re: Trump made an interesting point about our GDP and NATO

quote:

---

Again, we don’t “contribute 4% to NATO.” We spend 4% of our own GDP on our own military budget because we have decided to spend that much of our money on our military. We don’t pay that money to anyone.

---

Dude, we are definitely on opposite sides of the isle and I often question your sanity but in this thread you were clearly the only poster who has had a fricking clue thus far.

the stupid is strong this morning

quote:

---

We have to be contributing something.

---

NATO’s overhead expenses are paid according to an agreed upon split. We pay around 22% of that, I think. Every member nation pays what it owes to that account. There is no allegation that one or more member nations aren’t paying their share of operational overhead.

quote:

---

NATO’s overhead expenses are paid according to an agreed upon split. We pay around 22% of that, I think. Every member nation pays what it owes to that account. There is no allegation that one or more member nations aren’t paying their share of operational overhead.

---

The operational expenses are peanuts and not a bad deal, the elephant in the room that everyone is choosing to ignore is the roughly 800 BILLION we will spend on "Defense" this year.

quote:

---

NATO’s overhead expenses are paid according to an agreed upon split. We pay around 22% of that,

---

You just said "we don't pay into NATO". Yet here you are saying we do. Make up your mind.

quote:

---

Again, we don’t “contribute 4% to NATO.” We spend 4% of our own GDP on our own military budget because we have decided to spend that much of our money on our military. We don’t pay that money to anyone.

---

Okay. Thanks for the clarification.

Funding NATO

quote:

---

DIRECT FUNDING OF NATO

Direct financial contributions to NATO come principally in two different forms: common funding and joint funding. They can also come in the form of trust funds, contributions in kind, ad hoc sharing arrangements and donations.

Several factors influence the choice of funding source to address a given priority. These include the required level of integration or interoperability, affordability at the national level, the complexity of the system involved, and the potential for economies of scale. Often, a combination of funding sources is used.

The principle of common funding

When a need for expenditure has been identified, countries in the Resource Policy and Planning Board discuss whether the principle of common funding should be applied – in other words whether the requirement serves the interests of all the contributing countries and should therefore be borne collectively.

The criteria for common funding are held under constant review and changes may be introduced as a result of changing circumstances, for instance, the need to support critical requirements in support of Alliance operations and missions.

Common-funding arrangements principally include the NATO civil and military budgets, as well as the NATO Security Investment Programme (NSIP). These are the only funds where NATO authorities identify the requirements and set the priorities in line with overarching Alliance objectives and priorities.

Where military common funding is concerned – the military budget and the NSIP – the guiding principle for eligibility is the “over and above” rule:

“Common funding will focus on the provision of requirements which are over and above those which could reasonably be expected to be made available from national resources.”

Member countries contribute to NATO in accordance with an agreed cost-sharing formula based on Gross National Income.

---

>

quote:

---

You just said "we don't pay into NATO". Yet here you are saying we do. Make up your mind.

---

So what are you upset about? Are you in the camp which believes that the U.S. shouldn't spend any percentage of its GDP on defense until Luxembourg pays its 2%?

NATO's overhead expenses are not in dispute, not even by Trump. The issue is the amount of money each country spends on its own military.

The U.S. has bases all over the world, hundreds of thousands of troops, air bases, naval bases, land bases. Our military spending overall doesn't have jack to do with NATO. We aren't "carrying freeloaders" in NATO.

If you think that we are, please explain how.

quote:

---

The issue is the amount of money each country spends on its own military.

---

exactly, you are doing God's work in this thread

quote:

---

NATO is using the U.S. as the banker to finance their country's defenses

---

Bankers get paid back. We're their parents

quote:

---

He can easily turn off the valve...

We shouldn’t be obligated to put in more. We need to just contribute our 2%.

---

I am 100% in favor of your proposal to slash the United States defense budget nearly in half, from around 3.5% of our GDP down to 2%.

Based on the fact that your post has 16 upvotes vs only 2 downvotes, it is clear that the majority of this board agrees with you as well.

Gee, it'd be pretty embarrassing for you guys if you were all on here bitching about the 2% figure without realizing that it refers to DOMESTIC defense spending and not some kind of check we write to NATO. Thankfully, I know a Trump supporter would NEVER bitch about an issue they were completely ignorant regarding. So when do we start calling our representatives to tell them that the silent majority demands that we cut the military in half?

quote:

---

it'd be pretty embarrassing for you guys if you were all on here bitching about the 2% figure without realizing that it refers to DOMESTIC defense spending and not some kind of check we write to NATO

---

Exactly how do we support NATO if there is not a check writing in there somewhere? As someone said, you're arguing semantics here. I don't directly pay the farmer that grows the wheat for my loaf of bread but anyone with common sense knows I support his livelihood. Same thing with this NATO shite.