Another central idea that has developed here is that increasing aid does not mean increasing relaxation. This idea was built over the course of the article and is quite honestly taking away concern from the current situation rather than the future. The author is trying to emphasize the importance of focusing on the present which will determine the future, not the other way around (which is what most conservatives are not seeing).

This paragraph which wraps up his article brings back his point mentioned earlier on. Another central idea present in the text criticizes the conservatives for their concern of economics conservation rather than human conservation (in a way). They think that giving people more money will cause them to become lazy and stop working, hurting the U.S. in the long run. When in reality, most of the time, parents are just doing what they need to financially provide for their children the best life they can.

The author uses a counterargument to his benefit. Parents fill the role of providing and caring for their children, and for those who are financially struggling, parents often need to work 2 to 3 jobs to afford the basic needs for their children. This leaves little to no time for their children which can possibly lead to them feeling neglected or uncared for, which just adds to the concerns the parents might be facing. Parents need to live with their children, not just watch them live themselves.

This might occur, meaning it is a possibility. However, it is not possible for all those currently struggling due to income and children that once they get the money they stop working. Most people understand the need and desires of children and realize that governmental aid is not going to cover all of it in the long run so they continue to work. This statement is continuing to criticize the conversation as they are more concerned for the overall economy and financial status of the United States rather than the struggle that many families and childrens are currently experiencing due to poverty.

To me this sounds problematic in a way. Of course, it sounds bad off the bat, but I think there's a deeper meaning there that many Americans need to understand. While I am not invested or informed about politics and government interactions on a national/international level, I do believe that serving your country comes first before making deals to improve the economy. There needs to be a balance in budgets that allows for the successful implementation of a variety of safety net programs. While this sounds bad, it is suggesting change is coming but the issue regarding families struggling is not prevalent as it needs to be.

By including research and a link to the survey the author is strengthening the persuasiveness of his argument. By using the reasoning of logic, many people are led to understand by facts rather than just opinions about how they are truly positive outcomes that can come from this financial aid implementation.

Another central idea present in the article is improving the lives of children in the current generation. The author most likely understands that children are the future of tomorrow and in order to escape the harsh situations they are facing through poverty, permanent change needs to occur immediately before it's too late. The government is not just handing out money for money, they need to understand that for certain people, each and every cent of their financial aid is used to satisfy the basic needs of a human being. This paragraph in its entirety urges the importance of governmental change and reconsideration of the conservatism's perspective regarding this issue.

The author juxtaposes the effects he listed above to the effects of child tax credits, which is a focus of his article. He is furthering his argument by emphasizing that medicaid benefits do not disappear with increasing income in this situation is hinting at the misconception of the statement "penalizing families for getting ahead." (in this situation).

Including this factual piece of evidence strengthens the credibility of the author and his knowledge, appealing to the sense of logic as he develops his argument. The government is basically working against itself by implementing programs to help people only to find that once they are improving, they are surrounded by less help making them drop back down to their cycle of financial need.

Krugman includes an example that describes the reasoning why some people don't self-improve when they receive government help. Self-improving happens slowly, so even if families have a slightly higher income than the conditions needed for medicaid, that doesn't mean they should lose the right to their health benefits because that will only put them back into the cycle of poverty. Again, the author is using cause and effect structure to emphasize and convey his message of implementing permanent change to help families financially deal with their children.

I think this is a good point that he brought up, and is often what many people think of when they hear that people recieve aid or have unemployment benefits. They think that people stop working or won't work on improving their lives because they have money from the government. However, this is not the case for everyone and in order to help people out of poverty, which is a common theme throughout this piece, the government needs to begin and stay somewhere.

This statement highlights the author's perspective regarding the initiation of this financial aid package indefinitely. In other words, he is hinting towards the fact that some individuals (especially the families struggling at the moment due to child finances) are continuing to face a cycle of losses and hardships, or possibly poverty, due to the effect of taxes and lack of governmental benefits. Adding a financial aid package can cause some individuals to leave this cycle and lead on to help others as well, leading to a cascade effect in a way.

This begans to serve as the introduction to a counterargument in the text, which is used in the author's favor to strengthen his position through credible facts and evidence. Furthermore, my thoughts on the that statement ("compassion can be counterproductive.") is that any situation with compassion would mostly lead to positive outcomes. Acting with care appeals an individual's sense of emotions and possibly motivates them that they have a reason to keep fighting despite the struggles.

The author is futhering his example through the cause and effect structure. By including an example that talks about the benefits of increasing this financial aid for all types of individuals, the author is showing that it can lead to many positive outcomes such as improving the financial struggles that many parents are facing now. Certain parents have to decide between feeding their children and eating for themselves, which is decesion they should never have to face. The government should be responsible for keeping their people safe, which can even possibly reduce poverty rates.

The limitation used is an example of incorporating examples to demonstrate the disadvantages many families are facing right now. By including this statistic, the author is appealing to the emotion of sympathy and guilt from certain audience members in a way, espicially those who might be conservative. He is using this statistic to act as a call to action to the government to make the financial aid for families permenant.

This is a hidden message in his article. Along with a main point in his article being to explain the necessity of this aid package, he is also criticizing the conservations to demonstrate that their immaturity and negligence surrounding the issue is not based off helping children, it's based off trying to save money.

This sentence, which acts sort of as a thesis, ties in his audiences and shows the author's catalyst for pushing on this aid. You can tell that this issue is something he wants to create change for.

The description and implementation of this package is one of the author's purposes within his writing. Currently, he is putting the blame on conservatives to try to generate an appeal to sympathy from the audience. He lays out a thesis right after to, in order to highlight his main points to show that he is using factual evidence to base his argument off of.

The conclusion of the first paragraph is kind of letting out all the negatives of this year to allow the readers' to see the main point within his text as positive. He is trying to show how while the country is facing difficulties at the moment, they hope to be away from this and any other negative effects people may be facing currently.

The beginning of this journal article is sort of displaying a compare/contrast structure which is used to emphasize the negatives and positives of a certain idea. It seems like the columnist is being critical of the conservatives' belief toward helping families with children.

The columnist is introducing the topic in a manner that brings attention to the topic at hand. It is highlighting the negatives of certain economic reliefs in order for the reader to see the benefits of "enhanced aid to families."