Gingrich was paid nearly $2 million by Freddie Mac

[Wonkish1]

Look in early 2010, I actually listened to Newt predict a future crash in China caused by their property markets. That was a view that only a small group of people at the time had(including myself) and (when it comes true) would represent the only time in American history where a presidential candidate or president accurately predicted a future bubble in a public speech.

I didn't hear that Newt Gingrich speech in 2010.  I just read the paper in 2009 and got the info...



Never get your news from a history professor.

Actually I got the analysis from my favorite hedge fund manager in mid 2009. I sincerely doubt you actually started becoming a China bear in 2009, I just don't believe it. Instead you probably just googled that right now.

When a different Hedge fund manager in late 2009 started giving that view most of the financial world called him misinformed and accused him of making a dumb prediction. Still to this day most of the financial community has only switched from "no bubble" to "soft landing", and they still think a massive crash in China wont happen.

The fact that Newt actually saw the information in 2009 and in early 2010 bucked the financial communities misinformed belief that there was no bubble in China shows the sign of someone that understands these markets enough to make these calls on his own.

Link, I've been personally liking a lot of your posts on here recently, but right now your pushing the boundaries of what we've discussed in the past. My advice to you would be to not continue on the path you are because:
A) It probably wouldn't end well for you given my knowledge level on the subjects of Newt and the Chinese property bubble vs. yours
and
B) It wouldn't be good for the found respect I've been developing for you over the last week or so.

[Torie]

How many hours did Newt work for his 2 million?  Did he just pontificate with his big picture stuff, and if so, why on earth would the agencies pay that kind of money for that?  Was it some sort of hush money, to just keep Newt leashed, so he would not attack them on his speaking tours or something?  Something just isn't quite right here. I want to know more.

[opebo]

How many hours did Newt work for his 2 million?  Did he just pontificate with his big picture stuff, and if so, why on earth would the agencies pay that kind of money for that?  Was it some sort of hush money, to just keep Newt leashed, so he would not attack them on his speaking tours or something?  Something just isn't quite right here. I want to know more.

Republican politicians almost universally get these payoffs after leaving office, or between terms in office, Torie.  I'm shocked at your naivety, it is almost charming in one so old.

[Link]

Of course he offered it.  He's not an idiot.  You think he is the first person to think about covering up a "crime" before someone asks?

the proper forum response is to point out that: "Newt, as a paid outside consultant, should have documented his advice to Freddie Mac.  And if he didn't document it, then he's not even following standard protocol within his own consulting firm.  Therefore, we await the expected documentation, from either Newt and/or Freddie, before rendering a verdict."

you, on the other hand, are just being a trolling arse...and after last night's freakish attempt to arrogantly claim you knew more than I do about the neighborhood I spent 22 years growing up in...you are now on ignore.

That response was not even directed at you.  You may fly off into a tizzy at my response to another poster's remarks but don't put that on me.

Take a chill pill, dude.  It's just a bunch of anonymous people on an internet forum.  And anyway Newt's fortunes will not rise and fall based on his work with Freddie Mac.  So you just had a meltdown because of something a complete stranger said about a topic that in the final analysis will have no bearing on the 2012 presidential election.  Are you serious?  If you want to post what is really bothering you please do.  But do not pretend it is a stranger's critique of one of Newt Gingrich's meaningless consulting gigs.

[Link]

How many hours did Newt work for his 2 million?  Did he just pontificate with his big picture stuff, and if so, why on earth would the agencies pay that kind of money for that?  Was it some sort of hush money, to just keep Newt leashed, so he would not attack them on his speaking tours or something?  Something just isn't quite right here. I want to know more.

Republican politicians almost universally get these payoffs after leaving office, or between terms in office, Torie.  I'm shocked at your naivety, it is almost charming in one so old.

I don't think it is purely the domain of Republicans.  The DC/private sector revolving door is non-partisan.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

How many hours did Newt work for his 2 million?  Did he just pontificate with his big picture stuff, and if so, why on earth would the agencies pay that kind of money for that?  Was it some sort of hush money, to just keep Newt leashed, so he would not attack them on his speaking tours or something?  Something just isn't quite right here. I want to know more.

we don't know if Newt was the only one billing...it could have involved hours from several employees at Newt's firm...or maybe most of it amounted to a retainer fee just to have Newt around to bounce things off of. 

ex Speakers and ex Presidents get paid vast sums just to fart.

[opebo]

I don't think it is purely the domain of Republicans.  The DC/private sector revolving door is non-partisan.

