People - I enjoy fellow WW fan discussions and comments but you all WILL keep a civil tongue in the comments or they will be disabled - you have been warned.
This is such a great scene. I like how after The Speaker talks about congress being in charge of the budget, like only they do it, Bartlett points out that more than 2000 people worked with all kinds of interest groups to come up with that budget.
I just realized something quite interesting:The Speaker(Steven Culp) and the President Bartlett(Martin Sheen) both played Robert Kennedy. Sheen in 1974 and Culp in 2000.
camonterey87 West Wing also has a few actors who portrayed his brother Jack: Sheen in 83 for Kennedy, Rob Lowe (Sam) in 2013 for Killing Kennedy, and Tim Matheson (Vice President Hoynes) for a 2000 movie about Jackie.
Frank Newman, former Deputy Secretary of the US Treasury, talking about the US national debt. The US national debt is nothing more than the sum of outstanding Treasury bonds. Want to decrease the Debt? Buy back the T-Bonds. People often think of the national debt as if it were a credit card loan, but this is wrong. The federal budget works nothing like a household budget, and the national debt works nothing like a household debt. A Treasury security (like a bond, bill, or note) is an asset that an investor can hold to earn interest. It is functionally equivalent to a savings account (specifically a Certificate of Deposit): you give up dollars today, you get them back after a fixed amount of time, plus interest. And they get created and paid back exactly the way a savings account does at a bank. If you purchase a CD from your bank, the bank debits your checking account, and credits your savings account. When the CD matures, the bank debits this savings account, and credits your checking account. Same with a Treasury security. If you buy one, the government (specifically the Federal Reserve) will debit your bank account, and credit a "securities account" in your name. When the bond matures, the Fed will debit the securities account, and credit your checking account. It's true that we need to pay back the debt. And we do this, every single day: as bonds mature, the Fed debits the securities accounts, and credits people's checking accounts. And then, frequently, new bonds are sold to other people, whoever would prefer to hold their savings in bond form rather than deposit form. What we never need to do is pay down the debt, ie to reduce the amount of Treasury bonds in circulation. (This would be accomplished by not issuing new bonds as old ones are paid back) This is simply not necessary, and we have only even done it on a very select few times throughout our nation's history. It's also NEVER necessary to raise taxes based on the size of the debt, so long as we have a floating exchange rate and the debt is only denominated in the currency we issue. Given those circumstances, the ONLY reason we would need to raise taxes is to reduce private sector spending in order to control inflation. But if inflation isn't a worry, then there is no need to raise taxes, no matter how large the debt is, no matter what the interest payments are, etc.
what I love about this clip is about half way through it turns into a genuine debate about conservative and liberal values. both characters seem to genuinely believe in their ideals and principles
That's the problem these days. "Ideology" breads zealots, and thus makes compromise a "sin". Bizarre to me that passing a budget, something that occurs where I live every year (with plenty of arguments and media noise), is seen as a great achievement and something to celebrate rather than them simply doing their various jobs. Incredible.
@mandellorian I would say democrats have been a bit more petty in their approach to things. At least as of late. Especially when it serves no other purpose then to play the game of politics in the modern era of social justice. Thats why we got the neo-communist and socialist blocks rising up, why we have a continued war against not policy but the apparent metaphysical meaning and intention behind said policies, and just the general disdain for the nation as a whole. The amount of democrats I have come across that would rather see the country burn then Trump coming out in a positive light is stunning. parties pass blocking one another has been the thing for ages but the reasoning behind these recent engagements are just mind blowing.
I love how he can handle an entire series of world altering crises leaving himself with 5 minutes before he has to be somewhere and says in a resigned tone, "What's next?" There is always a next thing. The job is never complete.
An example of Bartlet's unwavering sense of duty. This wasn't some personal win over an enemy for him to celebrate. It was simply part of his service to his country that continues as long as he holds the office.
Aaron Sorkin leaving was a big loss for the show. But in the later seasons I thought that the writers did a better job giving depth to the opposition than in Sorkin's years.
I agree I thin season 7 feels more as if sorkin somewhat wrote it. Although I feel it’s more of because the producers that left the show in the forth season came back.
I personally personally go back-and-forth on that quite a bit. Obviously, the audience is a little biased given how much we saw of Santos’s campaign versus FedEx in the personal level that we see but push comes to shove I probably would’ve voted for Santos. I will be honest though and it’s probably because of who they got to play him but then it was a solid candidate for one love to see the American electoral process condensed for a TV show. I got more out of it than I ever did in high school lol.
@@michaelmuldowney8sorkin could easily have written Arnold Vinnick He wrote Ainsley Hayes Joe Quincy Cliff calley Glen walken (kinda) Then in newsroom he wrote Will mcavoy. In trial of Chicago 7 he wrote Richard Shultz (presumably a republican) Sorkin can write anything he takes particular attention in created not just good democrats and evil republicans but evil democrats and good republicans. It’s no secret that Sorkin is a democrat, as are many of the people he works with, but he never made me feel excluded. Never made me feel that he hates republicans, just some republicans but even I hate some republicans like democrats hate some democrats. In the uk there’s a tradition of thought that you need both the government and the opposition to be competent at their jobs and to be electable. Since one side holds the other to account. If one side start to slip then it affects the behavior of the other side in a bad way.
@@DavidHeffron78 which part? The arrogant conservative moving the goal posts in the 11th hour of negotiation? Or the part where the arrogant conservative even shows up to the negotiation instead of voting to not even consider the bills?
@@Iceman713 The fiat currency idea pretty much explains that there is NOTHING backing up the bucks. NOT that "precious metals" are only "precious" because the whackers (i.e. the folks who run the show) SAY they have value - much like our Federal Reserve Notes.
@@nicholassmith7984 what about 2020 riots and defund the police? All the woke stuff. Pushing trans rights so hard we now have a culture where kids that behave atypical of their gender could be encouraged to believe their trans and end up on drugs that sterilize them. They’re building a culture where effeminate men and manly women aka gay people are eliminated. They’re sterilized and reassigned because we respect their decision even if we don’t trust them to buy Red Bull or lottery tickets yet. The left think that forced inclusion and race/sexual orientation based job assignment aka affirmative action is progressive rather than regressive. Only the left are opposed to freedom of speech (not all but the people opposed to free speech are always lefties) shadow banning on twitter. Sad that musk has bought it with the clear intention of making it equal for left and right. Only the left conspired to hide a story about hunter Biden until after the election.
@@jimmy2k4o So what about Hunter Biden? So what about Police reform? So what about treating Trans people with basic human dignity? Conservatives get all in a tizzy and wage this culture-war bullshit because they don't get to be arseholes to everybody anymore. That's all it is. The problem is all in your head. And you want to talk about being anti free speech; just go to Florida and try to even insinuate slavery might have happened and maybe was a bad thing.
Martin is just such an amazing actor. He does a “sigh” better than any other actor I know. I loved this shoe and still do. Current politicians could learn a lot from Aaron’s masterful scripts.
Bartlett would be a president who strongly believes in right or wrong. Our current president only cares if he can prove he didn't technically brake the law.
Well akshually... the government was, at this point in time, shut down. And the reason why it shut down was the Speaker of the House pulled a last minute, "Won't do it until you give us more" end run right before they signed the CR. Of course, the end result was an actual budget, which I don't think the US government has had since... well... this aired.
We all think with our hearts instead our heads when it comes to politics. Unless we have spent 50 years studying a particular subject and have spoken to a thousand people, we can all stand to consider the possibility that we are the ones who are wrong, and listen to differing opinions.
"Government getting off of peoples backs" as a "solution" assumes that everybody in this country actually has "bootstraps" to pull themselves up by. And the fact of the matter is that they don't.
I don't think you fully understand just how much our federal government spends and how little that produces. If you were to somehow seize the entire net worth of the 1% you would have enough to run our current federal government as is for a few months. Government spending has never and will never be the answer to anything.
@@RaidenRadio One, that last bit is a statement of political belief, not something backed up by any fact. Two, you assume I wouldn't want to change anything else, such as not spending hundreds of trillions of fucking dollars on defense. Third, you assume that my suggested solution relies on government handouts sustaining people forever, rather than enacting legislation to regulate greed (increase the minimum wage, potentially put a max on the salary CEO's and other C Suite execs can recieve, stuff like that). Fourth, I refer you back to my original point that a huge amount of people in this country don't even have bootstraps to "pull themselves up with." Government "getting out of the way" is basically condemning those people to poverty and death, and I'm not willing to accept that.
@@RaidenRadio I guess fifth, just incase you read nothing else, read this: It is the governments job to ensure everyone is taken care of, and there are a ton of proactive steps that can be taken besides just throwing money at the problem.
@@yao052 truth hurts for people like you I guess. All I know is when Trump was president we didn’t have a crisis at our southern border, China and Iran didnt fuck with us and North Korea stopped firing missiles. Now that former Vice President Joe Biden has been placed in office, they are laughing at us
Way back in the day, we disagreed. Passionately. Loudly. But some respect. And somewhere in the middle, we ended up with something. Now? We look at this as old history. Ancient. Now we get nothing because everyone wants everything with no compromise and no respect.
It's such a well acted scene. The Speaker makes a great point about public education...or at least he nearly does. I'm a product of a great public school. My school was great because we had a vibrant and prosperous and successful community. Schools are mirror images of the communities they serve, yet sometimes our public debate centers on schools as if they exist in a vacuum. Rarely in our debates on education do we stop to inquire further about the community being served by a particular failing school---the price of a new home, the employment rate, crime statistics. It's not the schools that fail, but the community as a whole. This is why I've reluctantly become a supporter of vouchers and school choice. The best thing we can do for so many kids in failing public schools is to get them out of those failed communities for at least a few hours a day, and into an environment where they can have a shot at meeting their potential.
I am also the product of public education. My school wasn't necessarily great by standards, but we had a variety of programs that enriched the learning process. But even then, public schools were hampered from the egregious amount of oversight that actively worked to hinder the boots on the ground. You want to get more money in the schools? Start slashing costs from the top, not the bottom. You'll have a lot less cuts to make and get a hell of a lot more money in return, with 0 loss in productivity. Instead, these bureaucrats cut the bottom... less teachers, less actual support staff, slash the "extraneous" programs that help to give life meaning. Meanwhile some PhD in Underwater Basket Weaving and budget experience from managing their grocery list is bilking hundreds of thousands to waggle a finger at the union stewards and diddle themselves in front of pie chart powerpoints.
why is it a given that those schools have to stay failing? The biggest flaw I always see in vouchers/school choice solutions is that those solutions by their very nature can't help everyone. If we go that way there are guaranteed to be some students who get left behind. Everything you've said though is a great example of why "fixing schools" is such a complicated thing to do. We could stop funding schools based on property taxes but if we aren't finding ways to invest in jobs, invest in infrastructure, invest in housing, etc., at the same time then we're never actually going to fix the whole problem. None of these issues are really in a silo, they're all connected.
I say we use both solutions for education. We grant vouchers to the demonstrably talented and dedicated students, we open up a school choice system and then we invest into the economy, infrastructure and education of impoverished rural and inner-city communities. Where does the money come from? Well, replacing welfare, most tax credits, stamp programs and unemployment with a Universal Basic Income (UBI) will cut on a lot of money, and inspire more work (welfare actively disincentivizes work). But if cuts in waste still leave a deficit, then I would advocate for an increase in taxes across all income brackets. Taxes are rather low anyway in comparison to what they once where. And we’ll be pay dearly if we don’t balance our budgets soon. Also, opening interstate competition for health care should reduce the about 1,000 companies to 5, greatly reducing the amount of money dumped into that sector. Some of which can be used to fund a public option to compete with the private companies and keep their prices reasonable.
Unless you fix the Community's issues, you can't solve the Education issue. That's the Problem with Vouchers. That doesn't address the underlying Problem. Plus taking money from a System that's been underfunded for years, is not the Solution.
Tim Mullens no he doesn’t he just refuses to admit he’s wrong; strutting around like a smirking pigeon doesn’t change the fact that he embarrasses himself on a daily basis
This is also a television show and there is no president who has ever lived who was that articulate without a teleprompter. Sorkin is a great writer but his dialogue is wholly unrealistic to how people actually talk.
I would vote for Martin Sheen as President in an instant. But, fortunately, Martin would decline a nomination, knowing he is not qualified. Unfortunately, the current Presidential candidates don't have the same wisdom. The most important thing Bartlet said here is that he doesn't care if his popularity slips to single digits. Bartlet wants to lead, not follow. It's a rare trait in recent politicians.
Is Martin Sheen not: - A naturally born citizen of the US - Over 35 - A resident of the US for more than 14 years? If the answer to all of these is "Yes", then congrats: Sheen DOES have the necessary qualifications to serve as POTUS. Just as Trump does. Though Trump is the better choice of those two, because the only thing Sheen has done is pretending to be other people for money. Trump has a long history of leading successful businesses (cue the "HE'S ONLY GONE BANKRUPT AND CAN'T RUN ANYTHING"-retards who don't know that while a few of his companies HAVE gone bankrupt, more haven't. That's business: You fail, and you get back up)
There is more to being President than that. Government is not a business. the president should have experience in running the State. Also Trump has filed for bankruptcy 6 times. Most of his businesses are failed. Trump University, Trump steaks, etc.
While it is only my humble opinion, one hundred years from now, historians will conclude that television's greatest contribution to humanity was West Wing, Cosmos, and Mash! Just my opinion :-)
+lesdubow Don't forget Star Trek. Many of the technologies on ST:TNG like the PADD and the replicator are in existence today as the iPad and the 3D printer. Roddenberry was the Jules Verne of his day.
@TheDoomArt I disagreed with many of Sen. Goldwater's stances when he was in office, but one thing that was always very clear was that he was a principled and honorable man.
@@mja91352 I'm not so sure that Sen. Goldwater ever supported segregation. In fact, he voted for the 1957 Civil Rights Act, actively supported desegregation in Phoenix in his home state of Arizona, and was a member of the NAACP. Like I said, there were plenty of things that pissed me off about AUH2O, but desegregation wasn't one of them.
If they are dealing with a shutdown they are way past the "budget" stage. They are dealing with unpassed or unsigned appropriations bills. A budget is what the President submits to Congress and Congress promptly ignores.
See, watching this series about, oh, 30 times beginning to end, gives me a level of understanding of the US government that pretty clearly exceeds that of the current president the day he took office. And I'm not an American.
Because for him there wasn't a 'next' per se. His time in office was done and after a lifetime in politics (remember he was a congressman and governor before being President) there were no more campaigns to run or policies to formulate and enact. For Jed Bartlett 'tomorrow' was completely unknown territory and he didn't have a clue about "What's next". Which is why (imo) it was President Santos who's last line was "What's next?"
@@MrPeterpiper1969No Bartlett didn’t retire. In a flash forward scene he’s mediating peace talks between nations during the Santos presidency while they dedicate the Bartlett library.
Speaker Haffley was by far the most one-note villain on the show, among a cast of characters replete with subtle nuance and development. I sympathize more with Zoe's kidnappers than I do with the Speaker.
We use to be dismayed that they didn't read serious newspapers and magazines. The idea that their opinions were formed by television was alarming. Now we are trying to get the moderates back watching FOX News and off Alex Jones and Newsmax.
We do. Obama and Clinton were an awful lot like Bartlet: whipsmart, learned policy wonks with left-leaning values, pragmatic sensibilities, and a commitment to appointing highly competent people. Biden's old, but he shares some of those traits. Compare that to Trump, Bush II, and Reagan, who share none of them.
Hollywood's version of how a president should conduct himself seems so much more presidential than the current real-life version featuring a used-to-be reality star... That's a sad commentary on the depth that our government has been lowered over the past 3 years! The "Swamp" was replaced by a "Sewage Plant".
Yeah, wouldn't it be great if we could go back to the days of the unaccomplished community organizer who spent two decades in the pews of a hate-mongering preacher; had a long-standing professional relationship with a domestic terrorist, smiled for photos with racist organize crime kingpin Louis Farrakhan, and invited racist extraordinaire Al Sharpton on many occasions.
@@epm5433 As opposed to the current character who's goal has been to divide the US from our NATO Allies, conduct secret meetings with Vladimir Putin without any records of what he was told to do, and ignore every warning about this minor pandemic item... News Flash - Congratulating the Chinese for doing a great job and then doing nothing while the virus spreads because he doesn't want to upset the US Economy... How's that going? If Trump had tried to get in front of the curve instead of doing nothing and then playing his usual finger pointing game, maybe the US would be in a better position now. Unfortunately, we'll never know because his actions, or lack of, can't be undone. The US Economy is teetering and we've not seen the worst of neither the virus nor the economic problems. So, to answer your question... Yeah, I guess I'd rather be living under any other administration from the last 20-30 years than the glorious retard that's in DC now. I'm guessing you might not agree but you're completely entitled to your opinion. Stay safe and be well, COVID-19 is not a hoax, regardless of what comes out of the Whitehouse.
@@paulsimmons5726 Put the crack pipe down and get some help. Your fact-free rant will get you tossed back into the basement.And you may want to change your diaper because the unaccomplished, racist, pandering, senile dolt is will lost to Trump in Nov. MAGA2020!
Right because we as a species are having a hard time separating reality from entertainment. God forbid we paint the president of the United States as an educated , caring, good person. Relax.
This isn’t a liberal vs conservative debate. This is an interventionist vs laissez-faire debate. There is nothing inherently conservative about not spending money to improve society and the conditions of the poorest. There is nothing inherently liberal about spending money either. After all, it was a liberal in Britain (William Gladstone) who sought to abolish the income tax in the 1870s. It was a conservative who created the first income tax in British history This is also not, really, an argument between a laissez-faire and interventionist position. The Republicans intervene economically all the time, with oil and agriculture subsidies, military spending and even tariffs nowadays. They still trot out the same old meaningless spiel about tax cuts. What most people don’t understand is tax cuts may put a bit more money in your pocket, but it takes money out of the things that you need in life, including education and healthcare. Most people in OECD countries enjoy a standard of education they couldn’t buy on their incomes alone because government pools national resources and boosts the social wage of all. Government intervention needs to be substantial but also include ideological direction. Conservatives should go back to using intervention to protect those values they wish to protect. Protecting the family is best achieved by good education policy, mortgage credits, secure access to employment and good child healthcare. Meanwhile, liberals should encourage those values they prefer. They should realise that freedom is enabled by intervention from government, not limited by it, and that political rights can only be realised through economic freedom. This is framing things in US terms. Liberals are more likely to do the latter but still.
eric wsmith it isn’t socialism to help people though. It’s socialism to try and bring equality through giving workers ownership of industry. It’s interventionist to help the poor. England has had a welfare system since 1601, which did a lot of poor relief and saw the last English famine from lack of grain 100 years before France’s. Welfare is essential to the good functioning of society. Besides, Thatcher actually raised taxes and increased spending on welfare. The problem with privatisation, is that you eventually run out of things to sell off. And the problem with punishing the poor, is you have to start punishing the middle class eventually.
They know it. But they've got nothing else in the can. Either the solution is so radical that Americans won't accept it, or there is no solution and Keep Calm and Carry On.
The Speaker's idea of "just handing every student $10k a year" is ridiculous though, because most of the Dept. of Education's budget already goes to students. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Education#Budget Pell Grants are need-based and are grants, not loans, so don't get paid back; over half of the department's budget is for grants. Another 27% is for student loans, which is literally "handing them $10k a year" but then getting them to pay it back (which fiscally responsible people should be all too happy about). Education is expensive in every nation. It's nearly as expensive or sometimes moreso in reputable European countries. There's no magic fairy-tale solution of "well if only the government would go away everything would be rainbows and sunshine." Sometimes things are just expensive and you have to put up and shut up. Bartlet was 100% correct.
Actually, if you'd do your research, there's a documented incident in England where tactics from an episode were directly and deliberately used. Prime Minister Tony Blair was the victim of it. Ironically, at the time it was done, Blair's 22 year old son doing a 6 week stint as an intern on Capital Hill with the House Rules committee.
The speaker in the West Wing would be a bit too liberal for today's GOP in 2020. He believes in democracy/free and fair elections and would probably put country over party. Trump and his enablers do not believe in the concept of democracy and would destroy it if they have the chance. The speaker would be the equivalent of a 90's to maybe 2000's Republican politician.
Oh hes plenty right wing fanatic enough. Yeah lets defund the department of education, so right wing states are free to teach students whatever stupidity they want.. Hey the world is 6000 years old, Noah's Flood was a real thing that happened and the Loch Ness Monster disproves evolution! That would be the Biology curriculum in red states if Hafley had his way.
Yeah I know it’s overlooked by a lot of people in this scene but even bringing up the possibility of defunding public education like that is absolutely ridiculous let alone the fact that it wouldn’t do anything to help budgets teacher pay etc. it would all be for profit for these fucking red states
What's sad about this scene every time I see it is a fervent wish that if only our Washington bureaucrats even attempted to think things through the way these two characters are in this scene. Aaron Sorkin has sent us a message of elevation, which we haven't had in government since that low level actor, Reagan took office. Instead, today, we have to deal with the lowest of our common denominators, characters who can barely spell their names in crayon and who only think of their own power and self interest. They avoid the citizenry and have nothing to do with representing them at all.
Some of the best cooperation between The White House and Congress took place when Reagan was in office and Tip O'Neil was the Speaker. They understood the art of compromise. The Big Dig was something Tip wanted and got as part of a deal with Reagan.
Huh? Bill Clinton was a Rhodes scholar and Yale-educated lawyer; Barack Obama was a Harvard-educated civil rights lawyer. Both were extremely intelligent, knew history and policy, and paired pragmatic politics with left-learning values. How much closer to Bartlet do you expect?
Yeah I felt the same way in the moment but upon reflection...the man deserved a break. I mean he was all go no whit what's next for what 44 years or so after school? But I hear ya.
I love TWW. As a none American this was one of the main storylines I just really struggled to understand. 10+ years later and the only thing I understand is that the US is happy to plow itself more and more into debt .... As long as the two parties don't loose face
There is nothing silly about the wall. Even the fear of the wall has cut illegal immigration back quite a bit. And as illegal immigration goes down and some illegals return to their home countries, the US unemployment rate actually goes down, because Americans are taking many of those jobs once again. The only reason that the Dems are against the wall and pro-illegal immigration is because they think that they can make illegals dependent on government and thus effectively bribe them into being Democrat voters. I wouldn't believe any other answer coming out of their lying mouths, whether they're lying to the American public or to themselves.
@@crucisnhYeah, Democrats want illegal immigration, which is why both Obama and Biden broke records on deportation and detainment at border crossings. Logic just goes…..right over your head!
This show had/has no equal ! I’m just stating the obvious here . Also this show was/is my favorite series of all time . Just beating out MASH and All in the Family !
Oh HELL NO! He might think he's as presidential as Barlet (who ironically is just acting) and hold out even longer on this ridiculous unwarranted shutdown.
@@sabrewolf4129 How do you KNOW his reaction was "immediate"? He may have been holding out as long as he could then finally gave in from overwhelming NEED! =) P.S. And his so called argument seemed more like just an observation...to me.
@hbdywtk It's attitudes like yours which have given us the current state of politics today. Thank you for helping to create a partisan atmosphere in which we have theocrats running for POTUS.
What truly amuses me is that this episode was probably a small factor in the dynamics of the last shutdown. It romanticised the heroic moral stance of taking a moral stance and refusing to negotiate 'with a gun to your head' and now politicians are trying to live the dream. Tell me Obama didn't for one minute think about he was being all cool and Bartlet-y during that stuff, and ditto congress.
I love how the speaker justify his position about the need to stop spending way to much and in the end they compromised by spending too much. So much for a principled stance
They had already reached an equitable agreement when they had come up with the budget. Haffley had been negotiating in bad faith with the demand for a 3% reduction in the CR at the last second. When Bartlet physically walked to the Capitol to negotiate and the Speaker made him wait in the hallway, it made it clear to the public that Haffley was trying to run all fiscal policy from the Speaker's office. The compromise here was that while Haffley agreed to the spending levels (Remember, they had already agreed on them weeks earlier when they drafted the damn appropriations bills), Bartlet agreed to change the means of raising the revenue to include tax cuts.
When it comes to the Speaker of the House and the office of the Presidency PARTY POLITICS SHOULD BE CHECKED AT THE DOOR. What the fuck? Whatever happened to Country First.
It turns out we can have a bloated Dept. of Ed AND give students $10k. Of course, thanks to the Fed and the politicians who never met a spending bill they didn't like, $10k isn't as much as it was 20 years ago.
@@stargazer7644 #1 it's no longer slow and steady. #2 you're buying into the standard economic thinking. What was the intention of the fed when instituted? Partially to preserve the value of the dollar. Which has lost 98% in the past 110 years. Do you dislike those on fixed incomes so much that you wish to erode their resources?
@@jonblakemore6454 You were talking over the last 20 years. Even counting the last couple of years, the 20 average inflation rate was a very low 2.47% No 10k isn't worth as much as it was 20 years ago. It isn't supposed to be. You want to have some inflation for a stable growing economy. Nobody will lend anyone money if it is cheaper to keep it in their pocket. Take an econ 101 class. Those on "fixed incomes" aren't the ones driving the economy. They're just along for the ride. Tank the economy and see how their "fixed income" handles that.
The house had a deal with Trump.. he's foregone it twice.. All for looking good to FOX.. All over his stupid erratic spending for a memorial tribute to himself..
Watching this and then realizing how the republicans have done the deficits and ran the national debt into the many trillions just makes me sick. When I was in high school 50 years ago I wrote a paper on why I believed that there should be no national debt, that the government should have a budget, spend within its means and tax enough to cover the costs. I got a poor grade as my instructor thought there is nothing wrong with borrowing money. Today I am retired, not rich, but I have enough and no debts.
@mandellorian well thats just the difference between capital and revenue expenditure. And whilst I agree with the thrust of your argument, the US National debt shouldn't be 36 trillion. Its not unique to the US either. Western society has ended up living far beyond our means for many years and its the next generations who will pay the price. The current cost of living crisis throughout Europe is a direct consequence of not having the capacity to absorb economic shocks like this.
i respect conservatives, but not Republicans. The modern Republican party has gone insane, to the point where Reagan would be called a socialist and George Bush Sr. cannot recognize the party. No, I'm not an idiot; I'm someone who sees the GOP for the loss-its-course pile of insanity that it's become. If/when the GOP returns to being small-government, rational, reality-embracing, non-Christian-fundamentalist, I'll change my opinion.
That's pretty funny. He wants to claim paternalistic welfare is holding people back, but he's unwilling to cut millions from government subsidies to the large agricultural corporations. If they're so good for corporations, then government hand-outs can't be all that bad for the rest of us, can they?
People - I enjoy fellow WW fan discussions and comments but you all WILL keep a civil tongue in the comments or they will be disabled - you have been warned.
💯
you are funny!!!
This was the “Colonel Jessop Code Red” moment on the West Wing. I love when Martin Sheen leans in and shows his anger. Brilliant acting.
No show can do 4-5 minute scenes like this and make them feel like 30 seconds. What a show.
Power of great fast paced dialogue.
This is such a great scene. I like how after The Speaker talks about congress being in charge of the budget, like only they do it, Bartlett points out that more than 2000 people worked with all kinds of interest groups to come up with that budget.
that's the problem: interest groups
Pork Barrel prevent a balanced budget which allows the Military/Industrial interests to destroy America from within.
Yeah, the poisonous interest groups creating a functional coup d'etat in America.
I just realized something quite interesting:The Speaker(Steven Culp) and the President Bartlett(Martin Sheen) both played Robert Kennedy. Sheen in 1974 and Culp in 2000.
camonterey87 West Wing also has a few actors who portrayed his brother Jack: Sheen in 83 for Kennedy, Rob Lowe (Sam) in 2013 for Killing Kennedy, and Tim Matheson (Vice President Hoynes) for a 2000 movie about Jackie.
I didn't know Sheen played Bobbie, but he did play Jack. Sheen loves the Kennedys
@John McCloy Clayton Webb.
Well done, Sir.--------------------------WolfSky9
But only one of them played Jason Voorhees.
This show was fantastic. Nothing much like it on these days.
Or even in those days.
It was pinko propaganda masquerading as entertainment
Frank Newman, former Deputy Secretary of the US Treasury, talking about the US national debt. The US national debt is nothing more than the sum of outstanding Treasury bonds. Want to decrease the Debt? Buy back the T-Bonds. People often think of the national debt as if it were a credit card loan, but this is wrong. The federal budget works nothing like a household budget, and the national debt works nothing like a household debt.
A Treasury security (like a bond, bill, or note) is an asset that an investor can hold to earn interest. It is functionally equivalent to a savings account (specifically a Certificate of Deposit): you give up dollars today, you get them back after a fixed amount of time, plus interest.
And they get created and paid back exactly the way a savings account does at a bank. If you purchase a CD from your bank, the bank debits your checking account, and credits your savings account. When the CD matures, the bank debits this savings account, and credits your checking account. Same with a Treasury security. If you buy one, the government (specifically the Federal Reserve) will debit your bank account, and credit a "securities account" in your name. When the bond matures, the Fed will debit the securities account, and credit your checking account.
It's true that we need to pay back the debt. And we do this, every single day: as bonds mature, the Fed debits the securities accounts, and credits people's checking accounts. And then, frequently, new bonds are sold to other people, whoever would prefer to hold their savings in bond form rather than deposit form.
What we never need to do is pay down the debt, ie to reduce the amount of Treasury bonds in circulation. (This would be accomplished by not issuing new bonds as old ones are paid back) This is simply not necessary, and we have only even done it on a very select few times throughout our nation's history.
It's also NEVER necessary to raise taxes based on the size of the debt, so long as we have a floating exchange rate and the debt is only denominated in the currency we issue. Given those circumstances, the ONLY reason we would need to raise taxes is to reduce private sector spending in order to control inflation. But if inflation isn't a worry, then there is no need to raise taxes, no matter how large the debt is, no matter what the interest payments are, etc.
Excellent explanation.
Thanks, RUclips economic professor Bargaffy with a goat picture and crazy playlists.
what I love about this clip is about half way through it turns into a genuine debate about conservative and liberal values. both characters seem to genuinely believe in their ideals and principles
That's the problem these days. "Ideology" breads zealots, and thus makes compromise a "sin".
Bizarre to me that passing a budget, something that occurs where I live every year (with plenty of arguments and media noise), is seen as a great achievement and something to celebrate rather than them simply doing their various jobs.
Incredible.
But....the Republicans have the majority xD
Republicans control all three branches, dude.
Not anymore.
@mandellorian I would say democrats have been a bit more petty in their approach to things. At least as of late. Especially when it serves no other purpose then to play the game of politics in the modern era of social justice. Thats why we got the neo-communist and socialist blocks rising up, why we have a continued war against not policy but the apparent metaphysical meaning and intention behind said policies, and just the general disdain for the nation as a whole. The amount of democrats I have come across that would rather see the country burn then Trump coming out in a positive light is stunning. parties pass blocking one another has been the thing for ages but the reasoning behind these recent engagements are just mind blowing.
I love how he can handle an entire series of world altering crises leaving himself with 5 minutes before he has to be somewhere and says in a resigned tone, "What's next?"
There is always a next thing. The job is never complete.
An example of Bartlet's unwavering sense of duty. This wasn't some personal win over an enemy for him to celebrate. It was simply part of his service to his country that continues as long as he holds the office.
"We had a deal...I will leave this government shut down". We had a deal, good man
Wish I had Bartlett's work ethic. Five minutes before dinner and he wants to know what's next.
I'm glad I don't have Josh Lyman's work ethic. 14 hours after being shot in the chest and he wanted to know what's next.
Aaron Sorkin leaving was a big loss for the show. But in the later seasons I thought that the writers did a better job giving depth to the opposition than in Sorkin's years.
I agree I thin season 7 feels more as if sorkin somewhat wrote it. Although I feel it’s more of because the producers that left the show in the forth season came back.
Agreed - no way could Sorkin have written Arnold Vinnick.
Agreed. Arnold Vinick was the epitome of what most Democrats could vote for in a Republican. I know I would have in that race.
I personally personally go back-and-forth on that quite a bit. Obviously, the audience is a little biased given how much we saw of Santos’s campaign versus FedEx in the personal level that we see but push comes to shove I probably would’ve voted for Santos. I will be honest though and it’s probably because of who they got to play him but then it was a solid candidate for one love to see the American electoral process condensed for a TV show. I got more out of it than I ever did in high school lol.
@@michaelmuldowney8sorkin could easily have written Arnold Vinnick
He wrote
Ainsley Hayes
Joe Quincy
Cliff calley
Glen walken (kinda)
Then in newsroom he wrote Will mcavoy.
In trial of Chicago 7 he wrote Richard Shultz (presumably a republican)
Sorkin can write anything he takes particular attention in created not just good democrats and evil republicans but evil democrats and good republicans.
It’s no secret that Sorkin is a democrat, as are many of the people he works with, but he never made me feel excluded.
Never made me feel that he hates republicans, just some republicans but even I hate some republicans like democrats hate some democrats.
In the uk there’s a tradition of thought that you need both the government and the opposition to be competent at their jobs and to be electable. Since one side holds the other to account. If one side start to slip then it affects the behavior of the other side in a bad way.
This clip has one of the most powerful statements The West Wing made. By far the best TV series ever - in my opinion.
I remember my parents binged this show years and years ago.
I need to do the same, looks excellent, lol.
Years and years ago, when the show was on the air, it was not possible to "binge." It came on once a week. I forget which network.
Five minutes of free time and he doesn't want to waste it. I know he's just a TV character but that is impressive
*looks at this*
*looks at real government*
...well damnit.
Yes... this is a liberal fantasy masturbation session.
@@DavidHeffron78 which part? The arrogant conservative moving the goal posts in the 11th hour of negotiation? Or the part where the arrogant conservative even shows up to the negotiation instead of voting to not even consider the bills?
@@MrDIRTDIVER212 “resources are finite” tell that to the Republicans when they increase defense spending year after year by tens of billions at a time
@@Iceman713 The fiat currency idea pretty much explains that there is NOTHING backing up the bucks. NOT that "precious metals" are only "precious" because the whackers (i.e. the folks who run the show) SAY they have value - much like our Federal Reserve Notes.
@@DavidHeffron78 - much like a conservatives wet dream that trumps was a good president.
i'm a lifelong republican, and this is one of may all time favorite shows. got the whole works on dvd. outstanding writing and acting.
I wish the republican party was still like the guy in this scene and didn't go off the deep end
I wish the democrats were like Bartlett and didn’t go the other side of the deeper end.
@@jimmy2k4o Deep ends are not equal. Only one side is turning up with guns and threatening civil war.
@@nicholassmith7984 what about 2020 riots and defund the police? All the woke stuff. Pushing trans rights so hard we now have a culture where kids that behave atypical of their gender could be encouraged to believe their trans and end up on drugs that sterilize them. They’re building a culture where effeminate men and manly women aka gay people are eliminated. They’re sterilized and reassigned because we respect their decision even if we don’t trust them to buy Red Bull or lottery tickets yet.
The left think that forced inclusion and race/sexual orientation based job assignment aka affirmative action is progressive rather than regressive.
Only the left are opposed to freedom of speech (not all but the people opposed to free speech are always lefties) shadow banning on twitter. Sad that musk has bought it with the clear intention of making it equal for left and right.
Only the left conspired to hide a story about hunter Biden until after the election.
@@jimmy2k4o So what about Hunter Biden? So what about Police reform? So what about treating Trans people with basic human dignity? Conservatives get all in a tizzy and wage this culture-war bullshit because they don't get to be arseholes to everybody anymore. That's all it is. The problem is all in your head.
And you want to talk about being anti free speech; just go to Florida and try to even insinuate slavery might have happened and maybe was a bad thing.
Martin is just such an amazing actor. He does a “sigh” better than any other actor I know. I loved this shoe and still do. Current politicians could learn a lot from Aaron’s masterful scripts.
Where do you think Moscow Mitch got the idea to refuse to hold hearings for Garland?
This was after Sorkin left
I would vote for this guy in heartbeat.
You mean his writing staff?
Same
Bartlett would be a president who strongly believes in right or wrong. Our current president only cares if he can prove he didn't technically brake the law.
Orange man bad, amirite?
@DW Palme you mean the unemployment rate that has been steadily decreaseing at the same rate for the past ten years? Is trump a time traveler now?
This was a great series. And the rerun on HNL over the holidays was awesome.
Why can’t Hollywood come up with series this good a little more often?
Government... working. Both parties... cooperating. This must be the Twilight Zone.
In this clip, they didn't really "cooperate", unless you define cooperation as both having a figurative gun to their heads, i.e. the shutdown.
Hardly. Republicans talking BS to benefit the rich at the expense of the poor: that is the world we live in.
@@mja91352 Helping different kinds of rich at the expense of different kinds of poor.
imagine if you will... somebody replying 8 years later......
Well akshually... the government was, at this point in time, shut down. And the reason why it shut down was the Speaker of the House pulled a last minute, "Won't do it until you give us more" end run right before they signed the CR.
Of course, the end result was an actual budget, which I don't think the US government has had since... well... this aired.
We all think with our hearts instead our heads when it comes to politics. Unless we have spent 50 years studying a particular subject and have spoken to a thousand people, we can all stand to consider the possibility that we are the ones who are wrong, and listen to differing opinions.
Coming back here to see what intelligent debate looks like between two patriots.
I could watch this all day
Yeah, I know...
-Steve Rodgers
"Government getting off of peoples backs" as a "solution" assumes that everybody in this country actually has "bootstraps" to pull themselves up by. And the fact of the matter is that they don't.
Have any ideas?
I don't think you fully understand just how much our federal government spends and how little that produces. If you were to somehow seize the entire net worth of the 1% you would have enough to run our current federal government as is for a few months. Government spending has never and will never be the answer to anything.
@@RaidenRadio One, that last bit is a statement of political belief, not something backed up by any fact. Two, you assume I wouldn't want to change anything else, such as not spending hundreds of trillions of fucking dollars on defense. Third, you assume that my suggested solution relies on government handouts sustaining people forever, rather than enacting legislation to regulate greed (increase the minimum wage, potentially put a max on the salary CEO's and other C Suite execs can recieve, stuff like that). Fourth, I refer you back to my original point that a huge amount of people in this country don't even have bootstraps to "pull themselves up with." Government "getting out of the way" is basically condemning those people to poverty and death, and I'm not willing to accept that.
@@RaidenRadio I guess fifth, just incase you read nothing else, read this: It is the governments job to ensure everyone is taken care of, and there are a ton of proactive steps that can be taken besides just throwing money at the problem.
You have a bit of a messianic complex, don't you.
It's chilling how sane a TV-show White House sounds versus the real world one.
Yeah man. In fiction one writer controls both sides of the argument
@@timothygalvin3021 plz tell me you don't actually believe one guy wrote the whole show?
@@MaSeshield I think you might have missed the point there.
@@timothygalvin3021 He has.
@@MaSeshield
Or a head writer that tells the others what they're working on and has final say on what goes in.
Excellent character craft. Neither is the good, or bad. One is better, or more correct, but none is perfect.
If this character were an actual person, I’d vote for him twice
Who?
@@williamerazo3921 - good question! i'd vote for the Speaker myself
I agree the Speaker is great
Simpleton.
As Bartlet asks, "What's next?".
The Speaker was trying to give this President a history lesson. 😂
Such a simple sound design choice, but the ticking clock adds tension.
I can't believe I didn't even notice the clock
The sad part is that this President and this Whitehouse could only exist in Hollywood
We’ve had it for the last 4 years. Trump is the first politician with a backbone who fights for the American people in decades.
@@Glitchfaction I wish
Teddy And FDR both used the bull pulpit like he does very well
@@Glitchfaction 😆🤣😆🤣😆 You are delusional
@@yao052 truth hurts for people like you I guess. All I know is when Trump was president we didn’t have a crisis at our southern border, China and Iran didnt fuck with us and North Korea stopped firing missiles. Now that former Vice President Joe Biden has been placed in office, they are laughing at us
Way back in the day, we disagreed. Passionately. Loudly. But some respect. And somewhere in the middle, we ended up with something. Now? We look at this as old history. Ancient. Now we get nothing because everyone wants everything with no compromise and no respect.
I agree completly with the Speaker. EXCEPT that if they already made a deal, he shouldn't have broken it.
so you dont agree completely then
That's a Republican for ya!
you don't make deals with parasite apologists
@@liman42plz stop ostracising half of the population in this country.
It's such a well acted scene. The Speaker makes a great point about public education...or at least he nearly does. I'm a product of a great public school. My school was great because we had a vibrant and prosperous and successful community. Schools are mirror images of the communities they serve, yet sometimes our public debate centers on schools as if they exist in a vacuum. Rarely in our debates on education do we stop to inquire further about the community being served by a particular failing school---the price of a new home, the employment rate, crime statistics. It's not the schools that fail, but the community as a whole. This is why I've reluctantly become a supporter of vouchers and school choice. The best thing we can do for so many kids in failing public schools is to get them out of those failed communities for at least a few hours a day, and into an environment where they can have a shot at meeting their potential.
I am also the product of public education. My school wasn't necessarily great by standards, but we had a variety of programs that enriched the learning process. But even then, public schools were hampered from the egregious amount of oversight that actively worked to hinder the boots on the ground. You want to get more money in the schools? Start slashing costs from the top, not the bottom. You'll have a lot less cuts to make and get a hell of a lot more money in return, with 0 loss in productivity. Instead, these bureaucrats cut the bottom... less teachers, less actual support staff, slash the "extraneous" programs that help to give life meaning. Meanwhile some PhD in Underwater Basket Weaving and budget experience from managing their grocery list is bilking hundreds of thousands to waggle a finger at the union stewards and diddle themselves in front of pie chart powerpoints.
why is it a given that those schools have to stay failing? The biggest flaw I always see in vouchers/school choice solutions is that those solutions by their very nature can't help everyone. If we go that way there are guaranteed to be some students who get left behind. Everything you've said though is a great example of why "fixing schools" is such a complicated thing to do. We could stop funding schools based on property taxes but if we aren't finding ways to invest in jobs, invest in infrastructure, invest in housing, etc., at the same time then we're never actually going to fix the whole problem. None of these issues are really in a silo, they're all connected.
I say we use both solutions for education. We grant vouchers to the demonstrably talented and dedicated students, we open up a school choice system and then we invest into the economy, infrastructure and education of impoverished rural and inner-city communities.
Where does the money come from? Well, replacing welfare, most tax credits, stamp programs and unemployment with a Universal Basic Income (UBI) will cut on a lot of money, and inspire more work (welfare actively disincentivizes work).
But if cuts in waste still leave a deficit, then I would advocate for an increase in taxes across all income brackets. Taxes are rather low anyway in comparison to what they once where. And we’ll be pay dearly if we don’t balance our budgets soon.
Also, opening interstate competition for health care should reduce the about 1,000 companies to 5, greatly reducing the amount of money dumped into that sector. Some of which can be used to fund a public option to compete with the private companies and keep their prices reasonable.
Unless you fix the Community's issues, you can't solve the Education issue. That's the Problem with Vouchers. That doesn't address the underlying Problem. Plus taking money from a System that's been underfunded for years, is not the Solution.
@@victorwilliams1304But the increased funding has not resulted in an increase in education quality.
This entire scene sounds almost exactly as it is at current, with the coming "Fiscal Cliff"
Everyone always talks about Fiscal Cliff. No one ever mentions Fiscal Steve.
“What’s next” is like propellant to the show. Never resting on laurels. Knowing there’s always more to be done.
I remember my dad saying he was surprised there wasn’t a massive bloodstain on the carpet.
What's next? That line was this show all over, never standing still
Steven Culp (the Speaker) always plays a bureaucratic adversary to the hero lol! I'm always surprise when he actually gets to be a good guy.
I watched all of the episodes, of West Wing! I would vote for this guy in heartbeat, but I am very serious.
You mean you would vote for the writing staff.
Now that's how diplomacy really works...unlike Washington these days.
No. That's not how diplomacy really works. This is a fantasy.
This how debates should proceed without the name calling and the personal attacks
Mr Speaker played Bobby Kennedy in 'Thirteen Days'.
great movie
I love too that Bartlet is being serious about asking what's next for 5 minutes.
thank you mr. Sorkin,truly!
walstib
He uh.... was fired by this point. 😄
What's next?
This is like political porn compared to 2019!
There’s no way Drumph would be this coherent or articulate 🙅♂️ #makehimDrumphagain
but he always wins -articulateness is overrated-
Tim Mullens no he doesn’t he just refuses to admit he’s wrong; strutting around like a smirking pigeon doesn’t change the fact that he embarrasses himself on a daily basis
This is also a television show and there is no president who has ever lived who was that articulate without a teleprompter. Sorkin is a great writer but his dialogue is wholly unrealistic to how people actually talk.
RollTide1987 do you mean to tell me a sad trumpet rhiff doesn’t play whilst I make a historical analogy to emphasise my moral superiority??
@@eltonsmith1345 he means to tell you that you're too stupid to distinguish reality from scripted television
I would vote for Martin Sheen as President in an instant. But, fortunately, Martin would decline a nomination, knowing he is not qualified. Unfortunately, the current Presidential candidates don't have the same wisdom. The most important thing Bartlet said here is that he doesn't care if his popularity slips to single digits. Bartlet wants to lead, not follow. It's a rare trait in recent politicians.
Was Martin Sheen born in the US.... I know is original last name is Estevez.... but not sure if he is a US citizen birth.
Martin was born in Dayton, Ohio. His father was Spanish and his mother was born in Ireland. You can look up his Bio on IMDB.com .
I love coming on here and reading the Liberal's comments. They fantasize while the Democrats go down in flames.
Is Martin Sheen not:
- A naturally born citizen of the US
- Over 35
- A resident of the US for more than 14 years?
If the answer to all of these is "Yes", then congrats: Sheen DOES have the necessary qualifications to serve as POTUS. Just as Trump does.
Though Trump is the better choice of those two, because the only thing Sheen has done is pretending to be other people for money. Trump has a long history of leading successful businesses (cue the "HE'S ONLY GONE BANKRUPT AND CAN'T RUN ANYTHING"-retards who don't know that while a few of his companies HAVE gone bankrupt, more haven't. That's business: You fail, and you get back up)
There is more to being President than that. Government is not a business. the president should have experience in running the State.
Also Trump has filed for bankruptcy 6 times. Most of his businesses are failed. Trump University, Trump steaks, etc.
WE HAD A DEAL!
They skipped the part where the Speaker caves, because there was no way he would've or should've seeing as how he has all the bargaining power.
While it is only my humble opinion, one hundred years from now, historians will conclude that television's greatest contribution to humanity was West Wing, Cosmos, and Mash! Just my opinion :-)
100% agree
I take it you never heard of Firefly?
Rudy Juarez
i have
Nice. :)
+lesdubow Don't forget Star Trek. Many of the technologies on ST:TNG like the PADD and the replicator are in existence today as the iPad and the 3D printer. Roddenberry was the Jules Verne of his day.
@TheDoomArt I disagreed with many of Sen. Goldwater's stances when he was in office, but one thing that was always very clear was that he was a principled and honorable man.
he was pribciled, but supporting segregation disqualifies anyone from being "honorable."
@@mja91352 I'm not so sure that Sen. Goldwater ever supported segregation. In fact, he voted for the 1957 Civil Rights Act, actively supported desegregation in Phoenix in his home state of Arizona, and was a member of the NAACP. Like I said, there were plenty of things that pissed me off about AUH2O, but desegregation wasn't one of them.
Damn, I miss this show.
If they are dealing with a shutdown they are way past the "budget" stage. They are dealing with unpassed or unsigned appropriations bills. A budget is what the President submits to Congress and Congress promptly ignores.
It's JFK and Bobby in the Oval again! Wait I'm mixing up my movies with TWW. :)
Just realized... what a cast.
Fun fact: both of these actors have played the role of RFK
We need a president like Bartlet.
We did, when we had Barack Obama and Bill Clinton. Would be great to bring Obama back. He'd win the election handily.
Its so funny that you so completely missed WHY they're actually happy.
See, watching this series about, oh, 30 times beginning to end, gives me a level of understanding of the US government that pretty clearly exceeds that of the current president the day he took office. And I'm not an American.
Goddamn, Putin, so that's how you got all that knowledge of the US government system!
Hate to say this, but your understanding of the US government exceeded that of our current 'president' before you ever HEARD of the West Wing.
I thought was such a lost opportunity that Bartlett's last line ever in the series was "Tomorrow".
It should have been "what's next".
Because for him there wasn't a 'next' per se. His time in office was done and after a lifetime in politics (remember he was a congressman and governor before being President) there were no more campaigns to run or policies to formulate and enact. For Jed Bartlett 'tomorrow' was completely unknown territory and he didn't have a clue about "What's next". Which is why (imo) it was President Santos who's last line was "What's next?"
...but tomorrow, by definition, *is* what's next.
@@MrPeterpiper1969No Bartlett didn’t retire. In a flash forward scene he’s mediating peace talks between nations during the Santos presidency while they dedicate the Bartlett library.
Speaker Haffley was by far the most one-note villain on the show, among a cast of characters replete with subtle nuance and development. I sympathize more with Zoe's kidnappers than I do with the Speaker.
The most unbelievable part of this episode was when a Republican admitted to seeing something on CNN.
We use to be dismayed that they didn't read serious newspapers and magazines. The idea that their opinions were formed by television was alarming. Now we are trying to get the moderates back watching FOX News and off Alex Jones and Newsmax.
Agriculture subsidies seem tricky. We subsidize so that the product is cheaper to the consumer, but the consumer is paying those subsidies in taxes
Why can't we have presidents like this more often
We do. Obama and Clinton were an awful lot like Bartlet: whipsmart, learned policy wonks with left-leaning values, pragmatic sensibilities, and a commitment to appointing highly competent people. Biden's old, but he shares some of those traits. Compare that to Trump, Bush II, and Reagan, who share none of them.
This show was amazing
Hollywood's version of how a president should conduct himself seems so much more presidential than the current real-life version featuring a used-to-be reality star...
That's a sad commentary on the depth that our government has been lowered over the past 3 years!
The "Swamp" was replaced by a "Sewage Plant".
Yeah, wouldn't it be great if we could go back to the days of the unaccomplished community organizer who spent two decades in the pews of a hate-mongering preacher; had a long-standing professional relationship with a domestic terrorist, smiled for photos with racist organize crime kingpin Louis Farrakhan, and invited racist extraordinaire Al Sharpton on many occasions.
@@epm5433 As opposed to the current character who's goal has been to divide the US from our NATO Allies, conduct secret meetings with Vladimir Putin without any records of what he was told to do, and ignore every warning about this minor pandemic item...
News Flash - Congratulating the Chinese for doing a great job and then doing nothing while the virus spreads because he doesn't want to upset the US Economy... How's that going? If Trump had tried to get in front of the curve instead of doing nothing and then playing his usual finger pointing game, maybe the US would be in a better position now. Unfortunately, we'll never know because his actions, or lack of, can't be undone. The US Economy is teetering and we've not seen the worst of neither the virus nor the economic problems.
So, to answer your question... Yeah, I guess I'd rather be living under any other administration from the last 20-30 years than the glorious retard that's in DC now. I'm guessing you might not agree but you're completely entitled to your opinion. Stay safe and be well, COVID-19 is not a hoax, regardless of what comes out of the Whitehouse.
@@paulsimmons5726 Put the crack pipe down and get some help. Your fact-free rant will get you tossed back into the basement.And you may want to change your diaper because the unaccomplished, racist, pandering, senile dolt is will lost to Trump in Nov. MAGA2020!
You lost me when you said “Hollywood’s version”, which speaks massive volumes...💯🙅🏾♂️😒
Right because we as a species are having a hard time separating reality from entertainment. God forbid we paint the president of the United States as an educated , caring, good person. Relax.
This isn’t a liberal vs conservative debate. This is an interventionist vs laissez-faire debate. There is nothing inherently conservative about not spending money to improve society and the conditions of the poorest. There is nothing inherently liberal about spending money either. After all, it was a liberal in Britain (William Gladstone) who sought to abolish the income tax in the 1870s. It was a conservative who created the first income tax in British history
This is also not, really, an argument between a laissez-faire and interventionist position. The Republicans intervene economically all the time, with oil and agriculture subsidies, military spending and even tariffs nowadays. They still trot out the same old meaningless spiel about tax cuts. What most people don’t understand is tax cuts may put a bit more money in your pocket, but it takes money out of the things that you need in life, including education and healthcare. Most people in OECD countries enjoy a standard of education they couldn’t buy on their incomes alone because government pools national resources and boosts the social wage of all.
Government intervention needs to be substantial but also include ideological direction. Conservatives should go back to using intervention to protect those values they wish to protect. Protecting the family is best achieved by good education policy, mortgage credits, secure access to employment and good child healthcare. Meanwhile, liberals should encourage those values they prefer. They should realise that freedom is enabled by intervention from government, not limited by it, and that political rights can only be realised through economic freedom. This is framing things in US terms. Liberals are more likely to do the latter but still.
Its a slippery slope helping people, As Margaret Thatcher said " The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other peoples money"
eric wsmith it isn’t socialism to help people though. It’s socialism to try and bring equality through giving workers ownership of industry. It’s interventionist to help the poor. England has had a welfare system since 1601, which did a lot of poor relief and saw the last English famine from lack of grain 100 years before France’s. Welfare is essential to the good functioning of society.
Besides, Thatcher actually raised taxes and increased spending on welfare. The problem with privatisation, is that you eventually run out of things to sell off. And the problem with punishing the poor, is you have to start punishing the middle class eventually.
God damn I bloody love West Wing mother from up in blessed Heaven casting is how you do it
so true, education and specifically subsiding tuition through Student loans within a failed system- and the train keeps moving..
They know it. But they've got nothing else in the can. Either the solution is so radical that Americans won't accept it, or there is no solution and Keep Calm and Carry On.
The Speaker's idea of "just handing every student $10k a year" is ridiculous though, because most of the Dept. of Education's budget already goes to students. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Education#Budget
Pell Grants are need-based and are grants, not loans, so don't get paid back; over half of the department's budget is for grants. Another 27% is for student loans, which is literally "handing them $10k a year" but then getting them to pay it back (which fiscally responsible people should be all too happy about).
Education is expensive in every nation. It's nearly as expensive or sometimes moreso in reputable European countries. There's no magic fairy-tale solution of "well if only the government would go away everything would be rainbows and sunshine." Sometimes things are just expensive and you have to put up and shut up. Bartlet was 100% correct.
Martin Sheen was just fierce in this clip.
xTheUnderscorex: I think you give the government too much credit in thinking they have watched the West Wing
Actually, if you'd do your research, there's a documented incident in England where tactics from an episode were directly and deliberately used. Prime Minister Tony Blair was the victim of it. Ironically, at the time it was done, Blair's 22 year old son doing a 6 week stint as an intern on Capital Hill with the House Rules committee.
Take a look at the list of consultants to this show sometime. They WERE your government.
The speaker in the West Wing would be a bit too liberal for today's GOP in 2020. He believes in democracy/free and fair elections and would probably put country over party. Trump and his enablers do not believe in the concept of democracy and would destroy it if they have the chance. The speaker would be the equivalent of a 90's to maybe 2000's Republican politician.
Oh hes plenty right wing fanatic enough. Yeah lets defund the department of education, so right wing states are free to teach students whatever stupidity they want.. Hey the world is 6000 years old, Noah's Flood was a real thing that happened and the Loch Ness Monster disproves evolution! That would be the Biology curriculum in red states if Hafley had his way.
Yeah I know it’s overlooked by a lot of people in this scene but even bringing up the possibility of defunding public education like that is absolutely ridiculous let alone the fact that it wouldn’t do anything to help budgets teacher pay etc. it would all be for profit for these fucking red states
Yes The West Wing Series helped me thru a few years. Little did I know what was really going on. Write that Aaron Sorkin. Oh. yes. The Newsroom.
Two former Bobby Kennedys going toe-to-toe. Fascinating.
What's sad about this scene every time I see it is a fervent wish that if only our Washington bureaucrats even attempted to think things through the way these two characters are in this scene. Aaron Sorkin has sent us a message of elevation, which we haven't had in government since that low level actor, Reagan took office. Instead, today, we have to deal with the lowest of our common denominators, characters who can barely spell their names in crayon and who only think of their own power and self interest. They avoid the citizenry and have nothing to do with representing them at all.
Some of the best cooperation between The White House and Congress took place when Reagan was in office and Tip O'Neil was the Speaker. They understood the art of compromise. The Big Dig was something Tip wanted and got as part of a deal with Reagan.
Huh? Bill Clinton was a Rhodes scholar and Yale-educated lawyer; Barack Obama was a Harvard-educated civil rights lawyer. Both were extremely intelligent, knew history and policy, and paired pragmatic politics with left-learning values. How much closer to Bartlet do you expect?
Haven't watched this scene in at least two years... Anyone else see and hear a Haffley / Paul Ryan resemblance?
Not having Bartletts last line in the series be what’s next? Was such a disappointment.
Yeah I felt the same way in the moment but upon reflection...the man deserved a break. I mean he was all go no whit what's next for what 44 years or so after school? But I hear ya.
I love TWW. As a none American this was one of the main storylines I just really struggled to understand. 10+ years later and the only thing I understand is that the US is happy to plow itself more and more into debt .... As long as the two parties don't loose face
Can we please, please have President Bartlett. Or at least something close to him. Or at least for Trump to get evicted?
This is what you risk a shut-down for...and not some silly wall.
There is nothing silly about the wall. Even the fear of the wall has cut illegal immigration back quite a bit. And as illegal immigration goes down and some illegals return to their home countries, the US unemployment rate actually goes down, because Americans are taking many of those jobs once again.
The only reason that the Dems are against the wall and pro-illegal immigration is because they think that they can make illegals dependent on government and thus effectively bribe them into being Democrat voters. I wouldn't believe any other answer coming out of their lying mouths, whether they're lying to the American public or to themselves.
@@crucisnh Why are you sure of those things?
@@crucisnhYeah, Democrats want illegal immigration, which is why both Obama and Biden broke records on deportation and detainment at border crossings. Logic just goes…..right over your head!
This show had/has no equal ! I’m just stating the obvious here . Also this show was/is my favorite series of all time . Just beating out MASH and All in the Family !
Look it's Claten Webb (sp) from JAG.
Well...
Seems to me... someone needs to show THIS to Agent Orange 😜✌️😂
Greetings from Germany 🇩🇪
Oh HELL NO! He might think he's as presidential as Barlet (who ironically is just acting) and hold out even longer on this ridiculous unwarranted shutdown.
When your immediate reaction is to insult the duly elected President, you immediately lost your argument.
@@sabrewolf4129 How do you KNOW his reaction was "immediate"? He may have been holding out as long as he could then finally gave in from overwhelming NEED! =) P.S. And his so called argument seemed more like just an observation...to me.
@hbdywtk
It's attitudes like yours which have given us the current state of politics today. Thank you for helping to create a partisan atmosphere in which we have theocrats running for POTUS.
What truly amuses me is that this episode was probably a small factor in the dynamics of the last shutdown. It romanticised the heroic moral stance of taking a moral stance and refusing to negotiate 'with a gun to your head' and now politicians are trying to live the dream.
Tell me Obama didn't for one minute think about he was being all cool and Bartlet-y during that stuff, and ditto congress.
I wouldn't be surprised if Obama watched the west wing and wanted to emulate Bartlett.
John Boehnor?
I love how the speaker justify his position about the need to stop spending way to much and in the end they compromised by spending too much. So much for a principled stance
They had already reached an equitable agreement when they had come up with the budget. Haffley had been negotiating in bad faith with the demand for a 3% reduction in the CR at the last second. When Bartlet physically walked to the Capitol to negotiate and the Speaker made him wait in the hallway, it made it clear to the public that Haffley was trying to run all fiscal policy from the Speaker's office.
The compromise here was that while Haffley agreed to the spending levels (Remember, they had already agreed on them weeks earlier when they drafted the damn appropriations bills), Bartlet agreed to change the means of raising the revenue to include tax cuts.
When it comes to the Speaker of the House and the office of the Presidency PARTY POLITICS SHOULD BE CHECKED AT THE DOOR. What the fuck? Whatever happened to Country First.
It turns out we can have a bloated Dept. of Ed AND give students $10k.
Of course, thanks to the Fed and the politicians who never met a spending bill they didn't like, $10k isn't as much as it was 20 years ago.
Slow steady inflation is pretty much a design goal of a healthy economy.
@@stargazer7644 #1 it's no longer slow and steady. #2 you're buying into the standard economic thinking. What was the intention of the fed when instituted? Partially to preserve the value of the dollar. Which has lost 98% in the past 110 years. Do you dislike those on fixed incomes so much that you wish to erode their resources?
@@jonblakemore6454 You were talking over the last 20 years. Even counting the last couple of years, the 20 average inflation rate was a very low 2.47% No 10k isn't worth as much as it was 20 years ago. It isn't supposed to be. You want to have some inflation for a stable growing economy. Nobody will lend anyone money if it is cheaper to keep it in their pocket. Take an econ 101 class. Those on "fixed incomes" aren't the ones driving the economy. They're just along for the ride. Tank the economy and see how their "fixed income" handles that.
The house had a deal with Trump.. he's foregone it twice.. All for looking good to FOX.. All over his stupid erratic spending for a memorial tribute to himself..
You spelled Obama and CNN wrong.
Martin Sheen was born to play president Jed
Watching this and then realizing how the republicans have done the deficits and ran the national debt into the many trillions just makes me sick. When I was in high school 50 years ago I wrote a paper on why I believed that there should be no national debt, that the government should have a budget, spend within its means and tax enough to cover the costs. I got a poor grade as my instructor thought there is nothing wrong with borrowing money. Today I am retired, not rich, but I have enough and no debts.
@mandellorian well thats just the difference between capital and revenue expenditure. And whilst I agree with the thrust of your argument, the US National debt shouldn't be 36 trillion. Its not unique to the US either. Western society has ended up living far beyond our means for many years and its the next generations who will pay the price. The current cost of living crisis throughout Europe is a direct consequence of not having the capacity to absorb economic shocks like this.
I so loved this show and so wish we could get a president thet would rule like this. The earth would be in such a better place.
That line! I don’t care if my approval ratings tank into single digits. Speaker knew he was fucked. Bartlett doesn’t need to run again, speaker does.
Give every student $10,000 a year instead of funding the department of education? You gotta be fuckin shiting me!
President Biden and Speaker McCarthy debt ceiling talks going down like this.
Everyone else in that room is wearing their suit jackets, Josh and CJ should have come in wearing theirs. We saw Toby putting his on as he came in.
i respect conservatives, but not Republicans. The modern Republican party has gone insane, to the point where Reagan would be called a socialist and George Bush Sr. cannot recognize the party. No, I'm not an idiot; I'm someone who sees the GOP for the loss-its-course pile of insanity that it's become. If/when the GOP returns to being small-government, rational, reality-embracing, non-Christian-fundamentalist, I'll change my opinion.
That's pretty funny. He wants to claim paternalistic welfare is holding people back, but he's unwilling to cut millions from government subsidies to the large agricultural corporations. If they're so good for corporations, then government hand-outs can't be all that bad for the rest of us, can they?
I used to be against farmer subs but they'tre the reason that food is cheap
Actually, no ag subsidies are supposed to go to large agribusinesses, but the DoA doesn’t enforce that bit.