Trump to Make Allies Pay More to Host US Bases

[shadowkin + 584]

Trump plans to press our Allies that host US bases to pay for the cost of running the bases plus 50%. It’s called cost plus 50. It’s not clear what is considered to be the ‘cost’. Does it include soldiers’ pay for example. Nations whose policies align more with the US may receive discounts.

Currently Germany pays 28% of the cost to host US bases. This does not include things like soldiers’ pay. Trump was recently able to get the South Koreans to pay more though not cost plus 50. S. Korea was seeking to lock in a 5 year deal but was only given one so they will come under pressure in a year to pay cost plus 50%.

About time. The Cold War is long gone. It’s true those bases are in our interests and so not entirely altruistic but it’s also true they are even more in the interests of the host nation.

Do you think Germany wants to see the US withdraw all its forces? They would immediately come under Russian pressure given the sorry state of their military.

Do you think Japan or S. Korea want to see the US withdraw with China and North Korea at their doorstep and no USA, literally, behind them?

If Allies like Germany are not willing to engage in combat alongside us or sufficiently increase their defense spending they should be paying more in some other fashion. 

Naturally the msm makes it sound like:

1. Such an arrangement reduces our military to mercenaries rather than burden sharing. And do you really think they care what our military are called. If they had their way we’d slash defense by 70% and spend it on the Green New Deal or some such nonsense.
2. It calls into question our commitment to our allies as if we are the ones not standing watch and paying the lions share of the cost for that privilege.

TANSTAAFL

[Guillaume Albasini + 851]

A good opportunity for Europe to get rid of the US bases. World War II is over, the Cold war is over. I's time to end this military presence from an other age.

[shadowkin + 584]

A good opportunity for who? Russia? Germany is the last country that wants to see the US military leave. Germany is a sovereign nation and if they asked us leave we would. Have they done so? No.

Reason? They would have no choice but to increase their defense spending by, at minimum, tens of billions of dollars annually and they would have to pay the price in blood of their own people.

So the days of standing behind the US defense umbrella that allowed them to happily pour the majority of their resources into products to export to the world would be gone.  Their social welfare system would take a hit as well.

[Guillaume Albasini + 851]

If you put your defense in the hands of another country you have to trust this country and since Trump was elected  Europe doesn't trust the US anymore.

"Europe must take its destiny in its own hands " (Angela Merkel)

"European nations should not allow "other major powers, including allies" to "put themselves in a situation to decide our diplomacy [and] security for us."  (Emmanuel Macron)

 

 

[shadowkin + 584]

Good point about trust but...these are just words from Merkel, Macron. There are no concrete steps. Ok there may be an office someplace in, I don't know Brussels, for an EU army.

And trust works both ways. I don't think the US trusts Germany to participate in any meaningful way in the defense of any NATO member. I think only half the German public thought they should defend I think it was Poland. Germany's main contribution is her geography.

Any nation in Europe where we have bases could ask us to leave and we would have to unless we wanted to conquer that nation. But once we leave I think that's effectively the end of NATO and we would no longer be obligated to defend former NATO members. 

[Illurion + 894]

3 hours ago, Guillaume Albasini said:

If you put your defense in the hands of another country you have to trust this country and since Trump was elected  Europe doesn't trust the US anymore.

"Europe must take its destiny in its own hands " (Angela Merkel)

"European nations should not allow "other major powers, including allies" to "put themselves in a situation to decide our diplomacy [and] security for us."  (Emmanuel Macron)

 

 

Merkel is a fool........

All USA bases in Germany should be moved to Poland anyway..........

Europe's destiny is to be a muslim majority no-go zone........

[Oil_Engineer + 86]

9 hours ago, Illurion said:

Merkel is a fool........

All USA bases in Germany should be moved to Poland anyway..........

Europe's destiny is to be a muslim majority no-go zone........

I am sure West Ukraine would love to have a few thousand American servicemen come and stay, too.

[John Foote + 1,135]

3 hours ago, Oil_Engineer said:

I am sure West Ukraine would love to have a few thousand American servicemen come and stay, too.

That, and moving to Poland. That would Russia to be more aggressive. And good luck being the first to in a long time winning a land war in Asia.