Haha, I know.  Was just keeping it specific to get ol' Torie's goat.

[Wonkish1]

How many hours did Newt work for his 2 million?  Did he just pontificate with his big picture stuff, and if so, why on earth would the agencies pay that kind of money for that?  Was it some sort of hush money, to just keep Newt leashed, so he would not attack them on his speaking tours or something?  Something just isn't quite right here. I want to know more.

Well for example the Center for Health Transformation(a different for profit think tank Newt owned) was not only a think tank, but collected consulting retainer fees from large companies to get Newt and his staff's advice on how to handle their large health benefits packages. During the last half decade a lot of that advice was on how to develop wellness programs where people who engaged in healthy behaviors(like quit smoking, lost weight, got physicals, dropped cholesterol levels, etc.) would see reduced premiums for example. Also I have a friend that is a BA at one of the major insurers that can personally attest to at least 2 pilot projects their company is engaging in right now where the idea originally came from the CHT.

As far as Newt offering advice on how develop incentives for low income minorities to focus more on saving and maintaining better credit that would be a very good example of something Newt is very qualified to offer consulting on.



Lastly, I should point out that when it comes to consulting and hired out advice and projects many *large* companies can be pretty "out there" on what types of things they choose to invest their money on. Paying Newt's consulting firm would actually be one of the better examples from my memory. It comes from an attitude that once you get that big you can't be agile really anymore and are forced to start throwing more money at random R&D projects and advise until something sticks. Of course if it isn't amazingly fruitful they just cancel the project/contract a couple years after it was started.

[Wonkish1]

most of it amounted to a retainer fee just to have Newt around to bounce things off of.  

ex Speakers and ex Presidents get paid vast sums just to fart.

Bingo!

and

Very true!

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

most of it amounted to a retainer fee just to have Newt around to bounce things off of. 

ex Speakers and ex Presidents get paid vast sums just to fart.

Bingo!

and

Very true!

Your organization can retain 2 of the following 4 consultants, which do you pick?:

Jimmy Carter
Bill Clinton
Newt Gingrich
Bush43

I would imaging Bill and Newt would be much more sought after than Jimmy or Bush43.

These people are worth tens of millions in future speaking/consulting fees, we shouldn't be surprised they are paid vast sums to simply wax poetic.

[Torie]

I don't think it is purely the domain of Republicans.  The DC/private sector revolving door is non-partisan.

Haha, I know.  Was just keeping it specific to get ol' Torie's goat.

It didn't work.    Your most outrageous statements never get my goat opebo, but yes, I must admit that sometimes I do get the naughty little pleasure of actually enjoying watching you just go over the edge for your own personal pleasure, leaving your most treasured trove of detractors agape and amazed as your rap sheet grows ever longer. Yes I do.

[Link]

Of course he offered it.  He's not an idiot.  You think he is the first person to think about covering up a "crime" before someone asks?

What are you talking about?

A) No crime
B) Completely ethical and a none issue
and
C) It was an off the cuff statement that just fit perfectly in making his point and was designed to help confirm that he is one of the smartest guys in the room(which if you actually had heard it would be patently obvious).

That's why I put crime in quotes.  "Covering up a crime" is just an expression.  Depending on your end of the political spectrum you could argue what you think of Gingrich's consulting gig and the veracity of his remarks describing it any of a number of ways.

Wonkish1 you work in the financial services industry.  Tell me.  What would you do if you were sitting around in 2006 with seven figures and you just knew the housing market was going to crash?  Would you decide to do dubious looking consulting gigs that would come back to bite you in the @$$?  Would you write a bunch of mediocre books and then travel around the country hawking them like a two bit salesman?  I know a couple of people who were in that exact same scenario and that's not what they did.  And by the way now they have a lot more money than Gingrich and a fraction of the headache.

None of us at this point could say for certain who is telling the truth.  But based on the evidence at hand I think it is a bit of a stretch to say Gingrich is a financial wizard and the officials at Freddie Mac are just lying about him.

[Wonkish1]

That's why I put crime in quotes.  "Covering up a crime" is just an expression.  Depending on your end of the political spectrum you could argue what you think of Gingrich's consulting gig and the veracity of his remarks describing it any of a number of ways.

Wonkish1 you work in the financial services industry.  Tell me.  What would you do if you were sitting around in 2006 with seven figures and you just knew the housing market was going to crash?  Would you decide to do dubious looking consulting gigs that would come back to bite you in the @$$?  Would you write a bunch of mediocre books and then travel around the country hawking them like a two bit salesman?  I know a couple of people who were in that exact same scenario and that's not what they did.  And by the way now they have a lot more money than Gingrich and a fraction of the headache.

