Manch Express editor calls Social Security "fraud", "Ponzi scheme"

If you assume, as conservatives do, that the main purpose of government (0.00 / 0)

is to dole out public assets and resources to "deserving" individuals in the form of various rights (water, mineral, land use, etc), as well as a portion of collected revenues, then not only is the distribution of entitlements a violation of basic principles, but the collection and expenditure of taxes is violative of their paradigm because there's no opportunity for trickle down.

I think we made a basic mistake when we concluded that "trickle-down" referred to the distribution of income to the whole population.  What it really referred to was the portion of every dollar that was going to trickle down to the investor class in the form of interest and fees from bonds and even short-term loans.  Putting the U.S. into hock wasn't an inadvertent consequence of the Bush/Cheney agenda; it was the agenda.  Balanced budget requirements are a strategy to keep government out of the hands of the financiers.

---

by: hannah @ Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 18:45:06 PM CST

Hey proportional cross-section of America, (0.00 / 0)

Raise your hand if you'd like to wake up tomorrow morning and have the Social Security system cease to exist.

Yeah, I thought so.

---

by: This Was The Moment @ Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 21:20:05 PM CST

One thing for sure, (0.00 / 0)

and I say this as a native, is that our state has always been and continues to be a fertile breeding ground and safe haven for wingnuts of every stripe.

There goes another one.

Republicans believe government is bad - then they get into office and prove it.

---

by: GreyMike @ Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 07:57:05 AM CST

But why do they all have newspapers? (0.00 / 0)

---

by: This Was The Moment @ Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 09:49:42 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Yes (0.00 / 0)

But many of their publications are either invisible or made of cardboard.  

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 10:10:13 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Interesting post (0.00 / 1)

Peter,

I'm flattered that you think enough of me to disparage my beliefs on this Web page. That much is a compliment. However, I insist that you allow me to make several points that correct and clarify your misrepresentation of my statements above.

- You are quoting the words that I wrote on my personal Web page. To link those words to my professional position in Manchester is irresponsible. When I write on my personal Web page, I write as myself and represent only my own opinions. Surely you must understand this, for isn't that what you do here? My personal Web site, which you are quoting, has nothing to do with my position at any publication, as anyone who uses the link you have included above will see.

- You have accurately quoted my words, and I stand by them, but you do not include the next paragraph, which clarifies my intent and shows my compassion. By leaving out that paragraph, you do not represent my position accurately. I am in no way blind to the current uses of Social Security. I know full well that some elderly people depend on it and those at the sunset of their careers deserve the benefits they have paid for their entire lives.

The next paragraph that follows the one you quoted indicates my beliefs, which you conveniently omitted:

"I do believe that people who have paid into the fraudulent system their whole lives should continue to have benefits because they are owed what was promised to them, but the government must allow people like me who will never see a dime in Social Security to invest our money on our own. We will do a better job - believe me!"

- You also fail to point out that by writing the paragraph you quote and the one that follows it, I am introducing a well-known syndicated columnist, whose ideas I am sharing with my blog readers. Walter E. Williams, who wrote that Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme, gave me permission to republish his article on my personal Web site. I published it in full support of his words. Anyone who reads Williams' column in full and has logic in their brain should not disagree with what he has written.

- You have personally attacked me without reason with your post here, and I do not understand your intent. I have done nothing in my career but written the truth. I understand that some people do not like to see the truth in print, but it is my job to write it, despite any undue grief it may cause me. On my personal blog, which is distinct and separate from my career, I write what I believe to be the truth. I write my opinion full well knowing that people will disagree with it. I enjoy discussing ideas and issues facing this country. I will discuss them with any man or woman who is willing to use logic and reason to defend their points of view. When I am attacked personally for my views, I do not hesitate to point out that the attacker must know he does not have the logical strength to defend his positions, thus he must resort to insult. That is a shame.

- At 30 years of age, it is true that I am young, and I am younger in spirit. I do not hesitate to say that my youth is a handicap next to those with more experience, knowledge and wisdom, which can only be gained with age. I give deference to those who have truly grown wiser with age, particularly when they can show it with their actions. I appreciate their company and guidance.

- To say I am pampered is a complete misrepresentation of reality. I come from a working family -- my father is a carpenter and my mother is a nurse. I am a journalist. I have never asked for anything that I have; I have worked for it. There was a time in my career when I had $22 to my name, but I did not ask anyone for help. I went out looking for a job and obtained one, and when that wasn't enough to make things work, I got a second job. Everything I have in my life is due to hard work, and I wouldn't have it any other way. I only wish more people had the same attitude about life.

