On Federal Taxation in the United States

Oct 6, 2014 2:12:03 GMT pjohns1873 said:

I am very much in favor of Congress' spending less money on social programs--not running a deficit; not increasing taxes (of any variety); and not reducing military spending. 

Yes, there was indeed much "compromise" going on in the latter part of the 1780s. So what? Do you really believe that this "compromise" should effectively nullify the US Constitution?

Why would you rail against those constitutional amendments that officially ended slavery and enforced women's suffrage, as if these were burning issues in 2014, requiring that we revisit them?

I have no idea why you might imagine that the Ninth Amendment would abolish immigration quotas (if only it were properly enforced). 

And your assertion that "[w]e would allow the prohibitions against resident immigrants voting today if the 9th Amendment was enforced" seems almost contrary to your actual intent.  Did you mean to say that we would not allow those prohibitions against voting by resident immigrants?     

You're also opposed to funding the authorized expenditures of Congress which results in deficit spending. In effect you're supporting deficit spending because you don't support collecting enough in taxation to pay for the expenditures. That is why I repeatedly state that Republicans are responsible for deficit spending because they refuse to collect the taxation necessary to fund the authorized expenditures. It doesn't really matter what the authorized expenditures are when it comes to deficit spending. Either you pay the bills or you borrow to help pay the bills so long as the bills exist and need to be paid.  

I've never claimed that compromise should nullify anything but I do find a lack of willingness to compromise as being problematic and harmful to the American people. That's a huge problem I found with the ACA in that Republicans refused to compromise at all even though most of the ACA was based upon prior Republican proposals. The individual mandate, the employer mandate, and the expansion of Medicaid were all prior Republican proposals but by failing to "compromise" where they could have offered positive improvements to the ACA they fundamentally refused to participate at all in the crafting of the law. The Democrats, lacking Republican input into the crafting of the ACA, managed to screw up much of it and we both acknowledge that the ACA is pretty screwed up today. "Compromise" could have eliminated a lot of the problems.

No, what I'm stating is the the 13th and 19th Amendments would have been unnecesary if the 9th Amendment was enforced. There is no question whatsoever in most peoples minds today that both slavery and the denial of the Right to Vote for women violated their unenumerated Rights as a Person and the 9th Amendment expressly protects the Unenumerated Rights of the Person. The 13th and 19th Amendments, as well as the other Amendments that were added to protect the Rights of the Person under the US Constitution by enumeration, were all in response to the violations of the unenumerated Rights of the Person that were protected by the 9th Amendment.

In fact you bring up a very valid point when we address the "Right to Vote" because all "Rights" under the US Constitution apply to "All Persons" in the United States regardless of citizenship. While US Citizens do have certain "privileges and immunities" (ref 14th Amendment) the "Rights of the Person" apply equally to citizens and non-citizens alike. Voting is a "Right" based upon the US Constitution and is not a privilege of citizenship. The US Constitution does offer enumerated protections for the Right to Vote that were historically violated by statutory law (e.g. 15th and 19th Amendments) because those Rights were not previously protected by enumeration (but were protected as an unenumerated Right by the 9th Amendment). Today the US Constitution does not enumerate a protection of the Right to Vote for non-citizens but as a "Right" it applies to all persons regardless of whether they're US citizens or non-citizen. The exact same violation of the Rights of the Person based upon "citizenship" exist today that previously existed for women based upon gender where their "Right to Vote as a Person"was violated by statutory laws. There is absolutely no difference between the statutory laws that prohibited a woman from voting based upon gender in the past and the statutory laws that prohibit a non-citizen from voting today because "Voting" is a "Right" under the US Constitution and Rights apply to citizens and non-citizens alike. The US Constitution doesn't prohibit non-citizens from voting in any election but it doesn't enumerate a protection either. It is an unenumerated "Right of the Person" that applies to citizens and non-citizens alike which the 9th Amendment protects (but is not being enforced).  

The 9th Amendment protects the unenumerated "Rights" of the Person and Rights apply to all persons regardless of citizenship. The unenumerated "Inalienable Rights of the Person" are, according to the US Constitition, protected from infringement by statutory laws by the 9th Amendment. The "right of immigration" is a subordinate Right based upon the "Right of Liberty" and the Right of Liberty is fundamentally an unenumerated Right in the Constitution. While some subordinate Rights of Liberty are protected no where in the US Constitution does it protect all subordinate Rights based upon the Right of Liberty. That is left to the 9th Amendment to address and protect. As I've noted the 9th Amendment is not being enforced in many instances where the Rights of the Person (that includes citizens and non-citizens) are being violated under our statutory laws. We have a long history of these violations of the Rights of the People by our government and the immigration quotas, designed to effectively limit Hispanic immigration today, are just another case of the violations of the Rights of the Person based upon statutory law.

