Racism is Behind Obama’s Poll Numbers

Waters pushed onto land from a Tsunami recede quickly, and most waters of flash floods also recede by default. Things are messy for months and years to come only if you don’t do a good job in cleaning up the damage.

In terms of the economy, we would not be losing 750,000 jobs a month for ever (we were down to -361K by May of 2009 and down to -42K by November of that year). Better yet, Ben Bernanke said a few months ago that some job gains of recent years are only due to firms filling posts that they hasty vacated during the panic, and not because the economy is doing great.

So just because we are not losing 750,000 jobs a month now as we did when Obama came into office, and just because some jobs lost in the recession came back, does not mean we have a great economic policy in place. What “great” Bush Policy caused the New Orleans water to recede in most areas to mere ponds within days of Katrina? Nothing! Therefore one has to wonder why Democrats and Liberals give Obama a pass on an economy that in many ways is now worse than during the recession.

Is it possible that the Democrats, the party that harvest racist segregationists in the past, are back to their old ways and therefore expect less from a Black President than from a White Man in the White House?

Consider a few key numbers:

> The opposing party (the Democrats) had control of the House and Senate during Bush’s last two years in office, yet all and whatever happened during those two years is completely Bush’s fault. But somehow all the troubles in the country since Obama came into office are due to the opposing party having the House for 20 of Obama’s 44 months in office. Why?

> GDP in Q2 came in at 1.3%. That’s the same rate as Q2 2008 when Democrats bashed “The Bush Economy” and its well below the 4.3% we had this time in 1992 when Bush Sr. ran for re-election. Under their watch the same or better numbers was a bad thing. But now we all need to cheer poor Obama?

> Bush Sr. left Clinton an economy that gained 254,000 jobs per month and it’s considered “bad.” Obama’s economy in recent months gave us an average job growth of 94,000 jobs per month and we need to consider it great times?

> The Unemployment Rate in 1992 and when Bush 43 left office were lower than it is now; Obama’s best month in office. Furthermore, if we calculate the UR during the above two periods as we count it now (a reduced Labor Force Participation Rate), Bush Senior’s Unemployment Rate at this time would be at around 4.6% and the Rate the younger Bush left for Obama would also be well below 5%. But of course “Those Bushes” had terrible economies, but Obama’s 8.1% UR is great. Why?

> Gas prices in September were on average higher than all but two months of the Bush 43 Presidency. Have you heard anywhere about it? Why not?

> Days before Obama came into office, the CBO projected that the FY2012 deficit will be $265 billion: It’s almost $1.2 trillion. Why does Obama get a pass? Is it because he is black and Liberals don’t except him to do a decent job with a budget?

> The National Debt rose by $3.0 trillion in Bush’s second term, which included two wars, a recession, a “worst economy since the great depression” (and a Dem Congress half the time). By contrast, the national debt rose by $5.38 trillion in less than one Obama Term even after “ending the war in Iraq” and “bringing the troops home from Afghanistan,” Which according to Dems caused SO much debt. Why are Dems ok with these Debt numbers?

> Obama keeps saying that if only we roll back “The tax cuts for the rich” to the rate of the 1990s, it would seriously help balance the budget. Is Obama’s skin color the reason why Liberal and Democrats don’t point out to the President that the annual cost of Bush Tax Cuts for the Rich (less than $80 billion a YEAR) would not cover one MONTH of Obama deficits? I mean, do Dems think a Black President can’t do math and as such let him live in error?

> We are losing now 32 troops a month in Afghanistan; exactly double the rate we lost in Iraq when Bush left office. Why was Iraq considered a mess in late 2008 while now in 2012 Obama gets a free pass to sell Afghanistan as a war “that we are ending” despite the worse off death rate of our troops?

The only practical reason why Democrats and Liberals can claim that the current economic situation of this country is anything but a mess, is because they expect less from Obama due to his skin color, and this my friends is pure racism on the part of Democrats.

  • realistic

    What don’t you understand? Romney wasn’t able to persuade Americans that he has any better plan! it’s not that people are satisfied the way things go, they just don’t seem to have any alternative

  • http://twitter.com/HookemATXFan anonymouz

    “Why are Dems ok with these Debt numbers?”
    I don’t think ANYONE is okay with those numbers. Everyone realizes we must cut the deficit, but the entire burden should not be thrust onto the backs of the working class. The rich have had it good for the past 12 years. Even now, during the Great Recession when so many are struggling things have never been better for Wall Street. Everyone has to give up a little to balance the budget, but Romney/Ryan want to do the same old Republican gimmick of giving the wealthiest people in the world a huge tax cut and cutting what little government services society provides for those who are not corporate raiders/private equity CEOs who pay 15% capital gains tax.

    • http://twitter.com/YossiGestetner Yossi Gestetner

      Correct. the Burdan should not be on the middle class, that’s why the Bush Tax Cuts gave $100 billion a year for the poor/middle class.

      In addition, rolling back the TWELVE year “cost” of Bush Tax Cuts for the Rich, would not cover even one annaul Obama deficit. So I guess the deficit problem is 12 times meo on the side of spending than what we take or dont take from the rich.

      If Clinton tax rates on the poor and middle class were the same as Bush (with a “cost” of $100 billion a year), he would have not produced even one surplus.

  • Tuvia Sutton

    GESTETENER YOU YESHIVA BUM WHY ARE YOU LYING TO jEWS TELLING THEM OBAMA IS SAYING THAT TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH ARE THE WAY TO BALANCE THE BUDGET WHEN HE ISNT SAYING THAT IS ALL THAT IS NEEDED, AND WHY ARE YOU LYING TO JEWS THAT THE CURRENT DEFICIT IS MOSTLY DUE TO OBAMAS SPENDING WHEN EVERY ANALYSIS AND FACT CHECK SHOWS THE TRUE BREAKDOWN OF HOW MUCH BUSH TAX CUTS, IRAQ AND PHARMACY BILL FOR SENIORS AND INTEREST ON THAT DEBT AND THE DROP IN TAX REVENUE DUE TO THE 2007 TO 2009 RECESSION AND RUINING OF THE ECONOMY AND THE CONCOMITANT SURGE IN UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PAYMENTS. HOW CAN YOU CALL YOURSELF FRUM AND LIE TO THE KLAL LIKE THIS AS THOUGH THE DEBT IS MOSTLY OBAMAS FAULT.

    HOW CAN YOU LIE BY TELLING KLAL YISROEL THAT THERE IS A CRITICISM TO BE FOUND IN OBAMA DUE TO YOUR ABSURD COMPARISON OF IRAQ CASULATIES TO AFGAN CASUALTIES– YOU ARE TRAILOR TRASH FOR PRINTING THIS STUFF THAT WILL BE CONSUMED BY THE INNOCENT KLAL.

    • http://twitter.com/YossiGestetner Yossi Gestetner

      He keeps pointing to the tax rates of the 1990s.
      In Jan 2009 the CBO knew of the wars, tax cuts and Medicare part D, yet still ecxpect a combined deficit of $700 billion for FY 2012 and 2012, but we ran up $2.5T in this same period.
      Iraq and Afghanistan are compared in the context of what you call a mess vs. success: 16 under Bush is a mess. 32 under Obama means “enidng the war.”

  • WillardGibbs

    This piece is satire, right? To make paranoid right-wingers look even nuttier than they already are? If so, job well done!

    • http://twitter.com/YossiGestetner Yossi Gestetner

      Noot satire. Simple facts

  • Jerry S

    Regarding the Bush tax cuts as cause of the financial meltdown, even the leftist Wa-Po fact checkers give Obama a 3-4 Pinocchio rating!
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-claim-that-the-bush-tax-cuts-led-to-the-economic-crisis/2012/09/30/06e8f578-0a6e-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_blog.html