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.
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:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YiYWnA1_y8&feature=player_embedded
He wasn’t advising Freddie Mac on fiduciary matters.
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!
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
http://www.mediacircus.com/2008/10/obama-sued-citibank-under-cra-to-force-it-to-make-bad-loans/
Excerpt: (and scroll down for the name in red - of a young Chicago lawyer...)
New York Post Article HERE :
THE seeds of today’s 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.