America’s Standing in the World

Recently I read a post that chastised those who call America the greatest country in the world.  The point – I think – was that Americans have become lazy and complacent, obsessed with little more than leisure and consumption.  The post even said that those who call America the greatest country should get a visa and travel to other countries first.

Well, I’ve never been to any other country (except for Canada), and it’s likely that I’ll never leave America again (or even my state for at least another decade).  Still, I’m going to go ahead and make that statement of “blind” patriotism that America is the greatest country on earth.  Maybe that makes me ignorant, but then again, I’ve never been to Disneyland, and yet I fell that I know enough about it to understand that cartoon animals and theme rides suck.

Similarly, I don’t have to travel to Syria or North Korea to know that living in America is vastly preferable to living in those places.  We’re not a fascist, we have a great standard of living for even the poorest Americans, and we don’t throw people in prison for saying atrocious things about our president.

But okay, Syria and North Korea are easy targets.  The point here is that no other country in the history of the world has been such a powerful force for freedom and opportunity as America.  America defeated the Nazis, freed tens of millions of people from tyranny, won the Cold War, and prevented the march of totalitarianism.  We’ve spread democracy and free market capitalism across the globe, lifting millions out of poverty.  American ingenuity is responsible for the most radical and beneficial technical advancements in the world, advancements that have made life better for humanity as a whole.  America gives more – much more – in foreign aid than any other country.  America has put more money and effort into defeating AIDS than every other country combined.

Maybe that’s all in the past.  Maybe for whatever reason, people don’t seem to think any of that counts anymore.  Whatever you think of America today, it’s still the best place in the world to live.  Look around, and don’t just take in the do-nothing politicians or the slow economy.  Take in the long lines of people still trying to come here.  Take in the fact that no where else on this planet does a human being have the opportunity he or she does in America.  No where else can you begin with nothing and end with a lot solely by hard work.

Americans are lazy and complacent?  That’s simple racism.  It’s the equivalent of saying all the Irish are drunks.  Some Americans are lazy and complacent, just as some people of all nationalities are lazy and complacent.  But America’s unparalleled and unprecedented economic, military and political power didn’t come about because we’re lazy and complacent.  And if we’re “obsessed” with leisure and consumption, it’s because the greatness of this country makes it possible and affordable for us to enjoy ourselves.

President Obama

The other night I heard Ann Coulter call Barack Obama a “socialist who wants to surrender.”  What’s funny about a statement like that is a great many of Obama’s supporters and political allies probably wouldn’t disagree!  (Imagine that, Obama supporters agreeing with Ann Coulter.)  I mean, he surrounds himself with America-hating, Marxist-leaning scumbags like “Reverend” Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, and some of the people in groups like Acorn.  He’s comfortable with George Soros, Media Matters, and the Daily Kos.  Louis Farrakhan and Hezbollah have voiced their support for him.

Let’s look at the two charges in Ms. Coulter’s statement.  First, Obama wants to surrender (in Iraq).  What would have happened, had we listened to Obama’s plan a couple years ago and pulled out Iraq in defeat and humiliation?  What would have happened to Iraq if we’d listened to Obama and decided that the Surge wasn’t going to work?  Maybe Obama doesn’t consider this “surrender,” but I guarantee that al Qaeda would have.  How would Obama like to see thousands of Muslim extremists cheering in the streets that they “defeated America?”  Christ, he still can’t even admit that the Surge was the right plan!  And where was his vote to condemn the “General Betray Us” ad created by his political pals?

I’m inclined to agree with Obama that going into Iraq was probably the wrong move overall.  If we could do it all over again, we wouldn’t take that route.  But that doesn’t make Ms. Coulter’s statement any less true.  Surrender is still surrender.  The point here is not whether we were wrong about Iraq in the first place; the point is whether pulling out (surrendering) would be yet another mistake.

Then we have the term “socialist.”  Okay, we all know that Obama isn’t a socialist in the strictest sense.  But certainly it’s fair to say that he subscribes to some socialist tenets.  We’re talking about a guy who wants nearly a trillion dollars in spending entitlement programs.  A guy who continuously spouts a populist message of class warfare and wealth redistribution.  I read The Audacity of Hope:  Obama supports salary caps for CEOs!  He had the audacity to claim that wealthy Americans have too much by giving a list of what he sees as extraneous luxuries!

