Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: kevkrom
The business deal was: pay your mortgage on time, or we repossess the house. I don't see how intentionally letting the bank (mortgage holder) to repossess is morally reprehensible.

Because the deal was made with both side intending on completing the arrangement. Both sides know that defaulting is highly disadvantageous for the lender, which is why the borrower's credit takes a huge hit for allowing it to happen. Those who default intentionally are intentionally harming the bank, and harming the rest of us borrowers, since the bank has to make it up by raising fees and percentages against their other borrowers.

Anyone who fails to see immorality in intentionally raising costs on others while shirking on their own promises clearly has no morality of their own.

Hint: A moral code guides one to live a good life where they minimize harm to others. Harming the bank, and their customers, AND expecting to re-enter the home afterwards, clearly show a very immoral person... whether the rules allow it or not.

9 posted on 02/22/2013 1:55:06 PM PST by Teacher317 ('Tis time to fear when tyrants seem to kiss.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]


To: Teacher317
"...Harming the bank, and their customers, AND expecting to re-enter the home afterwards, clearly show a very immoral person..."

Yes. IMMORAL. And this doesn't even mention the harm this does to those good, responsible citizens and neighbors who did it right, paid their bills, and saw their property values damaged because the abandoned houses next to them turned into vandalized eyesores.

This isn't about people who COULDN'T do make their payments. It is about SCUMBAGS who COULD, and decided to screw everyone around them and piss in the water upstream of them.

To those a-holes, it is all about ME-ME-ME.

14 posted on 02/22/2013 2:05:03 PM PST by rlmorel (1793 French Jacobins and 2012 American Liberals have a lot in common.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: Teacher317

Well said!


22 posted on 02/22/2013 3:08:21 PM PST by Bigg Red (Restore us, O God of hosts; let your face shine, that we may be saved! -Ps80)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: Teacher317

No, sorry, can’t see it that way. It’s a business deal, not a moral pledge. If with party feels its more advantageous to break the contract and accept the penalty for doing so, they’re perfectly free to do so.

If the banks weren’t getting adequate collateral for the loans they issued, that’s their problem, not the borrower’s. I find their lending practices more irresponsible and morally reprehensible than people who make a rational decision to make their best financial move.


30 posted on 02/23/2013 3:02:36 PM PST by kevkrom (If a wise man has an argument with a foolish man, the fool only rages or laughs...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: Teacher317

No, sorry, can’t see it that way. It’s a business deal, not a moral pledge. If with party feels its more advantageous to break the contract and accept the penalty for doing so, they’re perfectly free to do so.

If the banks weren’t getting adequate collateral for the loans they issued, that’s their problem, not the borrower’s. I find their lending practices more irresponsible and morally reprehensible than people who make a rational decision to make their best financial move.


31 posted on 02/23/2013 3:02:53 PM PST by kevkrom (If a wise man has an argument with a foolish man, the fool only rages or laughs...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson