This Money-Saving Hack Starts With an ATM on a Friday. Here's What to Do
Weekend spending can add up quickly.
We've all been there. On our days off, we tend to make more expensive and frequent credit card purchases.
That's where a cash-only weekend challenge can help. Because paying with cash helps us see money in a tangible way, it's a common method to curb overspending. During a cash-only weekend, you'll withdraw a predetermined amount in advance, and that's the only money you'll spend for 48 hours.
According to Jen Smith, co-author of Buy What You Love Without Going Broke and CNET Money expert, these types of money challenges reduce decision fatigue because you're limiting your options ahead of time. "They improve awareness of the total cost of your spending and create natural boundaries without needing willpower or complex rules," Smith said.
TikTok and Instagram are full of financial challenges, from no-spend months to revenge savings. A cash-only weekend is just one money-saving hack worth trying. Here's how.
How a cash-only weekend works
We often turn to challenges to help us reach our personal goals. Committing to walking 30 minutes a day or avoiding social media in the evenings can lead to healthy habits over time. The same is true when you put your credit card away for a set amount of time.
If you're new to the concept, start small. Smith recommends picking one weekend on your calendar when you know you'll be able to follow through. Calculate for necessities like food and groceries, and then withdraw the additional cash you plan to spend on entertainment or recreation.
In an increasingly digital world where you can only pay by credit card or mobile wallet, tangible cash can feel like an ancient artifact. To adapt to this challenge in a cashless environment, consider putting spending limits on a debit card or opting for a prepaid spending card.
However you do it, the challenge is likely to help you spend with more awareness, reduce impulse buys and 'feel' your money more, said Smith.
Cash-only weekends could help with debt
Committing to a cash-only weekend will not only keep your spending in check but also help you tackle debt payoff.
Bernadette Joy, founder of Crush Your Money Goals and CNET Money expert, said that a cash-only weekend can keep your credit card balance at bay rather than letting it creep up. "I encourage clients to get into the habit of paying off their credit cards weekly, typically on Fridays, so that you're going into the weekend with a fresh slate," Joy said.
If you pay off your credit card balance before the weekend starts and don't make any new purchases, you can start chipping away at other debt instead of accruing new debt.
How to know if cash-only weekends are working
Will a cash-only weekend transform your finances immediately? No. But instead of looking for short-term gain, think about how the challenge can have a long-term effect.
"The savings you experience in a weekend are minuscule," Smith said. "The impact that consistent, sustainable habits long term is what truly makes a difference."
To know if you've been making progress with a financial challenge like a cash-only weekend, Joy says to look out for a couple of key signs.
Your debt balances aren't going up
Your savings are increasing
You're making fewer impulse purchases over time
You don't feel drained financially after the weekend from everything you spent
"The best way to know if a cash-only system is working for you is if you stayed within the cash you budgeted: no cards, no extra cash withdrawals," said Alaina Fingal, a certified financial coach and CNET Money expert. "This will prove that you're building financial discipline and honoring your financial boundaries."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Jasmine Crockett blasts AOC and Bernie Sanders' ‘Fighting Oligarchy' tour as self-serving: ‘Makes people be like, Oh, it's about them'
Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) recently criticized far-left Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's (D-NY) and Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-Vt.) 'Fighting Oligarchy' tour for being self-promotional rather than about 'the team.' Crockett lambasted the nationwide rallies headlined by the lefty pair during a May meeting with Rep. Maxine Dexter (D-Ore.), as the Texas Democrat campaigned for the top Democratic spot on the House Oversight Committee, according to The Atlantic magazine. Crockett argued that AOC and Sanders didn't appear to be team players. CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images Advertisement During the meeting, Dexter probed Crockett about her relationship with Democratic leadership, noting that Ocasio-Cortez bumped heads with former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) when she burst onto the scene in 2019. Downplaying Dexter's concerns, Crockett claimed that she wanted to be viewed as working on behalf of the Democratic Party and was not looking to 'burn it down.' Crockett, 44, went on to describe the Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez rallies as 'a good idea,' but a tour that primarily served the interests of the two lawmakers, and not the Democratic Party. Advertisement The rallies 'kind of makes people be like, Oh, it's about them, right? Instead of the team,' Crockett said. Amid the tour, Ocasio-Cortez, 35, hauled in an impressive $9.6 million in campaign contributions during the first quarter of the year, shattering her own personal record. The New York Democrat's previous highest quarterly haul was just over $4.4 million, back in 2020. Meanwhile, Sanders raked in about $11.5 million during the same period in 2025. Advertisement AOC and Sanders hosted rallies across the country this spring as part of their 'Fighting Oligarchy' tour. AFP via Getty Images Atlantic writer Elaine Godfrey noted in her profile of the far-left firebrand that several Democratic lawmakers refused to discuss Crockett on the record for the piece. Senior Democratic staffers explained that some of Crockett's colleagues find her 'undisciplined' but are 'reluctant to criticize her publicly.' 'She likes to talk,' one of the staffers told Godfrey. 'Is she a loose cannon? Sometimes. Does that cause headaches for other members? 100 percent.' Advertisement During her time with Crockett, Godfrey observed that the congresswoman 'speaks casually' and 'can also be brusque' and noticed the pol's phone lock screen is a headshot of herself. 'She likes to talk,' one of the staffers told Godfrey. 'Is she a loose cannon? Sometimes. Does that cause headaches for other members? 100 percent.' Crockett, Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders did not respond to The Post's requests for comment. Crockett insisted in the Atlantic profile that she has a 'positive relationship' with Ocasio-Cortez.
Forbes
2 hours ago
- Forbes
Trump's Historic EU Trade Deal: Energy Dominance Doctrine In Action
The EU and the US agree on a trade-tariff deal with a 15% tariff for the vast majority of EU ... More products, as seen in this photo illustration in Brussels, Belgium, on July 28, 2025. (Photo by Jonathan Raa/NurPhoto via Getty Images) In line with the energy dominance paradigm, the Trump administration has struck a deal with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen that calls for the EU to purchase $750 billion worth of American energy exports and invest $600 billion in the U.S. economy by 2028. In exchange, Washington will cap import tariffs at 15% on most EU goods starting August 1st, including cars, pharmaceuticals, and semiconductors. Certain products - aircraft, semiconductor equipment, select agricultural exports, and some chemicals - will be exempt from tariffs altogether. This arrangement brings partial relief from the trade tensions but remains far from free trade. The 15% ceiling adds predictability while preserving protectionism. Sensitive European goods like steel and aluminum will be managed under tariff-rate quotas, where fixed volumes enter at lower tariffs and excess imports face higher rates. A Political Understanding, Not a Binding Treaty For all its ambitious terms, no formal treaty has been signed. This remains a political handshake that now needs to be written down and implemented. Hammering out the details will be the real test, as both sides are already offering different interpretations of the same pledges. The White House insists the EU's $600 billion investment will be entirely "new" money, 'in addition to the over $100 billion EU companies already invest in the United States'. Brussels has been more cautious, saying companies have only "expressed interest" in future investment by 2029. Moreover, these sweeping targets depend on private decisions, not state control. No one can compel private EU companies to buy $750 billion in U.S. fuels or invest $600 billion in American infrastructure. The enforcement mechanism relies on Trump's own judgment. As long as he perceives progress and can claim wins, the pact may hold. But perceived shortfalls might spark new demands or punitive measures. The Numbers Don't Add Up The Trump administration's goal is to boost U.S. fossil and nuclear exports while narrowing the goods trade deficit with the European Union, which stood at $236 billion in 2024. That year, total U.S.-EU goods trade reached $976 billion. The U.S. exported $370 billion worth of goods to the EU and imported $605 billion. The aim is not only to close the existing deficit, but to create a significant trade surplus. The EU imported 51 bcm of U.S. LNG in 2024, worth $12.2 billion (if we assume an average LNG price of $6.59 per mmBtu). Scaling that to $250 billion annually would require increasing LNG trade more than twentyfold—a leap that is logistically impossible under current infrastructure and market conditions. U.S. LNG export terminals are near capacity, and building new infrastructure takes years. Reaching $250 billion in sales just to the EU would require Europe to purchase a very large portion of total U.S. oil and gas exports. The $600 billion EU investment target faces similar constraints. This exceeds roughly €498 billion ($540 billion) what the EU invested in major priority sectors like climate, energy, transport, and clean technology in 2023. Brussels is essentially committing to send more investment abroad than it spends at home on the green transition. In GDP terms, the annual investment flow of $200 billion is comparable to the combined GDPs of Portugal and Slovakia. Why set these impossible targets? Because they work politically. The Trump administration wants big goals to frame the EU relationship in transactional terms. Europe wants stable energy supply and tariff relief. The figures may be unattainable, but they send a clear message about economic alignment and reduced exposure to Russia and China. There is precedent for inflated purchase pledges in Trump-brokered deals. The 2019 Phase One trade agreement with China set ambitious quotas for Chinese purchases of U.S. goods. China never came close to hitting them. To be fair, former President Biden also liked aspirational targets, such as 30 GW of offshore wind capacity to be installed in the U.S. by 2030. So such strategies straddle political party line. Europe's Strategic Calculations Why would Europe accept what appears to be a lopsided arrangement? The motivations are threefold: energy security, economic pressure, and geopolitical insurance. First, the EU gains assurances on U.S. energy supply. With Russia largely sidelined as an energy partner, Europe needs reliable alternatives. The United States, now the world's top producer of both oil and natural gas, is a leading candidate. U.S. nuclear technologies are under active consideration in several EU member states, including Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, and the Czech Republic. Plans range from large-scale reactors, such as the Westinghouse AP1000, to small modular reactors (SMRs) from companies like NuScale, GE Hitachi, and Holtec. In addition to securing U.S. reactor designs and engineering, these projects will require a reliable fuel supply, much of which was historically provided by Russia. Second, the deal heads off a trade war. Trump had threatened 25-30% tariffs on EU cars and other goods, which would have hit Germany particularly hard. By accepting the 15% cap and making purchase commitments, Brussels avoids confrontation and buys time. Finally, there's the temporal calculus. The commitments stretch to 2028-2029, potentially beyond the current U.S. presidential term. With potential new leadership in Washington, the more onerous aspects could be renegotiated or quietly dropped. Aspirational Targets as Policy Tools This agreement reflects Trump's long-held energy dominance doctrine, which prioritizes U.S. fossil and nuclear exports while ignoring renewables. The deal fits this framework perfectly: it locks in fossil fuel exports and aims to close the trade gap. For the EU, it provides energy security, tariff relief, and stability in an uncertain geopolitical environment. The $750 billion energy goal is not feasible, and the $600 billion investment figure is soft, at best. Yet the agreement serves both parties' strategic objectives. This is a historically significant deal not because the numbers are realistic, but because it demonstrates how both sides want to manage their economic relationship going forward. The aspirational targets are the feature, not the bug, of this approach.
New York Post
3 hours ago
- New York Post
Top Zelensky official praises Trump for giving Putin 10 days to end Ukraine invasion: ‘When America is serious, Russia backs down'
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's right-hand man lauded President Trump Tuesday for shortening the time frame for Russia to show willingness to make peace with Kyiv — saying it will let Vladimir Putin know that Washington is 'serious' about ending the war in Ukraine. 'When the US leads, the free world follows. When America is serious, Russia backs down,' said Andriy Yermak — who runs the Ukrainian office of the president and seen as the equivalent to White House chief of staff Susie Wiles. 'We have seen that before, and we are starting to see it again.' Trump, 79, told reporters aboard Air Force One Tuesday that Russia now has just 10 days — until Aug. 8 — to avoid economic sanctions aimed at stopping the flow of cash funding Moscow's more than 41-month-old invasion. 3 President Trump announced Tuesday he was giving Russia 10 days — until Aug. 8 — to show Moscow is serious about ending the war on Ukraine. AFP via Getty Images The US president originally gave Putin 50 days from July 14 to stop his brutal assault on Kyiv — but so far, the Kremlin tyrant has shown no inclination to do so, slamming Ukraine nightly with deadly bombings and drone strikes on civilians. Should that continue, Trump has promised to levy 100% tariffs on any country that buys Russian oil — either directly or indirectly — punishing those providing Moscow with its main source of income to power its war machine. Moscow has occasionally feigned interest in a negotiated settlement, most recently holding lower-level meetings with Ukrainian officials in Turkey last week. Putin has repeatedly refused to meet with Zelensky, who showed up in Turkey earlier this summer after Trump urged the two belligerents to hold direct talks, only to be stood up. At last week's meeting, according to Yermak, Moscow's reps kept the discussions to prisoner of war exchanges and did not entertain talk of a cease-fire. 'It is necessary to act,' Yermak told The Post in an exclusive interview. 'I believe in America. I believe in President Trump.' 3 Andriy Yermak speaks to reporters in Washington last month. AP With the clock ticking, the Kremlin has sent public messages to downplay the effects of potential sanctions in an attempt to change Trump's mind. On Monday, Russian Security Council Deputy Chair Dmitry Medvedev accused Trump of risking a US-Russia war, claiming that 'Russia isn't Israel or even Iran' and cannot be influenced by American strength. 'Each new ultimatum is a threat and a step towards war,' Medvedev threatened. 'Not between Russia and Ukraine, but with his own country. Don't go down the Sleepy Joe road!' Yermak said Medvedev was 'very stupid' to make such a statement, adding that Ukraine has never asked the US to get directly involved in the conflict. 'With Medvedev, I don't know what his psychological condition is. Maybe he was drunk,' he said. 'Trump is not the person who will be OK with such brutal things said against the president of the United States.' To prove Medvedev and others wrong, Yermak argued, the only thing left for Trump to do is levy the new economic punishments and watch what happens. 3 Russian President Vladimir Putin has shown no inclination to stop his 41-month-old invasion. AP 'These first steps will destroy any Russian narrative and some pro-Russian forces which still try to share the narrative that nothing will happen, and that Kremlin and Putin will continue this game,' said Yermak, comparing the attempt to set the narrative to that surrounding the debate over whether then-President Biden should send Ukraine Patriot air-defense systems last year. 'What happened? We received them and the Patriots demonstrated to all the world that it is the best air defense and they destroy any kind of rockets,' he said. 'It's necessary to not believe in Russian propaganda.' Yermak also suggested the sanctions would embolden Russians who already feel the pinch in their wallets to speak out and demand the conflict stop. 'In Russia, it is impossible to control all of the social media, and the people will receive some new information and these sanctions will create a very difficult situation in the Russian economy,' he said. 'It will work together with the huge loss [by Russia] on the front line, and people will start asking Putin more loudly: 'For what did you start all this and why don't you want the war to end?''
