[mr_hammer]

"I don't feel comfortable with it, but I'm grounded enough in reality to understand that slapping a tariff on ping-pong balls doesn't address the problem. Do you? Does Hunter?"

Where and when do you draw the line? Be specific, at what point do you decide that you MUST make implements to defend our country domestically or do you rely on emerging unreliable markets for the materials and supplies to secure your countries sovereignty?

If you advocate their is no line than you are a citizen of the world and no longer a patriot of this nation. Your allegiance is only to the acquisition of more wealth.

All of course is IMO.

[1rudeboy]

I draw the line at making John Q. Public pay more for ping-pong balls in the name of national security. That's not patriotic, it's poisonous.

If we decide we want a second manufacturer of armor-plate, then Uncle Sam needs to build a plant, and either pay its workers to sit on their butts until they are needed, or purchase their work-product and stockpile it. Both cases are dangerously close to simply being a Federal job program, for reasons that don't need to be explained on a conservative website. And don't get me started on the Law of Unintended Consequences, other than to remark that if we get to the point that the armor-plate is needed, chances are that it or the plant itself will be obsolete.

It's that simple: if it's a matter of national security, then Uncle Sam needs to cut the check. We need to quit pussy-footing around with non-solutions, and quit listening to whichever politician-of-the-moment chooses to pay lip-service to the issue.