Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's rolein regulationof net-neutrality
When I look at these things I think about they way my grandparents did things. That was when there was still some moral and ethical standards in place. The people losing their homes put themselves in that position. So what if they home is devalued %50 now. You signed and made the deal, live with it. That is what our grandparents did. It's no different than gambling. Don't pay your gambling debts and see what happens when you get it beat out of you by Bruno. Do not go around asking handouts from me and the taxes I pay in. You say you lost your job? Find another one. Then you say, but it doesn't pay half of what my former job did. Then get two! Our grandparents worked 16 or more hours a day if that is what it took to pay the bills. Many people will not LOWER their job standards and standards of living when they can find an easy way out. They are many jobs out there being done by illegal immigrants that are low paying for the simple reason that many Americans will not do them because of the pay. If that is what it takes to pay the bills, they should be doing them. Our grandparents would help out people in their community that were losing a home if a family had an unfortunate accident that prevented one or the other from working, or took the life of one of the providers. If you told them you were losing your home because you lost your job and will not take one paying a $1(a lot back then) less, then they would laugh at you. My dad quit school to help in the saw mill in 8th grade after my grandfather cut some fingers off. It was what had to be done to keep paying the bills. He has done well for himself without the high school education. I am not going to go into the political side, but what this country needs more than anything IMHO is the moral and ethical standards that were in this country 50 to 60 years ago. Scottie -- Original Message -- From: Brad Belton b...@belwave.com Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 08:10:05 -0600 Thank you Jeff. You beat me to it! Best, Brad -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Broadwick Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 8:05 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulationof net-neutrality That's just not accurate Tom. The Community Reinvestment Act required lenders to do a lot of this stuff and then Fannie and Freddie created the market for the paper. Regards, Jeff Jeff Broadwick ImageStream 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can) +1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l) -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 2:19 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulationof net-neutrality Brad, People are losing their homes.many of which never should have been afforded the privilege of home ownership if it were not for big government forcing lenders to lend to unqualified buyers. You had me, until the above paragraph. That is a crock of ShXX. Most housing foreclosures are conscious business decissions by the middle class, to improve their finance and cash flow. They ask, Is it worth continuing to sink money into this bad investment losing money? I will say that there are a shortage of buyer. So when an investor cant offload their losing investment (House) to someone else, they resort to less ethical choices. What does someone do if their house jsut lost 50k in value? IF they go to foreclosure, they can pretty much live rent free for a year in their home, before they are forced out. If they put their rent check in hidden savings instead, they earn 50k that year. That combined with gettting out of a loan taht is valued at mor ethan the house, it is a net $100k earning, for doing nothing. They learn they can earn more losing their home than some people do holding on to their home as an investment to resale. And governments were not the ones forcing lenders to lend. Its the opposite Government regulation is unnecessarilly setting regulations to make buying harder for consumers, to address a problem that didn't exist. Some People loose homes because a home is a 30 year commitment, and its hard for anyone to predict how one's life will pan out every year for 30 years. All it takes is one bad year, and there goes the house. People loose houses because they loose jobs. People loose houses because most personal debt is secured by their house, and loosing the house is the easiest way to get rid of the other debt. People lose houses because they cant live within their mean in other areas of their life. Or because they set their sights to high. But the biggest reason people default, is because they develop a sense of satisfaction or entitlement in screwing their lender when they feel they
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's rolein regulationof net-neutrality
