.
What does it mean for President Obama that he can't even get the Democrat-controlled Senate to pass his jobs bill?
October 12th, 2011
04:00 PM ET

What does it mean for President Obama that he can't even get the Democrat-controlled Senate to pass his jobs bill?

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Here's just one more sign that President Obama is in deep trouble headed into a re-election year:

The Democrat-controlled senate has failed to pass the president's job bill, his top legislative priority.

The senate voted 50-to-49 against the $447 billion package - falling far short of the 60 votes needed to pass.

President Obama has been barnstorming the country to promote this thing, but it didn't make a difference:

Not a single Republican voted for the jobs bill. And, even worse - two Democrats up for re-election in conservative states also voted against it.

President Obama insists this isn't the end of the road for the jobs bill. He's vowing to break the massive initiative down into several separate bills and have Congress vote on them one at a time. Some of the more popular elements include a payroll tax cut and the extension of unemployment benefits.

But it's far from certain that the bitterly divided congress will pass any of this stuff headed into the 2012 elections. Republicans call the whole thing a political stunt. They say the jobs bill is nothing more than another failed stimulus plan.

Meanwhile, Democrats up for re-election will have to decide whether or not to stand by the president. Experts tell Reuters that at least a few dozen Democrats might duck President Obama in 2012 since unpopular presidents traditionally hurt their party in Congress.

It's early - and that number may go up or down depending on a couple of other numbers: Mr. Obama's approval rating, now in the low 40s, and the nation's unemployment rate - which has been stuck at over 9%.

Here’s my question to you: What does it mean for President Obama that he can't even get the Democrat-controlled Senate to pass his jobs bill?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Randy:
Nothing. It wasn't meant to pass, it was meant to be a bludgeon to bang over the heads of his Republican "opponents" for election season. Same old song and dance both parties do for the cameras to keep the 99% occupied while their corporate and billionaire masters (the top 1%) continue the rape of America.

Wilhelm:
What in the world are you talking about, Cafferty? The damn Republicans once AGAIN filibustered the bill which meant 60 votes were needed. This garbage has been going on since President Obama took office. The Republicans would filibuster free beer at the ball park IF it was proposed by Obama. This bill had many things that were originally Republican ideas BUT they are willing to kill it in an attempt to put one man in Washington out of work at the expense of the millions of unemployed nationwide.

Bob:
You are not a leader unless people follow. No one is following this President.

Cliff in New York:
Jack, It means that President Obama is again a victim to the new math in Washington, where it now takes 60 out of 100 votes to start debating legislation, never mind that a 51 vote majority was already secured for passage. In a town that allows filibusters to be texted in from the Capitol Grill while taking special interest contributions, this latest charade highlights that we are a Democracy in name only and not in practice.

Harriet on Facebook:
What it actually means is that Obama needs to sell it better. It also means that no one is afraid of him.

D.:
Did I hear anyone say "lame duck"?

Posted by
Filed under: Democrats • President Barack Obama • Senate
soundoff (255 Responses)
  1. Jayne in NH

    This has nothing to do with President Obama and the "Democrat-controlled" Congress and everything to do with the Republicans and their record-setting number of filibusters. Republicans have invoked yet another filibuster on this bill and that means a simple majority cannot pass it. It will take 60 votes and Democrats do not have 60 members in the Senate. This is more Republican obstructionism and nothing more.

    October 12, 2011 at 1:09 pm |
  2. Nina Fox

    Jack
    It means that the senate is another name for bedlam! Our elected politicians act like children. I am disgusted with the lot of them.

    October 12, 2011 at 1:11 pm |
  3. Joe R - Houston, TX

    The fact that President Obama can't even get the Democrat-controlled Senate to pass his jobs bill means that he may a credible community organizer.

    October 12, 2011 at 1:14 pm |
  4. Loren

    It means it's not Christmas yet. Don't you know that the time to load up a bill with a bunch of unrelated programs is at Christmas and that doing so at any other time violates Senate protocol. After all, the Senators need certainty as to when they can load up a bill with all their self-serving amendments, otherwise they might actually have to think about the legislation that they're passing. Of course, everyone knew that the bill wasn't going to pass, it was merely part of President Obama's reelection campaign show, he didn't expect it to pass.

    October 12, 2011 at 1:17 pm |
  5. Johnsbmc (Atlanta)

    Jack. When we saw this puppy in the kennel he was a looker and had a cute bark, but now we have found that "this dog won't hunt". The President has made many fundamental leadership mistakes that have critically damaged his credibility and ability to lead. The Democrats are locked in, and the Republican are struggling too. You think Rudy Giuliani might be willing to step up to the plate?

    October 12, 2011 at 1:17 pm |
  6. Mel - Houston

    It means that if I had the control of the purse strings of the Democratic Party the democratic Senators that voted against the bill will be doing their own fund raising. No money is coming from the Democratic Party

    October 12, 2011 at 1:21 pm |
  7. Paul from Clearwater, Florida

    Sounds like the special interest groups, lobbyists, PACs and corporate/big bank donors have a greater say in running the country than the citizens. Perhaps Occupy Wall Street will get fed up with the government enough that they will Occupy Washington. Until every last politician gets voted out and replaced by new people who are willing to work for the people until special interests. Until that time, nothing is going to change.

    October 12, 2011 at 1:24 pm |
  8. Brad, Portland, OR

    Jack, I like the way you keep saying "Democrat-controlled Senate," as though you've forgotten that there's such a thing as a filibuster, and the Republicans have been abusing it for years.

    The vote on the jobs bill was actually 50-49 in FAVOR. If things in the Senate more normal, that means that the bill would have PASSED.

    But because the Republicans vow to filibuster EVERY bill in the Senate, all bills need to pass by a 60 vote super-majority, which allows the override of a filibuster.

    Even though the bill had a majority vote, it didn't have a filibuster-proof majority, so it failed.

    I think this says more about Republican obstructionism and refusal to help poor and middle class unemployed people find jobs than it says anything about the President.

    October 12, 2011 at 1:31 pm |
  9. Herman Portland OR

    The Republicans are right. The previous spending bills have not worked for the American people. The previous spending bills have helped Government, Unions, Green jobs with very little impact on the employment and relief for job creators. Also, credit for the Tea Party and the House Republicans, holding Congress accountable for their actions. The Democratic Senate majority are thinking twice before passing such a poor Bill for America.

    October 12, 2011 at 1:31 pm |
  10. bob z.

    members of the senate know the people don't want another stimulus . obama and his spending like green energe is just a waste of money

    October 12, 2011 at 1:33 pm |
  11. Terry in Virginia

    Some claim that Mr. Obama's jobs bill was designed to fail in order for him to make politcal mincemeat out of the GOP. Well, I don't know about that but at least he came up with something and the GOP hasn't done squat except play the very same political games they accuse Mr. Obama of playing. Just who are these guys kidding? Time to throw them all out of office. To both parties: Where are the jobs you promised Main Street? Rock on, OWS (Occupy Wall Street).

    October 12, 2011 at 1:33 pm |
  12. barbara in nc

    He could have with a straight majority (see Consitutiion). It's the never-ending filibusters that are killing this country. NOT PRESIDENT OBAMA.

    October 12, 2011 at 1:34 pm |
  13. Russ in PA

    Perhaps it means that Americans are catching on that "stimulus" and "jobs bills" are nothing more than more government spending for the sake of spending. At some point people will realize that Keynesian economics is a failure, and that the free market system, the rule of law, and sound money are the answer. Of course, I'm sure that politicians will attempt to buy off more voters, all while running up debt upon debt.

    Ron Paul in 2012...

    October 12, 2011 at 1:40 pm |
  14. Carl

    Jack, this just means there is no honor amoung scum bags and thieves. They all have there own illegal agenda's.

    October 12, 2011 at 1:41 pm |
  15. Cliff Glass - Rego Park, New York

    Jack,

    It means that President Obama is again a victim to the new math in Washington, where it now takes 60 out of 100 votes to start debating legislation, never mind that a 51 vote majority was already secured for passage. In a town that allows filibusters to be texted in from the Capitol Grill while taking special interest contributions, this latest charade highlights that we are a Democracy in name only and not in practice.

    October 12, 2011 at 1:48 pm |
  16. Ron WPAFB

    It means more about Republicans blocking Good Legislation and continuing this "We got to get him out" mentality and the hell with the people!!! He got 50. Yes it is sad, sad that 50 other Senators decided that more people can starve, sleep in the cold, go without jobs or medical care. It is a damn shame. The president is truly trying to help and our Congress is Broken! Harry Reid is without a doubt the worse Senate Majority leader ever. He sucks at public speaking! He can't motivate people. And all that is sad. The bigger issue right now is Iran! While the Republicans have wasted a year now of blocking meaningful Legislation, now we have bigger fish to fry!
    Now, I'm not convinced yet on the Iran thing, but if it is true, it's going to last way beyond the election and may get President Obama Re-elected! you just don't jump ships in the middle of a storm!

    October 12, 2011 at 1:48 pm |
  17. bud rupert

    That all politics is local. And, even if it is good for the country as a whole, they will not vote for if it means their seat could be in the slightest danger.

    October 12, 2011 at 1:51 pm |
  18. Bert from L.A.

    Hi Jack, It means this is the era of unlimited corporate cash in politics thanks to the Roberts Court 5 and their "Citizens United," i.e. “corporations united” case. It means Ike was right, Beware the "Military-industrial complex" more than ever because it and all corporations are now a “person” too and this Congress listens closely to corporate “speech;” "ka-ching, ka-ching!"

    October 12, 2011 at 1:56 pm |
  19. Phyllis G. Williams

    What does it mean for President Obama that he can't even get the Democrat-controlled Senate to pass his jobs bill?

    It means that "the heart of Man is deceitful and desperately wicked" (Jeremiah 17: 9),
    They know that 'a chain is not stronger than its weakest link' 'He cannot make blood out
    of stone". They intend to destroy the community by letting his Job fail.
    If they were of any use they would help him to put through a workable program for the Nation,
    as they are the ones who now have an incapable record.

    October 12, 2011 at 1:58 pm |
  20. EJ in Metro Houston

    well for one thing the GOP changed the filibuster rules in the Senate to benefit them..and the other thing is there are "DINOs" in the Senate that are trying to please their conservative base and keep their jobs. One thing I give Republicans credit for is that they can UNIFY even if they all don't agree with it. Democrats can nver seem to do that even if they have one of their own in office. Just ask Bill Clinton.

    October 12, 2011 at 2:03 pm |
  21. Toni

    It means the Democrats don't have confidence the bill will do much. It also means his presidency is in deep trouble!

    South Carolina

    October 12, 2011 at 2:05 pm |
  22. Rich McKinney, Texas

    When you have a republican controlled house and a democratic controlled Senate with no political courage and a democratic president then you are left with a lame duck. The sad part about it is no one benefits and time marches on. 10 percent of America is still unemployed and we are still up to our eyeballs in debt. 45 percent of Americans are on government assistance and only 54 percent actually pay federal income tax. The system is broke. Our country is broke. The two party do nothing government is broke. It is time to change the way we do business in Washington.

    October 12, 2011 at 2:10 pm |
  23. Pat in Michigan

    I think he's a goner Jack.
    He neds to start drawing blood on the hill.If he isn't coming back take the crooks down with him.
    Tell the truth and name names .
    I believe that most politicians are more concerned with their reelection that the public welfare.

    October 12, 2011 at 2:11 pm |
  24. Bizz, Quarryville Pennsylvania

    It means there is a big difference between the democratic party and the republican party. In the republican party they are smack up against the right side of the wall and will vote down anything Obama tries to pass. In the democratic party they are made up of liberals and moderate conservatives. It is this group the moderate conservatives that are afraid to vote for Obama job bill thinking they will look bad to voters back home. In other words they have no backbone.

    October 12, 2011 at 2:18 pm |
  25. Tom Bulger, Canandaigua, NY

    If the Senate ran democratically, it would be accurate to call it Democratically controlled. As long as the filibuster rule remains, even one Republican senator can block legislation. If a democratic majority ruled rather than 60%, you could say the Senate was democratically controlled.

    October 12, 2011 at 2:18 pm |
  26. Annie, Atlanta

    It means Congress critters are almost a completely wholly owned subsidiary. It's common knowledge. God knows their jobs depend on those taxpayer subsidies going to billion dollar a quarter companies, public service be darned. We need to get the money out of politics before it destroys us. When a President needs a billion dollars to run a campaign, there's something desperately wrong with the system, no? How many teaching jobs would that save?

    October 12, 2011 at 2:21 pm |
  27. curtis in philadelphia

    They say that all politics are local, and there's nothing more local than ones' behind, so it tells me that Senate Democrats are just trying to cover their own behinds. What do they care, I'm sure the check from their special interest lobbyists have cleared. I mean, its not like these Senators will go without a paycheck or health care, after all they have a job and its a lot easier to get re-elected to the Senate than it is the White House.

    October 12, 2011 at 2:24 pm |
  28. Peter El-Nahas

    That last stunt by the Republicans to stop the jobs bill that the President required shows once more that these people are not interested to put back Americans at work and refurbish the economy, but only to get rid of the President as soon as possible. This tactic won't work, Americans are not dumb. There's a suggestion for you: Since Republicans are so negative about what the President is trying to do to solve the problems of America, why don't they donate two/third of their humongous salaries to help the American people get back on the saddle and create jobs themselves to employ all the people that are suffering while they are playing dirty politics. I am 70 years old and have never seen in my lifetime such a negativity in American politics? I wouldn't even discard racism in this intolerable situation. Let's not forget that it wasn't Mr Obama that created that havoc but the Republican party in the last 11 years.
    Mr. President, you are loved and respected all round the world. Keep going and don't be deterred by those (the Republicans) that only need to be punched on the nose to wake up to reality.
    Have a nice day America.

    I live in Victoria, British Columbia. Canada

    October 12, 2011 at 2:30 pm |
  29. Pete in Georgia

    Obama is so out of touch with the "real" America I wouldn't even know where to begin.
    But what would you expect from a neighborhood organizer, especially one from the most corrupt state (Illinois) and corrupt city(Chicago) this side of Iran ???
    There are probably only 30 or 40 elected officials left in Washington DC who are still brainwashed enough to follow the foolish and misguided policies of this idiotic administration. The rest of 'em want him gone.
    Gone.
    Gone.

    October 12, 2011 at 2:32 pm |
  30. Doug

    It means the Senators are worried about getting re-elected if they keep spending money we don't have. Obama isn't worried about next years election, because he knows a Tea Party 3rd party candidate is going to keep him in office, so he keeps pushing for the bill. Doug. Pepperell, MA.

    October 12, 2011 at 2:33 pm |
  31. Bill of New Mexico

    A) The economy will not get Obama's boost.

    B) The year 2012 will not only be a waste, but it will be trying on the voter.

    C) The wars in D.C. will worsen:
    -1) The war between the House and Senate
    -2) The war between Republicans and Democrats

    D) The fourth year of Obama's will set records:
    -1) The wars in D.C.
    -2) The Super Committee will fail
    -3) The voter will become furious
    -4) How will the voter communicate frustration?

    E) The year 2012 is going to be a waste of time for Obama.

    F.) The year 2012 is going to be frustrating for Obama.

    October 12, 2011 at 2:36 pm |
  32. Jan K. in Asotin,Wa.

    It means the few Dems are worried about their own jobs instead of the American people. They may as well be republicans. This may very well backfire on them. People are tired of the selfish and hateful behavior of a lot of our elected officials. We can hope they join the ranks of the unemployed after 2012.

    October 12, 2011 at 2:40 pm |
  33. Kim , Dodge City, Kansas

    It means that "PartyPolitics" mean more to elected officials than the well-being of the nation. Since it is now abundantly clear that Congress neither cares, nor is interested in, the problems 99% of our citizens face, it is time to ramp up the protests on the streets to a full-fledged rebellion. I can't think of any reason why Americans shouldn't take to the street and physically remove Congress from Federal property. What they are doing, and the way they are behaving, is a text book example of treason and political terrorism.

    October 12, 2011 at 2:40 pm |
  34. Jk from Minnesota

    Too much Wall Street influence – both parties weem to be beholdin' more to the lobby $ than to the voters they are supposed to represent. We need a credible 3rd party in this country. It also could mean that some of the Senators who claim to be democrats are in the closet republicans who weren't conservative enough to stay republican.

    October 12, 2011 at 2:44 pm |
  35. Steve

    Sounds like Obama is finished. He had almost three years to get the economy going, what makes you think another year is going to make any difference. The first 2 years of his administration he had a Democratic Congress and gues what, they did nothing. For 2 years they diddled around with the unpopular healt bill, which is not going to take effect until 2014. It seems like all of Obama's programs don't take effect until 2012 through 2014. I thought we elected a President to take action in 2009.
    This Obama Job Bill has a very controvercial payroll tax cut which amounts to 256 billion dollars. For those that are not familiar with the payrool tax, let me explain. Payroll taxes is the Social Security tax that goes into the Social security fund. I thought that Social Security was underfunded. Why is Obama taking money out of the Social Security Fund?? Where is the outcry, especially 256 billion dollars?? Is this administration and the Democrats going crazy? There is something wrong here.

    October 12, 2011 at 2:46 pm |
  36. David from Herndon, VA

    Jack, I don't believe it matters who's in the White House. The Congress is completely broken and corrupt - do you remember how Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman hijacked the health care bill? Yes, it's technically a Democratic (the term is not Democrat) Senate, but without a bigger majority, a couple corrupt hacks can kill the whole process.

    Until we get the money out of politics, it doesn't matter if Obama or Romney or anybody else takes the White House. No party is going to pass anything that would help the folks.

    October 12, 2011 at 2:48 pm |
  37. Jim

    Jack, All it means is our Congress has been bought and paid for lock stock and vote. If 80% of the nation want the jobs bill passed and taxes inceased on the rich and Corporations and less than half of Congress reflects that majority something is drastically wrong. Stacking the vote with money from Koch Bros, Karl Rove, among others, facilitated by Justices Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas sets in modtion a disaster in the future. "Let them eat cake" is alive and well.
    Jim Los Angeles

    October 12, 2011 at 2:50 pm |
  38. Larry from Georgetown, Tx

    60 votes are now required to pass a bill in the Senate and none of his bills or ideas will be passed in either the House or Senate. Remember the minority leader in the Senate said almost 3 years ago, his primary job is to defeat the President. He's doing it while the rest of the nation suffers. Vote all of them out.

    October 12, 2011 at 2:54 pm |
  39. David in TX

    I don't think it means much at all. Correct me if I'm wrong Jack but doesn't take 60 votes to pass a measure in the Senate. It would seem rather than try to hammer out a deal the party of "No" just wants to stall the American economy again. I for one cannot wait for Nov 2012 to get here and new faces who really want to work for the American people can be sent to Washington DC.

    October 12, 2011 at 2:59 pm |
  40. Gary - Woodhaven, Michigan

    It would mean that the system works as it should, where there is no paralyzing dysfunctional absolute ideology that prevents all men and women of thinking and creating on their own. It is this freedom of thought that is deep democracy and of true functionality.

    However, this is not the reality. The reality is it means we continue to fall deeper into the depths of dysfunctionality as the walls that absolute ideology, greed, and power lust construct grow even higher and separate us even more. Sometime, somewhere, somehow someone must have the courage to end this cycle so we can begin anew. Obama seems to get this, but no person can change others alone, they must begin to change themselves.

    October 12, 2011 at 2:59 pm |
  41. Arlene, Roselle, Illinois

    Can't wait for the Republicans to get back in power and then we can have the Bush era all over again.
    Becareful America what you wish for as it might come true.

    October 12, 2011 at 3:01 pm |
  42. Steve

    Nothing, except that the 60 vote necessity to end debate rule must be changed.

    October 12, 2011 at 3:02 pm |
  43. Lori - PA

    Jack,

    Obama knew this bill wasn't going to pass. Instead of going around the country promoting it, why didn't he talk with Republicans to find out what it would take to get lesiglation passed that would help get the unemployed working again? Had he listened, and had he incorporated some of the Republicans ideas, he would have had a better leg to stand on when the they still voted no. Instead things look worse than ever for the millions that are unemployed. Oh, and Obama (whom I have no sympathy for).

    October 12, 2011 at 3:04 pm |
  44. Gail, Plano TX.

    Jack: the President's jobs bill never had a chance of passing in the House or the Senate. Now you can see why Congress' approval is so llow. They are worthless! Vote them all out. There is no hope as long as the racist Tea Party are in Washington in the Congress. The GOP and Demicrats are equally weak and also racist. I am disgusted as they fill their coffers for re-election. That is all they are worried about. The people do not matter!

    October 12, 2011 at 3:12 pm |
  45. Michael Carroll Alton Ill

    It means nothing changes in Washington politics as usual.

    October 12, 2011 at 3:12 pm |
  46. Kevin in CA

    It means President Obama is now presiding over a totally disfunctional country. The political system doesn't work, the banking system doesn't work, the infrastructure doesn't work and most of all, a lot of Americans can't work.

    October 12, 2011 at 3:13 pm |
  47. Scott from Bellingham

    It illustrates a crack in Democrat solidarity. Two Democratic Senators realize they will not be re-elected in their respective states if they saddle up with Obama. The one from West Virginia, a state with a coal industry that Obama is against, may not survive the 2012 elections anyway.

    October 12, 2011 at 3:18 pm |
  48. Vinny in Connecticut

    It means that Obama's Presidency is the most failed Presidency in the history of the Republic, even surpassing Jimmy Carter's, and we all remember that disaster! His polls are abysmal and continue to plummet, he has destroyed our economy with his socialist ideas, he is seen weak by other foreign leaders (leaked memos show that he wanted to APOLOGIZE to Japan for the US using the atomic bombs to end WWII !!) he has given credence to the Soros/SEIU funded "Occupy Wall St" people, and Democrats up for re election are staying clear of him.

    It's time for him to do the "LBJ" and announce, for the good of the country, that he will not run for re election and finally we will have after 4 long yrs, the "END OF AN ERROR"

    October 12, 2011 at 3:26 pm |
  49. mario

    tax cuts for middle class , rebuild America bridges and roads , invest in middle class not banking class by raising minimum wage thats the occupy wall street message

    October 12, 2011 at 3:27 pm |
  50. Michael Danahy

    It says nothing of President Obama and everything about Congress. The American Jobs Act has the support of the American People and the millionaire tax. But congress is mired in only politics. Vote them all out and give Obama the congress he deserves in 2012!

    October 12, 2011 at 3:29 pm |
  51. Jason, Pompton Plains NJ

    It means that he has found a reasonable "middle" compromise. If both sides only care about themsleves, and both sides dislike it, I would guess it is probably exactly what the middle class needs.

    October 12, 2011 at 3:29 pm |
  52. AAShame Barton MS

    Jack one man cannot do this without help from both sides of the isle If he could this would have been done long ago.

