I guess they took the idea of stimulus spending in a whole different direction

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/Stimulus-Grants-Fund-Erectile-Dysfunction-And-Sexual-Habits-Studies-151195105.html

You Paid for It! Stimulus Dollars Fund Studies into Sexual History and Erectile Dysfunction

The NBC Investigative Unit has raised questions about two grants totaling nearly $1.5 million dollars distributed to the University of California San Francisco. The money was part of the federal stimulus program and went to studies into the erectile dysfunction of overweight middle aged men and the accurate reporting of someone's sexual history.

This is part of our ongoing series of investigations by the NBC Bay Area Investigative Unit into who got federal stimulus dollars, and why some projects did not break ground more than two years after receiving the grant.

The Investigative Unit looked closely at the federal government's decision to spend nearly $1.5 million dollars of taxpayer money, money that came here to California. Grant number 1R01HD056950-01A2 was among the thousands of grants funded, receiving $1.2 million dollars. This grant studied how to improve the accuracy of how people responded to questions about their sexual history.

"If you honestly report on your sexual activity and number of partners?" Scott Amey with asked with a sigh. "That's a good one."

Amey is the general council for POGO, the Project on Government Oversight, a Washington D.C. nonpartisan non-profit government watchdog group. During our interview with an NBC crew he tried to explain why the government used that many tax dollars to improve self reports about high risk sexual behavior.

"I don't think most tax payers would think that would be a justified spending of stimulus money to conduct a sex study over fixing bridges and roads that are crumbling every day," Amey added.

NBC Bay Area talked to the University of California San Francisco, the institution that received the grant. "Does it make you wonder a little bit, stimulus money for a study like this?" Kovaleski asked Jeff Sheehy, who works at the UCSF Aids Research Center. "No it doesn't," he answered. "Because to my mind we save money if we get better health outcomes."

According to the grant, a good portion of the study will "Improve the accuracy of responses to questions," specifically questions about a person's sexual behavior. "Playing devil's advocate," Kovaleski said to Sheehy, "Do taxpayers need to spend $1.2 million dollars to figure this out?""The judgment wasn't one that I was asked," Sheehy replied.

The NBC Bay Area Investigative Unit discovered that for $1.2 million dollars, taxpayers funded a study that included 200 videotaped interviews at $6000 per interview. Kovaleski asked Sheehy to justify the spending. "I think the average person is going to look at $1.2 million dollars to interview 200 people and say Wow!" Sheehy defended the study. "I understand people could look at it and have issues but this is research," he said.

Kovaleski then asked about jobs. "How many jobs did this $1.26 million dollars create?" "Well I can't really say," Sheehy said. "There were eleven researchers hired on the job, two consultants. Well I can't say. This has not been evaluated for job creation."

The number Sheehy quoted during an interview with NBC Bay Area did not match information on recovery.gov, the government's website for stimulus funds. According to the site, the grant produced 0.85 jobs. "It does make you scratch your head and wonder," Amey said, "Wait a second taxpayer dollars went to a sex study that barely funded less than one person."

Amey was also left questioning another UCSF grant. When asked by an NBC reporter about a study into erectile dysfunction involving overweight middle aged men he replied, "Oh boy."

The grant totaled more than a quarter million dollars. Although UCSF was willing to discuss our questions about the sexual history grant, the University declined to provide an expert to talk with the NBC Investigative Unit about the erectile dysfunction grant. In a written statement provided they said in part, "Obesity related health issues currently cost $147 Billion per year in direct medical costs in the United States..... Health providers therefore continue to search for incentives to encourage people to live a healthier lifestyle, to benefit both indviduals and society.... Preliminary analysis indicates that is is feasible to enroll men in this type of research, they successfully lose the expected weight over a 12-week period, and they see an improvement in ED symptoms." You can read the entire statement by clicking here.

**Amaya**

Okay, it may arguably be a waste of money, but anything less than several million is a drop in the bucket. Not a 'huge' deal.

**Sgt_Scruffy**

It's in"dick"ative of a trend. A million here and a million there, and pretty soon you're talking about billions. You know what they say about billions.

**sebster**

Yeah, because an accurate understanding of sexual practices has absolutely no national health importance at all. No siree.

