Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Five months after resigning his House speakership under a cloud, Mr. Gingrich signed aboard with Freddie. To do what is a bit of a controversy. "He's not going to be representing us externally or lobbying on our behalf," a Freddie spokeswoman told the press at the time.
Mr. Gingrich himself today explains, in the full glory of hindsight, that he was there to advise Freddie that its "insane" lending policies were stoking a housing "bubble."
Less heroic is a story from a former Freddie veep in charge of political schmoozing, who told Bloomberg News that Mr. Gingrich was hired to indicate how Freddie might cozy up to conservatives.
To those innocent of Washington ways, the full truth may sound even more improbable: Mr. Gingrich was being paid so the world would know he was on Freddie's payroll, so he wouldn't be tempted to insert his voluble self on the other side of a soon-to-be roiling debate about Freddie's future. ...
Mr. Gingrich had spent 20 years in Congress, owed a $300,000 ethics fine, plus was going through a divorce. Freddie's contract, with its $25,000-per-month retainer, came at an opportune moment. ...
You're referencing your own thread as a source? Seriously?
Yes. It links various studies and empirical evidence against the CRA as a cause for the Financial Crisis.
If you can offer something of substance other than an Internet journalist's opinion, I'd be happy to hear it.
Since this thread is about Newt and we've deviated into the housing meme, here is an article about said topic in today's WSJ.
Five months after resigning his House speakership under a cloud, Mr. Gingrich signed aboard with Freddie. To do what is a bit of a controversy. "He's not going to be representing us externally or lobbying on our behalf," a Freddie spokeswoman told the press at the time.
Mr. Gingrich himself today explains, in the full glory of hindsight, that he was there to advise Freddie that its "insane" lending policies were stoking a housing "bubble."
Less heroic is a story from a former Freddie veep in charge of political schmoozing, who told Bloomberg News that Mr. Gingrich was hired to indicate how Freddie might cozy up to conservatives.
To those innocent of Washington ways, the full truth may sound even more improbable: Mr. Gingrich was being paid so the world would know he was on Freddie's payroll, so he wouldn't be tempted to insert his voluble self on the other side of a soon-to-be roiling debate about Freddie's future. ...
Mr. Gingrich had spent 20 years in Congress, owed a $300,000 ethics fine, plus was going through a divorce. Freddie's contract, with its $25,000-per-month retainer, came at an opportune moment. ...
Holman Jenkins: Freddie's Friend Newt - WSJ.com
Since this thread is about Newt and we've deviated into the housing meme, here is an article about said topic in today's WSJ.
Five months after resigning his House speakership under a cloud, Mr. Gingrich signed aboard with Freddie. To do what is a bit of a controversy. "He's not going to be representing us externally or lobbying on our behalf," a Freddie spokeswoman told the press at the time.
Mr. Gingrich himself today explains, in the full glory of hindsight, that he was there to advise Freddie that its "insane" lending policies were stoking a housing "bubble."
Less heroic is a story from a former Freddie veep in charge of political schmoozing, who told Bloomberg News that Mr. Gingrich was hired to indicate how Freddie might cozy up to conservatives.
To those innocent of Washington ways, the full truth may sound even more improbable: Mr. Gingrich was being paid so the world would know he was on Freddie's payroll, so he wouldn't be tempted to insert his voluble self on the other side of a soon-to-be roiling debate about Freddie's future. ...
Mr. Gingrich had spent 20 years in Congress, owed a $300,000 ethics fine, plus was going through a divorce. Freddie's contract, with its $25,000-per-month retainer, came at an opportune moment. ...
Holman Jenkins: Freddie's Friend Newt - WSJ.com
Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics
Careful of Joe-B's research on the internet. He is still taking How to Avoid Crap 101, for the third time.
Since this thread is about Newt and we've deviated into the housing meme, here is an article about said topic in today's WSJ.
Five months after resigning his House speakership under a cloud, Mr. Gingrich signed aboard with Freddie. To do what is a bit of a controversy. "He's not going to be representing us externally or lobbying on our behalf," a Freddie spokeswoman told the press at the time.
Mr. Gingrich himself today explains, in the full glory of hindsight, that he was there to advise Freddie that its "insane" lending policies were stoking a housing "bubble."
Less heroic is a story from a former Freddie veep in charge of political schmoozing, who told Bloomberg News that Mr. Gingrich was hired to indicate how Freddie might cozy up to conservatives.