I couldnt say it any better Scottie! My Grandparenets were part of the greatest generation. We need that back. The political side of it is that our government is not promoting such behavior but rather the opposite. On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Scottie Arnett sarn...@info-ed.com wrote: When I look at these things I think about they way my grandparents did things. That was when there was still some moral and ethical standards in place. The people losing their homes put themselves in that position. So what if they home is devalued %50 now. You signed and made the deal, live with it. That is what our grandparents did. It's no different than gambling. Don't pay your gambling debts and see what happens when you get it beat out of you by Bruno. Do not go around asking handouts from me and the taxes I pay in. You say you lost your job? Find another one. Then you say, but it doesn't pay half of what my former job did. Then get two! Our grandparents worked 16 or more hours a day if that is what it took to pay the bills. Many people will not LOWER their job standards and standards of living when they can find an easy way out. They are many jobs out there being done by illegal immigrants that are low paying for the simple reason that many Americans will not do them because of the pay. If that is what it takes to pay the bills, they should be doing them. Our grandparents would help out people in their community that were losing a home if a family had an unfortunate accident that prevented one or the other from working, or took the life of one of the providers. If you told them you were losing your home because you lost your job and will not take one paying a $1(a lot back then) less, then they would laugh at you. My dad quit school to help in the saw mill in 8th grade after my grandfather cut some fingers off. It was what had to be done to keep paying the bills. He has done well for himself without the high school education. I am not going to go into the political side, but what this country needs more than anything IMHO is the moral and ethical standards that were in this country 50 to 60 years ago. Scottie -- Original Message -- From: Brad Belton b...@belwave.com Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 08:10:05 -0600 Thank you Jeff. You beat me to it! Best, Brad -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Broadwick Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 8:05 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulationof net-neutrality That's just not accurate Tom. The Community Reinvestment Act required lenders to do a lot of this stuff and then Fannie and Freddie created the market for the paper. Regards, Jeff Jeff Broadwick ImageStream 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can) +1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l) -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 2:19 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulationof net-neutrality Brad, People are losing their homes.many of which never should have been afforded the privilege of home ownership if it were not for big government forcing lenders to lend to unqualified buyers. You had me, until the above paragraph. That is a crock of ShXX. Most housing foreclosures are conscious business decissions by the middle class, to improve their finance and cash flow. They ask, Is it worth continuing to sink money into this bad investment losing money? I will say that there are a shortage of buyer. So when an investor cant offload their losing investment (House) to someone else, they resort to less ethical choices. What does someone do if their house jsut lost 50k in value? IF they go to foreclosure, they can pretty much live rent free for a year in their home, before they are forced out. If they put their rent check in hidden savings instead, they earn 50k that year. That combined with gettting out of a loan taht is valued at mor ethan the house, it is a net $100k earning, for doing nothing. They learn they can earn more losing their home than some people do holding on to their home as an investment to resale. And governments were not the ones forcing lenders to lend. Its the opposite Government regulation is unnecessarilly setting regulations to make buying harder for consumers, to address a problem that didn't exist. Some People loose homes because a home is a 30 year commitment, and its hard for anyone to predict how one's life will pan out every year for 30 years. All it takes is one bad year, and there goes the house. People loose houses because they loose jobs. People loose houses because most personal debt is
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's rolein regulationof net-neutrality
100% correct. Too much of the Me, needs to be more Us. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Scottie Arnett Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 10:17 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's rolein regulationof net-neutrality When I look at these things I think about they way my grandparents did things. That was when there was still some moral and ethical standards in place. The people losing their homes put themselves in that position. So what if they home is devalued %50 now. You signed and made the deal, live with it. That is what our grandparents did. It's no different than gambling. Don't pay your gambling debts and see what happens when you get it beat out of you by Bruno. Do not go around asking handouts from me and the taxes I pay in. You say you lost your job? Find another one. Then you say, but it doesn't pay half of what my former job did. Then get two! Our grandparents worked 16 or more hours a day if that is what it took to pay the bills. Many people will not LOWER their job standards and standards of living when they can find an easy way out. They are many jobs out there being done by illegal immigrants that are low paying for the simple reason that many Americans will not do them because of the pay. If that is what it takes to pay the bills, they should be doing them. Our grandparents would help out people in their community that were losing a home if a family had an unfortunate accident that prevented one or the other from working, or took the life of one of the providers. If you told them you were losing your home because you lost your job and will not take one paying a $1(a lot back then) less, then they would laugh at you. My dad quit school to help in the saw mill in 8th grade after my grandfather cut some fingers off. It was what had to be done to keep paying the bills. He has done well for himself without the high school education. I am not going to go into the political side, but what this country needs more than anything IMHO is the moral and ethical standards that were in this country 50 to 60 years ago. Scottie -- Original Message -- From: Brad Belton b...@belwave.com Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 08:10:05 -0600 Thank you Jeff. You beat me to it! Best, Brad -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Broadwick Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 8:05 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulationof net-neutrality That's just not accurate Tom. The Community Reinvestment Act required lenders to do a lot of this stuff and then Fannie and Freddie created the market for the paper. Regards, Jeff Jeff Broadwick ImageStream 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can) +1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l) -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 2:19 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulationof net-neutrality Brad, People are losing their homes.many of which never should have been afforded the privilege of home ownership if it were not for big government forcing lenders to lend to unqualified buyers. You had me, until the above paragraph. That is a crock of ShXX. Most housing foreclosures are conscious business decissions by the middle class, to improve their finance and cash flow. They ask, Is it worth continuing to sink money into this bad investment losing money? I will say that there are a shortage of buyer. So when an investor cant offload their losing investment (House) to someone else, they resort to less ethical choices. What does someone do if their house jsut lost 50k in value? IF they go to foreclosure, they can pretty much live rent free for a year in their home, before they are forced out. If they put their rent check in hidden savings instead, they earn 50k that year. That combined with gettting out of a loan taht is valued at mor ethan the house, it is a net $100k earning, for doing nothing. They learn they can earn more losing their home than some people do holding on to their home as an investment to resale. And governments were not the ones forcing lenders to lend. Its the opposite Government regulation is unnecessarilly setting regulations to make buying harder for consumers, to address a problem that didn't exist. Some People loose homes because a home is a 30 year commitment, and its hard for anyone to predict how one's life will pan out every year for 30 years. All it takes is one bad year, and there goes the house. People loose houses because they loose jobs. People loose houses because most personal debt is secured by their house, and loosing the house is the easiest
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's rolein regulationof net-neutrality
On Feb 5, 2010, at 10:17 AM, Scottie Arnett wrote: I am not going to go into the political side, but what this country needs more than anything IMHO is the moral and ethical standards that were in this country 50 to 60 years ago. Funny you should say that. I did some reading when I was a kid from books written from 1910 to 1935. Admittedly, I was an odd kid to be fascinated by how people saw the world 40 to 60 years earlier (this was the mid-to-late 1970's). The statements you're making here were almost exactly what people were saying then about generations that preceded them. Also, I spent a great deal of time talking to my grandfather (and later some of his friends) about what life was like when he grew up (born in 1913) and his experiences in the great depression (he worked in the CCC camps and was a train-vagabound, traveling across the country). They spent a LOT of time unemployed and just causing trouble or getting into trouble. Heavy drinking was much more accepted then than now. There are some interesting things that HAVE changed a lot since then. People got into fist fights a heck of a lot more easily back then ;-). There was a much greater sense of belonging to a neighborhood then compared to now. I see that as a loss but probably unavoidable. Moral and ethical standards have shifted some, but if anything, they are higher now. For example, people thought nothing of calling blacks the n-word and segregating them from whites. The definition of what is white itself has greatly expanded. This has changed even since I was a kid. I remember when in the 1960's we were moving from an all-catholic, white neighborhood, that we got obscene phone calls and rocks through our windows when a black family made an offer on our house (which we intended to accept until a neighbor topped their offer by 10%) to keep the house 'white'). If you don't see this as a dramatic, and important, shift in morals/ethics then I don't know what is. I see this as strongly positive. The level of volunteerism amongst men seems to be a lot higher now than it was then. Women being in the working world has decreased their participation, but I would count that as a higher level of ethics among men (because it represents a greater level of consciousness, not just a greater amount of time) and neutral among women. I see this as strongly positive. Men 50 and 60 years ago thought nothing about bingeing with the guys Friday nights (or every night). Abuse of drugs (including alcohol) has waxed and wained over time but is certainly lower now than it was 40 years ago, for example. Though I'm sure that still happens, it's really not considered normal any more. I see this as a strong change in morals/ethics. I'd honestly hate to see a world that reverted to the morals and ethics of 50 to 60 years ago. Maybe people worked harder (but I doubt it-EVERYONE I know words hard now, even with all the other things that compete for our attention) but as a society, discrimination was rampant, there wasn't nearly so many opportunities for upward mobility, men and women weren't treated nearly as equally, etc. We're not in such a bad place now. Chuck Scottie -- Original Message -- From: Brad Belton b...