Home
Creators
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

The West Wing, Season 5, Episode 12 (Patreon)

Published:
2024-09-02 22:23:59
Imported:
2026-06
Tags:
haven't archived this post yet. have a subscription? use the importer!

Downloads

  • 348493082.mp4

Missing 1 video, as this post has not yet been imported.

Content

Slow News Day

Comments

James Gassor

Eek, typo guys, should read season 5,episode 12. Too soon to take us back to season 1!

Cosmic Slice

Even the weakest episode of this show is better than 90% of other shows. And Toby has been one of my favourite characters since the day this show aired. I named the cat that I just lost last year after him...Tobias Ziegler Davis otherwise known as Toby the tabby. He had the same serious face as human Toby. Part of me with this show can't wait for you to see the last season and the other half never wants you to get there because the ride is so much fun. :)

Pam Nail

This is one of (I think) two episodes that prompted then senator Hillary Clinton to write a letter to the showrunners saying basically "yeah, that would never work."

Weird Magic

I watched on Max - am I the only one that saw the opening credits at about 4:15? This was written by Eli Attie - not sure if it's been discussed here or not, but Eli was the chief speechwriter for Al Gore during the 2000 campaign. He became a writer on The West Wing in Season 3, but his influence was seen much more once Sorkin left. A number of the show's key storylines come from Attie's own experiences in politics. Originally airing on February 4, 2004, 'Slow News Day' is Episode 12 of Season 5 of The West Wing. It is the 101st episode overall and has an IMDB rating of 8.0, placing it as the #7 ranked episode of this season and #66 out of all the episodes shown so far.

Taylor
>>148336714

Yeah, there were definitely opening credits. They talked over them like usual, but they were there.

Kelsey Krehbiel

This is one of the episodes where I really struggle to suspend my disbelief. For me, this episode goes from optimistic to pure fantasy--I don't think even the most optimistic of us think this would have ever been possible. It is still a great episode of television, but I don't consider a great episode of The West Wing

Joy M

This year the income at which an American is no longer taxed for Social Security is $168,000. It’s stupid. Someone making $1 million pays the same as someone making $168,000. It’s just nuts. The other issue that I think about with Social Security is not only are people living longer, but they are marrying multiple times. You can draw on an ex-spouse’s Social Security if you were married for at least 10 years. There are people in their 70s with 3 living ex-spouses drawing at the same time.

Youtalkingtome
>>148335666

This show is all about the ride for me. Love tuning in weekly just to see what's going on in their lives. I don't know what I'm gunna do when it's over.

Roland Cooke

Googly tells me this on whether Social Security will run out. > Yes, Social Security is projected to run out of money in the future, but that doesn't mean that benefits will stop: When it will run out: According to the program's trustees, the combined retirement and disability trust fund is projected to be depleted by 2035. However, the Social Security Board of Trustees estimates that the trust funds will be depleted in 2041. What will happen when it runs out: If no action is taken by Congress, Social Security will have enough FICA taxes to pay about 80% of scheduled benefits after the trust fund reserves are depleted. Why it will run out: The ratio of workers to beneficiaries is falling due to longer life expectancies and low birth rates. This means that the taxes paid by workers will not be enough to pay the full benefit amounts scheduled. What Congress can do: Congress has previously acted to ensure the solvency of the Trust Funds and protect Social Security benefits. <

Chelsea

This is definitely a great Tobey episode, but it always bothered me that he didn't tell Josh about what he was trying to do. Josh is the Political Director for the White House, he knows the ins and outs of everyone in congress .... leaving him out of this discussion was foolish. As we saw at the end, Josh knew exactly who to turn to in order to make a deal. I also think if Tobey went to Josh earlier, this wouldn't have been a story and Josh would have finagled a way to make sure this didn't become an issue with the DNC since they were all worried that a deal that fell apart without proper debate would wreak havoc on the party and they would lose all the momentum they built up in the house and senate. I know you guys hate how Josh handles things sometimes, he is willing to play dirty, but at the same time only Josh and Leo are political strategist. No one else in the white house (not CJ, Will, Tobey or even Bartlet) are true politicians. There is a reason why Leo recruited Josh all those years ago to help run Bartlet's campaign...we might not like how Josh gets things done sometimes, but he has way more wins than losses and he is a political savant. Everyone who talks about him on the show (congressmen, senators, press, even the senior staff) have mentioned how brilliant Josh is at politics. So for Tobey to act like social security reform wouldn't be political to me shows his naivete and his lack of understanding of the national government at large...Tobey has heart and that is admirable (also not saying Josh doesn't have heart, he truly does) but I think Tobey lacks the forethought of his and the administration's actions. His blunder could have cost Bartlet his entire political agenda and put the democratic party back several years.....although it is fair to say that if Tobey wasn't so ideological this save wouldn't have happened because Josh is so laser focused on the political landscape that he saw nothing but the repercussions of fixing SS he would never have even tried...which brings me back to my whole point....if Tobey just looped Josh in from the beginning, the combination of Josh's pragmatism and Tobey's idealism ...they would probably been able to get a fix for SS and have had time to figure out a strategy to give Bartlet the credit for his legacy. The fact they were up against the clock of the Journal's story being published made things so much harder and forced them to accept the idea that they had to be cut out of the credit. I'm guessing by my huge rant you can tell I adore this episode...this is what politics should look like, both sides working together. I also think it is ridiculous that people still think that the episodes of seasons 5-7 aren't good because Sorkin left...this episode is gem and so many in these seasons are fantastic! I honestly think Seasons 2, 7 and 5 might be favorites ....so the fact that two of the seasons are post Sorkin says something...and I am a huge Sorkin fan, but I think the writers in the latter seasons took some risks....which some things fell flat - like the needless slap...but more often than not, I think these risks paid off and allowed for really unique episodes and stories that Sorkin would have never written because it just wasn't his style. Which makes me love the show even more...I love what Sorkin created and I also love the show post-Sorkin....the fact that the show was nominated for an Emmy for Best Drama every year it was on air (all 7 seasons) proves that the show did not dip in quality. There were so many Emmy wins from these later seasons too, it was still an Emmy darling, so for people to shade the show and say it was terrible writing and quality, just tells me they weren't paying attention. Some tones changed, yes... but I like that...having the same tone throughout all 7 seasons would be boring, especially since administrations change so much within 2 terms....so this really felt like an administration change to me, Sorkin was 1st term and John Wells was 2nd term! 1st term they were getting their bearings and learning how to run a government, and the 2nd term the training wheels are off and they are in the thick of it, fighting tooth and nail for every political victory. The show needed to evolve, just like a white house administration would need to evolve.

Youtalkingtome
>>148456668

I agree he should have told Josh. Right there with ya in terms of quality. There's a reason it continued to crush it at the Emmys. I like the way you look at it as 2nd term, that's really clever!

Adam Crandall
>>148456668

That is a solid point about Josh. Just one problem . POTUS literally told him not to. Leo says "You work for Me" But at the same time if POTUS tells you to leave everyone out, you do it. Which didn't exactly work out. But at the end of the day, orders are orders.

Balazs Foldes
>>148336714

fun thing how human brain works. I walked to highschool every day, it was about a 13 minute walk. One morning, I was lost in my thoughts, and when I was sitting at my desk in class, I realised I have no recollection whatsoever of walking to school. None, none at all. Totally blanked out. Scary. These guys can react to a show with a couple of minutes going past their ears and eyes...

Balazs Foldes
>>148342727

I agree. This is a nice tale, but totally unrealistic. And it happens, I think, because the writers were too grabby, trying to solve social security in a single episode. It even contradicts itsels: they do specifically cite that Toby's plan of using a single, potentially retiring senator to stunt together a social security deal was unrealistic, cause social security is to big to be sold with a stunt. Then they do it anyway, with a few follow-up stunts. Anyway, I think Sorkin was way smarter then this. A few seasons ago, do you remember the part about putting together a blue ribbon commission on social security? And Toby being nervous, because the Democrat who he needed on the commission would not accept, and would go public? And he finally solved it with a stunt: just announcing that the guy accepted, because it would make it very difficult for him to say no. That was clever writing. Toby succeeded, he did a trick, it was optimistic. ANd the results? They moved forward and formed a commission to talk about social security. See? realistic goals, and it becomes believable.

