E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
DES MOINES, Iowa -- Presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich did not back away from his recent comments suggesting young children should be allowed to work.
“Really poor children in really poor neighborhoods have no habits for working and have nobody around them who works. So they literally have no habit of showing up on Monday,” Gingrich told more than 500 employees inside the Nationwide Insurance lunchroom.
This response came after one audience member asked the former House speaker to clarify the remarks he made at Harvard University on Nov. 18 when he called child labor laws "truly stupid." He also suggested students take jobs at schools as janitors.
“I really appreciate you raising it,” Gingrich said. “It’s a good example of how hard it is to take the world that works and bring it over to the world that fails.”
Gingrich said he received letters after his comments in Massachusetts complaining that janitorial work was hard and dangerous.
“Fine,” he said in Iowa’s capital city during a two-day swing of the state, “So what if they became assistant janitors and their job was to mop the floor and clean the bathroom and you pay them?”
He also suggested a couple of other possibilities for putting young kids to work: “But what if you paid them part time in the afternoon to sit in the clerical office and greet people that came in. What if you paid them to work as the assistant librarian?” Gingrich said. Adding, “I’d pay them as early as was reasonable and practical.”
“They have no habit of ‘I do this and you give me cash’... unless it's illegal,” he said Thursday in the Hawkeye State.
Hard work pays off and teaches kids important lessons even at an early age according to Gingrich -- pointing out his granddaughter’s recent accomplishment of buying an iPad with all the money she saved over the last eight months.
“I was pretty proud of her,” Gingrich said.
The Speaker finishes his day with two more events in the first-in-the-nation caucus state. He was in Des Moines to sign a pledge to build a border fence between U.S. and Mexico by the end of 2013 if he's elected.
Leave a Comment:
Ron Paul will only vote legally. He is the most trust worthy man in the field. If congress brings him a bill that is not supported by our constitution, as president he will VETO it. This is what Ron Paul is about. If the law is good enough to be supported by an amendment to our constitution, then he is all for amending the constitution. Congress needs to uphold the Constitution. Our founding fathers would be proud of this man. We have got to get all of these special interest guys out of office, and put people in that care about freedom and liberty! Ron Paul is a good guy. I hope his running mate is Rand! That would be awesome. If anyone one of these other guys that are running for president gets elected then our country will go bankrupt, almost immediately. The Amero will be the new form of currency in Mexico, United States, and Canada. Our constitution will no longer exist. This is a last ditch effort to save our constitution, before all that we have worked so hard for is lost. Don't let the men and women that have fought and died for our country, die in vain, to a socialist that doesn't care about our country and our way of thinking. LET FREEDOM RING! Ron Paul 2012!
The "Amero" is a nonstarter. It would require the participation of the Canadians, their economy is much better than our own!
That being said, the primary reason I not only can't support, but in fact actively work against Dr. Paul is his foreign affairs stance! I know he claims to be a noninterventionalist, that's just semantics. His policiy stance is really Isolationalist.
If he truly believes that allowing a rogue nation like Iran obtain nuclear weapons is just being noninterventional, then he's irresponsible! If he believes that the real answer to our Middle East problems is to "make friends with them" then he is also naive!
I believe Mr. Gingrich is trying to make the point that if no no one in your family has a full time job, it would be extremely hard for you to see what you need to do in order to keep a job. Lead by example and experience is something we learn at a very early age in our lives. With that said, do I agree on having young children scrubbing toilets or helping janitors in school, off course not. I do believe in some sort of government funded program to help poor kids to work in school libraries or tutoring younger kids in school. That will help stop the vicious cycle which is poverty in America.
"I believe Mr. Gingrich is trying to make the point that if no no one in your family has a full time job, it would be extremely hard for you to see what you need to do in order to keep a job."
It's interesting he used "poor kids" as an example, instead of say, "socialites" who also rarely have a job, besides promoting themselves.
I'm in my mid 50's now; came from a big family in the city. I was delivering news-papers when I was 9, got an "under the table" job at a grocery store cleaning meat and fish racks for 25 cents an hour shortly after. I worked all through middle & high school as a gardner full time in the summer, and on Saturdays... Some of this was forced by an overbearing father, but it is what it is!?!
I was far from being college material, so therefore, went to technical school.
Since graduating high school, the only time I was unemployed was the time between discharge from the Air Force untill I started trade school (about 4 months).
I'm sorry folks, while Newts "delivery" wasn't the best, his idea is at least worthy of consideration. I don't know what my life would be like had I not had that early experience. I worked night shift for years, having Tuesdays and Wednesday's off; and generally working major holidays etc.... It wasn't easy to be working when all my friends were partying, though I made the best of it.
Eventually, I fell into a position tailored for my skills, and the rest is history. We're very comfortable!
The moral of my story is that,while Newt's suggestion is on the outside, "goofey," and ill-delivered, the message itself has some merit.
Perhaps teaching kids that it's OK to have a job in school; presenting opportunities as early as middle school, will have an affect on some kids???
But I think the biggest thing kids need to learn is that "making an honest buck is a noble endeavor!" Sadly, with all the fluff-filled Rap Moguls, and Pimp Masters out there, kids are receiving the wrong message, and for the life of me, I don't know what else to do but either require it, or at least teach it!
Why not let a kid know it's OK to rake leaves, edge gardens; mow lawns etc??
It's kinda like that old commercial for the kid that loves the Tru-Green lawn care guy, because whenever he saw the truck pulling up to a house, he knew the lawn needed more mowing, and that was money in the bank for him!
Wouldn't that apply to children of "well to do" parents as well.
I can name 5 car dealerships, that went out of business in the 1990s after the children graduated from college, and were given management postions, or outright ownership.
They didn't start at the bottom, such as working there after school, and had no idea how a dealership ran, or the amount of hard work their parents did to keep them going.
One guy actuallywould show up for work at 10AM wearing a track suit, and raided the service cashiers cash drawer, nearly everyday at 11Am to go golfing.
Neither Newt nor any right thinking Conservative is working to help the irresponsible just the disadvantaged! The irresponsible have the opportunity they simply chose not to take advantage of it!
"One can lead a horse to water, but can't make him drink"
But the left wing do-gooders have been enabaling the irresponsible for decades! Another tact might be what's needed
Planeguy2 your premised is hopelessly flawed. The poor are NOT lazy people who refuse to work.
Newt spent many years as a government employee, and now he's trying to get back on the public dime. He should consider getting a job...cleaning a toilet or mopping a floor so he can get paid for doing some work and stop living off of public money. Maybe a real job will give him the time he needs to work on his personal character and integrity.
So common senseless, Newt not having a real private sector job disqualifies him as a viable candidate for President? Hhhmm, kinda like someone else, sorry having trouble remembering HIS name. Never held a private sector job, went to college on a foreign exchange student loan, taught Constitutional law at a college tho they have never found one of his student ever to come forward and admit this or to praise HIM as an inspiration, spent time as a community organizer, got voted in as a Senator from Illinois(after his only viable opponent was destroyed by media"hhmm#2), spent most of his time in Senate voting "present" so HE wouldn't be tied to any controversial Bills, and then spent the rest of his time in the Senate campagning for President. Sorry still having trouble placing the name of such a person, little help please. How about you common sense????
"Never held a private sector job"
Wrong. Was a civil rights attorney with a private law firm for 9 years. http://cdn.theladders.net/static/pdf/Senator_Obama_Resume.pdf
"went to college on a foreign exchange student loan,"
Wrong. Bad April Fool's joke. Looks like you fell for it. http://www.factcheck.org/2010/04/april-fools-still/
"taught Constitutional law at a college tho they have never found one of his student ever to come forward and admit this or to praise HIM as an inspiration," Well, the NYT and others didn't seem to have any trouble. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/us/politics/30law.html?pagewanted=all and http://www.emorywheel.com/detail.php?n=25886
"spent most of his time in Senate voting "present" so HE wouldn't be tied to any controversial Bills,"
Wrong again. Only 3% of his votes were present votes. http://www.factcheck.org/2008/09/obamas-legislative-record/
Anything else you'd like cleared up?
This is lunacy! Child labor laws are in place for specific reasons beyond teaching poor kids work habits. The same claim can be made of kids from all socio-economic backgrounds and Newt is a pompus d-bag.
I think Newt is on to something with this. Kids should do some work. Grades were much better then they are now and most kids don't work. They are not studying, they are playing video games.
I was a caddy for a local golf course at the ages of 12-16 and loved it. I learned a great deal and had the chance to hang with the 1%ers. Thus giving me an opportunity to meet some great people that I used when I got out of college thrusting me into the 1% myself.
Things have been great.
Fine Steve if that is fair then it is also fair for your children to have to work a job selected by the state. If the state expects it to teach them work ethics. To date there are 3 types of people who must work for state. The military, non military civil service jobs, and convicted prisoners. To those three types you would add the minor children of the poor. You are a real prince among men Steve, and just so you know, that was not intended as a compliment.
Leave it to Newt to make stupid statement about ALL poor people. Many poor are actually the working poor. They work every day at one and some cases in two low paying jobs. Oftentimes without healthcare benefits. Many of these children already work to help their families make ends meet. Not all poor people are on welfare or criminals. In my state 15 years can work, so what are we talking about here. Children 14 years and younger being in the labor force?
The plain fact of the matter is that when the Great Society was created in the 60's, women suddenly gained the ability to marry the government. Now the new morality has created a situation where for many young single girls, their first job is having a baby for the government and their first raise comes when the second child from another sperm donor arrives. It is not revolutionary to suggest that young people work. Most parents encourage that behavior. Gingrich, as even the most myopic liberal must realize, is not suggesting putting children to work in sweathouses. He is acknowledging the fact that there are generations of welfare recipients who do not know what it is to work. These people carry cell phones and have flat screen cable TV's. Many smoke and use other substances and guess who is paying for it all? Work ethic is lacking and a reliance on government assistance is engrained. Would it be so wrong to have some of these children have tasks and be rewarded for those activities? Could they somehow come to realize that paychecks arise not only from the government but from the satisfaction of completing a task. Many years ago I learned that cleaning up used cars for sale was not much fun but I enjoyed opening my check every other Friday. I learned that education to further my situation in life was of paramount importance. Gingrich has observed that for some poor children there are no role models and that without those role models, the chances of emerging from the whirlpool of generational joblessness is difficult at best. Say what you may about Gingrich, but at least he hasn't been getting blow jobs in the Oval Office like the Democratic icon Clinton and then emphatically lying about on national television. Isn't it amazing how easily things are forgotten? And don't get me started on Barney Frank.
Nice piece of fiction lcdr, and that's all your post is, a fictional rant I reject absolutely. The vast majorty of the poor work 2 or more shifts. Shame on you for perpetuating Gingriches lie. As a result I refuse to accept any of the idea's ypu posted as credible. I'm glad you made it. DON'T demonize the poor or turn them into scapegoats. I will stop this post before I do say something I will regret.
Oh Clinton's lies were bad but they didn't have the impact of the lies the GOP is telling now. GOP lies are destroying the middle class one lie at a time.