New when will furloughed feds go back to work guesses

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My crystal ball says this will end next week. Already murmurs of SNAP not being funded for November so the masses are going to start to see the impact. That may be the impetus Congress needs to grow a pair and act.

Do people on SNAP vote Republican?

Oh yeah. Tons of rural white people are on public assistance and vote republican.

Yep this.

[Anonymous]

SNAP and Head Start. Great job Dems - starving kids so that someone who retired early in Florida and makes 400% of the poverty limit gets ACA subsidies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:SNAP and Head Start. Great job Dems - starving kids so that someone who retired early in Florida and makes 400% of the poverty limit gets ACA subsidies.

Do you think 400% of the poverty limit is a lot?

[Anonymous]

The Heritage Foundation doesn't care about health insurance / universal health care or starving kids or Medicare or social security.

That's why this is going on in first case and it's all part of Project 2025.

Doubt the government will open before November.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Likely Friday

Of which week?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My crystal ball says this will end next week. Already murmurs of SNAP not being funded for November so the masses are going to start to see the impact. That may be the impetus Congress needs to grow a pair and act.

I work in that space and it’s not rumors, SNAP indeed will not be distributed in Nov unless the shutdown ends next week (and then of course at least a few days are needed for disbursement). It’s also likely that the ability of the POS terminals to accept EBT cards will be suspended in Nov until the end of shutdown so ppl won’t be able to spend what’s left on their cards.

I don’t understand how the govt is not afraid of possible violent protests with looting of grocery stores.
They’ll either finally end the shutdown next week or… anyway, I think you’re right PP. next week it is.

Rumor is they want riots so they can invoke martial law.

Yes, maybe this.
But don’t the Dems see it? They might need to back down just to avoid it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My crystal ball says this will end next week. Already murmurs of SNAP not being funded for November so the masses are going to start to see the impact. That may be the impetus Congress needs to grow a pair and act.

I work in that space and it’s not rumors, SNAP indeed will not be distributed in Nov unless the shutdown ends next week (and then of course at least a few days are needed for disbursement). It’s also likely that the ability of the POS terminals to accept EBT cards will be suspended in Nov until the end of shutdown so ppl won’t be able to spend what’s left on their cards.

I don’t understand how the govt is not afraid of possible violent protests with looting of grocery stores.
They’ll either finally end the shutdown next week or… anyway, I think you’re right PP. next week it is.

DP - why would this administration be afraid of violent protests and looting of grocery stores? They order violent detention of pretty much anyone they dislike.

That said, I think it will take people actually losing SNAP benefits and a ton of negative press from Trump voters to sway Congress. But it’s also possible they “find” money somewhere and spend it illegally to keep SNAP going.

Well it’s pretty much a done deal that there will be no snap in November. They were asked in October if they want to pre-allocate the money and they refused.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:SNAP and Head Start. Great job Republicans - starving kids and making it so that someone who retired early in Florida and makes 400% of the poverty limit no longer gets ACA subsidies.

Fixed it for you

[Anonymous]

Agree with an above poster--- people are listing random times when they think the gov't will open but won't explain why. Christmas? Why???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My crystal ball says this will end next week. Already murmurs of SNAP not being funded for November so the masses are going to start to see the impact. That may be the impetus Congress needs to grow a pair and act.

Do people on SNAP vote Republican?

Yes is west Virginia

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My crystal ball says this will end next week. Already murmurs of SNAP not being funded for November so the masses are going to start to see the impact. That may be the impetus Congress needs to grow a pair and act.

I work in that space and it’s not rumors, SNAP indeed will not be distributed in Nov unless the shutdown ends next week (and then of course at least a few days are needed for disbursement). It’s also likely that the ability of the POS terminals to accept EBT cards will be suspended in Nov until the end of shutdown so ppl won’t be able to spend what’s left on their cards.

I don’t understand how the govt is not afraid of possible violent protests with looting of grocery stores.
They’ll either finally end the shutdown next week or… anyway, I think you’re right PP. next week it is.

That's what they WANT. They want unrest and violence so they can declare martial law. The goal is to never have elections again. Democracy is being dismantled. Pay attention.

[Anonymous]

I am betting whenever TSA and ATC get pissed about not getting paychecks and start calling in sick. That was after two paychecks last time, so I'm guessing a couple more weeks.

[Anonymous]

Do you think 400% of the poverty limit is a lot?

400% of the poverty limit is $84,600 for a family of 2 and $128,600 for a family of 4. Not much in the DC area for sure, but in some areas of the country, yes. The calculations do not include assets, so an early retired couple in a LCOL area who owns their house outright and has $84,000 in income is getting ACA subsidies.

In the Idaho example on the other thread, the early retired couple with ACA subsidies was paying $51 per month, with premiums rising to over $2000 per month without subsidies - https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/idaho-kicks-affordable-care-act-open-enrollment-premiums-are-set-rise-rcna237298

$51 is way too low, and $2000 is way too high. But is the point of these subsidies really so that people can retire early before Medicare kicks in? Who were they intended to help? Were they really intended to continue forever, or were they an emergency measure during COVID scheduled to sunset for a reason?

Do I think the subsidies should be continued for truly needy families? Yes. Should they continue so that people can retire early? No. Should the government be shut down while this is resolved? Emphatically no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Do you think 400% of the poverty limit is a lot?

400% of the poverty limit is $84,600 for a family of 2 and $128,600 for a family of 4. Not much in the DC area for sure, but in some areas of the country, yes. The calculations do not include assets, so an early retired couple in a LCOL area who owns their house outright and has $84,000 in income is getting ACA subsidies.

In the Idaho example on the other thread, the early retired couple with ACA subsidies was paying $51 per month, with premiums rising to over $2000 per month without subsidies - https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/idaho-kicks-affordable-care-act-open-enrollment-premiums-are-set-rise-rcna237298

$51 is way too low, and $2000 is way too high. But is the point of these subsidies really so that people can retire early before Medicare kicks in? Who were they intended to help? Were they really intended to continue forever, or were they an emergency measure during COVID scheduled to sunset for a reason?

Do I think the subsidies should be continued for truly needy families? Yes. Should they continue so that people can retire early? No. Should the government be shut down while this is resolved? Emphatically no.

Many people in their 50s “retire” because they are laid off and can’t find another professional job because of ageism.

I guess they can work retail or some other manual job, but it’s not like those give health insurance ?

In principle it should be a sliding scale of subsidies for income and wealth, and $51 is too low, but I’m sure this is the same kind of Reagan Cadillac driving welfare queen exaggerated and non representative anecdote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Do you think 400% of the poverty limit is a lot?

400% of the poverty limit is $84,600 for a family of 2 and $128,600 for a family of 4. Not much in the DC area for sure, but in some areas of the country, yes. The calculations do not include assets, so an early retired couple in a LCOL area who owns their house outright and has $84,000 in income is getting ACA subsidies.

In the Idaho example on the other thread, the early retired couple with ACA subsidies was paying $51 per month, with premiums rising to over $2000 per month without subsidies - https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/idaho-kicks-affordable-care-act-open-enrollment-premiums-are-set-rise-rcna237298

$51 is way too low, and $2000 is way too high. But is the point of these subsidies really so that people can retire early before Medicare kicks in? Who were they intended to help? Were they really intended to continue forever, or were they an emergency measure during COVID scheduled to sunset for a reason?

Do I think the subsidies should be continued for truly needy families? Yes. Should they continue so that people can retire early? No. Should the government be shut down while this is resolved? Emphatically no.

but that's how politics/democracy work, and you know that.