I don't support the OWS for several reasons.

When I first heard of OWS, back when it was a mere embryo of an idea, the thrust being focused on was "End Corporate Personhood." While I understand the notion behind this idea, I still maintain that current model of corporate organization in the US does far more to protect small businesses than it does to oppress the masses.

Do certain large corporations hold too much power? Absolutely. Do we need to seriously examine the hold that these organizations have over government? Absolutely. Will eliminating my ability to protect my small business by incorporating myself help? No.

Everything from the ice cream shop I worked in while in high-school to Carrionfields is protected by corporate personhood. I know it's not the intention of the OWS masses to hurt small business, but I feel that the notion of "End Corporate Personhood" demonstrates a woeful ignorance of what is important and what is just sloganeering, something that, while popular, accomplishes nothing.

This brings me to...After an informal survey of people in New York City, where I live, I realized that the people who are the most vocal supporters of OWS are the same people that I try to keep off of my job sites, as they the most likely to be lazy, yet overestimate their own skills, making them doubly worthless. I hate to throw around the term "entitled," as I fear it has lost almost all meaning in the wake of this protest, but frankly, that's the only word that applies.

Disclaimer: I work in the very-high-end event industry and a decent portion of my income comes indirectly from the pockets of the 1% into my bank account. If these people were not willing to spend multiple millions of dollars on their parties (hell, it's 1M to get Elton John for just a few hours) I would have to either find a different line of work or spend a lot more time working on smaller gigs that pay less money.

In my opinion there are two arguments at work here:
1. Some people have too much money.
2. I don't have enough money.

The truth is that these arguments, though they seem related, are two different issues. Tying them together turns it into a case of "Eat the Rich!" which, like most slogans, sounds good, but solves nothing.

Like people who support OWS I would like to see sweeping reforms in our system of corporate welfare. However, at the same time I'd like to see people who overspend, live beyond their means, and end up in financial trouble because they can't control their spending face the consequences of their actions.

If they can combine unrelated arguments, it seems I can too.