Lololol thank you for making ways for banks to make more money under the guise of "people will be able to afford homes" instead of actually solving the problem and IDK like maybe not let companies like Blackrock buy homes. Another waste of time

— Gryphonomics (@gryphonomics) November 8, 2025

Here are the 15, 30, and 50 year amortization tables for a $500k 6.5% loan. If you take the 50 year loan at age 30, by the time you turn 50, you will still owe $447,235 after paying 632,749 in usury. This is literal indentured servitude. Oh, & they own the house until you're done pic.twitter.com/UKivdRFKzU

— 🗿 Woe to those who dwell upon the earth 🗿 (@treblewoe) November 8, 2025

I don’t like 50 year mortgages as the solution to the housing affordability crisis.

It will ultimately reward the banks, mortgage lenders. and home builders while people pay far more in interest over time and die before they ever pay off their home.

In debt forever, in debt for…

— Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene🇺🇸 (@RepMTG) November 8, 2025

Dear lord they have made me agree with MTG. When you're making her look sane you're doing something wrong.

nein51 said:

---

Dear lord they have made me agree with MTG. When you're making her look sane you're doing something wrong.

---

The country would survive an MTG presidency. Same cannot be said about an AOC presidency.

whiterock said:

---

nein51 said:

---

Dear lord they have made me agree with MTG. When you're making her look sane you're doing something wrong.

---

The country would survive an MTG presidency. Same cannot be said about an AOC presidency.

---

What does that have to do with anything? Like where did that come from? She's a nut job who is looking more sane by the day…minus the whole Jewish space lasers stuff.

boognish_bear said:

---

Lololol thank you for making ways for banks to make more money under the guise of "people will be able to afford homes" instead of actually solving the problem and IDK like maybe not let companies like Blackrock buy homes. Another waste of time

— Gryphonomics (@gryphonomics) November 8, 2025

---

This is a great idea, add a generational component and we are on our way. Gives the younger generation a path and helps the older.

Look to Japan, UK and other limited space nations.

Only issue I have with MTG and some of the analysis I see here is that you are assuming just extending the term to 50 years at the same terms. For 50 years to make sense, the product has to have other aspect changes to make it worthwhile.

Banks WILL make more, but they are also taking the risk for longer. It will be in the details to keep it manageable. But, it is an idea to solve a problem. Welcome to the world of innovation, where you end up is not where you initially start. This is a starting point, let's see what morph's out of it...

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Lololol thank you for making ways for banks to make more money under the guise of "people will be able to afford homes" instead of actually solving the problem and IDK like maybe not let companies like Blackrock buy homes. Another waste of time

— Gryphonomics (@gryphonomics) November 8, 2025

---

This is a great idea, add a generational component and we are on our way. Gives the younger generation a path and helps the older.

---

It literally means the overwhelming majority of people will be under water on their mortgage.

The current average is a new home every 11.8 years. On a 50 year mortgage you would lose your ass. Actually you wouldn't. You would be so boned you would be stuck there forever.

On $500,000 at 6.5% the P&I only changes $300/mo at a cost of 20 additional years of payments. It goes from $3160 to $2818/mo.

On a 50 year note with those numbers you would pay $1,691,150 for that $500,000 house and you would pay $1,191,150 in interest.

At the TWENTY YEAR point you still owe $445,930 on your $500,000 purchase.

At the end of the first year you would have paid $33,816 and your balance on your note would be $498,636. That's not a misprint.

You want to see a banking crisis…50 year notes will do it. It's legal slavery so you can say you "own" your home.

nein51 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Lololol thank you for making ways for banks to make more money under the guise of "people will be able to afford homes" instead of actually solving the problem and IDK like maybe not let companies like Blackrock buy homes. Another waste of time

— Gryphonomics (@gryphonomics) November 8, 2025

---

This is a great idea, add a generational component and we are on our way. Gives the younger generation a path and helps the older.

---

It literally means the overwhelming majority of people will be under water on their mortgage.

