LOL
I see. So how do you judge a person before you've had a chance to know their actions?
`For the same reason I'm stuck on a night and day dichotomy. Liberals are the philosophical opposites of conservatives and this issue of character and morals is just as evident as night and day. I'm stuck on the liberal/conservative dichotomy because it's staring us all in the face to the point where denying is lying.
By assuming they will operate in their own self interest. How do you judge someone if you don't know their actions? You take them at their word?
It depends on what I'm judging them on. Since the topic is loans, after establishing their previous actions were in keeping with my expectations, I would have them sign a contract which establishes their agreement to their future actions. I don't assume their own self interest includes walking away from their obligations.
You just asked how you judge someone without knowing their actions.
So from your response you also judge people by their actions not what they tell people what they believe morality wise?
LOL
I see. So how do you judge a person before you've had a chance to know their actions?
Hahaha! People of little character. Gotta love conservatives that tend to take credit for abstract moral questions. 97% of conservatives said that infidelity is very immoral. I'm sure that only 3% of conservatives cheat on their spouse....Conservatives also tend to not have pre-marital sex and never get abortions.
And as I said before, the fact that an entity is amoral does not mean that the behavior of that entity is beyond moral judgement. We both know that you would consider it very immoral for the "amoral" business that employs you to tell you it's decided not to pay for the work that it agreed to pay you for. If you enter into a bargain and you don't hold up your end, you are behaving immorally and it's just nonsense to rationalize that if you do it in the course of business, that business is amoral and, therefore, screwing someone by not holding up your end of the deal you both agreed to isn't immoral for you.
If you want to claim that businesses cannot act in an immoral way, just say it so I can cut that quote out and make myself a signature line that looks like this:
Go ahead and confirm that quote for me. Thanks.
Yes for so long as my situation allows me to repay it.
I think most people think infidelity isn't moral. Where did you get the poll result of 97%?
I'm conservative and I had pre-marital sex. Are you confusing conservatives with Christians? They aren't necessarily the same thing you know.
You raise a good point.
There is a reason that people with no credit history have a tough time getting certain kinds of loans. And there is a reason that credit ratings have become big business.
Those who have used easy credit judiciously, who paid their creditors as agreed, who aren't maxed out on their credit cards, who aren't living paycheck to paycheck, and thereby achieve good credit scores, will almost always qualify for the loans they apply for. But have no track record to show or create a bad financial reputation, and you better have some rich good friends if you need certain kinds of loans. And be prepared to pay much higher interest rates for most of the loans you do manage to qualify for than those people with high credit scores have to pay.
Businesses are immoral. The business world acts in a manner where transactions are arms length and each party acts in their own self interest. That's been my whole argument.....I'm not sure how stating the obvious makes me a hypocrite....
Your points:
1. Businesses are immoral.
2. You should behave as they do when doing business
Yup. Pretty much. When you are operating in the jungle you play by the rules of the jungle.
Your points:
1. Businesses are immoral.
2. You should do as they do when doing business.
Based in on this, you are either immoral or a hypocrite. Do I need to spell out the reasoning or do you get it? The flaw is the premise that business will be immoral. When a bank gives you the honest terms of a loan. And you agree. And they cut your check. And they follow their agreement. The bank did nothing immoral. But if you don't follow through on your obligation, as agreed. (Just like they followed through in good faith) you do something immoral.
The agreement is that you either pay back the loan or the bank seizes the asset. That's the obligation you agree to. If you paid 90% of the mortgage and lost your job...the bank would seize the asset if you couldn't pay...is that moral? No...that's the agreement you worked out with the bank.
And, as usual, there seems to be no dissent from liberals who disagree with the utter contempt for morality, decency and honesty that we're seeing from other liberals, so it seems safe to conclude that there isn't any meaningful disagreement in their ranks on this. And we wonder why this country is so screwed up.
The agreement is that you either pay back the loan or the bank seizes the asset. That's the obligation you agree to. If you paid 90% of the mortgage and lost your job...the bank would seize the asset if you couldn't pay...is that moral? No...that's the agreement you worked out with the bank.
That is false. The agreement is to pay it back. Period. The fact that the bank stipulates what actions will be taken against you if you renege and don't pay is not to be construed as an an option that is offered. If you want to argue that the agreement states "either/or" then post the exact wording that states that you can stop paying before the mortgage has been satisfied.
