Loudoun Metro Vote

By Loudoun Insider

Can’t wait to see how our 9-0 conservative Republican BOS votes on this today! Hundreds of millions of dollars and ongoing subsidies to an outdated mismanaged money-losing mess for 2.9 miles of track and two stops??? Sure sounds like the conservative choice to me!

UPDATE:  It passes 5-4, York, Buona, Letourneau, Williams, and Weasel Flip Flopper Ken Reid for, Volpe, Delgaudio, Higgins, and Clarke against.


Comments

  • Leej says:

    Hey now that this has passed. I can’t wait for all this business that is going to pour into Loudoun. ;-) We are going to hear these big announcements certainly in the next 90 days “‘Right”"” ;-)

  • BlackOut says:

    FedUp,

    You maybe right. Metro may not be on the minds of Brambleton 3.5 years from now, as it will be well on it’s way.

    Now what I think is concerning to Brambleton is the insight Clarke has show towards her lack of interests of representing Brambleton’s interest. She is not making friends there, and I imagine this lack of support and animosity will spill out throughout 3.5. Her parochial interests will be her downfall. She has a lot of serious repair work to do if she expects to garner strong support from Brambleton into the future. Maybe she will surprise but I don’t think she has it in her. She’s a hometown girl.

    I see a lot of similarities in how she governs and Steve Snow. Snow strongly representing only half of his district. It was a major problem for him as he applied for re-election.

  • BlackOut says:

    (geez D- on the grammar and proof reading. Apologizes)

  • Shawn Pickrell says:

    On re-districting, Burton also reversed his vote at the 11th hour and 55th minute, potentially sending Loudoun into some issue. That was irresponsible, and had I been in the Blue Ridge, I would have voted against him and for Clarke.

    The FB firing fracas, if repeated on and off over the next 3.5 years with different issues, will be more problematic for Clarke. I don’t think Clarke will win Brambleton 3-1 like she did last year. Do you?

  • The Operative says:

    Clarke worked Brambleton like a hooker on New York Ave (NE). After the Nov election she has been all but MIA. Trust me Clarke is D O N E in B-town.

  • FedUp says:

    “I can’t wait for all this business that is going to pour into Loudoun…”

    I’ll bet the Loudoun Department of Economic Development has been flooded with calls this afternoon from Fortune 500 companies looking to locate their corporate headquarters here.

  • NotJohnSMosby says:

    What a horrible week for Loudouners. Health insurance and public transportation are two things no true American should ever be burdened with. What’s next, they’ll build a park and make you walk in it?

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    That comes after the viewshed tax.

    (kidding)

  • edmundburkenator says:

    I like to look at big box stores and fake barns. Who do I pay?

  • Liberal Anthropologist says:

    “Health insurance and public transportation are two things no true American should ever be burdened with. ”

    False characterization of the opposition. Health insurance provided by, or subsidized by, or forced into by is what is opposed. Not health insurance.

    Public transportation is rarely a good idea (and mostly a bad one). Transportation is good. And is best when provided by natural market forces.

    I am in a country right now where in the biggest city (larger than DC) there are a huge number of private roads. I didn’t look at the stats, but going from one end of the city to another, I am likely to pay 3 or 4 tolls. There are many competing paths with different tolls that are run by different companies. The tolls are all electronically collected and competition makes them low because I have more than one path. The roads are well maintained. Even the “metro” here is mainly private like NYC used to be. The government here was faced with a massive explosion of growth as the country modernized and urbanized and did not attempt to be the only party building transport.

    And it works great. The number of vehicles here is huge. And the city is the same size and appears similarly dense to DC. And yet, I can go from one end to the other only rarely hitting traffic (usually at the end or beginning of my journey when I leave a toll road).

    People complain about paying the tolls. But people complain about everything. And while i don’t know every detail, they didn’t mainly pay for building them up front. And the new roads come when they are needed and they come quickly.

    It works. B!ches. <— Dems taught me new ways to be engage in the civil debate that Obama has called for after Giffords.

    We don't need government involvement in transport.

