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.
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.
You can cash a paycheck without an account it just costs you to
Mike Johnson cashes his checks at walmart confirmed.
If you go to the bank that issued the check, they should cash it for free.
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.
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).
Vance shoots his wad in his couch
Any time Mike Johnson shoots a wad, his son gets a notification about it.
And the pennies caught between the cushion hold more value than his deposit.
Does JD worry about being homosexual because he fucks a Lazy-Boy or does he think it is fine because it is sounds close to Ladyboy and they are real women after all.
He also shares his porn browsing history with his son. And reviews his sons porn browsing history.
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
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.
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
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
