MovieChat Forums > Inside Job (2010) Discussion > 2 things that stood out to me

2 things that stood out to me

posted 13 years ago by mklasr
4 replies | jump to latest

There were 2 issues that came to my attention when I saw this movie.

1) The first was that The Bush administration didn't just "let the housing bubble happen," they praised it. Prior to the 2005 State of the Union address, we were perpetually reminded that "one of the few bright spots in the economy" was that "home ownership was at an all time high." This new "ownership society" was supposed to be a justification for privatizing social security. It's one thing to allow something to happen, but it's another to cheer it on and act as though it is a good thing with no possible consequences. I used to say that Harvard should have revoked Bush's MBA, but after seeing the way Harvard professors behaved, they probably support what he did.

2) The second was the double standard with regards to the use of prostites. I still remember when Spitzer resigned as governor, how disgusted the reporters were with the fact that he would even attempt to regulate Wall Street when his own hands were not completely clean. When the Madam talked about their lack of interest in the records of the other offenders, I wondered where the outrage was. The movie walked a fine line between presenting the double standard without looking like sour grapes on the part of Spitzer. I just wish people were as concerned with the crimes Spitzer was trying to prevent.

[–] rjcarr 13 years ago

A couple comments:

1) I agree, the entire Bush administration, and nearly everyone in federal government, did almost nothing to prevent what was happening. However, as the movie explained, the wheels started turning long before Bush had anything to do with it (including terrible legislation in the Clinton era), it just reached a crescendo in the W years.

2) There were differences with Spitzer that can explain the double standard (and I really like Spitzer). FIrst, he was a publicly elected official, not a wall street tycoon. Second, he enacted some anti-prostitution laws which made him a hypocrite.

[–] Blueberry_HEAD 13 years ago

The hypocracy with anti-prostitution laws I can agree with. But public official or not, what people do with their own money and time is no ones *beep* business. I don't remember the story much, but did it turn out that he was using tax payer money for this? If so, then *beep* him.

I hate coconut! Not the taste, the consistency...

[–] Ripley741 13 years ago

But public official or not, what people do with their own money and time is no ones *beep* business.

I wish. We live in a land of "let us declare what you can and can't do with your body, because we care about you... but here, have some fast food, and overpriced medication, and tobacco, and alcohol", lol.

What a zoo.

[–] juanmonge69 12 years ago

Spitzers financial activities were being monitored and reported on by the banks. It was Capital one bank that turned him in. Technically, Spitzer was moving money around illegally. The big bosses wanted him out. His successor was also hounded out of office. Spitzer's Father is worth several hubdred million dollars.