Slashdot Mirror


Government Shutdown: TLS Certificates Not Renewed, Many Websites Are Down (zdnet.com)

More than 80 TLS certificates used by US government websites have expired so far without being renewed, leaving some websites inaccessible to the public. From a report: NASA, the US Department of Justice, and the Court of Appeals are just some of the US government agencies currently impacted, according to Netcraft. The blame falls on the current US federal government shutdown caused by US President Donald Trump's refusal to sign any 2019 government budget bill that doesn't contain funding for a Mexico border wall he promised during his election campaign. This has resulted in hundreds of thousands of government workers being furloughed across all government agencies, including staff handling IT support and cybersecurity. As a result, government websites are dropping like flies, with no one being on hand to renew TLS certificates.

43 of 1,044 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Good by humptheElephant · · Score: 4, Informative

    Bullshit. They were willing to discuss it without shutting the government down. Trump said he would be the one to blame in the shutdown. His had no plan on controlling the border, Plus it was to be paid for my Mexico. This shutdown is just a diversion tactic to get attention away from his really big problems.

  2. Re:You mean the Democrat Shutdown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    This isn't a government shutdown. This is a minority party that gained a slight foothold in one part of the government and immediately used it to shut down the government and is now trying to blame everyone but themselves for the outcome.

    The Senate and the President of the United States are ready to reopen the government immediately. It's solely one small part of the government that's refusing to open things. So call it what it is: the Democrat Shutdown.

    Democrats took control of the house: Jan 3
    Shutdown started: Dec 22

    Trump, McConnell, and Senate Republicans own this. Everyone, including you, know this.

  3. Let's Encrypt by Meneth · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If they set up Let's Encrypt properly, they can have automatic renewing of their certificates.

    1. Re:Let's Encrypt by Nkwe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Putting a certificate on a website does two main things: 1) Allows the traffic to be encrypted, and 2) Provides assurance to people using the website that the website is genuine. Let's Encrypt only does the first thing - allows encryption. Let's Encrypt provides no real assurance that the website is what it claims to be. For many websites the encryption use case is sufficient, and using Let's Encrypt makes all kinds of sense both practically and economically. If you are a bank, the social security administration, a retail site that takes credit card numbers, or any site that your users may provide you with sensitive data, you really want to purchase a certificate from an authority that provides a higher level of identity assurance than does Let's Encrypt.

  4. Re: You mean the Democrat Shutdown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    You're full of shit.

    The Republican-controlled Senate passed the bill. Then the Republican-controlled House refused to vote on it. It expired.

    The Democrat-controlled house passed the Senate bill. Mitch McConnell (R!) is refusing to let the senate vote on it.

    If it went to a vote it would pass. Mitch is refusing to put Trump in a position where he'd have to veto it.

    The Democrats are the only ones acting honestly here. They passed the Republican bill. The shutdown is entirely of Trump's making.
     

  5. Re:Good by close_wait · · Score: 5, Informative

    Only 6% of the Israeli "wall" is actually a wall. 94% is just lots (really lots!) of barbed wire fencing in multiple layers - with a dead zone between where people crossing can be observed, and with a trench to slow them down long enough to be observed, and smooth sand/gravel so that successful crossing attempts can at least be detected in hindsight. The tall concrete walls you see in the news are only in places where there isn't enough width to have a fence + dead zone, or where there's an issue with snipers - e.g. housing right up close to the border from where people can shoot or be shot at. Back in the US, most illegal migrants from the south arrive legally at border points then overstay. Really, a wall will have next to no effect on the number of illegal migrants entering the US. As for drugs - if drug lords are resourceful enough to build mini-submarines for example, then a wall isn't going to stop them.

  6. Re:This might call for some Fox News counterhackin by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If they pay for his wall because he has a tantrum, what's next?

    He'll be shutting down the government for every last little thing until he gets his way.

    There's no way anybody should give way on this (except The Donald, obviously).

    PS: Wasn't Mexico going to pay for this?

    --
    No sig today...
  7. It's Pelosi, not Trump by MikeRT · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The blame falls on the current US federal government shutdown caused by US President Donald Trump's refusal to sign any 2019 government budget bill that doesn't contain funding for a Mexico border wall he promised during his election campaign.

    No, it's her desire to see him not get a key campaign promise through and see him not get reelected in 2020. That's what this is about. They are willing to ensure than 800k federal employees don't get paid for months because they are that Hell-bent on seeing his chances reduced in 2020. That's it.

    The Democrats supported every wasteful thing Bush and Obama put out there. They supported Obama's expansion on Bush's militarism.

    The fact is that if Trump wanted $10B to bomb a randomly named country, half the Democrats would give him the money. It's only--only--when that money is put toward something that is a core campaign promise and related to what people want (border security) that they lose their minds and channel Ayn Rand.

    1. Re:It's Pelosi, not Trump by close_wait · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh, you mean that core election promise that Mexico would pay for the wall with a one-off payment. Looks like the Dems (and the GOP before Jan) are just holding him to that promise.

    2. Re:It's Pelosi, not Trump by swillden · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why did Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell want to prevent him from getting that key campaign promise through?

      Couple things. Paul Ryan delivered on the $5.7 but the Senate didn't have enough votes (10 democrats).

      10 Democrats what? The Republicans had a clear Senate majority, as well as the tie-breaking vote. The bill could have been passed without a single Democrat voting for it, they could even have survived four defections... but they had a lot more than that, didn't they?

      By waiting till after the election (especially after losing the House) McConnell, Trump, and Ryan have made the division in government clear.

      You should re-read your own post. They haven't made the division clear, they're trying to pull a fast one and make it look like it's GOP vs Dems, when really it's Trump vs an alliance of part of the GOP & the Dems. The narrative that "Trump fights his own party" is, in fact, the truth with respect to wall funding (as well as some other areas). Also, "never Trump" is a mischaracterization of Flake and others who supported plenty of Trump's initiatives. Those GOP members aren't "never Trump", they just aren't "always Trump", and in Trump's narrative you're either with him or against him; there's no room for nuanced disagreement.

      FWIW, I'm a Republican-leaning libertarian who rarely agrees with Trump, but believes that even when he's right he's still bad for the country.

      the democrats are not acting based on principle but rather "Never Trump".

      Actually, I think it's both. Even without the Trump hatred I still don't think the Democrats would want to fund this boondoggle of a wall. It goes against their principles, even though they rarely see a government program they don't love. I could be wrong, of course; heaven knows both parties have funded untold boondoggles.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  8. Re:Good by L.+J.+Beauregard · · Score: 5, Informative

    1) Securing the perimeter of a McMansion's yard is EXACTLY THE SAME PROBLEM as walling off 2,000 miles worth of border.

    2) Do you really think $5 billion worth of wall will stop that last Mexican boogeyman? Or give us anything close to $5 billion worth of border security? Do you really think the Lord of Grift will do anything other than pocket most of the money?

    3) You want to stop those Mexican boogeymen? Slap a good stiff fine on those who hire them. You could even fund a few hundred feet of wall with the revenue...oh, wait, I just remembered. Taking money from rich people is socialism.

    --
    Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
    Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
  9. Re:This might call for some Fox News counterhackin by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You mean by doing the sensible thing, eg. Postponing the wall until there's money to pay for it?

    (There'll be money, right? Trump's economic policies are working...?)

    --
    No sig today...
  10. More an example of incompetience as system admin. by will_die · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If your certs are about to expire(30-60 days out) and you are not planning for it, especially when they will be failing around the end of the year with Christmas and new years, that is just an example of you being a poor system administrator.

  11. Re:Good by tk77 · · Score: 4, Informative

    As for drugs - if drug lords are resourceful enough to build mini-submarines for example, then a wall isn't going to stop them.

    We already know that now, as according to the DEA's 2018 report, the most common way for drugs to enter the country in the south is via the points of entry already. After that is tunnels, light aircraft, and then marine vehicles. Additionally, most of the fentanyl that enters the country comes from China. Sure some of it comes from Mexico, but its easier to use the postal service to send small quantities directly to buyers. $1.7mil worth of fentanyl was seized at the port in Philadelphia just this June. It came from China.

