I don't really take issue with any of his comments - it's mostly just run-of-the-mill normie FUD. (I'm even happy to concede that any money the government spends is effectively 'taxpayer' money). What I think he is demonstrably wrong about is that the bill as currently written doesn't require taking on any new debt - at least for a while.. It essentially calls for the ~$11B in gold certificates currently held by the Fed to be updated from their $42.22 per ounce value (a relic of a 1970's statute) to the current market value - and the difference to be returned to the U.S. Treasury. At the current market rate for gold this would provide the Treasury with ~$700B that it didn't have to borrow from anyone. Is $700B enough to buy 1M Bitcoin slowly over 5 years? I don't know, either (but I doubt). So maybe they would have to start borrowing to eventually achieve this. Though, in the meantime, it would actually temporarily wipe out a significant drop of the debt (and the associated interest payments) - so there's that. PS. The upgrading of the gold certificates sounds too good to be true to me. I mean, why hasn't anyone suggested doing it before now to pay for their own pet project? It feels like there must be something that makes it legally undoable; but, I haven't seen the argument against it, yet... and it's still in the latest text of the proposed bill.