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 (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_ibd_ibd/56...

http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemploy...

http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article...

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ulu3SCAmeBA

Youtube thumbnail

&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 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. 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. 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% 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 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 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 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_Preside...

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_Preside...

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 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

Relevance
  • 9 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    I would love to have had more questions like that in school. That can't possibly tell us anything about IQ, but that was a cute way to phrase and fashion an important question. Do you suppose the left is capable of being honest on this one? I'm afraid I have my doubts.

    That was a really good summary, though, of two surprisingly comparable Administration's economic data. Does anyone have any explanation for why so many like to reminisce about Clinton's years in office through the 90's, while the left has still not given up on bashing Bush two-and-a-quarter years after Obama and the Democratic super-majority took total control? There have been few times in American history when one party dominated the legislative process so thoroughly, so the results should be easily recognizable and attributable to the responsible Party by anyone who's paid attention.

    Picking the different numbers was simple, and honestly, Question 1 seemed as if it could be dealing with unemployment data ahead of reading the explanation. Question 2 was a little harder to recognize, because we're seldom shown government based real unemployment data, and I'm not sure I would have come up with the two almost identical rates just over 9 percent for Bush and Clinton. I was aware, unfortunately, of the current percentage, since there's been so much information released over the past year or so identifying Obama's devastating unemployment figures, including the U6 real unemployment rate.

    Maybe that information will be news to someone who hasn't gotten it yet. Thanks for a worthy explanation to a fun sort of test that only falling off the table left leaning partisans could fail. And they'd be doing it purposely.

  • Jeanne
    Lv 4
    4 years ago

    Thanks for the explanation about Obama's historic unemployment numbers. The economy's been in trouble and gone to a dark place for more than three years now. Media efforts and extreme liberal propaganda won't convince many it's anything other than what it is. The links and specific BLS Series Report information offer invaluable support. Normal people find it hard to argue with such evidence, but that was part of the point of the question, wasn't it. Liberals love to tell everyone how bright they are, while they refuse to look at mounds of evidence in front of their faces. It would take someone with the IQ of a slug, a street-post or a rock, to fail to recognize the depth of harm to the American economy this President has forced on a citizenry who deserve better. The "Unemployment Game Show" video did an outstanding job of showing how data you referred to is adjusted before it's released to keep the number published and visible to the public manageable and less shocking. Apparently, more people are becoming aware of the bureaucratic sleight-of-hand. Nicely done. A few of your posts mentioned a background as an educator and coach, so a lesson format probably seems natural to you. For a change, that's a test worth taking!

  • Anonymous
    4 years ago

    Average IQ is 100. 100 is standard or average IQ . only a professional who has been tested can give a real test.

    Average =100. half will be above 100 and half will be below 100. IQ =100 is standard to which all people are measured against the standard of 100.

  • 9 years ago

    Factoring in that this was posted in Politics & Government was the give away for me. Otherwise I would have totally missed the correlation.

    Thanks for the figures. I've known for sometime that the beginning of the end actually started during the democrat majority Congress of 06/07 even though most liberals were/are chanting Down With Bush, but hard figures (even from the government) are sometimes hard to argue with.

    Be prepared for the "racist, bigot" onslaught from the "true believers".

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 9 years ago

    Even with an IQ as low as 142, I knew that those had to be unemployment figures!!

    You do know that the liberals/democrats are going to push obama's numbers off on President Bush!!

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    Where are your stock market figures.

    Wasn't it 7000 bush

    12500 Obama? I suppose you'll have an excuse for that.

    Not to mention that the economy was losing 750k jobs a month when Obama tool office. How can you not take this into account?

    What would I know, I only majored in poli sci (with a focus on political statistics) from UT. I'm sure your highscool teacher taught you more

    Source(s): Geez give us all a break
  • Golfer
    Lv 7
    9 years ago

    Real unemployment is over 20% using the old formula. Or using Obama mathematics we have 8.8 unemployment and 12% who have quit looking and another 6% that are homeless.

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    You do realize that, throghout the history of IQ and standardized testing, there have been complaints of bias, right?

    You know this is a prime example of the old saying: There are lies, there are damn lies, and then there are statistics.

    The truth is, no unemployment figures have been honest in over fifty years. Governments, both Rep and Dem, have been fudging statistics in order to make their economic agenda look more palatable.

    Now, in disecting this, there are a few gross discrepancies here:

    1. Both Clinton and Dubya's statistics relate to a two-term, eight-year presidency. Obama's numbers reflect only three years in office. Hence, you're comparing apples to oranges. It's a dishonest stat you propose.

    2. While Dubya inherited a minor recession from Clinton, and Clinton inherited a slightly larger one from George HW Bush, Obama came into office, inheriting the worst recession since the Great Depression. Rep trolls have been demanding miracles from Obama and cursing him for not getting them. This question completely ignores history, but then again, it's nothing new, coming from a conservative hack.

    3. In your analysis, you try to make Bush the victim of natural and manmade disasters. In truth, every president has to deal with such disasters, with massive hurricanes and earthquakes that costs us all billions in damages. They are short-term events at best, and such things mobilize economies through rebuilding. You neglect to mention anywhere in here the banking collapse near the end of Bush's regime, which I feel is a far more serious economic calamity than any local disaster, because the collapse reaches every sector in the economy and affects everyone. Again, fail for the author.

    4. Probably the most dishonest point of this post is the complete omission of the greatest economic disaster this country has faced in eighty years. Every honest source will tell you that the current recession is the greatest economic crisis we've faced since the Great Depression. I would think, if one is to do an analysis of the economic successes and failures of the last three presidencies, spanning twenty years, if one were to be seen as genuine and not building a case on false premises, they would include some mention of the worst financial disaster of the era. Where is it? This goes a long way to explaining the concocted numbers mentioned at the start.

    5. You didn't ask for my opinion, but you're going to get it, consider it a bonus. If I were to make HONEST comparisons, I would take the unemployment statistics for all three presidents, and I would use the same rubric for each. For instance, I would compare where each man's stats were at the same point in their presidency. That would be a far more honest comparison. For another, I would see where each president started, what the unemployment figures were when they started their presidency, and then compare how those figures rose and fell over the same time frame. That way, you're acknowledging that each started at different levels, instead of using the grossly misleading statistics you use, which imply they all started at the same point, and the one with the higher numbers must be doing something wrong.

    I'm sure, if you were to do this honestly--not twisting numbers to make them say what you want, not delivering biased analysis that portrays your hero as a victim and leaves out very large pieces of the puzzle--you would come out with a much different result. Honest comparisons demand you use the same criteria for each--and you didn't--it requires you to explain how each number is derived--which you didn't--and it needs a full summary of all major events over the time described--which there isn't.

    This is not a defense for Obama. This is only me wadding up a really bad piece of propaganda, filled with misinformation and key omissions, and throwing it back in your face, you hack.

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    c for both

    not rocket science

    Orwellian days are here, and with a vengeance, get ready for a huge double dip - XXL or bigger.

  • 600pm
    Lv 7
    9 years ago

    if we had that q we just fight about whos smarter..

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.