If Montana attempts to secede, GW will get so pissed he'll bomb Oregon.

Rebel Wrote:

Fo Shizzle Wrote:Powers not specified to the Feds are given to the States or the people.

You are correct, and that can loosely be defined as state's rights. Probably why it was the last in the Bill of Rights. However, it's intent was intended for the people as individuals as their representation was one of direct representation.

Hey, if those fruitcakes can determine that eminent domain means taking from an individual and giving to another individual, pretty sure I can make a damn good case of it.

Agreed....Government people have no respect for private property.

Rebel Wrote:

jh Wrote:http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr139.pdf

Montana might want to rethink their plans. According to this study using 2004 tax data, Montana gets $1.58 back from the federal government for every dollar they pay in taxes, ranking #9 among the taker states. I'm not sure they'll be able to get a 58% return on their investments anywhere else.

Oklahoma isn't in the top 10 but they are firmly in the taker camp as well ($1.48). They might to consider giving back some of that federal largess before getting too upity.

It's interesting to note that the liberal havens of the northeast & California make up the majority of the donor states. Maybe the reason California ($0.79) can't afford to pay for social services for illegal immigrants is because they are too busy paying for social services for Montanans & Oklahomans.

I assure you, jh, with the reports I'm being e-mailed, their oil, that they're restricted from right now, will pay for all that and a bag of chips.

Montana secedes, I'm outta Georgia.

NH would make the most sense....Having a border with Canada and the Atlantic Ocean would be ideal for this type of movement.

Rebel Wrote:

jh Wrote:http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr139.pdf

Montana might want to rethink their plans. According to this study using 2004 tax data, Montana gets $1.58 back from the federal government for every dollar they pay in taxes, ranking #9 among the taker states. I'm not sure they'll be able to get a 58% return on their investments anywhere else.

Oklahoma isn't in the top 10 but they are firmly in the taker camp as well ($1.48). They might to consider giving back some of that federal largess before getting too upity.

It's interesting to note that the liberal havens of the northeast & California make up the majority of the donor states. Maybe the reason California ($0.79) can't afford to pay for social services for illegal immigrants is because they are too busy paying for social services for Montanans & Oklahomans.

I assure you, jh, with the reports I'm being e-mailed, their oil, that they're restricted from right now, will pay for all that and a bag of chips.

Montana secedes, I'm outta Georgia.

But if the mineral rights belong to private citizens, and the oil companies will be private companies, how will the oil be used to pay for governmental services? Surely you, of all people, aren't suggesting nationalizing the oil industry (at least for an independent Montana).

Another point is that Montana spends half again as much in federal dollars as they contribute. I have no idea how that spending breaks down, but it doesn't sound like Montana is a very fiscally responsible state. It seems like, in the unlikely event they secede, there is at least as big a chance that the big government (or at least big spending) Montanans will have sway. I see no reason to believe that an independent Montana would be any better than the current state of affairs.

GRPunk Wrote:If Montana attempts to secede, GW will get so pissed he'll bomb Oregon.

Outstanding.

jh Wrote:But if the mineral rights belong to private citizens, and the oil companies will be private companies, how will the oil be used to pay for governmental services? Surely you, of all people, aren't suggesting nationalizing the oil industry (at least for an independent Montana).

Taxes aren't a new concept, jh.

Quote:Another point is that Montana spends half again as much in federal dollars as they contribute. I have no idea how that spending breaks down, but it doesn't sound like Montana is a very fiscally responsible state. It seems like, in the unlikely event they secede, there is at least as big a chance that the big government (or at least big spending) Montanans will have sway. I see no reason to believe that an independent Montana would be any better than the current state of affairs.

Let'em open up the fields for exploration, drilling, and selling and see how that changes. They won't have to abide by any US liberal regulations if they secede.

Rebel Wrote:Montana secedes, I'm outta Georgia.

Call me when you hit I-75.. the wife and I will follow you up...

And here is an "oldie but goodie"...