An interesting consideration for those that support the limitations on immigration. If the US government is allowed to prevent immigration to the United States under the US Constitution then it is also allowed to prohibit immigration from the United States. Good-bye Freedom and hello "East Berlin" where immigration to West Berlin was prohibited by statutory law.  Do you support statutory immigration restrictions that would prohibit you from leaving the United States because that's what you claim is "Constitutional" if Congress can prohibit immigration by statutory laws.

Oct 6, 2014 18:45:03 GMT pjohns1873 said:

I certainly would support the right of other countries to place quotas upon immigration; and to set their own standards for whom they will accept, and whom they will reject.  (Since no politician, to my knowledge--from either major party--has ever expressed a desire to prevent or limit emigration from the US, that is clearly a non-issue.  In fact, it is a red herring.)

I remain in favor of our reducing--significantly--those "authorized expenditures" of Congress.  You appear to believe that these "expenditures" are set in stone; so it is merely a matter of whether we "pay the bills" or run a deficit.  (Yes, past spending should indeed be paid; but with the caveat that all future spending must be reduced considerably, without our harming defense spending.  A rough analogy:  If one's credit-card balance is out of hand, it still must be paid; but the offending credit card should be immediately cut up and canceled, so that no future bills of this sort may come due.)

Why would you suppose that ObamaCare in any manifestation would have represented an improvement over the status quo ante?  It is not that I am especially fond of the latter.  But any step toward nationalized healthcare would have represented a step in the wrong direction, in my opinion.  (In any case, Republican lawmakers were effectively frozen out of those talks by President Obama.  He then had control of both chambers of Congress; which is really all he wanted, in order to be able to ram through his proposals.) 

When has the SCOTUS ever declared that non-citizens are constitutionally authorized to vote in federal elections?

You may believe that "the 13th and 19th Amendments" were superfluous; but why would you actively oppose them?

And if the Ninth Amendment truly allows non-Americans to vote in American elections (as you claim), would you cite the Supreme Court case, please, which states as much?   

I would suggest that you check our laws because we already prevent some US citizens from leaving the United States (e.g. a person under indictment for a criminal offense is generally prohibited from leaving the country). While there is a "rational" basis for that based upon criminality (which is also a rational basis for denying entry to the United States) there is apparently nothing preventing Congress from "locking down America" and preventing Americans from leaving based upon your opinion of the US Constitution. We could apparently stop wealthy individuals from leaving the United States so that they don't take their wealth overseas based upon your arguments for immigration restrictions that the US Constitution does not authorize by enumeration and which violate the Right of Liberty of the Person.

Well, we have those "credit card bills" and Republicans refuse to pay them by refusing to collect enough in taxation. By analogy if I had credit card bills and it required me to work overtime or take a second job to pay them I'd do that because I'm fiscally responsible. We can afford to "pay the bills" because there is more than ample personal income in the United States to pay for the cost of government but Republicans, even though the People (that are actually responsible for paying the bills) can afford to pay the bills, refuse to collect the money required.

We both agree that we need to cut government expenditures. I want to cut the expenditures for "welfare" that mitigate the effects of poverty by reducing the povery. You want to cut these expenditures by ignoring the poverty leaving people hungry and homeless. I believe my approach is far more rational as I oppose people starving on the streets.

I agree that we should maintain a military that can defend against, or more importantly deter, any attack or invasion of the United States by any foreign nation or any alliance of foreign nations. We could accomplish that with 75% less spending on our military than we spend today. You are aware of that fact aren't you? Roughly 75% of our military spending today is based upon using the US military as a means of political imperialism around the world that has absolutely nothing to do with defense of the nation from attack or invasion.  

I have repeatedly stated that the US Supreme Court has never fully protected the "unenumerated Rights of the Person" protected by the 9th Amendment. At the same-time I can point to numerous Supreme Court decisions that establish the presedent that "Rights" apply to both citizens and non-citizens as well as Supreme Court precedent that voting it a "Right" as established by the US Constitution. Can you add two and two and come up with four? The two established Constitutional precedents established by the Supreme Court equal "The Right to Vote applies to Citizens and Non-Citizens" living in the United States.

