Why is there so much hate, and why is the country (US) so divided?

The article I started posting just above, post #146, about the history of SOCIAL SECURITY-- more interesting than it sounds-- exceeded the character-limit, so it will take a couple other installments to include all I wanted to post; there is more, besides, which I'm not posting.

https://www.ssa.gov/history/briefhistory3.html

PART TWO:

Although his march failed, Coxey's Army was a harbinger of an issue that would rise to prominence as unemployment insurance would become a key element in the future Social Security Act. (Ohio would continue to play an important role in the development of unemployment insurance as its state program was one of two looked to as models for the new federal program--the other being the program in operation in Wisconsin.)

State Old-Age Pensions

Following the outbreak of the Great Depression, poverty among the elderly grew dramatically. The best estimates are that in 1934 over half of the elderly in America lacked sufficient income to be self-supporting. Despite this, state welfare pensions for the elderly were practically non-existent before 1930. A spurt of pension legislation was passed in the years immediately prior to passage of the Social Security Act, so that 30 states had some form of old-age pension program by 1935. However, these programs were generally inadequate and ineffective. Only about 3% of the elderly were actually receiving benefits under these states plans, and the average benefit amount was about 65 cents a day.

There were many reasons for the low participation in state-run pension systems. Many elderly were reluctant to "go on welfare." Restrictive eligibility criteria kept many poor seniors from qualifying. Some jurisdictions, while having state programs on the books, failed to actually implement them. Many of the state-passed pension laws provided for counties within the state to opt to participate in the pension program. As a result, in 1929 of the six states with operating pension laws on the books only 53 of the 264 counties eligible to adopt a pension plan actually did so. After 1929, the States began enacting laws without county options. By 1932 seventeen states had old age pension laws, although none were in the south, and 87% of the money available under these laws were expended in only three states (California, Massachusetts and New York).


America Changes

Despite all of the institutional strategies adopted in early America to assure some measure of economic security, huge changes would sweep through America which would, in time, undermine the existing institutions. Four important demographic changes happened in America beginning in the mid-1880s that rendered the traditional systems of economic security increasingly unworkable:

• The Industrial Revolution
• The urbanization of America
• The disappearance of the "extended" family
• A marked increase in life expectancy

The Industrial Revolution transformed the majority of working people from self-employed agricultural workers into wage earners working for large industrial concerns. In an agricultural society, prosperity could be easily seen to be linked to one's labor, and anyone willing to work could usually provide at least a bare subsistence for themselves and their family. But when economic income is primarily from wages, one's economic security can be threatened by factors outside one's control--such as recessions, layoffs, failed businesses, etc.

Along with the shift from an agricultural to an industrial society, Americans moved from farms and small rural communities to large cities--that's where the industrial jobs were. In 1890, only 28% of the population lived in cities, by 1930 this percentage had exactly doubled, to 56%.


The year 1920 was a historical tipping-point. In that year, for the first time in our nation's history, more people were living in cities than on farms.

This trend toward urbanization also contributed to another significant shift in American society, the disappearance of the extended family and the rapid rise of the nuclear family. Today we tend to assume that "the family" consists of parents and children--the so-called nuclear family. For most of our history, we lived in "extended families" that included children, parents, grandparents and other relatives. The advantage of the extended family was that when a family member became too old or infirm to work, the other family members assumed responsibility for their support. But when the able-bodied left the farms to seek employment in the cities, often the parents or grandparents stayed behind. And when new immigrants first arrived in our land, it was often the breadwinner who first made the passage and only later could he bring the family over.

And finally, another significant change happened in the early decades of this century. Thanks primarily to better health care and sanitation, and the development of effective public health programs, Americans began to live significantly longer. In three short decades, 1900-1930, average life spans increased by 10 years. This was the most rapid increase in life spans in recorded human history. The result was a rapid growth in the number of aged persons, to 7.8 million by 1935.

The net result of this complex set of demographic and social changes was that America was older, more urban and more industrial, and fewer of its people lived on the land in extended families. The traditional strategies for the provision of economic security were becoming increasingly fragile.


The Stock Market Crash & The Great Depression

When the New York Stock Exchange opened on the morning of October 24, 1929, nervous traders sensed something ominous in the trading patterns. By 11:00 a.m. the market had started to plunge. Shortly after noon a group of powerful bankers met secretly at J.P. Morgan & Co. next door to the Exchange and pledged to spend $240 million of their own funds to stabilize the market. This strategy worked for a few days, but the panic broke out again the following Tuesday, when the market crashed again, and nothing could be done to stop it.

Before three months had passed, the Stock Market lost 40% of its value; $26 billion of wealth disappeared. Great American corporations suffered huge financial losses. AT&T lost one-third of its value, General Electric lost half of its, and RCA's stock fell by three-fourths within a matter of months. (It would take 25 YEARS for the stock market to RETURN to its pre-crash level following the 1929 crash.)

As America slipped into economic depression following the Crash of 1929, unemployment exceeded 25%; about 10,000 banks failed; the Gross National Product declined from $105 billion in 1929 to only $55 billion in 1932. Compared to pre-Depression levels, net new business investment was a minus $5.8 billion in 1932. Wages paid to workers declined from $50 billion in 1929 to only $30 billion in 1932.



Radical Calls to Action

The decade of the 1930s found America facing the worst economic crisis in its modern history. Millions of people were unemployed, two million adult men ("hobos") wandered aimlessly around the country, banks and businesses failed and the majority of the elderly in America lived in dependency. These circumstances led to many calls for change.

Every Man a King:

Huey Long was Governor of Louisiana from 1928 to 1932 and was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1930. A nominal Democrat, Huey Long was a radical populist. He wanted the government to confiscate the wealth of the nation's rich and privileged. He called his program Share Our Wealth. It called upon the federal government to guarantee every family in the nation an annual income of $5,000, so they could have the necessities of life, including a home, a job, a radio and an automobile. He also proposed limiting private fortunes to $50 million, legacies to $5 million, and annual incomes to $1 million. Everyone over age 60 would receive an old-age pension. His slogan was "Every Man A King."

The Share Our Wealth program immediately became a movement. Clubs were formed in every state in the nation. By 1935 the movement claimed 27,000 local clubs with 7.7 million members.


The Townsend Movement:

Francis E. Townsend was a lean, bespectacled doctor from Long Beach, California. In 1933 he found himself unemployed at age 66 with no savings and no prospects. This experience galvanized him to become the self-proclaimed champion of the cause of the elderly. He devised a plan known as the Townsend Old Age Revolving Pension Plan, or Townsend Plan for short.

The basic idea of the Townsend Plan was that the government would provide a pension of $200 per month to every citizen age 60 and older. The pensions would be funded by a 2% NATIONAL SALES TAX. There were three eligibility requirements:

• the person had to be retired;
• "their past life is free from habitual criminality;"
• the money had to be spent within the U.S. by the pensioner within 30 days of receipt.

Dr. Townsend published his plan in a local Long Beach newspaper in early 1933 and within about two years there were 7,000 Townsend Clubs around the country with more than 2.2 million members actively working to make the Townsend Plan the nation's old-age pension system.




Following the passage of the Social Security Act in 1935, most of these alternative pension schemes disappeared as quickly as they had arisen. The Townsend Plan, however, hung around at least until the passage of the 1950 Amendments to the Social Security program, which made benefits much more generous and finally took the last of the steam out of the Townsend movement. But as late as November 1949, in the House of Representatives 179 members signed a discharge petition to force a floor vote on the Townsend Plan--barely 39 members short of the number needed to force the House to consider the final version of the Townsend Plan as a REPLACEMENT FOR THE SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM.

 

This is the last installment on the origins & history of SOCIAL SECURITY, from a website of our Federal Govt. The other 2 sections are the previous post, & #146, on p.6.

@Lee Atwater, This part starts with something that puts your take on right wing talk-radio in a new perspective.

https://www.ssa.gov/history/briefhistory3.html

PART 3:

Fire & Brimstone:

Another influence on Depression-era public policy was the Union for Social Justice movement led by a radio preacher by the name of Father Charles E. Coughlin. Father Coughlin had a weekly radio program with 35-40 million listeners which he used to mix a little religion with a lot of politics. His enemies, in addition to the devil himself, were Roosevelt, international bankers, communists, and labor unions, and he was not shy in describing them in interchangeable terms. At the height of his popularity, Father Coughlin had a GREATER SHARE of the weekly broadcast audience than HOWARD STERN, RUSH LIMBAUGH, PAUL HARVEY, and LARRY KING COMBINED.

Although Father Coughlin's main effort was to pillory his enemies, he did have a broad program of social reforms that included a deliberate inflation of the currency and the nationalization of all banks. He was also an anti-Semite and isolationist whose views were so extreme that the Catholic Church finally censured him and forced him to cease his political activities. In 1936, Coughlin, along with Townsend and the remnants of Huey Long's Share the Wealth Movement, would join to form a third party to contest the presidential election in the hopes of preventing President Roosevelt from being re-elected.


A Writer & his EPIC:

UPTON SINCLAIRE was a famous novelist and social crusader from California , and an avowed Socialist, who in 1933 was asked by a dissident group of Los Angeles Democrats to help them draft a platform proposal for dealing with the state's economic problems. They were so impressed by Sinclair's plan--which he christened the End Poverty in California, or EPIC plan, that they persuaded him to change his party to Democratic and to run for the party's nomination for governor in 1934.

Sinclair's EPIC scheme was a 12-point program to remake the Californian economy. It involved the issuance of scrip currency, the creation of large state-run bartering enterprises, a tax on idle land and floating a large state bond for $300 million. Point 10 of the plan was a proposal to give pensions of $50 a month to all needy persons over 60 who had lived in California for at least three years. There was a state pension plan in operation in California at the time, but its benefits were very low, and the eligibility requirements were so severe that most elderly Californians could not qualify. (This was true of many of the state pension programs around the country.) Sinclair's pension proposal was very popular because in one fell swoop it reduced the minimum age for pensions by 10 years, almost doubled their value, and eliminated restrictive eligibility requirements.

​

Sinclair's EPIC program, and especially its pension proposal, had a great appeal in Depression-weary California. Sinclair and his supporters organized EPIC clubs, published newsletters, formed ad hoc organizations and found a large chorus of supporters with unlimited enthusiasm for his ideas. In short order, Upton Sinclair's EPIC movement captured the Democratic party and Sinclair became the Democratic nominee for governor in the election of 1934. The party's platform became the EPIC program, including the pension plan.

When the votes were counted, Upton Sinclair got 37% of the vote, the Republican candidate got 48% and a third-party progressive candidate took another 13%. Had it been a two-man race, Upton Sinclair might have become Governor of California and the EPIC pension plan might well have become the California model.


National Ham and Eggs:

"Let's stay away from politics
Regardless of who hollers
Let's not be fooled by childish tricks
LET'S GET OUR THIRTY DOLLARS"

The Ham & Eggs movement had more than 300,000 members--and many more supporters. In 1938 the successful Democratic candidate for governor, Culbert Olsen, openly supported the plan and a proposition was placed on the ballot to adopt the Ham & Eggs plan as California state policy. The proposition was narrowly defeated by a vote of 1,143,670 in favor to 1,398,999 against.

The Ham & Eggs movement was based on dubious economics, it was founded and run by a succession of characters of questionable integrity, it suffered from internecine rivalries and frequent scandals, and yet, at the peak of its influence in 1938, more than a million Californians, including the state's Governor, believed that it was the solution to the problem of income security for the aged. That such a poor candidate for a public policy would be so widely embraced is STRONG EVIDENCE of how HUNGRY THE PUBLIC was for action to address the problem of INCOME SECURITY for the ELDERLY.


Bigelow Plan:
(Edited out for space).


General Welfare Federation of America:

A woman in South Carolina scrawls a note to a man in Washington whom she addresses as "Dear Mr. President." "I'm 72 years old and have no one to take care of me." Another letter comes to the White House from Virginia. "I'm a 60 year-old widow greatly in need of medical aid, food and fuel, I pray that you would have pity on me." Letters such as these came by the thousands from old folks across the country to the President, to Mrs. Roosevelt, to almost every one in Washington whose name was familiar to them.

It isn't any wonder then, why the elderly looked to the various organizations that sprang up around the country offering salvation in some form of an old-age pension plan. One such organization was the General Welfare Federation of America. Headquartered in Washington, DC, and founded by Arthur L. Johnson, who denounced the newly established Social Security Act as a "great American fraud." He was just as severe in attacking other organizations such as the Townsend, Ham-and-Eggs, and Bigelow plans as "crackpot" pension schemes.

Mr. Johnson's plan, like most of the others, wiped out the elaborate system of employment records kept under the present Social Security Act. Instead, it provided for a pension to every citizen on or after reaching the age of 60, with the simple stipulation that they not engage in gainful employment, that they spend their pension for American goods and services, and that they not maintain able-bodied male dependents between the ages of 30 and 60.

The pension would be fixed at not less than $30 a month and not more than $60 a month. The actual amount would be determined by dividing the total funds available by the total number of annuitants. The funds would be derived from a gross income tax of 2 percent on individuals and corporations, with exceptions to protect charitable, religious, cooperative and similar organizations. The proponents of the this plan did manage did get it introduced in the House of Representatives, however, the bill died in committee in 1939 before ever reaching a House vote.


Technocracy:

Out of America's fascination with technology came another eccentric "reform" movement known as Technocracy. Founded in 1918 by a California patent attorney it would briefly flare as a serious intellectual movement centered around Columbia University; although as a mass-movement its real center was California where it claimed half a million members in 1934. Technocracy counted among its admirers such men as the novelist H.G. Wells, the author Theodore Dreiser and the economist Thorstein Veblen...

The Technocrats believed that the solution to all problems of economic security were the same, the rigorous application of engineering principles in a system freed from the Price System. They conceived of retirement as being made possible at age 45 for everyone due to the vast prosperity the new age of Technocracy would usher in...

Oddly enough, alone among this collection of radical movements of the 1930s, the Technocracy movement survives, if not quite thrives, into the present day.


The Establishment Response

If America was to avoid the siren songs of the "radical calls to action," responsible political leaders would need to offer some persuasive alternatives. As the Depression grew, THREE GENERAL APPROACHES emerged: do nothing; rely on voluntary charity; and expand welfare benefits for those hardest hit by the Depression.


The Do Nothing Response

It seemed to many politicians and leading public figures that the Depression was just another dip in the economic cycle and that it would right itself soon enough. These voices counseled a restrained response, or no response at all. In the early aftermath of the stock market crash such views were especially common.

This view that nothing very much was wrong and nothing very much needed to be done, began to fade quickly as the Depression deepened. Even so, it held considerable sway in the early years after The Crash.


President Hoover's "Volunteerism"

President Hoover had a distinguished career before becoming president. He made a name for himself in international relief efforts before and after World War I. He helped feed millions of starving people, through the efforts of voluntary partnerships of government, business and private giving. He knew this kind of "volunteerism" worked, on a massive scale, and he saw no reason why it should not work to solve the problems of the Depression. So although he engaged in some limited federal relief efforts, his main response to the Depression was to advocate voluntary efforts, which never materialized.

The main problem with this strategy was that America was able to help rebuild Europe in the aftermath of World War I because America's economy was basically sound. In the Depression the total WEALTH OF THE NATION WAS CUT IN HALF during the first three years after The Crash. This made voluntary charity a difficult ideal to achieve.


Expand Welfare

Even before the Depression hit, the States had been forced to deal with the problems of economic security in a wage-based, industrial economy. Workers Compensation programs were established at the state level before Social Security, and there were state welfare programs for the elderly in place before Social Security. Prior to Social Security, the main strategy for providing economic security to the elderly, in the face of the demographic changes discussed above, was to provide various forms of old-age "pensions." These were welfare programs, eligibility for which was based on proof of financial need. By 1934, most states had such "pension" plans. Even at the state level, however, these plans were inadequate. Some had restrictive eligibility criteria which resulted in many of the elderly being unable to qualify. The most generous plan paid a maximum of $1 per day.

In the Congress, the consensus of conventional wisdom was for more old-age assistance like that available in the states.


The "New" Alternative

With the coming to office of President Roosevelt in 1932, and the introduction of his economic security proposal based on social insurance rather than welfare assistance, the debate changed. It was no longer a choice between radical changes and old approaches that no longer seemed to work. The "new" idea of social insurance, which was ALREADY WIDESPREAD IN EUROPE, would become an innovative alternative.

Social insurance, as conceived by President Roosevelt, would address the permanent problem of economic security for the elderly by creating a work-related, contributory system in which workers would provide for their own future economic security through taxes paid while employed. Thus it was an alternative both to reliance on welfare and to radical changes in our capitalist system. In the context of its time, it can be seen as a MODERATELY CONSERVATIVE, YET ACTIVIST, response to the challenges of the Depression.



The Social Insurance Movement



Bismarck

The Social Security program that would eventually be adopted in late 1935 relied for its core principles on the concept of "social insurance." Social insurance was a respectable and serious intellectual tradition that began in Europe in the 19th century and was an expression of a European social welfare tradition. It was first adopted in Germany in 1889 at the urging of the famous Chancellor, Otto von Bismarck. Indeed, by the time America adopted social insurance in 1935, there were 34 nations already operating some form of social insurance program(about 20 of these were contributory programs like Social Security). Philosophically, social insurance emphasized government-sponsored efforts to provide for the economic security of its citizens. The tradition of social insurance would come to be seen as the reasonable, practical alternative to the radical calls to action represented by Townsend, Long, Sinclair and the others.

Although the definition of SOCIAL INSURANCE can vary considerably in its particulars, its basic features are: the insurance principle under which a group of persons are "insured" in some way against a defined risk, and a social element which usually means that the program is shaped in part by broader social objectives, rather than being shaped solely by the self-interest of the individual participants. Social insurance coverage can be provided for a number of different types of insured conditions, from disability and death to old-age or unemployment. We may find it obvious to think of death, disability or unemployment as conditions causing loss of income and which can be ameliorated by pooling of risk. It is at first a little odd to think of old-age or retirement in these same terms. But that is precisely how the early social insurance theorists conceived of retirement, as producing a loss of income due to cessation of work activity...


The Threshold of Change

So as 1934 dawned the nation was deep in the throes of the Depression. Confidence in the old institutions was shaken. Social changes that started with the Industrial Revolution had long ago passed the point of no return. The traditional sources of economic security: assets; labor; family; and charity, had all failed in one degree or another. Radical proposals for action were springing like weeds from the soil of the nation's discontent. President Franklin Roosevelt would choose the social insurance approach as the "cornerstone" of his attempts to deal with the problem of economic security.

 

Naming the action is verboten now? It's like watching reruns of how the old Soviet and China devolved. I think it's time to start naming the danger so folks understand what the elite in the Democratic party have in store for them.

 

But I don't call Biden supporters those names, yet I get called those names from many leftists on this forum.

 

So what do you do to reject the right’s seditious actions and hysterical denial of reality?
If you lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas.
Either stand up for what’s right or don’t complain when people lump you with the seditious right.

 

Whether or not President Obama loved America is a distinctly separate argument, and a LONG, LOOONNG, WAY from proving that he is primarily culpable in creating our current social discord, or even that he contributed in any way to, in the terminology of the OP, the hate-filled & divisive political climate in which we now find ourselves.

Personally, I can think of another suspect, in closer proximity & with greater motive, than Obama.

 

Yes they do.

 

I replied to the poster that talked about hate and dislike, not necessarily the OP.

