Tracking Donald Trump's Promises Kept and Promises Broken

1. 59

   Willowarborposted 4 days ago

   

   replyreport
2. 84

   My Esotericposted 4 days ago

   It is unbelievable to me that the Trumpers on this site don't object to this obviously dangerous result from Trump's edicts. It makes me wonder why you put yourself and all other Americans in jeopardy by supporting this criminal and sexual abuser.
   
   "Several US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention websites and datasets related to HIV, LGBTQ people, youth health behaviors and more have been removed after the agency was directed to comply with executive orders from President Donald Trump."
   
   This is something Putin does in Communist Russia, not in once democratic America.
   
   https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/31/health/c … index.html

   replyreport
3. 84

   My Esotericposted 4 days ago

   Trump's Kim Jong Un-style purge continues.
   
   "Trump DOJ demands list of thousands of FBI agents, others who worked on Jan. 6 and Trump investigations for possible firing"
   
   Since Trump is convicted criminal, it is no surprise he keeps breaking the law by:
   
   1. ILLEGALLY firing 18 Inspectors Generals that would investigate Trump's illegal actions
   
   2. ILLEGALLY firing more than a dozen career federal prosecutors who were involved with investigating Trump's criminal insurrection without just cause
   
   3. Possibly ILLEGAL but-out offer of all 2 million federal employees. It may be illegal because Congress hasn't appropriated the money to pay for it.
   
   4. Potentially ILLEGAL firing of two Democratic appointed members of the EEOC
   
   5. And now Trump is looking to ILLEGALLY fire hundreds of FBI agents for having something to do with investigating his criminal involvement with the Jan 6 insurrections. (and then there is Kash Patal's enemies list).
   
   https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/31/politics … index.html

   replyreport
4. 84

   My Esotericposted 4 days ago

   More hypocrisy from Trump. He whines a lot about social media platforms so-called censoring of dangerous lies and Russian disinformation from the internet, yet he gets upset when a false story of Melanie kissing somebody is published. He flip-flops and now wants to ban such content.
   
   BREAKING: Trump wants to Ban This AI VIDEO showing MELANIA TRUMP making out With Gavin Newsom
   
   Trump insiders told us, "Trump is disgusted by This AI Video and wants it banned from the internet."
   0:09 / 0:13
   8:05 PM · Jan 28, 2025
   ·
   687.6K
   Views

   replyreport
5. 84

   My Esotericposted 4 days ago

   Trump attempts to flood California Farmers
   
   "Trump says he opened California’s water. Local officials say he nearly flooded them."
   
   I am guessing Trump will courts-martial some Army Corps of Engineer officers and enlisted folk for disobeying his orders that would have led to flooding California farms.
   
   It seems this lunatic of a president ordered the Army to release billions of gallons of water into Southern California. "President Donald Trump declared victory on Friday in his long-running water war with California, boasting he sent billions of gallons south — but local officials say they narrowly prevented him from possibly flooding farms."
   
   Californian officials had to rush to to save lives and property from this order from our mentally disturb president.
   
   Trump stupidly said "“Today, 1.6 billion gallons and, in 3 days, it will be 5.2 billion gallons. Everybody should be happy about this long fought Victory! I only wish they listened to me six years ago — There would have been no fire!”
   
   Very Dangerous:
   
   "While releasing water from reservoirs before a big storm, like the one expected to hit Northern California this weekend, is standard flood-control procedure to avoid overflowing dams, Hernandez said the Army Corps’ Thursday plan would have released far more water than needed. He said releasing the water at the capacity the Corps had planned to would have flooded both the Kaweah and Tule rivers, where the Corps’ reservoirs are located.
   
   “Channel capacity is very dangerous,” Hernandez said. “People don’t understand that [with] channel capacity, you’re going to have flood damage down below.”
   
   Trump really needs to be locked up in an institution somewhere to protect America from him.
   
   https://www.politico.com/news/2025/01/3 … r-00201909

   replyreport
6. 90

   IslandBitesposted 4 days ago

   So...
   
   Trump set to impose tariffs on Canada, China and Mexico
   
   The White House said Friday that Trump would impose a 25% tariff on Canadian and Mexican goods, and a 10% tariff on Chinese goods.
   
   Erm... Huh?
   

   replyreport
   1. 86

      tsmogposted 4 days agoin reply to this

      On the news here in San Diego County that borders Mexico interviews with both small and large businesses are preparing to raise their prices.
      
      Trump’s tariffs expected to hike prices for consumers at local businesses by Fox 5 / KUSI News
      https://fox5sandiego.com/news/business/ … usinesses/
      
      San Diego business owners share how new tariffs could impact them and customers by (channel) 7 San Diego
      https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/ … s/3740926/
      
      How new tariffs are impacting local businesses by Fox 5 / KUSI News
      https://fox5sandiego.com/news/local-new … usinesses/

      replyreport
      1. 90

         IslandBitesposted 3 days agoin reply to this

         The Dumbest Trade War in History
         
         President Trump will fire his first tariff salvo on Saturday against those notorious American adversaries . . . Mexico and Canada. They’ll get hit with a 25% border tax, while China, a real adversary, will endure 10%. This reminds us of the old Bernard Lewis joke that it’s risky to be America’s enemy but it can be fatal to be its friend.
         
         Leaving China aside, Mr. Trump’s justification for this economic assault on the neighbors makes no sense. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt says they’ve “enabled illegal drugs to pour into America.” But drugs have flowed into the U.S. for decades, and will continue to do so as long as Americans keep using them. Neither country can stop it.
         
         Drugs may be an excuse since Mr. Trump has made clear he likes tariffs for their own sake. “We don’t need the products that they have,” Mr. Trump said on Thursday. “We have all the oil you need. We have all the trees you need, meaning the lumber.”
         
         Mr. Trump sometimes sounds as if the U.S. shouldn’t import anything at all, that America can be a perfectly closed economy making everything at home. This is called autarky, and it isn’t the world we live in, or one that we should want to live in, as Mr. Trump may soon find out...
         
         Take the U.S. auto industry, which is really a North American industry because supply chains in the three countries are highly integrated. In 2024 Canada supplied almost 13% of U.S. imports of auto parts and Mexico nearly 42%. Industry experts say a vehicle made on the continent goes back and forth across borders a half dozen times or more, as companies source components and add value in the most cost-effective ways.
         
         And everyone benefits. The office of the U.S. Trade Representative says that in 2023 the industry added more than $809 billion to the U.S. economy, or about 11.2% of total U.S. manufacturing output, supporting “9.7 million direct and indirect U.S. jobs.” In 2022 the U.S. exported $75.4 billion in vehicles and parts to Canada and Mexico. That number jumped 14% in 2023 to $86.2 billion, according to the American Automotive Policy Council.
         
         American car makers would be much less competitive without this trade. Regional integration is now an industry-wide manufacturing strategy—also employed in Japan, Korea and Europe—aimed at using a variety of high-skilled and low-cost labor markets to source components, software and assembly.
         
         The result has been that U.S. industrial capacity in autos has grown alongside an increase in imported motor vehicles, engines and parts. From 1995-2019, imports of autos, engines and parts rose 169% while U.S. industrial capacity in autos, engines and parts rose 71%.
         
         As the Cato Institute’s Scott Lincicome puts it, the data show that “as imports go up, U.S. production goes up.” Thousands of good-paying auto jobs in Texas, Ohio, Illinois and Michigan owe their competitiveness to this ecosystem, relying heavily on suppliers in Mexico and Canada.
         
         Tariffs will also cause mayhem in the cross-border trade in farm goods. In fiscal 2024, Mexican food exports made up about 23% of total U.S. agricultural imports while Canada supplied some 20%. Many top U.S. growers have moved to Mexico because limits on legal immigration have made it hard to find workers in the U.S. Mexico now supplies 90% of avocados sold in the U.S. Is Mr. Trump now an avocado nationalist?
         
         Then there’s the prospect of retaliation, which Canada and Mexico have shown they know how to do for maximum political impact. In 2009 the Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats ended a pilot program that allowed Mexican long-haul truckers into the U.S. as stipulated in Nafta. Mexico responded with targeted retaliation on 90 U.S. goods to pressure industries in key Congressional districts.
         
         These included California grapes and wine, Oregon Christmas trees and cherries, jams and jellies from Ohio and North Dakota soy. When Mr. Trump imposed steel and aluminum tariffs in 2018, Mexico got results using the same tactic, putting tariffs on steel, pork products, fresh cheese and bourbon.
         
         Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has promised to respond to U.S. tariffs on a dollar-for-dollar basis. Canada could suffer a larger GDP hit since its economy is so much smaller, but American consumers will feel the bite of higher costs for some goods.
         
         ***
         None of this is supposed to happen under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement that Mr. Trump negotiated and signed in his first term. The U.S. willingness to ignore its treaty obligations, even with friends, won’t make other countries eager to do deals. Maybe Mr. Trump will claim victory and pull back if he wins some token concessions. But if a North American trade war persists, it will qualify as one of the dumbest in history.
         
         https://www.wsj.com/opinion/donald-trum … opin_pos_0

         replyreport
7. 95

   Readmikenowposted 3 days ago

   There are both pros and cons to the tariffs.
   
   What are the potential pros of the Trump Tariffs?
   Protecting American industries
   
   One of the most frequently cited advantages of tariffs is their potential to shield domestic industries from foreign competition. Taxing imports allows American consumers to buy domestically produced goods, potentially preserving jobs in key sectors.
   
   Increasing federal revenue
   
   Tariffs provide an additional revenue stream for the US government. As importers pay duties on foreign goods, the federal treasury benefits from these payments, creating a short-term economic boost.
   
   Encouraging domestic manufacturing
   
   Supporters argue that tariffs incentivize companies to manufacture goods in the United States. By raising the cost of imported goods, businesses may find it more cost-effective to keep operations within national borders, bolstering supply chain resilience and contributing to national security.
   
   potential cons of the Trump Tariffs?
   Higher consumer prices
   
   One of the most immediate impacts of tariffs is a rise in consumer prices. Goods ranging from electronics like laptops and smartphones to everyday groceries may see significant price hikes. Economists have noted that tariffs can reduce the US GDP by as much as 0.64%.
   
   While Trump and his supporters contend that previous tariffs didn't dramatically increase inflation, most experts disagree, asserting that consumers typically bear the brunt of these policies.
   
   Global economic slowdown
   
   The ripple effects of tariffs are not confined to the US. Economists project that China could experience a GDP decline of 0.68%, while the EU might see a drop of 0.11%. These reductions highlight how tariffs can disrupt global trade and hinder economic growth across borders.
   
   Inflation and interest rate concerns
   
   Tariffs may contribute to inflationary pressures by driving up the cost of goods. In response, central banks could raise interest rates, potentially slowing economic growth and increasing borrowing costs for businesses and consumers.
   
   Supply chain disruption
   
   Modern industries rely heavily on global supply chains; tariffs threaten to upend this balance. Higher costs and logistical challenges could disrupt technological, automotive and retail production.

   replyreport
8. 86

   Sharlee01posted 3 days ago

   My personal view has always been a half-full outlook—I’m not the type to jump straight into the downside without debating the positives first. When it comes to Trump’s tariffs, I think there’s a real chance they could work out better for the U.S. than a lot of people predict.
   
   Everyone focuses on the negatives—higher prices, retaliation from other countries—but the reality is, the impact could be minimal or even beneficial in the long run. For one, tariffs could boost domestic manufacturing. If it becomes more expensive to import certain goods, companies might shift production back home, creating jobs and revitalizing industries that have been fading for years. Plus, tariffs give the U.S. leverage in trade negotiations. Countries like China have been taking advantage of unfair deals for decades, and tariffs put pressure on them to offer better terms. If that happens, American businesses gain greater access to foreign markets, which is a win for everyone.
   
   Another key benefit is reducing our reliance on China. We’ve seen how fragile supply chains can be, and forcing companies to diversify could actually strengthen our economic security, especially in critical industries like semiconductors and pharmaceuticals. On top of that, tariffs generate revenue for the U.S. government without raising taxes on Americans—something that often gets overlooked. And if businesses adapt by absorbing some costs or shifting production, the impact on consumer prices might not be as bad as people assume. In some cases, foreign companies might even move operations to the U.S. to avoid tariffs, which would mean more jobs and investment here at home.
   
   Beyond tariffs, Trump’s overall economic plan is built on policies that encourage business growth. His tax cuts and elimination of burdensome regulations create an environment where businesses have more room to expand, and startups have a better shot at succeeding. When companies aren’t suffocated by high taxes and endless red tape, they invest, hire, and grow—driving economic expansion in ways that tariffs alone can’t. So while the media loves to harp on the negatives, I think it’s important to look at the bigger picture. Tariffs, when combined with pro-business policies, could actually strengthen the U.S. economy rather than weaken it.
   
   We now have a president who is actively working to revitalize manufacturing and increase our reliance on what we produce and create. This shift aims to reduce our dependence on other nations. In my view, this is a positive step away from passiveness, decline, and dependency. We’ve been lagging behind due to society’s acceptance of the status quo, willing to become stagnant because of uninventive ideologies.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Willowarborposted 3 days agoin reply to this

      On average, how long does it take to pop up a manufacturing plant of any sort? I'm pretty sure Trump will be dead by that time.

      replyreport
9. 59

   Willowarborposted 2 days ago

   Some migrants arrested in Trump's immigration crackdown have been released back into the U.S....
   
   LOL... Catch and release?  And y'all absolutely railed about this under Biden. 
   
   "arresting more people inside the United States on allegations of immigration violations means they need to be held somewhere. And significant space constraints in Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facilities — and federal court orders forbidding indefinite detention — have forced the agency to release some of those arrested in the roundups rather than hold them until deportation. "
   
   Gosh... trump has to follow immigration law just as Biden did... Go figure!
   
   https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/nation … rcna186360

   replyreport
   1. 83

      peoplepower73posted 2 days agoin reply to this

      No problem, Trump wants to send 30,000 of them to Guantanamo where there are no laws to protect them.  I understand it is not under any U.S. jurisdiction. Even it there was, Trump would just simply remove the laws.
      
      https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-ripped … 30316.html

      replyreport
      1. 89

         wildernessposted 2 days agoin reply to this

         Protect them from what?  The deportation that their illegal entry has resulted in?
         
         Or do you think they will all be turned into sex slaves in Guantanamo?

         replyreport
         1. 83

            peoplepower73posted 47 hours agoin reply to this

            It looks like you already let your imagination run wild with your sex slaves.  Now just imagine the daily treatment of prisoners in a concentration camp with no laws. Welcome to Stalag GITMO.

            replyreport
            1. 95

               Readmikenowposted 47 hours agoin reply to this

               "concentration camp with no laws"
               
               Like you said and can be said about your response, "you already let your imagination run wild"

               replyreport
10. 95

    Readmikenowposted 2 days ago

    It appears the tariffs are working.  It is such a difference to have a president who can actually do the job of being president.
    
    Trump pauses Mexico tariffs for one month after agreement on border troops
    
    President Donald Trump paused for a month new 25% tariffs on goods entering the United States from Mexico.
    Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum agreed to immediately send 10,000 soldiers to her country's border to prevent the trafficking of fentanyl and other drugs.
    The announcement came two days after Trump slapped 25% tariffs on goods from Mexico and Canada, as well as a 10% tariff on goods imported from China.
    Trump said there will be Mexican officials, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Treasury Scott Bessent, and Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick will negotiate on tariffs.
    
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/t … &ei=20

    replyreport
    1. 59

       Willowarborposted 2 days agoin reply to this

       Interesting, when Obrador in 2021,  increased military presence along the U.S.-Mexico border as part of broader efforts to curb drug trafficking and organized crime....was that effort consequential? 
       
       "In 2021, President Andrés Manuel López Obrador sent approximately 15,000 Mexican National Guard troops to various areas along the U.S.-Mexico border to help combat drug trafficking and organized crime."

       replyreport
11. 82

    GA Andersonposted 47 hours ago

    Following on the heels of all the 'tariffs' announcements, stumbling across this brought a chuckle.
    
    
    
    GA

    replyreport
    1. 86

       Sharlee01posted 47 hours agoin reply to this

       Good one!   Maybe it's all that Diet Coke

       replyreport
    2. 68

       Ken Burgessposted 43 hours agoin reply to this

       That's two in one day

       replyreport
       1. 82

          GA Andersonposted 42 hours agoin reply to this

          Yeah, my optimism is wanting to celebrate, but I'm waiting for 'the rest of the story' before I do.
          
          I'm happy with the way things are going, but . . . it's too early to be sure that the facts support the claims. If they do, especially in this USAID issue, then we're certainly getting the disruption that we all said we wanted.
          
          GA

          replyreport
          1. 59

             Willowarborposted 29 hours agoin reply to this

             Well now we have the agency in question being handed over to Little Marco to helm ...
             
             He made the following statement:
             
             “Current foreign assistance processes are severely inefficient and do not substantially benefit the American people. USAID has numerous conflicting, overlapping, and duplicative functions that it shares with the Department of State. Additionally, USAID's systems and processes are not well synthesized, integrated, or coordinated, and often result in discord in the foreign policy and foreign relations of the United States. This undermines the President's ability to carry out foreign relations,” Rubio wrote.
             
             Boy oh boy, his statement is sure a long, long way from musk's claims... Is it inefficiency, the sinister "duplicative functions" or is it fraud?
             
             I'm betting on inefficiency (as is with most agencies). I'm also betting that Little Marco will be the first to feel Trump's ax...

             replyreport
             1. 86

                tsmogposted 29 hours agoin reply to this

                With jest, or halfway of that, Rubio used some big words. In general I distrust people using them there big words.

                replyreport
                1. 68

                   Ken Burgessposted 28 hours agoin reply to this

                   I listened to him give his explanation in this interview:
                   
                   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5RJwmw1ihE
                   
                   Its nice listening to someone who can articulate the particulars, even if they are using big words.
                   
                   I like listening to Vance as well, as he can discuss the details with similar command and proper use of big words.
                   
                   To be fair, I was always a fan of that, being a capable orator is a good quality, Kennedy had it, he set an example few can match or emulate.

                   replyreport
                   1. 86

                      Sharlee01posted 28 hours agoin reply to this

                      Great point! Both would make fantastic presidents, wouldn’t they? They’re all about smaller government, common sense, and sharp intellect—quick, intelligent, and well-spoken. Plus, they come from Congress and know all about how it works. And, of course, both are attorneys, which couldn’t hurt. Oh, and I’ll throw in one quality that’s always at the top of liberals’ list when picking a president—good hair! LOL.   They bit-h when one is ill-spoken,  and now when one is using "Big words" ---- go figure. Just need to point out the mindset of right verses left.

                      replyreport
                   2. 86

                      tsmogposted 28 hours agoin reply to this

                      Okay . . . whoosh?

                      replyreport
                2. 82

                   GA Andersonposted 28 hours agoin reply to this

                   Yep, there's a reason they use a 50¢ word when a 10¢ one will do.
                   
                   GA

                   replyreport
                   1. 86

                      tsmogposted 28 hours agoin reply to this

                      Certainly, you jest? There is no winking eye with your parting signature. Should I be wary?

                      replyreport
                      1. 82

                         GA Andersonposted 26 hours agoin reply to this

                         No jest, I was agreeing with you. The 50¢ vs 10¢ analogy came from my grandfather. He too was suspicious of folks who spent more on the message vehicle than on the message itself.
                         
                         GA

                         replyreport
                         1. 86

                            tsmogposted 25 hours agoin reply to this

                            Very cool!!
                            
                            With a smile :-) or A choice. I use the first one most of the time.

                            replyreport
                3. 83

                   peoplepower73posted 27 hours agoin reply to this

                   From where I come from, that is called "Weasel Wording."

                   replyreport
             2. 82

                GA Andersonposted 28 hours agoin reply to this

                "Little Marco" That's cute.
                
                I haven't seen the answers to your questions, yet. But I am wondering about the justifications for some of the leaked examples, like; the Lutheran Refugees Foundation NGO that received hundreds of millions, or the $50,000 for an LGBT play in Serbia (? probably a mash-up of headlines).
                
                GA

                replyreport
                1. 59

                   Willowarborposted 28 hours agoin reply to this

                   Well he was nicknamed Little Marco by Trump, so I'm keeping it. 
                   
                   My problem is that a lot of very serious accusations are being made by Musk  with absolutely no accompanying factual support.  The evidence should immediately follow the statement.   For me, the idea is simply to make the statement without foundation and hope that the majority of the public forgets there was never any support for the statement...

                   replyreport
12. 86

    tsmogposted 26 hours ago

    Just a friendly FYI . . .
    
    USAID! We all know about it and have formed our views. Done deal. Just to add to the mix from Tangle rated dead center - Center by allsides arrives there take on the topic. It offers from the right, from the left, and 'My Take' written by the managing editor, Ari Weitzman.
    
    The future of USAID. by Tangle (Feb 4, 2025 . . . an 18 min read)
    Plus, can you separate a political position from a moral one?
    https://www.readtangle.com/the-future-o … newsletter
    
    What the left is saying
    ** The left criticizes the aid suspension, arguing the U.S. spends relatively little on aid but that it provides critical services.
    ** Some say any attempt to shut down USAID could spark a constitutional crisis.
    ** Others suggest that U.S. foreign aid does not do what it promises.
    
    What the right is saying
    ** The right mostly supports the changes to USAID, arguing the agency has strayed too far from its mission.
    ** Some note that Musk’s influence in the government is starting to have wide-reaching consequences.
    ** Others say Musk is right to scrutinize where USAID’s funding has gone.
    
    My Take by Ari Weitzman
    ** The changes at USAID reflect Trump’s belief that foreign aid should be reciprocal.
    ** The administration is right to scrutinize whether USAID’s funding mechanisms are efficient or proper.
    ** However, the execution of this effort has been sloppy and raises valid legal concerns.

    replyreport
    1. 82

       GA Andersonposted 25 hours agoin reply to this

       Ari's take is how I see it too. But . . .
       
       I also agree with the primary Republican thought that USAID has strayed from its mission*, except that I'm not sure exactly what its mission is. It's not hard to believe some of the stories about CIA/USAID connections.
       
       GA

       replyreport
       1. 86

          tsmogposted 25 hours agoin reply to this

          I am inclined to agree with you including your last paragraph, however I only skimmed the article. Have an appointment this afternoon, so hard to concentrate. Oh well!
          
          I just now did a cursory peek at USAID & CIA connection as a browser search. It popped up a good amount of information including a 5 page letter to Kissinger in '72 about funds being diverted to paramilitary in Laos. There were quite a few articles that lead me to 'accept' that there is a connection, yet without reading them I can't put it in the 'believe' category.

          replyreport
          1. 82

             GA Andersonposted 22 hours agoin reply to this

             That's about where I'm at — accepting that there appears to be a real connection.
             
             GA

             replyreport
             1. 68

                Ken Burgessposted 17 hours agoin reply to this

                Pentagon Fails 7th Audit in a Row but Hopes To Pass by 2028
                https://reason.com/2024/11/18/pentagon- … s-by-2028/
                
                There are bigger fish to fry in the Swamp. Its a quick read.

                replyreport
                1. 82

                   GA Andersonposted 17 hours agoin reply to this

                   There probably are bigger fish, but, even beyond the dollar-value achievements, the symbolic value of the USAID discoveries is worth more. It shows the clearly set tone and direction of the administration.
                   
                   GA

                   replyreport
                   1. 68

                      Ken Burgessposted 4 hours agoin reply to this

                      What I read in the other thread regarding them trying to clean out the CIA...
                      Now that is a strong indicator of real change...
                      
                      USAID could be little more than press release feel good BS... if that was the extent of the needed dismantling of a grossly oversized government that has been making life worse for American and foreign citizens with its corruption combined with ideological and radical nonsense like we saw it pushing down our throats the last 4 years.
                      
                      So long as it is just the beginning, we are on track.

                      replyreport
13. 86

    Sharlee01posted 25 hours ago

    Foreign aid is a mess, with billions wasted due to corruption and lack of oversight, especially through USAID. From a $136M failure in Afghanistan to USAID’s botched $500M housing project in Haiti (resulting in just six homes), taxpayer money is often mismanaged. Worse, aid has been used for covert CIA operations, like the failed “ZunZuneo” project in Cuba. If Rubio oversaw foreign aid through the State Department, there’d be more accountability, tying funds to U.S. interests rather than handing out blank checks. It’s time for aid to be strategic, not a tool for corruption and waste.

    replyreport