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

[kaz]

[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.

So you seriously believe that offering paying work is "lunacy Gingrich-style." Wow. I personally am glad that my church and all the people who hired me didn't think that. But it certainly explains your politics. Libertarianism works because it's based on how people really are in their daily lives. Liberalism doesn't because even liberals aren't like liberals think the world should be. Advocating we build actual policies and use the power of guns to force people to do what liberals don't even do themselves is the true lunacy.

 

[kaz]

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.

Where did Gingrich say he was going to "require" anyone to do anything?

 

[rdean]

[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.

So you seriously believe that offering paying work is "lunacy Gingrich-style." Wow. I personally am glad that my church and all the people who hired me didn't think that. But it certainly explains your politics. Libertarianism works because it's based on how people really are in their daily lives. Liberalism doesn't because even liberals aren't like liberals think the world should be. Advocating we build actual policies and use the power of guns to force people to do what liberals don't even do themselves is the true lunacy.

Children should be in school.

It's the right wing who promotes guns nutjob.

 

[kaz]

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.

I pointed this out before as well. Kids who want money will take the job. Note also the inane liberal assumption that everyone who's not rich is poor. I mopped floors and cleaned bathrooms (among many other things) and was raised in a solidly middle class environment. I worked for money, the work ethic was a freebie. But forcing me to work or not paying me would not have built that. I learned if I work, I make money. Two masters degrees and having owned three businesses I'm still benefiting from that.

 

[kaz]

Children should be in school.

Children should work part time as well so they learn what it takes to get money. Insulating them from the real world is no education in anything but liberalism.

It's the right wing who promotes guns nutjob.

I was referring to government. Try breaking the law or not paying your taxes and note what's in the hands of the government when they come for you, bitch.

 

[SAT2]

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 !!!"

But as has been pointed out repeatedly, cleaning restrooms used by the public is hazardous. You have to use harsh disinfectants and there are more germs in the bathroom. Has Newt EVER done any sort of manual labor? Have you?

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.

In high school. In high school. In high school. Newt is not talking about high school. He is talking about kids under 16.

Please, all of you, for the sake of the thread, stop bragging about working when you where in high school and college. Nobody cares. That's not the topic.

- 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.

Then he's advocating repealing child labor laws. Do you really not see this? He said that our child labor laws are stupid. That means he wants to get rid of them.

The people advocating this are not only out of touch with the nature of manual labor, they are out of touch with reality.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Imagine the ‘Newt Administration’ proposing this inane ‘legislation’ to Congress. Whom would he get to sponsor the bill? Republican members of Congress may be crazy but they’re not stupid. And even if this idiocy became law, it would never withstand a court challenge.

You rightists need to get a grip, and stop supporting the ridiculous proposals made by Gingrich just because he’s a republican, or because he may be the nominee, or to demonstrate some sort of ‘solidarity’ with a fellow republican.

You just look as foolish as Gingrich.

(And Gingrich is the great republican ‘intellectual’? Really? You’ve got to be kidding…)

 

[kaz]

Imagine the ‘Newt Administration’ proposing this inane ‘legislation’ to Congress. Whom would he get to sponsor the bill?

This is a fundamental difference between liberals and non-liberals. Whatever liberals want, they expect government to legislate that everyone be forced to do it as they want with the power of government guns. Newt and non-liberals are capable of suggesting ideas without actually believing that any legislation be enacted.

This is a perfect case of that. As a liberal, when Newt suggested an idea it never occurred to you that legislation would follow because if you'd have suggested it you would have expected legislation to follow. In this case it doesn't even make sense. The Federal government is going to pass legislation requiring local schools to hire students? It's ridiculous. But I guess no legislation following an idea is just too alien for you to consider.

 

[Amelia]

Under 16 still includes high school.

Last I checked.

 

[kaz]

In high school. In high school. In high school. Newt is not talking about high school. He is talking about kids under 16

Funny stuff. Like most people I started High School when I was 14. What were you doing those extra years? And BTW, I started working for pay when I was about 10 doing extra chores around my house. By 13 I was babysitting. By 14 a buddy of mine and I had a full business doing chores, yard work through our neighborhood. And I paid my way through college doing that and more as well.

But back to your post. Nowhere in the post that started this thread is any age mentioned. Can you show where you got that? I am assuming like every time in this thread I've asked liberals to back up their claims I'll get silence on this. Prove me wrong.

 

[SAT2]

Imagine the ‘Newt Administration’ proposing this inane ‘legislation’ to Congress. Whom would he get to sponsor the bill?

This is a fundamental difference between liberals and non-liberals. Whatever liberals want, they expect government to legislate that everyone be forced to do it as they want with the power of government guns. Newt and non-liberals are capable of suggesting ideas without actually believing that any legislation be enacted.

This is a perfect case of that. As a liberal, when Newt suggested an idea it never occurred to you that legislation would follow because if you'd have suggested it you would have expected legislation to follow. In this case it doesn't even make sense. The Federal government is going to pass legislation requiring local schools to hire students? It's ridiculous. But I guess no legislation following an idea is just too alien for you to consider.

You're onto something. Newt just sort of barfs out ideas without much thought, and most of them are downright silly. But you, for some reason, find that a positive trait. As it is entirely impractical, why do you support his mindless ranting? A serious question. What does it do for the problem?

 

[kaz]

Imagine the ‘Newt Administration’ proposing this inane ‘legislation’ to Congress. Whom would he get to sponsor the bill?

This is a fundamental difference between liberals and non-liberals. Whatever liberals want, they expect government to legislate that everyone be forced to do it as they want with the power of government guns. Newt and non-liberals are capable of suggesting ideas without actually believing that any legislation be enacted.

This is a perfect case of that. As a liberal, when Newt suggested an idea it never occurred to you that legislation would follow because if you'd have suggested it you would have expected legislation to follow. In this case it doesn't even make sense. The Federal government is going to pass legislation requiring local schools to hire students? It's ridiculous. But I guess no legislation following an idea is just too alien for you to consider.

You're onto something. Newt just sort of barfs out ideas without much thought, and most of them are downright silly. But you, for some reason, find that a positive trait. As it is entirely impractical, why do you support his mindless ranting? A serious question. What does it do for the problem?

What was the context of the quote? Was it a major point or just a comment in a discussion? Your point is valid if it was a major point in a speech he made. It's inane if it's the latter and was just a comment in a discussion. I'm guessing you don't know. Prove me wrong, give me the context of the statement and how it was a major point he made.