Thursday, November 29, 2012

Government Eyeing Private Retirement Plans

 
by Bryan Baumgart - 11/29/2012


The Plot

As
explained in a recent NY Times editorial, Teresa Ghilarducci, a professor of economics at the New School originally testified before the House Committee on Education & Labor in 2008.  Her plan explained below has begun picking up traction among lawmakers. Under Ghilarducci's plan, tax free contributions to private retirement accounts would be eliminated and money currently located in private 401(k)s would be seized by federal edict and used to establish government run pensions she refers to as Guarantee Retirement Accounts (GRA's). The funds would be placed with the terribly mismanaged Social Security Administration. You would then be required to surrender 5% of your pay into the GRA's until you retire. If you die before collecting the money, it goes to Washington rather than your heirs, even if you worked hard and did a fantastic job of saving and investing your hard earned money. Failure to comply would be punishable by fines and jail time. Ghilarducci's congressional testimony can be seen here.


The Problem

Many Americans have chosen or have not been able to contribute enough money to private retirement accounts. Couple that with unfunded public pensions, a failing social security fund, and devastating effects of the economic downturn on 401(k)s, and we are left with  a large number of Americans nearing retirement without any way to fund it.


Class Warfare

Liberals have derided the fact that only
half of Americans own and actively manage their 401(k)s. Of that 50%, very few are able to contribute the maximum 17% allowing them to take full advantage of the tax breaks. They claim private retirement accounts favor the wealthy and demand seizure of 401(k)s in the name of economic justice!


Why Now?

The government has found itself underwater and the leg cramps are beginning to set in. Realizing Washington is missing out on an
estimated $50 - $70 billion dollars worth of tax revenue each year; officials have introduced plans to end those tax credits, initially offered to encourage savings by individuals. (*Note: Many liberals will claim a higher estimate, intentionally assuming that all 401(k) money is invested in bonds when in reality, two thirds of 401(k) assets are invested in equities where gains are taxed only when realized and both dividends and gains are taxed at a preferential rate of at most 15 percent.)

Realizing that $50 - $70 billion dollars is only a drop in the bucket of our $1 trillion dollar + annual deficit, officials are considering extending their plot to include seizing private 401(k)s to purchase government bonds in order to cushion the government's spending problem.


The Cold Hard Truth
"The government is making a play to suck the last bit of capital from capitalism." - Rush Limbaugh
There is no arguing that America faces a looming crisis as the 401(k) generation nears a significantly underfunded retirement. The question is what should be done about it?  Does a government that promised tax free contributions have a right to renege on that promise?  Does a government that encouraged private savings have a right to turn around and seize the fruits of one's labor to help alleviate the problem they created?  Does anyone really believe that the government would do a better job looking out for your retirement than you would?  The government has already spent and bankrupted our saving in the social security trust fund?

Should reform start by addressing WHY American's have not been willing or able to contribute to their 401(k)s?

There is no question that reform is necessary! The question is...how should that reform look?

Wednesday, November 28, 2012

Two-Thirds of Millionaires Left Britain to Avoid 50% Tax Rate

Almost two-thirds of the country’s million-pound earners disappeared from Britain after the introduction of the 50p top rate of tax, figures have disclosed. 

In the 2009-10 tax year, more than 16,000 people declared an annual income of more than £1 million to HM Revenue and Customs.

This number fell to just 6,000 after Gordon Brown introduced the new 50p top rate of income tax shortly before the last general election.

The figures have been seized upon by the Conservatives to claim that increasing the highest rate of tax actually led to a loss in revenues for the Government.

It is believed that rich Britons moved abroad or took steps to avoid paying the new levy by reducing their taxable incomes.

George Osborne, the Chancellor, announced in the Budget earlier this year that the 50p top rate will be reduced to 45p from next April.

Since the announcement, the number of people declaring annual incomes of more than £1 million has risen to 10,000.

However, the number of million-pound earners is still far below the level recorded even at the height of the recession and financial crisis.

Last night, Harriet Baldwin, the Conservative MP who uncovered the latest figures, said: “Labour’s ideological tax hike led to a tax cull of millionaires.

Far from raising funds, it actually cost the UK £7 billion in lost tax revenue.

“Labour now needs to admit that their policies resulted in millionaires paying less tax and come clean about whether they would reintroduce this failed policy if they were in power.”

Mr Osborne argued earlier this year that the 50p rate was deterring entrepreneurs from coming to Britain.

The Chancellor wanted to scrap the top rate altogether for those earning more than £150,000 a year – and return to the previous system of a basic and top rate of tax.

This was blocked by the Liberal Democrats without a new mansion tax being introduced.

Labour will hold a parliamentary debate today to criticise the decision to reduce the top rate, which Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, has described as a “tax cut for millionaires”.

Senior Coalition figures are locked in negotiations over next Wednesday’s Autumn Statement which will set out government tax policies for next year.

The Tories wish to freeze out-of-work benefits. The handouts usually rise in line with inflation, which has meant that the unemployed are likely to receive a higher rise than most workers can expect.

It is understood that the Lib Dems will only allow the benefits freeze if taxes on the rich are increased.

The Lib Dems have long cherished an increase in taxes for multi-million pound properties. David Cameron has ruled out changes to council tax.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9707029/Two-thirds-of-millionaires-left-Britain-to-avoid-50p-tax-rate.html

Tuesday, November 27, 2012

Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures

Peter Ferrara

In February 2009 I wrote an article for The Wall Street Journal entitled “Reaganomics v Obamanomics,” which argued that the emerging outlines of President Obama’s economic policies were following in close detail exactly the opposite of President Reagan’s economic policies.  As a result, I predicted that Obamanomics would have the opposite results of Reaganomics.  That prediction seems to be on track.

When President Reagan entered office in 1981, he faced actually much worse economic problems than President Obama faced in 2009.  Three worsening recessions starting in 1969 were about to culminate in the worst of all in 1981-1982, with unemployment soaring into double digits at a peak of 10.8%.  At the same time America suffered roaring double-digit inflation, with the CPI registering at 11.3% in 1979 and 13.5% in 1980 (25% in two years).  The Washington establishment at the time argued that this inflation was now endemic to the American economy, and could not be stopped, at least not without a calamitous economic collapse.

All of the above was accompanied by double -igit interest rates, with the prime rate peaking at 21.5% in 1980.  The poverty rate started increasing in 1978, eventually climbing by an astounding 33%, from 11.4% to 15.2%.  A fall in real median family income that began in 1978 snowballed to a decline of almost 10% by 1982.  In addition, from 1968 to 1982, the Dow Jones industrial average lost 70% of its real value, reflecting an overall collapse of stocks.

President Reagan campaigned on an explicitly articulated, four-point economic program to reverse this slow motion collapse of the American economy:

1.  Cut tax rates to restore incentives for economic growth, which was implemented first with a reduction in the top income tax rate of 70% down to 50%, and then a 25% across-the-board reduction in income tax rates for everyone.  The 1986 tax reform then reduced tax rates further, leaving just two rates, 28% and 15%.

2.  Spending reductions, including a $31 billion cut in spending in 1981, close to 5% of the federal budget then, or the equivalent of about $175 billion in spending cuts for the year today.  In constant dollars, nondefense discretionary spending declined by 14.4% from 1981 to 1982, and by 16.8% from 1981 to 1983.  Moreover, in constant dollars, this nondefense discretionary spending never returned to its 1981 level for the rest of Reagan’s two terms!  Even with the Reagan defense buildup, which won the Cold War without firing a shot, total federal spending declined from a high of 23.5% of GDP in 1983 to 21.3% in 1988 and 21.2% in 1989.  That’s a real reduction in the size of government relative to the economy of 10%.

3.  Anti-inflation monetary policy restraining money supply growth compared to demand, to maintain a stronger, more stable dollar value.

4.  Deregulation, which saved consumers an estimated $100 billion per year in lower prices.  Reagan’s first executive order, in fact, eliminated price controls on oil and natural gas.  Production soared, and aided by a strong dollar the price of oil declined by more than 50%.

