7 ms·

Our tax dollars pay for more of their military than they do...

by Varcht 8y ago

iscrewyou 8y ago
Do you have a source for this? That WE pay (or more) for THEIR military.
- alexanderwept 8y ago
  Here'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 ago
  The 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 ago
    You 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 ago
    I 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 ago
    Your 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.
    - jki275 8y ago
      We don't have any bases in PI, and Japan pays for the bases we have there. I'm not sure about Korea. Very different situation than Europe.
      - mrunkel 8y ago
        And Germany pays for the bases there. It's not so different. The US puts the military where it wants to because it serves the US's interest. Don't believe for a second that it's to "protect Europe."
        jki275 8y ago
        Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the concept of NATO. We spend all the money on defense and we put bases all over the world to protect the countries they are in. Does this serve US interests? Unquestionably. That doesn't invalidate my statement.
        mrunkel 8y ago
        Yeah. I'm familiar. NATO is a joint treaty that obligates all members to come to the defense of other members. It was formed post world war II at the behest of the USA in order to combat political influence from the USSR in Europe. The USA doesn't fund NATO. Funding for NATO comes from all member organizations. All member organizations provide troops and materiel for joint operations. The US spends "all the money on defense" because it's a fantastic government jobs program for mostly white folks. The US has bases around the world to influence local politics. The idea that it's to protect those countries is simplistic at best.
gnadx 8y ago
Stop believing everything that fraud Trump says.

Our tax dollars pay for more of their military than they do...

by Varcht 8y ago

Our tax dollars pay for more of their military than they do...

iscrewyou 8y ago

Do you have a source for this? That WE pay (or more) for THEIR military.

alexanderwept 8y ago
Here'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 ago
The 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 ago
  You 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 ago
  I 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 ago
  Your 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.
  - jki275 8y ago
    We don't have any bases in PI, and Japan pays for the bases we have there. I'm not sure about Korea. Very different situation than Europe.
    - mrunkel 8y ago
      And Germany pays for the bases there. It's not so different. The US puts the military where it wants to because it serves the US's interest. Don't believe for a second that it's to "protect Europe."
      - jki275 8y ago
        Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the concept of NATO. We spend all the money on defense and we put bases all over the world to protect the countries they are in. Does this serve US interests? Unquestionably. That doesn't invalidate my statement.
        mrunkel 8y ago
        Yeah. I'm familiar. NATO is a joint treaty that obligates all members to come to the defense of other members. It was formed post world war II at the behest of the USA in order to combat political influence from the USSR in Europe. The USA doesn't fund NATO. Funding for NATO comes from all member organizations. All member organizations provide troops and materiel for joint operations. The US spends "all the money on defense" because it's a fantastic government jobs program for mostly white folks. The US has bases around the world to influence local politics. The idea that it's to protect those countries is simplistic at best.

gnadx 8y ago

Stop believing everything that fraud Trump says.