The Republicans were always invited to address the provisions of the ACA (that was formulated in the Senate) but, to my knowledge, never made any significant proposals for incorporation instead simply choosing to oppose it on "principles" contrary to prior Republican proposals. As noted the ACA was overwhelmingly based upon prior Republican proposals for an individual mandate, an employer mandate, and an expansion of Medicaid.

Yes, I oppose most of the provisions of the ACA because they don't make sense. For example the "Individual Mandate" doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It depends upon employers paying enough compensation so that between personal income and personal income taxes the individual and the government can co-fund the purchase of private health insurance policies. Why not just have the employer pay directly for a private (group) insurance policy and cut out the government and the employee? Ultimately the "employers pay" for the insurance anyway so why not let them pay for the insurance up front? I'm pragmatic and believe we should "cut out all of the middle-men" when it comes to health insurance.

BTW Slight change of subject to 'global warming' that we've discusses. As we know there has been a hiatus in land mass warming (surface temperatures) since the 1999 and the scientific theory has been that the oceans, which can absorb a lot more heat energy than the land, have been absorbing that heat energy during that time period. I provided one study that showed the North Atlantic has been increasing in temperature reflecting that it's absorbing the additional heat energy but we both know that wasn't enough. A new study from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory indicates that our previous estimates of energy being absorbed by the oceans is substantially less than what has been occuring due to inaccurate reporting predominately in the Southern oceans (that are by far the largest water masses).

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory report story:

gizmodo.com/earth-has-been-getting-warmer-way-faster-than-we-though-1642825003

Previous study of N Atlantic story:

news.yahoo.com/earths-missing-heat-found-182808474.html

Based upon both of these scientific studies apparently the increase in global temperatures hasn't "stopped" since 1999 but instead, as the scientific theories predicted, the additional heat energy is simply being absorbed by the oceans. This also helps explain that while land mass surface temperatures haven't shown an increase that glacial melting, an indication of global warming, has continued unabated since 1999.  Very interesting scientific information on global warming.

Oct 7, 2014 21:35:26 GMT pjohns1873 said:

What politician--from either major party--has ever proposed that we "stop wealthy individuals from leaving the United States"? That is clearly a red herring, intended to instill a sense of panic in those of us who do not favor unrrestricted immigration to the US; which is to say, it is intended to create panic in most Americans.

Your assertion that "there is more than ample personal income in the United States to pay for the cost of government" seems to imply that Americans should, quite willingly, just cough up enough tax dollars to sustain The Welfare State.  And I disagree.  Fundamentally.  Your view is what is typically known as tax-and-spend theory.  (And no, the alternative to it is not "borrow-and spend"; rather, it is tax less and spend less.)

Your view that the US military is simply an instrument of "military imperialism" is typical of the left. In fact, the so-called "New Left" of the late 1960s and early '70s--whose hero and spiritual leader was the Marxist, Herbert Marcuse--believed much the same thing.  (And since our military is now--thanks to President Obama--smaller than at anytime since before WWII, it seems disingenuous to claim that the US can defeat "any alliance of foreign nations."  Nor would I wish to limit our military to defending against an "attack or invasion" upon the American mainland. If American interests are seriously threatened--say, by Iran's closing the Strait of Hormuz--the US should declare war immediately, and use every conventional weapon necessary to bring a quick and decisive end to the conflict.) 

Could you provide me a link, please, to the Supreme Court decision establishing that all rights attaching to American citizens (including the right to vote) apply to non-citizens as well? 

Any government-issued mandate to purchase healthcare insurance--or anything else, for that matter--amounts to statism.  And I remain unalterably opposed to the very concept of statism.  (Trying to "improve" a statist policy is a bit like trying to "improve" a turd by putting ketchup on it.)

But Republicans were, in any event, shut ot of those negotiations.  As one article (qritten in 2010) puts it:

Here is the link:  startthinkingright.wordpress.com/tag/shut-out/

Your point that the oceans are absorbing excess heat, although certainly interesting, is entirely academic.  Let us assume, for sake of discussion, that it is true--beyond all dispute--that this is entirely correct.  The obvious question is:  So what?   

My argument is on "Constitutionality" because if it's Constitutional for Congress to prohibit immigration to the United States (which is what the quota system does) then it is Constitutional for Congress to prohibit immigration from the United States. As a "Constitutionalist" I'm deeply concerned when Congress is execising a "power" not delegated to it by the Constitution that clearly violates an Inalienable Right of the Person (i.e. the Right of Liberty).

