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 ...
and also, why isn’t the press covering where the whole sub prime started in the first place - that the banks were SUED and forced to do it -
Why? because, the law suit said they were: “denying poor people loans because of their ethnic heritage...”
Getting a hint?
Who was the golden boy lawyer
Excerpt: (and scroll down for the name in red - of a young Chicago lawyer...)
New York Post Article HERE :
THE seeds of todays financial meltdown lie in the Community Reinvestment Act a law passed in 1977 and made riskier by unwise amendments and regulatory rulings in later decades.”
And Frank and Dodd pushed it through
but they all skate and we’ll all sit back and let them make Newt the scapegoat.
“There are other examples of beneficial government actually spurring private enterprise and economic development”
Radio is one that most people wouldn’t think of. The Navy put together a consortium of companies to form the Radio Corporation of America. The radio industry was essentially created by the Navy working with GE, Westinghouse, AT&T and a few other firms.
Marlowe you act like our crooks are somehow more honest than their crooks.
Thirty years or so ago ever county comissioner in Oklahoma with the exception of one, Henry Campbell was convicted or plead guilty to fraud.
Some how people began to notice that comissioner’s earning $400.00 a month were able to buy farms and cattle and otherwise improve their bank holdings. All it took was for an honest State Attorney to take a stand.
Harry Reed has amassed a fortune, do you think it was because people paid to hear him give advice?
tell you what, since you’re so concerned about all the details concerning F&F - why don’t you ask around for some answers to this - which is what started the whole sub prime mess -
which is why, when the banks finally outlined the new wrinkle in the plan - “this is what the Government want us to do” - which Newt told them was insane - where did the whole scheme come from in the first place?
Right, he’s planning the lobbying campaign. The law, as I quoted in an earlier post, clearly labels planning a lobbying campaign as lobbying.
I really could not believe it when I looked at his “health transformation” website for his “consulting” firm.
For the last 10 years he’s been tiptoeing, IMHO, around the law, not being registered as a lobbyist but running all over DC collecting fees for “consulting”.
If the FEC gets involved, IMHO, he may well be toast.
Do you know what sort of consulting Newt did?
Following up on myself, I got a partial answer, except I'm not sure what a "private-sector political consultant" does? Smells like lobbyist.
I have read that Freddie contracted with one of Gingrich's companies for 200 grand a year, and that that was a standard fee for that group.
Also, like many others in demand, Gingrich commanded 60 grand for a speech at an event.
The consulting had to be consulting because Gingrich has been out of power for over a dozen years. Think about that: he has ZERO power. He also has a GOP that is hostile to him, and those who fought against him (including Boehner) are the ones in power.
So, he wasn't "influence peddling" because he had no influence to peddle.
He had knowledge, experience, insight and ideas to sell. That's called consulting
Mitt Romney notwithstanding, I for one, would like to see the written reports, consults, documents or papers Mr. Gingrich provided FANNIE/FREDDIE for the large sums he received.
Quite frankly, I’m not interested in Newt’s abridged spin he verbally relates. Been there done that. In one account, he ‘spun’ that he “loved his country so much and worked so hard” was the reason he cheated on his former wife with his now-wife, Calista. Arrogance.
I have no interest in furthering Mitt Romney’s tenuous hold on the nomination, certainly. However, I am not willing to swallow a crock of Newt’s self-serving ‘me-say’on his word alone. You can’t trust his word.
Hmmmm - someone that actually studies the cause/effects of what was tried, what the stated goals were, and how it worked out, and you don’t see how he might be able to advise a government agency that sways with the political forces....
Willard will lose and we get Fo' Mo' Years of Marxism.
The kind of brutal scrutiny the GOP candidates have been subjected to is UNHEARD OF in American History.
The fact is NOBODY is perfect. And Gingrich and ALL OF THEM, despite any of their flaws - and as human beings we all have them - are FAR BETTER than the Marxist Muslim in the White House. If we are not going to support a candidate unless they are PERFECT in every way, we will never find such a candidate anywhere on earth.
We have to STOP micro scrutinizing these candidates and start ZEROING IN on Obama. NOW. Before the Mainstream Media TOTALLY discredit each and every GOP candidate in the public eye long before they ever battle that Marxist Muslim Bastard for the Presidency.
Keep on talking about Newt and Fannie Mae while all the democrat corruption and cover up by Frank and Dodd and the Black in the house etc etc is muted
Well said and illustrated!
It's called "guilt by association", and it's one of the lowest and laziest logical fallacies. Since FM was in the sup-prime mortgage business, and Newt did work for them, then Newt is guilty of FM's indiscretions. Even though many admit right on this thread that they have NO IDEA what he was actually paid for. It's the kind of tenuous tie that a, say, Michele Bachman might use to say Newt was "for partial-birth abortion."
More commonly referred to as a capitalist.
Roads, post office, central banks, Louisiana Purchase .... all promoted during the first 30 years after the Constitution. And if you think the United States Military is just there to protect you from being enslaved and but secure your entitlement to private property and gain, you are do not know your history.
Any organization can be corrupted, even Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when it is turned into a vehicle for redistribution of wealth, read Red Lining.
The problem is not with Freddie Mac, who in it’s pure from could be a benefit to our society, but in the corrupt leftists that used it to line their pockets. and to stay in office, much as they are fixing to do with all those yummy health-care dollars.
And don’t forget the biggest boondoggle of them all.....Global Warming....guaranteed loans to contributors, state, local, utility and Federal tax deductions/credits for financially inefficient energy makeovers; and the real intent is the spreading the government tentacles into the your freedoms while making the Progressive/Liberals more powerful and rich.
Then Romney is your boy. You can trust everything he says.
I guess this is your way of deflecting criticism on your candidate. I told you Romney isn’t one I’d vote for. Your stubbornness doesn’t equate to capitulation for Romney on my part. Defend your pick instead of crazy accusations.
the accusation that Gingrich did anything wrong while working for Freddie Mac is crazy.
Not one person has come forward with any claim that what he did was either illegal or unethical. The accusation is simply that he worked for the company before it went belly up. Guilt by association. Typical liberal tactic.
Now defend YOUR guy. (Whoever the hell it is).
If you reread my post you will see that I did not claim such. I said I only wanted to see documentation of what his ‘consultation’ entailed - which you take as a slam and automatic vote for the puke Romeny.
You are as full of as much BS as Newt is, who I know of very very well as my former Congressman. You really are not worth arguing with if this is all you’ve got.
Newton says Newton is a progressive in the model of Hamilton and Teddy Roosevelt.
Newt says he wants to improve Freddie Mac and help people buy homes who otherwise wouldn’t qualify.
It depends on how many times and to what extent. Newt likes to count those time with the second hand of his watch from Tiffany’s.
Our founders set up a government that would be as national and as powerful as England’s parliament when the House, States and the president, elected by the electoral college agreed but only then. When there is disagreement between the three, government is supposed to be as insignificant as Jefferson wanted.
The problem today is that the power continues on and on when there is no agreement. Newt likes that power. He encourages it. He wants to make it bigger and more effective.
ARPA-net, like velcro, was not created for the public. It was created to maintain communications between the military in case our communications were attacked. It had an incidental civilian application which has proven to be very valuable.
Newt doesn’t speak of things like ARPA-net. Newt speaks of things like Solyndra.
What advice did Freddie Mac get that Freddie Mac thought was worth $1.6million? Do you really think Newt proposed to tell them how damaging their existence was and they said, “We’ll take $1.6million of that!”
Ha! Good point.
You never said who YOUR candidate is. If it ain't Romney, then I'm guessing it's Ron Paul.
Can you back that up with quotes? I'd note that until the 'Rats decided to turn them into social service programs with the Clinton-era expansion of the CRA, even Fannie, Freddie, and the FHA home loan program were all successful in their stated goals and did encourage economic activity.
If he had no influence, why was he paid 1.6 million over a number of years?
This is the reason why I'm trying to be objective about it from experience (at least where Newt is concerned)....I DO NOT WANT nor will vote for ROMNEY!
However, that does not translate to the misguided supposition I'll vote for an arrogant academic, either; he changes his allegiances and/or positions as often as he changes his drawers - all while explaining it very professorially. This is why I don't want his tortured excuses on what he did for them, much less take his 'word' for an account of something (i.e., on the couch with Pelosi).
Over the course of this calendar year, I've supported Bachman, Cain and have even considered Perry until his "doesn't have a heart" comment. NEVER WRONG PAUL (a nutcase), nor Huntsman (a Democrat Plant). This indecision doesn't mean I have to 'pick' someone, even one I know so well because I MUST make a choice. The GEORGIA primaries are in March 2012, and I'll make a decision then.
If Newt is all that's there besides Romney, then I guess it's him, but I won't like it one goddamed bit, because I know what he is and how flawed he is. But he is still better than Obama.
Here is the problem my FRiend. You and dozens like you spend your days tearing down the viable candidates because they are not perfect and as a result the concensus is growing that the default candidates for 2012 are Romney (whom the MSM is not touching) and Obama (whom the MSM is simply too afraid to criticize for fear of being called racist).
If Bachmann is your candidate, then you would do better to extoll her virtues rather than tear down any other alternative to Romney. The way it is working is that Romney is benefiting from posts like yours. So if you aren't a Romney bot, then maybe you should start a positive campaign for one of the other candidates. I personally would prefer Perry to Romney, but Perry isn't currently in the running. If Perry ever climbs out of the cellar, he's got my vote. In the interim, I'm pulling for Newt.
“Do you think they were paying him millions of dollars so he could teach them history”
Geez. They paid him $1.6 to $1.8 million over nine years. Average that out per year. Get real and NO I will not have Mitt Romney shoved down my throat.
I agree, which is why hearing a "conservative" say "there are times when you need government to help spur private enterprise and economic development.", is alarming. Only small government ensures personal liberty and saves us from self serving politicians. And, again, the governments central functions of defense and infrastructure responsibility shold not lead one to think that we wouldnt have the internet or kevlar if not for government sponsorship.
“Perfect” is not a decades long pattern of flawed character. Nor is it the best alternative you can stomach. You persist in trying to label me as ‘for’ this candidate or another when your prior BS suppositions are rebutted by me. Ain’t gonna work. You bore me, amateur. Why don’t you copy Jim again to get me zotted because you’re losing this argument. You can claim I’m supporting Obama his time. Maybe I’ll get zotted and you won’t have to think so hard.
Just say who you DO support. If you tear down all the other candidates other than Obama, Romney and Paul, then the logical conclusion is that you are pimping for one of them.
-—”The problem today is that the power continues on and on when there is no agreement. Newt likes that power. He encourages it. He wants to make it bigger and more effective.”-—
Everything he ever proposes takes from the Government and puts power into the private sector or the states. How is that making government bigger?
Moving Social Security to privatization, tax relief, Standing up to the judicial oligarchy, Welfare Reform, encouraging an ownership society - these are past and present Newt proposals.
More than anything, Newt gets Conservative things done.
The time to stop Romney is now!
No, that’s not a quote from Gingrich that would let one conclude he meant “Solyndra” rather than “ARPA-net” (to abbreviate the point of contention as was done in the post to which I was replying), which was what I wanted a quote regarding. That’s a quote from an unknown source (whose veracity I am in no way challenging) showing that Gingrich’s consulting firm was willing to provide advice to pro-ethanol lobbying groups for a modest fee (by DC standards), suggesting the firm did relatively little work on the matter, and thus doesn’t actually answer my challenge.
Sorry, Gaffer, but Newt has detailed what his work was for F&F.
He said he was a consultant, that he worked history for them, and that he specifically advised them on their current methods and directions.
He told them their current methods were broken. History is a matter of “story”. In other words, he was working with them on retelling and reshaping their image.
If people would simply read what gets said from time to time, they’d pick this stuff up.
In brief, advertising agencies also work hard with companies on telling their story.
Look at their accomplishments. Newt allied himself with Ronald Reagan to build the Reagan Coalition, the Religious Right, and the Republican majority (together the Reagan Revolution) which directly led the downfall of the Soviet Union, the Contract with America, government reforms, less government, tax cuts, a balanced budget, and the great, long-standing Reagan economy.
Romney, on the other hand, vehemently denied Ronald Reagan and aligned himself with Ted Kennedy and the left. Romney accomplished installing liberal big government programs, defended and promoted Roe v Wade and legalized abortion as settled law, advocated and implemented RomneyCare with its liberty killing government mandates against formerly free citizens and its taxpayer funded or subsidized and mandated abortion procedures. He ran and governed to the left of Ted Kennedy on the gay agenda resulting in gay marriage in Massachusetts. He appointed liberal judges and liberal appointees throughout his government. Under his leadership conservatism and the Republican party was all but destroyed in Massachusetts.
Romney is one evil liberal progressive. No way in hell will MittBots be allowed to support this abortionist, big government, socialist scumbag on FR!
Guess my message isnt clear enough. I have to keep repeating it and zotting would be MittBots.
79 posted on Sat Dec 03 2011 19:59:37 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time) by Jim Robinson
For the same reason as any expert commands a huge sum. He receives 60 grand for a speech. Why do you think? Because that speech makes Congress vote a certain way?
Newt left Congress with his detractors in charge. They would not WANT to do what he wanted. They would want to distance themselves from him.
But, that doesn’t mean he wouldn’t still know the system, have some great ideas, and have a tremendous ability to critique an organization.
BTW, it was over 8 years, so that made it 200 grand a year by contract.
Also, he was not paid with tax money. F&F was a loan bundler and operated off the profits they made.
Har! har! har! You’re a barrel of laughs. Okay, I’ll concede that Newt once said the phrase “like Solyndra”, but without an extended, sourced quotation contextualizing it to show the meaning of that phrase was as a description the sort of thing he approved of in terms of government activity spurring economic growth in the private sector it doesn’t mean much to the discussion at hand.
You’ve seen the document and reports then? Not just Newt’s verbal version?
I AM NOT FOR ROMNEY. Step past your need to align me of him because Newt’s defense is problematic.