American and World Debt (don't read if you're already depressed)

[Tank]

Have a look at the World debt clocks

Has capitalism gone too far? Are the developed nations simplyliving way beyond their means and if so at whose expence? What will happen in the USA if the troops don't get paid?

[ThinkAnarchy]

Capitalism has nothing to do with government debt. As for the troops, I hope they don't get paid, we may be able to end all these wars (3 or 4... I can't keep track) if people aren't getting paid to fight them.

[roy1967]

Capitalism has nothing to do with government debt. As for the troops, I hope they don't get paid, we may be able to end all these wars (3 or 4... I can't keep track) if people aren't getting paid to fight them.

Perhaps you and I see things differently.  When our elected representatives are already bought and paid for by corporations in order to make policy giving those corporations tax cuts and breaks to increase profits; When corporations and industries fill the halls of Washington with lobbyists (insurance industry alone has over 500 lobbyists) in order to pressure those purchased politicians into creating policies beneficial to buisness via tax breaks and cuts, trade imbalances and so forth in order to create bigger profits; And when those cuts and breaks are not made up for with increased revenue to the government, it creates deficits, and when the deficits get bigger and bigger, and pile one on top of another every year, the government has to borrow to make up the lost revenue, this increases governmental debt.  Of course, the politicians who are in the pockets of the corporations won't raise the taxes to make up the deficits, because that is detrimental to getting re-elected, and then who would do the corporations dirty work?

Capitalism isn't the only reason for Government debt, but to say it has nothing to do with it is ludicrous.

[fester30]

Capitalism has nothing to do with government debt. As for the troops, I hope they don't get paid, we may be able to end all these wars (3 or 4... I can't keep track) if people aren't getting paid to fight them.

Wouldn't work.  In the budget battle of the 90s the government shut down.  Military members went several weeks without pay, but had to show up for work regardless.  They received back pay once the budget was passed, but many military members are paycheck-to-paycheck and were hurt by it (credit ratings and such).  If we don't show up to work, we can be prosecuted by it (absent without leave).  There is far too much established discipline in the military ranks for any union-style organization or strike to occur.

The way to end the wars is to make the politicians see how stupid it is.  In fact, one way to help with the deficit problems would be to drastically reduce the size of our military.  We shouldn't have bases all over the world, making military involvement in places where we have no business (Libya, Kuwait) more difficult.  In my opinion, we shouldn't be able to conduct military action without an actual declaration of war unless we are defending our continent from attack.  Going to war using appropriations bills is ridiculous.

Trying to end the war on the backs of the troops not getting paid is the same problem as trying to balance the budget on the backs of the elderly by making huge cuts to social security and medicare without doing something about loopholes that allow GE, with a profit of 14 billion, to not pay a dime in income taxes.

[ThinkAnarchy]

Capitalism has nothing to do with government debt. As for the troops, I hope they don't get paid, we may be able to end all these wars (3 or 4... I can't keep track) if people aren't getting paid to fight them.

Perhaps you and I see things differently.  When our elected representatives are already bought and paid for by corporations in order to make policy giving those corporations tax cuts and breaks to increase profits; When corporations and industries fill the halls of Washington with lobbyists (insurance industry alone has over 500 lobbyists) in order to pressure those purchased politicians into creating policies beneficial to buisness via tax breaks and cuts, trade imbalances and so forth in order to create bigger profits; And when those cuts and breaks are not made up for with increased revenue to the government, it creates deficits, and when the deficits get bigger and bigger, and pile one on top of another every year, the government has to borrow to make up the lost revenue, this increases governmental debt.  Of course, the politicians who are in the pockets of the corporations won't raise the taxes to make up the deficits, because that is detrimental to getting re-elected, and then who would do the corporations dirty work?

Capitalism isn't the only reason for Government debt, but to say it has nothing to do with it is ludicrous.

That isn't Capitalism. It is, at the least, a minor form of Fascism. Business in bed with government and vice versa is not Capitalism in the free market since. Capitalism is based upon private companies and competition. When the government is helping certain corporations or industries, you are taking the competitive aspect out of Capitalism, hence you can't blame Capitalism for this, seeing as it isn't truly capitalism in most sectors of society.

Also, I'm not referring to tax breaks here. I'm referring to protectionist practices, like banning online gaming so as not to compete with land casino's and state lotteries. Banning old fashioned light bulbs, giving free money to green energy companies, preventing food trucks from opening up because they will compete with established restaurants, etc.

You are wrong however. Tax breaks are not the problem. It is certainly unfair for certain industries or companies to get tax breaks when others don't, but the way to get out of debt is not to raise taxes on businesses; government needs to simply quit spending money. Raising taxes does not benefit the economy, it harms it.

There are also far more reasons for the deficit you aren't taking into account. In Americas case, we are fighting at least 3 wars, social programs are eating up a lot of money and are in the red, the education department is a joke, and the simple fact they are imbeciles incapable of balancing a budget.

Regulations are the problem, not tax breaks.

[ThinkAnarchy]

Capitalism has nothing to do with government debt. As for the troops, I hope they don't get paid, we may be able to end all these wars (3 or 4... I can't keep track) if people aren't getting paid to fight them.

Wouldn't work.  In the budget battle of the 90s the government shut down.  Military members went several weeks without pay, but had to show up for work regardless.  They received back pay once the budget was passed, but many military members are paycheck-to-paycheck and were hurt by it (credit ratings and such).  If we don't show up to work, we can be prosecuted by it (absent without leave).  There is far too much established discipline in the military ranks for any union-style organization or strike to occur.

The part about the troops was my attempt at being cheeky . I hope I used it correctly, it's not a common word where I live.

The way to end the wars is to make the politicians see how stupid it is.  In fact, one way to help with the deficit problems would be to drastically reduce the size of our military.  We shouldn't have bases all over the world, making military involvement in places where we have no business (Libya, Kuwait) more difficult.  In my opinion, we shouldn't be able to conduct military action without an actual declaration of war unless we are defending our continent from attack.  Going to war using appropriations bills is ridiculous.

Agreed. Though I would go further and say we shouldn't even have a standing army, and if we must, it should be the bare minimum to quickly respond to an attack on American soil.

Trying to end the war on the backs of the troops not getting paid is the same problem as trying to balance the budget on the backs of the elderly by making huge cuts to social security and medicare without doing something about loopholes that allow GE, with a profit of 14 billion, to not pay a dime in income taxes.

Well I'm all for cutting social security and medicare, just not for those people already collecting it. For my generation however, let us opt out of paying into it and not receive it. We have to pay for it, but I seriously doubt anyone my age will see a dime from that program. I don't see why we aren't responsible enough to save for our own retirement?

[fester30]

The part about the troops was my attempt at being cheeky . I hope I used it correctly, it's not a common word where I live.

Well I'm all for cutting social security and medicare, just not for those people already collecting it. For my generation however, let us opt out of paying into it and not receive it. We have to pay for it, but I seriously doubt anyone my age will see a dime from that program. I don't see why we aren't responsible enough to save for our own retirement?

I guess we're both bad at the cheeky thing on the internet .  Damn this lack of body language and facial expressions!  Yes, good use of cheeky... that is... if I was even using it right in the first place.  I'm not guaranteeing anything with my lack of mastery of the language.

As for social security, there is a key factor that could make it work even for our generation.  The cap on social security tax is $106,800.  In other words, a person only pays the social security tax on the first 106,800 of income, not a penny after.  Anybody that makes less than 106,800 pays 6.2%(except for this year, when it's 4.2%).  For sake of argument I'll use the 6.2% of a normal year.  If you made $50,000 in 2010, you would have paid $3100.  If you made $500,000, you would have paid $6621.60.  The person making less paid 6.2%, while the person who made a half million dollars paid only 1.3%.  To make it solvent for our generation, we don't even have to get rid of that cap completely, but increase it.  I can't remember exactly how much, but I read the figure somewhere.  It isn't exorbitantly high.

Considering the Republicans are the ones who really want a flat tax, I think the Democrats should press them to start with social security.  Income tax is a progressive tax, while social security tax, due to the cap, is a regressive tax.  Make the Republicans put their money where their mouth is and make the social security tax a true flat tax.  I doubt they would agree with this.

[Will]

I won't pretend to know much about government debt outside of the United States, so I'll try to only speak to what I know.

In fiscal year 2000, the US federal surplus paid off 2.1% of the total federal debt. It was the first balanced budget in a generation, and represented a real possibility for financial independence from debtors. Had the United States continued on the path largely forged by the Clinton Administration's fiscal policy, we would have paid our debt within a few decades, meaning that we could remove interest on that debt from our federal budget, freeing up hundreds of billions of dollars that could be better used on something like providing quality national preschool. Instead, we got an unpaid prescription drug bill, two major tax breaks for the wealthy, 4-7 wars, depending on your definition of war, and the bailouts, all under the Bush Administration. In addition, the deregulation which began under Reagan and continued under Bush provided an opportunity for financial institutions to take incredible risks, which resulted in the internet bubble bursting under Clinton, and the housing bubble and financial bubbles to burst under Bush. The result has been a massive increase in federal and state debt because of runaway spending, decreased tax rates for the wealthy, and decreased tax revenue due to the recession/depression. For lack of a better term, it's a clusterfuck.

Fortunately, these things have easy solutions. If we end the wars, cut war spending (military and intelligence), end the Bush tax cuts, end the prescription drug plan, put in place strong financial regulations, investigate and charge bankers for crimes as a deterrent for future gambling, pass single-payer healthcare, and shift our school system to one similar to those in Europe, we'd recover within a decade. Unfortunately, none of this can happen because corporate plutocrats have taken over large chunks of the Democratic party and nearly all the Republican party. It's impossible to get elected without the nomination of the established two-party system to president, almost impossible to get into the Senate, and very difficult to get into the House. What we need more than anything, at this point, is campaign finance reform to break the plutocratic stranglehold on the democratic process.

[roy1967]

Regulations are the problem, not tax breaks.

Lack of sufficient regulations are how we have entered this huge recession. The housing bubble breakage was due to lack of regulation of banks and wall street run amok with no one watching over their shoulder. Greed takes over.  Without regulation greed takes over.  It happened in the 30's before FDR slapped the corporations and wall street back down, and without a leader now who is willing to stand up to the mega-corporations, we are fucked.

Defend capitalism all you want, it's great until humans get involved.

[roy1967]

Thanks Will, you just said what I was having trouble articulating.

I get what Anarchy was saying too.

In short, we're in trouble.

[ThinkAnarchy]

Lack of sufficient regulations are how we have entered this huge recession. The housing bubble breakage was due to lack of regulation of banks and wall street run amok with no one watching over their shoulder.

Banks are not capitalistic institutions; they are controlled by the government and have been since the creation of the Fed. Before the creation of the federal reserve, which controls all monetary policy, and therefore the banks, there were no long recessions and depressions. When there was a dip in economic activity, it was short and only effected one area of the economy. Today, money is pumped into the system through the friendly banks which distorts the economy. This leads to misplaced capital and situations like the housing and dot com bubbles.

Greed takes over.  Without regulation greed takes over.  It happened in the 30's before FDR slapped the corporations and wall street back down, and without a leader now who is willing to stand up to the mega-corporations, we are fucked.

FDR enacted fascist policies exactly like those created by Mussolini. Not to mention the Great Depression was the worse and most drawn out depression this country has ever seen, and FDR was the cause of it. His policies prevented the market from correcting itself and because of this, many people suffered in poverty simply to fullfil the narcissistic ego of a totalitarian.

If you are curious, look into the depression of 1920-21, which is rarely talked about. Here the government did the exact opposite and the depression was short lived and contained. 

Defend capitalism all you want, it's great until humans get involved.

Capitalism is simply the exchange of labor and property between individuals. Without capitalism we would still be an agrarian society relying on ourselves for everything we needed. Do not use this the United States as an example of capitalism, at least not this last century.

Capitalism has been given a terrible reputation because when things go wrong, the politicians blame the market as a way of getting the focus off of their own mistakes

Crony-Capitalism is not Capitalism, but is instead a form of fascism. Ever notice how large companies want all these regulations? This is because it makes it a lot more expensive to start or run a small business. They prevent capitalism from working because it stops competition, therefore raising prices and making life more expensive for people like you and me. Due to this, if you wanted to start any business, you have to work your way through red tape and expensive but useless permits. You also have to follow thousands of laws. It makes it impossible for poorer people to open businesses; it is too expensive to take the risk. The large companies that are in bed with Washington want it this way. This is not Capitalism.

We are discussing this from two different economic perspectives. You obviously prescribe to the Keynesian school and I follow the Austrian. If you are at all interested in Austrian economics, I would be happy to provide you with some links.

[Will]

Banks are not capitalistic institutions;

They are privately owned and privately run. They generate profit and have investors. In every way, banks are private.

they are controlled by the government and have been since the creation of the Fed.

Decisions made by the Federal Reserve do not require any permission from the executive, legislative nor judicial branches of US government. The Fed itself is partially government and partially private. Its authority was granted by an act of congress, and there can be some congressional oversight, but in practice there's almost none. It is, essentially, a separate entity from the federal government.

