Why are my tax dollars buying vaccines for other countries?

Scepticalscribe

Elite Member
Staff member
Vaccinated
Posts
3,953
Reaction score
5,671
I think taxpayers should be much more concerned about the richest members of society not being taxpayers at all.

I understand the point of the thread. Why are we collectively giving money to big Pharma? They killed countless thousands with opioids, and when it came time for them to be held accountable, they declared bankruptcy. How can they be “bankrupt” when they still have billions in their pockets?

Our system is absolutely rigged for the rich, and nixing this patent in this one exceptional case in order to help the entire world would have been a better choice. If they can be “let off the hook” for the opioid epidemic, they can make a bit of a sacrifice sometimes too.

I, too, understand the point of the thread, if it is expressing a concern about the profits "big pharma" (in the US) can hope to extract from the conditions of the current global pandemic.

But, the point of the thread is not reflected in the title of the thread.
 

Scepticalscribe

Elite Member
Staff member
Vaccinated
Posts
3,953
Reaction score
5,671
What is the focus of this thread? American taxpayers whining?

I will also say that whenever I read something that purports to complain about how "my taxes" are spent, it is usually someone from the right of the political perspective (for, mirabile dictu, I've yet to read someone who leans left, or liberal, ever, complain about how "my tax dollars" and here, let us insert currency of choice - are spent) expressing disagreement with publicly funded social spending.

And, moreover, it is a stance that I would argue is spurious; this is because - in a democracy - you actually already express your political preference on how "your taxes" are spent at the ballot box, because that is where you choose to support a party and socio-economic policy platform.
 

Chew Toy McCoy

Thread Starter
Elite Member
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Posts
2,399
Reaction score
3,947
I will also say that whenever I read something that purports to complain about how "my taxes" are spent, it is usually someone from the right of the political perspective (for, mirabile dictu, I've yet to read someone who leans left, or liberal, ever, complain about how "my tax dollars" and here, let us insert currency of choice - are spent) expressing disagreement with publicly funded social spending.

And, moreover, it is a stance that I would argue is spurious; this is because - in a democracy - you actually already express your political preference on how "your taxes" are spent at the ballot box, because that is where you choose to support a party and socio-economic policy platform.

If I opened a strip club some people would insist I name it Young Ladies College Tuition Donation Center before they'll consider discussing what happens inside. Attacking my wording on this is like the right going "You don't even know what an assault rifle is" and thinking that's the entire point of the 2nd amendment debate and they just won it.

But I admit even for me there are times when something is worded in a certain way that will set me on a path I won't waiver from that isn't exactly the focus. Sometimes I post things that are typically from the right-wing perspective just for the sake of discussion and away from an echo chamber of agreement. If we can't role-play these scenarios then how are we going to productively engage with the real deal. Maybe what I am doing in relation to the general leanings of this forum is troll adjacent, but that's not my intention.

If this initiative wasn't taxpayer funded would we just go "Sorry, won't help. Can't think of any other possible way we could help" and just call it a day? Does every good cause that doesn't get taxpayer backed just fold? I would like to think they find an alternative way to exist and keep their mission.
 

Scepticalscribe

Elite Member
Staff member
Vaccinated
Posts
3,953
Reaction score
5,671
But your posts - and this has nothing to do with right or left, or right and wrong, - don't discuss the stated title of your thread which is, "why are my tax dollars buying vaccines for other countries"?

Rather, they complain about the profits "big pharma" makes in the US as a result of government policies, which, I submit, is an entirely different discussion or conversation.

Now, I personally have no problem whatsoever with anyone's "tax dollars" (or any other currency) buying vaccines for other countries, in fact, I think this a perfectly legitimate expenditure of tax income, - and decent foreign aid programmes will usually be found on the policy platforms of left or liberal political parties - and while this is a discussion or debate one can have, it is not the same thing as debating how profitable the Covid crisis has been for the pharmaceutical industry as a consequence of US government policies.
 
Last edited:

Eric

Elite Member
Staff member
Vaccinated
PRSI Banned
Posts
3,723
Reaction score
7,619
But your posts - and this has nothing to do with right or left, or right and wrong, - don't discuss the stated title of your thread which is, "why are my tax dollars buying vaccines for other countries"?

Rather, they complain about the profits "big pharma" makes in the US as a result of government policies, which, I submit, is an entirely different discussion or conversation.

Now, I personally have no problem whatsoever with anyone's "tax dollars" (or any other currency) buying vaccines for other countries, in fact, I think this a perfectly legitimate expenditure of tax income, - and decent foreign aid programmes will usually be found on the policy platforms of left or liberal political parties - and while this is a discussion or debate one can have, it is not the same thing as debating how profitable the Covid crisis has been for the pharmaceutical industry as a consequence of US government policies.
It's a Conservative talking point. I mean billionaires don't have to pay a cent in federal taxes but they're outraged that we're paying for vaccines for the rest of the world. It's a myopic view, the big picture is that the entire planet is impacted by COVID and we all have a responsibility to end it. I would ask how anyone can spend or save when you're all locked in your homes because of an ever mutating virus that we're not fully addressing.
 

Scepticalscribe

Elite Member
Staff member
Vaccinated
Posts
3,953
Reaction score
5,671
It's a Conservative talking point. I mean billionaires don't have to pay a cent in federal taxes but they're outraged that we're paying for vaccines for the rest of the world. It's a myopic view, the big picture is that the entire planet is impacted by COVID and we all have a responsibility to end it. I would ask how anyone can spend or save when you're all locked in your homes because of an ever mutating virus that we're not fully addressing.

It is an intellectually facile and fatuous stance, not to mention that it is also an intellectually disingenuous and dishonest one (again, to repeat, I have yet to hear anyone, anywhere, who hails from a liberal perspective use the expression "my tax dollars" in any similar conversation, ever, for this is a discussion where the use of the personal pronoun "my" serves as a signifiant, and very revealing, marker of one's true political stance or perspective on this issue, while attempting to convey an impression of objectivity while expressing concerns).

Moreover, such concerns about "tax dollars" are rarely raised about the obscene amounts that has been put aside for military expenditure, for example.
 
Last edited:

Chew Toy McCoy

Thread Starter
Elite Member
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Posts
2,399
Reaction score
3,947
It is an intellectually facile and fatuous stance, not to mention that it is also an intellectually disingenuous and dishonest one (again, to repeat, I have yet to hear anyone, anywhere, who hails from a liberal perspective use the expression "my tax dollars" in any similar conversation, ever, for this is a discussion where the use of the personal pronoun "my" serves as a signifiant, and very revealing, marker of one's true political stance or perspective on this issue, while attempting to convey an impression of objectivity while expressing concerns).

Moreover, such concerns about "tax dollars" are rarely raised about the obscene amounts thta has been put aside for military expenditure, for example.

I was going to respond with what you already said in the second statement. You've never heard a liberal use the term "my tax dollars" in reference to the military budget? I certainly have.

If it will help the discussion move along on the topic, fine, I'll say I'm not happy with MY TAX DOLLARS paying for vaccines outside the country when there are alternatives to using MY TAX DOLLARS for it. Some are fine with it. Others aren't. Now that I've said that, can we move on to other aspects?
 

lizkat

Elite Member
Site Donor
Top Poster Of Month
Posts
3,145
Reaction score
6,912
It is an intellectually facile and fatuous stance, not to mention that it is also an intellectually disingenuous and dishonest one (again, to repeat, I have yet to hear anyone, anywhere, who hails from a liberal perspective use the expression "my tax dollars" in any similar conversation, ever, for this is a discussion where the use of the personal pronoun "my" serves as a signifiant, and very revealing, marker of one's true political stance or perspective on this issue, while attempting to convey an impression of objectivity while expressing concerns).

Moreover, such concerns about "tax dollars" are rarely raised about the obscene amounts thta has been put aside for military expenditure, for example.

The uber-rich can't even spend the interest on their investments even after they dish out big bucks for their accountants and tax lawyers, so why should we care what they think about the wisdom of buying vaccines for other countries with "their" fucking tax dollars. For instance, If we hadn't unfunded CDC's cooperative research efforts in China before the covid_19 pandemic, who knows if we'd still have faced the same sort of pandemic we've been through at this point?

And how many hundreds of millions of bucks in taxes have billionaires managed to stave off? Money is fungible but it's true that the CDC in China was not getting BILLIONS in tax dollars to start with. So, very little skin will have been taken off the teeth of the tax-skating whiners in the stratosphere of our wealth distribution when it comes to what we will have expended on offshore provision of coronavirus vaccines.

These selfish creatures in their gated communities or glittery sky-side tower suites must not see how absurd they look arguing against vaccination investment in third world countries: even with USA multinational companies' profit-seeking outsourcing and their placement of supply chains in countries with ultra-cheap labor, those countries don't have resources enough to lift their own citizens out of poverty, never mind expand whatever health care resources may exist aside from NGOs' efforts.

One wonders if the very wealthy bother to check now and then on how high the walls they've built are holding up.