These economic policies amounted to the most successful economic experiment in world history.  The Reagan recovery started in official records in November 1982, and lasted 92 months without a recession until July 1990, when the tax increases of the 1990 budget deal killed it.  This set a new record for the longest peacetime expansion ever, the previous high in peacetime being 58 months.

During this seven-year recovery, the economy grew by almost one-third, the equivalent of adding the entire economy of West Germany, the third-largest in the world at the time, to the U.S. economy.  In 1984 alone real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years.  Nearly 20 million new jobs were created during the recovery, increasing U.S. civilian employment by almost 20%.  Unemployment fell to 5.3% by 1989.

The shocking rise in inflation during the Nixon and Carter years was reversed.  Astoundingly, inflation from 1980 was reduced by more than half by 1982, to 6.2%.  It was cut in half again for 1983, to 3.2%, never to be heard from again until recently.  The contractionary, tight-money policies needed to kill this inflation inexorably created the steep recession of 1981 to 1982, which is why Reagan did not suffer politically catastrophic blame for that recession.

Real per-capita disposable income increased by 18% from 1982 to 1989, meaning the American standard of living increased by almost 20% in just seven years.  The poverty rate declined every year from 1984 to 1989, dropping by one-sixth from its peak.  The stock market more than tripled in value from 1980 to 1990, a larger increase than in any previous decade.

In The End of Prosperity, supply side guru Art Laffer and Wall Street Journal chief financial writer Steve Moore point out that this Reagan recovery grew into a 25-year boom, with just slight interruptions by shallow, short recessions in 1990 and 2001.  They wrote:
We call this period, 1982-2007, the twenty-five year boom–the greatest period of wealth creation in the history of the planet.  In 1980, the net worth–assets minus liabilities–of all U.S. households and business … was $25 trillion in today’s dollars.  By 2007, … net worth was just shy of $57 trillion.  Adjusting for inflation, more wealth was created in America in the twenty-five year boom than in the previous two hundred years.
What is so striking about Obamanomics is how it so doggedly pursues the opposite of every one of these planks of Reaganomics.  Instead of reducing tax rates, President Obama is committed to raising the top tax rates of virtually every major federal tax.  As already enacted into current law, in 2013 the top two income tax rates will rise by nearly 20%, counting as well Obama’s proposed deduction phase-outs.

The capital gains tax rate will soar by nearly 60%, counting the new Obamacare taxes going into effect that year.  The total tax rate on corporate dividends would increase by nearly three times.  The Medicare payroll tax would increase by 62% for the nation’s job creators and investors.  The death tax rate would go back up to 55%.  In his 2012 budget and his recent national budget speech, President Obama proposes still more tax increases.

Instead of coming into office with spending cuts, President Obama’s first act was a nearly $1 trillion stimulus bill.  In his first two years in office he has already increased federal spending by 28%, and his 2012 budget proposes to increase federal spending by another 57% by 2021.

His monetary policy is just the opposite as well.  Instead of restraining the money supply to match money demand for a stable dollar, slaying an historic inflation, we have QE1 and QE2 and a steadily collapsing dollar, arguably creating a historic reflation.

And instead of deregulation we have across-the-board re-regulation, from health care to finance to energy, and elsewhere.  While Reagan used to say that his energy policy was to “unleash the private sector,” Obama’s energy policy can be described as precisely to leash the private sector in service to Obama’s central planning “green energy” dictates.

As a result, while the Reagan recovery averaged 7.1% economic growth over the first seven quarters, the Obama recovery has produced less than half that at 2.8%, with the last quarter at a dismal 1.8%.  After seven quarters of the Reagan recovery, unemployment had fallen 3.3 percentage points from its peak to 7.5%, with only 18% unemployed long-term for 27 weeks or more.  After seven quarters of the Obama recovery, unemployment has fallen only 1.3 percentage points from its peak, with a postwar record 45% long-term unemployed.

Previously the average recession since World War II lasted 10 months, with the longest at 16 months.  Yet today, 40 months after the last recession started, unemployment is still 8.8%, with America suffering the longest period of unemployment that high since the Great Depression.  Based on the historic precedents America should be enjoying the second year of a roaring economic recovery by now, especially since, historically, the worse the downturn, the stronger the recovery.  Yet while in the Reagan recovery the economy soared past the previous GDP peak after six months, in the Obama recovery that didn’t happen for three years.  Last year the Census Bureau reported that the total number of Americans in poverty was the highest in the 51 years that Census has been recording the data.

Moreover, the Reagan recovery was achieved while taming a historic inflation, for a period that continued for more than 25 years.  By contrast, the less-than-half-hearted Obama recovery seems to be recreating inflation, with the latest Producer Price Index data showing double-digit inflation again, and the latest CPI growing already half as much.

These are the reasons why economist John Lott has rightly said, “For the last couple of years, President Obama keeps claiming that the recession was the worst economy since the Great Depression.  But this is not correct.  This is the worst “recovery” since the Great Depression.”

However, the Reagan Recovery took off once the tax rate cuts were fully phased in.  Similarly, the full results of Obamanomics won’t be in until his historic, comprehensive tax rate increases of 2013 become effective.  While the Reagan Recovery kicked off a historic 25-year economic boom, will the opposite policies of Obamanomics, once fully phased in, kick off 25 years of economic stagnation, unless reversed?

Peter Ferrara is director of policy for the Carleson Center for Public Policy and senior fellow for entitlement and budget policy at the Heartland Institute.  He served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as associate deputy attorney general of the United States under President George H. W. Bush.  He is the author of America’s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb, forthcoming from HarperCollins.

Monday, November 26, 2012

PRAVDA: Obama 'Re-Elected by Illiterate Society'...

“Obama is a Communist without question promoting the Communist Manifesto without calling it so. How shrewd he is in America. His cult of personality mesmerizes those who cannot go beyond their ignorance. They will continue to follow him like those fools who still praise Lenin and Stalin in Russia. 
Obama had NO strategy for economic success but nevertheless was re-elected by an illiterate society and he is ready to continue his lies of less taxes while he raises them. He gives speeches of peace and love in the world while he promotes wars as he did in Egypt, Libya and Syria. He plans his next war with Iran as he fires or demotes his generals who get in the way.
Bye, bye Miss American Pie. The Communists have won in America with Obama. America continues to repeat the Soviet mistake. Any normal individual understands that liberalism is a psychosis.”
By Xavier Lerma - 11/19/2012

Putin in 2009 outlined his strategy for economic success. Alas, poor Obama did the opposite but nevertheless was re-elected. Bye, bye Miss American Pie. The Communists have won in America with Obama but failed miserably in Russia with Zyuganov who only received 17% of the vote. Vladimir Putin was re-elected as President keeping the NWO order out of Russia while America continues to repeat the Soviet mistake.

After Obama was elected in his first term as president the then Prime Minister of Russia, Vladimir Putin gave a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland in January of 2009. Ignored by the West as usual, Putin gave insightful and helpful advice to help the world economy and saying the world should avoid the Soviet mistake.

Recently, Obama has been re-elected for a 2nd term by an illiterate society and he is ready to continue his lies of less taxes while he raises them. He gives speeches of peace and love in the world while he promotes wars as he did in Egypt, Libya and Syria. He plans his next war is with Iran as he fires or demotes his generals who get in the way.

Putin said regarding the military,

"...instead of solving the problem, militarization pushes it to a deeper level. It draws away from the economy immense financial and material resources, which could have been used much more efficiently elsewhere."

Well, any normal individual understands that as true but liberalism is a psychosis . O'bomber even keeps the war going along the Mexican border with projects like "fast and furious" and there is still no sign of ending it.  
He is a Communist without question promoting the Communist Manifesto without calling it so. How shrewd he is in America. His cult of personality mesmerizes those who cannot go beyond their ignorance. They will continue to follow him like those fools who still praise Lenin and Stalin in Russia.  Obama's fools and Stalin's fools share the same drink of illusion.

