ZRX1200
14 years ago
Plus insider trading isn't illegal for them!
DrafterX
14 years ago

I'm proposing the politicians get the same. If they don't do what's good for the people and get re-elected 4 times to get to 20 years-- they get nuthin'!

MACS wrote:




👍
DrMaddVibe
14 years ago

👍

DrafterX wrote:



👎 👎 👎


They HAD a job prior to getting elected. Being a politician should NEVER be considered a career nor should it have benefits like it is one! Strip away ALL pay...ALL benefits.

It should go back to being an honor to serve...not a career.
DrMaddVibe
14 years ago
..Gingrich says he received Freddie Mac compensation
By PETE YOST and THOMAS BEAUMONT | AP – 14 mins ago....

URBANDALE, Iowa (AP) — Rising in national polls, Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich found himself on the defensive Wednesday over huge payments he received over the past decade from the federally backed housing agency Freddie Mac.

Gingrich said he didn't remember exactly how much he was paid, but a former Freddie Mac official said it was at least $1.5 million for consulting contracts stretching from 1999 to 2007. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss a personnel matter.

Speaking with reporters in Iowa, Gingrich said he provided "strategic advice for a long period of time" after he resigned as House speaker following his party's losses in the 1998 elections. He defended Freddie Mac's role and said, "every American should be interested in expanding housing opportunities." Long unpopular among Republicans, the federally backed mortgage lender has become a focal point of anti-government sentiment because of the housing crisis.

On Tuesday, a House committee voted to strip top executives of Freddie and its larger competitor, Fannie Mae, of huge salaries and bonuses and put them on the same pay scale as federal employees.

Gingrich sought to portray his role as a sign of valuable experience.

"It reminds people that I know a great deal about Washington," Gingrich said Wednesday. "We just tried four years of amateur ignorance and it didn't work very well. So, having someone who actually knows Washington might be a really good thing."

Gingrich's history at Freddie Mac began in 1999, when he was hired by the company's top lobbyist, Mitchell Delk. He was brought in for strategic consulting, primarily on legislative and regulatory issues, the company said at the time. That job, which paid about $25,000 to $30,000 a month, lasted until sometime in 2002.

In 2006, Gingrich was hired again on a two-year contract that paid him $300,000 annually
, again to provide strategic advice while the company fended off attacks from the right wing of the Republican Party.

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae for years had been under scrutiny from Republicans on Capitol Hill who opposed government involvement in the mortgage business and wanted to scale back the companies' size and impose tough regulation.

In last Wednesday's Republican presidential debate, Gingrich sought to explain his role at Freddie Mac as that of an "historian" sounding dire warnings about the company's future. He said Freddie Mac officials told him "we are now making loans to people that have no credit history and have no record of paying back anything, but that's what the government wants us to do." He said his advice was to tell them, "this is insane."

"I said at the time, this is a bubble ... this is impossible. It turned out unfortunately I was right," Gingrich said.

Former Freddie Mac executives dispute Gingrich's description of his role.

Four people close to Freddie Mac say he was hired to strategize with his employer about identifying political friends on Capitol Hill who would help the company through a very difficult legislative environment. All four people spoke on condition of anonymity to be able to discuss the personnel matter freely.

Freddie Mac executives hoped that would speak positively about the company and its business model as he circulated among conservative groups and help to build intellectual support within his party.

Freddie Mac executives were looking to Gingrich to offer up new, inventive ways to think about old problems, the officials said, but that didn't materialize.

Gingrich's hiring was a small — but because of his name, important — piece of a much larger initiative by the company. Freddie Mac and its larger competitor, Fannie Mae, are government-sponsored enterprises, created by Congress to buy up mortgages so that the housing industry has a ready flow of funds.

The two companies had long been the darlings of Democratic politicians in Washington, hailed as the champions of affordable housing, but they had few supporters on the political right.

Freddie Mac executive Hollis McLoughlin sought to remedy that by hiring a stable of conservative consultants, including Gingrich.

Before Gingrich was hired, Freddie Mac paid $2 million to a Republican consulting firm to kill legislation that would have regulated and trimmed both companies.

The $2 million was money well spent. The legislation died without ever coming to a vote on the Senate floor. But the danger of regulation wasn't dead, so Freddie Mac hired more consultants, Gingrich among them.

