Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Ben Stein's Headintushitis

Recs

15

February 19, 2009 – Comments (7)

Wow.

In another example of Pharisaism, Treasury is now requiring the businesses that receive taxpayer money to have fewer and more modest meetings in more dreary locales -- certainly not near the beach or in Las Vegas.

This is an extremely unsophisticated attitude. I attend many of these meetings each year. The attendees have to work very hard to earn a slot at these meetings. This process actually raises productivity.

Then, once the attendees get to the meetings, they have to get up very early each day, hear speeches from experts in their fields, take notes, have seminars about their notes, hear more speeches, and meet new people to do more business. Then, exhausted from a very long day, they are offered the chance to play golf -- and my experience is that most of them are far too tired to do so.

I feel so bad... I just got back from a meeting in a very fancy place, and some of these guys at the evening entertainment -- exhausted from watching NBA clips on their netbooks and text-messaging people during company presentations -- could barely summon the energy to slobber on gogo dancers and grope the scantily clad women in the concert crowd. (The large-busted blonde falling out of her dress and yelling "I'm so hiiiigh!" was especially  popular.)

These guys weren't spending taxpayer dollars, of course.

How dare we keep the recipients of those funds away from the perks they deserve for all their hard work losing billions of dollars?

Sj

7 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On February 19, 2009 at 6:49 PM, SharpSEO (71.75) wrote:

Every time I read a Ben Stein piece, I want to smash my keyboard and projectile-vomit.

From what I've seen, he does no research of his own, at all. Just parrots what he hears from others. How he considers himself to be an economist, I have no clue.

Report this comment
#2) On February 19, 2009 at 6:53 PM, chk999 (99.97) wrote:

I've disliked Stein ever since his TV show was on cable. He hasn't improved in the decade since then.

Report this comment
#3) On February 19, 2009 at 6:57 PM, CoastalTrader (93.02) wrote:

Too exhausted to grope and slobber?  These guys are worse off than I thought.  I think you may have misdiagnosed the problem.

If these guys you described can be correlated to Wall Streeters, they are obviously angry eunuchs taking their revenge on the world.

Report this comment
#4) On February 19, 2009 at 7:16 PM, philkalasz (< 20) wrote:

Nearly 70 percent of general aviation flying hours are for business reasons. Most business aircraft are used to boost efficiency and productivity. Any proposal in Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) legislation that includes a provision for the divestiture of business aircraft will harm our industry. Banning the use of business airplanes for any company would have an negative impact on our industry and jeopardize high-paying manufacturing and other jobs. - Targeting an industry is a counterproductive response to our nation's economic situation. Congress should not be taking action to weaken an important domestic manufacturing industry. General aviation contributes more than $150 billion to the U.S. economy annually and employs more than 1,265,000 people. General aviation is one of the few industries still contributing to the nation's positive balance of trade -- with almost $12 billion in exports (38 percent of sales) in 2007. - General aviation is an important part of the country's transportation system. More than 5,000 communities rely on general aviation for their air transportation needs -- compared to the 500 communities served by scheduled airlines.

Report this comment
#5) On February 20, 2009 at 12:12 AM, StockSpreadsheet (73.31) wrote:

Phil,

They are not talking about banning all business aircraft, or personal aircraft.  They are only saying that businesses recieving TARP money must divest company aircraft.  Less than 10% of industry is getting TARP money, so banning the use of aircraft by TARP-recieving companies will not be the deathnell of the airline or aircraft industries.

Also, banning use of corporate aircraft by TARP-recieving companies will not affect exports at all.  Only American companies are recieving TARP, so this will not affect exports going to non-American companies or governments.

Also, as to boosting efficiency and productivity, I would suggest that the companies recieving TARP money could boost efficiency a lot more by ditching the corporate aircraft and most of the people that fly in them.  Most of these CEOs and upper management have been recieving millions to hundreds of millions of dollars in salary, bonuses and other compensation and flying in corporate aircraft has not helped the companies that these CEOs and management have run into the ground and that they have teetering on bankruptcy.

Also, most private citizens would not be able to fly on corporate aircraft, so forcing companies to eliminate the corporate jets will not affect the "5,000 communities" that "rely on general aviation for their air transport needs - compared to the 500 communities served by scheduled airlines".  

Therefore, most of your points have no merit in the cases cited.  Now if Congress was to ban ALL private aircraft, whether owned by corporations, (whether or not they recieve TARP funds), or by private individuals, then I would agree that we would be damaging an important industry.  But that is not what Congress is pushing, so I would suggest that your arguements have no merit.

Take care and have a nice day.

 

Craig 

Report this comment
#6) On February 20, 2009 at 3:59 PM, TMFLomax (35.62) wrote:

HA! That's hilarious. Thanks for posting... I had kind of lapsed in my "Ben Stein's completely out of touch with reality" reading here lately.

Report this comment
#7) On February 24, 2009 at 12:41 PM, TMEBenBenBen (< 20) wrote:

Nearly 70 percent of gogo-slobber hours are for business reasons. Most business go-go establishments are used to boost efficiency and productivity. Any proposal in Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) legislation that includes a provision for a decrease in gogo-slobbering will harm our industry. Banning the use of exotic dancers for any company would have an negative impact on our industry and jeopardize high-paying dancing and other support jobs. - Targeting an industry is a counterproductive response to our nation's economic situation. Congress should not be taking action to weaken an important domestic entertainment industry. Gogo establishments contributes more than 150 million  'personal stimuli' to the U.S. population daily, and we get result immediately. Gogo  is one of the few industries still contributing to the nation's positive balance of trade -- with almost 12 billion pair sightings by foreign visitors annually. - Gogo is an important part of the country's entertainment system. More than 5,000 community churches rely on gogo to have somethign amoral to fight against -- nothing compares.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement