VIDEO - Jon Stewart on Killing of 9/11 First Responders Bill: "Did I mention that I give up?"

[Amerigo Vespucci]

Last night on "The Daily Show" Jon Stewart expressed more sadness and frustration than usual, airing a new segment simply titled "I Give Up." The subject of Stewart's aggravation was the killing of a health care bill by House Republicans that would provide almost $8 billion to first responders and relief workers now suffering chronic health problems due to their service on 9/11.

Stewart showed clips of Rep. Dave Camp (R) saying he would vote against the bill because it came with a "fundamentally flawed and job-destroying tax increase."

"Oh, I didn't know they were going to try to PAY for the bill?!" Stewart exclaimed. This led him to wonder what reprehensible tax was needed in order to help the heroic workers. Actually, the tax would prevent foreign multinational corporations from avoiding paying income tax on U.S.-earned money stored in offshore banks. To this, a shocked Stewart simply responded, "you fill my heart with sadness."

Stewart's spirits were further dampened when he learned that both Republicans and Democrats were to blame.

Even after Rep. Anthony Weiner made passionate (and loud) arguments for the bill, AND it received a hefty majority vote of 255 to 159, the bill was not passed. Why? Because Democrats used a procedure where you need a 2/3 vote to pass, which was done to prevent Republicans from attempting to amend the bill later and "embarrass them in an election year."

Stewart threw his head in his hands. "Did I mention that I give up?"

WATCH: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/05/stewart-on-killing-of-911_n_671519.html

[RandomThoughts]

1. Well they are trying to get bills passed without poison pills in every bill.

Basically some people are skipping that whole concept.

The democrats by going to 2/3 made the Republicans decide if it was more important to only pass a bill if it also made the democrats look bad, or vote against it.

At some point you have to take a stand against the Republicans poisoning everything.


Although it could be said that the Democrats should have taken the poison to help the responders, is that really correct.


Make it simpler. What if a guy said you could only have food out of a pantry if you agreed to make yourself look bad.

Even if the food would help someone would you do it? If you did, he would keep control over that pantry, so in the long term it is better to stand up to him, and note it is him that is not letting that food reach the responders.

It is not about pride, it is about not giving into poison blackmail just to be able to hurt people. If in the long run it points out that the Republicans are blocking those measures, and Jon, you should point that out, then in the long run it is better.

If you continue to allow people to shoot your members to help a few people, then you wont have enough people to help anyone later. You can stand against the poison pill concept, although it takes thoughtful people to explain that stuff, and people like Morning Joe just deceive on topics like that are how they can distort the issue. He knows he was overplaying it, and so did Mika.

So explaining that concept is what is needed.

It was a tough stand.

Not sure what Jon said, but Joe skipped explaining that the Republicans wanted to add in an unrelated part to the bill. Joe did say the Republicans were wrong also.

Neither side was willing to pass the bill on the others terms. So the question is what terms are correct.

Should the bill by itself get a 2/3 vote? Yes.
Should the bill be required to embarrass democrats to pass? No.

If you think about it, the Democrats are correct on that one.