Newt Pimped Freddie Mac

How can you find guilt when democrats gave those same people large bonuses by law.....................

What are you talking about?

Oh Brother............... the Dodd/ Frank reform, IE Lobbyist empowerment act. The one that gave large Bonuses by law. :eusa_think: What was it? :dunno:

I don't know. What law requires bonuses to be paid?

I don't know of any law which makes it the law to pay bonuses.
 
Well, first of all, the President doesn't indict anybody. The agencies such as the SEC charge people, not the White House.

Second, people have been charged. The problem - to you, I guess - is that no one that I can think has been found guilty.

NY Times Advertisement

Well, no, the JUSTICE department indicts people. But that's the point. He didn't go in and tell Eric Holder- "A lot of people suffered because of what these guys did. I want a thorough investigation, and I want people convicted."

He didn't do that. Probably because he took millions in campaign bribes from them.

The whole system is corrupt. You do understand this, don't you? Or does your paycheck depend on you not understanding that?

You do not believe in the rule of law. Instead, you bay for blood and want sacrificial lambs because you lost money. As you said before, you don't believe in "legal niceties." You don't care if there are actual laws. Somebody's got to pay. Because you lost money. Screw the law. String 'em all up and let God sort them out.

Hey, guy, I'm a realist. These guys did wrong, I don't care if it was "technically legal", and I'm sure a smart lawyer could find a theory of law to convict them on.

Screw it, you libs kept going after Scooter Libby until you found something.

Also, hate to say it, it's smart politics. The GOP gets Romney, how better to get anger against him than indicting and trying a few crooked bankers to remind us who got us into this mess?

You know, These kind of guys...

1182777539_1275.jpg
 
Well, it appears the Freddie Mac lobbyist wasn't just warning the GSEs about their lending practices after all.

Of course, you don't pay nearly $2 million to a politician to give you economic advice.



Gingrich Backed Freddie Mac in 2007 Interview - WSJ.com

And these are the only direct quotes of Gingrich? Please.....

Please provide a better model of supporting homeownership, all you need to win this argument is just one example, remember just one...

Funny how Gingrich gets this noose hung around his neck and you leave out the worst culprit, Franklin Raines, wasn't his compensation north of $92MILL????

Sub prime was the bastard child of CRA and you know it, if you don't your in denial...

there we go.we can dismiss you

Stick to the playpen...
 
Well, it appears the Freddie Mac lobbyist wasn't just warning the GSEs about their lending practices after all.

Of course, you don't pay nearly $2 million to a politician to give you economic advice.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich touted the virtues of Freddie Mac's business model in an interview published by the company in April 2007, remarks that contrast with the candidate's recent statements that he had warned the company of impending financial disaster.

The interview was featured on Freddie Mac's website for several months in 2007 when he was a paid consultant to the company and Freddie Mac was struggling to address mounting financial problems after it stepped up its subprime mortgage business.

At the time, critics were complaining that Freddie Mac and its larger cousin, Fannie Mae, benefited from an unfair competitive advantage because of the perception their debt had an implicit government guarantee. That allowed the mortgage-finance companies, formerly known as government-sponsored enterprises, or GSEs, to borrow at lower rates than private-sector competitors.

"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 the interview.

Pressed in the interview about how that was not "a point of view one normally associates with conservatives," Mr. Gingrich replied that there are times "when you need government to help spur private enterprise and economic development." He cited electricity and telephone network expansion as similarly effective private-public purposes. "It's not a point of view libertarians would embrace, but I am more in the Alexander Hamilton-Teddy Roosevelt tradition of conservatism," he said. He added, "I'm convinced that if NASA were a GSE, we probably would be on Mars today."

The interview was published by Freddie Mac as part of a regular campaign to educate the public—and Washington—about its brand. It appeared beneath a section entitled "Freddie Mac and the Subprime Market," and was composed by Freddie Mac based on Mr. Gingrich's discussions with the company as well as his writings about the role of government. The blog Verum Serum found that the transcript is accessible on an archived version of Freddie Mac's website.

A spokesman for Mr. Gingrich, Joe DeSantis, said the 2007 interview showed Mr. Gingrich arguing for improved regulation of Freddie and Fannie. He said the interview "directly contradicts the erroneous reports" that Mr. Gingrich was trying to stop reforms to Fannie and Freddie. ...

"While Fannie and Freddie were ruining the housing market and causing millions of homeowners to lose their homes and life savings, Newt Gingrich was earning millions advising them and advocating for them," said Gary Howard, a spokesman for Rep. Ron Paul (R., Texas). "Now, Newt wants to deny the facts of his role in the whole mess. Unfortunately for him, the facts are right there for everyone to see." ...

The Freddie corporate interview doesn't show him expressing such concerns. Fannie and Freddie "have made an important contribution to homeownership and the housing finance system," Mr. Gingrich is quoted as saying in the interview, which was presented on the website in a question-and-answer format. "We have a much more liquid and stable housing finance system than we would have without the [companies]."

Gingrich Backed Freddie Mac in 2007 Interview - WSJ.com
He'll say whatever the person who signs his checks wants him to say
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top