Jaybyrd wrote:
> On Nov 5, 8:58 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote:
>> 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 ..

> all you have to do is go back and read.