Forum Post: thoughts on ows

Before the inevitable slaughtering of my opinion, it's probably worthwhile to say I hold a neutral view for most part on taking a side. If anything, a 60/40 fault split between Wall Street and the 99%. Yes, Wall Street acted inethical and with only one interest in mind during the good years ($$$), creating those dubious financial instruments which there wasn't really a legitimate need for. And Wall Street likely won't accept full blame, which is no surprise (do you expect anything different from them?).

What I personally find narrow-minded and honestly a double-standard is the continued lack of blame by the 99%. I think acknowledging we were the problem would go a long ways. NO ONE was complaining 4 years ago when the stock market was peaking, your house was worth double what you paid a few years ago, etc. You can't blame Wall Street for what was obviously greed on part of the 99%. Wouldn't an individual find it at least somewhat odd if they were offered a $500,000 home on a salary of $40,000 with a 5% down payment? Common sense does go a long way.

And then the students complaining (I graduated a few years back) about lack of jobs. Once again, blame is not solely on the costs of private universities and overall sluggish economy. Taking responsibility goes a long ways. Did you not think beforehand that a major in "x" would be worthless regardless of the state of the economy? Once again, common sense. You can't blame being naive on the other guy...

So the 99% does deserve blame and we should admit our mistakes (completely true argument, and one which I'll probably get powned on but whatever). The other part is to obviously come up with PRACTICAL, WELL THOUGHT-OUT, UNIFIED arguments. It's really, really hard to join a cause when there are protesters out there spewing about now knowing who Warren Buffet is or to just wipe out all student debt. The latter relates to my whole issue with accountability. So let's say student debt is wiped out, how are the students who paid their way through debt - working two jobs after graduating, living a frugal life, etc - going to be rewarded? I don't understand why our side doesn't think of the ethical dilemmas like this which we claim Wall Street doesn't follow. Why would it be fair to erase $40,000 in debt? Someone give me a valid, neutral argument to this. Anyways, I have more thoughts but there really needs to be a group of clear-minded, rationale people to take this to the next level beyond a protest (which isn't going to get us anywhere by itself).