Why Trump is after NATO...only 5 countries out of 27 members are meeting their pledge!

[Doc1]

That's how I feel. I am not sure if being dim witted means that I need to swear or call you and names. Let me know, maybe someone can suggest a few that might be appropriate.

Get over it. If you can’t run with the big dogs, stay on the porch

You're nothing but a partisan chihuahua, get over yourself. I thought the Magic Negro was going to "heal" the earth?

 

[healthmyths]

First, the tax cut package is a home run for small business and the self employed, of which I am a member of that group. The number of self employed has been rising over the past 20 years and will continue to do so. Have you ever paid self employment taxes? Self employed face a lot of costs and regulations. I am hoping the tax plan was just the start of better things to come. The 20% self employment deduction is a nice start.

Good for you. That does not negate the damage that it will do to a lot of other people, such as those in high tax states who have lost a large chunk of their deductions for state and local taxes. When people have less disposable income, they buy less. Think about the effect of that on small businesses. You are also brushing aside the reality of the long term detrimental effects on the nation by blowing up the deficit. The whole idea of trickledown economics -which is what any benefit to the middle class is predicated on-was debunked as voodoo economics in the Reagan era. So enjoy your little tax cut while the rest of the country -except for the wealthy circles the drain but don’t be surprised if you get sucked down with it. Your short-cited selfishness – along with trite one-line snippet about who it benefits is what pissed me off. That and the lies being told by the right.

A)" lot of other people, such as those in high tax states"
How many is "a lot of other people"... HMMM.....
California, Hawaii, Iowa, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon and Vermont have the nation’s highest top state income tax rates.
Let's take just "California" with the HIGHEST tax rate: 13.3%.
8 States with the Highest Income Tax Rates
Per capita, Californians pay $1,991 annually in state income taxes, which ranks fourth highest in the country, according to the Tax Foundation.
http://www.politifact.com/californi...-true-californias-taxes-among-highest-nation/

But it is worse in California. Nearly 40 percent of Californians don’t pay any state income taxes and millions more pay next to nothing. Indeed, the majority of folks earning under $50,000 per year pay no state income taxes.
Tyranny of California's Nonpayers - Tax Foundation

B) by blowing up the deficit.
the budget deficit narrowed to $74.86 billion in June, compared with $90.23 billion in June 2017, due to a 9% drop in government outlays. The spending decline largely reflected some accounting shifts and not actual spending changes. For instance, the Education Department revised estimates for the net costs of past loans and loan guarantees, according to a Congressional Budget Office analysis.

C) Strange but here is another fact that hasn't happened since the records were kept.
Want more evidence that America's economy needs more workers? For the first time in at least 20 years, there are now morejob openings than there are people looking for work.
The ratio of unemployed workers to job openings dropped below one in April for the first time since the Labor Department started collecting data in 2000, the agency reported Tuesday.
There are now more job openings than workers to fill them

Finally... all people like you can do is provide "SUBJECTIVE", hyperbolic, UNSUBSTANTIATED statements.
Do you understand when you write stuff like above more people ask themselves..."Where did he get that information"? Or where are the sources?

I've prepared substantiations that have knocked your truly subjective, hyperbolic statements out.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Uhhh...this is not about dues, this is about individual military expenditures.

well under the agreement, they have to spend %2.0 of their GDP on defense and most are not making it, do dues may not be technically correct, it's more a synonym

They do not have to spend that till starting in 2024, so nobody is “not making” It yet since the agreement was for 10 years from 2014.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Right, but my point is, Trump is saying do it now.......which needs to be done.....10 years....only Obama would think that's a good idea...

And NATO is telling him to **** himself, as they should.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Well way to go TraitorGator... proving ONCE again that your hatred of Trump supersedes your "love" of country. Your supposedly service is so tainted now that I have no problem in saying you are without a stain on the uniform you were. Way to go and maybe you should comprehend the concept of "politics ends at the water's edge"... way to go!
Proves all my posts that you are someone who HATES Trump more than you love America.

The problem here once again is that you quote a worship of Trump with love of country. You put the man before the country, I refuse to do that, for any man. You keep claiming a love of country but all you have is a love of Trump and a unwillingness to actually do anything for your country other than sniff the ass of the sitting POTUS.

I felt this same way about Obama as I did not think his plans and polices were good for the country, thus I hoped he failed in implementing them. I think Trump's attempt to isolate us from all of our allies is dangerous for the country and as such I hope he fails in his attempts to do so.