 

No they don't. Perhaps you lack a full understanding of the phrase fundamental change.

 

Easy.

The bulk of our interactions take place online now where the anonymity and relative disconnect between individuals allows the tone and rhetoric to be hyper-inflated and the hyperbole and stereotyping to get out of control.

Folks are no longer arguing against real people, for the most part. They're arguing against caricatures of the versions of people they see online. This is true on both sides of the political spectrum.

It's also allowing people that would normally be isolated or in small groups to find larger sects of folks with the same beliefs creating an echo chamber that not only reinforces nonsense, but generates it anew. This nonsense then takes on a life of it's own and injects itself into the conversations, sometimes even becoming the story more than the actual facts.

 

So if you had a severely alcoholic or drug adducted loved one you would nothing, because they would need such a fundamental change to survive.

 

Right, the hate in among different groups of people, in our society. Are you saying you're trying to turn this into a thread about listing things we dislike? Such as, "I think Brussels' sprouts smell disgusting?"

 

Nobody is talking about a drug addicted anybody.

 

Did you know that it is rather easy to tell who has been to college and who has not. One would think that another could just read a few books and be just as knowledgeable. But that very rarely happens.

 

Many not ALL correct???
If you're gonna survive around here you are gonna have to have thicker skin my friend

 

No one tries to fundamentally change anyone or anything they love.

yes they do

 

I'm not a US citizen, but I also think that the USA is the stronghold of the western world.

The US has never been a homogeneous society and that is perhaps one of its greatest strengths. Continuous struggle keeps everybody young and strong.

I also believe US citizens are very resilient to internal enemies. Donald Trump failed to become a fascist dictator in 4 years. Adolph Hitler needed less than one year. It's the attitude of the citizens that makes a country succeed or fail. Leaders are only symptoms.

 

Yeah right

Sorry but quality people do not subject others to their whims based solely on race. And sorry everyone that got through college with a 3.5 or above grade point in premed us a quality person regardless of race creed or color. Picking one over the other based entirely on race is effing evil regardless of the preferred skin color.

 

I agree 100% with you. China pours millions into our colleges and Universities. They wish to augment the leftist wishes of the liberal elite. You make a very good point! This is precisely why there is a strong movement away from public education at the lower levels. (They do a very poor job anyway.) College education has very little to do with brilliance anyway. It actually has a whole lot more to do with indoctrination. There ARE those that have "direction" when they go to college, and many of them have the brilliance to be independent minded and they come through unscathed.
I believe the vast majority, however, are like you, Oliver. They go to college seeking what they might become, and the leftist/Marxist elite shows them the way!

 

But of course the above stats ignore al.ist totally that A. The war on drugs began under Roosevelt, that In Russia China Iran and other places too numerous to mention the numbers imprisoned are closely guarded state secrets.

 

Thx for the posting you have no further points to make.
So make your responses just about me. And your projections are completely off base. But I am sure it made you feel better about yourself.

I accept your defeat.

 

At least 2 of us posted that white America was losing it's grip on the power structure. And that is a big reason for the divisiveness.
IMO

 

You seem to have a dire lack of understanding how AA or the hiring process works.

 

orking Paper 14969
DOI 10.3386/w14969
Issue Date May 2009


By many objective measures the lives of women in the United States have improved over the past 35 years, yet we show that measures of subjective well-being indicate that women's happiness has declined both absolutely and relative to men. The paradox of women's declining relative well-being is found across various datasets, measures of subjective well-being, and is pervasive across demographic groups and industrialized countries. Relative declines in female happiness have eroded a gender gap in happiness in which women in the 1970s typically reported higher subjective well-being than did men. These declines have continued and a new gender gap is emerging -- one with higher subjective well-being for men.




https://www.nber.org/papers/w14969

 

I think we're experiencing the end of neoliberalism and the transition to another system. Based on what I'm seeing, many people want to maintain our current system and stay where we are. Neoliberalism's death is unavoidable, because it doesn't meet up with its promises, but many don't want to go. We're going to have a bad time during this transition.