US may tie NATO contributions to tariff exemptions

[TU Curmudgeon]

https://apnews.com/0e8965f9c46a481ba3929da5cdc2101b/US-may-tie-NATO-contributions-to-tariff-exemptions

WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. allies seeking to avoid the steel and aluminum tariffs approved by President Donald Trump might be asked to step up their financial commitments to NATO.


Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin told CNBC in a Friday interview that the president will consider national security, noting that Trump wants to be sure that NATO gets more funding from European allies who Trump has previously criticized for not contributing enough.


“If we’re in NATO, he wants to make sure that NATO gets more money so that NATO can protect all of us and fulfill its goal,” Mnuchin said, underscoring Trump’s push to get NATO allies to pay 2 percent on defense.

1. Canada spends around 1% of its annual GDP on its military and around 90% of that goes toward NATO commitments. That means that Canada "contributes" around 0.9% of its annual GDP to NATO.
2. Germany spends around 1.2% of its annual GDP on its military and around 90% of that goes toward NATO commitments. That means that Germany "contributes" around 1.08% of its annual GDP to NATO.
3. France spends around 2.2% of its annual GDP on its military and around 90% of that goes toward NATO commitments. That means that France "contributes" around 1.98% of its annual GDP to NATO.
4. The UK spends around 1% of its annual GDP on its military and around 90% of that goes toward NATO commitments. That means that the UK "contributes" around 1.98% of its annual GDP to NATO.
5. The US spends around 3.5% of its annual GDP on its military and around 20% of that goes toward NATO commitments. That means that the US "contributes" around 0.7% of its annual GDP to NATO.

That raises the interesting question of "Which country is NOT 'pulling its weight' in supporting NATO?", doesn't it?

Is it ingenious to take a position based on 0.7% is more than 1.98% (or even 0.9%), or is it simply uninformed?

 

[cuban smokes]

Trump will figure this all out after his "genius" brain has thoroughly contemplated ALL 17 sides of each & every issue; we are SOOOOO lucky .............

 

[Grand Mal]

https://apnews.com/0e8965f9c46a481ba3929da5cdc2101b/US-may-tie-NATO-contributions-to-tariff-exemptions

1. Canada spends around 1% of its annual GDP on its military and around 90% of that goes toward NATO commitments. That means that Canada "contributes" around 0.9% of its annual GDP to NATO.
2. Germany spends around 1.2% of its annual GDP on its military and around 90% of that goes toward NATO commitments. That means that Germany "contributes" around 1.08% of its annual GDP to NATO.
3. France spends around 2.2% of its annual GDP on its military and around 90% of that goes toward NATO commitments. That means that France "contributes" around 1.98% of its annual GDP to NATO.
4. The UK spends around 1% of its annual GDP on its military and around 90% of that goes toward NATO commitments. That means that the UK "contributes" around 1.98% of its annual GDP to NATO.
5. The US spends around 3.5% of its annual GDP on its military and around 20% of that goes toward NATO commitments. That means that the US "contributes" around 0.7% of its annual GDP to NATO.

That raises the interesting question of "Which country is NOT 'pulling its weight' in supporting NATO?", doesn't it?

Is it ingenious to take a position based on 0.7% is more than 1.98% (or even 0.9%), or is it simply uninformed?

F**k 'em. Let Trump bail on NATO. Bastard. Let him live in isolation, build a wall and become North Korea.
You know, two Portugese soldiers died in Afghanistan because America had been attacked. It was the only time NATO's mutual defense clause had been invoked. Two Finns, too, and four Latvians. How many Americans have died because Portugal was invaded?
F**k him.

 

[Tigerace117]

F**k 'em. Let Trump bail on NATO. Bastard. Let him live in isolation, build a wall and become North Korea.
You know, two Portugese soldiers died in Afghanistan because America had been attacked. It was the only time NATO's mutual defense clause had been invoked. Two Finns, too, and four Latvians. How many Americans have died because Portugal was invaded?
F**k him.

Considering that Portugal hasn’t been invaded since before there was a NATO, that’s not quite fair to state......

 

[Manc Skipper]

Considering that Portugal hasn’t been invaded since before there was a NATO, that’s not quite fair to state......

Put it another way. Amid all the complaints about contributions, only one NATO member has ever called for support from the others. Who gave it willingly.

 

[Grand Mal]

Considering that Portugal hasn’t been invaded since before there was a NATO, that’s not quite fair to state......

It's absolutely fair. Finland hasn't been invaded since either, or Latvia, or Canada or Britain. NATO stepped up when the US was attacked, the only time NATO was called on to defend the alliance. The only time blood was shed to defend an ally. Trump says the dollars don't line up. He wants to tie it to international trade.
F**k him.

 

[WarmPotato]

I think that might actually work! :O

 

[Tigerace117]

It's absolutely fair. Finland hasn't been invaded since either, or Latvia, or Canada or Britain. NATO stepped up when the US was attacked, the only time NATO was called on to defend the alliance. The only time blood was shed to defend an ally. Trump says the dollars don't line up. He wants to tie it to international trade.
F**k him.

Frankly, a big reason why many of these countries, like Latvia, for instance, haven't been invaded is the US involvement--- and their involvement in NATO; i.e. US protection.

 

[Tigerace117]

Put it another way. Amid all the complaints about contributions, only one NATO member has ever called for support from the others. Who gave it willingly.

But US protection has kept those countries safe in the first place and able to provide a commitment.

 

[leekohler2]

https://apnews.com/0e8965f9c46a481ba3929da5cdc2101b/US-may-tie-NATO-contributions-to-tariff-exemptions

1. Canada spends around 1% of its annual GDP on its military and around 90% of that goes toward NATO commitments. That means that Canada "contributes" around 0.9% of its annual GDP to NATO.
2. Germany spends around 1.2% of its annual GDP on its military and around 90% of that goes toward NATO commitments. That means that Germany "contributes" around 1.08% of its annual GDP to NATO.
3. France spends around 2.2% of its annual GDP on its military and around 90% of that goes toward NATO commitments. That means that France "contributes" around 1.98% of its annual GDP to NATO.
4. The UK spends around 1% of its annual GDP on its military and around 90% of that goes toward NATO commitments. That means that the UK "contributes" around 1.98% of its annual GDP to NATO.
5. The US spends around 3.5% of its annual GDP on its military and around 20% of that goes toward NATO commitments. That means that the US "contributes" around 0.7% of its annual GDP to NATO.

That raises the interesting question of "Which country is NOT 'pulling its weight' in supporting NATO?", doesn't it?

Is it ingenious to take a position based on 0.7% is more than 1.98% (or even 0.9%), or is it simply uninformed?

This is indeed interesting.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

In 2017 we produced approximately 81.5 million metric tons and imported 36 million metric tons and we are the 7th largest manufacturer of steel. You can look all this stuff - basically the Lying Jackass lied about just about everything to do with this stuff. We also actually export steel.
https://www.trade.gov/steel/countries/pdfs/2017/q3/exports-us.pdf

Oh looky, Trump is also LYING about our global trade deficit, too.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/is-the-u-s-global-trade-deficit-really-800-billion/

Republicans that are supporting this tariff thing (well, until it all goes in the crapper) will get to deal with the angry people who lost their jobs and hit our economy is going to take.
I was expecting another Republican economic meltdown, just not this quickly.

 

[Grand Mal]

Frankly, a big reason why many of these countries, like Latvia, for instance, haven't been invaded is the US involvement--- and their involvement in NATO; i.e. US protection.

So what? What are you saying? It's just Latvia paying their dues?
NATO isn't just the US. The US is the biggest contributer mostly because the US likes to have the biggest voice. But if you think the European countries are helpless before Russia, you're kidding yourself. The US navy is the biggest in the world, for example, but the Royal Navy isn't the Samoan Coast Guard. France has been fighting brushfire wars in Africa for years. Europe doesn't rely on the US for it's defense against Russia. That's what NATO is about, defense against Russia.
Or what it was about, until planes flew into the World Trade Centre. See, NATO, for most members, is about a very narrow threat. Russia. For the US, the threat is pretty much global. The NATO members stepped up when the US was attacked by people a long way from Europe. Now the US (well, Trump) wants to tie it's NATO committment to trade agreements. F**k him.

 

[Manc Skipper]

But US protection has kept those countries safe in the first place and able to provide a commitment.

