Insurance Policies Banks take on their Employees

WallStreetOnParade has an interesting article on insurance policies corporations, particularly banks, have taken on their own employees. It's rather amazing.

http://wallstreetonparade.com/2014/03/document-jpmorgan-chase-bets-10-4-billion-on-the-early-death-of-workers/

I can imagine some employees would be of such value to a company that their loss could do great economic harm. Why a policy would continue after an employee has left the company isn't so clear.

Even more confusing is why a bank would have policies on many lower-level employees who can be replaced without undue stress on the bank.

Then I saw the following...

"It is doubtful that regulators are fully aware that BOLI assets may actually remain under the control and management of the banks, rather than the insurance companies providing the death benefits."

What this means is they aren't actually putting the insurance premiums into the hands of an insurance company. The bank is holding onto those assets and continuing to use them to make profits.

But, that's not where the trickery ends.

"Both the buildup in the cash value of the policy over time and the payment of the death benefit are tax-free income to the bank; the more workers they insure, the more tax-free income they receive to help their bottom line; and the less corporations pay in their share of Federal income taxes, shifting more and more of the burden to the struggling middle class."

Yes, that's right, both the profits made from investing the premiums (as any corporations would invest) AND the death benefit paid to the bank are TAX FREE.

Wow, that's a big incentive to insure everyone in the world that you can afford and to gamble big with that money to make huge profits and then to kill all the insured people to collect huge death benefits...TAX-FREE.

This is clearly financial trickery run amok and it must be stopped.

The number of unusual deaths of JPMorgan bank employees in the last year or so has been hard to understand. Now it makes a lot of sense. Whether this means there is foul play isn't yet known.

Connecting Geopolitical Dots

Why was Assistant Secretary of State (for European affairs) Victoria Nuland caught talking to someone on a telephone about a revolution or coup for Ukraine?

Ms. Nuland's husband is Robert Kagan, co-founder of the Project for a New American Century (Neo-Conservatives). She had also been Principal Deputy National Security Advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney for the period 2003-05.

Who was pushing for NATO and the European Union to reach all the way to the border of Russia (including Ukraine)? Wasn't it the Republicans in Congress during the Clinton administration who made that the U.S. policy? Was it the Bush administration?

When Russia's President Putin took control of Crimea there was mention of how he had done the same in Georgia (the former Soviet republic) during the Bush administration. It appears Putin has a strategy for grabbing a bit of territory here and a bit there to reestablish some kind of Russian empire. He has also said the fall of the Soviet Union was tragic. It's pretty clear his approach was (and is) entirely predictable.

Put these points together and it's easy to see how the recent events in Crimea (part of Ukraine, but formerly part of the Soviet Union) could come to be. But, was the overthrow of Ukraine's democratically elected president a policy of President Obama? I can't imagine it.

If not President Obama's policy, then whose was Ms. Nuland promoting? Who exactly was in Ukraine fomenting these changes? Was it entirely a domestic Ukrainian desire to align with the EU? But, was it also their desire to join NATO?

Recently the Neo-Conservative (Neo-Con) Bill Kristol lamented the American people are "war-weary", but he added that with the right leadership they can be led to awaken and fight. That was the same kind of language the Project for a New American Century used before 9/11. They said a "new Pearl Harbor" can stir the public. Does Mr. Kristol foresee another such tragedy? It should be remembered Bill Kristol was a key player in picking Sarah Palin to become Senator John McCain's running mate for the Republicans in 2008. John McCain is a war hawk who has promoted war against Iran and in Syria and more recently against Russia. He also said that if we couldn't have war, couldn't we at least sell military armaments to Ukraine.

These are (some of) the players:  Nuland, her husband Robert Kagan, Bill Kristol, Senator John McCain. It's the same people who brought us "a new Pearl Harbor", the Iraq war and a lot of rhetoric about President Obama being weak on foreign policy, feckless and yet a dictator. What a bunch.

Then there's the missing Malaysian aircraft. In all likelihood it's just a tragic event, but speculating I wonder: is it possible someone has stolen it to use it as an attack weapon? Could it be part of a plan to create a new Pearl Harbor (a sudden devastating attack which awakens a war-weary public) or is it possibly just a diversion from thinking about Ukraine? Who knows. But, with the PNAC Neo-Cons it pays to consider many possibilities. They're a creative determined bunch who want war at nearly any cost.

Neo-Con Bliss...WAR WAR WAR

"In fact, the idol of war-weariness can be challenged," Kristol writes "A war-weary public can be awakened and rallied. Indeed, events are right now doing the awakening. All that’s needed is the rallying. And the turnaround can be fast."

Maybe what he would like to see is a modern-day Pearl Harbor Attack, much like what happened on 9/11/01. It allowed the Republicans to push some very dramatic legislation into law and many Americans are regretting it today.

Perhaps the missing Maylasian Boeing 777 could be used for such a surprise attack. There is some evidence al Qaeda members have wanted to do such a hijacking. We shall see.

Meanwhile,

Sen. McCain wants us to war with Russia, or at least sell military aid to Ukraine. That's a big industry in Arizona.

At the same time, and despite the unsigned Ukraine-EU deal, some U.S. corporations are investing heavily in Ukraine and the surrounding area. What do they know nobody else is privy to?

Maybe Mitt Romney knew something special when he said Russia was a major geo-political foe. Is something which has been planned for years now in the works? Are Right-wing (and corporate) Americans plotting war, committing us to a foreign policy the government can't undo?

It makes me sad to think this can happen.

Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) Salutes the Irish

http://crooksandliars.com/2014/03/senator-dumbass


Need I say more?

Progress vs. Republican Retrenchment

Republicans are using government resources to investigate and to try and smear Democrats or government in general. They refuse to do their job and legislate to help America move forward. Recently Congressman Darrell Issa, who is chairman of the committee doing oversight of the administration, closed down a hearing without allowing a single Democrat on the committee to ask a question. It's a blatant violation of House rules, but the Republicans, including Speaker John Boehner, don't care.

There's a better way and we see it in the private sector when people invent neat new things to improve life.

A new bionic leaf could solve solar energy storage problems.

Could future clothes, bottles and chairs be made from carbon emissions?

One American city enjoys internet connect speeds hundreds of times faster?


Perhaps we can improve America's economic vitality by promoting more infrastructure repair and the creation of new advances like those mentioned above. But, the Republicans won't let Democrats raise taxes on the rich to pay for it or shift any resources to more scientific research & development. Even more they won't help raise the minimum wage, so the American consumer can buy more things and push the economy to higher levels.

Many U.S. corporations pay little tax.

Washington (the state) shows that highest minimum wage state creates more jobs!

Why do the Republicans want to hold back the economy by only cutting government spending?
Why are Republicans searching for conspiracies and scandals to tar the administration?
It's all politics and they aren't doing their jobs -- to govern.

Americans shouldn't reward that kind of behavior with votes. We need politicians who want to govern and make America better and better.

Budget Priorities

I heard there is a suggestion we should take greater revenues the federal gov't is receiving and put it into more spending on the military. I can't imagine why we should do that. Our involvement in Afghanistan is winding down this year and we probably won't be leaving any contingent there. We won't be invading or "bomb bomb bombing" Iran. We won't be invading Syria. We won't be placing a security force in Ukraine capable of protecting it from the large Russian army. We won't be invading Russia to overthrow Putin. We won't be doing anything requiring a much larger military.

We won't be satisfying the mania of Senator John McCain and his friends who want to use every last dollar of America to build a military which one of their other friends, perhaps a future President Bush, can use to empty on some helpless country a la Johnny Rambo. It's the worst use of a government to take from its people merely to destroy another country.

What the Republicans have been arguing for years, and in fact what George W. Bush argued in 2000, is that we should shrink our military involvement around the world and use that money to build America. This would ease the tax burden some on the Americans Republicans claim to be protecting from "big government". Using money senselessly on the military is the worst kind of "big government".

Instead we should use any extra revenues in one of two ways: cut taxes on the public or to solve problems. The two major problems are to pay down the ridiculous debt the Republicans have saddled us with and to build American infrastructure (including R&D like science research). As we have a large debt I suggest the latter. Split whatever revenues are available between debt reduction and infrastructure building & repair. If someone would like to argue we need to reduce taxes on the poor over-burdened American taxpayer then all they have to do is commit to tax reform which includes reducing freebies to the rich and use that money instead of taxing the working class.

Too many of the working class aren't working any more!

They don't think we're spending enough on the military, but look at the following pie charts and decide for yourself.