Gingrich says he personally made 35K from Freddie Mac

CBSNews ^ | 12/20/2011 | Sarah Huisenga

[katiedidit1]

DAVENPORT, Iowa - Following a barrage of attacks from his Republican rivals that have led to sagging poll numbers, Newt Gingrich on Monday addressed one of the issues that's generated some of the most controversy for his presidential campaign -- his consulting firm receiving $1.6 million from mortgage giant Freddie Mac.

During an appearance at a security firm in Davenport, Gingrich said he personally received "about $35,000 a year" from his firm's contract with Freddie Mac, which he said was less than what he had charged for giving a speech.

He also said he talked to House Republicans about the mortgage lender's troubles "as a citizen" but that former GOP Reps. J.C. Watts and Rick Lazio have said their former House colleague never lobbied them on the issue.

[JediJones]

The reality is if you are a wealthy person who made their money honestly, then you you have already contributed to society with every dollar that you made. Somebody might make a fortune selling DVDs, but every person who purchased from them did so willingly and because that DVD was worth more to them than the money they parted with. That’s why there is no reason there should be a tax surcharge on a wealthy person’s income above what anyone else pays. They got their money because they deserved it for contributing something to other people’s lives.

[JediJones]

But it’s not Newt’s job to be a crusader against Freddie and Fannie when he’s out of office. You’re of course free to vote for someone who devoted their free time to crusading for causes that are important to you. It’s a pretty high bar to set to say that you’ll only vote for someone who anticipated a crisis that almost no one anticipated, particularly at the magnitude that it occurred.

It’s true that the President and some Republicans made a minor effort trying to reform Freddie and Fannie that went nowhere. But even they have said they never anticipated the magnitude of the crisis.

Newt said he believed in what Freddie and Fannie were doing. Most politicians did for decades. Newt didn’t try to shut them down when he was in the House either, which is when he had a lot more power to do so. So why is he being criticized for working with them in the private sector but not for supporting them while in the House? The answer: it’s an attack based on class warfare and the emotional effect of shouting about someone making millions of dollars. I think that’s what Newt was going for when he shot back at Romney about Bain Capital. He was trying to say that attacking Newt for the money he made is no more legitimate than attacking Romney for what he made.

Bottom line is I fail to see how Newt can be held more responsible for not shutting down Freddie and Fannie in the 2000s than any of the politicians who were in office at that time and did not make a concerted effort to do the same.

[JediJones]

That’s a really high bar for hypocrisy. That means that any member of Congress can’t rail against anything the government does because they’re making money off the government. And I guess government employees and union members can’t be conservatives. And environmentalists can’t complain about air pollution because they’re breathing the air, aren’t they?

The term hypocrisy can be distorted to apply to almost anything. It’s starting to really be overused IMO. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with being part of an institution that you criticize. Or have you loved every company you’ve ever worked for? Newt should get more praise for criticizing someone that he was working for. Some would call that whistleblowing.

[Lexinom]

You are dead-on right, and it is a long time in coming.

The issue at hand is that the actual producers - inventors, engineers, manufactures - take a back seat to the do-nothing types - welfare cheats, Wall Street investors, and anybody else who takes income for no actual work output.

I realize it is not popular within a certain segment of Republicanism, but we won World War II not by talking, not by posing, but by working our asses off and doing.

[Lexinom]

Huh? I think he made a very fair point.

Work = income, reward. The fact that the wealthy and those who conduct themselves with integrity - it's not hoosier's fault that the entire system is slanted against honesty/invention/engineering/objective producers and in favor of talkers/posers/paper pushers/whiners/welfare cheats. He's just stating the obvious: we'd rather as a people be fed bullshit than substance! Hence we respect the slick salesman but not the introverted engineer.

I'm frankly appalled at the responses he has received on this thread for a very fair and reasonable observation.

I mean really... Take your rose-colored glasses off, and just trust what your own eyes tell you.

[light-bulb]

My point is a simple one.

Don’t hate the player, hate the game.

That is life in the beltway. I sell my “Knowledge” as well. Sure not quite the paycheck that Newt could draw but that is irrelevant. The Number shouldn’t matter.

Your concern is that he sold influence, and if that was the commodity he was selling than that is what they paid for. It’s a private market. We do the same in business, we pay large dollars for sales people who bring influence. After all, a sales person sells products by relationships, similar to how Congress works on relationships.

My point comes back to this.

I want to know what he advocated for, was he anti-conservative values? What he or his firm was paid is irrelevant to me, as that was a private contract.

[hoosierham]

Well,YOU can go to blazes.

Nowhere did I suggest everyone should make the same-I guess making $300 an hour is the same as $6 an hour in your world?

I am angered by the bailouts of the filthy rich manipulators of commerce and society;bailouts using money from my taxes and money borrowed from the real enemies of America.I AM ANGERED AND DISGUSTED BY THE CORRUPT POLITICIANS PROMOTING GOVERNMENT POLICIES THAT FILL THE POCKETS OF THE RICH AT THE EXPENSE OF THE AVERAGE WORKER.I am angered and disgusted by “businessmen” who demand and receive tax concessions and incentive packages from one community for moving a company and “providing new jobs” whilst ignoring the jobs lost to the former location.
Oh yeah,I am really angered and disgusted by private or public entities paying huge,obscene sums to former executives who ran the entity into bankruptcy or oblivion.

I personally don’t make a lot and I DON’T get back a huge refund well in excess of taxes paid;in fact the government keeps well over 75% of my payroll deduction ,and of course there is no refund of the myriad other taxes.