PDA

View Full Version : US Spends $834 Billion A Year To Defend Europe




Zippyjuan
12-08-2018, 02:00 PM
If Trump's numbers are correct. That is more than our entire US military budget.

1071387078901030913

US GDP is $19.39 trillion. 4.3% of that would be $834 billion a year.

spudea
12-08-2018, 02:10 PM
So what's the real number?

Zippyjuan
12-08-2018, 02:32 PM
So what's the real number?

Our entire military budget is about $730 billion a year.

Some other figures:

https://www.iiss.org/blogs/military-balance/2018/07/us-and-nato-allies-costs-and-value


Direct funding for NATO

Looking at its direct commitment to Europe, the US contribution to NATO common funding stands at a fairly hefty 22.1%, or about US$685 million. This covers the costs of some operations, training and exercises, joint facilities, NATO headquarters and staff. The US further contributes to common equipment procurement, such as the Alliance Ground Surveillance System and the Strategic Airlift Command. It also provides some unique capabilities, including NATO Ballistic Missile Defence, for which the costs are included in the US Missile Defence Agency budget. In total, US funding for NATO military capabilities amounted to US$6.96bn in 2017 and US$6.87bn in 2018.

Costs of US military presence in Europe

Besides direct support to NATO capabilities, the US maintains a significant military presence in Europe, via various mechanisms. As of March 2018, US European Command (EUCOM) had around 70,000 active duty personnel, 2,000 reservists and 16,350 Department of Defense civilian personnel. Including personnel deployed on Operation Atlantic Resolve, with operations and maintenance expenses, annual costs for these forces are estimated at US$20.3bn in 2017 and US$24.4bn in 2018. This covers the costs of operating US bases in Europe.

The US presence in Europe has also been strengthened since June 2014 by the European Deterrence Initiative (EDI), an evolving response to the Russian annexation of Crimea (and originally called the European Reassurance Initiative). The EDI budget was US$789m in 2016 but rose to US$3.42bn in 2017, US$4.78bn in 2018 and is projected to increase to US$6.53bn in 2019 (see Figure 2).

US foreign military assistance

Finally, the US further contributes to European security through military aid to NATO allies, to a total of US$54m in 2017, but declining by more than 50% – to US$24m – in 2018.

That comes to about $36 billion. That is about five percent of our total military budget or less than two tenths of one percent (0.18%) of our GDP.

http://www.cnsnews.com/s3/files/styles/content_80p/s3/nato-spend2.jpg?itok=uMWn0Fb3

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/us-pays-2214-nato-budget-germany-1465-13-allies-pay-below-1

oyarde
12-08-2018, 04:11 PM
So europe should be paying tribute .

Pauls' Revere
12-08-2018, 04:48 PM
So what's the real number?

A lot.

Pauls' Revere
12-08-2018, 04:53 PM
So europe should be paying tribute .

Bitches...

Swordsmyth
12-08-2018, 05:02 PM
Time to leave NATO.

Anti Federalist
12-08-2018, 05:57 PM
That comes to about $36 billion. That is about five percent of our total military budget or less than two tenths of one percent (0.18%) of our GDP.

$36 billion would buy an awful lot of territorial United States border defense and invasion repelling.

Wasn't there some crazy old coot from Texas that said something like that?

Something to the effect of just marching the troops home and putting them to work defending the United States?

Nah...prolly not...I must be losing my mind.

Swordsmyth
12-08-2018, 05:59 PM
Our entire military budget is about $730 billion a year.

Some other figures:

https://www.iiss.org/blogs/military-balance/2018/07/us-and-nato-allies-costs-and-value



That comes to about $36 billion. That is about five percent of our total military budget or less than two tenths of one percent (0.18%) of our GDP.

http://www.cnsnews.com/s3/files/styles/content_80p/s3/nato-spend2.jpg?itok=uMWn0Fb3

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/us-pays-2214-nato-budget-germany-1465-13-allies-pay-below-1
That's ONLY the DIRECT funding, much of the rest of our military costs are necessitated by our defense of Europe.

Zippyjuan
12-08-2018, 06:21 PM
$36 billion would buy an awful lot of territorial United States border defense and invasion repelling.

Wasn't there some crazy old coot from Texas that said something like that?

Something to the effect of just marching the troops home and putting them to work defending the United States?

Nah...prolly not...I must be losing my mind.

Ron said you could save $1 trillion by bringing home the military from overseas. But we don't spend $1 trillion a year overseas. And bringing them home (just moving them) doesn't save money but costs for the transportation.

Swordsmyth
12-08-2018, 06:27 PM
Ron said you could save $1 trillion by bringing home the military from overseas. But we don't spend $1 trillion a year overseas. And bringing them home (just moving them) doesn't save money but costs for the transportation.
It does save money in the long run and if Ron said $1T then he knows more than you do so I will trust him.

spudea
12-08-2018, 07:32 PM
Our entire military budget is about $730 billion a year.

That comes to about $36 billion. That is about five percent of our total military budget or less than two tenths of one percent (0.18%) of our GDP.

Thank you for serving Trumps purpose and pointing out the many billions we pay in direct and indirect defense of Europe and we are not being compensated. Fairness!

angelatc
12-08-2018, 07:58 PM
Our entire military budget is about $730 billion a year.




That comes to about $36 billion. That is about five percent of our total military budget or less than two tenths of one percent (0.18%) of our GDP.

\

I don't get to say this very often, but something is wrong with your numbers. I don't know where Trump is getting current his number from, but these charts taken directly from NATO (https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2018_03/20180315_180315-pr2018-16-en.pdf)indicate that the US was estimated to be spending dramatically upwards of your numbers in 2017.

https://i.imgur.com/yKaKBsQ.png https://i.imgur.com/DqvSCqK.pnghttps://i.imgur.com/rR7upCF.png

Zippyjuan
12-08-2018, 08:04 PM
I don't get to say this very often, but something is wrong with your numbers. I don't know where Trump is getting current his number from, but this chart taken directly from NATO (https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2018_03/20180315_180315-pr2018-16-en.pdf)indicates that the US was estimated to be spending dramatically upwards of your numbers in 2017.

https://i.imgur.com/yKaKBsQ.png https://i.imgur.com/DqvSCqK.png

Charts show total military expenditures as a percent of GDP- not how much they are spending in Europe but the entire world including inside the US. The US is not spending their entire military budget in Europe.

angelatc
12-08-2018, 08:08 PM
If Trump's numbers are correct. That is more than our entire US military budget.

1071387078901030913

US GDP is $19.39 trillion. 4.3% of that would be $834 billion a year.

Looking at the UN numbers, that estimate doesn't seem out of line.

angelatc
12-08-2018, 08:08 PM
Charts show total military expenditures as a percent of GDP- not how much they are spending in Europe. The US is not spending their entire military budget in Europe.

https://i.imgur.com/rR7upCF.png

angelatc
12-08-2018, 08:10 PM
Charts show total military expenditures as a percent of GDP- not how much they are spending in Europe. The US is not spending their entire military budget in Europe.

Then what's the 2% NATO suggestion about? Isn't that how much NATO suggests each country spend on NATO?

Zippyjuan
12-08-2018, 08:13 PM
Then what's the 2% NATO suggestion about? Isn't that how much NATO suggests each country spend on NATO?

That is a percent of GDP they spend on their military- not just towards NATO. From your link:


NATO collects defence expenditure data from Allies on a regular basis and presents
aggregates and subsets of this information. Each Ally’s Ministry of Defence reports
current and estimated future defence expenditure according to an agreed definition of
defence expenditure. The amounts represent payments by a national government actually
made, or to be made, during the course of the fiscal year to meet the needs of its armed
forces, those of Allies or of the Alliance.

angelatc
12-08-2018, 08:17 PM
That is a percent of GDP they spend on their military- not just towards NATO.

But his tweet is accurate. Germany is paying approx 1% while we're paying upwards of 3.5%, and we are not using all that money to defend our borders, that's for sure. 1071387078901030913

Zippyjuan
12-08-2018, 08:21 PM
But his tweet is accurate. Germany is paying approx 1% while we're paying upwards of 3.5%, and we are not using all that money to defend our borders, that's for sure. 1071387078901030913

Tweet says we are spending 4.3% of our GDP to defend Europe. That is accurate if you can claim that all of our military spending goes to defending Europe. It doesn't.


Germany is paying 1% while the U.S. pays 4.3% of a much larger GDP - to protect Europe. Fairness!

Anti Globalist
12-08-2018, 08:22 PM
Be nice if we didn't spend any money defending Europe.

Swordsmyth
12-08-2018, 08:25 PM
Be nice if we didn't spend any money defending Europe.

/Thread

angelatc
12-08-2018, 08:27 PM
Tweet says we are spending 4.3% of our GDP to defend Europe. That is accurate if you can claim that all of our military spending goes to defending Europe. It doesn't.

I guess I'm not reading it the same way you are.

Anti Federalist
12-08-2018, 08:28 PM
Ron said you could save $1 trillion by bringing home the military from overseas. But we don't spend $1 trillion a year overseas. And bringing them home (just moving them) doesn't save money but costs for the transportation.

So you are saying we would not have saved a trillion dollars in defense spending if we had elected Ron in 2008?

Zippyjuan
12-08-2018, 08:28 PM
I guess I'm not reading it the same way you are.

Fair enough.

Anti Federalist
12-08-2018, 08:29 PM
I said it before, I'll say it again:

I miss the days when this "movement" was opposed to military spending abroad, wanted the troops home and the border defended.

Swordsmyth
12-08-2018, 08:30 PM
How much does Europe spend to defend the US?

Or is NATO just a scheme to rob the US taxpayer to subsidize European socialism?

Zippyjuan
12-08-2018, 08:31 PM
So you ares saying we would not have saved a trillion dollars in defense spending if we had elected Ron in 2008?

