Obama funding plan for health insurance losses is a bailout

Dec 17, 2014 21:20:17 GMT pjohns1873 said:

You can probably provide certain anecdotal cases of "racial stereotyping"; the problem is that you seem to view these few cases as emblematic of the entire society.  (The whole "institutional racism" thing.)

Yes, I think Pew Research is a fairly neutral source; I would not disparage it. But please note that it says that this enormous income gap exists "regardless of income"--which is to say that black households and white households with similar incomes still experience this "wealth gap"--so it makes me wonder if African-American families in America are just not being taught how to manage money effectively; or if these families are larger, on average, than their white counterparts, making it necessary to spend more on the rearing of children.  I really do not know; I am just wondering. 

And I am unaware of any example of Republicans' opposition to unions being rooted in a desire to "replace labor" through robotic technology.

I've addressed "institutionalized racism" related to the criminal justice system in another thread. I can do that as well related to overall institutionalized racism in America if you want. For example our immigration laws overwhelmingly target Hispanics by denying them the ability to immigrate to the United States and our voter ID laws overwhelmingly target African-Americans where it's estimated that 25% don't have valid ID to vote while only about 7% of whites are negatively effected. We can also cite the fact that an African-American with exactly the same education and experience will typically receive only 60% of the compensation when compared to a white person and that when all factors are identical except skin color a white person is 2.4 to 3.4 times more likely to be hired for a job than a black person.

While you may "wonder" there is a more rational reason why the disparity in wealth exists regardless of income. Generational wealth plays a huge role in the average wealth of the person. For example when my parents pass away I'll receive well over $1 million in inheritance. I instantly gain a millions dollars of wealth from them that I didn't earn as income. There is very little generational wealth being passed down by African-Americans. As the statistics indicate the generational wealth is about 14-times greater for whites when compared to blacks.

The reasons why Republicans oppose unions is irrelevant to the fact that "union-busting" by Republicans virtually eliminates the ability of the labor force to counteract the effects of AI and technology (robotics). The fact that Republicans are unaware of the negative impacts of their economic policies simply reflects ignorance that is causing financial harm to the American workers.  

That is a huge problem for Republicans. They cite all kinds of reasons for their political agendas but fail to understand the consequences. They don't acknowledge that their immigration policies result in anti-Hispanic racism. They don't acknowledge that their voter ID laws result in anti-black racism. They don't acknowledge that their "union-busting" harms the American workers.

Dec 19, 2014 21:44:09 GMT pjohns1873 said:

You may indeed be correct as concerning the fact that "[g]enerational wealth" is at play here. But this is no longer the mid-twentieth century, when racial segregation and second-class citizenship for black Americans was firmly entrenched in our society. There is no longer any good excuse for generational poverty (which often leads to generation after generation being on government assistance).

I will leave the matter of "institutional racism" (what a canard!) to the other thread.

I am not much of a fan of Big Unions (or Big Government; or Big Business, either). But I am not nearly so concerned as you are that we are about to enter a society in which artificial intelligence and mere robots will make work a thing of the past for most Americans.

While there have been Supreme Court decisions (based upon ACLU lawsuits) as well as laws have dramatically reduced government imposed segregation and second-class citizenship for African-Americans the segregation and second-class citizenship still exists extensively in America. The laws merely reflected a social condition and the condition continued after the laws were nullified by the Supreme Court or changed. It truth the "social condition" of segregation and second-class citizenship for blacks is worse today than it was in the pre-civil rights movement days of the 1960's. In the 1960's it was predominatily in the South but today some of the worst states for blacks to live in are Northern states. Some of the worst states for blacks to live in today are Northern states with low percentages of black residents like Kansas.

I've actually watched the effects of AI and technology related to manufacturing in the US and it has been devastating for the workers. Perhaps you're not concerned but I've seen it first hand over the last 45 years and the effects are shocking both related to wages and jobs. I look at the future projections and the situation is going to get a lot worse to the point that, by about 2045, the only jobs that will exist for over 90% of Americans will be poverty level jobs. What are we going to do when 90% of Americans fall into the "truly needy" group?

There is a lot we can do to prevent this from happening but we need to start addressing it now. It's like watching a water reservoir slowing going down year after year as the amount of water needed is more than what nature is providing for with rainfall. The time to act is now and not when the reservoir is completely dry.

It is my belief that 100% of the people can benefit from the advancements of AI and technology but we have to make changes today for that to happen. If we wait too long it's going to drive a violent revolution at some point in the future because people will not tolerate living in poverty without hope.     

