Tax Cuts Ended Depression-Created Decade Long Expansion

This extract from Wikipedia on the economic policy under the Harding administration, in respect of the stimulus effects of tax cuts, speaks for itself. There were brief recessions within the subsequent boom period but all that means is the business cycle is an inherent aspect of capitalism. 

That tax cuts are better than deficit spending seems beyond discussion. Even if deficit spending does eventually stimulate the economy, and look how much deficit spending has been done under Obama with limited effect so far, the end result is inflation and debt. Tax cuts increase government revenue over time,cut unemployment and any inflationary effects are easily managed through traditional mechanisms.

On March 4, President Harding assumed office while the nation was in the midst of a postwar economic decline, known as the Depression of 1920–21. By summer of his first year in office, an economic recovery began.

President Harding convened the Conference of Unemployment in 1921, headed by Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover, that proactively advocated stimulating the economy with local public work projects and encouraged businesses to apply shared work programs.^[118]

Harding's Treasury Secretary, Andrew Mellon, ordered a study that claimed to demonstrate that as income tax rates were increased, money was driven underground or abroad. Mellon concluded that lower rates would increase tax revenues. Based on this advice, Harding cut taxes, starting in 1922. The top marginal rate was reduced annually in four stages from 73% in 1921 to 25% in 1925. Taxes were cut for lower incomes starting in 1923.^[119]

Revenues to the treasury increased substantially. Unemployment also continued to fall. Libertarianhistorian Thomas Woods contends that the tax cuts ended the Depression of 1920–21—even though economic growth had begun before the cuts—and were responsible for creating a decade-long expansion.^[120] Historians Schweikart and Allen attribute these changes to the tax cuts.^[121]Schweikart and Allen also argue that Harding's tax and economic policies in part "...produced the most vibrant eight year burst of manufacturing and innovation in the nation's history."^[122] The combined declines in unemployment and inflation (later known as the Misery Index) were among the sharpest in U.S. history. Wages, profits, and productivity all made substantial gains during the 1920s.

Daniel Kuehn attributes the improvement to the earlier monetary policy of the Federal Reserve, and notes that the changes in marginal tax rates were accompanied by an expansion in the tax base that could account for the increase in revenue.^[123] However:

“

Robert Gordon, a Keynesian, admits, “government policy to moderate the depression and speed recovery was minimal. The Federal Reserve authorities were largely passive. … Despite the absence of a stimulative government policy, however, recovery was not long delayed.” Kenneth Weiher, an economic historian, notes, “despite the severity of the contraction, the Fed did not move to use its powers to turn the money supply around and fight the contraction.” He then briskly concedes that “the economy rebounded quickly from the 1920-1921 depression and entered a period of quite vigorous growth.”[115]

”

Three Historic Convention Speeches that Changed History;Bryan 1896 Reagan 1976 Palin 2008

Governor Sarah Palin's vice-presidential nomination speech at the Republican convention 2008







 The climactic portion of William Jennings Bryan's "Cross of Gold" speech at the Democratic convention of 1896.The applause went on for thirty minutes and propelled the barely known ex-congressman from Nebraska to the nomination



  Governor Ronald Reagan's impromptu address to the 1976 Republican convention after he had,narrowly, lost the nomination to president Ford "Reagan's Impromptu Speech at 1976 GOP Convention" http://youtu.be/fy57g5ptpSs

GOP Can Have 58 Senate Seats These Mid-Terms

UPDATE:

Nice that Nate Silver at Fivethirtyeight.com confirms my article imo .

In fact Silver gives the GOP a chance In Michigan which would give the Republicans 58 seats according to my model.

Also at American Thinker as;

( Click title for  link)  58 Senate Seats for the GOP?"

A substantial number of political prognosticators, bloggers and professional psephologist including the likes of the highly respected Nate Silver's fivethirtyeight site give the Republican's a substantial chance of not only picking up senate seats in November, but of getting at least 51 and thus a working majority (50 seats would see a tie with Vice-President Biden giving the Dem's a majority).

Where the seers differ is not only the percentage probability of the Republicans gaining control of the senate, just how many seats the GOP will end up with. This is where the tracking poll sites like "Real Clear Politics" and "Electoral-Vote.com" come to the fore.

 Their weekly, or even daily, results as to which party is leading in the contestable states varies according to the most  recent polls they track but for some considerable time the GOP has been in a majority, or near majority situation.

RCP gives the GOP 52 seats, one above the required number for a majority based on seven pick ups. These include South Dakota, West Virginia and Montana all three of which even the most partisan Democratic party support sites have given up on.That takes a more or less guaranteed floor for the GOP of 48 seats (from the current 45).

RCP also assigns to the GOP, based on current aggregate polling, Arkansas, Iowa, Louisiana and North Carolina. These highly contested states see leads of under two points and of course any or all could go to the Dem's. 

But given the current state of President Obama's approval rating and a general feeling of malaise in the country as well as foreign policy problems, it is just as likely that the GOP will win all four. That brings the total to 52, seven pick up's, which is exactly what RCP advises the current situation is 

Electoral-Vote.com which assigns states based on the latest reputable poll has a 50-50 tie at present, having Iowa as an exact tie but assigns Alaska to the GOP based on the first post Republican primary poll. Alaska would be the 53rd seat and, given the states voting history that is a result with a more than strong possibility.

Are there any further realistic possibilities for the Republicans? yes, absolutely. If we look at the RCP aggregate polling which have Democrat's currently in the lead, the leads are such that they are well within reach. 

If for example President Obama makes a major policy statement on immigration, or some foreign policy drama unfolds or, as in 2008 there is a significant stock market correction, then the comparatively small leads can be overturned. 

In point of fact it might not even need some dramatic event, rather a depressed Democratic voter base staying home whilst an energized Republican base votes in large numbers, as is historically the case in the mid-terms.

Thus Democratic leads of 2.5 in Colorado and 3.8 in Michigan are hardly beyond the bounds of probability. In fact, Electoral-Vote.com assigns Colorado to the GOP as of today  based on the most recent polling of the state.

 The lead of 6.6 points in New Hampshire does, on the face of it look prohibitive, but remember RCP is an aggregate poll and the latest individual poll shows Republican Scott Brown within only two points. These three would take the GOP to 56 senate seats.

And the two further seats to get to 58? These could come from two senators switching from Dem to GOP.
Again, this is well within the bounds of being possible. Firstly Senator Manchin in West Virginia might see the omens from his state moving solidly into the Republican column in the presidential elections. 

He might take further note of West Virginia;s Republican senate candidate Shelley Moore Capito holding  a 17 point lead over her Dem opponent and bow to the obvious will of the people and the fact that he is at odds with the Democratic position on coal That takes the total to 57.

And the 58th seat? Maine's Independent senator Angus King has been the subject of such switching speculation since at least April and has left the door wide open; (Washington Post) "Angus King suggests he may caucus  with GOP if they retake the senate." 

To make this 58th seat more than mere speculation King advised  that "I'll make my decision at the time  on what I think is best for Maine." There is also the possibility of high powered senate committee appointments which might come into the thinking of these gentlemen.

Perhaps it might be for the best for the Republicans-and the country too if the GOP stopped at this maximum result. If two more seats were available and a veto overriding majority and even an impeachment majority came into play the results might be sub-optimal for the GOP's 2016 presidential or even congressional results.

Fifty eight senate seats might see some solid conservative legislation passed, which could signal to the country that in 2016 a Republican senate majority would be worth continuing with in what would normally be a Democratic party year based on the seats being contested.

Attended A Meeting Of Brave & Dedicated Women Setting Up Refuge In Bangladesh

As Leprosy Mission's Ambassador To Ethnic Communities I was honored to be invited to a forum by Shakti Ethnic Women's Refuge to set up a similar group based in Bangladesh. 

These are women of courage and determination as some of the horrific,unbearable to see, violence against women images shown proved. 

The challenges to overcome religious/social/bureaucratic hurdles is immense but their will and the need can make it happen. Here are the fantastic women of the steering committee and my delightful host Sharmen.

