Lee Chatfield (Republican) Is Accused of Abusing the Woman Starting at Age 15 & Including on Her Wedding Night

[sealybobo]

What choice will you have when the checks get smaller? You say you won't accept it, what exactly are you going to do, write bigger numbers on the checks? That doesn't work, in case you're wondering.

Ohhhh, you'll insurrect. How very noble of you, finding something that worth overthrowing the government over. What will you do when your check goes from small to zero?

Wow, you really are angry. You really need to talk to someone about that.

So don't cry about being overtaxed when you're perfectly willing to give up $5000 a year in your retirement years when you're gonna need that.

How old are you?

P.S. I don't believe they'll cut my social security because that would be a death blow for the politicians. They'll cut future benefits. Kick the can. And I'm hoping you're young and will be taking the hit for me. Or are you already retired and getting yours? I can't imagine you're in your 50's and getting a hard on over the idea of losing $5000 a year. It's, well, WEIRD.

 

[hadit]

So don't cry about being overtaxed when you're perfectly willing to give up $5000 a year in your retirement years when you're gonna need that.

Who's willing to give up anything? Do you actually read before posting? It doesn't seem like it with your wild, random leaps to strange conclusions.

How old are you?

Old enough.

P.S. I don't believe they'll cut my social security because that would be a death blow for the politicians. They'll cut future benefits. Kick the can.

Probably. That's what politicians do, because old people vote in large numbers. Don't tick them off.

And I'm hoping you're young and will be taking the hit for me. Or are you already retired and getting yours? I can't imagine you're in your 50's and getting a hard on over the idea of losing $5000 a year. It's, well, WEIRD.

Where did I ever say I wanted to lose benefits? And no, don't worry, I won't be carrying your freight. You'll have to find somebody else you hate that you don't know and who hasn't done anything to you to stick your bill to.

 

[whitehall]

Even Trump knows whatever they say was in Ashley's diary can't be trusted. Just like he doesn't trust the info in the Epstein files.

Trump was asked in an interview on "Fox & Friends Weekend" whether he'd "declassify the Epstein files" if he was re-elected, and indicated he had concerns about doing so.

He initially said, "Yeah, I would," before hedging. "I guess I would. I think that less so because you don’t want to affect people’s lives if it’s phony stuff in there, because it’s a lot of phony stuff with that whole world. But I think I would," Trump said.

Epstein was slick enough so that his files probably indicated basic services to high profile contacts. Biden's daughter's diary was a single effort by an apparent abused child.

 

[sealybobo]

Who's willing to give up anything? Do you actually read before posting? It doesn't seem like it with your wild, random leaps to strange conclusions.

Old enough.

Probably. That's what politicians do, because old people vote in large numbers. Don't tick them off.

Where did I ever say I wanted to lose benefits? And no, don't worry, I won't be carrying your freight. You'll have to find somebody else you hate that you don't know and who hasn't done anything to you to stick your bill to.

You're willing to take 20% cuts. You vote for the party that will do it. Then you'll blame Democrats. YOU are willing to give up what on average means about $5000 a year. True patriot.

How old? Are you already getting your SS?

 

[hadit]

You're willing to take 20% cuts. You vote for the party that will do it. Then you'll blame Democrats.

If democrats won't work with Republicans to ensure the long-term solvency of a program that large numbers of retirees depend on for survival, of course I'll blame them. They've been ignoring warnings about it for decades, so yeah, it's on them.

YOU are willing to give up what on average means about $5000 a year. True patriot.

Where did I say I was willing to take any cuts at all? I've stated that, in order to remain solvent, SS has to undergo changes, and I challenge you to prove that it doesn't. Those changes involve reducing spending, increasing revenue or both. Reducing spending means reducing benefits, reducing the amount of time recipients stay in the program, or both. Increasing revenue means tax increases on the working population to pay for current recipients. Since the elderly vote more than the working population, I'm betting Congress will raise the SS tax, maybe eliminate the income cap, etc., but not reduce benefits. None of that means I'm willing to take less. You're crazy or don't read English very well if you think it does.

How old? Are you already getting your SS?

I'm not taking it yet. I'm in a job that I enjoy doing and don't intend to retire any time soon. I want to stay active for now.

None of this would even be a concern today had democrats worked with Republicans years ago and made what were then minor changes. Now we're faced with bigger changes and challenges. Thanks a lot, democrats, said no one with an above room temperature IQ.

 

[sealybobo]

If democrats won't work with Republicans to ensure the long-term solvency of a program that large numbers of retirees depend on for survival, of course I'll blame them. They've been ignoring warnings about it for decades, so yeah, it's on them.

