The New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression

My opponent fails to understand that the AAA was ruled unconstitutional and did not see to the end of the Great Depression, thus it did not help end the Great Depression Ones again I am forced to reiterate the fact that the debate does not ask the question: Did FDR's New Deal program end the depression? Rather we are evaluating just how much impact these new deals had on the great depression. In my last rebuttal I noted that the AAA increased profit for many farmers. The only attack that my opponent had on this argument was that there was no increase in consumption as a result of the AAA. He did not however provide any credible evidence to support this claim. He then ignores the fact that these farmers were subsidized for their loss. My opponent then goes on to state that even without the initial creation of the AAA, farmers would have survived through the depression. This statement could not have been any more wrong. If my opponent had read through the evidence provided in my previous update, he would have realized that without the AAA, farmers would have called for a revolution leading to further crisis. [1] My opponent then mistakenly compared the great depression to the roaring twenties. The biggest mistake here is that these are completely different era's riddled with completely different problems and situations. On to wages..... This is where it gets a bit tricky. My opponent claims that he has "always provided evidence in each round." I agree that my opponent has provided sources in each round, but non of these sources supports his claim that American consumers were not consuming. He sources claims that the increase in prices led to a decrease in production. A decrease in production however, does not equate a decrease or stagnant rate of consumption. My opponent made the argument that the accelerated recovery from the depression was a result of an increase in "government intervention to force companies to increase production." He then provides us with a little paragraph from an external source to support this claim. A look into his source however, reveals the following: "What happened was a massive rise in government investment and spending." The new government spending was a result of the new deal programs. The government had to pay for these safety nets as well as the programs designed to generate production. In response to my unemployment argument, my opponent states "The market would have become more stable and we would have seen far more rapid economic growth by 1936." What he fails to realize however was that the economy would have crashed long before any positives came along He also fails to respond to the barrage of different New Deal Programs designed to make sure that the unemployed were still capable of meeting basic needs which meant that they were still capable of consumptions. Devaluation of dollar: The fact still remains that the devalued American dollar increased incentives for other countries to work with the U.S Conclusion: My opponents biggest arguments were consumption and growth. I have proved that the new deal solved these issues and as such accelerated the American recovery. The programs designed to act as safety nets allowed even the unemployed to continue to spend. Many New Deal programs such as the TVA created both incentive and ability for industrial and economic growth. Sources: [1] http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...