- You are correct that I am sure of my worth, but I know that my uniqueness and value is no greater than any other creature of God. Any individual is precious on this Earth, and is equally deserving of the same liberties and responsibilities as any other. I can not comprehend anyone who does not see value in their life or in the life of others, and pray daily that they gain both confidence and compassion to use their talents and help others freely. I know who I am and I do not feel guilty for it.

I would much rather have had a conversation in private with you concerning any grudge you may have against me, and I invite you here in public to sit down with me to discuss whatever drove you to insult me personally and misrepresent my words. Should you continue to misrepresent me in public, I will not hesitate to set the record straight. I am not afraid to speak the truth, nor am I afraid to say what I believe.  

Speaking only as a citizen in support of the Republic.

---

by: amanuse @ Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 22:40:18 PM CST

It's all about journalistic ethics, Andrew (0.00 / 0)

Mr. Manuse,

I suggest that you go online and examine the ethical standards set forth by the New York Times, Business Week, and various professional organizations.

You currently serve as a reporter for the Express. You are the one who sits in the bleachers at City Hall on Tuesday night. For you to actively engage in partisan and ideological activity as a member of the "Free State Project" and through your blogging is questionable in and of itself. For you to do so without making full disclosure to your readers is downright unacceptable.

I also find it amusing that you would decry "personal attacks". You might want to review your own grossly inaccurate op/ed from a couple of weeks ago, and revisit your friend Joe Kelly Levasseur's long string of personal attacks against me, Kathy Sullivan, Ray Buckley, Chris Pappas, Lou D'Allesandro, and pretty much every other prominent Manchester Democrat.  

America was not built on fear. America was built on courage, on imagination and an unbeatable determination to do the job at hand. -Harry Truman

---

by: Peter Sullivan @ Sun Feb 15, 2009 at 11:07:08 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Hannah raises interesting point (0.00 / 1)

I would agree with Hannah that Bush/Cheney intended to put this country into debt. Yet, I disagree that "conservatives" would want such an end, and would further state that neither Bush nor Cheney are "conservative." I would consider the last administration statist, perhaps somewhat dictatorial. However, I don't believe you have any "change" whatsoever in the new administration. Rather, the change I'm seeing is a drastic increase in the speed we are heading toward something that I don't think any of us want as regular American citizens.

I believe it was and is the intention of Bush I, Clinton, Bush II and Obama to end the dollar and create a world currency. The stated reason for doing so will be/is to stabilize the world economy. The intended reason will be to create a one-world power, which will eventually become a one-world government, much like what we saw happen with the European Economic Area and now the European Union.

I am unhappy that the states, be they New Hampshire, New York or Oklahoma, have lost the rights and responsibilities given to them in the Constitution. I believe that we are better equipped on the state level to deal with our own problems. Most public issues can be handled by cities and towns. All private issues can be handled by individuals, families and communities of people. The federal government should serve only in the way it was intended, to provide for the general defense of the confederated states, to maintain our national borders while allowing for trade and travel beyond them, and to regulate interstate commerce. That we are heading toward more federal control and the possibility of one-world control will be most detrimental to human liberty. I can only see mediocrity, perhaps even misery as the result.

As a writer, outside my professional career, I believe it is my duty to state my opinion and attempt to convince others that it is correct. I am more than willing to debate these views, and certainly willing to look for different perspectives of what is happening. Where I have been wrong in the past on specific issues, I have stated so. Where I have been right, I will let my words speak for themselves.

Speaking only as a citizen in support of the Republic.

---

by: amanuse @ Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 23:13:04 PM CST

O' Brother (0.00 / 0)

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.


Whack-a-mole, anyone?

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Sun Feb 15, 2009 at 12:38:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Why does this sound familiar? (0.00 / 0)

Oh, yeah...

http://www.buddytv.com/article...

America was not built on fear. America was built on courage, on imagination and an unbeatable determination to do the job at hand. -Harry Truman

---

by: Peter Sullivan @ Sun Feb 15, 2009 at 13:51:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Response (0.00 / 0)

Peter,

There are two schools of thought when it comes to journalistic ethics, and I subscribe to one of them very closely.

There is one school that pretends that journalists don't have any opinions at all and by expressing them they somehow abandon their objectivity when writing articles. I find that school of thought foolish, and counter to human nature. If anything, journalists who do not acknowledge their bias believe they are objective even when they are clearly not.