People like you that put their worship of a man before what is best for the country disgust me.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Uhhh...this is not about dues, this is about individual military expenditures.

well under the agreement, they have to spend %2.0 of their GDP on defense and most are not making it, do dues may not be technically correct, it's more a synonym

They do not have to spend that till starting in 2024, so nobody is “not making” It yet since the agreement was for 10 years from 2014.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Right, but my point is, Trump is saying do it now.......which needs to be done.....10 years....only Obama would think that's a good idea...

And NATO is telling him to **** himself, as they should.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Why should they?
They have been using our military for decades, we're asking for them to contribute a little, what is wrong with that?

Did they ask us to spend more on our military than the next 9 nations on the earth?

It is just one more example of American arrogance that we think we can tell others how much to spend on their own military.

The irony of all this is that Article 5 of NATO has only been invoked once in all it's history and that was to come to the defense of the US after 9/11.

 

[Flopper]

Charles Payne's tweet...

Is NATO ready? Germany's Military Readiness

• 95/244 Leopard battle tanks operational
• 0/6 Submarines operational
• 9/15 Frigates in service
• 0/14 transport aircraft airworthy 21,000
• Junior officer/NCO positions unfilled 6/30 Logistical battalions fully equipped

Charles V Payne (@cvpayne) | Twitter

And that's why Trump wants NATO members to step up because true members of NATO are suppose to make
military expenditures equal to a % of their GDP... here are the top
First of all NATO members agreed:
Even though this would be a sharp increase on current spending,
it would still fall short of the 2 percent[of GDP] threshold NATO countries agreed to at the 2014 summit in Wales.

Defense Expenditures Of NATO Members Visualized [Infographic]

Yet look at the following chart!
Remember they agreed to spend 2% of their GDP... Only
The USA and United Kingdom,Poland,Greece, and Estonia.. 5 out of 27 countries are meeting the requirements.
This is what Trump means when he said they need to do what they agreed to!
View attachment 204014

Trump is attacking NATO on Putin's orders. Period!

Trump is attacking NATO by having countries pay there fair share, even increasing percentage paid? Somehow that's a Putin request? Say what?

4 years ago it was agreed that within 10 years they would spend 2% of their GDP on their military...they have 6 years left to meet that agreement...


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

That agreement was a target and not a firm figure. In discussions in 2013, there was a general agreement that some countries will always spend more than 2% because they have large military commitments other than NATO and some smaller countries will not be able to make the 2% target.

Why its a percentage...cut some welfare if you have to.....but step it up.

It is not only how much a nation spends on defense that matters, but what that nation spends it on and its willingness to use it.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Trump is attacking NATO on Putin's orders. Period!

Trump is attacking NATO by having countries pay there fair share, even increasing percentage paid? Somehow that's a Putin request? Say what?

4 years ago it was agreed that within 10 years they would spend 2% of their GDP on their military...they have 6 years left to meet that agreement...


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

That agreement was a target and not a firm figure. In discussions in 2013, there was a general agreement that some countries will always spend more than 2% because they have large military commitments other than NATO and some smaller countries will not be able to make the 2% target.

Why its a percentage...cut some welfare if you have to.....but step it up.

It is not only how much a nation spends on defense that matters, but what that nation spends it on and its willingness to use it.

BINGO. Most nations do not have the same desire to control the world through their military power that the US does.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Once again our President does the right thing and putting spotlight on the deadbeat NATO countries not paying their dues. PC is a disease and Donald J Trump is the cure.

Uhhh...this is not about dues, this is about individual military expenditures.

well under the agreement, they have to spend %2.0 of their GDP on defense and most are not making it, do dues may not be technically correct, it's more a synonym

They do not have to spend that till starting in 2024, so nobody is “not making” It yet since the agreement was for 10 years from 2014.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Right, but my point is, Trump is saying do it now.......which needs to be done.....10 years....only Obama would think that's a good idea...

A country cannot just overnight, or even in a year or two double the amount the spend on their military. Come on, do you think that the US could jump from 3.6 to 5% of our GDP in a year?

 

[Dragonlady]

Charles Payne's tweet...

Is NATO ready? Germany's Military Readiness

• 95/244 Leopard battle tanks operational
• 0/6 Submarines operational
• 9/15 Frigates in service
• 0/14 transport aircraft airworthy 21,000
• Junior officer/NCO positions unfilled 6/30 Logistical battalions fully equipped

Charles V Payne (@cvpayne) | Twitter

And that's why Trump wants NATO members to step up because true members of NATO are suppose to make
military expenditures equal to a % of their GDP... here are the top
First of all NATO members agreed:
Even though this would be a sharp increase on current spending,
it would still fall short of the 2 percent[of GDP] threshold NATO countries agreed to at the 2014 summit in Wales.

