HUD Chief Inattentive To Crisis, Critics Say

In late 2006, as economists warned of an imminent housing market collapse, housing Secretary Alphonso Jackson repeatedly insisted that the mounting wave of mortgage failures was a short-term "correction." Full Story »

Posted by Leo Romero
Tags Help
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by Leo Romero - Apr 13, 2008 - 7:39 AM PDT
Edit Lock: This story can be edited

Reviews

Show All | Notes | Comments | Quotes | Links
Douglas Hord
4.7
by Douglas Hord - Oct. 1, 2008

FINALLY, a story that shows that the core of the current financial rot came from the top. Had it not been for permissive and encouraging regulators, the loan products that put people into homes they could not ultimately afford wouldn't have been offered.

See Full Review » (7 answers)
Jack Dinkmeyer
4.2
by Jack Dinkmeyer - Oct. 1, 2008

Yet another story about yet another Bushie scandal. Everyone is missing the real point of this administration. Jackson didn't become corrupt, tuning to favoritism and cronyism. He started out that way. And he didn't "ignore" warnings about the impending crisis--like every other Bushie, he didn't care. His missiion was to serve special interests: the mortgage industry and developers. Like every ultra conservative, it's never been about helping Americans, it's always been about giving special interests everything they demand and finding ways to get Americans to buy their B.S. justifications.

See Full Review » (13 answers)
Leo Romero
4.0
by Leo Romero - Oct. 1, 2008
See Full Review » (1 answer)
Bourne Morris
3.5
by Bourne Morris - Oct. 1, 2008

A good story about HUD and the president's wish to increase home ownership during his tenure. However it needed to be balanced against the sub-prime mortgage costs created by private lenders to get the whole picture. HUD owns a piece of this disaster but we can't tell how big a piece from this article.

See Full Review » (7 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

4.1

Good
from 6 reviews (50% confidence)
Quality
4.2
Facts
4.0
Fairness
4.0
Information
4.5
Sourcing
4.2
Style
3.5
Accuracy
4.0
Balance
3.5
Context
4.2
Popularity
3.7
Recommendation
3.8
Credibility
3.6
# Reviews
3.0
# Views
5.0
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »
(See these related stories.)

Links Help

No links yet. Please review this story to add some!