DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus White House officials unhappy about 50-year mortgage idea released by top housing official, sources say

A proposal for a 50-year mortgage wasn't fully vetted by top Trump administration officials and wasn't ready to be made public, sources told CBS News.

Over the weekend, top federal housing official Bill Pulte floated the idea with President Trump, who then approved a Truth Social post.

Some Trump officials this week vented their frustration with Pulte over the move. One source said Mr. Trump was lukewarm about the suggestion but announced it "to get Pulte to shut up about it."

Another source disputed the characterization of the president as tepid about the mortgage proposal, however, and said 40-year and 50-year mortgages had been discussed by Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, National Economic Council director Kevin Hassett and others in the administration.

Three sources said the Trump administration has been working on other ideas to promote affordability for Americans, including strategies to alleviate the housing crunch.

The internal discussions on the longer-term loans were casual, and no final decisions had been made, the sources said.

The 50-year mortgage idea came about when Pulte spoke to the president at Mar-a-Lago over the weekend, two of the sources said. Politico reported earlier that White House officials were upset with Pulte, the head of the independent Federal Housing Finance Agency. The FHFA regulates Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the 11 Federal Home Loan Banks, which are tasked with providing liquidity to member institutions for home financing and community investment.

After Pulte presented the suggestion, a sign was posted to Mr. Trump's Truth account with a banner at the top reading "Great American Presidents" over the portraits of two presidents side by side, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Trump himself. The words "30-year mortgage" appear over Roosevelt, while "50-year mortgage" appears over Trump.

Mr. Trump approved the Truth Social post, and it went up at 1:10 p.m. Saturday. About half an hour later, Pulte shared Mr. Trump's post on X and added that "we are indeed working on The 50 year Mortgage — a complete game changer." He also called it a "potential weapon in a WIDE arsenal of solutions that we are developing right now."

No other details about the proposal have been released.

Pulte didn't immediately comment.

White House spokesman Davis Ingle said the president is committed to making home ownership easier by eliminating unnecessary red tape, increasing supply, and lowering costs. "The White House and the entire Trump administration are appreciative of Mr. Pulte's efforts, and everyone is working together to implement the President's policies," Ingle said. The president defended the 50-year mortgage idea in an interview Monday night with Fox News' "The Ingraham Angle."

"All it means is you pay less per month.You pay it over a longer period of time. It's not like a big factor," Mr. Trump said. "It might help a little bit."

Analysts are still examining whether a 50-year mortgage would make homes more affordable for Americans. Some point out that while borrowers might pay a little less in monthly principal and interest – because the loan's duration is 20 years longer – the total cost for them would be much higher.

"The total interest paid over the life of the loan would be staggering, since even with a low rate, you're looking at 50 years' worth of interest," NerdWallet lending expert Kate Wood told CBS News earlier this week in an email.

At this point, typical homeowners spend 39% of their income on housing, well above the 30% affordability threshold recommended by financial experts, according to Redfin. Mortgage rates have eased this year but are still above 6%, about twice the pandemic-era lows. Home prices averaged $410,800 in the second quarter, about 25% higher than in early 2020, according to Federal Reserve data.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/50-year-mortgage-trump-pulte/



I suppose if it wasn't ready to be made public they should have informed trump before he posted it on Truth Social. But as per usual they just blamed it on someone else.

It is a laughable stupid idea.

It is essentially an interest only loan payment scheme.

The rich (banks) can get richer. make perfect sense to trump

Remember that old song, 16 Tons!

Well, "I owe my soul to the company store"

Not really.

If it gets people in to a single family dwelling, they still build equity in that property. There are ways to increase equity by throwing $500 here, $500 there towards the principle.

Few people stay in a home for 50 years. I think this is a good way to bring more people in to the housing market because in the end, people want to know what their monthly payments are going to look like. Unlike car payments that now stretch out 60 or more months, a home is generally going to gain value where a car doesn't. After 5-6 years it is near junk value.

This allows young people the ability to build equity for 10 years or more. One also assumes they will start to make more money as they gain experience on the job, get raises/promotions etc. Now they can buy up in to a nicer home or pay that one down quicker by making extra payments every year..

Sure, if a person is looking to stay in the place for 50 years making the minimum payments over the life of the loan, that is a loser mentality/strategy. At that point you are probably going to be 75-80 years old when you make that last payment to the bank.

Good luck with that.

It also makes every house more expensive, because it gives people more buying power. The only people who profit are those that are selling homes, but not buying a new one (e.g., people selling off their parents homes, or developers making new homes).

I understand what you're saying, and it's not that I disagree... I just think that it's pretty pathetic that this is the best idea that we could come up with. Yes, they'd be building equity, but EXTREMELY slowly while giving lenders a LOT more in interest payments. I don't see this much differently than the healthcare debate. Normal folks' wallets are getting killed, and instead of actually getting to the root cause and addressing it... we just find ways for normal folks to pay out more money.

As little and as feeble an effort as this is, it's infinitely more than what democrats have put out there as a solution. It's just just kinda depressing that this is what passes for a fix to such a widespread problem these days.

They wouldn't have put it out there as a solution because it's not a solution to anything but even more increased debt.

Rule number 1 in life.

Do not pay interest unless you have to.

I get all the arguments, but principal on a home loan is rarely ever lost, and it provides financial leverage. I paid off my wife's student loans and dropped interest by 2/3rd on a refinance because it was the correct thing to do.

I have heard the rationale that you don't want to pay your home down sooner, because of the tax write off. Another BS argument.

If things go to according to plan, I will retire without a house payment.

Think about what that means.

And yes, the value of my house has doubled in the past 9 years. Talk about a return on investment!

I agree that a home is a good investment. But not as good as some make it seem.

If you add in the cost of home owners insurance verses the cost of renters insurance over a lifetime that's a huge expense. And the higher the value of your home the higher those premiums become.

Then there are property taxes over a lifetime. Once again the higher the value of your home the higher those taxes become.

Then there is the maintenance involved with owning home over a lifetime. Things such as a roof, HVAC, electrical and plumbing costs really add up over time. Not to mention yard maintenance and other smaller expenses.

Between all of those expenses along with what you pay in interest over all of those years, while the value of your home may have doubled, when you deduct all of those expenses your return on total investment did not.

I still think it is a good investment and to some extent I suppose you could consider those expenses somewhat of a savings account but in real world terms you're not making out as well as some make it seem.

The problem with a 50 year mortgage is the older your home becomes the more expensive all of those costs become.

It doesn't have to be as I explained.

Look, I don't kow what some of you want. We want to see young people being able to get in to a single dwelling home.

You can't force prices down. You can't set a price on building materials and labor unless you are a communist.

As I said, if people buy in to a 50 year and plan to pay it off over 50 years, they are stupid. They need to pay more when they can.

My wife and I never paid off a house we lived in for almost 40 years. We pulled some equity to do other things with that money. We still tonned out when we sold it 4-5 years ago.

We never needed a big house in old age. We didn't want to own crap. Too many associated costs with a home that don't go away if you "own" it outright. Property taxes don't go away. Insurance doesn't go away. You still need to cut grass, paint the place, fix a roof or a dock and deck. Maintenance can be endless unless you want to live in the crappy house on the block.

We did what we planned 40 years ago....move in to a nice apartment complex. It's gated, the maintenance is covered down to changing light bulbs if you want. Yes, we still have some insurance costs, but just the property minimum on liability costs and some riders we carry on several paintings and items of jewelry with high appraisal values, but it's nothing like insurance in case you home burns to the ground in addition to the items mentioned.

For us it works. We have zero financial stress because we used our home as a financial tool, not simply an ends to owning a home.

Homes are hard to give away once you die. You can gift cash before hand. You can give away things that probate won't even know about.

Die broke. Just don't be broke long before you do.

The tangent is over. Again, what do you propose? I am open to a better solution.

I propose that what happened once will happen yet again because people never learn their lesson. It already happened in 2007. The housing bubble will burst. Many regulations were put in place to keep it from happening again but most of those have been repealed. I understand that you live in "your reality" and that's great. You seem to think your income and your life is typical. It's actually not and especially now. The average first time home buyer is now almost 40 years old.

I understand how people that live in "gated communities" who grew up at a time when financial upward mobility was much easier to achieve think the way you do. I'm not that much younger than yourself and I'm fully aware of the way things were "back then". But here is the reality that exists today. College students have massive debt when they graduate. They're far more behind the 8 ball than we ever were. How much student debt did you have and how much did college cost when you went to school?

And I know people say they should get a trade job instead of college. They keep talking about "You can make 100k a year!" But what they're talking about are union jobs which are far more rare these days and even at that they would almost have to live at work to ever make that. You know, unions. Which those on the right hate, try to break up and hope will end.

Let's be factual here. The average skilled trade job pays $54,604. An average "Trade Worker" earns approximately $21.17 per hour, while specific jobs like electricians and plumbers can earn over $60,000 annually, according to recent data.

The average home price is about 400k. All you are really proposing is that people who really can't afford homes buy them anyway. That they become "house poor". Where they can barely pay for their homes and not afford to live otherwise. In the end all that will be accomplished is higher foreclosures rates and increased bankruptcies.

You may has well have opened your post with "Well back in my day". It's not back in our day anymore and the average young person doesn't have the wage to cost ratio in terms of affording a home that we did. Nobody making 60k a year can afford a 400k home's mortgage payment.


Maybe that's your objective. My objective is to see young people being able to afford a single dwelling home. And $200 less a month payment on a mortgage costing well over 2k a month doesn't address that.

I guess the answer is drab, gray block multiple housing units for all.

The bubble in the past was created during the Clinton administration that required banks to ease up on lending standards and thousands by some large multiple we able to get loans that normally they would have never qualified.

No, we can't start that again, and don't think we will.

People are still going to have to have a good job and a stable income, so good jobs is the key, and the President is working on that as more and more companies are building plants here.

The average price for homes isn't what all homes cost. I agree, someone making 50K has no business buying a 400K home. How about a 200K home. Then they can.

One other factor, the amount of down payment reduces the size of the loan. I don't think people are as serious about saving and sacrifice for a few years to put $40-50K down.

"Building plants here"? What will those jobs pay?

Sure, you can buy a home but what kind of home and in what kind of neighborhood?

In most neighborhoods where home prices are 200k and below those homes will not gain a lot in value. The investment return is much lower. The school systems are bad and usually crime rates are high. Unless of course you want to move to the middle of BFE. I don't know about you but most people want to at least be somewhat close to shopping and a hospital.

Man, you glossed over and ignored almost every point I made.

To buy a ($400,000) house, you'll need between ($40,000) and ($80,000) for a down payment (10–20%) and a gross annual income of approximately ($90,000) to ($110,000)

I don't think those plant jobs are going to pay that much.

Stretching a $400,000 loan from 30 years to 50 years would lower your monthly payment by approximately $250 to $293

As of now on a $400,000, 30-year mortgage, the principal & interest payment at current rates (around 6.1% - 6.2%) is approximately
$2,400 to $2,450 per month, but this excludes taxes, insurance, and PMI, with rates varying by credit score (e.g., $2,459 for good credit vs. $2,797 for lower credit)

Now add your taxes and insurance.

How many more actual home buyers do you think would qualify if the payments decreased by less than 300 dollars a month?

Now remember 400k is the "average" cost of a home. It's not a top end home. The area I live in still has a lot of new homes being built. As of now a very basic stick home with three bedrooms on a very small lot with very little yard is selling for just under 500k.


While I understand why you would try to use a gotchya line but let me ask you this.

On a 400k home comprehensive homeowners insurance will cost you about 3000 at a minimum. Property taxes are a lot more complicated because the percentage varies so widely. They can range from around 3k to 10k a year.

Even on the low end you just added $250 a month for property taxes and another $250 a month for insurance. That makes your total monthly expenditure at a minimum to own an "average home" at about $3000 a month.

Just how many more people do you think will be able to purchase an "average home" if you reduce that to $2700 a month?

I don't know what the solution is but what you're proposing certainly isn't.

But yeah, I mean they could buy a really crappy home in a bad neighborhood instead I suppose. You see, I'm basing things on the average and not the substandard.

I am well aware of the numbers, you don't need to tell me things I already know.

What will new jobs pay? Nobody knows but the going rate for a forklift driver here in town starts at $20 with a $4 bump after 90 days.

Every job in the plant isn't on the level of a forklift driver. you have everything from shop supervisors, inventory clerks to plant managers...engineering, programmers, safety.

I see the problem here, you are basing everything on the bottom level person. I have news for you, the bottom level person at any job during any era you want wasn't going to live under the best of circumstances.

I am sorry, but the barista at starbucks, since they have been in the news, isn't going to be able to afford a $400K home anytime soon.

To be even more blunt, why should they? Do they really bring any value to society? Cool, they can make a capacapafrapafrapamocha swirl coffee. So what. I can pour a coffee at the 7-11 and save about $9. And the 7-11 has all sorts of fancy additives if that is what you want, at no extra charge!

Look, somebody is always going to be at the bottom of the wage scale unless the communists take hold. Then we are all broke. There is no way to get around that. My advice is to start making plans when you are about 15 years old to make sure that doesn't happen.

Now that brings on a whole lot of other discussion I won't bother getting in to here. It's been discussed.

You remember....you could buy a 36 pack of chicken wings for under $2. You could eat for 3 days...I did in college. You could put $5 in the tank and drive around for days. The thing is we didn't start with much in the pocket after payday and had very little before payday. LOL...I remember being pissed when a movie ticket went up to $3.50 a ticket.

Just ranting here, not really on topic. Just saying we are all trying to get through this thing called life. Money doesn't cancel problems and worries, it just changes some of the worries around. Just different problems.

How you possibly arrived at your destination is hilarious.


The income I used was the "average skilled trades job". Not the top or the bottom. Not at the beginning of their career or at the end of their career but an average wage encompassing everyone in the trades.

Does that sound even remotely like a barista at Starbucks or a job at McDonald's to you?? Come on man stay on the page.

I used the average purchase price of a home. Not the top and not the bottom.

You keep dancing around that by saying things like saying "I can pour my own coffee".

In case you missed it, in the 1960's and 1970's the pay of an average skilled trade job would pay for a home at the average purchase price. That's no longer close to being true anymore. Students weren't graduating from college with 60k to 100k in debt which makes it much harder for them to purchase a home. It makes the mortgage payments even more difficult much less saving that 20% down for young people that have established little credit.

It's okay to admit that the economy has taken it's toll on average Americans. It really won't hurt as much as you think it will.

It's okay to admit that things aren't like they were "back in our day".

And BTW.......


While it's true I worked a little overtime, back when I first worked full time I was making $2.50 an hour at a nursery. Sure I worked 50 hours a week but I rented a furnished cabin for $50 a week and my car payment was $77 a month. It wasn't the lap of luxury but it was just fine for a kid. I made it just fine. But they can't do that on minimum wage today.

Maybe it would help if I told you I don't blame this on Republicans. Both parties have held power back and forth during the decades since the 1970's. Neither party has done much of anything to fix it. One of the biggest factors prolonging this situation is every time a politician comes along trying to fix it people just sit back and scream they're a communist. Just like they did with FDR.

Just one more thing I'd like to add here. The average age of first time home buyer in 1980 was 29 years old. The average age of first time home buyers in 2025 is 40 years old. Are you really trying to say cutting the cost of a combined payment, insurance and taxes on a home from 3k a month to 2.7k a month by extending your debt over 20 more years is how to change that?

The problem runs much deeper than that and my hope is some of the facts I have presented will help you to realize that.

Which is how come the economy crashed when Bush was president???? Good grief just another partisan hack that can only see right.