  • G.Stone says:

    ” I suggest you revisit the record of no other than Abraham Lincoln. ”

    Then right after that they shot him. Crappy plan.

  • G.Stone says:

    “Me thinks so”
    You sure about ? I mean you thinking.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    LA, why don’t you tell us the country?

  • Liberal Anthropologist says:

    EB… feel uncomfortable just posting it on here. Email me… my moniker as one word at yahoo. I will tell you there.

    Also, I am thinking of doing (after the election) a longish post on private roads as i keep researching them.

    Turning attention to our road…. The core problem on it is no competition. The thing I see here is multiple paths to achieve the same travel. This means competition and price control. They should have designed that corridor with two operators or they should have built two corridors.

    What I see here sometimes is two operators sharing (for stretches) the same space vertically. One road is on top of a road from another operator.

    And they use tunnels. I drove through a tunnel that must have been 8 kilometers or so. It went from the city suburban outskirts to city center. With no exits. Toll was 60 cents in US.

  • Virginia Beach says:

    “LA, why don’t you tell us the country?”

    What question is that? You asked LA to blow his cover. Didn’t you know he works as a double spy for devil and for satan. Right now it seems that both (devil & satan) are getting equal spy service. Keep doing what you are doing, LA.

  • Liberal Anthropologist says:

    And by the way, they use a lot of low cost labor from neighboring countries. Imported just to do the work without really minimum wages that I know of. We could do the same if we stopped our idiotic protectionism of labor from other countries and lowered or eliminated most labor standards. They could do a ton of work at a low price to us and everyone wins.

    We get cheap roads much faster. They get more money than they could get at home. And creating all this stuff creates more jobs for Americans.

    So few people understand the value of allowing a massively large worker program. It would drop unemployment amongst americans in a spur of economic activity.

  • Math says:

    Liberal Anthropologist,
    I never heard back about a post you said I was making up quotes about Romney, so here they are again for you. I know you like believe Mitt is a genius surplus generator, but we know he is not. I have enjoyed your strange posts today as well. Your “idiotic protectionism of labor” was a doozy, lets just eliminate the labor laws so every American can make as little as the foreigners who work here!! And your idea that we need more private roads, just TWO of every private road to promote competition seems a stretch. Just pave over the whole county while your at it,

    Romney slipping that he would not cut spending
    http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/05/romneys-big-fat-wet-kiss-to-keynesian-economics.html

    Romney: Well because, if you take a trillion dollars for instance, out of the first year of the federal budget, that would shrink GDP over 5%. That is by definition throwing us into recession or depression. So I’m not going to do that, of course.

    Nice collection of conservatives for a national mandate
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/15/health/policy/health-care-mandate-was-first-backed-by-conservatives.html

    Romney saying the mandate is not a tax:
    http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/romneycare-included-tax-to-ensure-participation

    Romney saying The Indvididual Mandate Is “Ultimate Conservatism”
    http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/romney-in-2007-the-indvididual-mandate-is-ultima

    And my main man Barack Hussein Obama the moderate conservative and his lack of government growth.
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/

    http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05-22/commentary/31802270_1_spending-federal-budget-drunken-sailor

    Get out of the cocoon Liberal Anthropologist,

    Even Tom Coburn has said he believes Obama wants an entitlement deal and believes he would do it. Coburn knows there must be consessions on both sides.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/sen-tom-coburn-part-one-defusing-the-debt-bomb/2012/05/19/gIQAIUteRU_blog.html

  • ACTivist says:

    LA, maybe you forgot something called “minimum wage” which is about to go up again. No government in this country wants to do anything “cheap”…….except for serving the public. Oh, that’s not cheap, that would be sub-standard.

  • Liberal Anthropologist says:

    Math,

    I am not going to go through every quote. Romney has had some incorrect beliefs. Some VERY not conservative. But he was more conservative than say – Gingrich. Which isn’t saying a lot. They ALL believe in expanding government.

    My candidates never made it. Ron Paul would have been excellent and very conservative. The current Libertarian Party candidate is far more conservative.

