Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Totally Tunsie

(11,497 posts)
33. Take a good look at the graph you reference in your OP.
Tue Nov 11, 2025, 10:00 PM
Nov 11

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

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

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

Recommendations

1 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Who cares? n/t leftstreet Nov 11 #1
Very simple BeerBarrelPolka Nov 11 #2
50 year mortgages are like reverse mortgages. No one should use them unless absolutely necessary. But agree with post. Silent Type Nov 11 #3
This message was self-deleted by its author PeaceWave Nov 11 #4
Except sometimes folks have no choice. Silent Type Nov 11 #5
This message was self-deleted by its author PeaceWave Nov 11 #18
Yes,reverse M's tack on a lot of fees that eventually eat up all your equity, they are one of the worst bankster scams,. yaesu Nov 11 #7
This message was self-deleted by its author PeaceWave Nov 11 #11
Don't see any evidence majority of Dems embraced 40 yr mortgages uponit7771 Nov 11 #15
I never embraced 40 year mortgages pat_k Nov 11 #6
Is the mortgage schedule part and parcel of the Democratic platform? Torchlight Nov 11 #8
10 year difference. We don't have adequate renovation programs. The homes are too BIG. bucolic_frolic Nov 11 #9
This message was self-deleted by its author PeaceWave Nov 11 #10
I'm mainly just complaining about the bullshit self-aggrandizement of putting Trump on a sign with FDR AZJonnie Nov 11 #12
This message was self-deleted by its author PeaceWave Nov 11 #13
Link to majority Dems embracing 40 yr mortgages under Obama ...tia uponit7771 Nov 11 #14
We? demmiblue Nov 11 #16
40 year loans were not widely embraced under Obama. And Obama himself clearly did not embrace them. Wiz Imp Nov 11 #17
This message was self-deleted by its author PeaceWave Nov 11 #24
40 year mortgages were one element of a package of comprehensive reforms DBoon Nov 11 #26
Bullshit. Wiz Imp Nov 11 #29
The way we do it is to propose a national credit union that will make SIMPLE INTEREST home loans Volaris Nov 11 #19
40+ year mortgages are SMART in the right market conditions... WarGamer Nov 11 #20
This message was self-deleted by its author PeaceWave Nov 11 #21
Lower payments doesn't mean more affordable Happy Hoosier Nov 12 #36
It's a quesiton of affordability. So either fix wages or fix real property prices. flvegan Nov 11 #22
This message was self-deleted by its author PeaceWave Nov 11 #23
I have no problem with 40 or 50 yr mortgages ... PBC_Democrat Nov 11 #25
I hated the idea of a 40 yr mortgage then Sailingdiver Nov 11 #27
Yes, a 50 year mortgage and the amount of interest paid over that period is insane. CentralMass Nov 11 #28
You left out some critical facts: spooky3 Nov 11 #30
I didn't know that I or we embraced 40 year loans Renew Deal Nov 11 #31
The average voter doesn't know either newdeal2 Nov 12 #35
But is there a universal problem or solution JT45242 Nov 11 #32
This message was self-deleted by its author PeaceWave Nov 11 #34
Take a good look at the graph you reference in your OP. Totally Tunsie Nov 11 #33
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»This message was self-del...»Reply #33