Newt’s War on Poor Children

Newt’s War on Poor Children

Newt Gingrich has reached a new low, and that is hard for him to do. Nearly two weeks after claiming that child labor laws are “truly stupid” and implying that poor children should be put to work as janitors in their schools, he now claims that poor children don’t understand work unless they’re doing something illegal.

On Thursday, at a campaign stop in Iowa, the former House speaker said, “Start with the following two facts: Really poor children in really poor neighborhoods have no habits of working and have nobody around them who works. So they literally have no habit of showing up on Monday. They have no habit of staying all day. They have no habit of ‘I do this and you give me cash’ unless it’s illegal.” (His second “fact” was that every first generational person he knew started work early.)

This statement isn’t only cruel and, broadly speaking, incorrect, it’s mind-numbingly tone-deaf at a time when poverty is rising in this country. He comes across as a callous Dickensian character in his attitude toward America’s most vulnerable — our poor children. This is the kind of statement that shines light on the soul of a man and shows how dark it is.

“Facts” are not Gingrich’s forte. Yet he is now the Republican front-runner. It just goes to show how bankrupt of compassion and allergic to accuracy that party is becoming.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/03/opini ... .html?_r=1

It's not a surprise though. That black-hole that he calls a "soul" seems to be missing in most conservatives today. All that Dickensian "compassionate conservatism" was all Luntz-style "code word"/"talking point" and was nothing but garbage in the first place. It was transparent under Bush...It's non-existent now.

Actually, various programs to get welfare mothers working have failed because of the lack of work ethic, that comes from never working. The programs taught the women life skills for the workforce. Oprah had such a program, that carefully screened applicants for maximum success. That program miserably failed.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1996-08-27/news/9608270239_1_hull-house-families-public-housing

One woman, for example, had run up huge credit card bills she couldn't possibly pay, but she wanted to keep her cellular phone.

"It was difficult for them to come to grips with important things in their lives and continue on that course," said Gordon Johnson, president of Hull House.

The course often was detoured by the paradox that crisis may be the only constant in the lives of the poor. Because the families lived so close to the edge, each crisis--whether transportation, illness, violence or a family dispute--threatened to plunge them into a financial and emotional abyss.

Great Britain has the same issues, when you have generations of people who have never worked, who is going to provide a good example? 10% of kids have never seen a parent go to work after the weekend. Imagine what example this sends? Not even selling fruit by the side of the road.

Yes, sweeping generalizations about whole classes of people which might apply to .000001% of them) is such a conservative thing to do... Nothing new to see here, folks, move along....

So you honestly think only .0000001% of people on welfare don't have parents who were on welfare?

And you don't believe the role model of a hard working parent sometimes working two jobs to keep his kids fed isn't more inspirational than the kid who grows up not knowing his father and having his mother never work an outside job? Yes, you are correct, kids are smart enough that it doesn't matter how you grow up, everyone will have a big work ethic. I know some kids will be inspired growing up in a enviroment like that to promise themselves that they will never go on public aid, but the odds are against them.

I believe the model chosen by Gingrich and the tiresome "Reagan welfare-queen" blather used for that model is such unadulterated b.s. that YES--I HONESTLY THINK that only .0000001% of people covered in his wild-assed generalization fit the profile.

I invite you to provide PROOF of the numbers, if you think he is right.

LadyJazzer wrote: I believe the model chosen by Gingrich and the tiresome "Reagan welfare-queen" blather used for that model is such unadulterated b.s. that YES--I HONESTLY THINK that only .0000001% of people covered in his wild-assed generalization fit the profile.

I invite you to provide PROOF of the numbers, if you think he is right.

Since you brought up the contention that "-I HONESTLY THINK that only .0000001% of people covered in his wild-assed generalization fit the profile." it's you who need to provide proof that you didn't just make that number up and pull it out of your ass.

Waiting.

LadyJazzer wrote: I believe the model chosen by Gingrich and the tiresome "Reagan welfare-queen" blather used for that model is such unadulterated b.s. that YES--I HONESTLY THINK that only .0000001% of people covered in his wild-assed generalization fit the profile.

I invite you to provide PROOF of the numbers, if you think he is right.

Considering your # 1 in 10,000,000 which would be what, 3-5 people in America? I submit that the burden is on you.

No, since Newt is the GOP candidate making the wild generalizations, I'll take that as a "FAIL"....

Nothing to see here folks, move along...Just more conservative baseless garbage.

neptunechimney wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: I believe the model chosen by Gingrich and the tiresome "Reagan welfare-queen" blather used for that model is such unadulterated b.s. that YES--I HONESTLY THINK that only .0000001% of people covered in his wild-assed generalization fit the profile.

I invite you to provide PROOF of the numbers, if you think he is right.

Considering your # 1 in 10,000,000 which would be what, 3-5 people in America? I submit that the burden is on you.

Labor/Unemployment data that is up to date as late as Nov 2011 for multiple categories is available here... http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab2.htm

Bureau of Labor Statistics - you can slice and dice the data to your hearts content.

Which is what Lady Jazzer should have done before she simply made something up.