Monday, November 19, 2012

Leathered Life: Chrissie- in Leather Jeans

Source:Leathered Life- Chrissie, for Leathered Life. 
Source:The Daily Press

"Leathered Life Oldies: Chrissie in tight leather pants." Originally from Leathered Life. The photo was from a Leathered Life video, which has since been blocked or deleted on YouTube.

Great outfit, but the girl is a little too petite for me. Imagine a women 5'6-5'7 or taller or maybe only 5'4, which would make her average height, but with great legs. Strong thighs, tight round butt and everything else, wearing this outfit. Because that is what leather jeans which are basically skinny jeans, but made from leather instead of denim, are made of.

Skinny denim jeans, are common with beautiful sexy women especially if they're tall. Because it's a great way for women to show off their legs and show off their butt. "Check me out in my tight jeans, because I have a great body." Which I believe is what sexy women are saying when they wear those pants. Especially with boots and a tucked in blouse or short top.

They can also bring too much attention for women when they're in a more formal setting, but that's a different discussion. Leather jeans are also a great way for sexy women to show off their bodies. To bring positive attention to them, as well as negative.The woman in this video, great outfit, but a little small at least for me.

November Revolution Men: Professor Noam Chomsky- Neoliberalism vs Democracy: They Go Together

Source: November Revolution Men-Professor Noam Chomsky-
Source: November Revolution Men: Professor Noam Chomsky- Neoliberalism vs Democracy

If you look at what Progressives (or Social Democrats) call neoliberalism and how they describe it, that economies and societies would be liberalized, or as they would call it forced liberalization of these societies, that freedom, or liberty would be forced on them, individuals would be forced to live in freedom, rather than having a strong state that would determine how life should be lived in the country or economically, it's not really neoliberalism vs democracy. Neoliberalism vs statism, or authoritarianism. Are we going, to let individuals live their own lives and chart their own courses in life, or are we going to have the state do it for them. That's the choice, the title of the video however is Neoliberalism vs Democracy. As if neoliberalism is anti-democratic, but again what is so-called neoliberalism which I believe is a false term and I'll explain later, but what does neoliberalism actually advocates are liberalizing societies. The economy as well as how people live their personal lives.

Liberalization is about freeing people in what  they can do with their own time and how they live their own lives. And in the privacy of their own homes and what they can say in public and so-forth. So instead of neoliberalism being undemocratic, it's purely democratic in the liberal democratic sense, because that's what it advocates. Progressives (or Social Democrats) idea of liberalism is not really liberalism, but more like democratic socialism, or social democracy. But the social democratic idea of liberalism is that there's a strong centralize state that's there to take care of and look after people with a large welfare state. Where taxes are so high to not only finance this, but to prevent people from making too much money. And to prevent income inequality and that neoliberalism is this idea that we liberalize the economy and society. So people can live their own lives and look out for each other. Rather than the state doing that for them. But again there's that word liberalize which again is a liberal word. Not socialist, social democratic,  or communist, but liberal.

My point being that neoliberalism is actual a form of liberalism, but more from the Right. In the sense that it's about essentially un-regulating markets and total free trade. And where so-called Neo-Liberals and Liberals would disagree is that both factions believe in private markets and private enterprise, Liberals believe in commonsense regulations to protect workers and consumers, but not to run business's and tax them real high. But both sides are strong believers in personal freedom and accountability. Civil liberties, privacy, freedom of choice, etc. Liberalism is the idea of individual freedom and democracy. The freedom for people to live their own lives. Rather than living off of the state, or the state deciding how they can live. Rather than the state being so big and centralized and taxes so high to the point that people rely on it in order to pay their bills and get by. Liberals want people to be able to have the opportunity and freedom to be able to make their own decisions and pay their own way in life. 

Andy Greenshaw: 'Why We Should Let The Bush Tax Cuts Expire'

Source:Andy Greenshaw- Since when does the Left (especially the Far-Left) care about the budget deficit and national debt.

"I couldn’t agree more with Fareed Zakaria’s latest article in the Washington Post about the Bush Tax Cuts.

Republicans and Democrats both agree that the massive U.S. budget deficit looms as one of the most dangerous threats to our nation’s economy.  And Congress has the opportunity to immediately eliminate a fourth of that deficit by doing nothing.

The Bush Tax Cuts are set to expire this year, which will inevitably cut about $300 billion from the U.S. budget deficit.  These massive tax cuts – passed in 2001 and 2003 – lowered taxes for the wealthiest 3 percent of Americans." 

"It’s been clear for a while that President Obama has all the leverage in the tax debate. Now it’s clear the Republicans know it.

On Friday, Obama met with congressional leaders for the first time since his reelection. The subject of discussion was how to handle the tax hikes and automatic spending cuts set to take effect on January 1. House Speaker John Boehner came with a proposal: Instead of racing to craft an alternative package before the new year, Boehner suggested, why not just pass a bill preserving the status quo for six more months, giving everybody a chance to work out a deal? But nobody expects Obama to go for it, unless Republicans agree to a deal on taxes that's largely to Obama’s liking. A senior Democratic aide on Capitol Hill thinks he sees a game of Texas hold 'em underway, with Obama winning... 

This idea of letting all of the Bush tax cuts expire even on the middle class at least in the short-term, would be a disaster. 

Pre-2001 people in the bottom tax rate making up to I believe 75K$ a year, paid 15% in income taxes, after the Bush tax cuts and there were some actual good provisions in it, lower middle class and middle class workers were paying 10% in Federal income taxes, they've seen a 50% tax cut over ten years, so if you were a plumber or construction worker making 50K$ a year back in 2000, you paid, 7,500K$ a year in income taxes. After 2001 someone with the same income was now paying 5,000K$ a year in income taxes. They saw a 2,500K$ reduction in income taxes and with how badly the economy has done the last. 

Ten years with a lot of people in that income bracket out-of-work or working less then they would prefer or could even afford. That extra 2,500K$ a year could be the difference in someone making their car payments or mortgage payments, putting money away for their kids. College education and not being able to do that because the Federal Government is taking an extra 2,500K$ a year in taxes.

So raising or increasing taxes on people who can't afford it right now, is bad for the economy and deficit reduction. Because without a strong economy, with strong economic and job growth, we'll never get the debt and deficit under control. Because we'll never generate the revenue needed as a country to accomplish that. 

House Republicans will never go along with the 250K$ cutoff point to where we increase taxes in this Congress or in the next Congress, even if the Democratic Senate were to pass that. And going over to the fiscal cliff to try to prove me and others wrong on this, is not the way to find out, we need to avoid that. 

We need to come up with a balanced approach that will work that both Democrats and Republicans can agree to that that won't hurt anyone who can't afford to be hit right now and with how Speaker Boehner is talking right now, we can do this.

At some point whether it's in this Congress or not, Speaker Boehner will go along with something like a millionaires tax. As long as its used to pay down the debt and deficit and comes with serious budget cuts as well and thats what we need, new revenue and budget cuts that we can do, without hurting people who can't afford it and more importantly hurting the economy. 

We can get the debt and deficit under control by making entitlements stronger, as well as the broader safety net stronger and more affordable and reforming them in a way where we can actually put these people to work and get them off of public assistance all together. And have these people paying taxes because they can afford it and we can do more with the defense budget and get past a cold war strategy and more ready for the 21st Century, but middle class tax hikes doesn't get us there.

As the President says we need a balanced approach that works and doesn't hurt anyone who can't afford it and actually solves the problems in front of us and something like a millionaires tax and entitlement reform and more savings in defense. Will get us there and then of course something to spark new economic growth will get the job done but you. Don't increases taxes on people that you want to spend money, if you are trying to spark new economic growth.

Liberal Democrat

Liberal Democrat
Liberal Democracy