Paul Krugman, an editor for the New York Times, writes about current issues of minimum earnings in his editorial, Raise the Wage, published on February 17 2013. Paul discusses a increase in the minimum wage and how it would be beneficial to raise the current rate from $7.25 by less then $2. this increase would be in line with our natural inflation, would benefit the lower working class by raising incomes of “hard-working but low-paid Americans”, and supports his claim with rhetorical devices of hyperboles and use of the principles of ethos trough quotation and sighting his sources.
Paul Krugman bashes republicans throughout his article and generalizes Republican men by overstating and over exaggerating a small minority of extremist, as there are in any groups based on religion politics or morals. Though a bit degrading, Paul Krugmans use of this hyperbolic structure i found quite entertaining and can easily draw in those with even the slightest amount of political knowledge. in a gross generalization of republican men, Paul Krugman has affectively drawn in a mass following of young liberals and even some left winged republicans who read the new york times. Paul Krugman makes it seem that republicans are so morally off track and ignorant, that its almost as if they believe the moon landing was fake due to the chance of life existing on other worlds, which would turn biblical reasoning into just religious biases. The uses of hyperboles through the article makes Paul Krugmans purpose sink into the reader by using the extremes repetitively to make it seem like republican males do not care about the working class. Paul Krugman directly states this when referring to the GOP and Mitt Romney, and how in there eyes people who do not pay state income taxes are “takers” rather then the hard working americans, who cant make ends meet on the minimal salary of $7.25, that Paul Krugman makes them out to be earlier in the article. Paul Krugman also calls out House majority leader, Eric Cantor, who made a twitter post on labor day, commemorating those who own business and “earned there own success” rather then the hard working men and women of americas lower class work force. …show more content…
Linking to the twitter post, Paul Krugmans use of social idea also appeals to a younger audience and creates an area of relation for understand politics even though social media today. In all fairness, House majority leader, Eric Cantor probably meant no harm in his post or to segregate the poor from the elite but it can be misinterpreted and changed to fit Paul Krugmans needs for his article. This use of hyperbole, though could be considered morally wrong, is an affective tool to pass across his understanding of the wages and how republican males view the situation. its not that House majority leader, Eric Cantor is wrong, its that he is looking at the issue from the wrong angle. This only further validates Paul Krugmans ideas and even though its wrong to put House majority leader, Eric Cantor on the spot like Paul Krugman did in his article and give no reasonable background to support his clam. Paul Krugman quotations are mostly better then that of House majority leader, Eric Cantors. For the most part, Paul Krugmans use of quotations is not used to bash republicans
Paul Krugman bashes republicans throughout his article and generalizes Republican men by overstating and over exaggerating a small minority of extremist, as there are in any groups based on religion politics or morals. Though a bit degrading, Paul Krugmans use of this hyperbolic structure i found quite entertaining and can easily draw in those with even the slightest amount of political knowledge. in a gross generalization of republican men, Paul Krugman has affectively drawn in a mass following of young liberals and even some left winged republicans who read the new york times. Paul Krugman makes it seem that republicans are so morally off track and ignorant, that its almost as if they believe the moon landing was fake due to the chance of life existing on other worlds, which would turn biblical reasoning into just religious biases. The uses of hyperboles through the article makes Paul Krugmans purpose sink into the reader by using the extremes repetitively to make it seem like republican males do not care about the working class. Paul Krugman directly states this when referring to the GOP and Mitt Romney, and how in there eyes people who do not pay state income taxes are “takers” rather then the hard working americans, who cant make ends meet on the minimal salary of $7.25, that Paul Krugman makes them out to be earlier in the article. Paul Krugman also calls out House majority leader, Eric Cantor, who made a twitter post on labor day, commemorating those who own business and “earned there own success” rather then the hard working men and women of americas lower class work force. …show more content…
Linking to the twitter post, Paul Krugmans use of social idea also appeals to a younger audience and creates an area of relation for understand politics even though social media today. In all fairness, House majority leader, Eric Cantor probably meant no harm in his post or to segregate the poor from the elite but it can be misinterpreted and changed to fit Paul Krugmans needs for his article. This use of hyperbole, though could be considered morally wrong, is an affective tool to pass across his understanding of the wages and how republican males view the situation. its not that House majority leader, Eric Cantor is wrong, its that he is looking at the issue from the wrong angle. This only further validates Paul Krugmans ideas and even though its wrong to put House majority leader, Eric Cantor on the spot like Paul Krugman did in his article and give no reasonable background to support his clam. Paul Krugman quotations are mostly better then that of House majority leader, Eric Cantors. For the most part, Paul Krugmans use of quotations is not used to bash republicans