Welfare in the United States has become a very debated issue. Every person seems to have a different side when it comes to the argument. In an article in The Huffington Post titled “What Donald Trump Doesn't Understand About Welfare”, the author, Brian Hanley, makes a very persuasive point. He essentially writes two stories about two completely different sides of welfare recipients to show that not everyone is taking the programs for granted. Hanley makes a very compelling argument with the use of statistics, crediting backgrounds to each person used in the article, and invoking feelings of pity and anger to sway the reader’s view.
Hanley wrote this article in order to persuade his readers that welfare is a very crucial part of some people’s lives, and Donald Trump should not cut its funding. In order to achieve this, Hanley makes use of statistics and facts throughout the article explaining how beneficial social welfare truly is. He conducted research and credited most of his findings to historian Michael B. Katz of the University of Pennsylvania. In the article, he states that there was a 60% decline of people living in poverty between 1960 and 1980 due to social welfare. He also states that between these
…show more content…
Hanley believes that Trump is very uneducated on the topic of welfare as he believes that giving out handouts is a waste of money and ruins the incentive of workers, while Hanley argues that it is actually beneficial because it helps working Americans who need help get back on their feet. Hanley argues his side to his readers by creating a story of two completely different people who receive welfare. Through this story, he is able to subtly convince the reader that welfare benefits outweigh the cons and Trump should not cut its