Talk:Agenda 2010

Bias

This article is biased/wrong. Although it was seen as cuts, some policies actually let to the expansion of the social welfare system for the poorest and also cost in some cases. If you consider for example the deeply unpopular "Hartz 4" reform: The mid class unemployed lost significantly while the poorest gained. The focus of the reform was not cutting, but creating incentives (punishments and rewards) for a more active job search by the unemployed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.21.154.141 (talk) 21:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article also empathizes poverty ratios while neglecting, that in absolute terms poor people's standard of living continued to improve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.21.154.141 (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"reforms" etc

I've changed "reform" to change - I'm afraid writing "reform" in speech marks will make the piece sound too sarcastic and rant-like. The same for "conservative" and "supposed independence" - it sounds hostile, it's not going to make anyone want to read it.
"justifiedly" is not NPOV, I changed it to "justifiably" - is that NPOV anyone?!
"but their course is inconsistent." - what does this mean? Which course? in what way inconsistent? In whose view?

I'm not trying to change the article but just make it sound more reasonable, please be patient with my changes! Saintswithin 19:11, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Saintswithin, I've written most of that article, and can only thank you. I looks and sounds much better than before. Thank you also for correcting my grammatical and orthographical mistakes; English is not my native language. You're also right in your assessment that my original was ranting too much. Reading the article again, I must say it's been much improved by your changes. (No speech marks and no pun intended here.) 22:34, 4 Feb 2005 (CET)

Mass media bought by Industry?

From the article:

The German mass media (TV and radio stations, newspapers and magazines alike) in the majority welcomed the changes as "overdue"; there were very few critical comments. Since the media and journalists themselves suffer a lot from unemployment and low wages, and since many newspapers only just avoided bankruptcy after the new economy and media crash following the stock crash in 2000, it is possible that their independence has been undercut by threats from their industrial advertising partners. There has generally been a consistent trend toward more neoliberal positions in German media in the past few years, starting in the 1990s. I wonder where this information is from - I never read about this anywhere, not even on left-wing media or websites. Additionally, I found that the Agenda 2010 received rather critical comments in most of the middle-left papers, whereas middle-right papers advocated it, of course. Any sources for this? Otherwise, I'd like to remove this claim from the article. -- Philipp Krebs 02:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Seconded - this is a load of weasel worded bias. Mavzor 11:27, 15 August 2006