First, a mortgage contract, like all other contracts, is purely a legal docu*ment, not a sacred promise.[14]
Think of it this way: When you got your cell phone, you likely signed a contract with your carrier in which you promised to pay a set monthly payment for two years. Let’s say, though, that two months after you sign your contract, the price of cell phone service drops by half—meaning that the same cell phone service for which you pay $100 a month could be had for $50 with another carrier. You decide that you would be financially better off paying the early termination fee of $300 rather than $100 a month for twenty-two more months of the same service that you can now get for $50.
Would it be immoral for you to break your contractual promise to pay $100 for two years and elect instead to pay the early termination fee? Of course not. The option to breach your promise to pay is part of the contract, as is the con*sequence of breach—a $300 early termination fee. There is absolutely noth*ing immoral about exercising your option to breach, and you’d be financially wise to do so.
Though a mortgage contract is more substantial than a cell phone cont*ract, it’s no different in principle. Like a cell phone contract, a mortgage contract explicitly sets out the consequences of breach.
In other words, the lender has contemplated in advance that the mort*gagor might be unable or unwilling to continue making payments on his mortgage at some point—and has decided in advance what fair compensation would be. The lender then wrote that compensation into the contract. Spe*cifically, the lender probably included clauses in the contract providing that the lender may foreclose on the property, keep any payments previously made on the property, and may opt to pursue a deficiency judgment against the mortgagor if state law so allows.[15]
By writing this penalty into the contract and then signing the contract, the lender has agreed to accept the property and (in most states) the option to pursue a deficiency judgment in lieu of payment. Of course, even in states where they can, lenders frequently don’t pursue borrowers for deficiency judgments because it’s often not economically worthwhile to do so.[16] Nevertheless, that’s the agreement. No one forced the lender to sign—or write—the con*tract,[17] and the lender wouldn’t hesitate to exercise the right to take a defaulter’s house if it were financially advantageous to do so. Concerns of morality or social responsi*bil*ity wouldn’t be part of the equation.[18]
In short, as far as the law is concerned, choosing to exercise the default option in a mortgage contract is no more immoral than choosing to cancel a cell phone contract. The borrower must simply be willing to accept the conse*quences, which, in the case of a mortgage contract, typically include foreclosure and the risk of a deficiency judgment in most states.
Even though the law doesn’t treat breach of a mortgage contract as a moral wrong, it might be argued that one should still keep one’s promises.[19] That’s a fine belief as far as it goes.
But why treat the promise to pay one’s mortgage as any more sacred than any other promise? We break promises all the time when the consequences of fulfilling them become too great—without being considered immoral for doing so.[20] I recently promised my daughter, for example, that I’d pick her up early from preschool. Though I take promises to my children seriously, I had to break this one because an important meeting ran long at work. I had competing obligations and had to make a choice. Though some might quibble with my choice, it wasn’t immoral.
A conservative, who generally don't even believe we have a moral duty to the poor or the sick, moaning about how liberals don't place enough priority on this supposed moral duty to banks is absurdly ass backwards. Even if there is some abstract theoretical moral duty to pay loans back to banks for some reason that nobody on this thread has managed to come up with yet, certainly that that would be like a million places down the list from things like helping the poor, fighting bigotry, giving medical care to the sick and so on, right? I mean, what kind of moral system places a higher value on helping those who don't need help than it places on helping those who do need help?
The agreement is that you either pay back the loan or the bank seizes the asset. That's the obligation you agree to. If you paid 90% of the mortgage and lost your job...the bank would seize the asset if you couldn't pay...is that moral? No...that's the agreement you worked out with the bank.
And that policy led to the biggest financial crisis since the great depression. Congratulations on the wonderfulness of your federal agencies and the fact that they were profitable while the crap loans they packaged and then resold tanked the rest of the economy. You must be so proud.
Here is a link on this subject
The Morality of Strategic Default « UCLA Law Review
Here is the quote
So which was it. By the way? Are you immoral for acting like an immoral business or are you a hypocrite for acting like business but calling what they do immoral while denying that you are?
Here is a link on this subject
The Morality of Strategic Default « UCLA Law Review
Here is the quote
There's no reason for me to continually repeat what I've said earlier
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?