"Let me give you an economic theorem: deficits = deferred taxes."
That's a fine theorem, and there is much truth to it, but there is not so much truth to it that it is an economic Law.
For instance, you don't have to raise taxes to pay off deficits.
Technically, you could sell governmental assets to pay such debts (the U.S. federal government owns 1/3 of all land in the U.S., for instance).
Technically, you could lease governmental assets to pay such deficits.
Technically, you could reduce or constrain future spending in order to allow for such deficits to be paid.
Technically, you could run up the printing presses to pay such debts.
Technically, you could even default on such debts. Russia did in 1998.
Now granted, there are concerns with all of the above "solutions." I don't deny that fact. But nonetheless, those are valid *alternatives* to raising taxes to pay such debts.
And since there are alternatives to raising taxes in order to pay such debts, it does not follow that increased debts always equal increased taxes.
That's a fine theorem, and there is much truth to it, but there is not so much truth to it that it is an economic Law Hmmm... wait a sec, let me check that degree I have on the wall. Yup, it says economics right on it. I though I managed to squeeze in a few eco classes between basket weaving and film aesthetics. Yes you could sell land to pay it off, but absent the debt you would have surplus funds. Money is fungible, so we could go through the semantics but the debt represents a claim of future assets. If you pass the debt onto your kids you are placing a claim on their assets any which way you look at it. As for the printing press argument, inflation is one way a govt can tax. It's been done before and will be done again. Defaulting would cause a bank crisis in the US that would harm economic output so the tax would come in the form of a recession / depression. Quite frankly, that is the stupidest thing to suggest doing to our kids.