Dave Ramsey: Nyah Nyah, I Can Do Better Than You

Ok, just so you know, I am not going to try to create a better financial plan than Dave Ramsey. The title is referring to the OTHER people who seem to think that they are better at this game than Dave is. Obviously, this post is under the "Rants" page because I'm ranting against these people. People like Frank Curmudgeon, or this site, seem to be filled with other "experts" who seem to know the tricks and tools of the trade that Dave doesn't. They then criticize Dave for various things, be it not being "religiously devoted" enough, being "info-mercial salesman", or flat out being bad at math (yeah, let's see you calculate percentages and principles on the fly on a radio show *roll eyes*). These people spout opinions like Niagara Falls and seem to be just as good of experts as Dave is. Here's my reasoning for why Dave is one of the best thus far that I've found:

• The number of people that have submitted results from his program:
• I mean, come on! There's THOUSANDS of people that have said "Oh My Grash, Gals! I have succeeded using Dave's program! Yay!" I mean, seriously, how many other programs can boast that many people? And the practicality of attending his classes. I haven't heard of nearly any other program being hosted across the nation like Dave. 
• The change in mentality, not just operation:
• Dave doesn't offer a "gold-investment" plan or a get-rich-quick scheme (well, in all fairness, neither do any of the other gurus out there), however, the one thing Dave does deal with is the idea of "changing your family tree" (to quote one of his popular phrases.) He deals with the mannerisms that we tend to fall into with debt, holding credit cards for emergencies, having a NVW (need vs want) crisis, and saving for something versus putting it on payments. This kind of mentality change is what's necessary if we want to change our entire attitude about money. Often times, these people that are criticizing Dave criticize him on petty things. Yes, petty things.
• For instance, one guy comments: CDs are actually good investments because they are FDIC insured and are great investments for orphans or widows. Yeah...if you like your money doing NOTHING with no option to GET IT. Dave Ramsey wasn't commenting on how dangerous those investments are, he was commenting on how SAFE they are: safe to the point of not doing anything. They barely beat inflation, so that two hundred dollars you invest DID make money. But they can only buy 200 dollars POST-inflation.
• It's arguments like that which constitute the majority of arguments against Dave: nit-picking little arguments about math or conceptual arguments, without really assessing what Dave is really trying to accomplish: MAKING SUSTAINABLE MONEY. Doing that is his primary goal.
• As far as his not being religious enough, I don't buy it for a second. He has verses to back up every one of his principles, he talks about tithing every time you get paid (PRE-tax, mind you. How many of the lame-brains do THAT?) and that once you are set, EVERYTHING you make goes towards the church. 

The primary reason I love Dave, though, is the simple advice he uses: If you want to be where the best are, do what the best do (Oh, what a novel concept!) Last time I checked, Frank Curmudgeon wasn't a millionaire who bought a 2-million dollar home cash which is used for orphanages and week-camps. Last time I checked, Frank Curmudgeon's blog didn't have 6 million followers and a syndicated radio show. If Dave's stuff didn't work, people wouldn't continue to follow him. The reason these people complain is because either, 1. There's a "faster" "better" or "smarter" way to win, 2. Dave is a "novice" in financial planning (again, millionaire. Do you have millions?) 3. They can't be bothered to change their lifestyle radically. (Note: Radical means cutting up credit cards and never using them again, not "Oh, I'm only going to save this for emergencies. No, I mean it this time!")

The reason I bring this up is because I haven't had a chance to fully follow Dave's advice...yet. But I'm determined to do so. Once I've tried everything he suggests and find it DOESN'T work, then I'll start criticizing. But until y'all can tell me you tried everything to Baby Step 7 and failed miserably (No, making only 500,000 by retirement when Dave "promised" a million is NOT failing miserably) then you can complain.

Living like Grandma suggested: saving for everything, defining a need vs a want, and planning long term is hard. I just think people find it easier to criticize those who look like experts, rather than doing some introspection and seeing that they themselves are the morons who need to change their lifestyle, rather than bringing down the people who are doing good and are succeeding!

So, with all encouragement to try before dissing something that "doesn't work,"
Luke

Nothing But the Truth...is Worth What?

So, I just finished watching a movie called Nothing But the Truth, which was actually based on, loosely mind you, this article. (Yes, it's wikipedia, get over it.) The principle conundrum that the movie presents is this: Which is more important, a government's need to provide national security (which it does in the form of The Patriot Act, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, and other court rulings), or a journalist's 1st Amendment rights to print freely anything she has reported? The journalist, who printed the identity of a CIA operative who forced her husband to write negative reviews about the president after the President ignored her report about Venezuelan assassination attempts on his life, is forced to go to jail after refusing to reveal the source of the CIA leak (the person who revealed the agent's identity. After facing contempt of court, a grand jury, two arrests and assault in jail, she still does not reveal her source). No one ever really says whether any of that's true or not, regarding the agent's nefarious journalism of the president. But the main question that I think should be asked is not one of rights conflicting (because, while I think that is an important argument, it's not the one I want to have. And since it's my blog, I can do whatever I want :p), but rather is this argument: In the movie, it is revealed that the source is the Agent's 6-ish year old daughter, who happened to be in the same class as the journalist's son. The daughter saw the reporter writing an article, and mentioned how her dad wrote articles after her mom yelled at him ( and bibbity, bobbity, boo, we have an exposé). The journalist fights throughout the film to NEVER reveal her source, who is 6 years old and had no idea what she was doing. Now, my argument is this:

ARGUMENT TIME:


IN CORNER 1:
Should you honor people's lives, and family cultures, by not reporting the truth (which is called lying by omission: you know something, but neglect to tell it), therefore becoming a "nice-ness" filter, only reporting the information which "is important, but won't hurt anybody"? (I should note that the CIA agent gets shot halfway through the film by a right-wing extremist who thinks that she was anti-american. Which no one would have known, had the journalist not written the report.)

MAIN ARGUMENT: Filtering the truth to respect people and honor them.

IN CORNER 2:
Should you recognize that, regardless of the consequences, when your job is to report the truth, you need to report it and let people live with the consequences of yours, and their, decisions? The reason there's emphasis there is because the mother needs to live with the consequences of her arguments with her husband identifying her occupation to her daughter, which led to this whole debacle.

MAIN ARGUMENT: The honorable thing is to report the truth, knowing whatever may come is your responsibility and those involved.

ESSENTIALS: This essentially is about which is "morally" the higher ground: respecting people or respecting the truth.

Now, my opinion is slightly flawed because of my christian beliefs: I believe first and foremost God said "Thou shalt not lie." So, lying by omission is still a violation of some pretty core beliefs. Unfortunately for the daughter and the mother, alot of bad stuff happened because of their choices, but once you find out about something, you can't change the names to protect the innocent. They're responsible too, simply because of the kind of world we live in. What do you think? There SHOULD be a comments section below, (if not, I'll go give the monkey some more bananas to ride the comment-powering bicycle) and give your two bits. I'm probably wrong, but I want to know why :) Also, if you've actually seen the movie, tell me what you thought of it :)

Was This Steak Grown on a Red Farm or a Blue Farm?

Ok, so I'm gonna take a quick steal of topic from Stephen Colbert (who I find VERY humorous, btw) and talk about something that has irritated me for the longest time: Company Support of Political Issues.
So, the latest news is that Chick-Fil-A came out (no pun intended) with their stance on gay marriage: they don't support it. Wait for it...wait for it...wait for iiiiiiiiiiiiit...ah, there's the press complaining left and right about it. Good to know that's still working.

Ok, this is NOT going to be a rant about gay marriage. I don't care either way right now what you believe about homosexuality, gay marriage, or Santa Claus! The point is, what does Chick-Fil-A sell? Bibles? Kid's toys? No. Food. FOOD. Stuff you EAT!!! So what does it matter what they support or what their stance is on political issues?

"But I don't want my money going to support organizations I don't agree with! I have a responsibility to Christ to honor things that represent Him! What I do with my money reflects who I am!" Really? REALLY? You REALLY think that Christ is going to hold you responsible for what you do with your money? Let's go through two scenarios, just to clarify some things:

Firstly, I am not against the idea of what Dave Ramsey calls the Checkbook Testimony: If someone looked through your checkbook, what you spent your money on shows who you are; ergo, if your checkbook looked like this:

1.Home Depot-1,659.78
2.Church-12.00
3.Mr. Peeps-54.92
4.Gambleonline.com-238.99
5.1-800-Get-Drunk-200.00

You'd have a problem. Drinking, gambling and, uh, whatever Mr. Peeps can be called (besides filth) is not a Christ-like character; however, should your checkbook look like this:

1.Goodwill-25.00
2.Church-150.00
3.J.C. Penny-75.00
4.Girl Scout Cookies-25.00
5.Church Fundraiser @ Panda Express-16.00

We get a little bit better idea. So the point is this: I get that, yes, what you buy defines who you are. If I buy the latest Apple products AS SOON AS THEY COME OUT BECAUSE I HAVE TO HAVE THEM *FROTHY MOUTH OF DOOM*-- then yes, I have a problem.

BUT! I have heard an argument that if the company uses my money to support other things I don't agree with, it's basically the same thing as me supporting them. Let me just say this: I think that's a really dumb philosophy, and you're gonna live a really hard life. For instance, say you're against homosexuality. Oreo just came out saying they support homosexuality. What, you're not gonna buy Oreos ever again? J.C. Penney supports homosexuality. No more good-priced, somewhat decent quality clothes for you? It's a stupid philosophy. Here's a small list of no-no's: places you can never shop from again, because they violate your ethical beliefs:

Apple
Amazon
Applebees
Ben&Jerry
Best Buy
Coca-Cola
eBay
Ford
General Motors
Home Depot
Kraft Foods
Levi's
McDonalds
Microsoft
Nike
Pepsi Co.
Proctor and Gamble
Sears
Starbucks
Target
UPS
Walt Disney Company
Wells Fargo

I'd like to point out that you are never going to drink soda again (unless you get something off-brand) you're never going to use a computer (unless you use Linux distro), you're gonna have a hard time buying something online unless it's from a dedicated website (good luck getting a good price), no COFFEE for you, and never ever ever in a million years can you watch a Disney movie again. Because heaven knows owning a copy of Lion King helps gays get money they don't deserve* (*Please note that was all sarcasm)

It's like making this same argument: Say you work for Nintendo. Now, being the awesome, stellar employee you are, you get a raise. AND A BONUS!!! YES! Awesome times! Ok. You have a 600 dollar bonus, and you go buy a PS3 product (note for those who don't know: PS3 is a Sony product, which is a direct competitor of Nintendo.) By your logic, Nintendo has just supported the notion of shooting itself in the foot by supporting direct competitors. Oh wait, NO THEY HAVEN'T!

Look, the bottom line is this: When you spend money, you get something: I buy Levi's, they get my money, I get some over-priced jeans. Once the money LEAVES MY HANDS, it's no longer my responsibility. Jesus isn't going to judge me for what LEVI'S does with that. He's gonna judge me for what I did with MY money. Remember our checkbooks up there? Jesus would ask: "Why did you support gambling MY money I gave you away to some website, when there are homeless, orphans, and widows that need help," not, "why did you buy some pants, the money for going to an employee's paycheck, up through the heirarchal chain of command until it reaches the CEO, then is paid to another organization that supports something I don't believe in?"

I mean, come on. Let's get our heads on straight here. The Samaritan didn't ask if the guy was a liberal or conservative before he paid him to take care of the guy he found on the road. He did it and left. End. Of. Story.

Consequences: And Their Funny Way of Always Happening

So, I just finished watching Operation:Repo, and what confuses me is when the people are all like "Woah! What are you doing with my car, man?" Or they get SUPER pissy! I mean, come on! You're two months behind on payments! What'd you think was gonna happen? You're smart! Take responsibility. You know why they're there, you know YOU aren't going to change their mind, so by throw all the emotions, the conniption fits, and getting angry for no good reason? In my opinion, the sign of a good man is someone who admits they've done wrong, and accepts the consequences of their actions. It was like a man on the max today: the fare inspector came, the guy didn't have his ticket, and simply said, "Well, go ahead and give me the fine. I don't have a ticket, and I don't have a sobbing excuse. I didn't buy one, and anything that happens is my fault." The fare inspector said, "Because of your honesty, I'll let you off the hook." See, children cry and scream when they get in trouble, because they know they're in the wrong but want their emotions to win the day. Stop being childish, and accept that your choices have consequences.

In His will,
Luke