Mitt Romney on the 47 %

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/18/wonkbook-mitt-romney-vs-the-47-and-himself/




 “There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax.”

Inherent assertions:  A rather complicated conflation of several assumptions.

47%  will vote for the president no matter what.

The polls tend to support this assumption.  It is otherwise not provable.  

47% are dependendent upon the goverment.

Are they?  Are 47% receiving government dole?  This figure needs to be broken down, and it needs to be explained.  If it is so high, who are they?  What are their demographics?  Are they (as the work force and tax base are concerned) "productive citizens?  This particular assertion is blunt and it is opportunistic.  I do not expect 80 year olds or 3 year olds to be victims, reliant on the government.  Too much of a glittering generalization.


47% consider themselves victims.

This is a argument to the people with a tinge of all or nothing thinking. One could actually argue that 47% simply vote for the President because they lean towards the Democrats.  Their reasons for voting do not necessarily come because they take government aid.  



That (the programs to aid these people) are an entitlement.

An equivocation argument.  Set up a new definition (entitlement for government handout), then place a term for display on anyone who receives a check.  An entitlement equals a government hand out.  X receives a hand out.  X is taking an entitlement. This logic fails because.  X is not identified.  Age?  Voting record?  Also.  If X has payed taxes, then the whole concept of entitlement suddenly needs a definitional correction. 

These people pay no income tax.

Flat not true.  If someone has had a job, and he has payed taxes, then he is breaking the basic definition for the argument.  One cannot be both A and B.  

My Synthesis:

Mitt Romney's quote contains enormous a priori assumtions.  He has an unstated assertion that those who work and pay taxes are naturally somehow a majority who have no responsibility to support the unproductive 43 %.  He does this without a credible profile of the 43%.  This number includes a consider number who do not vote because of age or physical condition.  It takes a broad swipe at the unemployed.  It abuses the term entitlement.  Does this persuade me to vote for against Mr. Romney?  Probably not, because, the argument is more a partisan stance than a meaningful point for debate.  It is overstated, and it needs clarification.  It indicates directions of thinking that, if elected, Mr. Romney would need to address. It does him damage, because it becomes easy to apply this line of reasoning on many of his co-Republicans.  When I step into a voting booth, I will consider very different issues in my choice.  This is a philosophy of government that reality would  dictate any way.  Tempest in a teapot.