The Occupy Movement had already achieved something.
It had brought these and other issues into the public light and has gotten people to do what hasn't been done in a long time.

A) Acknowledge these issues.

B) Begin discussing these issues.

These two ”achievements” alone are more than anything that has broken through the public's cloud of apathy that has gripped us for decades.

Originally posted by AzureSky

Originally posted by Frira
It might be worth noting that business donations are to both major parties, and that business top execs are at least as likely to vote for Democrats as Republicans.

Yet, OWS is almost entirely liberal in the ideology of its supporters..

Since that seems "off" at first glance; perhaps a little research as to who started it and how, might be useful-- perhaps that answer suggesting a hidden agenda which is contrary to the purpose most of those participating have assumed?

It really doesn't matter where the idea started.

Of course it matters-- for the same reason that it matters what the sympathies are of the media reporting it now.

If protests against off-shore oil drilling are actually organized by the nuclear industry, and the protests against nuclear power is organized by the oil industry-- you may protest both, but in reality are doing nothing but serving the very industries you oppose. Each industry supplying signs, flyers, and soundbites to the media of intentionally misleading data against the other-- and the protesters might never know.

Of course both big-business and government are big enough and savvy enough to be capable of organizing protests AGAINST their own interests so as to garner sympathy from those who support them.

It matters who is behind the organization of the protests. It matters a lot.

I think everyone who goes to these things realizes the entire system is screwed. They won't vote for anyone, because they see the entire system is a scam right now. Everyone has their own ideas, some are there for the environment, most for social and economic change. Theres a mix of everything. The main point is, people want drastic change.

Yes. My concern is that the "change" ultimately specified, and perhaps enacted, may be serving the very greed and desires for power of those being opposed.

If the protestors are sheep who do not know the shepherds, how do they know they are not being led by the wolves?

"Grass-roots movements" are rarely-- if ever-- truly of the people. The Tea Party was not "grass roots" but the protesters thought it was.

For good reason, including experience, I suspect the same, here. I smell a wolf.

How many people realize that big-business is able to to influence quarterly economic indicators, which can make or break a major political party's mid-term election?

The politicians know it, and that is just one reason why the politicians will vote as they do. They are not voting ideology, they are voting for their own interests in being re-elected, or gaining seats. We complain that business has that power and we complain that politicians bow to that power; but the reality is that, clearly, both opposing sides are sophisticated, greedy, and powerful.

This is how this scenario is playing out:

Ignore the protestors they don't exist, it's only a small group
Defame the protestors, they are lazy bums and socialists
Deny the protestors have a valid issue to discuss
Acknowledge there is a problem but claim they offer no solutions
Acknowledge the problem and the solution, but claim the problem is too big to be fixed

Lather
Rinse
Repeat.

If you don't believe me, go back and start reading some of these OWS threads start to finish, you'll see how the goalposts continually get pushed back.

This is non-partisan and no amount of BS will change that.