@belwave.com Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 08:10:05 -0600 Thank you Jeff. You beat me to it! Best, Brad -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Broadwick Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 8:05 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulationof net-neutrality That's just not accurate Tom. The Community Reinvestment Act required lenders to do a lot of this stuff and then Fannie and Freddie created the market for the paper. Regards, Jeff Jeff Broadwick ImageStream 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can) +1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l) -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 2:19 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulationof net-neutrality Brad, People are losing their homes.many of which never should have been afforded the privilege of home ownership if it were not for big government forcing lenders to lend to unqualified buyers. You had me, until the above paragraph. That is a crock of ShXX. Most housing foreclosures are conscious business decissions by the middle class, to improve their finance and cash flow. They ask, Is it worth continuing to sink money into this bad investment losing money? I will say that there are a shortage of buyer. So when an investor cant offload their losing investment (House) to someone else, they resort to less ethical choices. What does
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's rolein regulationof net-neutrality
Now they dont fist fight, they pull out the guns and shoot ya! Are you saying things are better now? On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 11:33 AM, Chuck Bartosch ch...@clarityconnect.comwrote: On Feb 5, 2010, at 10:17 AM, Scottie Arnett wrote: I am not going to go into the political side, but what this country needs more than anything IMHO is the moral and ethical standards that were in this country 50 to 60 years ago. Funny you should say that. I did some reading when I was a kid from books written from 1910 to 1935. Admittedly, I was an odd kid to be fascinated by how people saw the world 40 to 60 years earlier (this was the mid-to-late 1970's). The statements you're making here were almost exactly what people were saying then about generations that preceded them. Also, I spent a great deal of time talking to my grandfather (and later some of his friends) about what life was like when he grew up (born in 1913) and his experiences in the great depression (he worked in the CCC camps and was a train-vagabound, traveling across the country). They spent a LOT of time unemployed and just causing trouble or getting into trouble. Heavy drinking was much more accepted then than now. There are some interesting things that HAVE changed a lot since then. People got into fist fights a heck of a lot more easily back then ;-). There was a much greater sense of belonging to a neighborhood then compared to now. I see that as a loss but probably unavoidable. Moral and ethical standards have shifted some, but if anything, they are higher now. For example, people thought nothing of calling blacks the n-word and segregating them from whites. The definition of what is white itself has greatly expanded. This has changed even since I was a kid. I remember when in the 1960's we were moving from an all-catholic, white neighborhood, that we got obscene phone calls and rocks through our windows when a black family made an offer on our house (which we intended to accept until a neighbor topped their offer by 10%) to keep the house 'white'). If you don't see this as a dramatic, and important, shift in morals/ethics then I don't know what is. I see this as strongly positive. The level of volunteerism amongst men seems to be a lot higher now than it was then. Women being in the working world has decreased their participation, but I would count that as a higher level of ethics among men (because it represents a greater level of consciousness, not just a greater amount of time) and neutral among women. I see this as strongly positive. Men 50 and 60 years ago thought nothing about bingeing with the guys Friday nights (or every night). Abuse of drugs (including alcohol) has waxed and wained over time but is certainly lower now than it was 40 years ago, for example. Though I'm sure that still happens, it's really not considered normal any more. I see this as a strong change in morals/ethics. I'd honestly hate to see a world that reverted to the morals and ethics of 50 to 60 years ago. Maybe people worked harder (but I doubt it-EVERYONE I know words hard now, even with all the other things that compete for our attention) but as a society, discrimination was rampant, there wasn't nearly so many opportunities for upward mobility, men and women weren't treated nearly as equally, etc. We're not in such a bad place now. Chuck Scottie -- Original Message -- From: Brad Belton b...@belwave.com Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 08:10:05 -0600 Thank you Jeff. You beat me to it! Best, Brad -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Broadwick Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 8:05 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulationof net-neutrality That's just not accurate Tom. The Community Reinvestment Act required lenders to do a lot of this stuff and then Fannie and Freddie created the market for the paper. Regards, Jeff Jeff Broadwick ImageStream 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can) +1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l) -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 2:19 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulationof net-neutrality Brad, People are losing their homes.many of which never should have been afforded the privilege of home ownership if it were not for big government forcing lenders to lend to unqualified buyers. You had me, until the above paragraph. That is a crock of ShXX. Most housing foreclosures are conscious business decissions by the middle class, to improve their finance and cash flow. They ask, Is it worth continuing
