And while my writing this seems a bit extreme, several recent events in the news happen to point to this as a summary of positions held by those running for office with the GOP.

First, you have the lates Mitt Romney charge of Obama doesn't want people to work, and wants them to receive welfare indefinitely.  The charge is that Obama wants to end the work requirement.  Apparently, Obama was opposed to it back in the day, because he believes people on welfare should stay on welfare.  The poor and the unemployed are, in short, lazy good for nothing parasites who won't find work, unless you require it of them.  Well, there is some problems with Romney's charge, but I am going with pretty much what the message is:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/spin-and-counterspin-in-the-welfare-debate/2012/08/07/61bf03b6-e0e3-11e1-8fc5-a7dcf1fc161d_blog.html

Yes, the problem is that the waiver being granted is to give governors flexibility to get people back to work, but that isn't the message.

But, how about voting?  Well, let's go to good old Scott Brown of Mass.  He is irate that the those on welfare should be able to vote:

http://www.salon.com/2012/08/09/scott_brown_outraged_at_prospect_of_poor_people_voting/

So, there you go.  Apparently those on welfare and unemployed are lazy and shouldn't be able to vote.  No effort should be made to enable them to vote either.  So, if you believe this, vote Republican.

Ron Paul supporters are well aware of the GOPs attempts to manipulate the voting system.

/thread.

Wow. Well, I know a lady who has worked her entire life and works to this day. Her husband go injured and can barely walk. I suggested that she apply for welfare. I admit that I didn't click the links because I have to get ready for work in fifteen minutes so I'm just replying to what I think this thread is about. I may be waaaaay off and if I am, ignore me.

I just want to say that some people need welfare. Until there's a way to separate those that need assistance from those that abuse the assistance, you can't punish anybody. To paraphrase a saying, I'd rather a hundred guilty men go free than to punish a single innocent man.

The republicans are trying to stop them from voting, with these stringent, classist ID laws.

The ACLU is pouncing on the one in PA, but we need more action on the matter.

Don't quote me... but I think what she needs is disability, not welfare.

I honestly have no idea what Mitt Romney is talking about with this argument. The waivers don't allow states to lower their work requirements. Also, dont Republicans want more things moved to the states?

Ok come on now.  They aren't classist. 

They're just common sense.

I mean... I think we should put as much stringency on helping to decide the fate of the country as we do opening a bank account, cashing a check or getting a library card.

Honestly, it's a miracle anyone can function in todays society WITHOUT a photo ID.

Considering you need one for basically every single legitamite way of getting money outside of someobody with a photo ID giving it to you.

Every citizen SHOULD have a government issued photo ID.

Oh and for the work clause.

It does need to be replaced.

Not simply abolished however...

It should at least be replaced with some sort of "Community Service" requirement to keep people working at least some. Give them a sense of agency, and make sure their "work socialization" skills don't dull too much.

If the government can't find things for them to do i'm sure they could loan out the unemployed to various understaffed charities.

They're strictly classist, they serve no other function but to try to disenfranchise traditionally-democratic constituencies. The voter ID laws are in place to discourage in-person voter fraud, which is so rare as to be statistically insignficant (compared to other points of voter fraud, which are also statistically insignficant). There are 600,000 registered-voter Pennsylvanians who are being disenfranchised by this law, and there sure as HELL aren't 600k fraudulent votes being cast. I'd doubt 6000. In a time when the state of PA is cutting its budget to the bone, this law is costing the state millions to advertise and implement. Why is it suddenly a priority over things like education or food stamps?

It's a boondoggle to strike at a problem that doesn't exist and fire up rednecks who think this actually is a problem, and to try to bar lower-class voters. It exists only for political reasons, and is classist and unconstitutional.