ThePolkaDotApron.freeforums.org

We want to talk about healthy, nutrient-dense foods (and others, too, of course), news and information items (current and otherwise), the BROKEN allopathic medical system and the need for alternative medicine, weather, farming - hey, you name it!
It is currently May 24th, 2017, 1:29 pm

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]



Welcome
Welcome to thepolkadotapron

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. In addition, registered members also see less advertisements. Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free, so please, join our community today!


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Was homesteading a good idea?
PostPosted: March 25th, 2013, 2:27 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: November 12th, 2012, 11:54 am
Posts: 13266
The people who came west (yes, the WILD west) to homestead this country did so because they were enticed to have/own land and were told they could make a fortune out of growing crops. Enter mistake number one. It didn't work that way. In the first damn place the land didn't BELONG to the gubment, so they had no right at all to be promising this sort of thing to people. But they did it anyway even knowing the land was inhabited by Indian tribes and had been for hundreds of years. When the Indians started killing people and trying to send a message that this was their land and they didn't want interlopers, it was always called a massacre - which sounds really horrible, right? But when the american armies started heading west and killing indians it was called a victory . . . :?: :arrow: :| :evil: :cry:

This homesteading idea was then *sold* by the folks who eventually became realtors. Rich realtors, no less. People coming west were content to think that if they just lived on the land for three years, or in some cases five years, it became theirs - and then they could have more. The early day realtors, in the meantime, bought up more and more and more land to sell to the *proved up* homesteaders for farming, rather than leaving it to grassland ranches. Enter mistake number two. A disaster in the making.

They had no idea how greatly these actions would upset the balance of nature, nor how close they would come to destroying a major portion of the nation and themselves. But the truth was brought home to them rather quickly during the late 1920's and almost the entire decade of the 1930's. It's a lesson from which we should still be learning, but history will repeat itself because we are a stupid people who just never seem to learn.

We need to understand the delicate balance which must be kept between the dictates of nature and the needs of man. The system of land use today is wrong. Everything depends on the health and vigor of the grasslands, but most farmers, even some small farmers, are missing this one extraordinary point, or maybe they never thought about it enough or cared to know about it/acknowledge it. Farmers should only be plowing up the land which is not useable by a grassland rancher. Simple concept.

There's plenty of acreage to go around, believe me. It should be a system of sharing, in that what the rancher can't use the farmer can use. Land along the rivers and streams (possibly useful for irrigation) could be utilized by farmers in certain parts of the country, whereas ranchers in other areas could utilize what's at their disposal (mountainous terrain not fit for farming but useful to animals, for instance) . What one can't use, the other can, making it a workable arrangement for all.

In the present, however, there's too much greed amongst those concerned only with the riches and spoils they could take from the land. Obscene profits made by insouciant realtors, for one thing, without any concern for the future of the land or the people and animals who need it to survive.

For one thing, we all need to protect every inch of our waterways - streams, rivers, lakes - because it is the lifeblood of the land and the inhabitants thereon. Without it, nothing lives. Instead, we pollute it with chemical run-off such as flouride which is a by-product of the aluminum industry, we dump trash thinking we're hiding it from someone, we artificially change the course of rivers (I grew up along the Missouri so I know this for a fact). Man does everything but protect this precious resource. Between the rivers and the grasslands, that's our future, you can believe it or not. We need to be good stewards of all resources because these things work together - in nature.

This is the part where I say, again and again as if I'm some sort of broken record, we need to start looking backwards and adopt some of the principles of the past if we're ever going to have a future.

Homesteading was originally an idea of the gubment to provide soldiers coming out of the civil war with an opportunity to have a new beginning. Good intentions, most likely. But like most things hatched by the gubment, it all went wrong. Enter GREED.

