http://globalnews.ca/news/3184310/realit...51194100=1

Quote:When it comes to Canada’s (and other members’) NATO contribution, Donald Trump may actually be right.

Once again, Trump has attacked members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) , saying they aren’t “paying their fair share.”

In an interview on Sunday night (only five days from his inauguration), the Republican President-elect called NATO “obsolete because it wasn’t taking care of terror.”

Quote:According to the NATO website, funding is based on “an agreed cost-share formula, based on Gross National Income, which represents a small percentage of each member’s defence budget.”

That means each member country’s contribution is based on their Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

NATO’s goal is for each member to contribute about two per cent of their GDP to defence spending.

Data for 2016 isn’t publicly available yet, but 2015 numbers show that the United States is over the suggested goal.

Out of 27 member countries (there was no data available for the 28th country, Iceland) only five met or exceed the two per cent goal: the U.K. (2.07%), Poland (2.18%), Estonia (2.04%), Greece (2.46%) and the U.S. (3.62%).

The U.S. — with the biggest GDP in the world — contributed around US$650 billion to NATO’s budget in 2015.

By comparison, the U.K.’s 2.07 per cent contribution of its GDP, amounts to a NATO commitment of US$60 billion.

All in all, the U.S. contributed more than double what all the other members kicked in combined.

The other countries — Canada included — contribute less. Canada spent about one per cent of its GDP on defence, half of the suggested target, which amounted to around US$15 billion in 2015, according to NATO.

Only seven countries are behind Canada in reaching their goal.

It's about time we demand other keep their word.

(01-16-2017 09:59 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It's about time we demand other keep their word.

Agreed.

If I were in charge I would state that the laggard countries have exactly one fiscal year to come into compliance or we would be relocating our forces from the laggard countries to those that are doing what is required.

(01-16-2017 10:11 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-16-2017 09:59 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It's about time we demand other keep their word.

Agreed.

If I were in charge I would state that the laggard countries have exactly one fiscal year to come into compliance or we would be relocating our forces from the laggard countries to those that are doing what is required.

I think they would need a lot more time than that.

A move like that could devastate the economies of those involved.

Canada's 1% is crap, as is the amount some other countries are chipping in. We already essentially protect Canada, they only spend about $14 billion U.S. on their military a year. They essentially have no navy, zero carriers, and only 64 fighter jets. They have only 95,000 active personel and 51,000 reserves.

What a waste of taxpayer money.

(01-16-2017 11:09 PM)banker Wrote:  They have only 95,000 active personel and 51,000 reserves.

And they are awful troops.

Quote:The other countries — Canada included — contribute less. Canada spent about one per cent of its GDP on defence, half of the suggested target,

Herein we have the problem-

"Suggested target" lolool

Noop. Make it a mandatory CONTRACT (treaty/agreement, whatever) or your dead-beat asss is on it's own.

Yay? Wanna go ply those waters by yourself Wilson? Have at it.

(01-16-2017 10:13 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-16-2017 10:11 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-16-2017 09:59 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It's about time we demand other keep their word.

Agreed.

If I were in charge I would state that the laggard countries have exactly one fiscal year to come into compliance or we would be relocating our forces from the laggard countries to those that are doing what is required.

I think they would need a lot more time than that.

A move like that could devastate the economies of those involved.

Canada could adapt. The others have a simple solution... leave the EU.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

(01-16-2017 11:09 PM)banker Wrote:  Canada's 1% is crap, as is the amount some other countries are chipping in. We already essentially protect Canada, they only spend about $14 billion U.S. on their military a year. They essentially have no navy, zero carriers, and only 64 fighter jets. They have only 95,000 active personel and 51,000 reserves.

Maybe we ought to take it.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

NATO and the UN is what allows European socialism to exist. Without those forces, many European countries would be forced to spend money on their military instead of relying on NATO or the UN.

It is time that the US either get rewarded(trade deals ect) or PAID for protecting these countries. Enough.

(01-17-2017 06:45 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  It is time that the US either get rewarded (trade deals, etc.) or PAID for protecting these countries. Enough.

One idea would be to make them pay their fair share of pharmaceutical research and development costs.

(01-17-2017 06:47 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-17-2017 06:45 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  It is time that the US either get rewarded (trade deals, etc.) or PAID for protecting these countries. Enough.

One idea would be to make them pay their fair share of pharmaceutical research and development costs.

I imagine that would be a very large check.

What's with this "suggested goals" bs. If you have an agreement state plainly the cost of membership.

This is really not about the money. Its about them taking their defense, and the US, for granted.

It is a good thing for them to stare into the abyss and get a realization of what it would be like without the US.

If Trump doesn't mean it, it is an excellent strategy to make them snap to.

If he does mean it, then its sorta scary.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

You know it's actually embarassing.. when BROKE Greece paid more into NATO than your country did.

(01-17-2017 06:34 AM)gdunn Wrote:  NATO and the UN is what allows European socialism to exist. Without those forces, many European countries would be forced to spend money on their military instead of relying on NATO or the UN.

This....

If we cut from 3.62% to the suggested 2%, we'd save around $300byn per year.

When you consider that our entire allocation for SNAP for decades was only $25byn, and only recently it has kicked up to $75byn.... It gives you an idea of how much allocation $300byn in excess of our requirement to other countries could do to improve our own safety net.

(01-17-2017 01:28 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-17-2017 06:34 AM)gdunn Wrote:  NATO and the UN is what allows European socialism to exist. Without those forces, many European countries would be forced to spend money on their military instead of relying on NATO or the UN.

This....

If we cut from 3.62% to the suggested 2%, we'd save around $300byn per year.

When you consider that our entire allocation for SNAP for decades was only $25byn, and only recently it has kicked up to $75byn.... It gives you an idea of how much allocation $300byn in excess of our requirement to other countries could do to improve our own safety net.

Nationalism, home team first.

I have no problem with charity and personally donate to several causes, but no money goes out until I'm sure the family is taken care of first. The country should be no different.

(01-17-2017 02:27 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(01-16-2017 11:09 PM)banker Wrote:  They have only 95,000 active personel and 51,000 reserves.

And they are awful troops.

Are they the ones who wear those trendy blue helmets?