None of us at this point could say for certain who is telling the truth.  But based on the evidence at hand I think it is a bit of a stretch to say Gingrich is a financial wizard and the officials at Freddie Mac are just lying about him.

Well based on the initial speech that Newt gave that addressed this, Newt had the revelation that the housing market was in a bubble when they told and showed him what they were doing. So the contract had already been signed by that point.

He was sort of referring to that moment when the Freddie Mac executive team showed up and told him what they were doing as the moment that he realized it didn't make sense. So by saying that he is also stating that he wasn't aware of any real housing bubble prior to that meeting. Now that is at least what he said in the 2009 speech at least.

Newt is worth many millions today and over the last decade has built an empire out of consulting, speeches, and books. He made those millions sticking to the those particular business models which he understood the best. He is wealthy enough that for at least the last 5 years Newt has been flying private jet around the country(apparently not today though).

I wouldn't call Newt a "financial wizard", but I would definitely say that he has a very deep understanding of markets, economics, and macro developments.

So far those Freddie Mac sources are anonymous and Newt made it sound like he told a very small group of people at Freddie that so I'm really not surprised that many people wouldn't recall Newt saying that to them.

I'm thinking of trying to track down that speech, but damn that's going to take a while. When you've heard over a hundred speech's from someone a lot of them meld together over time. I have a few guesses as to ones that this could have been addressed in.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

Another media hitjob....he was doing consulting, it's not like he got insider info and sold shares in something

[Link]

Look in early 2010, I actually listened to Newt predict a future crash in China caused by their property markets. That was a view that only a small group of people at the time had(including myself) and (when it comes true) would represent the only time in American history where a presidential candidate or president accurately predicted a future bubble in a public speech.

I didn't hear that Newt Gingrich speech in 2010.  I just read the paper in 2009 and got the info...



Never get your news from a history professor.

Actually I got the analysis from my favorite hedge fund manager in mid 2009. I sincerely doubt you actually started becoming a China bear in 2009, I just don't believe it. Instead you probably just googled that right now.

Wonkish1 I have been following the financial markets for years.  Probably even longer than you have.  When I first started there was no Google.  Do you remember my remarks about LTCM?  I believe you accused me of "just googling" them.  You know when all that LTCM stuff was going down the internet wasn't really a big thing like it is now.  I actually still have the physical Wall St journal delivered to me.  I would actually cut out interesting stories from it and save them in file totes.  About a year ago when I was at my parents' house I stumbled across one of the tote's.  I've always been that way.  I read stories.  I remember them.  And if I need to reference them I can go back into my file.  Now I have the internt if I need to access reference material.

I don't work in the financial services industry.  When I was much younger I did work at a couple of banks for awhile.  Having a scientific background I was astonished at the way research reports were produced and documented.  It does not surprise me that my linking to articles is strange to you.  I have drifted more into a scientific line of endeavours.  When we write academic papers every statement must have a reference.  If it does not it will get rejected by the publisher of a Journal.  If I make a statement I will link to a source to back up what I am saying.  Everyone is free to read and evaluate the source.  There are only two people that I have come across on the internet that have a problem with that.  Both of them worked in the financial services industry.  No one from a scientific field would ever say something like that.

In regards to my feelings on China.  Again only I know what my true thoughts are.  You cannot dictate to me or any other stranger what they were thinking in 2009 about China.  My opinions on China have been very consistent.  I have been a China "bear" ever since Japan was going to take us over in the 1980s.  All of this has happened before and all of this will happen again.  That is why I kept the little newspaper clip tote.  I started noticing patterns even in my short lifetime.  Things tend to revert to the mean.  Things tend to revert back to the trend line.  What I realized during my short time working at a bank is having a vast store of remembered knowledge and archives of past market events is invaluable.  It's a repeating cycle.  Tech boom... Tech wreck... US real estate boom... US real estate crash... Gold boom+China boom...  You fill in the blank.  Anyone that doesn't at least consider the possibility of a gold crash and a collapse of Chinese assets shouldn't be in the financial services industry.

