Why do you think (basing benefits off pre-unemployed earnings) is wrong? what should it be based on?
I think it is reasonable to base temporary unemployment benefits off of wages. The idea here is to prevent a temporary loss of work from causing possible irreparable disruption to a family or individual. We don't want people losing their house or car because a factory closed, so we give them a little time to get a new job. However, the key here is temporary assistance.
Once we pass that temporary threshold -- whatever we decide that time limit is -- it's time to say that they are no longer collecting unemployment, and if they were middle class when they lost their job, perhaps a great deal of unemployment-- but welfare. Once we move beyond the temporary everyone, regardless of their previous income, should be treated the same.
The "problem" exists because people are unemployed for long periods, and Republicans have spent the last few years blocking jobs bills and additional stimulus.
That, and I think that there are not enough jobs for the number of people who need jobs. And that's a problem that no one in Washington is really talking about.
Still, why can't benefits continue as long as the problem exists? If Congress doesn't pass legislation to stimulate job creation, the problem will drag on. In that case, do you think benefits should be cut off for the long-term unemployed?
I think we need to take care of everyone in this country. I don't think temporary unemployment extensions are the way to do it. We need a permanent long term solution, and everyone in this situation -- poor, middle class, or wealthy -- should be treated exactly the same.
Obviously a proposal like this wouldn't be popular with the formerly middle class worker who finds himself out of work and his career gone, but that situation is nothing new.
= new reply since forum marked as read