We pay 22% of NATO's headquarters and internal staff and NATO soldier force budget, otherwise known as direct expenditures. It's a paltry number overall, maybe a few Billion dollars. We cover 70% of the indirect expenditures, which is the whopper of the money, and involves the contribution of military assets from soldiers, to ships, to planes, etc., etc. That's where the "free rider" idea comes from (Obama's words).bubbadog said:We pay 22 percent of NATO's budget.Canada2017 said:
75 years after the end of WW2....its ridiculous that American taxpayers are paying over 60% of NATO's budget while member countries do multi billion dollar deals with the same country we are defending them against.
Trump is a BOSS!
13,798 Views |
149 Replies |
Last: 6 yr ago by Golem
Alotta whining democrats here
Read an interesting book a year or two ago about slavery and the development of the Constitution. Title and author's name escape me at the moment. It has not been well taught how nearly the Framers came to abolishing slavery in 1789. As the author points out, many on both sides of the Mason-Dixon Line understood that slavery was incompatible with the nation's founding ideals. Several proposals were discussed, including sending the freed slaves to the new territories beyond the Appalachians. (It was generally agreed that blacks and whites could not live side by side as equals.) The colonization movement was discussed but viewed as unaffordable. The various proposals failed.
Many have assumed that these failures occurred because the deep South colonies, especially Georgia, would not consent to abolishing slavery. In truth, the author says, they were willing. The problem was that some of the northern states got cold feet and cut a deal in order to get economic concessions (wish I could remember the details now, but I can't; but that's the gist of it).
Many have assumed that these failures occurred because the deep South colonies, especially Georgia, would not consent to abolishing slavery. In truth, the author says, they were willing. The problem was that some of the northern states got cold feet and cut a deal in order to get economic concessions (wish I could remember the details now, but I can't; but that's the gist of it).
ATL Bear said:We pay 22% of NATO's headquarters and internal staff and NATO soldier force budget, otherwise known as direct expenditures. It's a paltry number overall, maybe a few Billion dollars. We cover 70% of the indirect expenditures, which is the whopper of the money, and involves the contribution of military assets from soldiers, to ships, to planes, etc., etc. That's where the "free rider" idea comes from (Obama's words).bubbadog said:We pay 22 percent of NATO's budget.Canada2017 said:
75 years after the end of WW2....its ridiculous that American taxpayers are paying over 60% of NATO's budget while member countries do multi billion dollar deals with the same country we are defending them against.
Thank you for the clarification.
Would it be too much to ask Trump to speak with more precision? Chuckle, of course. Who are we kidding?
NATO documents show that a majority of NATO members fail to meet NATO's guideline, established in 2006, that defense expenditures should amount to 2 percent of each country's gross domestic product. The median spending in 2015 is just 1.18 percent of GDP, compared to 3.7 percent for the United States, NATO says. Just four other countries currently exceed the 2 percent guideline.
"The volume of the US defense expenditure effectively represents 73 per cent of the defense spending of the Alliance as a whole," NATO says in a discussion of indirect funding. "This does not mean that the United States covers 73 per cent of the costs involved in the operational running of NATO as an organization, including its headquarters in Brussels and its subordinate military commands, but it does mean that there is an over-reliance by the Alliance as a whole on the United States for the provision of essential capabilities, including for instance, in regard to intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; air-to-air refueling; ballistic missile defense; and airborne electronic warfare."
NATO documents show that a majority of NATO members fail to meet NATO's guideline, established in 2006, that defense expenditures should amount to 2 percent of each country's gross domestic product. The median spending in 2015 is just 1.18 percent of GDP, compared to 3.7 percent for the United States, NATO says. Just four other countries currently exceed the 2 percent guideline.
"The volume of the US defense expenditure effectively represents 73 per cent of the defense spending of the Alliance as a whole," NATO says in a discussion of indirect funding. "This does not mean that the United States covers 73 per cent of the costs involved in the operational running of NATO as an organization, including its headquarters in Brussels and its subordinate military commands, but it does mean that there is an over-reliance by the Alliance as a whole on the United States for the provision of essential capabilities, including for instance, in regard to intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; air-to-air refueling; ballistic missile defense; and airborne electronic warfare."
Princess....did you even read your own article ?
" The volume of the US defense expenditure effectively represents 73 per cent of the defense spending of the Alliance as a whole ".
Trump is 100% right.....this situation is ridiculous and completely unfair to American taxpayers.
Past time for the people of Europe to pay for their own defense .
" The volume of the US defense expenditure effectively represents 73 per cent of the defense spending of the Alliance as a whole ".
Trump is 100% right.....this situation is ridiculous and completely unfair to American taxpayers.
Past time for the people of Europe to pay for their own defense .
and Trump is "stable genius " too.Canada2017 said:
Princess....did you even read your own article ?
" The volume of the US defense expenditure effectively represents 73 per cent of the defense spending of the Alliance as a whole ".
Trump is 100% right.....this situation is ridiculous and completely unfair to American taxpayers.
Past time for the people of Europe to pay for their own defense .
What is it about you con men and your need for a boss man? Why not a real boss man who doesn't have bone spurs and five deferments?Doc Holliday said:
Politicians thinking that the real negotiations and talk weren't going to start yet since the press was in the room, and Trump just says "f__k that lets go right now" and takes it to the EU and specifically Germany - WOW!'
I've never seen anyone speak truth and defend America like that against other global decision makers. Trump just put on a clinic on how to fight for American interests. He lets Germany talk their BS than INSTANTLY calls out the money that Germany is paying Russia for energy, and points out how Germany's former chancellor is profiting off of the deal, and asks why we should pay to protect Germany from Russia while Germany is enriching their so-called enemy.
Seriously, they had to kick the press out of the room because it got too real too fast.
This is our president. He loves America.
God bless America.
God bless Trump.
cinque said:and Trump is "stable genius " too.Canada2017 said:
Princess....did you even read your own article ?
" The volume of the US defense expenditure effectively represents 73 per cent of the defense spending of the Alliance as a whole ".
Trump is 100% right.....this situation is ridiculous and completely unfair to American taxpayers.
Past time for the people of Europe to pay for their own defense .
Certainly fair more stable than you.
You don't even read the articles you reference .
Doc Holliday said:
Politicians thinking that the real negotiations and talk weren't going to start yet since the press was in the room, and Trump just says "f__k that lets go right now" and takes it to the EU and specifically Germany - WOW!'
I've never seen anyone speak truth and defend America like that against other global decision makers. Trump just put on a clinic on how to fight for American interests. He lets Germany talk their BS than INSTANTLY calls out the money that Germany is paying Russia for energy, and points out how Germany's former chancellor is profiting off of the deal, and asks why we should pay to protect Germany from Russia while Germany is enriching their so-called enemy.
Seriously, they had to kick the press out of the room because it got too real too fast.
This is our president. He loves America.
God bless America.
God bless Trump.
While Trump sells us out to Russia, our adversary.
MRGA (make Russia great again!
LOLOLOL!!! You think telling Germany to stop buying Russia's major source of revenue and political power - natural gas - is "selling out to Russia". You are not smart.