Is the left really against schools hiring students or is the issue Gingrich said it?

[NYcarbineer]

Government should prevent kids from getting jobs, provide unions with the force of government guns to be overpaid or just pay people directly to not work and then take care of their healthcare and retirement for them. Having a home, TV, cars and enough food to be obese doesn't mean you're not in "poverty."

Liberals voting for preventing kids from taking part time jobs in their schools are in fact just demonstrating their dedication to the lifetime no-work ethic that is liberalism. The economy over the last 10 years and stock market funk are demonstration of their success.

My local school district hires students FULL TIME in the summer to clean the schools between school years. They've done so for decades. Students working in various ways in school districts has been around forever.

This is just Newt Gingrich taking a fundamentally good idea and mutating it into an absurdity.

That's why he's a conservative champion.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This topic didn't really work out too well for you, did it?

You didn't see the vote tally, did you my dear? And nicely done. You included the quote you were demonstrating...

Show me where ANY liberals ever supported this idea of firing school janitors and replacing them with children BEFORE Newt brought it up.

ANY.

Well, as you can see from the crickets, there is no evidence that liberals EVER supported this crazy shit that Gingrich is tossing out,

so the idea that liberals are opposing this now only because Gingrich said it

is also some crazy shit.

 

[JoeB131]

Define huge.

Why is it that private contractors can do the jobs more cheaply [please confine yourself to what you can prove?

If public education had voucher competition, it would be a far less democratizing force than it is today.

And this is the problem right here. The purpose of schools is not to be a democratizing force.

It is not to make kids feel guilty about what they did to the Native Americans or the Polar Bears.

It is not to make them good little democrats.

It is to arm them with the skills that they are going to need when they get out into the world.

 

[JoeB131]

Nope, I'm making a point.

Huge salaries and benefits for people who MOP FLOORS is everything that's wrong with the system.

Those jobs could be outsourced to private contractors for half the price, and the money re-invested in the schools or better yet, returned to the taxpayers.

If Public education had real competition through vouchers, it would be out of business.

School districts can do that now if they want to. NOTHING is stopping them from outsourcing if they want to do that.

When almost everyone who works for a living is poor, THEN will conservatives be happy?

I'll be happy when I'm not paying 30% of my salary to support government workers who don't do shit. Then I would be rich.

 

[SAT2]

Define huge.

Why is it that private contractors can do the jobs more cheaply [please confine yourself to what you can prove?

If public education had voucher competition, it would be a far less democratizing force than it is today.

And this is the problem right here. The purpose of schools is not to be a democratizing force.

It is not to make kids feel guilty about what they did to the Native Americans or the Polar Bears.

It is not to make them good little democrats.

Small d democrat.

It is to arm them with the skills that they are going to need when they get out into the world.

Exactly. For a democracy to work, the citizens must be educated.

 

[Mr.Nick]

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?

I went to a school that paid the students to do "chores" - they even had a mini manufacturing plant that made lamps. I would also certainly call the school progressive liberal. This was also like 15 years ago.

I was more than happy cleaning or making lamps for minimum wage back in 1996... I got a paycheck...

We had a half hour for lunch, then we cleaned everyday for a half hour (we were paid) and if students wanted to they could work making lamps after school until 6pm (school got out at 3:30) and students that were ahead in credits would do half days and manufacture lamps...

We could also smoke out back between classes if we had a parent permission slip (I had one).

 

[snjmom]

I skipped from page 3 to here so if this has already been addressed, my bad.

Why this type of thing is considered an "attack" on labor.

What is the true motivation to remove a union worker (whose job performance doesn't seem to be in question) and replace them with a student.

Because the student will cost less.

Labor viscerally understands the eternal war on wages. The past 3 decades of pumping 90% of productivity gains to stockholders instead of sharing it with the labor is generating a massive lack of demand.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Nope, I'm making a point.

Huge salaries and benefits for people who MOP FLOORS is everything that's wrong with the system.

Those jobs could be outsourced to private contractors for half the price, and the money re-invested in the schools or better yet, returned to the taxpayers.

If Public education had real competition through vouchers, it would be out of business.

School districts can do that now if they want to. NOTHING is stopping them from outsourcing if they want to do that.

When almost everyone who works for a living is poor, THEN will conservatives be happy?

I'll be happy when I'm not paying 30% of my salary to support government workers who don't do shit. Then I would be rich.

We're building schools in the Middle East. Does that make you happier?

 

[kaz]

Well, as you can see from the crickets, there is no evidence that liberals EVER supported this crazy shit that Gingrich is tossing out,

so the idea that liberals are opposing this now only because Gingrich said it

is also some crazy shit.

The "crickets" indicated that I don't live on the site like you do. I said their motivation was that Newt said it. Your turning that into a specific scenario that I have to prove it was actually supported before once again shows the absurdity of your claim you're logical and I'm not. There is no logical reason at all that I have to specifically show that liberals specifically supported that before he said it to prove that is the motivation of their opposition to it because he said it.

 

[kaz]

My local school district hires students FULL TIME in the summer to clean the schools between school years. They've done so for decades. Students working in various ways in school districts has been around forever.

This is just Newt Gingrich taking a fundamentally good idea and mutating it into an absurdity.

That's why he's a conservative champion.

And to the point in the prior post, you just proved it unless you're saying that liberals opposed it.

