• Gerudo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      77
      ·
      4 months ago

      Don’t you need an account for your paycheck? Like they don’t pay cash.

      • Clay_pidgin
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        53
        ·
        4 months ago

        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!

          • sevan@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            3 months ago

            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.

            • jaybone@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              3 months ago

              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?

              • sevan@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                3 months ago

                It’s been a long time since I worked in that space, but I think it is basically like a reloadable prepaid card you can get from visa or mastercard. I would assume there actually is a bank behind it, but the account is essentially being sponsored by someone else and there is less risk for the bank because you can’t write a bad check or overdraw the account. That makes it potentially useful if the reason you didn’t get an account is because the banks refused you or you couldn’t afford the fees. For people who are just anti-bank or worried about financial privacy, they would still want to go cash only.

                On a side note, reloadable cards can also be useful if you have friends or relatives that you want to help out now and then, especially if they are not local and maybe make poor decisions. It’s cheaper than Western Union or a money order, more secure than mailing cash, and no risk of them having access to your bank account number from sending a check.

                • nomous@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  I briefly worked for a place that paid to a pre-paid Visa card like you’re saying. They basically gave you the card when you started and you did all the activation. It was a temp agency so it made it more convenient when it came to getting paid per diem or for short term work. The business paid the agency, the agency paid you. At the time it didn’t seem too sketchy (20+ years ago) but I’d be pretty cautious about doing something like that now.

          • Fosheze@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Basically any employer that regularly hires people that can’t get bank accounts.

            • bitchkat@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              ADP is just the payroll processing company. If you opt to receive a paper check, it will come from a bank like wells Fargo, us bank, chase etc.

                • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  I’ve gotten my share of checks like that. ADP might have printed the check, but the bank it’s drawing from is owned by the company. You should see their name and address in the top left corner.

                  Unless it says “ADP” in which case they are from ADP because you work for them.

    • rambling_lunatic
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      41
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      “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

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      No claimed assets + religious nutjob suggests to me that he gives all his income to some cult leader.

  • Coskii@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    135
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    4 months ago

    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.

      • sugar_in_your_tea
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        4 months ago

        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).

      • Mycatiskai@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        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.

    • Signtist@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

      • Coskii@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        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.

          • Coskii@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            16
            ·
            4 months ago

            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.

        • Signtist@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          4 months ago

          …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.

  • Hikermick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    54
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    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

  • FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    4 months ago

    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.

    • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      50
      ·
      4 months ago

      It’s being overused. However The Speaker of the House of Representatives not having any bank accounts is best described as weird.

    • 0ops@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      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.

      • Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

        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

    • Diplomjodler@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      4 months ago

      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

    • protist@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      4 months ago

      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

    • zephorah@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      4 months ago

      It’s dismissive and invalidating, which really does work on T regardless.

    • AFK BRB Chocolate@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

      • Passerby6497@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        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…