Reading Putin's speech without knowing the author, one would think it was written by Reagan or another conservative in America. The speech promotes smaller government and less taxes. It comes as no surprise to those who know Putin as a conservative. Vladimir Putin went on to say:

"...we are reducing taxes on production, investing money in the economy. We are optimizing state expenses.

The second possible mistake would be excessive interference into the economic life of the country and the absolute faith into the all-mightiness of the state.

There are no grounds to suggest that by putting the responsibility over to the state, one can achieve better results.

Unreasonable expansion of the budget deficit, accumulation of the national debt - are as destructive as an adventurous stock market game.

During the time of the Soviet Union the role of the state in economy was made absolute, which eventually lead to the total non-competitiveness of the economy. That lesson cost us very dearly. I am sure no one would want history to repeat itself."

President Vladimir Putin could never have imagined anyone so ignorant or so willing to destroy their people like Obama much less seeing millions vote for someone like Obama. They read history in America don't they? Alas, the schools in the U.S. were conquered by the Communists long ago and history was revised thus paving the way for their Communist presidents. Obama has bailed out those businesses that voted for him and increased the debt to over 16 trillion with an ever increasing unemployment rate especially among blacks and other minorities. All the while promoting his agenda.

"We must seek support in the moral values that have ensured the progress of our civilization. Honesty and hard work, responsibility and faith in our strength are bound to bring us success."- Vladimir Putin

The red, white and blue still flies happily but only in Russia. Russia still has St George defeating the Dragon with the symbol of the cross on its' flag. The ACLU and other atheist groups in America would never allow the US flag with such religious symbols. Lawsuits a plenty against religious freedom and expression in the land of the free. Christianity in the U.S. is under attack as it was during the early period of the Soviet Union when religious symbols were against the law.   

Let's give American voters the benefit of the doubt and say it was all voter fraud and not ignorance or stupidity in electing a man who does not even know what to do and refuses help from Russia when there was an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Instead we'll say it's true that the Communists usage of electronic voting was just a plan to manipulate the vote. Soros and his ownership of the company that counts the US votes in Spain helped put their puppet in power in the White House. According to the Huffington Post, residents in all 50 states have filed petitions to secede from the Unites States. We'll say that these Americans are hostages to the Communists in power. How long will their government reign tyranny upon them?

Russia lost its' civil war with the Reds and millions suffered torture and death for almost 75 years under the tyranny of the United Soviet Socialist Republic. Russians survived with a new and stronger faith in God and ever growing Christian Church. The question is how long will the once "Land of the Free" remain the United Socialist States of America?  Their suffering has only begun. Bye bye Miss American Pie!  You know the song you hippies. Sing it! Don't you remember? The 1971 hit song by American song writer Don McLean:

"And, as I watched him on the stage my hands were clenched in fists of rage.

No angel born in Hell could break that Satan's spell

And, as the flames climbed high into the night to light the sacrificial rite, I saw...

Satan laughing with delight the day the music died

He was singing, bye bye Miss American Pie

Drove my Chevy to the levee, but the levee was dry

Them good ol' boys were drinking whiskey and rye, singing...

This'll be the day that I die

This'll be the day that I die

So, the question remains:

How long will America suffer and to what depths?

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/19-11-2012/122849-obama_soviet_mistake-0/# 

Sunday, November 25, 2012

The "Balanced Approach" Is An Unbalanced Lie

Joe Herring - 11/18/2012

As the Republicans in Congress struggle to find relevance in a world that ignores sanity, those of us who yet retain a grasp on our faculties must be careful to not lose our way.  While we are understandably stunned by the grasping nature of so many of our countryman who voted for fantasy over future, the fact remains that this ship carries us all, and absent our involvement, said ship will founder on the shoals of ignorance, sooner rather than later.

The first battle in the coming war will be fought over the "fiscal cliff," which is a dramatic way of describing the agreement Congress and the President struck in order to avoid the last iteration of the bill-collectors arrival at our national door. Should both sides be unable to live up to the promises they made the last time, then a predetermined set of spending cuts and tax increases are slated to become law.

Whether you accept the economic danger our nation faces should we step off the edge of this rhetorical precipice, the fact remains, we aren't arguing on an equal footing.  The terms of the debate are predicated on a fundamental lie.  The definition of words generally understood to mean one thing by the citizen, mean something entirely different to the politician.

One such definition is that of a "spending cut."  Clearly, we citizens would assume this to be a reduction in dollars spent this year, relative to dollars spent last year.  That is not the case.  In Washington, they use a wondrous accounting method known as "baseline" budgeting. The money spent in the previous year becomes the baseline for the next year, and so on.

If extra money was spent last year, then that is now part of the budget baseline as well.  Case in point: the stimulus bill totaling more than 1.2 trillion.  This was an egregious abuse of the public's money, but it wasn't a one-time deal.  Due to the miracle of baseline budgeting, we have spent that money again and again and again, during each year of Obama's presidency. This is the primary reason Harry Reid won't allow a budget bill.  It will cut off the spigot. 

Surprised?  Don't be. This is the reality we face, and ignoring the depth of corruption involved only serves to further enable their perfidy.  Now, in this lame duck session of Congress, we are faced again with a budgetary fight.  Not an actual budget mind you, but rather another faux budget in the form of a continuing resolution to maintain spending in order to keep the government open for business.

In the absence of a budget, appropriations must be reauthorized through Congressional action.  This is done with a continuing resolution, which essentially is an agreement that we will "continue" to do all the things we've been doing, along with as many plums for ourselves as we can squeeze in under the radar.  Clearly, there is nothing frugal about this activity; it is the opposite of that, and both sides in Washington know this, yet pride themselves on their ability to play these games with our tax dollars.

The phrase you're going to hear a lot in the coming weeks, is that we need a "balanced approach" to solve our fiscal woes.  A balance between new revenue, (taxes) and cuts in spending to achieve deficit reduction.  It is a bald-faced lie, and it is repeated by too many folks on the Republican side of the aisle, along with all but a handful of Democrats. 

"It sounds right though. It sounds fair," you might say.  It might be, if first, it wasn't based on a purposeful misrepresentation of reality, and secondly, if our government were in fact, revenue starved.  Our Federal government is receiving more tax dollars now than at any time in history.  Even adjusted for inflation, Washington is raking in vast fortunes in comparison to the sums they had while winning both World Wars and presiding over the greatest economic expansion in the history of any nation, at any time.

So where's the lie?  On the spending side, of course.  The spending cuts offered in the balanced approach are not real cuts. They are Washington cuts, which are actually just decreases in hoped for increases. If the Administration wishes to spend baseline plus 15%, and agree to only spend baseline plus 10%, they take credit for a 33% cut in spending.  Since the baseline assumes an increase each year automatically, any decrease in the "assumed" increase is counted as a "cut."  Obviously it isn't a cut at all, but a healthy increase - but who's counting? Certainly not the media.

On the other side of the ledger however, the tax increases are figured just as we mundane citizens might expect. They are increases in taxes paid by we, the people.  They are very real.  So when President Obama and the socialist left, (along with collaborating RINOs) claim to offer ten dollars in spending cuts for every dollar of tax increase, know that the only thing real in that equation is the tax increase.  The "cuts" are a chimera.

I suggest we offer a compromise.  We will match the other side dollar for dollar in spending cuts and tax increases as long as we use the same formula to calculate them both.  Romney campaigned on an across the board tax cut of 20%.  Lets agree to a tax cut of 10% and then require the Left to match our 50% increase in taxes with a 50% decrease in spending. What will change? Not a damn thing, but perhaps finally, it will force our politicians to debate in real terms, using real numbers with real meaning.  It will at least be entertaining to watch the left twist themselves into knots trying to explain why their spending cuts are real, but our tax increases are not.