By the way I have been savaged on this forum for telling people to butt out of China's business.  All these people screaming for human rights reforms NOW have never run a vast country with a billion+ people.  Look up my posts.  I have been saying it for years.  China is going to have some big problems down the road.  Did you know I have been offered two jobs in China?  One was a very firm offer in HK years ago.  Another one was sort of a very early stages planning type of thing.  I took a close look at China both times and I saw big problems.  Anyone that follows my posts knows I have serious misgivings about the pollution in China.  Their cancer rates are going to sky rocket.  They smoke like chimney's and their environment is polluted.

Now it may be surprising to you that I know all this or that I think this way, but you have to remember I am not Hermain Cain and I am not a high school drop out.  All this information has been out there for years.  It is not a secret.  I will not just post extemporaneously.  I will read people's posts, come up with an answer, and attach an article for reference if available and I'm not just being sloppy.  I've got 20 different PDFs open on my computer right now.  They are all research papers.  I can't turn it off.  It's how I work.

[Wonkish1]

Look in early 2010, I actually listened to Newt predict a future crash in China caused by their property markets. That was a view that only a small group of people at the time had(including myself) and (when it comes true) would represent the only time in American history where a presidential candidate or president accurately predicted a future bubble in a public speech.

I didn't hear that Newt Gingrich speech in 2010.  I just read the paper in 2009 and got the info...



Never get your news from a history professor.

Actually I got the analysis from my favorite hedge fund manager in mid 2009. I sincerely doubt you actually started becoming a China bear in 2009, I just don't believe it. Instead you probably just googled that right now.

Wonkish1 I have been following the financial markets for years.  Probably even longer than you have.  When I first started there was no Google.  Do you remeber my remarks about LTCM?  I believe you accused me of "just googling" them.  You know when all that LTCM stuff was going down the internet wasn't really a big thing like it is now.  I actually still have the physical Wall St journal delivered to me.  I would actually cut out interesting stories from it and save them in file totes.  About a year ago when I was at my parents' house I stumbled across one of the tote's.  I've always been that way.  I read stories.  I remember them.  And if I need to reference them I can go back into my file.  Now I have the internt if I need to access reference material.

I don't work in the financial services industry.  When I was much younger I did work at a couple of banks for awhile.  Having a scientific background I was astonished at the way research reports were produced and documented.  It does not surprise me that my linking to articles is strange to you.  I have drifted more into a scientific line of endevaours.  When we write academic papers every statement must have a reference.  If it does not it will get rejected by the publisher of a Journal.  If I make a statement I will link to a source to back up what I am saying.  Everyone is free to read and evaluate the source.  There are only two people that I have come across on the internet that have a problem with that.  Both of them worked in the financial services industry.  No one from a scientific field would ever say something like that.

In regards to my feelings on China.  Again only I know what my true thoughts are.  You cannot dictate to me or any other stranger what they were thinking in 2009 about China.  My opinions on China have been very consistent.  I have been a China "bear" ever since Japan was going to take us over in the 1980s.  All of this has happened before and all of this will happen again.  That is why I kept the little newspaper clip tote.  I started noticing patterns even in my short lifetime.  Things tend to revert to the mean.  Things tend to revert back to the trend line.  What I realized during my short time working at a bank is having a vast store of remebered knowledge and archives of past market events is invaluable.  It's a repeating cycle.  Tech boom... Tech wreck... US real estate boom... US real estate crash... Gold boom+China boom...  You fill in the blank.  Anyone that doesn't at least consider the possibility of a gold crash and a collapse of Chinese assets shouldn't be in the financial services industry.

By the way I have been savaged on this forum for telling people to butt out of China's business.  All these people screaming for human rights reforms NOW have never run a vast country with a billion+ people.  Look up my posts.  I have been saying it for years.  China is going to have some big problems down the road.  Did you know I have been offered two jobs in China?  One was a very firm offer in HK years ago.  Another one was sort of a very early stages planning type of thing.  I took a close look at China both times and I saw big problems.  Anyone that follows my posts knows I have serious misgivings about the pollution in China.  Their cancer rates are going to sky rocket.  They smoke like chimney's and their environment is polluted.

Now it may be surprising to you that I know all this or that I think this way, but you have to remeber I am not Hermain Cain and I am not a high school drop out.  All this information has been out there for years.  It is not a secret.  I will not just post extemoraneiously.  I will read people's posts, come up with an answer, and attach an article for reference if available and I'm not just being sloppy.  I've got 20 different PDFs open on my computer right now.  They are all research papers.  I can't turn it off.  It's how I work.

There you go!! That is what I want to see! Here is an actual outpouring of knowledge that lets me understand you, your position, your explanations, your sources, etc. in a post. If every answer of yours came like this I suspect me and you would have never gotten in any posting fights to begin with.

