We have No-Fault Divorce, where you stand before a judge and say "I don't!" and you're instantly relived of your sacred promise of "until death do we part." No-Fault Divorce means that no one has to take responsibility.
We have No-Fault Insurance, where your insurance company pays for what the other guy did, and all our rates go up. But, the guilty don't have to take responsibility.
Should we have No-Fault Default? Should the debtor have no responsibility and no consequences for defaulting on loans? Who should be responsible for the losses?
I keep reading second hand anecdotes about the friend or client of a friend's friend and how they were abused by the bank. Refused a short sale or denied one until they had defaulted and late payments show on their credit report! Aren't they entitled to a No-Fault Default? Why should the consumer who stops making his payments be held responsible?
Is responsibility an out-dated concept?
Is personal and societal honor a thing of the past?
Are we to replace "The Golden Rule" with Marks' "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need?"
Are we to believe that it's the Banks money not their depositors and stockholders?
Are we to forget that depositors and stockholders are real people just like us?
Are we to make the stupid and foolish the next two minority classes to be protected?
If in deed, we believe the stupid and foolish are a protectable class, are they not then the majority?
Are we to forget the more than 9 out of 10 people who perhaps foolish honor and pay their mortgages?
Groucho Marx once said: " I wouldn't want to belong to any club that would have me as a member". Today I believe he'd have said: "I wouldn't want to invest with any company that would lend money to me!"
Bill
William J Archambault Jr
Comments(4)