Defense Expenditures Of NATO Members Visualized [Infographic]

Yet look at the following chart!
Remember they agreed to spend 2% of their GDP... Only
The USA and United Kingdom,Poland,Greece, and Estonia.. 5 out of 27 countries are meeting the requirements.
This is what Trump means when he said they need to do what they agreed to!
View attachment 204014

Trump is attacking NATO on Putin's orders. Period!

Trump is attacking NATO by having countries pay there fair share, even increasing percentage paid? Somehow that's a Putin request? Say what?

4 years ago it was agreed that within 10 years they would spend 2% of their GDP on their military...they have 6 years left to meet that agreement...


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Great, so it shouldn't bother them agree to pitch in 4%.

No country in NATO will go above 2% nor should they.

If the US wants to spend more on Defence they’re free to do so. The rest of the NATO countries have no reason to have a huge military build up.

This whole drive to increase NATO spending is nothing more than Trump’s hamfisted way of increasing US exports of weapons.

But it’s Trump’s rhetoric and framing of the issues which creates a false narrative. Nothing that he seems to think happened, just happened.

I saw the press conference. Trump was blathering incoherently. He didn’t answer half the questions because he had no idea what the reporter was talking about, so he dismissed the question and moved on to another question at the speed of light.

 

[Thinker101]

Charles Payne's tweet...

Is NATO ready? Germany's Military Readiness

• 95/244 Leopard battle tanks operational
• 0/6 Submarines operational
• 9/15 Frigates in service
• 0/14 transport aircraft airworthy 21,000
• Junior officer/NCO positions unfilled 6/30 Logistical battalions fully equipped

Charles V Payne (@cvpayne) | Twitter

And that's why Trump wants NATO members to step up because true members of NATO are suppose to make
military expenditures equal to a % of their GDP... here are the top
First of all NATO members agreed:
Even though this would be a sharp increase on current spending,
it would still fall short of the 2 percent[of GDP] threshold NATO countries agreed to at the 2014 summit in Wales.

Defense Expenditures Of NATO Members Visualized [Infographic]

Yet look at the following chart!
Remember they agreed to spend 2% of their GDP... Only
The USA and United Kingdom,Poland,Greece, and Estonia.. 5 out of 27 countries are meeting the requirements.
This is what Trump means when he said they need to do what they agreed to!
View attachment 204014

Trump is attacking NATO on Putin's orders. Period!

Trump is attacking NATO by having countries pay there fair share, even increasing percentage paid? Somehow that's a Putin request? Say what?

4 years ago it was agreed that within 10 years they would spend 2% of their GDP on their military...they have 6 years left to meet that agreement...


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Great, so it shouldn't bother them agree to pitch in 4%.

No country in NATO will go above 2% nor should they.

If the US wants to spend more on Defence they’re free to do so. The rest of the NATO countries have no reason to have a huge military build up.

This whole drive to increase NATO spending is nothing more than Trump’s hamfisted way of increasing US exports of weapons.

But it’s Trump’s rhetoric and framing of the issues which creates a false narrative. Nothing that he seems to think happened, just happened.

I saw the press conference. Trump was blathering incoherently. He didn’t answer half the questions because he had no idea what the reporter was talking about, so he dismissed the question and moved on to another question at the speed of light.

Great, so how about they actually pitch in their 2%.

 

[Dragonlady]

Trump is attacking NATO on Putin's orders. Period!

Trump is attacking NATO by having countries pay there fair share, even increasing percentage paid? Somehow that's a Putin request? Say what?

4 years ago it was agreed that within 10 years they would spend 2% of their GDP on their military...they have 6 years left to meet that agreement...


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Great, so it shouldn't bother them agree to pitch in 4%.

No country in NATO will go above 2% nor should they.

If the US wants to spend more on Defence they’re free to do so. The rest of the NATO countries have no reason to have a huge military build up.

This whole drive to increase NATO spending is nothing more than Trump’s hamfisted way of increasing US exports of weapons.

But it’s Trump’s rhetoric and framing of the issues which creates a false narrative. Nothing that he seems to think happened, just happened.

I saw the press conference. Trump was blathering incoherently. He didn’t answer half the questions because he had no idea what the reporter was talking about, so he dismissed the question and moved on to another question at the speed of light.

Great, so how about they actually pitch in their 2%.

There is no “pitching in”. There is spend on defence.

They have until 2024 to raise spending to 2%.

Tell Trump to stop making an ass of himself in Europe to score political points with his base.

 

[Thinker101]

Trump is attacking NATO by having countries pay there fair share, even increasing percentage paid? Somehow that's a Putin request? Say what?

