Trial of Thailand's Yingluck fails to break Shinawatra machine

[heybruce]

4 minutes ago, robblok said:

Not falsely accuse. I posted proof, the actual budgets and nobody here was able to show where it was in the budgets. I have shown that the agricultural budget was to low for the subsidies. So its not there.. there is a link to the actual budget, feel free to prove me wrong. But unfortunately for you you cant. 

 

 

budget_in_brief_2012.pdf

I disagree, but will let that go.  You ignored the part about the amnesty being attempted then withdrawn by parliament.  You also don't deny your support for a coup that granted the leaders amnesty, suspended the constitution so the legality couldn't be challenged, passes military budgets without transparency or debate, gives itself Article 44 rule by decree power, etc. 

 

Given a choice between a democracy that was a work in progress, and unrestricted military rule, you chose the greater of the two evils.

[ramrod711]

6 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

The simple truth is that the Thai people do not want the Yellow/Greens. But, their choice is taken away.

 

Perhaps those who don't like the Shins could offer an alternative that people actually DO like? 

 

Nah, it is easier to cheat.

Whatever new government comes in will still have to deal with the military. The new constitution the generals have implemented introduces a military-appointed senate and requires any future government to follow the junta's 20-year development plan.

 

That's good enough for me. Whatever keeps the Shins from absolute power to loot the country.

[hansnl]

6 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

 

Blah blah blah blah blah!

 

Beat them in a fair election and they are done.

 

It ain't rocket science.

 

Fair elections?

Where?

[heybruce]

8 minutes ago, ramrod711 said:

Whatever new government comes in will still have to deal with the military. The new constitution the generals have implemented introduces a military-appointed senate and requires any future government to follow the junta's 20-year development plan.

 

That's good enough for me. Whatever keeps the Shins from absolute power to loot the country.

But you're ok with the military having absolute power to loot the nation?

[robblok]

33 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I disagree, but will let that go.  You ignored the part about the amnesty being attempted then withdrawn by parliament.  You also don't deny your support for a coup that granted the leaders amnesty, suspended the constitution so the legality couldn't be challenged, passes military budgets without transparency or debate, gives itself Article 44 rule by decree power, etc. 

 

Given a choice between a democracy that was a work in progress, and unrestricted military rule, you chose the greater of the two evils.

How can you disagree with a budget and clear figures. You either find the amount in the budget or you don't and if you don't you will have to retract that you said I falsely accused them of keeping it off budget. I provided you with the actual budget.. all you need to do is point it out Smarter posted something about 100. billion.. an amount like that should be easily found in the agricultural budget.. oops the whole budget is lower than 100 billion. Maybe you can find it somewhere else.. if not. be a man and man up. 

[MorristheRunt]

At the end of October, I would not be surprised to see the Shin's begin the fightback, and unfortunately I think if will be the beginning of a very, very unstable period in Thai history.

[Artisi]

47 minutes ago, Becker said:

I could tell you but you'd only get confused.

Well you and I would be in good company. 

[Artisi]

13 minutes ago, heybruce said:

But you're ok with the military having absolute power to loot the nation?

Well the alternate would have meant that Thaksin would now be in the chair looking after Thaksin with all crimes forgiven -  so be honest, which would be the worse. 

[heybruce]

52 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I disagree, but will let that go.  You ignored the part about the amnesty being attempted then withdrawn by parliament.  You also don't deny your support for a coup that granted the leaders amnesty, suspended the constitution so the legality couldn't be challenged, passes military budgets without transparency or debate, gives itself Article 44 rule by decree power, etc. 

 

Given a choice between a democracy that was a work in progress, and unrestricted military rule, you chose the greater of the two evils.

 

17 minutes ago, robblok said:

How can you disagree with a budget and clear figures. You either find the amount in the budget or you don't and if you don't you will have to retract that you said I falsely accused them of keeping it off budget. I provided you with the actual budget.. all you need to do is point it out Smarter posted something about 100. billion.. an amount like that should be easily found in the agricultural budget.. oops the whole budget is lower than 100 billion. Maybe you can find it somewhere else.. if not. be a man and man up. 

You showed that it was not in the 2012 budget. I'll give you that.  Post 22 showed that the government set aside money for the scheme.

 

Now how about your selective support for amnesty, fondness for military rule and contempt for democracy?

Edited July 18, 2017 by heybruce

[heybruce]

3 minutes ago, Artisi said:

Well the alternate would have meant that Thaksin would now be in the chair looking after Thaksin with all crimes forgiven -  so be honest, which would be the worse. 

Thaksin, Yingluck, and the PTP could have been voted out in July 2014 had the military allowed the election to take place.

 

But I will take your fantasy response as support for unrestricted military rule.

[Ricardo]

8 minutes ago, heybruce said:

 

You showed that it was not in the 2012 budget. I'll give you that.  Post 22 showed that the government set aside money for the scheme.

 

Now how about your selective support for amnesty, fondness for military rule and contempt for democracy?

 

Just to point out that what was quoted (without a link to the source) in #22 actually said that the money had to be borrowed, ie the government had not "set aside money for the scheme" in its budget after all.

 

"The FinanceMinistry has borrowed short-term money to the tune of around Bt260 billion to finance the scheme, operated by the Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives."

[yellowboat]

It is a surprise that this would be a surprise to anyone.  The more the Shinawartes get struck down the more popular they become.  Many a coup apologist said they were losing their voting block.  It is intact because these people there are still disenfranchised three years on.

[Roadman]

6 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

 

Blah blah blah blah blah!

 

Beat them in a fair election and they are done.

 

It ain't rocket science.

 

Oh jeez the tiring old beat them in an election....it's not the election that is the issue. It's following democratic law through the governance period that the Shinawatra mafia have a problem with.

[robblok]

14 minutes ago, heybruce said:

 

You showed that it was not in the 2012 budget. I'll give you that.  Post 22 showed that the government set aside money for the scheme.

 

Now how about your selective support for amnesty, fondness for military rule and contempt for democracy?

So you agree the government did not set money aside for it in the 2012 budget as alleged and I was not accusing them wrongly about keeping it off books. I guess that is a start and it shows you are someone that can be debated with.

 

If you go back in topics you will see I never fully support the army and have commented on many of their actions, there are other actions that I do support, so it kinda depends on what they are doing if i support them or not. 

 

I don't like amnesties also not for the military an amnesty for a coup I can understand.. but not for corruption and other mismanagement. That is something I oppose. As for democracy.. you call it democracy when a election is fought on unfair grounds where one side keeps popular policies off book so they can offer more and the other side does not ? I don't see that as fair. If both have the same amount of money to spend on policy its fair.. not if one side keeps it off book and thus has far more to spend on popular policies. There is something here that has some charismatics of a democracy but to say its a democracy goes to far IMHO. I support true democracies. 

[robblok]

8 minutes ago, Ricardo said:

 

Just to point out that what was quoted (without a link to the source) in #22 actually said that the money had to be borrowed, ie the government had not "set aside money for the scheme" in its budget after all.

 

"The FinanceMinistry has borrowed short-term money to the tune of around Bt260 billion to finance the scheme, operated by the Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives."

They won't get the difference... they are not schooled in economics or accounting.. It was tough enough to make them see that there was no money reserved in the central budget for this scheme as it was touted as cost neutral. A loan means nothing as it was supposed to be a revolving fund and cost neutral.

 

I don't blame them, it takes knowledge and education to understand financing and budgets and how it all works. I do it for a living so I understand the finer points.. most people don't and never will. 

[Eric Loh]

11 minutes ago, robblok said:

So you agree the government did not set money aside for it in the 2012 budget as alleged and I was not accusing them wrongly about keeping it off books. I guess that is a start and it shows you are someone that can be debated with.

Come on Rob. Don't get too cocky. None of us really know the details including you. What you have is numbers but the details were not clear. 

 

For instance, the 2012 had Economic affairs portion which had a hefty 19.7% allocation. That was almost 421 b baht and was described as economic support to various industries including agriculture. If you checked more on the description of the allocation functions, you will find 'provision to support agriculture prices'. I am not saying I am right but really all of us have their points including Smarter. We really are not privy to the real allocations and details. 

[Ricardo]

19 minutes ago, robblok said:

They won't get the difference... they are not schooled in economics or accounting.. It was tough enough to make them see that there was no money reserved in the central budget for this scheme as it was touted as cost neutral. A loan means nothing as it was supposed to be a revolving fund and cost neutral.

 

I don't blame them, it takes knowledge and education to understand financing and budgets and how it all works. I do it for a living so I understand the finer points.. most people don't and never will. 

 

IMO even if the scheme had been self-supporting & cost-neutral, as envisaged by Thaksin when he first devised it, the government would still have needed to have a  (smaller)  budget to cover the interest which the bank would have charged them, for the use of the funds between paying-out to individual-farmers & their return from bulk-rice sales.

 

I believe that it did make sense to use BAAC to administer things, since they knew & were used to working with the farmers, however the alarm-bells should have been ringing when the recoveries from rice-stock-sales  were clearly coming-in more-slowly, and at lower-prices, than originally envisaged.

