So he is fine with putting 300 Americans on the unemployment line, thus pouring taxpayer dollars into their unemployment, rather than spend a few extra pennies for a rubber? That makes a ton of sense. (sarcastic tone)

A simple example… A parent/authority figure can can teach a child, from birth, that the sky is green and the grass is blue, and the child will believe it to be factually true simply because there has been no factual alternative presented to refute the teaching. Take this same child years later, after education and experience teaches the truth to the child, their will be no amount of discussion or argument that will be able to convince the child of the prior illusion or lie.

Simply put, experience is the best teacher, even for those who are even half awake out here in the ‘real world’; those who actually face the consequences because they live them day in and day out. At some point, they, like the child, will no longer be convinced that what they ‘live’ is a lie, just because you ‘say’ words to the contrary.

It’s like the argument of ‘protectionism / isolationist’ policies, versus ‘free trade’ policies … the truth and reality is that they are simply two opposing words used to define two opposing sides of any given issue, where a play on words is used by one side or the other to gain a favored position or status. It’s doublespeak to argue against ‘protectionist / isolationist’ policies under some guise that some ideal has been achieved where no one is being ‘protected’. The reality is that either both/all sides are ‘protected’ equally, or one side is ‘protected’ in favor of the other, hence the proverbial ‘free’ trade versues ‘fair’ trade argument.

It’s no secret, nor any more well evidenced, that one of the best examples of two opposing sides is found with the Big 3 versus the Auto Workers Union. The automobile side of the U.S. automakers has not moved ahead in the last 40 years because they intentionally made the top down ‘management decision’ to specializing in a ‘niche’ market that catored to the upper middle class buyer where price of the vehicle or fuel was of little or no relevance.

Additionally, this ‘top down’ decision created an all out collusion effort to destroy all unions nationwide, industry wide. This was enabled by making themselves ‘appear’ minimally profitable on the auto side, hence the endless ‘we are unprofitable and need wage and benefit concessions’ argument, all the while concealing that this argument was sustained because they made their ‘real’ profit on the financial side of the equation, not the production side where auto’s are being made. It doesn’t change the fact that they were highly profitable, it’s just where the ‘profit’ showed on the books, which was used to determine who the profit belonged to, and who it was going to be paid to… the ‘production’ side of the equation, or the ‘supply’ side of the equation.

Not only did this enable the Big 3 to remain profitable while destroying the Union contracts, which has been highly instrumental in undermining wages, health insurance, and pensions across the board, it stands as one of the strongest examples as to what happens when two opposing sides no longer have to reach a common ground where ALL interests are being served, as in this case, the Big 3 were given the protectionist hand against their workers, and it was backed up and enabled by the loss of government protections for the said workers…. which was and is being enabled because the same small group of ‘controllers’ can be found standing as either a Corporate Executive, and/or serving on multiple Boards of multiple Corporations, and/or serving in some Government position capacity that completes this circle of power all unto themselves… all of this is easily found and proved as a matter of public record.

Lastly, USAID, is a Federal Agency whose sole support is the U.S. taxpayer, both funding the agency, its workers, as well as funding the purchase of condoms for use in foreign countries. It’s certainly a worthy cause to promote condom use in other third world countries, but as long as it is the U.S. taxpayer’s money being ‘donated’ to this worthy cause, it should be in our interest that the donation is being made. If any of these ‘Asian’ countries can ‘produce’ them cheaper, and they want to donate these condoms, all the more power to them. Just don’t ask the U.S. taxpayer to pay an Asian Company our tax dollars, so we can buy them back from them, so we can DONATE them back FREE to the very third world countries that we PAID to produce them.

Just as the USA automakers have had 40 years to improve their product to compete with the Asian product the condom manufacturer has not improved his product either and like the US automakers they should be allowed to fail and to go away into the history books. If there was an advantage to buying American we would! This supplier of condoms thought that he could charge what ever he wawhnted and the Government would continue to pay! Besides …. he talks of employees of 30 years losing their jobs…. after 30 years don’t you think they should be retired or did these employees not make enough money to retire? This condom manufacturer could be a slum lord style employer. America certainly needs to keep that afloat!