Government Spending

The Overhyped Defense Cuts

Don't expect the Pentagon to shrink just because we're being buried in debt.

|

Politicians often rail against government spending, except when it goes to the military. Conservatives believe there is no such thing as too much defense spending, and liberals don't argue, for fear of being labeled appeasers. So when there is talk of the two parties agreeing to cut the Pentagon budget, it sounds like a monumental change.

But probably not. It's a good thing that defense, which accounts for roughly a fifth of all federal outlays, is no longer considered immune to the need for frugality. But both supporters and opponents have a stake in portraying any trims as far more significant than they really are.

The Obama administration reportedly has decided to boost its planned defense cuts from $400 billion over the next 12 years to as much as $700 billion. That sounds like a lot—considering that the earlier, smaller figure had sparked furious objections.

Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld warned it would be "a grievous mistake" that would someday "be measured in American lives lost." Mitt Romney, in line with most other presidential candidates, insisted "we should not reduce our commitment to national security."

Some Republicans in Congress may be prepared to subject defense spending to the sort of scrutiny applied elsewhere. But if you think the tea party favorites will demand serious fiscal discipline, you are in for a disappointment.

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's heralded budget plan would, according to Cato Institute analyst Christopher Preble, leave the Pentagon "essentially unscathed." Michele Bachmann wrote recently, "Blaming our budgetary woes on the military is reckless and misinformed."

She doesn't seem to have noticed that while discretionary domestic outlays have been flat in inflation-adjusted terms over the past decade, military expenditures have not. The discretionary defense budget, after accounting for inflation, is 80 percent bigger this year than it was in 2001—and 33 percent bigger than it was just five years ago.

Assuming the president and Congress agree to the cuts being discussed—no sure thing—it would still be larger in 2016 than it was for most of George W. Bush's presidency. It would also be more, in real terms, than it was at the height of President Ronald Reagan's military buildup, when we faced a hostile nuclear superpower in the form of the Soviet Union.

It might make sense to provide such gargantuan sums if we were merely trying to keep up with our enemies. In reality, the United States devotes more money to defense than the next 17 countries combined. We spend six times as much as the Chinese, who come in second overall.

It would be misleading to say we greatly outspend our rivals. When it comes to military outlays and capability, we have no rivals. The United States is the New York Yankees, and everyone else is in Little League.

If spending is the solution, the problem has been solved many times over. If, on the other hand, we are still dangerously vulnerable to our enemies, more dollars are not likely to make us safe.

But we keep chasing the dream of absolute security, which requires an unending succession of wars in faraway countries that pose little or no danger to us. That's what justifies the immense military budget, an indulgence disguised as a necessity.

What neither party is willing to consider is downsizing our global obligations and ambitions. Both Republicans and Democrats can be found in support of staying in Afghanistan for three more years, keeping some troops in Iraq beyond this year, and continuing the war in Libya. Wars cost money—lots of it.

Nor is either party ready to reassess our permanent presence in Europe, South Korea, and Japan—which have ample resources to provide for their own defense. If our leaders want to preserve the option of intervening anywhere on Earth, anytime something happens that we don't like—and most of them do—they have to maintain a military establishment that dwarfs all others.

So don't expect the Pentagon to become noticeably smaller just because we're being buried in debt. An aide to House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) told Politico, "The chairman is deeply concerned about any defense cuts made during wartime."

There lie the crucial facts about the defense budget: 1) Washington politicians resist cutting in wartime; and 2) it's always wartime.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

NEXT: Scene of the Crime

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. There is no doubt that defence budget can,t be reduced as one you have got money you spend and american army is over streched and corrupt and will not give up their previleges.
    There is no doubt Democrats and Republics both the parties are waring parties and they need innocent killings around the world to fulfill their ego and hegemony.
    It will stop stop when america is totally destroyed.

  2. I don’t know what America’s obsession with the military is about. There’s really no reason to spend this much money on it, especially when “national defense” apparently means the ability to attack any foreign nation at any time. Anyone who attacks the size of our military is unpatriotic and anti-American. I’m glad Obama has shown he is just as jingoistic as the republicans.

    God bless the USA! God bless the military industrial complex! Without them, we might be attacked by the brown peop… I mean TERRORISTS! USA! Kill them all!

    1. Its the only part of the govt that works.

      1. ahhh, The Military and The Industrial Complex, the whipping boy that has no parallel.
        I wonder if even half of the commentators here have been overseas to some of the “hot spots” or wonder why Quakdaffy gave up his nuclear program when we found Saddam hiding in his spider hole or ask survivors of Pearl Harbor (or even better 9/11) how they feel about Protectionism/Noninterventionism? Do you really think that “if we only left them alone” they won’t come knocking?
        Think, don’t just parrot.
        The lesson learned from 9/11 was with enough money and determination death was delivered to a city near you.
        Apparently ten years is long enough for people to start screaming about the spending again…

        1. Apparently ten years is long enough for people to start screaming about the spending again…

          When you’re running $1.5 trillion deficits, you better believe spending is going to come under scrutiny. If you think that problem will be taken care of just going after entitlements, you clearly haven’t seen the chart on federal spending. All of the Big Five–defense, SS, Medicare, Medicaid, and unemployment–have to get touched just to get back to baseline.

          1. which baseline?
            and, you mean to tell me there isn’t 100 different departments that couldn’t use a little “austerity measures”?

        2. Yeah, 9/11 was caused by non-interventionism. Do conservatives even think about what they say?

          http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/…..rview.html
          Read Osama’s actual reasons for being pissed at the US. The militarism of the US is mostly to blame for 9/11. Mat=ybe if we hadn’t have gone fucking up the middle east, establishing dictators and puppet regimes, radicalizing Muslims, we wouldn’t be in this situation. Non-intervention isn’t what got us in to this mess, but it may get us out.

          1. pbs = see b.s.
            Clinton didn’t intervene.
            Again, don’t just parrot, (and surely read more than just pbs)

        3. What the fuck is the military going to do about some dudes with box cutters in the U.S.?

          Terrorism is a law enforcement/intelligence problem, not a military one.

          1. terrorism is a law enforcement/intelligence problem…
            once again, think…
            is it possible that we knew ahead of the arrival of “some dudes”?
            to think that we couldn’t have used our military to stop the characters of 9/11 is to piss on John O’Neill’s grave…
            Seal Team Six is just one of many avenues…

    2. Yeah, watchout for the goat fuckers! They might get on their web footed camels and swim over here.

      1. Not to mention all the money spent on “intelligence” over the years that never figured out, after years of hijackings to Cuba, that it might be a good ideat to lock the cockpit door…

        1. ah, sarcasm, where is thy sting?

  3. I completely forgot to wish the Military Industrial Complex a happy 50th birthday.

    1. Just send money.

  4. “”””What neither party is willing to consider is downsizing our global obligations and ambitions.”‘”

    As long as the US military is used as a world wide police force then it can be argued that the US is not spending enough on “defense”, since it must be big enough to intervene everywhere.

    First the US must repudiate its world wide defense commitments, then cutting the Pentagon budget back to what is actually needed to defend the US becomes easy. But as long as the US is committed to intervene from Albania to Zambia then the taxpayers of the US will be force to pay and the economy will be in hock to the creditors

    1. This is true. We need to back off of TEAM AMERICA first.

  5. Defense spending was $600 B in 2005. Defense spending for 2011 is estimated to be around $850 B. I think everyone would agree that the US had a very potent military in 2005.

    The same arguments regarding inefficiency and bloat, that apply to the rest of the federal government, also apply to the military. If the federal government can be expected to do “more with less” in every other function, then the same philosophy should be applicable to the armed forces.

    1. “Doing more with less” on the military side would inevitably lead to “isolationism.” Not even the most progressive hipster is down with that, even if it would save us a bucketload of money in the long run.

      1. That is bullshit! Cutting back of the military does not mean isolationism.

        1. Hence the scare quotes.

            1. This is an opportunity to point out that Isolationism is a bogus term concocted by people who are bought and paid for by the MICC. There has never been any such thing as Isolationism–only arguments about what level of intervention and/or imperialism are necessary in this or that instance. And in every case, those who favor not getting involved will be labeled “Isolationist.”

    2. Back when dinosaures ruled the earth, the US military’s most fearsome weapon were feathers and knock knock jokes, and 90% of the children born in America were eaten by their own parents at meals with cheap white wine?
      We can never go back to the precarious days of 2005…

  6. Why is it that being a politician is probably the least honorable profession one can have, yet committing murder for the benefit of politicians is the most honorable profession one can have?

