These taxpayers, our grandchildren and great-grandchildren, haven't been born yet.

Another great argument for a hefty estate tax.

Doesn't anyone else find it disingenuous that all of a sudden the Repugs are concerned about deficit spending and its effects on future generations?

Seems like the rampant deficit spending to first destroy and now rebuild the infrastructure in Iraq is AOK; but when we want to deficit spend to invest in our own infrastructure its unacceptable.

What hypocritical morons. Hopefully, the awareness/insight of the 69% of people that won't call themselves a Republican will continue to expand and the 'flat earth society' will fade of forever into the sunset so we can truly have a new morning in America.

then maybe far-right lawmakers like Fallin should come up with some new talking points.

why, when except for the approximately 1% of Murkins who have read and understand history, the talking points they have now will be fine and functional for the foreseeable future.

Their talking points only need to be altered or changed when they are not repeated as truth by everybody the lumpen-pukes and loon-tards listen to...

None of the Ditto-heads ever listen to anything critical of their head Ditto...

But wait.... it's going to get even worse.

With more and more states approving same-sex marriage, the institution of the family will collapse. People will suddenly turn gay because they can now get married, the birthrate will fall and there will be fewer and fewer children, leaving a shrinking population, and therefore even FEWER potential future taxpayers to shoulder this burden!

Does this mean my sperm should be able to vote?

Does this mean my sperm should be able to vote?

We're actually more concerned about the rights of your unborn great-grandson's sperm.

The argument is essentially correct. Pigs don't just fly in the sky above us and poop money down to buy universal health care. Deficits are deficits, and since the money must come from somewhere it comes from future generations.
That does not, of course, mean that we shouldn't go ahead and do it anyway for a whole host of good reasons. Nor does it mean that conservatives making the argument aren't being entirely opportunistic given recent history. But liberals are being just as opportunistic when they dismiss it out of hand - the attitude that there's a free lunch is a lot more dick cheney than barack obama.

We still do have taxation without representation in the US. The District of Columbia has no representation, but they still pay federal taxes. Even worse, they can't even run their own city without interference from Congress.

i think we can safely say that as long as the deficit is necessary for killin' a bunch of people -- though certainly not the "unborn," hypothetical or zygotical -- then it is a traditional conservative American value.

What a bunch of maroons...

Allow me---for a moment or three---to put these "tens of thousands of teabaggers" into perspective.

There are, at last count, well over three hundred million Americans. If we view all Americans as being every last piece of furniture in your home, those teabaggers are the equivalent of a kitchen wastebasket and its contents.

Can we just take out the trash now, please?

This time, I have to slightly take issue with Steve. Rep. Fallin's "taxation without representation" argument is precisely one of the arguments that I've been making for the last couple of decades. I vote for Dems, in part, because I know that they're more likely seek balanced budgets and surpluses and to pay down outstanding debt. Bill Clinton proved me right.

However, Econ 101 teaches us that deficits might be necessary in times of economic contraction. Of course, financing a revolutionary war or a world war against Nazis seem like good reasons to run deficits too. I have no complaints in these circumstances where the benefits to future generations would exceed the costs.

I just wonder where Fallin and the like were when Bush 41 and Bush 43 were running up deficits for no good reason???

Well, all those "unrepresented" future citizens can JUST VOTE AGAINST ANY TAX INCREASES when it comes their time. I thought Reagan proved that "deficits don't count" anyway. Never mind the consequences.

If these right-whingers are so worried about the effect on future generations, WHY THE HELL DID THEY SUPPORT A STUPID AND DISASTROUS WAR THAT IN ITSELF CREATED A HUGE DEFICIT (NOT TO MENTION A GENERATION OF FUTURE ENEMIES)?

Damn them all to hell. Sincerely, just damn them.

Ed

Shorter Republafoons:

"But Mom, if you don't let me have a Playstation then I won't be popular, and if I'm not popular then I won't be able to get a job and I'll be destitute for the rest of my life. So let me have a Playstation or I'm doomed!!!"

Disingenuity at its most chilish.

Fallin is making political arguments about the future and thereby also foreclosing the possibility of future generations rebutting her today. She has literally stripped our grandchildren of their First Amendment rights!

I demand a vote for myself, each of my remaining eggs, and the eggs and sperm of any theoretical children I might hypothetically have.

I figure I now get at least 100,000,000 votes.

Future taxpayers are unrepresented because they are not yet born. By the same token, future tax increases are not a burden on taxpayers because they are not yet enacted.

surely someone will make some joke about this leading to robots from the future coming back to fight against taxes, before they are even born? Oh wait. I think I just did.

Ropty... OMG that would be awesome!

These taxpayers, our grandchildren and great-grandchildren, haven't been born yet. So they are not being represented today.

To remedy this situation, I propose that the every single voting American have their vote multiplied by a million, to account for all hypothetical descendants they might have in the foreseeable future. Each person is thus a proxy for their possible descendants, thus taking care of the representation issue. In a happy coincidence, this doesn't change a damn thing.

The solution is simple: voting rights for the unborn. And the unconceived.

No, on second thought, most of them would probably vote Democratic.

Umm.....It was inconceivable and unpatriotic to raise taxes to pay for a trillion dollar illegal war effort. But now they're concerned about deficits? At least under Democratic deficits, our children and grandchildren will get an education, healthcare, and an infrastructure.

Cognitive dissonance at it's finest.

FUCK YOU GOP

What Chris said at 1:03.

"I just wonder where Fallin and the like were when Bush 41 and Bush 43 were running up deficits for no good reason???"

And for good measure, let's remember that 43 burned through a surplus. Wonder what Fallin would say if Obama did that.

1) Nice of Fallin to admit that when she does her thing as a public official, she uses no foresight and concerns herself only with her present donors, er, constituents.

See, the future generations are represented if our present politicos are doing their jobs correctly: the "greater good" includes long-term thinking.

2) Someone needs to ask Fallin how we would know how many in the future are not being represented, because some of them might be aborted, and if she is concerned the numbers of unrepresented are too large, we could just abort more. Have some sponges handy to clean up when her head explodes.

This is wrong headed thinking, because Dick Cheney has living descendents and due to their existance Deficits Don't Matter. In the Past. In the Present or In Their Future.

Fallin really should keep up and be more in with Temporal Political Calculations.

As a DC resident, this really, REALLY pisses me off. I'd be willing to bet anything that this maroon has never done anything to support DC voting rights. She's only concerned with using that term for political posturing, not with actually making sure that all current, living Americans are represented.

Also failing to realize that without this stimulus those grandchildren she's talking about may be forced to speak Chinese as our nation will have failed due to the "afraid to do anything but obstruct progress" republicans who only want to build a 'wall' around themselves to protect their holdings and the holdings of their wealthy donors.

Steve, you're taking the wrong tack here.

The wingnuts' new-found concern for intergenerational equity should be encouraged.

"The wingnuts' new-found concern for intergenerational equity should be encouraged."

Color me cynical, but my guess is that no matter how much encouragement we give them, the wingnuts will never lift a finger to help future generations.

In 2095, if half of Manhattan and most of Florida are underwater and temperatures are heading toward the levels on Venus, a lot of people may curse us for spending and taxing too little, not too much.