Then we have his vice president on TV saying that it’s “patriotic” for the wealthy to pay more taxes.  Biden even shamelessly used the word “take” when talking about taxing the rich.  So now you’re unpatriotic if you disagree with non-producing politicians deciding how much of your money they should take and where it should go.  I find that absolutely amazing.

If left-wing guys like Alan Colmes want people to stop referring to Obama as a socialist, maybe he should tell him to stop preaching a message of taxing the rich and giving to the poor.  Obama shrouds it thusly: “There are things we must do, and the only way to pay for these things is by taxing those who are doing well.”  He makes it sound like he’s only doing what’s necessary, like making the best of a wave that’s crashing over us by surfing it.

Of course, the operative word here is “must.”  Things we “must” do.  What a crock.  What Obama really means is, “There are things I think we should do to remake America in my very left-wing vision.”

Touchy-Feely Economic Policy

I literally can’t understand why the American people think George Bush and the Republicans are to blame for the current economic problems.  Say what you want about Bush, but the economy has been absolutely wonderful for the last seven years, almost the entirety of his time in office.  It’s only the last couple months that things have turned sour.

What exactly have the Democrats done in the last two years about the economy?  I hear all sorts of Johnny-come-lately politicians claiming to have warned about the economic crisis, but not one of them did anything.  Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, the Democratic social engineering programs, and the government-backed groups like Fannie and Freddie all shoulder most of the blame here.  And yet, for some reason people are hooting like monkeys, saying: “This is George Bush’s fault.  This is because of Republican deregulation.”

That’s garbage.  Regulation and social engineering is at least mostlyto blame for this mess, and that’s indisputable.  Government intervention is now making it worse.  If you want to blame Bush for something, blame him for backing (along with Obama, McCain, and all the rest) that sickening bailout bill and these other economic “stimulus” packages.

Still, government’s just not that important in the long run.  The economy will recover, and not because McCain backs a new bill or Obama signs a new entitlement program.  The economy will recover because it’s made up of millions of people engaging in free trade and enterprise.  I wish the government would just stand aside and let them get on with it.

What’s scary to me is that the government is beginning to do the one thing – the only thing – it possibly can that will actually, seriously screw things up forever.  What’s scary is that every Marxist-leaning Chicken Little is coming out and saying “Capitalism is broken.”  They’re growing emboldened.  They see a borderline socialist like Obama about to become president with a borderline socialist Congress to give him whatever he wants, and they’re secretly clapping their little rat claws with glee.  This is the first step towards their version of what’s “right” and “moral” for society.  And it’s inevitable: With this election cycle, we have a choice between Big Government and Bigger Government.  With the economy as bad as it is, people are willing to vote for anyone who promises relief and a check in the mail.  They’ll give the looters a lot of leeway, they’ll nod along to social programs and stimulus bills and more regulation for those “greedy” rich people.

After all, it sounds so lovely on paper doesn’t it?  It’s all about being nice and giving back to the country that’s done so much for you.  You’ve done so well; shouldn’t the government require that you pay a little more – just a little – to help those who simply want a good home for their kids?  What could be more decent than that?  Doesn’t it sound so unfair and mean-spirited that McCain wants to give all those rich corporations tax cuts?  What do those greedy bastards need with more money?

We could say that those “greedy bastards” are the ones doing all the investing in America and creating all the jobs.  We could say that all McCain wants to do is leave them alone and stop punishing them as if they’re criminals who need to be fined.  We could say that someone has a right to do whatever they want with the money they earn.  We could say that it’s stunningly immoral to take what others earn at the point of a gun and give it to those who “deserve” it.

None of that ever seems to matter.  It’s as if all people want to hear is: “We’ll make it all better.  We’re going to reward you with an allowance and lots of rules to protect you from your own decisions because we care.”  This is what they seem to want, and this is what they’re going to get.

Joe the American

I was watching Hannity & Colmes when their guest was “Joe the Plumber,” and he said something that almost brought tears to my eyes.  Something that Obama and his socialist-leaning friends and colleagues could never understand.  Something the snivelers of the left-wing media will probably ridicule. 

Alan Colmes said that Obama’s tax cut to middle-class Americans would essentially put another thousand bucks in Joe’s pocket.  So, Colmes asked, wouldn’t you want to support the candidate who is going to give you that break and make it easier on your home budget?

I thought Joe’s response was inspirational.  He sad that he wouldn’t, in fact, want that extra thousand bucks.  Why?  Because it would come from the pockets of those who had worked harder than he had or caught a better break.  I was agog.  I swear I wanted to plug in my guitar and play “The Star-Spangled Banner” at top volume. 