What about the fiscal cliff? How will we save ourselves?  Considering the government has been grown by at least 40% in just the last four years alone, a ten percent haircut will not be disastrous; it will only seem that way to the vested interests that thrive by growing government.  It is time to expose the lie - no matter which side is telling it.

After all, it is a financial impossibility to have spent roughly four trillion more in the last four years than the previous four, and credibly claim there is no room in the budget for the comparatively modest cuts on the other side of the fiscal cliff.  Were it not for the tax increases that are part and parcel of the deal, I would say jump.  Even with them, it's tempting.

How we frame this debate will have a great deal to do with how successful we are in winning it.  Our Republican leadership is desperately looking for a way to prove themselves relevant in a startlingly different world.  Might I suggest we begin by being the party that slays the baseline budgeting beast.  I offer some good advice for the Republican leadership.  When all else fails, try honesty.


http://www.readmorejoe.com/1/post/2012/11/the-balanced-approach-is-an-unbalanced-lie.html 

Monday, November 19, 2012

22 Signs That Voter Fraud Is Wildly Out Of Control And The Election Was A Sham

Michael Snyder - November 14, 2012

After what we have seen this November, how is any American ever supposed to trust the integrity of our elections ever again?  There were over 70,000 reports of voting problems on election day, and there are numerous eyewitnesses that claim that they saw voting machines change votes for one candidate to another candidate right in front of their eyes.  In several of the swing states there were counties where the number of registered voters exceeded the total voting age population by a very wide margin.  How in the world does that happen?  Some of the vote totals that were reported in some of the most important swing states were completely and totally absurd, and yet we are just supposed to accept them on blind faith without ever being able to ask any questions.  Of course the Romney campaign has already totally given up, so it isn’t as if there is any chance that the results of the presidential election could be overturned anyhow.  But if massive election fraud did take place and nobody is held accountable, what kind of message will that send for the future?  Will we ever be able to have faith in the integrity of our elections ever again?

The following are 22 signs that voter fraud is wildly out of control and the election was a sham…

#1 According to the Election Protection Coalition, voters across the United States reported more than 70,000 voting problems by 5 PM Eastern time on election day.

#2 There were 59 voting divisions in the city of Philadelphia where Mitt Romney did not receive a single vote.  In those voting divisions, the combined vote total was 19,605 for Barack Obama and 0 for Mitt Romney.

#3 The overall voter turnout rate in Philadelphia was only about 60 percent.  But in the areas of Philadelphia where Republican poll watchers were illegally removed, the voter turnout rate was over 90% and Obama received over 99% of the vote.  Officials in Philadelphia have already ruled out an investigation.

#4 According to WND, one poll watcher in Pennsylvania actually claims that he witnessed voting machine software repeatedly switch votes from Mitt Romney to Barack Obama…
It was in Upper Macungie Township, near Allentown, Pa., where an auditor, Robert Ashcroft, was dispatched by Republicans to monitor the vote on Election Day. He said the software he observed would “change the selection back to default – to Obama.”
He said that happened in about 5 percent to 10 percent of the votes.
He said the changes appeared to have been made by a software program.
Ashcroft said the format for computer programming has a default status, and in this case it appeared to be designating a vote for Obama each time it went to default.
#5 Somehow Mitt Romney won 55 out of the 67 counties in the state of Pennsylvania and still managed to lose the entire state by a wide margin because of the absurd vote totals that Obama ran up in the urban areas.

#6 Barack Obama received more than 98 percent of the vote in 10 out of the 50 wards in the city of Chicago.

#7 Prior to the election, voters in the states of Nevada, North Carolina, Texas and Ohio all reported that voting machines were switching their votes for Romney over to Obama.

#8 There were more than 50 precincts in Cuyahoga County, Ohio where Mitt Romney received 2 votes or less.

#9 There were more than 100 precincts in Cuyahoga County, Ohio where Barack Obama received more than 99 times the votes that Mitt Romney did.

#10 Barack Obama also received more than 99% of the vote in a number of very important precincts down in Broward County, Florida.

#11 Wood County, Ohio (which Obama won) has a voting age population of 98,213, but somehow 106,258 voters were registered to vote on election day.

