Posted on 12/17/2011 8:44:22 PM PST by Steelfish
That's not what they were after. They wanted insight on the history of GSEs, their technical hurdles, what's worked and not, economic history, their own plans and goals, what's worked in housing and not, about competing models, etc.
He wasn't paid "a million or so bucks" - it went to his group and it was over a 10 year period. $160K/year is not much for consulting. If he was an off the books lobbyist, he worked very cheaply.
Newt’s verbal version. I’ve not heard of the existence of any written version.
YET, it makes sense.
Newt had no power and influence left in Congress. Even on the GOP side, his opponents were in power.
The ONLY reason F&F would contract with him was for his expertise, and not because he could influence congressional voting.
In fact, it is ONLY verbal; he did not produce any white paper, document, etc. the entire time he ‘consulted’ for them [this was from a post on another thread I think Jim Robinson started].
It begs the question, just what did he do, and how do we know his verbal account is what he obviously must have ‘told’ them, verbally.
If you’ll go back to my original post on this thread and the ensuing ones arguing with P-Marlowe, you will see I’m not for Romney, nor have I picked a definite ‘other’ candidate yet. If it turns out come March primary here in Georgia, Romney and he are the two, then I’ll vote for Newt but won’t like it. I’m still hoping one of the others will regain ground (Newt did it), because Newt has a tendency to let his mouth overload his you-know-what. That’s what happens with spur of the moment free-thinking just because it sounds good at the time.
I suspect the only other party who could reveal Gingrich’s work for F&F would be F&F.
However, it makes sense to me. He was a man without power but with loads of experience and knowledge.
Well, we’ll never know. I originally only wanted references, if any, to any documentation....it’s now just “he said”, they “say”.....(or don’t) I wish the hell I could make $1.8M over 10 years or so and not have to do Jack Squat for it.
There is no reason in the world to give that kind of money to a man who is doing nothing for you.
I think his explanation about “history” gets closest to what was being done. History is “story”. He was image shaping, re-storying, etc. Narrative therapy, narrative shaping, etc., are all parts of the advertising business....the groundwork prior to launching an ad campaign.
I guess so. But it wasn’t F&F money he was paid...it ended up being OUR debt plus the trillions in bundled debt F&F guaranteed...This is what gets me the most. Barney Frank, Franklin Raines, Jaime Gorelick, and all the rest making Millions off of us (our now-debt), and apparently, Newt got some of the action, too. Anything that delayed and forestalled the eventual consequences of the F&F mess is utterly reprehensible. To me, draping a pig in silky words doesn’t change the fact that it is still a pig.
Newt contracted with F&F for 8 years. I believe the final year was 2009/10.
F&F did not operate on taxpayer money. It operated on fees and profits from mortgage buying, bundling, and selling.
One last thing before I go on this. Who do you think is bailed F&F out from 2008/2009 and who will bail them out for the $50+Billion they are already in the hole now for this year?
.....That assumption proved accurate when the subprime mortgage crisis threatened to bankrupt both Fannie and Freddie because of the hundreds of billions of bad investments they hold. Recently, Business Week reported that the ongoing federal bailout of Fannie and Freddie exceeds $145 billion, with no end in sight and projections totaling a $1 trillion credit extension by the end of this decade. To put that in perspective, $145 billion is more than Congress spent bailing out American International Group, General Motors or Citigroup, all of which are now paying down their debts to taxpayers.
Should the toilet paper company turn down a contract to supply them with toilet paper?
This is just now degenerating into sillyness. I’ve told you the facts on F&Fs ‘profitability’, you decide.
Hi, Gaffer. Hope you had a restful evening. My point isn’t silly. It is asking if the toilet paper company has made illicit profits by selling to F&F.
So, with your line of logic, a preacher working part-time in a house of ill repute as a towel boy should be okay with his congregation....no problem, huh?
Another good ole boy from Georgia, Bob Barr, who purported to be upstanding, conservative, politically straight. When he got voted out of office, he went to work for the ACLU. Today, we learn that in addition to the F&Fs, Mr. Newt also dallied with Ethanol Lobby as a consultant......just keeps getting better and better.
You like your candidate; I once liked him and as he grew and progressed in his office in my district and I came to know more of him than I care to know. If you’re happy with philosophical, political and academic whooring around (I won’t mention his other talent), then fine....just stop with the tortured comparisons...
Buying and bundling mortgages, Gaffer, is what F&F does. Investment banks and some mortgage lenders themselves would also buy and bundle mortgages for sale or as securities.
Their crime, if it gets proven, is that they didn’t reveal to investors the number of risky mortgages they held.
Now, a house of ill repute ALWAYS sells sex. A mortgage bundler can be on the up and up. That activity is NOT illegal, unethical, or immoral.
In most cases, on a 30 year loan a lender is getting back a long-term known interest on investment of 5-8% or so not including their costs.
If you could buy my mortgage with money you had sitting around, and I paid you instead of the bank, you’d be getting a good interest rate for at least a decade while CD’s are only bringing about 2%.
Does buying that mortgage from the bank make you unethical?
Further, F&F became abnormal in that they are a "not-for-profit" entity that started collecting dubious 'profits'. They bundled mortgages the government guarantees (with vast numbers of them for Democrat constituents who have no business buying a home they couldn't possibly afford) and sold them to banks and brokerages certified government-guaranteed, creating a staggering debt we have yet come to realize.
They further, I believe, engaged in criminal enterprises at the hands of their masters, Franklin Raines, Jaime Gorelick and Johnson who received massive bonuses (over $100 Million) and controlled an excess of funds for which no honest accounting has been made, because they were protected by Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, and the rest of his idiot Goon Democrat Representatives. My suspicion is that much of this money has ended up in union coffers, or directly in the hands of the DNC, their PACS and God knows where else. You can fight on and try to make Newt's association 'virgin' and saintly, but I sure as hell am not gonna buy it, period. I've said all I'm gonna say on this, do what you want.
Gaffer, like you I believe F&F fell into the hands of manipulators who used it to enrich themselves and to fund left-wing causes.
None of that, however, means that Gingrich was not given a contract due to his expertise.
The ONLY evidence against Gingrich at F&F is that he did work for them.
It is pure guilt by association.
Of course he was paid....why would he do work that he wasn’t paid for?
When someone comes out with some illegal act, then we can go after Gingrich. But it really is a possibility that he committed no illegal act.
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.