    But my real choice now is between Romney and Barack Obama. Obama has spent massively. More than any republican. The analysis you put up has been debunked left and right (I think it was a Pants on Fire) because it plays games with what is “his”. All of it is his. Even what came before. He did nothing to fix it. The democratic party didn’t even produce a budget. They (and Obama) own the economy and the spending.

    Romney is committed to eliminating Obamatax. He will certainly do that one way (congress) or another (administratively). This is CRITICAL. That program will simply expand further the areas that government spends and add to the problem.

    Romney also has a far better chance than Obama to listen to Ryan and work to enact something. A republican sweep would certainly result in true entitlement reform. And the Ryan plan is solid. It is also not terribly conservative and is too gentle, but it solves the key problems for now. Obama will do absolutely nothing to solve spending problems.

    So… conservatives have said all along that Romney is not perfect. But he is a far cry more conservative than your “moderate” Obama.

    Obama is a socialist. That may not sit well with you and you can point to technical and academic distinctions. But he would fit in well with the various European Socialist parties that are making a mess of Europe. That is the kind of socialist he is. Romney is not.

    And your concepts of economics are primitive. If workers come in the US and build infrastructure for 3 dollars an hour and are happy to do it, then that means that means less tax money spent. That means more goes to investments in more skilled jobs and new businesses and that grows the economy. Those American workers make more money because they don’t have to the jobs that these foreign workers would do.

    Since the economy would grow with foreign labor, the American workforce would have many more job opportunities and unemployment would go down. Furthermore, goods and services in the US would be cheaper, making it cheaper for the poor and improving their standard of living even with lower or stagnant wages.

    Because of cheap labor and goods (think Walmart), the poor person in America enjoys an incredibly good standard of living. they have cell phones. Internet. TV’s. Cheap food. Often cars.

    Sending the cheapest worker to produce the most desired products helps everyone. Especially the poor. It helps also those workers who are working cheaply as they are making more than they would otherwise.

    You see the economy as zero sum. Most leftists do. It is why you hate trickle down. You want to – through labor laws and – as ACT points out – minimum wage – control the costs of goods. In doing so, you hurt the poor the most. You raise unemployment and make everything cost more.

    Remove those restrictions and Metro can be built – just as safely and high quality – at half or a quarter the price. The underlying components would be cheaper. The labor would be cheaper. Cheap is good. Cheap is not automatically bad quality. Your cheap phone is far better and more powerful than your phone was 10 years ago. And it is the same price or cheaper.

    And you guys do the same thing with healthcare. Let just about anyone deal with colds and broken bones. Let the doctors deal with complex disease. Lower the costs of the underlying supplies.

    Get out of controlling things and you will actually make them better and cheaper. Keep trying to solve corner cases through regulation and control and just watch as you give us Spain’s unemployment rate.

    Now… You tell me why cheaper labor doesn’t help the poor and create more jobs.

  • Liberal Anthropologist says:

    Math,

    If you would like a more concise view of specifically why the minimum wage rules are bad, see this video of an interview with Milton Friedman:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca8Z__o52sk

    Of course, he won a Nobel Prize. But nobody takes much stock in that after it was given to Obama.

  • Liberal Anthropologist says:

    Further to my point on allowing this labor in freely, here is Milton Friedman again pointing out why, in a world where the socialist state is dismantled, that everyone benefits. The cheap labor, American labor, and the poor.

    My ideas are not unique and are not without sound economic foundation. They may be counterintuitive, but you should take the time to think it through.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eyJIbSgdSE&feature=related
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfU9Fqah-f4&feature=relmfu

  • Virginia Beach says:

    Liberal sold his soul to New World Order which benefits only 1% at the very top of the food chain.
    To make it sound more …. academic …. Liberal calls it pure capitalism ……

    Since when economists were the brightest in the bunch???

    What Liberal is saying is that the descendants of millions of people who built this country from the very beginning when it was just a barren land, now should be shipped back or sent across the border to Mexico and, IF they are lucky, they may come here as emigrants (again) and work for $3 an hour building roads …… because they are too expensive in 2012 and New World Order can only get more wealthy using cheap labor …..

    Pure capitalism that creates more poor and benefits only few.
    Yes, LA’s poor soul sold to the satan ……

  • “What Liberal is saying is that the descendants of millions of people who built this country from the very beginning when it was just a barren land, now should be shipped back or sent across the border to Mexico and, IF they are lucky, they may come here as emigrants (again) and work for $3 an hour building roads”

    I absolutely did not say this and challenge you to find it. I am in favor of:

    Eliminating all complex social programs. Eliminating all of them at the federal level like SS and Medicare and Medicaid.

    And no minimum wage.

    When coming here as an immigrant provides you no social benefit, then simply legalize all illegal immigrants with work visas. And open the borders to any worker who wants to come. Nobody should return to anything. We should keep all the ones we have and welcome as many as there are companies who want to sponsor them for work permits.

    Everyone of those new immigrants will have to come because they can get a job, better than at home. They will not benefit otherwise.

    This will increase economic activity dramatically and help everyone with lower prices and more jobs.

    This would benefit the poor the most.

    They would have more job opportunities for several reasons. For one thing… they can work in jobs that they were stopped from working in because of minimum wage. More jobs would be available. And more jobs would be created by the increased economic activity and entrepreneurship of immigrants.

    The poor would also benefit from lower prices on products. They would need to spend less to maintain or enhance their standard of living.

    Let me ask you this. Would you rather the poor pay 10 dollars for a product because minimum wage insures it costs 9 dollars to make? Or would you let the product to be made for 4 dollars and cost 4.50?

    The poor benefit from this very thing happening now. But instead of it being made in America with low wages, it is made in China or elsewhere and imported. In either case, the poor benefit from the cheap Walmart product. But in a scenario where you remove government constraints, the jobs stay in the US. The American worker gets the job. The Chinese immigrant comes here and does the same job.

    America benefits. The poor benefit. The rich benefit. The middle class benefits. The world benefits.

    Nobody wins when the government constrains economic activity except vested interests like unions, massively big corporations verging on monopolies, and government itself. The group most hurt by “helping the poor” is the poor.

  • Virginia Beach says:

    In May 2012 the unemployment rate was over 8% – college graduates are taking jobs in McDonald.

    Your economic scheme is not holding up under the microscope.

    http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    Don’t knock McDonald’s just because of the convenient prefix as a shortcut to anything hated.

    My daughter got a job in fast food at 16, and started working it aggressively (the second hand car her father provided had to be gassed and maintained by her if she was to have the use of it to work).

    At 18 and with a high school diploma (doesn’t know what degree she wants, so doesn’t want to waste time and money on college atm. DOES know she wants to work and be as independant as possible) she is now a manager, and was just offered an office internship because someone who started on the grill years ago (and rose through promotions and education to get a degree and the IT job of their dreams) moved on and up.

    She gets college credits for every new managment course she passes, and holds a VA food handler’s license, which is a big deal in employment–not having one on site produces the majority of health dept. closures.

    She is making $2K a month at 18, and took over the car payments from her dad the month of her 18th birthday. She has, on her own, gotten a small secured credit card, and methodically puts her gas and personal items on it each month to charge it up to within about $20 of the limit, and then pays it in full when the bill comes–she is establishing her own credit in her own name, another big deal for a woman.

    I had the pleasure recently of hearing her give a basic economics lecture to her friend’s boyfriend (both were visiting from college), and she patiently explained to him that no, the fact that he was making $600 per month DIDN’T mean the two of them could afford $800 per month utilities included IF the girl got a $500 per month job (which she will not get for the summer at 19, with no work history). Best line: “I make $2K a month and I can’t afford $800 rent”.

    Her goal is to be living on her own independent by the end of her 21st year, and I think she’ll make it.

    Some college grads with unhireable degrees might benefit GREATLY from spending some time in McDonald’s or equivalent.

  • “Some college grads with unhireable degrees might benefit GREATLY from spending some time in McDonald’s or equivalent.”