The current average is a new home every 11.8 years. On a 50 year mortgage you would lose your ass. Actually you wouldn't. You would be so boned you would be stuck there forever.

On $500,000 at 6.5% the P&I only changes $300/mo at a cost of 20 additional years of payments. It goes from $3160 to $2818/mo.

On a 50 year note with those numbers you would pay $1,691,150 for that $500,000 house and you would pay $1,191,150 in interest.

At the TWENTY YEAR point you still owe $445,930 on your $500,000 purchase.

At the end of the first year you would have paid $33,816 and your balance on your note would be $498,636. That's not a misprint.

You want to see a banking crisis…50 year notes will do it. It's legal slavery so you can say you "own" your home.

---

The key to your post is at those numbers. If you are defining the "product" as simply increasing term at the same interest rate than you will be upside down. What terms change with that number? What benefits change with that number? You say just to say you own - own vs rent makes a difference in taxes, equity, rate and what other benefits from ownership will go with the program? You guys don't ever get involved with refining products? Does every idea you come up with market ready from the first iteration? At least there is a discussion.

Can it be generational? Hell, it may only be an option in high value/low volume areas. That is what we do with toll roads, you can get 75 years on some toll roads with the right demand profiles, others you can't get 30 or $1 based on demand.

Let's see where it goes.

By the way, what are your other options? You HAVE to live somewhere and rent is just as high giving someone else the benefits and risk of ownership. In your parent's basement? Than you might as well do the 50 year generational and start buying in. Rent? Is renting for the same monthly payment with no ownership stake a better option? If you can get a 15 year or 30 year, you already are. What is the point on not looking at other options to lower livability in a capitalist model? We are not going back to 1995, as much as wish we could.

pic.twitter.com/TxXlcnzpLD

— Barchart (@Barchart) November 8, 2025

nein51 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Lololol thank you for making ways for banks to make more money under the guise of "people will be able to afford homes" instead of actually solving the problem and IDK like maybe not let companies like Blackrock buy homes. Another waste of time

— Gryphonomics (@gryphonomics) November 8, 2025

---

This is a great idea, add a generational component and we are on our way. Gives the younger generation a path and helps the older.

---

It literally means the overwhelming majority of people will be under water on their mortgage.

The current average is a new home every 11.8 years. On a 50 year mortgage you would lose your ass. Actually you wouldn't. You would be so boned you would be stuck there forever.

On $500,000 at 6.5% the P&I only changes $300/mo at a cost of 20 additional years of payments. It goes from $3160 to $2818/mo.

On a 50 year note with those numbers you would pay $1,691,150 for that $500,000 house and you would pay $1,191,150 in interest.

At the TWENTY YEAR point you still owe $445,930 on your $500,000 purchase.

At the end of the first year you would have paid $33,816 and your balance on your note would be $498,636. That's not a misprint.

You want to see a banking crisis…50 year notes will do it. It's legal slavery so you can say you "own" your home.

---

Correct. It would be wiser and provide more relief to work on the interest rates, particularly for student loans,

nein51 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

nein51 said:

---

Dear lord they have made me agree with MTG. When you're making her look sane you're doing something wrong.

---

The country would survive an MTG presidency. Same cannot be said about an AOC presidency.

---

What does that have to do with anything? Like where did that come from? She's a nut job who is looking more sane by the day…minus the whole Jewish space lasers stuff.

---

She's an ordinary person with largely conventional values who is ignorant on a lot of things and occasionally wanders off into the weeds on details. The country can survive that, particularly if institutions do the supporting work they're supposed to do. AOC, on the other hand, is an
intelligent idiot whose worldview is ordered by ideological claptrap. She would do the kind of great harm that only sincere and well-intentioned revolutionaries can do

"So you can't afford a 30-year mortgage, but you're going to take out a 50-year mortgage to pay $300 less a month but pay $500,000 more to the bank by the end of the loan?"

"That's correct, Dave." https://t.co/0ZD2Jnvv4G pic.twitter.com/wCAtNfkwmF

— Bonchie (@bonchieredstate) November 8, 2025

Japan had 50 year mortgages right before their entire financial system blew up.