  12. Re:Good by phishybongwaters · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Obama deported the most illegals than any previous president. He did run and get elected as a Democrat right? Just cause fox and friends tells you something, that doesn't make it real. In fact, if it's coming from fox it will either be a lie, or coated in delicious lies. Just like the crazy neckbeard racist fuckwads don't represent conservatism as a whole, neither to the left wing nutjobs who seem to get endless airtime. I get that it's hard to understand these bubbles, but you really need to be aware that they exist on both sides. Left = all conservatives are racists Right = all democrats are socialsts The extremes are entirely made up bullshit. Sadly tho, the extreme on one side is certainly acting out with little to no repercussions.

  13. Clinton, Obama, Schumer, Pelosi all wanted a wall by raymorris · · Score: 4, Informative

    Clinton, Obama, Schumer and Pelosi all voted for a wall before Trump made actually getting it done a major campaign promise. Millions of people entering illegally, and often getting injured, assaulted, or even killed during the trek, was a "crisis" that needed to be solved, until Trump decided to actually solve it. The funding was "urgently needed", these Democrats said on national TV, until Trump would "get credit" for having done it.

    "Illegal Immigration is wrong, plain and simple. Until the American people are convinced we will stop future flows of illegal immigration, we will make no progress." Sen. Chuck Schumer

      "We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented and unchecked." - Barak Obama
    Less than a year later, Obama and 25 other Senate Democrats voted for the Secure Fence Act, the 2006 legislation that authorized the construction of 700 miles of barriers along the southern border.

    "[we must] spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in. ... I do think you have to control your borders." - Hillary Clinton

    How about the Dems allow the government to do what they themselves have said is "urgently needed" rather than obstructing it because they don't want the orange idiot to get the credit for it?

  14. Re:This might call for some Fox News counterhackin by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Whatever happened to "elections have consequences"?

    Perhaps there is room on both sides to stop acting like children, and learn to work together.

    Sorry, the "pen and a phone" only work when Dems win the presidency.

    Because reasons. Or something.

  15. Re: This might call for some Fox News counterhacki by damn_registrars · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Amazing. Almost nothing you said there was true.

    America elected Trump

    Actually, no. Fewer people voted for Trump than voted for Hillary, period. Even with a seemingly historic election we still had a rather appallingly low voter turnout in 2016 (less than 2/3 of eligible voters), hence more people who could have voted didn't bother voting than turned out to vote for Trump.

    in part to fix immigration

    As has been shown before, Trump has held almost every position on almost every issue at one time or another. Consistency is not his strength (one can debate what his strength actually is...).

    72% of Americans believe illegal immigration is a problem.

    Do you have a source for that? I found a study that basically said the opposite of that, where 72% said that illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay if certain conditions are met. That's a long ways from your claim.

    globalists who want cheap slave labor

    Considering the millions of dollars that Trump has refused to pay to people working for him over the years, it would seem that Trump himself should be in that camp. Or is it not "cheap slave labor" when it is money that is refused to American skilled workers?

    leftists who want cheap votes

    Going with that conspiracy again? Just because Trump says it is so doesn't make it the case.

    If Mexican illegal immigrants voted majority Republican, they'd treat them the same way they treat Cuban refugees (who vote 80% Republican).

    Keep peddling that conspiracy if you want...

    You lost.

    You do know there was an election in November 2018 as well, right?

    America First

    Tens of thousands of unpaid workers would like to challenge you on what that means.

    Traitors get the rope.

    Careful what you wish for there. The number of constitutional amendments that Trump has not openly spoken in opposition to grows shorter every month.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  16. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    He literally spelled it out on his website the HOW. I cannot believe that so many fucking people are going 1984 on this point. One of those points mentioned in that document, FROM HIS FUCKING WEBSITE, is them expecting Mexico to cut a fucking check for the wall, full stop.

  17. Netcraft confirms it. by Comboman · · Score: 5, Funny

    NASA, the US Department of Justice, and the Court of Appeals are just some of the US government agencies currently impacted, according to Netcraft.

    US government is dead. Netcraft confirms it.

    --
    Support Right To Repair Legislation.
    1. Re: Netcraft confirms it. by Netcraft+Confirms+It · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes, yes I do.

