I don't understand why it matters one way or the other. If they raise it, great. If they don't, then spend less money government. The government does it's bu

I don't understand why it matters one way or the other. If they raise it, great. If they don't, then spend less money government. The government does it's budgeting all fucked up. It makes a list of everything it wants, then sort of argues a little and writes a check for the total. Every other entity in the universe starts with how much money they have or want to spend, and then divides it up according to priorities. If the government switched to this method, they would just have less money to slice up. I was in the army, and I worked for defense contractors. 99% of federal government employees do no work. I mean literally don't do anything. They show up around 9 and leave around 4, and surf the internet in between. Every once and awhile they have meetings and plan things that don't get done, or figure out who is going to go on some trip. Meanwhile contractors are running around doing the little bit of work that is being done. The hilarious part is, 99% of that work doesn't matter. If it just stopped tomorrow, nobody would even be able to notice. So, if my calculations are correct, and they are only based on empirical observation over the course of 8 years, we could reduce the size of the government expenditures (excluding programs that just write checks, like medicare and social security, which we should keep) by 99.99% and nobody would care other than the government employees, but I don't feel sorry for people who's entire contribution to society is to be physically present at a specific location for 35 hours a week. Lets cut the budget but keep the programs that help old people and poor people.