#12 Ten counties in the swing state of Colorado have a voter registration rate of more than 100%.

#13 Barack Obama did not win in a single state that absolutely requires a photo I.D. in order to vote.

#14 In Ohio, two election judges were caught allowing unregistered voters to cast ballots.

#15 Many Ohio voters that showed up at the polls on election day were surprised when they were informed that they had already voted.

#16 In fact, there were reports all over the nation of people being unable to vote because records showed that they had already voted.

#17 According to U.S. Representative Allen West, there were numerous “voting irregularities” in St. Lucie County, Florida on election day…
“The thing that spurred our curiosity in our race was the fact that at 1 o’clock in the morning on Election Night, all of a sudden there was a 4,000-vote swing that took me from being ahead to put the lead into my opponent’s hands.”
#18 In Wisconsin, there were allegations that Obama voters were actually being bussed in from out of state
The Democrats stationed a self described “BIG Chicago pro bono attorney” as one of their two observers at this small polling place. He remained at the polling place from 7:00 a.m. until well after 8:p.m. …..A high priced CHICAGO attorney, sitting in a Sheboygan WISCONSIN polling place, observing wards comprised of 1500 voters? …. WHY???
Why would someone from Chicago be observing in Sheboygan Wisconsin? And WHY at such a small polling place? Finally, isn’t it interesting that this would occur at the VERY polling place in which all of the above described events ALSO occurred? AGAIN WHY WOULD A CHICAGO ATTORNEY BE OBSERVING AN ELECTION POLLING PLACE WITH FEWER THAN 1500 VOTERS IN IT, IN SHEBOYGAN WISCONSIN? Of all the places where there has been suspected voting irregularities, and OUTRIGHT FRAUD throughout the ENTIRE United States, WHY HERE? WHY SHEBOYGAN? WHY THIS SMALL WARD?
This lawyer spent the day running in and out making, and taking calls, which coincidentally then coincided with influxes of groups of individuals by the van and bus loads, coming in to register, AND VOTE, using what appeared to be copied Allient energy bills. These individuals often did not have photo I.D.’s, could not remember their own addresses without looking at the paper, and became easily tripped, confused and annoyed when questioned.
Many of these same individuals, just so happened to be dressed in/wearing CHICAGO BEARS apparel, and whom openly discussed “catching busses back to Chicago” with each other, with poll workers, via their cell phones in the lobby area just outside the polling place, as well as in the parking lot, both before and AFTER registering and voting.
One woman was dressed head to toe in CHICAGO BEARS apparel including perfectly manicured BEARS fake fingernails!
She complained because registering was taking too long and she had to hurry up to catch her bus back to Chicago.
We have photos of these people in vehicles with plates from different states, photos of them leaving the polls, and other irregularities.
#19 Prior to election day, an Obama for America staffer was caught on video trying to help someone register to vote in more than one state.

#20 It is being alleged that unions in Nevada have been registering illegal immigrants and pressuring them to vote.

#21 According to townhall.com, there was a systematic effort by the Obama campaign to suppress the military vote because they knew that most military votes would go against Obama…
Aiding Obama’s win was a devious suppression of the conservative vote. The conservative-leaning military vote has decreased drastically since 2010 due to the so-called Military Voter Protection Act that was enacted into law the year before. It has made it so difficult for overseas military personnel to obtain absentee ballots that in Virginia and Ohio there has been a 70% decrease in requests for ballots since 2008. In Virginia, almost 30,000 fewer overseas military voters requested ballots than in 2008. In Ohio, more than 20,000 fewer overseas military voters requested ballots. This is significant considering Obama won in both states by a little over 100,000 votes.
#22 According to the Naval Enlisted Reserve Association, it appears that thousands of military votes from this election will never be counted at all.

So what do you think about all of this?

Do you still believe that elections in America are fair and honest?

Please feel free to post an article with your thoughts below…

http://www.infowars.com/22-signs-that-voter-fraud-is-wildly-out-of-control-and-the-election-was-a-sham/