I suppose it depends on the POV. The late 70's blew, we had the oil crisis, the Iranian hostage situation, ridiculously high inflation, etc.... Not a good time for anyone that lived in the time (as I did as a kid with vienna sausages for breakfast and a nice 3 present Christmas, with perhaps 1 present for your birthday - overall a very overrated experience). Still, there was hope for the future and it manifested itself in the 80's.

Today, no one is starving, if anything kids are getting too fat and Americans are complicit in basking in their consumer goods that were subsidized by a government-encouraged trade debt. Yet, as Sleeper pointed out, the jobs outlook is the bleakest in many generations, we have a growing younger class that are drowning in debt and what hope do they have? How do you address a college graduate with $20,000 of debt and no job opportunities? How about one with $100,000 of debt?

Retirement? This is a pipe dream for any American that isn't getting a gold-plated pension (again, funded by debt).

Just turn down the thermostat and put on a sweater.

majorspark;1057003 wrote:Just turn down the thermostat and put on a sweater.

Problem solved! Majorsparks for president!

Cleveland Buck;1056344 wrote:Ron Paul has never said anything about keeping our navy in the docks and having no presence in the world. People who don't understand that don't want to believe that Bill O'Reilly is lying to them. He has said before that he likes the idea of using submarines instead of stationing thousands of troops in foreign lands. He has also said that he would keep a presence in the Persian Gulf, he would just back them out in to international waters. If Iran was to close the Strait of Hormuz, that must mean they would attack any of our ships traveling those international waters, which would obviously be cause to defend ourselves and destroy the Iranian navy in the area. Then the people, through Congress, decide if we go to war, as the law states. It isn't that difficult to figure this out. And also, with Paul as president Iran would have no reason to close the Strait because we would be in diplomatic contact with them.

So, if I understand you, he believes in certain types of intervention even though he's campaigning as a non-interventionalist? How can any politician draw that line? What is or what isn't?

You say Iran would attack any of "our ships". The USA isn't the only country with barges full of oil. What if they are Canadian ships...or Panamanian...or Brazilian...or belonging to the U.K.? Since these aren't "our ships", what would he do then?

Submarines are the answer? Really? He can't possibly believe that people see them as invisible, can he? Oh wait, they'll have the Ronulan Cloaking Device. Got it.

"It isn't all that difficult to figure this out." Really? It's this easy? I wonder why no one else has ever tried it, let alone verbalize it. Could it be that a majority of Americans don't believe in becoming isolationists...or wait..."non-interventionalists"?

BGFalcons82;1057134 wrote: You say Iran would attack any of "our ships". The USA isn't the only country with barges full of oil. What if they are Canadian ships...or Panamanian...or Brazilian...or belonging to the U.K.? Since these aren't "our ships", what would he do then?

Why is the responsibility of a fiscally doomed country like the United States to protect other countries interests? How would you propose we pay for all of this when we have ballooning deficits and unfunded liabilities that are 4x our project GDP?

This is why I propose a national sales tax instead of the income tax. In every bill, there would be a stipulation that this bill will cost Americans x% more to pay for it. Want to police the world? Raise the sales tax by 10%. "NON NON not my money, that's too much" Bye bye bill. There's no cause and effect, people just want all of these luxuries and then will worry about how to pay for it later(read: the unborn who have no voice).

sleeper;1057146 wrote:(read: the unborn who have no voice).

If you want to discuss abortion start another thread.

majorspark;1057170 wrote:If you want to discuss abortion start another thread.

I'm not talking about abortion, I'm talking about leaving the next generation with an unmanageable debt load and a declining standard of living. We are sacrificing the long term ability of this country to function so that the current generation(read: the baby boomers) can have cheap prescription drugs and a luxurious retirement.

Iran is just posturing about closing the strait. First off it would kill their economy. Second the Chinese and Russians need that oil too.

What about the fact that Israel has stated , on the congress floor nonetheless that they dont need or wamt american troops in israel. That they can defend themselves. But as usual we wont listen because we know whats best for other nations.

im sorry there are some of us that would prefer a strong economic america. Until we curb our overseas ventures, it will never happen. To fix this mess there can be no sacred cows.

BGFalcons82;1057134 wrote:
You say Iran would attack any of "our ships". The USA isn't the only country with barges full of oil. What if they are Canadian ships...or Panamanian...or Brazilian...or belonging to the U.K.? Since these aren't "our ships", what would he do then?

