Krugman describes that there is nothing to worry about and that citizens of such a high class country would not get bankrupt from only these conditions. The author uses a different tone for this to describe their concerns. The tone shifts from worrisome to careless almost casual about the entire situation to comfort his audience and not end on a harsh tone which would create tension in the reader.

Krugman explains that even though there are people living in lively middle-class societies, there are still conditions that resemble ones in poverty societies. The author is able to conduct this feat by using diction for "cognitive". This word helps to get a deeper understanding on how poverty and middle class are alike even though they contradict each other.

Krugman describes this as a good choice as well as a problem. A paradox is being formed here that choice from a variety of options. The freedom of variety is a good thing but too much of it can make a person extremely vulnerable if not aware of their situation.

The author added such a fitting sentence which majority of the audience can relate to. Krugman implemented exemplification which gave him a sense of security with persuading the readers that your fire can change with a couple of major decisions.

Krugman implements a rhetorical question to let the audience see how deceitful politicians can be whenever they need to address a certain situation. This climbs back to the fact of how cunning and clever politicians can be.

Krugman starts out his column with saying how his father would admire the lieutenant governor of Texas. He agreed with him until this point. The author states this because it shows the contrast of character from Patrick. He would allow some sacrifices but after blaming the large number of bills for Texas citizens, he would not agree with him any longer. The contrast for Patrick and how he compares to the ideology of the author's father shows the upcoming problems it will bring for the citizens.

Krugman compares this story with something that should be very easy to solve and says that it is child's play indicating that it is something even a child can handle. This shows that the Texas leaders really have no control over this situation and aren't even trying to keep their state in a livable state.

Krugman changes up the style in this paragraph stating that instead of the political party being opposed to them, they are starting to own the liberals. This style gave a larger sense of control over the liberals and the author showed this quite well with this style.

Krugman wanted to circle back to his reasoning for writing this piece. He wants to make sure that the people who made the mistakes are held accountable for their terrible decision making and he should be blamed for all of this. Krugman utilize the rhetorical question to question why these political leaders need to blame.

Along with this incident, the authorities have been way more to put their state in danger even after multiple warnings. Krugman uses these several occurrences to build his case and show how they are handling these scenarios with little to no thought.

The author goes deeper to show how sickening this crime is and states that they not only denied their involvement but are doing this to weaken their opponents. The use of "demonize" adds a heavier affect to how cruel this process would make a party. It reminds them of the past where there was internal conflict in America.

The republican politicians build a story that blames the environmentalists for the disaster of the power grid. The tone from neutral quickly turned to wicked when describing the true intents of the republican group. This group used a very foul escape to prevent them from getting any blame for the situation even though the opposite party have not even considered running for state.

The diction was quite potent towards Texas's leader for how they chose to tackle this particular problem. The leaders were very facile in their treatment of these policies so Krugman was not surprised that this behavior was prominent in past situations as well.

The author explains that Politicians are not gods because they make many poor decisions. The use of logos are quite apparent because with logic, Krugman states that if politicians were gods, they would not make any decisions that they would regret later on.