Even though I'm uncertain of how big of a problem this is in the American school system, I know in the Canadian school system a lot of high-school drop-outs are children who were let-down by the primary education system ...

The skills that are developed at earlier grades in a single subject are used at higher grades across all subjects. Without a strong understanding of reading, writing and arithmetic most high-school subjects are simply impossible to learn; or, at least, it becomes nearly impossible to demonstrate that you have learned the material in these subjects.

When you have a large population of your students who can't read and struggle to do arithmetic at a grade 4 level even though they're in the later years of high-school there is little you can do to "save" them.

In my opinion the entire school system needs to be overhauled to ensure that grade level competency is achieved before a student moves onto the next grade; and teachers who cannot take the vast majority of their students from being competent with the previous grade’s material to being competent with the current grade’s material in one year should be let go.

Edit: I just wanted to add that the destruction of the family unit in many poor communities does more to cause the three problems that these children have to prevent ...

Both of my grandfathers were working class men and, while they were sweet grandfathers, I have little doubt that any teen boy that got near to their daughters would fear for their lives, both of my parents were excellent students (for fear of crossing these men), and these men certainly pushed forward a work eithic that has served my parents well.

I'm not sure family units made up of single mothers on welfare have quite the same impact ...

Money today is LESS than a zero sum game.  The way currency is produced makes it so.  When currency enters the economy, it enters with interest, which puts the system in a situation where there is insufficient money to service the debt, particularly if there is any form of economic slowdown.  End result here is the system will force people to default and go insolvent.  

Now, one can say WEALTH is not a zero sum game, and there is truth to that.  A system can have sustainable growth and be able to help more and more people.  This is a situation where more people end up winning.  But as it is now, it isn't so.  The end result today is a paper game where money produced stays in the financial system, and doesn't get out. Rich get richer because of how it is rigged, and unless you can get on the other side of the debt game, with money being leveraged, you fall further and further behind.  Sure, some who aren't on the debt game sometimes get lucky, and get there, but it isn't the norm any longer.

I very much appreciate many of the general ideas the guys in OWS support (like those mentioned here), but I often disagree with their methods.

I like non-violent protests. I think protests are crucial in giving the people a collective voice they otherwise would not have, creating a third avenue of information in addition to corporate media and political propaganda.

However, camping out? Sleeping in tents and trashing parks is not going to get people on your side. In fact, I think barring NYC protesters from camping out is one of the best things to have happened to their movement. They've looked more organized and more... sane, ever since. They head out every morning and look like they have an actual purpose. And the whole place is a lot cleaner.

On the other hand, you have protests in smaller cities like here in New Orleans that only have a few real protesters camping out, given how little protesting will do in a city like this, then all the homeless people come out because they have a new place to stay. It's stupid.

OWS is forcing the nation to talk about issues that have largely been ignored over the past decade, and I appreciate that, but they really need to get re-organized so they can increase their effectiveness.

Also, to the people saying support for OWS is falling, I'd love to see a regional breakdown for that. I would imagine that support is remaining high in liberal urban centers where protests are going strong (NYC), while support amongst rural areas is dropping like a rock given the information reported by outlets like Fox News (these people are lazy, self-entitled brats, flea baggers, etc.).

Fraud with Wall Street that has not been prosecuted:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7390540n

Part 2 here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7390542n&tag=contentMain;contentAux

Except... that's not true? 

If it didn't get out, why would anyone want to build up their money they could never use? 

Again seems like a reason to protest government.

However, the reason they aren't being prosecuted is because there is no proof toward intent. 

You need to prove proof of intent to fraud, the proesecutors looked over everything and found none.

Proescuting the wall street execs at this point would just waste money.

Bad judgement isn't by definition fraud.

So would you rather the laws arrest executives for gross negligence?

As for protesting government, do you want increased regulation of financial markets by government in an attempt to reign in fraud, or more regulation?  It sounds like you are arguing this should be done.

Secondarily, if there is a need to generate sufficient popular support to be able to affect change, why would an initial small number of people who are trying to represent the interest of a large majority do as everyone else has done before, and lobby Washington?  How is being yet another special interest in a sea of noise going to get politicians to do anything?  Do you think if individuals did as you suggested, and lobbied Washington, that you would of even got a piece like 60 Minutes did?

You consider all these statements to follow to be true?

* When money is created through the Federal Reserve, it enters the economy interest free and circulates, not requiring to be paid back with interest to the Federal Reserve.

* There is sufficient money in existence today to serve all the debt that is currently out there.

* The current system is not set up in such a way that it is impossible to pay off all debt out there, particularly when there is an economic slowdown that disrupts the flow of money throughout the system.

* Economists are not saying there is currently too much debt in the current system, which is holding back growth.

If you are saying what I originally wrote is not true, then you do agree with all of the above I wrote as being true in that, there is not a systemic problem with debt that results in the financial industry being richer while those who depend on it get further and further behind the debt cycle? 

This video goes into part of this (It is from Money as Debt):

And here is another one that is shorter, that shows what happen, if you don't grow the money supply to service the debt that is created in the economy:

This issue pops up due to compounding interest, and also is why Ponzi schemes and MLMs fall apart.  Eventually, there is insufficient amount of new money coming in so the system collapses, and the economy is ruined:

I don't agree with any of those.

Except... tentativly the first one.

I'm guessing you think the money created in QE1 and QE2 was supplied as repos.

However that's not the case.   QE1 and QE2 money was aquired by purchasing Treasury Bills... which they will probably never actually cash.

So essentially, the government buying government debt.  The Federal Reserve issues stock, however is not actually owned by any of the banks... the stock actually more of a "requirement for entrance" into the government system... essentially taking on the cost of oppuration.

Outside that... excess money is often put into an account to protect agaisnt failed Repos... which i'd think would be a good thing?  When this fund is considered more then big enough to cover loses the excess is transfered to US Treasuary who uses that money to pay off US Debt.  Or it's used to buy T-bills directly.  As seen with the above QE 1 & QE2. 

Additionally, I wouldn't say there was a systematic problem that banks get richer while those who rely on it get poorer.

That's the whole point of loans.  You want money now, so you agree to pay more to a bank to get a loan.

I mean, the world coudn't function in a zero interest loan enviroment.

The problem has nothing to do with the banks, and everything to do with the fact that those taking the loans aren't increasing their own wealth or income in the same way.

Additionally most of this profit gets paid out of the sysetm to those who hold stock in banks.  Which could be up to 53% of the population, who then spend or invest it in other areas.  Well outside those who put it right back in the bank, but those are more likely then not the poorer share holders.

I mean, you can argue a problem of "Bank Assets/Debt/value vs GDP".

However the US isn't the right place to be making that argument.

You'd wanna be protesting in Europe.

Oh, and to be honest.  I put very little value in people's opinions who post video links.  If you can't comprehensibly explain the point in you own words it makes it seem like you can't fully understand what's being said and therefore haven't looked at it critically.