**Huffy**

sebster wrote:Yeah, because an accurate understanding of sexual practices has absolutely no national health importance at all. No siree.

shhh In america you can't talk about sex, thats just a no no

**agnosto**

Yeah that so much worse than the wacko republicans in my state passing insane anti-abortion laws and then spending millions in tax payer money defending them in court before they get stricken as unconstitutional... /sarcasm

**sebster**

Huffy wrote:shhh In america you can't talk about sex, thats just a no no

It reminds of McCain during his presidential run complaining about government funding into fruit fly research, that he said was millions of dollars being thrown into a scientific curiousity. Never mind that fruit flies are the cornerstone of genetic research because of their short lifespans (allowing us to study several generations of evolutionary change over a couple of weeks), their low cost to keep, and our complete record of their genome.

Same thing here, it's just 'a million bucks on sex studies, dem feds sure the stupid'.

**Alexzandvar**

agnosto wrote:Yeah that so much worse than the wacko republicans in my state passing insane anti-abortion laws and then spending millions in tax payer money defending them in court before they get stricken as unconstitutional... /sarcasm

This, this, and.......This!

**Frazzled**

Huffy wrote:
sebster wrote:Yeah, because an accurate understanding of sexual practices has absolutely no national health importance at all. No siree.

shhh In america you can't talk about sex, thats just a no no

As these were funds to get the economy going, and not for some sort of pharmaceutical welfare program then yea, its kind of a no no.

Stimulus was to start the economy so people could have jobs, not for the pharmaceutical industrial complex to get more benies.

**Nicorex**

Frazz with Bennies!

**Frazzled**

I wish I could see that pic.

**Joey**

Frazzled wrote:
Huffy wrote:
sebster wrote:Yeah, because an accurate understanding of sexual practices has absolutely no national health importance at all. No siree.

shhh In america you can't talk about sex, thats just a no no

As these were funds to get the economy going, and not for some sort of pharmaceutical welfare program then yea, its kind of a no no.

Stimulus was to start the economy so people could have jobs, not for the pharmaceutical industrial complex to get more benies.

So the pharamacuetical industry don't employ people? Or invest money?

**Frazzled**

As a lefty tree higger who kills mountain lions with his bare hands you of all people should be screaming about corporate welfare.

**CptJake**

Frazzled wrote:
Huffy wrote:
sebster wrote:Yeah, because an accurate understanding of sexual practices has absolutely no national health importance at all. No siree.

shhh In america you can't talk about sex, thats just a no no

As these were funds to get the economy going, and not for some sort of pharmaceutical welfare program then yea, its kind of a no no.

Stimulus was to start the economy so people could have jobs, not for the pharmaceutical industrial complex to get more benies.

It is easier to belittle the information and deflect to a different issue than to admit that perhaps the stimulus package was a waste of tax payer money.

**Nicorex**

Frazzled wrote:I wish I could see that pic.

Why cant you see it? is it a red x box to you? or just work blocked?
Its just a dauchshund wearing a tee shirt with Viagra printed on it.

**Troy**

Nicorex wrote:
Frazzled wrote:I wish I could see that pic.

Why cant you see it? is it a red x box to you? or just work blocked?
Its just a dauchshund wearing a tee shirt with Viagra printed on it.

I have the same problem. Work blocked. All the images I post are on faith.

**Frazzled**

most images are blocked at work. thats why I note youtube now, except at home.

**Chongara**

Joey wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Huffy wrote:
sebster wrote:Yeah, because an accurate understanding of sexual practices has absolutely no national health importance at all. No siree.

shhh In america you can't talk about sex, thats just a no no

As these were funds to get the economy going, and not for some sort of pharmaceutical welfare program then yea, its kind of a no no.

Stimulus was to start the economy so people could have jobs, not for the pharmaceutical industrial complex to get more benies.

So the pharamacuetical industry don't employ people? Or invest money?

Now you European city-slicker. I don't know what passes for a "Job" in French or whatever you are but around here we count real work. That I means if you ain't doin' it on a Tractor, in Factory, under a car, or with hammer it ain't not real job, it's a joke. I ain't seein' a none o my tax money spent on dick jokes.

**Frazzled**

And thats why the stimulus failed. you have no concept on hwo to spend money to create jobs. You think this crap is worthy of a job stimulus bill.

Yet strangely you also decry corporate welfare. hey this is it.

**Melissia**

I'm more worried that it's sexist. If I get a dysfunction when I reach middle age, I want there to be research about it, but they're only researching about middle aged men?

**PhantomViper**

Melissia wrote:I'm more worried that it's sexist. If I get a dysfunction when I reach middle age, I want there to be research about it, but they're only researching about middle aged men?

