Newt Gingrich: Child Labor Laws Are 'Stupid'

Later, Gingrich added, "Let them eat cake."

An interesting argument, bilweeler. You're saying that if children join the workforce, they do the bidding of the 1%, that they are slaves. What does that say about adults who are a part of the workforce? Doesn't it suggest that we're okay with the exploitation of adults but draw the line at children? Is that a healthy attitude?

You're saying that if children join the workforce, they do the bidding of the 1%, that they are slaves.

Children who enter the workforce a the expense of normal child development, education and learning and proper peer relationship development will indeed be slaves of the 1%.

"Children who enter the workforce a the expense of normal child development, education and learning and proper peer relationship development will indeed be slaves of the 1%."

I will point out that the notion of childhood and indeed conceptions of what constitutes "normal" childhood development are not only modern but also localized to the West; many parts of the world hold different values regarding adulthood/childhood. Regardless, I was asking about the implications of Bilweelers' statement not debating its truthfulness.

BUT let me say this.. I have ZERO problems with 14-17 year olds, being paid to work as janitors to help keep up the school they are or have gone to. I know having to clean up, and take care of something instills a sense of ownership and work ethic to the place.

If the kids know, they are going to have to take the time and effort to clean it up later, do you really think they would mess it up as bad in the first place? PLUS these kids earn a paycheck while doing it.

Thanks, Newt. But we got all that from the article. ;-)

Regardless of the merits (or lack thereof) of his proposal, don't you think it is a bit disingenuous for a man with a $500,000 tab at Tiffany's to make it in the first place?

Oddly enough, federal child labor laws do not prohibit what Gingrich proposes. In fact, they specifically allow 14-year olds to take cleaning jobs like those that janitors have - as long as they work less than 3 hours a day or 18 hours a week, and do not work during school hours. Is Gingrich saying that it's stupid to restrict kids from working during school hours? If he has been trying for years to get his bold notion adopted, but without success - then it is for some other reason than federal child labor laws. Could it be, perhaps, because schools and school boards might think it's a stupid idea?

This just in: New Gingrich is stupid.

Are there no workhouses? - Scrooge

BUT let me say this.. I have ZERO problems with 14-17 year olds, being paid to work as janitors to help keep up the school they are or have gone to. I know having to clean up, and take care of something instills a sense of ownership and work ethic to the place.

I agree 100%. I always worked after school with my uncle when I was that age and I enjoyed it very much (specially pay day). In the mean time my peers where smoking pot and drinking after school. The experiences working at his electronic parts store gave me many positive values that served me all my life. Some kids like sports after hours and that is ok, but not everyone is cut for sports.

Regardless of how stupid this politician is or how his words may have been misinterpreted, he is right that high school students should be allow to work after school or on weekends (with limits, of course). In fact some states allow this within certain limits.

Did he also say we need to eliminate minimum wage, or does that just go without saying considering his audience?

douglasq

Regardless of the merits (or lack thereof) of his proposal, don't you think it is a bit disingenuous for a man with a $500,000 tab at Tiffany's to make it in the first place?

SO can you please tell me exactly what someones Tab at a store has anything to do with the matter at hand?

Child labor laws aren't to stop kids from cleaning schools. That's no big deal. Kids in Japan do this.

It protects kids from being sent into coal mines where they can get into small tunnels. Protects them from being used in mills where they lose fingers and limbs.

It protect parents from having to compete with their own kids' cheap labor. Parents can actually get paid enough to feed their children and send them to school.

If Newt didn't have his head so far up his a$$, he'd know this.

"A lot. That's why they call them minors. They are not adults. They aren't required to make their own choices because they don't know how to make good ones."

You don't seem to be seeing the problem with your logic. You're saying its okay to choose to work as a janitor, you're saying that the job is not exploitative so long as a choice is involved and therefore the child's judgement is irrelevant - if they choose to stay in school, that's good. If they choose to work as a janitor, that's good too.

"Level of choice...does not necessarily determine whether one is exploited."

I'm not saying it is.... you did. You provided a spectrum of choice and then said argued that so long as a choice is made it is not exploitative.

"If one (adult or teen, for example), makes bad choices, his/her future choices are narrowed. Choosing to indulge in addictions, for example, can easily lead to a line of work where a woman is exploited by a pimp. Her bad choices, but she's still being exploited for the benefit of her handler."

Which brings me back to what I was asking you about earlier. Just as working as a prostitute, regardless of your age, leads to your exploitation, according to the implications of your own statements so does joining the workforce at any age lead to exploitation of the worker by the 1%.

Bilweeker, nice show of patience! Midway through #1.16, all I heard was blahblahblahblah!

SO can you please tell me exactly what someones Tab at a store has anything to do with the matter at hand?

It seems it is always the rich who come up with these braindead ideas. Remember Steve Forbes advocating a flat tax. Newt's plan is a couple of skips and a shuffle step away from being Dickensian.

I can just see the bully's peeing all over the bathroom floors after young Freshman Joe just got done cleaning them.

I can also see Nerdy Betty scraping mashed potato's off the cafeteria walls and ceiling after everyone finds out she's doing the work.

Locker rooms will stink even more from hidden items.(phew)

Trash barrels will be useless.

Toilet flush handles will become obsolete as in house hazing activities increase.

Teachers and supervisors will not be able to see everything.

These kids will be exploited by their peers faster than Obama is humiliated by Gingrich.

Newt needs to get over his childhood revenge fantasies.

why did we institute child labour laws?....so an adult could actually find and get a job and get paid....stupid Gingrich who stole the workers Christmas by hiring a child to do the work of adult....fricking fracking f$$%#$#%$ck^^^44ing idiot....and there are republican voters who will "jist laive thisaissa" "ates du chraisteshun waya"

Newt's plan is a couple of skips and a shuffle step away from being Dickensian.

I disagree. Newt is all about being a dick.

I will point out that the notion of childhood and indeed conceptions of what constitutes "normal" childhood development are not only modern but also localized to the West; many parts of the world hold different values regarding adulthood/childhood.

You mean like in all those socialist countries in which kids go to school full time, all year? Those countries that all rank higher than the USA in education? Or were you going the other extreme and saying American kids should be thankful they aren't all bloated up from malnutrition and about to die like the 30,000 who do every day in places like Africa? I don't get it. Newt is being an Antionette about this issue - let them eat cake indeed.

"You mean like in all those socialist countries in which kids go to school full time, all year?"

Nope.

"Those countries that all rank higher than the USA in education?"

As an educator myself, I have an understanding of the problems of the United States' education system.

"Or were you going the other extreme and saying American kids should be thankful they aren't all bloated up from malnutrition and about to die like the 30,000 who do every day in places like Africa?"

Victims of Capitalism are victims of Capitalism, not victims of their country's views on childhood.

"I don't get it."

Clearly.

All this from the selfsame individual who, having only recently announced his candidacy on May 11, found himself apologizing to House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis) and the right-wing Republican and Tea Party fringe after making the following remarks re Ryan's Medicare budget proposal during a May 15 roundtable discussion with moderator David Gregory and others on Meet the Press:

I don't think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering. I don't think imposing radical change from the right or the left is a very good way for a free society to operate.

A real IED. Once the right wing tore him a new one on that score, Gingrich made an immediate adjustment in order to reaffirm his rightist credentials: he morphed into the Grand Inquisitor. Now he's saying that, if elected, he will be introducing "extraordinarily radical proposals to fundamentally change the culture of poverty" [read "society"] in our country. Gingrich has taken it upon himself to teach our children the value of a dollar—which would probably be the new minimum wage under his stewardship—just as they had to learn it in the sweatshops, railroad yards and mines back in the early days of the Industrial Revolution.

Watch out for this joker, and listen very, very carefully: his so-called 'Contract with America' will have loads of fine print, will contain ever-increasing amounts of hidden fees and indecipherable language, and will result in more and more disenfranchisement and causes for outrage within the middle and lower-middle class and for citizens living below the poverty line in America.

Making a contract with Newt Gingrich is like entering into a business partnership with a Mexican drug cartel. You will lose.

So the children in the "poorest neighborhoods" should be working at menial and manual labor, but of course not the children from wealthier neighborhoods. We can of course ignore the stigma of those poorer kids in the school who are cleaning the bathrooms and emptying the trash, and getting teased and bullied by those kids who don't. (Eww, Johnny is a toilet washer).

I don't mind the idea of children learning to take responsibility for their own school, but not for pay and not a subset of the children. They all need to share the role, wealthy kids as well.

yeah mad..newt is a dick thats for sure...

My guess is Newt will hire: one for a footstool, one to drop grapes into his mouth, and one with that big feather fan. All for a stick of gum each.

IF you accept the definition of insanity as: 'repeatedly performing the same act and expecting a different outcome'...then my suggestion of the Republican party for:

Gingrich unveiled a plan Monday to allow younger workers to invest their Social Security in private retirement accounts, similar to an unsuccessful plan proposed by former President George W. Bush.

THEY are all insane !!!

This is the same candidate in previous elections and as Speaker of the House wanted to bring back orphanages so we could institutionally further abuse our children.

Newt is an idiot,

Oh ya, vote that ass hole in and put 18 month olds to work.

WTF??????????????

MSM pumps up Newt's image as being a man with big ideas. His dickish ideas are venal and small-minded.