Balazs Foldes

Being a Hungarian, I certainly don't know too much about US social security rules. But Hungary used to have a cap on social security contributions ('payroll taxes'), too. It meant people did not have to pay social security tax on part of their income above the cap. But it also meant: when they will calculate your benefit (pension) when you retire, they will only calculate it based on the amounts for which you pays social security. If your payments were capped, effectively your benefits were capped as well. Billionaires did not receive millions and millions in pension benefit, only the capped maximum. Then they erased the cap (mostly, to raise some money in the system). And, after a few years, the exceedingly high pensions started to appear. So, there are few wonder solutions.

Balazs Foldes

Oh, and incredibly minor thing, but I cannot not mention it. :) The end of Balázs (ZS letter combination in Hungarian) is pronounced the same way as the 's' in vision or precision in English. A voiced postalveolar fricative. (Yay for phonology!)

Weird Magic
>>148350881

I'm not above the threshold you mention and don't collect SS right now (should be a while yet) so it doesn't apply to me but the counter-argument from someone that considers themself socially liberal and fiscally conservative.... The Income Tax rules cover the "pay fair share of taxes" part of this discussion (minus loopholes, but that's a completely different discussion). The idea of paying in to Social Security when young is so that you specifically have money when YOU are old - a forced savings account so to speak. I can eventually live on that $168k/year (which is what the SS rules are trying to accomplish) so why should I pay more than that for MY elder years? I get I'm paying now for people and other people will pay for me when I receive it, but the concept is to force people to put money away for later years of life when they are not working, NOT to pay for other people who aren't working right now. Again - I consider myself a moderate/independent that leans left more every year - where I don't lean left is the complaining about taxes and paying fair share. Should people that make more than enough money pay more in taxes - absolutely - they do already - but forcing a higher dollar amount right now to fund it doesn't mean it will be funded better because that money (and the % increase funded by that individual) will need to be paid back to THAT individual during their retirement, correct? If the argument then becomes "cap them at receiving $168,000 even though they've put $1 Million into it", then we're basically just raising their income tax % to fund SS, right? But I'm not a politician so I might be wrong on the "why's"? Hope this doesn't divulge into anything ugly - it's been refreshing to come here and not have the political divisiveness - just wanted to counter with a "SS is different than Income Tax so let's not think of them the same way" discussion.

D Gyre
>>148342727

Especially given some of the episodes that will come later.

D Gyre

As others have said, this episodes reaches a bit too far, trying to give Bartlet this great presidency that solves these huge issues, but its such a good episode and over all what I love the most is that Toby tried so hard. This is one of the episodes why Toby is my favorite, at the end of the day he cares more about governing and solutions than winning, and he recognized there's never going to be that magical day when his party has full control and can pass a bunch of things.

Curtis Higareda

The West Wing has always been an optimistic show, and I love it for that... but definitely feel like they kinda jumped the shark on this one...

Curtis Higareda
>>148335666

This has probably been mentioned before, but before you say goodbye to The West Wing, you guys should watch and react to the stage production version of the season 3 episode Hartsfield's Landing. It was a special they reunited for during the last election season to encourage voting. It's also on HBO Max...

Joy M
>>148350881

Those are interesting points. If we aren’t going to have as many workers per retiree and wages are going to remain stagnant, something’s gotta give to keep SS solvent. We have all sorts of tax benefits for 401ks, IRAs, and capital gains for people who have middle to higher incomes. It’s the working poor I worry about going into old age.

Balazs Foldes
>>148562485

Oh, I absolutely don't expect people to be fluent Hungarian readers. But y9u keep mentioning me so frequently, i thought i should mention. Thank you so much!

Curtis Higareda
>>148632848

Oh don't get me wrong, I just mean this episode. There's not another episode I feel this way about... it was just a little much for me in this one.