Trump chastises fellow NATO members, demands they meet payment obligations

but..but..european nato countries can`t afford to pay their share because they are spending all their money feeding and housing all those terrorists, oops I mean refugees.

originally posted by: TruMcCarthy
NATO is just taking advantage of the American taxpayer. They use US blood and treasure to accomplish their own goals. NATO is mostly for the protection of Europe, not the US.

Against whom for instance?

originally posted by: olaru12
This is cool...Trump really showed those wimps who's boss.

coolest thing you posted since.

Thats MY PRESIDENT RIGHT THERE, WAT SUP?!

originally posted by: Arnie123

originally posted by: olaru12
This is cool...Trump really showed those wimps who's boss.

coolest thing you posted since.

Thats MY PRESIDENT RIGHT THERE, WAT SUP?!

It was actually a photo op...hence the adjustment of the bosom.

a reply to: smurfy

Meh

Trump the diplomat in action:



Satire:

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: TruMcCarthy
NATO is just taking advantage of the American taxpayer. They use US blood and treasure to accomplish their own goals. NATO is mostly for the protection of Europe, not the US.

Against whom for instance?

You're joking right? You honestly don't know the objective of NATO and why it was formed?

originally posted by: smurfy
They didn't look all that er, chastised to me, some were having a titter.

Replace dead link.

a reply to: xuenchen

Maybe he should have asked the Pope at the recent catchup - the Vatican benefits from NATO defense

I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that everyone writing about this uses %GDP to compare military budgets, because that's the logical way to compare it between countries. The same people though, when they have an agenda like making it look like the US spends too much on our military, they do direct monetary comparisons that are completely misleading and don't take into account the differences between the countries. The tired old line about how the US spends more than the next x many countries combined? Yeah, because our economy is much bigger, we have more money to spend. As a percentage of GDP, US is not spending more than the next x many countries combined, in fact we're not even the biggest spender. We're 11th (sort by %GDP column). On a per capita basis, we're 4th.

Prime example of how you can make statistics say anything you want.

(And before anyone cries that I linked to Wikipedia, newsflash, the sources they used are at the bottom of the page, you can check it yourself)

Chastises NATO, kisses up to the home of the 9/11 terrorists.

a reply to: face23785

You make an interesting point. It underlines how statistics need to be questioned and interpreted and put into context. The United States may spend around 4% of its GDP on the military, while country X may spend 20% of GDP on the military, but if country X has a minuscule economy, that 20% may only buy a handful of military vehicles a few boxes of grenades and instruments for the Army band.

I think the US spends far too much on the military, but that is like saying that a heroin addict spends far too much on heroin, neglecting to mention that the addict's physiology and metabolism has integrated heroin into its operation. That is the situation of the US and the military industrial complex. As someone said, "the business of America used to be business, now the business of America is war."

When you talk about Donald Trump's and indeed America's insistence that NATO allies spend 2% of GDP on the military, one must think carefully, within each economy in question what does 2% amount to, what can be bought with it, how is that spending going to impact other programs and is 2% a reasonable amount for the economy in question to spend.

Another factor is the strategic importance of the country in question in strictly military terms. There are countries in Europe with tiny economies that are very important in strictly military terms, out of all proportion to the good that spending 2% on the military would ever do them, or anybody else for that matter. They will always have to be propped up, not because we like them but because they are strategically important in strictly military terms.

Another important point about this is that the request to spend 2% of GDP on defense, if followed, will translate into spending 2% of GDP in the American defense contracting sector. (Yes, I know there are other players, internationally in the defense contracting business, particularly the UK.) So, in a sense, urging other countries to spend 2% of GDP on defense is another way of urging NATO allies to spend 2% of GDP in the United States.

A country like Canada, on the other hand, has almost no strategic military importance, although it is rich enough to be a G7 country, i.e., one of the world's economic elite. It spends less than 2% of its GDP on the military, but it is a huge territory with a massive overhead of expenses, born by a very modest population of around 33 million people. It is difficult for Canadian politicians to make a convincing case for raising defense spending when one considers Canada's actual situation in military terms.

One of the reasons Donald Trump's efforts to improve relations with Russia are running into trouble is that a corollary to the Trump foreign policy would be a lessening of the necessity for anybody in NATO to be spending 2% of GDP on defense, particularly if Mr. Trump delivers a new era of peace and trust between the two super powers.

This prospect, less defense spending resulting from the Trump foreign policy, is certain to have been viewed with alarm among defense contractors and their oligarchical owners.

a reply to: ipsedixit

Yeah we spend too much on our military, unless you consider that defending the country is one of the only things the government is actually responsible for. Almost everything else we pay for is a "would be nice if we had the money", which right now we don't.

Yes, if you have a larger economy, 2% is a larger number, but you also have more money to work with. If you have a smaller economy, 2% is a smaller number, and you have less money to work with. That's the entire point of using percentages. It scales with the base number you're working with. What's your point? As I said, that's why it's the logical way to compare countries, unless you're trying to mislead people.

By the way, that's a cute quote about our business being war, unfortunately it's not true. If you want to go off actual numbers instead of clever-sounding slogans, the "business" of America right now is goods and services. Trade is pretty high up there as well. If you want to go strictly by the budget, the business of America is social programs There's simply no way you can break the numbers down to make the military the top draw. I apologize for any collateral damage from that bubble bursting.

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: ipsedixit

Yeah we spend too much on our military, unless you consider that defending the country is one of the only things the government is actually responsible for. Almost everything else we pay for is a "would be nice if we had the money", which right now we don't.

The point is American military expenditures are largely used to wage aggressive war. The notion that the United States is defending itself overseas is simply propaganda. Check my sig line. "We" may not have the money but somebody does.

Yes, if you have a larger economy, 2% is a larger number, but you also have more money to work with. If you have a smaller economy, 2% is a smaller number, and you have less money to work with. That's the entire point of using percentages. It scales with the base number you're working with. What's your point? As I said, that's why it's the logical way to compare countries, unless you're trying to mislead people.

To state the argument in purely statistical terms, as an arithmetical truism, is to oversimplify it. Other countries, for example are not so willing as America seems to be under Donald Trump, to cut social services to meet a very dubiously stated military threat by fractional increases in military spending. (Only Luxembourg is spending less than 1% of GDP on defense.)

Here is NATO nation military spending by country:

www.economist.com...



The general trend line is down in the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Even in America the percentage has gone up and down and is apparently on its way up again, although always well above the 2% level.

By the way, that's a cute quote about our business being war, unfortunately it's not true. If you want to go off actual numbers instead of clever-sounding slogans, the "business" of America right now is goods and services. Trade is pretty high up there as well. If you want to go strictly by the budget, the business of America is social programs There's simply no way you can break the numbers down to make the military the top draw. I apologize for any collateral damage from that bubble bursting.

The idea that the business of America is war may be derived from a perception based on America's well established international profile as an aggressor nation. Nobody is suggesting that Americans are using the military to plunder the shopping malls of America. It is interesting to note, however, that, as per one of your links,

www.thebalance.com...

The federal government spent $1.25 trillion in 2016. Almost 60 percent was military spending.

a reply to: ipsedixit

That $1.25T is discretionary spending, which is only part of the budget. Explained here. The actual percentage of the US budget spent on military hovers roughly between 15-20%. Sorry, no matter how you try to spin it the government is largely in the business of entitlements and trade. War is not our business. What level of merit you personally assign to the wars we fight simply doesn't change the numbers.

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: ipsedixit

That $1.25T is discretionary spending, which is only part of the budget. Explained here. The actual percentage of the US budget spent on military hovers roughly between 15-20%.

If you are spending half of your discretionary spending on the military that is a considerable emphasis. That would be like an average person spending half of their discretionary spending at the shooting range. I think most people would take that as indicative of a special interest in shooting.

Sorry, no matter how you try to spin it the government is largely in the business of entitlements and trade.

Entitlements are not a business. They are a cost of maintaining a stable society where people are accorded some degree of civilized dignity in illness, infirmity and old age or in special circumstances of economic deprivation. All civilized societies have entitlements and take them for normal.

As for trade, the government regulates it and is involved in international trade agreements though they are not "in business" themselves, except maybe for sales of surplus arms and equipment through sub departments of the Department of Defense (or any other government department having a garage sale).

War is not our business. What level of merit you personally assign to the wars we fight simply doesn't change the numbers.

Looking at the budget to see what "business" the government is in strikes me as being naive. The US military acts around the world in the interests of American corporations and has done so for generations. The Iraq war was the most egregious recent example, but virtually all of what NATO has done in the Middle East, under pressure from corporate interests in the US, France, Italy and the UK since 9/11 has been in quest of securing oil resources.

The important numbers involved in these ventures do not show up in the budget of the government itself.

a reply to: ipsedixit

Saying where the government spends money is not indicative of where it does business is completely dishonest. Nothing is free. For example the money we spend in medicare and medicaid that goes to hospitals, doctors, etc who provide the services. The majority of our tax dollars go to social programs. This is a fact. You've attempted a tremendous amount of spin but still have not changed this fact one iota. Sorry. I promise you'll be ok if you let go of the falsehood that our government's "business" is war. It is a falsehood.

a reply to: face23785

I think the American government's business, to a greater degree than any other government on the planet, is actually war. Yes, they do the other stuff that civilized governments do but who else is romping around the world imposing its military on other countries?

We had the Korean War in which it could be argued that China played an America like role in supporting a foreign ally. China invaded and occupied Tibet also in the 1950s. They haven't really done much else except for the terrifying exercise in atoll building in the South China Sea.

How about Russia? They reoccupied an old Russian empire possession of strategic importance, the Crimea. Their ethnic brothers in the Ukraine resisted a post coup Ukrainian government seeking close ties with the West and Russia joined in on their side, clandestinely at first. They rolled into South Ossetia to bump heads with Georgia. All of these things have occurred right on Russia's border up to which NATO (America is the determining country in the alliance) has been creeping, everywhere.

America, meanwhile has intervened militarily (broad definition) in some 70 countries since 1945, some of which, in fairness, the Soviet Union was involved in as well, either politically or militarily.

I only gave this article a cursory glance, but very conservatively, the US has intervened militarily in excess of 50 times in various places since 1990, . . . after, repeat, after the fall of the Soviet Union.

en.wikipedia.org...

I should also remind you that a small amount of money being spent doesn't mean war isn't being waged. The "do nothing" Obama administration managed to overthrow Gaddafi in Libya very cheaply by hoodwinking (probably not, they were probably in on the scam) NATO into implementing a fraudulent "No Fly" zone, which was then used to fly air cover for a bunch of hooligans in pick-up trucks, who overthrew the government. Oil industry business was definitely involved in that and America's business was, as so often, waging war to support corporate interests.

Looking at the budget and concluding that America is definitely not in the business of war, is disingenuous, in my opinion.

a reply to: gort51

NATO, North Atlantic Treaty Organisation...Canada.....connect the dots.

a reply to: ipsedixit

You can think whatever you want. The fact of the matter is the US government pays out more to the medical industry than to the defense industry. As a percentage of GDP, or on a per capita basis, or per geographical size, by any logical measure, we don't spend an abnormal amount of money on defense compared to other countries. I understand you're not interested in logic, you're interested in justifying a slogan you subscribed to because it sounded smart to you but didn't realize it was about as simplistic as a bumper sticker and not based in reality. The US government's "business" is in fact not war, no matter how much you want it to be.