Posted on 12/17/2011 8:44:22 PM PST by Steelfish
DECEMBER 17, 2011 Gingrich of Freddie Mac The Speaker's defense is hurting him as much as his $1.6 million payday.
Newt Gingrich's opponents aren't letting up in their criticism of his lucrative ties to the failed mortgage giant Freddie Mac after he resigned as House Speaker in the late 1990s. More damaging to his Presidential candidacy is that Mr. Gingrich doesn't seem to understand why anyone is offended.
In his first response after news broke that he'd made $300,000 working for Freddie, Mr. Gingrich claimed he had "offered them advice on precisely what they didn't do." As a "historian," he said during a November 9 debate, he had concluded last decade that "this is a bubble," and that Freddie and its sister Fannie Mae should stop making loans to people who have no credit history. He added that now they should be broken up.
A week later Bloomberg reported that Mr. Gingrich had made between $1.6 million and $1.8 million in two separate contracts with Freddie between 1999 and 2008. The former Speaker stuck to his line that "I was approached to offer strategic advice" and had warned the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) to stop lending to bad credit risks.
Then on December 2 our colleagues at the Journal reported that as late as April 2007 Mr. Gingrich had defended Fannie and Freddie as examples of conservative governance. "While we need to improve the regulation of the GSEs, I would be very cautious about fundamentally changing their role or the model itself," Mr. Gingrich said in an interview at the time.
Mr. Gingrich added in that interview that there are times "when you need government to help spur private enterprise and economic development."
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
-—”Who wouldn’t agree with that remark?”-—
Libertarians. But mostly folks who either don’t have the time, capability, or desire to understand Macroeconomics.
After all, who needs infrastructure?
No,no. that's not what Newt said. He said....
that there are times "when you need government to help spur private enterprise and economic development."
I suspect you have problems with Newt, but your point, is moot and ridiculous.
I’m not like the proverbial three monkeys. Which one are you?
I want to know the specific’s of Gingrich’s consulting work with Freddie Mac. I want to know how much he billed per hour. After all, he was paid with Tax Payer dollars.
And if he becomes the nominee, you can bet the folks in Freddie Mac, with Zero’s push, will spill all the sleezy details. Best to get the details out now.
If those are the circumstances, it sounds reasonable to me. Unfortunately, many here don't understand business and can't read a P&L with clarity.
Furthermore, some even equate "rich" with income!
That's not true. At the time Gingrich was paid for his consulting work Freddie Mac was technically solvent and took no federal money. Freddie Mac was funded by loan fees.
Speak.
Newt Gingrich had a consulting contract with Freddie Mac. Why are some Republicans upset about someone working for themselves, and making money at it?
I guess I wouldnt mind hearing a few examples of when thats true, but in the context of what Newtie said I can't imagine how Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae would apply . In fact, it seems plain ridiculous to suggest as much. Freddie Mac has also added huge inefficiencies to the market even when it wasn't in default as it is now.
Ok,
You have educated me about Freddie Mac, not being Tax Payer funded at the time the Grinch did his “consulting” work. I would like to know the specific’s of the Grinch’s “consulting” work with Freddie Mac. Do u know how much he billed per hour? Do u know the specific’s of his “consulting” work? If so, please educate me on that as well.
But then we fault those who had consulting contracts with Solyndra too. Don’t we? When taxpayer monies are siphoned off even in the form of consulting contracts, it matters. We need to be principled conservatives.
Perhaps you should remember that the internet was originally the ARPA-net (before they added the D for Defense to the name of the DoD’s research arm) and that many of the data transfer protocols were written by faculty at state universities in the U.S. or public universities in Europe. There are other examples of beneficial government actually spurring private enterprise and economic development (e.g. spinoffs from the space program, anything requiring eminent domain to create a right of way or easement) but the internet itself along is proof positive that your absolutism and scorn is ill-founded. Who got ‘un spurred’ by the development of the ARPA-net (U.S. DoD) or the www protocols (CERN)? Nobody.
“why else would he lobby for Freddie Mac”
Honestly do you know the difference between a lobbyist and a consultant?
Would you feel the same way if the "consulting" contract would have been with Planned Parenthood?
IMO, however, the government should stay out of home loans, and college loads. etc.
Why should you care? Neither Newt's salary nor his advice caused the real estate collapse. You sound like an OWS parrot. Are you really upset that he may have made some money with his expertise and advice? I suspect that Romney made hundreds of thousands of dollars per hour giving advice to Bain Capital. Does that bother you too? If so, then you are posting on the wrong forum.
I'm certainly not aginst government spending for things only the government can do, like defense spending , and I acknowledge the offshoot benefits of NASA and Defense spending; like the internet and kevlar, etc. Taxes to pay for national defense may be redistributionist but are necessary and legitimate, obviously. Whatever was "unspurred" there (ie less money in peoples pockets to invest in efficient activities)is justifiable, even if there was no offshoot benefit. (which is not to suggest that private monies to universities for example could not have achieved the same thing).
But outside of core activities, which would also include Transportation infrastructure , etc, I stand by my statement. So how did Freddie Mac and Government Motors /green industry projects turn out? everybody happy?
Yeah, Romey’s sleeze bothers me too. So does Ron Paul’s racist newsletters. All this needs to be exposed now, so who ever is the nominee, would have already addressed it and survived, or addressed it and failed (Herman Cain). The point is all of this sleeze needs to be exposed NOW. And let the chips fall where they may.
I noticed you were not able to tell me how much the Grinch billed per hour and exactly what he was paid for. “Consulting” is a wide word.
Once again, do u know exactly what his “consulting work” involved?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.