As a tax payer myself.
 

I hope Lisa stays.

What does the fact that you are a taxpayer have to do with it :conf:

Taxpaying has nothing to do with bb :puzzled:

Less off a strain on society keeping a dole scrounger in the house.

Now I know a lot of people who claim unemplyment benifit have been put in that position through no fault of thier own and would do anything to get a job, they are not so much of a strain.

But well Lisa's just an idle dole waller.

lol

of all the reasons to dislike Lisa, I find this "dole, scrounger" thing one of the most worrying and depressing. I am not a fan of hers but, really ...

Who in there actually had a full time job in that house beforehand?

Yup...I cant stand her, but most of the night i have been arguing with people with this view...its ridiculous...I was even told by one that it is very easy to get a job at the minute :rolleyes:

there's an ominous hate and blame culture developing :sad:

Having just lost my job 3 months ago, this is the first time I have sign on in many years it isn't easy getting another job in the current climate!!
There are plenty of other 'issues' that are straining the tax payer and the council tax payer (I still have to pay!) and I can assure you £64.30 does not give you a basic living. I am sure she would want to work, just like me!

The only possitve thing about Lisa in the house is that she is not using our money, She is using C4's money instead.

How do you know Lisa's reasons for being unemployed.

Your mail shows ignorance and anger. Not nice traits really.

Sorry to offend anyone, I have spent time unemployed myself after losing my job with a construction company last autumn, but believe me the jobs are out there.

I spent 2 months in a fish factory, 3 weeks washing pots in a restaraunt before i managed to find myself another job with a different construction company.

Saying there are no jobs is a cop out IMO.

64 pounds per week? What a waste of money for many reasons really!

That money could be better spent on creating jobs, going on educating our children or NHS!

64 pounds per week isnt helping anyone at all, you will struggle from week to week on that and most probably end up being depressed.

If the government didnt blow all our money on the banks who create this mess in the first place with bank charges and their bonuses England would be a beter place today, do we really need RBS and Northern Rock...no we don't.

Though Barclays bank fund terrorism with their arms investment across the world and mainly in Africa, they are doing financially well! I have also noticed many on the dole get their funds via barclays bank so in some ways the tax payers have bailed them out!

Is that Freddie in your sig???

Just out of curiosity, if we had lost Northern Rock and RBS, what would your position be on the many hundreds, possibly thousands, who would have become unemployed?

By bailing them out which has cost tax payers HUNDREDS of billions, thus many public sector jobs have to be cut, standards across many things need to be cut, and banks refusing to lend anyone money whilst still creaming of the billions in bonuses....how many jobs have been lost? Cuts both ways, however if the government injected that many in public sector work, paid people's mortgages off (tax payers only) and created new and saved jobs..life would be much different to how we know it. This isnt a real ressecession it is a man made fat cats farce one going on, tis is why everything is still expensive. Just fats cats trying to recycle their wealth!

The banks were undeniably at fault, and I really, really hope they learn from their mistakes and this huge bonus culture stops, but I don't know that the government had much option but to bail them out. They needed to keep banks solvent and to get them lending again. If a bank of their size went under the effects and repercussions would have been terrible, as well as people losing their homes, savings, jobs ...
However, this bail-put money did not really come from some government pot waiting to be spent elsewhere but was borrowed :sad: These are bad economic times ...

the cash the government paid into banks ADDS to their liquidity so they CAN keep lending.
How can you get this SO wrong despite it being on the news for a full year. Turn BB off dude.... quickly!!!! hehe

Yup.

Do you listen to the news, do you know each one of us are in thousands of paids in debt due to the banks, do you know the banks arent lending, still over charging and giving out their bonuses to each other.

as Sir Alan Sugar would say - "What a load of old tut":dance2:

They should have let the banks fold..then gave al;l the money they bailed them out with in equal shares to the thousands of people who lost thier jobs because of it..let them have a blast for a while..lol.

Doh - because people have been making nasty comments about her being on the dole - and 'implying' that tax payers shouldn't have to support her!
:xyxwave:

Alan Sugar would have told the scrougers to bugger off, banks and dole claimers too!

yeah I do.
Think of money in an economy like oil in a machine. Banks stopped lending to each other because they weren't sure of their financial shape and ability to repay. Banks not lending to each other means banks not lending to the public. That mean no oil in the machine and the whole thing seizing up. Dude it came close to a total melt down....ie not the 8-10% unemployment that we had but 80-90%. Yeah banks a money making businesses ... it's what they do ... all the more reason for more government regulations in banking... but you want to blame the strategy of keeping them running. lol dude. Sorry mate but please...

Yes I know this, however threads like this will only make these idiots make more threads about her being scum because she is on the dole. :bored:

Oh please, tell that bull to someone else, they still have our money and still refuse to lend. The country only would have went into a melt down if there were no other options, the other options were to give tax payers back their money, government bailing out business and paying of mortgages.

We shouldnt allow the banks to hold us to ransom, and it was almost like a nice parting gift from GWBUSH who truly ****ed up the american economy with his wasteful spending.

Rich people who do not do a full days graft are no different from scroungers on the dole anyway, they are all the same, begging bowls, and the lot.

so banks should lend to people who are bad credit risks with no prospect to pay it back? mate that's what got us into trouble in the first place. Banks shouldn't lend to people who haven't a hope of paying it back.

"tell that bull to someone else,"Specifically what point was bull. Banks are b@stards.. agreed. That means you need more government regulations to keep them in check..
Governments needed to keep the cash moving so they bought up the banks at rock bottom prices. They'll sell them for a premium. The idea governments should have bought up businesses is a first for me. Do you have any idea how many companies there are out there? It was about keeping the money moving freely. Buying companies wouldn't have solved anything except turning the UK into a marxist state lol...

Admittedly it's a nice change from the usual bb bs.