Schroeder Continues Slide Into The Dustheap Of History - Page 2

Atahualpa · September 22, 2003, 05:23

I wonder why there are no numbers of the percentage of people that voted at all. I heard it to be very low.

Harovan · September 22, 2003, 05:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Atahualpa
I wonder why there are no numbers of the percentage of people that voted at all. I heard it to be very low.

Where, in Bavaria? 57.3%

HershOstropoler · September 22, 2003, 05:42

nye:

"The truth is your side cannot tolerate a real difference from you."

Yes sure, having the opinion "this war is stupid - we don't want a piece of it" is a lack of tolerance for Bush's wars. Evil, intolerant europeans. And antisemitic, too, in some way. Anyone who doesn't like bombing arabs has to be antisemitic.

The Mad Monk · September 22, 2003, 05:44

Why is Stoiber loved in Bavaria and loathed elsewhere?

Proteus_MST · September 22, 2003, 05:55

Quote:

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Why is Stoiber loved in Bavaria and loathed elsewhere?

Traditions and/or a difference in Mentality.
It hasn´t to do anything with him being Stoiber, but with him being Cancicate of the CSU.
For some strange Reasons the CSU is the Party of Choice in Bavaria, SPD and othr Parties never ever had a chance to get elected there.

But why?
Maybe mentality.
After all large Parts of Bavaria are somewhat more religious (mostly Catholicism [which is btw. considered to be a more conservative Religion than other Religions here]) than other Parts of the BRD (which may have to do with the Fact, that Bavaria is very mountainous and large parts of the Bavarian opulaton live in very small rural townships, where the Catholic Church has a lot of Influence).
And CSU stands für Christian socialistic Union, i.e. for a Christian (and btw. more conservative) Party.

Maybe therefore the CSU will still get elected in Bavaria in 20 years

Harovan · September 22, 2003, 06:03

Quote:

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Why is Stoiber loved in Bavaria and loathed elsewhere?

There's a certain anti-bavarian resentment in the population, similar to the anti-texan in the USA. Bavarians are seen as separatistic and reactionary nutcases. And since Stoiber sounds off with "Bavaria first" paroles and permanently resorts to self-compliments ("we're the greatest and best and y'all are dorks"

, as if Bavaria wasn't subsided for decades by the other states), people see in him the Über-nutcase.

DanielXY · September 22, 2003, 06:03

Stoiber stands for traditional values (= values from 100years ago or even more back in time...). The Bavarians like that. Most other Germans do not (or at least not that radical...).

Harovan · September 22, 2003, 06:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
And CSU stands für Christian socialistic Union, i.e. for a Christian (and btw. more conservative) Party.

It stands for "Christian-Social Union". You could be tared and feathered in Bavaria, if you call the CSU "socialist".

Quote:

Maybe therefore the CSU will still get elected in Bavaria in 20 years

That's for sure. May be I will elect them next time too, if I then still live in Bavaria, that is.

Proteus_MST · September 22, 2003, 06:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Sir Ralph

It stands for "Christian-Social Union". You could be tared and feathered in Bavaria, if you call the CSU "socialist".

Yep. My fault, maybe someting to do with Freud

Just too little Contact to the CSU, as I live in NRW

Atahualpa · September 22, 2003, 07:24

Interesting that the percentage of people who voted dropped from 69.8% in 1998 to 57.3%. Thats a hefty drop of 12.5%

The SPD and CSU both have lost very much to non-voters (source (german): http://stat.tagesschau.de/wahl-03-by/ )

Overall I think it is quite strange to speak of victory and all that when just a bit more than 50% of the people cared to vote. This is IMO a defeat to all politicians and parties.

Just imagine there are sitting about 20-30% of the people that may want to vote but do not because of frustration or lack of choice.
If somebody does not motivate these people democracy will utterly fail in the end.

ata

BeBro · September 22, 2003, 07:30

Most of the people that didn´t vote were probabaly disappointed SPD voters. Also the good weather may have played a role.

Edit: And of course the fact that the polls indicated already a huge victory for the CSU before sunday.

BeBro · September 22, 2003, 07:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin
Dyl: Do you honestly contest that Schroeder was not behind in the polls before he began his anti-American rants? It's pretty clear he moved into the lead upon his anti-Bush/American positions.

Well clearly his anti-Iraq-war position helped him, but to equate Anti-War=Anti-American is IMO much too simple. He also gained a lot of support when he handled the flood crisis in Eastern Germany before the elections.

I don´t question that there is a certain stupid anti-American ressentiment in a certain part of the German population, but to the bigger part what many Americans view as anti-Americanism is mainly anti-Bushism, because many people simply do not like his policies. That is not the same as holding stupid stereotypes about America or its people as a whole (as said such views exist too, but I doubt they play the biggest role).

DanS · September 22, 2003, 10:24

Quote:

And since Stoiber sounds off with "Bavaria first" paroles and permanently resorts to self-compliments ("we're the greatest and best and y'all are dorks" , as if Bavaria wasn't subsided for decades by the other states), people see in him the Über-nutcase.

But the fact remains that you can't argue with the success that Bavaria has built. Bavaria should be emulated rather than dumped on.

Harovan · September 22, 2003, 10:32

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
But the fact remains that you can't argue with the success that Bavaria has built. Bavaria should be emulated rather than dumped on.

True, but every state would flourish like Bavaria after decades of getting money sticked in every hole. After WW2 Bavaria was a backward agrarian country. To make it an efficient industrial and high tech state took the effort of the whole Germany. The economical success of Bavaria in general and the CSU in particular is out of question, after all the subsidies were well invested instead of being consumed, but Stoibers pointing at the own chest and yelling "we are the greatest and you should take us as example" is misplaced and of course not very welcome in the rest of Germany.

DanS · September 22, 2003, 10:39

Quote:

True, but every state would flourish like Bavaria after decades of getting money sticked in every hole. After WW2 Bavaria was a backward agrarian country. To make it an efficient industrial and high tech state took the effort of the whole Germany

I would have to see some figures for the magnitude of these subsidies versus the subsidies that others have received.

Quote:

but Stoibers pointing at the own chest and yelling "we are the greatest and you should take us as example" is misplaced and of course not very welcome in the rest of Germany

No, it's perfectly placed, if not very welcomed.

Harovan · September 22, 2003, 10:55

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
I would have to see some figures for the magnitude of these subsidies versus the subsidies that others have received.

I couldn't afford to do a complete search (I have to leave now), but alone according to the financial equalization scheme between the German states Bavaria got 6.6 billion DM from 1950 to 1986, whereas Northrhine-Westphalia paid in it 11.2 billions. This number does not include federal subsidies.

Atahualpa · September 22, 2003, 10:57

With Hesse being the biggest payer! Sahib once said this. Is he still around?

DanS · September 22, 2003, 12:20

Quote:

but alone according to the financial equalization scheme between the German states Bavaria got 6.6 billion DM from 1950 to 1986, whereas Northrhine-Westphalia paid in it 11.2 billions

Do you mean 6.6 billion DM total? That's a pittance over 36 years and wouldn't have any substantial impact on development.

Harovan · September 22, 2003, 13:34

Well, the Marshall aid for Germany was measly 1.2 billion $ in grants and 200 million $ in loans, and still it helped. Germany was very poor after the war, it was almost completely destroyed and there was not much to share.

I said that's only money out of the financial equation scheme between the states (the rich ones pay into the pot, the poor receive). It does not contain federal subsidies into the road and rail network (which is also true for the other states, but Bavaria as agrarial country was especially poor of infrastructure), it does not contain, that the northern Germans practically paid medical aid (through the solidarically fed medical insurance) and pensions (through the common pension fund) for the Bavarians for decades, when they didn't yet have much to contribute.

If you reread my statement, you will find, that I don't negate the Bavarian economical achievements. The money they got was certainly well invested, whereas others only consumed. But boasting about it is misplaced. Look, the former communist east now gets a huge financial and infrastructural aid. What do you think, would it be right, if they after 36 years being at the receiving end started to point their thumbs on their chests and said "look what we achieved"?

Lancer · September 22, 2003, 13:45

As long as German leadership keeps running away from problems with its tail between its legs in foriegn policy, the Germans will be generally happy about it. If their barbarian forefathers could see them now they would roll over in their graves. I guess there's just too many guys wereing panties over there, trooping around la dee da...

Ecthy · September 22, 2003, 13:54

Nice try Lance, noone's falling for it. Go posting in http://www.apolyton.com/forums/showt...threadid=96372

Well, it does seem that progressive democracy in the west has lost Bavaria to reaction

Lancer · September 22, 2003, 14:12

Thanks for the link Etc..

Ecthy · September 22, 2003, 14:29

DanS · September 22, 2003, 14:43

Ralph: That is a bad example. Indeed it illustrates the relative modesty of the subsidies given to Bavaria. The Marshall Plan was modest in size, and its helpfulness was due primarily to its timeliness. This is so, even though the US directly aided Germany by a larger amount before the Marshall Plan.

It wouldn't be correct for the US to appropriate credit for Germany's economic gains over the last half century, just as I suspect it wouldn't be correct for others to appropriate credit for Bavaria's gains.

HershOstropoler · September 22, 2003, 14:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Sir Ralph

I couldn't afford to do a complete search (I have to leave now), but alone according to the financial equalization scheme between the German states Bavaria got 6.6 billion DM from 1950 to 1986, whereas Northrhine-Westphalia paid in it 11.2 billions. This number does not include federal subsidies.

The transfers are pretty much irrelevant. The main advantage for Bavaria was that it had little in old industries, like steel, ship building etc. This has been aggrevated by attempts to keep those old industries alive, you all know your Kohlepfennig.

Just a little check - Austria has been in a quite similar situation as Bavaria, with some extra drawbacks and certainly no external subsidies. And we're only little behind Bavaria in things like GDP per capita.

Oerdin · September 22, 2003, 15:02

Ralph: You need to adjust the Marshell plan money for 60 years worth of inflation.

Ecthy · September 22, 2003, 15:25

2 words: reac-tion.

Harovan · September 22, 2003, 15:39

Ok, ok I stand corrected by the economy cracks.

And I don't have for myself any problems neither with Bavarians (since I make my money here, that would be ungrateful, wouldn't it?) nor with anyone else. Still I don't like Stoibers boasting, or boasting in general. This applies, btw, to some of our American friends as well.

Oerdin: I know, but that applies to both the Marshall money and the subsidies and is therefor in this discussion pretty much irrelevant.

Ecthy · September 22, 2003, 16:10

economy cracks? they're just reactionary money nazis