- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Trump made an interesting point about our GDP and NATO
Posted on 7/12/18 at 9:30 am to Tchefuncte Tiger
Posted on 7/12/18 at 9:30 am to Tchefuncte Tiger
quote:
My question is why is the United States contributing nearly 4% to NATO instead of the agreed upon 2%? Is it to cover the scofflaws?
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.
Posted on 7/12/18 at 9:33 am to TBoy
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
Posted on 7/12/18 at 9:40 am to cave canem
I agree that this 2% minimum isn't a payment to NATO, but how do they pay staff, have the nice fancy buildings, etc?
We have to be contributing something.
We have to be contributing something.
Posted on 7/12/18 at 9:43 am to KosmoCramer
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.
Posted on 7/12/18 at 9:47 am to Swm323
quote:
I say that until everyone ponies up their 2% we don't make another payment.
Posted on 7/12/18 at 9:53 am to TBoy
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.
Posted on 7/12/18 at 9:55 am to cave canem
quote:
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.
Why is defense in quotes?
Posted on 7/12/18 at 9:56 am to TBoy
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.
Posted on 7/12/18 at 10:01 am to NikolaiJakov
quote:
Why is defense in quotes?
Because I in no way believe it is being spent in Defense of this country, it is being spent to line the pockets of the MIC and their whores in congress.
Just welfare for a different group of folks on a much larger scale.
Posted on 7/12/18 at 10:09 am to TBoy
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.
>
This post was edited on 7/12/18 at 10:18 am
Posted on 7/12/18 at 10:12 am to Homesick Tiger
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.
Posted on 7/12/18 at 10:16 am to Tchefuncte Tiger
quote:
Okay. Thanks for the clarification.
Funding NATO
That's actually a very good link for people to go to. As you will note from the link, the common costs (overhead) are shared by a formula set out by agreement.
That has absolutely nothing to do with what Trump is talking about. No one is accusing other member nations of not paying their share for that.
Trump wants other member nations to spend more of their money on their own militaries. That has nothing to do whatsoever with the shared cost of operating NATO.
Posted on 7/12/18 at 10:17 am to TBoy
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
Posted on 7/12/18 at 10:23 am to TBoy
quote:
Trump wants other member nations to spend more of their money on their own militaries.
...and what's wrong with this, and can you explain to me the graphic I posted? On what does the United States pay over 22%, and how can you have an organization, like NATO, where members don't pay dues or have some other method to fund its operations? I get that the NATO agreement requires members to pay a certain percentage on their own military forces, but there has to be some funding mechanism to finance NATO.
If countries don't live up to their end of an agreement, then somebody has to make up the difference. If 29 people go to a restaurant for dinner, that bill has to get paid somehow. If 28 people don't pay their agreed upon share, then the 29th has to cover the balance. Am I not wrong?
This post was edited on 7/12/18 at 10:33 am
Posted on 7/12/18 at 10:24 am to Homesick Tiger
quote:
NATO is using the U.S. as the banker to finance their country's defenses
Bankers get paid back. We're their parents
Posted on 7/12/18 at 10:42 am to TBoy
quote:
TBoy
No, we don’t pay into NATO, but he is correct that the rest of the world uses us to finance their defenses. If they built up their own armies, we could scale down our foreign presence, which would cost us less money. His premise is correct, and you’re arguing semantics.
Posted on 7/12/18 at 10:47 am to Magician2
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?
Posted on 7/12/18 at 10:55 am to Homesick Tiger
This has huge implications for America, with all the spending on defense and defense contractors everywhere making the NATO allies raise their defense spending almost definitely means more money into us businesses as they win contracts.
He is single handedly decreasing the trade deficit by forcing Europe’s hand.
He is single handedly decreasing the trade deficit by forcing Europe’s hand.
This post was edited on 7/12/18 at 10:59 am
Posted on 7/12/18 at 10:58 am to VegaIsMyHomeBoy
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.
Posted on 7/12/18 at 11:07 am to Homesick Tiger
quote:
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.
its called an alliance, if Russia attacks one of those countries and they get steamrolled then it is up to the USA to pick up the slack because of their larger standing army. It isn't like if a threat pops up you can grow your army after your conquered. This is like going into business with 27 other people and each one of them agreeing to put up xyz dollars of investment to keep another company from taking over, and you put up your money and then they don't.
This post was edited on 7/12/18 at 11:08 am
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News