• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

$423,500 Stimulus Program on 'Correct Condom Use' Yields....

Whitewing

Well-known member
....zero jobs. Though I'm sure someone got stimulated by the experience. Shovel ready OT?

The details of a stimulus grant awarded to Indiana University to study condom use have now been released on a government website. The study, titled "Barriers to Correct Condom Use," is now completed, according to the website, and the university received $423,500 of stimulus funds to perform the study.

The stimulus project yielded a total of 0.00 jobs created, according to the federal government. "No jobs created/retained," the form says under "Description of Jobs Created."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/stimulus-program-correct-condom-use-costs-half-million-dollars-yields-zero-jobs_714500.html

Wouldn't it be interesting to know how many more chunks of $400 - $500K of confiscated tax dollars have been flushed down the commode?

One would think that eventually the Amerikan people would stand up and say "enough", but I believe the country is now past that point. It's other people's money so who gives a fat rat's ass?
 

Tom in TN

Well-known member
I live on a farm in southern Middle Tennessee about 15 miles from our county seat which is located in Columbia, TN. The local newspaper is the Columbia Daily-Herald. Very seldom does a day go by without a report in the paper about some governmental grant that has been awarded to some entity in the area.

We are one small town in one small part of one relatively small state. This problem must be replicated thousands of times over throughout the United States.

The terrifying part is that the newspaper continually congratulates the people and entities that secured the grants.

"It won't cost us nearly as much as the total project cost because the Federal Government is picking up most of the cost." Are people really that stupid?

Tom in TN
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Tom in TN said:
I live on a farm in southern Middle Tennessee about 15 miles from our county seat which is located in Columbia, TN. The local newspaper is the Columbia Daily-Herald. Very seldom does a day go by without a report in the paper about some governmental grant that has been awarded to some entity in the area.

We are one small town in one small part of one relatively small state. This problem must be replicated thousands of times over throughout the United States.

The terrifying part is that the newspaper continually congratulates the people and entities that secured the grants.

"It won't cost us nearly as much as the total project cost because the Federal Government is picking up most of the cost." Are people really that stupid?

Tom in TN

Yes, they are.

By the way, many years ago I rented a house boat for a week on a big lake (reservoir) probably not too far from you. Can't recall the name now but it was a most enjoyable vacation.

I recall catching a channel cat about as long as my arm on a trot line. :D
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Tom in TN said:
small part of one relatively small state. "

Are people really that stupid?

Tom in TN




The answer is YES if you think that TN is a small state.........




. Tennessee is the 36th most extensive and the 17th most populous of the 50 United States.
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
Tom in TN said:
small part of one relatively small state. "

Are people really that stupid?

Tom in TN




The answer is YES if you think that TN is a small state.........




. Tennessee is the 36th most extensive and the 17th most populous of the 50 United States.

How's it rank when the other 7 states are included?
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Tom in TN said:
Well, golllleee, Kola,

Us here hillbillies don't know hardly anythin' do we?


36th ain't very big are it?


Tom in TN

Perhaps she struggles with the meaning of the word, relatively?
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Whitewing said:
Tom in TN said:
Well, golllleee, Kola,

Us here hillbillies don't know hardly anythin' do we?


36th ain't very big are it?


Tom in TN

Perhaps she struggles with the meaning of the word, relatively?

I'm pretty sure, relatively, has something to do with "kissing cousins", in her neck of the woods. :lol:
 

Tam

Well-known member
Whitewing said:
....zero jobs. Though I'm sure someone got stimulated by the experience. Shovel ready OT?

The details of a stimulus grant awarded to Indiana University to study condom use have now been released on a government website. The study, titled "Barriers to Correct Condom Use," is now completed, according to the website, and the university received $423,500 of stimulus funds to perform the study.

The stimulus project yielded a total of 0.00 jobs created, according to the federal government. "No jobs created/retained," the form says under "Description of Jobs Created."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/stimulus-program-correct-condom-use-costs-half-million-dollars-yields-zero-jobs_714500.html

Wouldn't it be interesting to know how many more chunks of $400 - $500K of confiscated tax dollars have been flushed down the commode?

One would think that eventually the Amerikan people would stand up and say "enough", but I believe the country is now past that point. It's other people's money so who gives a fat rat's ass?

OT is always claiming it is the Republicans that need to stay out of peoples bedrooms but I'd say with all the Penis and condom studies and the need to provide "FREE" birth control which includes abortions right up to and including live births it is the Democrat that need to stay the hell out of peoples bedrooms and stop wasting other peoples money on their need to control others lives.
 

Tam

Well-known member
More stimulus tax dollars spent on peoples sex lives. :roll:

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 received 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 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 so much tax money 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 at 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 $6,000 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 said, defending the study. "I understand people could look at it and have issues but this is research."

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 11 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, university officials 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."
Can we agree that the Dems have a problem keeping their noses out of people's bedrooms.

BTW guess who was Obama's top donor in the 2008 election?

University of California $1,648,685
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Whitewing said:
Tom in TN said:
Well, golllleee, Kola,

Us here hillbillies don't know hardly anythin' do we?


36th ain't very big are it?


Tom in TN

Perhaps she struggles with the meaning of the word, relatively?

If it is a relative male you can bet kolo=jingo=lulu=allie will get shaky knees and blush in anticipation :wink:
 

Larrry

Well-known member
Now why didn't someone spend two buck, just two bucks is all and send a couple condoms to ot and kolas folks.
Two freakin dollars :lol:
 

Steve

Well-known member
Wouldn't it be interesting to know how many more chunks of $400 - $500K of confiscated tax dollars have been flushed down the commode?

well to find out,.. hire a lobbyist,.. donate a small sum to a democrat.. promise them more donations.. lots more.. and sure enough.. they will fund a study at some liberal university.. (or in china)

if you hurry you can get it in the next infrastructure stimulus.. :p
 
Top