|
Trop,
What I don't like about that is that no matter what the technicality used by a judge to "help people", in the end someone borrowed money from someone else and agreed to pay a rental on it (interest) so that they could buy a house, and that money and the rental should be paid back to the party that loaned it, or the house turned over since it was pledged as security. Yes, the mortgages were broken up into bits and pieces and sold to a variety of people, but those people still loaned the person money, and no matter what kind of tricks and non-sense someone tries to pull, it is a morally just debt that should be repaid in kind either with money or property. That a judge would even consider throwing it out of court is reprehensible and demonstrates just how corrupt our system can be at its worst.
When you borrow money you are expected to return it, just like if you went to a neighbor and borrowed their lawn mower, and you are expected to pay the rental on it as well (interest), else why would the person who owned the money have ever loaned it to you in the first place ? It only takes one loan to go bad for a money lender to have to have 20 go well (at about 5% interest) just to cover the loss of principal.
__________________
What are you pretending not to know ?
|