I read your comment, shrugged, then read the op-Ed. When I got back, I found myself scratching my head as to whether you'd even bothered reading it.
The thread of common anger among the protesters is the notion that banks took risk, enjoyed protection by tax payers and then, once resuscitated by the people, bought politicians to prevent regulation that would prevent future indiscretions.
I don't need to have philosophical agreement with my neighbor for us to be joined in outrage when the guy across the street gets mugged while we're watching. These guys have a legitimate beef. I'm not going to quibble about whether their proposed solutions are in agreement.
The seed of common anger is the perversion of regulation and governance at the highest tier of financial institutions.
However, the expressions of anger at the occupy* protests has been running the gamut. From moderate calls for financial reform all the way to straight up marxist wealth redistribution.
There may be fairly broad public support behind the sentiment that there's a fair number of problems with the system as it exists today, but there is nothing like widespread support for the gamut of messages coming out of occupy*.
I read your comment, shrugged, then read the op-Ed. When I got back, I found myself scratching my head as to whether you'd even bothered reading it.
The thread of common anger among the protesters is the notion that banks took risk, enjoyed protection by tax payers and then, once resuscitated by the people, bought politicians to prevent regulation that would prevent future indiscretions.
I don't need to have philosophical agreement with my neighbor for us to be joined in outrage when the guy across the street gets mugged while we're watching. These guys have a legitimate beef. I'm not going to quibble about whether their proposed solutions are in agreement.