What's an "absurdity" is how liberals take what he said he thinks schools should do and stating he said he'd legislate they have to do it, which he didn't. An absurdity is liberals stating he's going to force 9 and 10 years old to clean bathrooms, which he didn't. An absurdity is liberals saying because he said there would be one head janitor that means he's going to force schools to have only one janitor no matter how big they are. An absurdity is liberals saying that he's only allowing schools to do exactly what he proposed in every way and not take the ideas and tailor it to fit them.

What you and your liberal ilk showed was the ridiculous reactionary crap with which you respond to anything that Newt says and how it's personal and you can't rationally just address the idea. The thread, honey, went completely against YOU.

 

[candycorn]

I think that it happens EVEN once is a travesty.

I'll take that as an admission that you realize this is a rarity, and that you know that all this bitching you're doing is a sideshow.

Then it suits him fine since he's a clown.

If you read the statute that was quoted long ago, the thing said that "can make" meaning your pay scale is X on the high end and Y on the low end.

If you get maxed out, you make X. It doesn't mean you make X; you can make X. I agree that the idea is maddening but this is often the case when you don't have government slotting of salaries.

I guess we could instill a communist system like he wants and you pay person doing Job A; X amount of dollars, Job B, Y amount of dollars and Job C, Z amount of dollars. And we all know communism is built to last.

Oh wait...

 

[NYcarbineer]

Well, as you can see from the crickets, there is no evidence that liberals EVER supported this crazy shit that Gingrich is tossing out,

so the idea that liberals are opposing this now only because Gingrich said it

is also some crazy shit.

The "crickets" indicated that I don't live on the site like you do. I said their motivation was that Newt said it. Your turning that into a specific scenario that I have to prove it was actually supported before once again shows the absurdity of your claim you're logical and I'm not. There is no logical reason at all that I have to specifically show that liberals specifically supported that before he said it to prove that is the motivation of their opposition to it because he said it.

You're an idiot. Your thread is an accusation that liberals really do support and have supported firing cleaners in school and replacing them with children currently under the legal working age,

but are only now opposing it because Gingrich said it.

You can't produce ANY evidence of any liberals ever supporting such a thing, so how in the hell can you attribute liberal opposition to this as some sort of partisan flip-flop.

 

[NYcarbineer]

My local school district hires students FULL TIME in the summer to clean the schools between school years. They've done so for decades. Students working in various ways in school districts has been around forever.

This is just Newt Gingrich taking a fundamentally good idea and mutating it into an absurdity.

That's why he's a conservative champion.

And to the point in the prior post, you just proved it unless you're saying that liberals opposed it.

.

You're an idiot. Our schools did not fire cleaners and replace them with 9 to 13 year olds, they hired students of legal working age as EXTRA help,

in addition to the regular cleaners/custodians already employed there.

You have yet to show us one liberal who ever supported firing janitors and replacing them with schoolchildren.

Since you cannot, the answer to your question has been provided:

NO, liberals are not opposing this just because Gingrich supports this.

 

[kaz]

You're an idiot. Your thread is an accusation that liberals really do support and have supported firing cleaners in school and replacing them with children currently under the legal working age,

but are only now opposing it because Gingrich said it

"I" am an idiot? Actually that's not what the poll says and it's not in my first post either. Here's what I actually said. Do you see a difference in the bolded parts?

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.

 

[kaz]

You have yet to show us one liberal who ever supported firing janitors and replacing them with schoolchildren.

Since you cannot, the answer to your question has been provided:

NO, liberals are not opposing this just because Gingrich supports this.

Hmm...I'm thinking this "logic" wouldn't work as a rebuttal to a liberal argument for you...

 

[SAT2]

You have yet to show us one liberal who ever supported firing janitors and replacing them with schoolchildren.

Since you cannot, the answer to your question has been provided:

NO, liberals are not opposing this just because Gingrich supports this.

Hmm...I'm thinking this "logic" wouldn't work as a rebuttal to a liberal argument for you...

Honestly, there's no logic to the proposal. This works only as a strategy.

 

[JoeB131]

Define huge.

Why is it that private contractors can do the jobs more cheaply [please confine yourself to what you can prove?

If public education had voucher competition, it would be a far less democratizing force than it is today.

And this is the problem right here. The purpose of schools is not to be a democratizing force.

It is not to make kids feel guilty about what they did to the Native Americans or the Polar Bears.

It is not to make them good little democrats.

Small d democrat.

It is to arm them with the skills that they are going to need when they get out into the world.

Exactly. For a democracy to work, the citizens must be educated.

No, for a democracy to work, people have to make the effort.

When liberals talk about educating, what they usually mean is indoctrination.

Of course, you will have the exact politically correct views on things, or we will send you to tolerance camp and make sure that you have the correct view.

And don't you dare try to pray in school, you little theocratic fascist!

 

[SAT2]

That shoe would be on the Pubs foot.

 

[JoeB131]

That shoe would be on the Pubs foot.

No, not really.

We just want school choice. You pick out a school you like, you get a voucher, and you send your kid there if they will take him. Sounds like a plan to me.

 

[SAT2]

That shoe would be on the Pubs foot.

No, not really.

We just want school choice. You pick out a school you like, you get a voucher, and you send your kid there if they will take him. Sounds like a plan to me.

A plan for a disaster, yes.

Vouchers won't cover the entire cost of schools. Middle and upper class families will be able to provide the extra money for books, uniforms, transportation, and lunches. Poor families won't. Instead of school being a place where people from a wide variety of backgrounds learn and play together, it will become a place where poor students are something you've heard about, but never met close up.

Private schools don't have to take students with disabilities, so public schools will become where the poor and disabled go for their education. And our democracy will suffer.