy with this, because the coalition was doomed to fail from the start.
On that note, I read the paper of Lidner and IMHO he has good points. Germany does not have an issue with income but with spending. We spend way too much for social stuff, especially pensions. The idea proposed by the SDP would fuck every following generation over pretty hard.
And to loose the debt break to funnel that money to the Ukraine is brain dead.
Why does no one tackle overflowing spending for social stuff, insane bureaucracy, abysmal education.
I'm a bit concerned about new elections. That will probably make the CxU the major party, with probably SPD as a junior partner. However, IMHo the whole German political landscape is just FUBAR.
CDU/CSU=old guys sprinkled with new guys that are both corrupt. Scheuer, Spahn, Dobrindt et al. Merz as chancellor. Yeah fuck.
SPU=Give money from the middle class so poor, so they don't have to work that match
FDP=Unfortunately I do not own a Porsche, but generally speaking I find the ideas proposed by Lidner in his paper quite sound
Grüne=Ivory tower and out of touch with working people
AFD=Crude mix between Nazis and just braindead people
BSW=???
+ all the other smaller parties that are just useless
I pay the max amount possible for public healthcare (~1,1k€?) and pay about 1k+ in wage tax. That's just outright insane.
In the meantime, my ex wife gets paid a flat + utilities + some other stuff.
This is all fucked. The EU needs to get stronger, by having a Ungarn Exit and stopping the idiotic expansion to Moldova and the other states that will bring nothing to the table. Instead, they should be made partner, with some benefits, butno voting rights. Oh, and please no Schengen for all of them.
With the shit also going on with the US election this is all just shit.
I don't think the issue is spending on social stuff. There are more issues like tax evasion - even supported by the ministry of Lindner [1].
But I think the biggest issue is spending money by employing more and more governance worker. I heard that the Kanzleramt employs more people than most of the big companies in Germany.
Also, you wrote CDU is corrupt, but FDP feels as corrupt as CDU. At least it looks like working for FDP lead ministry pays off [2][3].
It just feels morally wrong to try to cut social spending when they can't cut spending on their side. Also, pensions for governance worker are pretty high too.
We spend way too much for social stuff, especially pensions
Germany has a problem with pensions in particular but it isn't fixable without abandoning what Germany stands for. At least for another few generations.
Germany told everyone that they needn't worry about their pensions. The government has got your back. We take care of it.
Norbert Bluem - "Your pension is safe!"
Shortly after they introduced legislation that would make pensioners pay tax on their pension income. Something that was "not a thing" before. They also basically told those people that would now have to pay tax on their pension income that they "should've had private pension plans already anyway".
Oh and they introduced multiple ways to help insurance companies steal people's money. "Riester Renter" and such. Not a good deal at all. Oh and there's no way to save money in a tax advantaged way without using insurance companies. No self-serve investment 401k or RRSP. It's all employer and insurance tied.
As another German, I fully agree about the political landscape in Germany being FUBAR.
I'm an entrepreneur with a small business and the FDP is closest to my personal views in theory. In reality, they are just a bit lighter shade of green-socialism than the other parties. Lindner's paper is a joke. Germany needs much more radical changes than he proposed to ensure a prosperous future, but even his very tame suggestions now caused a government collapse.
My payment for public healthcare is also at the maximum around 1k€/month and similar wage taxes. A few days ago I used an unemployment payment / "Bürgergeld" calculator and found out that if I stopped working and instead just got married and had 1-2 kids, I'd have more income after taxes than now. This is completely unsustainable, but nobody in politics talks about it.
New elections won't make a difference, other than taking away some time and focus from the people in power to do more harm to the country. There simply is nobody sensible to vote for.
Germany, and all of the EU in general, needs to hit absolute rock bottom first for new and sensible political parties to emerge.
Personally, I don't want to be around for the ride down, so I'm preparing to leave the sinking ship. Unfortunately thats not easy with enormous exit taxes and much of the western world in a similarly bad state. The US honestly seems like the best option right now.
