Panetta: Cutting Too Deep Would Devastate Military

[Purveyor]

Source: ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Defense leaders and members of Congress drew a line in the sand Thursday, saying the Pentagon must be spared from any budget cuts beyond an initial plan to slash at least $450 billion over the next 10 years.

The military, they said, must not take even deeper cuts - a looming threat if lawmakers fail to agree on $1.2 trillion in federal budget savings by Thanksgiving and instead allow automatic cuts to kick in.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said President Barack Obama shares his view that the Pentagon should be shielded from any additional budget cutting.

Appearing before the House Armed Services Committee on Thursday, Panetta and Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, pounded home their message that further cuts would create national security risks and devastate the military.

MORE...

Read more: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_DEFENSE_CUTS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-10-13-16-00-21

[Common Sense Party]

1. And...?

He says that like it would be a bad thing.

[City Lights]

2. Tough shit! We ALL need to cut back!

Quit losing and wasting our money, DoD! We're BROKE, remember?

[MichiganVote]

3. Right. Like in Education for our kids Mr. Panetta?

[Robb]

4. Those same automatic cuts would devastate our country's social safety net.

The silver lining here is, while Republicans could care less about the needy, they will face hell unleashed at the polls if, by their obstructionism, the precious military budget goes under the knife.

This situation, or more accurately the public airing of it, is the biggest ray of sunshine on the process I've yet seen -- this is the "poison pill" vis-a-vis the automatic cuts.

[newspeak]

83. maybe they can find the over two trillion dollars

unaccounted--maybe they could ask rummy.

[defendandprotect]

102. EXACTLY -- Rumsfeld seems to have misplaced $2.3 TRILLION ... guess we don't need it that badly?

ROFL



Maybe we need a Halloween reminder to Obama and the Pentagon reminding them?



:evilgrin:

[Taverner]

5. Too bad. Cry me a river, asshole

[and-justice-for-all]

6. Fine, cant cut the military budget? then pay off my student loans..nt

[BeyondGeography]

7. We spend more than the rest of the world combined...it's fucking crazy, Leon

[chill_wind]

58. +100

[wordpix]

85. +101

[No Elephants]

61. Which air force is the largest in the world?

USAF's, of course.

Which air force is the second largest in the world, though?

US Navy's.

ne comedian claimed that this makes sense only if the U.S. Navy intends to declare war on the US Air Force.

[Booster]

8. They should tell Mr. Panetta that if he can find the trillions the

Pentagon lost then there wouldn't have to be any cuts. Jesus, man, at least act like you're looking into the stealing that's going on big time there.

[ronnie624]

97. *

:thumbsup:

[shanti]

9. Duh! That's the point! n/t

[dtexdem]

10. Well, that's certainly true. But how deep is "too deep"?

The $450 billion is not nearly deep enough. And although $1.2 trillion seems like a nice amount, if it's a bit too deep, then $1 trillion would be a nice, round number.

And if the U.S. would get out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and not get into Iran, a lot more could be cut without "devastation."

[Autumn]

11. Shut the fuck up and eat your peas Panetta

run your branch of the government like most Americans have to. And if Obama agrees with you he can eat peas too, since he's dishing them out.

[Enthusiast]

18. LOL!

[Nihil]

75. Ah but there's a reason why he's dishing them out ...

> And if Obama agrees with you he can eat peas too, since he's dishing them out.

He wants to make sure people understand why he was awarded the Nobel Peas Prize!

:hide:

[Autumn]

81. LOL

I am visualizing whirled peas.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

12. Fuck Panetta!

Yeah, I said it.

The worst of the Democratic Party.

Let's check what Ben Nelson wants next.

[BadgerKid]

13. NOW they care about jobs and pensions. n/t

[Downwinder]

14. I'm devastated.

[Arctic Dave]

15. What they said.

[DJ13]

16. How much military do we need to bomb weddings in the ME?

Look its simple Mr. Panetta, if you want to keep most of your toys of mass destruction you need to close unneeded bases in regions where the past threats no longer exist.

For instance why do we need to pay for huge bases to protect Germany when they're economically capable of providing for their own defense, and the old threat from the USSR no longer exists?

Cut the crap, cut the budget.

[Enthusiast]

17. A military one forth

the present size is still too large and expensive. Piss off, Panetta!

[Magoo48]

19. Not cutting deep will devastate the entire nation...

[Arctic Dave]

20. What they said.

[Wait Wut]

21. I understand that DU has a large anti-military crowd, but...

...there are a lot of servicemembers that can't find work. My son had previously been thinking of reenlisting, but found out he probably wouldn't be able to. Marines aren't hiring. Employers are reluctant to hire former servicemembers because of irrational fears of PTSD and erratic behavior. My son started his "separation" course this week. The "instructor" scared the hell outta him by telling the group that they probably won't find jobs, could possibly end up homeless and that getting an education won't help. Unforgivable rhetoric? Absolutely. Off the mark? Not so much.

While I'm all for reduction in forces, we need to do it rationally or we'll end up with hundreds of thousands more unemployed and homeless former military. My son will be fine. He forgets that he's already received a few job offers and also has a family network. That's not true of them all, however. A lot of these men and women have no support and no other skills.

These are Americans, just like us. They are not dollar signs. They have families and dreams, just like us. Some are broken, just like us. The GOP has proven throughout history that they support our military, but not our servicemen and women (sickening displays of magnetic yellow ribbons don't count). Democrats have proven the opposite. Let's keep it that way.

Hire a vet.

[area51]

26. There are jobs that could be offered former servicepeople,

but our govt. doesn't have the balls. Our country's infrastructure is crumbling, and various things like roads, bridges, pipes, etc., need repairs. Also, it's long past time to transition to single-payer health care, and we need a lot more GPs. Our govt. needs to get off its ass and start paying for the education of doctors and other medical professionals.

[pasto76]

28. government can do little about that

GP's dont erase the stigma of being a troop. God help you if you had any trouble re-adjusting.

I recently re-enlisted in the Guard. My employer has been "inquiring" about how much time I will miss and other stuff. The 5th time I answered the same question I told him about USERRA. Work is scarce right now as it happens...they want me to stay with one foreman over any other. Ive since been told that I work for that lone foreman, or not at all for this company. Not a single other employee labors under a similar condition. Call me jaded, but it is because of my status as a member of the Guard or Reserve. Awesome huh.

[Wait Wut]

30. Reservists, from what I'm told, are hit hard.

It's that undetermined "time off" (like it's a vacation). We had two Reservists working at my last employer. Somehow, we managed to be prepared for their scheduled AND unscheduled times. It's called foresight.

Good luck to you and be safe. And...breathe a little. ;)

[No Elephants]

63. "government can do little about that" How do you know that? Has government

tried a public education/propaganda campaign on this issue lately and failed?

I remember a campaign about hiring the mentally challenged that pointed out that they perform tasks of which they are capable to greater degree of excellence than their co-workers, with less time off, etc.

And, in order for them to be able to get along with their co workers, they actually had to be taught to mess up deliberately now and again.

I honestly don't know if the campaign worked, but I know it convinced me. If I had an appropriate job opening, I would have considered and probably hired a mentally person for it in a heartbeat after hearing that. And, I am a little ashamed to say that, I am not sure I would have done the same if I had not heard that.

Now, I am NOT comparing former service people to those who are mentally challenged, but I am saying that a public education campaign pointing out some benefits of hiring vets can help. Of course, you'd have to do some research first and pinpoint those pros, but that's a questionnaire sent to people who have employed vets, not a big deal.

And federal and state governments have the power not only to educate, but to legislate.

I know Massachusetts gives extra points on civil service exams to former members of the military (and real estate tax breaks and other benefits). I think things like that could help a lot, too.

Private employers could be given tax and other incentives to give separated military a shot, too.

And, that's just off the top of one procrastinating poster's head. If coming up with ideas to help separated military find work were my day job, I could probably do better. And still better if I were one person on a team coming up with ideas to get more separated military hired.

So, please don't assume that government cannot help in any way unless you know for a fact that programs were actually tried in good faith and failed. Instead, prod government to do stuff.

[Wait Wut]

33. Actually, one of the things I was praying for was in the jobs bill.

A (small) incentive to employers to hire veterans. Fucking GOP.

The stigma is real and hinders the employment of vets, even in our own government. While construction work is great when it's available, it isn't going to fulfill the employment needs of the thousands of vets we'll have on our hands. We still have regular citizens to hire, too. The medical field would be a great choice for a lot of young people, but not most veterans.

That incentive means a lot to me. It wasn't much, but it could've been the spark to hire a handful of young men and women.

[lefthandedlefty]

53. You are so right,but

those jobs are labor jobs with actual work involved and labor is a very dirty word in this country.

[No Elephants]

64. Are you saying Americans as a whole don't want to do actual work? If so, fuck all liars

who say things like that.

If not, my apologies, but what the hell are you saying?

[lefthandedlefty]

89. I was saying the gov and big business hates labor

they don`t think we deserve a decent paycheck

[pasto76]

27. All of you can note the lack of responses to this comment

which reflects the general attitude towards my men and women in uniform.

all of you can fuck yourself; I just RE-ENLISTED to provide yet ANOTHER source of income for my family.

We dont need to drastically cut the "military". They need to focus on the bullshit stuff. Ever hear of the Future Combat System/Land warrior system? they spent cool billions on "developing" it. All of it went to contractors. Thankfully SecDef gates shitcanned that program.

What we do need is more troops. Troops are employees. troops pay taxes. troops spend in the economy. Diverting some of that wasted money into hiring more qualified troops would be helpful to this economy.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

29. excuse me. Did you just tell me I can fuck myself?

I thought that's what you said.

Listen here, BOY. We don't need more troops. We don't need more death. I don't give a flying fuck where you work--our professional killing force is too large and too expensive. And it's not a motherfucking charity program. If you don't like it, I'd suggest getting the hell out.

[Wait Wut]

35. "...charity program..."

Wow.

There's that Democratic compassion I was missing. It took your comment to make me realize that these young men and women are just welfare recipients. Oh...but, you probably would support the homeless and less fortunate. Just not the veterans, because they never really "worked" for a living. When a homeless man/woman approaches you, do you ask if they served? If they say yes, do you spit in their faces or thank them for getting out so you don't have to pay their "charity"?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

38. Get off your whiny little soapbox

I was just told to fuck myself by someone who wants the military to be a jobs program. That's not the way I felt about it when I was in the Navy. Did you have any further questions?

[Wait Wut]

42. Whiny little soapbox?

Oh for fucks sake. Yes, it's a whiny little soapbox until it's an agenda that YOU believe in. I'm concerned about the thousands of active military that won't have jobs when they get out. You obviously don't give a fuck about them. That's very sweet of you to only be concerned about the unemployed that got fired from Walmart. We all know that all people are worth our concern except former military.

[No Elephants]

66. Apparently, if we don't reply to a post in under 17 minutes, we're all scum.

[mike_c]

34. I would love to see you unemployed....

I'd like to see the military budget cut by 70 percent or more. As for your "fuck you all" comment, I think you can guess how I respond to that.... Have a great time killing poor people for capitalism.

[Wait Wut]

36. Awesome.

More Democratic compassion. Have a great time spitting on veterans.

So, which unemployed and/or homeless people do you support?

[mike_c]

37. which thugs for corporate capitalism...

...do you support, while we're on the topic of straw men?

[Wait Wut]

44. WTF?

Did you not have an argument or do you like to move goalposts for a living?

Oh, that's right. You do. ;)

[No Elephants]

68. I had the same question. Posted it before I saw you asking it.

[No Elephants]

67. You mock Democratic compassion repeatedly, but you cursed the GOP upthread. So, which Party do you

like?

By the way, what did you think of Democratic compassion when the Webb bill was introduced?

[No Elephants]

65. That post was made at 6:15 pm, yours at 6:32 pm, all of 17 minutes later.

And you used THAT as an excuse to tell us all to go fuck ourselves and we are all anti troops?

[GreenPartyVoter]

43. I'm not so much for reduction in people as I am for reduction in wars and crazy projects

that suck up money but provide little in return.

[Wait Wut]

45. Agreed.

That's the general opinion of the Marines I've spoken to, as well. There's a ton of waste in the military and our servicemembers are still lacking proper gear. But, we have the coolest toys in the world...that don't work. It's demoralizing to them. They can't get body armor that will actually protect them, but we can spend billions on a new toy that will kill them when they use it.

[GreenPartyVoter]

46. I'd put logistics back under the military umbrella, too. No more outsourcing.

[Wait Wut]

47. Absolutely.

You'd get along great with my son and his buddies. ;) They're mostly frustrated with the top brass not listening to the troops. They need us to get the message out.

Funny story, though. I sent an email of "concern" to some top Marine personnel under a "new" email address and without a full name. I received a very thoughtful reply...addressed to my full name. Was a little spooky, at first. But, I figured it's their job to know who they're talking to. What really made me feel better was the follow up reply a couple of months later. "Dear Ms. XXXXX This issue has been put before...yada yada yada. Please feel free to contact me with any further questions."

[GreenPartyVoter]

49. My Dad was a senior chief in the Navy reserves. I've heard all about the

top brass not getting it. :)

It was nice of them to contact you and follow up like that. Now if only we can get the brass, and the congressional committees, to see the light.

[Wait Wut]

51. I've always been treated very well by the Marines

They answer every email, phone call, etc. They were also very, very supportive while my son's wife was going through her VISA process.

Your poor dad. :rofl: I can't imagine how frustrated it must be to be that "close" to the brass! My dad was a 2nd Lt in the Army. His stories were always about his men.

[GreenPartyVoter]

52. Dad was in Security, so he didn't have much he could actually say. :^)

[plumbob]

50. Only 1/3 of the budget is for payroll. The other 2/3 is for hardware and

fuel, ammunition and so on. We could cut spending in half and base all our troops here without cutting a single service member.

[No Elephants]

69. Thanks. I've seen one DUer post again and again that most of the money is for troops, not, as he

puts it, "for guns."

I took him at his word, (really, I did) never a good policy on a message board.

Next time, I'll ask him for a link.

Don't remember his screen name, though. Drat.

[eridani]

59. We need mandatory part time work for full time pay n/t

[No Elephants]

70. Weird comment.

[eridani]

72. Not hardly. If fewer and fewer people make more and more stuff--

--what are those displaced from making stuff supposed to do?

http://www.progress.org/2011/laborda.htm

Instead of clamor for jobs, why not clamor for a shorter workweek and divide the necessary work among more people? How’d 40 hours a week get to be some sort of magic number? Why aren’t automation and globalization whittling that down to 30, 20, 10, going, going, gone? Juliet Schor in her Overworked American (1991) calculated that if increases in productivity (more output from less labor input) over the course of a Baby-Boomer’s career were applied not to things like fatter CEO salaries but to shrinking the workweek, it’d now be 6.5 hours. Why isn’t it?

[No Elephants]

62. First, there is a big difference between being anti war and/or Pentagon or anti tmilitary

industrial complex (MIC) and being anti-troops. President (and former five star general Eisenhower was against the MIC. He probably was not anti troops, unless you count ordering them into dangerous activities.

I don't think many at DU are anti troops.

Your son goes to a separation class and "The "instructor" scared the hell outta him by telling the group that they probably won't find jobs, could possibly end up homeless and that getting an education won't help."

If that is what the military officially believes, why the hell was that not disclosed to your son when they recruited him? In not telling him, they defrauded him out of what? The rest of his life after separation, according to THEM?

Isn't that in itself a reason to be angry at the military establishment?

"While I'm all for reduction in forces, we need to do it rationally or we'll end up with hundreds of thousands more unemployed and homeless former military."

Fine, cut expenses rationally, but do it. Do not keep expanding and wasting money, which is what they've done so far.

Another reason to be angry at the military: There are many cuts that can be made before they cut troops. If they choose to cut troops first, that is on people like Panetta, not on DUers.

And, as other posters have noted, troops can put put to work on so many, many projects, other than war.

Louisiana, for example, has never recovered from Katrina/Rita. Its levees are STILL known to be too weak to withstand a hurricane of any significant force in today's world of stronger and stronger hurricanse. And, I'm guessing BP's clean up of oil in the Gulf was not perfect, either.

Also, many homes need rebuilding, as do schools, libraries, roads, bridges, etc., whether from the hurricanes or other reasons.

Troops could be used very well in Louisiana. And that is only one state out of 50.

And that's only one state's problems the troops could be used very well to resolve.

Please see also, Reply 63.

[harun]

79. The large cost isn't for paying service members and I don't think

we need to cut service members or their wages.

[AverageJoe90]

95. Sounds good to me. nt

[indepat]

22. Cutting social security and Medicare would devastate millions of old and frail

people, but which politicians give a big flying F about amounts to but piffles to them. :patriot:

[indepat]

23. Cutting social security and Medicare would devastate millions of old and frail

people, but which politicians give a big flying F about amounts to but piffles to them. :patriot:

[JDPriestly]

24. Well, then, we will have to raise the taxes the rich pay.

No one else has any money. We eat out maybe at most a couple of times a year and never even go to movies much less buy tickets for concerts. There is not spare change at our house, and I bet most Americans are in that situation.

So, the military will either have to cut back or raise the money from its contractors and the folks in Wall Street. Maybe they can get some other executives and trust bums to chip in. The rest of us don't have it. You simply cannot get blood from turnips, Sec. Panetta. No offense, but you just cannot. So talk to Obama's Republican "friends" about getting the money.

If you cut back on social programs, you will end up with even more hunger and homelessness here. This is what Occupy Wall Street is about. As it is, our system is only working for the megacorporations and their highest level employees -- not for the rest of us.

[L0oniX]

25. Should be cutting a trillion over 10 years! Ya knew they were going to cry so start...

high, then bargain down to 800 billion. Instead now there's no room to move with 450 billion.

Close up some fucking bases ...pull out of the wars ...quit giving the Paks our money ...let Israel take care of itself for a change ...stop being the fucking world police.

[red dog 1]

31. Hey Leon, what about the missing 2.3 trillion, are you looking into that?

http://solari.com/articles/missing_money/

[mike_c]

32. he says that like it's a bad thing....

eom

[avaistheone1]

39. BALONEY! It is a disgrace all the money this country spends on military.

It is bankrupting our country.

[BreweryYardRat]

40. Depends on what gets cut.

Cutting troop benefits and/or pay would be devastating. (And sadly, that seems to be the direction it's heading in.) Cutting the exorbitant amounts paid to crooked contractors wouldn't be devastating. Also, launching investigations into corruption in the procurement process would almost certainly offer the chance to seize contractor assets. Those assets could then be diverted (or sold, if physical) to fund other parts of the budget.

[Wait Wut]

48. THANK YOU!!!

Reasonable and necessary cuts, absofrigginlutely!!! Our troops can, and want, to take over the jobs of the contractors. They screw up months/years of fragile relationships and our troops don't trust them. We don't need anymore broken new toys, either. If a Marine says it isn't working, it isn't working. Stop spending money on it to get it to work while it's killing/maiming more Marines. Get rid of military lobbyists that are working for political gains!!! They're lining their pockets with the benefits of dead soldiers.

[Dont call me Shirley]

41. What Panetta really meant to say was...

Cutting too deep would be too much of a financial cutback for the owners, CEOs, Boards of Directors and large shareholders of the military contracting companies. They would have to cut their champagne and caviar only once a week instead of daily. They might have to sell their private jets, yachts, vacation homes in the Alps, stop buying so many fur coats and Tiffany jewels. WAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH, what freakin' cry babies! Sick bastards they are, mentally deranged! Those A-holes could never do one thing for their own selves, their handmaidens even wipe their asses. Selfish, lazy, violent minded yet fiercely cowardly, stingy psychopaths are the top "brass" of the MIC!

[pscot]

54. Go suck an egg, Leon

[SoapBox]

55. Blah, Blah, Blah...Suck it up.

These HAWKS make me barf.

[JJW]

56. What enemy?

Obama's dismantling of EPA air standards kills more Americans each year than any foreign enemy.

[ProfessionalLeftist]

57. yea, we wouldn't want to cut off that MIC Corprat Welfare would we?

Pffft!

[slay]

60. I don't believe a damn thing he says til we LEAVE IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN

fucking war profiteers. screw panetta.

[No Elephants]

71. Even after all his years as a DINO, the Nixonite in Panetta still comes through.

They say you never forget your first love.

[Sancho]

73. good!!!

the military should have been reduced to half decades ago...

[lunatica]

74. Is that supposed to scare us into a panic?

Geez Panetta. The military budget could be cut in half and it would still be the largest military budget in the world.

[David Sky]

76. We had the largest military in the world in 2001, now at almost twice the

price..we still have the largest, most expensive, most far-flung, most highly technically modernized, most efficient, but MOST IMPORTANT, MOST FAR FLUNG!

We could close 25-50 military bases around the world and turn over operations to locals, leave a dozen or two "instructors" for a couple years... bring tens of thousands of troops home.

[24601]

90. The PRC, not the USA, continues to have the world's largest

military. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Liberation_Army

[boppers]

98. Uhm, that;s by troop count.

Not cost.

[shockra]

77. Oh, the tears...

Of laughter. HAHAHAHAHA.

Yer killin' me man.

[Owl]

78. The whole military apparatus needs drastic cutting.

[BlueIris]

80. Out with it, Sir. Speak up now. nt

[Zorra]

82. Bullshit. *Report: Pentagon doesn't know where the money is going*.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=5025685&mesg_id=5025685

Manage the damn cookie jar responsibly and deep cuts won't be a problem.

Defense contractors are already filthy rich and don't need to be on welfare.

[wordpix]

86. where did all the billion$ disappear to in Iraq? Afghanistan? And here in the US?

Why don't you follow the money and recoup some of the TRILLIONS LOST?

:argh: :wtf:

[KamaAina]

84. KamaAina: Fighting Three Wars At Once Has Devastated Military

:eyes:

[Gregorian]

87. A trillion here, and a trillion there, and pretty soon we're talking world destruction.

The single biggest carbon emitter. Be gone with it. Find jobs elsewhere. Productive jobs. Not destructive.

[dmosh42]

88. Let's cut back the socialistic military bases!

[Vidar]

91. Maybe if we started the cuts with Panetta's head, they would be more effective.

[red dog 1]

92. How about cutting out all the illegal Cointelpro-type DOD programs?

[defendandprotect]

101. +1000% ---

[clinton4life2011]

93. Typical Panetta!

I'm sure he'll get a seat on the board of Carlyle soon!

[DeSwiss]

94. Devastated? Leon..........

...you say that as if it's a ''bad thing.''





Eisenshower Warned Us
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY">

[avaistheone1]

96. Great graphic.

k&r

[classysassy]

99. Leon is a member of the M.I.C.

why do we the people put up with the warmongers in Washington?

[defendandprotect]

100. BS --- it's Pentagon that's abusing military and soldiers -- end these wars!!!!

And from what I'm seeing of new "terrorist" threats ... ahem ....

now from Masschusettes (!!) I'd say that the OWS movement is already

have a HUGE impact on the undemocratic aspects of our government!!!


War profiteers -- Corporations and capitalists, in general -- and the dishonest

men who do their dirty work!!

[Octafish]

103. Devestate your retirement plans.

Carlyle won't return your calls? Try Trireme Partners. They're swell!

[quakerboy]

104. Easy answer

Stop privatizing the military. We pay more to hire mercenaries to do things for our various military endeavors than we would ever dream of paying our own soldiers. That should free up a significant chunk of budget right there. Stop paying 10x extra to hire "contractors" for security, engineering, supply, etc. Bring it back in house.

Then start taking a look at our contracts for weapons systems and manufacturing. In my ideal world, we would bring that all in house as well. Or darn near. No reason scientists and designers and whatnot cannot work directly for the government, rather than for private companies who pay them maybe half what they charge the govt for their time, and then sell the fruits of their labor for yet more cash from the government, and then sell or trade the results to foreign governments and parties anyway.

Then there are our multiple current wars.

Between those, I suspect we could cut a lot more from this military budget without doing any harm to the military's ability to respond to the countries needs. Without cutting a single soldier from the roster, While also making their lives safer(in at least 3 different ways).

[underpants]

105. Just below this in LBN- Halliburton boosts 3Q profits by 26 pct

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x5029185

[Little Tich]

106. I think the US military is bloated.

It's the biggest in the world and spends a staggering $692,000,000,000 according to http://www.globalfirepower.com/. There is no real use for a military that can take on any conceivable enemy twice over at this point in history.

[Demeter]

107. And Panetta says that like it's a bad thing