Dec 22, 2014 19:03:31 GMT pjohns1873 said:

I am not sure that I would classify Kansas as a "North[ern]" state. (Yes, it does sit atop Oklahoma; which, in turn, sits atop Texas; but Nebraska sits atop Kansas; South Dakota sits atop Nebraska; and North Dakota sits atop South Dakota.) Geographically, the exact center of the 48 contiguous states may be found somewhere in the state of Kansas.

True, the High Court cannot simply change hearts and minds.  But those were already beginning to change by the 1960s; more and more, people began to see that it was both morally indefensible and intellectually indefensible to claim that black Americans should be subjected to second-class citizenship, simply because of the characteristics of their birth.

What is your evidence, exactly, that "90% of Americans" will be mired in "poverty level jobs" by 2045, due to robotics and artificial intelligence?

We typically refer to the "South" as the former slave states.

I don't have comparative statistics but we do know that over 50% of Americans today express explicit anti-black racial prejudice based upon studies between 2008 and 2012. "Explicit" reflects "expressed" racial prejudice and is not subjective. We also continued to have laws that disproportionately affect blacks in America and while we rationalized those laws the fact remains that because of the disproportionate impact they are still "Jim Crow" laws. The voter ID laws where only 7% of whites but 25% of blacks are denied their right to vote because they don't have the proper ID are founded on racism. Our immigration laws that deny legal immigration almost exclusively for Hispanics are founded on historical racism. We rationalize those laws but because they effectively target racial or ethnic groups the effect is racism under the law.  

The sources for my conclusion that by about 2045 we will see low income jobs resulting in vastly expanding poverty (perhaps as high as 90%) are numerous and must be taken in a cummulative contexts. I can't provide them all but will provide some of those sources in an attempt to provide the foundation for the conclusion.

The percentage of manufacturing jobs per capita has been in a constant state of decline world-wide since about 1970. While we consume more goods the precentage of people created those goods has declined by about 40%. There's an old saying that "all wealth is either mined or grown" and manufacturing reflects that which is typically mined and then converted into goods. Manufacturing has represented the mainstay of the economic wages and benefits predominately because of the unions that affected compensation in manufacturing. As the percentage of those working in manufacturing decreases so do wages and compensation across the board. The decline in manufacturing jobs is directly tied to increased use of artifical intelligence and technology (robotics). There has also been a similar decline in the number of "farm" jobs that have also been due to artificial intelligence and technology (robotics) although I don't have a link for that.

motorcitytimes.com/mct/2011/05/interesting-graph-decline-in-manufacturing-is-not-just-an-american-thing/

In short the "wealth" creation has moved from human labor to AI and technology and with that has come a corresponding drop in the "wealth" available for distribution among the workers. Further advances in AI and technology will further reduce the amount of wealth available for distribution amoung the workers.

Next is addressing where the "wealth" that is being created is going because it's not going to the workers that are no longer required to produce the wealth.

As economists note we've entered a "barbell" economy where there are the wealthy and the poor. The wealthy benefit from the reduction in human labor in producing food and goods while the workers suffer because of less labor being required to produce the wealth. As less and less labor is required for the production of goods the amount of wealth to be distributed to the labor force shrinks resulting in more people receiving an ever decreasing percentage of the wealth created by the economy. Basically we have an ever decreasing percentage of the "pie" being shared by more and more people every year.

thegazette.com/subject/opinion/guest-columnists/barbell-economy-and-governments-response-20140611   

We can see this in the recent recovery from the 2008 Recession where the wealthy have recouped from it while the middle and lower income groups have not.

news.yahoo.com/charts-rich-won-great-recession-130300311.html

One more article I will share relates to the fact that while "productivity" has increased (because of AI and technology) compensation relative to productivity basically hasn't. For example, using manufacturing as an example, while the production of goods per capita has increased dramatically since 1970 the number of people producing those goods per capita  has declined by almost 1/2 in the United States (from about 24.5% to 12.9%). If the percentages are to equalize out then someone working in manufacturing today should be earning almost double what they did in 1970 (adjusted for inflation) for the "productivity = labor" but that hasn't happened. Virtually all of the increased wealth being produced has been transferred to the owners of enterprise as opposed to the workers. I don't necessarily agree with the conclusions of this last article but it does highlight the problem.

finance.yahoo.com/news/real-root-america-wage-problem-103000382.html

I've previously supplied the link to the predicted expansion of AI where it AI is projected to equal all of human intelligence by 2045. Whether you agree with that prediction or not specifically you cannot deny that AI is expanding daily. With the expanding AI also comes advances in technology. As I've mentioned even something as advanced as a surgeon's knowledge and skills can be replaced by a computer and robot assuming the computer has more knowledge than the surgeon and the robot is more skilled. I can't think of any "job" that can't be replaced by a computer with the potential exception of art that is an expression of humanism. When it comes to production and distribution of wealth there is nothing that a computer and a robot can't do. When all of the wealth is created by computers and robots the only ones that have any wealth are the owners of the computers and robots.