In the end the Nazi's had the right ideal, your laziness is causing capital outflow, and this hits you in the face, later. It's time to critically examine the capital outflow and inflow of Europe, and act accordingly.
Oh, and the speech by Scholz was just taken from a drawer, so it has been written for quite some time. So overall this is just shady: Lidner wanted structured new elections but now Scholz forced this to be some shit show.
Also the 4 points mentioned by Scholz are mostly shit:
1. Subventions for VW/other car manufactures: good to secure jobs, but eventually against strengthen of the German economy because we keep failed shot living for some time that is also doomed to fail
2. Energy price, how will he do it without screwing over private households?
3. Pensions: Yeah, the proposed pension packet would screw over newer generations tremendously, just to secure some votes from old people
4. More money for the Ukraine. Use that money to invest in to European Level defense
What surprised me is not that it happened, but that it happened now. Since it didn’t happen years earlier, I expected the coalition to last until the next election to at least give some semblance of stability.
The FDP has always had its finger on the self destruction button in this coalition and perhaps they wanted to get some especially, ehm, daring policy through with its politically quite different partners.
This is not destabilizing this democracy. The FDP has done that same thing before - twice! In 1966 and 1982.
Abandoning a non-functioning government and calling new elections is part of democracies. Just ask the Italians (68 governments in 76 years), or recently the French and the Brits.
Lindner was out of line, did a solo act and Scholz took it personally, his ego was insulted, so he fired him.
Lindner did it on purpose.
He either knows what he's doing (ace under the sleeve) or is a total idiot.
Lindner was forced to do it. FDP has been under the 5% barrier in polls for months now, down from 11,4%. If they stayed in the coalition until the next regular election, they would most likely not even get into parliament again. At least with this move, they have a better chance.
> Political analyst Thu Nguyen, Deputy Director at the Berlin-based think tank Jacques Delors Centre, said it was not meant to be in a comment on social media.
As I understand Trump is more isolationist and less neo-con interventionist than Biden/Harris is. So why does the article state 'increased geo-political challanges' after a Trump win?
Because Europe cannot put trust in US help for Ukraine. Thus, Germany has to do more. (and they can only do more if they spend money and the [now ex-]finance minister does not want to)
Also, if the US raises its tariffs wrt to Europe, then the German economy is in even more trouble.
I have a tangential question, especially to the native Germans in this thread.
I've been living in Germany for a while now and have been trying to understand German politics in that time, including this whole concept of coalition governments and the crisis the Ampel is facing. Due to the latter, I came across this: https://www.dw.com/en/germany-could-face-snap-election/a-704...
In this article are statements such as (emphasis mine):
> Brandt called for a vote of confidence in the Bundestag with the aim of losing it, so that his chancellorship could be reconfirmed by voters in fresh elections.
> [Kohl] called for a vote of confidence, which he, too, deliberately lost on December 17, 1982.
> Schröder called for a vote of confidence, which he deliberately lost on July 1, 2005.
I just can't wrap my head around these in so many levels. The easier of these questions would be, how can a chancellor deliberately lose a vote of confidence? What makes the action deliberate exactly?
Brandt is a more complicated case to the point where I am, honestly, having a hard time putting my bewilderment into words. I'll try nonetheless: How can a chancellor expect voters in fresh elections to bolster their chancellorship, just right after losing a vote of confidence? I can only interpret this as some kind of political flex, basically telling the Bundestag that "I may not have your confidence but I still have mandate from the people".
(If it is, then, well, weird flex but ok, as we used to say a few years ago. It is a reason after all, even if I find it a bit absurd.)
Perhaps what adds to my confusion is, in Kohl's section we read: "Because Kohl's coalition of the CDU/CSU and FDP came to power through a vote of no confidence and not a general election, Kohl wished for additional legitimacy through a general election" which to me implies that Brandt's strategy would not have consolidated his position as strongly; indeed, the article notes his maneuver was fiercely criticized at the time.
I know I'm an idiot when it comes to German politics so I'd be glad if someone can make sense of my bewilderment. I know there is a lot of subtlety and context I am missing here and I'm sure I'm confusing one thing for another. But I strongly feel like this would go a long way to helping me understand the current machinations of the Ampel.
> How can a chancellor expect voters in fresh elections to bolster their chancellorship, just right after losing a vote of confidence?
I'd say in general, because his party has gained in the polls since the original election that put him in office.
In Brandt's case, he probably indeed thought that voters would reward him for this "political flex" and selflessness for the benefit of the country. Asking for the vote and thereby risking his own career, but also resolving the stalemate in government after they had their majority dramatically reduced.
I'm guessing that Scholz has a similar idea, but with how much the SPD already lost in polls since the last election, I don't see it going well for them and him. In fact, a majority of people are very unhappy with the government and have been in favor of new elections for months now. His plan of getting "critical" bills passed before Christmas with this minority government won't work. Opposition parties would be suicidal to work with him. So I'd say, the longer Scholz waits, the worse the SPD results will be. He needs to ask for the vote immediately, not in 2 months.
> I just can't wrap my head around these in so many levels. The easier of these questions would be, how can a chancellor deliberately lose a vote of confidence? What makes the action deliberate exactly?
Just openly telling your coalition to not vote for you.
> How can a chancellor expect voters in fresh elections to bolster their chancellorship, just right after losing a vote of confidence?
I don't think saying "I came into power, but I'am not sure, if you really want me so please vote for me." will have negative effects on your election results.
> I can only interpret this as some kind of political flex, basically telling the Bundestag that "I may not have your confidence but I still have mandate from the people".
The chancellor gives up on forming the government, but it's the parliament's to vote for a new election.
It's frustrating to watch governments constantly argue over what they should do to help the economy when what they should be arguing about is what they should undo to stop hindering the economy.
In Germany, it seems somewhat obvious: a more efficient bureaucracy. Everything is bogged down in red tape and bureaucratic processes, most of which are completely archaic and actively hostile to digitalisation.
I am a strong proponent of regulation, but the kind that involves computers, not faxes.
i once was working for bosch contractor. they have team of 2-3 people doing in half year less work than i am in one month, and yet payed 2x less.
de lead of that 2-3 team was putting some integration tests ignored and unignored several times during that time as stabilisation effort, sure they were not stabilized.
team we dependent on for car data lagged behind for month all time, and people were pieced off when i was going to sent prs to their code to speed up things.
probably_wrong|1 year ago
It may not solve all of Germany's problems but at least you'll energize the construction sector, alleviate the housing crisis, learn how to finish a construction project on time and you'll have to remove some bureaucracy to reach the deadline. Build them with EV chargers outside and you'll help VW too.
trhway|1 year ago
0x000xca0xfe|1 year ago
octacat|1 year ago
jalapenos|1 year ago
Rents skyrocketed, utility bills getting more expensive, waiting twice as long for a doctor? Well that's not my problem, is it pleb?
It'd be one thing if they were actively clearing the path for it to minimise impact. Preemptively clearing land and building hospitals etc.
But that would imply something about these people that they definitely are not. Ruled by the worst among us.
Phelinofist|1 year ago
But I agree, doing something like this would address quite a few issues people have.
Which party would tackle that though? I can't think of any.
go13|1 year ago
[deleted]
baybal2|1 year ago
[deleted]
the5avage|1 year ago
There are sometimes complex connections between cause and effect. It is not enough to just have the right intention.
rasmus1610|1 year ago
Just had a longer discussion with my wife just now why this is.
So many discussions in Germany revolve around ideology and not what’s best in the situation right now.
amadeuspagel|1 year ago
ahartmetz|1 year ago
illiac786|1 year ago
Phelinofist|1 year ago
On that note, I read the paper of Lidner and IMHO he has good points. Germany does not have an issue with income but with spending. We spend way too much for social stuff, especially pensions. The idea proposed by the SDP would fuck every following generation over pretty hard.
And to loose the debt break to funnel that money to the Ukraine is brain dead.
Why does no one tackle overflowing spending for social stuff, insane bureaucracy, abysmal education.
I'm a bit concerned about new elections. That will probably make the CxU the major party, with probably SPD as a junior partner. However, IMHo the whole German political landscape is just FUBAR.