FDR enacted fascist policies exactly like those created by Mussolini.

You're using the word fascist to describe something that's mildly socialist, and I think that may be hurting your position a bit. Fascism is authoritarian, totalitarian, and nationalist. The New Deal was passed by democratic vote in congress and signed into law by the president, therefore it's not authoritarian but rather democratic.

Not to mention the Great Depression was the worse and most drawn out depression this country has ever seen, and FDR was the cause of it.

The Great Depression started in 1929 and the New Deal didn't even start to be implemented until 1933. The cause of the great depression was the 1929 stock market crash which was a direct causal result of deregulation in the roaring 20s.

His policies prevented the market from correcting itself and because of this, many people suffered in poverty simply to fullfil the narcissistic ego of a totalitarian.

The market had an opportunity to show signs of correcting between 1929 and 1933. It was taking too long, and real people were suffering and dying waiting for the free market to work its magic. Unfortunately, the Hoover administration was wildly unprepared to deal with a near economic collapse, and Hoover's inaction and ineffectual policies lead to him losing the election to FDR, who ran on the New Deal and was democratically elected because the people of the United States wanted to give his plan a shot. They were right to do so, according to the data. While GDP declined every year from 1929 to 1933, from 1933-1937 the GDP grew at a compound annual rate of around 9%. By that metric, which cannot be discounted, the New Deal was a success. By 1937, Republicans wanted FDR to balance the budget, which had been running a deficit due to unusual spending. FDR compromised, reduced stimulus and social program spending and GDP dropped again in 1938. With solid, indisputable evidence at his back, FDR undid the changes he made for the Republicans and GDP grew again in 1940. By the time 1941 was around, the war was on and the economy acted much differently.

I mean no offense, ThinkAnarchy, but I believe your source of information on this might be biased.

[ThinkAnarchy]

Banks are not capitalistic institutions;

They are privately owned and privately run. They generate profit and have investors. In every way, banks are private.

There is a difference between being private and being capitalistic. Though these two things generally go together, since capitalism is not possible without private property, does not mean because something is private it is a capitalistic institution as well.

You cannot argue that the banks and the government are not in bed with one another. If a company is seeking favors, like bailouts from the government, they cannot be capitalistic.

they are controlled by the government and have been since the creation of the Fed.

Decisions made by the Federal Reserve do not require any permission from the executive, legislative nor judicial branches of US government. The Fed itself is partially government and partially private. Its authority was granted by an act of congress, and there can be some congressional oversight, but in practice there's almost none. It is, essentially, a separate entity from the federal government.

That is most of the problem. The Congress has given authority over money to an institution that they cannot control, and therefore, we cannot control. It is a completely secretive organization.

I see why you misunderstood my point. Although the fed is a separate entity from the traditional branches of the government, it is an uncontrollable branch of the government. It's policies control the banks and the banks control it's policies. This is not capitalism, but a perverse and dangerous form of fascism.

FDR enacted fascist policies exactly like those created by Mussolini.

You're using the word fascist to describe something that's mildly socialist, and I think that may be hurting your position a bit. Fascism is authoritarian, totalitarian, and nationalist. The New Deal was passed by democratic vote in congress and signed into law by the president, therefore it's not authoritarian but rather democratic.

Fascist, socialist, and communist policies can be enacted by democratic vote. The manner in which these policies are enacted does not change their nature. Hitler's policies, at least initially, were enacted by democratic vote; that did not change its totalitarian nature. I know people on this forum seem to think we should never mention Hitler, but get over it, it's a valid point.

Not to mention, many of FDR's policies were overturned by the Court as unconstitutional restraints and violations of private property and contractual rights. Only after FDR famously threatened to create many more Supreme Court seats and appoint friendly judges did the Court begin to rule in his favor. This is the point in history when the Court began to give very little if any protection to businessmen's private property rights in this country and these rulings are followed to this day because of precedent.

Many people do not know that much about FDR and decide to believe the lore that surrounds his persona. While president, he did not let things like the law or the Constitution get in the way of his policies. If a branch of the government got in his way, like the Court, he would threaten to weaken their power. These are totalitarian acts.

Not to mention the Great Depression was the worse and most drawn out depression this country has ever seen, and FDR was the cause of it.

The Great Depression started in 1929 and the New Deal didn't even start to be implemented until 1933. The cause of the great depression was the 1929 stock market crash which was a direct causal result of deregulation in the roaring 20s.

FDR's policies were an extension of the policies already put in place by the previous president, Hoover. Although Hoover has the reputation of being a free-marketire, government spending under his presidency soared.

Make work projects were also popular under his administration. The best known of these is the Hoover Dam.

Before you blame the stock market crash on capitalism, perhaps you should do some research on Hoover's policies and their similarities to FDR's.

His policies prevented the market from correcting itself and because of this, many people suffered in poverty simply to fullfil the narcissistic ego of a totalitarian.

The market had an opportunity to show signs of correcting between 1929 and 1933. It was taking too long, and real people were suffering and dying waiting for the free market to work its magic. Unfortunately, the Hoover administration was wildly unprepared to deal with a near economic collapse, and Hoover's inaction and ineffectual policies lead to him losing the election to FDR, who ran on the New Deal and was democratically elected because the people of the United States wanted to give his plan a shot. They were right to do so, according to the data. While GDP declined every year from 1929 to 1933, from 1933-1937 the GDP grew at a compound annual rate of around 9%. By that metric, which cannot be discounted, the New Deal was a success. By 1937, Republicans wanted FDR to balance the budget, which had been running a deficit due to unusual spending. FDR compromised, reduced stimulus and social program spending and GDP dropped again in 1938. With solid, indisputable evidence at his back, FDR undid the changes he made for the Republicans and GDP grew again in 1940. By the time 1941 was around, the war was on and the economy acted much differently.

The GDP calculation was not created until the Great Depression was underway. It was created by Congress as a means of figuring out the extent of the economic problems of the country.

Government spending is a part of the calculation. Therefore it makes sense that when government spending goes up the GDP numbers go up and vice versa. This obviously does not mean that the economic standing of individuals is any better. You admit yourself that although GDP was going up the depression was still going on.

I mean no offense, ThinkAnarchy, but I believe your source of information on this might be biased.

Why, because it does not conform to your ideas and beliefs? How much research and energy have you put into reading and researching these facts, outside of school?

There are a wide range of writings on these topics depending on the economic school. I tend to side with the Austrians while you seem to side more with Keynesianism. Before you can claim that someone is bias, which I interpret as a nice way of saying I am wrong, you should read both of these perspectives.

[Will]

There is a difference between being private and being capitalistic. Though these two things generally go together, since capitalism is not possible without private property, does not mean because something is private it is a capitalistic institution as well.

Capitalism is private means of production operated for profit in competitive markets. That's banks, in a nut shell. BofA competes with Wells Fargo competes with Citi. The alternative is nationalized banks. We do not have nationalized banks.

You cannot argue that the banks and the government are not in bed with one another. If a company is seeking favors, like bailouts from the government, they cannot be capitalistic.

The banks and the government are not in bed with one another. Due to our broken campaign finance program, the government is bent over a table and the banks are raping government by exploiting its weaknesses. How do I know this? Banks have never helped the government. It's only ever the other way around. Never have we seen the government bailed out by zero interest loans or giveaways.

That is most of the problem. The Congress has given authority over money to an institution that they cannot control, and therefore, we cannot control. It is a completely secretive organization.

I see why you misunderstood my point. Although the fed is a separate entity from the traditional branches of the government, it is an uncontrollable branch of the government. It's policies control the banks and the banks control it's policies. This is not capitalism, but a perverse and dangerous form of fascism.

I still think you're misusing the term fascism. Perhaps authoritarianism would be better in referring to the Fed, though that's not quite it either. The Fed is an anomaly neither governmental nor market. Associating it with either seems folly. It's just as protected by financial institutions as congress, if not more.

Fascist, socialist, and communist policies can be enacted by democratic vote.

Nope. Fascism is done without the consent of the people. It is totalitarianism, where power is rested with the very few or the one, whereas democracy is power equally distributed to all citizens. They are fundamentally opposite to one another.

The manner in which these policies are enacted does not change their nature. Hitler's policies, at least initially, were enacted by democratic vote; that did not change its totalitarian nature. I know people on this forum seem to think we should never mention Hitler, but get over it, it's a valid point.

You're confusing things you philosophically disagree with as fascist. FDR's New Deal was socialist, not fascist. Socialism is the opposing concept of modern American libertarianism or anarchocapitalism, of which you're apparently an adherent. If i've misunderstood your position, I apologize.

Not to mention, many of FDR's policies were overturned by the Court as unconstitutional restraints and violations of private property and contractual rights. Only after FDR famously threatened to create many more Supreme Court seats and appoint friendly judges did the Court begin to rule in his favor. This is the point in history when the Court began to give very little if any protection to businessmen's private property rights in this country and these rulings are followed to this day because of precedent.

That's not quite how it happened. What I said above, about the conservative Republicans attacking FDR's New Deal? One of their central strategies was to use the court system to undo the New Deal, despite its undeniable success in the 3 or so years it had been in operation. One of those suits, against the Agricultural Adjustment Act which provided federal subsidies to farmers, led to a 6 to 3 ruling against the constitutionality of that small part of the New Deal. The court ruled that states, not the federal government had the legal right to regulate agriculture. The result? Massive public outcry against the Supreme Court. So powerful was the public push against the Supreme Court that one of the later rulings, against the Tennessee Valley Authority, actually was in Roosevelt's favor. Unfortunately, pressure from the conservative right against the court turned them back.

The problem wasn't that the court was faithfully upholding the Constitution that FDR was clearly violating, but that the court had the so-called Four Horsemen, Justices McReynolds, Van Devanter, Sutherland and Butler, with two moderates and three liberals. On almost every case, (like many cases today) that court voted precisely on political lines. Facing a partisan court stacked against him, and with overwhelming public support (FDR had just won arguably one of most one-sided presidential election in all of American history with over 60% of the popular vote and an astounding 523 electoral), FDR decided to play politics right back to the Supreme Court by introducing a legislative threat to the court. Then, and only then, did the court stop voting precisely on political lines. Was it the right thing to do? Certainly not, but it was equally wrong for judicial activists to abandon their responsibility and play politics on the bench. Political justices are the greatest threat to checks and balances that exists.

Many people do not know that much about FDR and decide to believe the lore that surrounds his persona. While president, he did not let things like the law or the Constitution get in the way of his policies. If a branch of the government got in his way, like the Court, he would threaten to weaken their power. These are totalitarian acts.

He threatened to do it legally through the democratic process. It was stupid and unethical, but it wasn't fascist.

FDR's policies were an extension of the policies already put in place by the previous president, Hoover. Although Hoover has the reputation of being a free-marketire, government spending under his presidency soared.

In no way is this even remotely true. Hoover took a conservative stance to the Great Depression, insisting on a "leave it alone" approach, a term coiled by Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon. It didn't work. Leaving the Great Depression to the market led to increasing unemployment, a shrinking GDP, and massive suffering. Hoover, from 1929 to 1933, barely touched spending. It wasn't until FDR's New Deal that spending really started to increase, with a brief decrease I described in 1937 due to Republican pressure. Not only that, but the way in which they spent was radically different. Hoover insisted on cooperation between government and the markets, whereas FDR told the markets to go fuck themselves and that he'd clean up the whole thing himself with deficit spending. And then he did.

Before you blame the stock market crash on capitalism, perhaps you should do some research on Hoover's policies and their similarities to FDR's.

I have. The market crash, due to deregulation, caused bank failures, reduced purchasing, and money hoarding. That's the whole thing in one sentence. How could Herbert Hoover, who had only been in office a few months and who had done almost nothing, have caused deregulation going back a decade?

The GDP calculation was not created until the Great Depression was underway. It was created by Congress as a means of figuring out the extent of the economic problems of the country.

I have GDP numbers going back at least to the 1870s. We have all the data necessary to calculate GDP going back long before the congressional report in 1934. Here they are for over the course of the Great Depression:

1930 - $97.4b
1931 - $83.8b
1932 - $67.6b
1933 - $57.6b
1934 - $61.2b
1935 - $69.6b
1936 - $78.5b
1937 - $87.8b
1938 - $89.0b
1939 - $89.1b
1940 - $96.8b

Government spending is a part of the calculation. Therefore it makes sense that when government spending goes up the GDP numbers go up and vice versa. This obviously does not mean that the economic standing of individuals is any better. You admit yourself that although GDP was going up the depression was still going on.

I see, so if you're hired and paid by the government, you don't really have a job? It doesn't really put food on the table and clothing on your children's backs? Come on. The GDP increases don't correspond directly with government spending, either.

I'll tell you what, I have a better metric. How about unemployment numbers? Would they be a better indicator of the success of the New Deal? Because those also correspond directly to the GDP numbers I provided.

As you can see here, corresponding precisely with both the New Deal and the 1937-1938 relapse, unemployment follows along directly. Here's the graph with the civilian labor force:

Why, because it does not conform to your ideas and beliefs?

No, because much of it is factually incorrect. Fact have no need for beliefs or ideas, for they exist independently of us.