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's rolein regulationof net-neutrality
On Feb 5, 2010, at 10:13 PM, RickG wrote: Now they dont fist fight, they pull out the guns and shoot ya! Are you saying things are better now? LOL! Well, you DO have a point there, depending on where you live ;-). The problem with the arguments on either side of this (and I thought about this as I replied) is that we're not just one group with one set of mores and one set way of doing things or one outlook. 50 or 60 years ago *maybe* it was easier, but it's pretty hard now. Though the battles with the mobs in places like Chicago do spring to mind from even back then... Where I come from, even though practically everyone had a gun, it was pretty much unthinkable to shoot a *person* with it unless it was a home invasion (and those never really happened that I ever knew). On the other hand, if you were in a gang in a prototypical inner city...well, let's just say that culture is very very different. So, making generalized statements, even the ones I made are always false in some sense. The one thing that I forgot to say before though was that in those early books, editorials, etc. that I read, what amazed me was the level of the vocabulary they used back then. It was sooo much larger than what is used now that it boggled my mind. It wasn't just a different set of words...it was a larger set of words. Chuck On Feb 5, 2010, at 10:13 PM, RickG wrote: Now they dont fist fight, they pull out the guns and shoot ya! Are you saying things are better now? On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 11:33 AM, Chuck Bartosch ch...@clarityconnect.comwrote: On Feb 5, 2010, at 10:17 AM, Scottie Arnett wrote: I am not going to go into the political side, but what this country needs more than anything IMHO is the moral and ethical standards that were in this country 50 to 60 years ago. Funny you should say that. I did some reading when I was a kid from books written from 1910 to 1935. Admittedly, I was an odd kid to be fascinated by how people saw the world 40 to 60 years earlier (this was the mid-to-late 1970's). The statements you're making here were almost exactly what people were saying then about generations that preceded them. Also, I spent a great deal of time talking to my grandfather (and later some of his friends) about what life was like when he grew up (born in 1913) and his experiences in the great depression (he worked in the CCC camps and was a train-vagabound, traveling across the country). They spent a LOT of time unemployed and just causing trouble or getting into trouble. Heavy drinking was much more accepted then than now. There are some interesting things that HAVE changed a lot since then. People got into fist fights a heck of a lot more easily back then ;-). There was a much greater sense of belonging to a neighborhood then compared to now. I see that as a loss but probably unavoidable. Moral and ethical standards have shifted some, but if anything, they are higher now. For example, people thought nothing of calling blacks the n-word and segregating them from whites. The definition of what is white itself has greatly expanded. This has changed even since I was a kid. I remember when in the 1960's we were moving from an all-catholic, white neighborhood, that we got obscene phone calls and rocks through our windows when a black family made an offer on our house (which we intended to accept until a neighbor topped their offer by 10%) to keep the house 'white'). If you don't see this as a dramatic, and important, shift in morals/ethics then I don't know what is. I see this as strongly positive. The level of volunteerism amongst men seems to be a lot higher now than it was then. Women being in the working world has decreased their participation, but I would count that as a higher level of ethics among men (because it represents a greater level of consciousness, not just a greater amount of time) and neutral among women. I see this as strongly positive. Men 50 and 60 years ago thought nothing about bingeing with the guys Friday nights (or every night). Abuse of drugs (including alcohol) has waxed and wained over time but is certainly lower now than it was 40 years ago, for example. Though I'm sure that still happens, it's really not considered normal any more. I see this as a strong change in morals/ethics. I'd honestly hate to see a world that reverted to the morals and ethics of 50 to 60 years ago. Maybe people worked harder (but I doubt it-EVERYONE I know words hard now, even with all the other things that compete for our attention) but as a society, discrimination was rampant, there wasn't nearly so many opportunities for upward mobility, men and women weren't treated nearly as equally, etc. We're not in such a bad place now. Chuck Scottie -- Original Message -- From: Brad Belton b...@belwave.com Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010