    This is the great point of the failure of minimum wage. There are also many unskilled workers (like teens) that have a very high unemployment rate and have for a long time. They are simply not worth minimum wage.

    But…. If they are given a job below minimum wage. They learn skills. They gain experience. And very soon…. they are making far more than minimum wage.

    They gain on the job experience that being unemployed did not give them. Remove the minimum wage and most teens would be able to get jobs. In fact, it would nearly eliminate unemployment as employers would be able to find people that would do various jobs at a price they could afford to pay. More work would get done and productivity and GDP would rise.

    Jobs that now go overseas would stay here. Workers that stay overseas would come here.

    There are many who even refuse to consider these options. Why? They believe in the INTENTION of the government regulation. They do not look at or measure the result or the unintended consequences. They care not what the net benefit is, but rather whether the government is trying to “help”.

  • vacliff says:

    Barb-
    Before the computer age (1970′s and early-mid 80′s) I believe McDonald’s created more millionaires than any other company.

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    I don’t know if she plans to be a millionnaire Cliff, but she definitely has plans, and is farther along the way toward achieving them than some of her peers, who while they (or their parents) ARE investing in a future that may make them more some years hence, run the risk of large debt and no job after four or more very expensive years.

    She scopes out the franchises around the country now, as well as the local real estate markets and cost of living, and may just, in about three years, transfer to a place where she can walk in on her own and say “Here’s my employment history, here’s my credit record, here’s my job, here’s my salary, and here’s 25% down on that two-bedroom right here, which should make my mortgage payments this much per month at current rates, now, can I have that loan please? Thanks.”

    Just one of her plans.

    She’s smart, funny, honest, responsible and hard-working, amazing and outrageous, and I think she’ll be just fine.

  • Cato the Elder says:

    “And my main man Barack Hussein Obama the moderate conservative and his lack of government growth.”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOBGuM9swtE#t=41m31s

  • Leej says:

    Barb, love your stories about how your daughter is growing up. :-)

    Perhaps you can teach my boys on growing up or at least let them drink some of your water. :-)

    Everyone have a happy and safe 4th. :-)

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    Happy Fourth to you too Leej!

    She was born ready to run the world–it’s been a very interesting 18 years!

    She isn’t perfect, but I don’t worry about her in the sense of “if we were to drop dead tomorrow, would she survive?”

    Oh yes.

  • Liberal Anthropologist says:

    Cato,

    Very funny.

  • Math says:

    Liberal Anthropologist,

    I think you are pretty much consumed by the far right media machine and view the world through a republicans are always right view of things, which is unfortunate. Most of your points can be heard any day on FOX and maybe you do really believe the Ryan plan is solid (even though it has no specifics on cuts and would lead to a massive recessions- but hey at least the rich will have lower taxes.

    But I think this is the clincher:
    “Obama has spent massively. More than any republican.”
    This is the most crass statement I have heard yet. Delusional because of how short a time ago Bush was around.
    Most sane conservatives, the ones shunned like Bruce Bartlett or Andrew Sullivan, speak the truth about Bush
    http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/12/the-fiscal-legacy-of-george-w-bush/
    http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/03/obamas-spending-record-more-conservative-than-reagans.html
    http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/05/if-you-want-a-debt-and-spending-binge-vote-gop.html
    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/05/04/business/economy/off-the-charts-shrinking-government.html?ref=economy
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-reality-behind-obama-and-bushs-spending-binge/2012/05/25/gJQAK8ItpU_blog.html

    Now I dont think Liberal Anthropologist will actually read these and I dont think you read the previous links because that may make the world you live in seem like a mirage. It is. Reality sucks.

    If you want to blame Obama for stopping the recession and not leading us into a depression, then thats ok yet insane. Sure, he spent a lot to stop the massive bleeding caused from the great recession.

    I honestly think the right is still having a hard time coming to grips with the Bush years. The recklessness and spending on wars and unpaid tax cuts remains in the GOP of today. There is no difference between Bush and Romney.

    And if Obama is a socialist, he is the worst one ever. That must have been why all health care is still run by private corporations.

    But Obama as a socialist makes for a great bumper sticker. And that really comes to what the GOP is nowadays.

  • Liberal Anthropologist says:

    Math,

    “I think you are pretty much consumed by the far right media machine and view the world through a republicans are always right view of things, which is unfortunate.”

    Ironic since I watch only one show on Fox News with any regularity and two on MSNBC. I also read the Huffington Post almost daily. But that will likely not matter to you. you are more comfortable with stereotypes. That allows you to be dismissive rather than engage. Engaging is too much work perhaps.

    ” Most of your points can be heard any day on FOX and maybe you do really believe the Ryan plan is solid (even though it has no specifics on cuts and would lead to a massive recessions- but hey at least the rich will have lower taxes.”

    It has specifics. Please quote the part of the Ryan plan (from the plan itself) that you have an issue with.

    “This is the most crass statement I have heard yet. Delusional because of how short a time ago Bush was around.”

    And yet it is true. And proven in your own articles by guys who apparently can’t read graphs that you wish to call “conservatives”. Example:

    http://dailydish.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e20168ebb1fdc2970c-popup

    It is an unfortunate name you have chosen for yourself since the graph you sent to us showing us somehow that Obama spent less actually shows he spent at least 50% more during the same period of his presidency. And this with wars winding down.

    “Now I dont think Liberal Anthropologist will actually read these”

    I read them all. The above example is typical of the twisted logic that allows you to laughingly call Obama a fiscal conservative. He spends 50% more and yet somehow he spends less. All of your articles are full of equally huge holes in logic.

    “If you want to blame Obama for stopping the recession and not leading us into a depression”

    He did nothing. Almost nothing. To impact the recession. The “stimulus” had a very small impact in the positive.

    And I am not sure why we should have expected a depression. It is convenient for you to say Obama stopped something that never would have happened. No depression was on hand. Perhaps a deeper recession. But it would have been shorter lived if Obama’s policies had not been in place. The Obama stopped the depression meme is a failed one.

    “Sure, he spent a lot to stop the massive bleeding caused from the great recession.”

    It would have stopped if all of the government had gone on vacation for a year. If we had not bailed out all those companies they would have reorganized without taxpayer money and moved on. It would have cost less and lasted less long.

    “I honestly think the right is still having a hard time coming to grips with the Bush years.”

    No. The right hates the Bush years. He was a right wing liberal. He expanded government massively and foolishly and he deserves scorn. So. We have come to grips now.

    “There is no difference between Bush and Romney.”

    That is a completely unprovable statement. Go to Romney’s website and cut and past the parts that are the same. Any differences left?

    “And if Obama is a socialist, he is the worst one ever.”

    No. He is pretty typical European Socialist. Thankfully he was stopped by Republican control of the house.

    “And that really comes to what the GOP is nowadays.”

    No. It is an imperfect party. But it is a party of good governing when compared to Democrats. Obama was not ready to be president. He still is not. The GOP has good governors from NJ to Wisconsin. Virginia to Puerto Rico.

    But it is not about party. It is about the people we elect. Obama has failed as president. He has not dealt with the economy well. He has done nothing to lower taxes (overall) and nothing to lower spending overall and nothing to reduce regulation overall. We have gone in the wrong direction under Bush and Obama. Romney is far from perfect. But he is greatly better than Obama and will move us in a more correct direction than Obama.

  • Shawn Pickrell says:

    I am not fully convinced that businesses are aching to hire teenagers and give them work experience, if only they could hire them for $3/hour.

  • Liberal Anthropologist says:

    “I am not fully convinced that businesses are aching to hire teenagers and give them work experience, if only they could hire them for $3/hour.”

    Why? There could be plenty of ways they are helpful at that level. Or maybe it is 2.50. Or maybe 4. The point is the market will find a balance and jobs will become available that disappear as the minimum wage rises.

    I could look up the stats, but I recall there is an unemployment impact every time the minimum wage is raised.

    But more importantly. If you are right, why have a minimum wage? If there is no job worth that amount, then wages will never go that low. Competition will raise them.