4 years ago it was agreed that within 10 years they would spend 2% of their GDP on their military...they have 6 years left to meet that agreement...


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Great, so it shouldn't bother them agree to pitch in 4%.

No country in NATO will go above 2% nor should they.

If the US wants to spend more on Defence they’re free to do so. The rest of the NATO countries have no reason to have a huge military build up.

This whole drive to increase NATO spending is nothing more than Trump’s hamfisted way of increasing US exports of weapons.

But it’s Trump’s rhetoric and framing of the issues which creates a false narrative. Nothing that he seems to think happened, just happened.

I saw the press conference. Trump was blathering incoherently. He didn’t answer half the questions because he had no idea what the reporter was talking about, so he dismissed the question and moved on to another question at the speed of light.

Great, so how about they actually pitch in their 2%.

There is no “pitching in”. There is spend on defence.

They have until 2024 to raise spending to 2%.

Tell Trump to stop making an ass of himself in Europe to score political points with his base.

You do understand how Germany is gaming the system?

 

[Dan Stubbs]

Well you could take the number with you to North Korea and suggest that if they would like to take over a country, you just happen to know a few that would foot the bill. I am not sure but some of them have small islands in the area of Asia that could be taken over. I wonder if China would be ticked off if Korea did that.

 

[Flopper]

Trump is attacking NATO by having countries pay there fair share, even increasing percentage paid? Somehow that's a Putin request? Say what?

4 years ago it was agreed that within 10 years they would spend 2% of their GDP on their military...they have 6 years left to meet that agreement...


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

That agreement was a target and not a firm figure. In discussions in 2013, there was a general agreement that some countries will always spend more than 2% because they have large military commitments other than NATO and some smaller countries will not be able to make the 2% target.

Why its a percentage...cut some welfare if you have to.....but step it up.

It is not only how much a nation spends on defense that matters, but what that nation spends it on and its willingness to use it.

BINGO. Most nations do not have the same desire to control the world through their military power that the US does.

I think it's more a matter of not having the capability. Having a huge military presence allows a country to influence just about every political decision around the world and dominate organizations such as UN, NATO, IFM, etc. Signing a defense agreement with the United States is often accompanied by trade agreements, agreements to support US initiates in global and regional organization. Money and military power will buy off most governments.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Trump is attacking NATO by having countries pay there fair share, even increasing percentage paid? Somehow that's a Putin request? Say what?

4 years ago it was agreed that within 10 years they would spend 2% of their GDP on their military...they have 6 years left to meet that agreement...


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

That agreement was a target and not a firm figure. In discussions in 2013, there was a general agreement that some countries will always spend more than 2% because they have large military commitments other than NATO and some smaller countries will not be able to make the 2% target.

Why its a percentage...cut some welfare if you have to.....but step it up.

It is not only how much a nation spends on defense that matters, but what that nation spends it on and its willingness to use it.

BINGO. Most nations do not have the same desire to control the world through their military power that the US does.

Because they rely on us. We're the safety net and we're asking them to commit to defense. If they don't care about their country's defense, why should we?

 

[buckeye45_73]

Charles Payne's tweet...

Is NATO ready? Germany's Military Readiness

• 95/244 Leopard battle tanks operational
• 0/6 Submarines operational
• 9/15 Frigates in service
• 0/14 transport aircraft airworthy 21,000
• Junior officer/NCO positions unfilled 6/30 Logistical battalions fully equipped

Charles V Payne (@cvpayne) | Twitter

And that's why Trump wants NATO members to step up because true members of NATO are suppose to make
military expenditures equal to a % of their GDP... here are the top
First of all NATO members agreed:
Even though this would be a sharp increase on current spending,
it would still fall short of the 2 percent[of GDP] threshold NATO countries agreed to at the 2014 summit in Wales.

Defense Expenditures Of NATO Members Visualized [Infographic]

Yet look at the following chart!
Remember they agreed to spend 2% of their GDP... Only
The USA and United Kingdom,Poland,Greece, and Estonia.. 5 out of 27 countries are meeting the requirements.
This is what Trump means when he said they need to do what they agreed to!
View attachment 204014

Trump is attacking NATO on Putin's orders. Period!

Trump is attacking NATO by having countries pay there fair share, even increasing percentage paid? Somehow that's a Putin request? Say what?

4 years ago it was agreed that within 10 years they would spend 2% of their GDP on their military...they have 6 years left to meet that agreement...


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Great, so it shouldn't bother them agree to pitch in 4%.

No country in NATO will go above 2% nor should they.

If the US wants to spend more on Defence they’re free to do so. The rest of the NATO countries have no reason to have a huge military build up.

