What do you think about Newt's comments?

Celles

There's nothing vague about what Newt Gingrich is proposing, Djhar.  He wants to repeal child labor laws -- period, dot.  He's not looking to "relax certain aspects of the law" (which I don't agree with either, but which is obviously much more debatable).  He's looking to eliminate child labor laws entirely so poor parents can put their children to work.  This started as his strategy to combat poverty and somehow evolved -- or, rather, devolved -- into his plan to instill a work ethic in poor children whose lazy, good-for-nothing parents have turned them into freeloading criminals. 

His ideas about giving children above a certain age opportunities to work at school may have some merit.  I don't know.  But his insistence on reversing child labor laws is short-sighted at best and exploitative at worst.  As far as I'm concerned, it completely undermines any credibility he might otherwise have had on this subject.  I honestly don't see this as a left vs. right issue and I'm kind of surprised that others do.

SereJane

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_think-newts-comments?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding BoardsForum:17Discussion:cd03229a-6e4c-48c7-9f97-811c5be84939Post:e8c21038-7b89-45fd-bd69-c4dd5abcd060">Re: What do you think about Newt's comments?</a>:
[QUOTE]There's nothing vague about what Newt Gingrich is proposing, Djhar.  He wants to repeal child labor laws -- period, dot.  He's not looking to "relax certain aspects of the law" (which I don't agree with either, but which is obviously much more debatable).  He's looking to eliminate child labor laws entirely so poor parents can put their children to work.  This started as his strategy to combat poverty and somehow evolved -- or, rather, de volved -- into his plan to instill a work ethic in poor children whose lazy, good-for-nothing parents have turned them into freeloading criminals.  :| His ideas about giving children above a certain age opportunities to work at school  may have some merit.  I don't know.  But his insistence on reversing child labor laws is short-sighted at best and exploitative at worst.  As far as I'm concerned, it completely undermines any credibility he might otherwise have had on this subject. <strong> I honestly don't see this as a left vs. right issue and I'm kind of surprised that others do.
</strong>Posted by Celles[/QUOTE]

Me neither. Since when is protecting children from exploitation the issue of a single party. hopefully never.

Steph0871

So I thought about this over lunch.... I don't think it's the government's responsibility to instill a work ethic in kids.  But, I also don't think it should be government's responsibility to pay for those kids when they become adults and still don't have a work ethic.

So. If you don't want them to be taken care of later in life with the government's money, then I think the government has a right to say how they're brought up.  (I completely disagree with both, but that's my refute.)

toothpastechica

wow....interesting thread. Working in social services, i take a lot of offence at both the comment in question, but also a lot of comments in the post. How is giving poor children (already disadvantaged in society) janatorial (which will never be high paying jobs) jobs on top of thier schoolwork help break the cycle by ensuring they dont have the time or the energy to get the grades needed to scholorships to get a post secondary education? Have you considered the number of people below the poverty line who cant work because of illness or mental health issues, or maybe they are a single parent and childcare is too expensive because they live in a state that doesnt see the need to subsidised it so its actually easier for them to stay on welfare than to get a job that still won't pay them enough to live on or to support thier children on? And saying that kids have no work ethic because of what they see in thier parents, i would wager that the 'working poor' and those below the poverty line are forced to make tough choices and have to work harder then the average 'rich family' to support thier children, even if that work is at home taking care of them insted of sending them somewhere else to pay someone else to take care of them, or its under the table work for a friend because what they save by not paying tax on it can get them meals for thier kids for the next week. If you really want to see a difference, vote for people who will subsidise afterschool programs, drama clubs, sports etc for low income families, support breakfast and lunch programs in school.....things to make the financial burden less on these families, asking thier kids to work, is going to 100% increase poverty as it will cause parents to then be dependent on thier childrens income to just survive another week. How would that be a good thing for families?

SereJane

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_think-newts-comments?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding BoardsForum:17Discussion:cd03229a-6e4c-48c7-9f97-811c5be84939Post:704db317-3c9c-4c54-8713-0bb4435f1246">Re: What do you think about Newt's comments?</a>:
[QUOTE]wow....interesting thread. Working in social services, i take a lot of offence at both the comment in question, but also a lot of comments in the post. How is giving poor children (already disadvantaged in society) janatorial (which will never be high paying jobs) jobs on top of thier schoolwork help break the cycle by ensuring they dont have the time or the energy to get the grades needed to scholorships to get a post secondary education? Have you considered the number of people below the poverty line who cant work because of illness or mental health issues, or maybe they are a single parent and childcare is too expensive because they live in a state that doesnt see the need to subsidised it so its actually easier for them to stay on welfare than to get a job that still won't pay them enough to live on or to support thier children on? And saying that kids have no work ethic because of what they see in thier parents, i would wager that the 'working poor' and those below the poverty line are forced to make tough choices and have to work harder then the average 'rich family' to support thier children, even if that work is at home taking care of them insted of sending them somewhere else to pay someone else to take care of them, or its under the table work for a friend because what they save by not paying tax on it can get them meals for thier kids for the next week. If you really want to see a difference, vote for people who will subsidise afterschool programs, drama clubs, sports etc for low income families, support breakfast and lunch programs in school.....things to make the financial burden less on these families, asking thier kids to work, is going to 100% increase poverty as it will cause parents to then be dependent on thier childrens income to just survive another week. How would that be a good thing for families?
Posted by toothpastechica[/QUOTE]

I like you.

Blueyed228

So school clubs that meet after school don't affect homework, etc but getting an after school job does?

number55

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_think-newts-comments?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:17Discussion:cd03229a-6e4c-48c7-9f97-811c5be84939Post:704db317-3c9c-4c54-8713-0bb4435f1246">Re: What do you think about Newt's comments?</a>:
[QUOTE]wow....interesting thread. Working in social services, i take a lot of offence at both the comment in question, but also a lot of comments in the post. How is giving poor children (already disadvantaged in society) janatorial (which will never be high paying jobs) jobs on top of thier schoolwork help break the cycle by ensuring they dont have the time or the energy to get the grades needed to scholorships to get a post secondary education? Have you considered the number of people below the poverty line who cant work because of illness or mental health issues, or maybe they are a single parent and childcare is too expensive because they live in a state that doesnt see the need to subsidised it so its actually easier for them to stay on welfare than to get a job that still won't pay them enough to live on or to support thier children on? And saying that kids have no work ethic because of what they see in thier parents, i would wager that the 'working poor' and those below the poverty line are forced to make tough choices and have to work harder then the average 'rich family' to support thier children, even if that work is at home taking care of them insted of sending them somewhere else to pay someone else to take care of them, or its under the table work for a friend because what they save by not paying tax on it can get them meals for thier kids for the next week. If you really want to see a difference, vote for people who will subsidise afterschool programs, drama clubs, sports etc for low income families, support breakfast and lunch programs in school.....things to make the financial burden less on these families, asking thier kids to work, is going to 100% increase poverty as it will cause parents to then be dependent on thier childrens income to just survive another week. How would that be a good thing for families?
Posted by toothpastechica[/QUOTE]<div>
</div><div>I agree with you 100%. It also doesn't surprise me in the least that you are Canadian. 

</div>