It is something that has been happening for decades and it is going to keep happening until human labor is no longer required. That can be by 2045 or 2065 or by 2100 but it's going to happen. It's just a matter of time.  

Dec 26, 2014 19:39:14 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Dec 26, 2014 14:06:47 GMT ShivaTD said:

We typically refer to the "South" as the former slave states.

I don't have comparative statistics but we do know that over 50% of Americans today express explicit anti-black racial prejudice based upon studies between 2008 and 2012. "Explicit" reflects "expressed" racial prejudice and is not subjective. We also continued to have laws that disproportionately affect blacks in America and while we rationalized those laws the fact remains that because of the disproportionate impact they are still "Jim Crow" laws. The voter ID laws where only 7% of whites but 25% of blacks are denied their right to vote because they don't have the proper ID are founded on racism. Our immigration laws that deny legal immigration almost exclusively for Hispanics are founded on historical racism. We rationalize those laws but because they effectively target racial or ethnic groups the effect is racism under the law.  

The sources for my conclusion that by about 2045 we will see low income jobs resulting in vastly expanding poverty (perhaps as high as 90%) are numerous and must be taken in a cummulative contexts. I can't provide them all but will provide some of those sources in an attempt to provide the foundation for the conclusion.

The percentage of manufacturing jobs per capita has been in a constant state of decline world-wide since about 1970. While we consume more goods the precentage of people created those goods has declined by about 40%. There's an old saying that "all wealth is either mined or grown" and manufacturing reflects that which is typically mined and then converted into goods. Manufacturing has represented the mainstay of the economic wages and benefits predominately because of the unions that affected compensation in manufacturing. As the percentage of those working in manufacturing decreases so do wages and compensation across the board. The decline in manufacturing jobs is directly tied to increased use of artifical intelligence and technology (robotics). There has also been a similar decline in the number of "farm" jobs that have also been due to artificial intelligence and technology (robotics) although I don't have a link for that.

motorcitytimes.com/mct/2011/05/interesting-graph-decline-in-manufacturing-is-not-just-an-american-thing/

In short the "wealth" creation has moved from human labor to AI and technology and with that has come a corresponding drop in the "wealth" available for distribution among the workers. Further advances in AI and technology will further reduce the amount of wealth available for distribution amoung the workers.

Next is addressing where the "wealth" that is being created is going because it's not going to the workers that are no longer required to produce the wealth.

As economists note we've entered a "barbell" economy where there are the wealthy and the poor. The wealthy benefit from the reduction in human labor in producing food and goods while the workers suffer because of less labor being required to produce the wealth. As less and less labor is required for the production of goods the amount of wealth to be distributed to the labor force shrinks resulting in more people receiving an ever decreasing percentage of the wealth created by the economy. Basically we have an ever decreasing percentage of the "pie" being shared by more and more people every year.

thegazette.com/subject/opinion/guest-columnists/barbell-economy-and-governments-response-20140611   

We can see this in the recent recovery from the 2008 Recession where the wealthy have recouped from it while the middle and lower income groups have not.

news.yahoo.com/charts-rich-won-great-recession-130300311.html

One more article I will share relates to the fact that while "productivity" has increased (because of AI and technology) compensation relative to productivity basically hasn't. For example, using manufacturing as an example, while the production of goods per capita has increased dramatically since 1970 the number of people producing those goods per capita  has declined by almost 1/2 in the United States (from about 24.5% to 12.9%). If the percentages are to equalize out then someone working in manufacturing today should be earning almost double what they did in 1970 (adjusted for inflation) for the "productivity = labor" but that hasn't happened. Virtually all of the increased wealth being produced has been transferred to the owners of enterprise as opposed to the workers. I don't necessarily agree with the conclusions of this last article but it does highlight the problem.

finance.yahoo.com/news/real-root-america-wage-problem-103000382.html

I've previously supplied the link to the predicted expansion of AI where it AI is projected to equal all of human intelligence by 2045. Whether you agree with that prediction or not specifically you cannot deny that AI is expanding daily. With the expanding AI also comes advances in technology. As I've mentioned even something as advanced as a surgeon's knowledge and skills can be replaced by a computer and robot assuming the computer has more knowledge than the surgeon and the robot is more skilled. I can't think of any "job" that can't be replaced by a computer with the potential exception of art that is an expression of humanism. When it comes to production and distribution of wealth there is nothing that a computer and a robot can't do. When all of the wealth is created by computers and robots the only ones that have any wealth are the owners of the computers and robots.

