Ah... Obama didn't agree on anything to get the deal done.
He just stood firm and the republicans caved in fear of the polls and the peoples anger.
He didn't agree to anything. Obama and Reid just stood firm.
You must have been distracted by faux news spin, maybe?
But I'll say it yet again, Obama did not agree nor need to agree on anything.
However... the congress has since appointed members to talk budget.
But that was not a factor in any so called "deal".
Certainly none that Obama signed off on.
If there was any sorts of cooperation outside of a "deal" by Obama, that was with his signing those mini bills sent over from the house to fund or reopen parts of the government. I can't remember how many or what they reopened/funded, but that was the extent of that. And that was before the republicans folded, if you remember.
So this president, Obama, is not one to sit down at the table to hammer out a budget anyways. He depends on the two parties to do that.
He expects the two party system to work and do their job.
If the two sides can come up with something meaningful and fair to both sides, Obama will sign that final budget bill. If he doesn't like the results from the two sides, he will veto and insist the two sides go back and try again.
I would guess that is how things are suppose to work.
But most other presidents ego would like the idea of tinkering and butting into the process.
But Obama is correct here. That is not the way the system was intended. For a president to control the process. The congress is suppose to do that. That is their job, not the presidents.
Not unless things get sticky or the two sides can't get anything done. Then the president gives the process a nudge.
LBJ loved to jump right into the process, that was his ego showing.
That is not Obama's way.
But to the question, there was no "deal" that Obama signed off on.
Republicans simply folded in their best interest, and lost the fight.
Obama's poker face was more convincing than the republican poker face.
I think we will see a lot more Obama's poker face in the coming months.
He just stood firm and the republicans caved in fear of the polls and the peoples anger.
He didn't agree to anything. Obama and Reid just stood firm.
You must have been distracted by faux news spin, maybe?
But I'll say it yet again, Obama did not agree nor need to agree on anything.
However... the congress has since appointed members to talk budget.
But that was not a factor in any so called "deal".
Certainly none that Obama signed off on.
If there was any sorts of cooperation outside of a "deal" by Obama, that was with his signing those mini bills sent over from the house to fund or reopen parts of the government. I can't remember how many or what they reopened/funded, but that was the extent of that. And that was before the republicans folded, if you remember.
So this president, Obama, is not one to sit down at the table to hammer out a budget anyways. He depends on the two parties to do that.
He expects the two party system to work and do their job.
If the two sides can come up with something meaningful and fair to both sides, Obama will sign that final budget bill. If he doesn't like the results from the two sides, he will veto and insist the two sides go back and try again.
I would guess that is how things are suppose to work.
But most other presidents ego would like the idea of tinkering and butting into the process.
But Obama is correct here. That is not the way the system was intended. For a president to control the process. The congress is suppose to do that. That is their job, not the presidents.
Not unless things get sticky or the two sides can't get anything done. Then the president gives the process a nudge.
LBJ loved to jump right into the process, that was his ego showing.
That is not Obama's way.
But to the question, there was no "deal" that Obama signed off on.
Republicans simply folded in their best interest, and lost the fight.
Obama's poker face was more convincing than the republican poker face.
I think we will see a lot more Obama's poker face in the coming months.