Learn to say that a Democrat, ANY Democrat, is wrong when they are wrong.

We do have a hypocrisy problem at times.

Was surprised to see some DUers complaining about Fannie Mae lowering credit score to 620 for consideration. They aren't approving loans just because of that, but they aren't denying them either. Sounds like a good thing in any other world.

I hope we get our bearings before midterms.

While I agree that the 50 year term is not ideal, including it as an additional option for would be home buyers - particularly first time ones - should not be dismissed as something "evil" - as some would suggest.

Once all of your equity is depleted, the bank walks away with your home and all of its appreciated value. The better option for the homeowner is to simply sell it.

If the small reduction in payment makes such a difference, you cannot afford the house. Subjecting yourself to 10 or 20 years of additional payments and tens of thousands more in interest is a very, very bad deal in any book I know of.

Consider this:

A homeowner with a 30-year, 6.4% $400,000 mortgage owes $2,502 per month for a total cost of $900,729 over the life of the loan.

If that homeowner has Obamacare their health insurance will go up at least $800.

With a 50-year loan at 6.4% our homeowner's payments would be $2,225 a month for a total cost of $1,334,877.

If it's not, I doubt any real distancing action or behavior is needed. Seems more audience perception than it is a part of the design itself.

We should be lending to homeowners and landlords to renovate. And making modest size homes spiffy with features and the lower taxes and mortgages that go with the lower prices. Instead we feed the homebuilders - Pulte, Toll, Hovnanian (are they still around) - to build McMansions. Everything has to be Home & Garden perfect.

to encourage exactly the types of homes you are referring to. But, this is a separate issue from that of mortgages and their terms.

and comparing them both as "Great Presidents". Esp. when FDR had nothing to do with 30 year mortgages, and longer mortgages (over 30 years) have been bandied about for decades. It's not even CLOSE to his own idea.

I really don't care if 50 year mortgages (or 40 year ones) are "allowed" as long as there are still shorter ones. Not really my business. Consumers DO need to be well-informed, however, and I would be concerned that if there's suddenly 50 year mortgages due to their actions, the Trumputin-GQP axis will somehow make sure that they are available only from their cronies and campaign contributors and as deceptively-marketed, with the shittiest terms, possible.

🤨

The premise of this article is total BS. It was primarily a single Obama advisor advocating for 40 year mortgages. That person did not represent the Obama administration as a whole, and certainly did not represent he opinions of the Democratic Party as a whole.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/forget-30-mortgage-40-mortgage-164749315.html

Similar to the manner in which the ACA was nicknamed "Obamacare."

The Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) - which incorporated 40 year loans as one method of expanding home affordability - was the centerpiece of the Obama Administration's efforts to stabilize the mortgage market. This was only 15 years ago. It's not exactly ancient history.

which were carefully thought out to provide affordable housing

Trump's 50 year mortgage is something a housing developer whispered in his ear. It has no context and no other supporting policies to ensure affordability as is typical for Trump.

The statement that the Obama administration did not embrace 40-year mortgages for general use is accurate. Forty-year mortgages were primarily an optional component within the administration's specific loan modification programs designed to help struggling homeowners avoid foreclosure, not a new, broadly encouraged standard for new home purchases.

Loan Modification (HAMP): The primary initiative, the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), aimed to reduce monthly payments for at-risk homeowners. As part of a series of steps to achieve this, mortgage servicers had the option to extend the loan term up to 40 years. This was a tool for loss mitigation in cases of financial hardship, not a standard offering for all borrowers

General Mortgage Market: For the general market, the Obama administration did not promote 40-year mortgages. In fact, after the financial crisis, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) prohibited Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from purchasing loans with a term longer than 30 years.

To qualified buyers. If we're gonna counter this fake rascist grifter populism from the right, we should think about playing on the same field.

Oh, MAGA and trump want obamacare gone, cause look at how expensive it really is?
Ok. We will abolish it in exchange for anyone in the country being able to use VA Healthcare, so long as they pay a hundred bucks a month out of their check (voluntary, of course)

The ACA would be voted out of existence in one cycle, because that's how dumb they really are.

