Liberalism is about sharing other people’s wealth, not your own. I thought you knew that.
Exactly, as meaning a presumed elite morally superior class taking - not encouraging volitional giving - what other's merited and rightfully owned (but not their own wealth) and giving it (in order for the liberals to obtain power) to those who did not and often would not, or at least did not take the risks and engage in the patient effort to attain the benefits which the liberals see are manifestations of unjust inequality.
And usually not even under the pretense of mercy, but as a right, as a form of social justice, as if the providers were oppressors who must be forced to increasingly divest of what they earned - regardless of how much lawful labor was involved - in order to serve justice in the eyes of the liberal mind.
Which burdens the producers and eventually if successful, works toward all having a share in poverty and are subservient to the liberal elites.
Thus my question addressed the duplicity of liberal D. C., for if they really were faithful to the "share the wealth" demand that they want to impose on others, then D.C. would not have a heavily skewed bipolar income distribution.
But going back to what I said about sharing other people’s wealth and not your own, this and the victim-entitlement mentality is from Hell, having begun with the devil as seen in his presuming to occupy God's throne, (Is. 14:14) and essentially telling Eve God needed to share the wealth. (Gn. 3)
Yet we are to volitionally share what we have in our judgment as to where it will benefit, and serve the Lord according to the grace given, for "unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required" in the sense that we are to obey ( Luke 12:48)
DC also bottomed out hard. We passed through the Marion Barry years and bankruptcy. All but the very stupidest Democrats understand that the District needs to be tax competitive for businesses and upper middle class taxpayers.
Affordable housing is a legitimate issue. I am a great believer in mixed use, mixed income neighborhoods. The ideal would be a city in which people could at least have the option of ditching their car and living within walking, biking or easy public transportation range of their jobs. This goes for people doing humble jobs as well as upscale yuppies on expensive bikes; the mechanic or supermarket clerk shouldn't have to deal with a two hour commute to a low wage job. I would not dream for an instant of standing in the way of the suburban cowboys who want to live in Urbana or Haymarket or Woodbridge and spend four to six hours a day in their cars. Each to his own. But I would not smash livable neighborhoods in the core to build new expressways for the expat commuters.
To recap: DC proper has only about seven percent of the CMSA's total population. We still have far more than our fair share of the region's poor. This is due to decades of public policy that favored suburban commuters and used the city as the dumping ground for the region's problem cases. No more. I am in favor of stopping MS 13 at the Mexican border, but as long as we are doing catch and release, they'll be here -- and in this area, it's only fair that 93 percent of them land in the suburbs. The gentrifying city doesn't have room for them, and maybe they can help educate liberal suburban voters about the need to secure our borders.