Gingrich Doubles Down On Child Labor: Poor Kids Should ‘Clean The Bathroom’

[Bfgrn]

Conceding ever so slightly to flak he’s taken for calling child labor laws “stupid” and suggesting that schools fire janitors and replace with them poor kids, GOP presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich got more specific today, saying working-class students should be limited to jobs like cleaning bathrooms. Bowing to concerns that janitorial work is dangerous, Gingrich floated, “What if they became assistant janitors and their jobs were to mop the floor and clean the bathroom?

And this is the GOP's "Great White Hope"?


Gingrich Doubles Down On Child Labor: Poor Kids Should 'Clean The Bathroom' | ThinkProgress

Mark Kennedy Shriver wrote an excellent op-ed on Newt's ignorant profiling...

The Solution to Poverty: Kids Cleaning Toilets?

At a campaign stop in Iowa Thursday, former speaker Newt Gingrich, making an argument against century-old child labor laws, said: "Really poor children in really poor neighborhoods have no habits of working and have nobody around them who works ... o they literally have no habit of showing up on Monday. They have no habit of staying all day. They have no habit of 'I do this and you give me cash,' unless it's illegal."

His comments were in defense of his suggestion two weeks ago that kids living in poverty work as janitors in the schools they attend.

The former speaker has long positioned himself as a thoughtful conservative and a student of history. A lot of people believe that to be true. In this case, though, he's betrayed both roles.

To become productive members of society, children living in poverty don't need laws relaxed so they can clean toilets. They need to be in school learning how to read and write -- just like kids living in more affluent areas -- which is the path to a fair chance at success in life.

* Economics says so: A meaningful investment in high-quality early childhood education would add $2 trillion to the gross domestic product within a generation.

* Politics says so: The fight for a stronger, better education system is one that has the support of Democrats, Republicans, liberals and conservatives. Indeed, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, a Republican, is one of the nation's most prominent champions of early childhood education.

* Our future says so: A quality education reduces crime, domestic violence and high school drop-out rates and increases productivity and innovation.

Since Mr. Gingrich was in Iowa, a short drive would have taught him something else about poverty in the United States -- that it's not just in urban areas.

In America today, there are at least 8 million people living in poverty outside actual urban and suburban "neighborhoods." These people live in genuinely rural areas like the farmlands of Iowa and the hollers of Kentucky. In these places, poverty usually means isolation from good jobs, healthy food and a quality education.

Speaker Gingrich has often railed against class warfare in America. As a student of history, he should know that class warfare isn't a one-way street of the poor fighting the wealthy. Indeed, with his own words, he taught that history lesson to himself.



Mark is the son of Eunice Kennedy Shriver and Sarge.

Mark Kennedy Shriver is Vice President and Managing Director of U.S. Programs for Save the Children. He leads programmatic and advocacy efforts to improve the early childhood development, literacy, physical activity and nutrition of children living in impoverished rural communities across the United States. He also leads Save the Children's domestic emergency programs to ensure that the unique needs of children are incorporated into disaster preparedness, response and recovery plans.

 

[BDBoop]

So then let's tell the parents of rich kids that they have to stop giving them money every time they want to buy something,

and let's have the rich kids clean toilets in their school before they get cash.

Exactly! EVERYBODY needs to learn the work ethic. School-wide.

Just don't go giving the janitorial jobs away, please. They have families to support.

Or is that also an alien concept to the Republicansl.

 

[bodecea]

Candy corn, remember he will be matched up with a seriously flawed candidate whose flaws are in the present time. Just look at Obama's record of success.

A seriously flawed candidate who got 69+ Million votes last time around if memory serves. Gingrich has never won a statewide election to the best of my knowledge, runs as an outsider who lead his life as the consummate insider, was on one side on a number of major issues before he was on the other side, has almost zero appeal to moderates, and, oh yeah, has had what can most charitably be called a casual relationship with ethics.

I think if Newt is elected, Obama could win re-election without leaving the White House. He wouldn't do that of course but Newt has nothing to offer.

That's the way he would have to be re-elected. Not leaving the WH for a debate. Remember the midterms. We still have the Dumbo in Chief.

Oh? What debates did Obama lose during the midterms?

 

[kaz]

So then let's tell the parents of rich kids that they have to stop giving them money every time they want to buy something,

and let's have the rich kids clean toilets in their school before they get cash.

Exactly! EVERYBODY needs to learn the work ethic. School-wide.

Just don't go giving the janitorial jobs away, please. They have families to support.

Or is that also an alien concept to the Republicansl.

The anti-choice left once again.

Newt: We should offer money for cleaning bathrooms to whoever wants to do the work for the money.

You: We should force everyone to do it regardless of whether they want to or not.

You are consistent if sad.

BTW, you learn a "work ethic" by learning that if you want money, you work for it. So by offering money for work, the takers are getting it.

Forcing other kids to clean bathrooms as you want teaches nothing. You do it because you are consumed with hatred for people who have more then you and want them to suffer. Just be honest, don't hide behind you're "teaching them" anything at all, you're not. You are showing them the hatred of the left. But teaching? No.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So then let's tell the parents of rich kids that they have to stop giving them money every time they want to buy something,

and let's have the rich kids clean toilets in their school before they get cash.

Exactly! EVERYBODY needs to learn the work ethic. School-wide.

Just don't go giving the janitorial jobs away, please. They have families to support.

Or is that also an alien concept to the Republicansl.

The anti-choice left once again.

Newt: We should offer money for cleaning bathrooms to whoever wants to do the work for the money.

You: We should force everyone to do it regardless of whether they want to or not.

You are consistent if sad.

BTW, you learn a "work ethic" by learning that if you want money, you work for it. So by offering money for work, the takers are getting it.

Forcing other kids to clean bathrooms as you want teaches nothing. You do it because you are consumed with hatred for people who have more then you and want them to suffer. Just be honest, don't hide behind you're "teaching them" anything at all, you're not. You are showing them the hatred of the left. But teaching? No.

lol, so this work would only go to the kids who wanted it? The kids who are already figuring out the value of work,

and the kids that are the problem, as Newt is describing it, would be unaffected?

That makes it even funnier.

 

[kaz]

lol, so this work would only go to the kids who wanted it? The kids who are already figuring out the value of work,

and the kids that are the problem, as Newt is describing it, would be unaffected?

That makes it even funnier.

You have no logical ability at all. Here your conclusion:

-) Kids don't need to actually work to have a work ethic, if they are willing to work then they have it so you're not teaching them anything by actually giving them work.

Wow.

I got through college by working my ass off. I did carpentry work, painted, cleaned homes (including bathrooms) and whatever else people would pay me for. My motivation was the money, not the work ethic. Yet that is how I got the work ethic. You're denying the money to the people who need it and preventing them from attaining a work ethic.

That is the reality of liberalism. Until you think of your victims like the kids willing to work for money over your petty class warfare wanting to force kids who don't need it to clean bathrooms, you will continue to screw the people you pat yourself on the back for "helping." Liberalism is about you, not your victims. Be honest. You don't give a rip about them. It's about feeling smug and superior.

 

[kaz]

Oh? What debates did Obama lose during the midterms?

Debates? None. But the candidates he campaigned for lost in droves

 

[NYcarbineer]

lol, so this work would only go to the kids who wanted it? The kids who are already figuring out the value of work,

and the kids that are the problem, as Newt is describing it, would be unaffected?

That makes it even funnier.

You have no logical ability at all. Here your conclusion:

-) Kids don't need to actually work to have a work ethic, if they are willing to work then they have it so you're not teaching them anything by actually giving them work.

Wow.

I got through college by working my ass off. I did carpentry work, painted, cleaned homes (including bathrooms) and whatever else people would pay me for. My motivation was the money, not the work ethic. Yet that is how I got the work ethic. You're denying the money to the people who need it and preventing them from attaining a work ethic.

That is the reality of liberalism. Until you think of your victims like the kids willing to work for money over your petty class warfare wanting to force kids who don't need it to clean bathrooms, you will continue to screw the people you pat yourself on the back for "helping." Liberalism is about you, not your victims. Be honest. You don't give a rip about them. It's about feeling smug and superior.

Class warfare? What warfare is it when Gingrich wants to take away a decent honest living in all likelihood from some adult raising a family and give the work to a bunch of children?

Do you know that most cleaners in schools work an 8 hour day, usually from 2 to 10, or 3 to 11, or 4 to midnight? What 10 year old can do that?

 

[GWV5903]

lol, so this work would only go to the kids who wanted it? The kids who are already figuring out the value of work,

and the kids that are the problem, as Newt is describing it, would be unaffected?

That makes it even funnier.

You have no logical ability at all. Here your conclusion:

-) Kids don't need to actually work to have a work ethic, if they are willing to work then they have it so you're not teaching them anything by actually giving them work.

Wow.

I got through college by working my ass off. I did carpentry work, painted, cleaned homes (including bathrooms) and whatever else people would pay me for. My motivation was the money, not the work ethic. Yet that is how I got the work ethic. You're denying the money to the people who need it and preventing them from attaining a work ethic.

That is the reality of liberalism. Until you think of your victims like the kids willing to work for money over your petty class warfare wanting to force kids who don't need it to clean bathrooms, you will continue to screw the people you pat yourself on the back for "helping." Liberalism is about you, not your victims. Be honest. You don't give a rip about them. It's about feeling smug and superior.

Class warfare? What warfare is it when Gingrich wants to take away a decent honest living in all likelihood from some adult raising a family and give the work to a bunch of children?
Do you know that most cleaners in schools work an 8 hour day, usually from 2 to 10, or 3 to 11, or 4 to midnight? What 10 year old can do that?

Your off your rocker, the illness the left continues and will not admit to is they are anti growth...

Growth is the solution, the left is to busy trying to restrict growth, too afraid someone will get more than them, what a pathetic lot...

 

[kaz]

Class warfare? What warfare is it when Gingrich wants to take away a decent honest living in all likelihood from some adult raising a family and give the work to a bunch of children?

Do you know that most cleaners in schools work an 8 hour day, usually from 2 to 10, or 3 to 11, or 4 to midnight? What 10 year old can do that?

So now your story changes, you are concerned about janitor jobs. I thought you wanted the rich bastards you hate to clean toilets, can't make up your mind? And you seriously can't see any option other then we offer no work to kids and we eliminate janitors? Why are those polar extremes the only choice?

And nice diversion. I never argued that kids should clean. I said you were full of shit when you said Newt wanted to "repeal" child labor laws and force 10 year olds to clean bathrooms. He said our labor laws were stupid, he said nothing about "repealing" labor laws. And you made up the "force" and "10 year old" completely.

I called you out for the hateful bitch you are for making up that crack and dared you to back it up. In true form, you didn't. So I take it as your concession that you are a hateful bitch.

 

[SAT2]

-) Kids don't need to actually work to have a work ethic, if they are willing to work then they have it so you're not teaching them anything by actually giving them work.

Wow.

I got through college by working my ass off. I did carpentry work, painted, cleaned homes (including bathrooms) and whatever else people would pay me for. My motivation was the money, not the work ethic. Yet that is how I got the work ethic. You're denying the money to the people who need it and preventing them from attaining a work ethic.

That is the reality of liberalism. Until you think of your victims like the kids willing to work for money over your petty class warfare wanting to force kids who don't need it to clean bathrooms, you will continue to screw the people you pat yourself on the back for "helping." Liberalism is about you, not your victims. Be honest. You don't give a rip about them. It's about feeling smug and superior.

Once again, we hear about someone working at an age well past the age Newt is talking about.

Your rant here is ridiculous, it's based on an experience that has NOTHING to do with the situation.

So now your story changes, you are concerned about janitor jobs. I thought you wanted the rich bastards you hate to clean toilets, can't make up your mind? And you seriously can't see any option other then we offer no work to kids and we eliminate janitors? Why are those polar extremes the only choice?

Another ridiculous rant. Yes, those are the options Newt laid out. Lay off the janitors and hire kids who work under a master janitor.

 

[Vel]

To whom exactly in the GOP is Gingrich trying to appeal? Most moderates, independents, and democrats won’t buy into this.

Is this ‘work’ voluntary or mandatory? If punitive what criteria will be used to determine due process? Why just ‘poor/working class’ children? Will the children of the wealthy and well-to-do also be compelled to clean bathrooms?

If mandatory and punitive, singling out only a particular class of persons – regardless their age – could be construed as illegal and un-Constitutional.

Again, is Gingrich really this ignorant of the law? Or as with most rightists is he simply in contempt of it.

He sounds like an elitist snob to me. The key words he used, "working class children should be limited to cleaning the bathrooms" seems to be ignored by those who keep making excuses for him.

While at this point I'm not supporting Gingrich I do think it's unfair for people to pull things out of context and try to attach a meaning that wasn't there. This type of behavior is what is keeping good people from running for office. Based on the article that quoted:

"Bowing to concerns that janitorial work is dangerous, Gingrich floated, “What if they became assistant janitors and their jobs were to mop the floor and clean the bathroom?'

It's fairly obvious that the statement "children should be limited " is in response to the entire aspect of janitorial work. To make it simple it means , children should be limited to jobs which are not dangerous.

( Cue TM to say " But the right ALWAYS !!!"

 

[NYcarbineer]

[And nice diversion. I never argued that kids should clean.

You didn't?

So in the context of this thread, who WERE you referring to when you said this?

If you hire people to clean bathrooms, they clean bathrooms and they get money for it. People who need jobs are more likely to do that then people who don't need jobs...

 

[NYcarbineer]

[So now your story changes, you are concerned about janitor jobs. I thought you wanted the rich bastards you hate to clean toilets, can't make up your mind? .

If you could read you would have known that my reference to rich kids hinged on IF you were going to do what Gingrich wanted, IF you were going to pursue the ideas he was setting out,

THEN the rich kids should have to work too, in order to get money that they are otherwise getting from their rich parents - for doing nothing -

to teach them the value of work.

 

[kaz]

[And nice diversion. I never argued that kids should clean.

You didn't?

So in the context of this thread, who WERE you referring to when you said this?

If you hire people to clean bathrooms, they clean bathrooms and they get money for it. People who need jobs are more likely to do that then people who don't need jobs...

You re-read it. I was discussing the merits of work. No where in my quote you cited did I was in favor of that policy. I only said that if you offer work, people who need it will take it. I actually don't have a position on if they should hire kids to do things like clean bathrooms. I seriously doubt they would because it would be more trouble to manage the kids then do it. I did BTW, also get paid for cleaning my church when I was in High School, including mopping the floors in the entire building and cleaning the bathrooms. They had to pay someone and I wanted money, so they paid me since I went to the church. I was very reliable. Forcing me to clean the church would not have taught me work ethic, it would have been a chore. By paying me, I wanted to do it and did it well. If I weren't paid and it was force I'd have done everything I could to cut corners or get out of it. Your proposal of "force" is not teaching a work ethic. You seriously don't get the relation between "work" and "money" and how a work ethic is to earn a living, not just work with choice removed.

 

[kaz]

[So now your story changes, you are concerned about janitor jobs. I thought you wanted the rich bastards you hate to clean toilets, can't make up your mind? .

If you could read you would have known that my reference to rich kids hinged on IF you were going to do what Gingrich wanted, IF you were going to pursue the ideas he was setting out,

THEN the rich kids should have to work too, in order to get money that they are otherwise getting from their rich parents - for doing nothing -

to teach them the value of work.