War games are not protection.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

It's called actually looking at the actual facts and actually applying actually correct arithmetic to actually come up with an actual analysis that actually reflects actuality.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

In 2017 we produced approximately 81.5 million metric tons and imported 36 million metric tons and we are the 7th largest manufacturer of steel. You can look all this stuff - basically the Lying Jackass lied about just about everything to do with this stuff. We also actually export steel.
https://www.trade.gov/steel/countries/pdfs/2017/q3/exports-us.pdf

Oh looky, Trump is also LYING about our global trade deficit, too.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/is-the-u-s-global-trade-deficit-really-800-billion/

Republicans that are supporting this tariff thing (well, until it all goes in the crapper) will get to deal with the angry people who lost their jobs and hit our economy is going to take.
I was expecting another Republican economic meltdown, just not this quickly.

94% of US steel exports go to Canada and Mexico (about 47% to each). Is it any wonder that Mr. Trump decided that it might not be such a good thing to impose tariffs on Canadian and Mexican steel (because they could just as easily have imposed "countervailing tariffs" on US steel as well as upped their own "off shore" sales to account for the [approximately] 700,000 metric tons more of steel that they sell to the US than they buy from the US on an annual basis)?

Think about "Donald, do you know what it is going to do to your approval rating if the cost of pickups - and cars, too, for that matter - goes up by better than 25% because the Canadians and Mexicans slap countervailing duties on American steel coming into their countries?".

So the US "trade deficit is "only $556B rather than $800B - it's called "exaggeration for the sake of emphasis" and "exaggeration for the sake of emphasis" has never gotten the US involved in a war yet (if you don't count the American Revolution, the War of 1812, the Civil War, the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, the Cold War, the Vietnam War, the Afghan War, Gulf War II, Syria, and a bunch of Central American "interventions").

What surprises me is that Mr. Trump doesn't add "minus 2" and "plus 4" and come up with "6" on the basis that "minus" and "plus" are "words" and you cannot add "words".

 

[MSgt]

https://apnews.com/0e8965f9c46a481ba3929da5cdc2101b/US-may-tie-NATO-contributions-to-tariff-exemptions

1. Canada spends around 1% of its annual GDP on its military and around 90% of that goes toward NATO commitments. That means that Canada "contributes" around 0.9% of its annual GDP to NATO.
2. Germany spends around 1.2% of its annual GDP on its military and around 90% of that goes toward NATO commitments. That means that Germany "contributes" around 1.08% of its annual GDP to NATO.
3. France spends around 2.2% of its annual GDP on its military and around 90% of that goes toward NATO commitments. That means that France "contributes" around 1.98% of its annual GDP to NATO.
4. The UK spends around 1% of its annual GDP on its military and around 90% of that goes toward NATO commitments. That means that the UK "contributes" around 1.98% of its annual GDP to NATO.
5. The US spends around 3.5% of its annual GDP on its military and around 20% of that goes toward NATO commitments. That means that the US "contributes" around 0.7% of its annual GDP to NATO.

That raises the interesting question of "Which country is NOT 'pulling its weight' in supporting NATO?", doesn't it?

Is it ingenious to take a position based on 0.7% is more than 1.98% (or even 0.9%), or is it simply uninformed?

This has to be stripped down.

Country proportions are fine as is, but most, in which many have publicly acknowledged, have not been paying what they are supposed to. This has left a void in which the U.S. has historically filled. Despite NATO never being activated before Afghanistan, NATO's training package for decades consisted almost entirely on U.S. transport. This has left the U.S. paying more in funds and material just to keep NATO relevant. And when it was activated for Afghanistan, European countries were unprepared to do what they needed on their own. For all intents and purposes, they more or less simply latched on to American military logistics. And today, the transport of troops from NATO countries and around Afghanistan still rely almost entirely on U.S. air.

The U.S. is pulling more than its weight for Europe and this is a history that goes back to World War I. Obviously, Afghanistan is not about Europe. But NATO is. The U.S. and Canada do not need it and the U.S. has proven that it can easily wipe out a government all on its own. We have a couple convenient as hell oceans as very wide navy-controlled borders. For that matter, the UK has the convenience of the English Channel separating it from the historical mess. And as Putin proved with Ukraine, Europe still does need NATO. NATO is a unified local military for Europe, thus much of their contribution should go towards it. The U.S. military is global and cannot focus an extreme percentage to only Europe's defense.

....And please, please, please don't make me have to defend the orange pile in the White House. I have no idea what is behind his little 2.0 percent thing. The European countries of NATO just need to actually start contributing their established share.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

But US protection has kept those countries safe in the first place and able to provide a commitment.

IF "Country A" and "Country B" have a treaty that obliges each to help defend the other from an attack by "Country C"

AND IF "Country C" is incapable of actually invading and conquering either "Country A" or "Country B",

AND IF the governments of both "Country A" and "Country B" know that "Country C" is incapable of actually invading and conquering either "Country A" or "Country B",

AND IF "Country A" spends $597,000,000,000 on defence every year,

THEN how much of that $597,000,000,000 does "Country A" spend to defend "Country B"?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

... Country proportions are fine as is, but most, in which many have publicly acknowledged, have not been paying what they are supposed to. This has left a void in which the U.S. has historically filled. ...

The U.S. is pulling more than its weight for Europe and this is a history that goes back to World War I. ... And as Putin proved with Ukraine, Europe still does need NATO. NATO is a unified local military for Europe, thus much of their contribution should go towards it. The U.S. military is global and cannot focus an extreme percentage to only Europe's defense.

....And please, please, please don't make me have to defend the orange pile in the White House. I have no idea what is behind his little 2.0 percent thing. The European countries of NATO just need to actually start contributing their established share.

The amount that countries are "supposed to" contribute towards NATO is, according to the NATO agreement, the amount that the individual countries consider is appropriate to pay towards their own militaries. There is only a very tiny amount that each country actually "pays to NATO".

In WWI (which, unlike what many American grade school texts will tell you, started in 1914), the US started pulling its weight in 1917 (with an effective contribution in Europe only starting in 1918). In WWII (which, unlike what many American grade school texts will tell you, started in 1939), the US started "pulling its weight" in 1941 (with an effective contribution in Europe only starting in 1942).

The 2.0% figure is the percentage that all countries that are members of NATO agreed should be the percentage of their GDP that each of them should "contribute towards NATO" by 2025. Of the NATO member countries all but one have been increasing their defence spending so that the amount that they "contribute towards NATO would reach that 2.0% "target figure" by 2025. HOWEVER, there is one country that is a member of NATO which has not been doing that and which has (as near as I can make out from the data available) actually been lowering the percentage of its GDP that it uses to "contribute towards NATO".

Would you like to make a guess which country that is?

 

[Tigerace117]

War games are not protection.

US troops, on the other hand, are a rather good form of protection.

 

[Tigerace117]

So what? What are you saying? It's just Latvia paying their dues?
NATO isn't just the US. The US is the biggest contributer mostly because the US likes to have the biggest voice. But if you think the European countries are helpless before Russia, you're kidding yourself. The US navy is the biggest in the world, for example, but the Royal Navy isn't the Samoan Coast Guard. France has been fighting brushfire wars in Africa for years. Europe doesn't rely on the US for it's defense against Russia. That's what NATO is about, defense against Russia.
Or what it was about, until planes flew into the World Trade Centre. See, NATO, for most members, is about a very narrow threat. Russia. For the US, the threat is pretty much global. The NATO members stepped up when the US was attacked by people a long way from Europe. Now the US (well, Trump) wants to tie it's NATO committment to trade agreements. F**k him.

Brushfire wars in Africa is not equivalent to facing down the Russian bear, and even in those brushfire wars France ultimately had to pull out each and every time.

Even if Europe managed to avoid the resources card being used to make them comply, the fact remains that without the US they are rather poorly matched up against Russia—-which is why the Russians have prioritized getting the US to abandon its NATO commitments.

Yet the same people have been launching attacks across Europe for years.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

US troops, on the other hand, are a rather good form of protection.

The TOTAL number of American troops in Europe is 97,113.

The TOTAL number of active duty (non-US) military personnel in the EU is in excess of 1,823,000.

The percentage of US troops is, thus, approximately 5.33% which doesn't even make it into the "statistically significant" range on a "one tail test".

 

[MSgt]

The amount that countries are "supposed to" contribute towards NATO is, according to the NATO agreement, the amount that the individual countries consider is appropriate to pay towards their own militaries. There is only a very tiny amount that each country actually "pays to NATO".

Yet, they have historically not paid it. And NATO is about a European defense. It's the entire reason it exists. Most of it's local military funding should go to the whole. Personally, I alwsays thought it was a mistake to pull NATO to Afghanistan. But Bush did it to politicize it as being more than an American invasion (1991 Gulf War style).