And Newt Gingrich is saying that we should give children the choice to work jobs. If a person working a particular job is exploitative, what does their age have to do with it?

The same thing it does in other aspects of life. A child can't choose to buy alcohol now can they?

However whittling it down to "choice or freedom" is a popular conservative meme that really is kind of a strawman argument meant for the stupid, considering it's usage is rarely followed through to other aspects of adult life. Apparently you can't chose to have an abortion without the consent of a parent in most states, but you can choose to begin working in an occupation over the obvious benefits of education if your a child, while most likely ending up in a position that will require public assistance at some point of the child's life.

If there was anything that was lacking in logic that would be it. A child is a child and an adult is an adult. Those have legal connotations that go outside of just child labor.

If choice were the only thing Child Labor laws covered, there might be some wiggle room. But they are included within the Fair Labor Standards Act which covers everything from workplace discrimination to minimum wage. Apparently your logic would make it sensible to regulate adults, but not children.

"...they would have pride in the schools, they'd begin the process of rising."

Before you'd know it, they'd be getting millions from Freddie Mac.

Before you'd know it, they'd be getting millions from Freddie Mac.

Wait wait, don't tell me. Hmm I think it's a guy with white hair that got millions from Freddie Mac. Dang, what's his name...?

If President Obama had said something like this, the reich-wing would be ripping him apart for trying to "indoctrinate" America's children into some State-funded socialist worker's program.

Mr Gingrich puts the "Dick" in "Dickensian."

Gingrich has been gaining a certain amount of traction in the polls recently, particularly because he is obviously quite intelligent—just ask Newt, my fellow Americans, he'll definitely agree with me—and quite glib—and just ask Newt, folks, because he has a theory about that as well. Half of the 'avowed Christian' GOP candidates are in a self-induced coma; in terms of charisma, Mitt Romney is pretty thin gruel, let's face it, and thin Mormon gruel at that ("Hell, you can't even wash him down with a good cup of coffee," they grumble); Gingrich's Roman Catholicism would be just as much of an issue for millions of them: fundamentalist and evangelical Christian right-wingers would balk just as much at the notion of being offered one 'cultist' as their final option as they would with the alternative.

Newt Gingrich's statement about child labor laws is, I feel, a manifestation of a much more serious disorder: Republicans and Used Tea Baggers are so exclusionary and have become so deeply entrenched in their own reactionary worldview, in their own fear and rigidity, that their typical response to the complexities of all issues—social, cultural, religious, economic, what have you—is to deny, to exclude themselves, and to offer help to no one but themselves. They have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.

The end result is that they themselves have no real choices, for to accept anything that does not lie within their unyielding code would amount to rank heresy; their respective Bushido philosophies, so desperate—and so disparate, each of them often at variance with the others—are a synthesis of myths, legends and self-serving illusions that only widen the gulf separating them from the nation they claim so vociferously to honor and revere.

AR @1.4

I will point out that the notion of childhood and indeed conceptions of what constitutes "normal" childhood development are not only modern but also localized to the West; many parts of the world hold different values regarding adulthood/childhood.

I guess that defines what progress is. Of course, there are many, Gingrich being the current example who read Dickens and cheered for Fagin.

Newt and all the child-labor advocates of the Bagger party never have new ideas, but simply want a return to the era of capital's unfettered exploitation of labor. In the UK, the very first proposed law to regulate child labor occurred in 1819 (The Cotton Factories Regulation Act). It caused a big stir, as opponents believed it undermined the freedom-of-contract-- and therefore destroyed the foundation of the free-market. It failed to pass.

One argument for maintaining and even strengthening child-labor laws that I haven't yet seen here is that these regulations that protect children actually benefit business as well. (Yes, both laws and regulations can and often are good for business.) The widespread use of child labor will over time debase the quality of labor, by stunting the mental and physical development of children. You can look at the lives of children in Dickensian England (as many have pointed out here), but there are also modern day studies of the harmful impact of labor on children. Even today there are such countries; we call them undeveloped nations. It's not a coincidence.

Kc77

"The same thing it does in other aspects of life. A child can't choose to buy alcohol now can they?"

I'm not making any assertions, I'm simply seeing how the seeder follows through with his logic. Not being a conservative and not being concerned with the rest of your post, I've disregarded it.

Michael

"I guess that defines what progress is."

That sound pretty arrogant to me. The West has attempted to justify slavery, imperialism, and genocide under the banner of "progress" for centuries; to use that very rationale is to behave in a manner that seems very "Gingrichian" to me...

Making them do janitor work and getting rid of the "unionized janitors" is offensive. And stupid.

and what about those "unionized janitors"? of course, unionized or not, you've replaced an adult employee who get's $10/hr with a child employee who would be thrilled with the prospect of $3/hr. if they don't go out and spend it on candy or comics, they can take it home to support their family and his unemployed janitor father.

Doesn't it suggest that we're okay with the exploitation of smoking by adults but draw the line at children? Is that a healthy attitude?

Doesn't it suggest that we're okay with the exploitation alcohol consumption of adults but draw the line at children? Is that a healthy attitude?

Doesn't it suggest that we're okay with the exploitation sexual relationships of adults but draw the line at children? Is that a healthy attitude?

yes, yes, yes.

oh, and of course, regardless of whether they finally graduate, you soon enough fire them, maybe even at the end of the year, in order to hire from the new crop of 14-year-olds, so you never have to worry about having to give anybody a raise!

how the @!$%# does firing adult workers in order to hire disposable, high-turnover child labor for far, far less "fundamentally change the culture of poverty in America"?

by radically enhancing it, of course!!

hello, Third-World America!

This is a man who many on the Right hold up as one of their Smart Thinkers" of their party which should give everyone a clue as to how bankrupt and stupid this party and ideology has become.

I'm not making any assertions, I'm simply seeing how the seeder follows through with his logic. Not being a conservative and not being concerned with the rest of your post, I've disregarded it.

Oh please, you've made quite the bit in the way of assertions. If you are going to speak, and test the logic of others may I suggest you be willing to back up your own.

What have I asserted, Kc77.

What have I asserted, Kc77.

Here is but one.

Victims of Capitalism are victims of Capitalism, not victims of their country's views on childhood.

This is an logical fallacy. Victims of Captilism can be victims of anything. A country's views can be capitalistic in nature just like any other collective made up of people.

Ther'll be plenty of work in Hell For Newt Grinch

"Here is but one."

Which is was not relevant to my line of questioning and was part of a separate conversation with madvargr.

"This is an logical fallacy."

No its not. Capitalism is the economic system of essentially the entire planet, therefore problems of an economic nature (or stem from wealth equality) are a reflection of that system - or more simply, a system is responsible for its consequences. That's not a logical fallacy.

"Victims of Captilism can be victims of anything."

Nope. Victims of Capitalism are by definition victims of Capitalism which is precisely why we attach the "of Capitalism" qualifier. If we were talking about "victims of anything" we wouldn't attach a qualifier that narrows and defines the kind of victims.

"A country's views can be capitalistic in nature just like any other collective made up of people."

Not in question.

LOL, these Republican wannabe candidates really have no good ideas. What an idiot.

abolish taxes

LOL, these Republican wannabe candidates really have no good ideas. What an idiot.

Don't forget that Newt is what passes for an "intellectual" on the right. He's the "smart" one in the GOP Clown Car.

Imagine Mr. and Mrs. Gingrich swishing a row of grade school bathroom toilets.....just like their kids did.

Gingrich was asked how he is a better candidate than in the past. He said, "I do fewer dumb things."

Correction: You get CAUGHT doing fewer dumb things.

Pray tell, Newty, how are we supposed to provide employment for children when your party has eschewed every opportunity to provide jobs for their parents? Where are you going to dig out all these wonderful jobs, Newty?

My friends would pee all over the toilet paper and poop in the middle of the floor every morning in the bath rooms. Would it not be nice to have had them clean it up? O well it was just a protest on how they are forced to go to school so it was ok after all you have freedom of speech.

of course, unionized or not, you've replaced an adult employee who get's $10/hr with

In what hell hole do they get paid that? in my high school we had 13 janitors each had to be for only one job they could not have two people do plumbing it was against the union. they got paid at the low end 60K a year to do only floors or roofing. we had 4 journeyman janitors that they used to take the trash out. they got paid 12 an hour.

the teachers didn't like them because they were paid more then they were.(this is California)

Which is was not relevant to my line of questioning and was part of a separate conversation with madvargr.

Just because you don't want it be relevant doesn't mean it isn't.

Capitalism is the economic system of essentially the entire planet, therefore problems of an economic nature (or stem from wealth equality) are a reflection of that system - or more simply, a system is responsible for its consequences. That's not a logical fallacy.

Who says Capitalism itself is a logical fallacy? I don't believe I said that.

Nope. Victims of Capitalism are by definition victims of Capitalism which is precisely why we attach the "of Capitalism" qualifier. If we were talking about "victims of anything" we wouldn't attach a qualifier that narrows and defines the kind of victims.

Are you done playing semantics? A victim of Capitalism is not by definition much of anything. There's no standard definition for it. It's purely based on what someone considers a victim of capitalism to be. Whether you attach a qualifier to it or not that doesn't change the basis for discussion. Using logical fallacies, and abstract conjecture doesn't do much other than to tell the person you're speaking with that you're versed in word play and not much else.

