Giantaxe

It's pretty clear what they have on the RNC: emails. Which I predict the Russians will give wikileaks in the event Trump does things against Russian interests.

Leslie

Yup. Which is why that sound we heard, when Trump won the nomination, was the sound of Reince Priebus' asshole slamming shut. He's been clenching ever since.

I do find the inner-war between Priebus and Bannon, which it seems that Priebus is winning, to be a fascinating development. It looks like a cage match between a warthog and a weasel. It also looks like Priebus is Putin's guy and Bannon --- well not so much.

Ebonhawke

A big question will be, how long will Preibus remain loyal if the Trump administration becomes wildly unpopular, even with Republican voters (since a number of Trump's policy positions are diametrically opposite to Republican views). As Chief of Staff, he'll have access and knowledge to actions/inactions that were taken that could implicate Trump and staff for impeachment/investigation.

Leslie

Looks like Tillerson, another Putin nominee, will be SOS.

Leslie

I look at the Trump coalition as a 3 part puzzle. (1) His base who will be the most betrayed but also the most loyal. They accept his lies and magic tricks and live in a reality devoid of facts (2) the GOP who came home to vote for Trump even though they had to hold their nose and (3) the Independents and disillusioned Democrats who dislike Trump but despise Hillary.

The first group is the largest but was never enough to get him elected, they've already been thrown under the bus but probably don't have the sophistication to realize it. The second group is, at the moment, having all of its needs met with Trump's cabinet picks -- so they'll be placated for a while, specially if the policies prove out. The third group is already having buyer's remorse.

I don't know the answer to your question about Priebus. It all depends on what he knew and when he knew it. He may already be complicit. Which means that he may never turn on Trump.

morpeth

Originally Posted by morpeth
Years ago I remember when San Francisco imposed a local payroll tax , 1% if I recall. The company I worked for looked at the cost and decided over time to shift administrative and clerical workers out of the city, until it got to point it would be able to lease whole floors of its office building because they had transferred so many people. So in the end perhaps a well-intentioned move simply didn't take into account basic economics.
Response :
"Or maybe it did, given that San Francisco has consistently had an unemployment rate markedly below the national average (currently 3.3%)? "

1. I agree there is a larger picture , but that does ignore the simple point raising taxes and imposing regulations can be a detriment to job growth. Simply a question raised by your response.
2. I just asked if they had vice-mayors because I recalled there were a lot of questions about the city administration, and my memory perhaps incorrect n the titles of the top administrators. Thanks for pointing out they didn't.
3. Perhaps you are correct I could have worded better mentioning Blum and that Shorenstein family as in re-reading perhaps I implied they were part of administration . Blum, Shorenstein and Willie Brown in my opinion a pretty corrupt lot, though I guess one has to say Shorenstein deals when I was there were quite brilliant, for him.

What does drive the growth there ? I though tourism, start-up/tech sector, were key growth sectors.

Giantaxe

You attempted to use San Francisco as an example of how raising taxes and imposing regulations can be a detriment to growth. Except your anecdotes do nothing of the sort given San Francisco's consistently low unemployment level. You picked a piss-poor example; odd you can't just admit that and move on.

Link?

They are.

morpeth

Really trying to grasp this concept. The payroll tax when I was there I know specifically caused companies to move part of their workforce out of San Francisco, if other industries caused overall economic growth that doesn't change the fact the payroll tax was a negative to job growth in San Francisco. Actually a good example because I worked for two large employers in San Francisco and involved in providing a cost analysis of the impact of that payroll tax and saw the resulting management decisions. Anyway as you say now converted to gross receipts tax of which I do not know much about.

Links about Willie Brown, Shorenstein and Feinstein/Blum ? Old history but I would think common knowledge if one had been in San Francisco in the 1970's and 1980's. Maybe the government more transparent these days and less self-dealing than the old days, hopefully so. Speak to any small hotel owner /rooming house owner around in the 80;s and ask them about Blum and Feinstein. Willie Brown (certainly charming fellow) getting suits for free while using influence ( as far as he could) to help Wilkes Bashford in his state tax issues. Shorenstein brilliant fellow , played the city and Bank of America like a violin. Long ago now, I haven't followed SF politics for a while, if it has changed for the better great, and hopefully the economic growth has also benefitted the lower and middle class San Franciscans of that beautiful city.

Giantaxe

How was it a negative to job growth when San Francisco has consistently had low unemployment compared to the country as a whole, and has often been at what economists define as "full employment"? Again, you picked a piss-poor example; odd you can't just admit that and move on.

You made an assertion as to how "corrupt" certain people in San Francisco had been. Can you substantiate that other than your own claims? It seems not.

morpeth

Well, fairly simple. If companies in response to the payroll tax moved employees out of San Francisco then the payroll tax caused a loss in jobs- and in this case I have direct knowledge of this with two large companies still headquartered in San Francisco. But I am talking about situation in the 1980's.

If other industries caused a net gain in employment, that doesn't negate that measures like the payroll tax was a negative factor.

As far as substantiating my assertion which yes partially based on personal observation and anecdotal evidence, don't know how easy to dig up the articles.

Willie Brown Inc. / How S.F.'s mayor built a city based on 'juice' politics - SFGate

I just looked this up quickly, may be a very biased source, but this was general opinion of Brown when I was there. And his getting free clothes ( which are very expensive from Wilkes Bashford as you know) and openly joking that of course he helped Wilkes Bashford who avoided paying sales taxes for years deal with the situation.

As far as Feinstein-Blum just typing in Feinstein Blum Corruption on Google and all sorts of links pop up, usually involving government business Blum since he got married to Feinstein. I don't have time to go through all those links and I suspect one would have to sift through all sorts of biased website articles balancing bias against the reports. However based on my own observations and discussions with people when I worked in San Francisco, Blum's involvement in the whole residential vs tourist hotel situation and how he took advantage was pretty common knowledge.

I do not know how long you have lived in San Francisco, but anyone that was around the period in question would be aware of the level of influence-peddling and corruption going on.

You are correct that Shorenstein wasn't in public office though was knee deep on city politics was well as national politics.

Giantaxe

It means that the payroll tax had no effect on overall levels of employment. Not sure why you're finding that so hard to grasp.

Brown was mayor of San Francisco from 1995. That doesn't even match the period you mentioned you lived here and claimed you were talking about.

So not a single substantiating link for anyone to check and comment on, let alone a "scholarly" one that you demand of others.

morpeth

-I do not know the overall effect payroll tax at the time , what I know is what I stated- that the payroll tax did cause companies to move employees out of San Francisco as I know of two specific examples ( of large employers) that I had personal experience with. I have no disagreement that the negative effect overall may have been offset by growth in other industries.

-I worked or based in San Francisco 1980-1988, in SF Bay Area after that until later in 1990's. Brown was involved in San Francisco politics long before he was Mayor, and after he was Mayor.

- The link on Willie Brown did outline the extent the FBI conducted investigations and gives the general "flavor" of the environment at the time. I couldn't find on the internet descriptions of the Feinstein/Blum involvement in the whole residential/tourist hotel incidents, and advantage Blum took from Feinstein actions as Mayor, but at the time in San Francisco pretty well known and I did know some owners of properties who believed that Feinstein deliberately passed rules or used regulatory authority to force people out of properties which very shortly thereafter Blum took, if I recall Chronicle had articles about this or another local paper. Certainly observations from someone there at the time would seem to have some level of merit. I dont remember anyone really questioning that it wasn't correct the way things worked then.

- The links about Feinstein/Blum Google did appear to be excessively biased hence I didn't post many of the the links I saw, as I certainly don't have the time nor interest in sifting carefully through the links I saw. ( Though it does seem throughout Feinstein's career issues have been raised about her husband). So my opinions are from personal observation or experiences, or those received from conversations with people there at the time. There may be some serious study of the issue, but the links I saw ( and there were many) didn't seem to be scholarly or peer reviewed in any manner, nor very objective at all. By the way I don't know enough about Feinstein to judge her as a politician one way or another, I just consider her and her husband corrupt but she may be a very good legislator otherwise.

Just out of curiosity how long have you been in SF ?

johnwoo

Google: Corruption "add name here" and you will get any answer you want.

The 'post truth' world you live in.

johnwoo

Not aimed at me, but FYI 'but I have lived in the area since 1970.
Companies move out of the area for all kinds of reasons. It's not a stagnant situation, they go, they come, overall the area does very well. Certainly no shortage of people that want to live here.

morpeth

So personal observations and experience no merit ?

As I wrote have to agree articles I saw on internet didn't seem to objective.