There is another school of journalistic thought and ethics that understands that journalists are thinking people with their own ideas about the way things should be. By disclosing their beliefs to the public, they do themselves, their readers and their objectivity a great service. Only when readers know where a journalist is coming from can they call them on a lack of objectivity or fairness in their work. I subscribe to this school of thought.

I firmly believe that journalists who pretend they are objective are more likely to expose their bias in what they want people to think is their objective work. Any reading of the New York Times will show you -- if you are being honest -- that there is absolutely no objectivity on those pages.

I have never hidden the fact that I came to this state as a Free State Project member, and as you know from having conversations with me, I believe in personal liberty and responsibility, and that government should be respectful of that. I believe the Constitution of the United States is the law of the land, and I believe it should be followed strictly. That is the reason I left the state to our south to move here, because I believe New Hampshire respects laws and the Constitution to a much greater degree. While I joined the FSP to show that I support the effort to keep New Hampshire free, I do not actively engage in any of its activities.

I use Manuse.com to express my First Amendment rights as a U.S. Citizen, and have clearly spelled out all of my beliefs and affiliations there for the entire world to see. My blog, For the Eyes of the Beholder, is not associated with my position in my professional career. It is something I have been doing since before I even became a journalist and it is something I have made every employer I've worked under well aware of.

I would hope that my disclosures give my readers in my professional career a better sense of where I'm coming from, and I would encourage them to let me know if they feel my coverage of the city of Manchester is biased. I always work to bring the most objectivity possible to my journalistic writings, but acknowledge that I too may bring bias to the table, as any human would. I feel comfortable discussing this in public, and that alone should indicate that I have violated no ethics from my school of journalistic thought.

My editorial in the Express was just that, an editorial. It was my opinion and it was based on the facts that have become clear to me and the people of Manchester. The editorial was written for no other reason than to hold an elected official accountable to the law and his constituents, and it is my duty as a journalist to do so.

If I had misquoted the elected official in my original article, the appropriate thing to do would be to call the newspaper to discuss the article and ask for a correction. Rather, the elected official continued with the same type of inappropriate behavior referenced in the article and proceeded to question my veracity behind my back. I have sent my notes to the mayor of Manchester and the chairman of the board of aldermen, and assured them that every word within that article came out of the elected official's mouth.

I'm more than happy to share those same notes with the elected official in question, and discuss why he feels empowered to deny the words I asked him to repeat so I could quote them exactly. However, as I said in my editorial, I wrote what I wrote only after extensive research and review of the video tape of the meeting, and I stand by what I wrote.

Speaking only as a citizen in support of the Republic.

---

by: amanuse @ Sun Feb 15, 2009 at 13:42:45 PM CST

Parroting Joe Kelly Levasseur's rantings constitutes "research"? (0.00 / 0)

I didn't realize that.  

America was not built on fear. America was built on courage, on imagination and an unbeatable determination to do the job at hand. -Harry Truman

---

by: Peter Sullivan @ Sun Feb 15, 2009 at 13:58:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]

response (0.00 / 0)

Peter,
This comment is ludicrous. The majority of the article was written directly from the minutes of the meeting provided to me by the city. I also watched the video to get a feel for the events as they happened. Beyond those two key sources, Joe Kelly Levasseur was one of many sources in my article, and one of those sources was yourself. I let you say whatever you wanted, Peter, and I reported it as you spoke it. The effect of your own statements and actions as an elected official is more what drove the follow-up editorial than anything else.

Speaking only as a citizen in support of the Republic.

---

by: amanuse @ Sun Feb 15, 2009 at 14:08:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Questions For Mr. Manuse (0.00 / 0)

I had assumed from Mr. Manuse's positions and his proximity in both ideology and professional relation to Joe Kelley Levasseur, whose past statements go beyond incorrigible, that a civil and constructive dialogue wouldn't have been possible, but my assumptions appear to be wrong from the tone of the comments above and I am glad that my assumptions were wrong.

However, Mr. Manuse, I was wondering if I could ask you a few questions regarding your comments.

#1. From your comment regarding your personal journalistic code of ethics, is it fair to say you subscribe to the New and/or Gonzo schools of Journalistic thought?

#2. In regards to the loss of states' rights and a one-world government, could you please elaborate?

Like with the national deficit, conservatives have nobody to blame but themselves for a more homogenized set of international legal standards that have come about through the globalization of our economy.

I suspect we are in almost universal disagreement on most matters. I am under 34, but strongly disagree with your assessment that Social Security cannot be saved. I strongly disagree with your assessment that George Bush was not conservative. He was a neo-conservative, which falls squarely within the camp of modern conservative thought.

I also strongly disagree with your assessment of Alderman Sullivan. Quite frankly, i'm envious of the people of Ward 3 who have such a passionate and honest spokesman that if I ever have to move 15 minutes north to the Queen City, i'd probably prefer to live inside of Ward 3 if only due to knowing that i'd have Alderman Sullivan as my voice in City Hall. I've lost track of how many times he's made me as a regular person feel significant despite his status.

However, regardless of any disagreements we might have, I hope those disagreements can be amicable and forthright.

P.S -- The links aren't typos. My opinions haven't changed, but i've learned to come to peace with Wikipedia. It's a beautiful thing constructed by deplorable means, but I suppose that could be said of most things where politics of any kind is involved.  

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Sun Feb 15, 2009 at 14:39:37 PM CST

[ Parent ]

One other point (0.00 / 0)

For some reason Peter, you feel that I somehow have control over other individuals in my life. I understand that you have such an opinion of yourself, but as someone who believes in individual liberties and responsibilities, I do not subscribe to that view. Joe Kelly Levasseur is a columnist in the Express who states his own opinions. All I require of him is to make sure his opinions are based on accurate information and to call or e-mail the person he is referencing to get their side of the story. For me to censor him, as you would suggest I do, would be completely inappropriate in a nation that values free speech.

Ever since I have given Joe Kelly Levasseur a column in the Express, you have attacked him, and pressured me constantly to remove him for reasons that are not appropriate. Since I haven't bended my knee to your desire, you have taken to insulting me personally on this blog in an effort to intimidate me. Your e-mails to me are paternalistic in nature. I responded just like I am writing here: I do not have control over other people and what they do in their lives. I do have control over what they write in the Express, but as a free speech advocate, all that I do is insist it is accurate and fair. I think it is clear that I have successfully managed the column in question, Politics this Week, and it has been quite successful in driving political discussion in Manchester.

For me to take responsibility for another man's opinions is ludicrous. Every man and woman owns his or her own opinions, and any association they have with others is just that, an association. And in this country Peter, we are free to associate with whom we want, even if we disagree with them.

Speaking only as a citizen in support of the Republic.

---

by: amanuse @ Sun Feb 15, 2009 at 13:59:12 PM CST

Whatever you say, Andrew (0.00 / 0)

If you think pimping for Joe Kelly is going to score you any points, go ahead and keep on believing.


America was not built on fear. America was built on courage, on imagination and an unbeatable determination to do the job at hand. -Harry Truman

---

by: Peter Sullivan @ Sun Feb 15, 2009 at 14:06:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Response (0.00 / 0)

Peter,

What I have said speaks for itself and what you have said speaks for itself. Everyone knows your opinions of Joe Kelly Levasseur.

As you and I both know, I have held him accountable when his column was inaccurate and I will continue to do so. His column has not only been accurate since his early writings, but it has also been interesting.

I'm going to go enjoy my day, Peter. I think it's clear which one of us is interested in the truth, and which one in unsubstantiated political smears.

It is clear to me that one who resorts to insults has found himself vacant of any supporting logic to his arguments.

Speaking only as a citizen in support of the Republic.

---

by: amanuse @ Sun Feb 15, 2009 at 14:14:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I think it is also important to point out (0.00 / 0)

that the original post by Mr. Sullivan contained no errors of fact, was protected free speech, and is being held accountable in real time by yourself and other readers.  Yet, from what I have gathered in the above posts, you are upset at this post.  

While you may very well be correct that his columns contain factual information and that its author may have sought comment from those mentioned therein, JKL also often leaves out key details and context.  

Joe Kelly Lavasseur has on numerous occasions, several of which I have witnessed first-hand, crossed the line from political debate into personal attack and twisted the facts to meet his own agenda.  

While I will defend his right to say whatever he wants, as I would for anybody, there are consequences to actions.  I doubt you would give an anti-Semite or KKK member free reign to editorialize in your newspaper, despite however factual their information might be.  While I would not put JKL in that category, it is irresponsible of you to simply wipe your hands of ownership of what and who is published in your newspaper.  By doing so you lose credibility as an editor and as a journalist.
 

"He who loves correction, loves knowledge.  He who hates reproof is stupid." - Proverbs 12:1

---

by: jdblanch @ Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 21:32:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]