Once upon a time folks like Napoleon and the Kaisers made money with the military (though Russia was a step too far). The Khans were pretty good at it. Those days of warfare making money, are long gone, it's too destructive and forces guerrilla and what we call terrorism. It was in the US's interest to be all over Western Europe. If we don't think it is, pull out, the heck with being paid for it, pull out. Chop that DOD budget in half and now you are on the way to balance budget. Deescalate the world instead of threatening to beat the piss out of it as a way to peace.

We aren't going to significantly lower our profile, and Europe isn't going to pay for us to be there in a significant way. But fantasy is nice.

[NickW + 2,714]

20 hours ago, Guillaume Albasini said:

If you put your defense in the hands of another country you have to trust this country and since Trump was elected  Europe doesn't trust the US anymore.

"Europe must take its destiny in its own hands " (Angela Merkel)

"European nations should not allow "other major powers, including allies" to "put themselves in a situation to decide our diplomacy [and] security for us."  (Emmanuel Macron)

 

 

That would be fine but Germany's attitude  towards its own defense is basically reliant on defense welfare from the USA and to some extent the UK (one of the few NATO countries that actually meets the minimum 2% of GDP requirements).

How many operational ready Eurofighters does Europes biggest economy have ? 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/02/luftwaffe-four-combat-ready-eurofighters-pressure-builds-weak/

The UK should have played its defense welfare provider card in the Brexit negotiations

[shadowkin + 584]

20 minutes ago, NickW said:

How many operational ready Eurofighters does Europes biggest economy have ? 

Also true for their subs, frigates, tanks. On top of that they can't get enough Germans to join so they are contemplating letting other Europeans join their military.

It truly is defense welfare by the US/UK.

[NickW + 2,714]

2 minutes ago, shadowkin said:

Also true for their subs, frigates, tanks. On top of that they can't get enough Germans to join so they are contemplating letting other Europeans join their military.

It truly is defense welfare by the US/UK.

Yep - and look at the way lap dog May is just rolling over for Merkel and Macron. 

A major card to have played in Brexit would have been withdrawal of the UK's over weighty commitment to Baltic Shield. That would have had most of Eastern Europe barking at Merkel and her boy Macron. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

4 hours ago, John Foote said:

That, and moving to Poland. That would Russia to be more aggressive. And good luck being the first to in a long time winning a land war in Asia.

pull out. Chop that DOD budget in half and now you are on the way to balance budget.

We aren't going to significantly lower our profile, and Europe isn't going to pay for us to be there in a significant way. But fantasy is nice.

Yes, pull out.  And even if the defense budget was ZERO, we still have a massive deficit budget problem.  Thanks to FDR, Lyndon Johnson, and congress the gutless cowards. 

[NickW + 2,714]

4 minutes ago, shadowkin said:

Also true for their subs, frigates, tanks. On top of that they can't get enough Germans to join so they are contemplating letting other Europeans join their military.

It truly is defense welfare by the US/UK.

Most Germans opts for community service (wiping old peoples bums) over doing National Service. 

In the UK I spent 5 years in the Territorial Army Medical Corps as I always felt it would a useful skills set to learn how to operate firearms and laern the other skills available - just incase.....

[shadowkin + 584]

Just now, NickW said:

A major card to have played in Brexit would have been withdrawal of the UK's over weighty commitment to Baltic Shield.

Yup I thought that really strange that the UK didn't play hardball with that card.

[NickW + 2,714]

15 hours ago, shadowkin said:

Yup I thought that really strange that the UK didn't play hardball with that card.

If Treason May had any backbone she would have taken a line as follows.

In the event of a no deal which will damage the UK's economy this will restrict our ability to continue to support Baltic Shield and other military cooperation that protects eastern and central Europe.

Howls of protest, particularly from Eastern Europe.

UK response - well complain to the Germans and French and ask then to either 

1. pony up the necessary resources to provide adequate defence

2. Change tack and be reasonable with the UK to assure continued military cooperation

Failing that:

Buy shoe shine kits and learn to say please and thank you in Russian

Edited March 12, 2019 by NickW

[shadowkin + 584]

1 hour ago, NickW said:

Buy shoe shine kits and learn to say please and thank you in Russian

I think the UK as part of the 5 eyes could also threaten to withhold intelligence sharing with Germany and France

[John Foote + 1,135]

19 hours ago, Wastral said:

Yes, pull out.  And even if the defense budget was ZERO, we still have a massive deficit budget problem.  Thanks to FDR, Lyndon Johnson, and congress the gutless cowards. 

LBJ actually balanced the budget, and invoked a 10% surtax in '68.

WW2 sort of blew the budget, and also ended the recession for real. The things FDR put in motion, but SS has it's own funding/tax and has actually hidden the deficit with a theoretical surplus, but we've been robbing Peter to pay Paul on that one. Nixon and Bush43 probably the worst for the economy.

Absolutely congress has been poor, but it's us voters that put them in. 

Reagan is the post WW2 president who turned us into a debtor nation. Gradually decreased the rate of increased debt and psuedo balanced the books under Clinton, then Bush43 went warrior and blew the budget, followed by financial fiasco, and the hyper-drive debt. Followed by a gradual improvement in the rate of increasing debt. And then with 2019, with a decent economy, out government went completely brain debt with increasing the deficit. The entire lot, should be tossed. 

There seems to be a who cares about the deficit. I do, you clearly do, but the majority don't. And yes, I find it distressing.

Edited March 12, 2019 by John Foote

[shadowkin + 584]

46 minutes ago, John Foote said:

LBJ actually balanced the budget,

Well not really. Eisenhower dipped his toes into Vietnam and JFK, LBJ jumped in head first. We're still paying for that war. Nixon actually ended that war.

No Reagan didn't turn us into a debtor nation. We turned ourselves into a debtor nation buying everything left and right on credit and making stupid one way free trade agreements where country X has access to our markets but we don't have access to theirs.

[Leko + 17]

In my view The US military bases serve the U.S's political strategic interest. They should be charged rent for the property they use or they should go home, Nobody really needs or wants them any more. Trump has made feelings towards USA worse than they have ever been. The thought of charging the host nation "protection money" is wrong, but typical Trump.  

[shadowkin + 584]

1 hour ago, Leko said:

In my view The US military bases serve the U.S's political strategic interest. They should be charged rent for the property they use or they should go home, Nobody really needs or wants them any more. Trump has made feelings towards USA worse than they have ever been. The thought of charging the host nation "protection money" is wrong, but typical Trump.  

A kid can dream

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

6 hours ago, John Foote said:

LBJ actually balanced the budget, and invoked a 10% surtax in '68.

WW2 sort of blew the budget, and also ended the recession for real. The things FDR put in motion, but SS has it's own funding/tax and has actually hidden the deficit with a theoretical surplus, but we've been robbing Peter to pay Paul on that one. Nixon and Bush43 probably the worst for the economy.

Absolutely congress has been poor, but it's us voters that put them in. 

Reagan is the post WW2 president who turned us into a debtor nation. Gradually decreased the rate of increased debt and psuedo balanced the books under Clinton, then Bush43 went warrior and blew the budget, followed by financial fiasco, and the hyper-drive debt. Followed by a gradual improvement in the rate of increasing debt. And then with 2019, with a decent economy, out government went completely brain debt with increasing the deficit. The entire lot, should be tossed. 

There seems to be a who cares about the deficit. I do, you clearly do, but the majority don't. And yes, I find it distressing.

LBJ did so, by stealing SS and medicare funds...  Putting them in the general fund.  Thus when people starting pulling benefits in late 70's and early 80's, there were no funds at all and now they are a monster on our backs with the only way out is to say, "sorry, stop stealing from your children", and "If your children want to pay you in your dotage to live in luxury so you do not have to move in with your kids, well then they can do so.  Stop stealing from my children!"

NO, Government spending money did not end the Recession.  Having the rest of the worlds economies BLOWN UP and all of their navies at the bottom of the ocean did however...

Until SS/Medicare are addressed along with DoD, talking about the Deficit is a joke.  Medicaid at least has a purpose.  And no, none of these will be addressed until the whole thing collapses.  Basic human nature to procrastinate and lie to ourselves. 

PS: Get rid of the Federal department with a +$70Billion budget, nearly 6000 employees, who teaches ZERO children!!! That is the right of the states.

PPS: Get rid of the department of the interior.  There are no more wild west territories anymore.  Give all the federal land back to the states where it SHOULD have been all along as soon as they became states.  As for the National Parks and military bases... ok, they stay federal.  So, I guess a tiny Interior department just for NPS. 

[John Foote + 1,135]

8 hours ago, shadowkin said:

Well not really. Eisenhower dipped his toes into Vietnam and JFK, LBJ jumped in head first. We're still paying for that war. Nixon actually ended that war.