Internal Freddie Mac budget records show $11.7 million was paid to 52 outside lobbyists and consultants in 2006, all of them former Republican lawmakers and ex-GOP staffers. Besides Gingrich, the hires included former Sen. Alfonse D'Amato of New York, former Rep. Vin Weber of Minnesota and Susan Hirschmann, the former chief of staff to ex-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas.

By September 2008, amid the collapse of the housing industry, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were in disastrous financial condition, were both taken over by the government and remain in conservatorship.

http://news.yahoo.com/gingrich-says-received-freddie-mac-compensation-155709459.html 
DrafterX
14 years ago

👎 👎 👎


They HAD a job prior to getting elected. Being a politician should NEVER be considered a career nor should it have benefits like it is one! Strip away ALL pay...ALL benefits.

It should go back to being an honor to serve...not a career.

DrMaddVibe wrote:





one step at a time..... 😟
MACS
14 years ago

👎 👎 👎


They HAD a job prior to getting elected. Being a politician should NEVER be considered a career nor should it have benefits like it is one! Strip away ALL pay...ALL benefits.

It should go back to being an honor to serve...not a career.

DrMaddVibe wrote:




Next time you get in line for a job that pays NOTHING, let me know.
DrMaddVibe
14 years ago

Next time you get in line for a job that pays NOTHING, let me know.

MACS wrote:




If I ever run for public office...I will!

Not to mention that they'll spend hundreds of millions of dollars for a job that pays 130-250k...yeah, do the math. Someone is paying someone off.

Those leeches are living off of OUR money!

Couple it with the benefits and graft as well as the loopholes that make them richer than they were when they entered...makes me sick.

We deserve the "leaders" we elect.
rfenst
14 years ago

Strip away ALL pay...ALL benefits.

It should go back to being an honor to serve...not a career.

DrMaddVibe wrote:



I do favor term limits.

However, no pay and no benefits will prohibit anyone, but the wealthy from full-time office.
rfenst
14 years ago

Military pay/benefits/retirement are not absurd like the politician's. A military member has to serve 20 years or more to get any retirement or medical benefits at all (unless they have a disability, then they get disability pay). Then if they DO retire they get 50% of their last three years BASE pay, averaged. Then that free medical isn't free... it's $520 a year, plus small co-pays, or $0 a year plus HUGE co-pays, unless you go to a military hospital where retirees rank right below active duty, dependents, reservists and everyone else.

Politicians serve 1 term and get full pay, medical and benefits. They never even have to get shot at. How cool is that? The men and women they send INTO war shouldn't get less than the fools who send them there. I'm not asking to increase what the military retirees get... it's fair. I'm proposing the politicians get the same. If they don't do what's good for the people and get re-elected 4 times to get to 20 years-- they get nuthin'!

MACS wrote:




Macs,

I was just yanking your chain a bit.
frankj1
14 years ago

I do favor term limits.

However, no pay and no benefits will prohibit anyone, but the wealthy from full-time office.

rfenst wrote:


agree on both.

I have felt all along that Newt would get the nomination, though I also believe he has such a closet full of skeletons he could never be elected Prez.
rfenst
14 years ago



I have felt all along that Newt would get the nomination, though I also believe he has such a closet full of skeletons he could never be elected Prez.

frankj1 wrote:



I like him as apundit. But, i don't agree with him on many issues important to me.
He kind of scares me.
MACS
14 years ago
Why term limits? What if the guy or girl in office is doing an awesome job?

Again, making them accountable to us would ensure they do the right things. Term limits just put another douche in there who gets to serve one term and be set.

Fix the system and term limits won't be an issue.
rfenst
14 years ago

Why term limits? What if the guy or girl in office is doing an awesome job?

Again, making them accountable to us would ensure they do the right things. Term limits just put another douche in there who gets to serve one term and be set.

Fix the system and term limits won't be an issue.

MACS wrote:




Term limits keep individuals from serving "forever".
If someone is doing an awesome job, let them run for another position where the could do the same.
As things stand now, electing, re-electing or voting out are our only options.
"Fix the system" is vague...
frankj1
14 years ago

I like him as apundit. But, i don't agree with him on many issues important to me.
He kind of scares me.

rfenst wrote:


I am not a supporter at all! I just think he has the ability and comparatively superior intellect to work through this insultingly weak crop of candidates for the nomination. He's watching them kill themselves and each other without his participation. But oh yeah, agreed Robert, much about him is disturbing.

It's very difficult to oust an incumbent, even in this current situation, and I do not believe the GOP is offering solutions...they certainly can assume a giant share of the blame. In fact, there's a better chance that things (the economy) fix themselves through time without any brilliance on the part of any philosophy or party. This alone may make people who actually do vote decide to cause less disruption with a "new" start all over again. Plus, there's more than enough time for incremental improvements, assuming no partisan sabotage, that will be attributed to the current administration.

A few jobs created will do more to change minds than slanderous attack ads by either of the leading parties. Whoever wins should not think that the victory is an endorsement of his/her party's fringe philosophy as most of America longs for parties able to compromise with less polarized positions, more representative of the position of the vast middle.

Newt is not that person, Obama is probably not either, but he is the incumbent and that is a huge edge, especially against this crew of self destructive geniuses.
DrMaddVibe
14 years ago

I do favor term limits.

However, no pay and no benefits will prohibit anyone, but the wealthy from full-time office.

rfenst wrote:




Is ANY of that in the founding documents of our nation?

No?

Strip it away.

It doesn't belong and we cannot afford it.

We really need to think more like it's OUR house...not theirs to tell us how it's ran.
wheelrite
14 years ago

I am not a supporter at all! I just think he has the ability and comparatively superior intellect to work through this insultingly weak crop of candidates for the nomination. Agreed, Robert, much about him is disturbing though.

It's very difficult to oust an incumbent, even in this current situation, and I do not believe the GOP is offering solutions...they certainly can assume a giant share of the blame. In fact, there's a better chance that things (the economy) fix themselves through time without any brilliance on the part of any philosophy or party. This alone may make people who actually vote decide to cause less disruption with a "new" start all over again. Plus, there's more than enough time for incremental improvements that will be attributed to the current administration.

A few jobs created will do more to change minds than slanderous attack ads by either of the leading parties. Whoever wins should not think that the victory is an endorsement of his/her party's fringe philosophy as most of America longs for parties able to compromise with less polarized positions, more representative of the position of the vast middle.

Newt is not that person, Obama is probably not either, but he is the incumbent and that is a huge edge, especially against this crew of self destructive geniuses.

frankj1 wrote:



It's very easy to OUST a Democrat incumbent,,
Only ONE has been re-elceted to a 2ND TERM SINCE FDR...


wheel,
frankj1
14 years ago

It's very easy to OUST a Democrat incumbent,,
Only ONE has been re-elceted to a 2ND TERM SINCE FDR...


wheel,

wheelrite wrote:


well,

going with your arbitrary choice of when to begin counting (following a four time Dem winner) you aren't exactly correct. Technically, yes, only one has won twice, but that is misleading as only one lost

Carter was the only Dem not re-elected who ran since FDR. But he's the only Dem who actually lost a bid for reelection. Johnson won reelection after finishing Kennedy's term (Kennedy would have won again easily).

Ford and Bush I hold the distinction for the GOP. So the reality is that it has been twice as easy to oust a Republican incumbent.

What were you thinking?

But it is a very short list even when combined over the last 55/60 years. I'll stand on my comment, regardless of party.

fiddler898
14 years ago
Lies, damn lies, and statistics. And when statistics don't work, just pick the numbers - and the years - you like!
wheelrite
14 years ago

well,

going with your arbitrary choice of when to begin counting (following a four time Dem winner) you aren't exactly correct. Technically, yes, only one has won twice, but that is misleading as only one lost

Carter was the only Dem not re-elected who ran since FDR. But he's the only Dem who actually lost a bid for reelection. Johnson won reelection after finishing Kennedy's term (Kennedy would have won again easily).

Ford and Bush I hold the distinction for the GOP. So the reality is that it has been twice as easy to oust a Republican incumbent.

What were you thinking?

But it is a very short list even when combined over the last 55/60 years. I'll stand on my comment, regardless of party.

frankj1 wrote:



Ok, Einstein,,,

JFKs poll numbers were in the toilet when his head exploded. LBJ was a criminal that dug us deep in Vietnam and knew he had no chance..
Carter,well we all about him..

And Clinton co-opted the Republican platform to get re-elected...

A Ham sandwich could beat Obama now...


count on it,,,


wheel,,[whip]
Users browsing this topic