Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 31
Thanks Tree38Thanks

Thread: Trump Still Distorting NATO Spending

  1. #11
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    2,056
    Thanks
    1582

    From
    DS9
    Quote Originally Posted by BigBob View Post
    Why is it that factcheck gets it correct when they check the facts?
    Why is it the deranged righties don't have a legitimate fact checker?

    Here's Politifact, once again spot on.

    Trump falsely claims NATO countries owe United States money for defense spending | PolitiFact

    Our ruling
    Trump said that "many countries owe us a tremendous amount of money for many years back."

    NATO members agreed to contribute at least 2 percent of their country’s GDP toward defense by 2024, but that defense spending does not take the form of payments to the United States or the alliance as a whole.

    We rate this statement False.
    Thanks from Friday13, BigLeRoy and BoiseBo

  2. #12
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    2,056
    Thanks
    1582

    From
    DS9
    The simple fact is NATO is a group effort, it has no "leader", the US especially Trump, doesn't run it or own it.
    Thanks from Friday13 and Panzareta

  3. #13
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    2,056
    Thanks
    1582

    From
    DS9
    Something else to ponder...Along with all the obvious comparisons to today's political climate to Nazi Germany in the 1930s and today under Trump, in the mid to late 1930s this nation saw an unfortunate surge of isolationism.

    Look where that got us.
    Thanks from Friday13

  4. #14
    New Member Izzshemovin's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    37
    Thanks
    27

    From
    Texas
    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gates-c...h-does-us-pay/

    The United States contributes between one-fifth and one-quarter of NATO's budget. In FY2010 that contribution totaled $711.8 million.

    But that factors in only direct payments, not deployments of personnel which - outside of special operations, such as in Afghanistan or Libya - may be used to train European forces (for example, in anti-terrorism skills) that benefit U.S. security.

    In February NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said that over the past two years, "defense spending by NATO's European member nations has shrunk by some 45 billion dollars" - the equivalent of Germany's entire annual defense budget.

    Gates' argument that by slashing their defense budgets European countries are allowing the U.S. to pick up the slack comes when the United States is already spending more on defense than all other nations on the planet combined, according to Boston University professor Andrew Bacevich.



    America's contribution to NATO's military budget - provided through the Department of the Army's Operations and Maintenance account - is under 23 percent. The U.S. contributed $408.051 million and $430.381 million, respectively, in FY2009 and FY2010, according to the Congressional Budget Service.

    After the U.S., the largest contributors to NATO's military budget are Germany (16.6 percent); France (12.4 percent); United Kingdom (12 percent); Italy (7.8 percent); Canada (5 percent); Spain (4.2 percent); Netherlands (3.3 percent); Belgium (2.6 percent); Poland (2.3 percent); Turkey (1.8 percent); Denmark (1.7 percent); and Norway (1.6 percent). Fifteen countries make up the remaining 5.8 percent.

    The U.S. contribution to NATO's Civil budget, provided through the State Department's Contributions to International Organizations, is approximately 21.7 percent, with payments of $66.1 million and $84.1 million, respectively, made In FY2009 and FY2010.

    The Congressional Budget Service notes that the new focus on NATO missions (and the resulting redirection of NSIP activities and spending for U.S. facilities at European bases) have provided beneficial infrastructural support for Pentagon missions (i.e. Desert Storm), as well as operations in Afghanistan and training in Iraq. (U.S. businesses haven't been hurt, either; The Defense Department says American companies have been successful in bidding on NSIP contracts.)

    Yet America's shares of the NSIP budget has slightly decreased in recent years, to 21.7 percent. The U.S. provides funds to NSIP through military construction appropriations: $330.867 million in FY 2009, $197.414 million in FY2010.

    And while the U.S. percentage of overall costs might not rise, actual dollars spent will, in the Obama Administration's FY2011 budget. Its military contribution would increase to $462.488 million, its civil budget contribution to $90.2 million, and its NSIP contribution to $258.884 million
    .

    Combined, the U.S. does pay much more toward NATO than other nations.

  5. #15
    New Member Izzshemovin's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    37
    Thanks
    27

    From
    Texas
    Quote Originally Posted by Mister B View Post
    The simple fact is NATO is a group effort, it has no "leader", the US especially Trump, doesn't run it or own it.
    IMO, the U.S. is the leader of NATO until the other countries begin contributing it's agreed upon percentage to the organization.

  6. #16
    Vexatious Correspondent Leo2's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2,901
    Thanks
    3885

    From
    UK/Australia
    Quote Originally Posted by Izzshemovin View Post
    IMO, the U.S. is the leader of NATO until the other countries begin contributing it's agreed upon percentage to the organization.
    Absolute nationalistic nonsense. The US pays its dues according to the agreed formula - as do the other members of NATO, and no NATO member is in arrears.

    The 2% is a proposed target, to be spent upon one's own defence arrangements - it is not owed to anyone, and is optional. That your Head of State either does not understand so important an issue, or is deliberately misrepresenting it, is something about which you should alarmed - not proud.

  7. #17
    New Member Izzshemovin's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    37
    Thanks
    27

    From
    Texas
    [QUOTE=Mister B;5978233]Why is it the deranged righties don't have a legitimate fact checker?

    QUOTE]

    I'd simply like to see an unbiased fact checking source, period.

  8. #18
    New Member Izzshemovin's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    37
    Thanks
    27

    From
    Texas
    Quote Originally Posted by Leo2 View Post
    Absolute nationalistic nonsense. The US pays its dues according to the agreed formula - as do the other members of NATO, and no NATO member is in arrears.

    The 2% is a proposed target, to be spent upon one's own defence arrangements - it is not owed to anyone, and is optional. That your Head of State either does not understand so important an issue, or is deliberately misrepresenting it, is something about which you should alarmed - not proud.

    Re bolded, I disagree. And the 2% is not optional. The U.S. is the only country living up to it's NATO obligations, and Trump is correct by pointing that out.
    Last edited by Izzshemovin; 11th July 2018 at 06:21 PM.

  9. #19
    Vexatious Correspondent Leo2's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2,901
    Thanks
    3885

    From
    UK/Australia
    Quote Originally Posted by Izzshemovin View Post
    Re bolded, I disagree. And the 2% is not optional. The U.S. is the only country living up to it's NATO obligations, and Trump is correct by pointing that out.
    With respect, I fear you may be confusing two different aspects of NATO funding. Member countries contribute in line with an agreed cost-sharing formula, based on Gross National Income. (GNI equals GDP plus income obtained in dividends, interest etc. from other countries.) Under that formula, the U.S. contributes 22.144 percent of the NATO budget, followed by Germany (14.65 percent), France (10.63 percent) and Britain (9.84 percent). The national contributions go towards NATO’s military costs, civilian costs and the NATO Security Investment Program (NSIP), which deals with investment in command and control systems etc.

    What appears to be confusing many people, including your President (who really ought to know better), is this occurrence (and bear in mind the 2% is a guideline proposal - not a binding contract or agreement).

    At the NATO summit four years ago, the allies declared their commitment to “reverse the trend of declining defense budgets, to make the most effective use of our funds and to further a more balanced sharing of costs and responsibilities.” To that end, the heads of state and government gathered in Wales that summer recommitted themselves to increasing defense spending in real terms and achieving the NATO guideline to spend a minimum of 2 percent of each member’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on defense by 2024.

    Scaled to the scope of their interests and grand strategies, our NATO allies are generally committing about the same proportion of GDP to the defense of Europe as the United States.
    NATO?s 2 Percent Guideline: What About the United States?
    Thanks from Panzareta

  10. #20
    New Member Izzshemovin's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    37
    Thanks
    27

    From
    Texas
    Quote Originally Posted by Leo2 View Post
    With respect, I fear you may be confusing two different aspects of NATO funding. Member countries contribute in line with an agreed cost-sharing formula, based on Gross National Income. (GNI equals GDP plus income obtained in dividends, interest etc. from other countries.) Under that formula, the U.S. contributes 22.144 percent of the NATO budget, followed by Germany (14.65 percent), France (10.63 percent) and Britain (9.84 percent). The national contributions go towards NATO’s military costs, civilian costs and the NATO Security Investment Program (NSIP), which deals with investment in command and control systems etc.

    What appears to be confusing many people, including your President (who really ought to know better), is this occurrence (and bear in mind the 2% is a guideline proposal - not a binding contract or agreement).

    NATO?s 2 Percent Guideline: What About the United States?

    Thanks for the information. Re bolded, if that is the case, perhaps the U.S. should simply reduce it's contribution to reflect that of the other country's contribution.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 38
    Last Post: 7th July 2016, 06:53 PM
  2. Replies: 19
    Last Post: 17th December 2015, 05:08 PM
  3. Prove that government spending is more econ. stimulating than private sector spending
    By NonPartisanCapitalist in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 186
    Last Post: 7th October 2012, 02:15 PM
  4. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 7th December 2011, 11:48 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed