People behind rice scheme will be sued to cover losses, Prayut says

[maxme]

A long and seemingly pointless run around post to avoid answering the question. And you do not to lecture me about Thaksin as this topic has been stretched out to the breaking point. Instead answer this simple question. What has this administration done to deserve a medal compared to the previous administrations? Is it that hard to understand?

A lot of yellow sympathizers are disappointed with the current regime so it's OK for you to come clean as well. It is not what you expected, but if it is, pray tell, what that is.

"A long and seemingly pointless run around post to avoid answering the question. "

You should know about that. You still haven't answered my question.

Why on earth would I when you responded to my question with a new question. Nice spinning.

What new question?

I have asked the same question all along.

You said "The current government is more corrupt than the previous one".

I have continued to ask the same question. Where is the evidence to back up that statement?

Nice spinning I asked first. And don't copy and paste rametindallas' mantra. Tell me with your own words.

Again, what has this administration done to deserve a medal?

[rubl]

Nice spinning I asked first. And don't copy and paste rametindallas' mantra. Tell me with your own words.

Again, what has this administration done to deserve a medal?

Now why would someone ask such a irrelevant question? Why would a government need to do something which deserves a medal? Is there any country where recently the government deserved a medal (apart from Australia of course if I understand Fred Fl. correctly) ?

[whybother]

What new question?

I have asked the same question all along.

You said "The current government is more corrupt than the previous one".

I have continued to ask the same question. Where is the evidence to back up that statement?

Nice spinning I asked first. And don't copy and paste rametindallas' mantra. Tell me with your own words.

Again, what has this administration done to deserve a medal?

Actually, I asked you first. http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/785527-people-behind-rice-scheme-will-be-sued-to-cover-losses-prayut-says/?p=8829854

I have never said this administration deserves a medal. Just as I have never said the current administration did anything to top the previous administration (your first question to me after I asked you to back up your statement). I also never said the previous administration is the worst to date (your second question to me).

You keep asking me to prove things that I have never said. You keep avoiding showing anything to prove what you've said.

But fine, if you can't give any evidence that this administration is more corrupt than the previous one, I'll just have to take it that they're not.

[maxme]

What new question?

I have asked the same question all along.

You said "The current government is more corrupt than the previous one".

I have continued to ask the same question. Where is the evidence to back up that statement?

Nice spinning I asked first. And don't copy and paste rametindallas' mantra. Tell me with your own words.

Again, what has this administration done to deserve a medal?

Actually, I asked you first. http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/785527-people-behind-rice-scheme-will-be-sued-to-cover-losses-prayut-says/?p=8829854

I have never said this administration deserves a medal. Just as I have never said the current administration did anything to top the previous administration (your first question to me after I asked you to back up your statement). I also never said the previous administration is the worst to date (your second question to me).

You keep asking me to prove things that I have never said. You keep avoiding showing anything to prove what you've said.

But fine, if you can't give any evidence that this administration is more corrupt than the previous one, I'll just have to take it that they're not.

No, you keep hi-jacking the posts as that question wasn't directed at you but at ramet. Once he bugged out, the pro-coup supporters started to surface and circle the thread.

You can spin it all you want and if you don't want to answer that question, you don't have to. But I will take one question at a time because if I get into this with you, you will pull your usual spin on this and ask what Thaksin has done better when I'm not remotely interested in that topic nor was it aimed at that topic either.

[whybother]

No, you keep hi-jacking the posts as that question wasn't directed at you but at ramet. Once he bugged out, the pro-coup supporters started to surface and circle the thread.

You can spin it all you want and if you don't want to answer that question, you don't have to. But I will take one question at a time because if I get into this with you, you will pull your usual spin on this and ask what Thaksin has done better when I'm not remotely interested in that topic nor was it aimed at that topic either.

You made a statement. I asked you to back it up with evidence. If you don't want other posters to comment on your posts, maybe you should use PMs instead.

I am not spinning anything. Since I didn't compare this government to previous governments I don't need to back anything up.

And you go and deflect again! Where did I ask you what Thaksin had done better?

It seems you will take one question at a time and keep avoiding it.

If you can't back up a statement, maybe you shouldn't say it.

Edited December 22, 2014 by whybother

[maxme]

Nice spinning I asked first. And don't copy and paste rametindallas' mantra. Tell me with your own words.

Again, what has this administration done to deserve a medal?

Now why would someone ask such a irrelevant question? Why would a government need to do something which deserves a medal? Is there any country where recently the government deserved a medal (apart from Australia of course if I understand Fred Fl. correctly) ?

Irrelevant... In the eye of beholder I guess. You and your sort, engage in slandering, statements with no evidence to back it up and misogynist remarks at the former PM.

I'm no fan of Yingluck but did she deserve all that crap while the new council's mouthpiece gets praised. What exactly has he done besides copying programs he and his group labeled as populist propaganda?

Thailand was infamous before but hit a new low with his remarks and blatant lies. Not to talk about the economy will take an even further dive due to his current and future programs.

You wanna talk relevance rubl? Put your money where your mouth is. Tall about what urgently needs to be done instead of throwing insults at one party.

The rice scheme despite being initiated by the PTP was deemed to fail on all levels as the Thai political structure is rotten to the core. And many of the democrats are on these levels so start thinking like you were taught in school... Independently and objectively instead of following the flock of sheep towards the cliff, because sooner or later it is what it's heading.

[rubl]

While some try to circle, let's have a look at the topic:

"People behind the rice scheme will be sued to cover losses, prayut says"

2011-07-05

"Prasith Boonchuey, president of the Thai Rice Farmers Association, does not believe the scheme will cover every farmer. The new government cannot purchase every rice grain from farmers for warehousing. The pledging benefit will fall to a small group of farmers. The pledging policy will not create any sustainable benefit for Thai farmers, while the credit cards promised for farmers will spoil them into overspending, he said. The new government should find a new, sustainable policy to help farmers in the long run, Prasith said. - See more at: http://flar.org/en/thailand-rice-trade-halts-ahead-of-pledging-scheme/#sthash.5OnOIFL1.dpuf"

In August, 2011 our new PM reading her government's policy aloud in parliament, said

"1.11 Raise the price of agricultural products and enable farmers to gain access to sources of investment by ensuring that prices of agricultural products remain reasonably stable, reflecting global market price mechanisms, by utilizing marketing management and futures markets. Support farmers to sell their products at reasonably high prices compared to their costs. Implement a crop insurance scheme in order to provide income security for farmers, beginning with long grain rice and fragrant Hom Mali rice with moisture not exceeding 15% at 15,000 Baht and 20,000 Baht per cart, respectively. Provide remedies to farmers whose crops are damaged by natural disasters. Establish a registration system for farmer households and issue credit cards for farmers."

2013-04-08

"According to Mr Boonsong the Foreign Trade Department has been able to return Bt113 billion (US$3.644 million*) to the Finance Ministry and if this years quota is achieved losses from the scheme should be capped at no more than Bt80 billion ($2.735 million‡) annually.

Rice pledging scheme to cost Bt80bn per year http://www.establishmentpost.com/rice-pledging-scheme-to-cost-bt80-bil-per-year/#ixzz3MabYNvUU

2013-05-13

"Luck Wajananawat, president of the Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives (BAAC).

He said that the subcommittee would also discuss the Commerce Ministry's plans to pay back the 500 billion baht (US$16.65 billion) loan it borrowed from BAAC to run the pledging scheme. Most of those funds had now been spent on the scheme, he noted."

https://ph.news.yahoo.com/thailands-rice-pledging-scheme-evaluated-041004791.html

BANGKOK, Nov 23 - The Commerce Ministry stood firm that it has enough budget to subsidise the rice pledging plan which needs a circulating fund of Bt500 billion.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/683698-thai-finance-ministry-baac-has-sufficient-funds-for-rice-subsidy/

[rubl]

Nice spinning I asked first. And don't copy and paste rametindallas' mantra. Tell me with your own words.

Again, what has this administration done to deserve a medal?

Now why would someone ask such a irrelevant question? Why would a government need to do something which deserves a medal? Is there any country where recently the government deserved a medal (apart from Australia of course if I understand Fred Fl. correctly) ?

Irrelevant... In the eye of beholder I guess. You and your sort, engage in slandering, statements with no evidence to back it up and misogynist remarks at the former PM.

I'm no fan of Yingluck but did she deserve all that crap while the new council's mouthpiece gets praised. What exactly has he done besides copying programs he and his group labeled as populist propaganda?

Thailand was infamous before but hit a new low with his remarks and blatant lies. Not to talk about the economy will take an even further dive due to his current and future programs.

You wanna talk relevance rubl? Put your money where your mouth is. Tall about what urgently needs to be done instead of throwing insults at one party.

The rice scheme despite being initiated by the PTP was deemed to fail on all levels as the Thai political structure is rotten to the core. And many of the democrats are on these levels so start thinking like you were taught in school... Independently and objectively instead of following the flock of sheep towards the cliff, because sooner or later it is what it's heading.

Slandering? I'm in Thailand, sue me.

Like you I'm also no fan of Yingluck. Did she deserve the crap? Was she PM? Didn't she state in parliament during the last censure debate that she and only she was in charge?

BTW you're right, the Thaksin thinks Pheu Thai RPPS was doomed to fail, or at least doomed to not reach poor farmers it was supposedly aimed at. They were warned as early as May / June 2011, but would they listen? A 'self-financing' scheme gone horribly wrong, costing the State and therefor the tax payers 700 --/++ billion Baht. May we be a bit peeved at this ?

[maxme]

No, you keep hi-jacking the posts as that question wasn't directed at you but at ramet. Once he bugged out, the pro-coup supporters started to surface and circle the thread.

You can spin it all you want and if you don't want to answer that question, you don't have to. But I will take one question at a time because if I get into this with you, you will pull your usual spin on this and ask what Thaksin has done better when I'm not remotely interested in that topic nor was it aimed at that topic either.

You made a statement. I asked you to back it up with evidence. If you don't want other posters to comment on your posts, maybe you should use PMs instead.

I am not spinning anything. Since I didn't compare this government to previous governments I don't need to back anything up.

And you go and deflect again! Where did I ask you what Thaksin had done better?

It seems you will take one question at a time and keep avoiding it.

If you can't back up a statement, maybe you shouldn't say it.

This coming from one who hasn't backed up a single one of his statements when asked to do so. Nice deflection, I take it you can't answer the question then

[whybother]

No, you keep hi-jacking the posts as that question wasn't directed at you but at ramet. Once he bugged out, the pro-coup supporters started to surface and circle the thread.

You can spin it all you want and if you don't want to answer that question, you don't have to. But I will take one question at a time because if I get into this with you, you will pull your usual spin on this and ask what Thaksin has done better when I'm not remotely interested in that topic nor was it aimed at that topic either.

You made a statement. I asked you to back it up with evidence. If you don't want other posters to comment on your posts, maybe you should use PMs instead.

I am not spinning anything. Since I didn't compare this government to previous governments I don't need to back anything up.

And you go and deflect again! Where did I ask you what Thaksin had done better?

It seems you will take one question at a time and keep avoiding it.

If you can't back up a statement, maybe you shouldn't say it.

This coming from one who hasn't backed up a single one of his statements when asked to do so. Nice deflection, I take it you can't answer the question then

What statement have I made? Link to where I have made a statement and I will back it up.

[chotthee]

Yingluck has caused the losses.

Yingluck have to repay Thai tax payer from her own pocket.

End of story.

PS. Mark did it for his country. Yingluck did it for her own pocket.

[DaffyDuck]

Who's this bloke to talk about rorting?

Query him and he flys off the handle.

He should stick to more important things like his new career as a Indian wedding planner.

Have you ever thought of becomming a monk and taking a vow of silence? It would would certainly make more sense than the stuff you usually write.

This! +1

[Thai at Heart]

What qualifications did Yingluck have to become Prime Minister?

Great question! Let's make sure it's clearly visible.

I would think the fact that she won the last election qualified her to be PM

In a democracy that is all that is required. The general is therefore not qualified.

and since during the last censure debate Ms. Yingluck stated in parliament that she and only she was in charge of her cabinet, and her government came up with the RPPS, I guess that the topic "people behind rice scheme will be sued to cover losses" means Ms. Yingluck will be asked for a donation.

I didn't see where it says that prime ministers are personallt responsible for policy losses though. Its a nice idea.

The war on terror has so far cost the west hundreds of billions with thousands of our own troops dead. Whilst I supported it in concept there are many who believe it to be morally wrong and not least a complete waste of money.

Several politicians have gained financially from their connections to big business associated to this war. Should it thus not be the case that the people can sue the politicians personally for losses incurred to the country?

Or families of the dead soldiers sue the president of the usa or pm of the uk for their loss?

Making Yingluck personally responsible for this loss is a ludicrous idea which doesn't bear basic logical scrutiny anymore than soneone suing for military spending within govt.

[MaxLee]

So then has anything been done yet? No?....

.... (just another Face-savvy headliner to cover up the true intentions in "letting it go-mai-pen-rai", Brainwashing the Nation is high priority now)

[rubl]

and since during the last censure debate Ms. Yingluck stated in parliament that she and only she was in charge of her cabinet, and her government came up with the RPPS, I guess that the topic "people behind rice scheme will be sued to cover losses" means Ms. Yingluck will be asked for a donation.

I didn't see where it says that prime ministers are personallt responsible for policy losses though. Its a nice idea.

The war on terror has so far cost the west hundreds of billions with thousands of our own troops dead. Whilst I supported it in concept there are many who believe it to be morally wrong and not least a complete waste of money.

Sev.eral politicians have gained financially from their connections to big business associated to this war. Should it thus not be the case that the people can sue the politicians personally for losses incurred to the country?

Or families of the dead soldiers sue the president of the usa or pm of the uk for their loss?

Making Yingluck personally responsible for this loss is a ludicrous idea which doesn't bear basic logical scrutiny anymore than soneone suing for military spending within govt.

Ms. Yingluck was warned, Pheu Thai was warned already before the elections. The warnings continued for two and a half years Ms. Yingluck was in office. She and her cabinet frequently went on record that there were no problems, all under control, financing arranged, etc., etc. The self-financing scheme' which only required a revolving funds of 500 billion Baht lost that fund. Ms. Yingluck is either criminally negligent or worse.

Your foreign examples have no relation with the case here.

Politicians are warned every day about policy losses all over the world. I still don't see the legal reason for them to be on the hook.

Go and prove criminal wrong doing first and then its a possibililty. Sayingy foreign comparison isn't valid is a cop out. We are mostly farangs on here with a farang persective.

Lock up blair and bush I say for creating 2008. And brown can be the rent boy. Policy losses are incurred all over the world.

Pheu Thai, Ms. Yingluck, PM Yingluck, her cabinet have defended the RPPS as 'self-financing'. That means that with the financial vehicle reserved lost its either through negligence or through criminal activities.

If a former Bank of Thailand governor can be sentenced to paid back the billions lots in the ordered defending of the Baht in 1997, I see no reason, why in this case Ms. Yingluck and a few of her MoC and deputies can't be sentenced similarly. Of course strictly speaking this was the brain child of a criminal fugitive who was even returned 30 or 40 billion by the Yingluck government.

The foreign examples are still irrelevant.

[Thai at Heart]

and since during the last censure debate Ms. Yingluck stated in parliament that she and only she was in charge of her cabinet, and her government came up with the RPPS, I guess that the topic "people behind rice scheme will be sued to cover losses" means Ms. Yingluck will be asked for a donation.

I didn't see where it says that prime ministers are personallt responsible for policy losses though. Its a nice idea.

The war on terror has so far cost the west hundreds of billions with thousands of our own troops dead. Whilst I supported it in concept there are many who believe it to be morally wrong and not least a complete waste of money.

Sev.eral politicians have gained financially from their connections to big business associated to this war. Should it thus not be the case that the people can sue the politicians personally for losses incurred to the country?

Or families of the dead soldiers sue the president of the usa or pm of the uk for their loss?

Making Yingluck personally responsible for this loss is a ludicrous idea which doesn't bear basic logical scrutiny anymore than soneone suing for military spending within govt.

Ms. Yingluck was warned, Pheu Thai was warned already before the elections. The warnings continued for two and a half years Ms. Yingluck was in office. She and her cabinet frequently went on record that there were no problems, all under control, financing arranged, etc., etc. The self-financing scheme' which only required a revolving funds of 500 billion Baht lost that fund. Ms. Yingluck is either criminally negligent or worse.

Your foreign examples have no relation with the case here.

Politicians are warned every day about policy losses all over the world. I still don't see the legal reason for them to be on the hook.

Go and prove criminal wrong doing first and then its a possibililty. Sayingy foreign comparison isn't valid is a cop out. We are mostly farangs on here with a farang persective.

Lock up blair and bush I say for creating 2008. And brown can be the rent boy. Policy losses are incurred all over the world.

Pheu Thai, Ms. Yingluck, PM Yingluck, her cabinet have defended the RPPS as 'self-financing'. That means that with the financial vehicle reserved lost its either through negligence or through criminal activities.

If a former Bank of Thailand governor can be sentenced to paid back the billions lots in the ordered defending of the Baht in 1997, I see no reason, why in this case Ms. Yingluck and a few of her MoC and deputies can't be sentenced similarly. Of course strictly speaking this was the brain child of a criminal fugitive who was even returned 30 or 40 billion by the Yingluck government.

The foreign examples are still irrelevant.

They should prove negligence or criminal wrong doing first before spouting off. Because I believe they have little or no chance of proving that. Or the entire process will be accused of political motivation.

Politicians are doing damage to countries due to the their policies every minute of of every day in opinion of someone. One mans loser is another mans winner.

How to measure benefit and damage of a social policy? Impossible from a legal perspective unless criminality is judged. Redistributing wealth and losing money is what governments do.

They should prove criminal negligence before they start suing for damages. From a legal perspective any reasonable lawyer would start from gaining information and examples from subsidies all over the world and WITHIN thailand to prove that these are very common all over the world.

Why are yinglucks subsidies more worthy of punishment that Prayuths? A subsidy is a subsidy irrespective of magnitude.

Edited December 22, 2014 by Thai at Heart

[rubl]

Pheu Thai, Ms. Yingluck, PM Yingluck, her cabinet have defended the RPPS as 'self-financing'. That means that with the financial vehicle reserved lost its either through negligence or through criminal activities.

If a former Bank of Thailand governor can be sentenced to paid back the billions lots in the ordered defending of the Baht in 1997, I see no reason, why in this case Ms. Yingluck and a few of her MoC and deputies can't be sentenced similarly. Of course strictly speaking this was the brain child of a criminal fugitive who was even returned 30 or 40 billion by the Yingluck government.

The foreign examples are still irrelevant.

They should prove negligence or criminal wrong doing first before spouting off. Because I believe they have little or no chance of proving that. Or the entire process will be accused of political motivation.

Politicians are doing damage to countries due to the their policies every minute of of every day in opinion of someone. One mans loser is another mans winner.

How to measure benefit and damage of a social policy? Impossible from a legal perspective unless criminality is judged. Redistributing wealth and losing money is what governments do.

They should prove criminal negligence before they start suing for damages.

'they should prove' ?

The NAAC doesn't have to prove any thing, they just dig up to be able to be sufficiently confident that charges could be made. The OAG does the charging and needs to prove, the courts do the ruling.

Now once more, the RPPS was positioned and defended as 'self-finasncing scheme'. Not just once, but over a few years time. Still at least 500 billion and possibly 700++ billion Baht is lost.

Money which is reserved in the National Budget as meant for subsidies is a totally different matter.

As for the actual suing for money, that may indeed have to wait till charges are filed, acknowledged, and courts have ruled.

PS if too many quotes just remove the oldest one or two. Try not to corrupt the quotes.

Edited December 22, 2014 by rubl

[rubl]

I would think the fact that she won the last election qualified her to be PM

In a democracy that is all that is required. The general is therefore not qualified.

and since during the last censure debate Ms. Yingluck stated in parliament that she and only she was in charge of her cabinet, and her government came up with the RPPS, I guess that the topic "people behind rice scheme will be sued to cover losses" means Ms. Yingluck will be asked for a donation.

Which in your world, outside the western hemisphere, justifies a coup.

Which in my view justifies the suing of people involved in the rice scam the moment the administrative or criminal court has ruled on either negligence or more criminal charges.

[metisdead]

Off topic obfuscation posts and replies have been removed.

[Thai at Heart]

Pheu Thai, Ms. Yingluck, PM Yingluck, her cabinet have defended the RPPS as 'self-financing'. That means that with the financial vehicle reserved lost its either through negligence or through criminal activities.

If a former Bank of Thailand governor can be sentenced to paid back the billions lots in the ordered defending of the Baht in 1997, I see no reason, why in this case Ms. Yingluck and a few of her MoC and deputies can't be sentenced similarly. Of course strictly speaking this was the brain child of a criminal fugitive who was even returned 30 or 40 billion by the Yingluck government.

The foreign examples are still irrelevant.

Now

They should prove negligence or criminal wrong doing first before spouting off. Because I believe they have little or no chance of proving that. Or the entire process will be accused of political motivation.

Politicians are doing damage to countries due to the their policies every minute of of every day in opinion of someone. One mans loser is another mans winner.

How to measure benefit and damage of a social policy? Impossible from a legal perspective unless criminality is judged. Redistributing wealth and losing money is what governments do.

They should prove criminal negligence before they start suing for damages.

'they should prove' ?

The NAAC doesn't have to prove any thing, they just dig up to be able to be sufficiently confident that charged could be made. The OAG does the charging and needs to prove, the courts do the ruling.

Now once more, the RPPS was positioned and defended as 'self-finasncing scheme'. Not just once, but over a few years time. Still at least 500 billion and possibly 700++ billion Baht is lost.

Money which is reserved in the National Budget as meant for subsidies is a totally different matter.

As for the actual suing for money, that may indeed have to wait till charges are filed, acknowledged, and courts have ruled.

PS if too many quotes just remove the oldest one or two. Try not to corrupt the quotes.

Deleting on a phone is a pain. Sorry.

These subsidies that have been spirited up in the click of a finger haven't been prebudgeted . they have been borrowed at the drop of a hat so I don't consider them planned or budgeted at all.

The only difference anyone can come up with is the fact that they are relatively small but that doesn't make them any more right or wrong than yinglucks. The govt is on the hook either way.

If Prayuth wanted to borrow as much as yingluck within the budget what would be the mechanism to stop him? There isn't one. He has a majority he can borrow. Proving the criminality against the statement of self financing is maybe remotely feasible.

In this context, the govt is running a budget deficit every year. By this measurement it would effectivelt make it illegal for the govt to incur any debt at all. Prayuth is adding to govt debt by offwtjbt these benefits

Why is borrowing to pay farmers less legal or more damagibg than borrowing to pay soldiers? One deficit cannot be treated as less useful than another.

Edited December 22, 2014 by Thai at Heart

[Thai at Heart]

I would think the fact that she won the last election qualified her to be PMIn a democracy that is all that is required. The general is therefore not qualified.

and since during the last censure debate Ms. Yingluck stated in parliament that she and only she was in charge of her cabinet, and her government came up with the RPPS, I guess that the topic "people behind rice scheme will be sued to cover losses" means Ms. Yingluck will be asked for a donation.

Which in your world, outside the western hemisphere, justifies a coup.

Which in my view justifies the suing of people involved in the rice scam the moment the administrative or criminal court has ruled on either negligence or more criminal charges.

Where is the scam? The losses are accounted for in the system. They overpaid and the loss got made without anyone profiting illegally for a baht.

[jamiesilver]

The irony - The Isarn red shirts voted in Yingluck - now they will pay for years to come. will they ever learn! probably not... Probably blame it on the gov and ask for subsidies or threaten violence.

[rubl]

'they should prove' ?

The NAAC doesn't have to prove any thing, they just dig up to be able to be sufficiently confident that charged could be made. The OAG does the charging and needs to prove, the courts do the ruling.

Now once more, the RPPS was positioned and defended as 'self-finasncing scheme'. Not just once, but over a few years time. Still at least 500 billion and possibly 700++ billion Baht is lost.

Money which is reserved in the National Budget as meant for subsidies is a totally different matter.

As for the actual suing for money, that may indeed have to wait till charges are filed, acknowledged, and courts have ruled.

PS if too many quotes just remove the oldest one or two. Try not to corrupt the quotes.

Deleting on a phone is a pain. Sorry.

These subsidies that have been spirited up in the click of a finger haven't been prebudgeted . they have been borrowed at the drop of a hat so I don't consider them planned or budgeted at all.

The only difference anyone can come up with is the fact that they are relatively small but that doesn't make them any more right or wrong than yinglucks. The govt is on the hook either way.

If Prayuth wanted to borrow as much as yingluck within the budget what would be the mechanism to stop him? There isn't one. He has a majority he can borrow. Proving the criminality against the statement of self financing is maybe remotely feasible.

In this context, the govt is running a budget deficit every year. By this measurement it would effectivelt make it illegal for the govt to incur any debt at all. Prayuth is adding to govt debt by offwtjbt these benefits

Why is borrowing to pay farmers less legal or more damagibg than borrowing to pay soldiers? One deficit cannot be treated as less useful than another.

Now once more, the main difference between regular subsidies budgetted in the National Budget and the RPPS kept out of the National Budget is the 'self-financing' part. Subsidies within a National Budget are listed on the debit side, with the possible credit much less tangible (less unemployment benifits for instance). The RPPS was not supposed to cost anything, budget neutral, 'self-financing', therefor a 'revolving funds' to do initial payments and restore from sales.

.

[longway]

No, you keep hi-jacking the posts as that question wasn't directed at you but at ramet. Once he bugged out, the pro-coup supporters started to surface and circle the thread.

You can spin it all you want and if you don't want to answer that question, you don't have to. But I will take one question at a time because if I get into this with you, you will pull your usual spin on this and ask what Thaksin has done better when I'm not remotely interested in that topic nor was it aimed at that topic either.

You made a statement. I asked you to back it up with evidence. If you don't want other posters to comment on your posts, maybe you should use PMs instead.

I am not spinning anything. Since I didn't compare this government to previous governments I don't need to back anything up.

And you go and deflect again! Where did I ask you what Thaksin had done better?

It seems you will take one question at a time and keep avoiding it.

If you can't back up a statement, maybe you shouldn't say it.

This coming from one who hasn't backed up a single one of his statements when asked to do so. Nice deflection, I take it you can't answer the question then

What statement have I made? Link to where I have made a statement and I will back it up.

Here's a statement. Anyone who sides with the PT in the rice scam is someone who has reached into his skull and twisted his brain into the shape of a pretzel and then repeatedly stabbed it with a fork. To back it up I can use any post of maxme.

[rubl]

Which in my view justifies the suing of people involved in the rice scam the moment the administrative or criminal court has ruled on either negligence or more criminal charges.

Where is the scam? The losses are accounted for in the system. They overpaid and the loss got made without anyone profiting illegally for a baht.

The scam is in the positioning a scheme as 'self-financing' and to help poor farmers and succeeding in losing the 500 billion Baht 'non-revolving funds and even much more while the poor farmers are still poor.

So, either some profited legally to the mark of 700++ billion Baht, or some profited illegally, but the money is gone and the tax payers have to foot the bill which the government assured us wouldn't be there.

[maxme]

No, you keep hi-jacking the posts as that question wasn't directed at you but at ramet. Once he bugged out, the pro-coup supporters started to surface and circle the thread.

You can spin it all you want and if you don't want to answer that question, you don't have to. But I will take one question at a time because if I get into this with you, you will pull your usual spin on this and ask what Thaksin has done better when I'm not remotely interested in that topic nor was it aimed at that topic either.

You made a statement. I asked you to back it up with evidence. If you don't want other posters to comment on your posts, maybe you should use PMs instead.

I am not spinning anything. Since I didn't compare this government to previous governments I don't need to back anything up.

And you go and deflect again! Where did I ask you what Thaksin had done better?

It seems you will take one question at a time and keep avoiding it.

If you can't back up a statement, maybe you shouldn't say it.

This coming from one who hasn't backed up a single one of his statements when asked to do so. Nice deflection, I take it you can't answer the question then

What statement have I made? Link to where I have made a statement and I will back it up.

Here's a statement. Anyone who sides with the PT in the rice scam is someone who has reached into his skull and twisted his brain into the shape of a pretzel and then repeatedly stabbed it with a fork. To back it up I can use any post of maxme.

Oh is that right? Good luck on that little master.

[whybother]

Oh is that right? Good luck on that little master.

No luck on you backing up your statements with a bit of evidence though.

[Thai at Heart]

Which in my view justifies the suing of people involved in the rice scam the moment the administrative or criminal court has ruled on either negligence or more criminal charges.

Where is the scam? The losses are accounted for in the system. They overpaid and the loss got made without anyone profiting illegally for a baht.

The scam is in the positioning a scheme as 'self-financing' and to help poor farmers and succeeding in losing the 500 billion Baht 'non-revolving funds and even much more while the poor farmers are still poor.

So, either some profited legally to the mark of 700++ billion Baht, or some profited illegally, but the money is gone and the tax payers have to foot the bill which the government assured us wouldn't be there.

So that makes a scam? Who got scammed?

In a way, they would have been better just to state that it was like a normal subsidy then. So the scam is semantics as opposed to say a subsidy which just spends money.

[Thai at Heart]

Which in my view justifies the suing of people involved in the rice scam the moment the administrative or criminal court has ruled on either negligence or more criminal charges.

Where is the scam? The losses are accounted for in the system. They overpaid and the loss got made without anyone profiting illegally for a baht.

The scam is in the positioning a scheme as 'self-financing' and to help poor farmers and succeeding in losing the 500 billion Baht 'non-revolving funds and even much more while the poor farmers are still poor.

So, either some profited legally to the mark of 700++ billion Baht, or some profited illegally, but the money is gone and the tax payers have to foot the bill which the government assured us wouldn't be there.

There is no evidence anyone profited ilegallt other than some petty theft and stuff

They paid 12,000 baht for it, they milled it stored it and whaterver and now its on the books for 25,000 or something similar.

The sale price is 14,000, so they have a massive loss.

Who profited? Rice millers warehouse people and farmers.

No theft, no scam necessary. They over paid for an agriculture product. Happens all over the world. Europe spends 48bn a year on it.

[longway]

No, you keep hi-jacking the posts as that question wasn't directed at you but at ramet. Once he bugged out, the pro-coup supporters started to surface and circle the thread.

You can spin it all you want and if you don't want to answer that question, you don't have to. But I will take one question at a time because if I get into this with you, you will pull your usual spin on this and ask what Thaksin has done better when I'm not remotely interested in that topic nor was it aimed at that topic either.

You made a statement. I asked you to back it up with evidence. If you don't want other posters to comment on your posts, maybe you should use PMs instead.

I am not spinning anything. Since I didn't compare this government to previous governments I don't need to back anything up.

And you go and deflect again! Where did I ask you what Thaksin had done better?

It seems you will take one question at a time and keep avoiding it.

If you can't back up a statement, maybe you shouldn't say it.

This coming from one who hasn't backed up a single one of his statements when asked to do so. Nice deflection, I take it you can't answer the question then

What statement have I made? Link to where I have made a statement and I will back it up.

Here's a statement. Anyone who sides with the PT in the rice scam is someone who has reached into his skull and twisted his brain into the shape of a pretzel and then repeatedly stabbed it with a fork. To back it up I can use any post of maxme.

Oh is that right? Good luck on that little master.

I don't need luck I just need you to keep on posting.