California wants to push more welfare recipients to work (Nice: live, vs.) - (CA) - Page 27 - City-Data Forum

blauskies · 06-18-2012, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by user_id

I find it funny that anybody would think a community with $130,000 dollar homes is going to be desirable.... But $130,000? Expensive in Detroit! You should consider this beauty:

http://www.realtor.com/realestateand...ex=MI542258581

$1,900 and plenty of room for your *future* family. You can thank me later.

I think he is referring to Orlando, it's doable there if that's your cup of tea.

http://www.realtor.com/realestateand...504?source=web

http://www.realtor.com/realestateand...697?source=web

user_id · 06-18-2012, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yeahthatguy

I find it funny that people who live in California can't fathom such an idea because their homes cost 5-6x as much. This is madness !!!

Firstly....you still seem not to get that the bay area is not the norm for California. The median home price in California is $270,000....dramatically less than the $700k figure you are citing.

Secondly, I've love to believe that there are great communities with $130,000 homes, but reality doesn't work that way and the nicest communities of Florida are considerably more than $130,000.

I have never said anything about California being superior to every other state, so the fact that you keep implying such demonstrates the depths of your self-deception. But the only place you'd catch me in Florida is Disney World.....

user_id · 06-18-2012, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blauskies

I think he is referring to Orlando, it's doable there if that's your cup of tea.

I have no doubt that you can find $130,000 homes in Florida, you can find them here in California as well. My point is that communities with $130,000 homes are going to be low on the desirability list...if they weren't they be in greater demand and hence more expensive.

blauskies · 06-18-2012, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by user_id

I have no doubt that you can find $130,000 homes in Florida, you can find them here in California as well. My point is that communities with $130,000 homes are going to be low on the desirability list...if they weren't they be in greater demand and hence more expensive.

Not to mention you can claim homestead exemption of $50K, so the assessed value is probably more like $180K which in Orlando can land a fairly nice crib. Central and North Florida are much cheaper, than my neck of the woods but it's nicer down here in my opinion, more pleasing to the eye more barrel tile less shingles, nicer Mediterranean inspired homes. Some people I work with own some nice homes, $500K+, taxes in the $12K/year range. Insurance is like $7K+/year. Florida may be cheaper, but they get you with taxes and high insurance. Don't forget HOA fees to live in the nice gated communities, $300/month or more. When you read the break down on property taxes it makes you wonder on how much longer the system can go on.

I agree with you though, on average those lower priced homes are often in less desirable areas.

yeahthatguy · 06-18-2012, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by user_id

Firstly....you still seem not to get that the bay area is not the norm for California. The median home price in California is $270,000....dramatically less than the $700k figure you are citing.

Secondly, I've love to believe that there are great communities with $130,000 homes, but reality doesn't work that way and the nicest communities of Florida are considerably more than $130,000.

I have never said anything about California being superior to every other state, so the fact that you keep implying such demonstrates the depths of your self-deception. But the only place you'd catch me in Florida is Disney World.....

I get it .. Got it a long time ago. Which is why I will do the optimal thing : maintain a job from here and live elsewhere..
As for the 'median' price, that includes bfe inland desert towns w/o jobs to even still support those prices... which is why 1/3rd of the nation's welfare recipients (the amnt of weflare recipients in California) reside mainly in inland California.

Howest2008 · 06-18-2012, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juelle

Well, since you tongued and cheeked your question, you received an answer whether you were satisfied with it or not. I suspect, you are all up in arms because you actually received one. However, pick any one of the commentaries on the subject of working for your keep. I took the liberty of highlighting the crucial points in red.

Barnes' Notes on the BibleFor even when we were with you, this we commanded you - It would seem from this that the evil of which the apostle here complains had begun to operate even when he was with them. There were those who were disposed to be idle, and who needed the solemn command of an apostle to induce them to labor.
That if any would not work, neither should he eat - That is, at the public expense. They should not be supported by the church. This was a maxim among the Jews (see Wetstein, in loc.), and the same sentiment may be found in Homer, Demosthenes, and Pythagoras; see Grotius, in loc. The maxim is founded in obvious justice,

howest2008.... I agree with the scriptures that jewish and everybody else that believe in the Bible
the unerrant word of God , know that you have to work doing some type of work to recieve charity from the Church , with the two exceptions of disability or old age.