How much would Congress be willing to cut (they write the budgets)? In 2008 we were spending $481 on defense. Can you save $1 trillion there (certainly not in one year)? Total spending was $2.9 trillion. This year we are spending over $4 trillion and $700 billion on defense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_United_States_federal_budget

I had problems with his math back then too. Besides Social Security, Medicare/ Medicaid and interest on the debt we were spending about $1.15 trillion. He said he could cut $1 trillion from that budget without cutting any Social Security or Medicaid. That would leave about $150 billion for everything including Defense.


SPENDING:

Cuts $1 trillion in spending during the first year of Ron Paul’s presidency, eliminating five cabinet departments (Energy, HUD, Commerce, Interior, and Education), abolishing the Transportation Security Administration and returning responsibility for security to private property owners, abolishing corporate subsidies, stopping foreign aid, ending foreign wars, and returning most other spending to 2006 levels.

ENTITLEMENTS:

Honors our promise to our seniors and veterans, while allowing young workers to opt out. Block-grants Medicaid and other welfare programs to allow States the flexibility and ingenuity they need to solve their own unique problems without harming those currently relying on the programs.

Plan to Restore America- Ron Paul. http://c3244172.r72.cf0.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/RestoreAmericaPlan.pdf

The budgets (2008) for the five departments he would eliminate:

Energy: $24.3 billion
HUD: $35.2 billion
Commerce: $1.9 billion
Interior: $10.6 billion
Education: $56.4 billion

That's $117 billion. Only about ten percent of what he wanted. Assuming Congress would agree.

Returning discretionary spending to 2006 levels would actually have INCREASED spending. The 2006 budget called for $2.7 trillion in spending but subtracting off Social Security and Medicare/ Medicaid and interest on the debt leaves $1.3 trillion -more than the 2008 budget of $1.15. The growth of the social welfare programs offset reductions in other spending.

Swordsmyth
12-08-2018, 08:31 PM
I said it before, I'll say it again:

I miss the days when this "movement" was opposed to military spending abroad, wanted the troops home and the border defended.
WE are, why zippy is allowed to disrupt the movement is another question.

Anti Federalist
12-08-2018, 08:40 PM
How much would Congress be willing to cut (they write the budgets)? In 2008 we were spending $481 on defense. Total spending was $2.9 trillion. This year we are spending over $4 trillion and $700 billion on defense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_United_States_federal_budget

Good question.

Moot point.

The executive can veto any budget that expands.

angelatc
12-08-2018, 08:44 PM
I said it before, I'll say it again:

I miss the days when this "movement" was opposed to military spending abroad, wanted the troops home and the border defended.

Of course I oppose it. Every single penny of it. As Ron Paul said, just leave the office equipment and come home.

Anti Federalist
12-08-2018, 08:50 PM
Of course I oppose it. Every single penny of it. As Ron Paul said, just leave the office equipment and come home.

Well, I know you do, but I'm thinking this is the minority opinion.

Zippyjuan
12-08-2018, 08:54 PM
Good question.

Moot point.

The executive can veto any budget that expands.

So he would never allow any budget to pass? His way or the highway? Not his style. No, he would compromise. He would not be a dictatorial leader. He sees things as goals- not things which can happen right away. He could get some cuts, but no way to cut $1 trillion from that budget.

Trump could in theory veto every spending bill until he gets the money he wants for his wall too. Even he hasn't done that.

(his balanced budget plan also assumed that tax revenues would rise by 25% over the three years of his plan while he cut tax rates).

juleswin
12-08-2018, 11:12 PM
Ron said you could save $1 trillion by bringing home the military from overseas. But we don't spend $1 trillion a year overseas. And bringing them home (just moving them) doesn't save money but costs for the transportation.

Ron said we could save $1 trillion over how many years? And why do u assume that Ron was talking about saving 1 trillion in 1 year? Its the small misdirection and obfuscation like this is the reason people don't trust you. It is totally unreasonable and unfair to insinuate that Ron was talking about annual savings.

And yes, in the long run we would save lots of money by bringing home the troops tomorrow and focusing on solely defending the US homeland against real enemies.

Anti Federalist
12-09-2018, 01:38 AM
So he would never allow any budget to pass? His way or the highway? Not his style. No, he would compromise. He would not be a dictatorial leader. He sees things as goals- not things which can happen right away. He could get some cuts, but no way to cut $1 trillion from that budget.

Trump could in theory veto every spending bill until he gets the money he wants for his wall too. Even he hasn't done that.

(his balanced budget plan also assumed that tax revenues would rise by 25% over the three years of his plan while he cut tax rates).

It is precisely because I believe he would have done that, that I supported him.

The way I figured it, if there was one single person in politics that said what they meant and meant what they said and did what they said they were going to do, it was Ron Paul.

Maybe I was naive...

Aratus
12-09-2018, 09:28 AM
NATO is in Afghanistan. SEATO is not inside a shooting war.