Gingrich of Freddie Mac

Wall St. J ^ | December 17, 2011

[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."

[P-Marlowe]

You are as full of as much BS as Newt is,

You never said who YOUR candidate is. If it ain't Romney, then I'm guessing it's Ron Paul.

[The_Reader_David]

Newt doesn’t speak of things like ARPA-net. Newt speaks of things like Solyndra.

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.

[tennmountainman]

If he had no influence, why was he paid 1.6 million over a number of years?

[Gaffer]

What does that have to do with wanting Newt to provide some documentation so we can all decide? You defend this like you are in the tank for him as are many others here who have heard Perry's fumblings and want someone with a glib retort in a debate. I told you I have experience with Newt and you've taken that to assume I'm obviously in the tank for someone specific. I am not, and that is my dilemma right now.. It is extremely frustrating.

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.

[P-Marlowe]

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.

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.

[Parley Baer]

“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.

[Nonstatist]

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.

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.

[Gaffer]

“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.

[P-Marlowe]

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.

[TitansAFC]

-—”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!

[MontaniSemperLiberi]

Here we go,

Newt Gingrich earned some $600,000 as a consultant to a major ethanol lobbying group, not the $312,500 that the organization, called Growth Energy, disclosed last spring.

“I am not a lobbyist for ethanol,” Newt Gingrich declared in a mid-winter spat with the editors of The Wall Street Journal over his support for government subsidies for alternative fuel.

But Gingrich was a hired consultant to a major ethanol lobbying group—at more than $300,000 a year.

According to IRS records, the ethanol group Growth Energy paid Gingrich’s consulting firm $312,500 in 2009.The former House Speaker was the organization’s top-paid consultant, according to the records. His pay was one of the group’s largest single expenditures, as it took in and spent about $11 million to promote ethanol and to lobby for federal incentives for its use.

In a Growth Energy publication, Gingrich was listed as a consultant who offered advice on “strategy and communication issues” and who “will speak positively on ethanol related topics to media.”

Newt approves of the government picking technology winners. He has said so dozens of times.

[The_Reader_David]

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.

[MontaniSemperLiberi]

“like Solyndra”

[xzins]

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.

[narses]

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 isn’t 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

[xzins]

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.

[The_Reader_David]

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.

[Intolerant in NJ]

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......nope - whatever he might have studied in the past, however it might have worked out, typically will have only partial similarity to what's going on today - markets, policies, financial practices all change over time - this was especially true of what was happening with Freddie and Fannie over the last ten years or so - a lot of the problems they had were precisely becasue they were experiencing practices never encountered before - bad loans cut up into obscure derivatives traded in murkey markets - I wouldn't want somebody to tell me what happened in the last financial collapse - I'd want somebody with a solid understanding of economies to help predict what was coming - what the prices of underwater houses were likely to do when derivitives started to default, for example - and that wouldn't be a historian.....

[Gaffer]

You’ve seen the document and reports then? Not just Newt’s verbal version?

[Gaffer]

I AM NOT FOR ROMNEY. Step past your need to align me of him because Newt’s defense is problematic.