Federal guidelines state that minors aged 14 and 15 generally may not work more than 18 hours a week when school is in session, and no more than 3 hours per day when school is in session. Some states have stricter limits.

Thats just another piece to the puzzle as to the reasons why America is going to @!$%#.

It wasnt really that long ago when most kids worked. Whether at stores, at home, or on a farm.

I started working on farms a lot younger than that.

Ask you parents if they worked when they were kids. I bet they did.

This is why kids now are so freakin lazy. And they think everything should be given to them. They have no idea what its like to have to work for anything. Welcome to the welfare nation.

So the children in the "poorest neighborhoods" should be working at menial and manual labor, but of course not the children from wealthier neighborhoods. We can of course ignore the stigma of those poorer kids in the school who are cleaning the bathrooms and emptying the trash, and getting teased and bullied by those kids who don't. (Eww, Johnny is a toilet washer).

I don't mind the idea of children learning to take responsibility for their own school, but not for pay and not a subset of the children. They all need to share the role, wealthy kids as well.

Well, gotta stop those *govt handouts*, yknow.

Strictly speaking, if a family receives, say, SNAP benefits, every penny that comes into their household is supposed to be reported as *income*. If your kid gets $5 in a BD card from your 90 yo Great-Aunt Ethel, that's *household income* & it's technically considered *fraud* when ppl fail to *report* it to DSS.

So let's say Newt's plan is put into action, & 2 siblings whose family unit subsists at or below poverty level (let's say single parent w/ a FT min wage job) ea do janitorial work at the munificent sum of $3/hr for 20 hrs/wk. Ea kid earns $60/wk (b4 taxes, of course; have to create a whole new tax bracket b/c those poor folk ain't payin' their fair share, right?). That's $240/mo per child, or $480/mo total gross income for both sibs (SNAP benefits are never calculated at net income, but gross).

Those poor kids aren't going to be *learning the value of a dollar* or even having pocket change to buy whatever toys or games they please. B/c DSS is going to count that the family now has an additional $480/mo in earned income & will either close out the SNAP case for going over the eligibility limit (it's quite low) or reduce the total SNAP for this *extra household earned income*.

So basically Newt's plan is going to do what the child labor laws were enacted to avoid....make young children responsible for contributing to the support of the family & use their janitorial earnings to buy their own groceries. *Your tax dollars* won't be paying for those anymore, yippee!

Only wealthy families' offspring would be able to call that *pocket change* & be able to spend it on whatever they please.

$3/hr was min wage 33 yrs ago & you could support yourself on $480/mo at FT 40 hrs b/c everything was cheaper then. 2 FT min wage breadwinners in the family would bring in $960/mo & that would make them not rich, not able to save much, but definitely able to get by w/ ease at 70s prices. Now that's the equivalent of a mo's rent or groceries for a family.

Newt wants to reduce the *welfare rolls* by making little kids pay for their family's groceries, essentially. A single parent w/ 2 working kids could double their income & be rendered ineligible for SNAP &/or Medicaid &/or day care assistance (wouldn't need day care, the kids would be at work!....so then day care providers & DSS workers would join the displaced janitors in the unemployment line....more *leeches* to bitch about!).

And that would make the family worse off b/c all this BS about *entitlements* is just that....BS. They want a dependent underclass to take the crappy-paying jobs that keep ppl reliant on peripheral assistance. Newt's program neatly eliminates the need for that assistance by using a hitertho untapped labor source....your 6 yo can clean toilets for 4 hrs/day after schl, who cares if he gets his homework done? Not like he has a future, anyway.

I really think this is how these ppl think.

Thats just another piece to the puzzle as to the reasons why America is going to @!$%#.

It wasnt really that long ago when most kids worked. Whether at stores, at home, or on a farm.

I started working on farms a lot younger than that.

Ask you parents if they worked when they were kids. I bet they did.

This is why kids now are so freakin lazy. And they think everything should be given to them. They have no idea what its like to have to work for anything. Welcome to the welfare nation.

No, the reason there are child labor laws is so that work does not interfere w/ a child's right to an education. It's so that children do not have to leave schl & go work in a factory to help support their family, as they historically did since the Industrian Revolution began. Or not attend schl at all & remain illiterate, just go straight to work.

What chance would they have as adults of ever earning a living wage, let alone a decent wage, if they couldn't do basic arithmetic, read, or sign their own name w/ anything but an *X*? Even HS graduates have a dismal earnings outlook when compared to college graduates or those w/ advanced degrees.

