I'm on a mailing list that includes a lot of pretty smart people who are very capable of arguing for the sake of argument. You know, if you say "The sky is blue" they will try to convince you it is red, and as soon as you agree, they will then try to convince you it's blue.
Certainly there are political leanings, but the overriding principal is the ability to take any side of the issue. I need some help on this one because I'm stuck doing my actual job. And besides, my current opponent was even lazier than me - I'm asking the KOSsacks for my retort - he was completely lazy and just consulted Faux News.
I posted a link to the Peters bill that will slide in a very specific surtax on AIG...
http://www.dailykos.com/...
I got a bite on this one.
It is interesting to note that the bonuses about which President Obama is so angry were explicitly protected by Senator Dodd in the stimulus bill that President Obama signed. Can someone help me understand why AIG is a bunch of bad guys for taking advantage of provisions that the Congress went out of its way to add to law?
http://www.foxbusiness.com/...
"While the Senate was constructing the $787 billion stimulus last month, Dodd added an executive-compensation restriction to the bill. That amendment provides an "exception for contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009" -- which exempts the very AIG bonuses Dodd and others are now seeking to tax."
"The amendment made it into the final version of the bill, and is law."
"Separately, Sen. Dodd was AIG’s largest single recipient of campaign donations during the 2008 election cycle with $103,100, according to opensecrets.org."
What an amazing coincidence!
Please allow me to retort!