 

The rice-scheme management-committee clearly had plenty of time to react, but instead froze like rabbits on a night-time road, perhaps a more-in-touch (or actually present) chair-person might have picked up on this sooner, and not poo-pooed the external warnings so thoughtlessly.  I'm sure that MP-Yingluck relied on poor advice from trusted people, to some extent. 

[robblok]

1 minute ago, Ricardo said:

 

IMO even if the scheme had been self-supporting & cost-neutral, as envisaged by Thaksin when he first devised it, the government would still have needed to have a  (smaller)  budget to cover the interest which the bank would have charged them, for the use of the funds between paying-out to individual-farmers & their return from bulk-rice sales.

 

I believe that it did make sense to use BAAC to administer things, since they knew & were used to working with the farmers, however the alarm-bells should have been ringing when the recoveries from rice-stock-sales  were clearly coming-in more-slowly, and at lower-prices, than originally envisaged.

 

The rice-scheme management-committee clearly had plenty of time to react, but instead froze like rabbits on a night-time road, perhaps a more-in-touch (or actually present) chair-person might have picked up on this sooner, and not poo-pooed the external warnings so thoughtlessly.  I'm sure that MP-Yingluck relied on poor advice from trusted people, to some extent. 

The first part of your statement is correct they should have put money aside for the interest unless of course they would have said it would run at a profit (but then they would have had to put the money expected also in the budget). They would have had to put in money for storage too. Its wrong in so many ways what they did. 

[heybruce]

23 minutes ago, robblok said:

So you agree the government did not set money aside for it in the 2012 budget as alleged and I was not accusing them wrongly about keeping it off books. I guess that is a start and it shows you are someone that can be debated with.

 

If you go back in topics you will see I never fully support the army and have commented on many of their actions, there are other actions that I do support, so it kinda depends on what they are doing if i support them or not. 

 

I don't like amnesties also not for the military an amnesty for a coup I can understand.. but not for corruption and other mismanagement. That is something I oppose. As for democracy.. you call it democracy when a election is fought on unfair grounds where one side keeps popular policies off book so they can offer more and the other side does not ? I don't see that as fair. If both have the same amount of money to spend on policy its fair.. not if one side keeps it off book and thus has far more to spend on popular policies. There is something here that has some charismatics of a democracy but to say its a democracy goes to far IMHO. I support true democracies. 

How many coups since 1932?  At least 13, it's difficult to keep count.  To my knowledge none of the coup leaders were held to account, even those responsible for atrocities.  Yet "an amnesty for a coup I can understand".  That says a lot about you.

 

You may have cautiously criticized some of the junta's actions, but your support for the junta is clear.  And the PTP didn't win the 2011 election with "popular policies off book", they weren't in power, the military puppet Abhisit was.  There pefrormance after a few years in power should have been judged by the voters in a new election, and indications were the voters would have judged them harshly in 2014.  However the military didn't want an election.

 

Once again, given a choice between a democracy that was a work in progress or unrestricted military rule, you choose the greater of the two evils.

[robblok]

8 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Come on Rob. Don't get too cocky. None of us really know the details including you. What you have is numbers but the details were not clear. 

 

For instance, the 2012 had Economic affairs portion which had a hefty 19.7% allocation. That was almost 421 b baht and was described as economic support to various industries including agriculture. If you checked more on the description of the allocation functions, you will find 'provision to support agriculture prices'. I am not saying I am right but really all of us have their points including Smarter. We really are not privy to the real allocations and details. 

I am not wrong at all.. you can't hide 100 billion in a budget.. now if it was something small id agree with you. I am an accountant . Now you are right about the 19,7% only that gets explained where it goes later on and shows how much goes to agriculture. Just scroll on and read more. Eric, i really read this and read it a few times to get it right. there is NO WAY to hide 100 billion there.

 

I found something else funny look at taxes collected page 56 of the document per region.It shows that BKK is responsible for 63,8 % of all taxes collected. So much for people always moaning about how BKK gets too much. 

[heybruce]

36 minutes ago, Roadman said:

Oh jeez the tiring old beat them in an election....it's not the election that is the issue. It's following democratic law through the governance period that the Shinawatra mafia have a problem with.

Care to explain what "democratic law" is, how the PTP violated it, and how the junta is in any way abiding by it?

[esprit]

2 hours ago, Artisi said:

And who are his master's, would you like to have a guess, or would plucking  a name from a hat be more accurate. 

There are things and people in Thailand we can not discuss as you should appreciate

[heybruce]

3 minutes ago, robblok said:

I am not wrong at all.. you can't hide 100 billion in a budget.. now if it was something small id agree with you. I am an accountant . Now you are right about the 19,7% only that gets explained where it goes later on and shows how much goes to agriculture. Just scroll on and read more. Eric, i really read this and read it a few times to get it right. there is NO WAY to hide 100 billion there.

 

I found something else funny look at taxes collected page 56 of the document per region.It shows that BKK is responsible for 63,8 % of all taxes collected. So much for people always moaning about how BKK gets too much. 

So the PTP's election promises weren't in keeping with proper accounting principles?  Does this justify a coup?

 

Clearly the Brexiteers made promises of a financial windfall in the UK referendum that were nonsense.  And Trump promised wonderful healthcare for all at a fraction of the price of Obamacare, which isn't going to happen.  Do you think the UK and US need a military coup and open-ended military rule?

[esprit]

7 minutes ago, heybruce said:

How many coups since 1932?  At least 13, it's difficult to keep count.  To my knowledge none of the coup leaders were held to account, even those responsible for atrocities.  Yet "an amnesty for a coup I can understand".  That says a lot about you.

 

You may have cautiously criticized some of the junta's actions, but your support for the junta is clear.  And the PTP didn't win the 2011 election with "popular policies off book", they weren't in power, the military puppet Abhisit was.  There pefrormance after a few years in power should have been judged by the voters in a new election, and indications were the voters would have judged them harshly in 2014.  However the military didn't want an election.

 

Once again, given a choice between a democracy that was a work in progress or unrestricted military rule, you choose the greater of the two evils.

If the first coup leader was given the same final farewell as Mussolini , that would have put an end to the Thai Generals hobby of taking over behind the barrel of a gun. But no,  the feudal system still remains and the crackpot Generals still get away with murder, literally.  But there again isn't that part of the modern Thai system anyway ?

[Pridilives]

35 minutes ago, robblok said:

They won't get the difference... they are not schooled in economics or accounting.. It was tough enough to make them see that there was no money reserved in the central budget for this scheme as it was touted as cost neutral. A loan means nothing as it was supposed to be a revolving fund and cost neutral.

 

I don't blame them, it takes knowledge and education to understand financing and budgets and how it all works. I do it for a living so I understand the finer points.. most people don't and never will. 

gee robblok you do not show anything. Just show you cannot read budget. How come not one thing on internet say rice scheme off budget. Why you cannot show even one newspaper in whole internet say rice scheme off budget. I see here too many link already show budget include rice scheme. If you really right why cannot find any link. Why cannot find Suthep say something. Why cannot find abhisit say something. You find nothing show you right just show cannot read budget. Here simple clue for you : want to see budget for rice scheme have to look balance sheet for BAAC. That right. You look wrong thing in budget because you don't know how to read budget you must not be good account man.

 

just show proof you not only person in world belief rice scheme off budget. 

 

Just give one link.

 

if not everybody know you wrong

[JAG]

You showed that it was not in the 2012 budget. I'll give you that.  Post 22 showed that the government set aside money for the scheme.
 
Now how about your selective support for amnesty, fondness for military rule and contempt for democracy?

It's nearly time for an" I don't like the junta but..." Post!

[Eric Loh]

19 minutes ago, robblok said:

I am not wrong at all.. you can't hide 100 billion in a budget.. now if it was something small id agree with you. I am an accountant . Now you are right about the 19,7% only that gets explained where it goes later on and shows how much goes to agriculture. Just scroll on and read more. Eric, i really read this and read it a few times to get it right. there is NO WAY to hide 100 billion there.

 

I found something else funny look at taxes collected page 56 of the document per region.It shows that BKK is responsible for 63,8 % of all taxes collected. So much for people always moaning about how BKK gets too much. 

Why need to hide the 100B when the government can use many means to source for the funds. The government can draw from the reserve budget or trim other allocations to obtain funding. They can also borrow up to 3.5% as stipulated in the budget proposal or more if necessary to the debt to GDP legal ceiling. We don't know and neither do you. 

[Artisi]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

Thaksin, Yingluck, and the PTP could have been voted out in July 2014 had the military allowed the election to take place.

 

But I will take your fantasy response as support for unrestricted military rule.

Crystal ball gazing or do you know something everyone else doesn't. 

[Becker]

Just now, Artisi said:

Crystal ball gazing or do you know something everyone else doesn't. 

What's patently clear is that coup after coup after coup has not done anything at all for Thailand except change the faces at the trough. Time for the Generals to return to the golf courses and give civilian rule a chance.

[Pridilives]

6 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Why need to hide the 100B when the government can use many means to source for the funds. The government can draw from the reserve budget or trim other allocations to obtain funding. They can also borrow up to 3.5% as stipulated in the budget proposal or more if necessary to the debt to GDP legal ceiling. We don't know and neither do you. 

Just ask him post just one link somebody say rice off budget.

 

why not have any link!!!