So what is that supposed to show? GDP includes, by definition, all market transactions, including, say, military spending and various transaction costs (such as interest, insurance premiums, legal fees, inefficient transportation, etc.) that do not contribute to the standards of living (at least directly). For this exercise to be meaningful, it would also have to show personal income and its disposition (http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/SelectTable.asp?Selected=Y#S2) in relation to the GDP.
Another way of looking is to compare personal consumption expenditure patterns especially in the area that can be considered transaction costs (e.g. transportation). Thus, US-sers spend more on health care (17% of personal consumption expenditure) than food (14%) or housing (15%) - more on automobile purchasing and maintenance (8%) than recreation (4%) (ibid.).
Finally, higher spending (and thus higher GDP) do not necessarily translate to higher standards of living. Some expenses are pure waste. This observation led to the alternative approaches to the GDP as a comparative stats e.g. Genuine Progress Indicator (http://www.rprogress.org/projects/gpi/) showing that if we account for waste, unnecessary transaction costs, and exploitation of non-market resources (e.g. women's work) US economy (as measured by the "adjusted" GDP) actually declines.
Wojtek