Posted on 11/10/2025 6:56:25 AM PST by Red Badger
President Trump likes to test policy proposals on social media.
This was his newest one, shared by Bill Pulte, the U.S. Director of Federal Housing and the chairman of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac 👇
Thanks to President Trump, we are indeed working on The 50 year Mortgage - a complete game changer. https://t.co/HZDPzO0qJG— Pulte (@pulte) November 8, 2025
A 50-year mortgage would result in a slightly lower monthly payment, stretched out over 5 decades, with hundreds of thousands of extra dollars in interest.
The reactions were not kind.
But they were funny!
MANY TWEETS AT LINK>........................
I think it's safe to say that this proposal might end up in the "no-go" category.
(Excerpt) Read more at notthebee.com ...
“more value to their employer”
A lot of homebuyers used stock wealth.
My neighbors own 16 acres of Maine oceanfront. They didn’t get that directly from salaries and wages. I suspect it came from Microsoft shares.
Others use California house wealth which came from Chinese wealth offshoring.
I just paid half my California property tax $626!
Just pay the property taxes.
you’ll never own your home and your property taxes will continue to go up and up. You can dance around that all you want to but it’s the ugly truth.
“Housing costs are in line with the market”
Costs for quality houses are in line with the [stock] market, not the labor market.
I remember looking at the NVIDIA page in Value Line.
We don’t need to increase wages. That generates a wage price cycle.
We need to increase productivity. As jobs in the new & expanded manufacturing sectors materialize those jobs will command higher salaries. The marketplace drives salaries much more competently than legislation.
TexasTrumpHater, your bull sh+t never ends.
What Mandani voters what is a chance to buy in at about half the going rate and ride the full price wave upward.
That only works for the connected.
Do you rent or own?
I’m not quite sure why the President is even involved in this discussion. Shouldn’t it be between the bank/lender and the borrower? And why would it NOT be legal? If someone wants their mortgage over a 50 year period, as long as they can pay down the principal whenever they want with no penalty, then why not? If a lender doesn’t see it as a safe loan, then they won’t loan it out.
Simply that it *is* true - few mortgages actually run their course from close to term.
Buyers often purchase a “first home”, then generally sell and use the proceeds/equity to upgrade to a new home/mortgage, etc.
However, the issue that the total interest calculated is NOT equally spread by payments. On a 15, far more of your early payments are getting applied to principle. Far less on a 30. On a 50? Virtually nothing.
So - what a buyer using a 50 yr would find? They’ve built *very little* additional equity after 5 years because the amortization schedules ALWAYS weight towards the interest first.
A general rule of thumb has always been “5 years” as the mark it sense to buy. It won’t be on a 50 yr. It will be more like 10-12+ years.
Doesn’t matter 15, 20, 30, or (gulp) 50 - early mortgage payments are weighted towards paying the calculated interest. Even on a 15 - you’re likely paying a wee bit more towards interest the first couple years. But - you’re also paying a nice amount towards the principle (building equity). On a 30? Far less. On a 50? Such a tiny, tiny amount.
Someone buying on a 50 yr - especially for “lower payments” - simply is *not* building much equity early in the loan. ANd over 50 years? “Early” means a decade or more.
Most anyone taking a 50 yr mortgage is going to find themselves shocked - “But I’ve been paying $1500 a month for 5-6-7 years!” - to find they actually have not built up much equity. Some, sure - but not much.
Most of the payment is going towards the interest. Housing bubble? Local variances in prices? Depending on the rate - and rates are always higher the longer out you push a loan - lots of 50 yr note purchasers will find themselves locked into that “first home” far, far longer than the current conventional wisdom says.
Housing costs are a matter of supply and demand. As long as we keep importing people, demand will rise relative to supply, and prices will rise.
Get rid of illegals and demand will fall, causing a drop in prices. Pulte won’t like that, but it is what needs to happen.
Buyers agents and buyers with stock wealth need to become educated on the costs of housebuilding.
Those who would buy waterfront should learn about Crystal Lagoons.
Should get back to the 20% down golden rule. Of course, that would lock out a lot of buyers, but they could pay mortgage insurance until they reach the 20% equity point. That was how it worked when I bought my first home in the 80s - with about 15% down. Paid the mortgage insurance until about 3 years later when I refinanced at a much lower interest rate, with 20% down, and got a 15 year loan as well, while saving money every month.
“I’m not quite sure why the President is even involved in this discussion. Shouldn’t it be between the bank/lender and the borrower?”
The government is deeply tied to the lending process either by acquisition or insuring the loans.
I will reiterate:
1) People who can “afford” extra payments, don’t need a 50. The *ONLY* attractiveness of a 50 is that you’d have slightly lower payments.
Autos are different than homes, but this is the same damn trap a lot of a fools get themselves into with ridiculous *7 YEAR!!!* autoloans. I’m trying to help a cousin out of a sinkhole of debt and I’m just shaking my head at the fact that his biggest problem is that he *HAD TO HAVE* that brand new pickup on a ridiculous 7 year loan. He’s underwater ON A TRUCK!
2) Generally, I’m all for “buyer beware”. But the problem is — the overwhelming majority of such mortgages will be FHA-backed. That puts ME - at least by proxy - on the hook for such bad decisions.
Even beyond potential bailouts - it’s going to lock people into homes longer than they might want to be locked in. That’s going to have knock-on effects on the market and supply/demand.
Totally agree, I was mainly addressing the o/p’s call for “higher wages” and “affordable housing”.
I bought my first house at 21, using wages to offset the mortgage.
My next two homes were purchased with cash. I paid off the first home in 7 years, and invested wisely after that.
Also, going without many “wants” along the way, controlling spending is key.
A while ago there was a movie about the great horse Secretariat. One of the things I noticed was how relatively modest the owners were living. To own a Derby horse one must be in the “wealthy” class but they were living far from an opulent lifestyle.
I believe the rise of feminism and the two income families has effected the standard of living for people however over the decades the markets have adjusted to the new normality. I believe there is a growing demand for economy houses and cars that eventually the market will respond to.
Housing costs are a matter of supply and demand. As long as we keep importing people, demand will rise relative to supply, and prices will rise.
Get rid of illegals and demand will fall, causing a drop in prices. Pulte won’t like that, but it is what needs to happen.
********
OK, but how about also increasing housing supply — by ending zoning/environmental restrictions and the war on landlords?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
