I basically say all of this to preface the fact that I want to talk about a very specific observation made that I feel is entirely indicative of a much larger-scale problem. A problem that is affecting this very public, very political outcry and is almost solely the reason for its ultimate failure.
Extremism. Extremism is why this movement will fail. I believe that extremism is why most political disputes fail, on either side. It's a problem of "bad eggs," so to speak. About one person ruining it for all of the others. For example, Christianity, as a whole, is good. The basic teachings, the beliefs, the commands. But then extremism comes along with a couple of self-professing Christians who persecute, judge, and condemn others, and it's ruined. Christianity gets a bad rap because of a few "bad eggs." Now, when someone wants to attack Christianity, they cite those few bad eggs and it kills an otherwise quality rebuttal.
This is the same issue plaguing "Occupy Wall Street." Their quality argument is that the majority of them aren't mooches. They don't feel entitled. They aren't looking for a hand-out. They are simply tired of busting their asses at menial jobs (if they are lucky enough to have one) for menial pay, only to continue to accrue more debt and live more fearfully; fearful over the well-being of their families, over the loss of their homes, over their bank accounts. They are tired of feeling like, even after all of their hard work, if it's still barely enough to stay afloat, instead of their government stepping into to give them a boost, they are funneling money to the already wealthy.
Here is where the problem lies: the few who are mooches. The few who do feel entitled. The few who are looking for a hand-out. The few who expect a hand-out. The few who don't work hard, have no intentions of working hard, and who gladly, without a drop of remorse, nor gratitude, lean on the system. Take advantage. Expect others to pick up their slack. Expect to be rewarded simply because they have a little and you have a lot, and it's only fair if you share. Ironically enough, they create the flaw in their own argument.
The 1%ers don't feel any obligation to "share" with these few. And who would? If person "X" works hard their entire life (or even doesn't work hard, say their family worked hard and it's been inherited) to accrue a reasonable/unreasonable amount of wealth, why would person "X" feel obligated to give it to person "Y," someone who doesn't work hard, wouldn't appreciate it, and is indeed repulsed by the very notion that you don't just automatically know that it should be given them. There truly and genuinely are people out there who think like this. Who do have this inflated sense of entitlement. Who use and abuse and take advantage of any amount of generosity that there is in the world. And they do so ungratefully and shamelessly. They kill everyone's sense of altruism and good-will-among-men rhetoric. They are the "bad eggs" that ruin it for everyone.
This is the basic principle for why welfare recipients in certain states are being drug tested now. The majority are most likely struggling small families who need that money to survive, and it's barely enough to do that. Families that most likely work hard for a measly paycheck. But there is also a minority that abuses that system. That receives welfare and blows it on drugs or alcohol. That chooses to feed their habit rather than their children. And they instantly ruin it for everyone else. Make it more difficult for the people who really need it, to get it.
And unfortunately, this is why "Occupy Wall Street" will fail, as well. It's impossible not to include the moochers in with the 99%, and they are the first citation for opposing arguments. And how can you defeat those citations? When alas, they are but sadly, sadly true.
