Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[gondrin]

Fuck McConnell. He's snuck an amendment into the CR to close the loophole allowing states to sell THC products. Rand Paul is holding out in order to question why this was added to BUDGET vote.

https://nypost.com/2025/11/10/us-new...govt-shutdown/

The big irony is that the Trump Administration could easily stop this nonsense by having the FDA reclassify THC based products as the same as alcohol. It would be regulated as such.

I also find it ironic that one senator from Kentucky is literally causing issues for the other.

- - - Updated - - -

I am putting this here because it could easily come to fruition.

Convicted Seditionist Stewart Rhodes is reforming his militia to basically "enforce the will of Trump" onto the people.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/co...5098761ad&ei=6

Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes announced he was relaunching the right-wing militia group in hopes that President Donald Trump would press them into duty.

Rhodes was released from prison earlier this year when Trump commuted his 18-year sentence for seditious conspiracy, and Media Matters reported that he was planning to reform his paramilitary organization to help enforce federal immigration law.

"Right now, under federal statutes, President Trump can call us up as the militia if he sees it necessary, especially for three purposes: to repel invasions, to suppress insurrections, and to execute the laws of the union, and right now, we see all three of those in play," Rhodes told the right-wing Gateway Pundit outlet.

"We have — we're facing an ongoing invasion of this country, it has not stopped. We're facing an insurrection by the left, and we're also facing a direct blocking and resistance against enforcing federal law — federal immigration laws, attacking ICE agents, you know, trying to ram them and run them off the road, throwing bricks to their windows. All of that is going on, and so under those three purposes, he can call up the militia."

"The militia is all of us, so the National Guard is part of the militia, which is why it's completely lawful for him to use the National Guard as he has, and he should do more of that, I think, across the country," Rhodes added.

Rhodes was convicted in 2023 for his role in organizing and carrying out the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, but he was among nearly 1,500 participants who Trump pardoned or commuted the sentences of shortly after returning to the White House.

"He could just say given the circumstances of an invasion, insurrection, and resistance against federal law being being enforced, I'm calling up the militia, ordering all the men to come together [in] every county, put the veterans in charge of training and organizing all the other men and just have them stand too and await his orders," Rhodes said.

"He can do that and I think he should do that, and so that's what I'll be advocating for from him. So from the bottom, from down the rank and file, we can let President Trump know that we're ready to serve, encourage him to do that, call us up as a militia, order us all to come together in our counties under his command, which gives you complete legal sanction to do what you're doing.

[Muzjhath]

I am putting this here because it could easily come to fruition.

Convicted Seditionist Stewart Rhodes is reforming his militia to basically "enforce the will of Trump" onto the people.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/co...5098761ad&ei=6

As I said in a different thread.
Those people have no truck with the legal order and would have no problems "arresting" popularly elected representatives who opposed them.

[Breccia]

Trump proposes 50-year mortgage.

"On what federal authority?"

The Dodd-Frank Act, kind of. His WH employees are allowed to tell Congress "this is a good idea, you should totally vote for it" but Congress still needs to vote for it. This could take a year.

It would then require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to sign on. Trump has already publicly suggested selling those off, at which point they would follow market rules, which do not suggest a benefit for this, as shown by "nobody has ever lobbied for these".

Not even FOX News is buying it *ding*

A 50-year mortgage is likely being floated as a way to bring housing payments down, meaning, this is Trump admitting he has made housing prices too high. Mathematically, it's trading a short-term gain for a long-term loss, because you're not paying your loan down as quickly, therefore owing more longer.

Fox Business Network host Charles Payne criticized President Trump’s 50-year mortgage proposal, saying that’s “not the way” to address affordability.

“I do not like this idea,” Payne said on Fox News’s “America’s Newsroom,” when asked about the plan.

He broke down how much a 50-year mortgage would hypothetically save homeowners each month, compared with a 30-year mortgage.

“It depends on how much the house costs,” Payne said, “but if you just took a 4 percent interest rate for a 30-year, it would be $2,300; for a 50-year, it would be $1,900, so you’re saving almost 500 bucks a month in terms of affordability.”

“But, by the time you finish paying this bad boy off, the 30-year, you pay $359,000 versus a 50-year, almost $700,000, right? So, it’s just a gargantuan difference just to make people feel better,” he said. “That’s not the way to do this, right? There are so many other ways.”

Let's run another example.

The median house price is $400,000 and the average 30-year rate is 6.3% annual rate at time of writing. Let's assume any one-time fees are the same in both and therefore irrelevant.

A 30-year mortgage would be $2473.71 per month, give or take.

A 50-year mortgage would be $2194.02 per month, give or take.

"Ah! So over $200 in savings a month! MAGA!"

Sort of. After 10 years, the first mortgage has $337,749 or so left on it, meaning you've paid off about $62,250. After 10 years, the second mortgage has $384,338 left on it, meaning you've paid off $15,662.

About one-quarter as much paid off, in the same time.

"Yes but you've saved $200 per month! That works out to..."

To $24,000. The first mortgage still wins.

"But...but you could invest that!"

First of all, I think the people taking a 50-year mortgage aren't investing the gap, but let's roll with it. Second of all, even if you invested it at 10% annual interest, every single month, which seems unlikely, but even if you could, that's $46,675.38 Adding that to $15,662 gives $62353.

In other words, if you invested every single penny you saved at a constant high rate, you would roughly break even. Meaning, not only would nobody do this, but nobody who tried would pull it off.

And it gets worse. Much worse.

First, most people don't buy their first house in their first job then never move until they retire. Anyone who moves will not get a good return on their investment.

Second of all, longer term mortgages currently have higher rates.

Then there is the question of the mortgage rate. The average rate on the 15-year fixed mortgage is currently 66 basis points lower than the rate on the 30-year fixed, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association. This would imply that the rate on the 50-year fixed would be higher. It all depends on investor demand for the product.

“There is not currently a secondary market for such loans, nor would a robust secondary market be cultivated any time soon,” said Matthew Graham, chief operating officer at Mortgage News Daily. “That means that, in addition to the extremely low amount of principal paid down in earlier years of the loan, the interest rates would also be quite a bit higher than 30-year loans — a double whammy for those with any hope of building equity.”

Let's pretend "quite a bit higher" turns out to be one-half of one percent. Rerun the previous problem. After ten years, the 30 year is unchanged, duh, but the 50 year becomes...oh dear, $2344.92 a month. That savings is now $130/month not $200. The amount on the 50-year mortgage after 10 years is $386,603 and you have paid off even less. Even if you invested that $130 at 10% like last time, which is still unlikely, it would be $30339 and you've fallen behind the 30-year mortgage result by nearly twenty thousand dollars.

Everyone who does this will get further in debt, and will have a harder time getting out of it.

And, of course, the punch line. At the end of 30 years of paying $2473.71 a month, you've paid $890535.60 of which the bank gets about half a million dollars when the original $400,000 is taken off.

At the end of 50 years of paying $2344.92 a month, that's...oh dear...$1,406,952.

You've paid the bank a million dollars, twice as much, just to stay in debt twenty years longer.

This won't help most Americans, unless you intentionally cherry-pick numbers. Every cent you save, you lose it and more if you either sell your house, or stay in it and pay it off.

“This is not the best way to solve housing affordability. The administration would do better to reverse tariff-induced inflation, which is keeping the rates on existing mortgages high,” wrote Joel Berner, senior economist at Realtor.com in a release.

Just a reminder: last we checked, Trump's tariffs will cost the average American household $2400. In other words, yep, the higher of the two listed savings values from the 50-year mortgage, the one that is both unrealistic and would keep you in debt longer.

(coughs)

And, of course, here's the big point: Trump's proposal is based on people choosing to put themselves in debt, it is not government funded aid. Trump isn't helping people, he's hurting people and telling them to like it.

[s_bushido]

Also, SCOTUS declines case from Kim Davis. They were going to hear it but not anymore. A Christian cunt that has been married and divorced 4 times was butthurt she couldn't deny gay marriages in Kentucky..

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-c...42d8c4fb4962fd

Genuinely surprised by this. I wonder if the elections last Tuesday had anything to do with it. These people aren't idiots, and maybe they can see the writing on the wall for Trump and co.

[Rasulis]

On the same day as his ‘fat jab’ launch, Trump issued new reason to deny visas to foreigners: obesity

Some people completely lack self-awareness. Wonder what he sees when looks in the mirror.

[alach]

Oh, we already know what he sees...


Reality,

He suffers from extreme body dysmorphia.

[Rasulis]

Trump proposes 50-year mortgage.

"On what federal authority?"

The Dodd-Frank Act, kind of. His WH employees are allowed to tell Congress "this is a good idea, you should totally vote for it" but Congress still needs to vote for it. This could take a year.

It would then require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to sign on. Trump has already publicly suggested selling those off, at which point they would follow market rules, which do not suggest a benefit for this, as shown by "nobody has ever lobbied for these".

Not even FOX News is buying it *ding*

A 50-year mortgage is likely being floated as a way to bring housing payments down, meaning, this is Trump admitting he has made housing prices too high. Mathematically, it's trading a short-term gain for a long-term loss, because you're not paying your loan down as quickly, therefore owing more longer.



Let's run another example.

The median house price is $400,000 and the average 30-year rate is 6.3% annual rate at time of writing. Let's assume any one-time fees are the same in both and therefore irrelevant.

A 30-year mortgage would be $2473.71 per month, give or take.

A 50-year mortgage would be $2194.02 per month, give or take.

"Ah! So over $200 in savings a month! MAGA!"

Sort of. After 10 years, the first mortgage has $337,749 or so left on it, meaning you've paid off about $62,250. After 10 years, the second mortgage has $384,338 left on it, meaning you've paid off $15,662.

About one-quarter as much paid off, in the same time.

"Yes but you've saved $200 per month! That works out to..."

To $24,000. The first mortgage still wins.

"But...but you could invest that!"

First of all, I think the people taking a 50-year mortgage aren't investing the gap, but let's roll with it. Second of all, even if you invested it at 10% annual interest, every single month, which seems unlikely, but even if you could, that's $46,675.38 Adding that to $15,662 gives $62353.

In other words, if you invested every single penny you saved at a constant high rate, you would roughly break even. Meaning, not only would nobody do this, but nobody who tried would pull it off.

And it gets worse. Much worse.

First, most people don't buy their first house in their first job then never move until they retire. Anyone who moves will not get a good return on their investment.

Second of all, longer term mortgages currently have higher rates.



Let's pretend "quite a bit higher" turns out to be one-half of one percent. Rerun the previous problem. After ten years, the 30 year is unchanged, duh, but the 50 year becomes...oh dear, $2344.92 a month. That savings is now $130/month not $200. The amount on the 50-year mortgage after 10 years is $386,603 and you have paid off even less. Even if you invested that $130 at 10% like last time, which is still unlikely, it would be $30339 and you've fallen behind the 30-year mortgage result by nearly twenty thousand dollars.

Everyone who does this will get further in debt, and will have a harder time getting out of it.

And, of course, the punch line. At the end of 30 years of paying $2473.71 a month, you've paid $890535.60 of which the bank gets about half a million dollars when the original $400,000 is taken off.

At the end of 50 years of paying $2344.92 a month, that's...oh dear...$1,406,952.

You've paid the bank a million dollars, twice as much, just to stay in debt twenty years longer.

This won't help most Americans, unless you intentionally cherry-pick numbers. Every cent you save, you lose it and more if you either sell your house, or stay in it and pay it off.



Just a reminder: last we checked, Trump's tariffs will cost the average American household $2400. In other words, yep, the higher of the two listed savings values from the 50-year mortgage, the one that is both unrealistic and would keep you in debt longer.

(coughs)

And, of course, here's the big point: Trump's proposal is based on people choosing to put themselves in debt, it is not government funded aid. Trump isn't helping people, he's hurting people and telling them to like it.

Another factor to consider. How many people stay for the full duration of their mortgage? Most probably live in their homes for 10 to 12 years. Since mortgage interests are front loaded, for the first ten years homeowners are basically only paying interest and making miniscule dent in the mortgage debt.

[Muzjhath]

Genuinely surprised by this. I wonder if the elections last Tuesday had anything to do with it. These people aren't idiots, and maybe they can see the writing on the wall for Trump and co.

Probably because the case is weak.
They'll now look for a better one

[Nymrohd]

Another factor to consider. How many people stay for the full duration of their mortgage? Most probably live in their homes for 10 to 12 years. Since mortgage interests are front loaded, for the first ten years homeowners are basically only paying interest and making miniscule dent in the mortgage debt.

I'd think the main issue would be . . . how many people would actually survive through a 50 year mortgage.

[Flarelaine]

I'd think the main issue would be . . . how many people would actually survive through a 50 year mortgage.

That does not matter much. The mortgage is on the property so whoever ends up with that ends up with both.

[Gabriel]

That does not matter much. The mortgage is on the property so whoever ends up with that ends up with both.

Is that how it is in the US? You can't inherit debts here in Finland at least.

[Nymrohd]

That does not matter much. The mortgage is on the property so whoever ends up with that ends up with both.

Legally, it doesn't matter, that's certain. But when I as a private citizen, not a developer, am going to undertake a mortgage it is with the assumption that at some point I will be done with it and own the asset, no? Only with a 50 year one, that is an assumption that does not hold.

- - - Updated - - -

Is that how it is in the US? You can't inherit debts here in Finland at least.

It used to be this way in Greece, only this year was the law changed so that only the estate is liable for any debt, probably because since 2009 most estates are left with no one willing to inherit them and the state simply cannot deal with the massive mess anymore. And I'd still be very cautious about accepting an inheritance because there are always significant risks.

[Flarelaine]

Is that how it is in the US? You can't inherit debts here in Finland at least.

I cannot answer for every jurisdiction but the very concept of mortgage is a way for the bank calling "dibs" on the property. That's what makes it mort, dead for market purposes. As for the other part... again, not universal, but in Hungary, if you would inherit both wealth and debt (such as real estate with mortgage on it), you cannot pick and choose, it's both or none. And you may as well be better renouncing both - mortgage payments got badly out of hand around the financial crisis and grew well in excess of property values.

- - - Updated - - -

Legally, it doesn't matter, that's certain. But when I as a private citizen, not a developer, am going to undertake a mortgage it is with the assumption that at some point I will be done with it and own the asset, no? Only with a 50 year one, that is an assumption that does not hold.

Conceptually, you might make the decision when just starting a family. But as others have written, it makes very little sense financially anyway.

[Combatbutler]

Legally, it doesn't matter, that's certain. But when I as a private citizen, not a developer, am going to undertake a mortgage it is with the assumption that at some point I will be done with it and own the asset, no? Only with a 50 year one, that is an assumption that does not hold.

I'd say it is a gamble of the mortage costs being cheaper in comparisson to rent and the next generation might profit from it.

[Breccia]

Another factor to consider. How many people stay for the full duration of their mortgage? Most probably live in their homes for 10 to 12 years. Since mortgage interests are front loaded, for the first ten years homeowners are basically only paying interest and making miniscule dent in the mortgage debt.

Indeed, that's why I went with 10 years for the example. The 50-year mortgage is a "plan" being pushed by listing the short-term advantages without listing the long-term penalties. 40 year mortgages exist now and are not that popular. Even Lending Tree tells you not to do it, listing a dozen altenatives. They also point out that, while 40 year mortgages exist now, some lenders don't do them at all. I see no reason why a lender who doesn't offer a 40 year mortgage would start offering a 50.

Is that how it is in the US? You can't inherit debts here in Finland at least.

I was under the impression that all debts are settled when the debtor dies, meaning yes you don't inherit the debt, but you also wouldn't inherit the house unless the deceased paid it off. Finland is a far smarter country than the USA, but I doubt they have laws that say "if the homeowner dies, the bank holding the mortgage gets screwed out of the money they're owed".

- - - Updated - - -

I'd say it is a gamble of the mortgage costs being cheaper in comparisson to rent and the next generation might profit from it.

It's a gamble, yes.

Comparing rent to a mortgage is difficult, there aren't a lot of apples-to-apples here, but I can tell you that in the USA at least, if a large proportion of the mortgage hasn't been paid off yet (around 80% last I looked) you have to get Private Mortgage Insurance, PMI, and you have to pay for it, not the bank. (The bank is responsible for their own insurance, see also the recession of 2008)

PMI varies by situation of course, but Credit Karma and put in a $400,000 house with no down payment (to match my earlier numbers) 30 year mortgage and medium credit score. The PMI was $633 per month (assuming 30 years, of course, the 50-year option is not listed, I state with evidence it would be higher). You never get that money back.

An extra $633/month really fucks those numbers I ran earlier. Also I'm not done. A quick Google search suggests the national median property taxes are 1%/year. Using the $400,000 house again, that's $333 per month.

In other words, the $15,662 you pay off in the first 10 years of a 50-year mortgage, you pay $11,592 which I haven't factored in yet. So...yeah. That's about $4,000 of gain in ten years. I legit think you'd be better off finding a cheaper apartment for ten years and building up savings.

By contrast, the 30-year mortgage has paid off $62,250 and, even taking off the $11,592, has well over ten times as much effective buildup.

I do not see the 50-year mortgage being a solution to paying rent, unless you find the house you like immediately and stay there for fifty years, which @Nymrohd and others have said, doesn't seem all that likely. It could be in some cases, but I don't see it as all-purpose.

[Draco-Onis]

That does not matter much. The mortgage is on the property so whoever ends up with that ends up with both.

The debt dies with the debtor and so does the asset, so you are basically paying rent to the bank to take the home later. The you will own nothing meme is no longer a meme it's the American motto.

[Endus]

I cannot answer for every jurisdiction but the very concept of mortgage is a way for the bank calling "dibs" on the property. That's what makes it mort, dead for market purposes. As for the other part... again, not universal, but in Hungary, if you would inherit both wealth and debt (such as real estate with mortgage on it), you cannot pick and choose, it's both or none. And you may as well be better renouncing both - mortgage payments got badly out of hand around the financial crisis and grew well in excess of property values.

It's probably more useful to look at the concept of equity in the property rather than the mortgage itself. If your house is worth $800k, and you've paid off $320k, the bank till "owns" $480k of the house. So if you die, unless you can buy out the bank's stake in the property (pay off the mortgage in full), you'll either need to work out a mortgage with them yourself (since the mortgage doesn't transfer to the new property owner, AFAIK), or you'll be forced to sell the property to get the money to pay off the bank's share (in which case, you'll get your $320k as well).

The bank's gonna get their money. But inheriting a house doesn't mean you're on the hook for mortgage payments automatically; putting the house up for sale is entirely reasonable and you aren't gonna owe more if the house takes a few months to sell; there are no mortgage payments that are being missed because the mortgage is an agreement between the bank and the prior homeowner, and that ended with that homeowner's death. Now it's about who owns what amount of equity in the property in question.

[Gabriel]

It's probably more useful to look at the concept of equity in the property rather than the mortgage itself. If your house is worth $800k, and you've paid off $320k, the bank till "owns" $480k of the house. So if you die, unless you can buy out the bank's stake in the property (pay off the mortgage in full), you'll either need to work out a mortgage with them yourself (since the mortgage doesn't transfer to the new property owner, AFAIK), or you'll be forced to sell the property to get the money to pay off the bank's share (in which case, you'll get your $320k as well).

The bank's gonna get their money. But inheriting a house doesn't mean you're on the hook for mortgage payments automatically; putting the house up for sale is entirely reasonable and you aren't gonna owe more if the house takes a few months to sell; there are no mortgage payments that are being missed because the mortgage is an agreement between the bank and the prior homeowner, and that ended with that homeowner's death. Now it's about who owns what amount of equity in the property in question.

Does the debt accrue interest for the bank during the interim period between the death of the previous owner and the inheritor selling it or taking a new mortgage to keep paying for it?

[Breccia]

Does the debt accrue interest for the bank during the interim period between the death of the previous owner and the inheritor selling it or taking a new mortgage to keep paying for it?

Yes. Like I said, Finland is smarter than us. They don't penalize someone for staying dead.

- - - Updated - - -

More on the 50 year mortgage from known conservative outlet TheHill:

Experts say the idea is unlikely to solve the affordability crisis

Short article, I guess, night everyone.

No, no, of course they go into detail and I'm not beating this dead whore. Some of this we already knew, but it does have some new figures. For the information I haven't posted yet, skip to the blue line.

Details remain sparse, but a longer-term loan option would likely mean lower monthly payments for homeowners — easing one of several affordability barriers that have pushed the typical age of first-time buyers to a record high.

However, a mortgage that stretches two decades beyond today’s 30-year norm would also come with major drawbacks, including significantly higher total interest costs and a slower path to building home equity.

Would it lower monthly payments?

Extending the length of a mortgage is meant to ease monthly payments and broaden access to homeownership. In theory, those savings could amount to a few hundred dollars each month, but that’s not guaranteed.

Because longer loans expose lenders to greater risk, they generally come with higher interest rates. That’s why 15-year mortgages are currently at 5.5 percent, compared with roughly 6.2 percent for 30-year loans.

If rates were the same on a 30-year and 50-year mortgage, a typical homebuyer putting 20 percent down could pay about $250 less each month with the longer loan — but would pay far more in total interest over time.

If 50-year rates were higher by a similar margin to the gap between 15- and 30-year loans, the monthly savings would shrink to around $60.

“A savings of $150 to $200 isn’t really fixing the problem,” Dan Frio, a mortgage adviser and host of “The Rate Update,” told NewsNation on Monday.

Monthly payment at today’s median existing home price of $415,200, assuming 20 percent down at current interest rates, according to Fannie Mae’s mortgage calculator. Calculation doesn’t include taxes and insurance.

30-year fixed mortgage (at 6.2 percent): $2,034 per month (principal and interest)
*50-year fixed mortgage (at 6.2 percent): $1,798 per month (principal and interest)

How much more interest would you be paying?

While a longer loan term would likely reduce monthly payments, stretching those payments over an extra two decades would mean paying significantly more in total interest — potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars extra.

“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 said in a statement.

Example: $350,000 loan at 6.2 percent:

30-Year Mortgage: monthly payment (principal + interest) of about $2,144, with roughly $422,000 in total interest
50-year mortgage: monthly payment (principal + interest) of about $1,894, with roughly $787,000 in total interest
Wood pointed out that paying down the loan over so much time could also mean building equity at an “incredibly slow pace.”

That isn’t ideal for several reasons. It means homeowners own less of their property for longer, reducing wealth gains and limiting flexibility to move or refinance. It also adds risk during downturns, making owners more likely to fall underwater if home values dip.

Would you ever own your home in your lifetime?

With the typical first-time homebuyer now 40, a 50-year mortgage would mean paying it off just in time for their 90th birthday — about 12 years older than the current U.S. life expectancy.

For that group, a 50-year mortgage doesn’t make much sense. But for younger buyers in their early 20s, the upside could be greater.

“They might see it as a way for them to get in before home prices go up later on in their lives,” Fairweather said.

And just because someone starts with a 50-year mortgage doesn’t mean they have to stay with it, she pointed out, adding that they could eventually refinance down to a 30-year loan.

Would a 50-year mortgage impact home prices?

A 50-year mortgage could boost demand, but if housing supply doesn’t rise to match, any monthly savings could be wiped out by rising home prices.

“This is not the best way to solve housing affordability,” Joel Berner, senior economist at Realtor.com, said in a statement.

Berner said the administration would be better off reversing “tariff-induced inflation,” which has kept mortgage rates elevated. He also emphasized the need to expand the housing supply by promoting homebuilding.

A recent Zillow estimate put the nation’s housing shortage at more than 4.7 million units as of 2023.

Even members of Trump’s party have voiced skepticism at the prospect of a 50-year mortgage.

“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,” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) wrote on X. “In debt forever, in debt for life!”

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said the idea “seems like a recipe for default” in a social media post.

Yup.

The 50 year mortgage doesn't solves the problem, it just makes a different problem. Shaving off a few bucks a month, even if you get past PMI, is being undone by Trump's tax hikes anyhow. But rising house prices - say, those caused by Trump's inflation, Trump's tariffs on building material, Trump chasing off immigrants who work in construction, or just adding more demand without adding more supply - will eat those savings, and also, hurt everyone else using a traditional mortgage.

The only benefit is for Trump. He will see people swapping to a 50 year, say they love Trump, fail to build equity in 10/20 years after Trump has died, and blame people other than Trump or themselves for a mistake Trump let them make and they made it.

This is a scam.

[Rasulis]

That does not matter much. The mortgage is on the property so whoever ends up with that ends up with both.

You are referring to inheritance. Endus covered the answer already.

I was talking about when the owner sells the home. In the US, the interest rate on the loan is frontloaded. We stayed in our second home in San Diego for 22 years. Monthly payment was about $1,500ish. The first year, around 1,100ish of that $1,500 payment went to pay for the interest rate and not the loan balance. By year 20, it was the other way around. Around $1,200ish of that $1,500 payment went to the loan balance. That's assuming you don't refinance. When you refinance, you are basically getting a new loan, and everything reset.

The reality is that most homeowners in the US only stay in their house for around 10 years. With 50 years mortgage, your equity when you sell your house would be less because you will end up owing a lot more when compared to 30 years mortgage.

There are so many negatives to 50 years mortgage. If at all possible, especially when interest rate is low, get a 10 or 15 years mortgage. We had 15 years mortgage on our previous home in Mt. Laguna.