Posted on 04/15/2020 5:14:29 AM PDT by granada
...’deeply’
only thing deep with the EU is their bullsheet.
Would that be the same WHO that put us in this jackpot??
Interesting that nobody is saying this is “illegal”. PDJT smells corruption and stops payments to the WHO.
How is that any different than Ukraine?
Trump is following the Dem strategy of not letting a crisis go to waste. This is a good time to emancipate the UN and its various sub-organizations.
Kind of reminds me of the Beer Analogy.
https://www.moore.co.uk/msuk/moore-stephens-south/news/april-2016/the-tax-system-explained-using-a-beer-analogy
Suppose that once a week, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7.
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
And the tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.
So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every week and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the owner caused them a little problem. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your weekly beer by £20." Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free but what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realized that £20 divided by six is £3.33 but if they subtracted that from everybody's share then not only would the first four men still be drinking for free but the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fairer to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage. They decided to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.
And so, the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (a100% saving).
The sixth man now paid £2 instead of £3 (a 33% saving).
The seventh man now paid £5 instead of £7 (a 28% saving).
The eighth man now paid £9 instead of £12 (a 25% saving).
The ninth man now paid £14 instead of £18 (a 22% saving).
And the tenth man now paid £49 instead of £59 (a 16% saving).
Each of the last six was better off than before with the first four continuing to drink for free.
But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got £1 out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got £10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a £1 too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"
"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I only got £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next week the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important - they didn't have enough money between all of them to pay for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy and they just might not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
[via the Telegraph]
Good you do it! they did such a great job right? how many dead do you have? are you happy with the job they’ve done for you? a##hats
Let them deeply regret the drop of U.N. funding and all of our foreign handouts to most regions as well.
And the end of NATO.
Are you talking to me?
If so your post was a strange reply.
My saying if the EU didn’t like our action they could always pick up the slack only means that if they back China’s lies to WHO then they can fund it.
Exactly what I was thinking...if it’s that important to you write a check!
Wow, that’s one to keep.
ha! ...because *everyone* has been raving about the positive impact the WHO is having around the world!! /s
These people are sad because their slush funds are being destroyed. These “world bodies” are so corrupt it’s vomit inducing.
And Grandpa Deep Pockets is out of patience and cash. Suck it up.. China and EU.
The EU and along with China can easily handle this funding shortfall and feel good about doing it since they are so concerned over the US justifiably withholding the lions share of the world body funding.
M.D. obviously, But why AA? Affirmative Action qualified?
African-American, yes.
Why not send the U.N. to Belgium or somewhere else in Europe? They can house the WHO and drum up money to support them.
Getting the U.N. off American soil would be a win-win, IMHO. Especially if they’re the prototype for whatever one-world empire is on the way.
Four more years of Trump and the UN might pack up and leave of their own accord.
“No problem EU - you can just pick up the slack.”
This.
Total income for WHO will actually double in the next 72 hours even without U.S. participation - if other countries really want it to.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.