My wife’s cousin has posted up a Facebook post encouraging everyone to get out and vote on Tuesday for “pro-life and pro-family” candidates. In her effort to sway undecideds, she states that “evidence shows the the economy does markedly better under the leadership of candidates who score highly on pro-family and pro-life report cards”. My wife (always the stirrer of pots) has challenged her for a cite of this assertion, but she hasn’t responded yet.
“Pro-Life” Usually equates to “anti-Abortion” in nearly all circumstances. The majority of people who use this term are categorically against a woman’s right to choose in any circumstance.
“Pro-Family” usually equates to one of two things that are not exclusive but not necessarily joined either: Anti-gay rights, or more commonly, conservative christian of any denomination.
Economically speaking, those type of people will overwhelmingly be found on the right politically. It wouldn’t surprise me to see that businesses are happier under such an administration, but I think that recent history has shown that economy as a whole is generally more prosperous under a more moderate leadership. The state of the economy after the Clinton years compared to the Bush administration as an example.
Which economy? When the Repubs are in the rich pile up the dough . When the Dems are in the overall economy does better. If you are a billionaire, the Bush admin was great. Every outsourced job and tax break for outsourcing, goes into your pocket.
Correct, where “what passes for left wing administration in America” is more simply called “center-right”. The center-right Clinton Administration enjoyed one of the most successful economies in American history. Centrist Obama is doing about as well as expected, would be much better if the center-rightists were more sure of themselves and stopped kowtowing to extreme-rightists.
“Evidence shows that candidates who score highly on pro-family and pro-life report cards prattle gibberish beginning ‘Evidence shows’ without actually having any evidence at all”.
Actually, it’s true, though not for the reason the Facebooker thinks. See, they’re confused both about who’s good for the economy, and who’s pro-life and pro-family. Obama and Clinton are both more pro-life and pro-family than either Bush ever was. Contrary to what many folks think, pro-life also means not starting unnecessary wars, and not executing people (especially not without meaningful trials), and not cutting off support for the poor. Similarly pro-family does not mean prohibiting people from marrying, and does mean raising your kids well. And even if we do interpret “pro-life” to refer to abortion and abortion alone, the abortion rate was lower under Clinton than under Bush (largely because of the better economy under Clinton, since there was less financial pressure on single mothers).
If we assume (safely I think) that the “pro-life/pro-family” candidates, per the OP, are conservative values (I know that it is wrong to say liberals don’t have such values but I think we all know what this is about and that tracks to conservative/liberal politics) then her stance is provably untrue. I’d like to see what she is putting forward as evidence for that stance.
Barton’s already lied enough about the founding fathers and religion’s role in American history and government that I’d think he’d have lost all credibility to anyone who doesn’t listen to Glen Beck religiously.
Congress controls the purse strings of the nation. I know people like to think the president is responsible for good and bad economies, but I don’t see how. The key thing they do is appoint people to the fed, but there hasn’t been much difference between the two parties in this area for at least a generation.
The other thing to keep in mind is that it takes time for economic policy to affect the economy. I would time shift the data by at least a year when comparing how one party does when it controls Congress. And since it’s not that usual for one party to be in control of both houses at the same time, there is going to be a limited sample size.
The claim mentioned in the OP merely asserts a correlation, not a causation. Hence the claim is refuted by showing that the correlation asserted does not in fact exist; the opposite correlation exists.
Who’s economy? The rich? Most of the people who say they are pro-Life (that I know) don’t want to do much for the people who bear more children than they can afford to raise. Instead of asking for responsible parenthood they want the fertile egg called a child, then once it becomes one ,they seem to holler the loudest about welfare mothers etc.!
One can look to other countries (like the third world) and see how the families fare with several starving children! Pro-choice people are really more pro-life than the one’s who call themselves that! At least that is how I see it!!!