I chopped a few paragraphs out to save space and focus on the parasite problem. I had read this yesterday, and was going to do a snap reply regarding, "What about people going into retirement?" and that issues faced.  But, then I have realized there is a BIG parasite problem.  A consumer dirven economy, with a focus on driving people to buy, buy, buy stuff, in order to keep the engines of commerce going, combined with making it said to be purely competitive, where I get mine, and forget everyone else, is producing parasite mentality of consumption, and lack of serving and solving real problems, for a number of reasons.

I had thought last night, about the whole "Zombie apocalypse" thing going about today, and the Romero model for the zombie and I am think that is symbolic of what is going on now.  American culture is full of people who expect to get rich, "live the good life" and so on, just because.  It is a virus mentality of a consumer, driven by get, get, get, where people are pampered from a young age and told they are "special".  Basic laws of economy are, if you want to have more, you bring more to the market.  You serve and you solve.  You bring goods and services.  But, do we have that today?  Nope.  The idea is to "stimulate" and somehow the Keynesian sugar rush will make everything wonderful.  Well, it isn't.  Instead, we produce more and more zombies, in the form of individuals and organizations who are out for their own, and getting more.  And there is the debt bomb also.  And factor in everyone for themselves, and you have zombies.

Society would be a lot better if people learned how to properly serve and see problems, and work to solve them, rather than ending up needy beggers.

I'd say the greatest flaw though, just lies in the inconsistent message.

It seems like they're demanding government action to try and limit the effect corporations have to sway rules there way and to create jobs....

When government is exactly WHY corporations have such abilities.

To propose more government action is how you get Stimulus bills that get spent on nothing to help and just run up the costs for the average consumer, and how you get laws like Dodd Frank, which are essentially designed to kill small businesses to the advantage of bigger ones. (In this case, banks.)   Chris Dodd being like, the biggest bank schill in either party.  (Lost in the whole anti-bank movement is that historically democrats get more donations from banks then republicans.)

Oh, and also greatly hinder job creation since now, it's going to be hard as hell to get loans.

The only long term jobs government can create are government jobs... and as Greece has shown, you don't want to have an economy that relies on government jobs, because it's just a case of diminishing returns.

It's all a very silly approach.

You need a concentrated approach that if anything forces polticians to take powers away from themselves.

Otherwise they'll just right loophole after loophole into their own bills so everything looks better but isn't.

I mean shit, anyone who's been paying attention would of noticed this already what with the constant campaign finance laws that were added with giant loopholes.  Like the good old "Toothpick rule."

The only real options are

A)Getting private money out elections all together

B) Get rid of governments ability to play favorites in the market place.

And Option A actually isn't an option since it's a violation of the first ammendment.

There are many educational fields that are structured in a way that there is one post grad position for every 10 (or more) graduates, there is one teaching/researching position for every 10 (or more) post grad students, and the only jobs that exist in these fields are in academia; and these academic positions are strictly based on teaching new students in the field and/or writing books that you force these students to read. In other words, these fields are gigantic Ponzi schemes which are fed through borrowed money backed by the government and the lies of countless people.

With so many intelligent, hard working people, and over educated people in the system the lack of jobs has pushed many of these failed academics to get more education; and more often than not these individuals choose to become lawyers. This has once again created a situation where there is one working law position for every 10 (or more) graduates, and one particularly wealthy lawyer for every working lawyer.

Now, these dramatically over educated individuals decide to "create" a "career" for themselves and this typically involves them becoming community organizers, starting not-for-profits or non-governmental agencies, or becoming lobbyists; and their "job" effectively becomes petitioning the government to give them taxpayer dollars to be paid well with a fancy title and do absolutely no good for anyone.

These community organizers and lobbyists are perfect examples of worthless careers.

The reason that was considered a first amendment violation (if we're referring to that one supreme court case that struck down McCain-Feingold) was because of the idiotic notion of corporate personhood, but importantly because McCain-Feingold was discriminating against such personhood. If all private money were banned altogether, would that not be a different issue judicially?

The reason that was considered a first amendment violation (if we're referring to that one supreme court case that struck down McCain-Feingold) was because of the idiotic notion of corporate personhood, but importantly because McCain-Feingold was discriminating against such personhood. If all private money were banned altogether, would that not be a different issue judicially?

Yep... instead of saying "this is where we are now we need to work toegther to get out of this"  the government instead talks of stimulus and blames the rich. 

Because it's easy, and easy to get reelected that way.

They tend to follow more along the lines of "They Live."

Another problem is well, most people don't know the basic laws of economics.   Ask most people and they probably still live under a "zero-sum" idea about how the economy works.   

IE, there is a finite amount of wealth in the world, therefore to have more, someone must have less.

Based on the signs, most of the protesters are under the same illusion.

I wasn't sure where to shorten this, so I chopped it off here.  What is happening is that the first part of what you wrote about working together is getting undermined by increasing class warfare talk.  There is your side, but there is also the other side which then blames everyone who is getting shorted for their own problems.  There is corruption going about at the top, for one thing, and also culturally that undermines the ability to work together.  But, rather than discuss and try to reach common ground, things happen that I run into, where it is either red or blue and crush those who aren't on your side.  I have gotten those words thrown at me, for example, so I know them.  And you see it happening in Washington.  It is blame the other side.  It is thinking the only way the rich get ahead is by being evil, or that the only reason why you aren't rich is that you are lazy or don't want it enough.  I could get go, from a humble human's perspective speak about the Christian message here, and say how none of that even remotely fits what Christ would have.

Anyhow, I would say MAYBE there is a chance to do with the Occupy movement what didn't happen with the Tea Party.  MAYBE people from a more conservative and/or libertarian perspective could get involved and help direct things.  What I do know is a LOT can be done, and won't be done with every man for himself.  This isn't going to cut it.  On my end, I am looking to see if I can get involved locally in things.  I am also seeing about working with a startup who gets other startups off the ground, and hope that makes a difference.  Will see how it goes.

Because people come together and incorporate themselves doesn't mean they somehow forfeit their first amendment rights. Solicitor general Kagan and her deputy actually argued that the government has the right to ban books if they come out too close to an election, for crying out loud. They absolutely deserved to lose that case, and they deserved to be loaded into a cannon and fired into a live volcano besides for even making such a dumb fucking argument on the taxpayers' dime to begin with.

Right, but the body that the people form should not have the legal rights of a person. People in corporations retain their rights to be certain, but the corporation itself should not be afforded the same electoral rights.