> Jaybyrd wrote:
> > On Nov 5, 12:25 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote:
> >> Jaybyrd wrote:
> >>> On Nov 4, 6:53 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>>> On Nov 4, 4:11 pm, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Nov 4, 5:09 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Nov 4, 3:46 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 11:24 am, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> The budget in California is crippled for the same reason it gets
> >>>>>>>>>> crippled elsewhere: legislators who insist on spending more than their
> >>>>>>>>>> allowed revenues permit.
> >>>>>>>>> and for much of their budget their hands are tied because of
> >>>>>>>>> referendums.
> >>>>>>>> That's like saying that when i make up my household budge, my hands
> >>>>>>>> are  "tied" by the amount of the wife's salaries. True, but not very
> >>>>>>>> meaningful. It just means that i can't spend more than that, unless i
> >>>>>>>> want to wade out into the waters of debt, etc.
> >>>>>>> The people got what they voted for.  The people are part of the
> >>>>>>> govenment. My point is still valid:  you should not govern through
> >>>>>>> referendums.
> >>>>>> Still? You haven't demonstrated the validity of that point. Perhaps if
> >>>>>> you invoked some arguments about the value of deliberation?
> >>>>> The idea that We the People contribute to our own budget problems in
> >>>>> California isn't new.
> >>>> We all know that the people of california have used the referendum
> >>>> process to restrict taxing ability and enact new services. But, this
> >>>> doesn't change the fact that these are merely constraints the
> >>>> legislature faces and it is their duty to work within those
> >>>> constraints.
> >>>> If they don't, well, their fault eh?
> >>> That has nothing to do with my point.
> >> It must have everything to do with it. If your 'point' is literally that
> >> a state shouldn't govern by referendum, well that's a trivial point that
> >> no one would disagree with, and in fact no state has ever tried to do
> >> that. With all the hundreds of governmental decisions made every day, it
> >> would mean that every citizen must be permanently hooked up to voting
> >> machines and spend several hours a day casting votes.

> >> No, we were talking about the specific issue of whether the use of
> >> referendums on stuff like gay marriage or tax policy makes sense, and as
> >> i said originally, it has strengths and weaknesses.

> >> The gay thing in Maine being an example of a strength.

> > That's not what I said though.

> What do you think you said? At this point, I'm not sure you know ..