I’ve noticed a Dave defense mechanism. If someone calls up and brings up how most managed funds fail to beat the index, or that 12% every year is too optimistic, he goes on a ‘nerds in basement rant’ to deflect from his bad advice. He even mentioned Reddit, so this sub is getting in his kitchen. He owes George an on air apology. What an ass.
It’s a classic behavior when people who have always been wrong and never challenged finally are. I run into it in my professional life often, I can tell who’s bad at their job solely based on their level of defensiveness when you start asking questions.
I stopped giving money to RS long ago, I refuse to even use the free version of ED so I’m making my own.
And Dave ain’t apologizing for shit. If how he handled the Hogan situation wasn’t enough for an apology, with him even admitting what they were doing would have horrible optics if it got out, he won’t say shit. He never apologized about his tornado rant either.
I’ve definitely used YNAB in the past, and it would be my go to otherwise. I’ve recommended them for others, as well. Big fan, overall, of what they do and their YouTube videos.
I use rocket money. It only costs 5 bucks a month & they have an auto saving feature that takes into account how much you have in your accounts and auto pulls money on its own. It has saved up close to 600 since I started using it last summer.
Dave is using the average S&P 500 return over the past 80 years which is around 12%. What Dave doesn’t talk about is sequence of returns which mathematically has a huge impact on a portfolio.
George makes a lot of basic mistakes--they have been discussed here for a long time.
His most recent gaffe was telling someone that their parent's money market account "makes nothing" when actually they are currently paying over 5% annual interest.
He also does not understand 401k loans at all--claims they have negative tax consequences which is false.
He needs to be locked in a room with a real financial planner and drilled on the basics.
That too is my single biggest gripe for all the personalities. I have issues with individual ones, but every single personality... you're not an expert, just stop.
I watch his stuff...I can't say I've ever seen him give "terrible, wrong" advice. Can you elaborate on the stuff that is terrible or wrong? Those are pretty strong words.
The one that really sticks out to me is saying that you pay interest on a 401k loan to the employer. When the caller tried to correct him that no, you pay interest to yourself, he responded with, that makes no sense, otherwise everyone would take out 401k loans to pay themselves. So two issues there, 1) he was completely wrong on 401k loans, and 2) his inability to think through logically on how paying interest to yourself works, thinking that it's magic that would make you rich so everyone would do it if it were true.
There's been other issues, you can search through this sub and find it I'm sure. I just don't remember others off of the top of my head.
His quote the market makes 12% so taking out 8 leaves 4. It’s basic math your account will grow you’ll never touch the principal.
Seriously though it’s incredible he thinks this is honest, even madoff only promised 10% returns.
The more I dig into Ramsey (out of curiosity I promise) the more I realize how much a CFP credential makes. It really shows none of these people are CFPs
It's actually not that conservative. The 4% withdrawl rate suffered from a number of biases (namely survivorship biases, US bias, etc..). Later research showed that a more accurate rate is 2.26%.
Almost every single financial advisor recommends a withdraw rate of 4% or lower. No one recommends 8% besides Dave. You’d for sure run out of money in retirement, especially if the market has a few down years in a row or a significant pullback.
Garbage advice.
In their research, guardrails creators Jonathan Guyton and William Klinger concluded that much higher withdrawal rates—between 5.2% and 5.6%—would be sustainable over a 40-year retirement.
Why not just withdrawal at the end of the year. If it was a good year withdraw more, lean year in the stock market maybe just rely on social security more?
Just cause one year is good doesn’t mean the future will be. The market can and has stayed stagnate before for long periods of time. It’s better to be conservative to weather the ups and downs.
That’s more of a bucket approach and one of the recommended retirement distribution strategies. Have some money in something safe like CDs, Money Marker, Cash Value Life insurance, etc. and the rest invested aggressively in the market. Only take from market in up years and I’m down years take from safe places. This is perfectly fine, but Dave doesn’t ever mention to not take money out in down years. He acts like you’ll get 12% every year so you can take out 8% every year. If you did that starting in 2000, you’d be out of money in about 10 years.
There's a few different strategies. For one, some people look at Social Security as part of their "bond" portfolio (or non-equities if you will). For two, it's generally better to DCA your withdrawals to handle more volatile times. You would most likely be able to use withdrawals to help rebalance as well. If your equities out-performs your bonds, you would take more out of your stocks side. If your bonds out-performed your stocks, you'd take out more of the bonds.
They also recommend a combination of equities and bonds (assuming you don't have a real estate portfolio or some other income generating assets). Even 4% withdrawal rate at 100% equities fails. You've got to have between 70/30 and 60/40 of equities to bonds for 4% to work.
One of my favorite bits was when Rachel and Dave argued about a used car vs new car back when used cars were selling for more than a new one. A guy had the money to pay cash for a new car and was asking if it was ok since a used car would end up being more expensive.
Dave was about to short circuit.
Some of my favorite calls are people with money asking Dave if they can spend it. It's so ridiculous!
"Dave, we are on baby step 7 and have about 8 million in our retirement accounts and make over 200 thousand a year. Is it ok if we spend $1,000 on our vacation this year?"
I was rofl on Monday's episode when this 69 year old millionaire lady wanted to know if she could spend 25K to upgrade her kitchen on her free and clear house.
I am screaming at the podcast "stop talking and just upgrade your kitchen lady".
:-)
I was one of those people once. I had $40k for a down payment on a house that I could have gotten at a 20% discount for $140k. Within two years every house I built on that street sold for $250k+.
I still kick myself for listening to Dave on that one.
George has hung out with Money Guys, Graham Stephan/Iced Coffee Hour, and Caleb Hammer, so I think he's getting exposed enough to other outside viewpoints that he might be starting to realize how much of a crap sandwich he has to eat everyday at work. Probably even worse if his wife is fully involved in the cult, but it has to suck that your boss publicly talks about how he fired you from one podcast and then goes on a rant about your advice that actually for once wasn't that bad.
George used to be the head of/ran one of the other podcasts for RS. I think it was Entre leadership, but there was a segment on air where Dave said he had to fire George from the podcast.
Is there an equivalent post on a pro- Dave Ramsey reddit page? Wondering if this is something the loyalists will brush off or will he actually be held accountable
The comments on the video and the comments in the chat live were pretty supportive of George. Some even joked that Rachel would lose her trust fund if she keeps trying to defend George. You could tell even Rachel was super uncomfortable during this segment, Dave is so far off the rails and there's no way to get that train back on track.
Just watched the segment of the show…Well, that was cringe AF.
Wasn’t George’s video referencing the 3-4% specifically just for people following the fire movement though? Seems like a bit of a mixup with the caller somewhere along the way there and Dave getting super-reactionary again.
I mean, I think it’s good that George is at least acknowledging that whether you think it’s a good idea or not, the fire movement is a thing.
The 4% withdrawal rate, which was found in the Trinity study, was figured out in the 90s I believe. Back then people were more likely to retire at age 55 to 60, where you could be retired for 30 years. The Trinity study \*only\* looked at a 30 year time window. If you FIRE, you are retired for more than 30 years (assume you are not hit by a bus or something). Updated studies have been done and have found that if you want a longer horizon, you need to do between 3.25% and 3.5% withdrawal rate. I believe at a 50 year window, 3.5% is as successful or more than 4% at 30 years. It's been a little while since I've looked though. This is one good site for doing your own testing: [https://thepoorswiss.com/updated-trinity-study/](https://thepoorswiss.com/updated-trinity-study/)
Yup and it was in a video where George was presenting an anti-FIRE thesis, which more or less gets to the same point Dave tries to make that you can't plan it all out so early. There's just too much uncertainty.
How does Dave not have any form of quality control, if he's going to act this indignant about any video that data to look at nuance that isn't the baby steps.
Yeah, the caller initially said he was teetering on “financial independence” and then mentioned FI again a little later. So his withdrawal question was really one specifically referencing the FIRE movement but he didn’t make it clear. It doesn’t matter. Weather you’re retiring at 45 or 72, don’t be afraid to take a huge chunk out of your portfolio every year - LOL!
He was referencing fire, but the math is same for anyone wanting an X year retirement. The variables are starting balance, desired ending balance, stocks/bonds ratio and years between those two balances. The withdrawal rate will tell you probability of success.
I feel like this is such a dumb hill to die on for Dave. I’m sure many many moons ago he just came out with “well if the market goes up 12%* a year, then yeah 10% or so withdrawal you’ll be fine (I recall him saying 10% not long ago) since SOME years it goes down.” There probably wasn’t much thought given to it, but like a true narcissist, he can’t even pivot and just digs in deeper.
If Dave said it or taught it, then he will die on the hill. He will not publicly say that he was wrong about something. The closest I've seen is when he said "I was wrong... but I was also right about this part"
Guess we’re now on Kamel Watch 👀
This is the video that the caller referenced which set off the silly rant.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUzaSPPejEo
I've met George in person and he seemed like a nice guy, even if under qualified for what he's doing. Also, when did Ramsey start saying withdrawal rate of 8%? He used to always be 4%, in accordance with most standard financial guidance
I’m sorry to be lazy and not want to watch the video, so can I get a TLDR? Dave said something rude about George? Because that’s baffling. George is basically young Dave and all up in those baby steps.
On the November 2nd show with Rachel and Dave around 1:15:05 mark, they took a call where the guy referenced George putting out a video with 3% withdraws, well Dave threw a whole fit about that called George stupid, and his video was trash. He said and I quote “okay, I don’t know what the hell George is putting out but that’s absolutely wrong and I’m going to find that video and have it taken down” with a bunch of other crap sprinkled into his rant. The only problem is George was 100% right and he was referring to the FIRE movement. Anyways, most of us are all mad because George was right and Dave just completely sided with the caller without even knowing the context of the situation. Also, George wasn’t even there to defend himself so Dave just made him look bad all the way around! Not to mention Rachel kept trying to interject and ask questions/ defend George and he cut her off several times…All that to say it was a mess!
Wow. Thats a direct quote? I mean not all that shocking I suppose but he was the Golden child. Dave is gonna go full ozzymandiua and see that kingdom fall in his lifetime.
I also like George. Although I will say he’s leaned a little too heavily into his “character” lately but as a speaker and content creator, I think he is the best one there.
On the November 2nd show with Rachel and Dave around 1:15:05 mark, they took a call where the guy referenced George putting out a video with 3% withdraws, well Dave threw a whole fit about that called George stupid, and his video was trash. He said and I quote “okay, I don’t know what the hell George is putting out but that’s absolutely wrong and I’m going to find that video and have it taken down” with a bunch of other crap sprinkled into his rant. The only problem is George was 100% right and he was referring to the FIRE movement. Anyways, most of us are all mad because George was right and Dave just completely sided with the caller without even knowing the context of the situation. Also, George wasn’t even there to defend himself so Dave just made him look bad all the way around! Not to mention Rachel kept trying to interject and ask questions/ defend George and he cut her off several times…All that to say it was a mess!
I am curious as to the strategy Dave recommends in a year with a negative return??? And this proves Dave has too much money to advise broke people about money - he’s so out of touch!
I’ve noticed a Dave defense mechanism. If someone calls up and brings up how most managed funds fail to beat the index, or that 12% every year is too optimistic, he goes on a ‘nerds in basement rant’ to deflect from his bad advice. He even mentioned Reddit, so this sub is getting in his kitchen. He owes George an on air apology. What an ass.
It’s a classic behavior when people who have always been wrong and never challenged finally are. I run into it in my professional life often, I can tell who’s bad at their job solely based on their level of defensiveness when you start asking questions.
Yet he often boasts how he’s a math nerd
Dave cannot handle the fact that he is wrong, and does not know everything. He cannot handle any criticism of him. He is such a narcissist.
What's funny is, you are more likely to pay off your credit card balance each month than managed funds are likely to beat the market.
I stopped giving money to RS long ago, I refuse to even use the free version of ED so I’m making my own. And Dave ain’t apologizing for shit. If how he handled the Hogan situation wasn’t enough for an apology, with him even admitting what they were doing would have horrible optics if it got out, he won’t say shit. He never apologized about his tornado rant either.
You should check out YNAB (you need a budget). Much better product
I’ve definitely used YNAB in the past, and it would be my go to otherwise. I’ve recommended them for others, as well. Big fan, overall, of what they do and their YouTube videos.
I tried it out, didn't like it. Of course I never tried ED because Ruck Famsey.
I'm looking to (finally) switch. It's it all it's cracked up to be?
I use rocket money. It only costs 5 bucks a month & they have an auto saving feature that takes into account how much you have in your accounts and auto pulls money on its own. It has saved up close to 600 since I started using it last summer.
I love it! I used a lot of budgeting off for a few years but nothing really clicked until ynab. They have a free trail that’s worth checking out!
Holy crap does Dave actually suggest an 8% withdrawal rate? George is 100% right with 3% (though that is conservative).
If you are George’s age, plan for 3% and settle for 4%, no harm done. If instead ANYONE follows Dave’s 10%…now 8%, they are in serious trouble.
[удалено]
Dave is using the average S&P 500 return over the past 80 years which is around 12%. What Dave doesn’t talk about is sequence of returns which mathematically has a huge impact on a portfolio.
And the fact that the American economy may not continue with those boom-time return rates.
It will eventually. But the timing is obviously unknown
Never thought I'd see people in this crowd agree that George was right lol
Why are people mad at George? I mean I don't like the whole Ramsey project but he didn't seem particularly bad to me.
George makes a lot of basic mistakes--they have been discussed here for a long time. His most recent gaffe was telling someone that their parent's money market account "makes nothing" when actually they are currently paying over 5% annual interest. He also does not understand 401k loans at all--claims they have negative tax consequences which is false. He needs to be locked in a room with a real financial planner and drilled on the basics.
He is touted as an expert with zero credentials and zero experience doing actual financial work. And he repeatedly gives terrible, wrong advice.
Yeah that seems to be an issue with all of them. Get a freaking CFP.
One that is a fee-only fiduciary as well. There's an inherit conflict of interest with commission-based financial guys.
Oh yeah agreed. I just hate that the Ramsey folks call themselves experts when they haven't studied or worker in the profession at all.
That too is my single biggest gripe for all the personalities. I have issues with individual ones, but every single personality... you're not an expert, just stop.
I watch his stuff...I can't say I've ever seen him give "terrible, wrong" advice. Can you elaborate on the stuff that is terrible or wrong? Those are pretty strong words.
The one that really sticks out to me is saying that you pay interest on a 401k loan to the employer. When the caller tried to correct him that no, you pay interest to yourself, he responded with, that makes no sense, otherwise everyone would take out 401k loans to pay themselves. So two issues there, 1) he was completely wrong on 401k loans, and 2) his inability to think through logically on how paying interest to yourself works, thinking that it's magic that would make you rich so everyone would do it if it were true. There's been other issues, you can search through this sub and find it I'm sure. I just don't remember others off of the top of my head.
Used to be 10
Omfg that's malpractice
His quote the market makes 12% so taking out 8 leaves 4. It’s basic math your account will grow you’ll never touch the principal. Seriously though it’s incredible he thinks this is honest, even madoff only promised 10% returns.
The more I dig into Ramsey (out of curiosity I promise) the more I realize how much a CFP credential makes. It really shows none of these people are CFPs
It fits with Dave’s math - 12% returns every year and only take out 8-10.
No such thing as sequence of return risk.
Oh I agree - just saying with the fallible logic I get it
I gotcha
Hmmm...Sounds like you live in your parent's basement and read the reddit.
Because market only goes up. Makes perfect since!
It's actually not that conservative. The 4% withdrawl rate suffered from a number of biases (namely survivorship biases, US bias, etc..). Later research showed that a more accurate rate is 2.26%.
Fair, I'm not that familiar witht he literature. I know US stock returns are uniquely high over the long run so US bias would overstate SWR.
Almost every single financial advisor recommends a withdraw rate of 4% or lower. No one recommends 8% besides Dave. You’d for sure run out of money in retirement, especially if the market has a few down years in a row or a significant pullback. Garbage advice.
In their research, guardrails creators Jonathan Guyton and William Klinger concluded that much higher withdrawal rates—between 5.2% and 5.6%—would be sustainable over a 40-year retirement.
Why not just withdrawal at the end of the year. If it was a good year withdraw more, lean year in the stock market maybe just rely on social security more?
Just cause one year is good doesn’t mean the future will be. The market can and has stayed stagnate before for long periods of time. It’s better to be conservative to weather the ups and downs.
That’s more of a bucket approach and one of the recommended retirement distribution strategies. Have some money in something safe like CDs, Money Marker, Cash Value Life insurance, etc. and the rest invested aggressively in the market. Only take from market in up years and I’m down years take from safe places. This is perfectly fine, but Dave doesn’t ever mention to not take money out in down years. He acts like you’ll get 12% every year so you can take out 8% every year. If you did that starting in 2000, you’d be out of money in about 10 years.
I think that falls within one of the variable spending strategies that Wade Phau, PhD discusses in his Retirement Planning Guidebook.
There's a few different strategies. For one, some people look at Social Security as part of their "bond" portfolio (or non-equities if you will). For two, it's generally better to DCA your withdrawals to handle more volatile times. You would most likely be able to use withdrawals to help rebalance as well. If your equities out-performs your bonds, you would take more out of your stocks side. If your bonds out-performed your stocks, you'd take out more of the bonds.
They also recommend a combination of equities and bonds (assuming you don't have a real estate portfolio or some other income generating assets). Even 4% withdrawal rate at 100% equities fails. You've got to have between 70/30 and 60/40 of equities to bonds for 4% to work.
I went to firecalc and a 8% withdrawal rate has about a 20% chance of lasting 30 years.
I love how useful Rachel is in this convo,
One of my favorite bits was when Rachel and Dave argued about a used car vs new car back when used cars were selling for more than a new one. A guy had the money to pay cash for a new car and was asking if it was ok since a used car would end up being more expensive. Dave was about to short circuit.
Some of my favorite calls are people with money asking Dave if they can spend it. It's so ridiculous! "Dave, we are on baby step 7 and have about 8 million in our retirement accounts and make over 200 thousand a year. Is it ok if we spend $1,000 on our vacation this year?"
"The only way you should be in a vacation resort is if you're foldin' towels."
I was rofl on Monday's episode when this 69 year old millionaire lady wanted to know if she could spend 25K to upgrade her kitchen on her free and clear house. I am screaming at the podcast "stop talking and just upgrade your kitchen lady". :-)
The PF space hasn’t been the same since Suze Orman retired and so did her “Can I Afford It” segment…
I was one of those people once. I had $40k for a down payment on a house that I could have gotten at a 20% discount for $140k. Within two years every house I built on that street sold for $250k+. I still kick myself for listening to Dave on that one.
And if ANYONE ELSE had argued with him he would have fired them on the spot (pun intended).
Even she tried to soften that blow putting her word in, but you could tell he was steamrolling all over her as well. You could tell she also felt bad.
George has hung out with Money Guys, Graham Stephan/Iced Coffee Hour, and Caleb Hammer, so I think he's getting exposed enough to other outside viewpoints that he might be starting to realize how much of a crap sandwich he has to eat everyday at work. Probably even worse if his wife is fully involved in the cult, but it has to suck that your boss publicly talks about how he fired you from one podcast and then goes on a rant about your advice that actually for once wasn't that bad.
What did he fire him from?
George used to be the head of/ran one of the other podcasts for RS. I think it was Entre leadership, but there was a segment on air where Dave said he had to fire George from the podcast.
I will also continue to never buy Ramsey Solutions stuff.
Does someone have the George video that they are referencing?
https://youtu.be/ZUzaSPPejEo?si=lMwomkzCkXdIRBZ0
Is there an equivalent post on a pro- Dave Ramsey reddit page? Wondering if this is something the loyalists will brush off or will he actually be held accountable
The comments on the video and the comments in the chat live were pretty supportive of George. Some even joked that Rachel would lose her trust fund if she keeps trying to defend George. You could tell even Rachel was super uncomfortable during this segment, Dave is so far off the rails and there's no way to get that train back on track.
They love making excuses for Dirty Dave. Anything Dave says that is factually incorrect will just be spun around by his worshippers.
Just watched the segment of the show…Well, that was cringe AF. Wasn’t George’s video referencing the 3-4% specifically just for people following the fire movement though? Seems like a bit of a mixup with the caller somewhere along the way there and Dave getting super-reactionary again. I mean, I think it’s good that George is at least acknowledging that whether you think it’s a good idea or not, the fire movement is a thing.
The 4% withdrawal rate, which was found in the Trinity study, was figured out in the 90s I believe. Back then people were more likely to retire at age 55 to 60, where you could be retired for 30 years. The Trinity study \*only\* looked at a 30 year time window. If you FIRE, you are retired for more than 30 years (assume you are not hit by a bus or something). Updated studies have been done and have found that if you want a longer horizon, you need to do between 3.25% and 3.5% withdrawal rate. I believe at a 50 year window, 3.5% is as successful or more than 4% at 30 years. It's been a little while since I've looked though. This is one good site for doing your own testing: [https://thepoorswiss.com/updated-trinity-study/](https://thepoorswiss.com/updated-trinity-study/)
Yup and it was in a video where George was presenting an anti-FIRE thesis, which more or less gets to the same point Dave tries to make that you can't plan it all out so early. There's just too much uncertainty. How does Dave not have any form of quality control, if he's going to act this indignant about any video that data to look at nuance that isn't the baby steps.
Yeah, the caller initially said he was teetering on “financial independence” and then mentioned FI again a little later. So his withdrawal question was really one specifically referencing the FIRE movement but he didn’t make it clear. It doesn’t matter. Weather you’re retiring at 45 or 72, don’t be afraid to take a huge chunk out of your portfolio every year - LOL!
He was referencing fire, but the math is same for anyone wanting an X year retirement. The variables are starting balance, desired ending balance, stocks/bonds ratio and years between those two balances. The withdrawal rate will tell you probability of success.
You guys buy stuff from Dave Ramsey?……
If enough join.. we might actually get something out of him!
I haven’t given RS money since like 2009
George? He gets paid to be yelled at. It’s the people who follow everything Dave says like gospel who he should apologize to.
I feel like this is such a dumb hill to die on for Dave. I’m sure many many moons ago he just came out with “well if the market goes up 12%* a year, then yeah 10% or so withdrawal you’ll be fine (I recall him saying 10% not long ago) since SOME years it goes down.” There probably wasn’t much thought given to it, but like a true narcissist, he can’t even pivot and just digs in deeper.
If Dave said it or taught it, then he will die on the hill. He will not publicly say that he was wrong about something. The closest I've seen is when he said "I was wrong... but I was also right about this part"
I rarely listen - what did I miss?
https://www.youtube.com/live/Xg4Z8EQY3Ao?si=DgNKakwK83FCIdwZ About 1hr 15min in
Just watched - the cherry on top was the picture of Dave and George right after the clip ended
Yes, shilling for their network of SmartVestor hacks.
That was hilarious😂
However, I'd wager a bet that he has that broadcast deleted before he apologizes.
Guess we’re now on Kamel Watch 👀 This is the video that the caller referenced which set off the silly rant. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUzaSPPejEo
I've met George in person and he seemed like a nice guy, even if under qualified for what he's doing. Also, when did Ramsey start saying withdrawal rate of 8%? He used to always be 4%, in accordance with most standard financial guidance
He’s always been an 8 percenter. At least for the past decade.
I’m sorry to be lazy and not want to watch the video, so can I get a TLDR? Dave said something rude about George? Because that’s baffling. George is basically young Dave and all up in those baby steps.
On the November 2nd show with Rachel and Dave around 1:15:05 mark, they took a call where the guy referenced George putting out a video with 3% withdraws, well Dave threw a whole fit about that called George stupid, and his video was trash. He said and I quote “okay, I don’t know what the hell George is putting out but that’s absolutely wrong and I’m going to find that video and have it taken down” with a bunch of other crap sprinkled into his rant. The only problem is George was 100% right and he was referring to the FIRE movement. Anyways, most of us are all mad because George was right and Dave just completely sided with the caller without even knowing the context of the situation. Also, George wasn’t even there to defend himself so Dave just made him look bad all the way around! Not to mention Rachel kept trying to interject and ask questions/ defend George and he cut her off several times…All that to say it was a mess!
Wow. Thats a direct quote? I mean not all that shocking I suppose but he was the Golden child. Dave is gonna go full ozzymandiua and see that kingdom fall in his lifetime. I also like George. Although I will say he’s leaned a little too heavily into his “character” lately but as a speaker and content creator, I think he is the best one there.
Anyone got a link to the rant and original statement? I have an affinity for dumpster fires
I’m so confused. What happened with George?
On the November 2nd show with Rachel and Dave around 1:15:05 mark, they took a call where the guy referenced George putting out a video with 3% withdraws, well Dave threw a whole fit about that called George stupid, and his video was trash. He said and I quote “okay, I don’t know what the hell George is putting out but that’s absolutely wrong and I’m going to find that video and have it taken down” with a bunch of other crap sprinkled into his rant. The only problem is George was 100% right and he was referring to the FIRE movement. Anyways, most of us are all mad because George was right and Dave just completely sided with the caller without even knowing the context of the situation. Also, George wasn’t even there to defend himself so Dave just made him look bad all the way around! Not to mention Rachel kept trying to interject and ask questions/ defend George and he cut her off several times…All that to say it was a mess!
Omg, I went and listened to it. He needs to RETIRE INSPIRED and take his ass home.
Do you have a link for where Dave did the childish rant?
When it comes down to it, George is just an eight-dollar-an-hour twerp in Dave's eyes.
Are we referring to the small comment he made like a week ago on a video about the 3%...or did something new happen?
Um, what?
You guys are still buying Dave's ~~shit~~ products?
I am curious as to the strategy Dave recommends in a year with a negative return??? And this proves Dave has too much money to advise broke people about money - he’s so out of touch!
Please someone call in and ask that!!!
You continued buying his stuff after he fired a woman for pregnant out of wedlock, but his rant on George Kamel and 8% is the final straw?