Skip to main content

https://twitter.com/i/moments/843210084284997633

 

Former US ambassador to NATO fact checks Trump's Tweets

Politics 2 hours ago
Ivo Daalder explained how NATO and defense spending works after the president tweeted that Germany owes money to NATO and the U.S. for providing defense.
 

1/ Sorry, Mr. President, that’s not how NATO works. The US decides for itself how much it contributes to defending NATO.

2/ This is not a financial transaction, where NATO countries pay the US to defend them. It is part of our treaty commitment.

3/ All NATO countries, including Germany, have committed to spend 2% of GDP on defense by 2024. So far 5 of 28 NATO countries do.

4/ Those who currently don’t spend 2% of their GDP on defense are now increasing their defense budgets. That’s a good thing.

5/ But no funds will be paid to the US. They are meant to increase NATO’s overall defense capabilities, given the growing Russian threat.

6/ Europe must spend more on defense, but not as favor (or payment) to the US. But because their security requires it.

7/ US does provide large military commitment to NATO. But this is not a favor to Europe. It is vital for our own security.

8/ We fought two world wars in Europe, and one cold war. Keeping Europe whole, free, and at peace, is vital US interest.

9/ A strong, united NATO, in which all contribute their fair share to defense, will secure that peace for all Alliance members.

-----

I can only imagine how many devolved rednecks in rural southern areas whom proudly voted for Trump are walking around today with a chip on their shoulder toward Germany for all that money they fictitiously owe us now thanks to Trumps tweet.

Last edited by MonkeysUncleByMarriage
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

I suspect Trump knows but it sounds better for domestic consumption to say it the way he does to his supporters. At least "crazy" "stoopid" Trump is getting results when the Ol'bama administration didn't and mebbie our youngsters won't have to slug it out with the Russians in Eastern Europe in the future. If all NATO countries would spend the 2% of GDP that was agreed upon in the past, I suspect the Russians won't get past the Poles (Who are spending 2%!) just like in 1920 just if the Luftwaffe were up to snuff to help out. 

http://www.businessinsider.com...kdown-country-2017-2

http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/1...-spending-countries/

Last edited by Stanky
MonkeysUncleByMarriage posted:

You give him far too much credit.  It is hardly strategic.  He simply doesn't know what the bleep he is doing nor how most things work.   It's like when he made the bonehead statement about who knew healthcare could be so complicated... uh.. most everyone.

Mebbe you haven't given Ol'bama enough credit for screwing things up in healthcare so royally bad that there is no way to unwind things without a whole lot of collateral damage. I remember Barry Soetoro often complaining about Schrub running the country in the ditch so pity poor Trump because that clown backed out of the ditch and ran off into the Grand Canyon and switched seats with Trump before we hit bottom.

http://www.politifact.com/trut...ifies-us-share-NATO/

 

         

Half-True
Sanders
"We spend about 75 percent of the entire cost of the military aspect of NATO."

Bernie Sanders on Thursday, April 14th, 2016 in the Democratic debate in Brooklyn, N.Y.

Sanders oversimplifies U.S. share of NATO

 

 
Top moments from the New York Democratic Presidential Debate
 
Autoplay: On | Off
Moments from the April 14, 2016, debate between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.

In most respects, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are light years apart, but on some policy points, they seem to be on the same page. One area of common ground is U.S. funding for NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Trump has raised the specter of America pulling out of the military alliance if the Europeans don’t pick up a bigger share. At the Democratic debate in Brooklyn, N.Y. on April 14, 2016, Sanders didn’t go quite that far, but he certainly talked about the problem in similar terms.

A panelist quoted Sanders’ own words on NATO from 1997. Back then he said, "It is not the time to continue wasting tens of billions of dollars helping to defend Europe."

Asked if he still felt that way during the debate, Sanders said, "We spend about 75 percent of the entire cost of the military aspect of NATO. Given the fact that France has a very good health care system and free public education, college education for their people, the U.K. has a good National Health Service and they also provide fairly reasonable higher education, you know what, yeah, I do believe that the countries of Europe should pick up more of the burden for their defense."

Does the United States pay as large a share of NATO military spending as Sanders said?

When we originally heard this item, we thought Sanders had it right. We originally published this fact-check moments after the April 14 debate as True. But very quickly, we discovered that Sanders didn’t describe the 75 percent statistic entirely accurately. We removed that fact-check from our database and are taking a fresh look here.

Warren Gunnels, policy director for the Sanders campaign, referred us to a Wall Street Journal article about how few NATO members meet the alliance’s defense spending targets. On paper, members say they will put at least 2 percent of their GDP into their militaries.

In practice, only five do: the United States, the United Kingdom, Greece, Estonia and Poland.

"Sen. Sanders made the point that our NATO allies should pick up more of the burden for their defense, citing the fact that the United States spends about 75 percent of NATO's total military expenditures," Gunnels said.

We went to the latest NATO budget report.

By NATO’s count, total defense spending of all NATO members stood at about $900 billion in 2015 in current dollars. The United States’ share was about $650 billion. Do the math, and the percentage comes to about 72 percent.

Here are the top four top countries on NATO’s list:

Country

Spending (millions)

Percent of total

United States

$649,931

72.2%

United Kingdom

$59,699

6.6%

France

$43,864

4.9%

Germany

$39,743

4.4%

NATO total

$900,473

 

 

But we need to understand what these numbers show. They don’t represent dollars or euros spent on behalf of NATO, or as Sanders said, "the military aspect of NATO."

These figures are the total defense budgets of the NATO members -- including spending on projects far from NATO’s purview.

Gordon Adams, professor emeritus at American University’s School of International Service, told us this is the standard approach to the question of which country brings the most to the NATO party.

"The comparison folks look at is overall defense spending, and by the NATO definition, the United States covers more than 70 percent of the total for all NATO members," Adams said.

Adams argues that the United States pays for a global operation, part of which includes Europe. The European members mainly pay for European-based forces for use in Europe. America’s equipment and personnel, Adams notes, can be used anywhere.

"Were there a war in Europe, U.S. defense capabilities elsewhere in the world would be swung to Europe," he said.

So even if America has sent ships to the South China Sea to discourage China’s activities there, and is bombing ISIS in Iraq and Syria, all that and more weighs in the balance of NATO’s resources.

That is one view.

Laicie Heeley, a military budget expert at the Stimson Center, a defense policy think tank, sees things otherwise.

"Sanders' claim is a commonly quoted misperception, or misleading quote, however you choose to see it," Heeley said. "The stat says nothing about the U.S. relationship to NATO. It simply states that the United States is the world's greatest military spender."

Lisa Samp, a fellow with the International Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, also describes Sanders’ words as a "common misunderstanding."

"There is a difference between what nations contribute to NATO and what they spend on their own defense," Samp said. "More accurate would be to say the United States contributes 22 percent of NATO’s common funding."

NATO’s common expenses

NATO does have things it calls its own. There is a civilian staff and headquarters, and military equipment such as surveillance aircraft. There are bases, command headquarters and a program to beef up military capabilities in certain countries above and beyond what they would need for their own defense.

For 2016, NATO’s total military budget is about $2 billion. (Since Sanders specified the military aspect, we’ll ignore the civilian costs, which are about $200 million.)

Each member contributes an agreed upon percentage of the shared budget. The United States leads the pack, paying 22 percent, as Samp said. This year, that comes to about $460 million. (Germany comes in second, paying about 15 percent.)

That is a far cry from 75 percent of NATO’s military expense.

But while the common expenses allow us to be more precise about the money American taxpayers put into NATO, these numbers don’t capture either the full picture of the U.S. presence in Europe, or NATO’s true military capacity.

"You could not fight a war with the $2 billion," Adams said. "I have to say defining (the NATO budget) that way is, to me, both irrelevant and meaningless."

Interwoven goals, interwoven dollars

The one point that experts seem to agree on is that there is no easy way to separate America’s military spending in Europe from its global military strategy.

The United States has responded to Russia’s military moves in Ukraine with a program to boost the U.S. presence in central and eastern Europe. With a 2016 price tag just shy of $800 million, the Pentagon has put more boots on the ground, prepositioned equipment and supplies and in many other ways laid the groundwork to respond faster to any new moves Russia might make.

Samp told us while this clearly helps defend Europe, it has greater implications.

"It’s not just for Europe but to forward deploy and have global reach," she said. "We can’t say everything we’re doing in Europe is just for Europe. It’s for our benefit and our overall strategy as well."

In the same way that American forces around the world could be called in to help Europe, so too are American forces in Europe available to support U.S. operations elsewhere, for example in fighting ISIS in the Middle East.

"There is no easy way to sort out what the United States spends by region because both equipment and personnel are usable in every region of the world," Adams said.  

Our ruling

Sanders said that the United States spends "about 75 percent of the entire cost of the military aspect of NATO."

The problem with that statement is that NATO’s military resources defy easy description. There are two ways to quantify them and both are incomplete.

The alliance sums up the total defense budgets of its members and counts that as its resources. By that measure, the United States represents about 72 percent of NATO. But that hardly captures America’s role because its defense budget is shaped by factors outside of Europe.

On the other hand, NATO has common military expenses on the order of $2 billion a year. The U.S. share of that is about 22 percent. But those dollars exclude the vast spending it takes to sustain American forces, equipment and bases across Europe. And in a final twist, even those expenditures aren’t solely for the benefit of Europe.

We rate this claim Half True.

Share The Facts
 
Bernie Sanders
Democratic senator from Vermont and presidential candidate

"We spend about 75 percent of the entire cost of the military aspect of NATO."

Regarless of how you spin it, it's quite obvious who is paying the lion's share to keep NATO running.

By NATO’s count, total defense spending of all NATO members stood at about $900 billion in 2015 in current dollars. The United States’ share was about $650 billion. Do the math, and the percentage comes to about 72 percent.

Here are the top four top countries on NATO’s list:

Country

Spending (millions)

Percent of total

United States

$649,931

72.2%

United Kingdom

$59,699

6.6%

France

$43,864

4.9%

Germany

$39,743

4.4%

NATO total

$900,473

No deflection, the fact that the UN could NOT exist without the US contributions is pure factual evidence that we do in fact pay the lion's share of it's expenses.  If any other country stopped making payments, the UN would continue on as if nothing happened.   Everything Trump has said about our nation shouldering the burden of cost for the UN is completly true.  Anything can be spun, however, anyone with a brain can see the lefties are just spinning in circles now.

I am sure you didn't actually read the initial post.  Trump didn't say they couldn't exist without us (which is probably true), he tried to say they owed us money back as did Germany, which are both falsehoods.   The irony of you mentioning "lefties" spinning, when you spun what was in bold lettering to something that it wasn't, is impressive!

Last edited by MonkeysUncleByMarriage

I never mentioned Germany owing us money.  The only thing I mentioned is that we in fact pay for the UN.  When we voluntarily do this, of course we can't expect to be repaid.  However, that does not mean we can't demand they "start" contributing.  Trump has no expectations of ever recieving back pay from anyone, that is just stupid to think that is the case.  However, make them start paying now.  Common sense seems to be your enemy.

Last edited by Mr. Hooberbloob
MonkeysUncleByMarriage posted:

Trump stated the United States should be paid more for the defense it provides to Germany (through NATO), which is exactly opposite of what you stated when you said "Trump has no expectations of ever receiving back pay from anyone."  The problem here is with Trump supporters whom despite what he says, completely ignore what he said and attempt to say it is something else, despite it being in black and white.


Trump:  Germany or NATO should pay us money

Trump Supporter:  Trump doesn't expect Germany or NATO to pay us!

If it's the nutterances that bother you, where have you been for the last 8 years?

“If you’ve got a business – you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.” — Barack Obama

“The private sector is doing fine.” — Barack Obama

“I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.” — Barack Obama

“I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” — Barack Obama

“I mean, if you think about — if you think about it, UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? No, they are. It’s the Post Office that’s always having problems.” — Barack Obama makes the case for socialized medicine in a rather odd fashion

With a bunch more at: http://rightwingnews.com/quote...in-quotes-87-quotes/

As for me, I worry about what gets done, not what gets said. If Trump can first deploy parachutes on our hand basket and then come up with wings and a motor before we smack into hell, he gets my vote in 2020.

