finally...

As with most things, this issue comes down to money. Moving federal manufacturing to the US increases costs, which needs to be paid for by the American people. I agree that ideally, the federal government should source its goods from America. However, at the same time, I have to wonder "Could that money be spent better elsewhere?" There are hundreds of things that could and probably should be done to better American lives, but each of them costs money, and I personally believe that the money that could be spent on "Made in America" goods, would be better spent elsewhere, like increasing funding for schools and making sure that every American has healthcare.

For liberals, I don't think the primary boundary is corruption, I think it is priorities. There are so many things that I would rather spend this money on. For republicans, I also don't think the primary boundary is corruption (though I do think it holds a good deal of stake), I think it is taxes. Any time you say to a Republican "I want to raise taxes and spend money" they are going to need a lot of convincing.

Actually, there are not hundreds of things that could be done to better American lives. This is matter of national security, preserving national values, preserving the western freedom as it stands today, you don't think all of the social progress that the west achieved can be maintained if they fall behind to eastern monarchs, do you? This is just as important as spending on the military, factories are just as important as tanks and ships etc. 

It will be expensive at the beginnings when you start building the infra-structure, but this quickly pay dividends when you start collecting data and automate all the jobs, just like China is doing. And honestly, I don't believe money is a limiting factor, when most western countries are running their budgets and debts deeper in the red and tax revenues is not paying for most federal projects as of now. This isn't gonna change much in the grand scheme of things.

I mean, there are a lot of things that can be done to better American lives. Just saying "No" doesn't make that a false statement...

Beyond that, I don't think I agree with your doomsday predictions. There are some national security implications especially regarding specific technologies such as AI, phones or cameras but for the most part, the US isn't in any danger if they use Chinese steel in construction projects. It largely is one of those things that may be a problem someday if an actual war breaks out with a supplier nation, but there is no reason to assume that this is imminent. Further, I think that stuff about "preserving western freedom" and "social progress" needs to be supported, so I'll just leave that with a "Citation Needed".

As for the price, we aren't at the point where labor costs are negligible in manufacturing. That may happen someday, but until then, goods made in a country with higher wages will continue to be more expensive. In regards to your point about the national deficit, if you believe that there is no consequence to federal spending, do you similarly back basically every other spending project which would benefit Americans?

Bold: A definitive yes? I don't know how the economy works anymore, as this immature as that sounds. But I used to believe that balancing the budget is important but it really doesn't seem to be if you're one of the countries that can print its own money? Been reading left and right about how the modern economy works and it doesn't seem to be important to balance the budget under certain terms and all of those terms the USA is meeting comfortably. (feel free to share the knowledge if you think I am wrong). Healthcare and social care projects can decrease employments and lead to better life quality especially for the elderly as life expectancy continues to increase, doctors and nurses can prolong your life, but only social carers, physiotherapists, occupational health etc can make the last few decades worth living. In summary, if it sounds like a sound investment, go ahead.

As for costs not being negligible in manufacturing, they will never be if you don't take the steps to make them yourself, what's the point of China getting there first? you would still have buy Chinese technology and machines to make it happen in the future, I don't think waiting around for manufacturing costs to be reduced is a sound strategy. Windows, iOS, Android and all the bits and pieces that meet together aren't where they are right now because the companies behind them just slacked around waiting for someone to make them, similarly, automated factories will need an infrastructure, software and hardware engineers, data collection, and enormous amounts of trials and errors to be built. Why is that project that could lead to betterment of countless of lives too expensive to maintain and not the military budget? 

I think there is definitely a fairly intuitive idea that the budget should be balanced, or net zero, however you are right that this isn't really important. What is more important is Debt to GDP ratio. That means the budget should not be balanced, but instead simply manageable and sustainable. Right now, it is neither of those things. At some point, significant negative consequences are likely, though where exactly that point is is up for debate. What this means is that if we do not control our spending now, we will have to take significant measures in the future to get it under control. Like with projections regarding the Trump tax bill, this future change often overshadows the benefit that was gained by past lax monetary policy. Most projections that I've seen show the debt to GDP ratio continuing to increase. There is no indication that this increase will slow down, especially given the fact that it is so high during a time of prosperity. When we see the full scope of this upcoming recession, that pain will only be magnified.

As such, we do need to make decisions to get back on something resembling a sustainable path. That means restructuring our spending and increasing taxes in my opinion.

Now, in regards to your comments about "who gets there first", I think there is a concept of cumulative knowledge, which I think is relevant here. Lets say I wanted to get into the computer business. I wouldn't have to start from where we were 50 years ago and figure out how to make a computer by myself. I would utilize the cumulative knowledge in order to advance my business and contribute to technological progression. The same concept applies to manufacturing. If technology reaches a point where full automation is possible, companies will be able to move forward from that even if they weren't specifically the ones who are responsible for getting us there. Further, R&D and production do not have to be performed together. You can develop advancements without fully utilizing those advancements. That is to say, we can have companies in the US working on these improvements even if those improvements aren't being exclusively installed in American factories.

Overall, when I look at this issue, I largely see a question of "This might be a problem someday". We should do what we can to address this so it never becomes a problem, but we have dozens of avenues for spending which are a significant problem right now.

My question is, as a business man do you see Trump as a Globalist.  Does he use American steal in his housing projects.  For his other business that make clothing, do he use American business for those items. I hear a person talking a lot because he knows this is what people want to hear but what I do not see him having the balls to be a leader and make the next first move.  Talk is cheap when there is no action behind it, if anything its just another indication of a grifter who tells you want you want to hear while they do the opposite.

People keep concentrating on China but to be honest they are just the flavor right now.  Once China reach a point where their where the US was and employees what more money, benefits etc, they will face the same problem we have hear and goods will rise in price and another country like Africa will step up to the plate with cheap labor.  This is not a Dems or GOP issue, its the people in the US issue because we love cheap stuff.  Because we love cheap stuff, manufactures will always look to cut cost as much as possible to stay competitive.  Unless we the people change, this will always be a pipe dream.  Unless Americans are will to take on the burden of higher price goods this will always be a nice campaign speech with nothing behind it because Trump and pretty much every business man who utilize foreign manufacturing knows the real problem with bring back manufacturing to the US is us.

There is no way a third party candidate would win the presidency. Up and down ballot voting is an option for most voting jurisdictions that have electronic machines.

It's too easy for a republican or democrat voter to just pick all one party option at the beginning of voting.

Party line voting and winner takes all screws over any chance for another party except maybe a local election.  Only candidates that stand a chance in state elections are "independents".

If we had proportional representation and votes were distributed proportionally or close to it then you would see more parties in Congress, state and local governments.

USA citizens (I already do) would have to demand a change from winner takes all to proportional representation.

May 1st which means rent is due for a lot of Americans. Most states have temporary freeze on evictions but not everyone qualifies. There are also states that don't have statewide but patchwork of cities with their own freezes which adds to confusion.

https://www.npr.org/2020/05/01/848247228/rent-is-due-today-but-millions-of-americans-wont-be-paying

Basically I'm predicting scores of low income people becoming homeless in the next few months leading to tent cities called Trumpvilles.

One can only hope I'm wrong.

They are pro life for old billionaires who will then trickle down their life to them.