    October 12, 2011 at 3:31 pm |
  53. Michael Bindner, Alexandria, VA

    It means the bill was for political show. Infrastructure should be paid for with higher gas taxes. Payroll tax holidays are a bad idea – raise the minimum wage instead. Fund long term unemployment by raising a surtax on firms who lay off employees to increase profit (rather than because they are hurting). As for taxes on the rich, promise to let all the tax cuts expire in 2013 and the rich pay the brunt of it. We were not exactly starving under Clinton's tax rates, we won't now. To improve the economy and start hiring, double down on QE3 purchases of Freddie and Fannie securities and reduce the balance of those loans.

    October 12, 2011 at 3:34 pm |
  54. Dottor. Giorgio

    President Obama continues to take fierce criticism from the entire country. This fresh, young leader doesn't deserve such. There are no economic solutions out there, from anyone! If I were him, I would announce that I would not run for reelection in 2012, and let someone else take future blame and embarrassment. Remember, this man still runs a high risk of being assassinated, due to the color of his skin!

    October 12, 2011 at 3:34 pm |
  55. bonnie from NJ

    President Obama could have said the grass is green and the sky is blue and the Republican's would have voted against it. It is there number one goal to remove him from office and it does not matter how if affects middle class people. They are going to protect the rich and powerful, the class that most of them belong to, at any cost to the working people of America. Not that I am so thrilled with the Democrats, when they had control all they concentrated on was health care. The theory of every American having adequate affordable healthcare is important, but who can pay for without a job.

    October 12, 2011 at 3:39 pm |
  56. Randy

    Nothing. It wasn't meant to pass, it was meant to be a bludgeon to bang over the heads of his republican "opponents" for election season. Same old song and dance both parties do for the cameras to keep the 99% occupied while their corporate and billionaire masters (the top 1%) continue the rape of America.

    October 12, 2011 at 3:39 pm |
  57. Jenna Roseville CA

    What does it mean for President Obama that he can't even get the Democrat-controlled Senate to pass his jobs bill?

    Now Jack, that was a pretty loaded question. You claim that the Democrats control the Senate and then claim that they need 60 votes (which is a "super majority" they do not have) to get any bill to pass. So you are saying that a simple majority won't cut it. Who knew?

    Democrats that voted against it did so because the last deduction for the middle class was on the line (deduction for mortages on the 1040.. Income taxes) Take that out and I am sure every Democrat would have voted for it – but it still would have been short because no single Republican would vote to get Americans back to work.

    A quick line removal and another quick vote will show better results.

    BTW You need to remind all that the vote was to get this bill on the table for DEBATE – so ALL the Republicans won't even talk about it. Any surprises there?

    Jenna
    Roseville CA

    October 12, 2011 at 3:39 pm |
  58. Jim, Cranford NJ

    With his own party is already handing him his hat. The President won't be running against a Republican this time next year. He'll be running against a do nothing Congress. He has a year to make Congress the face of this crisis.

    October 12, 2011 at 3:40 pm |
  59. MYSTEROIUS

    It means that the Republicans are consistent, and will do nothing that will appear to help this president get America back on track. As far as the Dems, Nelson and the other one, they are pure opportunist, and should switch parties. Blanch Lincoln ring a bell?

    October 12, 2011 at 3:41 pm |
  60. Steve, Clifton, VA

    It means that President Obama never expected the Bill to pass as it was originally submitted or in tact and he will now break up the Bill into several component parts. President Obama achieved his goal to paint the Republicans as obstructionist and he will now be afforded the opportunity to continue to milk the obstructionist label placed on the Republicans as the fragmented piece meal Bill works it's way through both Houses. Many Republicans have publicly voiced support for many of the components of the Bill and will be hard pressed to again reverse their positions on policies they once supported publicly when proposed by fellow Republicans.

    October 12, 2011 at 3:43 pm |
  61. Paulette in Dallas

    This means that the Democratic National Committee needs to dump Obama and draft Hillary Clinton to be its' candidate. Romney is picking up momentum and he is a seasoned, successful businessman who knows his way around the political and business world. Obama was NOT ready for this job. He should have been wise enough to decline like Govenor Christie did and simply say in 2008,"I'm not ready it's not my time."

    October 12, 2011 at 3:45 pm |
  62. Gigi Oregon

    It means even the bullying of the Republican party against President Obama is scaring the weak democrats. But the people are taking to the streets and they will make the finale decision come November 2012. If the Representatives will not take a stand for the people, the people will get hungry and cold enough to vote to work with President Obama in 2012 not only for jobs but tax reform.. He has done more for the fight against terror than Pres. Bush ever dreamed of and managed a more peaceful relationship with rogue nations at less cost. Blessed are the peace makers for they shall know God. We are tired of war, loss of jobs and no taxes for the rich. What do you think the people are going to do... The people wanted change and the Republicans have made a wall of stubbornness against them/him from day one. To return the "American Dream" to the people is to costly for the Republican, rich/corporate America. Many corporate companies have said we can afford to pay taxes but the Republican Party is holding their line against that change.

    It would be interesting to know the percent of those out of work Democrats or Republicans...

    October 12, 2011 at 3:51 pm |
  63. Riley, Seattle

    It means he's up the proverbial creek without the proverbial paddle ... NOT. Nobody expected this bill to pass, not even Pres Obama. What it really means is that he now has carte blanche to rail against Republicans, and the weak links in the Democratic chain, in order to look Trumanesque in his righteous anger on behalf of millions of jobless Americans. His real strength lies in being the "underdog."

    October 12, 2011 at 3:52 pm |
  64. Ray E. (Georgia)

    There was an Election last year. Thr People soundly rejected Obama's Policies. But Obama doesn't get it. The people do. After the last "Stimulus" things are still stagnant. If this "Jobs Bill" were passed what would change? Nothing as far as the people are concerned. Rasing Taxes on the Rich will not generate any jobs either. Uncertainty is what is holding business back. They don't know what their taxes will be in the near future. Why doesn't Obama understand that?

    October 12, 2011 at 3:53 pm |
  65. Phil

    It doesn't mean anything, the bill will pass in smaller portions, and if the republicans in the senate want to be elected next year, they better get in line and start acting like representatives for the people otherwise 2012 will be another year with Obama leading a democratic Senate and House once again.

    October 12, 2011 at 3:56 pm |
  66. John Altanta

    IT meand that the republiccans care more about their party than the country. NO arguments left.

    October 12, 2011 at 3:57 pm |
  67. Tom in Desoto, TX

    It would seem the two Democrats what something for their votes. Republicans, they would vote against their own pay raise if Obama proposed one. After all, who do the citizens believe Congress is concerned with? certainly not the voters. I don't believe Republicans voted yes for anything since Obama's inauguration?

    October 12, 2011 at 3:58 pm |
  68. Lori - PA

    Jack,

    Obama knew this bill wasn't going to pass. Instead of going around the country promoting it, why didn't he talk with Republicans to find out what it would take to get lesiglation passed that would help get the unemployed working again? Had he listened, and had he incorporated some of the Republicans ideas, he would have had a better leg to stand on when the they still voted no. Instead things look worse than ever for the millions that are unemployed. Oh, and Obama (whom I have no sympathy for).

    October 12, 2011 at 3:58 pm |
  69. Greg Rockford, IL

    That two Democratic Senators in "red states" are more concerned about their reelection prospects than in doing what's good for the country.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:02 pm |
  70. Bob

    You are not a leader unless people follow. No one is following this President. Need I say more.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:02 pm |
  71. Weiser

    Can't even get your own party to follow you anymore. What does that say about you competence as a leader?

    October 12, 2011 at 4:02 pm |
  72. Carla from Birmingham, Alabama

    Sadly, the Democrats in Congress have defeated their own President at every turn. They steadfastly refuse to stick by him. Why? I have to believe it's because Obama has tried to revamp an unfair system and bolster services to the elderly and indigent, while taxing the wealthy. Unfortunately, the "wealthy" includes pretty much every member of Congress - Democrat, Republican, and Bagger. They aren't going to vote to tax themselves. Only Jack Kennedy put his money where his mouth was, refusing a salary while in the White House. Others are out for all they can get. They don't care about Social Security or Medicare because they won't need it. They don't care about education because their kids are in the finest schools. Getting the fair share from the rich is going to take more than a well-intentioned President. It's going to take a revolution.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:02 pm |
  73. Bill -- Ne.

    It doesn't matter who the president is. Those that control the money control the government.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:03 pm |
  74. Michael Roepke Dallas, TX

    Unfair question Jack
    Your question is about a Democrat-controlled Senate, but when there needs to be a super majority on every vote it is a Democrat-majority Senate. A group of Republicans in congress and all of the Republicans in the Senate are saying Bah-Humbug to the basis of Democracy, majority rule.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:03 pm |
  75. K Vaught

    It means for better or worse the Republicans own the government and have since they took over the House in 10. So get over it already and hand the government over to the GOP/Tea Party as soon as possible and let then have it for 12 years or more and see all the miracles they will bring about.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:05 pm |
  76. Tracy

    It means oh no you can't !

    October 12, 2011 at 4:05 pm |
  77. Mark

    It means that in the middle of negotiating how to reduce this huge deficit nobody is willing to commit to spending a whole pile of money on things that probably won't provide enduring benefit. A government-funded job lasts only as long as the project contract. If he breaks it up into pieces he will probably get some support for extending unemployment benefits. Increasing taxes and stimulus spending have little chance at this point in the election cycle.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:06 pm |
  78. Dave

    Meaning: more of the same Republican obstruction that has lead to record use of the filibuster to thwart the flow of democracy in the U.S.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:06 pm |
  79. s.positive

    Jack, it is spelt; FILIBUSTER. Another testimony of a broken system.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:06 pm |
  80. BubbaShrimp

    Jack, it was never a serious plan, it was just meant to fail and then..let's blame the Republicans. The president does not care of we work or not. It is all about winning back power and that is why they gave away our money in the billions to those solar companies, and now launched their minions on Wall Street, damn, if he can't make those guys pony up the cash! Either by paying them off or by force. It wasn never a serious plan. It would be me like telling you to support something you had rejected time and again, just in a new package, a different bow. He must think we are stupid, but, not me. I saw it right away, after the first shout out, Just pass my bill,....tomorow! What a joke he is! Or, he just thinks everyone else is stupid. Well, I have seen the education system at work, and he may well be right, we are raising a stupid generation with their hands out.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:07 pm |
  81. Alex

    It means that the Democrats are running scared. They want to safe their cushy jobs thinking that if they allign with the Team Party people that their constituents will vote them back into office. Too bad for those wimps. Off with their heads I say. What a fearful thought to have Republicans guard the chicken house and the big house.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:07 pm |
  82. Ben--Charlotte, NC

    It shows that 49 members of Congress LIVE in the back pockets of their donors and lobbyists and could care less about America and her people. I will give the GOP credit on their focus but fear their desire to defeat the President will nearly destroy our nation!

    October 12, 2011 at 4:08 pm |
  83. tonie from OK

    This means the Republicans don't care about fixing the economy enough to help and they want Obama to fail. The grass isn't always greener on the other side and Obama cannot get rid of the Republican policies with all the obstruction. He needs to go back to the center left not the center right and stop giving in. Most the economist on both sides said it has to pass.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:09 pm |
  84. Jackie Geiger

    It means we have too many weak senators who will only vote based on what will get them re-elected. These are the ones that need to go.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:10 pm |
  85. Independent Joe

    Jack,
    It means most of the people have lost confidence in our commander and chief.

    Joe M (Mn)

    October 12, 2011 at 4:10 pm |
  86. Dan in Albuquerque

    It's not a mystery, Jack. Even if every Democrat voted for it, there would be no 60-vote passage because the GOP wouldn't vote for anything Obama proposes, even if they agreed with it. Their only purpse is to see him fail, Obama has done a lot to prevent the first recession from being a true depression and stop huge monthly job losses when he took office. but even he knew it was a temporary fix until bipartisan agreements set a long-term fix. He and Boehner had one, but the Tea Party made Boehner reneg. So, it's do nothing until election time, or the supercommittee repeats the downgrade crisis.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:10 pm |
  87. BIll in VA

    The Republicans wanted Reid to get Obama's bill to the floor as is for a vote but Reid knew there would be many Democrat defections so he didn't do it. Instead he opted for the "procedural vote" that wasn't the actual vote on the bill so virtually all the Dems could vote for that. What it means is if the President wants to be a serious leader and taken seriously he has to submit a serious proposal that actually has a chance to pass after negotiation. He needs to get into leadership mode and out of campaign mode. I am not hopeful. He could have shown leadership on jobs when he had both houses of Congress controlled by his party with 60 votes in the Senate but he blew off the jobs issue then.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:10 pm |
  88. Bonnie Kimberly

    Why he keeps trying to be civil calm and use tact is way more than I understand. Yes he will be a one term President if all one cares about is how he can manage that bunch of do nothings in his party and the GOP. I see this as just another reason politics are running our government right into the ground.....keeping their place in Washington is the ONLY thing the House and Senate care about not I repeat NOT running our Government for us or by us. They set the tone the day he was elected and it will be so .

    October 12, 2011 at 4:10 pm |
  89. Dan from Stewartstown PA

    What it means for President Obama is that despite his efforts to reivigorate the economy for the ever dwinlding middle class, he'll need to try other means to do so, but -and here's the clincher- He needs to do it without sounding like a whiner who's blaming others. He needs to continue to act as if he has a backbone and answer the GOP naysayers point by point.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:11 pm |
  90. Chris from Richmond

    From the beginning of our country through 1970, there was an average of 1 filibuster per year. The Republicans have effectively changed the rules by filibustering over 100 times last session alone. This was just another example. Our government is based upon compromise, but they are not allowing any compromise. They want Obama to fail, and will not allow anything substantial to pass if it has a chance of helping him.

    If Republicans are rewarded at the polls next year, the logical political response from Democrats will be to say "no" to everything the Republican president asks for. All progress will be stopped, in either direction. The US will be like a wrecked car on the freeway, watching the other countries pass us by.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:12 pm |
  91. marc

    Not going to comment on the question you are posing but I would like to say that I think it is better governance anyway to break these bills into smaller pieces. We should do this more often and not just when we have to do it after a failure to get a bigger bill passed. These all encompassing bills (healthcare bill, TARP, the list goes on) always has a bunch of items that would never stand on there own if they were voted for individually. We really need to get away from doing this, if we do we wouldn't have to worry about pork, bad laws that were squeezed into a much larger bill at the last moment or 1200 page bills that no one person could possibly claim to have read and understood in the allotted time before a vote is cast.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:12 pm |
  92. David of Alexandria VA

    Ir says two things, Jack - One, he never tried to sell this bill. He presented it and went on the stump to get a popular uprising to ram it down everyone's throat. Second, he again demostrates the lack of leadership experience to know how to get things done, other than through soaring oratory villifying someone else to the oppressed masses. I think the opporessed masses are tired of being oratoried.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:13 pm |
  93. s in fl

    It's called a filibuster, Jack. You should watch your own show. The GOP has been doing this from Day One, but way to throw out the strawman.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:13 pm |
  94. LIP

    Quite simply, it means President Obama has failed to communicate with both parties effectively. Let's go back to the days of President Clinton, someone who knew how to reach out to both parties with good ideas or someone who knew how to compromise, rather than allienate everyone who doesn't agree with him.
    It's a shame he has wasted four years of our lives to make a point that no one really cares for.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:15 pm |
  95. Holly Carter

    It means that the President and Democrats are in trouble next year. We can only hope the unemployment rate will come down or not come down if you are a Republican. Right?

    October 12, 2011 at 4:15 pm |
  96. lou

    It means they need to lose. And not just this battle, but the presidency and senate control as well. The only wake up call that will work with this country is to have the republicans be in total control for a few years and let the rest of the country see what they do with it. They'll slash safety nets, social security, medicaid, medicare, school funding...they really haven't kept what their vision for this country is at all. Paul Ryan's budget will be the law of the land. So let the dems turn their back on this president and their own party and let the chips fall where they may.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:16 pm |
  97. Scott

    It means take your change somewhere else!

    October 12, 2011 at 4:16 pm |
  98. Jim W

    It means that they are more interested in saving their own jobs than serving the people who elected them. Somehow they have forgotten that there are 16M unemployed out there that will remember this when election time comes. That is more than enough to swing an election against them. You cater to the minority and lose when the majority votes. Perhaps some early recall elections would wake them up.
    As far as the Democrats who voted against the bill, good luck on any fund raising and remember you still have to be nominated to run for the office. They all have the same idea.... the people are stupid and forgetfull. We will see how that works come the election time.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:18 pm |
  99. B DETTE

    Let's nt put this ALL on OBAMA...or Republicans...or Democrats. They all still have JOBS and the rest of the country does not. I say we pass a law to deduct money from their salary everytime they cannot come to an agreement on something. They are there to reach a middle ground.....but as long as their bellies stay full (with is the agenda at both ends frankly) they will continue to fake bicker....Its JOB SECURITY for them...THERE IS NO INCENTIVE IN CONGRESS TO HELP THE COUNTRY....And we are continually feeding into the False notion that either party cares about us. Its not Reb vs Dem...Its us versus them....

    October 12, 2011 at 4:18 pm |
  100. Ron Hall Arkansas

    I am a Democrat, but glad the Senate did not pass this bill which shorts the Social Security Trust to the tune of $50 billion. We need to target the creation of jobs and keeping them in this country.. We need to re-write our corporate tax code and cut the interest groups loopholes. Use the saviings for incentives for employment while punishing US companies that move operations overseas.with full taxation against those operations. We won't do any of that reform, because too many members of congress depend on contributions from those interests.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:18 pm |
  101. Jason in CA

    It means that he designed the bill specifically to fail so that he could have something to campaign against in 2012.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:18 pm |
  102. Jean-Marc Perreault from Montreal Canada

    Your country seams to have the most unproductive political system of any democratic country. President Obama is the most well intended president you've had in ages and it is obvious he's fighting for those who often don't even go vote.
    Your country deserves a good 4 years of tea party politics and then people will look back and say my god, how dumb were we.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:19 pm |
  103. Sharon in NJ

    It means the Republicans want Obama to be a one time president and they will do whatever they have to no matter how bad a postion it puts this country in to make that so. Apparently doing nothing for this country, not agreeing to compromise at all or give an inch...doing nothing but saying NO is the Republicans way of helping us all. They won't let the country move forward at all. They're holding our heads under water. They're backwards!

    October 12, 2011 at 4:20 pm |
  104. Staci -Oregon

    A Jobs Plan with over half of it as tax breaks for those who HAVE jobs......should be called what it is.

    A Re-election Plan.

    I was so excited about Transparency.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:20 pm |
  105. Mary Bucher-Tyson

    The problem isn't Obama getting two Democratic senators to join the other Democrats. The problem is the people who voted a politically divided Congress. The President can't get his ideas and solutions passed by this dysfunctional Congress. The general public continues to think that Obama hasn't done anything. Wrong! Think instead, what have the Republicans done except join together to make sure Obama is demonized and hopefully unelectable in 2012. (Romney looks better???) The economic problems of the United States is not an easy problem to solve. If it were, then many economists would have provided solutions in 2009. We are all in this mess together so let's work together to get solutions. Stop blaming all the negative employment numbers on Obama and stick it to Congress which isn't doing anything to help put more people back to work. Come November, 2012, vote for people who want to work together and make compromises for the good of the country. That's the American way!

    October 12, 2011 at 4:20 pm |
  106. DiverDon

    It means that the whole circus has been bought and paid for and not just the elephants.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:21 pm |
  107. Steve in Ohio

    It means our government is broken. No one will compromise....The Republicans and Democrats draw lines in the sand and no give or take is offered (although the Republicans and Tea Party folks are largely behind this). So if no one is willing to work together how can a president get anything accomplished......
    Seems to me our government is falling apart at the seams because everyone is so polarized.........

    October 12, 2011 at 4:21 pm |
  108. ithink122

    "What does it mean for President Obama that he can't even get the Democrat-controlled Senate to pass his jobs bill?"

    It means that you should stop calling it a democrat controlled senate. It would only be considered democrat controlled or republican controlled if either party could pass somethin without the other. Due to the ability to filibuster, something that has no logical basis, needing a simple majority, something that happens in the House, is for no reason turned into needing 60%. So unless either party has 60%, it cannot be considered "controlled" by either of them.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:21 pm |
  109. John-Carlo

    It means that congress' approval rating should be even lower than 11%.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:21 pm |
  110. Matthew

    Another "NO" by republicans! What's new???

    October 12, 2011 at 4:21 pm |
  111. J. Davis, in Knoxville, Tennessee

    It certainly DOES NOT reflect poorly on the President who is working hard to help the majority of us because he is dealing with the party of "NO". It shows how uncaring Republicans are. The rich fatcats of the GOP could care less about the average guy who is suffering in this economy. Have you heard any real job plans from the Republican candidates?; for example, I was shocked at Mr. Cain's disapproval/blasting of the Wall Street protests. All Republicans think about are helping the big companies and the rich. Personally I am sick of it!. If you are suffering like I am, re-elect President Obama and vote for Democrats in Congress.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:22 pm |
  112. Yvette, Maryland

    What it means is that they (Republicans) are not going to let anything pass that President Obama proposes because of the COLOR OF HIS SKIN. I just wish somebody would just say it on national TV and get it over with. He is doing EVERYTHING HE CAN, but they want it all their way and they are not going to compromise because they don't want to see him do well or WIN. Remember it took years and years to get into the mess the United States faces and we expect it to be all corrected in three years. PLEASE! Get a clue!! But this last thing, all these so called people who are calling for CUTS, CUTS, CUTS, what are you going do when they cut your job and cut your your parents social security and the neighbors are out of work after and ONLY IF OBAMA IS NOT RE-ELECTED, WHICH I KNOW HE WILL BE, the Republicans are back in office, LETS SEE HOW MUCH YOU WILL BE SINGING THEIR PRAISES THEN. . . . .

    October 12, 2011 at 4:22 pm |
  113. JC in PA

    Fortunately for President Obama there is a Republican party.
    Should be elected fairly easily when considering the alternative

    October 12, 2011 at 4:22 pm |
  114. Haji

    It means it's unfair for oil companies to have to pay even more money to the government for jobs that the won't last more than a few years. Creating government jobs won't fix the economy. Creating a business-friendly America (i.e., not having the highest corporate tax rate in the world) will do that.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:22 pm |
  115. Max

    Jack, it means that this Republican might get to vote for Hillary!

    October 12, 2011 at 4:22 pm |
  116. Steve

    It means there are out-of-touch jerks on both sides of the isle in the Senate.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:22 pm |
  117. Hal in Phoenix

    It means that none of these clowns care about America or Americans. It's party first and American(s) second. Pathetic.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:23 pm |
  118. Elizabeth Mutlu

    Jack,

    Let us be a little more honest with the uneducated public when you ask your questions. True, the Senate has the majority, however, every bill that comes up in the Senate requires a vote of 60 members to pass a bill these days under the republican obstructionist tactics. If the bill would have required 51 votes to proceed, they would have gotten the votes, however, they needed Republican votes...Now we know that they will not do anything to help the country if it means that they might help the other party. It is time to get a new system. It is not President Obama, it is the partisan politics, and interest groups that run our country. Do not blame President Obama, blame the system.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:23 pm |
  119. Tony from Southport, NC

    It means Jack, that what we have been saying all along was correct. President Obama is in way over his head and has tried failed policies to fix the economy and create jobs by spending trillions and then spending more. Even Democrats who had hoped his presidency would be an historic one, did not plan the history to be one of failure. If they had faith in him they wouldn't be so concerned that he would affect their reelections negatively.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:23 pm |
  120. Mark, Centerport, L.I., NY

    Jack, it tells us that neither party is prepared to do the people;s business.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:23 pm |
  121. Marlene in OR

    Obama's style of playing chief negotiator is un-presidential. A leader must stand for principles and fight for them. Then people will follow him. His appeals now fall on deaf ears, because he hasn't defined himself as a leader of something. Truman said it: "the buck stops here."

    October 12, 2011 at 4:23 pm |
  122. Clint

    How can you say that the Democrats "CONTROL" the Senate? they are in the Majority, however they DO NOT control the senate. Control would mean that they have at least a 60 vote Majority enable to pass a bill as you stated.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:23 pm |
  123. Andrew

    "Democrat-controlled Senate" is misleading. There may be more Democrats in the Senate, but how can anyone have control over the Senate when cloture is required yet practically impossible for every bill?

    Washington, DC

    October 12, 2011 at 4:23 pm |
  124. Eric-MA

    It means that President Obama's creditablity will be dropped again in Washington D.C. as a leader of the free world. It shows he is a lame duck and soon one-term President. If he wants change, he should let the states, private sector and small busineses create the jobs are country needs.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:23 pm |
  125. Phillis

    It means that some Democrat senators also have deep pockets filled with money from the millionaires that contribute to their campaigns who don't want to pay any more taxes than they are.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:23 pm |
  126. RDE

    Jack, it means that politicians are up for election and trying to keep their jobs. That's all it means. Oh, it means that they really care only about that almighty $. 99% of us are still trying to feed our family, pay rent, buy gas and oh pay more taxes than the rich. Total OBAMA Supporter!

    October 12, 2011 at 4:23 pm |
  127. Anthony from Maryland

    President Obama is a one term President and everyone knows it! If Democrats want to maintain the White House they are going to have to submit another candidate who will run against Obama for the sake of the party which is I presume Hilliary Clinton. Republicans know that if she runs they will lose the White House since she has been Secretary of State only having to answer on foreign policy matters in her relationship with this President's tenure.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:23 pm |
  128. Jamison

    What did you expect, the first stimulus bill did not generate jobs and only put us more in debt. Infrastructure programs alone don't work, Japan tried it and they got the lost decade. You want stimulus, find a way to develop private sector job creation.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:23 pm |
  129. Susan from Idaho

    They are more worried about their jobs than helping their constituents.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:23 pm |
  130. Gary in CA

    It means nothing. This is not a Republican or Democrat issue. The Plutocrats call the shots and this bill offered no benefit to them so they had their minions shut it down. Simple enough?

    October 12, 2011 at 4:23 pm |
  131. Len Smith

    OK, GOP where are all the jobs you promised in the last election? All you keep doing is prolonging the problem. Please get with the program and follow the lead of a good President who has done a lot for this country, even if you don't want to see him in office again, think of the country. For all those who seem to hate the man in the Oval Office, I ask, just what has he done wrong, except try like hell to bring both parties together in the interest of the country. Maybe he is just too kind.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:24 pm |
  132. Tonio Birbiglia

    It means honor in public service id dead. Politics have overun government to the point every elected official is more worried about saving their own jobs rather than doing their jobs and governing this country in a time of crisis.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:24 pm |
  133. Femi from CT

    Simple, those Republicans and the two Democrats are hereby fired!!! Time to line up for unemployment and hope there will still be sufficient funds to pay for them.

    Femi.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:24 pm |
  134. Wayne Phillips

    It means that Congress is out of touch with the American people. If the Jobs Act was put to a vote and citizens were allowed to vote on it, according to Gallup Poll it would pass. 45% said pass the bill compared to 32% who said do not pass. The truth is a majority of Americans think it makes sense to hire teachers, fireman, police officers. It makes sense to fix our roads and hire Americans to do it.

    What doesnt make sense is giving oil companies billion dollar subsidies while firing teachers.

    This vote is one reason why Congress only has 12% approval rating. As bad as it is Obama is by far the most popular person in government.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:24 pm |
  135. Albert

    Absolutely nothing, in fact, Jack, it may even help! The reality is it just demonstrates the clear point that without a super majority in the Senate, the Dems can do little or nothing other than watch the Republican toddlers run around and do absolutely nothing. It's the Truman election all over again, and if history is any dictate there may be surprise coming to the obstrructionists come next Fall. We are so far out and right now the stage is going to be set. While I know the republicans think they can find fault w everything Obama suggests, but what can they point to having accomplished: NOTHING

    October 12, 2011 at 4:24 pm |
  136. Olu from Calgary, Canada

    Hey Jack,

    Sincerely, it implies the state of U.S. politics and the fact that the next election is what determines
    if members of congress do the right thing or not; unfortunately, some likes the fun it creates
    but hates the outcome...meaning most don't even know what they want. However, the clear picture is:
    Democrats are bunch of cowards, and whether they support the president now or not, they're doomed!

    October 12, 2011 at 4:24 pm |
  137. realitycheck10

    There is only one possible solution to this and that is to make it very well known that the people of this country are going to vote "Anti-Incumbent" until our elected officials start doing the will of the people.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:24 pm |
  138. Gary in PA

    It is ridiculous to call the Senate "Democratic controlled' as long as every bill must be a fillerbuster proof 60 votes – what that means is that the minority party is the one in control. The Republicans simply do not care about the working class and the proof is that they have done nothing except stonewall any actions taken by our President – even actions they have previously supported and even sponsored. I think it's shameful.

    Jack I would very much appreciate it if you would say on the air "Get off my lawn!"

    October 12, 2011 at 4:25 pm |
  139. Phillis Elliott

    It means that some democrat senators also have deep pockets filled with (they hope) campaign money contributed from millionaires who don't want to pay any more taxes than they are.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:25 pm |
  140. Ryan

    Jack,

    It means those two Dems. that voted against it care more about re-election than putting American back to work. I would be interested to know who the two were and I will bet it will be two conservative Dems. This dosn't mean anything for Obama's re-election chances for two reasons, 1) it is way to early to call the election lost for the President. and 2) America knows who's fault it is thay they are not working, just ask them, you'll find them on Wall Street and outside mansions.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:25 pm |
  141. Joe

    It means that even as our nation faces trying times economically, those who we chose to be guide us can't even pass what should be slam dunk legislation.

    I yearn for the lame duck congress of winter 2009. Those were the days...

    October 12, 2011 at 4:25 pm |
  142. Larry Reyes

    These demo's are now going to face the American people come election day and they are Mad, But we know it's hard to tax yourself and who's pocket are the demo's in !

    October 12, 2011 at 4:25 pm |
  143. DJ

    It means the Republicans are more interested in partisan politics and helping he well off than doing good for the country ( and the well off in the long run). They are all too happy to through the country under the bus if they think it will make Obama a one term president – their publicly stated goal.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:26 pm |
  144. Ray in Knoxville

    Jack, you still talk about the Democratic party like it's one united group. Unlike the Republican party, especially this new one whose Tea Party alien has finally burst through its chest and emerged into the world, the Democratic party is a mish-mash of ultra liberals, liberals, moderate liberals, middle of the roaders, moderately conservatives and even conservatives (who haven't had the balls to join their southern compatriots and switch parties.) They don't have one point of view and one basic strategy to get behind.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:26 pm |
  145. Eric - Hotlanta

    It means the job bill that Obama is pinning all of his last ditch efforts and hopes on has failed in the Democratically controlled senate and even some of the Democrats do not want to have anything to do with more failed stimulus spending. Do you remember his jobs bill speach before a joint session of congress? He kept looking over at the Republicans saying, "pass this bill", "pass this bill now", "we must pass this bill". How many times did he say it during the speech – maybe 20 times? He should have been looking over at the Democratic side of the joint session and made sure they were on board with this bill first. He should have also taken the time to speak directly with Senators Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Jon Tester of Montana. Apparently they were not on board at all since they voted against it. This thing was DOA in the Republican controlled house anyway, but the fact the Democratically controlled senate could not pass it speaks volumes as to the failed leadership of this President and his administration.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:26 pm |
  146. BobinLA

    Simple answer- it means politics over people, as usual.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:26 pm |
  147. Atlanta Independent

    The 2 deomocrat and the republican party always voted against president Obama because they want him one term president. I cant wait until 2012 come because we the american people would vote the 2 democrat and the republican out of the office people needs jobs now not later we need it now to be pass.
    The republican is trying to hurt american because they dont like our president but we will show them in 2012

    October 12, 2011 at 4:26 pm |
  148. Bill Tate

    Those Democrats who didn't support Obama should consider becoming Republicans. Democrats don't need Republicans masquerading as Democrats.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:26 pm |
  149. Ruben - Albuquerque, NM

    The fact that President Obama can't get the support of members of his own party in Congress is a clear indication that they, the Democrats, are more concerned about reelection than doing what's right for the country or the party. They, along with the Republicans, helped earn the title "The Do Nothing Congress".

    October 12, 2011 at 4:27 pm |
  150. Phil from Memphis

    I feel for the President. At least he is putting out a plan. Looks to me like the sharks are circling because they smell blood and are basically trying to make Obama look bad until the election. In any case guess who looses? The 14 million Americans out of work while the CHILDREN in Washington can't agree..

    October 12, 2011 at 4:27 pm |
  151. virginia in Wisconsin

    When you need 60 votes to even vote on a bill, it's not a Dem controlled Senate. This means we all have to get behind the bill, even if it's in pieces. I'm especially concerned about infrastructure. This bill is only a start, but we need it. The Republicans have said they will do nothing except try to get rid of President Obama. This from a crowd that likes to exclaim, country first! Ha! After only three weeks of advocating for his bill, President Obama now has about two thirds of the country behind it.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:27 pm |
  152. HURRICANEPAUL from Hawaii

    Come on Jack, Obama's "Tax The Successful Americans Bill" was never designed to pass.

    They desingned the bill to fail so the Democrats could get headlines from their Liberal friends in the in the Liberal Media that says "Republicans Block Obama's Jobs Bill"

    In reality, this bill was so bad, that it was voted DOWN by both parties...but for some reason...the Republicans get the blame?

    October 12, 2011 at 4:27 pm |
  153. Douglas from New Hampshire

    As you pointed out, it takes 60 votes to pass anything through the Senate. The Democrats have never seated 60 memebers since President Obama was elected.

    So how 'bout you walk back that snark about the "Democrat controlled Senate" failiing to pass the President's jobs bill? Your mock oversight of the
    Republican obstructionism is unbecoming.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:27 pm |
  154. Eric Hatch (Loveland OH)

    It means Obama can't govern - and neither can anyone else. The current Senate filibuster rules have created a tyranny of the minority. But there have actually been NO filibusters. Only the threat of them. I suggest the Dems call the Republicans' bluff and let them talk themselves hoarse.

    Obama should withdraw from the race and go golfing. Let Hilary try again in 2012.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:28 pm |
  155. FTM Northeastern PA

    It means that Hillary Clinton needs to put on her "running shoes"!

    October 12, 2011 at 4:28 pm |
  156. Don Mandelkorn

    Why do you say "dem-controlled" when it is not for bills requiring a 60 vote supermajority on almost everything now? Also, I think you got it wrong on senators dodging the President in the upcoming election. It is the President who should dodge some of these senators – CNN's own polling shows congress having a much lower approval rating than President Obama.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:28 pm |
  157. Differ in Maryland

    It means that the Republicans will win the White House in 2012 because Americans are too stupid to realize that all members of Congress only care about one thing. Getting re-elected. If we as a Nation were smart, we would throw every single Congress person OUT OF OFFICE!!! They all stink! If it wasnt so serious it would be laughable.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:29 pm |
  158. Pete from Milton

    Wake up, Jack, the Democrats do NOT "control the Senate. The Dems have a slight majority, but the Republicans control the Senate by virtue of their power to filibuster any bill they don't like. So the real question is "what does it mean when Obama can't get a bill past the Republicans?'. Answer – it means the Republicans are continuing to do exactly what they've been doing ever since Obama's inauguration – block every thing Obama tries to do, make destroying Obama the GOP's first and only priority, and let the economic collapse continue while blaming.....guess who.....Obama! Wake up!

    October 12, 2011 at 4:29 pm |
  159. Tim

    Until they erase the deficit they should not spend any more money. There are plenty of jobs available, but people are too lazy to take them. Of course...why would anybody get a job when they can get money from the government for doing nothing?

    October 12, 2011 at 4:29 pm |
  160. Floyd from Ilinois

    It means that Republicans not only are now refusing to do their jobs, they are determined that no one else shall do their jobs, either.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:29 pm |
  161. Mac

    This does not only bad for President Obama it looks bad for the whole Democratic party. With the Republican party ripping itself apart and at each others throats. The U.S. needs to quit the bipartisan act and realize they're only harming themselves by following such processes.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:29 pm |
  162. LMC

    It means more Republican obstructionism. They don't care about Americans hurting, they only care about their agendas and getting rid of President Obama. They should all be ashamed, but I know they could care less.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:29 pm |
  163. Bee Little

    Racism pure and simple, the two Democratic senators just like several in congress have never wanted this Black Man to be president, the real Hate started the minute he took office. Let's call a spade a spade, Like the republicans said, they never wanted him to be successful, secretly many Democrats felt the same way, Oh they don't want Cain either, they are just letting him think He can actually win!

    October 12, 2011 at 4:29 pm |
  164. Pete/Ark

    It means that ... well, I guess it has as much meaning as anything else this Congress doesn't do...complete nonpartisan ineffectual paralysis. They have all forgotten the old maxim "lead,follow,or get the hell out of the way-but do SOMETHING !".

    October 12, 2011 at 4:30 pm |
  165. Henry Miller, Cary, NC

    It means that Obama is so complete a failure, so out of touch with America, that even his own party is rejecting his agenda.

    To all appearances, Obama is driven by vindictive hatred for private wealth and distrust for the ability of individuals to make their own decisions. Little could be more un-American.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:30 pm |
  166. iprts in San Francisco

    Senate Democrats are just being selfish, only thinking of their own reelection, and their selfishness is emphasized by the prolonged suffering caused to hard working families currently without employment as a result of their lack of cooperation with the President.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:30 pm |
  167. MARK, OKLAHOMA CITY

    Jack, it means that this president has reached a point where he is now just taking up space in the oval office. He needs to retire and go on the speaking circuit in 2013 where he can at least make some REAL money.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:30 pm |
  168. Natalie

    Gee let me think....it means not one GOP'er voted for it. It means they want to fulfill their day-one wish to see Obama fail. It means they could give a damn about us people in the middle class. It means we should cut their pay and stop their benefits immediately. btw...."Democrate-controlled Senate" is pretty meaningless given the 60 vote joke.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:30 pm |
  169. Phil Dvorak Treasure Island FL

    This has been a problem for the President since day one even when he controlled both houses. We have not had a real budget in 2 years and it took the death of Senator Kennedy to get the health care bill passed. The democrates are unwilling to work across the asile and in many cases are not willing to work with each other. Leadership is the problem and no one in either party is showing they have the ability to lead. As much as democrates hate President Bush he was willing to negotiate with them on spending to ensure the things he wanted done got done. Of course many of the stunts that the Republicans are pulling now the Democrates started in 2006.
    Dont expect things to change in 2012 because as much as people hate Congress they usually like their Representative.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:30 pm |
  170. AmesIA

    A storm is brewing – FINALLY. The slumbering giant in the middle is finally waking up – perhaps too late. If Obama had lead this charge from the start he could have energized all but the fringe 25% on the right. For 30 years the GOP has proposed as self evident a myth that if you make the rich, richer enough trickles down to benefit everyone. In a failed attempt at appeasement Obama has folded to their every demand and gotten NOTHING in return. He supports 100% for what the NRA wants – and the leader of the NRA calls him a fascist trickster plotting to take away their guns. Boehner says he got 98% of what he wanted and then blames the administration for all that is going poorly.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:31 pm |
  171. David Beckett

    Jack, have we forgotten our simple math? There are 51 Democratic Senators and two Independents that caucus with them. 47 Senators are Republican. The insinuation in your question implies that Obama is weak because the Senate is controlled by Democrats. Let's face it, when you need 60 votes to pass a measure all it takes to defeat it is for the 47 Republicans to stick together and vote no. The bill is dead as a doornail, out like a light. And haven't heard anyone yet claim that Obama controls the Republicans!

    October 12, 2011 at 4:31 pm |
  172. Jeffrey Deckelnick

    I'm sorry Jack, but the constitution says that a bill requires 50 + 1 votes to pass the senate. Not 60. It is only 60 because the GOP has filibustered everything.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:31 pm |
  173. the_dude

    It means the politicians have no interest whatsoever in resolving any issues that face middle-class America.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:31 pm |
  174. Darryl from Vancouver, Canada

    It's plain and simple Jack. It means the political games continue and the American people suffer. Congress don't care if people can't afford to eat or heat their homes, they just want Obama out and they'll do anything to make it happen. And why not, they can afford to suck back pina coladas with their surf & turf.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:32 pm |
  175. Joe

    Why is this argument framed around Obama? How about 'What does it mean that Republicans block a much needed jobs bill when millions of americans are out of work"?

    October 12, 2011 at 4:32 pm |
  176. Wayne Phillips

    It means that the GOP strategy is obvious. Do what every they can to hold the economy down until election day. Obama said himself, they can choose party or they can choose country. They chose party.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:32 pm |
  177. Dave from Illinois

    This is just another example of Congress not following the will of the people. That we must be doing things together for the greater good of the country. This is the beef that Occupy Wall Street has with wall street and Congress. The American working stiff is getting stiffed. With no wage increases and only tax increases; the middle class are becoming the new poor. This is why the report on the number of people receiving government assistance is so high besides the number of baby boomers retiring. The masses are getting tired of Congresses inability to get anything done. Fed up with government in Illinois.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:32 pm |
  178. Mark

    Both parties are responsible and the President needs to lead, not play politics and campaign. I'm most disappointed in his lack of leadership skills. It's OK to go public with issues but it's always the behind the scenes work that counts. Congress hasn't changed, this President doesn't know how to work with it. He will not be getting my vote again.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:32 pm |
  179. Don

    What it means is that there were 2 democrats that served their own self interest instead of the public interest.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:32 pm |
  180. Lou in Aridzona

    Republican "backers" have paid to limit Obama to one term as POTUS. They are getting what they paid for.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:33 pm |
  181. Carol

    God himself couldn't get a bill through this Congress. This is why Occupy Wall Street is growing. Congress will not listen to the people. Obama is not to blame for the mess this economy and the world economy is in. I am totally discusted with the Senate and the House.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:33 pm |
  182. Henry in Maryland

    Your question begins with a false premise. The Senate is not "Democrat-controlled." Republicans decided before Obama took the oath of office that their game plan was to make Obama fail, no matter the cost to the Nation. As part of this strategy, they decided to filibuster virtually everything Obama favored, even if the idea was originally suggested and urged by Republicans. Since January 20, 2009, there have never been 60 self-identified Democratic Senators. There have been been only a few weeks when there were 60 Senators who caucused with the Democrats and who were not out on extended disability. Thanks to the GOP's unprecedented abuse of the filibuster, the Senate may have a Democratic majority (including independent allies), but it is not and has not been "Democrat-controlled."

    October 12, 2011 at 4:33 pm |
  183. Mary Pupko

    It is not the President's job to pass a bill in the Senate, it is the Senators job. And 3/4th's of Congress seems to be afraid to work, to do their jobs. It appears to me that it starting to look like the ultimate "elite welfare" system I have ever seen government. The Congress receives Income without working. This Congress has stalled on so many important things, it's mind boggling.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:33 pm |
  184. Jim

    An ivory tower, never really employed president combined with a Senate and House membership that collectively couldn't find their rear end with a roadmap, a searchlight, and the aid of a proctologist is not exactly a recipe for success.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:33 pm |
  185. Mark

    "What does it mean for President Obama that he can't even get the Democrat-controlled Senate to pass his jobs bill?"

    It means we are a country divided. With a financial disaster looming in our future and social programs needing an overhaul to be sustainable down the road, we have political party's picking sides and no one wants to agree to disagree and go down that middle road to move the country forward.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:34 pm |
  186. AB

    Jack, all this means is this: President Obama's job bill had a temporary setback that will be corrected. Obama will simply revise and resumit his jobs bill to the Senate for a vote. The Senators better understand this: If Obama goes down in 2012, they will go down with him!! This applies to both Democrats, Republicans and Independents as well. The political stakes are high for everyone. I can confidently say that Obama's job bill will pass the House and Senate and will be signed into law by the President.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:35 pm |
  187. Ron W Toronto

    What does it mean that the Senate did not pass President Obama's Jobs Bill? In these cases it means what it always means, politicians who only care about getting elected in the next election, they couldn't care less about the country. The reality is no matter who is elected President in 2012 the US will continue to remain terribly divided and for the foreseeable future don't look for any meaningful improvement in the economy. I feel sorry for the American people.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:35 pm |
  188. Jperales

    It means absolutely nothing.
    The people no longer have representatives that are doing what's good for Americans.
    There is an unknown agenda that will dilapidate this country in the end. Modernism has everything to do with a jobless America.
    The government faults of the past are effecting the present in a logarithmic fashion.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:35 pm |
  189. brooker in san diego

    After Obama touted his plan in the speech I recall many Republicans saying there is common ground. But, approving the plan would mean actually trying to make a difference in the unemployment picture for the vast majority of Americans in order to protect the top 1% of the wealthy, which the Republicans just will not do.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:35 pm |
  190. Jack - Lancaster, Ohio

    Mr. Cafferty:

    This is agonizing ! If it it possible to time travel, it is possible for multiple realities. The reality is that what folks are doing inside the beltway is a time travel away from the reality of the taxpayer. We no longer care what it means in Washington or of the current CDO (chief democratic officer), because we got troubles, we got trouble right here in River City USA and it ain't the Music Man !

    October 12, 2011 at 4:36 pm |
  191. J R from Idaho

    It means it's time to get some new people voted in. This Congress, and the GOP in particular, are stagnating any forward movement for the sake of their "party". We desperately need people with a sense of co-operation to replace these treacherous dogs who will watch our country fail for the sake of their own political ideology ...

    I give kudos to President Obama for continuing to try and get things moving in the face of such childish adversity ...

    I continually wonder how long it's going to be, before someone gets seriously angry and shoots someone ...

    October 12, 2011 at 4:36 pm |
  192. Think big in CA

    Why are so many people finding Fault with just the 2 democrats who voted against it. There are 40+ republicans also and they are the problem. What republicans are saying is that we don't care about the people making less than $1M. And people still vote for them. Go figure :)

    October 12, 2011 at 4:37 pm |
  193. Bernie of Lowell.

    The Congress just made jobs in the USA an "entitlement" by passing the so-called "free trade" agreements. This nonsense will continue until all of our jobs are outsourced to cheaper foreign slave labor markets. Everything we buy will soon be made abroad. The once great manufacturing prowess we had has been thrown overboard. It will take us another 20 to 25 years – i f ever – to develop a workforce that relies entirely upon college-educated service workers. All those people incapable of acquiring a college degree will enter the bread lines or go as stowaways on those empty ships returning to China and India.

    No "stimulus" will get past "square 1" before the money ends up in some foreign bank account – and our federal deficit will continue to burgeon.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:37 pm |
  194. Cyrano

    It means people will continue to struggle in a vicious cycle of a stagnate economy that leads to long-term unemployment. And, if the Republicans somehow put a George W. Bush type of Republican in the White House and Republicans pick up more Congressional seats, we'll see the second Great Depression in this country... a greater depression than the first one. And, what economic engine is going to pull us out of that one? Are we going to manufacture WWIII? Unfortunately, there are a ton of obstructionists in the Republican party who are members of Congress and who would rather appease their lobbyists than the people who voted them in for the purpose of improving the country as a whole. Corporate hoarding of profits is the thanks the American people get. Not jobs! And the wheels keep spinning until a revolution occurs.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:38 pm |
  195. Annie, Atlanta

    He wouldn't have been able to, even if some of the Democrats aren't wholly owned. Don't you know that a majority isn't enough these days. You need 60 votes to get anything through the Senate now. And even if it did pass the Senate, can you see Boehner the cryer or Cantor the whiner buying into this? The GOP wants the President to fail, even if it means destroying the rest of us with him. I never thought I'd see anything like this in my life. Americans willing to destroy us in order to win.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:38 pm |
  196. Fed up in Illinois

    Jack, the inability of Congress to do anything productive (add,change modify) this bill is just another reason all of them should be turned out. To say the bill is "DOA" with out offering alternatives and options only leaves the Republicans proving that they are the "party of 'no' ". I think it is time that we have term limits on the whole lot!

    October 12, 2011 at 4:38 pm |
  197. Dagny

    It is pretty obvious, isn't it?
    It means that, left or right, all these spoiled brats care about is their own re-election!
    The addiction to power is clearly much stronger than any sense of service any of them may at one point have had.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:38 pm |
  198. JeffinIL

    It means the Democrats hold him in the same high regard as they held Jimmy Carter.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:39 pm |
  199. RickFromDetroit

    It means it is time for another President Obama compromise. The compromise will be to drop the millionaire sur-tax and increase the SSA Payroll Tax Deduction Holiday so we can have another GOP Sellout like we did with the debt ceiling debate several months ago when Speaker of the House John Boehner got 98% of what he wanted. Pres. Obama had his chance for the jobs bill during the debt ceiling debate and he "BLEW IT"

    October 12, 2011 at 4:39 pm |
  200. Kevin

    It simply means that our government is broken. Our so-called public servants are fighting a war for power. Power that is gained from the desires of mis-informed voters and the influence of greedy corporations. No one is truly interested in making the sacrifices required to rebuild our nation. It will have to crumble into ruin before it can be reborn in another form.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:39 pm |
  201. Jeanne

    Sounds like situation normal to me. It's a wonder ANYthing gets done in Washington. What do you expect from a broken government where politicians are more interested in political postering than doing things that might actually benefit the country?

    October 12, 2011 at 4:40 pm |
  202. Barney3415

    This confirms that we are governed by incompetent elected officials who do not understand their purpose. These senators and representatives have no understanding of their job description or how to govern.

    One party rule has never produced a good result. We must have two party rule resulting from negotiations considering what is best for the prosperity of the people. The far right and the far left are both useless factions of our government.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:40 pm |
  203. Doan

    If "job creators" did not pay tax then "job creators" did not create jobs but create slavery in the modern world.
    If "job creators" did pay tax less than anyone did then "job creators" did not want to pay tax.
    Did not want to pay tax and Did not pay tax were motive and deed.
    Job creators was a shield to hide behind it, wasn't it.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:40 pm |
  204. Clarence Schroeder

    The simple answer for not passing the jobs bill is because the wealthy don't want a tax increase. Even members of congress as they all make too much and don't want to pay an increase. The old saying, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. In the Great Depression taxes were raised in 1932/33 on the top bracket of earners from 25% to 63% and stayed there or higher for the next 30 years, first to fight the Great Depression, then WWII expenses, the Korean War, and the View Nam War Texes were then lowered on the top earners to 50% by President Reagan due to years of peace and continued to be reduced through the present time. The Bush administration started two wars and lowered taxes even more, in spite of the cost of the actions. The Federal Government needs more revenue but ghe GOP will fight all the way. The GOP doesn't care about the average American, just the Rich.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:41 pm |
  205. Forrest - Bastrop,LA

    "...,Hit the road Jack, and don't you come back...."

    October 12, 2011 at 4:41 pm |
  206. J Brian in Petaluma CA

    This just in, Republicans are planning to filibuster any spending bill allowing White House to give out Halloween candy. Eric Cantor will also sponsor a spending cut bill to cancel traditional pardon of the Thanksgiving turkey and sell it to maintain Koch subsidies.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:41 pm |
  207. John K. Atchley

    This vote confirms that the Republicans care about only three things.

    One is smashing Obama, totally destroying and discrediting him regardless of whatever damage it may cause to the reputation and welfare of the United States of America, and regarldess of whether it means flipping 180 degrees on things they may have supported in the past.

    The second is protecting the ultra-rich from having to pay a single penny in additional taxes even though income inequality in the U.S. is greater than it has been since 1913 when they began keeping records, the middle class is being destroyed, and our social contract is being ripped apart.

    The third is to starve government to the point that the only thing our taxes will pay for is the defense budget, more Republican wars, and ever expanding prison populations to provide slave labor for Republican corporations, even if it means closing public schools and libraries, and forcing millions more to go without health insurance, while the U.S. falls further and further behing the rest of the world in education and health.

    The Republican Party is our domestic Taliban, full of fundamentalist, intolerant, economically illiterate fanatics. Yet I am so disgusted with the entire bankrupt political process that, even though I am a lifetime Democrat, I am thinking about voting Republican in 2012 just so that these people will be forced to be responsible for what happens to our country and will have no one else to blame and scapegoat. I would love to see them fail miserably. At least then they might shut up and have just a tiny bit of humility.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:41 pm |
  208. Ceemak. La.

    You all need to tell it like it is.......the Repubs are fillibustering every bill that comes down the pike.......they do not want this president, to have any legislative success at all......and the Dems who are facing re-election next year have absolutely NO guts......and the rest of us poor slobs just wait for the Train wreck......

    October 12, 2011 at 4:41 pm |
  209. Warren S.A.

    Congress had better look out of their window and realize the protest is of their incompetence and dissregard of unemployed and disenfranchised Americans. If they spent as much energy in working with the President instead of against him and the Country, we would be better off!

    October 12, 2011 at 4:42 pm |
  210. Clint from Atlanta

    It shows how out of touch congress, especially republicans are with what is going on in this country. People want jobs! They don't care if they are government jobs or in the private sector. A JOB is a JOB. When the private sector isn't providing them, it is the government's job to create them, even if it's hiring people to dig a ditch, then paying them to fill it back up. a JOB is A JOB!

    October 12, 2011 at 4:42 pm |
  211. Joe

    The failure to pass this bill means that the Senate actually got it right. This bill was nothing more than a last ditch effort in Obama's reelection campagin. He is a failed president.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:42 pm |
  212. Scott-PA

    Well 96% of democrats voted for it. Thats pretty strong support. Considering that public polls show huge support for the legislation, it is hard to see how this is anything but good news for Obama.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:42 pm |
  213. Jack Be Humble

    It means that, for now, Grover Norquist has more control over Congress than President Obama. But that is not really a surprise.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:43 pm |
  214. Paul Lee

    Why does the defeat of Obama's job bill have to be solely a referendum on Obama? Does nobody consider the possibility that the jobs bill isn't a good idea? Most of the people blaming the Republicans don't even know what's in this jobs bill, they just know that Obama has told them it's the only solution.

    So what does this all mean? It means that the Obama jobs bill was a bad idea and the day of the Democrats blindly following their Messiah are over.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:43 pm |
  215. Pam

    Jack, you can call a turkey a swan, but it's still a turkey. This bill was not a jobs bill as advertised. It was a stimulus lite bill, which needed to be defeated. The Dems in the Senate got together and handed Obama a defeat that gave them something to campaign on, but did not make voters angry by adding to the debt and raising taxes that would further damage the weak economy. I'm beginning to believe they aren't as dumb as I thought.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:43 pm |
  216. Susan NJ

    It means that spending money isin't the entire answer. Most of our production now goes to China. Most of our jobs go to slaver China. It is time to return our production to the US and if spending is necessary then spend to help Americans buy made in America not made in China.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:44 pm |
  217. kathy from peoria az

    What it means is that the only 2 Democratic senators Nelson from Nebraska and Tester from Montana voted no and are up for re-election and and we all know the Republicans don't give a hoot about the middle class so they will always vote no. They only care about seeing President Obama fail. Does anybody really get this and if they don't they must be Republican!

    October 12, 2011 at 4:44 pm |
  218. Laura Turner

    They need 60 votes to pass this bill Jack . . . just because 2 Dems from Conservative states (who are really Republicans in disguise) didn't vote for it means nothing. Make no mistake, it is the Republicans blocking passage of this bill.

    As for Dems avoiding Obama in their re-election bids, you are projecting something out into the future that has no meaning at this point in time. My guess would be those "blue-dog" Dems are the only ones who would consider such a thing. They need to realize that Obama is much more popular than Congress.
    Athens, TN

    October 12, 2011 at 4:45 pm |
  219. gozar

    President Obama couldn't get anything done when he owned the House and Senate for two years. The message is that President Obama is so far left of this country that even the Democrats have a strong disliking for his policies.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:45 pm |
  220. Clarence Schroeder

    Please change the number of years the the taxes were above 60% from 30 years to 50 years.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:46 pm |
  221. Mike Texoma

    Come on, Jack. These guys use the block vote as a blind. Sixty votes only works if they vote as a block. Got to get them out from behind the blind by naming names, Democrats and Republicans – publicly. Make it personal. Shine the light. Don't let individuals trench and back fill and lie behind the log. If you let them block up, you become complicit in the present dysfunction. But if you remove the blind, if you name names, there is no comfort in the block. Then the people can make informed and effective decisions next November. CNN can help the people by first breaking down the blind, and then fact-checking answers and explanations, so that the fakers get exposed. How about it, Jack? Are you brave enough to do the job?

    October 12, 2011 at 4:47 pm |
  222. Greg Morgan

    Your premise is wrong. The Senate is not controlled by the Democrats. 40% is all that is required to stop the Senate from accomplishing anything, so the Republicans control the Senate. An effective jobs bill is the last thing they want; they will block anything that would improve the economy, because a failing economy is their only hope for success in the 2012 elections.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:47 pm |
  223. Runner

    Obama is trying his best to get his job done. He's has my vote in 2012. However, I'm going to be careful which candidates i vote for when he or she is running for the house or senate in 2012 due to all the political grid lock..

    October 12, 2011 at 4:47 pm |
  224. Dave in Ohio

    It does not say anything about Obama. It speaks volumes about the dysfunction of our legislature. If Obama were to propose that we honor our children, the republicans would vote against it. I am disgusted. We need problem solvers not career politicos. Obama is the only adult in the room.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:47 pm |
  225. Todd in Raleigh

    It means the parliamentary rules are so out of whack that what we have cannot be considered a real democracy in either house of congress. As long as the de facto 60-vote cloture requirement exists, very little legislation can get through the Senate if it even has the appearance of benefiting the Democratic party or President Obama. This situation will only get worse in the future, as the amount of Democratic senators up for reelection strongly outnumbers the amount of Republican senators.

    What we have today is almost exactly like the 18th century Polish-Lithuanian legislature, where one legislator could block any piece of legislation with what was called a "liberum veto." In theory, this would create better legislation since all members had to agree on bills. In practice, however, foreign governments bribed individual members to block any legislation that was remotely controversial or had any likelihood of creating conflict. Substitute corporations and special interest groups for foreign governments, and the situation today is starkly similar in congress.

    Basically, the rules in the Senate are horribly broken and should be rewritten, as they are blatantly against the spirit if not the letter of the constitution. At the very least, Sens. Nelson and Tester should be stripped of all committee assignments and forced to sit at the rear of the Senate as an example to those who would put personal interest above their party.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:47 pm |
  226. pamela mox

    Here we go again! Republicans only believe in obstruction, along with a couple of an idiot Democrats. Don't you know by know by now that
    Republicans don't care about the middle class. All they care about is their contributors – they should all be thrown out of office. I thought this was a government for the people. These polititians need to remember who they are there to represent.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:47 pm |
  227. barbara in nc

    They voted no on our jobs this year - we'll vote no on their jobs next year.

    Fair enough?

    October 12, 2011 at 4:48 pm |
  228. Barbara Gettman

    What this means to me is that Obama's "Dog and Pony Show" is losing it zip! People across the country are worn out by the "blame game" and the same tired old fixes that have a proven track record of failure. If Washington was serious about correcting the dangerous fix we currently find ourselves in they could begin by canning the rhetoric and addressing a tax code that is so complex, burdensome and full of loopholes ii takes several large wheeled hand trucks to move the hundreds of books containing it from one location to another. But, then again, if they actually did that the politicians would lose the millions of dollars all those special interests poured into their pockets to make sure their "buddies" get re-elected and that just wouldn't be right!

    October 12, 2011 at 4:49 pm |
  229. Clephas

    I think it is fairly simple... Obama himself, despite the fact that he does attempt to promote compromise, has been a polarizing figure from the beginning. Not only that, if he goes out playing hardball for even a short time, its a knee-jerk reaction for Republicans to stand up and denounce him, as usual. With this bill, he's been doing his best to corner House and Senate Republicans while offering them things that they would normally support, but now that knee-jerk 'anti-Obama' impulse almost completely controls their reactions to him. Of course, 'conservative' Democrats also have a tendency to react this way, as they have to be desperate to protect themselves from being connected with what they probably see as 'excessively liberal policies' merely because it comes from him. With something he's made a point of using as a weapon against those who oppose him, there was little chance that it wouldn't end up this way.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:49 pm |
  230. Stephen S

    This has everything to do with obama. Let's review his record thus far. ECONOMY. Failed. JOBs: Failed, Running America: Failed, MORALS: Failed, DEBT: Failed. HealthCare: Faild, The list is long and the grades speak loudly about obama and all DEMS.....

    October 12, 2011 at 4:49 pm |
  231. Shawn

    What this country desperately needs is to get money out of politics. All of our problems stem from the fact that politicians need money to run for public office and they have to look out for the best interests of their donors and what will get them reelected, rather than what is best for the country. Until we eliminate campaign financing altogether, we will continue to suffer, while politicians look out for the interests of donors that can now spend unlimited amounts of money. I have no doubt that the founding fathers of this country would be sick at the thought of what our country has become. This is no longer a democracy, but an oligarchy and a government for the wealthy elite.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:49 pm |
  232. Joe, Louisville, KY

    Jack
    This bill ws set up to fail so Obama can campaign on a Do Nothing Congress ticket. His alternative would be to campaign on his record which would not be a good idea!

    October 12, 2011 at 4:50 pm |
  233. Kitty

    It means that more college students will have no jobs when they graduate, it means the middle class will die faster, and it means if a republicans win 2012 I am visiting the relatives in wales and ireland for four years.

    It also means money can buy you anything.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:50 pm |
  234. John in Fairbanks, AK

    Jack I have said this several times already...Congress does not care nor do they represent the people of this country. We need to surround congress literally and fire all them, escort them out of the building...then we will elect NEW peoplle to take their place...none of them can run again. I know you don't find this interesting enough to read on air but this is what needs to happen. FIRE them and cancel their pensions... Let them join the ranks of unemployed.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:50 pm |
  235. perry jones

    it is very simple this bill is a bad bill for all and the elected Know that a yes on a all or none is bad for their relection

    regards perry jones council bluffs ia

    October 12, 2011 at 4:51 pm |
  236. Charlie

    This is not a Jobs bill, it is a tax and spend bill.A real jobs bill would entice businesses to relocate to this country and would create a favorable environment where businesses would not move operations off shore

    October 12, 2011 at 4:52 pm |
  237. Gerard Luimes

    Firstly ,Mr.Cafferty,let's establish that "Mr." Obama is still the president and should be referred to as such by all of us who call ourselves civilised. Secondly what ever may happen in 2012 may not be what the country and the people really need,but what the country, through all assenine political plays, deserves. Just keep hoping...........

    October 12, 2011 at 4:52 pm |
  238. Dave, Chicago

    You forgot to mention the 2 or 3 Democrats who actually said they'd vote for cloture but would vote against the bill at the end of the day. Nobody wants to pass Obama's "jobs bill" as it's really a tax increase, union support bill with poison pills for both Democrats and Republicans who vote for it. How many other Democrats went home breathing a sigh of relief that they wouldn't actually have to vote for it or break ranks to vote against it?

    October 12, 2011 at 4:53 pm |
  239. NYCMovieFan

    New York, NY
    Sounds like the Republicans are finished. We will not forget how they chose to protect their billionaire backers during this Bush-created recession. Next November, we will vote ALL Republicans out of office, and work to stop their special benefits regarding Social Security and free healthcare for life. The first spending cuts we need to make are to end the freeloading of retired Congress and their staffers. Enough is enough.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:54 pm |
  240. Michael Peterson, Roselle Park, NJ

    The democrats didn't vote against the jobs bill. If a simple majority in the senate were all that was needed, they would have passed it. For more than 200 years, the senate passed legislation with a simple majority. Although the filibuster is not in the constitution and it has never been abused the way the current minority abuses it. Should they gain the majority, they will scream unfair and try to get rid of the filibuster the same as they did when they had the majority. The republicans are so obsessed with seeing Obama fail in order to give them a shot at the White House that they are willing to bring the country to its knees to achieve that goal. That is what they call patriotism. In this economy, with people struggling like no other time in my 63 years, I think the party of no's tactics will eventually backfire on them. They may be unwittingly strengthening Obama's hand. The smartest thing the democrats can do is to continue to bring popular policies and bills to a vote and force the republicans to vote no. Then they will have their campaign issue. It still astounds me that people have forgotten that is was republican policies and lack of regulation that created this economic collapse and now their solution is to do more of the same. I keep hoping people will wake up but 63 years of living in America tells me otherwise

    October 12, 2011 at 4:54 pm |
  241. Dan Los Angeles CA.

    Jack it means nothing because the President knew the bill was never going to pass the senate especially if you need 60 votes to get almost anything passed. This was a nothing more than a political maneuver in order to corner the do nothing republicans whose only intent is to hurt the economy so President Obama would not be reelected. The republicans have shown their intentions since the beginning of this administration so I hope that the American people come to realize what the republicans are doing.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:54 pm |
  242. Carlos

    It means that once again Republicans have managed to direct the narrative and have succeeded at swaying those who have no convictions and whose views are based on popular opinion, such as yourself.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:54 pm |
  243. Donaldo in ATL

    Obama has no clout with some in his party. He is a community organizer, not a leader or horse trader. Obviously, he lacks the fundamental skills to get something done, he talks well, but simply lacks political savvy an skills. He just is not skilled enough to get things done, I think people see this, obviously the Reps see it and use it against him.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:54 pm |
  244. Dale in MA

    It means that most, if not all, elected officials of both parties are corporate prostitutes. Get the corporate money out of elections, the OWS issue will go away and after just a couple of election cycles, the government will start to govern again and jobs will happen and the economy and American dream will rebound!

    October 12, 2011 at 4:54 pm |
  245. JD

    The so-called "Jobs Bill" was just another Spending Bill. Haven't we seen enough of those? All those are good for is ballooning the debt and growing the monstrous federal bureaucracy. How many bridges to nowhere do we need? How many new airport terminals that don't serve passengers do we really need? Ease the corporate tax rate, reduce government regulations...see the economy improve. Canada did just that and their economic growth is dwarfing ours now.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:55 pm |
  246. Terry Wells -Hoosier Hillbilly-IN

    NO WORRIES! Mr. Sorros will make it right
    It was just another ploy against the 'middleclass anyway'
    There's no reality in politics just hype!
    Ask any-of-them.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:55 pm |
  247. ekofnh

    It shows the need for elected officials who do the "right thing" rather than focus on their own self interest or interest of their campaign contributors. Until we eliminate corporate campaign contributions we won't get people who run because they have the interest of the citizens as their primary interest.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:56 pm |
  248. Daniel Correa in McKinney, TX

    It means that Obama's solution to the problem did not address the problem appropriately: specifically, why implement a surcharge tax when the tax problem can be resolved by closing the loopholes? Food for thought: Obama could have offered to strip the wealthy of tax breaks, such as charitable donations. The reason politicians don't end these breaks is because those types of tax breaks act as government subsidies: the rich (and those who can afford to donate) pay for programs the government would otherwise try to shoulder. The Senate realized that Obama was not trying to get the "rich" to pay their fair share; rather, the Senate realized that Obama's plan was retrograde.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:56 pm |
  249. Matt - Somerville, MA

    How is a bill garnering a 51-49 majority vote to bring it to discussion a failure?

    If the vote had been along party lines, it still would have secured a majority, and not proceeded to debate.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:57 pm |
  250. Katty OR

    It means his dems have a problem with Obama's thinking and he should take heed and move on.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:57 pm |
  251. jean2009

    What it means is we need more people picketing on Wall Street...congress has been bought and paid for by the 1%.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:57 pm |
  252. Tiny Tim

    let me just say..........Most of us didnt expect it to pass. We never had our hopes up!!
    We have no hopes for this presidency that has divided its people with behind closed doors tractics. So much for this liars transparency.......

    If we cannot work together we can sure go down together........

    October 12, 2011 at 4:57 pm |
  253. Dale in MA

    I also believe in term limits, laws that are all inclusive not tailored to special interests and the elimination of the professional politician. This job for life and fully paid retirement and health benefits must be stopped.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:58 pm |
  254. Hope

    I am ashamed at the Democrats in the House & Senate. You all are not looking out for the American people and what is needed to accomplish severe policies for fixing the economy, create jobs, and concern with what American;s can hope to look forward to. Don't blame President Obama for your own insecurities for what's going on in this country. Iv'e come to the conclusion that maybe there should be a change. We don't need inept individuals in both houses. What! say you?

    October 12, 2011 at 4:58 pm |
  255. Pravaa

    When 60 votes are needed for everything and filibuster is the name of the game everyday, then it means this country is doomed irrespective of who wins in 2012.

    October 12, 2011 at 4:58 pm |