And I don't find linking to articles as strange. On the contrary I encourage it and you should be surprised someone like me would find it strange(if that was true). My problem was that you would post the source, but not explaining your position from your perspective. Basically that gave off the impression that you were just googling and posting without understanding and I didn't want to debate a person writing an article that wasn't here.

Instead like you did in this post and what you have been doing the last couple weeks I prefer you to write your position and use the source as the support not the source be your position. Also you tended to act like your post was *the* definitive post on here when you didn't demonstrate knowledge with it and that was particularly annoying.

I wasn't trying to dictate to you what your beliefs were. I leveled a guess because up until this post you hadn't shared any personal details showing any knowledge on the subject. Its usually pretty safe to say that after someone has hammered another individual on their lack of knowledge in their posts long enough that the reason why they haven't produced a post defending their knowledge of a subject isn't because they are holding back, but instead because they don't have it to begin with(I don't know why you held this post back for so long, but it should have been made a long time ago).


In regards to your last paragraph. That is definitely fine, but please stop posting like your posts are *the* definitive post on a subject when your not offering really any of your own knowledge on an issue and instead are just posting one of thousands of links that all say different things. If you want to drop a source only post without any of your own knowledge than just ask me to "respond to this" instead of trying to unsuccessfully cut me off at the knees every single time using a single source(which you can find one to say anything).


Essentially you have in the past tried to use a source to shutdown discussion instead of foster it. Knowledgeable people don't usually do that. They usually have more confidence in their ability to continue through a discussion involving multiple sources, information, and knowledge.

[Link]

...and after last night's freakish attempt to arrogantly claim you knew more than I do about the neighborhood I spent 22 years growing up in...you are now on ignore.

The only thing "freakish" was the shear volume of posts taking apart your absurd assertions about Houston...

...but if you would like to wager $100 that registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by at least 2:1 in the City of Houston, then I'm sure we could find a neutral member of this forum to help transfer $100 from your pocket to my wallet.

You know we are never going to settle the nuances of the degree of partisan politics in the nonpartisan Houston Mayoral contests.  But one thing we can all agree on is anyone that doesn't know there are no registered Democratic or Republican voters in Houston either isn't from Texas or is very clueless.

are you forgetting I grew up in Houston, still work in Houston, and still live 40 miles NNW of it?  The last Democratic mayor (White) won reelection with 86 percent of the vote.  Parker received 50.8 percent and barely avoided a runoff.  The last time Houston voted for a GOP mayor was 1979!

so, again, the inner city of Houston is NOT representative of Texas or the USA

Guess what the Dems haven't won the mayorship in Houston in my lifetime either...

Jmf saying it's because of the blacks and hispanics that Annise Parker got elected is hilarious. He obviously has no clue what he is talking about. If he actually tried to understand who supports gay rights, he might get a clue, but obviously he isn't interested in that.

[Wonkish1]

...and after last night's freakish attempt to arrogantly claim you knew more than I do about the neighborhood I spent 22 years growing up in...you are now on ignore.

The only thing "freakish" was the shear volume of posts taking apart your absurd assertions about Houston...

...but if you would like to wager $100 that registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by at least 2:1 in the City of Houston, then I'm sure we could find a neutral member of this forum to help transfer $100 from your pocket to my wallet.

You know we are never going to settle the nuances of the degree of partisan politics in the nonpartisan Houston Mayoral contests.  But one thing we can all agree on is anyone that doesn't know there are no registered Democratic or Republican voters in Houston either isn't from Texas or is very clueless.

are you forgetting I grew up in Houston, still work in Houston, and still live 40 miles NNW of it?  The last Democratic mayor (White) won reelection with 86 percent of the vote.  Parker received 50.8 percent and barely avoided a runoff.  The last time Houston voted for a GOP mayor was 1979!

so, again, the inner city of Houston is NOT representative of Texas or the USA

Guess what the Dems haven't won the mayorship in Houston in my lifetime either...

Jmf saying it's because of the blacks and hispanics that Annise Parker got elected is hilarious. He obviously has no clue what he is talking about. If he actually tried to understand who supports gay rights, he might get a clue, but obviously he isn't interested in that.

By the way, the way I've usually handled bets online before is to have the loser donate it the amount to a charity or even better considering the subject a political party/candidate/group/etc of the winner's choice and then the loser copies and pastes or screen shots the language of the confirmation email(minus personal details) onto the thread.