i. Why do liberal policies destroy the middle classes?

Because liberals worship political power.

ii. Why do liberals and liberal policies discriminate with such ferocity against racial minorities?

Because liberals worship political power more than any other god, and liberals will destroy anything that separates them from the object of their worship.

Because rules to make sure no one gets what they don't deserve don't hurt the rich, who can afford financial advice, accountants and laywers, the rules hurt the middle class, punishing them because they don't have the ability to subvert the rules aimed at the rich.

Quite seriously.

Rules to stop slumlords make it impossible for the middle class to rent out a basement apartment in order to offset living expenses because it can't meet codes, which also takes away temporary housing options for, oh, college students like my mother who's first "place" was a basement with a dirt floor with a sheet of linoleum over it and a furnace in the corner. (No not in SF, and if you can't live dangerously when you're a college student we're all doomed.)

I'm not saying that's the issue in SF, but the principle is why liberal policies and Democratic control *do* destroy the middle class and discriminate against racial minorities.

Because they try to punish the wealthy and it doesn't work that way.

ii. Why do liberals and liberal policies discriminate with such ferocity against racial minorities?

Liberals like to feel good about themselves by espousing liberal doctrine, but they want to maintain insulation from those for which they claim to be champions. Why? Because people of color are bad for business. For instance, restaurants in San Francisco are notorious for seating clean, white, smartly-dressed patrons near the windows. Others are seated, well, elsewhere.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=26&entry_id=12666

Sorry. I intended to say, "Because business owners believe that people of color are bad for business."

Liberals want to be in the small elite class with the rest of us groveling for them to help us and show us the way.

A middle class is too 'common' to be part of the elite. But they're too self-reliant to grovel. They are a threat to the order of things.

Because American liberals are not liberal at all - they are European Socialists and govt control (with themselves as the elite government leaders)is their number one goal - no matter the impact to the citizens.

Why do liberal policies destroy the middle classes?

The middle class pays- the tax.

Liberals up- the tax.

Why do liberals and liberal policies discriminate with such ferocity against racial minorities?

Gawd forbid they get off the government dole, and start voting against-

the tax.

The Taxman- via Youtube

Let me tell you how it will be

There's one for you, nin'teen for me

Cause I'm the Tax Man

Yea I'm the Tax Man

Should five percent appear too small

Be thankful I don't take it all

Cause I'm the Tax Man

Yea I'm the Tax Man

If you drive a car-car I'll tax the street

If you try to sit-sit I'll tax your seat

If you get too cold I'll tax the heat

If you take a walk I'll tax your feet

Tax Man

Well I'm the Tax Man

Yea I'm the Tax Man

Don't ask me what I want it for

If you don't want to pay some more

Cause I'm the Tax Man

Yea I'm the Tax Man

Now my advice for those who die (Tax Man)

Declare the pennies on your eyes (Tax Man)

Cause I'm the Tax Man

Yea I'm the Tax Man

And you're working for no one but me.

(Tax Man)

damn it-

Trying to get this link to the Beatle's "Taxman" on yuotube for all the youngster trolls out there-

Taxman

There's a reason all those British and Canuckers become American...

Ghee what could it be?

Could it be...

Taxes!

You want proof? Look at Ireland.

Ireland used to exempt income generated from artistic and creative ventures. A LOT of authors, painters, and musicians moved to Ireland to take advantage of that.

In 2000, they change the exemption from all income to the first 250,000 Euros. A lot of artists decided to leave the Emerald Isle at that point. Even U2 is now, legally, a Netherlands band -- which has the most lenient tax policy in Europe.

Gee, Bono doing the capitalist thing and trying to avoid paying his fair share of taxes. I never saw THAT coming...

J.

III. And why do liberals think a matter such as "who gets to live in San Francisco" should be determined by any force other than the processes of market economics?

Man are you folks a bunch of absolute morons. Within the city boundaries of SF housing prices are determined by supply and demand. Where demand as great prices go up. I couldn't afford to live in the city of SF so I would move to the more affordable areas. I would like to live in downtown Manhattan or Palm Beach...couldn't afford those places either.

Am I to believe that there are people blaming "liberals" for the housing market in SF? Yeah..I guess so.... after all they voted for George Bush twice.

dr lava-

Neighborhoods that once thrived with African American culture and black-owned businesses have all but disappeared.

"San Francisco no longer has a viable black community," said Blue, an African American who lives in the Western Addition. "The middle class is gone, and what we have left is underprivileged, uneducated, poor black folks."

San Francisco officials are now calling the thousands of black people who have moved away "the African American diaspora," and the mayor's office is putting together a task force to figure out what can be done to preserve the remaining black population and cultivate new residents.

San Francisco's black population has dropped from 96,000 -- or 13.4 percent of the city -- in 1970 to an estimated 47,000 in 2005, about 6.5 percent of city residents, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. African Americans make up about 12.1 percent of the nation's population overall.

"The decline is phenomenal," said Hans Johnson, a demographer with the Public Policy Institute of California.

Ghee do you think this might have something to do with it?

The exodus has been coming up in lots of discussions across the city recently because of current and planned development efforts in the Bayview and Hunters Point. The Bayview Reporter runs an article or commentary in nearly every edition about how a proposal for redevelopment and private development at the former Hunters Point Naval Shipyard marks the end of any chance for African Americans to remain in the city.

"All of the city agencies are working to please the big developers and rich communities," said Willie Ratcliff, the paper's publisher. "The supervisors want to grab the ground without any consideration for the people who have lived here and suffered through the environment, the shipyard and PG&E."

That's from the SF Chronicle-kind of a liberal paper-just sayin'.

Here is the link-

sfgate.com

Dr Soap

Within the city boundaries of SF housing prices are determined by supply and demand....Good to see that you acknowledge some basic economic principles. Make sure you apply them consistently in future comments.

HANOI ON THE BAY is vast becoming a modern day ghost town as minororities abandon the place too bad for their idiot major GAVIN NEWSROM but it looks like his turkeys have come home to roost

I lived in SF during the dotcom boom and watched real estate prices skyrocket during that time (I got the hell out in 2000 and moved to Chicago where I could rent twice the space for half the price). The fact is that SF is a small (50 sq. miles) hilly peninsula with extremely desirable housing in very short supply, and nowhere to expand except for the two remaining shitty areas (Bayview and Hunters Point). That those two areas are being developed to cash in on the still lucrative SF market is to be expected. The income disparity along racial lines is not unique to San Francisco, and the fact that development is pushing out low income people, and therefore more minorities, is not the result of some liberal policy but rather unfortunate economic reality.

Your two questions are misplaced. The question should be why do liberal policies make San Francisco such an attractive place to live? Of course the answer, like the answers to your questions, for the most part, is they don't. The fact that it's a beautiful, but small, city in an ideal location is what does it. On days like today (-10 with windchill) I do miss that city very much, but then I think about the house I now own compared to hovels I scraped to share the rent on in SF, and I remember that "location, location, location" cuts both ways.

I work for the city of SF, although I moved to the burbs years ago. I can give you a little information on this topic.

Housing is very expensive here, as posters above said, due to lack of empty land for new housing. What is being built is 90% new condos priced from $500,000 to the millions, and some "affordable" housing for those making up to $85,000 a year (not kidding). This is an overwhelmingly renting city, with tenants making up about 65% of the population. Draconian rent control has made it almost impossible to get rid of tenants unless they are convicted ax murderers or drug dealers. Rent increases are allowed, but only about 1% a year. The landlord's increased costs mean nothing. The small property owners' association estimates there are at least 20,000 empty rental units here because property owners won't take a chance on essentially losing control of their property if they rent it. You can NEVER evict anyone over 65 or someone with a "long term illness". The only way out is to use the Ellis Act, a CA law which allows a landlord to go out of business. Even these can set you back $30,000 to get rid of a tenant so you can sell the unit.

The city refuses to allow any major "big box" retailers here, so there are very few jobs for entry level workers or young people. The favored "locally owned, independent" merchants are taxed to death. The local minimum wage is $9.26, effective Jan 1.

The schools board here is constantly trying to use race to "integrate" the schools, even though CA's Prop 209 forbids it. Kids are still bused all over town, and consequently middle class white and Asian parents withdraw their kids from the ghetto schools they are forced to attend and either leave for the burbs or put the kid in private schools.

The middle class, of all races, has fled the city for the burbs. The rich, of course, can fend for themselves, but the long term poor in the projects, the new immigrants, and the "hipster" crowd are the rest.

The "homeless" cost this city approximately $200,000,000 a year in "services", and for this money the city's residents get to step over passed out drunks or endure threats and harrassment from vagrants clustering in front of stores and subway stations. This county, with a population of 750,000 has 10,000 people on General Assistance, with no time limit. (In contrast, Orange Co, with three times the population, has about 750 people on GA).

All of these factors make this city extremely unwelcome for middle class people. Happily, the burbs are minutes away and are actually quite lovely with none of the social pathology of the city.