5 ms·
Your tax dollars pay for a lot more military than the Europeans do.
by guelo 8y ago
Your tax dollars pay for a lot more military than the Europeans do.
- twblalock 8y agoYeah, but that's an efficiency problem, both in the sense that the Department of Defense is not efficient with money and that we have more military than we need.
- jki275 8y agoAnd a significant portion of the DOD's budget is spent protecting other countries, many of them even in Europe.
- Varcht 8y agoOur tax dollars pay for more of their military than they do...
- iscrewyou 8y agoDo you have a source for this? That WE pay (or more) for THEIR military.
- alexanderwept 8y agoHere's three data points: Germany pays $45B/yr for defense [0] The United States pays for 22% of NATO [1] The United States' defense spending accounts for >70% of all expenditures by NATO countries [2] Personally, I'd like to kick Germany and Turkey out of NATO and threaten to kick out everyone who doesn't spend at least 2% of their GDP on defense. [0]https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/nato-ally-germany-urged-u-s-its-military-spending-n869206 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/nato-ally-germany-urged-u... [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/how-nato-budget-is-funded-2018-7 https://www.businessinsider.com/how-nato-budget-is-funded-20... [2] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/03/nato-spending-2017.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/03/nato-spending-2017.html
- albntomat0 8y agoThe argument is not that the US is literally paying for country X's military. It's that counties benefit from being under the US's umbrella (such as through NATO), and thus do not spend as much as they would if the US had a much smaller military. This has been a major talking point of the current president [0]. The more nuanced question is if the resulting power + influence is worth the cost for the US. [0]: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/03/nato-spending-2017.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/03/nato-spending-2017.html
- hevi_jos 8y agoYou use the words "benefit" an "umbrella" that are actually euphemisms for the military occupation of defeated countries after WWII. A country does not benefit having another country occupying their land. Germany is the fourth manufacturer of weapons of the world, they do not need to be defended or protected like the world "umbrella" implies, they can do it on their own. If the Germans-Europeans had to pay for all the cost involved in the occupation there will be no reason to have the US army on Europe's land.
- iscrewyou 8y agoI understand that. We don’t pay for anyone’s military but ours. If our spending in our alliances is high, and there’s a way to bring the cost down, we should be doing it. But that’s not what OP said. He/she is speaking in absolutes: “Our tax dollars pay for more of their military than they do...” it helps no one and I wanted to call them out on their lie.
- apexalpha 8y agoYour source _completely_ glances over the fact that the EU's total budget is spend on defending Europe while the US budget is not only for protecting itself and NATO but also Korea, Japan, Philippines and many more for a total of some 700(!!!) foreign military bases. To then simply conclude that the US spends '70% of NATO defense spending' is incorrect since you inflate it with cost for defending a lot of territories outside of NATOs scope. Of course the US pays more in total, but the EU doesn't have 700 military bases outside of the EU.
- 8y ago
- gnadx 8y agoStop believing everything that fraud Trump says.
- Kalium 8y agoMy California tax dollars don't. And I'm not always sure what I get for them.