(11-13-2025, 11:53 AM)medaille Wrote: I disagree with the idea that it isn’t the banks job to ensure the customer is making a smart decision.  Housing is a necessity.  If there aren’t enough houses, people will just borrow whatever the banks will lend them, which is way too much money, and it drives the price up for everyone.  There is nothing in the system that punishes banks from overlending.  Banks will give children credit cards that trap them in debt.  If you can’t afford your house, the bank just takes it back and resells it to a new sucker that prefers to live inside a building.  If they do it too much, they just have the politicians they bribe to make the taxpayer pay for it.  They are actively incentivized to push debt onto people as fast and as large as possible.  If we ever want to get out of this cycle of everyone being in debt up to their eyeballs, there needs to be some mechanism that restricts banks from overlending.

The problem that happens when you make it harder to get a loan, is that you are making it so that only investors can buy houses and that will push it further towards gen Z+ never being able to afford a home.  There needs to be some mechanism that prevents investors from buying property that should be going to home owners.  I think the local governments all need to gathering data on how many homes of each type (single family, condo, apartment, rental homes, airBNB, etc.) are needed to support the community, and if the quantity is below the threshold, they need to inhibit investors from buying those homes.  I don’t know the best way of doing that, maybe you just tax them at a higher and higher rate until they drop out of the market and put that money into a fund to be used as the down payment for a first time homeowner, or invest in new housing development or something.

(11-13-2025, 10:00 PM)hogjowlsjohnny Wrote: Any instrument that makes more money results in more revenue for the government. The government doesn't protect it's citizens from economic predation; it encourages it! It's about money, not people.

(11-14-2025, 08:13 AM)mblack Wrote: It’s sad how this topic has ended up being about bad government instead of just stating the obvious… that idea being considered by Trump and his cronies (50 year mortgage loan term) is a bad idea for most Americans.

The main benefactors of this are the select few who are behind this agenda and the people enacting this and not the “people”. They are simply leveraging the power of the government to squeeze more money from the citizens and get richer.

This does not even deserve to be called government policy as it does very little to address and societal economic problems. It actually makes it worse by adding more risk and uncertainty (to an already laborious and long process) nor is it being requested by the broader community.

However there are people here either shifting the goal post, making all sorts of crazy assumptions, bringing up irrelevant and unrelated technicalities in an attempt to show how this MIGHT be a good idea or simply to further distract from the core issue.

(11-14-2025, 08:13 AM)mblack Wrote: It’s sad how this topic has ended up being about bad government instead of just stating the obvious… that idea being considered by Trump and his cronies (50 year mortgage loan term) is a bad idea for most Americans.

The main benefactors of this are the select few who are behind this agenda and the people enacting this and not the “people”. They are simply leveraging the power of the government to squeeze more money from the citizens and get richer.

This does not even deserve to be called government policy as it does very little to address and societal economic problems. It actually makes it worse by adding more risk and uncertainty (to an already laborious and long process) nor is it being requested by the broader community.

However there are people here either shifting the goal post, making all sorts of crazy assumptions, bringing up irrelevant and unrelated technicalities in an attempt to show how this MIGHT be a good idea or simply to further distract from the core issue.

(11-14-2025, 08:35 AM)StickierBuns Wrote: This ^

Its why I stopped posting in this thread, its gotten beyond ridiculous for the reasons you stated.

WATERBOY

I'd love to hear these thoughts in more detail.  It sounds to me like both of you make a bunch of wild assumptions based on the fact that Trump surfaced the idea.  mblack is right about one thing, it isn't a govt "policy".  lol  That was about the sum total of the information that came out of the post.  

The people making the crazy assumptions are the ones who act like this is Armageddon.  This is a possible idea being floated, that executed correctly could be a viable alternative in certain situations and for a certain segment of the population that could spur additional homes being built down the road. 

mblack or Sticky, please explain to me how people discussing how a 50-yr mortgage might actually be a good idea in certain situations distracts from the core issue when the title of the post was (OT: 50 year mortgages).   Because it really seems like you wanted to just state your opinion, smear the orange man for being stupid, and have everyone just agree with you.  I think that's a little closer to the real progression of this discussion. 

If you wanted to discuss why housing affordability has went beyond the means of the average American right now, there are some very obvious causal factors relating to migration and a green agenda that we could discuss, but since Sticky wanted to be able to discuss this is in the main forum, the task was to discuss the virtues and pitfalls of a proposed 50 yr loan.  I think that was done over the course of the post quite well.

Quote:mblack or Sticky, please explain to me how people discussing how a 50-yr mortgage might actually be a good idea in certain situations distracts from the core issue when the title of the post was (OT: 50 year mortgages).  Because it really seems like you wanted to just state your opinion, smear the orange man for being stupid, and have everyone just agree with you.  I think that's a little closer to the real progression of this discussion.

Quote:

• If you are in your youthful and productive years
  
• don't have significant debt
  
• have a decent income
  
• don't have mortgage insurance
  
• buy a house in a good area
  
• when the interest is low
  
• Ok paying only interest till refinance (since the idea behind the 50 year is that you have a lower payment) meaning you are OK giving money to the banks (their whole point in the first place)
  
• and the value of your house does not depreciate.
  
• refinance after x years 
  

Quote:

• MAY suggests a stronger possibility, while MIGHT indicates a weaker possibility or greater uncertainty. 
  
• Both are used to express possibility, but "may" implies a higher likelihood than "might"
  

(11-14-2025, 09:42 AM)StickierBuns Wrote: I'm not further addressing anything, lol. My thoughts and comments, with a link and quoting other's input I agree with, is all there in this thread. Like I said previously, this isn't a debatable topic. There's a right answer.

(11-14-2025, 08:13 AM)mblack Wrote: It’s sad how this topic has ended up being about bad government instead of just stating the obvious… that idea being considered by Trump and his cronies (50 year mortgage loan term) is a bad idea for most Americans.

The main benefactors of this are the select few who are behind this agenda and the people enacting this and not the “people”. They are simply leveraging the power of the government to squeeze more money from the citizens and get richer.

This does not even deserve to be called government policy as it does very little to address and societal economic problems. It actually makes it worse by adding more risk and uncertainty (to an already laborious and long process) nor is it being requested by the broader community.

However there are people here either shifting the goal post, making all sorts of crazy assumptions, bringing up irrelevant and unrelated technicalities in an attempt to show how this MIGHT be a good idea or simply to further distract from the core issue.