should the federal government be funding unemployement?

No.

Workers pay should have been garnished a long time ago, like a 401k, and the money in gov bonds, available for use to switch jobs, get new training, etc.

In fact, companies used to give holidays, sicj days and personal days. Now they give you a block of days off to use as you will.

THAT'S what should be done. Instead of the Ponzi scheme of Social Securtiy, money should be taken out from your pay & mad YOURS. To invest as you please (tax free) for use in sickness, unemployeemnet, retirement, house, education AND iyou should be able to leave it to whomever U want when you die.

This is an area that the federal government has been involved with since the beginning. Unemployment "benefits" are funded by taking money collected from employers and workers when they were working. It is not a handout, or charity. What keeps unemployment funds solvent is that more people are working and paying in than are out of work and are being paid.

It is not persay "funding" the unemployment.... All business owners pay into the system a unemployment tax.... based on the income , size of the business, and number of employees, so all this money goes into a "pot" so when a person gets laid off , he or she will draw benifits from the "pot" for a certain amount of time,,,, it used to be like only 12 weeks,,,, and now I think it is up to like 26 weeks or more!!! That is because this economy is really in the crapper because of the war and gas prices!!! It sure aint getting better!! and prices are gowing up and people cant afford to feed their kids!! So soon the crime rate is going to start rising as well!!!

That is why they extend the minimal benifits,,, so they dont get pucked off while driving in limo, driven gas guzzlers, and dont even a a clue as to what is going on in the REAL WORLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No, the businesses pay into the unemployment system at the State level. Also this same bill died in the Senate so it most likely will not happen.

The wording of your question is, of course, emotionally loaded and begs the question. Providing extended benefits for people who cannot find jobs is hardly "funding unemployment," it is allowing people to continue to keep their heads above water and continue to feed themselves and their children.

People can't collect unemployment if they have been unemployed too long.

That's why it's unemployment insurance, not welfare. It is a safety net, and in this economic climate--diminishing jobs, declining real wages, staggering fuel costs, and inflation--it is necessary to hold the net up longer.

the federal bank adjusts interest rates according to indicators, and one of those indicators is the unemployment rate,

they like to keep unemployment at about 5% if i remember,

so to an extent, the stability of the economy is on the backs of a "population in flux" kept intentionally unemployed by a subsidiary of the federal government,

and therefore we "owe" (and in this case, we do "owe") them some support, i agree with limits on duration of unemployment, but can't cut them off because my agent caused some of it

Yes. Of course the government is part of the problem for not doing more to hold onto jobs so unemployment insurance is not needed. Have you read our Constitution? Of course there is more than one interpretation of it. But to me it seems that the government exists for people, not so much for business. (People over money)

Seeing as though the Bush Administrations policies have created an enviroment of unemployment

YES

It is tricky whether it should be taken car of on a federal or a state level, but people that lose their jobs need some help with the transition, otherwise, everytime we go through a time like we are now, the level of homelessness would skyrocket, which would not be beneficial to anyone.

The fed doesn't. Unemployment tax does, paid for by employers.