Posts tagged ‘PopModal’

December 20, 2012

Classic Christmas Videos from PopModal Videos


December 5, 2012

Every Click on a YouTube Video Obama gets a Dime.

Obama & Google's Unholy Alliance.

Cronyism at its finest.

Editors Note: The below article is why I built PopModal Videos. It is the Conservative/Libertarian Alternative to YouTube. It is time to start paying attention to your actions and their consequences. Hypocrisy is unbecoming.

Already a winner on the business front for his support and guidance to President Obama and his reelection campaign, there is growing speculation that Google Chairman Eric Schmidt is in line for an even bigger payoff: secretary of either Treasury or Commerce or a new “secretary of business” slot.

Cabinet shakeup watchers have focused on Schmidt and his Yoda status in the Obama reelection campaign, Google’s massive $1.9 million to Democrats in the election, and the administration’s efforts to quiet a potential Federal Trade Commission investigation of Google as key signs that the president wants Schmidt in the cabinet.

“Nobody’s better positioned for a Cabinet job, if he wants one,” said a Democratic strategist.

Since Obama ran for national office, Google has been there with money and advice. Way back in 2007, Obama visited Google HQ and said, “What we shared is a belief in changing the world from the bottom up, not from the top down.”

Ever since, it’s been a match made in heaven.

Schmidt stood with Obama during his first 2008 post-election press conference.

When Obama started to push for a new round of stimulus spending in 2011, Schmidt was a cheerleader. Google’s political action committee delivered $1.6 million to Democrats in 2008 and over $700,000 to Obama in the last election.

At a recent Politico breakfast, Obama Campaign Manager Jim Messina mentioned only Schmidt as his go-to guy. Schmidt was at Obama campaign headquarters on Election Day when Obama visited.

It’s potentially good for Google too: As the FTC looks to probe Google, Obama nominated for a Republican vacancy a GOP professor with a record of fighting anti-trust enforcement and whose work was backed by groups supported by Google. On Monday, the nominee, Joshua Wright, said he would recuse himself from Google cases.

Now as speculation grows of Schmidt taking a cabinet post, critics are drawing attention to the closeness of the administration-Google relationship. “Support in 2008, plus support in 2012, plus personal counsel by Schmidt to Messina in 2012, may now equal a plum cabinet post,” said one.

via Treasury Secretary Google? |

August 11, 2011

The Cycle of Marx: Why the economic policies of the Democrat Party contribute more to poverty than Free Market Capitalism?

Jeffers M. Dodge, President of

Jeffers M. Dodge, President of

By Jeffers M. Dodge 7-25-11

The question is, why does the economic policies and theory promoted by the Democrat Party contribute more to increased poverty rates even though they claim their proposal’s intentions are to the contrary? My conclusion, after examining the facts, is that there is a correlation between the size of government and the increase in poverty levels. Here is a summary of my logic stream I call “The Cycle of Marx,” which is: The bigger the Government the more it costs; thus the more it prints, borrows and taxes; thus the decrease in the value of the dollar; thus an increase in inflation; thus the increase in poverty; thus the shrinkage of the tax-base; thus the more dependency on big government; thus the need for bigger government… and the Cycle of Marx repeats.

We all know that the Republicans advocate for smaller, less intrusive, less expensive government, while the opposite is true for Democrats. This is why I use the term Big Government throughout this article.

We all know that Big Government gets its operating capital through taxation of both business and individuals (the producers of wealth) in the private sector. And we all know that when taxation is not enough, Big Government makes up the difference by borrowing and/or printing money.

We all know that when Big Government raises taxes on businesses this additional expense is passed through to consumers in the form of higher prices, which means less people can afford to purchase its products and services. This is called double taxation and is a root cause of monetary inflation and resulting poverty. If small business want to compete they will have to cut down on other expenses such as salaries, hiring new employees or future capital investments, marketing or advertising, not to mention cutting corners, compromising quality and public safety. These taxes are anti-growth and anti-competitive Big Government policies.

We all know that small businesses would rather use the money Big Government takes to expand their markets or develop new products. This is how jobs are created, and this is how the tax-base is expanded. The net effect of an expanded tax-base is an increase in income tax revenue to the U.S. Treasury. Our politicians should be doing everything in their power to enable small businesses to grow and compete. Their campaign promises should be about bringing jobs back to their districts not federal stimulus money.

We all know the value of the dollar is negatively affected by the increase in printing, borrowing and taxation by Big Government. The more money Big Government prints means there is more money in circulation, which means the less value it has. The more money Big Government borrows the less there is for the private sector therefore creating an increase in demand for loans which always causes interest rates to rise. The more money Big Government takes out of the economy by taxation the less money there is to spend on consumer goods or new homes or invest in a new business. All of this contributes to the lower value of the dollar, which is a primary cause of inflation that results in the high cost of food and fuel, and a resulting increase in poverty.

Therefore, inflation is a measure of higher prices caused mostly by Big Government intervention and to a lesser extent, natural causes such as drought and supply interruptions.

We all know that prices are set by the Free Market, which is controlled by millions of consumers making billions of transactions every day and not by greedy CEO’s. We all know that Democrats would like to set prices and plan our economy so they can construct their utopian fantasy for what they think is in our best interests. Now this brings me to a question that compares the two competing institutions that affect our economy, private business and Big Government. What is the difference between positive greed and negative greed? What is the difference between greedy big government politicians and greedy CEO’s? The primary purpose of the politician is to get reelected. They do not create wealth. They go to extraordinary measures to look for ways of taking wealth from the successful and redistributing it to people who are not, to buy their votes. CEO’s are owners of bakeries, coffee shops and gas stations and they go to extraordinary measures to find ways to get people to buy their product. They create wealth. Which one uses positive greed and which one uses negative greed?

We all know that poverty is measured, and the poverty threshold is set by the affordability of food and fuel and other necessities in relation to individual income. (note: the poverty rate, currently at 14.3%, has increased every year since the Big Government Democrats took control of Congress in 2008 and has a direct correlation to the size of government. A family of 3 that earns less than $18,310 is considered to be living in poverty. (This income is impossible to sustain the most meager of budgets in large metropolitan areas such as Los Angeles and New York).

We can conclude that the bigger the government becomes, the poorer Americans become.

To further support our conclusion, it is a fact that the poorer Americans become, the more they become dependent on big government. It is also a fact that the more people that become dependent on Big Government, the bigger the government must become in order to service those dependents, and the ‘Cycle of Marx’ starts again.

Looking at the Democrat agenda, policies and campaign promises, we see that bigger government is a primary goal of theirs. This sits well with their primary supporters, the groups who need the government to grow in order to assure their security: government workers, plus poor and un-established people who are or want to be dependent upon government largesse and some wealthy individuals that feel guilty about their riches which may or may not have been earned. I have a very liberal family member that told me that “Rich Liberals are really Conservatives that feel guilty about their wealth,’ and I added “and their sins.”

The consequence of the support these groups give to Big Government Democrats is that Big Government is rationalized as a counterpart to, and therefore competitor of, American business. But it is, ironically, American business that can free the poor and un-established from dependency and set them on the road to financial independence, by giving them jobs.

This is the pretzel logic of the Democrat. This is how they survive. Even with the historical knowledge that they cannot succeed, they express noble goals and institute huge programs to justify Big Government. But their success is not the same as our success. Their success is defined as a bigger government with more people dependant upon THEM. It does not matter how many people become poorer it just matters how many people become beneficiaries of Big Government handouts, like children upon their parents. So what is it that the Democrats gain? Their voter base expands as the number of capable self-reliant Americans decreases. They may win at the polls, but Americans lose in every aspect of our society.

Self-serving, Big Government Democrat ‘dependency programs’ have never worked and always chip away at our liberties and freedoms and ultimately our constitution, which are the roadblocks to their success. Yet the programs never disappear, they are vigorously defended and maintained with the one principle that is the hallmark of their utopian future – hope; the hope of some future success, even as historical facts and mathematics predict future failure.

When confronted with past failures of these programs and policies, Big Government Democrats are unwilling to acknowledge failed results. In fact, their only response, as of the past few years, is the demonization of anyone who challenges them. Ignore the message but kill the messenger.

In the meantime, under Democratic control, not only does America become poorer and weaker, there is another destructive consequence of their self-serving Big Government policies that has become painfully apparent; our international enemies have become stronger and more emboldened to threaten us and our allies… but we will leave that debate for another day… as the ‘Cycle of Marx’ continues.

But only as long as we let it.

Jeffers M. Dodge 7-25-11

%d bloggers like this: