Yeah but i remember buying a region free Cyberhome 500 DVD player in early 2000 (well it wasn't region free it came with a printed set of instructions in making it region free) and i paid over £250 for it (about $400) Bearing in mind in 2000 i was paid about £17,000 per year (about $26,000) which is around $18,000 after tax or $1600 a month. To put that in perspective i spent a weeks wages on a great DVD player (with as Charlie would say "A scan DVD player with MP3 playback") . Once i upgraded the player about 4 years later, i gave that player to my Mum and Dad. That player was STILL WORKING when my Mum died 2 years ago!! Try getting a product like that nowadays that lasts 20 years!!!
@@fyukfy2366 Well now they have 4K Blu Ray players. So the few people who still collect physical media are buying 4K. But its all just kind of pointless to own since you watch it a few times then it just sits on your shelf collecting dust.
Despite the glib nature of the exchange, there's a lot of serious, rational discussion to be had around federal spending... and it's a lot more complicated than "I want my money back" and "because we're Democrats". The problem is that stupid people think it's that simple and they never bother to think about or discuss the real issues.
@Gunman610 According to wikiquote the phrase "A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon, you're talking real money." has been misattributed to Senator Everett Dirkson (1896-1969).
For some reason I just started getting these WW feeds. This is perhaps the last show about politics that was left-leaning, but also provided light to the other point of view (conservatives). We will never see this again, we're too polarized now. As for this clip, it is spot on - "We don't trust you to spend it right" or something like that. Nails the leftist way of thinking. "We are smarter than you and can spend your money better so you can't have it back". If it were up to them, we'd work, get an "allowance" and they'd keep the rest. Heck, we're almost there now.
If Josh had stopped at "pay down the debt" his argument would have been golden. Pay down the debt and next year's surplus will be even bigger. Use the next year's surplus to pay down the debt even more and then the following year's surplus will be even bigger. Set to repeat. If Donna gets her DVD player that means the interest on the debt just gets bigger thanks to compound interest. She's effectively getting her DVD player with borrowed money which means that her taxes will just have to go back up next year to pay it back. If the debate was Tax Cuts vs. Debt Repayment, then it would be a no brainer. But that's never the debate.
I love this scene - it's very funny, and obviously trying to make the show a bit more even-handed. Where the writers failed dismally, was to mention that at that time we we still had not made even a slight dent in the DEBT. If I had written this script, I would have had Josh say, "We'd like to give you your money back, but the Reagan administration gave so much money back without reducing any spending, that you now have a great big credit card bill that needs to be paid - sorry."
He specifically says he wants to use the money to pay down debt, which would have existed with or without Reagan, so there was really no need to mention Reagan at all.
This isn't an issue of ideology. There are Republicans who would say not give it back*they would give it to the military to buy some fancy weapons) and I know for sure there are Democrats who would want to return it(by reducing what the poor pay) It's not unreasonable to want your money back.
@@NoGoodNames20 Well, I'd argue that electronics and food are not the same. Electronics drop in price, that's just common sense, as parts get cheaper, development costs have been amortized, and more competitors appear. Food, not so much.
Finally: ever notice how, at least in the early seasons, every single one of the senior staff's personal assistants is a woman, while every senior staff member is a man (no, press secretary doesn't count)? This may have been a realistic portrayal of Washington at the time, but the show made no critique of this reality. To reiterate: I love the West Wing. I don't go looking for these things when they aren't there. It's simply unmissable in this case.
Sam Seaborn: Where'd you get the bathrobe? Carol Fitzpatrick: The gym. Sam Seaborn: There are bathrobes at the gym? Claudia Jean 'C.J.' Cregg: In the women's locker room. Sam Seaborn: But not the men's. Claudia Jean 'C.J.' Cregg: Yeah. Sam Seaborn: Now, that's outrageous. There's a thousand men working here and 50 women. Claudia Jean 'C.J.' Cregg: Yeah, and it's the *bathrobes* that's outrageous. while it didn't directly address the Senior staff positions, it did highlight the male to female ratio in the White House
Well, Nancy McNally was the National Security Advisor, responding straight to the president... also, during the show, the Chief Justice Evelyn Baker Lang was nominated by the president... those are not "middle" jobs. But yeah you are right, just remember this was 1999,... and I think it's a good picture of the situation back then.
Actually, now that there have been three female Secretaries of State, one of them predating the West Wing by some years, I don't think it's really true that those are all "amazing jobs for a woman to be at" ( a questionable phrase in itself). I understand the narrative role Donna plays, but the fact remains that they chose a woman to play the part of the clueless child, when the character is supposedly - I repeat - an experienced political operative and White House staff member.