You'd think the landing of covid_19 here and its utter disrespect for anything past "is this a fresh host?" would send a message that there's no such thing as invincibility. Fewer than a dozen countries on earth are untouched by some variant of covid_19. And yet, funny how the taxation complainers still seem to think that voting for a party that props up the military industrial complex as an unwritten plank of its platform is a guarantee of an entire nation's prosperity. Homeland security also requires defense of public health and in this era that can't take an absurdly myopic "America first" view. There's more to defense of a nation than helping perpetuate arms races among weary superpowers.

I grant that there are plenty Dems wedded to the welfare of the big pharma. It's part of why we still don't have a more affordable health care system. But to me that's part of a whole other set of debates, and quite apart from "taxation of the rich" and "appropriate foreign aid" issues. The question of patents on antivirals and when they should expire or a requirement to license them kicks in should take a back seat to suppression of this godblasted coronavirus, while its demonstrated ability to mutate to its own advantage can still be minimized.
 

Chew Toy McCoy

Thread Starter
Elite Member
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Posts
2,399
Reaction score
3,947
The uber-rich can't even spend the interest on their investments even after they dish out big bucks for their accountants and tax lawyers, so why should we care what they think about the wisdom of buying vaccines for other countries with "their" fucking tax dollars. For instance, If we hadn't unfunded CDC's cooperative research efforts in China before the covid_19 pandemic, who knows if we'd still have faced the same sort of pandemic we've been through at this point?

And how many hundreds of millions of bucks in taxes have billionaires managed to stave off? Money is fungible but it's true that the CDC in China was not getting BILLIONS in tax dollars to start with. So, very little skin will have been taken off the teeth of the tax-skating whiners in the stratosphere of our wealth distribution when it comes to what we will have expended on offshore provision of coronavirus vaccines.

These selfish creatures in their gated communities or glittery sky-side tower suites must not see how absurd they look arguing against vaccination investment in third world countries: even with USA multinational companies' profit-seeking outsourcing and their placement of supply chains in countries with ultra-cheap labor, those countries don't have resources enough to lift their own citizens out of poverty, never mind expand whatever health care resources may exist aside from NGOs' efforts.

One wonders if the very wealthy bother to check now and then on how high the walls they've built are holding up.

You'd think the landing of covid_19 here and its utter disrespect for anything past "is this a fresh host?" would send a message that there's no such thing as invincibility. Fewer than a dozen countries on earth are untouched by some variant of covid_19. And yet, funny how the taxation complainers still seem to think that voting for a party that props up the military industrial complex as an unwritten plank of its platform is a guarantee of an entire nation's prosperity. Homeland security also requires defense of public health and in this era that can't take an absurdly myopic "America first" view. There's more to defense of a nation than helping perpetuate arms races among weary superpowers.

I grant that there are plenty Dems wedded to the welfare of the big pharma. It's part of why we still don't have a more affordable health care system. But to me that's part of a whole other set of debates, and quite apart from "taxation of the rich" and "appropriate foreign aid" issues. The question of patents on antivirals and when they should expire or a requirement to license them kicks in should take a back seat to suppression of this godblasted coronavirus, while its demonstrated ability to mutate to its own advantage can still be minimized.

I recently learned President Truman after WWII tried to sell socialized healthcare as a national security issue because so many people were getting rejected by the military because of health issues. It’s then that I realized how fucked we are on this. If you can’t sell something in this country under national security concerns then you probably can’t sell it for any reason. Our military will probably get it’s budget increased because with no major wars on the horizon apparently space aliens have decided to reveal themselves to our military, and only our military. In this country an invasion from space is a more impending realistic security threat than failing health.
 

lizkat

Elite Member
Site Donor
Top Poster Of Month
Posts
3,145
Reaction score
6,912
I recently learned President Truman after WWII tried to sell socialized healthcare as a national security issue because so many people were getting rejected by the military because of health issues. It’s then that I realized how fucked we are on this. If you can’t sell something in this country under national security concerns then you probably can’t sell it for any reason. Our military will probably get it’s budget increased because with no major wars on the horizon apparently space aliens have decided to reveal themselves to our military, and only our military. In this country an invasion from space is a more impending realistic security threat than failing health.

So I guess Senator Shelby's older arguments that favored building more boats even if the Navy didn't want them was getting too shopworn... heh, two points for innovation there. Total fail though on a strictly military focus, versus other options including no-house-left-behind broadband and fixing all the rusty bridges and potholed roads in the USA, plus putting charging stations for all-electric cars every 30 miles... why are these Senators so myopic, anyway? Aren't there some billionaires with more progressive outlooks willing to lobby in DC for better 21st century federal investment?
 
Top Bottom