Trump Announces Stimulus | $2,000 Checks & 50-Year Mortgages

Donald Trump just announced $2,000

stimulus checks to be paid from tariff

revenues. He's also in the last 48 hours

had his housing director talk about

introducing the 50-year mortgage. We're

going to talk about both of these as

they're both a form of sort of support

for the American consumer

in this video. So, let's get into it.

First things first, the Donald Trump

takes the truth social. We've seen him

do this before. He's done this one or

two times before where he says, "Wow,

we're going to make or we are making so

much revenue from tariffs that we're

going to provide some form of dividend

to the American consumer." Now, we

haven't heard how much yet. We know this

has been on Donald Trump's radar, but

we've never actually seen a number from

him or a time frame. And right now, that

number, Donald Trump said, is $2,000 to

Americans except for highincome earners.

So, let's assume if we've got uh if we

don't include children here, um we just

look at adults for a moment. That's

about 150 million American workers. Take

out higher income workers. And hey,

we're going to have somewhere around

140ish 130ish million people qualifying

for these. So, we're going to be looking

at close to 260 to $300 billion of an

expense if we send those $2,000 checks

out uh to everyone. Now, when would how

does that sort of reconcile with tariff

revenue now? Great. So far, we've only

collected about $90 billion. So, we're

not close to that yet. We'd actually

have to uh spend a little bit more uh or

or collect a little bit more or wait a

little longer. But, I don't think Donald

Trump has the luxury of waiting. The

problem with waiting is Donald Trump is

now up against the Supreme Court

evaluating whether or not his tariffs

are are even reasonably legal uh in the

United States. And the risk there is

that if those tariffs Oh, hello. Uh if

those tariffs, the AIPA tariffs are

declared illegal, then obviously you're

not going to have this annualized

potentially $250 to $3300 billion of

revenue, which you could then use to

spend on either American dividend

checks, like stimulus checks, or

investing in the American Dome or

whatever other projects Donald Trump

wants to invest in. you could really not

pick so many different things without

the country going into debt, especially

since tariff revenue was always pitched

as something that Trump would use to pay

down the national debt. This would

instead just distribute essentially

tariff revenue, which in part is coming

from higher prices that we're paying

anyway. And that sort of creates a

little bit of a challenge with what

Donald Trump says in his post because he

says, "Oh, we're so rich there's no

inflation." But we all know the cost of

living over the last 5 years has

skyrocketed. The problem is that

increasing has not stopped, right? We're

still on a trajectory of increasing and

above 2% inflation. And I hate to say

it, but tariffs are probably

contributing another probably between.5

to a full 1% towards inflation. Uh, and

so it's not helping, in other words,

that Donald Trump's tariffs are uh

inflationary. Now, one thing to know uh

is that Donald Trump's tariffs right now

are are being disputed as potentially

illegal. The AIPA tariffs are a big deal

be not because Donald Trump doesn't have

another potential section that he could

use. In fact, Donald Trump has plenty of

other potential sections that he could

use. If I look at uh a little list I

wrote here, if Donald Trump's AIPA

tariffs are ruled illegal, then Donald

Trump's other options might be to use

section 338 for retaliatory tariffs. He

could use section 232 for quotas on

national security, section 122 for

temporary tariffs, section 2011 for

protectionary tariffs, so you know

protectionist measures, section 301 for

unfair trade practices. uh and there are

other clauses he could utilize such as

um anti-dumping clauses to uh basically

tariff or fine countries like China. The

issue with all of this is the Supreme

Court is already aware of the potential

that Donald Trump might want to use one

of these other categories. And if you

use one of these other categories, the

the Supreme Court might decide, you know

what, we're just going to rule all of

these potential tariffs illegal without

an act of Congress, not just AIPA

tariffs. So, there is this potential

that Trump wants to rush ter these these

stimulus checks out before the Supreme

Court rules because the Supreme Court

might rug pull him and then he could

say, "Oh, but I already spent the money.

Please don't make me pay it back." So,

how would that function? All right.

