Rhetorical Analysis Essay
Rhetorical Analysis Essay
For The Washington Post, author Ruth Marcus explains in “Food Stamp Fight on
Deck in the House” the conflict between Democrats and Republicans on whether to cut food stamp program spending or not. She explains that Democrats support the spending of food stamps, while Republicans do not. In her editorial, Marcus develops concerned logos to prove her apprehensiveness as to why cutting food stamps is both disagreeable and hurtful to society. Her message was meant to appeal to Republican readers or those that do not fully grasp the severity of cutting food stamp spending for those that need it. Primarily, Marcus’ concern was directed towards food stamps being a “long term driver of the budget deficit” when she believed they were not. She argues that food stamps do not lead to the decrease in income because of how modest the benefits provided are. According to Marcus, those with benefits only receive $1.40 a meal adding up to $8,800 for their annual income. This was a prominent issue to Marcus simply because if benefits were as big of a problem as Republicans and the House said they were, why would those benefits received come to so little for every meal and annually?
She believes food stamps were more of a stronghold for the needy rather than a burden. Marcus gave these facts to offer closure that food stamp payments were not an economic problem. Along with being against benefits being a cause for economic downturn, Marcus was also concerned with those the Republicans and House were affecting if they cut spending. While discussing the annual income of benefits, she explains that “three fourths of households receiving benefits include a child, a person age 60 or older or someone who is disabled.” This is
For The Washington Post, author Ruth Marcus explains in “Food Stamp Fight on
Deck in the House” the conflict between Democrats and Republicans on whether to cut food stamp program spending or not. She explains that Democrats support the spending of food stamps, while Republicans do not. In her editorial, Marcus develops concerned logos to prove her apprehensiveness as to why cutting food stamps is both disagreeable and hurtful to society. Her message was meant to appeal to Republican readers or those that do not fully grasp the severity of cutting food stamp spending for those that need it. Primarily, Marcus’ concern was directed towards food stamps being a “long term driver of the budget deficit” when she believed they were not. She argues that food stamps do not lead to the decrease in income because of how modest the benefits provided are. According to Marcus, those with benefits only receive $1.40 a meal adding up to $8,800 for their annual income. This was a prominent issue to Marcus simply because if benefits were as big of a problem as Republicans and the House said they were, why would those benefits received come to so little for every meal and annually?
She believes food stamps were more of a stronghold for the needy rather than a burden. Marcus gave these facts to offer closure that food stamp payments were not an economic problem. Along with being against benefits being a cause for economic downturn, Marcus was also concerned with those the Republicans and House were affecting if they cut spending. While discussing the annual income of benefits, she explains that “three fourths of households receiving benefits include a child, a person age 60 or older or someone who is disabled.” This is