CDU/CSU=old guys sprinkled with new guys that are both corrupt. Scheuer, Spahn, Dobrindt et al. Merz as chancellor. Yeah fuck.
SPU=Give money from the middle class so poor, so they don't have to work that match
FDP=Unfortunately I do not own a Porsche, but generally speaking I find the ideas proposed by Lidner in his paper quite sound
Grüne=Ivory tower and out of touch with working people
AFD=Crude mix between Nazis and just braindead people
BSW=???
+ all the other smaller parties that are just useless
I pay the max amount possible for public healthcare (~1,1k€?) and pay about 1k+ in wage tax. That's just outright insane.
In the meantime, my ex wife gets paid a flat + utilities + some other stuff.
This is all fucked. The EU needs to get stronger, by having a Ungarn Exit and stopping the idiotic expansion to Moldova and the other states that will bring nothing to the table. Instead, they should be made partner, with some benefits, butno voting rights. Oh, and please no Schengen for all of them.
With the shit also going on with the US election this is all just shit.
SvenL|1 year ago
Also, you wrote CDU is corrupt, but FDP feels as corrupt as CDU. At least it looks like working for FDP lead ministry pays off [2][3].
It just feels morally wrong to try to cut social spending when they can't cut spending on their side. Also, pensions for governance worker are pretty high too.
(sorry for German sources)
[1] https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/politik/gerda-hofmann-finanzm...
[2] https://www.merkur.de/politik/schuldenbremse-bundeshaushalt-...
[3] https://www.stern.de/politik/deutschland/finanzministerium--...
tharkun__|1 year ago
Germany told everyone that they needn't worry about their pensions. The government has got your back. We take care of it.
Norbert Bluem - "Your pension is safe!"
Shortly after they introduced legislation that would make pensioners pay tax on their pension income. Something that was "not a thing" before. They also basically told those people that would now have to pay tax on their pension income that they "should've had private pension plans already anyway".
Oh and they introduced multiple ways to help insurance companies steal people's money. "Riester Renter" and such. Not a good deal at all. Oh and there's no way to save money in a tax advantaged way without using insurance companies. No self-serve investment 401k or RRSP. It's all employer and insurance tied.
Way to fuck over your population.
gndk|1 year ago
I'm an entrepreneur with a small business and the FDP is closest to my personal views in theory. In reality, they are just a bit lighter shade of green-socialism than the other parties. Lindner's paper is a joke. Germany needs much more radical changes than he proposed to ensure a prosperous future, but even his very tame suggestions now caused a government collapse.
My payment for public healthcare is also at the maximum around 1k€/month and similar wage taxes. A few days ago I used an unemployment payment / "Bürgergeld" calculator and found out that if I stopped working and instead just got married and had 1-2 kids, I'd have more income after taxes than now. This is completely unsustainable, but nobody in politics talks about it.
New elections won't make a difference, other than taking away some time and focus from the people in power to do more harm to the country. There simply is nobody sensible to vote for.
Germany, and all of the EU in general, needs to hit absolute rock bottom first for new and sensible political parties to emerge.
Personally, I don't want to be around for the ride down, so I'm preparing to leave the sinking ship. Unfortunately thats not easy with enormous exit taxes and much of the western world in a similarly bad state. The US honestly seems like the best option right now.
NoZZz|1 year ago
Phelinofist|1 year ago
1. Subventions for VW/other car manufactures: good to secure jobs, but eventually against strengthen of the German economy because we keep failed shot living for some time that is also doomed to fail
2. Energy price, how will he do it without screwing over private households?
3. Pensions: Yeah, the proposed pension packet would screw over newer generations tremendously, just to secure some votes from old people
4. More money for the Ukraine. Use that money to invest in to European Level defense
solarkraft|1 year ago
The FDP has always had its finger on the self destruction button in this coalition and perhaps they wanted to get some especially, ehm, daring policy through with its politically quite different partners.
killjoywashere|1 year ago
nosianu|1 year ago
Abandoning a non-functioning government and calling new elections is part of democracies. Just ask the Italians (68 governments in 76 years), or recently the French and the Brits.
pc86|1 year ago
lakomen|1 year ago
gndk|1 year ago
drvd|1 year ago
This. Basically all public economists agree on Lindner's ideas and behaviour to be nonsensical. So he either is an idiot or a puppet.
