Skip to comments.Gingrich of Freddie Mac
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 ...
Pimping for Mitt again?
Really? If he somehow got elected do you think he would ever stop surprising us with his off the plantation remarks and actions?
NooT is the devil, true... and knows the democrats better than they know themselves..
With a ring in his nose he can be used..
GB says Newt is a progressive...
“Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem” - Ronald Reagan
Who wouldn't agree with that remark?
Seriously? I mean, I’m not all huge on Newt, but of course a true historian could have valuable economic advice.
Lets say his Newts company was paid $1.7 million over the nine years. That comes out to $189,000 per year. With overhead and salaries to pay etc. I don’t see where Newt made any big money on the deal. It looks to me like he was paid for consulting not lobbying as the RINO’s are saying. If everything is on the up and up I don’t see the big deal. Newt was running a private enterprise. Go Newt.
nothing wrong with the article itself but can you fix the headline? Apparently it used an illuminated G for Gingrich which didn’t transcribe.
Lobbying raises questions but this looks like small potatoes as lobbying goes. Anyhow doesn’t Newt want to privatize this mess?
Yes, and here’s Newt on stage with his accuser Bachmann in 2008 making the same explanations he’s making today:
He wasn’t advising Freddie Mac on fiduciary matters.
For "good" or bad, all government does is distort the free market and increase inefficiancies when it plays favorites. And Gingrich is a big fan of playing favorites; why else would he lobby for Freddie Mac?
But I guess youre a big Newtie fan so why should you care that half the crap that comes out of his mouth when he's not under control is liberal-lite inanities
I’d like to be paid a $100,000 per lobster lunch to consult about “history”, to Freddy, like Newt.
But I’d much more prefer to fly to Hawaii with my daughters for $200,000 so my husband could fly a few days later for another $300,000.
Which plane is Bo on? Or is that a third poopy plane?
[ GB says Newt is a progressive... ]
GB says........ NooT likes Prez’s Wilson and both Roosevelt’s who were Progressives..
And they were!.. like I said he is a devil.. Hes not NICE..
Bad news IF you want a nice President..
I don’t.. I want the meanest SOB I can vote for..
Could be Ron Paul as well.. probably can trust Ron.. got to keep an evil eye on Newt..
Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem - Ronald Reagan”
Yet he increased the size of Government significantly.
This is why historians (lie Newt at F&F) are needed. You can isolate a few quotes and a few facts and completely distort a total record.
-—”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.
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.
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?
I would argue that they were distortive. People bought bigger and bigger homes, bigger than they needed, because that was the one tax deduction available to them. The money invested unwisely there could have been invested elsewhere, with more efficiency. (A hundred years ago people didnt leverage 3-5 times their annual salary to buy a house)
. And the FM's worked well for years also, until the Democrats appointed to run them stole every penny they could.
But that was inevitable, wasn't it? You put politicians in control of money to buy votes with, and what do you get? It wont be run like a money making business, thats for sure. No surprises there.
I don't really care how much he was paid. Somebody thought he was worth whatever they paid him and they did. I don't care how much money the Angels pay Albert Pujois. They think he's worth it. I can't imagine that he is, but I ain't in the baseball biz and they are.
If Gingrich was paid less per hour than you make, would that make you happy? Do you think he should redistribute his wealth by giving some of it to you?
If not, then why in the hell do you care how much money he made? How would your life be improved if he made less?
Do you? Do you think they were paying him millions of dollars so he could teach them history or give them advice they didnt want to hear? Or is it at all possible that they were leveraging his contacts?
If they wanted an academic consultant they could have hired some nobody expert and paid him one tenth what they paid the ex-speaker, who got them into doors with people they wouldnt have gotten into otherwise.
The legal definition of lobbying includes:
“including preparation or planning activities, research and other background work that is intended, at the time of its preparation, for use in contacts and coordination with the lobbying activities of others”
Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...
The Democrats would unload on him on this issue.
When I heard it in the debate, I searched the web.
“I want to know the specifics of Gingrichs consulting work with Freddie Mac. I want to know how much he billed per hour. After all, he was paid with Tax Payer dollars.”
That would have been a good trick since Freddie Mac was a private, stockholder owned company during the time that Gingrich was paid by them. How exactly were those “Tax Payer dollars”?
So he wasn’t lobbying for Freddie and Fannie he was teaching them how to lobby for themselves.
We’re all forgetting who made the banks - SUED THEM - give these loans...the media hopes we won’t remember - and guess what?
How about we get to the root of it - of what F&F said to Newt about the new approach ‘ This is what the GOVERNMENT wants us to do. WHY did the GOVERNMENT tell them to do it? Who was involved? see the last link if you don’t look at anything else.
Let’s see how many will recognize the truth here and how many will keep using the media/Establishment narrative to help clear the way for mittens. Tell the WHOLE story or sthu.
Here we go again. ;o)
Please, at least lets us Freepers know and tell the truth...
Newt was hired as a consultant when the bank were looking for a way to help people learn how to work, to save and to buy a house - then the process took a turn when the banks got sued and made to adopt the sub-prime loans - giving, gifting not low income but even no income, no credit loans.
Newts advice - thats insane...
Now, dig back to just WHO it was that made the banks give those loans? Was it Newt? hardly. Was it the banks? They didnt want to do it.
Does Acorn and CRA strike a bell? The banks were taken to court on the charge that they were Redlining (denying poor people loans because of their ethnic heritage)...
Starting to get the drift?
And who was their lawyer that took it to court? Can you handle the truth?
Ok just to set things straight. Palin was a money grubbing opportunist, but Newt is ?????
” but in the context of what Newtie said I can’t imagine how Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae would apply “
Actually Fannie is a good example of government spurring the private sector. Before 1934 you couldn’t get a twenty or thirty year mortgage. Mortgages typically ran for three years, at which point you had to roll the principal over into a new mortgage.
This became a big problem during the Depression when a full one third of American banks failed. It became very hard to find a lender to roll over your mortgage. Homeowners who were employed and who had never missed a payment lost their homes simply because they couldn’t renew their mortgage.
Fannie Mae was formed to create a secondary market in mortgage paper. Fannie would buy mortgages from banks and S&Ls, freeing up the banks’ capital so that they could make new mortgages. Fannie packaged bundles of mortgages and sold them to investors looking for a predictable cash flow, principally insurance companies and retirement accounts. Investors of this sort were looking for long term cash flow and as a result were willing to fund long term mortgages.
Prior to 1934 there wasn’t a secondary market in mortgage paper. The formation of Fannie Mae created one and it is now a huge industry. It worked without much of a hitch for decades when Fannie and Freddie dealt in stodgy conforming loan paper.