A difference between Tea Party, Occupy

I found a comment in the Nov. 14 article on the Benedictine University survey quite interesting. One of the student research assistants said he could relate to the Occupy protesters. He said: “I’m in debt with student loans. I’m not guaranteed to have a job. And I don’t know what’s going to happen in the next five to 10 years.” He then said he could see himself joining the Occupy Chicago movement under certain circumstances.

While I sympathize with the plight of some protesters and some of their reported concerns, I don’t understand what they expect to accomplish by standing on street corners and sleeping in the park. As to the researcher’s comment, I would ask him who forced him to take out a student loan? He had a choice — borrow and go to school or don’t borrow and don’t go to school.

I am not aware of any person who is “guaranteed a job.” Had he said that he didn’t expect it to be as difficult as it is to find a job I would agree with him. Because he assumed that education would “guarantee” him a job and he now finds otherwise, the next step is not to sleep in Grant Park. He said he does not know what’s going to happen in the next five to 10 years. I don’t know anyone who does. Again, not Grant Park.

Some compare the Occupy movement with the Tea Party movement. There is one glaring difference, at least at this point. The Tea Party folks were upset with the system but acknowledged that there was a system. Within that system they created a legitimate voice through the electoral process and are now trying to make their desired changes to the system through the system.

Thomas A. Floyd

Bartlett