Apparently you don't care about the fact that the US Constitution does not grant Congress any authority to control immigration either into or from the United States but I do care about that.

Name one military conflict since WW II where a nation attacked or invaded any territory where the United States had jurisdiction. The fact is there are no such examples. Every military conflict the US has been involved in relates to "political ideology" were we, the United States, use our military to impose our political ideology on the people of foreign nations. That is "political imperialism" that was best summed up by the now defunct "Project for the New American Century" that expressly proposed imposing American political idealogy upon the rest of the world through any means possible including war.  

The United States military has not been used in "defense of the United States" since WW II and that is an undeniable fact.

Have you jumped from the 2009 Stimulas Bill from the Senate's crafting of the ACA (that had nothing to do with the House that in a partisan only move proposed a single-payer system)? The Republicans in the Senate were opposing the Individual and Employer Mandates (that the Heritage Foundation had previously endorsed) as opposed to offering any suggestions on how to implement them. Republicans were opposing the expansion of Medicaid (that had previously been proposed by Republicans as a way of providing healthcare services for those that couldn't afford them at all) as opposed to becoming involved in how that should be accomplished. Even you know that I'm telling the turth on this. Republicans didn't want to be involved at all in the crafting of the provisions of the ACA and that has been detrimental to it's implementation causing many problems and undue costs we know exist in the ACA.

The anti-science position that "global warming" stopped in 1999 is disputed by the two studies I've cited. Apparently the planet really is continuing to get hotter in alignment with the scientific models of AGW. 

There was another very good article on "science" where it properly stated that "science is not based upon consensus" which is true so even though 97% of the scientists agree on AGW that technically doesn't matter. What does matter is if there's even one scientist that can establish that AGW isn't occurring. One scientist can overturn the consensus opinion that AGW is occurring. All that one scientist has to do is to prove it isn't happening. That "one scientist" doesn't currently exist so the "anti-AGW" argument doesn't exist.   

Oct 8, 2014 23:22:57 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Again--I will reiterate--I am perfectly willing to concede your point, viz. that the planet has been getting warmer over the years, and that the oceans have merely been absorbing that excess heat.

No argument from me on this spoint.

None.

Zero.

That said, I fail to see how this might enhance the case of the left that we should try to stop this effect--even if it is undeniably ocurring.

Could you help me out there, please?

So you are "deeply concerned" that Congress might attempt to "prohibit immigration from the United States," even though no lawmaker from either major party has ever suggested such a thing? And even though it would require a majority from both chambers of Congress, plus the president's signature (or, absent the latter, two-thirds supermajorities in both chambers of Congress, for purposes of an override)?   

You have again reduced the justness of military action to just the defense of our national borders. As I have stated previously, I am very much in favor of our using military action to advance our national interests--not merely to defend our borders.  (The example I offered was Iran's possibly closing the Strait of Hormuz; which, I believe, should prompt immediate--and very severe--military action by the US.)

I have not "jumped" from anything. The fact is that the Republicans were shut out of the ObamaCare negotiations. However, even if they had been included, ObamaCare could have--at best--been only marginally improved. It would still have been far worse than the system that had previously existed. (The assertaion that it is possible--even theoretically--to craft any sort of statist healthcare system that is generally superior to a market-based healthcare system strikes me as being exceedingly naive, at best.) 

I assume that you're aware of the fact that the scientific models of global warming, in the best case scenarios, result in just the US alone losing millions of acres of low-laying coastal land (e.g. much of Florida, Louisiana, etc.) and the Great Plains basically turning into a desert as the Ogallala Aquifer is eventually depleted. Perhaps starvation of the American people because we won't be able to produce enough food to eat (deserts without a water source don't produce much food) due to climate change is not something you consider important but I'd put it pretty high on my list of priorities.  

Congress already prevents some from leaving the country. Please stop stating they don't because the laws already prevent some from leaving the country. All we're talking about is changing the criteria for something Congress has already done in the past. The precendent of preventing US citizens from leaving the country is already established so all we're really addressing is a change in the criteria being used to prevent a US citizen from leaving the country.

I have absolutely not problem with the US Navy providing an escort for US flagged oil tankers traversing the Strait of Hormuz. A US Navy response to any armed interference by Iran would be an "act of defense" and the Right of Self Defense Against Acts of Aggression is an Inalienable Right of the People that can be carried out by the US Navy. No one, including the US Navy that represents the Rights of the American People, has any Right to Commit an Act of Aggression. If we, the United States, are not attacked then we are the aggressors.

Of course there is the other argument that the United States Navy could be representing the Nations of the World in intervening if Iran was to block the Strait of Hormuz (while allowing US flagged ships to pass) but that can only be done with the consent of the other world nations that, currently, can only be granted by the UN Security Council under international treaty (i.e. the UN Charter). Are you willing to subordinate the US miltary to the authority of the United Nations which could authorize the use of military force on behalf of the nations of the world?

Oct 9, 2014 18:27:27 GMT pjohns1873 said:

As you know, those oil tankers that travel through the Strait of Hormuz--carrying roughly one-quarter of the world's oil supplies--are not US-flagged vessels.  If they were, the owners' tax liability would be greater; and that extra cost would surely be passed on to consumers, in the form of even higher gasoline and heating-oil prices.  (Nonetheless, I am very much in favor of our taking the necessary military action to keep open the Strait of Hormuz--and without requesting a permission slip from that transnational body from which the US should really withdraw.)

And I really do not care much for "models" as concerning global warming. Garbage in, garbage out, as the old saying goes.

I believe the only people who are currently prevented from leaving the country are those under indictment. And that strikes me as eminently reasonable. To suggest that others might be prevented from leaving the country for purely authoritarian reasons is really quite a leap! 

If the owners of the oil tankers don't want to pay for protection by the US Navy by being US flagged ships then why should the American taxpayers be required to pay for their protection? BTW The cost of being a US flagged ship wouldn't affect the price of a gallon of gasoline by even 1/1000th of a cent. Where do you come up with the belief it would? There are over 11,000 oil tankers in service today and each one hauls between 500,000 and 4 million barrels of oil each on every trip they run. The entire cost of transporting oil by tanker ship is only about 3 cents per US gallon.

The scientific models of AGW have existed for 150 years (as we've previously noted) and your cavalier disregard for 150 years of science as being "junk science" is rather disturbing. Yes, today's climate models are far superior to those from 150 years ago but the models have existed for that long and the AGW models have never been disputed by any other scientific models. As I've mentioned it would only require one scientist to produce a climate model that effectively proved that the AGW models are wrong but that has not happened in the 150 years of AGW models.

We do limit immigration into and out of the United States based upon issues of "criminality" but we also limit immigration into the United States for economic reasons. To also limit immigration out of the United States for economic reasons isn't a "purely authoritatian reason" but instead is an economic reason. In all cases it's "authoritarian" but we (mankind) tend to rationalize authoritarianism. As I mentioned why couldn't the US Congress limit immigration of the "wealthy" from the United States so that they don't take their wealth to other countries? I'm sure there's some Marxists in the US that don't care about personal liberty already proposing this. All they need to do is convince the stupid American population and politicians that it's a good idea and, wa-la, it would happen.  

Your belief that the Congress of the United States won't rationalize the violations of the Rights of Liberty of the Person is rather naive considering the history of the United States Congress.   

Oct 10, 2014 17:28:13 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Actually, I am going by "the history of the United Stat. es Congress" when I note that it is highly unlikely that both chambers of Congress would pass a law restricting emigration from the US, and that it would then be signed into law by the president.  (Or, alternatively, that it would be passed with veto-proof supermajorities in both chambers of Congress.)

Perhaps you do not believe that the US Navy should keep open the Strait of Hormuz, by any means necessary, if the vessels passing through there are not "US flagged ships." But I would remind you that keeping open the Strait is not abou tour pleasing Big Oil; rather, it is about our keeping the oil flowing, so that prices do not spike, thereby harming the American consumer. 

And I do not desire another "model" to counter current models as concerning global warming.  Rather, I seriously doubt the validity of any and all "models"--for either global warming or anything else. 

What are the history of Congress passing unconstitutional laws? Shall we go down the list of federal laws alone that have been struck down by the Supreme Court so far which is just the tip of the iceberg? The only requirement that has ever existed related to our government violating the Constitutionally protected Right of the Person have been nefarious rationalizations using propaganda based upon half-truths and lies of why it's deemed necessary. We already have arguments for legislation to prevent "jobs" from being shipped overseas by corporations. It's not much of a leap for the arguments to be laws to prevent "wealth" from being shipped overseas and a "pragmatic means" of doing this is by not allowing the "wealthy" to leave the country. I certianly don't support that but I'm sure I could put forward an argument based upon half-truths and lies that could convince millions of people to believe it's necessary.

The closing of the Staits of Hormuz would not adversely effect the US economy to any noticable degree nor would it be for any extended period of time. Remember that few countries that use the Straits don't have other shipping routes. For example, Saudi Arabia (the largest Middle East oil producer) isn't dependent upon the Straits of Hormuz because it has ports on Gulf of Acaba that it can export oil from if it chooses to. As I've also noted if the oil tanker companies want US protection through the Straits of Hormuz then all they have to do is flag their ships under US maritime law and they get that protection.

Of course Iran would never to attempt to close the Staits of Hormuz unless it attacked by another country (e.g. Israel or the US). If another country attacks Iran then it is that country that is responsible for the consequences of it's actions and it is responsible even when it's actions adversely affect other nations.       

So, you don't believe in science at all? That is apparently the case based upon your statement.

Oct 12, 2014 0:58:13 GMT pjohns1873 said:

For openers, I did not ever say--nor did I ever mean--that I do not "believe in science."  Rather, what I said--and meant--is that I do not believe in "models" that are set forth in the (supposed) service of science.

In order for Congress (both chambers) to pass--and the president to sign--legislation restricting emigration from the US, by the monied class, it would first have to become such a widely popular idea that this would likely happen.  Perhaps you view the American citizenry in such a jaundiced way as to imagine that this is entirely possible--even, perhaps, likely.  But I do not. 

Please support your allegation that the closing of the Strait of Hormuz "would not adversely affect the US economy to any noticeable degree." Preferably, using a neutral source--not the Huffington Post or the Daily Kos.

All scientific theories use models for validation. It's a part of the scientific method. When Einstein proposed that gravity curved space and time the model was that this could be shown during a solar eclipse because the sun's gravity would act as a lens changing the "apparent" location of stars behind it. It was very close, by analogy, to last Wednesday's lunar eclipse where both the eclipsed moon and the sun could be seen at the sametime on the East coast because the Earth's atmosphere curves light. It was a scientific model used to validate the theory. The theory of AGW has existed for over 150 years and the "models" to establish it's happening have been refined over that time period to establish that the "theory" (that is purely mathmatical) is correct. There are roughly 50 scientific models all of which indicate AGW and none that dispute AGW. The models are more or less accurate but they have to take in an awful lot of variables not all of which are easily calculatible but with time the models have become far more accurate.

Bottom line:  

Without scientific models science does not exist.

While perhaps you can't see it as a possibility I can certainly see the ever increasing poverty in the United States leading people to "believe" that they can stop this by stopping the wealthy from leaving the country with all of their money. It's not really any different than the belief that we should stop US companies from "exporting jobs" which is, of course, a misnomer because jobs are not exported. That doesn't mean that millions of Americans don't believe jobs are being exported even though it's a false belief. It's similar to the false belief that "immigrants" take American jobs because studies have shown that immigrants create more jobs for the native population than they fill. Try arguing that with the liberal labor unions that oppose immigration because they falsely believe the claim they make that immigrants take American jobs.

Propaganda is rarely tied to the truth and in the future there very well could be a propaganda campaign arguing that the wealthy should be restricted from leaving the United States and taking their wealth with them.     

Well, let's see. The US doesn't get very much oil from Iraq that could be shut-off if the Straits of Hormuz are closed and all of the Saudi Arabian oil can be exported through the Red Sea so we have a zero loss of oil from Saudi Arabia. Kuwait could probably ship via Saudi Arabia so that's a zero loss. And, of course, any tanker that was US flagged would receive a military escort through the Straits. I can easily see not a single drop of oil being lost given those alternatives for moving oil out of the region.

Of course you know that Iran could not close 1/2 of the Straits of Hormuz without committing an act of war agianst Oman and an Arab alliance between Saudi Arabia, Iraq, the UAE, Kuwait and Oman could combat any military action by Iran if it attempted to close the Straits by invading the territorial waters of Oman. US military involvement to reopen the Straits of Hormuz would be completely unnecessary if it were to happen.

But it's not going to happen at all of no nation(s) attacks Iran to begin with. Iran will never attempt to close the Straits of Hormuz unless another nation launches a war of aggression against it. Iran has not shown itself to be a nation of military aggression against other countries. Remember that Iraq, not Iran, started the Iran-Iraq War by invading Iran.