Short IQ test. Which figure is least like the others? Can you find the value which doesn’t appear to belong?

1 A. 5.204 1 B. 5.27 1 C. 9.42 2 A. 9.175 2 B. 9.162 2 C.16.565 For anyone who hasn’t recognized the significance of the simple numeric comparisons above, Question 1 reflects BLS U3 unemployment data, as many I suspect have already recognized, for A. William Jefferson Clinton over 96 months... show more 1 A. 5.204
1 B. 5.27
1 C. 9.42

2 A. 9.175
2 B. 9.162
2 C.16.565


For anyone who hasn’t recognized the significance of the simple numeric comparisons above, Question 1 reflects BLS U3 unemployment data, as many I suspect have already recognized, for A. William Jefferson Clinton over 96 months (1/1993‒12/2000); B. George Walker Bush over 96 months (1/2001‒12/2008); C. Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro for 26 months (2/2009‒3/2011).

Since by now, most recognize U6 BLS data as what’s supposed to be the government’s most reflective figure reporting “real unemployment”, Question 2 is similar but with U6 numbers reported all the way to thousandths of a percent. So, using this more realistic and potentially more honest figure, once again the unemployment figures calculated by the Department of Labor and released through the Bureau of Labor Statistics show almost identical figures across eight years (96 months) of the Clinton and Bush Administrations, with Clinton’s figures actually coming in higher than Bush’s by 13 one thousandths of a percent. Then there’s U6 data from the current economic disaster attributed solely to Democrats thanks to their super majority. Answer C., which is obviously the dramatically larger figure, is an average of U6 data over 26 months of Obama’s [non] leadership (2/2009-3/2011). The 16.565 BLS real unemployment figure for this President reflects an 80.5% increase over Clinton’s rates and marginally more at 80.8% higher rate of real unemployment than Americans were forced to endure under Bush.

Perhaps what makes the figures even more amazing were the two unprecedented disasters the Bush Administration endured that were more costly to the country in terms of job losses than any other President has had to deal with over uncontrollable externally caused events. While Hurricane Katrina was the most devastating natural disaster occurring on American soil in history and the costliest by all accounts at more than 125 billion, that differed from the strategic attack and destruction of the Twin Towers along with costly, major damage to the Pentagon, which was anything but natural. The attack, which led to visible, raucous celebrations across much of the Muslim world, led to a direct response by determined leadership to address Muslim terrorists’ reign in Afghanistan and Iraq, and may have played a small role in the supposedly humanitarian armed conflict the current Administration has added as a third, apparently mostly nation building front.

Does it surprise some in the Y!A community to learn that until the first Democratic budget put in place by Pelosi and crew in 2007, President Bush had significantly more favorable economic and unemployment data, in spite of the two disasters, than his predecessor? The initial Democratic budget was in force as of July 2007, and far from uncoincidentally, the economy started showing signs of stress and a distinct downturn by the end of the budget year’s second quarter. With the second Pelosi led budget, the economy was in full retreat, and Bush’s unemployment and economic record would be reduced to a virtual draw statistically over the eight years, incorporating fully 96 months of data, while our prior two Presidents held office.

Okay, time to fess up. How many got the answers right, and how many of you knew what they were regarding ahead of any explanation? While it would seem inconceivable that anyone with an IQ of 80-90 or better should miss the simple comparative figures, we’re shown thousands of times daily by one group in Politics that either IQ or, where that's not the determining factor, some measure of honesty is in short supply.

Anyone else up for change that more than a handful of liberal elite and illuminati can believe in? Please don’t tell me there are holdouts suggesting positive change is expected any longer under the left’s darling and MSM’s Chosen One.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20110322/bs_...
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_dat...
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeti...
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ulu3SCAmeBA&feature=player_embedded
Update: Since you were willing to suggest several more measures which you wanted to see, Arjay, I'll willingly comply with information that might be seen as valuable to all. Through the first 26 months of seasonally adjusted U3 figures, former President Clinton managed a rate of 6.43%. Among his ways of addressing... show more Since you were willing to suggest several more measures which you wanted to see, Arjay, I'll willingly comply with information that might be seen as valuable to all.

Through the first 26 months of seasonally adjusted U3 figures, former President Clinton managed a rate of 6.43%. Among his ways of addressing unemployment early in his Administration was overseeing sweeping changes for who would be considered and included as unemployed in 1994. That was when the first calculations for U6 unemployment were made, because no one assigned to statistical analysis within the BLS felt it was acceptable to simply remove as many of the unemployed as U3 was designed to do without having some statistical measure that would include most of the unfortunate individuals without jobs or income.

