Should the US Government Buy Only US Made Products?
Its a simple question. Why or Why Not?
Should the US Government Buy Only US Made Products?
Its a simple question. Why or Why Not?
1776 > 1984
The FAILURE of the United States Government to operate and maintian an Honest Money System , which frees the ordinary man from the clutches of the money manipulators, is the single largest contributing factor to the World's current Economic Crisis.
The Elimination of Privacy is the Architecture of Genocide
You are Ron Paul's Media!
If we are the government and we say they should buy only from us, then they should only buy from us.
We are suppose to have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. However instead we have a government of the people, by the elite, and for the elite.
Last edited by RickyJ; 02-03-2013 at 02:41 AM.
I am in favor of something like this - but ONLY for government. Government should have to abide by rules the rest of us do not. I don't really think the US Gov 'buying American' will make any kind of real difference, it's more about any excuse to chain government down and put them under the control of the people. Also, if there were going to be any sort of protectionist economic stimuli stuff, this has to be one of the more harmless ones.
1. They break less
2. It'd be government waste that at least helps keep people employed
3. The problem would be further solved if the US took protectionary measures for our manufacturers, and logically eased some pollution laws. I don't like pollution and poisoning waterways but it isn't like the Chinese-made equivalent is made the "green way"
Define "US-made," since most of the products you are thinking of are either made with foreign materials, assembled from parts made overseas, managed by companies based overseas, manufactured using foreign-made machines, or overseen using computers/tablets from foreign companies.
May the wings of liberty never lose a feather.
"You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on Earth, or we will sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness." -- Ronald Reagan, 1964
Yes they should. They are using our tax dollars and if they are going to extract our money by force, it damn sure should stay in the country.
“I have many friends in the libertarian movement who look down on those of us who get involved in political activity,”
he acknowledged, but "eventually, if you want to bring about changes … what you have to do is participate in political
action.” -- Ron Paul
"We do have some differences and our approaches will be different, but that makes him his own person. I mean why should he [Rand] be a clone and do everything and think just exactly as I have. I think it's an opportunity to be independent minded. We are about 99% the same on issues." "People Try To Drive Wedges Between Rand And Me." --Ron Paul
The Property Basis of Rights
The government shouldn't be buying any products.
It would be a pretty dreary place if you could only buy only what you could make with your own hands. The market system rewards those who produce the best quality at the least expenditure of scarce resources.
The "Buy American" nonsense is really nothing more than a plea to bail out the governments tremendously burdensome tax and regulatory mistakes. It saves the bureaucracy who live off of evermore restrictions to personal liberty and productivity.
Taxes and regulation are nothing but euphemisms for theft. The harshest and most vicious regulation will always be a freely buying consumer.
How would this idea save the American taxpayers money?
I'd rather Congress sit on cheapo plastic chairs made in China.
"We do have some differences and our approaches will be different, but that makes him his own person. I mean why should he [Rand] be a clone and do everything and think just exactly as I have. I think it's an opportunity to be independent minded. We are about 99% [the same on issues]." Ron Paul
I'm a little surprised by some of thought processes in this thread. Have we not learned how trade creates wealth? Comparative advantage?
Any entity, whether individual, corporation, charity, or even government, should buy goods wherever they can get the highest quality for the lowest price - regardless of where that may be. Government spending is already wealth dedstruction, we might as well make the destruction as limited as possible.
(Strictly in terms of the government buying goods, though, I would have to think they'd get the best quality in the US. You can never tell what kind of bugs could be inserted into goods from overseas. Hell, we delivered smallpox blankets to the Indians.)
"And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat
"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire
Not really sure if I want the government to look for cheaper ways to wage war, for example.
Since we all know the only way these wars will end is by economic collapse, I suggest they continue spending $1000 on hammers.
I know that's a grim way of looking at it, but let's be honest, the spending won't stop until there's nothing left to spend (or the dollar has been devalued to the point that we the people make them stop)
Last edited by nobody's_hero; 02-03-2013 at 10:31 AM.
If something bad happens, we will be blamed. If something good happens, we will get no credit. If nothing happens, we will be forgotten.
- SUPPORT FREE TRADE, SMUGGLE -
2 + 2 = 5.[/CENTER]
The government can be required for all members to wear pink tutus and sing every word they speak for all I care.
Some are saying that WE don;t get it, but I am rather convinced that THEY don't get it. The whole idea of American government is government lives by the rules we set, no mater how crazy or arbitrary, and we the people are the sovereigns and free.
The more you restrict government, the more free the people are. It's axiomatic. So I say the more rules, and the more ridiculous those rules are, that we lodge AGAINST GOVERNMENT, the better.
The full end of libertarian philosophy approaches technical anarchy with it's lack of government power and influence. Therefore I would say the MORE you constrict, limit, and control government, the MORE libertarian your society will become. Even if the rules you make the government follow are silly and ridiculous.
So those of you who are trying to say that making the government jump through hoops to get anything done....is not libertarian....I would tell you that the LESS powerful government is, the MORE libertarian society will be, right across the board.
Yes, I would even support making Congress wear shock collars that taze them whenever they punch the "yes" button. You can scream at me all you want how 'unlibertarian' that is, but I will be too busy enjoying the actual libertarian society that such a thing would help create to be bothered about stupid rules we lodge against the monsters who are destroying us.
I am in favor of MORE arbitrary and ridiculous rules that force government to behave, and the more the better! If you lust after power and want to get into government to rule over people, then you had by god better be comfortable with wearing a pink tutu at a press conference and singing your damn answers.
Fascinating thread.A question that may have no correct answer.If the people who have commented here were all in congress, we would all be better off.
"Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
"Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
"Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
"Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul
The government should let everyone everywhere bid on their contracts. If an American company doesn't win, the government should not buy the item, have an independent analysis conducted to find out why the American companies in the field can't compete, and if government and it's goofy assed regulations is found to be the problem, they should be required to fix the problem and then put the contract up for bids again. If they can't fix the problem, they shouldn't have the contract filled at all, even if it means their cars or computers or copiers or whatever konk out on them and they have to do without.
"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is "needed" before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents' "interests," I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can." - Barry Goldwater
what if americans demanded too high a price as a racket?
..this is the darkest timeline..It was too weird to live, and too rare to die - hunter s. thompson .
My music/art page is here"government is the enemy of liberty"-RPOriginally Posted by Ron PaulThat which doesn't kill me has made a grave tactical error