THE INTANGIBLES OF A CANDIDATE

As Tony Robbins chided Al Gore in the audience at TED, he would have been elected if he had more emotion behind his ideas and being.  See Video.

On Monday night at the CNNTeaParty sponsored Republican Presidential Debates, we were treated to a unique camera view of the candidates walking onto the stage.

Rick Perry walked in powerfully, appearing well-grounded and very strong, appearing to be a person who would stand strongly and not fold easily.

Mitt Romney walked in almost tippy-toed, as if he had ballet slippers on his feet, as if he was a good little boy, the All-American kid.  (He does have hugely high character, but he looks as if he is a people pleaser...)

Jon Huntsman walked in with softness and grace, disturbing nothing in his path, making no noise, almost appearing to be a "wimp" (which people do not vote for!). 

Perhaps Tony should coach the latter two - or even I could, but not as well, of course.  Do they not have people on their team who can coach in that way?

Mitt Romney has a "charisma deficit", so people are not very excited about him, despite the fact that he is one of the most qualified candidates in the last 50 years. 

Jon Huntsman is a sophisticated, kind-appearing, thoughtful appearing gentlemen who is of the highest character (as was his extraordinarily high-character father).   Although he has the best record of the governors, with a huge approval rating even when he left office, he is not noticed.  He must boldly proclaim, while still maintaining his excellent respectful behavior.

Both have put forth plans that are excellent, but they can't rely on people reading the plans and/or giving them much thought.  Few people nowadays do that very well.  They must emphasize the points and give illustrations, probably in a video format, educating but trying not to be as dry as Ross Perot (a great example of a businessman candidate, but without the other side that is necessary in terms of politics and charisma).  Huntsman Plan (good overview in it, should be featured more strongly on his site).  Romney Plan (this goes to free Amazon download; his website flashes between other items, so the plan is not always shown...)

Romney and Huntsman, the most workable experienced qualified candidates, must adjust their style or they will go by the wayside, sadly.  And, if by chance one of them wins the nomination, the charm and boldness of Barack Obama may win over the non-thinking voters in the middle.  This leaves the voters leaning toward Rick Perry if they want a strong contender against Obama in terms of impression.

What do you think?

The Rational Non-Politician

Is Social Security A Ponzi Scheme?

Perry, in the Republican debates tonight, stepped assertively forward, but might have left himself open to character assassination or at least to looking very undiplomatic and over the top.

But is his description accurate?

The definition: 

"An investment swindle in which high profits are promised from fictitious sources and early investors are paid off with funds raised from later ones."

Of course, the context of a "swindle" is not valid, but the vernacular is that it is something where people pay in money now and hope that they get paid back later by future social security contributors.  

Of course, the government guarantees the later payments, but the source of the government funds is tax payers - therefore future generations will be stuck with a greater tax burden.

The Social Security Trust Report itself says that we are behind (short) by $7 trillion (called unfunded liabilities already incurred).

Social security is, indeed, a set up where later contributors put in the money for current retirees, plus hopefully something for themselves. 

There is no actual money in the social security trust fund, which means that the federal government must pay social security from the moneys it receives (in payment for the bonds issued by the government so it could take the money and spend it).

So, other than the colorfulness for making his point very, very strongly, social security is a ponzi scheme. 

 

 

The Rational Non-Politician

See the discussion on Social Security .

Again, if any facts or reasoning are incorrect please correct them, as the objective of this site is to be fact-based and rational - with no labelling or irresponsible reactiveness.