Don't get snippy with me.
Less government “meddling” is what Hoover did. Hoover was staunchly fearful of intervention and especially of helping the people and not the people via business or anything to not directly get involved with the people, and hence did not do anything of any real intervention until it was too late, and even his intervention was limited. To quote wikipedia “As the economy quickly deteriorated in the early years of the Great Depression, Hoover declined to pursue legislative relief, believing that it would make people dependent on the federal government. Instead, he organized a number of voluntary measures with businesses, encouraged state and local government responses, and accelerated federal building projects. Only toward the end of his term did he support a series of legislative solutions.”
And even if he did do some things (and I never said he didn‘t), he can clearly be criticized because he didn’t do enough, and FDR praised for doing enough. More intervention worked as we can see with FDR. Less didn’t as we can see with Hoover and the laissez fair orgy of the decades before that led the bubble to burst. And even if people were born between 1932 and 1939, it was not that many overall I would say (124,949,000 in 1932 to 131,028,000 in 1939; 6,079,000 increase. Unemployment was 24.9 percent in 1932, and 31,296,810 people were therefore unemployed. Were that the same percentile unemployment in 1939, 32,625,972 would have been unemployed. The only slight increase from the 1932 number in this counterfactual scenario is a sign that the increase in population between those years does not hold all that much impact on making unemployment look worse in the real Great Depression. However, in 1939 by the amount of unemployed there was (17.2%), 22,536,816 million people were unemployed; and that doesn't factor in public sector jobs under FDR which cuts out another third to give us a more real picture. So your population increase thing doesn't work.) and I don't think 1 to 7 year olds are a sizable portion of the work force.
Likewise, you apparently didn’t read what I had said on percentiles or the link I gave, so I suggest you read it again. Even if you offer some evidence that “at one point in April of 1939 the unemployment rate was over 20 percent” (which I await you to cite), you still need to take off 1/3 to get closer to the real data. Likewise, FDR did cut taxes and try to balance the budget -giving into conservatives and being eager early on to return to conservative budget principles- leading to the 1937-1938 recession.
Any way you look at it, when the government intervened and kept with Keynesianism or the New Deal to whatever degree, things got better, even if at varying degrees equal to the amount of intervention. When intervention was lessened, laissez faire and conservative practices used as a fall back, and Keynesianism ignored, things got worse.
Bottom line, if you want a quicker end to the depression, stop FDR from being eager to return to conservative budget principles, and have him understand Keynesian economics better so that he could follow them even more effectively. If you want a longer one, follow minimalist or non existent intervention.