They are only researching about overweight middle aged men! I'm not overweight so who is going to do the research needed to fix any dysfunction I might get?

Besides, who would wan't to even contemplate the idea that overweight middle aged men actually have sex?!

/blearghh

**Melissia**

You're right, what a horrible thought...

**ShumaGorath**

You Paid for It! Stimulus Dollars Fund Studies into Sexual History and Erectile Dysfunction

The idea behind stimulus is that you pay people to fill holes and it fixes the economy.

**Frazzled**

bdump bum! He here all week ladies and gentlemen.

**sebster**

Frazzled wrote:As these were funds to get the economy going, and not for some sort of pharmaceutical welfare program then yea, its kind of a no no.

Stimulus was to start the economy so people could have jobs, not for the pharmaceutical industrial complex to get more benies.

And that is a fair criticism of these particular allocations. The money should have been spent in a timely manner.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

CptJake wrote:It is easier to belittle the information and deflect to a different issue than to admit that perhaps the stimulus package was a waste of tax payer money.

Absolute, complete piffle. The stimulus effect is impossible to deny, unless one has complete and utter ignorance of basic economic facts.

**CptJake**

sebster wrote:
Frazzled wrote:As these were funds to get the economy going, and not for some sort of pharmaceutical welfare program then yea, its kind of a no no.

Stimulus was to start the economy so people could have jobs, not for the pharmaceutical industrial complex to get more benies.

And that is a fair criticism of these particular allocations. The money should have been spent in a timely manner.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

CptJake wrote:It is easier to belittle the information and deflect to a different issue than to admit that perhaps the stimulus package was a waste of tax payer money.

Absolute, complete piffle. The stimulus effect is impossible to deny, unless one has complete and utter ignorance of basic economic facts.

Seeing as the intended use was mythical 'shovel ready jobs' and the intended effect was unemployment not going above 8%, and that billions were wasted on programs that created no jobs, I would submit your answer is absolute complete piffle.

http://media.hoover.org/sites/default/files/documents/2009-Stimulus-two-years-later.pdf

There was some positive effect of the stimulus, BUT it was not as large as what the almost trillion spent on it should have bought us. Frankly, a lot of it was wasted in ways that did not have a large effect. When you add in the 'quanitative easing' which is keeping the dollar way to low and the amount of debt the US has piled on in the last 3 years it is pretty hard to sya that the policies we have been following have worked well enough for what we have paid and will be paying.

It was not an actual stimulus package, it was a pay off my political buddies package and did indeed waste a crap ton of tax payer money.

**PhantomViper**

CptJake wrote:
It was not an actual stimulus package, it was a pay off my political buddies package and did indeed waste a crap ton of tax payer money.

In stark contrast to the previous Republican stimulus plan of "lets invade... EVERYONE", that brought jobs and prosperity for the whole world without costing the US citizens a single dime!

**dogma**

CptJake wrote:
It was not an actual stimulus package, it was a pay off my political buddies package and did indeed waste a crap ton of tax payer money.

You know those two aren't mutually exclusive, yes?

**Mannahnin**

According to the grant, a good portion of the study will "Improve the accuracy of responses to questions," specifically questions about a person's sexual behavior. "Playing devil's advocate," Kovaleski said to Sheehy, "Do taxpayers need to spend $1.2 million dollars to figure this out?""The judgment wasn't one that I was asked," Sheehy replied.

The NBC Bay Area Investigative Unit discovered that for $1.2 million dollars, taxpayers funded a study that included 200 videotaped interviews at $6000 per interview. Kovaleski asked Sheehy to justify the spending. "I think the average person is going to look at $1.2 million dollars to interview 200 people and say Wow!" Sheehy defended the study. "I understand people could look at it and have issues but this is research," he said.

Kovaleski then asked about jobs. "How many jobs did this $1.26 million dollars create?" "Well I can't really say," Sheehy said. "There were eleven researchers hired on the job, two consultants. Well I can't say. This has not been evaluated for job creation."

I can't evaluate from the info here whether this was effective as stimulus. It doesn't give us hard data about exactly how many people were hired, for how long, at what pay rates.

I can say that Improving the accuracy of responses to questions about sexual history is actually important for public health work. Amey and Kovaleski's comments make them look really ignorant. This is a significant part of disease investigation and prevention work.

**Ratius**

So drunk, Im dysfunctional right now /discount