Jump to content
BANGKOK 26 April 2019 15:40

Archived

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

webfact

Yingluck plans to make her own closing statement

Recommended Posts

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Share this post


Link to post
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)

Share this post


Link to post
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

 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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.
 

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, scorecard said:

 

 

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

So no details about the rice scheme then?

I'm not surprised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...