  • Liberal Anthropologist says:

    If you remain unconvinced, here is a very detailed review of relatively recent academic studies that show consistently negative effects of the minimum wage.

    http://www.nber.org/papers/w12663.pdf?new_window=1

  • Virginia Beach says:

    Liberal,
    Why don’t you remove the minimum wage and age barriers and send teenagers to work at 13-teen???
    Not long ago children worked at 9-10 years old ….. Is this your idea of “pure capitalism”??? If it is, you should be ashamed of yourself – if you know what shame is, that is.

  • Liberal Anthropologist says:

    Why should children be prevented from working if they have their parents permission? I started working at 10. Didn’t hurt me at all.

    And why are you in favor of maintaining minimum wages and hurting the poor?

  • liz says:

    “Why should children be prevented from working if they have their parent’s permission?”

    Because of damage to education, increased injuries, exploitation, and early death. Dear God Almighty, I can’t believe you are advocating child labor.

  • Yankee says:

    “Why should children be prevented from working if they hav their parent’s permission?”

    The reasons the Child Labor Laws were instituted were plentiful and documented: illiteracy among child laborers, exposure to harmful chemicals and dangerous machinery, sexual exploitation on the part of employers and adult co-workers, decrease in household income because children and adults were competing for the same jobs, and the children were hired for lower wages. It is not possible that you are serious in advocating child labor.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    “I started working at 10. Didn’t hurt me at all.”

    What was your job, LA?

  • BlackOut says:

    Kids can still work, just not in the traditional laborer categories. Kids baby sit, wash cars, dog walk, shovel snow, mow lawns. All kinds of ways for them to earn a little and gain a work ethic. No one is sheltering them at home, unless the parents promote that.

  • Liberal Anthropologist says:

    EB,

    Picking corn and tomatoes on a farm (not a family farm). I don’t advocate abusive or harmful conditions for kids. Most jobs are not. I advocate letting them work if they have permission and are doing age appropriate work.

    Other people advocate stopping dodgeball in school. Which is more harmful? Letting a kid work on a farm on weekends or nannying them forever?

    John

  • liz says:

    “Picking corn and tomatoes on a farm”

    Perhaps you don’t realize that farms are exempt from the child labor laws in the US.

    Despite the fact that, “According to Human Rights Watch, child farm workers are at greater risk of pesticide poisoning, serious injury, heat illness, and death than any other youth workers in America. ”

    In other words, your ignorance is showing again.

  • NateDogg614 says:

    “I advocate letting them work if they have permission and are doing age appropriate work.”

    So long as no child labor laws are being violated, is there really anything wrong with that, especially if kids WANT to work and earn some money?

  • Liberal Anthropologist says:

    “So long as no child labor laws are being violated, is there really anything wrong with that, especially if kids WANT to work and earn some money?”

    I am not even sure what we are all arguing about on this subject. We all seem to agree (except Liz) that it is OK if children work under reasonable conditions (whether set in law or not).

    List seems to want to keep them away from recess so nobody’s feelings get hurt, let alone someone gets hot. She also wants to prevent kids from doing BMX bike racing, skiing, swimming in the ocean, soccer, track, and anything else that risks serious injury, heat illness, or death.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    “List [sic] seems to want to keep them away from recess so nobody’s feelings get hurt, let alone someone gets hot. She also wants to prevent kids from doing BMX bike racing, skiing, swimming in the ocean, soccer, track, and anything else that risks serious injury, heat illness, or death.”

    Where did you read that on this thread?

    Oh, work = play.

    Gotcha.

  • Liberal Anthropologist says:

    Thanks for catching yet another mangled autocorrect.

    I think it is a reasonable extension of her logic that we must protect children from such things. I’ll give her high levels of pesticides, but you don’t get that from picking crops. The rest of her list would not make sense unless we want to prevent children from doing all activities with such risks.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    “…a reasonable extension of her logic.”

    Boy, I can’t wait for the equivalent “reasonable extension” of your logic.

Leave Comment