Falling off the unemployment insurance cliff

[ProSense]

34. This doesn't

"If payments are based on income than anyone who earned more prior to their termination had at least a theoretical opportunity to amass some savings and assets, yet they get a big check, while the guy on the bottom making nothing gets less than nothing."

...make sense. It's based on a percentage of income, and it's capped at a very low amount. No one is getting a "big check."

"And while that system is understandable for a brief period, it makes increasingly less sense the longer it goes on. The guy on the bottom is forced to immediately accept ANY job that's offered while the more affluent guy has (at least theoretically) the luxury of waiting for something better. At some point you have to place all unemployed people into the same category. "

I understand your concern about the "guy at the bottom," but I don't see how the duration of unemployment has anything to do with the "affluent" holding out for "something better." No one turns down a decent job to remain on unemployment.

I'm not against moving the long-term unemployed to another program if it's well-thoughout. I too like the suggestion here (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024242223#post11). This economic crisis took a toll on older workers, especially those nearing retirement, and no amount of unemployment benefits will help them to get their lives back on track. For many the consequences have been devastating.

This debate (and the concern) is about people who can't find jobs. People want to work.

The best solution is to increase the number of available jobs, and Congress can help to facilitate job creation.