johnr104

I've had sucess in using a good quality shoe stretcher.  I have wide feet and almost all my heels started off squeezing my toes.  Secret is to stretch them slowly.  Also keep in mind that leather stretches better than man made materials, although I've had good results stretching both. they make a "high heel" shoe stretcher that has the toe part angled from the main part so it fits much better into a very high heel shoe.

I've had a lot of success with this one. And I usually find much greater success with genuine leather shoes. http://www.amazon.com/FootFitter-Stretcher-Premium-Professional-Womens/dp/B000PMPTEA/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1374976039&sr=8-2&keywords=shoe+stretcher

Thanks for the tip, Heels2u. Those shoes look like a great way to start the public experience. I'm going to Sears right now to see if I can get a pair. Hope I can find my size! (11 or 12 womans).

I haven't tried them on in the store yet, but with such success stories here, I might just give it a try!

Again, why do guys think they have to look like a woman to wear a dress? I'm sorry, but that's a peculiar mindset that makes absolutely NO sense.

Jeff, you misinterpreted. Probably most guys do not believe that they have to look like a woman to wear a dress. They can, and do, just wear a dress. However, I, and guys like me, WANT to look like a woman when I wear a dress. I don't know why (maybe I was dropped on my head as a baby), and you are right as it makes no logical sense, but it is something I have desired for the better part of 40 years. And it's not particularly peculiar, as there are many men who appear as normal as any guy, whose goal would be to be able to "pass" as a woman. Again, it is NOT something we feel we have to do, it is something we would really LIKE to do. I'm a guy who has absolutely no desire to be a woman, but when I see a guy all dressed up, looking sexy, indistinguishable from a real woman, boy.... I do get jealous.

I know it must be hard to understand the desire if you don't experience it personally, I just hope I have made it a little clearer for you.

I wear heels because it makes me feel more feminine. I would love to be able to pass as a woman in public but I can't, so I'll mostly wear heels and hose with my regular guy clothes.

I always like wearing pantyhose and 5 inch heels with short-shorts, or with a short skirt. I think it's because I really look good from the waist down, but really can't pass from the waist up. Wish I could, though.

I'm womans US size 12, but I have a wide foot. Whenever I get new shoes out come the shoe stretchers! The trick, I think, is to stretch slowly. I've had pretty good success in getting 5inch pumps to fit very comfortably. Being able to slip them on smoothly without having to force it is wonderful.

'Fair share' is quite easy to define. Enough to eat, drink, be sheltered, warm and able to function as a member of your society.

... anyone who has more than it has more than their fair share.

What's not fair is to secure one's own future at the expense of someone else's present. I would argue that this is exactly what people with millions in the bank are doing.

Wow. That's quite a statement... If I understand you correctly, If I work my ass off for my entire life and as a result of that I accumulate more comforts than you describe, then I have more than my fair share. I understand where you are coming from. It sure would be nice if everybody had the things you described. Unfortunately it cannot happen. No matter how much you want it, no matter how nice it would be. The thing that would get in the way is something you didn't address and that is that pesky thing called reality. I could address each and every one of your points and patiently explain why it is simply unobtainable, but let me address just a few.

If the government taxed me everything I made which was above the threshold of "fair share" as you described then I really need you to explain to me why the heck I would work as hard as I do? Reality has the answer... I just wouldn't. It's human nature, if I don't have to work hard, I won't.

History is full of examples. Look back at the pilgrims as one example. Believing they were creating a city of God, under the leadership of Bradford and Standish, they organized the first collective farm. Land was held in common, and all land tilled for crops was owned by all and farmed by the collective efforts of the community. As they were building a religious community, free enterprise and self interest were secondary to the interest of the group (State). Sound familiar? Karl Marx was two hundred years away.

But here is the kicker... it was not working. The collective corn fields suffered from a meager crop year after year. The men of the community worked in the fields out of necessity but with little enthusiasm. It was a common excuse to be away hunting, fishing, or building a dwelling. The foundations of capitalism, with its rights of ownership and the powerful motivating force of economic incentive did not exist.

All this changed the day entrepreneurship was born on New England soil. The ruling elders after a debate over the usual lack of corn meal for winter storage and the lack of interest in working the fields relented to the idea of privatization. Out of disgust, it was suggested that the land be divided and each family raise its own corn. Thus lazy Pilgrims would go hungry and it would be their own fault. But the ambitious and selfish would eat. The idea was met with opposition as it was felt to be a harsh and selfish measure-not Christian in its approach to sharing and the group welfare. Luckily the opposition lost and private ownership of the “factors of production” became reality.

You know what happened- corn production soared. Within two years they had a surplus and began trading it with Indians and other small settlements for furs to export to England in exchange for supplies. Corn became currency as the whole family worked in their own patch of New England soil to better their lives. They were America’s first entrepreneurs. Bet you didn't know that, did you?

Finally, I'd like to ask you this. I have worked very hard all my life. I am very comfortable, and way above the "fair share" threshold you described. I employ people and treat them fairly. I have secured my future. So, please tell me, at whose expense did I succeed?

While I admire your altruistic motivations, you must temper your enthusiasm with the bigger picture. Can we really do what you would want us to do? Will it work? What are the unintended consequences? Can the society survive at the level we would want if we were to eliminate economic incentive? In other words what would the reality be? Life is like a game of chess. To anticipate what will happen you need to look not one move ahead, but many moves ahead. So while it is very easy as a first move to say "tax the rich of everything above their fair share" what would the consequences of that be over the next moves?

I have always looked at things logically. I have learned that reality rules no matter what, and it is in that vein that I have come to my conclusions. And it was not unnoticed that, other than your definition of "fair share", you didn't address any of my other points. You simply reverted to the old position of "the rich are exploiting the rest of us".