My grandfather left schl after he finished the 6th gr in 1919. He went to work in a radiator plant at the age of 12 b/c he was the eldest surviving child of 7 (his older brother died of diptheria at age 6 when my grandfather was just a baby) & his father had just died of a heart attack & he had to support his mother & 5 younger siblings, ranging in age from 9 down to just a yr old. He was 50 b4 he could afford to buy his own car. He was 55 & had a grandchild (me) b4 he could afford to buy his own house. He literally worked for less than a dollar a day for the early yrs of his 53-yr working life until he retired at age 65. He never had $ in the bank & he was 75 yrs old when he was able to burn his only mortgage. My grandmother, who was 5 yrs younger than him, also worked FT at a dairy processing plant until age 65. She left schl after 8th gr at age 14. Back in those days, ppl had lg families & working-class children were not expected to even finish HS, let alone go to college, & she was one of 8 surviving children out of 11. Kids were expected to grow up fast & contribute if not all than a substantial portion of their paycheck to the family pot. They didn't have time to be kids as my parent's generation & every generation after did. My mother was the 1st person in her family to graduate HS & the main reason my grandparents were in their 50s b4 they accrued a car a & house was b/c they sent their kids to private schls & had to pay tuition in order to assure that they would get a good education & get ahead in life & do better than they did.

And ppl like Gingrich want to throw this all away & go back in time 100 yrs to the era of shoeshine boys & match girls on street corners catering to the upper crust. There aren't even the industrial jobs to go to anymore like my grandparents did. That's why the best this numb@!$%# can think of is janitorial work. Service positions. Discreetly stay in the background & serve your rich masters & do it from an early age to remain servile & docile.

Maybe your kids are lazy & expect everything handed to them on a silver platter & think they should get entitlements as a matter of course. Mine weren't. They did well in schl, furthered their education, are doing well in life, aren't taking any *handouts*. This is supposed to be a nation that falues education & encourages ppl to strive to their highest potential.

To be told at the age of 6 that all you're going to be good for in life is to clean up other ppl's @!$%# is not the US I grew up in, nor is it the one my parents grew up in. Do we really want to turn the clock back 100 yrs & have a nation of functional illiterates whose primary function is to serve the rich until they drop dead?

2 siblings whose family unit subsists at or below poverty level (let's say single parent w/ a FT min wage job) ea do janitorial work at the munificent sum of $3/hr for 20 hrs/wk

A little over dramatic aint ya. Where is it ok to pay anyone 3 hr?

So basically Newt's plan is going to do what the child labor laws were enacted to avoid....make young children responsible for contributing to the support of the family & use their janitorial earnings to buy their own groceries.

Again, over dramatic. No, what its going to do is build work ethic, get them away from the TV, and help them earn a little money and learn to appreciate the value of earning a buck.

A single parent w/ 2 working kids could double their income & be rendered ineligible for SNAP &/or Medicaid &/or day care assistance (wouldn't need day care, the kids would be at work!....so then day care providers & DSS workers would join the displaced janitors in the unemployment line....more *leeches* to bitch about!).

And still more overdramatic trash.

your 6 yo can clean toilets for 4 hrs/day after schl, who cares if he gets his homework done? Not like he has a future, anyway.

And still being over dramatic. No one is saying 6 year olds should work.

the reason there are child labor laws is so that work does not interfere w/ a child's right to an education

It didnt interfere with mine. I worked on farms and I worked harder at home than most adults do at their jobs. Splitting wood, stacking it, mowing a 2 acre hill of a yard with a push mower. You know what. It was a good thing. I have always been in good shape and I have always had a job.

It's so that children do not have to leave schl & go work in a factory to help support their family

No one is saying they should leave school to work. Not even close.

What chance would they have as adults of ever earning a living wage, let alone a decent wage, if they couldn't do basic arithmetic, read, or sign their own name w/ anything but an *X*

All of your comments like this are ridiculous. No one has said they want anything like that. If you have to lie to help your cause its probly not worth fighting for.

And ppl like Gingrich want to throw this all away & go back in time 100 yrs to the era of shoeshine boys & match girls on street corners catering to the upper crust

More overdramatic bull@!$%#.

Maybe your kids are lazy & expect everything handed to them on a silver platter & think they should get entitlements as a matter of course

If you want to see kids like that look at the OWS protests.

At this time what child labor law forbids teens from working? Child labor laws were put into place to protect exploitation of children by employers NOT to forbid teens from working. If the teen does not want to work - are you going to force them to? Sounds like slavery. If a teen wants to work what is stopping them besides their parents? You realize Newt is suggesting child labor to replace ADULTS? Therefore they will be unable to support their families. DUH!

nica,

No @!$%#! That is exactly what he is proposing. I don't know a single teenager who wants to work who is prohibited from getting a job, unless that job is to dangerous or requires training or education beyond their years.

Stoney,

No one is saying they should leave school to work. Not even close.

Then what is wrong with the current child labor laws? If no one is saying they should be working instead of going to school the current laws are just fine! Both of my sons worked while in school, no problem, still did well in school, and went on to be successful adults all under the current child labor laws! So what's wrong with what is in place?

How about in his words.

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich clarified his comment calling child labor laws "stupid" Monday in an interview with The Washington Post.

He said he was not advocating revamping child labor laws or suggesting children drop out of school to become janitors. "I'm talking about working 20 hours a week and being empowered to succeed."

Gingrich, however, repeated the idea Monday in New Hampshire, saying that replacing unionized janitors with students would be "dramatically less expensive."

Federal guidelines state that minors aged 14 and 15 generally may not work more than 18 hours a week when school is in session, and no more than 3 hours per day when school is in session. Some states have stricter limits.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/22/newt-gingrich-child-labor-laws_n_1107864.html

Big deal. So there are some restrictions. Teens should be concentrating on SCHOOL. Because in today's world that is how they are going to get ahead in today's world. If they work than more 18 hours a week that will only give them a false sense of money. That all that money they are making without having to pay for anything to live (most likely their parents pay that). More than 3 hours a day for school days on top of 9 hours at school, homework 2-3 hours, any school activities... leaves how much for sleep? When in all the experts say 9 hours of sleep is best for teens - but keep believing that more hours of work will make better teens than doing well in school - whatever....

Still didn't answer me, what is wrong with what is in place? Answer: NOTHING! So if nothing is in place that hinders kids from getting after school jobs the "real" motivation behind what Newt's words.....Hmmm....

I think people are missing the big picture here. He's talking about extremely impoverished families. Most likely one parent in neighborhoods that gun fire is no big deal. It sucks, but what is the solution for these kids. It is happening right now so theories and empathy have no bearing. 46 million at poverty line and a substantial percentage that wish they were on the poverty line. Lot's of adults on drugs and welfare and the kids have no chance. They need a way out from this pernicious cycle.

If they work than more 18 hours a week that will only give them a false sense of money. That all that money they are making without having to pay for anything to live (most likely their parents pay that)

No. It will give them appreciation of what its like to have to earn money. And keep them from thinking everything should be given to them. ( The way many kids are today). And help prepare them for the real world. You know the one where people work for a living.

renee,

Why should they only be able to work 18 hours a week? What if they want to work more than that?

bilweeler,

I guess you didnt read the article or his actual quote.

"It is tragic what we do in the poorest neighborhoods, entrapping children in, first of all, child laws, which are truly stupid

The only kids limited to 18 hours per school week are 14 & 15 year olds, 16 and 17 year olds are not limited at all. 18 hours/week is great plenty for a 14 or 15 year old, work is fine and teaches them the value of hard work. School is much more important than work at the age of 14 & 15 and quite frankly still is for a 16 or 17 year old, what they take away from school will impact their contributions to themselves and society far more than an after school job!

3 hours after school each day plus the 7 - 7.5 hours a child puts into school is a 10 - 10.5 hour day, I really don't see how working beyond a 10 hour day is a benefit to any child! They will have a lifetime to work long hours that should be enough!

I guess Newt thinks that the poorest children should have to suffer the consequences of being poor through no fault of their own and have to do more to suceed than a child from a wealthy family again through no fault of their own. Guess thats easy to believe if you've never been poor!

Not sure where you are going with that Renee. What is your solution for the inter city kids then. Newt suggested an in- school work program. What do you suggest. He wasn't talking about a sweat shop. Keep in mind he was speaking at Harvard and it looked like a serious discussion free from hyperbole.

No. It will give them appreciation of what its like to have to earn money.

No. It won't. You've obviously been fortunate enough to never be poor, so you don't understand how it works & would rather denigrate the explanations as *dramatics*.

Not sure where you are going with that Renee. What is your solution for the inter city kids then.

Maybe saying these kids need in school work programs (that do what teach them to be janitors) is yours and Newt's idea of lifting them above their circumstance, but I think the vast majority of people would say it is high time we improve the schools. Instead of the teaching them to scrub toliets maybe we should be studying the example of schools in other countries which are doing well and trying that here since it is clear our schools aren't working nearly as well as theirs.

I wonder how many toliets Newt's kids had to scrub, how much vomit did they have to clean up to be successful? The problems in extremely poor school districts is hardly going to be solved by making kids work beyond what the law already says is acceptable. I mean did you miss that part? Kids can work, they just are not supposed to have to work beyond 18 hours in a school week if they are under 16. There are already programs to get jobs for kids in school, so what is wrong with the child labor laws? Again NOTHING, they protect children from employers and parents who would exploit them for their own gains!