Yes, but in a slightly different way. Rather than being childlike and irrational, the West Wing's major black and Hispanic characters - only two of them, actually, Charlie and Santos - are ridiculously perfect in every way. Rather than looking down on them as they do with women, the writers seemed terrified that writing a flawed non-white character might be racist. By doing so, they ended up being racist anyway. - aigtban (Google made me start using my real name)
As for C.J., I agree that she's a far more compelling and rich character than Donna. Nevertheless, her portrayal was often problematic. Remember the episode "The Women of Qumar"? In it, she is the only major character to respond emotionally to the revelation of American arms sales to a Middle East theocracy that oppresses women, while the men are all able to remain hard-headed and pragmatic.
There were many other emotional reactions by other male characters in the show: Toby on New York Jews and commandments in the pilot episode, Bartlet on the virtue of a proportional response etc.
Her role was that of an assistant, and she is not even a college graduate due to which she is asking why certain things happen. None of the other assistants on the show never seem to ask so many questions about why certain things happen. You might be worried about the power dynamic here, it's supposed to be banter between them. Here the character is supposed to be Audience voice which explains or asks most of the things to get an answer out of the characters, most of the time it's Josh who answers or cares to answer her questions.
The Charlie character is never really made the focus of any of the shows. Most iof the time he was being used to show they had a black man on the show. He is the real target of the gunmen and therefore you would think the storey would focus on him . Instead they ignore him and focus on how Josh and Donna are affected. Even thoigh he wasn't shot don't you think his life would be in danger as there might be others who would want to kill him.
its a drama 'bout Washington and the political game everyone in the houses of congress and the West Wing is forced to play, i dont think it was an aim for Sorkin et al to criticize the lack of women in positions in power in D.C :-p That said, a show about American politics *could* criticize that there aren't that many women in positions of power in D.C, hopefully in a smart and insightful way that doesn't make everyone more liberal than Dworkin puke^^
Oppressing woman was something that would and should affect a woman more than a man and therefore isn't problematic. If anything it was the lack of concern by the men that was problematic.
oddly enough in US history democrats and republicans have had almost and equal number of surpluses and both have paid down dept with that extra money almost the same amount of time
Yes. As it turns out lifting people out of poverty has positive effects for the economy and health of a nation's finances. Republicans think massively increasing the nation's debt to pay for tax cuts for Herr Trump will do the same. (Spoiler: It won't)
Sorry, but I hate this scene. Donna works in the White House, yet needs to have the ideological difference between the two parties explained to her? Sorkin is and was an amazing writer, but he has a habit of treating his female characters like children. Regrettable.
I know this is really late, but anytime there's a show discussing complex subjects (which most of the viewers won't have an in-depth knowledge of), there is usually a character who gets things explained to them so the audience understands at least some of the subtleties. This character is sometimes known as "Exposition Boy" (or Girl). In the early seasons of TWW, Donna was Exposition Girl.
The "billion dollars here..." line was originally from Everett Dirksen.
Also...$700 for a DVD player? Boy, you can tell this was 1999!
Don't worry Donna all you have to do is wait 20 years and most electronic stores will practically give you a DVD player.
"We don't trust you."
"Why not?"
"We're Democrats."
I died laughing.
The way Donna gets him at the end is SO GREAT!
I love Donna. It's a shame we haven't seen her since the end of this show
One of my favorite scenes in the whole series...
Paying $700 for a DVD player in 1998, wowzers. You can buy a good Blu Ray player now for around $50.
Yeah but i remember buying a region free Cyberhome 500 DVD player in early 2000 (well it wasn't region free it came with a printed set of instructions in making it region free) and i paid over £250 for it (about $400) Bearing in mind in 2000 i was paid about £17,000 per year (about $26,000) which is around $18,000 after tax or $1600 a month. To put that in perspective i spent a weeks wages on a great DVD player (with as Charlie would say "A scan DVD player with MP3 playback") .
Once i upgraded the player about 4 years later, i gave that player to my Mum and Dad. That player was STILL WORKING when my Mum died 2 years ago!!
Try getting a product like that nowadays that lasts 20 years!!!
@@terencej72 Its usually not a good idea to buy first generation when new technologies come out.
And 4 years after this comment you couldn't pay someone 50$ to take a DVD/Blu ray player off your hands
@@fyukfy2366 Well now they have 4K Blu Ray players. So the few people who still collect physical media are buying 4K. But its all just kind of pointless to own since you watch it a few times then it just sits on your shelf collecting dust.
@@joemckim1183 If it sits on your shelf then it's for showing off to visitors.
Donna with the perfect counter to a budget surplus.
Donna: "why don't we want to give back the money?" Josh: "cause we're democrats." now that's reality television
Amen!
Despite the glib nature of the exchange, there's a lot of serious, rational discussion to be had around federal spending... and it's a lot more complicated than "I want my money back" and "because we're Democrats". The problem is that stupid people think it's that simple and they never bother to think about or discuss the real issues.
You're right about that of course. Because unlike the American people; the government can never do with less.
In reality, either party only starts caring about the budget once the other party takes power. Happens every time.
@Gunman610 According to wikiquote the phrase "A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon, you're talking real money." has been misattributed to Senator Everett Dirkson (1896-1969).
For some reason I just started getting these WW feeds. This is perhaps the last show about politics that was left-leaning, but also provided light to the other point of view (conservatives). We will never see this again, we're too polarized now. As for this clip, it is spot on - "We don't trust you to spend it right" or something like that. Nails the leftist way of thinking. "We are smarter than you and can spend your money better so you can't have it back". If it were up to them, we'd work, get an "allowance" and they'd keep the rest. Heck, we're almost there now.
If Josh had stopped at "pay down the debt" his argument would have been golden. Pay down the debt and next year's surplus will be even bigger. Use the next year's surplus to pay down the debt even more and then the following year's surplus will be even bigger. Set to repeat.
If Donna gets her DVD player that means the interest on the debt just gets bigger thanks to compound interest. She's effectively getting her DVD player with borrowed money which means that her taxes will just have to go back up next year to pay it back.
If the debate was Tax Cuts vs. Debt Repayment, then it would be a no brainer. But that's never the debate.
You could probably cut the military budget in half and save a few cents there lol. Still by far the biggest military on Earth.
I love Donna.
Don't be silly. As I've said several times, I love the West Wing. However, admiring something doesn't mean you stop looking at it with a critical eye.
I love this scene - it's very funny, and obviously trying to make the show a bit more even-handed. Where the writers failed dismally, was to mention that at that time we we still had not made even a slight dent in the DEBT. If I had written this script, I would have had Josh say, "We'd like to give you your money back, but the Reagan administration gave so much money back without reducing any spending, that you now have a great big credit card bill that needs to be paid - sorry."
Reagan never existed in TWW universe.
There is a hospital named after him. So, ya... I really don't know XD.
He specifically says he wants to use the money to pay down debt, which would have existed with or without Reagan, so there was really no need to mention Reagan at all.
Go Donna!
Go Donna she awesome
This isn't an issue of ideology.
There are Republicans who would say not give it back*they would give it to the military to buy some fancy weapons) and I know for sure there are Democrats who would want to return it(by reducing what the poor pay)
It's not unreasonable to want your money back.
"You won't spend it right." that's exactly the problem with government. When has the government ever spent money right?
You're welcome to review every expense yourself. It'll take you about twenty years, but hey power to the people
I've decided to invest it for you.
LOL
Thanks Francesco Costa
@Gunman610 I believe it was Tip O'Neill.
@871hello
I meant the american people in general!
Were DVD players made of gold back then?
No, but like most new technology, they were Very expensive when first introduced (as were VCR's before them).
They were really expensive. I rented one to try it out. It turned out that my TV wasn't even compatible to run it. Like most older TV at that time.
Anybody know where that quote comes from? I'm pretty sure it was said on the floor of Congress.
I want my money back!
The last scene would have been perfect if Josh also says immediately after her, "i want MY money back!"
Biggest takeaway for me was, there was a time not that long ago when you could buy 3 sandwiches for $12.95.
Also a time where a DVD player was $700. Now, I don’t know, find a garage sale and pick one up for $5
@@NoGoodNames20 Well, I'd argue that electronics and food are not the same. Electronics drop in price, that's just common sense, as parts get cheaper, development costs have been amortized, and more competitors appear. Food, not so much.
Both make good points.
Finally: ever notice how, at least in the early seasons, every single one of the senior staff's personal assistants is a woman, while every senior staff member is a man (no, press secretary doesn't count)? This may have been a realistic portrayal of Washington at the time, but the show made no critique of this reality.
To reiterate: I love the West Wing. I don't go looking for these things when they aren't there. It's simply unmissable in this case.
Why doesn't Press Secretary count?
Sam Seaborn: Where'd you get the bathrobe?
Carol Fitzpatrick: The gym.
Sam Seaborn: There are bathrobes at the gym?
