Email leak claims that WH wants impact of cuts to hurt.

[CalSFGator]

Originally Posted by ufbeta

What? So if I initially say that the budget cuts are going to hurt people but then figure out a way to soften the blow, i should stick by my original statement so that I can say that I did what I said?

Unreal. People will use any means necessary to justify this BS we're being fed.

That isn't what the email says. This is problem, you want to read it a certain way. Impact just mean where the cuts are, so telling people to more granularly do what they need to do, but make sure they are in line with prior disclosures/promises is pretty standard SOP in my book. We see this in the business world every day. The board says to cut $10M from R&D, and the CEO promises that it will hurt some research program more than others. When the finance folks start cutting up the dollars, someone in management reminds them that they can play with buckets here and there, but they should the overall impacts/cuts should conform to expectations.

[CalSFGator]

Look at this thread title - that isn't what the email says AT ALL - we have worse lying on this site every day than I typically see from the Obama administration (which certainly does lie from time to time - and more significantly makes promises they don't know they can keep).

[secgator]

^^^^ and the deflection and spin cranks up yet another notch...lol. So Cal, just HOW would you explain the wording IN the mail--“However you manage that reduction, you need to make sure you are not contradicting what we said the impact would be.”??

Simply put...and for those who have no comprehension skills...it says "TOW THE FRIGGIN LINE...Get in lockstep with Obama's dire predictions". Plain and simple.

What was Obama's predictions of the sequester? Dire--hard--painful--etc. It was going to be far too difficult for the public to bear. So by 'not contradicting what WE said the impact would be" is to make damn sure the impact is exactly what we predicted. Period.

Keep up the spin though--it is most certainly entertaing to watch the squirming.

[CalSFGator]

Originally Posted by secgator

^^^^ and the deflection and spin cranks up yet another notch...lol. So Cal, just HOW would you explain the wording IN the mail--“However you manage that reduction, you need to make sure you are not contradicting what we said the impact would be.”??

Simply put...and for those who have no comprehension skills...it says "TOW THE FRIGGIN LINE...Get in lockstep with Obama's dire predictions". Plain and simple.

What was Obama's predictions of the sequester? Dire--hard--painful--etc. It was going to be far too difficult for the public to bear. So by 'not contradicting what WE said the impact would be" is to make damn sure the impact is exactly what we predicted. Period.

Keep up the spin though--it is most certainly entertaing to watch the squirming.

I think you are stretching it wildly. That email was totally harmless. It does say tow the line, I agree, which is what people do in organizations. My boss and clients tell me to do that all the time - I will tell them that you are just utterly flabberghasted by their nerve.

[FlyingGatorII]

“However you manage that reduction, you need to make sure you are not contradicting what we said the impact would be.”

Originally Posted by CalSFGator

I think you are stretching it wildly. That email was totally harmless. It does say tow the line, I agree, which is what people do in organizations. My boss and clients tell me to do that all the time - I will tell them that you are just utterly flabberghasted by their nerve.

It says make sure you don't do anything that would help take away from the hurt we promised and you know it. Pathetic attempt at spin IMO and it reflects poorly on you for even trying to defend it. Hard for me to take anyone defending this email seriously..

[dangolegators]

Some email from the Eastern Regional Director USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services out of Raleigh NC, an email that instructs to be consistent with what the administration said was going to be cut, has the conservatives in an uproar? Hmm. Ok. I guess that's about what I've come to expect from conservatives, so this all makes sense.

[reformedgator]

Damage control for the prez. I thought that was the media's job.

[secgator]

Originally Posted by dangolegators

Some email from the Eastern Regional Director USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services out of Raleigh NC, an email that instructs to be consistent with what the administration said was going to be cut, has the conservatives in an uproar? Hmm. Ok. I guess that's about what I've come to expect from conservatives, so this all makes sense.

Ok then dangole---how about defining "consistent" with us???? Just what would 'consistent' consitute? If...as most prudent people would view it....means to be within the paramters and along the lines of what the administration expectations of the sequester were going to be, then it means one and ONLY one thing: Make these cuts hit home and hit hard. Nothing more.

So give us your insight into just what "consistent" mean. Without your typical spin.

[CalSFGator]

Originally Posted by FlyingGatorII

“However you manage that reduction, you need to make sure you are not contradicting what we said the impact would be.”

It says make sure you don't do anything that would help take away from the hurt we promised and you know it. Pathetic attempt at spin IMO and it reflects poorly on you for even trying to defend it. Hard for me to take anyone defending this email seriously..

That's the worst possible way to read it, and entirely constained to one result, but not the natural way a person. Where does it say hurt? There are promises of certain things that won't get hurt as well - so this would also mean not to cut areas that were promised to be protected.

I think you need to get out more.

[dangolegators]

Originally Posted by secgator

Ok then dangole---how about defining "consistent" with us???? Just what would 'consistent' consitute? If...as most prudent people would view it....means to be within the paramters and along the lines of what the administration expectations of the sequester were going to be, then it means one and ONLY one thing: Make these cuts hit home and hit hard. Nothing more.

So give us your insight into just what "consistent" mean. Without your typical spin.

My insight is that 'consistent' means to not contradict something that one said in the past. So like, if I said one thing, and then later turned around and said something completely different, that would be 'inconsistent'. And if the Obama administration said they were going to cut one thing, but then changed their minds and decided to cut something else instead, that would also be 'inconsistent'.

[secgator]

Originally Posted by CalSFGator

That's the worst possible way to read it, and entirely constained to one result, but not the natural way a person. Where does it say hurt? There are promises of certain things that won't get hurt as well - so this would also mean not to cut areas that were promised to be protected.

I think you need to get out more.

Direct quote from email....."However you manage that reduction, you need to make sure you are not contradicting what we said the impact would be.”

And YOU have the audacity to encourage HIM to get out more??? Geez Cal---this is so blatantly transparent here, even Ray Charles could read through it. "Not contradicting what the impact would be" sums it up so easily...so precisely...so friggin simple that ANYONE (who is honest) knows precisely what this memo says. Even a child with basic comprehension skills can discern the meaning of the memo--especially those last words in it.

Read it over and over until you grasp the part..."impact". The administration spent weeks focusing on what the IMPACT was going to be...and it was not a pretty sight as the gang described it. No focus or time was spent on reassuring the public what was NOT going to be cut, as it was zeroed in on what WOULD be cut--hence, the hurtful and painful aspect of the sequester.

And by the way, for you to even try and spin the part about those items which would not be cut...cmon man, you have got to be kidding on that one. Go find every media cut with Obama and his promises of sequester impact where he is promoting what would be left out of the cuts and NOT be affected....lol. I seriously laughed out loud when I read your try with that. Obama spent his entire time hyping the looming sequester as being bad, hurtful, full of pain and hardships....and didn't even give a whisper of how other parts would be "okie dokie" if the sequester went through.

That was a really, really lame attempt to sell that side of the memo.

[wgbgator]

Given that conservatives are reading this as a directive to unleash pain, its surprising that the House GOP plan to avert the sequester was to give the WH more authority & discretion on how to administer the sequester cuts.

[CalSFGator]

Originally Posted by secgator

Direct quote from email....."However you manage that reduction, you need to make sure you are not contradicting what we said the impact would be.”

And YOU have the audacity to encourage HIM to get out more??? Geez Cal---this is so blatantly transparent here, even Ray Charles could read through it. "Not contradicting what the impact would be" sums it up so easily...so precisely...so friggin simple that ANYONE (who is honest) knows precisely what this memo says. Even a child with basic comprehension skills can discern the meaning of the memo--especially those last words in it.

Read it over and over until you grasp the part..."impact". The administration spent weeks focusing on what the IMPACT was going to be...and it was not a pretty sight as the gang described it. No focus or time was spent on reassuring the public what was NOT going to be cut, as it was zeroed in on what WOULD be cut--hence, the hurtful and painful aspect of the sequester.

And by the way, for you to even try and spin the part about those items which would not be cut...cmon man, you have got to be kidding on that one. Go find every media cut with Obama and his promises of sequester impact where he is promoting what would be left out of the cuts and NOT be affected....lol. I seriously laughed out loud when I read your try with that. Obama spent his entire time hyping the looming sequester as being bad, hurtful, full of pain and hardships....and didn't even give a whisper of how other parts would be "okie dokie" if the sequester went through.

That was a really, really lame attempt to sell that side of the memo.

You use a lot of emoticons to say nothing at all. I don't understand why this email doesn't say anything about pain or cuts or anything that you are reading into it. Please explain why not? It says that they should apply the cuts to be in line with the impacts they suggested. So, we told people that we were going to have to cut money from tour security, let's make the cuts there and not somewhere else. It doesn't say anything about "making those cuts hurt" bad.

I think you have reading problems.

[CalSFGator]

Here is a recent statement from Obama on seq:

“Obviously, we’re going to be spending some time talking about the potential impact of the sequester on all the agencies and missions across the board,” Obama said at the top of the meeting. “It is an area of deep concern and I think everybody knows where I stand on this issue. We are going to manage it as best we can, try to minimize the impacts on American families, but it’s not the right way for us to go about deficit reduction.”

Now, read the email in this context (not the one where you only hear what you want to hear) and tell me how it is bad.

[dangolegators]

So, if I send my manager an email on how to handle something with say, a client, and my manager says, 'well, just make sure you don't contradict what upper management has been saying', should I go apesh!t about it? Because my manager told me not to contradict the CEO? Just wonderin', since that seems to be the position of many here.

[Tim85]

Originally Posted by dangolegators

So, if I send my manager an email on how to handle something with say, a client, and my manager says, 'well, just make sure you don't contradict what upper management has been saying', should I go apesh!t about it? Because my manager told me not to contradict the CEO? Just wonderin', since that seems to be the position of many here.

Not really a fair comparison. We're not talking about a Manager and CEO at a corporation, we're talking about American lives being affected and our President and his administration. It's just not on the same level.

[ufbeta]

Originally Posted by dangolegators

So, if I send my manager an email on how to handle something with say, a client, and my manager says, 'well, just make sure you don't contradict what upper management has been saying', should I go apesh!t about it? Because my manager told me not to contradict the CEO? Just wonderin', since that seems to be the position of many here.

No, it would be if your manager told you to tell your client that it was going to be really bad and even though you found a way to make it a little better, said manager told you not to contradict him.

[Gatorrick22]

Originally Posted by CalSFGator

Tangential meaningless non-sequitor statements like this are part of the problem and why righties have become so irrational to me. Why not just type "broccoli" in every thread response.

That's just.... gibberish.... psychobabble. The Communist in the WH is the problem and so are all the lazy freeloaders that voted for him.

[dangolegators]

Originally Posted by Gatorrick22

That's just.... gibberish.... psychobabble. The Communist in the WH is the problem and so are all the lazy freeloaders that voted for him.

Some very nice predictability here.

[MastaG8r]

Originally Posted by ufbeta

No, it would be if your manager told you to tell your client that it was going to be really bad and even though you found a way to make it a little better, said manager told you not to contradict him.

Exactly.

Your boss tells your client, "We need to raise your monthly fee or else we can't afford to provide you with Services A, B and C anymore. We'd like to, but we just can't."

Then you review the account budget and figure out that your boss is right about Service A, but you could still provide the client with Services B and C even without raising their fee.

Your boss tells you, "Nope. We told them that if they didn't pay, the impact was going to be no more A, B and C. So be consistent with that and don't give them A, B or C."