corruption
A prime locale to talk bribery, suspect campaign funding, and all other instances of political corruption. The shadier, the better.
Marina Oswald Deserves an Apology and Compensation
By Elliott J. Schuchardt For more than six decades, the United States government has loudly and officially claimed that Lee Harvey Oswald was the sole assassin of President John F. Kennedy. This narrative has stood as a monument to governmental convenience over historical truth.
By Elliott Schuchardt3 days ago in The Swamp
The Perils of Entanglement
For decades, United States foreign policy in East Asia has been anchored to an increasingly hazardous premise: that Washington must guarantee the security of Taiwan against the People’s Republic of China (PRC). On the surface, the United States claims to support an East-Asian democracy against mainland China. The reality is not so benign. For the past 75 years, the United States has needlessly interfered in the Chinese civil war. As global dynamics shift and the risk of conflict escalates, Washington must reassess its commitment to Taiwan. To avoid a potentially dangerous confrontation, the United States must cease its military and political backing of Taiwan.
By Elliott Schuchardt5 days ago in The Swamp
The Worker of Pathways and the Bubble of Greed
The Worker of Pathways and the Bubble of Greed Copilot The Worker of Pathways walked into a world where the sky looked normal, but the air felt wrong, stretched thin, like something enormous was sucking the breath out of the streets.
By Vicki Lawana Trusselli 8 days ago in The Swamp
Trump’s Midterm Promise
News of the Republican National Convention circulate social media with the most recent promise from Trump. Trump claimed to offer Americans (oh, I’m sorry, I mean, adult American citizens) a dividend of $5000 because America is economically strong. Once he spat that promise, the stadium erupted with applause while opposing content creators flooded their accounts, ready to post the latest.
By Iris Harris22 days ago in The Swamp
The Missing Argument in the Stay-at-Home Parent Subsidy Debate
Preface: Video Context: Video Credit: Timcast / Tim Pool This article is a response to a recent Timcast segment discussing the proposed policy that would allow qualifying married couples with a stay-at-home parent to receive childcare subsidies of roughly $9,000 per child per year. The video frames the central debate around whether this amounts to additional welfare or whether it simply redirects money government is already spending on childcare toward parents who choose to provide that care themselves. Around 9:32–10:20 , Tim argues that the welfare expenditure already exists and that the important change is where the incentive points: instead of subsidizing families specifically when parents work and children are cared for elsewhere, the same funding could begin supporting married parents who raise their children at home.
By Peter Thwing - Host of the FST Podcast24 days ago in The Swamp
A Better Buyout: Paying Married Parents to Buy Back Their Time
A Different Kind of Buyout I previously proposed what I called a Family Support Buyout: give families the option to voluntarily exchange a large portion of the government benefits and services already being spent on their behalf for one predictable, untaxed monthly payment they control themselves. Instead of administering SNAP, childcare subsidies, housing assistance, refundable credits, cash assistance, and other ordinary supports through separate bureaucracies, government could calculate the avoidable cost of those programs and offer families perhaps 65, 70, or 75 percent of that value directly. The family would relinquish the benefits being replaced, taxpayers would retain the remaining savings, and the household would gain dramatically greater control over how its resources are allocated. Medical coverage, disability services, catastrophic healthcare, and other specialized needs could remain separate because those costs are less suitable for a simple cash conversion. The central idea was straightforward: if government is already spending $100 supporting a family, perhaps both taxpayers and the family can benefit if the family receives $70 directly instead.
By Peter Thwing - Host of the FST Podcast24 days ago in The Swamp
