Donald Trump

Donald Trump's Plan to Preserve Social Security by Eliminating Waste, Fraud, and Abuse Doesn't Even Come Close to Adding Up

Trump wants to cover a $150 billion gap with $3 billion in savings.


Donald Trump has staked out a position as the GOP primary's most ardent defender of Social Security. He has promised not to change the benefit in any way, and insisted that he will both defend the program, which is on track to insolvency, from any cuts or changes and reduce annual deficits and the national debt at the same time.

Trump repeated this pledge at last night's GOP debate, saying that he "will do everything within my power not to touch Social Security, to leave it the way it is; to make this country rich again; to bring back our jobs; to get rid of deficits; to get rid of waste, fraud and abuse, which is rampant in this country, rampant, totally rampant."

As is so often the case when Trump talks policy, his response makes clear that he has no idea what he's talking about.

Let's start with "waste, fraud, and abuse." Eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse is one of Trump's favorite talking point solutions for covering budget gaps. It's not a bad idea, exactly, but getting rid of all improper payments in the Social Security system—assuming this could even be done, which is exceedingly unlikely if you otherwise leave Social Security in its current form—would only net about $3 billion in savings annually.

That might sound like a lot, but relative to the overall size of the program, it's not. As the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) points out, that only represents about 0.4 percent of the program's $900 billion a year in benefit payments. To put Social Security on the track to solvency, you'd need to come up with savings on the order of $150 billion every year.

To her credit, debate moderator Dana Bash followed up with Trump by pointing this out. Trump's response was to claim that he's not just talking about waste, fraud, and abuse in Social Security. And then he changed the subject to suggest—well, it's not clearly exactly what, but something to do with cutting back on foreign military involvement.

Because they don't cover most of the subjects. We're the policemen of the world. We take care of the entire world. We're going to have a stronger military, much stronger. Our military is depleted. But we take care of Germany, we take care of Saudi Arabia, we take care of Japan, we take care of South Korea. We take—every time this maniac from North Korea does anything, we immediately send our ships. We get virtually nothing.

We have 28,000 soldiers on the line, on the border between North and South Korea. We have so many places. Saudi Arabia was making a billion dollars a day, and we were getting virtually nothing to protect them. We are going to be in a different world. We're going to negotiate real deals now, and we're going to bring the wealth back to our country. We owe $19 trillion. We're going to bring wealth back to our country.

The most generous reading here is that Trump wants to save money by reducing the U.S. global military presence. And you could save money—perhaps a lot—by cutting back on the Defense Department's global footprint through base closures and troop reductions.

But it's hard to square this with Trump's repeated declarations on the campaign trail that he would make a big effort to increase America's military strength and power.

"I want to build up the military so nobody messes with us," he said last year, a promise he's repeated in some variation many times since. "I would bring it back to where it was at the height because we're in such trouble." That doesn't sound like a plan for savings. It sounds like a plan for a significant increase in military spending. And Trump's idea that he would do this and create savings at the same time by making better "deals"—a word he waves around like an all-purpose magic wand for political solutions—is just nonsense hand-waving.

Still, let's assume for a moment that Trump somehow or another finds a way to fund Social Security using military savings. That still leaves the problem of national debt, which Trump says he would reduce. The evidence of his actual plans strongly suggests otherwise.

As Trump says himself, in a figure he manages not to totally mangle, national debt stands around $19 trillion right now. And the rest of Trump's plans—in particular his proposed tax cuts—would increase national debt by anywhere from $12 to $15 trillion, according to a CRFB estimate.

Trump has no plan whatsoever to offset this massive increase in the debt. Indeed, no such plan would be remotely plausible, politically or economically. As CRFB president Maya MacGuineas said in a statement last night, "no reasonable amount of spending cuts or economic growth could cover" the overall cost of his plans.

None of this appears to matter to Trump, though. He isn't just sloppy with some details. He doesn't have the slightest clue what he's talking about.

In defending his refusal to touch Social Security last night, he also said he wanted to do things "that will bring back GDP. I mean, as an example, GDP was zero essentially for the last two quarters." GDP was not zero for the last two quarters. That's not how GDP—which stands for Gross Domestic Product and is a measure of a country's total economic output—works. U.S. GDP is close to $18 trillion. Maybe he meant GDP growth, but even if so, he was still wrong. GDP grew at 1.9 percent in the fourth quarter of last year, and 2.1 percent in the quarter before that.

Trump is just not serious about any of this. At a previous GOP debate, he suggested that he would cut $300 billion in spending from a $78 billion program. His health care plan is mostly a demonstration of how little he or anyone associated with his campaign understands, or even cares to understand, health care policy.

Trump's plans when it comes to debt and deficits, to taxes and entitlements, to health care and trade, are total fantasy, driven by disregard for even the most basic understanding of policy detail. Every time he insists he has some sort of policy or plan, what he ends up making clear that he has no such thing.

NEXT: Local News: Plush Toy Signals Pedophiles, Turns Little Girls into Sex-Trafficking Victims

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. He’ll just send the Social Security Trust Fund into Chapter 9 bankruptcy after declaring it its own municipality via executive order.

    1. That sounds like the best possible outcome. Distribute the money to the creditors (taxpayers) equally and dissolve the whole fucking pyramid scheme.

      1. He’ll likely just reorganize it such that it only owns non-voting shares in the Trump Organization.

        1. I’d take two shares in the Trump organization over the efficiently running machine that is the US government.

      2. Everyone’s share would be zero, because there’s no actual money in the “trust fund.” It’s just IOUs.

    2. After I been earnin $8768 this-past/five weeks and-a little over, $10k lass-month. it’s realy my favourite work I have ever had. I actually started 7-months ago and pretty much straight away was earning at least $87… p/h. I follow
      this website,

  2. Wake me when any presidential candidate with a workable plan for fixing anything looks like he or she could get elected.

    1. Go back to sleep. At least for the next 8 years.

    2. We shall call him “Rumplestiltzkin.” (sic?)


      2. “Trumplestiltzkin.”

  3. But it’s hard to square this with Trump’s repeated declarations on the campaign trail that he would make a big effort to increase America’s military strength and power.

    Oh you. Trying to find consistent “policy” proposals in Trump’s meandering speeches.

    1. True. Add Sanders or Clinton to that too and it’s just as true. Unless you think saying “middle class” and “Wall Street speculation” every two sentences is coherent.

    2. The full comment by Trump:

      “I’m gonna build a military that’s gonna be much stronger than it is right now,” the real- estate-mogul-turned-tautological-demagogue said on Meet the Press. “It’s gonna be so strong, nobody’s gonna mess with us. But you know what? We can do it for a lot less.”

      Trump does want to eliminate waste and fraud in government programs. Candidates always say that but most never follow through, especially because they have to get Congress to go along.…..scare-you/

    3. It sounds like Trump wants to make countries like Germany and South Korea pay for the U.S. troops stationed there. So we would continue to exert power in those places, but wouldn’t have to pay for it. Good luck with that. He seems to like the idea of making others pay for the things he wants to do anyway.

  4. The normal course of history is to get a big war when the current hegemon is displaced.

    I have no idea why Reason is so avid for that.

    1. In fairness, the USSR’s collapse was relatively peaceful (probably because it for all purposes surrendered to the West).

      I understand what you’re saying, though. There is a good chance of a very large war as an up and coming power challenges the US somewhere (South China Sea, I’m looking at you!).

      Even if there isn’t a war, the inevitable United States’ withdrawal from the world stage will likely not be orderly and could even be a catastrophic collapse that happens in the blink of an eye historically speaking. And there is nothing remotely similar to US/NATO to keep order after the withdrawal/collapse occurs.

      1. I think this is right. The decline of American power won’t be like the decline of the British Empire, because this time there is no super power to fill the vacuum. It will likely be more like the collapse of the oman Empire, with the resulting chaos and conflict as regional wars for dominance break out.

        1. “oman” = “Roman”

        2. Collapsing empires *create* the new super powers. The Romans rose only because the Greeks fell. The fall of the Roman Empire was in fact not particularly violent, and was replaced very quickly by the original Khalifa.

          The fall was violent in the West, where the Empire was never well established in the first place, but our modern sense that the Western Empire was the important part is colored by Gibbon’s distortions writing as an Englishman about an Empire that happened to include Britain, but that was actually centered around Greece.

          If the US disappeared today, the void would be filled most likely by China, India, and Iran. Hell, North America may come to be split between a sovereign Texas and a sovereign California.

          1. was actually centered around Greece.

            In the late empire, around Constantinople.

            1. This is exactly the Gibbon-induced distortion.

              The Empire was “centered” around Rome for about 300 years, but Rome only came into power in Italy as the Greeks receded, and their power spread east simultaneously with, and because of, decline of Greek power in those areas.

              Caesar’s western conquests put Rome was in the geographic center, but the main population centers were always in the east, and rule from Rome was already proving awkward by the 2nd century. This is why, actually, many were annoyed by Caesar’s conquests and saw them as personal aggrandizement that was in no way in the interests of Rome itself.

              The Empire was centered around Constantinople, however, for over 1000 years. Only in the Western European perspective on Roman history is the first 300 years the main part and the next 1000 the “late” part.

              1. “put Rome in the geographic center”

        3. I used to think there’s a decent chance of supra-national entities filling the void after the United States in an orderly fashion. But the EU is showing extreme strains, the African Union is too young and Latin America can’t even begin to get its shit together.

          1. Because they don’t yet have to. The super power has to be pretty far along in decline for the cost-benefit of putting your resources into a rival power starts to make sense.

            1. “for” = “before”

    2. Says the fool who is voting for trump. I mean LULZ LOL.

      1. You think elections make a difference at this stage?

  5. Hot damn, another anti-Trump article. How cosmo is that?

    1. Don’t you just love the endless lectures about fiscal rectitude from the guy who worships the $8.5 trillion man and goes hysterical any time one of those fake government shutdowns is looming?

      1. Reason needs to move out of DC ASAP. This is noxious

      2. Forget about it Jake, it’s Reason.

  6. Did anyone catch the part of the debate where the moderator i forget her name brought up a con of privatizing social security because the risk is volatility of the market?

    Anyway i don’t really understand that point as it isn’t like my current contributions are going into a savings account for later. They are going to current beneficiaries and i am banking on the folks down the road paying into it in order to receive benefits. That to me seems more risky especially given how stupid politicians are. I am hoping people awhile from now will still be cool with paying. It is a bit like a ponzi scheme

    1. If it’s privatized, then you would have your own account.

      But you already knew that, didn’t you Tulpa?

      1. Yes i know if it is privatized i control my own account. The moderator made this sound like a bad thing due to market volatility. I think it is more volatile to not control my own account and bank on politicians. The arguments against privatization don’t hold for me.

        Do you have a crush on me? Creepy

      2. nikki gets it

    2. Oh my god Tulpa shut the fuck up you fucking annoying ass pigshit eating needle dick motherfucker, por favor. There is still too much Jew Coke left in the world for you to be wasting precious time on the board.

      1. Good comment…would read again

        1. Passover’s coming!

          1. Ok cool.

      2. Do you have an issue with what i wrote? That i would like to privatize social security and control my own account?

        Or do you just like to indulge yourself with ad hominems for what reason i am not sure.

        1. I like to indulge myself to you being pegged by a nice circumcised bottle of the finest kosher Coke shekels can buy.

          1. Um. You seem like an angry individual. Would recommend a shrink

    3. You might as well just say ‘get rid of social security entirely’ if you’re in favor of privatizing social security. There’s no point in privatizing it in the sense that people would still be required to put an amount greater than zero into it.

      At that point, you’re just saying ‘let people open their own bank accounts and put whatever they want into that account’ which is basically what should have happened in the first place. If you open your mouth and say ‘privatize’ you should probably just be slapped since you apparently can’t fathom individual choice to save or not.

      Unless, of course, all of the above was your point. In which case, just say what you mean.

      1. Yes get rid of it is what i am saying. Sorry that wasn’t clear.

        1. When a person says a function of the government should be ‘privatized’ it means the thing should continue to exist, only with more regulations and in the private sector. At least that’s been the case at least 9 out of 10 times, and in this particular instance would likely mean that private citizens would be required by law to maintain a bank account that represents ‘X’ percent of their yearly income at a particular subset of politically connected banks. In other words, a giant hand job to the financial sector.