If you're buying a home as an investment... but can only afford 5000/mo... the longer mortgage will get you into a more expensive home with greater potential for growth.

Here's where I live.

The duration of a mortgage isn't about paying it off... for most people, it's about securing the property to be in line for appreciation.

We should be the Party of advocating any and all options for increased home affordability - as we have been in the past.

50 year mortgages mean hundreds of thousands in interest costs over the life of the loan. That welath being transferred from the buyer to the banks. It’s a disaster.

No suggestion I give here is realistic. Not with this congress, not with any congress I've ever witnessed. Too beholden to people/industries/money that frankly ain't We the People.

The only things within the power of banks to "fix" are the terms of the loan. The mortgage interest rate is a function of the Fed Funds rate. That leaves the term of years as something can be lengthened to make the loan more affordable to a greater number of potential home owners.

I would love to see our leaders go one step further and lock rates at 2.5%.
Home ownership is the basis for family and neighborhood stability, it starts the process of building generational wealth, and is generally good for society.

I loathe the idea of a 50 years mortgage even more.

It's pretty simple, for me.

1) HAMP was instituted to help homeOWNERs who already had mortgages they were having trouble affording, not prospective home BUYERS. It was to enable people to avoid foreclosure and being kicked out of homes. People who didn't own homes were not eligible. See your own Brookings link - there is no mention of this in the Wiki link. The Pulte/Trump plan appeared to be available to prospective buyers, to encourage more home sales. BIG DIFFERENCE.

2) I don't see any evidence that Obama or Democrats in general "endorsed" a 40 year mortgage. Some may have supported HAMP.

3) We learned something since the financial crisis in 2008. Several controls have been instituted. Even if 1) and 2) were untrue, someone could reasonably have supported the 40 year mortgage ~ 2009 but now believe 50 year mortgages would be a mistake.

Thanks for letting me know

This is not a policy tied to the Democratic Party at all in voters’ minds.

So whether this is good or bad policy, it doesn’t really matter. We can say we are against Trump’s 50 year mortgage and win on it.

My son lives in Richmond Indiana and housing costs are not exploding. I live in Iowa City where they are.

Maybe regulation of venture capitalist to stay out of residential neighborhoods and turning what should be home into air bnb and similar would help to reset the market.

Regulate that new development must include xx% affordable housing.

Not convinced that 50 year mortgage is the answer when we could regulate greed and vulture capital groups out of housing markets.

Use the federal tax code to penalize the corporations that are buying residential housing only to turn around and rent it out. This would increase the supply of housing available for purchase by individuals and families. You'd have to do it in a measured manner though, so as not to spill too many homes onto the market all at once. Bravo for providing a reasonable response that furthers the discussion.

Last edited Wed Nov 12, 2025, 01:43 AM - Edit history (1)

See the year 2007? That's when sub-prime mortgages were running rampant and many of those mortgages should not/would not have been granted under responsible lending practices. Note the price at $325,000, and there was a big rush to get into the homebuyer elite. Now look at the average price a mere two years later...down $75,000 to $250,000. If anyone who squeaked by in 2007 to buy a home they could barely make payments on, by 2009 they were $75,000 in the hole if they needed to sell out to resist eviction. The slide continued in and past 2011. How can you call these buyers advantaged? Not only did they lose a large percentage (about 23%) of their investment, they may quite possibly have an eviction or bankruptcy on their record making it near impossible to ever afford even the barest of homes in their future. Doesn't sound like a desirable outcome to me.

ETA: NOTE that the OP has removed and replaced the graph in the original post two hours after my post here. Actually, going through OP's edits, this is the third graph they have used. The information presented by this graph is quite different than the original, posing the question as to which of the three has the accurate information. To eliminate confusion, my comments were based on the information in the first graph posted so that now my reply does not align with OP's new presentation.