_____________________________________________________________________________________ Glenn Kelley | Principle | HostMedic |www.HostMedic.com Email: gl...@hostmedic.com Pplease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
On Feb 5, 2010, at 11:07 AM, Tom DeReggi wrote: >> The government has done all it can to push the idea that "if you rent - >> your a failure" > > How is that a bad thing? Financial Stability 101, go buy a home. Every > family should have a home. > I'm not critisizing people who have decided renting is better for them, > there can be many reasons for that. > But if owning a home is not something possible for the average American, and > low income person, its a sad situation. > >> Let's face it - Loans were written to people that made minimum wage - >> much like the first Credit card I was given with a 20K limit as a freshman >> in college without a job. > > What planet do you live on? > > As the minimum wage HomeOwner drives away from their foreclosed home in > their BMW.... > > I can tell in my 20 years of homebuying, Minimum Wage buyers was never an > option. Sure FHA or HOC type programs might have enabled getting into a home > with less money down, or subsidized homeownership for needy single parents > and such. But those aren't the loans getting foreclosed on. The government > made those home afffordable, even in down economies. > > But the minimum wage claim is rediculous. Heck, I cant even qualify for a > Home Refinance, and I'm bringing home the 6 digits. The homes getting > foreclosed on are the big dollar home that were more expensive than the > buyer can afford with an average paying job. Getting into those homes were > not minimum wage application processes. They were the show me the 2 years a > Tax Returns with 6 figured. You however make way to much to ever even be considered by the "Fair Housing" and Community Housing folks. They guarantee you a government loan - with payments as low as $150 /mo at a maximum of 5.4% interest. Take a peek @ how far that got the City of Detroit ... Take a peek @ how far that got the City of Camden NJ ... Take a peek @ how far that got the City of Newark > > Homes that are getting foreclosed on are the Elderly. Homes that are 50-80% > paid off. Where the homeowner can no longer access teh equity, because they > are looked at a credit risk, because of their age or no longer holds full > time job living on retirement income. Where a spouse has died, or where > they were living on retirement income. Where their County property Tax > skyrocketed, as neighbor's appraisals skyrocketed in the reaslestate boom, > to an amount where the Tax payment was more than their original mortgage > payment used to be. I argue against minimum wage for this exact reason - lets face it. If we have to pay people more - we raise the rates on what we sell and service. However - the little old lady next door on her retirement income / social security ... fixed income - basically means -- no raise for them > > The problem was never low income buyers. The problem was the real Estate > book reached a record high that had no alternative but to crash. Supply and > Demand became so power full that homes reached price tags that only > millionaires could afford, and loans were sneaked through anyway. > > But the new mortgage loan rules are rediculously conservative. It was the > unscrupulous lenders that caused the crash, and now honorable prospective > American home buyers have to pay the penalty. > > I can give you an example of one person, that had 75k in the bank, Had 50% > equity in their home, a Fixed income from a government pension, Never missed > a payment in 20 years, even had a credit score in the 700s, and was denied > refinance because they couldn't prove a high enough steady income the year > before. They want to see a salaried job. They want to see historical Tax > returns. If someone is self employed, and does smart accounting to reduce > their income and tax liabilty, it will likely mean they will no longer > qualify for home ownership. In the case above the person was a land > developer, and didn't sell a home the prior year because it made sense to > hold on to the land until the market picks up to get a larger return. > I can share tons of examples of folks who made next to nothing - but learned to play the game under the "fair housing" program. The biggest scam going right now is - folks are buying a cheap house - getting the $8K - then flipping it to their wife - getting an additional 8K then flipping it to their 18 yr old son - they get another $8K to their daughter - yet another $8K and then - the ability for them to grab a $24K check to give to a bank for the actual down payment on a different mtg hits All on the backs of - yes you guessed it. - I just had my agent in Ohio ask me about doing this - and wanting to know If I wanted to back date the purchase for my wife to last year ! Its fraud - wrong - and I said no... But how many will ? > The fact is the Government should continue making it easier to obtain homes. > They just need to tighten up on fraud. > I agree and disagree - fun to be torn like a piece of paper in the wind. Truth to be told - It is hard for Government to legislate Personal Responsibility - morally and financially. > > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Glenn Kelley" <gl...@hostmedic.com> > To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> > Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 3:03 AM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulationof > net-neutrality > > > Having pastored in the nations poorest city I would far from disagree with > you. > Folks that should have never been able to have a home were given the ability > to obtain loans - > That is an understatement. > > The government has done all it can to push the idea that "if you rent - your > a failure" > They have made it all to easy for folks to "own a home" -never even > bothering to figure out if its a worthy cause. > > Let's face it - Loans were written to people that made minimum wage - > much like the first Credit card I was given with a 20K limit as a freshman > in college without a job. > > Perhaps we should take a step back and simply ask - Instead of Frannie and > Freddy - perhaps The Government does not belong in the home ownership game. > If you look at the price of the average home since 1890 until today - you > will find that it appears at first to be a great investment. > However - if you adjust that thinking with the rate of inflation - you would > realize that for many - it is far from the American Dream... > The Saga of Home ownership and real estate is really one of a relatively > flat history - except for the past few years where folks were able to flip > before the drop... (2006-2007) > > Many people utilize their home as the ultimate credit card... > > They get locked into this pattern of either mortgaging to pay for their > lifestyle - or... > selling and getting bigger and better. > > Can anyone of us admit that we know so much about the real-estate market to > play the odds? > If so - then lets watch them @ the tables in Vegas for the WISPA event > > Anyhow - lets get back to the topic of the thread itself and the blog > posting I actually posted... > > here it is in its glory (or lack there of ... links however are on the blog > live ) > > > Title II of the Communications Act—the section that regulates > telecommunications common carriers is now being considered by the FCC to > oversee broadband. FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell during a talk he > gave to the Free State Foundation asked: (see First Do No Harm: A broadband > plan for Amercia) > “Exactly what kind of companies might get tangled up into this regulatory > Rubik’s Cube?…Any Internet company that offers a voice application?” … “With > this newfound authority, why stop at voice apps? Isn’t voice just another > type of data app? As the distinction between network operators and > application providers continues to blur at an eye-popping rate, how will the > government be able to keep up?” > Is Broadband able to be classified as a common carrier service? The FCC > most assuredly believes this is well within its authority – and is > exercising these “policies” not just over the agency’s ability to regulate > the NET – but if it can be classified as a common carrier service. > Comcast is suing the FCC over its Order sanctioning the company for P2P > blocking – so their ability to “regulate” needs to be clearly defined – of > course re-defining a government entity is not an easy task… however defining > ISPs as common carriers would seem suited to the FCC’s purposes, especially > if given Title II’s clear definition of what a common carrier can’t do: > “It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to make any unjust or > unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, > regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with like > communication service, directly or indirectly, by any means or device, or to > make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any > particular person, class of persons, or locality, or to subject any > particular person, class of persons, or locality to any undue or > unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.” > McDowell stated, “At the same time, broadband companies create and maintain > software with millions of lines of code inside their systems. They also own > app stores that are seamlessly connected to their networks. As technology > advances, will the government be able to make the distinctions between > applications and networks necessary under a new regulatory regime?… Will it > (the government) be able to do so in Internet Time?” > One thing is clear - If we were able to agree on some basic tenets > providers could utilize to ensure all accounts are serviceable based upon > not only “bandwidth” but also “throughput” most of these arguments would > simply be a mute point. > This past October (2009) The FCC laid out its draft for network neutrality > rules which appears to allow to the greater extent a “free and open > Internet.” The principles already existing from 2005: > Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice > Consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, > subject to the needs of law enforcement > Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not > harm the network > Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application > and service providers, and content providers. > Those principles along with two new additional principles are now going to > be made “binding: > A provider of broadband Internet access service must treat lawful content, > applications, and services in a nondiscriminatory manner > A provider of broadband Internet access service must disclose such > information concerning network management and other practices as is > reasonably required for users and content, application, and service > providers to enjoy the protections specified in this rulemaking > In this ever changing world of the INTERNET - I do not think it is > reasonable to agree ISP’s are able to perform Network management: > To manage congestion on networks > To address harmful traffic (viruses, spam) > To block unlawful content (child porn) > To block unlawful transfers of content (copyright infringement) > For “other reasonable network management practices” > The ambiguity of that last item is alarming to both camps in the war for > “net-neutrality.” The FCC is going to at some point – have to define the > other reasonable network practices” for this to have any real meaning after > all. The question remains: Congress has never given the FCC any authority > to regulate the Internet for the purpose of ensuring net neutrality has it? > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