First of all, the uh ruling on the AIPA

tariffs I is not expected soon. The way

the Supreme Court operates uh is that

you're going to get uh a hearing usually

around November, which is what we're

seeing now. And then it'll take about 4

to 6 months for the Supreme Court to

actually deliberate on all the different

cases, put together their opinions,

minority and majority opinions, uh and

then actually reveal that. Usually the

reveal of these decisions is somewhere

between February and May which means

there is a potential Donald Trump pushes

for some form of stimulus dividend if

you will or stimulus check before that

February to May period when the Supreme

Court rules. That way he could say I

already spent the money. I I can't just

like get that money back from the

American people. Supreme Court are you

telling me I should tell all Americans

that they now have to send their

stimulus check back because of you? It's

kind of a, you know, he's trying to play

for 4D chess here. We know exactly what

he's doing, but it makes sense what he's

doing. I don't know that he'll be able

to pull it off. And so, what will

actually end up happening is the country

will just go into more debt rather than

actually paying off debt, which is

pretty typical for a politician. I mean,

frankly, we have seen stimulus checks

weaponized in almost every election

before. Gavin Newsome had stimulus

relief checks or sorry inflation relief

stimulus checks uh back when he was in

not only his recall election but in his

reelection we have seen uh Biden

promised checks in order to win against

Donald Trump which Donald Trump of

course issued $600 checks. Biden said he

was going to top him off to uh $2,000

which he did with then a $1,400 stimulus

check. Uh, in fact, after Donald Trump

lost, he was so frustrated that at one

point he actually threatened holding up

those $600 stimulus checks, and that

made for a pretty dramatic uh, holiday

season. Uh, but anyway, typically when

we look at it in, you know, stimulus

checks, I I think we're all relatively

convinced that they are inflationary at

this point, but people have been

suffering so much that Americans would

just absolutely love a little bit of

extra relief and a little bit of help.

Right now, unfortunately, it's

politicians policies that tend to just

make things worse and not better. And

that's true on both sides. They all

promise to pay down debt and cut

spending and then they increase spending

and increase the debt. We always get the

opposite. That's always how it is. Uh

but whatever, you know, they got they do

whatever they do to to win elections.

And so, we're just going to look at it

and go, listen, this is what's being

said. Uh and I think there is a

strategic opportunity for Donald Trump

to do this uh before the Supreme Court

makes a ruling which would be before

that February to May range. So maybe

it's like a January uh you know dividend

or something. Uh there is also a

possibility though that he chooses to

wait until midterms. If he chooses to

wait until midterms that's a strategic

opportunity for him to you know try to

win the elections uh and and take remain

retain control of Congress. The issue

with this is it might be too little too

late. And if there's too much

frustration and Democrats end up

sweeping, then they've just never

happened. So, I think you don't really

want to see these checks uh conditioned

upon, certainly not conditioned upon the

election because then they're definitely

not going to happen if Democrats uh win

too many seats. I could see Trump doing

that. Like, I'll do $2,000 if you vote

for Republicans. I could see him doing

that. Sort of like buying it uh the

election, which again, politicians on

both sides have done before. could see

him doing that. That would push the

checks probably closer to September uh

to make sure there's time for them to

release. But in 2026, there's actually a

good shot of Donald Trump doing this

here because a he wants to remain

popular. Every time we get dips in

popularity or voter approval, we see

these sort of ideas come out. Oh, the

stock market's at record high. Great.

That helps people who already have

wealth, but what about the people who

don't? Okay, how about the 50-year

mortgage? Or how about, you know, a

stimulus check? Okay. So, a lot of

people are saying, Kevin, you know, what

do you think about the 50-year mortgage?

Like, you know, this this like on one

hand, it's an opportunity for for people

to get into the door, you know, which

now the Trump administration is saying

that they're actively considering the

50-year mortgage. Look, the 50-year

mortgage reduces your monthly payment

upfront, obviously. So, on a monthly

basis, you're paying less, and that's

because you're paying more interest over

the life of the loan. Uh, and on every

one of those initial checks, you're

paying way less principal down. It's

almost initially like an interestonly

loan. It's not great. Now,

when it comes to are they good or bad?

Well, it's a choice, right? You don't

have to choose a 50-year mortgage, but

what will happen is a lot of people will

use a 50-year mortgage to get their foot

in the door of owning real estate. Uh,

and that's where as a real estate

professional, I always say what you buy

matters more than how you buy it. So,

for example, if let's say you buy this

hut over here and that hut is worth

$600,000

and you buy it for $500,000,

I don't really care if you buy it with a

100-year mortgage or a 15-year mortgage

because your equity might shoot up by

$100,000. Let's say maybe it needs

$10,000 of painting carpet, right?

Right? You're up $90,000. That

difference, that's buying a wedge deal.

That's what I preach on the channel,

right? Like it doesn't matter really how

you finance it. It matters that you're

getting a good deal. The risk is that a

lot of people will utilize this for new

construction homes, which are typically

slightly above market value. One of the

reasons I always say new construction

homes sell for slightly above market

value is because in new construction

neighborhoods, builders are incentivized

to never let the price go down. The

reason they're incentivized to never let

the price go down is because if price

goes down, it makes it impossible for

them to sell the next building basically

or or you know the next same floor plan

in a further phase. So think about this.

If you've got you know homes selling for

$400,000 in phase one and in phase two

they're selling for $390,000, people are

going to go, "Oh, damn. Well, I'll just

not buy. I'll just wait until phase 5

cuz then they'll be 350." You know, so

builders are incentivized to go, "No,

no, no. We need the price to keep going

up." So what do they do? Well, then they

do interest rate buy downs. They'll do

permanent buy downs to 3%. A 50-year

mortgage. They'll do an intro teaser

rate as low as 0.95, which is 1%. Very

similar to the stuff we saw in 2008,

except now you have to actually qualify

for the full payment rather than just

the teaser rate. In 2008, you only had

or 2005 and 6, which led to it, you only

had to qualify for the teaser portion,

which was just insane. This is how

unqualified people were getting into

massive, massive debt. Now I personally

right now I'm I'm very grateful because

I'm debtree uh you know zero personal

debt margin lines, credit lines,

mortgages, nothing. Uh which is a very

big shift from where I usually stand.

And the reason I bring it up is because

one of the big issues I think exists

today is you could find a really good

deal on a property, but if you saddle

yourself with too much debt or high

interest rate debt, like some of these

7% loans we're seeing, well, and now

you're creating a really big hurdle for

you to try to go make more money

somewhere else. And I think at some of

these high rates, it's still too risky

to take on debt. So, I'm not the biggest

fan of rates at these levels. So, that

is a risk and it does put more pain on

really finding a great deal. So, this is

where a 50-year mortgage will be nice as

inflation eventually cools. I I still

think by 2032, rates will be even lower

than they've ever been in the past. Uh

and and then the 50-year mortgage will

be great, but guess who's really going

to benefit? You know, if rates start

coming down, there's a potential we've

gone through a jobless recession. And

the people who benefit, once again, are

wealthier people who then say, "Oh,

well, I have these properties here that

I'm renting out to, you know, families

who have been stuck renting." Uh, and

then you go to those families, you're

like, "Hey, you want to go buy a place

with a 50-year mortgage?" And what do

they say? No. You know what? I'm going

to stick to renting because I don't even

have any down payment money saved up.

So, you know, does it really help

affordability?

I mean, it helps a little bit with the

monthly payment. the lifetime interest

that you're going to pay is going to be

massively more, but hey, it's going to

help some people get in the door. Is it

going to be a good form of debt? Well,

again, depends on how good the deal was.

So, uh, you know, this gives us a little

bit of a breakdown, not just on some of

this, like some of the policies that

we're seeing here from Trump, not only

on a $2,000 stimulus dividend, but then

also this potential of a 50-year

mortgage, which is really again just a

form of trying to appeal to people are

frustrated with their ability to afford

things like a house today. These

policies though tend to have the

opposite effect, right? So to relieve

inflation by issuing a stimulus check,

we're probably increasing inflation. To

relieve uh trade practices, we're making

trade practices more unfair and more

unilateral rather than diplomatically

negotiated. And then what happens? We

end up with not only a higher cost of

living, uh companies that have to pay

higher prices and they try to feed that

through to us in the form of higher

restaurant bills or, you know, goods

bills or shipping service bills or

whatever, right? we end up paying it. Uh

so Goldman Sachs believes that about 88%

of all tariffs are paid for by Americans

in one way or another. So we're really

just getting sort of like a refund on

the very things that we've been paying

more money for, which is frustrating,

but you know, whatever. Uh and and then

of course with a 50-year mortgage, the

goal is to try to help people have

access to more affordable, you know,

houses. But unless they have the money

for a down payment and the fix up

because they're trying to get a good

deal, then once again, the 50-year

mortgage will just end up benefiting

wealthier people. All of this obviously

happens that air traffic control uh is

is, you know, freaking out to the point

where we had to cut 10% of flights. It

was about 4% of flights. I guess it's

10% of certain airports. So certain

major hubs had about 10% of their

flights canled like Chicago or LAX which

I think translated down to about 4% of

total flights. We expect this to

increase by another 10% this upcoming

Friday. International flights are

supposedly not going to be affected, but

it's just a giant mess is what it is. I

think they'll get the government

reopened before Thanksgiving mostly

because that is such an important and

critical consumer uh week. Black Friday,

Cyber Monday, uh you know, pe people

traveling. Uh and so there are going to

be substantial disruptions here if the

government isn't reopen by Thanksgiving.

But

we'll see. That's politics for you. Good

luck out there.