It is something that has been happening for decades and it is going to keep happening until human labor is no longer required. That can be by 2045 or 2065 or by 2100 but it's going to happen. It's just a matter of time.  

Your larger point--i.e. that "the South" is defined by something other than just geography--is certainly correct. If it were not, there would be no good reason for Virginia to be considered a Southern state, whereas Kentucky--which is no farther North than Virginia is--is considered a Border state. (That is doubtless because Virginia seceded from the Union, in the lead-up to the Civil War; but Kentucky never did secede, and, in fact, had many men fighting for each side.)

Still, I would not consider the state of Kansas--even "Bleeding Kansas," as it was known in the mid-nineteenth century--to be a Southern state. 

Your reference to "disproportionate impact" sounds eerily similar to the "disparate impact" to which some have referred.

As Wikipedia puts it:

The disparate impact doctrine is controversial because it can require persons to intentionally discriminate against one group in order to avoid creating a disparate impact on another group, and that intentional discrimination can amount to illegal disparate treatment or a violation of the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection.

You may be overlooking the simple fact that there is an enormous difference between the maximum and the optimum.  If that were not the case, a loaf of bread could sell for $25 a loaf.  Or $250 a loaf.  Or even $2,500 a loaf.  Retailers have figured that out already.

Likewise, some use of robotics and artificial intelligence may, indeed, help enhance a company's bottom line.  But if 90 percent of all Americans were suddenly left unemployed--and therefore unable to act as consumers--any savings made by the use of robotics and artificial intelligence would be vastly offset by the inability of Americans to purchase the products manufactured.  So it would not amount to a windfall for business. 

As I believe I mentioned it would be my opinion that the worst states for blacks being formerly non-slave states is because the demographic percentage of blacks is typically less in those states. It's easier for a "super-majority" to oppress a smaller minority. When I read the study on the worst states for blacks I was struck by the fact that generally the percentage of blacks in the identified states were typically about 1/2 of the national statistic. There was correlation between a high white population and a small black population that could reflect cause and effect.

I used the term disproportionate and not disparate. What we need to do is look at history. There were no laws restricting immigration and even non-citizens were allowed to vote in about 40 states and territories at one time. The laws restricting immigration that began around the turn of the 20th Century were based upon "racism" (i.e, blocking non-WASP immigration) and that also corresponded to the revocation of the right to vote for non-citizens. We can also note that the laws related to voting also targeted blacks to prevent them from voting, without being based upon "racial" criteria (e.g. poll taxes and literacy tests) were referred to as Jim Crow voting laws. The denial of immigration, the revocation of the right to vote for non-citizens, and Jim Crow voting laws were always based upon racism and all were "rationalized" for other reasons. The racism in these laws today is no different than it was at the turn of the 20th Century.

The laws are still being rationalized and they are still racist because of the disproportionate impact. Unlike the "disparity" you referred to there doesn't need to be discrimination against anyone to resolve the problem of disproportionate impact created by these laws founded upon historical racism. Allowing non-citizens to vote, for example, does not violate any rights of the citizen nor does it create any discrimination against the citizen. Allowing open immigration does not violate the rights of the citizen nor does it create any discrimination against the citizen. Not having voter ID laws does not violate any rights of the citizen but it does discriminte against the US citizens that doesn't have the "approved" form of government issued identification.  

The problem is that 90% of the workers will not suddenly become unemployed. The problem is that they will first be driven into poverty. If 90% suddenly became unemployed I'd expect a violent revolution and a violent revolution can also be triggered by severe poverty expanding to the majority of Americans. The problem of ever expanding poverty because of AI and technology that replaces labor is a threat to the very existance of the United States which is why I believe it needs to be addressed today. The writing is on the wall.

Dec 29, 2014 20:03:18 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Your "ever expanding poverty" also would not be good for manufacturers, who would surely lose more in potential sales than they would save through lower production costs. (The typical CEO--or even middle manager--would surely not be so obtuse as to be unable to figure that out.)

