new world order
With our new president comes a New World Order. A guided tour through dramatic shifts in political thought and power struggles that inform our future.
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 Podcast6 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 Podcast6 days ago in The Swamp
7 Reasons Why Your Vote Often Brings Little Change
Over 17 years ago, USA President Barack Obama burst on the scene with a stirring "Yes, We Can" . Many of the American population, especially the youth, were galvanised into action, having been in some despair about the Bush years. They saw Obama's vision, they could feel the possibilities, they loved his speeches and jumped on to his bandwagon. The rest is history as he stormed the White House.
By Elaine Sihera 18 days ago in The Swamp
WORKER OF PATHWAYS
Disclaimer: All writing, ideas, and creative work in this story are my own. I draft my pieces, take my notes, and develop my concepts independently. I also edit my own videos and create my own music. Every idea, note, edit, and creative choice comes from my lived experience, my training, and my craft not from automated tools or “pushing a button.” What you read here is mine.
By Vicki Lawana Trusselli 20 days ago in The Swamp
Family-Directed Support. AI-Generated.
American family policy has a basic design failure. Government can spend heavily around a low-income household—on subsidized child care, food assistance, housing support, tax credits, disability services, provider reimbursements, case management, and repeated eligibility reviews—while the household itself remains cash-poor, overregulated, unable to save, and vulnerable to every ordinary emergency.
By Peter Thwing - Host of the FST Podcast23 days ago in The Swamp
Pay Families Directly Without Paying Them to Remain Poor. AI-Generated.
Every debate over family policy tends to collapse into two positions: keep the current fragmented, provider-directed welfare system, or replace a household's entire public-spending footprint with one large, unrestricted cash payment. Both sides of that argument are, in their own way, correct about something important. The status quo really does trap families in cliff-ridden, cash-poor dependency on institutions that treat parental caregiving as economically worthless. The buyout really does identify a genuine contradiction — government will pay almost anyone to care for a child except the parent — and it's right that fixing that contradiction is worth real money.
By Peter Thwing - Host of the FST Podcast24 days ago in The Swamp