Every country you mentioned save one is fully capable of defending their own interests against Iran. Why would we become involved?

queencitybuckeye;1057196 wrote:Every country you mentioned save one is fully capable of defending their own interests against Iran. Why would we become involved?

My point, if I read CB correctly, is that Ron Paul will only protect American ships. There are dozens of other countries that use the Strait of Hormuz (and the Suez for that matter) and I want to know how President Paul would act. How can he protect only some of the vessels using it? Is it a form of "selective protection"? How can he profess a "partially pregnant" policy? We are either in it or we aren't. I'm interested in Paul's stance on chaotic Middle East issues, such as this.

Furthermore, back to your question, we all know the price of oil jumps like a kid on a pogo-stick every time a sabre is rattled over there. It only takes the threat of action to drive the price skyward. If President Paul doesn't want to protect any other vessels other than the U.S. variety, how will this stabilize the region?

One more point regarding spending money we don't have: If Paul doesn't give a hoot about other countries in the region and they are on their own nickel to protect themselves, how does the USA save any money if we're already over there protecting U.S. craft only? Does the meter measuring dollars spent suddenly stop when a Canadian tanker passes through right before one of ours?

BGFalcons82;1057243 wrote:One more point regarding spending money we don't have: If Paul doesn't give a hoot about other countries in the region and they are on their own nickel to protect themselves, how does the USA save any money if we're already over there protecting U.S. craft only? Does the meter measuring dollars spent suddenly stop when a Canadian tanker passes through right before one of ours?

Does it take less resources to protect only our ships as opposed to all? Of course.

Let me ask you BG, how would you feel if say Iran decided to protect their own interests in the Gulf? What if they stationed a ship right off the coast of Florida?

The straight is in their region. It is not ours, its theirs.

queencitybuckeye;1057263 wrote:Does it take less resources to protect only our ships as opposed to all? Of course.

For argument's sake, let's say it takes 3 submarines, 1000 sailors, and a squadron of drones to protect US ships in the Straits. If it takes this much to protect 1 ship, it would be quite logical to state it takes this much to protect any ship from anywhere. Since it's only wide enough for 1 ship (or maybe 2) at a time, how is it less expensive based on the color of the flag flying from them? If we're there to begin with, we are spending money as it is.

Now, if you're talking about military action, then yes, I can understand how it would be less expensive to protect other country's vessels. But just for protection, a presence if you will, it's the same.

BGFalcons82;1057332 wrote:For argument's sake, let's say it takes 3 submarines, 1000 sailors, and a squadron of drones to protect US ships in the Straits. If it takes this much to protect 1 ship, it would be quite logical to state it takes this much to protect any ship from anywhere. Since it's only wide enough for 1 ship (or maybe 2) at a time, how is it less expensive based on the color of the flag flying from them? If we're there to begin with, we are spending money as it is.

Now, if you're talking about military action, then yes, I can understand how it would be less expensive to protect other country's vessels. But just for protection, a presence if you will, it's the same.

This is a fallacious argument. You just said yourself it takes 3 submarines, 1000 sailers, 1 squadron of drones to protect US ships. Add in more ships, and it would take more submarines, sailors, drones to protect others' ships. Those things cost money, money we do not have.

sleeper;1057279 wrote:Let me ask you BG, how would you feel if say Iran decided to protect their own interests in the Gulf? What if they stationed a ship right off the coast of Florida?

The straight is in their region. It is not ours, its theirs.

We aren't like Iran. Never will be. Failed analogy.

We will be China-West very soon, though. How's your Mandarin training coming along?

If we want to spend less money, how about we reform the entitlement spending, since that dwarfs Defense spending? Defending and protecting the country is one of the few requirements of the federal government and should not be cut so as to give aid and comfort to our enemies. I would rather do that as opposed to pouring billions after billions into car companies, solar-panel factories, high speed rail boondoggles, cowboy poets, and electric cars that blow the fuck up.

BGFalcons82;1057134 wrote:So, if I understand you, he believes in certain types of intervention even though he's campaigning as a non-interventionalist? How can any politician draw that line? What is or what isn't?

What type of "intervention" did I say he supported? Protecting our international shipping lanes? If you think protecting legitimate U.S. interests is intervention, then it is no wonder you don't understand Ron Paul's foreign policy.

BGFalcons82;1057134 wrote:You say Iran would attack any of "our ships". The USA isn't the only country with barges full of oil. What if they are Canadian ships...or Panamanian...or Brazilian...or belonging to the U.K.? Since these aren't "our ships", what would he do then?

Does Canada have a navy? Or Panama? Or Brazil? Or Great Britain? If not, they ought to get one instead of propping up their welfare states with our money.

BGFalcons82;1057134 wrote:Submarines are the answer? Really? He can't possibly believe that people see them as invisible, can he? Oh wait, they'll have the Ronulan Cloaking Device. Got it.

Does it matter. The point is that he supports a strong navy to protect our legitimate interests around the world without stationing hundreds of thousands of our troops and spending hundreds of billions of dollars all over the globe. That is the opposite of the view you eat up on Fox and CNN.

BGFalcons82;1057134 wrote:"It isn't all that difficult to figure this out." Really? It's this easy? I wonder why no one else has ever tried it, let alone verbalize it. Could it be that a majority of Americans don't believe in becoming isolationists...or wait..."non-interventionalists"?

What do you mean no one else has tried it? The country was founded on those principles. No one has tried it recently because they get a lot of lobby money from the military contractors and AIPAC and the bankers that make billions on endless wars. And the Washington Times had a poll yesterday that 46% of Republican primary voters are non-interventionist, which is remarkable considering how the media distorts that view. That doesn't include Democrats, so say what, 60-70% of the country feels that way? Maybe more? The majority of Americans are sick and tired of the warmongering and the empire when we are bankrupt.

sleeper;1057350 wrote:This is a fallacious argument. You just said yourself it takes 3 submarines, 1000 sailers, 1 squadron of drones to protect US ships. Add in more ships, and it would take more submarines, sailors, drones to protect others' ships. Those things cost money, money we do not have.

Arrrgghhh....the vessels don't go through based on nationality! It's not Mondays for America, Tuesdays for UK, Wednesdays for Vietnam, yadda yadda. If we're there already, we are already spending money. We can't selectively pick whom to protect with a show of force or whom to neglect.

We're way off subject now. It's about Ron Paul, not you nor me. I'm REALLY trying to figure out a way to trust his foreign policy, but right now....I just can't.

BGFalcons82;1057357 wrote:We aren't like Iran. Never will be. Failed analogy.

In their eyes, we are. We are their enemy, they don't like us. The analogy works, you just don't like it.

BGFalcons82;1057367 wrote:Arrrgghhh....the vessels don't go through based on nationality! It's not Mondays for America, Tuesdays for UK, Wednesdays for Vietnam, yadda yadda. If we're there already, we are already spending money. We can't selectively pick whom to protect with a show of force or whom to neglect.

We're way off subject now. It's about Ron Paul, not you nor me. I'm REALLY trying to figure out a way to trust his foreign policy, but right now....I just can't.

Once again this is a fallacious argument. Sure, we are already there, but when you only have to protect X amount of ships as opposed to all ships, you need less crew to manage that amount. The crew that's over there is the size that it is because we don't just protect our own interests we subsidize other countries interests as well. Maybe we can manage our interests with 2-3 less support ships, which saves tons of money. Unless Canada, Brazil, etc want to pay us for protecting their ships as well, then we should provide protection for them. What if Iran sends a missile into a Canadian tanker? Because we are there, we just started another war because there's no way to get out of Canadians blaming us if we chose not to. It's time to start worrying about our own interests before the interests of other countries, we simply cannot afford it! That's the bottom line!

BGFalcons82;1057367 wrote:Arrrgghhh....the vessels don't go through based on nationality! It's not Mondays for America, Tuesdays for UK, Wednesdays for Vietnam, yadda yadda. If we're there already, we are already spending money. We can't selectively pick whom to protect with a show of force or whom to neglect.

We're way off subject now. It's about Ron Paul, not you nor me. I'm REALLY trying to figure out a way to trust his foreign policy, but right now....I just can't.

Let's assume Iran isn't posturing (they are, but hypotheticals are fun).

Are you trying to say that because there is no schedule for passage, we can't tell which ships are ours ... which ships we need to protect?

Genuine question. I'm just trying to understand the belief that protecting other sovereign entities or entering conflict without war would be deemed a necessity in this case.

Cleveland Buck;1057365 wrote: Does Canada have a navy? Or Panama? Or Brazil? Or Great Britain?

Yes to all. I have no idea about Panama, but the navies of the rest of these nations are quite competent.

I just think it's lunacy to prop up the completely unsubstantiated position that suggests Iran with a nuke is suddenly a serious threat just because we have some (read "a lot") of animosity between them and us.

Things haven't exactly been ice cream and cookies between us and Pakistan either, but they've had nukes for a tick or two and they have neither used one on us nor have they supplied someone who has used one on us (successfully, anyway).

Team Willard is starting to panic on the tax return issue.

Coincidentallly his father is the first modern presidential candidate to set the precedent of candidates releasing their return, in his case 12 years worth.

Willard is now facing calls from Perry/Newt/Palin/Christie to release them and let the people properly vet him. He has no intention of doing so.

Why? Because he doesn't want people to see he is still making millions of dollars a year from Bain and is only paying a 15% income tax rate.

The optics of that are a nightmare for him in this campaign, which is why he desperately wants to wait until he has wrappped up the nomination to do it.

The Mittness protection program plan he has used has allowed him to skate by and avoid a full vetting because the establishment is protecting him.

Do Rove and company not realize that allowing Willard to win the primary is basically ensuring 4 more years of BHO? The guy is a flip flopper, thin skinned (maybe even more so than the Messiah) and is a walking attack ad waiting to happen with his business back ground.

In an election that will be predominantly based on the economy, how in the world do you nominate someone who made his money at a corporate chop shop and is still making millions from them while paying a lower income tax rate than his secratery (a cherrished Democrat party MEME). It is just mind boggling.

Do these people secretly want 4 more years of BHO? None of this is making any sense to me.

Update:

Newt (who just revealed that he pays an effective tax rate of 31%) has rolled out a new talking point. Romney has said he pays an effective rate of 15%.

“We are going to name our flat tax the Mitt Romney 15 percent flat tax,” Gingrich told the roughly 150-person crowd today. "My goal is not to raise Mitt Romney's taxes, but to let everyone pay Romney's rate."

You won't see it on Fox News, but Ron Paul introduced legislation today to repeal section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act, which allows the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without due process of law and effectively repeals the 5th and 6th amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

http://paul.house.gov/index.php?Itemid=1&catid=16%3Aspeeches&id=1941%3Astatement-introducing-repeal-of-sec-1021-of-national-defense-authorization-act-for-fiscal-year-2012&option=com_content&view=article

O-Trap;1057421 wrote:Are you trying to say that because there is no schedule for passage, we can't tell which ships are ours ... which ships we need to protect?

Genuine question. I'm just trying to understand the belief that protecting other sovereign entities or entering conflict without war would be deemed a necessity in this case.

This is really quite simple, but I'm failing somewhere!

The discussion was regarding costs to protect US vessels and no others. In terms of costs alone, if we are engaged in a "show of force" or protection of US vessels only in the Middle Eastern seas, then it doesn't cost any more to provide the same "show of force" or protection for other nations using the seas. Why you aks? Because we are already there protecting our own (and accountants don't swim well)! In other words, if we are there expending capital on sailors, submarines, drones, diesel, electricity, gasoline, uniforms, or whatever costs it takes to perform this task, then if other nations utilize our "show of force" while we are there, THEN there is no additional costs whatsoever to protect them vis-a-vis US vessels ONLY.

Another viewpoint: If we are to maintain a presence in the Middle Eastern seas, then we expending taxpayer dollars. The fact that other "friendly" nations are in the same seas as us utilizing our protection does not add any costs. This has been the debate within the debate. There are many on here that say we shouldn't provide for other country's defenses and all I'm saying is that in this instance, the line cannot be drawn as our presence protects everyone.

Back to my main point regarding "non-interventionalism": If I (and millions of others) don't understand it, then it is indeed up to Dr. Paul to explain it! The fact that CB says we should remain in the Middle East to protect Americans is, in fact, intervening in my opinion. For Dr. Paul to tell us he's for non-interventionalism and then profess to intervene where he sees fit does not hold water with his definition of non-interventionalism! He's playing games with words, and would thus, be unpredictable in the future. I get the distinct impression that he believes in not intervening unless he thinks it necessary....which means he's just like all the others!! More importantly, I can't tell what his policy is as he sends confusing signals as I've described above and he wants to be Commander-In-Chief. To me, this is both scary and dangerous.