Comments on: Washington’s long con

By: DavidP2011

DavidP2011 — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 21:40:17 +0000

As a first time visitor to hthis site, I am intrigued that a well-written article such as this should be pilloried by people who obviously have a political axe to grind on the basis that they don;t like it’s writing style. It is for ma a facinating insight into how one part of the political spectrum works.

But I should add – well done to the author.

By: GlibFighter

GlibFighter — Tue, 27 Sep 2011 06:05:28 +0000

Proudly wearing what’s been called her ‘progressive disillusionment,’ Ms. Tkacik exhibits a stunning lack of self reflection. If she keeps it up, she’s likely to remain underemployed for a very long time. On the bright side, this would give her an opportunity to read Hemingway for some lessons on how ‘less can be more.’

By: robb1

robb1 — Mon, 26 Sep 2011 22:13:51 +0000

Mou.. can u write here s 20 line executive summary?

By: aspee

aspee — Mon, 26 Sep 2011 21:28:11 +0000

What a piece of trash,not because of the opinions but the bad writing style. Dear author you are not underemployed you are over-employed.

By: ptiffany

ptiffany — Mon, 26 Sep 2011 20:28:51 +0000

I’m waiting for an insightful analysis of that darling master of opaque transparency, Benny Bernanke, the savior of Paul Krugman’s Third Depression that few will ackknowledge.

Then, Maureen, you should do an analysis of the history of the Official Unemployment Rate as determined by the United States Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) with the “under-employment” rate (determined by the BLS) and the long-term unemployed (that the BLS used to report as the real unemployment rate) that are deemed “no longer in the labor pool” and “no longer looking for work”. 42% of adult working-age adults who worked four years ago and can still work are still out of work, those lazy basturds. All they do is huddle in makeshift cardboard homes in alleys and under highway overpasses, or sponge off of people with jobs.

By: OFA7

OFA7 — Mon, 26 Sep 2011 18:37:54 +0000

Yes, “under-employed” rings true.

If it can’t be said with simple prose and a recognizable set of words then what’s the point?

If there is a story then lay it out factually and concisely and your readers may actually come to reasonable conclusions.

By: ptiffany

ptiffany — Mon, 26 Sep 2011 18:19:41 +0000

Love it!

I think Maureen has a future as a great writer, if only she could change her last name…

By: NukerDoggie

NukerDoggie — Mon, 26 Sep 2011 18:07:12 +0000

This is nothing but a boring mishmash of excess adjectives and adverbs. And get a decent picture of yourself, honey – the one you chose looks like a transparent attempt to capitalize on the social media / Skype revolution.

I second it – no wonder you’re under-employed.

And I’m a political atheist – with great disrespect for both sides, conservative and liberal. So I’m not thumping your article for partisan political reasons.

By: Crash866

Crash866 — Mon, 26 Sep 2011 17:52:27 +0000

Ya’ll dont get it….well written and she’s hot!! I guess if it was a Rah Rah piece of the current Bozo’s you lefty bleeders would love it. Reality…it’s a BITCH!!

By: amanpsingh

amanpsingh — Mon, 26 Sep 2011 17:26:21 +0000

I have, earlier, carried out a thorough analysis of Ms. Tkacik’s another article. That analysis may be read at: http://bit.ly/nWUPLp.

While I haven’t had the stomach to go through this article in its entirety, Ms. Tkacik’s seems to have pulled a confidence game of her own, with no holding back on this one. Ms. Tkacik’s harangue, in dense and obtuse language, where the use of complex construction and uncommon words is used to hide shallow thinking and an unimaginative mind, is indicative of the kind of subsidized dribble that is taught, today, in most Ivy League Schools, where the subject and the lecturer are of a liberal/leftist persuasion. If taxpayers ever wonder what their money is used to teach, this article, in its manner of mud-slinging, its flatulent complexity, and its convoluted construction may be taken to be a model representation.