Who's in charge of keeping Trump from posting dumb shit? Blame them

Nobody is saying that customers won't still have access to 15 and 30 year mortgages. The 50 year mortgage would merely be one additional option available to them.

"Cradle to grave homeownership"

It would be one additional option that would open the door to more first time homeowners.

Instead of inheriting a home, folks will inherit a huge debt burden.

How anyone on DU could defend this shows how out of touch with the real world many people have become.

a lender will not finance a mortgage unless they are sure the property value will satisfy the outstanding debt over the life of the loan

The reverse situation - a $1,000,000 mortgage on a $300,000 value home - would not occur, absent serious incompetence on the part of the lender.

The idea has probably been bounced around for decades if I were to hazard a guess.

The idea of extended term mortgages is NOT a new idea. That's why I find people freaking out about Trump's current proposal to be somewhat amusing.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-HH-PURL-gpo47156/pdf/GOVPUB-HH-PURL-gpo47156.pdf

which are not covered at all by Mr trump's current chaos. But of little import now to a program discontinued in 2016.

From Google AI:

I like Stephanie Ruhle. She's my go to in her time slot. However, to me it appeared quite obvious why she didn't have someone on to discuss the possible advantages of extended term loans - because if she had done so, there wouldn't have been much of a discussion. Again, nobody is talking about taking away access to traditional 15 or 30 year mortgages. They're only talking about giving customers more options - which would be particularly helpful for first time home buyers.

But renting without the benefits and protections that a normal renter would have.

It really comes down to protecting people from their own lack of understanding.
I understand one could make an argument that just having the option doesn't force anyone to take it. However, given the benefit to the lender in these cases, I would imagine that it is very likely they would market it heavily in a way that distracted from the downsides and attempted to get people to sign up for them.

The reduction in monthly payment with longer terms diminishes very quickly. The amount of interest paid increases very quickly.

For example, take a $400,000 loan at 6%.

With a 15 year mortgage you would pay $3,375/month and a total of $207,000 in interest.
With a 30 year mortgage you would pay $2,400/month and a total of $463,000 in interest.
With a 50 year mortgage you would pay $2,100/month and a total of $860,000 in interest.
With a 100 year mortgage you would pay $2,005/month and a total of $2,000,000 in interest.
With a 200 year mortgage you would pay $2,000/month and a total of $4,400,000 in interest.

(I realize that 100 and 200 year mortgages are not being discussed - I am just included them to show the mathematical pattern)

The longer term the mortgage the (significantly) greater percentage of your monthly is going to interest rather than principle. One of the key advantages of buying vs renting is that a portion of what you pay every month remains your asset. Longer terms reduce that.

Again - I understand the argument that we should follow "buyer beware" and it is the responsibility of the buyer to do what is in their own best interest. But I also know what the corporations will do everything they can to extract as much money out of the buyer as possible.

Comparing 30 to 50 year mortgages at the same rate is disingenuous. Lenders tend to charge higher rates for longer terms to even the $200 plus monthly extra purchasing power I’ve seen in recent is inflated under most circumstances. A portion of that extra purchasing power will also inflate home values to a degree. This will further impact its positive effects on making homes ownership more affordable. The rent vs home ownership argument only works in markets where average rent is not substantially lower than the mortgage payment of the average home. A fifty year mortgage is probably two roofs, 4 water heaters, 2-4 hvac/heating solutions and many other repairs. Unless, you bank on ever increasing real estate values, many won’t have the equity to refi or get a home equity loan for these repairs and maintenance because amount that goes to principal is so small for the first 30 years. I think many would be surprised how little principal is being paid at the beginning of most mortgages. This is only amplified by the 30 year term.
That being said there are also many pluses. Unless one refinances or takes out home equity loans, the monthly cost of shelter in today’s dollar will most likely go down every year of ownership. If housing prices boom or even increase at just the CPI rate, the owner will have further increased equity to dip into if needed. or wanted. Around retirement age if one cannot afford to maintain their mortgage payments, there’s always reverse mortgages, often predatory but sometimes the only way someone can continue to live in their home.

Again, I am overall in favor of offering the option, but I don’t really think it’s open the market by the degree its proponents think.

and in 1954 for existing houses. It didn’t become standard until the 1960s. My parents bought their house in 1953 (for $9500). They had a ten year mortgage.

Do-nothing occupancy will result in old age and deceased foreclosures of dry-rotted, moldy wrecks. Old people defer maintenance because they can't afford it or can't be bothered. Children just want to cash out what's left. It's a demolition derby for banks and mortgage bagholders.

about chipboard and glue houses. The actual lumber is farm-raised timber and has large growth rings but lacks the strength of natural forest trees. He thought glue would last 20 years, and it's been this way since 2009. For what it's worth.

Listen, if Trump isn't brilliant enough to understand a small scam, imagine what he's doing with the crypto and bitcoin bullshit.

Damn, you'd think that Pulte Homes (I believe the third largest homebuilder in the US) might benefit from some 50 year mortgages or something...

Who da thunk that!!!!

30-year mortgage on a $415,000 home: $734,000 total payments / $402,000 total interest

50-year mortgage on a $415,000 home: $1,800,000 total payments / $749,000 total interest

$402k in interest against a principal of $415k does not add up to $734k.
The number can't include taxes & insurance, because the values would be even higher.
The second example doesn't add up either.
Was more detail provided?

My post earlier today:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=20795713

Reply to Liberal In Texas (Original post)
Tue Nov 11, 2025, 12:39 PM

Who were prosecuted because they had mortgage irregularities, supposedly,, ?? That case went bust in court?

I'm no fan of this 50 year idea, but it bears noting that the overwhelming majority of 30 year notes do not go to maturity. Houses get sold or re-financed long before the last payment is made in most cases.

That number goes down to 5 years for the average first time homeowner.

he just repeats the last thing someone told him.

imagine the amount of interest you would pay over the lifetime of a 50 year loan. No thanks.

We almost bought a Lennar house in 2022. I seriously doubt that home will be standing in 40 years, let alone 50. Every aspect of it, save a very few skilled trades who did a few things, were done completely wrong - first semester shop class wrong. And that's a $500,000 new home in a major metro blue state.

We need more quality homes built that 5 and bottom 6 figure incomes can reasonably compete to buy. Period. We don't need more options to allow people stretched thin to stretch thinner to compete for the few that are available, driving the cost up and volume down further.

I suspect there will eventually be a government somethingorother to incentivize building these. I expect them to be the same crap we passed on in 2022 in the frevor to show results.