He claimed 0 assets. No stocks, no interest earning bank accounts, no mutual funds, no CDs. That's awfully suspicious.
Yeah. Maybe the most important word here is "claimed".
Don't you need an account for your paycheck? Like they don't pay cash.
Some places pay cash, and some will pay in pre-paid debit cards. That's not usually the case for the U.S. Gov't, though!
What kind of scammer is paying in prepaid debit cards?
McDonald’s did this I believe
Dollar Tree, too. A friend of mine worked there for two weeks, quit when her first paycheck came as a debit card.
At least some Safeways do this for anyone without direct deposit.
According to FDIC, about 4.5% of US households do not have a bank account of any kind, but that number is much higher when you only include low income households. Some choose not to have an account, some are denied accounts by banks for various reasons.
https://www.fdic.gov/analysis/household-survey/index.html
Also, most banks only offer free checking accounts with direct deposit or a minimum balance. I don't know if this is still the case, but I worked for a payroll processor many years ago and, at that time, many small businesses chose not to offer direct deposit to their employees. Paying bank fees is very difficult for low income households.
One of the options the company I worked for had was to offer refillable debit cards to employees that their paychecks would be deposited to. This gave them the basic features of a bank without needing to create their own account.
I had not heard of this before. So who owns the account? Can they go to the bank website and check their balance and transfer money? Can they pay bills online? Withdraw cash from an atm?
If so, that has pretty much all the functionality of a checking account. I suppose minus the actual check writing. Are they worried low income people will do check fraud? Or maybe just overdraw with checks?
Is he married? Maybe all of it is in his wife’s name.
or an LLC or some other tax haven
This is most likely the correct answer.
Hides assets and protects them from prying investigation
I support that's possible.
"Actually, the Speaker’s office told Marketplace that he does have a personal bank account, but it’s exempt from House reporting rules because it doesn’t earn interest."
Lol
Oh the perfect cover for massive bribes got it.
None of our bank accounts really pay interest, 0.01% come on.
No claimed assets + religious nutjob suggests to me that he gives all his income to some cult leader.
The cult leader? Itself.
So you're telling me that either Mike Johnson has a wad under his mattress, or is somehow the most based cryptobro in politics? Someone should.... investigate.... this.
Or he’s lying
This is my vote, using Occam's Razor. Or a related option: he's being overly pedantic about terminology (e.g. maybe everything is in a trust or something).
Somebody call Coffeezilla
He's kinda busy.
Why would they investigate it? Either he has no money, and is telling the truth, or he "has no money" and will be happy to share his "nothing" to keep an investigation from happening.
It was stated elsewhere that he has
no interest earning bank accounts
So while most bank accounts do earn interest, apparently he has one which does not.
The investigation part of mine was more insinuation that he had a massive wad of money sitting relatively unsecured in his home.
Looks like he is claiming that he doesn't own anything:
From that same article:
Actually, the Speaker’s office told Marketplace that he does have a personal bank account, but it’s exempt from House reporting rules because it doesn’t earn interest.
...yeah, that's what I'm saying. Maybe he's got no money, or keeps it in a bank with no interest for some weird reason, but the more likely scenario is that he has a lot of money he doesn't want to make public. If he's got so much money that it benefits him more to keep it hidden than to let it publicly gain interest, then he's going to be willing to hand some of it off to a corrupt public official to prevent an investigation.
If a real investigation were done, then there would be no reason for him to bribe anyone, which is the more important thing for the vast majority of the government, so they have no reason to do an investigation. I'd like them to, but my preferences aren't going to matter to the guy who only took the job of an investigator for the bribery money. If anything, they'll just do a sham investigation so that they can say "nope, nothing" while walking away with their pockets full of cash.
It's been a long time since this country meaningfully punished a rich man for doing something wrong.
Is he not 3rd in line? Also there is a currently a member of congress being investigated because they claimed on their campaign finance forms to have loaned their campaign $350,000 despite not having a savings account. Pretty weird if you ask me
Biden is the president
Harris is first in line should Biden leave office
Johnson is second in line, behind Harris
Yes, it’s a zero-indexed array.
As programmer, that should feel right, but it sure doesn't.
3rd if you count the presidency itself.
Pres
Vp
Speaker
President pro tempore
I prefer my presidents pro Teriyaki
have i been eating amateur teriyaki this whole time?!
If it was Kikoman, honestly yes.
The president is not in line though. His office is what the line is for, and he's in it.
If they all lined up outside biden's office, I bet he would wait at the back of it.
Idk why but the line of attack with weird isn’t really doing it for me.
But it doesn’t matter much because I’m far from the average voter and they already earnt my vote 5 times over.
It's being overused. However The Speaker of the House of Representatives not having any bank accounts is best described as weird.
I don't think that Democrats should get too hung up on the word "weird" specifically, because that can get overdone pretty quickly, but the general strategy of gently insulting Trump in a way that flusters him and embarrasses his supporters is golden imo.
I'm in a terminally red area. I usually try to avoid political discussions, but when I've been pressed for my opinion on Trump, I tend to avoid talking about policy, because really, that's a dead end for the type of person that would start this conversation. Instead I'll respond with something like "politics aside, he honestly comes across as kinda dumb" or "Naw, he creeps me out". Bam! There isn't a fox news talking point for that that doesn't involve trying to change the conversation to some dem, and really these statements are just a matter of opinion. Go straight to policy and you'll get memorized talking points back, go to really harsh direct insults, they'll dismiss you as having TDS. But when you keep it subtle and insulting in an everyday, almost dismissive sort of way, like by saying say "sorry no, your guy is just too plain weird", that gets to them. It forces introspection, and though it might not mean anything that day, those short moments of realizing that their politicians really are a bizarre group might start to add up. I know it did for me. Antagonizing Trump should be secondary to subtley and carefully making his supporters embarrassed to support him and dorks like him.
I’m in a terminally red area. I usually try to avoid political discussions, but when I’ve been pressed for my opinion on Trump, I tend to avoid talking about policy
Honestly policy is a surprisingly safe topic because most laypeople don't pay close attention to policy. Stay away from the current hot talking points and just speak in broad strokes and most trumphumpers will actually agree with very progressive policies
It seems to work on the people for whom Trump being a complete lunatic, obviously suffering from dementia, trying to overthrow US democracy and being in league with their country's biggest enemy doesn't work. So, I'll take it
When Walz delivered the line originally it landed really well. Ultimately, the point is to impact the conversation enough so the people who aren't very plugged in hear it, which I think has worked. I don't think many people here needed to be convinced not to vote Republican
It’s dismissive and invalidating, which really does work on T regardless.
I don't really get it either, but it's driving them crazy, so I go with it
I've said before that it seems silly to me, but I'm not the target audience, and it's apparently driving the MAGA crowd nuts, so what the heck.
Its driving the MAGAts nuts is because their identity is wrapped up in being part of the SiLeNt MaJoRiTy, so pointing out that they're just a bunch of weirdos with minority opinions just destroys their self worth.
After all, we all know what they think of minorities.....
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
