A simple question

[Mike Niendorff]

To most sane eyes, Bush & Co. are pursuing -- with mindless zeal -- an irrational and unsustainable economic policy that is threatening major long-term damage to the American economy.

Assuming that the reader accepts this premise (as I do):
Is such an outcome (A) an unintended consequence or (B) an intended consequence?

I'd be curious to hear DUers' opinions on this, one way or the other.


MDN

[meti57b]

1. They're bankrupting the federal government to make sure ....

there will be no funding for social programs for the next 50 years.

[laruemtt]

2. intended -

because not even * can be that stupid. the ruination of the u.s.'s economic stability is just collateral damage to bushco in their quest for empire.

[Stephanie]

3. Intentional, Grover Norquist style

Shrink the budget for discretionary spending until the federal government is small enough to be drowned in the bathtub. Also, decrease wages, shift more wealth to the top, and increase corporate profits.

[Womblestuffer]

4. its called "Going out with Bile"

[Jackpine Radical]

5. Intentional.

The intention is to end up with a very small ruling class and a huge underclass. There are many advantages to this kind of system, provided you are among the overlords. It sure as hell solves the servant problem, for one thing.

Most people don't understand that America--and most of the world--were very different places only a hundred years ago. The vast majority of people in the 19th century were quite poor. Only the rise of the labor unions ended the 60-hour week, child labor, etc. There was no Social Security. People either saved a little money, got their children to care for them, or lived in squalor. Also remember that we were mostly agricultural in those days, and most of the farms were barely above subsistence level. You had maybe 2 pairs of pants and 2 shirts. You repaired them when they ripped. Shoes were a luxury not wasted on children in summer.

The very rich want to get back to this state of affairs, which is what they consider to be the normal order of things.

Also remember what Andrew Mellon (Hoover's Sec'y of Treasury & one of THOSE Mellons) said in about 1931: "Depressions are the times when wealth returns to its natural owners."

[Stephanie]

6. Also, the only economy that matters to them

is that of the Cayman Islands.

[bobbieinok]

7. clearly, intended

...

[EstimatedProphet]

8. Intended

In addition to Jackpine's comments:
The Federal government employs approximately 1 out of every 8 people, BEFORE the military. Add in the military and it jumps up to about 1 in 6 or so. This is the legacy of FDR-he put people back to work, and the programs that he developed stayed working and formed new ones. Who says "tax and spend" doesn't work?! Now, if the feds have serious reductions in their programs, a lot of people that have the most stable jobs in the US will suddenly be out of work. That's going to have a major consequence on the unemployment figures, and radically cut the number of taxpayers too, which in turn cuts funding to the government, etc. etc.
The Norquist cro-magnons have been whining about big government for a long time, and how they want little to no government at all. Norquist's lot complain a lot about federal bureaucracy and irresponsive employees. They look at federal employees as an enemy because they are out of their control, due to federal hiring and retention standards. They would love to get federal employees out of the secure jobs, and have them working at minimum wage; what they really want is no federal fairness employment policies-like minimum wage, social security, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and minimal federal employment. It'd be a speedy return to the days of the rail barons if they get their way.

[Stephanie]

9. The neo-cons hope to achieve

neo-feudalism. Seriously.

[Mike Niendorff]

10. I can see the arguments w/r/t wealth-concentration, service-defunding, etc

But what's also eating at me is the prospect of severe economic destabilization, and its effect on the average citizen from a sociological and ideological standpoint. I think most people would agree that the situation in Germany during the 1930's reflected, at least to some degree, the severe economic crises that preceded it. A population in severe economic crisis tends to be more open to extremist ideologies than a population in less distress -- or at least I suspect that this is the case. This is the idea that keeps churning around in my brain every time I hear one of their new-and-overtly-insane economic policy announcements, but, unfortunately, I just don't have the historical expertise to really come up with what I would consider a definitive answer (one way or the other).


MDN

[kayell]

11. intentional

per grover norquist