and is in accordance with the great law under which our Creator has placed us; Genesis 3:19. That law, in the circumstances, was benevolent, and it should be our aim to carry it out in reference to ourselves and to others. The law here laid down by the apostle extends to all who are able to work for a living, and who will not do it, and binds us not to contribute to their support if they will not labor for it. It should be regarded as extending:
(1) to the members of a church - who, though poor, should not be supported by their brethren, unless they are willing to work in any way they can for their own maintenance.

howest2008..... everybody that recieved aid worked for the person or group that provided the aid
until they worked out what they recieved. People that stole from a person had to work off the amount
that they stoled Seven (7) times to have theirs crime set aside and forgiven

.
(2) to those who beg from door to door, who should never be assisted unless they are willing to do all they can do for their own support. No one can be justified in assisting a lazy man. In no possible circumstances are we to contribute to foster indolence. A man might as properly help to maintain open vice.

howest2008...... People gave beggers out of theirs own free will , but weren't compelled by the word
of God , and as a matter of fact the Bible warn about giving to a able body men who won't return any
work in return for he reciept of charity.

Clarke's Commentary on the BibleIf any would not work, neither should he eat - This is a just maxim, and universal nature inculcates it to man. If man will work, he may eat; if he do not work, he neither can eat, nor should he eat. The maxim is founded on these words of the Lord: In the sweat of thy brow thou shall eat bread. Industry is crowned with God's blessing; idleness is loaded with his curse. This maxim was a proverb among the Jews. Men who can work, and will rather support themselves by begging, should not get one morsel of bread. It is a sin to minister to necessities that are merely artificial.

howest2008.... this has nothing to do with a workfare program here in America that the conservatist won't allow to exist .

Gill's Exposition of the Entire BibleFor even when we were with you,.... At Thessalonica in person, and first preached the Gospel to them,
we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat; the Ethiopic version reads in the singular number, "when I was with you, I commanded you"; using the above words, which were a sort of a proverb with the Jews, and is frequently used by them, , or , "that if a man would not work, he should not eat" (q). And again (r),
"he that labours on the evening of the sabbath (or on weekdays), he shall eat on the sabbath day; and he who does not labour on the evening of the sabbath, from whence shall he eat (or what right and authority has he to eat) on the sabbath day?''
Not he that could not work through weakness, bodily diseases, or old age, the necessities of such are to be distributed to, and they are to be taken care of, and provided with the necessaries of life by the officers of the church; but those that can work, and will not, ought to starve, for any assistance that should be given them by the members of the church, or the officers of it.

howest2008..... What if the person recievinng assistance were willing to work it off and was willing
to work for theirs assistances.

(q) Bere**** Rabba, sect. 14. fol. 13. 1. Echa Rabbati, fol. 48. 4. & Midrash Koholet, fol. 65. 4. (r) T. Bab. Avoda Zara, fol. 3. 1.
People's New Testament 3:10 This we commanded you. Even then he gave a command that if any refused to work for their food, they should be refused support by others. He who is able to work, and unwilling, should not be fed.
Wesley's Notes 3:10 Neither let him eat - Do not maintain him in idleness.
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary3:6-15 Those who have received the gospel, are to live according to the gospel.Such as could work, and would not, were not to be maintained in idleness. Christianity is not to countenance slothfulness, which would consume what is meant to encourage the industrious, and to support the sick and afflicted. Industry in our callings as men, is a duty required by our calling as Christians. But some expected to be maintained in idleness, and indulged a curious and conceited temper. They meddled with the concerns of others, and did much harm. It is a great error and abuse of religion, to make it a cloak for idleness or any other sin. The servant who waits for the coming of his Lord aright, must be working as his Lord has commanded. If we are idle, the devil and a corrupt heart will soon find us somewhat to do. The mind of man is a busy thing; if it is not employed in doing good, it will be doing evil. It is an excellent, but rare union, to be active in our own business, yet quiet as to other people's. If any refused to labour with quietness, they were to note him with censure, and to separate from his company, yet they were to seek his good by loving admonitions. The Lords is with you while you are with him. Hold on your way, and hold on to the end. We must never give over, or tire in our work. It will be time enough to rest when we come to heaven.

howest2008...... We Christians here in America don't follow the Law Of Gof , otherwise we would have
a real Workfare National Policy without any welfare issues whatsoever.

TVC15 · 06-18-2012, 02:15 PM

Yep talk about gracious

Nice to attack someone who said they were leaving the thread...pretty splineless if you ask me.

However two can play your nasty little game

Quote: