Section 8 housing voucher distribution canceled as 1,000s in line get out of control

[Mom49of4]

Instead of making this thread Smokey can we please get back on topic?

[Smokey 1]

Sorry, but that's exactly what you said. Maybe you didn't mean it to sound that way but at least have the testicular fortitude to admit to what your initial question actually said.

Then I guess you missed the next sentence where I said that discrimination has been illegal for over 40 years. That should have given you a clue.

[Smokey 1]

Instead of making this thread Smokey can we please get back on topic?

Tell them that.

[Smokey 1]

Actually they are nothing alike.

Yes they are, they are both guesses.

[Jim F]

From City Journal, here's some excerpts from article that contains info on the origins of Section 8.
It's a bit dated (2000), but pertinent:

" Liberals embrace these vouchers because they believe poor families can never afford decent market-rate housing; conservatives like the vouchers' ostensible free-market mechanism, which harnesses the private sector to serve a public goal.

- The idea began with Lyndon Johnson's Kaiser Commission on Urban Housing, which mistakenly believed that the private housing market couldn't provide the poor with decent homes they could afford, despite the fact that for much of the twentieth century it did so quite well.

- Accepting this rationale, the Nixon administration, stung by scandals and cost overruns in federally subsidized housing construction, proposed the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, whose Section 8 authorized federal rent subsidies for privately owned apartments. These so-called Section 8 vouchers appealed to Republicans because of their contrast with public housing built and operated at government expense."

-etc.

It's a bit of a read, but worth it if one is curious as to how we got from point A to point B over the decades.


http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_...d_housing.html

[banner1124]

Then I guess you missed the next sentence where I said that discrimination has been illegal for over 40 years. That should have given you a clue.

Didn't miss it at all. That second sentence does absolutely nothing to change the meaning of your question.

[banner1124]

Yes they are, they are both guesses.

Wow, do you seriously not know the difference between implication and assumption? Good Lord

[songfourone]

Wow, do you seriously not know the difference between implication and assumption? Good Lord

you got mail.

[SteamChief]

Guarantee nowhere near the numbers of Obama supporters.

http://www.wxyz.com/dpp/news/region/...out-of-control

""There was elderly, disabled people, pregnant single women. They were here for help, to get their Section 8 vouchers. It just shows you what a desperate need... some were here since yesterday," said Rhianna Rodriguez.
7 Action News is being told there were 1,000 vouchers available and 5,000 people showed up trying to get one."

What discrimination do women and people of color have to endure these days? All that kind of crap has been illegal for over 40 years now.

Scenes such as this would not be happening had Romney won the election right flyboy56 ?

I wonder how many Romney supporters are in that crowd for a voucher ?

You can bet it was 52% Obama and 48% Rommney, there are those in need, I was in need once too, don't think it was called section 8 then but the Brits call it relief. And it was.

Subsidized housing goes to those in need, depends on what neighborhood you are in.

[Smokey 1]

Didn't miss it at all. That second sentence does absolutely nothing to change the meaning of your question.

It may have been poorly worded but I think I would know what I meant better than you do don't you think?

I am starting a new thread on this since I don't want to continue to hijack this thread and none of you will answer my question here.

[georjec2]

The children in the room decided they wanted more spending programs from the government. The adults, who were out voted, wanted a more fiscal conservative government. And go easy on that queer boy stuff will ya?

"Queer boy stuff ?" How does that figure in ?

[flyboy56]

"Queer boy stuff ?" How does that figure in ?

"p.p.s. flyboy56 you do know you're my guy right ?" georjec2

Sounds a bit gay to me.

[Omaha Beach]

EEOC ORDER ISSUED CONFIRMING SSA BREACHED SETTLEMENT

On December 18, 2012, the EEOC ordered that all African-American males who were employed at SSA Headquarters Office from April 1, 2003, through September 30, 2005, are “presumptively entitled to the average honor award, monetary award and [Quality Step Increase] received” by the workforce as a whole during that period. This Order falls on the heels of an EEOC finding that the SSA had breached a settlement of a claim of class-wide discrimination brought by African-American males. The class had alleged that they had been systematically discriminated against in terms of promotions, awards, and performance appraisals. The monetary relief is projected by Class Counsel to be at least in the tens of millions of dollars.

Class Agents Gilbert Jefferson, Harry Dunbar and Ken Burden have championed this litigation since 1995. Mr. Jefferson said, “The Commission’s ruling is a tremendous victory for me and all the class members who have worked so hard over so many years but without the recognition or reward they deserve. It is a shame that it has taken almost 20 years of litigation to reach this point, but I am thrilled that we have finally achieved justice for the class.” The original class agents have all now retired from SSA but current SSA employees Esset Tate, Kirk Wilkerson and Maceo Nesmith have stepped forward to carry the torch. The EEOC also ordered the SSA to “correct” any misapplication of its policies for granting monetary awards to “ensure fair and equitable distribution of such awards, consistent with merit principles.” Class Counsel Michael Kator said, “The irony here is that the amount SSA paid to settle the original claim in 2002—roughly $6 million—is modest in comparison to what it will now have to pay by virtue of its failure to abide by the terms of that agreement. While it may ultimately be for the experts to decide, SSA’s liability could well exceed by ten times the amount of the original settlement.”

See the EEOC’s Order by clicking here.



EEOC FINDS SSA BREACHED SETTLEMENT

On April 28, 2011, EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations found that the Social Security Administration breached the 2002 Settlement Agreement in the Burden v. Barnhart class action. Specifically, EEOC found that the Agency breached the Settlement Agreement when it “failed to ensure that its policies and practices for granting performance awards and QSIs were fair and equitable and consistent with merit principles, and when it failed to correct any misapplications of its policies for granting performance awards and QSIs to ensure fair and equitable distribution of such awards, consistent with merit principles, we find that [the Class is] entitled to specific performance of the class settlement agreement.” EEOC remanded the case to an Administrative Judge to administer relief. Specifically, the EEOC instructed the AJ to calculate the average amount of awards and QSIs awarded to all employees at HQ from April 1, 2003 to September 30, 2005. Each African American male who worked at HQ during this period is “presumptively entitled” to receive this average amount unless SSA shows by “clear and convincing evidence” that the employee is not entitled to relief.

The Social Security Administration then sought reconsideration of the EEOC’s decision in June 2011. Class Counsel opposed SSA’s Request for Reconsideration. The matter is still pending before the Commissioners of the EEOC.
In the meantime, a second class action was filed on behalf of African American males at SSA headquarters who experienced discrimination after the settlement of the Burden class action. That matter has been stayed by the EEOC while the settlement breach action is pending.

If you are an African American male working at SSA’s Headquarters in Woodlawn, Metro West or Security West, and have information regarding discrimination, please contact us at:

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/litigation/...harassment.cfm


This is nothing lol

The same EEOC controlled by Obama appointees? Im sure the employers get a fair shake! LOL a million times. Tell me another government that has affirmative action policies where the majority is discriminated against by a minority. Last one i heard of was South Africa before Mandela.

[flyboy56]

The same EEOC controlled by Obama appointees? Im sure the employers get a fair shake! LOL a million times. Tell me another government that has affirmative action policies where the majority is discriminated against by a minority. Last one i heard of was South Africa before Mandela.

The majority classification should work by state instead of nationally. Trust me when I say I am not the majority here in Puerto Rico.

[Omaha Beach]

The only discrimination I have heard from you is old white dude discrimination.

It is not old white dudes suffering from affirmative action. It is, young whites and Asians, male and female being f over in employment and educational opportunities because of that BS.

[songfourone]

It is not old white dudes suffering from affirmative action. It is, young whites and Asians, male and female being f over in employment and educational opportunities because of that BS.

got a link?

[musicmd]

musicmd you need a link.

Did you read post 73 and 75.I guess my link was not good enough. Did you ask smokey for a link. Why is he allowed to twist, lie, and chit on forum, and he never provides a link, I even provided a link. Next time I'll have my link notarized, will that be good enough MOM.

[musicmd]

The same EEOC controlled by Obama appointees? Im sure the employers get a fair shake! LOL a million times. Tell me another government that has affirmative action policies where the majority is discriminated against by a minority. Last one i heard of was South Africa before Mandela.

Got a link, I forgot you don't need one. Start a thread about it.

[Mom49of4]

Did you read post 73 and 75.I guess my link was not good enough. Did you ask smokey for a link. Why is he allowed to twist, lie, and chit on forum, and he never provides a link, I even provided a link. Next time I'll have my link notarized, will that be good enough MOM.

When you post copyrighted material you have to provide a link. I did see one so I requested it. I don't know what Smokey has to do with the request.

[veritas]

"It doesn't matter if they do"? Got your number

Nice try. Responding to part of a post to alter its meaning is pretty weak.