— Fred Krueger (@dotkrueger) November 9, 2025

real estate absolutely collapsed and so did the banks

— Fred Krueger (@dotkrueger) November 9, 2025

it was a different world back then. their banking system was 5x the size of the US

— Fred Krueger (@dotkrueger) November 9, 2025

whiterock said:

---

nein51 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Lololol thank you for making ways for banks to make more money under the guise of "people will be able to afford homes" instead of actually solving the problem and IDK like maybe not let companies like Blackrock buy homes. Another waste of time

— Gryphonomics (@gryphonomics) November 8, 2025

---

This is a great idea, add a generational component and we are on our way. Gives the younger generation a path and helps the older.

---

It literally means the overwhelming majority of people will be under water on their mortgage.

The current average is a new home every 11.8 years. On a 50 year mortgage you would lose your ass. Actually you wouldn't. You would be so boned you would be stuck there forever.

On $500,000 at 6.5% the P&I only changes $300/mo at a cost of 20 additional years of payments. It goes from $3160 to $2818/mo.

On a 50 year note with those numbers you would pay $1,691,150 for that $500,000 house and you would pay $1,191,150 in interest.

At the TWENTY YEAR point you still owe $445,930 on your $500,000 purchase.

At the end of the first year you would have paid $33,816 and your balance on your note would be $498,636. That's not a misprint.

You want to see a banking crisis…50 year notes will do it. It's legal slavery so you can say you "own" your home.

---

Correct. It would be wiser and provide more relief to work on the interest rates, particularly for student loans,

---

You really think they are just talking extending term to 50 years with no other benefits? There has to be a generational benefit built into it.

Question for someone with more knowledge on this than me. Don't they do generational mortgages in other parts of the world that have similar terms?

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

nein51 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Lololol thank you for making ways for banks to make more money under the guise of "people will be able to afford homes" instead of actually solving the problem and IDK like maybe not let companies like Blackrock buy homes. Another waste of time

— Gryphonomics (@gryphonomics) November 8, 2025

---

This is a great idea, add a generational component and we are on our way. Gives the younger generation a path and helps the older.

---

It literally means the overwhelming majority of people will be under water on their mortgage.

The current average is a new home every 11.8 years. On a 50 year mortgage you would lose your ass. Actually you wouldn't. You would be so boned you would be stuck there forever.

On $500,000 at 6.5% the P&I only changes $300/mo at a cost of 20 additional years of payments. It goes from $3160 to $2818/mo.

On a 50 year note with those numbers you would pay $1,691,150 for that $500,000 house and you would pay $1,191,150 in interest.

At the TWENTY YEAR point you still owe $445,930 on your $500,000 purchase.

At the end of the first year you would have paid $33,816 and your balance on your note would be $498,636. That's not a misprint.

You want to see a banking crisis…50 year notes will do it. It's legal slavery so you can say you "own" your home.

---

Correct. It would be wiser and provide more relief to work on the interest rates, particularly for student loans,

---

You really think they are just talking extending term to 50 years with no other benefits? There has to be a generational benefit built into it.

Question for someone with more knowledge on this than me. Don't they do generational mortgages in other parts of the world that have similar terms?

---

Show me where even 1% of Americans live in generational homes.

If you have to live with your parents and grandparents to own a home you have the same problem we have right now…people don't want to do that.

nein51 said:

---

The 50 year mortgage is such an unbelievably bad idea I can't believe anyone who went to Baylor needs to debate it.

It might "feel" good but it's a fast pass to banking and housing collapse.

It ignores the root causes of the problem and creates a terrible "remedy" that is worse than the problem.

---

So, you wouldn't buy a million dollar property locked at 2%?

You are going to see these types of vehicles coming, there is no way out of the mess. You think the general population is going to listen to Dave Ramsey or the "fundamentals" financial world?

FLBear5630 said:

---

nein51 said:

---

The 50 year mortgage is such an unbelievably bad idea I can't believe anyone who went to Baylor needs to debate it.

