Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, November 27, 2017

Susan Sarandon at 71 is bright-eyed and airy, and perhaps shyer than she can publicly seem.

For a long time Sarandon was despised by the right, her protests against the Vietnam war and US aggression in Nicaragua and Iraq making her the kind of target that, for progressives, is an affirmation of sorts. Her latest unpopularity, by contrast, comes exclusively from the left and is much tougher on Sarandon. "I'm not attacked from the right at all," she will tell me. Instead, she is accused of not checking her white privilege, of throwing away her vote on a third-party candidate (the Green party nominee, Jill Stein) during the US presidential election, and of recklessly espousing a political cause that let Trump in through the backdoor. Liberals in the US, it seems, can summon more hatred for Sarandon right now than they can for Paul Ryan.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

It is often overlooked that in 2001, Sarandon supported Hillary Clinton's run for the Senate. There are photos of them posing chummily together, grinning. Then Clinton voted for the war in Iraq and it all went downhill. During the last election, Sarandon supported Bernie Sanders, then wouldn't support Clinton after she won the nomination, and now all the moderates hate her, to the extent, she says, that she had to change her phone number because people she identifies as Hillary trolls sent her threatening messages. "I got from Hillary people ‘I hope your crotch is grabbed', ‘I hope you're raped'. Misogynistic attacks. Recently, I said ‘I stand with Dreamers' [children brought illegally to the US, whose path to legal citizenship – an Obama-era provision – Trump has threatened to revoke] and that started another wave."

Wait, from the right?

"No, from the left! ‘How dare you! You who are responsible for this!'" These people are furious with you, I say.

"Well, that's why we're going to lose again if we depend on the DNC [the Democratic National Committee]. Because the amount of denial ... I mean it's very flattering to think that I, on my own, cost the election. That my little voice was the deciding factor."

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Interesting article, I have always had a "thing" for Susan Sarandon and it saddens me that such an icon of feminism and progressive causes is now taking such heat because she dared to cross Hillary.

#1 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2017-11-27 04:53 PM | Reply

Interesting article, I have always had a "thing" for Susan Sarandon and it saddens me that such an icon of feminism and progressive causes is now taking such heat because she dared to cross Hillary.

#1 | POSTED BY LEFTCOASTLAWYER

No no, she's taking heat for saying something ridiculously stupid.

#2 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-27 05:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

No no, she's taking heat for saying something ridiculously stupid.

What exactly, in your opinion, did she say that was so stupid?

#3 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2017-11-27 06:11 PM | Reply

Finding fault with Hillary and ending up with the dotard.
Genius.

#4 | Posted by bored at 2017-11-27 06:33 PM | Reply

Her daughter on Californication...... You're welcome.

#5 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-11-27 06:37 PM | Reply

Sarandon is right, even if it's not popular.

#6 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-11-27 06:45 PM | Reply

None of those are answers to my question: What did Susan Sarandon actually say that was ridiculously stupid? That "Hillary was dangerous"? Or was it something else?

#7 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2017-11-27 07:20 PM | Reply

#7 Nazi coddlers like you will never understand the need for social justice.

#8 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-11-27 08:21 PM | Reply

"What exactly, in your opinion, did she say that was so stupid?"

Not sure what she said, but she voted for Jill Stein, the Russian Propaganda candidate.

#9 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-27 08:26 PM | Reply

#9

I don't have a problem with her voting for whomever she wants, I just don't get the hate.

Sycophant authoritatively states "she said something ridiculously stupid" and both Corky and Indianajones agree with him, but none of them want to specify exactly what she said.

#10 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2017-11-27 08:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Advertisement

Advertisement

Maybe you'd like to complete her thought, on who we'd be at war with.

#11 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-27 08:45 PM | Reply

#10 "Sycophant authoritatively states..."

There is absolutely no such thing as objectivity.

#12 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-11-27 08:48 PM | Reply

I understand her "fear" of Hillary because of the Iraq War except that Hillary admitted her mistake. Can anyone say she wasn't lied to by Bush, Cheney, Powell, etc? She based her vote on what they swore was the truth. Millions of other Americans were equally fooled. Sarandon's decision to vote for Stein was just stupid.

#13 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-27 09:33 PM | Reply

I understand her "fear" of Hillary because of the Iraq War except that Hillary admitted her mistake. Can anyone say she wasn't lied to by Bush, Cheney, Powell, etc? She based her vote on what they swore was the truth. Millions of other Americans were equally fooled. Sarandon's decision to vote for Stein was just stupid.

Posted by danni at 2017-11-27 09:33 PM | Reply

ROFLMMFAO Libya says she didn't learn a damned thing or more likely she's not really sorry for her support of Iraq only saying so to convince the rubes that she is.

#14 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-11-27 09:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

Can anyone say she wasn't lied to by Bush, Cheney, Powell, etc? She based her vote on what they swore was the truth. Millions of other Americans were equally fooled.

Yeah, those "millions of Americans" are gullible fools or Republicans, more often than not both.

This is a pretty flimsy rebuttal. More than likely Hillary stuck her political thumb up in the air and decided that the winds were blowing towards invasion because it was post-9/11 "Murica! F---- YEAH!" time.

She only apologized because it turned out to be a giant cluster ----, like the many of non-idiotic or non-Republican Americans saw it to be before it even began.

#15 | Posted by jpw at 2017-11-27 10:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Maybe you'd like to complete her thought, on who we'd be at war with.

#11 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2017-11-27 08:45 PM

I'll leave that to you since it is apparent that you enjoy completing others thoughts.

Still no answer from Sycophant, Corky or Indianajones as to what "ridiculously stupid" thing Susan Sarandon said.

#16 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2017-11-27 10:29 PM | Reply

I'm rather surprised that Corky isn't here to speak out against the misogynistic purity ponies who are harassing Ms. Sarandon. Could it be because they're Hillary ---- and not Bernie Bros?

#17 | Posted by jpw at 2017-11-27 10:38 PM | Reply | Funny: 3 | Newsworthy 2

"as to what "ridiculously stupid" thing Susan Sarandon said."

She called HRC "untrustable" a few days before the election.
ew.com

#18 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-27 10:40 PM | Reply

I'm rather surprised that Corky isn't here to speak out against the misogynistic purity ponies who are harassing Ms. Sarandon. Could it be because they're Hillary ---- and not Bernie Bros?

#17 | Posted by jpw at 2017-11-27 10:38 PM | Reply | Flag

I so love you. Id almost have your baby. That post is choice. Absolutely choice.

#19 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-11-27 10:41 PM | Reply

- She called HRC "untrustable"

Another one she got right.

#20 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-11-27 10:56 PM | Reply

"Another one she got right."

Except she missed the "competent governance" aspect.

#21 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-27 10:59 PM | Reply

She called HRC "untrustable" a few days before the election.

Actually, she called both Clinton and Trump untrustable, and said that the DNC was corrupt.

Guess what, as the news reports over the past twelve months have shown, she was absolutely correct on all accounts.

#22 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2017-11-27 11:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Still waiting on Sycophant, Corky and Indianajones to answer my question, at least Danforth has the balls to try.

#23 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2017-11-27 11:02 PM | Reply

"Guess what, as the news reports over the past twelve months have shown, she was absolutely correct on all accounts."

I missed the news report where Clinton is unstable. Was it in Russian?

#24 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-27 11:12 PM | Reply

It wasn't "unstable".

It was "untrustable".

#25 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-11-28 12:29 AM | Reply

Ehhh. I mean... back in 96 I trusted Bob Dole to pay me back $20 over Bill Clinton, but who cares??? It's not relevant to how they'll govern.

#26 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-28 01:28 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You've all missed Sarandon's best quote in the interview.

"we would be at war [if Hillary had been elected]"

#27 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-11-28 07:41 AM | Reply

Interesting article, I have always had a "thing" for Susan Sarandon and it saddens me that such an icon of feminism and progressive causes is now taking such heat because she dared to cross Hillary.

#1 | POSTED BY LEFTCOASTLAWYER

That's because modern-day feminism is no longer about empowering women, it's about groupthink. Step away on any issue and you're finished. Hell, Taylor Swift has gotten ripped by the feminist-establisment for not commenting on political issues.

#28 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-28 08:33 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

it's about groupthink. Step away on any issue and you're finished.

Well said, and we see it everyday here on the DR, especially when it comes to people like Laura or Sheeple getting shouted down for not toeing the party line and voting for someone other than the Queen.

Having read the article, I must admit a new found shift in my long held antipathy for Ms. Sarandon, especially when she says things like this:

I like Sarandon. It takes real courage to go against the mob. Her inconsistencies are a little wild, but in the age of social-media enforced conformity, I have never met anyone so uninterested in toeing the line.

Did she really say that Hillary was more dangerous than Trump?

"Not exactly, but I don't mind that quote," she says. "I did think she was very, very dangerous. We would still be fracking, we would be at war [if she was president]. It wouldn't be much smoother. Look what happened under Obama that we didn't notice."

It seems absurd to argue that healthcare, childcare, taxation for the non-rich wouldn't be better now under President Clinton, and that's before we get to the threat of deportation hanging over millions of immigrants. "She would've done it the way Obama did it," says Sarandon, "which was sneakily. He deported more people than have been deported now. How he got the Nobel peace prize I don't know. I think it was very important to have a black family in the White House and I think some of the stuff he did was good. He tried really hard about healthcare. But he didn't go all the way because of big pharma."

Can't say I disagree with anything she says here.

#29 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-28 12:28 PM | Reply

Leave Tay out of it you person from the broke az great lake state with poison drinking water!!!

#30 | Posted by mutant at 2017-11-28 04:09 PM | Reply

A celebrity has an opinion? Don't care. It is republican voters fame worship that gave us Trump. Back here in the real world there is a GOP congress and President who are working increase my tax burden and take away my health insurance.

#31 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2017-11-28 04:13 PM | Reply

--A celebrity has an opinion? Don't care.

i2.wp.com

#32 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-11-28 04:27 PM | Reply

media.vanityfair.com

#33 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-11-28 04:47 PM | Reply

I am of the opinion that many should care about certain celebrity opinions on sexual harassment and trafficking.

#34 | Posted by mutant at 2017-11-28 05:41 PM | Reply

Hillary's vote giving Bush ( cheney, rumsfeld) was similar to many others at the time in my humble opinion was " here's your chance to step down and move to St. Helena you POS saddam"

I don't think a lot of the senators thought shock and awe would begin immediately.

They stood behind their country thinking cooler minds would prevail. But wanting to be a wartime president. Hell Colin Powell was fooled too.

#35 | Posted by bruceaz at 2017-11-28 06:19 PM | Reply

A celebrity... currently occupies the Oval Office.

It's not like he's famous for being good at business!

#36 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-28 06:24 PM | Reply

#36 How many billions of dollars did you make, snoofy?

#37 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-11-28 06:29 PM | Reply

If I made any dollars, I'm doing better than Trump. Trump was born into money, and his "earnings" are all bought with his inheritance, and his ROI severely underperform major market indices.

Don't you have a 401(K) or something so you can understand what I'm talking about?

#38 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-28 06:41 PM | Reply

"That's because modern-day feminism is no longer about empowering women, it's about groupthink. Step away on any issue and you're finished. Hell, Taylor Swift has gotten ripped by the feminist-establisment for not commenting on political issues."

You don't have any idea about what feminism was about or is about Jeff. The scandals unfolding all around us lately sort of demonstrate that feminism has not been taken seriously even by liberal politicians much less conservatives. Feminism has far to go to gain real equality for women, and think about it, don't you want your wife to feel equal in her work place? Do you want some a*****e touching her, discriminating against her, etc.?

#39 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-28 06:48 PM | Reply

"#36 How many billions of dollars did you make, snoofy?"

Yeah Snoofy! How many contractors did you stiff this week? How many millions did you borrow from Russians this last few years? Exactlly when Snoofy did you sell your soul to Putin?
Donald sold his in 1987. So Putin has been investing in that loser for 30 years before he got his payoff, but OMG, what a payoff!

#40 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-28 06:52 PM | Reply

#38 I'll have my house paid off in 2 years! And also, I actually paid off all my college loans, and I have no real credit card debt. Then, I'll think of a 401(k).

The most important thing I think you can do is to pay off all your debts. I may be wrong (for instance, I could have bought Bitcoin when it was $1 or something), but my sister lost a huge amount of cash when her investments melted down in 2008. But she is far richer than I am (she's a Colonel in the Air Force, and saved and invested everything she ever made). She's worth like $350,000 today, not including her house.

#41 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-11-28 07:01 PM | Reply

"Then, I'll think of a 401(k)."

You have no retirement savings?
Seek. Professional. Help.
I'm completely serious.

#42 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-28 07:06 PM | Reply

"my sister lost a huge amount of cash when her investments melted down in 2008."

Which should all be back now, plus more.

#43 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-28 07:11 PM | Reply

401k is kind of a joke. Now they call it a retirement plan replacing pensions. Yes the company will make a small match and I always thought well I'll lose their money. But it seemed to me that my 401k was HARVESTED every 6 or 8 years.

#44 | Posted by bruceaz at 2017-11-28 07:13 PM | Reply

"I'll have my house paid off in 2 years! And also, I actually paid off all my college loans, and I have no real credit card debt. Then, I'll think of a 401(k)."

You're doing it exactly backwards. The 401(k) should be the first thing you fully fund, and as young as you can.

I had a client this year who just graduated engineering school. Made $35K in his final year of school, will make $85K in his new job. He had it lined up that he would completely pay off all $19,000 of his loans within a year. First, I congratulated him for his great instincts and for hating debt. "Both will serve you well," I told him.

Then I begged him not to do it.

I told him to max out his 401k at work instead (they had a large match), max out his IRA, and to be ready and able to max out next year as well (I advise the savviest clients to max out IRAs on January 2nd of each year). Then and ONLY then should he take any extra money to pay down the college loan early.

He wasn't convinced, until I asked him how long it would take to pay off if he made the minimum payments. He wasn't sure, and guessed 7-12 years.

I asked him what would happen to his 401k over that time. He said it would double, at least. I agreed.

Then I asked him how much the value of the retired debt would grow for him, from the day it was paid, until his retirement. He looked at the ceiling for a moment, as if he was trying to figure out the equation, when I stopped him. It's zero, I told him. Once that liability shrinks to nothing, it will offer NO GROWTH from that day forward.

Meanwhile, how much will his 401k grow from payoff day until retirement? We got out the actuarial charts, and it turned out to be hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The bottom line question becomes: which path will he choose? The path that offers him nothing in retirement, or the path that adds hundreds of thousands of dollars?

#45 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-28 07:20 PM | Reply

#45 Aren't I limited by law to about $2,500 a year in 401(k) investments for it to be tax free? I'm a computer programmer, not an economist. And I've been thinking more about buying land, not stocks. And what exactly is the rate of return you get on your 401(k) investment?

#46 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-11-28 07:30 PM | Reply

You have no retirement savings?
Seek. Professional. Help.
I'm completely serious.

#42 | Posted by snoofy

Dude. I have a house.

#47 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-11-28 07:32 PM | Reply

"Aren't I limited by law to about $2,500 a year in 401(k) investments for it to be tax free?"

$2,500? Is that number from 1983???

You need to wrap your head around the basics before you try to slice and dice the numbers.

But, it's $17.5K, is the most you can stick in your 401K in 2017. Plus an extra $6K if you're over 50, so people like you who didn't plan ahead don't starve to death when you're old and have no savings; just a house you can't eat.

#48 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-28 07:50 PM | Reply

The bottom line question becomes: which path will he choose? The path that offers him nothing in retirement, or the path that adds hundreds of thousands of dollars?

^
"Pay yourself first."

#49 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-28 07:51 PM | Reply

#48 Dude, I have an assault rifle. When America goes bankrupt and dollars become meaningless, I can just kill and eat my neighbors. Considering our nations debt position, I'd say that day is about ten years away.

#50 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-11-28 07:57 PM | Reply

"Aren't I limited by law to about $2,500 a year in 401(k) investments for it to be tax free? "

You can sock away up to $18K, in either a traditional 401k, or a Roth 401k or a combo of both. You can also (possibly) put monies in a Traditional IRA or Roth IRA.

"Traditionals" give you the tax break today, at your marginal rate*. The savings grow tax-deferred, and all monies are taxed upon withdrawal, usually when you're in a lower tax bracket in retirement.

"Roths" give no tax break today, but all growth is tax-free, and NO taxes are due upon withdrawal, under current law. My savviest clients use a combination of Traditionals and Roths to muck with tax rates in retirement: they'll take out enough from the taxable accounts to get to the cusp of a higher bracket, and withdraw Roths above that number.

The decision between Traditional and Roth is usually made depending on tax bracket, and expectations in retirement. I try to get my clients to put everything they can from higher brackets into retirement accounts, for three reasons:
1) You can live on the amount up to that next bracket (and living beneath your means is a very important concept to master)
2) All money put away is shaved off at your highest marginal rate*
3) Doing that will ideally fund your same lifestyle in retirement.

Remember, it's easy for a poor person to keep his same lifestyle in retirement. Not so easy for someone who has become accustomed to a nicer lifestyle; that ----- expensive!

BTW...The next person I meet who believes he's saved too much money going into retirement will be my first.

*To find your marginal rate, look at your taxable income, and the tax you paid to the feds and states. Then subtract $1000 from your taxable income, and compare your new overall federal/state tax liabilities. If a $1000 contribution to your Traditional IRA changes your bottom line by $300, you're in the 30% marginal bracket. Also, folks who are in a "higher bracket" are only charged the higher rate on amounts over the threshold amount. IOW, even Warren Buffett pays the 10% rate on his first ~$9,000 of taxable income.

#51 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-28 08:07 PM | Reply

If your employer matches any amount take advantage of that, it's a benefit.

I have a house, so do I. Last summer my electrical box exploded iff my wall. Year before that had to replace the sewer line under my house. Took years before we realized, the black mold damn near killed my girl and me.

Don't get me wrong, I love being a home owner but in 08 or whenever the property bust was, my house was worth what I paid for it in 82. Ceptin in 82 that was real money.

#52 | Posted by bruceaz at 2017-11-28 08:15 PM | Reply

"If your employer matches any amount take advantage of that, it's a benefit."

My three-word piece of advice, if your employer offers it: Crawl Through Glass.

If you're in the 20% marginal fed/state bracket, it's the equivalent of a one-time, 150% overnight return on your money. In the 30% bracket, it's the equivalent of a 185% overnight return on your money. And that's before you invest it.

Maxing out an employer match is the best thing any family can do for itself for retirement, and light years ahead of second best.

#53 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-28 08:32 PM | Reply

"When America goes bankrupt and dollars become meaningless, I can just kill and eat my neighbors."

Pfft. You'll be gone in the first week.

Then again, I'll be gone by the end of the first day. Easy pickings, and all.

Ray will live until his caretaker finds the gold.

Boaz will live four days or so, until some closet liberal in his unit frags him.

#54 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-28 08:39 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

#51 Huh. I've been spending my money on things like a $10,000 really nice tool shed with an air-conditioner and power (my garage is completely packed) and a car-port and other home improvements. I was thinking about solar panels when I have to spring for a new roof, and I'm saving up for a new truck (mine's about dead). I vaguely understand what you are talking about, though.

I know that my boss bought life insurance on me (and not a small amount, either) for some kind of accounting reason, but I just don't get the tax system. 78,000 pages? Still, I think what you are saying is that if sock away $18,000 into a 401k, my federal tax rate won't fall from 25%. I am right smack dab in the middle of the 25% rate.

I only have one question: who should I hire to do my taxes?

#55 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-11-28 08:41 PM | Reply

"I just don't get the tax system"

DO NOT beat yourself up. No one knows it, coming out of the womb. And there is NOTHING anyone else knows, which you can't learn.

"I've been spending my money on things like..."

Home improvements rarely pay for themselves, but I believe the enjoyment and life enhancement you get are usually worth the trade-off.

"I'm saving up for a new truck"

If you're not maxing out your retirement accounts, get a used truck. There was a spike 3-years ago. Those leases are up, and dealers are glutted, so great deals abound.

"I think what you are saying is that if sock away $18,000 into a 401k, my federal tax rate won't fall from 25%. I am right smack dab in the middle of the 25% rate."

The good news is, everything you put away will be shaved off at your top marginal rate. And maxing out your 401k might make you eligible to put monies in a Traditional, deductible IRA as well. Basically, single folks making over ~$46K, and married couples making over ~92K are in the 25% federal bracket. Add $4K to the thresholds for each kid. Only amounts OVER that threshold are taxed federally at 25%.

Now, let's say your state marginal rate is 5%, for a total marginal rate of 30%

If you put $10,000 into your 401k at work, you'll save $3000 in income taxes that year. The full $18K will save you $5400.

If that $18K made $2K the following year, you'd be taxed $600. Instead, your 401k earnings get reinvested, and that $600 keeps earning for you. It doesn't make much difference over a year or two, but over 40 years, it makes all the difference in the world.

"who should I hire to do my taxes?"

From the sounds of it, it's doubtful you have a particularly difficult return; I'd find someone who can simply teach you these basics, and whip you into shape about savings.

#56 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-28 09:14 PM | Reply

"If you're not maxing out your retirement accounts, get a used truck."

Buy a used truck anyway. A new vehicle is a horrible waste of money.

#57 | Posted by eberly at 2017-11-28 09:16 PM | Reply

#57

Exactly. Find a lease turnback still under warranty, offer them 20% cash under what they are asking for it, they will be thrilled to get it off the lot. If they don't take it, walk away immediately, I guarantee you that the Manager will chase you down. If he/she doesn't, go to the next dealer and try again.

This won't work if you need them to finance it, but if you get pre-approved by your bank or credit union you will save a ton of money.

#58 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-28 09:41 PM | Reply

The reason I know this is that one of my former partners had some of the largest dealers in both CA and the US as clients and from him and his clients I learned that 1) new cars lose 20% of value the second they leave the lot (that's what the Cap Cost Reduction is), 2) they mark up the lease turnbacks at least 20% over their residual value after they take them back and 3) their dealership contracts require them to move used inventory off lot within a very short period so they have no choice.

#59 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-28 09:46 PM | Reply

One more note, about pitfalls: don't confuse income with assets.

Income can come and go. I've seen it disappear overnight. Assets, done right, eventually produce income. And if you've gotten used to a particular level of income, you'll need a high level of assets to keep your same lifestyle in retirement.

Back when I was a kid, the paradigm was you'd need 80% of your income in retirement. But that was predicated on a lot of dad's expenses ending: driving downtown everyday, paying to park, needing new suits, dry cleaning the shirts, etc. Today, I ask folks what expenses will end. Cell? Internet? Cable? I've yet to find one, other than a paid-off mortgage.

#60 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-28 10:11 PM | Reply

"new cars lose 20% of value the second they leave the lot"

Let someone else pay that depreciation. Get it with 20-40K miles.

#61 | Posted by eberly at 2017-11-28 10:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

60

I was hoping getting 3 kids out of my wallet would help.

My oldest is headed to K-State next Fall.

EMAW!!

#62 | Posted by eberly at 2017-11-28 10:34 PM | Reply

"I'm saving up for a new truck"

Pretty sure you're just trolling at this point.
The Accountant
www.youtube.com

#63 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-28 10:35 PM | Reply

"I was hoping getting 3 kids out of my wallet would help."

Couldn't hurt!

"My oldest is headed to K-State next Fall."

Mega-congrats. My niece just graduated, and is going to be an EMT at Children's Mercy in KC. Small world, huh?

#64 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-28 10:40 PM | Reply

2) they mark up the lease turnbacks at least 20% over their residual value after they take them back

That hurts to read.

I turned in my 2014 lease recently and got suckered into another one (stupid of me I know...be gentle on that account) when my intention the entire lease was to buy it out, largely based on what the residual was claimed to be.

So I treated the car very well. It was turned in with only 23K miles (out of a 36K lease), interior was clean with no damage and exterior had usual wear and tear.

Well now the lease company is claiming $2K "excess wear and tear" for typical stuff like rock dents in the front fender and a laundry list of small dings and dents (many of which I doubt, but lets not get into the whole inspection issue).

Plus, of course, I have to pay a $600 dollar fee to cover the cost of them selling the car.

So essentially I'm paying for them to fix and sell it and they're going to sell it for more than the contractually listed value because they can while keeping it all.

#65 | Posted by jpw at 2017-11-28 11:14 PM | Reply

#65

Nothing you can do about the cost over resid but you should fight them on the wear and tear, you should demand a credit for unused miles...tell them you will only charge then .15 a mile so they will only owe you the delta.

#66 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-28 11:21 PM | Reply

64

Yes it is.

Children's mercy......great place.

#67 | Posted by eberly at 2017-11-28 11:24 PM | Reply

Let someone else pay that depreciation. Get it with 20-40K miles.

#61 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2017-11-28 10:33 PM

Look for lease turnbacks with less than 10K and then negotiate hard. They have that much more time/miles under warranty to make fighting for it worthwhile.

Don't worry about walking away, car dealers are ------- as heart and are more concerned about volume than profit per vehicle, as high volume lowers their factory cost.

#68 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-28 11:24 PM | Reply

I've always viewed leasing as a way to drive the latest, which is suitable for some top-tier careers, or if you're just a car person it could be worth paying a premium to always be driving the latest.

#69 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-28 11:28 PM | Reply

"Get it with 20-40K miles."

120-140 is also good! That's what I got my car at, 13 years ago.

I wouldn't mind having a new(er) car but what do I really get? Backup camera, XM and Bluetooth on the stereo, heated seats, collision detection. Not worth $X00 a month to me. If I really wanted that stuff I could get it aftermarket anyway, except the seats, which aren't really that important in California.

#70 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-28 11:35 PM | Reply

Yeah, I bought a used Subaru rice-burner just so I could drive to work and shop. It was only like $2000. I thought it was a good investment at the time. Never buy a used car, the maintenance cost is too high. Today it sits rotting in my driveway, with an electric cooling system fan that won't come on (and the wiring harness with the short in it is literally plugged into everything) and something is seriously wrong with the brakes, even though nothing is wrong with the brake pads, rotors, or hydraulic pump. I think it's the master cylinder, but everybody tells me those don't fail, include this guy my friends call "Do-It-Yourself-Mike", because he knows everything from car-repair to plumbing to carpentry and electrician work.

I keep thinking it would cost more to have it fixed than the I could get my selling it. So I guess I'm just going to take the $100 and have it crushed. Maybe I can give it to a friend like I did my TV when I cancelled cable.

#71 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-11-28 11:38 PM | Reply

Since you live in California, you should get the BAR to buy it from you.

#72 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-28 11:44 PM | Reply

#72 What's the BAR? I googled it, but all I got was ads for bars near me and historical data on the Browning automatic rifle.

#73 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-11-28 11:52 PM | Reply

I will defer to Dan's expertise, but if you can write off a lease as a business expense, that is the way to go.

Don't lease a used car, I do know that is like burning money since the interest rates are almost double for used cars.

#74 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-29 12:08 AM | Reply

You know, Google is sort of like the government: you expect it to be useful because you pay for it. It's like when when I first hear we had an 'ATF'. I was drinking drinking Jim-Beam and smoking Marlboro's, so I called them up and asked "What caliber of handgun goes with that?"

The result was not at all what I expected.

#75 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-11-29 12:10 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

#73 | POSTED BY HELIUMRAT

Bureau of Automotive Repair ....
www.cashforclunkers.org

#76 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2017-11-29 12:23 AM | Reply

"Never buy a lousy used car, the maintenance cost is too high."

Fixed that for you.

Used cars, in general, have a lower cost-per-mile than new cars over their lifetimes.

Consumer Reports used to have this 17-point inspection you could do for a used car. It included things like bouncing all four corners, and shaking the wheels violently at a 90 degree angle (if something clicks repeatedly, you've got a problem). My favorite--only good on a stick--was to start the car, rev to a high rpm, shift into high gear, and floor it. First, anything that rattles on that car will rattle NOW. Second, how the engine responds tells you its condition: quick smooth acceleration means something different than choppy, sluggish pickup.

#77 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-29 12:29 AM | Reply

#77 "My favorite--only good on a stick--was to start the car, rev to a high rpm, shift into high gear, and floor it."

Very good advice, I'll remember that. But I never intend to buy another standard. Manual transmissions are just too annoying in high traffic - clutch in, clutch out, clutch in, clutch out.

Pretty much the big thing I do is take the oil cap off and look for cooked residue. If their isn't any, then the engine was well taken care of.

#78 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-11-29 12:40 AM | Reply

"But I never intend to buy another standard."

I still have the Toyota Solara stick V6 I bought new in 2002. It's not my main car anymore, but I couldn't get rid of it: the ride is just too sweet. Even at high speeds, the pickup is killer.

It's the car I was driving when I got busted doing 110. I admitted to the judge I'd just broken it in, and never had a car that would do 110 before. He went very easy on me, in retrospect.

#79 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-29 12:46 AM | Reply

#79 I went to jail for my V8 fastback Camaro (with positraction!) back in the eighties. It was silver. My brother had a vintage green Ford V8 '68 Mustang Mach 2 (he called it "the Penis"). We buried the needle on it past 130 on a long stretch of highway one night.

#80 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-11-29 01:15 AM | Reply

Susan : I thought Hillary was dangerous .

Until I read #79 and #80 lol

#81 | Posted by bruceaz at 2017-11-29 01:20 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"We buried the needle on it past 130 on a long stretch of highway one night."

Yikes. Glad you're safe.

I remember thinking "I'd better be careful. Cops hang out at that promontory point about a 3/4th of a mile ahead."

Then I remember thinking I got there a lot faster than I usually did...as I zoomed past the cop. As soon as I saw the lights I pulled over, and kept my mouth shut.

Like I said earlier, I got very lucky once I got to the courtroom. I got a ridiculously low fine, and 8 hrs of community service. The paperwork was taking a while, so while we waited, the judge cut both the fine, and the CS in half.

#82 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-29 01:23 AM | Reply

Here's what my Camaro looked like: www.google.com

I never figured out what positraction was really supposed to do. If you took a highway turnaround at a high-speed, the ass-end would swing to the opposite side you where turning to to keep you straight. But you could also have fun with it: if you turned the steering wheel just a little and punched the gas from a starting position it peel out like hell. I've never had a car again that actually peeled out.

#83 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-11-29 01:41 AM | Reply

"I've never had a car again that actually peeled out."

Explanation available on the movie "My Cousin Vinny."

#84 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-29 09:31 AM | Reply

"#79 I went to jail for my V8 fastback Camaro (with positraction!) back in the eighties. It was silver. My brother had a vintage green Ford V8 '68 Mustang Mach 2 (he called it "the Penis"). We buried the needle on it past 130 on a long stretch of highway one night."

Good. I hate people who drive as if they think they are on a NASCAR track thereby endangering my kids and grandkids. Jail is where you belonged. I hope you learned a much needed lesson.

#85 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-29 09:33 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort