That is what I feel at present. CNBC gave us all 12 hour ago the ominous title ‘Trump is paying TSA agents — but where is the money coming from?’ (at https://www.cnbc.com/2026/04/01/tsa-trump-dhs-shutdown-airports.html) The article is giving us a few sides, like:
Where does the money Trump is using come from?
How much is available?
How long can Trump continue to pay TSA agents if Congress doesn’t soon come to a deal?
You think this is a simple setting, but as I see it, it is not. It reeks like a Ponzi scheme. Paying one lot from a stack mean for other means. Now in normal settings we get this, pile one a has a surplus (or reserve) and it deals with a few items not meant for it, but I personally believe that CNBC uncovered part of the setting that was never meant to be seen by anyone, because it alerts the media to questions it was never meant to realise in their destiny for digital dollars.
An d personally I wonder what the budgeting departments can give the world in uncovering what is really happening, because as I personally see it, when any government is totaling their revenue towards a Ponzi scheme kind of balancing, we can deduce that the United States is now in its final game, desperate to survive whatever comes next. President Trump played (by some) an essential game to make The United States look important (or is that impotent?) The first game was Canada that it had to be part of these beautiful states somehow united and he had already a designation for this, their 51st state, a state bigger and more beautiful than any other, but the Canadians (bless them) were not falling into that trap. They were saved by their Prime Minister, who was the Governor of the Bank of England before he got back to Canada and he saw through President Trump like an adult watching a toddler trying to figure out the functions of a spanner. It was never a competition. Now that Canada was on alert, they were possibly alerting Denmark on what the United States had in mind for the rare earths in Greenland and they were willing to pay (yet no more than $0.01 on the dollar) as they lacked certain funds and Denmark got Europe to stand by them and get angry too. As such the expenditure tap of Europe was getting closed towards the United States of America, and now the United States arranged for two settings, the first was that more allies were furious with them and with the closed expenditure tap to the end date of the United States came rushing forward. But President Trump had lived by divide and conquer for most of his life, so he used bully tactics to get Venezuela to heel and Wall Street rejoiced for 5 minutes. The problem is that Venezuela has plenty of volatile sludge, but it is oil by another name and not that useful in the machines available to the United States. And another setting was thwarted.
So now we get to the current dilemma. Iran, all useful and none of it at the needs for the United States. So what does it do? It bombs Iran into the Stone Age and is now ready to invade Iran and now because it was forced (as some say) for the United States (as well as Israel) to came to the setting of the new colony of Kharg Island, it can tap from those billions of barrels of oil. But Iran casually included the guy states by attacking it and these now will demand their reparations to be funded thorough Iranian oil. I casually had another thought, why let the United States ‘win’ when we can stop Iran’s infrastructure and that will bring out the real culprit. As such I ‘bestowed’ IP on Saudi Arabia and the UAE so that they can get their Dirhams worth and in the mean time there is enough delay to bring the plight of the United States to bare, because the media does nothing to do this. I might not be as clever as Canadian Prime Minster Mark Carney (a multiple winner of economic awards), but I do have my own creative sides and I brought them to bare.
So whilst others are lulled in a setting of sleep, I am seeing that CNBC has seen some of it and when others are starting to realise that “The White House has not laid out exactly where within the tax and spending bill the money is coming from, but Bobby Kogan, senior director of federal budget policy at the Center for American Progress, said there is only one plausible section that the administration could be citing. Buried deep in the more than 300-page measure is a section that sets aside $10 billion “for reimbursement of costs incurred in undertaking activities in support of the Department of Homeland Security’s mission to safeguard the borders of the United States.”” This document allegedly is covering the payment of several bills with that $10 billion, but siphoned in different ways the setting of a Ponzi scheme is met. So what is the Ponzi scheme?
A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that pays existing investors with funds collected from new investors rather than from actual profit earned. Promoters promise high, consistent returns with little or no risk, creating an illusion of success that attracts more capital until the scheme collapses due to a lack of new investors.
And as I personally see it, they are funding AI and their StarGate in similar ways. The funds have have dried up and the game is over, but this president (Wall Street too) don’t believe that the party will ever end, but the markers are there.
So could I be wrong?
That remains to be seen, it is possible, but behind the ‘rhetoric’ and the film flam abilities of some to curdle milk, the audience is told to believe in a setting that is seemingly no longer there. And I believe that the United States is now playing with marbles they never owned that others have to pay for the setting they invoked. Like some sources give us ‘Trump Wants Gulf Allies to Pay US for War Despite Bearing Brunt of Iran Strikes?’ And the use of ‘might’ is overly used, but it is all he has left and I don’t agree. I gave the Saudi Arabia and the UAE ways to deal with Iran, paying the United States was never on my mind (or valid) and it is another setting we are given that the United States is running out of money and they have less and less in their allowance sack. As I see it, it is worth less than the empty sack.
So, whilst you are considering all the ways I might be wrong, the larger setting is ‘Could I be right?’ A setting that many are rejecting just out of the notion to reject it as the hard truth is too much to bare. Have a great day.
Lawrence van Rijn - Law Lord to be 