  18. Poor IT practices? by egriebel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I know that this being /. that people like to bash Trump at every opportunity (even when unwarranted), but isn't this problem one of crappy cert management? Waiting until the very last minute before renewing a cert isn't a Best Practice. It's not like your wasting money by renewing a cert early.

    --
    ACHTUNG! Das computermachine ist nicht fuer gefingerpoken und mittengrabben. Ist nicht fuer gewerken bei das dumpkopfen.
  19. Re:This might call for some Fox News counterhackin by ilsaloving · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There is no "two sides" to this. This problem falls squarely in the laps of the Republicans.

    Trump had an entire year to get this pushed through when the Reps had all three branches of gov't. He didn't.

    It only suddenly became a burning priority when the democrats took the house. There is only one side being childish right now, and that's been the case for a while now.

    (Yes, the democrats have their issues, but those issues are not what caused this current mess.)

  20. Re:This might call for some Fox News counterhackin by MachineShedFred · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What you just said:
    "No, we aren't in the business of governing anymore."

    The election is over. Now it's time to actually govern, which means working together to get the business of the federal government done.

    If you don't want to govern, don't run for government office. If you just want to be a political hack, get a fucking AM radio talk show like all the other hacks.

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  21. Re: This might call for some Fox News counterhacki by damn_registrars · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The election of the President in the US has always been, for 200+ years, by electoral college

    Which was necessary when calculating the national vote was not a practical thing to do in a short amount of time (days, even). We can tally the national vote in hours or less now. Results don't have to be transported on foot, by horse, or even by rail.

    a massive Democrat campaign to overturn the results by trying to force the electors to not vote for him

    Nice conspiracy you have, there. Care to provide support for it?

    It was also NOT an "appalling low turnout" as it was statistically above the average turnout for all elections and had the largest RAW count of votes EVER.

    That represents barely 60% of the population of people who are eligible to vote. Any other democracy would consider that an appalling failure - especially if you include the citizens who are uniquely ineligible in this country who would be able to vote in almost every other democracy.

    Our country has the distinction of being one of the only "democracies" where politicians can pick their voters as much as the voters can pick their politicians.

    But go ahead and keep slinging silly insults at me and attacking me instead of actually presenting facts. That seems to pass as dialogue for a certain portion of our country now.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  22. context matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Those were not about walls along the whole fucking shebang southern border, but rather small portion, and about sensible policies. You know, like the one republican hate more than dems : fining hugely and financially crushing people hiring illegals. But wait, can't do that, most of those are rich folk voting republican AND donating money. Yet this crack down on the people hiring illegals is what WORK.

  23. Re:This might call for some Fox News counterhackin by gtall · · Score: 4, Informative

    C'mon, his entire twitter feed is a tantrum feed.

  24. Re:Good by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 4, Informative

    This shutdown is just a diversion tactic to get attention away from his really big problems.

    I actually think it's not a diversion tactic. I think it's a miscalculation. A lot of what Trump does is done impulsively. His number one apologist, Scott Adams, says that in business you need to make decisions quickly because the quicker you act, the quicker you can fix it if you made a mistake. He gave out a big tax cut to the corporations when other changes he had made seemed to be making the economy stronger. That I blame on impulse - do everything now, not later. I think this whole wall thing is really just red meat for his supporters, most of whom are if anything even more deeply committed to him than ever before. My closest friends are, unfortunately, pretty conservative and deeply committed to Trump. One of them seems to believe that at least 60% of Americans, maybe more, are head over heels in love with Trump like he is. So what the shutdown is, for Trump supporters it's a sign that he's still in charge despite the November loss of the House. I think it's probably a little early for this kind of tactic as the 2020 presidential election is almost 2 years away, but he's just solidifying his base with this. I cal it a miscalculation because by the time of the 2020 election, nobody who isn't already behind Trump is going to be very enthused about this and if he had done it next year it might have had some effect on moving some voters his way if he wins the fight. By Nov. 2020, however it ends up won't be an issue any more. I think he needs to solidify his base next year, not this year, but he does everything impulsively, so here we are.

  25. Re:This might call for some Fox News counterhackin by Anubis+IV · · Score: 5, Informative

    PS: Wasn't Mexico going to pay for this?

    If that was ever funny, it stopped being so long ago.

    The only thing that's funny is the revisionist history I've seen people like you engaging in, given that he did say that Mexico would pay for the wall, he did so numerous times, and he even explicitly said that Mexico would pay for it in a "one-time payment". To his credit, he was walking the rhetoric back even before his inauguration, and I think it's a good thing when people (politicians or otherwise) change their minds after realizing that they were wrong, but that doesn't absolve them of responsibility for the things they said. As such, what I'm not okay with is a politician attempting to gaslight an entire nation by lying about what was said when it's inconvenient for him to be held accountable for those words later. There's no denying—at least among honest people—that he made the claim that Mexico would pay for the wall and that they'd do so via a lump payment, rather than the tariffs, taxes, or whatever other reimbursements he's now trying to claim he meant all along.

    As an aside, I don't have any "favored politicians". The party I'm registered with stopped representing my interests a long time ago, and none of the others do any better by me.

  26. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Nice 97% you pulled out of somewhere. I work with border patrol agents and their managers daily - I work for a company that builds and fields camera systems along the border, and we presently have hundreds of them. Border patrol agents want a mix of solutions highly dependent on the terrain. Talk to the guys in CA, and they have all the fence they need. Some could use repair. They want more agents. Talk to the folks in Nogales, and they want more cameras. Talk to the guys near Las Cruces, and they want helicopters. The guys in El Paso want a fence, but the people who own the land won't allow it, so you're in for a long eminent domain fight. We design a camera system into a freight box that can be set up in 30 minutes, and presently border patrol rents land from the landowner on a temporary basis to site the cameras near El Paso. Southwest Texas has land that is continually being remodeled by the Rio Grande - good luck constructing a wall there.

  27. Re:This might call for some Fox News counterhackin by N1AK · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Elections do have consequences, and the consequence of electing more Democrats to the house than Republicans is that Trump can't just demand what he likes and get it anymore.

    The Democrats, and the majority of Americans, don't support the wall. How is it acting like Children for them to refuse to sign something they don't agree with? A parent isn't acting like a child if they refuse to give their toddler more dessert every time they start having a temper tantrum; and depressingly that's a close analogy to the current President and his typical behaviour.

  28. Re:This might call for some Fox News counterhackin by Shaitan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Don't forget whipping people and putting them in the stocks for celebrating Christmas and hanging people for adultery. There are so many fun practices the early colonials had. I think it would be fair rather than to pick and choose which of religious practices of Europeans and Colonials we want to base our society on we just don't do that at all. How about we go with the spirit of the Christ figures statement when he said "Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and give unto the lord that which is the lords." It seems Christ advocated for a separation of church and state. When he turned over the tables in the temple he also advocated for separation of church and commerce. It is odd how many who claim to be his followers center so much of their lives and beliefs around the opposite.

  29. Re:You mean the Democrat Shutdown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The House passed the EXACT SAME BILL to reopen the government that the GOP-controlled Senate passed a few weeks ago, but now McConnell say that is a non-starter for GOP Senators.

    The GOP owns this. Full stop.

    Oh, and while we're at it, if the damn wall was so important how come they didn't get it funded during the 2 years that the GOP controlled both houses?

  30. Re:Clinton, Obama, Schumer, Pelosi all wanted a wa by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Informative

    The fence was a failure. People simply went around it or went over it. It was also breached 9,287 times in 5 years, resulting in repair costs.

    People would climb it, tunnel under it, throw drugs over it... It even started a drug war that resulted in 2000 deaths.

    It also had some pretty bad effects on the environment where it was built.

    Okay, you say, Trump's wall will be better. Higher, stronger, cover the entire border. Here's a video of a couple of guys climbing the existing very similar existing wall, in broad daylight, with drugs strapped to their backs, using only ropes. Takes them less than a minute.

    The problem needs to be tackled at source, not at the border.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  31. Re:This might call for some Fox News counterhackin by TrekkieGod · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Which means we should be spending less and taxing more, not spending $5 billion on something that's not even effective at preventing what it's designed to prevent. Considering the majority of illegal immigration is a result of overstayed visas, the majority of the drug traffic happens at legal ports of entry, and the known or suspected terrorists that have attempted to enter the US have been caught at airports, it seems to me the return on investment on building a border wall is nowhere near the $5 billion he's asking for.

    This is slashdot, so in programmer terms, this is premature optimization. Sure, there are thousands of people illegally crossing the border, but if you actually run a profiler you'll see that's not the even the hot path, so why are we proposing to spend so much of resources on that instead of elsewhere?

    --

    Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

  32. Re: This might call for some Fox News counterhacki by hawguy · · Score: 4, Informative

    Yes. The economy in the past w years has been fabulous compared to the previous 8 or almost any other time ever. Maybe any other time.
    â5 billion is a rounding error for the Federal gvt. If your only argument against building a wall which the entire leadership of the DNC is on record as supporting pre-Trump is finding the money then there is no reason left not to build it.

    It's not $5B, why do people keep perpetuating that myth -- the full wall is projected to cost anywhere from $25B to $75B. And since it's a large public works project, I would expect it to go much higher before it's done. The $5B is just a down payment.

    At some point even a paltry $100B stops being a rounding error and becomes "real money"

  33. Re:This might call for some Fox News counterhackin by thegarbz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Perhaps there is room on both sides to stop acting like children, and learn to work together.

    One side is upholding the democratic process preserved by the house and senate, the other side is holding a government to ransom for his pet project like a dictator.

    No. Not everything in the world should be compromised on. In fact quite the opposite. Not only should Trump NOT get his way but this stupid issue which allows the government to be shutdown through this legal process should be eliminated like other countries have done for the express purpose of preserving the democratic process.

  34. Re:This might call for some Fox News counterhackin by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "He's" shutting down the government?

    If the budget originated with Trump and the dems refused to sign because it included wall funding, would you then say Pelosi and Schumer are shutting down the government?

    If not, your a partisan hack, only finding fault in the other side.

    If so, you're just an idiot, basing your argument solely on who brings the budget to the table first.

    He's executive NOT legislative. Technically, he's not supposed to even be meddling with this, that's not how the branches were originally intended (and all recent Presidents do this, not hitting only at Trump here). He's using his veto to prevent the legislative body doing what the legislative branch is there to do. I reiterate, it's not just him, they all do it. It's technically not his job, and wasn't what the position of President was originally intended to do.

    I think it's about time we "redefine" the Presidency and reset it back to what it was supposed to be, not the ever more powerful position it has become over the many decades. No one man (or woman) should have so much power in a democracy, whether it's a wacko on the right, or a wacko on the left- or even someone from the middle.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  35. Re:This might call for some Fox News counterhackin by jrumney · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Republicans didn't support the wall either. Why do you think Trump waited until Democrats had control of the House to push hard on this? With a Republican majority house and senate it would have just been an embarrassment to him. With a Democrat house, he can use it to score a few points with his base, but I'm not sure his judgement on when to call it quits is going to help him in the long run, as the tougher things get for government employees, the more support he's going to lose.

  36. Re:This might call for some Fox News counterhackin by jeff4747 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Spending bills still require 60 senators to pass, not 51, so the Republicans could not get it passed by themselves.

    No, the Republicans did not try to get it passed by themselves.

    The Democrats offered to vote for Trump's entire wall ($27b) in return for citizenship for the DACA kids. Republicans didn't even put that to a vote.

    You could have argued that McConnell could have changed the rules to allow those bills to pass with a simple majority

    Or, since it's a spending bill, McConnell could have left the rules alone and passed it via reconciliation.

    So the OP is right, the blame lies on both sides.

    Only if you pretend time started about 3 months ago.

    But Trump actually has a better hand. As pointed out, the amount he's asking for really is a tiny fraction of the budget. People's opinion of Trump is not going to change much over this, people that hate him will continue to do so. Pelosi and Schumer, though, are a different story.

    Polling doesn't bear out your prediction. Trump is getting the blame for the shutdown, people are responding that it's stupid to keep the shutdown going over the wall, and we're just starting to get to the point where it hurts the economy.

  37. Re:This might call for some Fox News counterhackin by Enigma2175 · · Score: 5, Informative

    $18.5 billion in Medicaid for illegal immigrants. That's just healthcare - and it's nearly 4X this ask for the wall. ILLEGAL immigrants, not legal.

    Medicaid is not what the figure you quoted represents. I read the Forbes article from which your source drew its data and the majority of the cited costs are not Medicaid. You're misrepresenting the data. The article includes all kinds of indirect costs like forgone tax revenue and tax advantaged bond financing from non-profit hospitals, tax breaks for insurance provided as employee benefits or unpaid emergency room visits causing higher costs for all patients. It even includes $1.5 billion in charity care voluntarily given by physicians as a "cost". It doesn't show any evidence that illegal immigrants are using that healthcare, it just takes the total costs from a number of areas then assumes illegals use the same amount as legal residents and ascribes that cost to them. Even the author recognizes the shakiness of his figures:

    I recognize these back-of-the-envelope figures are crude, but they are the best estimates I could make

    Whatever the case, your assertion of "18.5 billion in Medicaid" is wrong and not even supported by your own source.

    --

    Enigma

  38. Re:This might call for some Fox News counterhackin by apoc.famine · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm very much in favor of cripplingly high fines for employers of illegal immigrants. The way I see it, they are the cause of the biggest problems with said illegal immigration. If employers are hiring illegals instead of Americans, they're doing so because they can hire them for less than minimum wage while not paying for required benefits and employment taxes.

    That may be the case in some places, but not all. I'm in the upper-midwest, farm country. The rural towns around here are dying. Fast. There's plenty of farmland, but there isn't a labor force to sustain the farms.

    For the locals, "home" is a shitty little town in the middle of nowhere, with no way to ever pay for more than a run-down old house or a double-wide trailer. There's no real advancement, no way to strike it rich. So there's no reason to be invested in working and living there, other than because it's been home to the family for a few generations. There's a lot of migration out of the rural towns, and they are dying.

    This has driven up the going rate for farm labor, which is now pushing $12/hr, sometimes going as high as $15/hr. The demand for labor and decent pay has brought in an influx of Mexican workers, and definitely not all of it them are legal. However, with this mix of legal and illegal, it seems the pay is largely the same across the board. Why? If you are absolutely desperate for workers, the last thing you want to do is piss them off, because they don't live here, and will happily drive 50 miles down the road to work for someone who's not a racist asshole. After all, they already have traveled a thousand plus miles for work.

    But what's really, really surprised me is the attitude of the farmers hiring these Mexicans. A couple were interviewed in the papers in the last year or two and both said that they'd rather hire Mexicans than the locals. Why? Because they're hard working, they stay out of trouble, and they don't leave for greener pastures as soon as they see a potentially better option. If you treat them right, they settle down and get shit done. Why? They're sending most of their money back to their family, which is using it to build a better life. When they have their dream home, the kids are well educated, they've got some new cars, and a nice nest egg tucked away, they're planning to go back and live the good life. And the harder they work now, the faster they get there.

    Immigration, legal and illegal, is benefiting both our countries in this regard. It's keeping these farms alive, that's making more money for the local area, the state, and potentially the US if any of those agriculture products get exported, and it's improving the lives of the families back home in Mexico. Yes, we'd rather have americans doing these jobs, but when they're not, even for what's regionally OK pay, what's the alternative? Active farms make money, fallow lands don't. And no other industry is going to replace tens of thousands of acres of farmland out in the middle of nowhere with minimal infrastructure around for miles.

    Sure, you can take the free market approach of "if they're not profitable, let them die", but that's the same as saying, "I hate Mexicans so much I want to see both our countries poorer." We'd all like to see a functional immigration system, but I don't see that happening in the near future. If we go nuclear on illegal immigration, we're shooting ourselves in the foot. We'd like to think we're not, but that's just wishful thinking. What's more likely than a political solution is that automation will steadily reduce these jobs, until they're more trouble to find than they're worth.

    --
    Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
  39. Re:Clinton, Obama, Schumer, Pelosi all wanted a wa by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 4, Informative

    The fence works, where it exists. Why do you close and lock your doors when you leave your home?

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!