    I don’t get it.

    1. Murder? You are a damn fool. There are evil people in this world that would slit your sorry throat just for fun.

      Calling our military murderers is the sign of an infintile, insane mind and tratiorous.

      1. As soon as your military budget is cut by 0.8 % nothing can stop me from coming to cut your throat, HA HA HA !

      2. While I have no doubt that our soldiers believe that they are serving the people, they are in fact serving scum lawyer politicians in their efforts to win elections.

        I fail to see how my safety would be compromised if every single member of the military were to be withdrawn to the homeland, therefor I fail to see anyone other than scum lawyer politician benefit when our soldiers take someone’s life.

        1. What is so very sad is that these young soldiers are throwing their lives away for such a cause. They’re not “defending our freedoms.” They are pawns in a game.
          I can understand why their families and loved ones much consider them heroic, simply to cope. And I’m sure their intentions were nothing but noble.
          But the fact remains — their lives have been thrown away for nothing — worse than nothing, actually.

        2. It is true that the military’s budget is too large, that the same principles of bloat apply to it as to all government bodies.
          However, what you are ignorant of are the oceans of seething, white-hot hatred for you and america in general in the rest of the world.
          They hate us, our ideals, and our success. Without our military all americans would be murdered in short order.

          1. “They hate us, our ideals, and our success.”

            Actually, we hate you for cancelling Firefly. Jihad!

          2. Don’t forget our freedoms. They hate us for those too.

          3. If they hate us for our ideals and success then how come they arent trying to destroy countries like Switzerland etc? Ill answer that, because they dont hate our success or freedom, they hate that we cant mind our own business and stay out of theirs.

      3. As long as JERKS like JohnD worship these soldiers’ actions (not the 19 year old soldier himself, who is, at worst a nieve sucker) the chickenhawk perpetual-war politicians win and America loses. I blame the JohnD JERKS who put the chickenhawk perpetual-war politicians in place before I blame the politicians themselves.

        1. So very true.

      4. “There are evil people in this world that would slit your sorry throat just for fun.”
        Yeah lots of them live right in this country.

    2. I didn’t realize shooting people who shoot at your first was murder.

      1. They’re shooting at you because you, at the request of scum lawyers who sucked so bad at practicing law that they went into politics, invaded their land and dropped bombs on their homes.

      2. Gee I wonder why they are shooting at us…..MAYBE BECAUSE WE INVADED THEIR COUNTRY!!!

  7. Right wingers are obviously going to block military cuts, but left wingers might not necessarily be too keen either. According to their Keynisian theories, WW2 in America created an economic boom. Cutting back on military spending will knock the economy, by reducing aggregate demand.

    1. And how many congressional districts contain a defense contractor location and/or military base?

    2. Leftwingers won’t cut Defense too deep because some of the 700,000 civilian do-nothings in the DOD might lose their jobs.

      Shit-can all the mid-career military personnel you want, but never forget that nothing is more precious than a civilian federal employee.

      1. Ostensibly free market tea partiers I know are whining that Obama “killing NASA” has cost jobs. Vendor/government contracting jobs. I get the impression they’re more upset Obama did it. National greatness injured and all. Sigh.

        1. Screw them. Firing a million civil servants would be a great start.

  8. nothing is more precious than a civilian federal employee guaranteed vote for a Democrat

    ftfy

    1. 2.5 million (federal) and counting.

  9. comments like most of these in this thread explain why the Libratarians will NEVER be tken sseriously. You people are damn fools

    1. So please give your rational for spending 700 billion plus on “defense”, most of which does nothing to defend the US?

      1. You fool, don’t you know, without 700 billion how else can you stop me from cutting all your throats. HA HA HA !

        1. I’ve seen a look of evil in your eyes
          You’ve been filling me all full of lies
          Sorrow will not change your shameful deeds
          Do well best, someone else has better seen

      2. most none of which does nothing to defend the US?

        ftfy

      3. John D, can you come up with an argument for why we need to spend $850B/yr on defense? Are you saying nothing is wasteful? try this …
        – the troops/bases that are still in Europe? Whay are they still there? The Russkies are not coming through the Fulda Gap any time soon.
        – The troops in Japan? Why are they still there? The Marines in Okinawa are hated. Can they come home w/o us getting killed in our beds?
        – the military bases scattered all over the country that do nothing other than provide some podunk town a reason for a Walmart and a whore house.

        Lets try cutting all that mess. We are talking what $100B. Is that going to undermine our safety?

    2. Surrounded by oceans, Canada and Mexico. And I thought having to worry about the Danes invading was nerve-wracking.

      1. Without a huge army how else is America going to defend themselves from this threat ?
        http://www.swedishbikiniteam.com/

    3. Hey Jonh….fuck you! Join the military and save us!

      1. …you too John!

  10. Tony? Where are you?

    1. Tony is a secret fan, if the armies duties are to be guardians of the peoples progressive republic, why should Tony not support big Armies ?

      1. The reverence and most of the dollars we have for the military apparatus should be redirected to education and energy. I’m no expert but I suspect that our armed forces’ presence in the world does more harm to our national interest than good.

        1. It’s like saying “Beetlejuice” three times… only less entertainingly.

  11. It takes lots of dough to be the world’s cop. R Paul will never be taken seriously because he doesnt think it is our role.
    Well; then whos role is it, russia, china, islam?
    We have been the most benign of all benign dominant powers ever known to man. I do not think I would want a world where the chi-coms or rooskies were leading the world, it would be a mess.
    America pretty much has to do it. If you dissagree with me you are a liar!!

    1. Do you remember an empire called Rome and all the foreign interventions it undertook? How’d that work out? J. Rufus Fears does a great lecture on the subject. Look him up.

    2. Oh, no, the Russians and the Chinese will waste their resources on policing the world. History is full of countries which were ruined in their quest to be top cop. Lets not join them.

      1. Whoa — what if was, like, the Russians in Afghanistan? Wonder how that would turn out?

        1. I have heard some of the Neo-cons claim that we have to stay in Afghanistan or the Russians will move in. As though the Russians want to get into that mess again.

          1. Those must be some dumb neo-cons because I am pretty sure the Ruskies’d have to conquer a couple of other ‘stans on the way to the Afghanistan.

    3. Found one.

    4. Benign? Perhaps the puppet government officials in those countries who get rich off us see us as benign.
      But I don’t think the Palestinian who got his home destroyed and his home destroyed without due process and his land stolen would see us as benign. Or even Roman-law greedy. I think the act is vindictive.

    5. I hear the country if Islam is nice in autumn.

  12. While I agree that the military is bloated, providing for the national defense is a legitimate function of the federal government. It’s one of the VERY few things the Feds should be spending money on.

    That said, my personal beliefs are that use of the military should be for defensive purposes only and the option of absolute last resort. I’m in the Paul camp, in that I believe our foreign presence causes more problems than it solves and we should withdraw all of it to within our borders.

    Unfortunately, here is the sorry, yet factual, state of affairs. The operational state of our military hardware is in the shitter. Because of a lack of strategic plan for reconstitution, coupled with 20 years of senseless, objectiveless, never ending war grinding our airframes into the ground (yes, most don’t realize it, but the AF has been on a “war-footing” in the middle east since the first Gulf War), the USAF finds itself in the pathetic position of needing to replace a majority of their airframes all at the same time. It is BAD. They are keeping the airframes flying with spit and bubblegum. They are at the end of their useful service life and it will cost more to repair than it will to replace. My assumption is, the other services are in similar shape.

    So, as a nation, here is the unfortunate cold hard reality we find ourselves in. We can replace them…or do without and deal with all the ramifications of that decision.

    1. While having a military is a legit function — do we need to spend this much? We need a military for self defense. Right now we are defending all of Europe, Japan and others. We do not need to be the worlds cop.

      1. Couldn’t agree more.

      2. It’s interesting to me the Jeffersonians opposed a standing army even though it was a legit function of the feds. TTBOMK they saw a standing army as a threat to domestic freedoms and a temptation to use it for non-defence purposes.

    2. Echoing jacob, we could probably afford to at least develop weapons systems that don’t take 20 years to come online if we weren’t so involved with being the world’s cop. How many C-130Js could have been purchased if we hadn’t been fucking around in the Middle East the last 20 years?

    3. Additionally, the USAF’s manpower is the smallest its ever been.

  13. Should be interesting to see how that all turns out. WOw.

    http://www.anon-toolz.tk

  14. The belief that opposition to permitting ungodly expenditures on the military is somehow unpatriotic or anti-American is so fantastically ridiculous, I honestly can’t believe so many faux-Republican shitheads (and a wonderful share of liberal cuntwads, too) buy into it.

    Perhaps it’s related to the passivity of many libertarians, or their detachment/lack of affection for their specific nation (in this case, the United States), I don’t know. It’s still just as ridiculous.

    I’m as patriotic as they come; I salute Old Glory proudly and whenever I can, I periodically recite the Declaration of Independence, reacquaint myself with the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution, and I have a deep and heartfelt love for my republic and its people. I also believe:

    1) that the only legitimate role of the military is to act defensively and in response to immediate, provable threats against the United States, and…

    2) that we could possess and maintain an exceptional, supreme military at a much, much, much lower cost, if only we’d do the right thing, and tell the Eurofaggots to go fuck themselves, withdraw from Asia similarly, and leave our allies to defend their own territory, with their own forces — South Korea isn’t a shitty little peasant kingdom anymore, and I’m sure even the Europeans would survive without us.

    Adventurism is not a rightful function of our military, and robbing the population to feed unnecessary, ludicrous, and deplorable (any of those three, or any combination of them) conflicts and acts of adventurism is completely and utterly unacceptable, and an act of tyranny. When the fuck will we learn?

    1. When the first foreign base/gigantic Baghdad style consulate opens somewhere in the U.S.?

  15. Here’s a perfect illustration of why maximal freedom for corporate interests has massive unintended consequences that are decidedly not on the side of freedom. There would be no military-industrial complex without the influence and goals of industry. Sure, some of our country’s inability to reduce Pentagon spending is because of fear of losing the only remaining source of our superpower status. But it would be a lot easier if defense contractors and other assorted industries didn’t have politicians in their pockets.

    So you know all that fellating of oil companies you guys do here? Thanks for your role in maintaining military bloat.

    1. Yeah! Only the military uses oil!

      1. I think he’s high on something today, because he’s approaching a whole new level of stupidity right there.

      2. Because that’s exactly what I said!

  16. 2) that we could possess and maintain an exceptional, supreme military at a much, much, much lower cost, if only we’d do the right thing, and tell the Eurofaggots to go fuck themselves, withdraw from Asia similarly, and leave our allies to defend their own territory, with their own forces — South Korea isn’t a shitty little peasant kingdom anymore, and I’m sure even the Europeans would survive without us.

    It’s honestly mind-boggling that no Democrat politician has said, “Hey, let’s pull these guys out from our overseas bases, reactivate a few military stations here at home (there’s still plenty of reserve bases that could be used for this purpose), and cut the excess.”

    1. Government is god, and the military is how government/god smites evil doers of the world.

      That makes the military sacred.

      1. I still can’t help imagining it — a Chinese invasion of Europe, and Europeans sending pleas for American intervention, while our government constructs a 500-foot high wall around the United States, or something like that.

        Europeans have always thought, apparently, that we’re evil, racist murderers and imperialists — well, now we aren’t!

  17. I still can’t help imagining it — a Chinese invasion of Europe,

    From the look of things, the Muslims are already doing that thanks to Europe’s generous immigration laws and PC culture. I’m not sure Europe has anything the Chinese really want, and they’d have to go through Russia first anyway.

    1. I don’t give a shit about Europe anymore, to be frank. All of my first and second-hand experiences, from personal adventures in German restaurants to reading travelers’ articles on Spain, indicate it’s a shithole. Fuck Europe. And that’s what the US’ll be like pretty soon, if we don’t wake the fuck up.

      And Russia’s military capabilities seem considerably less potent than the average Joe believes them to be. It’s not the we-will-utterly-fuck-your-capitalistic-shit-up-in-100-ways-or-die-trying Soviet Army of the late 1940s, after all.

    2. DA MOZLIMS TAKES OUR WIMMIN

      1. http://www.eutimes.net/2008/04…..s-of-rape/

        Immigration’s fine when the immigrants largely reflect the native culture and don’t overwhelm the local resources. Allowing a bunch of sub-literate, hyper-masculinized savages into a society that’s largely known for passivity in the face of authority is not a recipe for long-term success, especially when that same society doesn’t want to appear “intolerant.”

        Scandanavian liberalism tends to only work when applied to Scandanavian liberals.

  18. This is a problem of the warmongering Neocons!

  19. Sinic|7.11.11 @ 7:46AM|#
    I completely forgot to wish the Military Industrial Complex a happy 50th birthday.

    Actually, it’s probably more like 75.

    It’s hard to put a date on it, but military contracting took off in a fairly big way with FDR’s expansion of the Navy in the thirties after Hoover nearly gutted it. The navy’s shipyards simply didn’t have the capacity to build the bigger ships and aircraft carriers although they continued to do whole lot more work in navy yards into the 50s, both maintenace and new construction, than they do today.

    The symbiotic relationship came fully of age during WWII. It’s hard to kick a habit as well developed as the one circa 1945.

    Truman made some attempts to back off but there was simply a too highly developed bipartisan lobby in favor of military Keynesianism by that time.

  20. What we need is a civilian force just well funded and big as the military!!!!

  21. Overhyped?

    Isn’t that word redundant? Hyped is good enough. Overhyped isn’t even a legit word in the online Merriam Webster Dictionary.

    Oxford Dictionary: OverHype (in 1978)
    Hype: (in 1938) [D. Castle]

    “Y’ gotta lay off the wimmin, an’ don’t hype y’rself up till y’ goes out t’ heist a joint.”

    1. Overhype is in Webster’s (online) listed under prefix of ‘over’.

      Using the word ‘overhype’ assumes the ‘hype’ is normal. That’s like using the word ‘overgenocide’ assuming ‘genocide’ is normal.

      Hitler set the standard (norm) for genocide, so we (the US) are OK as long as we don’t exceed about 6 million, whereupon we get into ‘overgenocide’.

  22. I’m not sure why people seem surprised that military spending is at such a high – fighting three wars is expensive. And as someone who works for the military, I can tell you my budget has been cut beyond the bone the last several years – the dollars being spent are all in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.

    And I know the traditional libertarian viewpoint on interventionism, we really shouldn’t be over there so problem solved – pull the troops out of all three theaters, close Gitmo, and cut the purse strings. And though I did agree with going into Afghanistan, I thought both Iraq and Libya were boondoggles. But I do question the idea of pulling out of those theaters now that we’re there. I have kind of a “you broke it, you fix it” mentality. And that’s the reason that I question whether a lot of cuts could truly come from the defense budget at this time.

    But I do subscribe to a dream of one day, this country no longer being international policemen and our military just focusing on our own national interests, and the defense budget being shaped accordingly. I also would love to see a flat tax (oh, how much money could be saved at the IRS with that) and elimination of most if not all of the welfare programs out there, both social and corporate. Hey, it’s my dream – I can make it as big as I want.

    1. But I do question the idea of pulling out of those theaters now that we’re there. I have kind of a “you broke it, you fix it” mentality. And that’s the reason that I question whether a lot of cuts could truly come from the defense budget at this time.

      Are you ever going to be able to fix it though, Dave? I can’t see a point in either the near or far future where the U.S. would leave either Iraq or Afghanistan, and both governments would be stable. IOW, they’re going to collapse whether we stay one more year, or 20, so why not go home now?

      I agree with your dream in the 3rd paragraph.

  23. The Global War On Terror is a fraud of epic proportions.

    Epic, because so many americans believe in its legitimacy, even though the evidence for its fraud is everywhere.

    What we have is a modern day version of The Emperor’s New Clothes.

  24. “If you show up, I’m going to deliver your destiny. But you’ve got to stay, you’ve got to believe in me.”,so cool!The star dress:
    http://www.inexpensiveoakleysunglasses.com
    http://www.salefakeoakleys.com

  25. Many thanks sharing fantastic informations. Ones websiteis consequently cool. We are impressed from the main factors that you’ve with this blog. The item reveals precisely how nicely people perceive this specific subject. Thank your share with me!
    http://www.fakeray-ban.com
    http://www.fakeray-bansunglasses.com

  26. Many thanks sharing fantastic informations. Ones websiteis consequently cool. We are impressed from the main factors that you’ve with this blog. The item reveals precisely how nicely people perceive this specific subject. Thank your share with me! http://www.fakeray-bansunglasses.com.

  27. haha this seems to be a funny title, i like the drawing style as well. thanks for sharing, man! People have strong opinions around the table, and I am looking forward to listening to them, I’ve got my own opinion, which I am more than willing to share. http://www.replicaray-bansunglasses.com
    http://www.replicaray-bans.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.