This whole drive to increase NATO spending is nothing more than Trump’s hamfisted way of increasing US exports of weapons.

But it’s Trump’s rhetoric and framing of the issues which creates a false narrative. Nothing that he seems to think happened, just happened.

I saw the press conference. Trump was blathering incoherently. He didn’t answer half the questions because he had no idea what the reporter was talking about, so he dismissed the question and moved on to another question at the speed of light.

That is fine, then we leave NATO, and they can use it as another club of European elitists to circle jerk each other

 

[Harpy Eagle]

4 years ago it was agreed that within 10 years they would spend 2% of their GDP on their military...they have 6 years left to meet that agreement...


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

That agreement was a target and not a firm figure. In discussions in 2013, there was a general agreement that some countries will always spend more than 2% because they have large military commitments other than NATO and some smaller countries will not be able to make the 2% target.

Why its a percentage...cut some welfare if you have to.....but step it up.

It is not only how much a nation spends on defense that matters, but what that nation spends it on and its willingness to use it.

BINGO. Most nations do not have the same desire to control the world through their military power that the US does.

Because they rely on us. We're the safety net and we're asking them to commit to defense. If they don't care about their country's defense, why should we?

We shouldn’t. We should pull back our military and quit spending more than the next 9 nations combined


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[buckeye45_73]

Once again our President does the right thing and putting spotlight on the deadbeat NATO countries not paying their dues. PC is a disease and Donald J Trump is the cure.

Uhhh...this is not about dues, this is about individual military expenditures.

well under the agreement, they have to spend %2.0 of their GDP on defense and most are not making it, do dues may not be technically correct, it's more a synonym

They do not have to spend that till starting in 2024, so nobody is “not making” It yet since the agreement was for 10 years from 2014.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Right, but my point is, Trump is saying do it now.......which needs to be done.....10 years....only Obama would think that's a good idea...

A country cannot just overnight, or even in a year or two double the amount the spend on their military. Come on, do you think that the US could jump from 3.6 to 5% of our GDP in a year?

No, part of this I think is he wants them do make it happen faster. 10 years is a joke. We pay for their defense, Trump is warning them to step it up. we're tired of paying for it. So we know it wont happen overnight, but it needs to happen in a few years......That's the difference between business and govt. business people can't afford to waste time......no excuses.

 

[buckeye45_73]

That agreement was a target and not a firm figure. In discussions in 2013, there was a general agreement that some countries will always spend more than 2% because they have large military commitments other than NATO and some smaller countries will not be able to make the 2% target.

Why its a percentage...cut some welfare if you have to.....but step it up.

It is not only how much a nation spends on defense that matters, but what that nation spends it on and its willingness to use it.

BINGO. Most nations do not have the same desire to control the world through their military power that the US does.

Because they rely on us. We're the safety net and we're asking them to commit to defense. If they don't care about their country's defense, why should we?

We shouldn’t. We should pull back our military and quit spending more than the next 9 nations combined


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

I think that's the message being sent. We are either going to do this or not. if not, we pull out. Its about time we get serious on this.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Why its a percentage...cut some welfare if you have to.....but step it up.

It is not only how much a nation spends on defense that matters, but what that nation spends it on and its willingness to use it.

BINGO. Most nations do not have the same desire to control the world through their military power that the US does.

Because they rely on us. We're the safety net and we're asking them to commit to defense. If they don't care about their country's defense, why should we?

We shouldn’t. We should pull back our military and quit spending more than the next 9 nations combined


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

I think that's the message being sent. We are either going to do this or not. if not, we pull out. Its about time we get serious on this.

But we are not serious because no matter what they do we are raising our military spending any how.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Uhhh...this is not about dues, this is about individual military expenditures.

well under the agreement, they have to spend %2.0 of their GDP on defense and most are not making it, do dues may not be technically correct, it's more a synonym

They do not have to spend that till starting in 2024, so nobody is “not making” It yet since the agreement was for 10 years from 2014.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Right, but my point is, Trump is saying do it now.......which needs to be done.....10 years....only Obama would think that's a good idea...

A country cannot just overnight, or even in a year or two double the amount the spend on their military. Come on, do you think that the US could jump from 3.6 to 5% of our GDP in a year?

No, part of this I think is he wants them do make it happen faster. 10 years is a joke. We pay for their defense, Trump is warning them to step it up. we're tired of paying for it. So we know it wont happen overnight, but it needs to happen in a few years......That's the difference between business and govt. business people can't afford to waste time......no excuses.

But we are not talking about businesses, we are talking about governments that have to get their legislative bodies of elected officials and their voters to agree to the spending increase.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com