The state of things for someone is their reality.  Now, if one wants to consider what is really reality is some theoretical ideal on how things could possible work, if someone was a god, and could bend all factors the way they want, that is fine.  But we don't live in a world like that.  On that note, if you want to argue they are railing for a call to action that won't work, or make things worse, then you do have a possible point.  But there isn't even yelling for much of a solution yet, just stating current conditions of reality, and airing of a lot of complaints.  

Of course, one could end up saying, "they should just shut up and suck it down", aka the message of the "We are the 53%".  And if that is the message you believe everyone should go by, then do you believe where things are is where they will remain from now on?  The message I see coming out of opposition to Occupy is that, "You can totally make it on your own.  Just shut up and work.  Get a job loser!"  Ok, fine.  If that is the case, then would you say the same to the Tea Party:  "Be quiet, nothing to see here.  Shut up and get jobs and stop complaining about the government"?

No. I have my problems with the Tea Party, like the fact that they have been far too timid about tackling entitlements and that military spending is still too much of a sacred cow for them, but I can't with a straight face pretend that a group of people who have, in my opinion, correctly identified the problem (an overreaching, incompetent, and corrupt government) and are advocating a specific set of solutions (said government butts the fuck out) is quite the same as a group of people whose entire movement is literally predicated upon sitting around and bitching about how bad their lives are and how it's everyone else's fault but theirs. And I realize that might in fact be an overly generous summary of the Occupy movement, since it ignores what appears to be a growing predilection towards fits of violence and other degenerate behaviors as well as the fact that, with the exception of the Paulbots, their solution to a corrupt government is MOAR GUVERMINTZ, but hey, I am feeling particularly charitable today.

Exactly. The main issue with the occupy people is that the ones complaining about not being able to get a job with their degree are not trying to leverage their degree into something they can do while they continue to try to find what they want to do

No one says you have to give up your dreams, but you can't at least find a steady job in the meantime

You know that a system is meant to fail, when the money paid by the contribuable is given to save Failing bank, ANd these same bank knoked at your door to take your house.

Well Its like giving a swanwich to a homeless and when you turn the corner he stab you for your cloth.

This World is sick, and money is cancer.

Nah, the sickness is them taking that money and making "golden parachutes" for the knuckle-headed executives that got them there in the first place.

If people complain about the welfare ethic at the bottom of society, what of the failure ethic at the top?

I don't think there's any shortage of people who criticize corporate irresponsibility. There's just a difference in how people think it should be approached. Broadly speaking, one side thinks you can regulate it away while the other side thinks that corporations need to be allowed to fail.

I'm not against corporations being allowed to fail, i just feel that those hundreds of millions that are given to the CEOs jumping off the sinking ship should be stripped from them and given to the employees as a mass severance package

All i wish is for the excesses of capitalism to be reshuffled so that no-one has to suffer, since i acknowledge the real advantages of capitalism unlike many people who are otherwise as far left-wing as i am

I would use a different analogy ...

Subway enters a new market and heavily advertises that you can lose weight simply by eating at Subway and uses many clever slogans like “6 subs with 6 grams of fat or less”. While some people read the fine print of Subway’s campaigns and understand the claims that Subway is making, most people take for granted that Subway is a healthy place to eat and are oblivious to the choices they would need to make to lose weight while eating Subway.

For four years these people eat multiple times a day at Subway and talk about how great they’re doing and only rarely have their ignorance spoiled by someone pointing out that their double meat, double cheese, cold-cut heavy sandwich that is covered in mayo and sub-sauces that they combine with a gigantic sugar filled beverage and a bag of chips has enough calories to feed a family of four; and even then they would need to exercise regularly to see the kinds of gains that Subway advertised. But they simply ignore them because Subway would never advertise their food as being healthy while selling unhealthy food.

Eventually they find themselves grossly obese, and they’re angry that they did what they were told to and it turned out so poorly for them. They decide to protest and they storm down to their local gym and start harassing fit people as they’re entering and leaving the gym. These obese people have come to the conclusion that, since Subway couldn’t possibly have mislead them for their own gain, that there must be a limit to the amount of fitness that could exist in the world and that the top 1% of fit people must be hording it all.

There is a common, "WTF?  YOU BAILED THEM OUT?" that has come up, that is common ground.  And one sides does believe there should be rules to block the cascading effects of mass stupidity, while the other side says that they failing should happen anyway.

What I have stated and side with is the need to find some common ground to deal with things.  Being fractured and arguing how one side or the other is evil, still leaves the rot.  The train derailed and needs to be dealt with.  

BS degrees are a lot more then 5% of the population, so i'd say that a BS degree actually does help you to a degree getting employment.