From what I've read the occupiers are "the 99% fed up with the greed and corruption of the 1%". It sounds reasonable. It sounds great! But what does that really mean?
When my oldest son took the SAT the essay question was along the lines of "is it possible to get ahead in life without acting immorally." He took the position "no, you can't" - not because he believes that (he claims) but because it is the more easily defensible position. Society paints the rich and successful as being evil, and certainly there are many examples to choose from.
But there are also counterexamples. Consider Bryan Bedford, CEO of Frontier Airlines and featured on "Undercover Boss". Consider all the philanthropy that exists that would not be possible had individuals not had the money to give.
I'm not trying to hold the rich up as paragons of virtue, but I think it is ignoring the plank in your own eye (Matthew 7:3-5) to imply that the not-as-rich-as-the-99% are blameless. Our country has always held the principle that anybody could be successful if they worked hard. It seems that the occupiers deny that principle. Their cynical, might-makes-right attitude I find no less corrupt than the unequal distribution of wealth they protest.