As far as that austerity thing goes, in looking up the New Deal timeline, one of the first order of business (after bank stabilization legislation) that he did was the his economy bill which cut $500 million dollars in scheduled payments to vetrans and federal employees. 

But back to your opening point.  Thank you for saying it: for it is all about perceived injustice.  I guess I didn't make my point very clear.  Which is it is a hell of lot easy getting someone to perceive an economic injustice is happening when they are experience it personally in absolute terms. And while times are tougher, even if you put real unemployment at 20%, that means there is 80% who are employed.  And when we look at median household incomes, it starts to get a little dicey trying to convince a good number of them that it is the whole establishment (capitalism and all) is seriously warped.  One can say many are experiencing the depression right now, but qualitively the two time periods are not the same by a long shot.  If you start talking about upsetting the applecart in order correct the system, what many of them think is "will that lead to me losing my job."  And then one starts talking about income distribution and they turn the channel to Dancing with the Stars.

Which is another way of saying that in this country the middle class and those moving their way up to the middle class (or at least perceive themselve to be) generally don't respond well to counter-establishment talk.  While they might see some of the Wall Street bankers and speculators as criminals, they don't see the system as inherently corrupted.  They might find no problem with taking some of the bankers off to jail, they won't stand for the government to nationalize the banks.  And that just means one just gets the same old crowd with new faces in charge, except now they are in freak-out mode.

So because of how people are perceiving the injustices, we get mainly "the injustice is that there aren't more jobs. get us some" and not "take on the system and then get me some jobs."  I would add that because of the nature of the media white noise that exists today that didn't back then (there was some but very little), getting to critical mass point at this stage is nearly impossible, that is the point in which American turn on capitalism and embrace consciously a more socialist approach.

He must be referring to Wither Bound? [the question mark is in the title]

The future President's first book, comprising the text of a lecture delivered at the Milton Academy on the Alumni War Memorial Foundation on 18 May 1926. FDR delivered this address in commemoration of fallen First World War alumni. His thesis is that the young rightly experiment with life and with moral standards, "for it is through unrest and experimentation that civilization is advanced."

I can't find anything in terms of excerpts from the book, just rare book dealers trying to sell a copy of the original book.

if it weren't so humiliating

This is a major problem, as well as just getting the knowledge out there about what benefits and other services are available (in part because for some this is their first time in need of assistance, what some refer to as the 'new poor.').  Then there is the issue of things like lack of transportation to get to five or six different sites in order to get assistance for heating bills, medical help, etc.  Right now I'm working on a pilot project that is looking at more innovative ways to bring the benefits and services to the people where they are in a manner that is more dignified, or at least more comfortable in terms of familiarity of surroundings.  The effort is in dealing with in collaboration with schools, community centers, and other neighborhood contact points to provide a "one-stop" approach. 

One of the facets of the project is to get the local business leaders (most of who are unabashedly Republicans) involved in terms of developing new forms of relationships between those seeking financial stability and those in a position to help.  Breaking down the sterotypes (the poor are poor because they want to be poor, etc) will help in the long run in regards to shifting perspectives on the role social benefits and programs.  I suppose one of the silver linings (if one can call it that) of this recent economic downturn is that because there are a number of people who are now receiving assistance who had been employed workers all their lives is that the extended community is suddenly looking at the people standing in those long food lines with a new perspective. 

Which is a long way of saying that we are still fighting the forces who want to end things like food stamps (something they didn't have back in the day).  And it isn't just Wall Street Bankers and others making 6 or 7 figure incomes.  It is people who make 40K and 50K a year, who have become disconnected from those who are struggling to put food on the table. 

And your point is? But seriously, to say someone thinks about moving up the economic ladder doesn't mean that there is some collective belief that they will more well off then their parents and their children will be more well off then them, and so on.  There were some who tried to make their fortunes, and some did, but the average American just did their job.  Looking at the average wages before the New Deal they are basically flat.  One went into the factory or down into the mine or out on the family farm, and that is what you did til you couldn't do it anymore.  And if somewhere along the line you made a little more than you did before, you considered yourself fortunate.  Then you went to one of those new moving pictures and watched those in the upper classes in their formal wear and lavish lifestyles.  Afterwards, the left the movie house and went back to their flat and expected life to be the same struggle ten years from then.  I would posit that there was a much more intense sense of class (as in the poor are the poor and the rich are the rich and never shall two meet). Something that the post-WWII boom unraveled in a way that hadn't been seen before.

But even if that isn't true, even most of those factory workers making at the time $1,200 a year believed in a decades time they would be making $4,000, the significant point here that the typical voter in the 1930s, even if the depression didn't happen, were, by our current standards of living, existing around the poverty line.  This is compared to where we are today, where we speak of the middle class, where the median household income is about 50K. 

Many of these of voters have lost their personal connection to the New Deal, The Fair Deal, The New Frontier and the Great Society, just as many workers have lost their sense of gratitude to the union workers that struggled to get to the concessions over the years. 

This is added to the fact the more income one makes, the more likely they are to register and vote.  In the past election the estimate is the only 58% of households who made less than 50K voted, while 77% those who marde 50K or more voted.

My basic premise, which you can argue against, is that typical voter whose household makes 40K, 50K, or 60K are not inclined to respond well to the "class war" and "anti-capitalism" rhetoric.  Their incomes and fortunes are tied up with the "corporate overloads" and are not in the mood to overturn the system.  They are just as likely to see radical change as leading to those rotten days as they are to believe it will be the workings of evil capitalists.

The short of it is if the foundation of political constituency is basically poor, this will increase the likelihood that a politician/president will be able to successfully campaign and govern through a progressive framework than if that foundation is the middle class.  That is why we should temper our hopes on another FDR at the moment since the current economic class driving the elections find little resonance with New Deal, The Fair Deal, The New Frontier and the Great Society.  I would argue that for most Social Security is seen as essentially separate from the New Deal as a whole. 

A good indicator of this situation is to listen to a white collar moderate Democrat on his or her opinions regarding union workers and unions in general.  I would say you would likely hear a pro-management position than a pro-union one.  If you were a politician looking to win what you say to that pro-management Democrat?  That is what we are facing.  Among other things like the influence of corporate donors in campaign financing, etc.