Dan Seals and Marie Osmond .. "Meet Me in Montana"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZgEEFszRFc

Rebel Wrote:

jh Wrote:But if the mineral rights belong to private citizens, and the oil companies will be private companies, how will the oil be used to pay for governmental services? Surely you, of all people, aren't suggesting nationalizing the oil industry (at least for an independent Montana).

Taxes aren't a new concept, jh.

Quote:Another point is that Montana spends half again as much in federal dollars as they contribute. I have no idea how that spending breaks down, but it doesn't sound like Montana is a very fiscally responsible state. It seems like, in the unlikely event they secede, there is at least as big a chance that the big government (or at least big spending) Montanans will have sway. I see no reason to believe that an independent Montana would be any better than the current state of affairs.

Let'em open up the fields for exploration, drilling, and selling and see how that changes. They won't have to abide by any US liberal regulations if they secede.

I think we are talking past each other here. I'm assuming that one of the perceived advantages to seceding would be lower taxes. Based on the current tax distribution patterns, it doesn't appear to me that Montana is an ideal state for that. I've never spent much time there, just driven through a time or two, so I can't speak to how the federal subsidies are spent, just that they seem to have a lot of them. I'd be afraid the people wouldn't want to give up the benefits they are used to getting for free.

Are you suggesting that the oil companies will do enough business to generate the required income, even at a relatively low tax rate, and that their spending will be decreased because they will no longer provide social services at the current levels? This could very well be true, but I'm not sure anyone has thought it out far enough to have an idea either way. The information I could find on a quick Google search wasn't very specific.

I haven't researched why they have more income than outgo, but I would assume it would be due to the Native population. As for taxation, if "I" were made dictator for a day, I'd mandate the Fair Tax. There would be no tax on income. As to the Natives, they signed that pact with the United States, not the country of Montana.

jh Wrote:[Are you suggesting that the oil companies will do enough business to generate the required income, even at a relatively low tax rate, and that their spending will be decreased because they will no longer provide social services at the current levels?

Let them start developing oil shale, and that would be a slam dunk.

Not to mention the fact that a bunch of folks in upper income brackets would probably flock there.

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:

jh Wrote:[Are you suggesting that the oil companies will do enough business to generate the required income, even at a relatively low tax rate, and that their spending will be decreased because they will no longer provide social services at the current levels?

Let them start developing oil shale, and that would be a slam dunk.

Not to mention the fact that a bunch of folks in upper income brackets would probably flock there.

Oil Shale is harder than Venezuelan crude to refine.. and the only way to efficiently "produce" it is to strip mine vast spaces of Colorado, Utah, Wyoming to get the shale, to melt/refine.

The "Tree huggers" will sceam bloody murder about sttrip mining.. even though it is profitable to produce at $75 BBL.

We really need to revise our whole approach to environmental issues. We settle them in court, where each side has an "all or nothing" adversarial mentality. We'd do a whole lot better to come up with some sort of procedure where all stakeholders work out compromises.

That's what Norway does. I read an article the other day about how they have offshore drilling while maintaining a strong environmental protection effort. They can do this because the sides get together and work out compromises. Neither side gets everything they want. The oil companies don't get to drill everywhere, but they do get to drill in the places where the ratio of potential benefit to potential harm is greatest. The environmentalists don't get to keep the oil companies out completely, but they work out restrictions so that the most threatened areas are best protected.

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:We really need to revise our whole approach to environmental issues. We settle them in court, where each side has an "all or nothing" adversarial mentality. We'd do a whole lot better to come up with some sort of procedure where all stakeholders work out compromises.

That's what Norway does. I read an article the other day about how they have offshore drilling while maintaining a strong environmental protection effort. They can do this because the sides get together and work out compromises. Neither side gets everything they want. The oil companies don't get to drill everywhere, but they do get to drill in the places where the ratio of potential benefit to potential harm is greatest. The environmentalists don't get to keep the oil companies out completely, but they work out restrictions so that the most threatened areas are best protected.

Cough Cough.. Phil Bedient.. Dept of Envi Sci.. who makes 3X his Rice Paycheck from being an "Expert Witness" in environmental lawsuits...

Phil would actually still do okay in the scheme I have in mind. I've worked with him, he's a pretty good guy. Far better than many of the whores in his field.