To those innocent of Washington ways, the full truth may sound even more improbable: Mr. Gingrich was being paid so the world would know he was on Freddie's payroll, so he wouldn't be tempted to insert his voluble self on the other side of a soon-to-be roiling debate about Freddie's future. ...
Mr. Gingrich had spent 20 years in Congress, owed a $300,000 ethics fine, plus was going through a divorce. Freddie's contract, with its $25,000-per-month retainer, came at an opportune moment. ...
Holman Jenkins: Freddie's Friend Newt - WSJ.com
Wow, that's it, it's a conspiracy. Freddie was paying Newt Protection Money so he wouldn't point out how brain-dead retarded it was for a big government agency to be out there buying up bad loans given on the basis of food stamps.
Ahhh, that's it.
It's kind of like that Monty Python skit where Eric Idle walks onto a stage and says, "Give me twenty quid, and I won't mess up this scene!"
They went after people who could not pay because they knew the government would subsidize it.
And why are you creating sock puppets?
Ask the question in a rational manner, and I'll tell you all about it.
And why are you creating sock puppets?
You are not this dumb.
Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics
Careful of Joe-B's research on the internet. He is still taking How to Avoid Crap 101, for the third time.
Whatever, Jake the Fake...
Hey, I hear Newts running even with your Weird Mormon Robot in New Hampshire.
Oooops.... 2012 is starting to look a lot like 2008 for Reversable Mittens. He spends and spends, but he voters still hate him.
As Benjamin Disraeli said, mendacity comes in three forms. Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics.
You get your stats, I'll get mine.
but just common fucking sense should tell you when banks are loaning to people with no income because they know the government will bail them out, bad stuff is going to follow.
So let's review, shall we.
Government insists banks have to loan to poor people in neighborhoods where property values are declining because of urban decay.
They also let it be known that they can bundle these loans up and sell them to Freddie, Fannie and other amusingly named GSE's.
They know if the economy collapses, they will not only not go to jail, but they will get bailouts, get to keep their bonuses and will be able to cash out their stock options.
And you wonder why it all went south? Really?
Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics
Careful of Joe-B's research on the internet. He is still taking How to Avoid Crap 101, for the third time.
Whatever, Jake the Fake...
Hey, I hear Newts running even with your Weird Mormon Robot in New Hampshire.
Oooops.... 2012 is starting to look a lot like 2008 for Reversable Mittens. He spends and spends, but he voters still hate him.
Joe-Bizarro, don't take your failure on the quotation and Disraeli so hard. Here, I will help you out. Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics
I know why it all went south. I was actively betting against real estate in 2006 and made a fair amount of money off it. It's what I do for a living.
When it was happening, we talked to hundreds of analysts, strategists, bankers, economists, executives, academics, regulators, etc., about why had the market seemed to have gone insane to us. Do you know how many conversations I had about the CRA during that time? Exactly zero. The only time I had heard of this explanation was after the bubble collapsed when it appears that ideologues on the right began groping for an answer to rationalize their worldview.
So again, if you have something of substance other than a young Internet journalist's opinion, particularly something with data, please post it.
I'm sorry, don't talk to sock puppets... just neg rep them.
I know why it all went south. I was actively betting against real estate in 2006 and made a fair amount of money off it. It's what I do for a living.
Well, it's rare that you meet someone who is proud of being a parasite...
When it was happening, we talked to hundreds of analysts, strategists, bankers, economists, executives, academics, regulators, etc., about why had the market seemed to have gone insane to us. Do you know how many conversations I had about the CRA during that time? Exactly zero. The only time I had heard of this explanation was after the bubble collapsed when it appears that ideologues on the right began groping for an answer to rationalize their worldview.
Well, as another wise man said, (and I won't bother looking up who) it's really hard to get someone to recognize a problem when his livlihood depends on it.
So again, if you have something of substance other than a young Internet journalist's opinion, particularly something with data, please post it.
Why should I bother? Seriously, why should I bother explaining to one of the parasites who caused the problem what the problem was.
I know why it all went south. I was actively betting against real estate in 2006 and made a fair amount of money off it. It's what I do for a living.
Well, it's rare that you meet someone who is proud of being a parasite...
Well, as another wise man said, (and I won't bother looking up who) it's really hard to get someone to recognize a problem when his livlihood depends on it.
So again, if you have something of substance other than a young Internet journalist's opinion, particularly something with data, please post it.
Why should I bother? Seriously, why should I bother explaining to one of the parasites who caused the problem what the problem was.
Do you know how I know I've won an argument? When you start making ad hominem attacks against me.
Isn't that what you said in the other thread?
