Can anyone tell me what is the address of the French Ministry of Finance?

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/566770 http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/110750/recovery-evident-mainly-statisticians?mod=bb-budgeting http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ulu3SCAmeBA&feature=player_embedded

• 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.