Liberal "Newsweek" In Last Issue Finally Tells The Truth About Obama;"inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, "

From Lanahi at C4P

"The liberal Newsweek 
Magazine is going out of business. This is their last 
cover before they fold. As many of you know, Newsweek has a reputation 
for being extremely liberal. The fact that their editor saw fit to print
the following article about Obama and the one that appears in the 
latest Newsweek, makes this a truly amazing event, and a news story in 
and of itself.

By Matt Patterson (Newsweek Columnist - Opinion Writer)

"Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 
election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, 
the result of a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the 
witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so 
devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he 
could manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most 
powerful military, execute the world's most consequential job?

Imagine a future historian examining Obama's 
pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League, despite 
unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a 
"community organizer;" a brief career as a state legislator devoid of 
legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, 
less often did he vote "present"); and finally an unaccomplished single 
term in the United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to 
his presidential ambitions.

He left no 
academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as a 
legislator. And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: 
the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as 
Obama's "spiritual mentor;" a real-life, actual terrorist who served as 
Obama's colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future 
historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man 
elected president? There is no evidence that he ever attended or worked 
for any university or that he ever sat for the Illinois bar. We have no 
documentation for any of his claims. He may well be the greatest hoax in
history.

Not content to wait for 
history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question 
recently in the Wall Street Journal: To be sure, no white candidate who 
had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah 
Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers, would have lasted a
single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in 
the eyes of liberal Dom to have hung out with protesters against various
American injustices, even if they were 'a bit' extreme, he was given a 
pass. Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass - held to a lower 
standard because of the color of his skin.

Podhoretz continues: And in any case, what did such ancient history 
matter when he was also so articulate and elegant and (as he himself had
said) "non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting chance to 
become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism 
to rest?

Podhoretz puts his finger, I 
think, on the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon - affirmative 
action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But certainly in the 
motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations,
which are designed primarily to make white people, and especially white
liberals, feel good about themselves.

Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves
on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which 
they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable 
poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow. Liberals don't 
care if these minority students fail; liberals aren't around to witness 
the emotional devastation and deflated self-esteem resulting from the 
racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes, racist. Holding someone 
to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin - that's 
affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn't racism, then nothing
is.

And that is what America did to 
Obama. True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of 
achievements, but why would he be? As many have noted, Obama was told he
was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at 
Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a 
mediocre record in Illinois; he was told he was good enough to be 
president despite no record at all in the Senate. All his life, every 
step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step, in
spite of ample evidence to the contrary.

What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display 
every time Obama speaks? In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked 
executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama's oratory skills,
intellect, and cool character. Those people -conservatives included - 
ought now to be deeply embarrassed.

The 
man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clich� and that's when he has 
his Teleprompters in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can 
barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever issued from
his mouth - it's all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed 
over and over again for 100 years. (An example is his 2012 campaign 
speeches which are almost word for word his 2008 speeches)

And what about his character? Obama is constantly 
blaming anything and everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it 
was bad luck; I inherited this mess. Remember, he wanted the job, 
campaigned for the task. It is embarrassing to see a president so 
willing to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own 
incompetence. (The other day he actually came out and said no one could 
have done anything to get our economy and country back on track). But 
really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for 
anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly? In short: our 
president is a small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the 
intellect to handle his job. When you understand that, and only when you
understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity 
make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such an impostor in 
the Oval Office."
**********************************************************

I wish to have my site professionally made over (to become a web site) and estimate it would take $5000 (any support small or large would assist) to promote it and make it competitive with the likes of Salon/Daily Beast etc. This is war and the MSM/Left blogs have an advantage we must counter

Please review my writings and Tweets and if it meets your standards your assistance would be appreciated. If this is successful I will dedicate myself to tirelessly support the populist, pro-life,Christian values. conservative cause as exemplified by Donald Trump, Governor Palin and the basic thrust of the Tea Party.

Since we are at a crucial stage of the election period I would wish to commence this site transition within a month. If you would wish to support,to any amount, the concept of a hard hitting site that stands up for your values here is the support link
gofundme.com/cmh2jmwc

Re