Where did I say I was willing to take any cuts at all? I've stated that, in order to remain solvent, SS has to undergo changes, and I challenge you to prove that it doesn't. Those changes involve reducing spending, increasing revenue or both. Reducing spending means reducing benefits, reducing the amount of time recipients stay in the program, or both. Increasing revenue means tax increases on the working population to pay for current recipients. Since the elderly vote more than the working population, I'm betting Congress will raise the SS tax, maybe eliminate the income cap, etc., but not reduce benefits. None of that means I'm willing to take less. You're crazy or don't read English very well if you think it does.

I'm not taking it yet. I'm in a job that I enjoy doing and don't intend to retire any time soon. I want to stay active for now.

None of this would even be a concern today had democrats worked with Republicans years ago and made what were then minor changes. Now we're faced with bigger changes and challenges. Thanks a lot, democrats, said no one with an above room temperature IQ.

This sounds like you're willing to take cuts Reducing spending means reducing benefits, reducing the amount of time recipients stay in the program, or both
Here's my prediction. How you/me/we are going to take a 20-30% cut to our benefits. It'll be the next great recession that was manufactured by the corporations. It'll be bad. Massive layoffs, rising prices, and a government willing to go along. Just like Greeks bitched but eventually bent over and took their austerity cuts.
Austerity cuts are a set of economic policies that governments use to reduce their budget deficits and improve their financial health. These cuts can include
Just remember the Reagan, Bush and Trump tax cuts to the rich when it happens

• Reducing government spending
  This can include cutting funding for social programs, health care, and infrastructure, or freezing or reducing government employee salaries.
• Increasing taxes
  This can include raising income, corporate, property, sales, and capital gains taxes.
• Changing tax policies
  This can include extending the eligibility age for retirement and health care benefits, or lowering the minimum wage.
• Other measures
  This can include rationing critical commodities, travel restrictions, and price freezes.
  
  

Governments often use austerity measures when they have trouble borrowing money or meeting their existing loan obligations. The goal is to reduce the budget deficit by making government revenues closer to expenditures.


Austerity measures can have a number of short-term and long-term consequences, including:

• Increased unemployment
  In the short term, austerity measures can lead to increased unemployment, especially in the public sector.
  
  
  
• Reduced consumption
  Tax increases can reduce consumption by cutting household disposable income.
  
  
  
• Negative impact on health
  Austerity measures can lead to increased poverty and homelessness, which can negatively impact health. Reduced funding for healthcare services can also have a negative impact on healthcare.
  
  

 

[hadit]

This sounds like you're willing to take cuts Reducing spending means reducing benefits, reducing the amount of time recipients stay in the program, or both

Being forced into something is not the same as being willing to accept it. I mean, what are you going to do, write bigger numbers on the checks?

Here's my prediction. How you/me/we are going to take a 20-30% cut to our benefits. It'll be the next great recession that was manufactured by the corporations. It'll be bad. Massive layoffs, rising prices, and a government willing to go along. Just like Greeks bitched but eventually bent over and took their austerity cuts.

We might face cuts, but probably taxes will go up. It's not like people can live lavishly off SS today.

Austerity cuts are a set of economic policies that governments use to reduce their budget deficits and improve their financial health. These cuts can include
Just remember the Reagan, Bush and Trump tax cuts to the rich when it happens

• Reducing government spending
  This can include cutting funding for social programs, health care, and infrastructure, or freezing or reducing government employee salaries.
• Increasing taxes
  This can include raising income, corporate, property, sales, and capital gains taxes.
• Changing tax policies
  This can include extending the eligibility age for retirement and health care benefits, or lowering the minimum wage.
• Other measures
  This can include rationing critical commodities, travel restrictions, and price freezes.
  

Governments often use austerity measures when they have trouble borrowing money or meeting their existing loan obligations. The goal is to reduce the budget deficit by making government revenues closer to expenditures.


Austerity measures can have a number of short-term and long-term consequences, including:

• Increased unemployment
  In the short term, austerity measures can lead to increased unemployment, especially in the public sector.
  
  
  
• Reduced consumption
  Tax increases can reduce consumption by cutting household disposable income.
  
  
  
• Negative impact on health
  Austerity measures can lead to increased poverty and homelessness, which can negatively impact health. Reduced funding for healthcare services can also have a negative impact on healthcare.
  

The problem with trying to tax the rich is there just isn't enough income there to meet the revenue needs. Also, Congress has proven itself completely unable to resist spending any new revenue before it even gets there.

 

[sealybobo]

Being forced into something is not the same as being willing to accept it. I mean, what are you going to do, write bigger numbers on the checks?

We might face cuts, but probably taxes will go up. It's not like people can live lavishly off SS today.

The problem with trying to tax the rich is there just isn't enough income there to meet the revenue needs. Also, Congress has proven itself completely unable to resist spending any new revenue before it even gets there.

I have a great idea. If we must take cuts, no more taxing our benefits.

Between $25,000 and $34,000, you may have to pay income tax on up to 50% of your benefits. More than $34,000, up to 85% of your benefits may be taxable.