president
They've chopped down cherry trees and waged full-on war. Riding the highs and lows of the leaders who've tried to Make America Great Again.
September 11: 25 Years Later
September 11, 2001: a date that would forever impact the United States. Where were you on that tragic day? I was a 7th grader at the time, and it was an ordinary school day. All of a sudden, everyone was told that two buildings, which were the Twin Towers at the World Trade Center, collapsed in a matter of minutes. Nearly 3,000 people lost their lives and that's when time stood still. The reaction across the country and the world ranged from shocked to sadness. Unfortunately, not even an hour after arriving at school, I was picked up early. I went upstairs to my bedroom and watched the rest of the news coverage of the attacks. My 13-year-old self struggled to process and understand why someone would do something like this. What led them to take the lives of innocent individuals? The fallen victims had families and I got emotional. There are evil people in this world and the terrorists that had absolutely no regards about human lives were an example of this. Even though I was raised in Texas, I was born in New York. I have relatives who still live in the latter state.
By Mark Wesley Pritchard 6 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 Podcast8 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 Podcast8 days ago in The Swamp
THE GREAT AMERICAN FUNHOUSE: How We Traded the New Deal for a Corporate Lease and Called It Freedom
Gather ’round, citizens, grab your participation trophies, and strap yourselves tightly into the Tilt-A-Whirl because the ride is completely unbolted from the concrete.
By Meko James 10 days ago in The Swamp