It was about values for Joe, not about whether he thinks he deserves more money.  Being a leftist, Alan Colmes didn’t know how to respond.  I suppose that in his America , the politician that buys the most votes by telling middle-class Americans how pathetic they are should be the one seen as more “in touch” with the people. 

As is typical with Colmes, he brought out the old tactic of rushing to the bottom.  He pointed out that America has always had a progressive tax system, that we’ve always expected the wealthy to foot more of the bill, that even Reagan and Bush taxed the rich more, that even McCain is leaning toward a socialist move like buying up bad mortgages. 

Guess what, Mr. Colmes?  Saying that “everyone else does it” does not excuse it.  And neither does it make it a good policy.  The progressive tax system is wrong.  McCain is wrong.  Reagan and Bush were wrong.  We should get rid of the IRS and institute a flat or fair tax.  And here’s a big surprise for you: The wealthy would still be footing most of the bill even if they paid the same percentage as everyone else!

What Joe the Plumber said was one of the most refreshingly American things I’ve heard on TV in a long time.  No wonder everyone’s paying attention to him.  No wonder the left-wing media is ridiculing the man.  Imagine that: The choice is between a free check for a thousand dollars, and adhering to your belief that social welfare and wealth redistribution is wrong.  This country would be in a lot better shape if everyone would choose like Joe the American did.

Social Welfare Gone Crazy

I got into an argument with a guy in here who has some rather socialist views.  (Not surprisingly, he’s originally from Europe.)  The question was:  Should a government force its citizens to pay for the welfare of others?  But the twist here was that these hypothetical welfare recipients refuse to work.  They’re perfectly able to go get jobs and support themselves, but they choose not to for whatever reason.  Should we be forced to pay for their basic needs (food, housing, health care, etc.)?

It quickly became a matter of morality, because this guy claimed that we should in fact be forced to pay.  He said that otherwise, it would be like standing there while someone starved to death.  No matter how many times we said, “But it’s his choice – he could go out and get a job and feed himself,” he didn’t budge.  Nope, we’re immoral greedy people because we don’t think we should have to pay for it.

In situations like this, it’s impossible not to quote Ayn Rand: “Why is it immoral to produce a value and keep it, but moral to give it away?  And if it is not moral for you to keep a value, why is it moral for others to accept it?  If you are selfless and virtuous when you give it, are they not selfish and vicious when they take it?  Does virtue consist of serving vice?”

If course this situation is obviously absurd.  But let’s look closer.  Should we pay for drug addicts?  By choosing to use drugs, aren’t they virtually the same as someone who chooses not to work?  What about people who are simply lazy?  John Stossel has interviewed homeless people who admit flat-out that there arejobs to be had – they just won’t take them.  They’d rather live on the streets and demand compensation from the government than work flipping burgers.

When I was a teenager, I worked jobs flipping burgers and making minimum wage.  I had a roommate who did the same, and between the two of us, we managed to afford an apartment in a complex that had a free gym.  It was right across the street from a community college.  We had cars, video games, and money for food, and we also had enough spare cash to get stoned or drunk several nights a week.  We could have gotten by on a lot less.  We could have walked to work, not smoked cigarettes and not partied every other night.

Admittedly, I squandered my life, but the opportunity was never, ever denied to me.  The opportunity was the easy part.  The hard part was my thick skull and lack of goals and responsibility.  I could have worked two jobs and went to night school, earned a degree, or learned a trade.  I could have studied the stock market and invested.

Yes, there are plenty of Americans who have it much worse than I did.  You might even make the argument that the economy was still good when I was a teenager (in the late nineties).  But this doesn’t wash completely.  There are still people out there making it today, sacrificing and busting their asses.  People working two jobs and going to night school, single parents earning degrees, poor kids earning scholarships, etc.  People who have no problem flipping burgers to pay their way toward something better.

Of course there are Americans in need of help, and I’m not saying we should deny them.  But is the opportunity really the major problem here?  Is the playing field really as uneven as pandering politicians would have us believe?  If we’re going to hold those who do well to the high moral standard of helping others, shouldn’t we hold those who do poorly to the high moral standard of helping themselves?

Why We Should be Proud of the Rich Getting Richer

Politicians (especially presidential nominees) are always promising to “make things fair for the working class Americans.”  Of course, rarely do things immediately and magically turn around after one of those politicians is elected.  Surprise, surprise.  Have working-class Americans ever noticed that they constitute most of America?  I mean, every politician has to appeal to them if they want votes.

Besides, I don’t mean to sound cold-hearted here, but is there something inherent in being a working-class American that requires help?  Are they at some sort of disadvantage?  Why?  Because the “rich are getting richer?”  So what?  Why do you care if the rich are getting richer?  If anything, shouldn’t you be proud that they’re investing and managing their money wisely?  Shouldn’t that inspire you?  Maybe you still don’t think it’s fair that some people have so much, but how does it help your position to complain about what someone else is doing?

I’m so tired of hearing people whine about America not being “fair,” and hearing politicians promise them that they’ll make it so.  Didn’t their parents ever tell them, when they were sniveling little children, that life isn’t fair?  That they’re going to have to work their asses off from adulthood on?  That sometimes they’re going to make bad choices and suffer the consequences?

Making things “fair” in American rings kind of hollow for me.  Don’t get me wrong – there should be fair opportunity for everyone, absolutely.  How about we start with tax cuts for everything?  Wouldn’t a flat tax be the very definition of “fair?”  How about we get rid of all government subsidies?  How about we let everyone compete in the free market equally?

But some Americans don’t want fair opportunity; they want their subjective idea of fairness enforced by legislature.  They think wealthy Americans should be taxed more heavily and have to follow different rules.  For some reason, they’ve decided that people should have the right to pursue success, wealth, and happiness – but only up to a certain arbitrary point chosen by them.  For some reason, they just don’t think it’s fair that others are earning a lot of money and they’re not.

I don’t think the definition of “fair” is to take other people’s money and redistribute it.  Furthermore, “fair” doesn’t seem like a very respectable goal to me.  Why settle for fair, when everyone can have the opportunity to go as far as they want?  These people have a rather defeatist view: Rather than attempt to elevate themselves, they want to lower others.

Why is it that people who complain about the wealth distribution in this country always think the solution is to steal from the prosperous, rather than urge everyone to become prosperous?  Do they have such low opinions of themselves and humanity in general?  Do they think these people they want to “help” are incapable of helping themselves?  How about none of us settle for being handed “fair” and instead strive to earn excellence?

What You Earn is Whatever You Can Get

I got into a discussion with someone a while back who was very earnest about the wage gap in this country and the plight of middle-class Americans.  His point was that a blue-collar worker toils at physical labor all day long for his entire life.  He does it knowing he’ll never be rich or live comfortably.  He does it to support a family.  He works hard, much harder than many people who make a lot more money and don’t deserve it (like actors and rock stars, for example). 

It was a matter of proportion.  He was arguing that a blue-collar laborer should be making more since he’s busting his ass, providing a useful service, and probably doing it for a nobler purpose.  Conversely, the entertainer is a millionaire only because of the whim of some fans, and doesn’t really work hard comparatively.  It wasn’t fair, he said, that people make so much money for frivolous reasons.

I shocked him by disagreeing.  I told him that I think that rich actors and rock stars earn every penny of their money. (How they might squander it later on is a separate issue).  I told him that I don’t think a man’s sweat and physical toil are the measure of what he earns.

Predictably, of course, he accused me of being a “rich white kid.”  Though it’s irrelevant to the point, I had to dispel that assumption by telling him that I grew up in trailer parks and low-income housing with a single parent, eating hot dogs and Hamburger Helper.  When I turned fourteen and got a job, I was never given a single thing again; not even clothes or school supplies.

People who think like this guy are always certain that some should be “earning” more money, and some are “making” more money than they’re earning.  But they’re not talking about what is earned here – they’re talking about what they think these people deserve.  They’re basing their opinion about what a person earns on how much they need.  A blue-collar laborer has a family to feed and barely makes ends meet – he might not even be able to pay for his kids to go to college.  Therefore, he should be earning more.

I was called callous and heartless when I told him that “deserve” is not the same thing as “earn.”

What you “earn” is simply this: the amount of money people are willing to pay for your good or service.  That’s it.  That’s the only rational way to determine it.  How else can the amount someone has earned be measured objectively?  You may think a blue-collar laborer deserves more for his service (and maybe he does), but stop and think for one moment what it would mean to legislate it:  It means you would have to force someone else to pay more for that service than they are otherwise willing to pay.  How is that fair?

What do you think would happen if people were awarded money based on what they need, rather than what they earn?  It’s called communism, and it’s horrible not simply because it’s a bogeyman word, but because it doesn’t work.  No one would have any reason to produce any good, provide any service, or work at all.  Think about it:  The harder you work, the more that’s taken away from you and given to others.  You are punished for achieving, and rewarded when you do nothing.  Guess which one people choose.

How much a person needs is not an indicator of how much they’ve earned.  This does not in any way suggest that we should ignore those in need.   It does, however, suggest that we should not take from those who earn – even if it’s to give to those who need.

My Views

I never thought that posting a blog to say a few positive, nonpartisan things about Kirsten Powers would result in such an insight into how people think.  It’s amazing.  I was accused of being both a far-right conservative nut and a far-left America-hating liberal - by two people who read the exact same post!

Th point, however, is taht I never said one word applauding Kirsten Powers for her viewpoints; I don’t even agree with some of them.  So to make assumptions about my own views simply because I complimented her rationality – or because I watch Fox News – is unreasonable.  Do people even listen to what others say anymore, or do they just look for ways to validate their own preconceived notions?  Do they realize that not everyone falls into a neat little black-and-white category of either left or right?

I consider myself to be outside those categories.  First of all, I’m a fiscal conservative – more conservative than our current president, if I may say so (considering the glut of spending and pork currently plaguing Washington).  I don’t mind being called a greedy capitalist.  To call Atlas Shrugged my favorite book of all time is a vast understatement.  I think a social welfare state is repulsive.  I believe in the power of the free market, I want a tiny government, I want a flat tax and free trade, I want school vouchers, and I’m proud of the rich who are making themselves richer.  I don’t want nationalized health care.  I also think Americans have a right to own guns.

I’m a conservative on national defense.  I am utterly unconvinced that pulling out of Iraq is the right thing to do.  I think that everyone in the world who is free or would be free is at war with fundamentalist Islam.  We’re fighting scumbags who moralize the murder of babies, riot and kill people when someone prints a cartoon about their prophet, and cheer in the streets when three thousand innocent civilians are murdered.  We battle injustice while they try to legitimize it.

I’m a patriot.  I think America is the greatest country on earth – not for any sentimental reason, but because of the facts:  America is the nation that offers the most freedom and opportunity, the nation that helps the most people worldwide, the nation that defeated Nazism and totalitarianism and freed tens of millions of people.

Other than that, I’m socially liberal.  I think it’s simply immoral to turn people into criminals and throw them in jail for “crimes” like prostitution, personal drug use, polygamy, and gambling.  I think anyone who’s against gay marriage should mind their own business.  I’m pro-choice.  I think kids should be educated about sex rather than taught to ignore it.

I’m a secularist who thinks that creationsim being disguised as science in public schools is a travesty of rational thought.  But I also think the hyper-secularists who want to remove all signs of religion from the public square are being foolish.  “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  We’d all do well to remember both clauses of that statement.

I don’t care about political parties or social movements.  I can spend as much time criticizing a Democrat as I can a Republican.  I see absolutely no reason to follow any dogma or listen to any authority figure – at least without examining them first and deciding for myself whether they’re worthwhile.  The only “side” I take is the side of reason.  I think we should be ruled by reason, not rules.

Why We Should Stop Whining About the Oil Companies

It was inevitable.  Some of the rich oil executives testified before Congress, and immediately the smirking, self-righteous, moralizing looters appeared all over the airwaves: “Those rich bastards are fleecing us.  They’re greedy pigs trying to fill their bank accounts.  They don’t care about anything but money.  They’re making obscene profits while we suffer.”

Most unbelievable was this one: “They’re making too much money.”

No, most unbelievable is the fact that there are many Americans out there who wouldn’t understand my shock and disgust at such a statement.  “What are you saying?” they’d ask.  “They are making too much money.”

What does that even mean?  How do you make too much money?  Who is going to dictate how much is too much?  Who’s going to decide that it’s wrong to make more than a certain dollar amount in a year?  If you’re making money, you’re earning it, and the phrase “earning too much” is an oxymoron.

Big Oil makes about ten cents of profit for every dollar they sell.  That’s not bad, but it’s by no means excessive, even by the sniveling standards of those who are jealous of other peoples’ success.  Big Oil makes so much money not because their profit margins are huge, but because their sales are huge.  Software companies like Microsoft make something like forty cents profit for every dollar.  How about turning your attention to them now?

Of course, we don’t need software like we need oil.  People have to drive to work.  But people also need to eat, and no one’s complaining about the high food prices.  No one’s forcing you to consume like you do.  There are choices you can make.  Fuel-efficient cards are cheap and, well, efficient.  If Americans started conserving a little bit every day, the oil companies would be forced to drop their prices.  If Americans started buying diesel vehicles, prices would also go down.  Christ, car-pooling is a better solution than asking the government to step in.  But rather than making choices about how to handle this issue, they want the government to come and burp them and make all the bad things go away – the same government who has done exactly zero to give us energy independence.  What makes you think they can do any better with regulation?

Has America stooped to putting a limit on success?  Try as hard as you want, run a profitable business, but as soon as you start to get too rich and too successful, watch out.  The mewling little babies whose only accomplishment in life is to legislate away the success of others to fill their pockets are coming for you.  You produce, they take.  You work for yourself, and they tell you that it’s immoral.  You enjoy the money you’ve earned, and they tell you that it’s your “social duty” to give it to others so they can enjoy it instead.

And then there’s Bill O’Reilly’s plan:  Any time an oil company decides to raise its prices, it must submit a written reason why to Congress.  Hey O’Reilly, suppose the reason is: “Because I want to make more profit.”  What then?  Will Big Oil have to provide a “good” reason to Congress for raising their prices?  Will they be disallowed from raising their prices without government permission?  Where do we cross the line into nationalizing the oil industry?

Here’s a simple solution:  Let’s make pricing a collaborative effort between the people who own the company and the people who want to buy the product.  Yeah, how about we pass legislation that oil companies can only charge what their customers decide they can reasonably afford?  How about every customer just goes into a store, picks out what they want, and leaves on the counter whatever amount they think is a fair price?  Doesn’t that sound wonderful?  Doesn’t that sound fair?  It won’t even be communism – we can just call it the “honor system.”

Robin Hood was a Thief – And a Democrat

I don’t understand why people continue to tell me that the wealthy should be taxed more than anyone else.  I got into a discussion the other day with a guy who thought I was literally crazy for suggesting that a baseball superstar making tens of millions a year should be taxed the same percentage as – yes, I know it’s practically blasphemy – a schoolteacher making under forty thousand a year.

In Barack Obama’s book The Audacity of Hope, he echoes Michael Moore and bewails the fact that CEOs of corporations make over two hundred times the salary of their employees.  Yeah, so what?  Why should you care?

In his book, Obama also points out dryly that the “wealthy in America have little to complain about” and goes on to give a laundry list of excessive luxury items on which they should not spend their money.  Maybe.  But Americans have a right to be as superficial and covetous as they want, Senator.  You don’t have to like people who buy gold-plated toilets, but that doesn’t give you – or Warren Buffet – the right to say that the government should require them to be any different.

How about this for a shocker:  The poor in America have little to complain about.  As we all know, “poor” in America means something quite different from “poor” in say, Ethiopia or Bangladesh.  In America, most people living below the poverty line still have homes to live in, cars to drive, and cable TV to watch.  The number-one health problem for poor Americans is obesity.  Obesity.  Think about that for a moment.

So many people have an emotional knee-jerk response to this issue.  “No fair!” they shriek.  “The average American works hard and tries to raise his or her family and they get shafted.”  Yes well, “average” Americans have the same opportunities as the richest men in America have.  Plenty of “average” Americans have made decisions that have led them to be highly successful.  Plenty of “average” Americans have become wealthy because of determination, innovation, entrepreneurship, and smart business and investing skills.  Maybe part of the problem is that so many people seem perfectly fine with labeling themselves “average.”

I’m not saying there aren’t problems in America, and I’m not saying that we should be heartless and unresponsive to these problems.  But why should the answer be to penalize people who are doing well?  Big corporations are making lots of money because they’re efficiently providing a good or service for people.  The CEOs of monster corporations are Americans, too; they have a right to run their business the way they want.  Why should they be forced to pay more of their money than anyone else?  Because they’re rich and therefore have an “obligation”?

Why?  They don’t owe you anything.  They didn’t wrong you or steal from you.  They had to make their money following the same rules that you follow.  The rich are getting richer?  So what?  Why do you care what other people do?  Stop whining.  Earn your own money instead of demanding that others give you theirs.

A big corporation just ran you out of business?  Tough.  Stop whining.  What, are you saying that big corporation didn’t have the right to try to do better than its competitors?  Isn’t that exactly what your business was trying to do?  This is what happens in competition.  You don’t have to be happy about it.  The world is a tough place.  But you didn’t get shafted; you simply lost.  Get over it and do better next time.