Claudia Jean 'C.J.' Cregg: In the women's locker room.
Sam Seaborn: But not the men's.
Claudia Jean 'C.J.' Cregg: Yeah.
Sam Seaborn: Now, that's outrageous. There's a thousand men working here and 50 women.
Claudia Jean 'C.J.' Cregg: Yeah, and it's the *bathrobes* that's outrageous.
while it didn't directly address the Senior staff positions, it did highlight the male to female ratio in the White House
Well, Nancy McNally was the National Security Advisor, responding straight to the president... also, during the show, the Chief Justice Evelyn Baker Lang was nominated by the president... those are not "middle" jobs. But yeah you are right, just remember this was 1999,... and I think it's a good picture of the situation back then.
I meant Bush
Actually, now that there have been three female Secretaries of State, one of them predating the West Wing by some years, I don't think it's really true that those are all "amazing jobs for a woman to be at" ( a questionable phrase in itself). I understand the narrative role Donna plays, but the fact remains that they chose a woman to play the part of the clueless child, when the character is supposedly - I repeat - an experienced political operative and White House staff member.
Thr same thing could be said about Blacks and Hispanics.
Yes, but in a slightly different way. Rather than being childlike and irrational, the West Wing's major black and Hispanic characters - only two of them, actually, Charlie and Santos - are ridiculously perfect in every way. Rather than looking down on them as they do with women, the writers seemed terrified that writing a flawed non-white character might be racist. By doing so, they ended up being racist anyway. - aigtban (Google made me start using my real name)
What about John Amos playing the JCoS? There was a nominee for the Supreme Court who was Hispanic, too. And that is just off the top of my head.
Did you boycott the series over this?
As for C.J., I agree that she's a far more compelling and rich character than Donna. Nevertheless, her portrayal was often problematic. Remember the episode "The Women of Qumar"? In it, she is the only major character to respond emotionally to the revelation of American arms sales to a Middle East theocracy that oppresses women, while the men are all able to remain hard-headed and pragmatic.
There were many other emotional reactions by other male characters in the show: Toby on New York Jews and commandments in the pilot episode, Bartlet on the virtue of a proportional response etc.
Her role was that of an assistant, and she is not even a college graduate due to which she is asking why certain things happen. None of the other assistants on the show never seem to ask so many questions about why certain things happen. You might be worried about the power dynamic here, it's supposed to be banter between them. Here the character is supposed to be Audience voice which explains or asks most of the things to get an answer out of the characters, most of the time it's Josh who answers or cares to answer her questions.
The Charlie character is never really made the focus of any of the shows.
Most iof the time he was being used to show they had a black man on the show.
He is the real target of the gunmen and therefore you would think the storey would focus on him .
Instead they ignore him and focus on how Josh and Donna are affected.
Even thoigh he wasn't shot don't you think his life would be in danger as there might be others who would want to kill him.
But the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the NSA chief were both black.
its a drama 'bout Washington and the political game everyone in the houses of congress and the West Wing is forced to play, i dont think it was an aim for Sorkin et al to criticize the lack of women in positions in power in D.C :-p
That said, a show about American politics *could* criticize that there aren't that many women in positions of power in D.C, hopefully in a smart and insightful way that doesn't make everyone more liberal than Dworkin puke^^
Oppressing woman was something that would and should affect a woman more than a man and therefore isn't problematic.
If anything it was the lack of concern by the men that was problematic.
Democrats pay down debt?
oddly enough in US history democrats and republicans have had almost and equal number of surpluses and both have paid down dept with that extra money almost the same amount of time
Yes. As it turns out lifting people out of poverty has positive effects for the economy and health of a nation's finances.
Republicans think massively increasing the nation's debt to pay for tax cuts for Herr Trump will do the same. (Spoiler: It won't)
Sorry, but I hate this scene. Donna works in the White House, yet needs to have the ideological difference between the two parties explained to her? Sorkin is and was an amazing writer, but he has a habit of treating his female characters like children. Regrettable.
I know this is really late, but anytime there's a show discussing complex subjects (which most of the viewers won't have an in-depth knowledge of), there is usually a character who gets things explained to them so the audience understands at least some of the subtleties. This character is sometimes known as "Exposition Boy" (or Girl). In the early seasons of TWW, Donna was Exposition Girl.
And she isn't even a college graduate who took upon herself to be Josh's assistant. She wants to know stuff. And yeah she is exposition girl.
I like CJ Toby Sam Leo and Josh but I cant stand Donna she is VERY ANNOYING!
Nope - love Donna. The consultant with the dark hair in season one was annoying - glad they dumped her.