Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Talk > Americas


Thanks Tree51Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old March 19th, 2017, 04:30 PM   #31
Senior Member
 
Clara007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Arizona
Posts: 6,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by caconservative View Post
If Germany has been underfunding it's obligation, who's been contributing more to make up for that loss of revenue? Would that be the US?

That's not how it works. Let's try this again and someone please feel free to correct me if I have misunderstood the NATO funding policy, but ONLY if you have a credible link.
Here we go. *The members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) pledged in 2014 to increase their country's defense spending to 2 percent of their gross domestic products by 2024. *The 2% pledge is not legally binding. *The pledge is based on a country's willingness to beef up their military spending *The pledge is an "obligation" to spend, not necessarily it's readiness, it's deployability, it's quality or even willingness to participate in conflict. *The pledge is to be met within 10 years and 2017 is the 3rd year. *Over the last few years the 2% metric seems to measure Europe's dedication to NATO, which the U.S. now seems to doubt--this is NOT GOOD. Trump has named and shamed. *The 2% must be spent on defense regardless of the country's size, economic status, or...need.

Trump says the US pays the "lion's share"...and..."we get ripped off by every country in NATO, where they pay virtually nothing... without explaining why.
Currently the U.S. pays about 22 percent, compared to about 15 percent for Germany, 11 percent for France, 10 percent for the United Kingdom, 8 percent for Italy, 7 percent for Canada, and so forth....because our GDP is $18 trillion. States like California, Texas and New York have bigger GDPs than countries like Italy, India, Spain and Russia.

Anyone? Comments?
Thanks from GhostRider
Clara007 is offline  
Old March 19th, 2017, 04:35 PM   #32
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: LA LA Land North
Posts: 24,914
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clara007 View Post
That's not how it works. Let's try this again and someone please feel free to correct me if I have misunderstood the NATO funding policy, but ONLY if you have a credible link.
Here we go. *The members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) pledged in 2014 to increase their country's defense spending to 2 percent of their gross domestic products by 2024. *The 2% pledge is not legally binding. *The pledge is based on a country's willingness to beef up their military spending *The pledge is an "obligation" to spend, not necessarily it's readiness, it's deployability, it's quality or even willingness to participate in conflict. *The pledge is to be met within 10 years and 2017 is the 3rd year. *Over the last few years the 2% metric seems to measure Europe's dedication to NATO, which the U.S. now seems to doubt--this is NOT GOOD. Trump has named and shamed. *The 2% must be spent on defense regardless of the country's size, economic status, or...need.

Trump says the US pays the "lion's share"...and..."we get ripped off by every country in NATO, where they pay virtually nothing... without explaining why.
Currently the U.S. pays about 22 percent, compared to about 15 percent for Germany, 11 percent for France, 10 percent for the United Kingdom, 8 percent for Italy, 7 percent for Canada, and so forth....because our GDP is $18 trillion. States like California, Texas and New York have bigger GDPs than countries like Italy, India, Spain and Russia.

Anyone? Comments?
Clara, what do the 22%, 11% and so on mean? What are those numbers a percent of?

Are those cash contributions to the operation of NATO HQ and other overhead?

I was under the impression that expenditures on NATO operations was in fact included in the 2% of GDP figures.
RNG is offline  
Old March 19th, 2017, 04:49 PM   #33
Exposing Rightwing lies
 
GhostRider's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Anywhereiam, USA
Posts: 6,096
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clara007 View Post
It's that DAMN fuzzy math again.
The right uses alternative math.😎
GhostRider is offline  
Old March 19th, 2017, 05:15 PM   #34
Senior Member
 
Clara007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Arizona
Posts: 6,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
Clara, what do the 22%, 11% and so on mean? What are those numbers a percent of?

Are those cash contributions to the operation of NATO HQ and other overhead?

I was under the impression that expenditures on NATO operations was in fact included in the 2% of GDP figures.

I tried to find a pie chart which would show NATO spending. The 22% is our portion of NATO’s spending. I assume that the contributions cover all operations and overhead, although countries like the U.S. and allies often make voluntary contributions for disasters and humanitarian relief.

I'm not sure I understand your last statement. Can you expound?
Clara007 is offline  
Old March 19th, 2017, 05:53 PM   #35
Banned
 
coke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: nunya
Posts: 12,580
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabcat View Post
Fuck NATO, fuck the EU and fuck Canada too.

Close all international US military operations, bring home every troup and every bullet. Dissolve our relationship w/ NATO and form an alliance w/ Russia. Fuck them all.
Russia?
Thanks from imaginethat
coke is offline  
Old March 19th, 2017, 06:15 PM   #36
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 53,905
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clara007 View Post
I tried to find a pie chart which would show NATO spending. The 22% is our portion of NATO’s spending. I assume that the contributions cover all operations and overhead, although countries like the U.S. and allies often make voluntary contributions for disasters and humanitarian relief.

I'm not sure I understand your last statement. Can you expound?
Here's what I found:
Overall Defense Spending Among NATO Members

In 2015, the United States spent more on overall defense than all other NATO members. The U.S. defense budget accounts for 73 percent of total alliance military expenditures. This is not surprising, given America’s unique security commitments around the world as a global leader. According to NATO figures, the United States spent $650 billion on defense expenditures in 2015, while the other NATO members spent a total of $243 billion, as shown in the chart below.



NATO Contributions

Defense spending within a country’s domestic budget should not be confused with NATO contributions. As the largest NATO contributor, the United States currently accounts for 18 percent of all NATO contributions, as shown in the chart below. The other largest contributors (in order) are Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Italy, and Canada. A recent report by an independent Dutch auditing organization revealed that the United States contributed $1.7 billion to NATO in 2014, while the other NATO members contributed a total of $7.8 billion.



The 2 Percent Pledge

In 2006, defense ministers of NATO member states collectively pledged to spend at least 2 percent of each country’s GDP on defense. At the time of the pledge, six countries were already spending at or above the 2 percent level: Bulgaria, France, Greece, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Shortly after other countries began to increase defense budgets, the 2008-2009 global financial crisis forced most alliance members to cut defense spending and limit NATO contributions.
Now here's the kicker:
The 2 percent pledge is a target for defense spending within the country’s domestic budget and does not refer to a member’s NATO contribution. The organization determines each member’s cost-share contribution using proportional ratios based on the size of a country’s GDP. The countries that financially contribute most to NATO are those with the largest economies, first and foremost the United States. Although the cost-share ratios provide a clearer picture of burden sharing by member states, the formulas do not account for the diversity of contributions that countries provide to NATO activities. These contributions can come in many forms, including troops, aircraft, and sea vessels in addition to monetary contributions.
https://www.americanactionforum.org/research/12484/
Thanks from Hollywood, Clara007 and GhostRider
imaginethat is offline  
Old March 19th, 2017, 06:53 PM   #37
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: LA LA Land North
Posts: 24,914
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clara007 View Post
I tried to find a pie chart which would show NATO spending. The 22% is our portion of NATO’s spending. I assume that the contributions cover all operations and overhead, although countries like the U.S. and allies often make voluntary contributions for disasters and humanitarian relief.

I'm not sure I understand your last statement. Can you expound?
I have no idea how the overhead is paid for.

My last statement covers things like right now there are Canadian troops leading a NATO contingent in Latvia which is there as a deterrent to Russian aggression. The money we spend on that operation can be included in the calculation of our 2% contribution.

As I say, I assume the overhead is separate.

Canadian-led battle group will deploy to Latvia, part of NATO move to deter Russia - Politics - CBC News
Thanks from Clara007
RNG is offline  
Old March 19th, 2017, 08:25 PM   #38
Banned
 
excalibur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: The Milky Way
Posts: 24,581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
Why is it when liberals want to make the point the US spends too much on defense, they make a comparison of US defense spending to other countries in total dollars, but when they want to defend other countries spending regarding NATA, they switch to a percentage of GDP?

And where are these liberal /Progs on NATO? Hmmmm? They want to remain in [NATO], some want confrontation with Russia, but not spend money on defense? The Progs will be the death of many with their inanities.



Last edited by excalibur; March 19th, 2017 at 08:27 PM.
excalibur is offline  
Old March 19th, 2017, 08:46 PM   #39
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 53,905
Quote:
Originally Posted by excalibur View Post
And where are these liberal /Progs on NATO? Hmmmm? They want to remain in [NATO], some want confrontation with Russia, but not spend money on defense? The Progs will be the death of many with their inanities.
And in the meantime, the cons aren't reassured by the US' awesome military weaponry, nor the fact that the US spends on defense as much as the next 8-12 countries combined. Nope.

We've got to rebuild the world's most awesome and battle-tested military and spend $56 billion more on defense right out of the gate, just to qualm everyone's fears.

Have you seen Russia's new main battle tank?

What percent of the Progs you figure want confrontation with Russia? How much is some iow, and what's your evidence?
Thanks from Hollywood, Clara007 and GhostRider
imaginethat is offline  
Old March 20th, 2017, 04:44 AM   #40
Senior Member
 
Clara007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Arizona
Posts: 6,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by excalibur View Post
And where are these liberal /Progs on NATO? Hmmmm? They want to remain in [NATO], some want confrontation with Russia, but not spend money on defense? The Progs will be the death of many with their inanities.




What are you blathering about?? We are just discussing NATO's budget, the members' contributions, and how it all sifts out.....but in your world (and Jimmy's), our discussion centers around a confrontation with Russia, which we look forward to, like a Sunday picnic after church....and as if that's not enough for you, because some of us have a different political view (YES, I'm all for NATO) WE will be the....what was it....oh yes....THE DEATH of MANY. AND of course, we hate the U.S. military, even though some of us have actually BEEN in the military, worked for the MILITARY--family and friends have given their LIVES for this country IN THE MILITARY.
Here's a bit of breaking news: we are discussing NATO's budget. Because we want to know how it works. Because we like facts. You should try FACTS some time. You might actually like FACTS. HAA--just kidding. You wouldn't.
Thanks from RNG, Hollywood and GhostRider
Clara007 is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Talk > Americas

Tags
ignorant, nato, trump



Search tags for this page
Click on a term to search for related topics.
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Trump, the most ignorant president ever. GhostRider Americas 12 February 11th, 2017 05:11 PM
Head of NATO slams the Trump GhostRider Americas 16 August 22nd, 2016 11:45 PM
Trump: Rethink NATO excalibur Current Events 3 March 22nd, 2016 06:16 PM
FACT SHEET: NATO and U.S. Efforts in Support of NATO Partners, Including Ukraine, Mol The White House The White House 0 September 5th, 2014 08:10 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.