I already addressed this. You are removing choice in your endless liberal class warfare. Newt is arguing offering money for work and leaving it up to the kids whether to take it. He no where says if you are poor you will have to clean bathrooms. He's assuming they are more likely to take it. You say no, FORCE kids to clean. Newt was forcing no one to do anything.

BTW, he's wrong in that. People tend to have money because they work. And everyone in this country is not "rich" or "poor" as you like to portray it.

And again, you did not back up any of the accusations you pulled out of your ass.

Where did Newt say:

- anyone would be "forced" to clean as you asserted
- "10 year olds" would be forced to clean
- Child labor laws would be "repealed." Or in other words there would be none. Newt did not say there should be NO child labor laws, he said the ones we have are stupid.

Once again, you show yourself for what you are. A hate filled liberal who will twist and skew whatever your political opponents say rather then address their points rationally.

BTW, I do like to screw with you. I appreciate your going with the positive rather then the negative rep to acknowledge it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[I already addressed this. You are removing choice in your endless liberal class warfare. Newt is arguing offering money for work and leaving it up to the kids whether to take it. He no where says if you are poor you will have to clean bathrooms. He's assuming they are more likely to take it. You say no, FORCE kids to clean. Newt was forcing no one to do anything.

.

As I said, if that is true, then Newt's idea coupled with his premise makes no sense. If only the kids who want to work get the work,

then all the kids who don't want to work, including those Newt says think that way because of the no-work environment they are raised in,

would be unaffected by this scheme. Therefore the whole project is lunacy, Gingrich-style.

 

[Sirkarl101]

I love Newt! I hope he is the nominee. This creature would love nothing more than to see a very poor child in a very poor neighborhood who has no work ethics, maybe because they are children take away a union job in that very poor neighborhood from a very poor family. The conversation between that child and his parents may go as follows. " Hey dad, guess what. I know we are having trouble with trying to pay the bills but I got a job today cleaning the bathrooms at school. I get $ 3.00 an hour." The father responds, " That is great son!. We could use the money because I just lost my $11.00 hr. job mopping the floors."

What the hell is he thinking? Strip a very poor community of any good jobs and replace the workers with children that should be concentrating on their education. I heard him state that his grandchild saved for a ipod or whatever. I would love to know what toilets she cleaned for that money.

Even conservatives must realize that talk like that is stupid. It is cruel talk. unfair stereotyping, and being the genius that he is makes little economic sense. So he wants to put a union janitor on public assistance by employing a child.

This man is morally bankrupt. He bailed on two wives after they fell ill. Had oral sex with a woman in his driveway as his kids walked by the car. Any true conservative knows his record and to endorse him is a slap in the face to the people of substance both left and right.

We can not have this man as our president. He demonstrates to the rest of the world how little we care about our presidents character.

Just a personal note. Cleaning the bathrooms is by far the most dangerous job of a janitor. I left more management jobs lobbying for higher wages for my employees who cleaned bathrooms. It is dealing with toxic, and caustic chemicals in a minefield of bio-hazardous materials.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If you could read you would have known that my reference to rich kids hinged on IF you were going to do what Gingrich wanted, IF you were going to pursue the ideas he was setting out,

THEN the rich kids should have to work too, in order to get money that they are otherwise getting from their rich parents - for doing nothing -

to teach them the value of work.

Not to mention the fact that to require this of students of low-income families only is discriminatory – not that republicans are concerned about such things, of course.

 

[Amelia]

If you could read you would have known that my reference to rich kids hinged on IF you were going to do what Gingrich wanted, IF you were going to pursue the ideas he was setting out,

THEN the rich kids should have to work too, in order to get money that they are otherwise getting from their rich parents - for doing nothing -

to teach them the value of work.

Not to mention the fact that to require this of students of low-income families only is discriminatory – not that republicans are concerned about such things, of course.

Actually, I've thought about that.

If there was a program where jobs were offered to students, I bet that a lot of middle class kids would want the jobs.

There would be complaints about discrimination if it were means tested.