While I love seeing Democrats being criticized for perceived hypocracy, I would like to see if this was also a problem during the George W. Bush administration. Maybe it's not just a problem with the party, but with White House staff believing they're above the law.

Tell you what - I'll believe EVERY word Obaba, his people and every congessional member tells me when they accept OBAMACARE as their own, instead of their elite health plans. Until then, ALL BETS are OFF.

On another note, Nanny Bloomberg gets SHUT DOWN:

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/judge-tosses-out-nycs-planned-ban-sugary-drinks-1C8809186

Finally! SOMEone has some common sense! Or at least can figure out that arbitrarily trying to ban soft drinks is stoopid!

What's a "fair share"?

A "Fair share" is portion that is light - not dark.

Seriously though, defining what is fair is the majority of the difficultly. Everyone seems to have a different idea...or little idea. When the president was first using that line there was a man-on-the-street interview. They asked on lady and her response was that she didn't know...but the rich certainly weren't pay their's.

I wonder if any of them will use TRS top get out of this.

> What's a "fair share"?

Second time the question's come up tonight.

(To wit.)

Trying to define "fair share" is a fool's errand; it has no actual value. "Fair share" is whatever you're accused of not paying. That's all.

This is why the elites are all for tax increases: they themselves simply don't pay taxes. After all, who's going to prosecute them?

And as Fayd said, this is not a D or an R thing. It's a D.C. thing.

Well, duh, a "fair share" is when you pay more and I pay less. Isn't that everyone's definition?

Seriously, though, this shows (yet again) why Obama is NOT a leader. A leader would have said to his staff "no screw-ups folks; don't do anything that could make us look stupid."

But, I guess Obama was too busy playing golf, or playing bastekball, or playing kiss-my-ass with the women on The View, or whatever.

No, Charles. He was too busy telling you what to do with YOUR money to watch his own folks.

For the record —and it's a principle worth quibbling over— we American. We don't need "leadership" from government, we need service. We're here because we know what we want from our lives.

Meanwhile, Gummint.

I got yer lesson on fair share right here. You've heard of the coming furlough of civil service people in the U.S. federal government, right? Well, those of us who are government contractors have been asking for a couple of months what the impact would be on us and what we needed to do to prepare. And we were assured that contractors had nothing to worry about; our money was already appropriated by Congress and our account was fully funded.

Yesterday, with no advance warning, we were told that if/when government workers get furloughed, we will be furloughed too. Why, we asked, if our account is fully funded? Answer: to make it "fair". See, the government workers' unions pitched a hissy fit about contractors not doing their "fair share". This is ignoring the fact that the government people get paid more, have better benefits, and better job security than we have. And it's ignoring all the times when contractors have been cut due to funding shortfalls while government workers just cruised on. See, back when that happened, the explaination was "it's a different account, color of money" etc. But now that the shoe is on the other foot, all of a sudden it's "we're a team, and it has to be fair to the whole team". Never mind that, unlike them, we have to worry about the effects on our benefits if we work less than full time. Plus, when this is all over, they will likely get back pay for the days they didn't work. We won't.

So if you want to be cussed out, come talk to me about "fairness" today.

Damn, Dave. That blows big donkey dick.

Cousin Dave,

I'm sorry that happened. It's all a bunch of crap. However, please know that federal employees have been being given the same sort of two-faced information. Also, there's been orders (albeit not in writing that I know of) to make it hurt as many as possible. So, that's most likely what happened. Many government employees aren't unionized or don't participate (i.e. don't fund).

That said, while the benefits are usually better, I have yet to meet anyone (save one very exceptional case) who earns more as a fed than as a contractor. Generally speaking, I've seen contractors lure feds with higher pay more than the other way around.