Yet, Democrats would not have been able to paint him as the "welfare president" because of his race. Nobody would have bought into it.

With that said, I don't think you are racist, nor do I think you were asserting race in any of your posts. But you relied on a racially-charged talking point. One that is only half true at that. In fact, having followed your posts for so long, I would be shocked if you told me you were racist. As I have repeatedly stated, I like your posts (most of them anyways).

But I do agree that it is very difficult to have these conversations over a message board. They lead to heated discussions like this. Over beers, I don't think this flares up.==============================

That welfare would have expanded to the same extent under a different president is your assertion, and nothing more. It likely would have to some extent, but Obama's expansion of Food Stamps has been enormous, and is highly unlike to have happened under a "conservative Republican" administration.  

If your charge is that being tagged a welfare president is because Obama is black, then you're just a garden variety race baiter deflecting all criticism as racism because you have no other defense. If your charge is that being a welfare president is because the perceived beneficiaries of welfare expansion are black, then it is you who is the racist - because that is your perception, and it is also wrong. Whites make up the vast majority of welfare recipients.