Purdey

This is what I wanted to understand. So it isn't a "use it or lose it" situation? POTUS can actually be forced to use the funds as intended it seems. Thanks for trying to clarify.

Sex toys are considered obscene here, as is prostitution. Both officially don't exist. Clearly, there are thousands of people willing to pay for sex toys and prostitutes. Normally, the police ignore it, except if a foreigner is involved.

I can imagine what the cabinet is thinking. ”We need more money from foreigners.” “A couple of dirty foreigners were killed by a Thai with rich parents.” ”Give them money then tax foreigners to get it back again.” ”But shouldn’t we just hide the tax in hotel prices like other countries?” ”Foreigners need to know they are paying for the compensation. It will make them feel we are a caring country.”

Israel is being cautious as it receives billions from the USA, which doesn’t want to support killing civilians. Bad PR.

I understood that money cannot be diverted but you did not read my question. What if he didn’t use the money? Just sat on his hands. That’s not diverting it.

Personally, I think electric cars are just one means that will help the world be a little cleaner and cooler. Getting rid of pollution does help. When I was a kid there were still so-called pea soupers or smog. Closing down coal fired plants near the city helped lower lung diseases. We did cough a lot at the time. Combustion engine create particles that affect health too. I don't see cars as the main cause of global warming, unless you include the manufacturing process, but that includes electric vehicles too. Yet no government seems to take action against industry. I don't see that paying to pollute (carbon credits) helps lower global warming and pollution. Our grandchildren are the ones who will pay.

So how does the government prove that making gambling legal will stop all this? Thais will bet on anything and will spend the whole of their income on it if allowed.

I don't understand the point that he is "forced" to use the money on a wall. Can't he just not use the money on anything? How could lawmakers have prevented him using the money on nothing at all? Is the POTUS so weak and powerless that the republicans can force him to use money set aside for something if it goes against his policy?

Never accuse someone without solid evidence. Interesting to see how this plays out.

Why is it the government's job to pay compensation AKA blood money? They could have forced the parents to pay.

Chalerm was once believed to have videos and files with which to hold over certain politicians. I guess most of them are dead now. His son was seen to shoot a policeman in the head and witnesses dried up. Not the sort of person to be welcomed into your house.

Why would anyone need so many guns? Was he planning to rise against the next coup d'etat?

One word, Windrush. Google it.

There was a B/W TV play when I was a kid about a government department whose job it was to identify people of various original nationalities (a bit like Suella) and have them deported - even if they were officially English. The department head was Scottish. He did his job with aggression and when the government announced such and such a race was to be deported, he went after them with a vengeance. His staff hated him for his enthusiasm to deport English people of various origins. At the very end, staff whispered to each other, "Don't worry, we don't have to put up with him for long. I heard they are getting rid of the Scottish next." That's where the Nasty Party are headed.

So difficult to decide. Health or death? My doctor asks if I exercise and I say that I cycle at weekends. She asks isn't that dangerous, I tell her that the Railway Park has a lot of accidents but no deaths. Why would anyone cycle on a main road?

I wholeheartedly agree this wasn't mentioned. However, advance medical advice to reduce issues like diabetes is given by general practitioners in many countries. It comes down to cash in the end. Fat people are a source of income for insurance companies.

Blank guns, otherwise called toys, are sold freely. But isn't it the people who offer the service of making them fire real bullets the real problem? Chris Rock had the answer when he suggested charging $5,000 per bullet.

A poor article that ignores the elephant in the room. It mentions inadequate insurance once but goes no further. How about the 8.4% or 27.6 million Americans of all ages did not have health insurance in 2022? So for all the crying about needing primary healthcare doctors, there are over 27m people who cannot afford to see a doctor anyway. Lots of mentions of the poor. So why not discuss racial disparity? Nonelderly American Indian/Alaska Native (AIAN) (21%) and Hispanic (19%) people were more than twice as likely as their White counterparts (7%) to be uninsured as of 2021. At birth, AIAN and Black people had a shorter life expectancy (65.2 and 70.8 years, respectively) compared to White people (76.4) as of 2021, and AIAN, Hispanic, and Black people experienced larger declines in life expectancy than White people between 2019 and 2021. While poor people suffer most, isn't it because they are mostly minorities? And the fact that the healthcare industry is only in it to the money? When I saw the attached cartoon of American healthcare executives visiting the NHS in the UK, I guessed the problem immediately.

I might be wrong but it wasn't McCarthy siding with the Dems but the Dems supporting McCarthy in what is known as a bipartisan supported bill.

I could take a wild guess that the government is aware that there are people without smartphones or digital knowledge and thus not everyone will have benefit from the giveaway. More importantly, where will the government get the money? The Ministry of Finance (MoF) doesn't want it to borrow from the Government Savings Bank (GSB), which would almost certainly cause a run on the bank. The GSB is backed by the MoF, which hasn't budgeted for this event.

I suppose that Joe didn't know about Hunter's earnings as he wasn't involved in his business dealings.

or reading...

It was done for emphasis.

I don't know where to find information showing why government spending in the USA increases by more than inflation and population growth. I found this so far: Between 2013 and 2022, aggregate annual spending by the 50 state governments, excluding federal funds, increased 51.7%. Total annual federal spending rose 69.4% during the decade, more than three times as fast as the 21.6% increase in the rate of population growth plus inflation. https://www.livemint.com/budget/the-data-prove-government-is-spending-too-much-11696443626605.html#:~:text=Between 2013 and 2022%2C aggregate,of population growth plus inflation. Does it outstrip population growth due to infrastructure costs or something else?

May be misleading to note the fall took place when the new government entered. They haven't had time to mess it up yet. Reports they want to borrow billions from the GSB implies they never really thought how they will pay for 10,000 Baht giveaways though...