I'm not sure I can type slowly enough for you to understand, but I suspect that Trump does know the difference between what his Secretary of Defense has negotiated and what he tells his less informed followers. 

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis reportedly said Wednesday that NATO member countries should start paying more on defense or the US may "moderate" its commitment to the alliance.

"I owe it to you all to give you clarity on the political reality in the United States, and to state the fair demand from my country's people in concrete terms," Mattis told NATO defense ministers, according to The Washington Post.

Only five of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's 28 member countries last year met the alliance goal of spending at least 2% of their gross domestic product on defense.

"America will meet its responsibilities, but if your nations do not want to see America moderate its commitment to the alliance, each of your capitals needs to show its support for our common defense," Mattis said.

http://www.businessinsider.com...kdown-country-2017-2

MonkeysUncleByMarriage posted:

Trump stated the United States should be paid more for the defense it provides to Germany (through NATO), which is exactly opposite of what you stated when you said "Trump has no expectations of ever receiving back pay from anyone."  The problem here is with Trump supporters whom despite what he says, completely ignore what he said and attempt to say it is something else, despite it being in black and white.


Trump:  Germany or NATO should pay us money

Trump Supporter:  Trump doesn't expect Germany or NATO to pay us!

Don't ya think it means from this point foward, duh?  Are you really that dumb?  If he can get them to pay us for previous leeching, then more power to him. 

Thanks Stanky for pointing out that tactic, I forgot about it.  

3.) Just pretend Trump knows what he is doing.  Sure he looks like a buffoon that doesn't understand politics, policy or treaties, but it's all part of a cunning ruse and he knows EXACTLY what he is doing.  That may be the most interesting tactic employed.

"Sure he looks like an imbecile and says wrong things all the time, but he knows what is going on!"

 

Oh poor Hub, no wonder you like Trump. You also do not understand how treaties work.   He are fortunate enough that we can meet our obligations to NATO.   So we give them that money that makes the world more secure, and that is that.   We then don't use social media to insinuate that the organization or other countries should pay us money because we met our obligations.

 

Now again, I will ask.. does anyone want to actually address Trump not understanding how treaties work and misleading his uneducated supporters into thinking Germany or Nato now owes us money?

When did Trump put people back to work?  The numbers have been growing for sometime in the Obama administration and will continue to grow until Trumps policies have a chance to take place.    But that's cool, you already showed you have little understanding of how policy works.

Do you want to address the original question,  does anyone want to actually address Trump not understanding how treaties work and misleading his uneducated supporters into thinking Germany or Nato now owes us money?

There may be an element of truth in Trump's statement.  The US and Germany have running balance account that's existed since the start of NATO.  When Germany gives the US use of land, including developed land with a kaserne, the account is added in Germany's favor.  When the US gives land back or makes capital improvements, that is subtracted from the account.  Theory is that someday, there will be a settlement.  Last I heard, the US had a pretty large balance against Germany. 

Still, it would only be paid upon the dissolution of NATO or the US withdrawal from Germany.  Remember it took over 50 years for the Germans to reimburse the US for the Kaiser's attack on Black Tom Island, NYC in 1916.

 

trump's record on 'jobs'.. claimed to save 1100 jobs at carrier corp.  paid 7 million $ in incentives. or about $6300/ job in federal/state incentives...
projected layoffs or job loss at EPA 3200.

total : negative 2100 in jobs.. and that's just two deals.

sounds like trump is running america like one of his businesses... straight into the ground.

thanks obama.

Last edited by Crash.Override

Ah, just as your President, you commented without reading previous posts!   I stated I love the fact that politicians use Twitter and we can get up to the minute happenings.  What I have a problem with is your unhinged orange leader using twitter incessantly to rant and rave about television shows and falsehoods.

I thought everyone knew by now soroshealthcare died and
took barack, the beast and the herd of camel people with it.
Guess who America wanted for president.?? No no, it wasn't
a moron, it was a Republican, and what makes that so special
is you hate him. But I'm liking the dirt sweep out of the
wipehouse and replaced finally with a family with class and
once again we have the White house.

As to jobs created, Trump's approval of the completion of the Dakota Access and Keystone XL pipelines appear to have stimulated several events.  Combined with the large increase in the Permian formation, a large increase in refinery capacity is needed.  Exxon announced construction of new refineries on the gulf that will employ 12,000 personnel.  Plus, another 35,000 temporary construction jobs to build the facilities.  I suspect Trump's reassessment of regulations helped, as well.  The US will be the major supplier in the western hemisphere and a major world player.  Putin isn't going to like the price of oil going down, again.  He can barely make payroll in his ramshackle 3rd world nation with a GDP of $1.33 trillion. 

direstraits posted:

As to jobs created, Trump's approval of the completion of the Dakota Access and Keystone XL pipelines appear to have stimulated several events.  Combined with the large increase in the Permian formation, a large increase in refinery capacity is needed.  Exxon announced construction of new refineries on the gulf that will employ 12,000 personnel.  Plus, another 35,000 temporary construction jobs to build the facilities.  I suspect Trump's reassessment of regulations helped, as well.  The US will be the major supplier in the western hemisphere and a major world player.  Putin isn't going to like the price of oil going down, again.  He can barely make payroll in his ramshackle 3rd world nation with a GDP of $1.33 trillion. 

funny, all the reports i read say '5-6 thousand ' temporary construction jobs with 'little to no significant change in long term employment'.  the 'long term' estimated job potential is around 50 jobs. that's about one seventh of the jobs  you just predicted.

Naio posted:

He lost the popular vote.  Almost 50 million eligible voters didn't participate.  Maybe because they didn't want to support Trump or Clintion.  I wouldn't exactly say America wanted him as president.

Trump voters are comprised of the flyovers, the true backbone of
what keeps America, America.... The dependable everyday patriots
keeping all aboard secure. 
If you want to include illegals, liberal arts rejects, professors/
teachers, assorted thugs, perverts, p**** hat idiots, obstructionist
and other so called  college students working on a fifth grade level.
That cream of the cancer is all yours, own it.
 
Crash.Override posted:
direstraits posted:

As to jobs created, Trump's approval of the completion of the Dakota Access and Keystone XL pipelines appear to have stimulated several events.  Combined with the large increase in the Permian formation, a large increase in refinery capacity is needed.  Exxon announced construction of new refineries on the gulf that will employ 12,000 personnel.  Plus, another 35,000 temporary construction jobs to build the facilities.  I suspect Trump's reassessment of regulations helped, as well.  The US will be the major supplier in the western hemisphere and a major world player.  Putin isn't going to like the price of oil going down, again.  He can barely make payroll in his ramshackle 3rd world nation with a GDP of $1.33 trillion. 

funny, all the reports i read say '5-6 thousand ' temporary construction jobs with 'little to no significant change in long term employment'.  the 'long term' estimated job potential is around 50 jobs. that's about one seventh of the jobs  you just predicted.

This is new, after Trump won, its a new ball game. Sanity prevailed.

"Exxon Mobil Corp (XOM.N), the world's largest publicly traded oil producer, said on Monday it would invest $20 billion through 2022 to expand its chemical and oil refining plants on the U.S. Gulf Coast.

The investments at 11 sites should create 35,000 temporary construction jobs and 12,000 permanent jobs, Chief Executive Darren Woods said in a speech at CERAWeek, the world's largest gathering of energy executives.

Some of the expansions began in 2013, but the scope of the project is now growing and the timeline extended, Exxon said.

Woods ran Exxon's refining division before becoming CEO two months ago, and the new spending benefits a sector with which he has significant experience and comfort. Investments in the high-margin projects should help ease concerns from Wall Street that Exxon's growth potential - especially in oil and gas exploration and production - is sliding.

"Exxon Mobil is building a manufacturing powerhouse along the U.S. Gulf Coast," Woods said. "These businesses are leveraging the shale revolution to manufacture cleaner fuels and more energy-efficient plastics."

The investments across Texas and Louisiana will take advantage of cheap shale gas to make plastics and other chemicals for export. The strategy builds on prior steps Exxon and peers, including Dow Chemical Co (DOW.N), have taken in the wake of the American shale expansion, which sharply cut production costs.

"The supply is here. The demand is there. We want to keep connecting those dots," Woods said...."

http://www.reuters.com/article...p;utm_source=twitter

 

I'm optimistic about potential job growth and believe that Trump's actions will contribute to a great increase in job growth.  I believe that this will be done and is being done by elimination of job killing regulations.  Trump has already made moves to bring back the mining of clean coal and is working to eliminate many EPA regulations that caused the loss of many jobs.  The real job creation actions though, in my opinion, fall into two categories and those are relief from Obamacare/Democratic



the stock market. 

Also not to be overlooked is the promise of future military growth and the freeing up of the pipeline projects which will bring jobs and also the promised great repair and rebuilding  of our infrastructure, roads, and airports as those can also create many great paying jobs and as more people are employed and making good money then the housing market will increase along with other areas  of the economy.   The questionable thing though is just what effect the immigration rules and actions will have on jobs as many of the jobs that the illegals are performing are jobs that Americans refuse to do, at least at the rates that the illegals are doing them for.  I don't know that there is any quick or easy answer but at least Trump is taking action and trying and has been facing nothing but objection from the Democrats rather than having them getting with him and trying to find common ground.

I'm repeating myself but it does look a hell of a lot better than
it did six months ago but that's now said easier since those
days when just about everything BHO did was either treasonous
or detrimental to the economy and our future way of life.

 

Yeah, power in the hands of that type of person does scare me.

Kraven posted:
Naio posted:

He lost the popular vote.  Almost 50 million eligible voters didn't participate.  Maybe because they didn't want to support Trump or Clintion.  I wouldn't exactly say America wanted him as president.

Trump voters are comprised of the flyovers, the true backbone of
what keeps America, America.... The dependable everyday patriots
keeping all aboard secure. 
If you want to include illegals, liberal arts rejects, professors/
teachers, assorted thugs, perverts, p**** hat idiots, obstructionist
and other so called  college students working on a fifth grade level.
That cream of the cancer is all yours, own it.
 

I don't deal with the type of people you listed.  The only openly hardcore conservatives I deal with, are on this forum.  I'll own it, though.  I like a challenge.  If I have to put myself in someone else's shoes to reach a common goal, then so be it.  I like a good fight.  

There might actually be something to those tweets:

 BREAKING NEWS: Republican intelligence committee chairman says there was 'incidental' government surveillance of Trump's transition team – but isn't prepared to call it 'spying'

 

The U.S. Intelligence Community collected 'incidental' information about President Donald Trump's transition team – and possibly about Trump himself – during the three months following the 2016 election, according to House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes.

Nones told reporters that the information collected was 'legally collected' pursuant to a warrant issued by a FISA judge in a federal court, and concerned 'foreign' surveillance.

But that 'did not involve Russia or any discussions with Russians,' Nunes said.

Trump has insisted in recent weeks that his predecessor Barack Obama 'wire tapped' him inside Trump Tower last year, promising that new information would be forthcoming.



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...m.html#ixzz4c4ujLVDe
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


Naio posted:
Kraven posted:
Naio posted:

He lost the popular vote.  Almost 50 million eligible voters didn't participate.  Maybe because they didn't want to support Trump or Clintion.  I wouldn't exactly say America wanted him as president.

Trump voters are comprised of the flyovers, the true backbone of
what keeps America, America.... The dependable everyday patriots
keeping all aboard secure. 
If you want to include illegals, liberal arts rejects, professors/
teachers, assorted thugs, perverts, p**** hat idiots, obstructionist
and other so called  college students working on a fifth grade level.
That cream of the cancer is all yours, own it.
 

I don't deal with the type of people you listed.  The only openly hardcore conservatives I deal with, are on this forum.  I'll own it, though.  I like a challenge.  If I have to put myself in someone else's shoes to reach a common goal, then so be it.  I like a good fight.  

Dems like a good fight IF they can fight dirty.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×