          At least, that’s my opinion. That seems like a lot of trouble as opposed to just ‘put money in a bank of your choice, or mattress, or whatever if you want’.

          1. yea my interpretation of privatization is you do what you want no strings attached. you bring up a valid point that it can mean something else.

            for me if amtrak is privatized that means the owning company can do what they want including full shutdown of all lines. id imagine some would be closed

      2. Gladly but we’ve demonstrated that we won’t let ppl suffer the consequence of poor choices. Libertarian Moment Nick sure likes his welfare state (and just for Hugh, anyone who starts off saying we have to take care of the needy and thinks welfare should be a cash benefit supports it). So the least bad compromise is an automatic savings plan that is still ultimately owned by the individual, i.e. privitization.

        1. see my preference would be 1 being most favored

          1. keep the 12 pct and do what you want
          2. privatize like byodb describes above
          3. current ss

          i think to get to 1 from 3, need to stop at 2.

          with the aca we are unfortunately going from 1 to 2 which is private insurance is mandated on way to 3 by feeling the bern…hopefully not

      3. USA: unlimited savings accounts. Save as much as you want, and there’s no tax on the gains. No rules on when you have to take it out or leave it in until. You know, like before the income tax was passed.

        1. Crazy talk!

          How can you be free of the government experts aren’t involved????

  7. That doesn’t sound like a plan for savings. It sounds like a plan for a significant increase in military spending.

    But it will pay for itself when we take their oil.

    1. Paul Wolfowitz is advising Trump? I had no idea.

      1. Well, he still won’t reveal any of his advisors, but it’s a distinct possibility.

        1. They’ll be the smartest people, the best people! We’ll be winning so much you’ll get bored with winning!

        2. So, his Middle East policy is borrowed off of a trailer trash t-shirt slogan.

          1. I thought that was where he got all his policies.

            1. Next up: Trump calls for a moratorium on jogging because These Colors Don’t Run!

    2. My take from it was that he was implying that we would be either sending those countries a bill for security services OR withdrawing from providing them security and then implying he would use the revenue from those bills to offset other areas of spending

      1. That’s how I read it too. I don’t think it’d *happen*, but I think that’s what he was implying.

    3. He wants to burn off the oil so they can’t sell it.

  8. Maybe he meant GDP growth, but even if so, he was still wrong. GDP grew at 1.9 percent in the fourth quarter of last year, and 2.1 percent in the quarter before that.

    If you’re angry enough about NAFTA, it feels like it was zero.

    Also, if you have no fucking idea what GDP means.

    1. I keep confusing it with GNP.

    2. Meh. The guy is a Wharton graduate. I’m pretty sure he knows what GDP is. He also knows his followers have no fucking clue about what GDP is. They know its got something to do with the economy and they hear people talk about growth numbers.


    3. And you do…lol

  9. To be fair, you CAN increase the size and power of the military by cutting back on interfering in foreign lands. Each bomb you don’t drop is one more bomb your military has at its disposal.

    And holy shit, the first politician in a major party in recent memory who is even talking about withdrawing troops from Japan, Germany, and Korea!!

    1. Hopefully he would be consistent with that. Given his prior statements, he could just as likely (if not more so) jump to another idea that involved greatly expanding military activity.

    2. You forgot Ron Paul already? He was a 12 term Republican Congressman and 2-time Republican presidential candidate.

  10. “The most generous reading here is that Trump wants to save money by reducing the U.S. global military presence. ”

    In fairness, I read his statement to mean that he intended to work out arrangements where Germany, Saudi Arabia, Japan, and South Korea would start paying us for their military protection. Kinda suggests that he has no idea why we have military in those locations.

    But… why be fair. He’s a fucking cartoon sideshow. The success of his campaign so far just tells me that We The People have no more fucks to give.

    1. Germany, Saudi Arabia, Japan, and South Korea would start paying us for their military protection.

      Seriously, this is not even Roman-level imperialism. Fucking Delian League 2500 years ago knew this – if you want to be in military alliance, provide troops or provide money.

      1. They do provide land (bases) and money. Maybe not enough. But still.

        The anti-war types are mostly ignorant of how the machine operates.

        If you ant to reduce wars – it would be wise to study the matter.

      2. As someone else pointed out (really, I need to pay more attention to handles), we aren’t there to help them. We are there to keep them on a leash.

    2. Well those countries already pay us for military protection, so if that’s what he’s saying, it’s just further proof of his ignorance. It’s not the full cost, but it’s not chump change either, and unless we cut those troops from the force entirely, we’d still be paying their salaries, benefits, training housing etc in the US. South Korea pays over $800M a year. Japan pays something like $4B a year.

  11. I thought that we all ageed that starting with Millennials we would go with a Logan’s Run system.

  12. So we had the trillion dollar Bush bank kickback in 2008 followed by the trillion dollar Obama public sector union kickback in 2009. Didn’t the the trillion dollar “emergancy” expenditures somehow get added into the baseline budget? How about we roll that back for starters.

    1. Basically entitlements grew to fill the gap. Good thing Reason devotes so little effort on the topic. Maybe that is an upside to der Trump: an actial continued focus on what’s bankrupting us.

  13. Let’s be honest here. No one who is still supporting Donald Trump gives a shit about numbers adding up.

    1. “still supporting…”

      You make it seem like he’s down to hardcore dead-enders… not a man who steamrolled through the two biggest contests held three days ago and looks like he could wrap this thing up early next week.

      1. The delegate gap was basically a wash from sat. To tues. That’s steamrolling?

  14. Reason has been bitching and moaning for decades about the troops in Germany, Japan, and SoKo. Now, of course, it’s something to be mocked.

    And of course he meant GDP growth. Reason has also been talking about stagnation for the last few years, but nevermind that, there’s Trump mockery to be had…whatever happened to charitable interpretations?

    And, of course, again, we have Suderman, a useful idiot for the establishment, complaining there’s no grand plan.

    Trump has turned everyone stupid.

  15. As is so often the case when Trump talks policy, his response makes clear that he has no idea what he’s talking about.

    Seems like every post by Reason has this comment. But Trump does know what he’s talking about, but he wants to get elected, and no candidate can be specific about who they want to cut off from the government’s tit and have a chance to get elected. He’s not different than all the other candidates in that regard.

    1. The only thing trump is interested in is how to get the taxpayers to pay for his next gold plated toilet. The man is cunning not intelligent. A con.

      1. You obviously didn’t hear what he said. So why are you shooting off your mouth?

  16. He didn’t say he was going to cover the gap with savings – what he actually said was that he would not reduce benefits.

  17. Aside from this writer misrepresenting Trump’s statements, we might ask where the magic number of $3 billion came from?

    1. Social Security disability fraud is way over 3 billion. Some counties have 50 percent of the population on disability. A lawyer in Kentucky was sued by the Feds for having 4 doctors rubber stamp all his applications. The Feds froze all payments pending the case outcome, but the freeze was overturned because it was too large a portion of the local economy. I believe Reason covered the story.

  18. Obviously, we’re just not “great” enough to understand.

  19. Suderman is just stupid. He is citing obvious misspeaks from Trump
    off the top of his head as if they are Gospel. Suderman is engaged in
    a con job, making claims about both savings (that are magic numbers) and
    claims that Soc Sec can’t be funded without cuts, which no politican
    is going to do. Trump never came close to saying that the shortfall
    would be closed by efficiencies alone, only that benefits will not be cut, which
    is the only politically viable position to take.and furthermore, Suderman hasn’t
    a clue as to what those savings might be, although he claims $3 billion. Nobody
    knows. Suderman seems to have no purpose here but to slander
    Trump. It would be interesting to see what Suderman has said in the past
    about Trump and whether he has misrepresented him on other topics.
    When a writer starts misrepresenting his subject , I disregard anything he says.

    1. Trump also seemed to imply that he wouldn’t raise taxes to cover the SS shortfall either. When pressed on the matter, he reverted to talking about the whole federal budget, not the SS budget.

  20. The protesters are just pissed off about the hft. For almost ten years they have been legally ripping off the public. Because they pay the exchanges millions of dollars per year, they are the only ones who get to quote in four decimal places. Me and you can only go to two. This means EVERY order u send via ANY broker is front run by hft. They say they provide liquidity, but when the shit hits the fan they dissapear. This is why in 2008 an actual trade for AGN alllergan pharmecuticals when off at a penny. The hft’s are more gangster than politicians legit.

  21. addendom: They have stolen billions of dollars from the American people

  22. also big banks are trully clueless, they dont care at all about retail

  23. primary dealers, i think theres like 23, only care about the fed and what it does. Its the bread and butter. The part of the bank no one ever sees including employees.

  24. *that is fed primary dealers

  25. primary brokers are an exclusive club. Prob have to pay alot to get into it. I dont know how they get the status. I dont think anyone does. But the fed lends them money at zero two buy thier bonds. Thats how the fed creates money.

  26. so the banks borrow for free at 0% and then lend to their customers at between .01 an 25%. Who knows why they get to be primary dealers? No one knows why. Not even Presidents. Primary dealers are like area 51.

  27. just google primary dealers list

  28. so the question is. Why does the fed have to borrow from bank to create money to give to the fed. Why can the fed just print money and give it to the treasury? The answer is, if the treasurey just told the fed to print it money, no one would get interest. Then there would be only the inflation tax and no interest tax.

  29. Never mind. I got it wrong. The Fed is the one who has to borrow. The Treasurey can just print. The treasury is the one who handles the governtment purse. IE taxes and revnues. So the treasury (the US tax payer) needs to raise money every year to “run” the government. The house of representatives more specifically, the speaker of the house and the chairman of the house ways and means commitee, choose what the budget will be. These are the two most bribable people in Washington.

    They go to jail alot. Delayl, Hastert, Livingson, rostankoswki, etc. ad infinitum.

    footnote: Delay was eventually aquitted

  30. So we’ve established that Nuchky Thomson basically controlls the whole budget of the entire US government.

  31. Dont give up hope the chairman of the house ways and means commitee may be like frank underwood.

  32. remember that fat pig Denny Hastert? Republican speaker of the house who litterally pulled a nucky thomson. He bought up land in Illinois then made sure a federal highway got eminent domain through the land he had just bought.

  33. Remember there is a 25% to 30% cut in SS baked into the reform done back in Reagan years. In 2033 or so when the trust fund (ha lock box) is depleted then payment will be a bout 70% of current calculations. Also remember that 65 years old is only for those born before 1957. After that date the earliest age increase from current 60 and 1/2 to to 63.

  34. I’ve got to say, I’m disappointed in Reason’s apparent obsession with presidential politics.

    We don’t need eleven articles per week insisting what a dreadful president Trump will be. Leave that to CNN and the other Democrats in thr media. It’s been the same with Obama, the entire last eight years. Just bitch, bitch, bitch, bitch, bitch.

    How about we use those libertarian brains of ours and spend a little time on something else.

  35. After I been earnin $8768 this-past/five weeks and-a little over, $10k lass-month. it’s realy my favourite work I have ever had. I actually started 7-months ago and pretty much straight away was earning at least $87… p/h. I follow
    this website,

  36. Libertarians claiming that only .4% of a government program is waste fraud and abuse? I won’t insult your intelligence by suggesting that you really believe what you just wrote.

  37. RE: Donald Trump’s Plan to Preserve Social Security by Eliminating Waste, Fraud, and Abuse Doesn’t Even Come Close to Adding Up

    Here’s an idea.
    Buy everyone out.
    Everyone who is eligible to get SS will get $1.5 tax free one time, but they will get no more payments.

  38. Considering all the Trump supporters fed up with lying RINOs (who promise free markets, limited government, less spending and more freedom, then vote against it) what makes them think Trump isn’t doing the same thing?

    His history of trying to buy government favors to get richer (but not very successfully, though his dad was quite successful at it), his history of boastful claims of his greatness, and his poor business record, doesn’t suggest he will be successful as president. His biggest success is getting a huge inheritance.

    He’d be even richer if he just invested his inheritance in stock index funds, and as CEO of a hotel/casino corporation he was the worst (though he pocketed millions while investors in his corporation lost their shirts).

    I wish I could post the links to show it. ( 3/4/2016 on his casino/hotel business, and on an article showing he’d be richer by investing his inheritance in the stock market.

    Sometimes I think getting Hillary elected so he can buy favors from her, is his Plan B. He will make America Great – for him.

  39. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..


Please to post comments

Comments are closed.