The Republican Primary 2011-2012

Enter at your own risk. There's bound to be some heated discussions in here about the elephant and the donkey.

Moderators: selective_soldier, drtom, edu999, devilnuts

Re: The Republican Primary 2011-2012

Postby olywaguy » Sun Nov 20, 2011 10:53 pm

Gingrich's latest statement: laws preventing child labor are "truly stupid."

Yes, he wants to bring child labor.


Newt Gingrich​ Thinks Laws Preventing Child Labor Are "Truly Stupid"

Image

By: Jonathan Moormann

from: http://www.ology.com/politics/newt-ging ... uly-stupid

At a speech before Harvard's Kennedy School of Government on Friday, Newt Gingrich called child labor laws "truly stupid" and suggested that "schools should get rid of unionized janitors, have one master janitor, pay local students to take care of the school." I'd like to just let that quote sink in for a moment.

Alright, done being angry? Probably not, but I'm going to continue anyway. Newt explained that his plan would give the children work, allow them to take pride in their school, and give them the financial ability to "begin the process of rising." He also argued that, when you look to past generations of successful individuals, "they all started their first job at 9 to 14 years of age," usually doing some kind of menial labor. "Remember all the stuff about not getting a hamburger-flipping job?" Gingirch added, "Worst possible advice to give the poor children."

From a purely political perspective, this speech is beyond insane. Who exactly does Newt think he's appealing to by railing against child labor laws? I realize he's not really advocating turning poor school districts into sweatshops, but that is the soundbite that will come out of it. I feel sometimes like Gingrich really wants to be Ron Paul, and just say whatever he damn well pleases without worrying about the political consequences, but Gingrich simply doesn't have Paul's knack for policy. I can disagree with a lot of Paul's more controversial positions, but I am always sure he's thought them through. I am completely certain Gingrich has not thought out his new "make the poor kids our janitors" platform.

Which brings us to the plan itself. Newt makes one good point, that allowing children to work in their schools could build up their community pride and give them some cash. Everything else is utter dreck:

You'd be firing all of the current janitors, which means increasing unemployment. This isn't job creation; it's job replacement. It's not really helping the poor kids rise up if you're taking the job away from low-income parents.

When are the kids going to be janitors? They can't work during school hours, because they have, you know, school. Working outside of school hours means you need adult supervision, which means you're paying overtime to teachers or the "Master Janitor."

Similarly, someone still has to be the janitor during the day. You could restructure the entire school schedule so that classes can have "janitorial shifts," but then you have additional administrative costs, training costs, and the general inefficiency of having your janitors work short shifts between lunch and algebra.

That overtime is going to cost you money, which either comes out of the school's budget or the janitorial crew's paychecks. That means, even if we are paying these poor kids, they'll be getting a smaller share of a smaller version of an already small janitor's salary. How is this work worthwhile if they're earning below minimum wage?

If working at a young age is good for kids, why are we only doing this in poor neighborhoods?

Claiming that "people who are really successful in one generation... all started their first job at 9 to 14 years of age" is a bit misleading. First off, the average age of anyone starting their first job (not just successful people) has gone up over time. Those rich folks who started by selling gum as a kid weren't necessarily different than their peers, and not necessarily more successful than the modern day child who starts work at 16 or 18.

In theory, you could make a case for children working on beautifying or improving their schools as part of the curriculum. However, making it a job, taking jobs away from current workers, and railing against all child labor laws in general is, to use Gingrich's term, "truly stupid."

Carlos

"I just want to suck his tongue out of his mouth !"--JPaul


http://www.askcarlos.com/
http://carlos-the-critic.blogspot.com/
User avatar
olywaguy
Moderator
 
Posts: 1672
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 1:08 pm
Location: Tupelo, Mississippi

Re: The Republican Primary 2011-2012

Postby Rico » Wed Nov 23, 2011 5:47 pm

I've actually been paying attention to the Republican primary candidates...even a die-hard liberal Democrat like me....looking for an alternative to a weakened Obama. The only two viable for me are Romney and Huntsman. The rest are too far right for me to even see as alternatives. I've even watched all the debates.

Romney has doomed himself as far as ever getting my vote. Based on his latest ad, where he deliberately puts up a misleading (actually, it's a total lie) ad where he makes it look like Obama is saying something, when in fact, Obama is quoting a McCain campaign spokesman years ago), convinces me that Romney is no better than filthy, mosquito-ridden pond scum. In fact, he stinks worse than sh*t. He's an opportunist politician, an elitist, a flip-flopper, and no more interested in my welfare than he is in the welfare of anybody other than his elitist, fat-cat friends.

Why is it that Republicans seem to universally suck at almost everything other than suckering the average, white, male, too-stupid-to-think-for-himself-American to vote for them?

Seriously?
In the Beginning there was nothing, and God said: 'Let there be Light." There was still nothing, but you could see it.
User avatar
Rico
Veteran Member
 
Posts: 1040
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 8:20 pm
Location: Baltimore-Washington

Re: The Republican Primary 2011-2012

Postby jamaluddin » Fri Dec 16, 2011 9:36 am

Lolz you all are very harsh to Perry. lolxxx
jamaluddin
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2011 9:33 am

Re: The Republican Primary 2011-2012

Postby olywaguy » Wed Jan 04, 2012 2:58 am

Well, if you haven't heard the news yet, Mitt Romney won the Iowa Caucus by 8 votes against Rick Santorum.

Voter turnout was about 122,000 in Iowa.

Romney: 30,015 25%
Santorum 30,007 25%
Paul: 26,129 21%
Gingrich: 16,251 13%
Perry: 12,604 10%
Buchmann: 6,073 5%
Huntsman: 745 1%

Perry has gone back to Texas to reassess whether he wants to continue or not.
Carlos

"I just want to suck his tongue out of his mouth !"--JPaul


http://www.askcarlos.com/
http://carlos-the-critic.blogspot.com/
User avatar
olywaguy
Moderator
 
Posts: 1672
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 1:08 pm
Location: Tupelo, Mississippi

Re: The Republican Primary 2011-2012

Postby olywaguy » Wed Feb 08, 2012 12:02 am

Now that's a big change tonight...Santorum winning two out of three states tonight (Missouri and Minnesota). He's currently leading in Colorado with 30% of the vote right now. Paul finishing a strong second in Minnesota.

Funny though, that Paul has not yet won a state but he leads in delegate by one over Santorum who has won three states thus far. Paul is right...it is not the number of states that you win but the number of delegates you gather.

Santorum is having a good night indeed. Romney is sweating it out and no one mentions Gingrich at all.
Carlos

"I just want to suck his tongue out of his mouth !"--JPaul


http://www.askcarlos.com/
http://carlos-the-critic.blogspot.com/
User avatar
olywaguy
Moderator
 
Posts: 1672
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 1:08 pm
Location: Tupelo, Mississippi

Previous

Return to Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron