Jump to content

Yingluck plans to make her own closing statement


webfact

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Grubster said:

All your points in your last post, all the farmers were paid until after the coup, the suicides escalated a lot after the coup, The new PM has only made small cash payments to farmers, nothing to do with the rice scheme.

Not all farmers were not paid for the rice pt took from them before the coup. 

 

Suicides occurred because of this failure under pt's mismanagement of their poorly conceived rice scheme. 

 

I will double check, but as far as I recall (and I was here) the outstanding debts owed to farmers were paid after the coup. 

 

Edit: double check findings 

 

http://www.asiaone.com/asia/thai-rice-farmers-thank-coup-government-payments?amp

 

 

http://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/thailand-coup-military-makes-paying-rice-farmers-a-priority

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/business-27583369/thailand-military-leaders-to-pay-rice-farmers

 

 

So, no. I'm not wrong...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 180
  • Created
  • Last Reply

If personal money is used to pay to farmers under this irresponsible rice scheme then its ok but in fact it's taxpayer money. How come taxpayer money was spent like that. It is a complete idiocy. How come mortgage price is so much higher than market price. In fact this moronic scheme should have been nipped in the bud. Why it had been allowed to create huge damage to the country budget.


Sent from my VIE-L29 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/7/2017 at 3:53 PM, Bluespunk said:

It was stupid. 

 

Even I saw why it wouldn't work from the get go. 

I doubt it  was  ever intended  to "work". It  seems  overlooked  that the  rice  store  stock  was in the  majority   so old and  deteriorated. What  about  the   new  season  rice?  That  went sideways  on the   bs  govt to  govt.  scam. Store  stock  bolstered  by  adding  cheap  old  rice  from  anywhere possible. Not  negligence.  Fraud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/9/2017 at 0:43 AM, Bluespunk said:

Suicides occurred because of this failure under pt's mismanagement of their poorly conceived rice scheme. 

At the risk of appearing callous, we don't really know that. Every year, sadly some farmers, housewives, garbage collectors, soldiers and politicians (and so on) kill themselves. We may have the proximate reasons (rice money, relationship breakdowns, depression etc). But unless we have comparative year by year figures that show a spike in suicides in a particular year (which I haven't seen for farmers) we can't even begin to make the sort of correlations and causations between the rice scheme and farmer suicides which have been made. Recklessly in my view. I'd be interested if someone has this sort of data.I haven't seen it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/7/2017 at 1:43 PM, Eric Loh said:

Let me ask you.

 

Is attempt to control price a crime? If so, OPEC and other cartels will be in serious trouble. 

 

So you feel that the she was held responsible because of rampant corruption and incompetence. Then I like to ask you whether the police chief should be charge for malfeasance because of rampant corruption in his force and his incompetence.

 

If you said it wasn't a subsidy, do tell me what should this be called as all the information on public domain called the scheme a subsidy program. 

Have you not followed what was going on. It was never intended to be a subsidy but was sold to the public as a self financing scheme. Please read up on the history of the rice scheme then you will be better placed to make an inteligent comment

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/7/2017 at 3:52 PM, Bluespunk said:

Those who benefited were lucky. 

 

Many weren't. 

Poor farmers did not benefit from the scheme. it was the middle and wealthy farmers that benifited and the mill owners that defrauded the people and the Government.

I defy anyone to show me one POOR farmer trhat benefited. Poor farmers did not qualify under the scheme.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, ResandePohm said:

Have you not followed what was going on. It was never intended to be a subsidy but was sold to the public as a self financing scheme. Please read up on the history of the rice scheme then you will be better placed to make an inteligent comment

That is not part of the job description.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/7/2017 at 4:50 PM, Eric Loh said:

Please please find me a definition of subsidy with the mode of funding. I am waiting.

"A subsidy is money given as part of the cost of something, to help orencourage it to happen"

 

That is the Cambridge Dictionary definition. It was never intended to give money to support the scheme. It was stated and sold to the public as a self financing scheme not a subsidy.

 

Now you show me a definition where a self financing scheme is a subsidy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/8/2017 at 5:53 PM, Prbkk said:

No, she made mistakes, she adopted and pursued bad policy. That doesn't make her criminally liable or negligent, any more than the current mob for their even more abysmal policies and extravagances.

This was more than a mistake. This was blatant negligence so dont try and water it down to being a mistake. She was totally incompitent to fill the PM role.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, ResandePohm said:

If you call buying votes "elected"

 

Do you not know how democracy works?  One candidate promises to do this and that for the people with the peoples money and the other promises to do something else with the money, then the majority wins, very simple and the same in all democracies. Yes in effect it is buying votes.  Nobody is standing behind you watching you vote, most can and will tell both candidates that they will vote for them, but must decide when they vote.

          The fact that the farmers and other rural people are the majority in Thailand means that the rich people from the cities will have to do things for the farmers to win, or else have a coup. This fact really gives the upper class the shits doesn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/8/2017 at 8:55 PM, Grubster said:

As far as I know all the farmers got paid for their rice until and maybe after the coup. The west has big subsidies and they are at 100% loss to the taxpayer every time, nobody going to jail for that.

You are correct the west has subsidies. When will you ands Prbkk understand that this was never a subsidy but a self financing scheme or are you having difficulty understanding the difference.

Subsidies are planned and budgeted for. There was no planned financing for this scheme. So stop trying to sell this as a subsidy which it was blatantly not.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ResandePohm said:

You are correct the west has subsidies. When will you ands Prbkk understand that this was never a subsidy but a self financing scheme or are you having difficulty understanding the difference.

Subsidies are planned and budgeted for. There was no planned financing for this scheme. So stop trying to sell this as a subsidy which it was blatantly not.

 

This was a subsidy and as with all subsidies the money you spend on them is a gift and never comes back. Just because they claimed they might make money on it was a pipe dream at best. Will they make money on the useless military equipment they are spending billions on? No and a lot of it will never even be used, but the big kick backs have been paid and those getting the kick backs have deemed themselves immune to prosecution for anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ResandePohm said:

Have you not followed what was going on. It was never intended to be a subsidy but was sold to the public as a self financing scheme. Please read up on the history of the rice scheme then you will be better placed to make an inteligent comment

 

...intelligent on topic comment...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, halloween said:

It certainly does when instead of new railways, or power stations, or hospitals, or schools, or something else that might advance the area, they opt for the party giving cash handouts that benefit nobody in the long run.

All of the money you give poor people is spent back into the economy. This benefits all.  Subsidies and tax breaks for the rich may very well be spent overseas. The elite in Thailand are spending hundreds of billions of baht, buying land in foreign countries and investing in foreign business etc. In fact many poor people from rural Thailand go to work in foreign countries and send much of the money home also helping the Thai economy. The poor people are always the easiest to blame for everything, they always have and always will.

     I am not saying that any past governments here didn't step on the poor too, but the current regime is stepping hard.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ResandePohm said:

Poor farmers did not benefit from the scheme. it was the middle and wealthy farmers that benifited and the mill owners that defrauded the people and the Government.

I defy anyone to show me one POOR farmer trhat benefited. Poor farmers did not qualify under the scheme.

Every farmer I know was paid a much higher price for their rice under the scheme than they are now, where do you live? Bangkok. Yes the corruption was performed up the ladder as usual, do you know of a corruption free Thai government program running today, if so please do tell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/9/2017 at 0:40 AM, Grubster said:

They paid for the rice they took, they allowed much of it to rot and to be stolen, the taxpayer paid for a rice subsidy, let me know of which subsidy in any country that has been self supporting or profitable, subsidies are handouts plain and simple.

were you even here when it happened, it was not a subsidy at all, it was supposed to be totally self financing(try looking it up, there are a few references already posted) but it never worked, it becomes a total joke when those that were not even here at the time try to tell those that were what happened. All your so called facts are actually fallacies, you have not even got one statement correct,  what you are saying is simply pathetic, you really need to start reading other than the red hand book or take you hand out of your pants when you look at yl pics

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, seajae said:

were you even here when it happened, it was not a subsidy at all, it was supposed to be totally self financing(try looking it up, there are a few references already posted) but it never worked, it becomes a total joke when those that were not even here at the time try to tell those that were what happened. All your so called facts are actually fallacies, you have not even got one statement correct,  what you are saying is simply pathetic, you really need to start reading other than the red hand book or take you hand out of your pants when you look at yl pics

Yes I was here, were you? And yes I am aware that they tried to call it something other than a subsidy, but the facts are when the government gives money to any producer of any product more money than it is currently worth it is defined as a subsidy no matter what they want to call it, can't you understand that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, seajae said:

were you even here when it happened, it was not a subsidy at all, it was supposed to be totally self financing(try looking it up, there are a few references already posted) but it never worked, it becomes a total joke when those that were not even here at the time try to tell those that were what happened. All your so called facts are actually fallacies, you have not even got one statement correct,  what you are saying is simply pathetic, you really need to start reading other than the red hand book or take you hand out of your pants when you look at yl pics

So you were here at the time and have become an expert on the scheme huh?

Tell me:

How much did the scheme expend?

How many tonnes of rice did the scheme purchase?

How much baht did those tonnes of rice sell for?

 

Answers to the nearest 1/2 billion baht will do - enlighten us as to your expertise.

(I bet you don't know even these basics and are just repeating nonsense as fact because it plays to your prejudices)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Grubster said:

Yes I was here, were you? And yes I am aware that they tried to call it something other than a subsidy, but the facts are when the government gives money to any producer of any product more money than it is currently worth it is defined as a subsidy no matter what they want to call it, can't you understand that?

You are totally wrong. Please check the definition of a subsidy. Subsidies are planned and budgeted for. What your definition is called is a "Bail Out". which comes after the event and not before

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one suggests that the scheme was good policy; it wasn't, in concept or execution. However, it wasn't criminal, Yingluck did not benefit personally from any corruption involved. Criticism is warranted, persecution is not.

The 'usual suspects' will continue their braying for blood....and in respect of this forum that means many who pronounced the junta to be the " best government ever" ( after about a week in power). It took a LONG time for those rose-coloured glasses to come off and one can understand the significant embarrassment they now feel about their obsequious, fawning praise. But it's ok, we all make mistakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Prbkk said:

No one suggests that the scheme was good policy; it wasn't, in concept and execution. However, it wasn't criminal, Yingluck did not benefit personally from any corruption involved. Criticism is warranted, persecution is not.

The 'usual suspects' will continue their braying for blood....and in respect of this forum that means many who pronounced the junta to be the " best government ever" ( after about a week in power). It took a LONG time for those rose-coloured glasses to come off and one can understand the significant embarrassment they now felt about their obsequious, fawning praise. But it's ok, we all make mistakes.

No one has accused Yingluck of corruption. She is accused of Criminal Neglegence. You need to get better informed because there is a big difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, ResandePohm said:

You are totally wrong. Please check the definition of a subsidy. Subsidies are planned and budgeted for. What your definition is called is a "Bail Out". which comes after the event and not before

 

Can you please tell me of a subsidy that was planned and budgeted for that did not have to be paid for by the taxpayer. What difference does it make if its planned and budgeted for? Its still a total loss and a hand out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Grubster said:

Can you please tell me of a subsidy that was planned and budgeted for that did not have to be paid for by the taxpayer. What difference does it make if its planned and budgeted for? Its still a total loss and a hand out.

Oh my. You really cant see the diference?

 

Planned and budgeted for; equals competent Governance

This Bail out was caused by incompetent Governance being neither planned nor budgeted

 

The first is part of  the total planned development. The second causes some other part of the Total Plan to either have its funding reduced or removed.

 

Of course both are ultimately paid by the Taxpayer as is all Government expenditure. However this scheme was never intended to be paid for by the Taxpayer. It was sold as self financing. So obviously other parts of the Governments development must suffer financially as a consequence of any Bail Out

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An off topic trolling post about Thaksinomics has been removed as well as the replies.  

 

Inflammatory posts have been removed:

 

7) You will respect fellow members and post in a civil manner. No personal attacks, hateful or insulting towards other members, (flaming) Stalking of members on either the forum or via PM will not be allowed.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Grubster said:

Every farmer I know was paid a much higher price for their rice under the scheme than they are now, where do you live? Bangkok. Yes the corruption was performed up the ladder as usual, do you know of a corruption free Thai government program running today, if so please do tell.

 

"Every farmer I know was paid a much higher price for their rice under the scheme than they are now,..."

 

Did you ever consider that the price they were paid under the yl scheme was way beyond sensible or sustainable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, scorecard said:

 

"Every farmer I know was paid a much higher price for their rice under the scheme than they are now,..."

 

Did you ever consider that the price they were paid under the yl scheme was way beyond sensible or sustainable?

And because of that incompetent pricing the corrupt were buying rice in neighbouring Cambodia nd Vietnam and then selling it to the government under this rice scheme.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Smarter Than You said:

So you were here at the time and have become an expert on the scheme huh?

Tell me:

How much did the scheme expend?

How many tonnes of rice did the scheme purchase?

How much baht did those tonnes of rice sell for?

 

Answers to the nearest 1/2 billion baht will do - enlighten us as to your expertise.

(I bet you don't know even these basics and are just repeating nonsense as fact because it plays to your prejudices)

 

 

You say 'plays to your prejudices'.... What an ironic statement for you to make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...