Yes, you did, indeed, say "disproportionate," rather than disparate.  But I believe that is really the proverbial distinction without a difference. 

I strongly disagree with your assertion that our allowing non-citizens to vote would do nothing to negatively impact the interests of actual American citizens. It would dilute the vote of the rest of us; and I am concerned exclusively with the interests of American citizens--not with the interests of illegal residents of this country. 

And I am not especially concerned with the pedigree of any particular laws. A hundred years ago, there was, indeed, widespread sentiment against non-WASPs; which is why some stores even had signs reading, "Irish Need Not Apply." (At the time, blacks and women were considered inherently inferior beings; and Catholics were considered the emissaries of evil.)  But to impute bad motives to those of us nowadays who disagree with your views is, at the least, very wrongheaded--if not altogether self-righteous. 

Your first belief (i.e. that manufacturers would see a drop in sales because of AI and technology) has already been disproven. People are consuming more goods per capita while the number of jobs producing the goods has declined by almost 1/2 since 1970. The manufacturers are producing more goods and owners are making more money than ever before. The Dow Jones Industrial Averages topped 18,000 last week (but I haven't checked to see if they remaind there).

Disparate referred to situations where discrimination needed to be employed to resolve the problem but that doesn't exist when we address disproportionate. As I noted the problems we have with disproportionate impacts can be resolved without any discrimination. They are caused by discrimination and all we need do is eliminate the discrimination.

Who said anything about "illegals" voting? In many of the states and territories were non-citizens were historically allowed to vote they had to already be involved in the naturalization process. In short they were "soon-to-be" US citizens and many experts believe that the "voting" experience creates superior naturalized citizens (that in many ways are superior to natural born citizens). America as a nation literally benefits from the non-citizen, that's becoming a naturalized citizen, voting. It involves them in the voting process for their US House Representatives (that literally represent them under the US Constitution) and state/local government representatives that authorize the spending of the dollars they pay in taxation.    

Are you not concerned that the laws are disproportionately discriminatory? These laws do create discrimination under the law because of how they're crafted. It is intentional discimination and it is not occuring by accident.

We know, for example, that when Republicans were crafting the voting laws for Florida the purpose was to reduce voting by blacks. We know that because those Republicans responsible for crafting the laws have stated that was the purpose of the revision to the voting laws. They investigated the voting habits of the black voters and then crafted the laws to make it harder for the blacks to vote.

Republicans around the country found, for example, that blacks often meet at local churches the Saturday before the election and traveled by bus to the polling place as a group. Simple fix - end early voting on the Saturday before the election and it stops thousands of blacks from voting. Republicans found that 25% of black voters didn't have valid government issued ID. The fix was easy - require official government ID to vote and it eliminates 25% of black voters.

Republicans could have avoided the denial of franchise to 25% of blacks and still accomplished what they "say" they were addressing (i.e. voter impersonation at the polls that statistically doesn't exist). They could have crafted a law that said anyone without official government ID could submit a provisional ballot that would be checked out before being counted but that wouldn't have stopped blacks from voting.  The Republicans were smart enough to know that only by denying the right to vote based upon "valid government ID" could they stop millions of blacks from voting.

Jan 5, 2015 19:00:51 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Once again, you have not stopped at merely disagreeing with others; but have, instead, imputed bad motives to them.  Without any evidence to support your assertion, for instance, you have declared that the very "purpose" of voting laws in Florida, crafted by Those Evil Republicans, was to "reduce voting by blacks."

I do agree, however, that "a provisional ballot" would have been a good compromise solution. Sadly, however, the left has often attacked similar laws in other states. And you really cannot have it both ways.  

It was members of the GOP that crafted the Florida voting laws that stated the real goal was to suppress minority voting.

Crist said party leaders approached him during his 2007-2011 gubernatorial term about changing early voting, in an effort to suppress Democrat turnout. Crist is now at odds with the GOP, since abandoning the party to run for U.S. Senate as an independent in 2010. He is rumored to be planning another run for governor, as a Democrat.

Crist said in a telephone interview this month that he did not recall conversations about early voting specifically targeting black voters "but it looked to me like that was what was being suggested. And I didn't want them to go there at all."

About inhibiting minority voters, Greer said:

"The sad thing about that is yes, there is prejudice and racism in the party but the real prevailing thought is that they don't think minorities will ever vote Republican," he said. "It's not really a broad-based racist issue. It's simply that the Republican Party gave up a long time ago ever believing that anything they did would get minorities to vote for them."

