- Thread starter
- #41
Someone once said:
"Gingrich is the Stupid Man's idea of what a Smart Man sounds like."
...boy, does that nail it!!
I thought you said you were a stupid woman, not a stupid man???
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Someone once said:
"Gingrich is the Stupid Man's idea of what a Smart Man sounds like."
...boy, does that nail it!!
Here is Newt's plan, applied in a realistic situation.
You have a large middle school, with 6th to 9th graders, 2 custodians on the day shift, 5 cleaners on the night shift.
1. Newt eliminates all but 1 'master' janitor (a term that doesn't exist in real life so Newt is already off in fantasy land).
2. Newt replaces the other 6 'janitors' with kids aged about 11 to 15.
3. His one master janitor is supposed to now supervise 2 shifts of kids cleaning the buildings at night, roughly from 3 pm to 11 pm, because that's a typical cleaner shift, PLUS he's got kids on the day shifts doing custodial day work.
4. You've got health and safety training that is required for these people.
5. You've got labor laws probably at both the state and federal level that had to be repealed or rewritten to put these kids to work.
6. You've got a union to decertify or terminate the school's relationship with.
7. You've got to get all of this approved by school board.
8. And, you have to educate your new crew of child cleaners, because afterall, that is primarily what they are there for.
9. ...and everything I've left out...
Now, Newt fans, all of you who think Newt is the brains of the Right, the intellectual thinker of the GOP...
...let's see your program laid out to make all of this work.
So when he says 9 in the above quote, that's not an age other than 14? Are you a fucking retard?
His only reference to a nine year old was that some successful people got their first jobs at 9.... So you are being disingenous to imply that there's going to be some kind of work camp for 9 years olds.
That this issue is generating so much attention is important and telling about what is wrong with the GOP today:
Blatant reactionaryism utter, irrational contempt for the most sensible of regulations, including child labor laws.
Irrational, hateful contempt for public sector employees and the working class in general; implying that much of what they do for a living can be done by a child.
Irrational, hateful contempt for labor unions, whose very existence is a result of the cruel and capricious treatment of workers by business and given Gingrichs proposals, are very much needed today.
Ignorance and contempt for the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law, where poor children are singled out for punitive measures in the context of presumption of guilt.
This issue alone demonstrates Gingrich is unqualified to be president, or any other republican politician who supports such idiocy.
LOL I am going to take some words out of context so I can throw a fit.That this issue is generating so much attention is important and telling about what is wrong with the GOP today:
Blatant reactionaryism utter, irrational contempt for the most sensible of regulations, including child labor laws.
Irrational, hateful contempt for public sector employees and the working class in general; implying that much of what they do for a living can be done by a child.
Irrational, hateful contempt for labor unions, whose very existence is a result of the cruel and capricious treatment of workers by business and given Gingrichs proposals, are very much needed today.
Ignorance and contempt for the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law, where poor children are singled out for punitive measures in the context of presumption of guilt.
This issue alone demonstrates Gingrich is unqualified to be president, or any other republican politician who supports such idiocy.
That this issue is generating so much attention is important and telling about what is wrong with the GOP today:
Blatant reactionaryism utter, irrational contempt for the most sensible of regulations, including child labor laws.
Irrational, hateful contempt for public sector employees and the working class in general; implying that much of what they do for a living can be done by a child.
Irrational, hateful contempt for labor unions, whose very existence is a result of the cruel and capricious treatment of workers by business and given Gingrichs proposals, are very much needed today.
Ignorance and contempt for the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law, where poor children are singled out for punitive measures in the context of presumption of guilt.
This issue alone demonstrates Gingrich is unqualified to be president, or any other republican politician who supports such idiocy.
Thank you. At least you used the accurate word unlike the other liberals. He's referring to "hiring" them, not "forcing" them as your brethren keep saying. Though you should challenge them on that since they keep saying what you know is not true. I'd do that if it were my side.
But why do you say it's "not acceptable?"
Arguments used against me by the left on this include:
- It's "forcing" students to work to pay them to do jobs around the school
- If students are to do jobs, we should force all students to do them, not pay some of them to do them
- It's depriving janitors of their livelihood.
- 10 year old will be forced to clean bathrooms
- Newt saying our child labor laws are stupid can only mean he wants to repeal all labor laws.
I have a hard time seeing in real life that if schools offered students work for chores around the school that the liberals would say or even think any of these things. I think they'd be OK with it. But you tell me, is that really the issue? Or is it a partisan attack against Gingrich?
I'd like you liberals to think about this and just be honest. Would you seriously make these arguments if your local school just did it? They offered kids money to perform chores around the school?
Kids are used as cash machines by the school already. They are sent out as salesmen several times during the year at my kids' school. It was even worse when they were in Portland.
Good point. I owe you some rep...
Frankly, I've always been bothered by this. With the level of taxes we pay, kids should not be going door to door (which really, can be a LOT more dangerous than mopping a floor) selling candy to God Knows Who is on the other side of the door.
Incidently, most parents I know sell the kid's candy for them at work.
The responses of all of those who have responded to Occupied demonstrates that he is right.
