From the Gospel of Timothy 1:14:12
The Lord is my sheperd; I shall not want.
He maketh me play football in green pastures;
he leadeth me to the end zone when the game is on the line.
He restoreth my soul;
he leadeth me in the path of my offensive blockers.
Yea, though I walk through the depths of Gillete Stadium,
I will fear no Patriots;
for thou and my teammates are with me;
my coach and his staff they comfort me.
Thou preparest an upset before me in the presence of mine enemies;
thou "anointest" my head with trick plays;
and my adrenalin runneth over.
Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me each minute of this game;
and after winning I will dwell in the house of the Broncos forever.
"Praise the Lord and pass me the football"
Give em hell Saturday night Tebow!
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
"The Bain Train"
As the rough and tumble primary moves on to South Carolina, Romney is being attacked from the left over his so-called "vulture capitalism" while being CEO of Bain Capital. Sadly this "left" attack, I call it the "Bain Train", comes from Obama, Gingrich, Perry, and to some extent Santorum. What the hell are these so-called Conservatives doing joining the Democrats in their battle on capitalism?
First of all I am not a Romney fan. But I am a 'venture capitalist" fan. There is no question that if Romney wins the nomination that the Obama machine will portray him as the "Gordon Gecko" of Wall Street. But I can't believe our side is throwing gas into those flames. I have some experience with venture capital companies and like everything else there are a few bad apples, but without those companies many of the corporations we are all familiar with today (that employ millions of people) would not exist. I have no idea if Bain did any "dishonest" deals, but I did some research today. When Romney started the company they had assets of $37 million to invest, today Bain and it's affiliates are "managing" $66 billion in assets.
I put quotes around "managing" because that's what venture capitalist's do. They take investor's money (if they want to invest it) and risk it on companies that have a potential to make profits, offering them a higher return than they could get elsewhere - IF they are willing to take the risk. The key word is "risk". When I started my high tech company in the late 70's, the failure rate of high tech companies was two failures for every success. Would you take those odds? Remember the .com "bubble" in the 90's - some like Microsoft, Dell, and Oracle were successful, but many more went "bust".
I don't know anything about Bain's performance, but the fact that they have grown so much over the years certainly indicates that they have done a good job for their investors. When venture capitalists take over companies that are in trouble or struggling, they restructure and bring in new management and hopefully turn them around; and in some cases the company is too far gone and they have to put them through bankruptcy. Do people lose their jobs, of course? But if Bain went from $37 million to $66 billion in assets managed, a lot of jobs must have been created along the way by those successes.
Investing in high risk companies is like gambling, and gamblers only tell you about the times they won. The dialog about Bain Capital should be open and then voters can decide whether they did a good job for their investors (and the country) or not. But that will probably not happen - if Romney is the nominee the Obama machine will only tell you about those Bain Capital "gambling losses" and all the people that lost their jobs along the way. We don't need people on our side to help them with that false message.
First of all I am not a Romney fan. But I am a 'venture capitalist" fan. There is no question that if Romney wins the nomination that the Obama machine will portray him as the "Gordon Gecko" of Wall Street. But I can't believe our side is throwing gas into those flames. I have some experience with venture capital companies and like everything else there are a few bad apples, but without those companies many of the corporations we are all familiar with today (that employ millions of people) would not exist. I have no idea if Bain did any "dishonest" deals, but I did some research today. When Romney started the company they had assets of $37 million to invest, today Bain and it's affiliates are "managing" $66 billion in assets.
I put quotes around "managing" because that's what venture capitalist's do. They take investor's money (if they want to invest it) and risk it on companies that have a potential to make profits, offering them a higher return than they could get elsewhere - IF they are willing to take the risk. The key word is "risk". When I started my high tech company in the late 70's, the failure rate of high tech companies was two failures for every success. Would you take those odds? Remember the .com "bubble" in the 90's - some like Microsoft, Dell, and Oracle were successful, but many more went "bust".
I don't know anything about Bain's performance, but the fact that they have grown so much over the years certainly indicates that they have done a good job for their investors. When venture capitalists take over companies that are in trouble or struggling, they restructure and bring in new management and hopefully turn them around; and in some cases the company is too far gone and they have to put them through bankruptcy. Do people lose their jobs, of course? But if Bain went from $37 million to $66 billion in assets managed, a lot of jobs must have been created along the way by those successes.
Investing in high risk companies is like gambling, and gamblers only tell you about the times they won. The dialog about Bain Capital should be open and then voters can decide whether they did a good job for their investors (and the country) or not. But that will probably not happen - if Romney is the nominee the Obama machine will only tell you about those Bain Capital "gambling losses" and all the people that lost their jobs along the way. We don't need people on our side to help them with that false message.
Sunday, January 8, 2012
"The Paul Paradox"
As the Republican primary season moves forward at high speed, many still wonder why Ron Paul is even in the race. He has little charisma and comes across as an "old man" in the debates. Now I am also an "old man", so that is not a pejorative statement. But contrary to his image, he continues to get strong support in these early races and ironically much of this "old man's" support comes from young people.
In my last Blog I referred to Congressman Paul as "the crazy uncle", that was probably unfair, especially since I agree with many of his policies. His support comes primarily from his stance on reigning in the federal budget and getting this country on a solid financial basis, a position he has consistently preached for 20 years. No one really paid attention to him in the past but now his prophecy of a "financial disaster" due to uncontrolled government spending has people taking a second look at his long-held warnings.
I agree with many of Paul's policies - audit the Fed; cut the government budget $1 trillion next year no matter how painful it may be, even it means cutting out complete government agencies; quit giving foreign aid to people that don't like us; quit spending money protecting countries like Germany, Japan, South Korea, and dozens of others that can afford to do it on their own. But his so-called "appeasement" foreign policy has been his Achilles heel, resulting in attacks from the main stream media with voters following suit.
This evening I watched a "focus group" of about 30-40 sample voters who were Libertarians, Conservatives, and Republicans giving their opinions on various candidates. In some cases the candidates themselves answered questions and in some cases their representatives answered questions. During the Ron Paul "focus session" his son Rand Paul represented him. The focus group had an interesting response to Ron Paul's policies. On domestic policies (mentioned above) he received almost unanimous support of the group. On his foreign policy only two people raised their hand.
His son Rand is a very impressive young Senator and made some interesting points: The domestic situation is a disaster and financially the country is close to falling off a cliff...and the group agreed. He also pointed out that even though he may not agree with all of his fathers foreign policies with regard to going to going to war, the President cannot make those decisions anyway since it takes Congress to declare war, set defense spending levels, etc. His father is a strict constitutionalist - go to war to protect the USA, but do not to get involved in other country's affairs. It is ironic that more Ron Paul contributions come from the US military than all the other candidates combined.
So the debate goes on, and I don't think Ron Paul has a chance to be elected president. But he is making quite an impact on this primary, if for no other reason the dialog about the financial disaster this country is facing is now front and center. Paul is also single-handedly making many of us think about what the Constitution really means because of his ability to explain it in simple and concise terms. Sadly, Ron Paul's honesty may be the biggest obstacle to him ever winning this primary.
Do I support many of his policies - yes. Will I vote for him - no. Because I still believe the primary mission in 2012 is to get rid of Obama and his clueless Harvard trained administration that has no idea how a capitalistic system works, and what made this country exceptional. Even though an "establishment" candidate might not be our first choice, we cannot afford to lose this election. At least with an establishment Republican administration we can start moving in the right direction. Another four years of Obama could be the death knell of this country as we know it.
In my last Blog I referred to Congressman Paul as "the crazy uncle", that was probably unfair, especially since I agree with many of his policies. His support comes primarily from his stance on reigning in the federal budget and getting this country on a solid financial basis, a position he has consistently preached for 20 years. No one really paid attention to him in the past but now his prophecy of a "financial disaster" due to uncontrolled government spending has people taking a second look at his long-held warnings.
I agree with many of Paul's policies - audit the Fed; cut the government budget $1 trillion next year no matter how painful it may be, even it means cutting out complete government agencies; quit giving foreign aid to people that don't like us; quit spending money protecting countries like Germany, Japan, South Korea, and dozens of others that can afford to do it on their own. But his so-called "appeasement" foreign policy has been his Achilles heel, resulting in attacks from the main stream media with voters following suit.
This evening I watched a "focus group" of about 30-40 sample voters who were Libertarians, Conservatives, and Republicans giving their opinions on various candidates. In some cases the candidates themselves answered questions and in some cases their representatives answered questions. During the Ron Paul "focus session" his son Rand Paul represented him. The focus group had an interesting response to Ron Paul's policies. On domestic policies (mentioned above) he received almost unanimous support of the group. On his foreign policy only two people raised their hand.
His son Rand is a very impressive young Senator and made some interesting points: The domestic situation is a disaster and financially the country is close to falling off a cliff...and the group agreed. He also pointed out that even though he may not agree with all of his fathers foreign policies with regard to going to going to war, the President cannot make those decisions anyway since it takes Congress to declare war, set defense spending levels, etc. His father is a strict constitutionalist - go to war to protect the USA, but do not to get involved in other country's affairs. It is ironic that more Ron Paul contributions come from the US military than all the other candidates combined.
So the debate goes on, and I don't think Ron Paul has a chance to be elected president. But he is making quite an impact on this primary, if for no other reason the dialog about the financial disaster this country is facing is now front and center. Paul is also single-handedly making many of us think about what the Constitution really means because of his ability to explain it in simple and concise terms. Sadly, Ron Paul's honesty may be the biggest obstacle to him ever winning this primary.
Do I support many of his policies - yes. Will I vote for him - no. Because I still believe the primary mission in 2012 is to get rid of Obama and his clueless Harvard trained administration that has no idea how a capitalistic system works, and what made this country exceptional. Even though an "establishment" candidate might not be our first choice, we cannot afford to lose this election. At least with an establishment Republican administration we can start moving in the right direction. Another four years of Obama could be the death knell of this country as we know it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
