Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When you double population, naturally you double money flow, if only because you have twice as many people buying at least the basics. CA's population has doubled in recent decades; Montana's has not. It's disingenuous, and perhaps deliberately deceptive, to conflate that with "economic growth". If you were to plot against CA's growing population, and localized price inflation, I suspect you'd find that CA's economy has not "grown" at all on a per-capita basis.
You don't know when to give up. If California is failing shouldn't people be moving out? How can California be growing then?
BTW California's GDP per capita is 25% higher than Montana and it's per capita GDP has grown more than Montana's over the last 5 years. By any economic measure Montana is a backwater.
Montana needs guns. Montana used to be number one in suicides, now it seems wyoming has taken the lead with Alaska at their heels. AFSP: Facts and Figures: State Statistics. What these three states share in common is low population density. I wonder if that is the reason that the suicides are so high.
Suicide by gun is the method of choice. More people are killed by shooting themsleves than by shooting other people.
Montana needs guns. Montana used to be number one in suicides, now it seems wyoming has taken the lead with Alaska at their heels. AFSP: Facts and Figures: State Statistics. What these three states share in common is low population density. I wonder if that is the reason that the suicides are so high.
Suicide by gun is the method of choice. More people are killed by shooting themsleves than by shooting other people.
Don't forget Poverty, Four of the poorest counties in America are in Montana.
If they secede they will be a third world country
You don't know when to give up. If California is failing shouldn't people be moving out? How can California be growing then?
BTW California's GDP per capita is 25% higher than Montana and it's per capita GDP has grown more than Montana's over the last 5 years. By any economic measure Montana is a backwater.
There's many illegals moving into CA but they are more of a burden than an asset.
A threat of secession over a non-existent infringement of gun rights, is most certainly blind.
O was quite serious last year when he said he wanted more gun control, including gun bans and other restrictions. Between the threats of secession, the run on guns and ammo...he has backed off for now, but he is certainly not to be trusted.
Wouldn't those be the counties where the feds own most of the land and there's not much that can be done economically?
Hypothetically if Montana did secede they would become the responsibility of the State until the Federal Government bombed Montana back into the Stone Age and then moved in and hung the Traitors
Hypothetically if Montana did secede they would become the responsibility of the State until the Federal Government bombed Montana back into the Stone Age and then moved in and hung the Traitors
This past legislative session, Arizona passed a somewhat similar "referendum" - to consider secession if 2nd Amendment rights were screwed with.
Comparing two maps (linked below), Bighorn County looks to be about 80% Native American land, with the remaining held privately. Roosevelt looks about 50/50 Native American/private. Glacier about 40/40 Native American/private, with the other 20% mostly Glacier National Park. Outside of a small corner of national forest land, Wheatland is virtually all private property.
So no, it doesn't appear to be a problem caused by federal ownerhip of land.
O was quite serious last year when he said he wanted more gun control, including gun bans and other restrictions. Between the threats of secession, the run on guns and ammo...he has backed off for now, but he is certainly not to be trusted.
Obama wasn't president last year. I wrote "a non-existent infringement of gun rights." What Obama said a year ago does not amount to an infringement of rights. And since no one's guns have been taken away since the inauguration, there are still no rights being violated. It seems like Chicken Little to me, but that's what the Republicans do.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
