Not Working

This article,Where the Bailout Went Wrong, talks about the bank bailouts or as he refers to it the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and whether or not TARP was a success or failure. He explains that TARP’s main goal and the reason it was passed was to help home owners keep position of their homes. Instead of buying up the bad mortgages and reforming them to help out the home owner, TARP threw money at the banks without any kind of regulations. Apparently they thought the Banks were too big to fail.

The author believes that because TARP failed to meet its original goals that it was a failure. The program failed to help homeowners instead it gave the money to banks. These banks are now experience record profits and are bigger than ever. It was hoped that the banks would give out more loans but this did not happen because the treasure failed to give the banks guild lines or incentives to do this. So now homeowners didn’t get any help and the banks profited. TARP failed to remedy mortgage servicers’ instead favoring foreclosure over permanent modifications. They threw money at the problem instead of hold the mortgage servicers accountable for their disregard of program guidelines.

The author first explains in the opening what TARP is and why it was created. He then explains what TARP was supposed to accomplish. Then he tells us what TARP did instead of accomplishing the goals it was created to accomplish which is why he believes TARP was a failure. His first point was that TARP gave money to banks without any kinds of regulations instead of helping homeowners keep their houses. His second point was that TRAP failed to put in effect permanent reform modifications and his final point was that TRAP failed to put in an regulator reformations of the banks that threatened our financial system.

I do agree with this writer because TARP did not accomplish what it was created to. Instead of helping homeowners it bulked up corporate pockets. What they did instead was give money to the banks, in hopes of increased loans. They failed to give any kind of regulations or incentives so none of this was accomplished.

I liked that the author set up pathos. He explained who he was and what he did in regards to his expertise on TARP witch made his paper very believable. He organized it in a way that was easy to follow and did not jump around too much. I don’t think this author should change anything.

I would like to state that I special inspect for TARP but I can’t because I’m not. But when I write my own piece I would like to state who specifically said something or gave that idea to back up what I’m saying and give pathos. I believe that pathos for this essay is a big deal because there are so many varying opinions and if you’re not someone who might actually know something of what is going on no one is going to listen to what you have to say. He did talk about himself a little throughout the essay but I feel because I am not an expert it would be best if I use information gained from reliable sources like this guy instead of my opinion or observations like this author used.