Why do you think it is necessary for a 14 or 15 year old kid to work more than 18 hours/week during the school year? How is this supposed to help them rise above their circumstance?

that do what teach them to be janitors

What's wrong with that?

Nothing is wrong with teaching a 14 or 15 year old to be a janitor instead of focusing on school if that's all you ever want for them! But then I guess that would be the conservative agenda, after all keep them ignorant so they continue to vote for us! And since Newt is suggesting that the majority of school janitors should be replaced with child labor a LARGE number of janitor positions would be off the labor market, so what are they supposed to do when they turn 18? The 14 & 15 year olds will have the jobs!

Nothing is wrong with teaching a 14 or 15 year old to be a janitor instead of focusing on school if that's all you ever want for them!

Not sure I advocated a strict janitorial regimen at the expense of education. There's nothing wrong with learning a practical skill that could one day expand ones employment opportunities.

But then I guess that would be the conservative agenda, after all keep them ignorant so they continue to vote for us

If I want to know their agenda I'll ask them what it is. Like if I'm interested in your agenda I won't rely on the ramblings of a ranting Republican conspiracy theorist, I'd ask you instead.

And since Newt is suggesting that the majority of school janitors should be replaced with child labor a LARGE number of janitor positions would be off the labor market, so what are they supposed to do when they turn 18? The 14 & 15 year olds will have the jobs!

Go to college? Join the military? Become policemen or firefighters? Deliver pizzas? Teach kids how to clean and maintain buildings? If none of that plays out they could always be janitors in the vast majority of buildings that aren't schools.

Go to college? Join the military? Become policemen or firefighters? Deliver pizzas?

You know if my memory surveys me right it helps to pay for school if you have a job when your doing it. I find it interesting that my brother can work and go to college at the same time and get better grades than in high school when he didn't have a job.

You are all missing the point, rather on purpose is my guess. The current child labor laws protect children from being exploited by employers, make sure they have the time available to do well in school, not spending all of their time "cleaning" the schools AND STILL ALLOW THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK in a safe environment for a reasonable number of hours.

Child labor laws as they currently stand protect children and their right to work, why in the f$%k would you want to change them?

A moronic idea from a moron!

It is not about the children. It is about union busting. Notice he didn't mention janitors in general. He specifically focused on UNION janitors. It is about taking the working persons wages and benefits down to the level of some third world country in order to put more money in the pockets of the top 1%. It is class warfare and he is fighting the battle for the 1%.

What is your solution for the inter city kids then. Newt suggested an in- school work program. What do you suggest.

First, promote socioeconomic integration of schools. When new schools are built, build them in proximity to affluent, middle class, and impoverished borders. Require that no more than 40% of the student population in a school is eligible for lunch or breakfast programs, as one way of measuring poverty. Separate but equal is not equal.

Second, reward work for those in poverty. This requires a paradigm shift in the way we approach public assistance. We need to purge the system of those programs and rules that punish individual initiative amount the poor. NO ONE should lose more in assistance than the increase in their earned income EVER. This is counter productive to society and the individuals. It mandates generational dependency and psychologically cripples those paying for and receiving assistance. It is a distraction to the theft that is taking place in the offices on Wall Street, K Street, and Pennsylvania Ave. What could be a better diversion than pitting the middle class and the impoverished against one another while the 1% rip off the country?

No. It won't. You've obviously been fortunate enough to never be poor, so you don't understand how it works & would rather denigrate the explanations as *dramatics*.

Well, scar, obviously your not so good at the obvious.

Let me fill you in.

I grew up in an old brick house built in the mid 1800's. It had a quarter mile hole filled gravel drive way. There were two wood burning stoves. Which I cut, chopped, and stacked the wood for. And if you werent in the kitchen or living room where the stoves were it was pretty @!$%#ing cold in the winter. We had well-water. My mom worked at least 2 jobs at all times. I started staying home by myself about the second half of third grade. For one it saved money on a baby sitter. And I had the best protection you could need. Three big dogs and a shotgun. My nearest friends lived about 4 miles away. Which is a long way for a kid to ride a cheap bike on a hilly gravel road. But I did. And we had 4 channels on TV. I had a basketball goal out in the middle of the yard. Which did help in a way i guess. If you can dribble on grass and dirt you can dribble anywhere.

But it wasnt all bad. I learned the value of being a hard worker. I learned to appreciate the outdoors and the animals that inhabit it. And most of all I learned to appreciate dogs.

So get over yourself and stop pretending you know anything about me.

I don't know why in the world Newt Gingrich thinks he deserves to make more money shoveling out his own bull@!$%# than a janitor. He is less skilled and less intelligent.

So many don't seem to think (or care bilweeler) that we all don't come from a level playing field.

Is Newt the Pig with lipstick that Palin referred to?????