ould be easy to turn down a continuing resolution or some boring damn thing, but how do you say no to a big beautiful bill?

The Wall Street Journal's reporting that this is the wording in the Wall Street Journal. They're talking about how it would increase the deficit by 2.7 trillion. And the Wall Street Journal says that figure was causing discomfort for some Republicans as national debt and bond yields climb. Republican leaders say that faster economic growth from Trump's policies would fill the gap and make it deficit neutral, a point that many economists dispute.

Now that's it. So the Wall Street Journal, which is sort of the premier financial reporting entity in the country, they do point out that the bill would add to the deficit. But you know what's missing? The part where the whole country crashes in on itself because the deficit is too big. There's something wrong with the way everybody's talking about this.

And I saw a post on X from Data Republican whose theory is that the reason that people are talking about it like it's no big deal when it's the biggest deal. It's bigger than all the other deals. There's nothing as important as this and we're racing toward a cliff to absolute disaster. And then the Wall Street Journal is like, "Yeah, you know, some economists dispute it." Really? That's the best you can do is some economists dispute it and well you know Trump says that growth will take care of it. No it won't. Nobody thinks that. Well nobody serious thinks that.

So Data Republican has some theories that it's cultural and corruption. Now, I haven't seen the details of her argument, but she's digging into it harder to find out what's going on here data wise. And we'll see what she comes up with. But the cultural part, I don't know exactly what that means, but I feel like the country has been trained, you know, the non-economists and the non-politicians. I think they've all been trained that kicking the can down the road always works because it always worked before and we complain about it every time, but then they kick the can and we're okay. But at some point that definitely stops working and we're at that point.

So you'd expect that the news would kind of flexibly change toward, oh, no, we can't do this anymore, but it didn't. That would be the cultural part, I guess, that as a culture, we've just decided it's not a problem, so we treat it like it's not, even though we're blindly heading toward the cliff. And then the corruption part is that the people who could change it, you know, let's say the military-industrial complex, they like their money, so they're not going to change it. And everybody else has a piece of the pie if they're part of the deep state or part of politics. So between corruption and the fact that we've been trained not to see it as a problem, we're blind to the biggest problem the country's had in my lifetime.

So I thought that would be useful for me to solve this problem. I'm going to use a technique you've heard from me before. It's called the bad idea. Now, the bad idea is exactly that. I'm going to give you a bad idea for solving the deficit problem. You're of course going to notice, wait a minute, there's a problem with that bad idea, but it might make you think of a good idea because it's going to be out of the box.

So let me just put it out there. It's a bad idea, but maybe it'll make you come up with the real good idea. All right, suppose just suppose the government issues a cryptocurrency. But if you issued a cryptocurrency that people could use to buy anything they want, well that would be very inflationary. So that's no good, right? Everybody agrees. If you just added money, it doesn't matter if it's crypto or you printed money. If you're just adding money, that doesn't work because it's hugely inflationary.

But suppose just suppose that the money that's being added, I'll just give you one example. Suppose that if you were collecting interest on a T-bill you could optionally, and it would just be up to you, nobody would force you to do it, you could receive it in regular old dollars just like you always did or you could receive your interest in this new crypto and let's say it's tied to the dollar so it's not fluctuating that much.

Now you might say well why would I ever take the crypto and the answer is that it would have one purpose. You could only use it for one thing which is paying federal taxes in the United States. It couldn't be used for anything else. So would that make the price of products at Target go up? No, because there wouldn't be any more money available to buy things at Target. It would be the same amount of money. It's just that you could only use this crypto.

Now, suppose I said to you that this crypto would give you a 5% discount on your taxes. Now, you might be a person who has a T-bill and you don't pay many taxes for whatever reasons, but you could say, "All right, I'll take the crypto and then I'll just resell it to somebody who wants to pay their taxes and they can get the 5% discount and I'll charge them a little extra." So you could easily exchange it.

Then here's the fun part. Suppose that the one and only thing you can do with it is pay your taxes. But that once the government received your crypto payment in taxes, it would have to burn the crypto. It would never exist again because that would keep the government from just spending whatever extra money the system produced. Your taxes would be paid by the crypto but the government would just not have access to it. It would just be burned. Being burned means in the digital world it becomes not crypto anymore. It just turns into garbage basically.

Now would that work? What it would do is it would pay down the debt. But in our current system, if you paid down the debt a little bit, somebody would just increase spending. But with this, you would pay down the debt and it would just disappear. There would be nothing to allow them to increase spending. So it's a bad idea. But think in terms of adding crypto but limiting it to a single purpose so it doesn't have a general inflationary possibility.

All right. So that's all. You don't have to tell me it's a bad idea because that's where I started.

Most of you by now have seen the video of Trump doing what the fake news calls ambushing. So all the fake news got the memo to use the word ambush. The president of South Africa was in the very crowded room that dignitaries are greeted in the White House. And Trump was complaining about white genocide in South Africa. And I guess the president of South Africa was not convinced that it was happening. And so the president said, you know, turn down the lights. We'll show this video. And he showed some video evidence to make his case. And then he showed a bunch of printed out documents to make his case.

And part of it was videos of what looked like hundreds or thousands of white crosses next to the road that I think Trump called graves. Now what's interesting is the president of South Africa said, "Where is that? I've never seen that." And Trump said, "It's in South Africa." Like how in the world could he not know that it existed? It's like in the United States we've sort of all seen that picture.

And so I said to myself, oh, and Elon Musk was there giving a death stare to the president because he's quite invested, at least emotionally invested in his old country. And part of it was showing the video of some large gathering, political gathering in South Africa where the black gatherers were singing "Kill the Boers," which would be the white people.

And so I said to myself, I wonder if there's another side to this argument. So I went to Grok and I asked Grok because it was aware of the event if the argument that Trump was making was valid and Grok said nope. Now, I'm not saying that. All right? So what I'm telling you is that Grok said it's all debunked.

Now here are a few things it said. You know, all those white crosses, those don't exist. They did exist for a specific protest. But it actually wouldn't be that surprising that the president of the country doesn't know they exist because he literally said, "Where's that?" And he looked like he wasn't lying. Like he literally didn't even know what that was about. That doesn't exist according to Grok. Now remember, I'm telling you Grok's argument. What I'm not doing is making my own argument, right? So you got to make that disti