It might "feel" good but it's a fast pass to banking and housing collapse.

It ignores the root causes of the problem and creates a terrible "remedy" that is worse than the problem.

---

So, you wouldn't buy a million dollar property locked at 2%?

---

Not if I had a 50 year not on it. **** no.

If you need a 50 year mortgage you simply cannot afford the property. End of discussion.

And if rates went back down to 2% you wouldn't need 50 year mortgages.

nein51 said:

---

The 50 year mortgage is such an unbelievably bad idea I can't believe anyone who went to Baylor needs to debate it.

It might "feel" good but it's a fast pass to banking and housing collapse.

It ignores the root causes of the problem and creates a terrible "remedy" that is worse than the problem.

---

Agreed

But there are millions of dumb / naive folks out there.

Some with MIT degrees , some with Baylor degrees , and more than a few with online 'degrees' .

And when they go broke ……all have one thing in common.

They vehemently believe it's someone else's fault.

nein51 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

nein51 said:

---

The 50 year mortgage is such an unbelievably bad idea I can't believe anyone who went to Baylor needs to debate it.

It might "feel" good but it's a fast pass to banking and housing collapse.

It ignores the root causes of the problem and creates a terrible "remedy" that is worse than the problem.

---

So, you wouldn't buy a million dollar property locked at 2%?

---

Not if I had a 50 year not on it. **** no.

If you need a 50 year mortgage you simply cannot afford the property. End of discussion.

And if rates went back down to 2% you wouldn't need 50 year mortgages.

---

How many 1st mortgages get kept and paid off in 30 years? How many have you kept and met the original terms?

Back down? The 2% mortgages were an anomaly brought on by the pandemic. My 5.7% is historically. Rates have never been in the ranges you are talking outside of COVID. Also, you know that there are different rates for different products. You are acting like all mortgages will have the same rate, they don't now.

The cost of money is always part of the equation. If you can lower capital and interest, but increase cost of money. but get someone in a position where they can get out of the rental game?

As I said earlier, this starts the conversation. We will probably end up with a 35 year term and lower interest with conditions. Watch, the end product will be a decent deal for certain situations and new home buyers with an eye to refi or sell WELL before the term. No one is offering or keeping a 50 year mortgage.

FLBear5630 said:

---

nein51 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

nein51 said:

---

The 50 year mortgage is such an unbelievably bad idea I can't believe anyone who went to Baylor needs to debate it.

It might "feel" good but it's a fast pass to banking and housing collapse.

It ignores the root causes of the problem and creates a terrible "remedy" that is worse than the problem.

---

So, you wouldn't buy a million dollar property locked at 2%?

---

Not if I had a 50 year not on it. **** no.

If you need a 50 year mortgage you simply cannot afford the property. End of discussion.

And if rates went back down to 2% you wouldn't need 50 year mortgages.

---

How many 1st mortgages get kept and paid off in 30 years? How many have you kept and met the original terms?

Back down? The 2% mortgages were an anomaly brought on by the pandemic. My 5.7% is historically. Rates have never been in the ranges you are talking outside of COVID. Also, you know that there are different rates for different products. You are acting like all mortgages will have the same rate, they don't now.

The cost of money is always part of the equation. If you can lower capital and interest, but increase cost of money. but get someone in a position where they can get out of the rental game?

As I said earlier, this starts the conversation. We will probably end up with a 35 year term and lower interest with conditions. Watch, the end product will be a decent deal for certain situations and new home buyers with an eye to refi or sell WELL before the term. No one is offering or keeping a 50 year mortgage.

---

Almost none which is exactly the point I am making. The average homeowner moves at the 11 year mark. Roughly 1/3 through the loan. On a 50 year term there's essentially no possible way you would be able to move at the 15 year mark.

This is fundamentally no different than buying when prices are high and trying to sell when the market crashes. You're going to be upside down. You cannot allow the people least able to pay to get upside down like that. It will skyrocket bankruptcy and crater the housing and banking markets.

Owning a home is not a right. While that won't be popular it's true.

The president doesn't have the ability to lower interest rates (or he would have already done it). So you cannot say "we will end up with a longer term with a lower rate". Because the people taking those loans will be higher risk you're far more likely to end up with longer terms at HIGHER rates.

What will happen is lower income people will stretch their budget in order to buy. Because they will be so far upside down they will just walk away from the home. That doesn't begin to address the lack of funds for maintenance and upkeep.

This isn't even a debatable item; it's a terrible idea. If you need a 50 year mortgage you cannot afford the home.

Every part of this is accurate. Lol

Here are the 15, 30, and 50 year amortization tables for a $500k 6.5% loan. If you take the 50 year loan at age 30, by the time you turn 50, you will still owe $447,235 after paying 632,749 in usury. This is literal indentured servitude. Oh, & they own the house until you're done pic.twitter.com/UKivdRFKzU

— 🗿 Woe to those who dwell upon the earth 🗿 (@treblewoe) November 8, 2025

nein51 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

nein51 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

nein51 said:

---

The 50 year mortgage is such an unbelievably bad idea I can't believe anyone who went to Baylor needs to debate it.

It might "feel" good but it's a fast pass to banking and housing collapse.

It ignores the root causes of the problem and creates a terrible "remedy" that is worse than the problem.

---

So, you wouldn't buy a million dollar property locked at 2%?

---

Not if I had a 50 year not on it. **** no.

If you need a 50 year mortgage you simply cannot afford the property. End of discussion.

And if rates went back down to 2% you wouldn't need 50 year mortgages.

---

How many 1st mortgages get kept and paid off in 30 years? How many have you kept and met the original terms?

Back down? The 2% mortgages were an anomaly brought on by the pandemic. My 5.7% is historically. Rates have never been in the ranges you are talking outside of COVID. Also, you know that there are different rates for different products. You are acting like all mortgages will have the same rate, they don't now.

The cost of money is always part of the equation. If you can lower capital and interest, but increase cost of money. but get someone in a position where they can get out of the rental game?

As I said earlier, this starts the conversation. We will probably end up with a 35 year term and lower interest with conditions. Watch, the end product will be a decent deal for certain situations and new home buyers with an eye to refi or sell WELL before the term. No one is offering or keeping a 50 year mortgage.

---

Almost none which is exactly the point I am making. The average homeowner moves at the 11 year mark. Roughly 1/3 through the loan. On a 50 year term there's essentially no possible way you would be able to move at the 15 year mark.

This is fundamentally no different than buying when prices are high and trying to sell when the market crashes. You're going to be upside down. You cannot allow the people least able to pay to get upside down like that. It will skyrocket bankruptcy and crater the housing and banking markets.

Owning a home is not a right. While that won't be popular it's true.

The president doesn't have the ability to lower interest rates (or he would have already done it). So you cannot say "we will end up with a longer term with a lower rate". Because the people taking those loans will be higher risk you're far more likely to end up with longer terms at HIGHER rates.

What will happen is lower income people will stretch their budget in order to buy. Because they will be so far upside down they will just walk away from the home. That doesn't begin to address the lack of funds for maintenance and upkeep.

This isn't even a debatable item; it's a terrible idea. If you need a 50 year mortgage you cannot afford the home.

---

So, it wont solve the problem but will getWall St more revenue? accurate? in the same range of a company making 1.5B paying its CEO 1T in magnitude of absurdity?

can't happen, right?

“I was there, Gandalf. I was there three thousand years ago. I was there when I took out the current mortgage on Rivendell.” pic.twitter.com/WVfBAvBmQW

— Raven (@raven_brah) November 9, 2025

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

nein51 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Lololol thank you for making ways for banks to make more money under the guise of "people will be able to afford homes" instead of actually solving the problem and IDK like maybe not let companies like Blackrock buy homes. Another waste of time

— Gryphonomics (@gryphonomics) November 8, 2025

---

This is a great idea, add a generational component and we are on our way. Gives the younger generation a path and helps the older.

---

It literally means the overwhelming majority of people will be under water on their mortgage.

The current average is a new home every 11.8 years. On a 50 year mortgage you would lose your ass. Actually you wouldn't. You would be so boned you would be stuck there forever.

On $500,000 at 6.5% the P&I only changes $300/mo at a cost of 20 additional years of payments. It goes from $3160 to $2818/mo.

On a 50 year note with those numbers you would pay $1,691,150 for that $500,000 house and you would pay $1,191,150 in interest.

At the TWENTY YEAR point you still owe $445,930 on your $500,000 purchase.

At the end of the first year you would have paid $33,816 and your balance on your note would be $498,636. That's not a misprint.

You want to see a banking crisis…50 year notes will do it. It's legal slavery so you can say you "own" your home.

---

Correct. It would be wiser and provide more relief to work on the interest rates, particularly for student loans,

---

You really think they are just talking extending term to 50 years with no other benefits? There has to be a generational benefit built into it.

Question for someone with more knowledge on this than me. Don't they do generational mortgages in other parts of the world that have similar terms?

---

Trump of all people understands the criticisms of taking out a 50yr loan and executing it all the way to maturity. But he is trying to do SOMETHING.

And here's the reality for someone who is smart enough to learn finance. A 50yr loan is basically "interest only" for the first few years. If that works for your situation. You can always sell the home or refinance if your circumstances change later.

There will be other options, too. So this isn't much of a problem (other than neverTrumpers going into vapors over not terribly important things). HE, unlike all these moderates who sit around and wring their hands that nothing can be done, he is actually doing SOMETHING.

We should lower the interest rate on student loans to whatever the Fed rate is. Makes no sense for the Govt to charge up to 9% interest on money it can borrow from the fed for a point or three. It will help the young more than the a 50yr loan and it won't "cost" the taxpayer anything (other than the journal entries to write down the asset on the balance sheet).

BREAKING: Trump Housing Director Bill Pulte announces the 50-year mortgage will be just ONE “potential weapon in a WIDE arsenal of solutions that we are developing right now” for affordable home buying pic.twitter.com/tfwXLWXtTD

— in the dark newz (@dustinemills47) November 9, 2025

Great graphic from the WSJ on the housing crisis: Home prices to buyer income ratio went sky high in 2021 and is barely budging

This is the whole ball game pic.twitter.com/EjzYPhIncx

— Saagar Enjeti (@esaagar) November 9, 2025

The 50 year mortgage will be followed by the 15 year car loan.

Eventually we're just going to abolish all mortgages outright and everyone will be renting from their local noble landlord where each neighborhood will be required to supply 50 bushels of wheat and field 10 men when…

— Christian Heiens 🏛 (@ChristianHeiens) November 9, 2025

Redbrickbear said:

---

The 50 year mortgage will be followed by the 15 year car loan.

Eventually we're just going to abolish all mortgages outright and everyone will be renting from their local noble landlord where each neighborhood will be required to supply 50 bushels of wheat and field 10 men when…

— Christian Heiens 🏛 (@ChristianHeiens) November 9, 2025

---

Isn't that Property Taxes? How many acres have to get sold because they can't afford the Property Tax?

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

nein51 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Lololol thank you for making ways for banks to make more money under the guise of "people will be able to afford homes" instead of actually solving the problem and IDK like maybe not let companies like Blackrock buy homes. Another waste of time

— Gryphonomics (@gryphonomics) November 8, 2025

---

This is a great idea, add a generational component and we are on our way. Gives the younger generation a path and helps the older.

---

It literally means the overwhelming majority of people will be under water on their mortgage.

The current average is a new home every 11.8 years. On a 50 year mortgage you would lose your ass. Actually you wouldn't. You would be so boned you would be stuck there forever.

On $500,000 at 6.5% the P&I only changes $300/mo at a cost of 20 additional years of payments. It goes from $3160 to $2818/mo.

On a 50 year note with those numbers you would pay $1,691,150 for that $500,000 house and you would pay $1,191,150 in interest.

At the TWENTY YEAR point you still owe $445,930 on your $500,000 purchase.

At the end of the first year you would have paid $33,816 and your balance on your note would be $498,636. That's not a misprint.

You want to see a banking crisis…50 year notes will do it. It's legal slavery so you can say you "own" your home.

---

Correct. It would be wiser and provide more relief to work on the interest rates, particularly for student loans,

---

You really think they are just talking extending term to 50 years with no other benefits? There has to be a generational benefit built into it.

Question for someone with more knowledge on this than me. Don't they do generational mortgages in other parts of the world that have similar terms?

---

Trump of all people understands the criticisms of taking out a 50yr loan and executing it all the way to maturity. But he is trying to do SOMETHING.

And here's the reality for someone who is smart enough to learn finance. A 50yr loan is basically "interest only" for the first few years. If that works for your situation. You can always sell the home or refinance if your circumstances change later.

There will be other options, too. So this isn't much of a problem (other than neverTrumpers going into vapors over not terribly important things). HE, unlike all these moderates who sit around and wring their hands that nothing can be done, he is actually doing SOMETHING.

We should lower the interest rate on student loans to whatever the Fed rate is. Makes no sense for the Govt to charge up to 9% interest on money it can borrow from the fed for a point or three. It will help the young more than the a 50yr loan and it won't "cost" the taxpayer anything (other than the journal entries to write down the asset on the balance sheet).

BREAKING: Trump Housing Director Bill Pulte announces the 50-year mortgage will be just ONE “potential weapon in a WIDE arsenal of solutions that we are developing right now” for affordable home buying pic.twitter.com/tfwXLWXtTD

— in the dark newz (@dustinemills47) November 9, 2025

---

On this we agree. He is trying something, even if it starts the conversation. Something has to be done, the situation has changed, new methods are going to be needed.

Is a conventional mortgage with a 50 year term going to happen? Not, in the mainstream. But in a few locations like San Fran, Manhatten, Newport Beach, etc with a special interest rate (Japan actually started with a negative interest rate when they tried it), maybe those high end, limited acreage areas may work.

The thing Trump IS doing is that he is asking the industry, what can we do? NOW is the time to get the response, give feedback pro and con. THAT IS HOW THINGS GET DONE. Don't just ***** how stupid something is. Dave Ramsey rather than just browbeating those that ask, get your opinion in to the policy makers.

Going idealistic here, but... The thing I miss from my youth in Politics that the Kennedy's did bring to the table was BE PART OF THE SOLUTION. Don't just be a bystander. We need more of that spirit and attitude. Do the hard things, because they are hard.

Well, on this we agree.

UNITED STATES: 15 million more adults under 35 are now living with their parents compared to a decade ago, according to Fortune report.

— The Spectator Index (@spectatorindex) November 9, 2025

I still think we're overcomplicating this.

The housing market has thrived for a record-long time. After an incredible stretch of low interest rates and low inflation, reality finally hit folks in the face. The high (in recent terms) interest rates and higher inflation have paralyzed people and the industry. Many older sellers cannot afford to sell, and buyers can't afford to buy. It is the perfect storm. Something will give. Just a matter of when and how much.

Then throw in that more younger folks are choosing to live in cities. And not just that, look at the cities where most are choosing to live - the most expensive with the most expensive housing markets.

And younger folks are getting married much later. And even long term non-married relationships are less common. So more units are needed.

It's a brutal cycle, no denying that. But blaming boomers, school loans, property taxes, etc. misses the mark.

There are still attractive home buying options for folks in their 20s and 30s. In vast majority of cities, you can work in the city and find a nice starter home in a safe area with amenities within a 30 minute drive. Will you be walking distance to the best shopping, restaurants, and clubs? Of course not.

Can you do this in NY, Boston, SF, LA, DC? For the most part, no, but darn near everywhere else.

Finally, for those that blame the boomers for accumulating all of this wealth (as if that is a bad thing): Who is already starting to iherit that wealth and will continue to at an accelerated pace?