Republicans - Shut up. Democrats- Shut up. OP - Shut up and get a better job if it bothers you so much.

unemployment checks depend on their income prior to....

#7: "so much people"? Really? And I wonder why "so much people" can't speak English, but there we have it.

Hoorah Democrats!

That's more like a "**** all tax-payers lives" rather than just an fml. That's outrageous.

God damn I hate welfare/unemployment. **** stupid lazy people.

boooooo. lazy bitches

Nothing wrong with this, although few commenters seem to notice you are comparing his benefits for a period n with your pay for period 2n (1 week vs. 2 weeks). If you were comparing paychecks, it would certainly make sense that someone with about 20 years more work experience was paid over twice as much. Since you are comparing pay not with pay, but with unemployment benefits, the logical question is how should they be determined? There are two goals: One is to not make the unemployed person so comfortable that they are unlikely to seek new work; this calls for the benefits to be less than the person's normal pay, and to be time limited. The second goal is that the unemployed person should be able to maintain their way of living at a level similar to when they were working; not that they should have as much to spend on non-essentials, but that they should not lose their home due to briefly being out of work. This calls for the benefits to be nearly as much as the person's normal pay, and for a time limit that is not too short. The net effect is that unemployment benefits are usually a large percentage of normal pay, e.g. 2/3 to 4/5. The next problem is how the payments should be capped. Do you replace 2/3 to 4/5 of a CEOs salary? Of course not; but the limits tend to be based on state or national averages. Thus in places where high-paying jobs are prevalent, part of the low unemployment rate is caused by the fact that unemployed workers can't stay there very long.

You weren't aware of this before hand? It's common to get more money for not working, than actually working.

My dad was recently unemployed for two years. Without his unemployment, we never would have made it out with our house. My mom works part-time at a prestigious university, but does not get paid enough to cover my sister's college tuition (in excess of $40,000) and my high school education ($12,000), along with our necessary expenses like food, taxes, and gas money/bus fare. We literally did not purchase any material items unless we absolutely needed them for most of this time, and fortunately my dad just got a job- at a community college 200 miles away. So he doesn't live with us during the week anymore. Great trade-off. My point is, it is not just a matter of "people being lazy and cashing in on unemployment." Especially in times like these, it is a necessity, because there are no jobs available. My dad received an Ivy League BA, a Ph.D from Boston College, and his MBA from a highly-regarded state school in his field. If these are not sufficient qualification to get a job in a two-year span, then everybody would be homeless right now. It's not an issue of people being too lazy to work; oftentimes the problem is that there is actually nowhere to work. A lot of people overlook this issue, and write the troubles of others off as their own fault, when it is really not. My dad lost his last job because the school he was an administrator at literally shut down operations. Similar stories occur every day, ranging from the lowest class to the highest. There is no escape from downsize-ment, and no forgiveness either. God Bless America.