It's meaningless to say that you are attacking "union thugs" and not "labor." Anyone who would use the phrase "union thugs" reveals his opinion about collective bargaining, which is the sine qua non for support for labor's interests. Unions have historically demonstrated themselves to be the best way for labor to advance its interests against capital. Government can't be counted on for that purpose, as it is too easily bought off by corporate campaign contributions, and in any case empowering workers themselves is inherently a better idea than government paternalism.
Prohibition of child labor was one of the first legislative victories of the labor movement, along with the eight-hour day. That prohibition must remain in force, and to even the most seemingly-innocuous breaching of the barrier we must say not just no but HELL NO!
Thank you. At least you used the accurate word unlike the other liberals. He's referring to "hiring" them, not "forcing" them as your brethren keep saying. Though you should challenge them on that since they keep saying what you know is not true. I'd do that if it were my side.
They're guilty of sloppy language is all. The same people who would be hiring them would not be guilty of forcing them, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't be forced. The analogy I like to use is this. Suppose you and I and a third party are in the same room, which is a mess. I offer you a dollar to clean up my room. You refuse. The third party pulls a gun and puts it to your head and says, "You heard what the man said. Clean up his room and he'll pay you a buck. Now get moving!" I stand silently. I do nothing, and make no threatening moves. You clean my room and I pay you a dollar.
I, personally, have not forced you to do a damned thing. But that doesn't mean you did it voluntarily.
Children may be forced to take these jobs not by the schools, but by their families or by economic circumstances. In fact, in many cases they certainly would be. That's exactly how it worked in the bad old days. The labor market has coercive elements to it that conservatives seldom recognize, but all of them are even stronger and more pernicious when children are involved, as minor children are subject to coercive pressures that adults generally are not. The only way to prevent this coercion is to outlaw child labor.
But why do you say it's "not acceptable?"
Because I know my labor history. I know that children would be paid less than adults, which would further lower prevailing wages in an economy where they are already too low. I know that this would inevitably lead to gross forms of exploitation. Child labor is outlawed for all these very good reasons. They remain valid reasons today, and so it should remain outlawed.
But you tell me, is that really the issue?
If mandatory, it is illegal to single out a particular group of persons – in this case students of low-income families – and subject them to a punitive measure because they might do something wrong. Such actions are also likely to provoke a civil suit.
If voluntary, it is the policy of most, if not all, public sector entities to not fire paid employees and replace them with volunteers; such actions are likely in violation of union contracts and consequently subject to legal action.
Whether voluntary or mandatory, there are health codes, safety policies, and other like regulations that ensure public restrooms meet sanitation standards as a condition of sound public policy. Minor children as ‘volunteers’ can not be adequately trained for such duties nor expected to executed such duties responsibly; it is impossible for a ‘head janitor’ to follow behind every child to make sure health standards are adhered to.
The popular perception of a janitor is inaccurate, it’s not just ‘pushing a mop,’ it requires training and experience with regard to the proper use of cleaning materials and techniques to ensure public health and safety.
Not to mention minor children would be exposed to dangerous chemicals and diseases.
No, it’s a logical and sensible rejection of an idiotic idea for the reasons noted above, among others. A democrat making a similar proposal would be just as ridiculed.Or is it a partisan attack against Gingrich?
Kids are used as cash machines by the school already. They are sent out as salesmen several times during the year at my kids' school. It was even worse when they were in Portland.
Good point. I owe you some rep...
Frankly, I've always been bothered by this. With the level of taxes we pay, kids should not be going door to door (which really, can be a LOT more dangerous than mopping a floor) selling candy to God Knows Who is on the other side of the door.
Incidently, most parents I know sell the kid's candy for them at work.
My children attend a school where most of the money to run the school is raised by the parents. The kids are NEVER sent out to raise money.
Newt is correct. The poor have horrible work ethics and making 9 year olds work will fix this. Trust fund babies exemplify what good work ethics are all about and as long was we only make "poor" 9 year olds work, whats the problem.
I would think that if parents are exploiting the children, then those are the children you don't give the jobs to. You act as though absolutely no judgment would be excercised.
Newt was calling for revisiting these 100 year old laws that might not make as much sense now
Except that as a practical matter, you can just move your factory to Malaysia or Mexico and get child labor done there on the cheap. And a Democrat will happily sign the treaty to let that happen.
Children have been idolized into some thing they aren't and never were. They are little gods and goddesses needed all to bow down and give them eveything they want.
The left doesn't believe anyone should work, unless they are rich, then they should work and the payment for that work distributed to those who refuse to work.
Let's not make this a partisan issue. If you look over my posts on this forum, you'll find I'm under no illusions about the Democratic Party. Which in fact goes back to the poll question, does it not? It's definitely the issue, and not the fact that Gingrich said it. I strongly opposed NAFTA and GATT. Remember what president pushed those through, and which party he belonged to? I strongly oppose continuing to detain accused terrorists at Guantanamo. While that was something Bush did initially, who is doing it now?
We cannot -- literally CANNOT -- compete with dirt-cheap foreign labor by lowering our own wages. There is simply no way that Americans can accept pay low enough to do that and survive. So there is no point in trying. The jobs that will stay here are those that have to stay here because they can't effectively be outsourced (janitorial services being one of those, in fact), or those that the government discourages companies from outsourcing. Under either of those circumstances, there is no reason not to push for high wages.