Stage Three Blog Assignment

I really enjoyed this assignment, because we had to read an editorial rather than a news article. Opinions run wild when allowed. I believe in this article the intended audience was the taxpayer. The author seems to be stirring up controversy among the general public, not being shy about his own opinions. He makes a very stern case stating facts and offering his own charm and wit. His claim appears to be that the bailout will not benefit taxpayers as claimed by the government. The article reviews the proposed $700 billion bailout. The author proceeds to explain what little reason we have to believe that their proposal would protect taxpayers, instead they ( our U.S. Government) said that any eventual loss would be less than the losses we would endure if lending froze up. The author makes a very good point when he states that lawmakers need to examine alternatives. He suggest a proposal that would allow taxpayers to share in the gains from the "bailout revival", along with investors and bankers, now that's a plan! Several other options were explored in this article, all of which made sense, but who knows how reasonable they are. With underlying sarcasm the author kindly points out the several different options and the potential downfall to each. Mentioned as well is the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bailout which has help to keep mortgage rates on the low side, and the Federal Reserve relaxing rules on investors who take large stakes in banks. It would appear that everyone is being taken care of but the lone taxpayer.
This article was logical and well written, facts combined with opinion combined with sarcasm. Gotta love freedom of speech, it may be the only thing we have left after our government is finished.
Two especially good points from the article, if taxpayers do not share in the potential profits from the bailout, someone else will, and Congress has more work to do.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/24/opinion/24wed1.html?_r=1&oref=slogin