Educated agriculturalists/horticulturalists could see, after a few years of plowing and planting, where this was going to go. Many of them tried to warn both the farmers and the politicians what could happen if they didn't plant shelter belts and use staggered-row farming methods. They were told to burn their harrows and instead use a duckfoot or a one-way plow; they were told to make ridges amongst the crop rows in a cross-wise manner to the wind. The wind often comes from the same general direction in the area where you're farming. Here in the great plains it comes almost always from the west, north or northwest. Farmers were told to plow and plant a few rows of whatever they were trying to grow, and then leave a patch of land unturned (the ridge I spoke of) in order to "tie down" the soil, more or less. It was also imperative for neighboring farms to do the same, otherwise it was a wasted effort because the top soil from one farm would just cover up the next farm over. So it had to be a collaborated, joint effort by adjacent farms. But in reality, it wasn't JUST the top soil. When the winds of high velocity got ahold of the silt under the top layer and blew it around, this silt was sharp and sand-like and acted as a sickle to the new seedlings.

But many farmers didn't listen until after the dirty thirties, and then mind you it was a bit late for them - but not for future generations. After a disasterous decade and a good hard lesson, farmers who followed this ridge and row method did things the right way. If you can consider plowing up perfectly good land to be the "right" thing to do. Personally, I don't like tilled up ground because it really serves no purpose unless you're growing vegetables for your family. There was and is no such thing as "dry land" farming. You must have access to water because nature doesn't always provide dependable, timely rains - a lesson also learned the long hard way. Even today, irrigation is useful but it has it's inherent drawbacks. Not a good answer in many instances. Should this not be a lesson? Maybe people should have thought about lack of moisture as a potential problem before they started tearing up the land and planting useless crops. Cutting and drying native grasses for winter use would have been a much better idea because that way nature still had control. Man should not fool with Mother Nature.

There is too much farming and not enough ranching. People can survive without the egregious amounts of grain grown in today's world. People, the world over, would be so much better off if they were eating meat instead of grain based foods. In order to get the meat, however, we need pasture lands on which to feed these animals and collect the hay for winter/emergency use, not grain crops they were never meant to digest. Man was really never meant to digest grains, either, for that matter. We have to doctor up our grains in order to use them properly.

Just some thoughts on the need to move backwards just a little bit and rethink what we're doing today. For if we don't take the time now to correct our mistakes of overplanting crops and ripping up topsoil rather than leaving it to native grasses, we might not be presented with another chance to do so. The same goes for the water situation. If we don't protect our natural waterways, it's all over but the cryin'. And this must alllllll be done through individual efforts. Do NOT depend on, want, or even hope for, the gubment to do something because they always and inevitably foul things up royally. Sometimes I think they mess things up on purpose, so it must be *fixed*. And THAT enterprise makes money for gubment contractors, eh?

Ok, history 101 is over! Or it's over until my next thought process . . . :geek: :D ;)

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Was homesteading a good idea?
PostPosted: April 13th, 2014, 4:38 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: November 12th, 2012, 11:54 am
Posts: 13266
I've posted this before, but decided to place in on this topic because now, more than ever, it fits here. One thing remains unsaid, however, even in this enlightened article and that is that more often than not the Indians were FOR the white men more than they were against them. If that were not so, Lewis and Clark would never have been able to make their famous expedition to the west, and a lot of independent mountain men (like Jedidia Smith and Kit Carson) wouldn't have made it either. I do believe the Donner Party would have survived had an Indian Tribe discovered their plight, but white men had already chased off a good portion of them by that time and in that area. Most (and I do mean most) of the tribes were friendly to the whites. I'm pretty sure, however, that only lasted until they figured out what our gubment donkeyasses were up to, even back then.

http://archive.lewrockwell.com/mcmaken/mcmaken155.html

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Was homesteading a good idea?
PostPosted: May 20th, 2014, 7:32 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: November 12th, 2012, 11:54 am
Posts: 13266
Here's a repost of the link to some pretty interesting information regarding how we look at the water situation in america today. It isn't that there's a shortage of water, it's just that nature moves water from place to place. Just read this and you'll get the drift.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/05/dr-tim-ball/always-keep-the-populace-alarmed%e2%80%a8/

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Was homesteading a good idea?
PostPosted: June 9th, 2016, 2:01 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: November 12th, 2012, 11:54 am
Posts: 13266
Another avenue for homesteaders? This article is optimistic, but I'm not so sure about any of it. He talks about how your home must be worth less than $250,000 - well, who's to say our gubmint won't just "re-assess" your home into that $250,000 category if it so wishes? The big gubmint guys as well as individual States can do whatever they want, you know. WE sure as hell aren't going to stop them with little bits of paper and $9 here and $16 there and notarized papers yada yada yada blah blah. In fact, I would be willing to bet the gubmint laughs at all our efforts to "preserve what's ours" because it's all theirs (in their view).

I don't know, read it and see if you think it's worth the effort.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/06/no_author/filed-homestead-declaration/

Is there really a difference between homestead declarations and homestead exemption? I don't know about THAT either, but he writes a good article, nevertheless, and it's at least a little bit of hope (shallow though it may be). I just don't think "WE THE PEOPLE" can protect ourselves against the dragon beast on The Hill in WADC or your Home State.

Quote:
Let me tell you what this document does and how it protects you. As mentioned, it is a Constitutionally-protected law, as the states that do this enact it on their own…a power reserved to the states. In the grand scheme of things: to a certain assessed dollar value, they are not allowed to take your home. For us here in Montana, that amount is $250,000, and rest assured, my home is much less than that figure. Now let’s discuss what this does for you, and how it relates to the big picture, specifically Obamacare and Medicare.

The feds and states are almost completely “in-sync” with Obamacare. What the feds can’t grab the states can scoop up, and vice-versa. In Montana, if you do not have health insurance, the state government automatically enrolls you in Medicare. The bills that rack up you will have to pay back, rest assured, for medical treatments under such. They can grab your assets and gobble up your bank account, garnishing your wages along the way.


And there's more to read so just do it and report back here with opinions!

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Was homesteading a good idea?
PostPosted: June 10th, 2016, 8:40 am 
Offline

Joined: March 30th, 2013, 10:49 am
Posts: 3416
I think they made a typo in that quote, I think they meant MediCAID as you have to be 65 for MediCARE. And even for MediCAID your income AND assets has to be a certain amount.

Medicaid has always been able to re-coup medical expenditures. I learned that when I worked for the dept of Health in Ca. Usually they just take the loss because most people on Medicaid have no assets. Of those that do they take what they can for re-reimbursement.

For example: An elderly couple outright owns their house, it is valued at $20000, the husband is sick and getting a lot of freebies; hospital bed, wheelchair, medications, feeding tubes/equipment, etc. He dies. The state takes the bed back and if power chair, it too. They leave whatever the wife is using. They do NOT boot the wife out of the house. When she dies, even many years later, the state will put a lean on the house and if any who are deemed to inherit can either turn over the house or pay the medical costs back. I can tell you that most houses valued at less than $50000 in Ca aren't worth the paper title they are written on.

I believe this is fair. There should be no free rides, and as I said, most have nothing to pay back. I know some believe that healthcare should be free, I don't. It's a business. If you have free healthcare-that money has to come from somewhere. Higher taxes is what other countries pay for it. I rarely use healthcare and don't want to pay for something I do not use nor agree with. Can you see what Americans would do if their income taxes went up to 40% or more!!


Ca does write off a lot of stuff, maybe that is why they are in bad financial straights?

When you sign up for Medicaid, you are also agreeing to repay then gov back for your care with any assets. Most people do not read what they sign.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Was homesteading a good idea?
PostPosted: June 10th, 2016, 10:25 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: November 12th, 2012, 11:54 am
Posts: 13266
I don't think it matters if it's medicaid or medicare because those programs will be merged - if the STATE enrolls people automatically and they have no say, it pretty much simply doesn't matter because it's still a part of the socialist plan to have universal care for everything medically related. I don't think age has anything to do with it because everyone is enrolled at the same time - that's the automatic part where we have no say at all, and that's the real master plan. The plan is to make it so all those other programs are merged together. Don't know if I'm explaining that so you can understand what I'm trying to say . . . :geek:

Most of what you stated above was the way things were BEFORE obozocare. There is going to be a new plan coming soon, you know it and I know it. I think that's the guy's point in writing the article about people protecting their property, don't you?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Was homesteading a good idea?
PostPosted: June 10th, 2016, 10:59 am 
Offline

Joined: March 30th, 2013, 10:49 am
Posts: 3416
This is for California and explains it easier for me to understand.

http://sandiegolawlibrary.org/wp-conten ... ration.pdf


And arkansas is different: http://statelaws.findlaw.com/arkansas-l ... -laws.html

" In Montana, if you do not have health insurance, the state government automatically enrolls you in Medicare. "

As of today, they cannot do this and they are two separate entities.

I cannot find Homestead Declaration for the state of arkansas, only exemption.

From a link in your link:

"Does a homestead declaration prevent my home from being sold to pay all judgments?

NO. A Homestead Declaration will not protect you from the following:
• Unpaid Taxes.
• Unpaid mortgage, trust deed or other loan arrangement used to purchase or refinance your property or improvements to your property.
• A mechanic’s lien or other obligation to pay because of improvements made to your property.
• Any lien to which you agree by accepting the property subject to codes, covenants and restrictions, deed restrictions or equitable servitudes.
If someone obtains a judgment against me, how will a declaration of homestead protect my home?

For most judgments against you, a homestead declaration protects the equity you have in your home up to a given amount depending upon the state you live.

Suppose I have more equity in my home than allowed by the statutes, what are the procedures if there is a judgment against me?

A judge normally will appoint appraisers who will determine the value of the property, your equity in it and whether the property can be divided in such a way as to protect your home while paying your judgment creditors. If such a division proves to be impractical, the property will be sold and you will receive the allowed limit from the sale under homestead rights in the state you reside, which cannot be seized to pay the judgment."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Was homesteading a good idea?
PostPosted: June 10th, 2016, 11:16 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: November 12th, 2012, 11:54 am
Posts: 13266
Well then, apparently trying to protect your property through homestead declaration is a waste of time and not well understood. Heck, here I thought maybe people could actually catch a break if and when they need one. Ah well, it's nice to dream that we won't all be taken over by the gubmint elitists (like we haven't been already?)!!

I was a bit pessimistic about it from the start (re-read my first post regarding this subject) but it sounds like it's a total waste of time. I didn't get a chance to read any of the links included with the article. No time yesterday, and today is just as bad. I have my naturopath apptmt at 4 today.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Was homesteading a good idea?
PostPosted: June 10th, 2016, 1:00 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: November 12th, 2012, 11:54 am
Posts: 13266
The article at this link ( http://www.ashrlaw.com/dox/homestead.pdf ) makes things even more confusing. Great. Just what we needed, more confusion about how to protect our stuff! (I guess we really can't protect it, can we? Not while we have an existing gubmint, that is).

This is the title of the pdf document: HOMESTEAD DECLARATIONS IN THE FIFTY STATES, but then at the bottom of the first short paragraph it says this: "This article explains the many variations in the homestead exemption across the United States."

Well hell, are we talking about declarations or exemptions here? Or are they implying that those two items are the same thing? I have no idea, but it's very unclear. I think I'm just going to forget the whole thing and make up my mind that if I ever owe anyone enough money that they would want to take away my personal property, they'll have an open road to do it because legally I have no way to stop them. See what I mean when I say we really have no rights in this country and we never really "own" anything.

And we said the Indians were savages. We live in the United States of Amnesia.

And of course people should repay debts if they can, but if they can't, putting them out on the street certainly isn't going to help. Hard to prepare to find a job when you're living under a bridge , , ,

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Was homesteading a good idea?
PostPosted: June 10th, 2016, 1:34 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: November 12th, 2012, 11:54 am
Posts: 13266
And then I find this description:

Quote:
Declaration of Homestead and a Homeowners Exemption are different legal documents with different functions. Both can be used on a deed-restricted property located in a common interest development.


The Declaration of Homestead is designed to protect a portion of your home's equity from creditors, and the Homeowners Exemption aids in the reduction of your real property taxes. The key to getting the full benefit of both documents is not to procrastinate in completing the forms and filing the paperwork.


Cripes. Just when you think you might understand something it changes. Although this article was written specifically for CA, I think this is the same scenario in most States.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-associations-20150607-story.html

**That is a roving site so I hope it has the right story!

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Was homesteading a good idea?
PostPosted: June 10th, 2016, 1:57 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: November 12th, 2012, 11:54 am
Posts: 13266
Sylvia, you said this "I cannot find Homestead Declaration for the state of arkansas, only exemption."