During a comparable 26 month period upon taking office, President George Walker Bush managed a respectable 5.30% rate, which was the best of the three Presidents by far. Since no other President has had two such
Update 2: horrific domestic disasters to deal with, it's probably also worth mentioning that ahead of September 11, 2001, there was not a single month where unemployment was calculated above 5%, but the climb was steady for most of two years in the immediate aftermath before starting a recognizable and encouraging decline.... show more horrific domestic disasters to deal with, it's probably also worth mentioning that ahead of September 11, 2001, there was not a single month where unemployment was calculated above 5%, but the climb was steady for most of two years in the immediate aftermath before starting a recognizable and encouraging decline. Two of President Bush's three years of unemployment in the mid 4% range came after a solid economic recovery during 2006 and 2007. And 2005 was hardly anything to sneeze at with an annual U3 rate of 5.08%. There was not a single month above 6% unemployment until midway into the first quarter of the second Democratic budget put into place under Pelosi. When the news media hammered the economy in print and across the airwaves, and by the time every major source had begun to predict Obama would be elected President, public sentiment was shaken and the decline was sharp. The first figure to reach the mid 6% range was released just days before the election at a 6.6% rate. During th
Update 3: horrific domestic disasters to deal with, it's probably also worth mentioning that ahead of September 11, 2001, there was not a single month where unemployment was calculated above 5%, but the climb was steady for most of two years in the immediate aftermath before starting a recognizable and encouraging decline.... show more horrific domestic disasters to deal with, it's probably also worth mentioning that ahead of September 11, 2001, there was not a single month where unemployment was calculated above 5%, but the climb was steady for most of two years in the immediate aftermath before starting a recognizable and encouraging decline. Two of President Bush's three years of unemployment in the mid 4% range came after a solid economic recovery during 2006 and 2007. And 2005 was hardly anything to sneeze at with an annual U3 rate of 5.08%. There was not a single month above 6% unemployment until midway into the first quarter of the second Democratic budget put into place under Pelosi. When the news media hammered the economy in print and across the airwaves, and by the time every major source had begun to predict Obama would be elected President, public sentiment was shaken and the decline was sharp. The first figure to reach the mid 6% range was released just days before the election at a 6.6% rate. During th
Update 4: President's waning days in office as a lame duck with a hostile opposition party Congress, the second Democratic budget took its toll with successive U3 figures of 6.8% and 7.3%, ahead of the final shared month, which could be attributable to one or the other of the two Presidents, or both, at 7.8%. Since 7.8%... show more President's waning days in office as a lame duck with a hostile opposition party Congress, the second Democratic budget took its toll with successive U3 figures of 6.8% and 7.3%, ahead of the final shared month, which could be attributable to one or the other of the two Presidents, or both, at 7.8%.

Since 7.8% would be by far and away the lowest, and least embarrassing unemployment figure during Obama's Presidency through nine quarters (2 1/4 years for the math challenged), I'm sure Dems and the rest of the country would love to see such respectable single digit numbers again, which were considerably below Obama's 26 month average at 9.42%. At least the slow build-up after Obama took office saved his average from double figures, which the economy limped to during the third quarter of 2009 for the first time since unemployment statistics were changed specifically to hide the real extent of the problem under Clinton in '94. Using U6 calculations, the dark final quarter of 2009 topped 17
Update 5: % real unemployment, according to BLS statistics for the first time on record, before reaching 18% in January 2010 and averaging just shy of that figure for the quarter. There’s little question the Democratic budgets enacted July 1, 2007, and then July 1,2008 took a significant toll on the economy. So too did the... show more % real unemployment, according to BLS statistics for the first time on record, before reaching 18% in January 2010 and averaging just shy of that figure for the quarter.

There’s little question the Democratic budgets enacted July 1, 2007, and then July 1,2008 took a significant toll on the economy. So too did the liberal press hammering away at consumer sentiment, which served Democrats well in the election held during November, 2008, but not so well afterward. Few with any ability to reason or assess the political climate had confidence in the inexperienced newcomer who would alternately try to press his personal socialist agenda and policy initiatives, with allowing remarkably unobstructed legislation from the Democratic Supermajority in Congress to hammer a weary public with increasing debt and skyrocketing unemployment. You didn’t think the public would be entirely unaware come November 4, 2010, did you? Most of the public believes the bloodletting will continue full force when th
Update 6: the next critical elections take place in 2012. Since you had questions about comparing apples to apples, so to speak, to address comparable 26 month periods unemployment rates turned in under each President, I’m glad to be able to post a direct answer. It was hardly an unreasonable request. So let’s summarize... show more the next critical elections take place in 2012.

Since you had questions about comparing apples to apples, so to speak, to address comparable 26 month periods unemployment rates turned in under each President, I’m glad to be able to post a direct answer. It was hardly an unreasonable request.

So let’s summarize here for the three Presidents listed above in what was supposed to be a fun way of calling attention to real statistics that the public might benefit from being more aware of.

President Clinton’s 26 month U3 average 1993 to the first quarter of 1995: 6.43%
President Bush’s 26 month U3 average 2001 thru the first quarter of 2003: 5.30%
President Obama’s 26 month U3 average 2009 to the first quarter of 2011: 9.42%

Guess you didn’t have a lot of fun with the mini IQ test did you, Arjay? None of us would have anticipated such hard and fast BLS statistics being an easy thing to swallow for liberal Democrats. How could it be? But thanks for giving it a shot.
Update 7: I'd be pleased to address some of your concerns, as well, Troy. I'll include a link which points out the job losses under Obama in 2009 being the highest since World War II at 4 million. The rate of increase in job losses year over year more than doubled in 2009 under Obama at 54.3%, while President Bush's toughest... show more I'd be pleased to address some of your concerns, as well, Troy. I'll include a link which points out the job losses under Obama in 2009 being the highest since World War II at 4 million. The rate of increase in job losses year over year more than doubled in 2009 under Obama at 54.3%, while President Bush's toughest year came in with a 26.5% rise in unemployment across 2008. That data came from BLS Series Report 20101008124546, unadjusted unemployment U6 aggregate rate.

On a quarterly basis during 2008, through the first three quarters (Jan.- Sept.), the economic downturn showed losses under "W" at an average of 208,000 per month. Not quite the 750,000 per month you suggested. In fact during all of 2008, there were a total of two months where job losses exceeded 660,000. Obama's figures, like with every other economic indicator, dropped like a lead weight from the first part of 2009. His Administration experienced job losses at a rate of 418,000 per month over the same period in 2010,…
Update 8: with 3,759,000 Americans displaced from January through September. Data for comparison was taken from BLS Series Report 20101029014334, Seasonal unemployment level in thousands. http://www.mrc.org/bmi/articles/2010/Obama_Presides_Over_Most_Jobs_Lost_Since_.html I trust you're able to follow whose economy took a... show more with 3,759,000 Americans displaced from January through September. Data for comparison was taken from BLS Series Report 20101029014334, Seasonal unemployment level in thousands.

http://www.mrc.org/bmi/articles/2010/Oba...

I trust you're able to follow whose economy took a bit of a downturn into modest recession, in comparison to employment and economic figures under Obama that fell immediately into the deepest depression the American economy has seen since the end of the roaring 20's limped into the 1930's.

The DOW Jones averages are another item altogether, but your data is disappointingly confused, again, Troy. After reaching unprecedented heights with impressive monthly gains across 2006 and 2007, which remained above 13,000 for much of 2007, the DOW reached its pinnacle when it topped 14,000 in October, 2007. During October 2008, just weeks before the election, the DOW stood at 10,850.06.
Update 9: with 3,759,000 Americans displaced from January through September. Data for comparison was taken from BLS Series Report 20101029014334, Seasonal unemployment level in thousands. http://www.mrc.org/bmi/articles/2010/Obama_Presides_Over_Most_Jobs_Lost_Since_.html I trust you're able to follow whose economy took a... show more with 3,759,000 Americans displaced from January through September. Data for comparison was taken from BLS Series Report 20101029014334, Seasonal unemployment level in thousands.

http://www.mrc.org/bmi/articles/2010/Oba...

I trust you're able to follow whose economy took a bit of a downturn into modest recession, in comparison to employment and economic figures under Obama that fell immediately into the deepest depression the American economy has seen since the end of the roaring 20's limped into the 1930's.

The DOW Jones averages are another item altogether, but your data is disappointingly confused, again, Troy. After reaching unprecedented heights with impressive monthly gains across 2006 and 2007, which remained above 13,000 for much of 2007, the DOW reached its pinnacle when it topped 14,000 in October, 2007. During October 2008, just weeks before the election, the DOW stood at 10,850.06.
Update 10: With obvious concern over who was about to take leadership, the market fell to 9034.69 as of January 2, 2009. On February 27, 2009, just five weeks into Obama's Presidency, the DOW had tanked to 7062.93. But it got worse. During the early part of March, the financial market was absolutely devastated with financial... show more With obvious concern over who was about to take leadership, the market fell to 9034.69 as of January 2, 2009. On February 27, 2009, just five weeks into Obama's Presidency, the DOW had tanked to 7062.93. But it got worse. During the early part of March, the financial market was absolutely devastated with financial institutions and careers on the ropes when the DOW sank to 1996-97 levels at 6626.94.

Just so we get this right, your concerns about a stock market at 7000 under Bush was totally incorrect, but within weeks of Obama taking his place in the Oval Office that's precisely what we had. Just under two months into the Anointed One's Presidency, the DOW Jones average had fallen off the table having lost 27% of its value and devastating America's wealth like no one had seen, once again, since the Great Depression. Perhaps you should do a little more research, Troy, before confusing who was, and is, responsible for the economy that's brought back a term not used for 80 years.
11 answers 11