I love wearing both skirts and dresses. Right now, only at home. I would LOVE to go out in public but not as a guy wearing a dress, but as somebody who looked like a woman. Unfortunately, I just couldn't pass. Maybe one day I'll get the right combination of clothes/wig/makeup so that I can pass.

I wear sheer, non-stretch RHT stockings almost every day under my pants. Sometimes I'll switch to pantyhose, but not very often. About 20% of the time I won't wear socks over them, other 80% I will.

Rich people keep money in the bank, poor people spend every penny they have. That's why it makes sense to tax the rich.

You are correct, more or less. The "rich" must keep money in the bank proportional to their spending. If I had 1 million dollars in the bank I would NOT buy a 1 million dollar car, leaving me with nothing. Does that make sense?

You are also correct insofar as we must tax the rich. Oh, yes, we already do. That's why (in the USA) 50% of the people pay no federal tax at all. Some lower income folks actually get tax refunds without paying tax. The question has always been "what does fair share" mean? All the liberal politicians keep saying "the millionaires and billionaires need to pay their fair share" but then NEVER, NEVER say what that means. We also need to compare apples to apples. Many liberal folks compare "long term gain" with "ordinary income" (which is taxed higher). This makes absolutely no sense at all. People who invest in things like mutual funds, stocks, bonds, etc. for the long term are taking a RISK and in order to keep the flow of investment the gains are taxed at a lower rate. This applies to lots of middle class folks who have long term investments in things like their savings, investments or pension funds. Tax them more, and, yep you guessed it, you tax the middle class more, too.

The bottom line is quite simple. You can tax at 100% and you will simply not solve our debt problem... We have a SPENDING PROBLEM, not a taxing problem. Politicians (of every variety) haven't met a dollar they couldn't spend, and to solve our problems that has to change. Most people haven't met a dollar given to them as an entitlement that they haven't joyously accepted, and that has to change.

Government cannot create wealth, it can only spend our money. Only people can create wealth by hard work, dedication, and a little luck.

Was this the response you expected?

No matter how good your intentions, you simply cannot change reality. And the reality is that over the years the USA has existed on a pyramid scheme by spending more than we take in. The reality is also that it can't continue forever, and we are seeing the beginnings of the pyramid beginning to collapse. We are also seeing reality take hold in the most liberal states insofar as they are going bankrupt and their state pensions are broke. No government entity can afford the pensions that have been awarded to some of the public employee unions. It just can't happen. And since the states can't simply "print" money, they are going broke and the pensions will not be paid as originally intended. Since the Feds can print money, and borrow without limit, the time of reckoning is slightly delayed. However, the day of reckoning is coming and it doesn't matter who the president is. The only question is whether the changes that are coming will be painful and "controlled" or painful and "uncontrolled". Some of the States are now demonstrating what painful and "uncontrolled" changes will look like. In either case they will be painful and anybody who thinks that their favorite entitlement is untouchable let me assure you... it is not, as demonstrated by the bankrupt pension funds that some states now have. You can stand on the corner and shout "This was a promise the government made to the workers and you can't change it" to your hearts content, because (see "you can't change reality", above) if you have no more money, guess what? That super generous pension won't be paid. And Medicare? There seems to be a lot of back and forth about that lately. Again, just fall back to reality. No matter how good our intentions, we just cannot continue to spend at the current level. There is simply not enough money to go around. So, you might suggest, keep all the benefits and just reduce the payments to the providers. Well, that certainly is one alternative, but I will tell you first hand that the more you reduce the payments to providers, the fewer providers there will be (can you say "rationing"). Why on Earth do you think that so many Canadians come to the USA for treatment? There are whole industries set up in the border areas to organize and help Canadians get treated in the USA. Again, that's reality. Ok, let's tax the millionaires and billionaires their fair share. Well, that seems reasonable (althought putting people making $250K a year in that same boat doesn't sound quite so reasonable, but that's another story) . Keep in mind that people don't get jobs from poor people (they really don't). And, back to that pesky reality, every dollar taken from a person and given to the government is one less dollar that person will spend, on infrastructure, employees, etc. Unlike the federal gov't, a small business can't spend money it does not have. The thing that bothers me about all this is that the so-called rich are really being portrayed as being not as good or nice as the so-called middle class. You see, the nasty rich people buy boats, planes, and have multiple houses. They have fancy cars and eat at expensive resturants. Yea, ok, I guess they do. But what most people don't think about is that EVERY DOLLAR SPENT IS A GOOD DOLLAR. All those people whose job it is to build the boats and planes and houses, and work at the fancy restaurants, they all depend on the "rich" to spend their money on those things. If the rich stopped all the "extravagant" spending how many people would lose their jobs? And here is how it all pulls together. Rich people pay more taxes, they therefore have less money to spend, the people who depend on them spending that money are now out of work and have to turn to the government to provide them with money. And the government can now do this with the extra money they took from the additional taxes on the rich. And we have come full circle. There is a movement in this country that says the government can spend a dollar better than the individual can spend a dollar. If you believe that then vote Obama, if you don't vote Romney. That simple.

This is why I use a point shoe inside the boot with the void filled up to prevent the toe from crushing.

That's a great idea. How many sizes bigger than your actual size did you order so the EnPoint shoe fit inside the ballet boot? I would usually order size 12. Would size 14 allow me to fit my EnPoint inside?

Thanks for the welcome. I've been wearing high heels in private for about 30 years. I always hoped that they would become more socially acceptable for men, but, it seems like there is still a way to go. I do look forward to the "Walk a mile in her shoes" events.