3np|1 year ago
?
PeterStuer|1 year ago
Tarsul|1 year ago
immibis|1 year ago
ulfw|1 year ago
gndk|1 year ago
yallpendantools|1 year ago
I've been living in Germany for a while now and have been trying to understand German politics in that time, including this whole concept of coalition governments and the crisis the Ampel is facing. Due to the latter, I came across this: https://www.dw.com/en/germany-could-face-snap-election/a-704...
In this article are statements such as (emphasis mine):
> Brandt called for a vote of confidence in the Bundestag with the aim of losing it, so that his chancellorship could be reconfirmed by voters in fresh elections.
> [Kohl] called for a vote of confidence, which he, too, deliberately lost on December 17, 1982.
> Schröder called for a vote of confidence, which he deliberately lost on July 1, 2005.
I just can't wrap my head around these in so many levels. The easier of these questions would be, how can a chancellor deliberately lose a vote of confidence? What makes the action deliberate exactly?
Brandt is a more complicated case to the point where I am, honestly, having a hard time putting my bewilderment into words. I'll try nonetheless: How can a chancellor expect voters in fresh elections to bolster their chancellorship, just right after losing a vote of confidence? I can only interpret this as some kind of political flex, basically telling the Bundestag that "I may not have your confidence but I still have mandate from the people".
(If it is, then, well, weird flex but ok, as we used to say a few years ago. It is a reason after all, even if I find it a bit absurd.)
Perhaps what adds to my confusion is, in Kohl's section we read: "Because Kohl's coalition of the CDU/CSU and FDP came to power through a vote of no confidence and not a general election, Kohl wished for additional legitimacy through a general election" which to me implies that Brandt's strategy would not have consolidated his position as strongly; indeed, the article notes his maneuver was fiercely criticized at the time.
I know I'm an idiot when it comes to German politics so I'd be glad if someone can make sense of my bewilderment. I know there is a lot of subtlety and context I am missing here and I'm sure I'm confusing one thing for another. But I strongly feel like this would go a long way to helping me understand the current machinations of the Ampel.
gndk|1 year ago
I'd say in general, because his party has gained in the polls since the original election that put him in office.
In Brandt's case, he probably indeed thought that voters would reward him for this "political flex" and selflessness for the benefit of the country. Asking for the vote and thereby risking his own career, but also resolving the stalemate in government after they had their majority dramatically reduced.
I'm guessing that Scholz has a similar idea, but with how much the SPD already lost in polls since the last election, I don't see it going well for them and him. In fact, a majority of people are very unhappy with the government and have been in favor of new elections for months now. His plan of getting "critical" bills passed before Christmas with this minority government won't work. Opposition parties would be suicidal to work with him. So I'd say, the longer Scholz waits, the worse the SPD results will be. He needs to ask for the vote immediately, not in 2 months.
1718627440|1 year ago
Just openly telling your coalition to not vote for you.
> How can a chancellor expect voters in fresh elections to bolster their chancellorship, just right after losing a vote of confidence?
I don't think saying "I came into power, but I'am not sure, if you really want me so please vote for me." will have negative effects on your election results.
> I can only interpret this as some kind of political flex, basically telling the Bundestag that "I may not have your confidence but I still have mandate from the people".
The chancellor gives up on forming the government, but it's the parliament's to vote for a new election.
cryptica|1 year ago
nicbou|1 year ago
I am a strong proponent of regulation, but the kind that involves computers, not faxes.
tcfhgj|1 year ago
dlahoda|1 year ago
de lead of that 2-3 team was putting some integration tests ignored and unignored several times during that time as stabilisation effort, sure they were not stabilized.
team we dependent on for car data lagged behind for month all time, and people were pieced off when i was going to sent prs to their code to speed up things.