Here's some info I found although it's rather convoluted. But it gives you a place to contact for questions about your own property, not just a general idea of what it would be for "most" people.

http://statelaws.findlaw.com/arkansas-law/arkansas-homestead-laws.html

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Was homesteading a good idea?
PostPosted: June 11th, 2016, 12:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: March 30th, 2013, 10:49 am
Posts: 3416
"Since Arkansas imposes a $2,500 limit, property owners may choose the federal homestead exemption instead. The federal exemption amount of $22,975 (current as of 2015) may be applied to burial plots and mobile homes as well as homes."


So does this mean that per the fed exemption I would only be saved $22975 worth of my property?

For example, if my property was worth $50000 and I was sued or whatever, then they could still take the $27025 from my property?

$50000-$22975=$27025 They could still sell my home and only take the $27025 IF they got $50000 for it? That is how I read that.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Was homesteading a good idea?
PostPosted: June 11th, 2016, 4:18 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: November 12th, 2012, 11:54 am
Posts: 13266
I think that's how it works but that doesn't seem like it would really help most people, does it? I thought the article was written by someone who actually knew what they were talking about, but apparently not. Also, it seems to make a lot of difference which State you live in, too.

I didn't realize (because the article didn't say) that if you still have a mortgage and don't own the property outright, you still have a lot to lose. Articles like that never tell you the down side, I guess.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Was homesteading a good idea?
PostPosted: June 12th, 2016, 9:08 am 
Offline

Joined: March 30th, 2013, 10:49 am
Posts: 3416
"didn't realize (because the article didn't say) that if you still have a mortgage and don't own the property outright, you still have a lot to lose"

You are right. I didn't even think of mortgages, which the majority of people have. So in essence, I would get nothing and the bank could even come after me.

A lot of people don't realize that when you owe, the companies can come after you years down the road. Like if your car is repossessed, and they sell the car for less than what you ow, they have a certain time frame they can come after you for that loss AND the IRS says that is profit for you and you are taxed as if it was income, even though you never see the money.

For example: You buy a car for $20000 and you loose your job after 2-3 years and cannot make payments anymore, you still owe $10000 on the loan, so you call them to repossess it. They get the car and sell it for $15000. Technically you still owe $5000 on that loan after they sell the car, they can garnish your paychecks and the IRS will look at that $5000 (that was written off the $10000 owed) as income and tax you for it.


BUT, and there's always a but; always request written proof of what you owe. Chances are they don't have it and you can contest it. Also with the IRS, sending a certified letter telling them you've requested proof and haven't gotten any response (never lie, so only say what's true) if you've not gotten proof of owing then you challenge it and IF the IRS does NOT respond to YOU within their allotted time (there is a time frame, I think 6-8 weeks, would need to verify) if they do not respond in that time frame, it gets dropped.

When people get in binds, they need to educate themselves on what the legal laws are and not just ignore it like so many do.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Was homesteading a good idea?
PostPosted: June 12th, 2016, 11:32 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: November 12th, 2012, 11:54 am
Posts: 13266
I think the biggest factor in whether or not this would be a good thing for people to do is to determine what the limits are in your State. For instance, in Montana where it's $250,000 that's quite a bit, but in Arkansas where it's only $2,500 well, not so much.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Was homesteading a good idea?
PostPosted: June 12th, 2016, 1:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: March 30th, 2013, 10:49 am
Posts: 3416
Arkansas likes to keep people poor. Maybe that is why those who are able to make more money leave the state? $2500 is not worth any effort to me.

As soon as I can fix this place up and sell it for at least what I have in it, I am out of here. No idea where I'm going, just know it ain't here.

They built an outlet mall near me in one direction and are building a strip mall with several restaurants (chains-none I will eat at) in the other direction, plus a huge apartment complex! OMG I wanted to be in the country away from people! :evil: :o :shock:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Was homesteading a good idea?
PostPosted: June 13th, 2016, 10:11 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: November 12th, 2012, 11:54 am
Posts: 13266
Arkansas used to be (maybe still is in some ways) Bill & Hillbilly's stomping ground and keeping rich people rich and richer was their game, especially when they were included in the wealth-go-round rides. Do some research on Mena, Arkansas. :o http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/MENA/crimes_of_mena.html

Obviously the poor people were not the main concern of that State (or any State, I'm sure of that). So what on earth would we expect from the FEDERAL gubmint? Nothing different, that's for sure.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron

suspicion-preferred