@ISIDEWITHQuestionsForeign policyStarted 9yrs agoActive 14hrs ago

Should the government increase or decrease military spending?

Canada’s defense budget is currently $20 billion a year which is less than 1% of its GDP. This is much less than the $600 billion a year the U.S. spends and the $6.5 billion a year the UK spends. Only 5 other countries of the 28 in NATO spend less. To join NATO each member country pledged to spend at least 2% of their GDP on military spending and defense and defend each other against threats from any non-member country. In a July 2016 U.S. Presidential nominee Donald Trump suggested that the United States would not defend NATO member countries who had failed to increase their military budgets to above 2% of Gross Domestic Product. France, Turkey, Germany, Canada, and Italy are countries that are currently spending less than 2% of their GDP on military defense. 

+
Expand
+ Settings x  

Toggle voterbase

Statistics are shown for this demographic

Engaged Voters

These active users have achieved a basic understanding of terms and definitions related to the topic of Military Spending

@9SYGGS9
#1 Engaged Voter
Test Your Knowledge

Answer Overview

Response rates from 800 York Centre voters.

42%
Increase
32%
Decrease
33%
Increase
32%
Decrease
8%
Increase, but only after our deficit is drastically reduced

Historical Support

Trend of support over time for each answer from 800 York Centre voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 800 York Centre voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

Unique answers from York Centre voters whose views went beyond the provided options.

 @9HDV4JKfrom Alberta  answered…12mos12MO

increased, but to an extent. not everything the military buys is useful. so if we are to give more money then we should monitor what they are spending it on.

 @9H5JSPPfrom Ontario  answered…1yr1Y

Increase drastically. we can not rely on foreign countries to protect us when we will soon enough have to fight for ourselves

 @8XJMDVYfrom Nova Scotia  answered…3yrs3Y

People who serve in the military should be paid more

 @8TWDTHBfrom Alberta  answered…3yrs3Y

Yes, and capabilities in the north need to be prioritized and procurement must be rationalized.

 @8SX7FGBfrom British Columbia  answered…4yrs4Y

Yes, as the United States of America has proven to be unreliable.

 @8J8WW99from Ontario  answered…4yrs4Y

I would use military for more reconstruction and aid events, rather than actually going to war. So if we use our military for post war clean up efforts and to support countries own peace making efforts, I would increase the spending. I would not increase the spending for war ships or military planes.

 @9ZDQ9FMfrom Ontario  answered…2wks2W

increase if Canada get their standing army back and if the situation demands it otherwise find a baseline that keeps the troops up to date and taken care of, take care of material cost and maintenance and also provide for our veterans when peace is in the horizon

 @9YGJXM9from Ontario  answered…2wks2W

Generally it should be increased, but the goal should be to reduce the deficit. However, if there are situations where it is necessary to spend more on military, then it should be allowed.

Latest News

Stay up-to-date on the most recent “Military Spending” news articles, updated frequently.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2wks2W

Trump's Deportation Storm: America Braces for Mass Exodus of Immigrants

For months, immigration advocates have been planning for the possibility of Donald Trump’s return to the White House. Now, their worst fears have arrived.Immigrants’ rights groups have spent the last year preparing for a second Trump term and an overhaul of the nation’s immigration system, analyzing Trump’s proposals, drafting legal briefs, coordinating messaging and organizing aid for immigrants and asylum seekers. They responded to Trump’s victory with alarm and vowed to put up a fight, setting the stage for four more years of contentious court battles with his administration.Some are already preparing to push current leadership at the Department of Homeland Security to take steps to stymie the incoming Trump team, particularly on immigrant detention and the use of AI in enforcement.“We should expect to see the devastation of immigrant communities all over the country. We should expect to see family separation,” said Kica Matos, the president of the National Immigration Law Center. “It is entirely possible that he will try to use the military to carry out deportations, so that means that Americans all over the country will see the military engaging in enforcement against civilian populations, which is horrifying.”Trump, after winning a historic victory on a platform of turbo-charged immigration enforcement, has said he will conduct mass deportations at a scale never before seen. Immigrant advocates have warned this would be expensive and inhumane, separating families and wrecking communities. The president-elect has also vowed to build huge detention camps, hire thousands more border agents, funnel military spending toward border security and invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to expel suspected members of drug cartels and criminal gangs without court hearings.He has also said he would end “catch-and-release” — allowing migrants to remain free, often with monitoring, while they await immigration court hearings — and restore a policy from his first term requiring asylum seekers to remain in Mexico while their cases are processed. And he has dodged questions about whether he would try to bring back family separation.

▲  6

Popular Conversations

Join in on the most popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…22hrs22H

Starmer Throws Netanyahu Under the ICC Bus: UK Backs Arrest Warrant for Israeli PM

Sir Keir Starmer has backed the International Criminal Court (ICC) after it issued an arrest warrant for Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister.When asked about the issue, Sir Keir’s official spokesman said the Government respected the independence of the court.He declined to say whether Mr Netanyahu would be arrested if he arrived in the UK.The spokesman said: “We respect the independence of the ICC, which is the primary institutional institution for investigating and prosecuting the most serious crimes in relation to international law.“This Government has been clear that Israel has a right to defend itself in accordance with international law. There is no moral equivalence between Israel, a democracy and Hamas and Lebanese Hezbollah, which are terror groups.“We remain focused on pushing for an immediate ceasefire to bring an end to the devastating violence in Gaza.”Under the Conservatives, the British government had told the court it intended to challenge the plans for the arrest warrants.However, weeks after coming to power, Sir Keir’s government reversed that position and said it would not object.Downing Street also declined to say whether Mr Netanyahu would be welcome to visit Britain in the future.Sir Keir’s spokesman said: “We never comment on future international visits but my position on the Prime Minister’s support for Israel in terms of its right to defend itself in accordance with international law is very clear.”The spokesman repeatedly declined to “go into hypotheticals” about whether Mr Netanyahu would be arrested if he arrived in the UK.He added: “It’s not up to the Prime Minister to determine other world leaders’ travel schedules. He engages and will continue to engage with the prime minister of Israel in support of Israel’s right to defend itself.”Pressed on what he meant by his comments about the court, the spokesman said: “It means that we respect the independence of the ICC. We respect the fact that the ICC is the primary international institution for investigating and prosecuting the most serious crimes of international concern.”The spokesman went on to say the Government’s “focus” remained an end to the violence in the Middle East, which has been ongoing for more than a year after the Oct 7 terror attacks by Hamas.

▲  148 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…17hrs17H

Donald Trump nominates Pam Bondi as the next Attorney General

Former President and 2024 Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has announced his intention to nominate former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi as the next Attorney General of the United States, should he reclaim the presidency in the upcoming election.Bondi, a prominent figure in Republican politics, served as Florida's Attorney General from 2011 to 2019. She gained national attention for her legal battles on issues such as health care reform, consumer protection, and opioid abuse litigation. Known for her steadfast support of Trump during his presidency, Bondi also served as a key adviser during his first impeachment trial, where she defended his administration against accusations of abuse of power.In a statement released by his campaign, Trump praised Bondi’s “unwavering commitment to justice” and her “track record of standing up for everyday Americans against the abuses of Washington’s elites.”“Pam Bondi has been a fearless advocate for the people, and she embodies the principles of fairness, accountability, and the rule of law that are sorely needed to restore trust in our justice system,” Trump said. “She is the right person to lead the Department of Justice into a new era of integrity and excellence.”While Bondi’s nomination has been met with applause from conservative circles, it has also reignited criticism from Democrats and ethics watchdogs. Her acceptance of a $25,000 donation from the Trump Foundation in 2013, which coincided with her decision not to pursue an investigation into Trump University, has drawn scrutiny in the past and resurfaced following the announcement.Democratic leaders have already voiced opposition, questioning Bondi’s ability to lead the Department of Justice independently. Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) called the nomination “a political power play” and urged a focus on “restoring integrity, not entrenching partisanship.”

▲  2316 replies