No Reagan didn't turn us into a debtor nation. We turned ourselves into a debtor nation buying everything left and right on credit and making stupid one way free trade agreements where country X has access to our markets but we don't have access to theirs.

Nixon extended the war to get elected. Easy to research and verify. Flat treason and he should have been shot, though I would prefer drawn and quartered. Go look at the records, '68 budget was balanced. But it's a different world. The amount of deficit, compared to GNP, was mostly small.

What Bush41 called Voodoo Economics, the Reagan cut taxes and increase the spend. It did effectively bankrupt the U.S.S.R. in the arms race. Reagan's lasting cuts is really the shift to capital gains. 

Supply Side economists like to say the increase in activity with tax cuts, famously called the Laffer Curve, ridiculed as Laugher Curve, and the great success always referenced is tax cuts by JFK. But rates were completely different. If the IRS went back to the rates of the 50s and 60s money would flee the country. And in my case, it's not the IRS rates that kill me so much as all the various taxes together. 

The spend side of the equation is what is completely out of whack. And heaven help us if interest rates go up a serious amount. T

The proposed budget will not happen, but glad to see someone taking on big agriculture for the first time. But increasing defense spending is lunacy. How do we possibly need to spend more than the rest of the world combined, in a country with zero chance of an invading army attacking, and a massive doomsday arsenal. 

[Illurion + 894]

10 hours ago, John Foote said:

but SS has it's own funding/tax and has actually hidden the deficit with a theoretical surplus, but we've been robbing Peter to pay Paul on that one. Nixon and Bush43 probably the worst for the economy.

Actually Clinton was the worst,  but he cheated and "HID" his massive deficits by stealing from the SS trust funds...

In the last year of his Presidency,   Clinton was looking toward his "legacy",  and was told his high deficits would look bad........

SO....    he paid off the deficits by "raiding" the SS and Medicare Trust Funds and "REPLACED" the money with "5 YEAR NOTES" that would have to be paid by his replacement.......

To this day,    Clinton often brags about how "balanced" he left the economy...........  what a joke..........

Then,  his replacement,  BUSH,  took office in January, and was at war after 9/11,   and while the "5 year notes" were "technically" paid,  they were actually just "rolled over"....

Obama just rolled them over too,   so they are still unpaid........

SO...  THE REALITY IS THAT WE ARE STILL PAYING TODAY FOR BILL CLINTON'S DEFICITS FROM 1999......   plus Bush's wars,  and Obama's incompetence and treason.......

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

On 3/10/2019 at 5:05 PM, shadowkin said:

Trump plans to press our Allies that host US bases to pay for the cost of running the bases plus 50%. It’s called cost plus 50. It’s not clear what is considered to be the ‘cost’. Does it include soldiers’ pay for example. Nations whose policies align more with the US may receive discounts.

Currently Germany pays 28% of the cost to host US bases. This does not include things like soldiers’ pay. Trump was recently able to get the South Koreans to pay more though not cost plus 50. S. Korea was seeking to lock in a 5 year deal but was only given one so they will come under pressure in a year to pay cost plus 50%.

About time. The Cold War is long gone. It’s true those bases are in our interests and so not entirely altruistic but it’s also true they are even more in the interests of the host nation.

Do you think Germany wants to see the US withdraw all its forces? They would immediately come under Russian pressure given the sorry state of their military.

Do you think Japan or S. Korea want to see the US withdraw with China and North Korea at their doorstep and no USA, literally, behind them?

If Allies like Germany are not willing to engage in combat alongside us or sufficiently increase their defense spending they should be paying more in some other fashion. 

Naturally the msm makes it sound like:

1. Such an arrangement reduces our military to mercenaries rather than burden sharing. And do you really think they care what our military are called. If they had their way we’d slash defense by 70% and spend it on the Green New Deal or some such nonsense.
2. It calls into question our commitment to our allies as if we are the ones not standing watch and paying the lions share of the cost for that privilege.

TANSTAAFL

Mexico will pay for the wall, now other countries will pay 150% for your forces to be in their country?  LOL!  28% sure, maybe; 100% No; 150% is a joke of epic fence proportions.

Level heads will prevail - not Trump lunacy.

"It’s true those bases are in our interests and so not entirely altruistic". Ya think!

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

Yeah underestimate Germany's ability to quickly rebuild its military... again.