But a GOP consultant who asked to remain anonymous out of fear of retribution said black voters were a concern.

"I know that the cutting out of the Sunday before Election Day was one of their targets only because that's a big day when the black churches organize themselves," he said.

GOP spokesman Burgess discounted Crist's statement to The Post.

"Charlie Crist speaks out of both sides of his mouth," he said.

seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2019771284_floridavoting28.html

The voting laws are about suppressing minority voting (i.e. racist) and the GOP propaganda that these laws were about election fraud were nothing but a cover for this goal of reducing the vote of minority US citizens.

The Democrats had absolutely nothing to do with these voting laws and the GOP could have included the "provisional ballot" had they wanted to because the laws didn't require any support from Democrats. The reason the GOP didn't include a "provisional ballot" in the Voter ID laws is that it would have defeated their purpose of denying black and Hispanic citizens of their right to vote.   

Jan 7, 2015 21:28:16 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Jan 6, 2015 12:30:24 GMT ShivaTD said:

It was members of the GOP that crafted the Florida voting laws that stated the real goal was to suppress minority voting.

Crist said party leaders approached him during his 2007-2011 gubernatorial term about changing early voting, in an effort to suppress Democrat turnout. Crist is now at odds with the GOP, since abandoning the party to run for U.S. Senate as an independent in 2010. He is rumored to be planning another run for governor, as a Democrat.

Crist said in a telephone interview this month that he did not recall conversations about early voting specifically targeting black voters "but it looked to me like that was what was being suggested. And I didn't want them to go there at all."

About inhibiting minority voters, Greer said:

"The sad thing about that is yes, there is prejudice and racism in the party but the real prevailing thought is that they don't think minorities will ever vote Republican," he said. "It's not really a broad-based racist issue. It's simply that the Republican Party gave up a long time ago ever believing that anything they did would get minorities to vote for them."

But a GOP consultant who asked to remain anonymous out of fear of retribution said black voters were a concern.

"I know that the cutting out of the Sunday before Election Day was one of their targets only because that's a big day when the black churches organize themselves," he said.

GOP spokesman Burgess discounted Crist's statement to The Post.

"Charlie Crist speaks out of both sides of his mouth," he said.

seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2019771284_floridavoting28.html

The voting laws are about suppressing minority voting (i.e. racist) and the GOP propaganda that these laws were about election fraud were nothing but a cover for this goal of reducing the vote of minority US citizens.

The Democrats had absolutely nothing to do with these voting laws and the GOP could have included the "provisional ballot" had they wanted to because the laws didn't require any support from Democrats. The reason the GOP didn't include a "provisional ballot" in the Voter ID laws is that it would have defeated their purpose of denying black and Hispanic citizens of their right to vote.   

So, you are relying exclusively upon anonymous sources (plus the Republican-turned-independent-turned-Democrat, Charlie Crist) to support your theory?

If your theory were correct (which I very seriously doubt), it would surely reflect deep cynicism by the GOP--but not "racism," as the term is typically understood. 

Former Florida GOP Chairman Jim Greer is hardly an anonymous source.

"In the deposition, released to the press yesterday, Greer mentioned a December 2009 meeting with party officials. “I was upset because the political consultants and staff were talking about voter suppression and keeping blacks from voting,” he said, according to the Tampa Bay Times. He also said party officials discussed how “minority outreach programs were not fit for the Republican Party,” according to the AP."

www.salon.com/2012/07/27/fla_republican_we_suppressed_black_votes/

Yes, Greer did get in trouble over campaign finanancing but that is completely unrelated to the veracity of his statements about the drafting of the voting laws in Florida that he was intimately involved in.

I would like to know what your definition of racism is because, apparently in your eyes, the Jim Crow voting laws in the South prior to the Voting Rights Act were not racist.

"Other Jim Crow laws did not specifically mention race, but were written and applied in ways that discriminated against blacks. Literacy tests and poll taxes, administered with informal loopholes and trick questions, barred nearly all blacks from voting. For example, though more than 130,000 blacks were registered to vote in Louisiana in 1896, only 1,342 were on the rolls in 1904."

orig.jacksonsun.com/civilrights/sec1_crow.shtml

Even if a law doesn't specifically use "race" to create discrimination if, by it's effects, it causes massive discrimination then it is a Jim Crow voting law. The fact that Republicans rationalize voting laws that discriminate against blacks without mentioning race in the law itself does not imply that they're not racist laws. There is literally no difference between the prior Jim Crow era literacy tests and poll taxes and the current voter ID laws that disenfranchise millions of black voters.