In WWI (which, unlike what many American grade school texts will tell you, started in 1914), the US started pulling its weight in 1917 (with an effective contribution in Europe only starting in 1918). In WWII (which, unlike what many American grade school texts will tell you, started in 1939), the US started "pulling its weight" in 1941 (with an effective contribution in Europe only starting in 1942).

You are wrong here. All American grade school texts start World War I at 1914. This is just your anti-Americanism percolating. And...

- First, let's recognize that World War I was a European civil war, and the U.S. didn't need to pull any weight at all.
- The U.S. was trading both with the Triple Entente and the Central Powers until the British blockade, in which the British agreed to take on all American trade, thus equating to the U.S. needing the Triple Entente to win in order to pay its debt. It had nothing to do with Wilson's argument about the sinking of the Lusitania (way back in 1915), nor the inconsequential Zimmerman Telegram.
- Ludendorf knew that he had to complete his Spring Offensive before the U.S. showed up. And it is an absolute fact that it was the American arrival at Chateau Thierry and Belleau Wood that prevented the allies from losing in 1918 when the Spring Offensive came to a halt mere miles from Paris.

So, considering that the U.S. really had no business (other than economic business) in Europe, the U.S. did indeed carry more than it's weight for a European problem. World War II, which could be argued as yet another European civil war, also had to do with trade. The U.S. war was in the Pacific and the only reason Europeans had a small presence there was to protect their colonies and established imperialism. The U.S. had no colonies in Europe, yet there it went, once again, into something where it did not have to carry any weight.

......HOWEVER, there is one country that is a member of NATO which has not been doing that and which has (as near as I can make out from the data available) actually been lowering the percentage of its GDP that it uses to "contribute towards NATO".

Would you like to make a guess which country that is?

You take on the argument of precise decimal points. I will too since a lot of misconcpetion has surrounded this issue...

For 2016, NATO’s total military budget is about $2 billion. (Since [Bernie] 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.

I argue, as many do, that these numbers do not capture either the full picture of the U.S. presence in Europe, or NATO’s true military capacity. The U.S. has maintained a bloated military presence in Europe since the end of World War II, on its own dime, even paying for the privilege in some respects, despite the existence of NATO. And recently, the U.S. 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. This is not NATO, this is the U.S. checkbook, once again, carrying more than it's weight for European defense.

And what is NATO supposed to be for? I would agree that Europeans should pay the lion's share of NATO for its own protection. Call "lowering the percentage" a compensation for having to fill the void since the beginning of the Cold War, and what continues to happen. For example, to this day, how do you think European forces would get moved around quickly on the continent? U.S. military air, something that sits outside of NATO.

 

[Yes_Minister]

US troops, on the other hand, are a rather good form of protection.

How much of the US military budget goes towards defending Canada for example? Really I do not think Canada even needs NATO, Canada is protected more by geography then anything else. Maybe NATO should be disbanded and every country should just handle its own defense, I think it would be better for the US to scale back its military involvement with the rest of the world.

I am not sure how relevant NATO is after 1991.

 

[Tigerace117]

How much of the US military budget goes towards defending Canada for example? Really I do not think Canada even needs NATO, Canada is protected more by geography then anything else. Maybe NATO should be disbanded and every country should just handle its own defense, I think it would be better for the US to scale back its military involvement with the rest of the world.

I am not sure how relevant NATO is after 1991.

Canada is protected by the fact that the US is right next door and would take a dim view of anyone invading them in the first place.

All that would mean is that the Russians would be in Riga, Kaunas and Tallinn about a week after such a decision was made.

The US has commitments to our friends; not meeting those commitments, no matter how much money it would save, is a nonstarter.

 

[Tigerace117]

The TOTAL number of American troops in Europe is 97,113.

The TOTAL number of active duty (non-US) military personnel in the EU is in excess of 1,823,000.

The percentage of US troops is, thus, approximately 5.33% which doesn't even make it into the "statistically significant" range on a "one tail test".

The EU can't even agree on basic policy and you think they could form a coherent military force? Don't make me laugh.

Not to mention, of course, that not even EU member would agree to fight even if they tried. Countries like Spain and Greece would derive a great deal of satisfaction from ignoring what they see as "Berlin's tyranny".