Ah........ Actually minimum wage earners and even the unemployed could purchase a home if they had the right person doing the paperwork. We have a customer who "was" a mortgage broker. He explained it all to me one day. If the broker had a few banks that would buy the paper, pretty much sight unseen, they could put down anything they wanted and resell the mortgage within minutes. They would charge higher interest rates based on the lack of certain documents, such an proof of employment! If unemployed, they could fill out as self employed and charge a higher rate. The type of thing that Countrywide was doing. They were paid on commission and for reselling the loan, they had no concern for the long term effects on the borrower.
And of course..... It fell apart. Was just a ponzi scheme. Bob- -----Original Message----- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 11:07 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulationof net-neutrality > 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. 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. 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. The fact is the Government should continue making it easier to obtain homes. They just need to tighten up on fraud. 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/
