Sigh.... Perhaps we need to go back and define "tax". An economist would argue that anytime the govt takes "value" from the economy, it is levying a tax. It need not come in the form of traditional withholding from the paycheck or having a person file a return. So if the govt starts increasing the money supply to jack up the inflation rate, it is taking "value" away from people's cash and govt security holdings. If they lease land, then they are taking value away from the general public by assigning the land to a specific person or entity. If they sell assets, they take "public" assets and convert them to private ones, thereby removing the public interest in that land. If they default, all the holders of govt securities get stuck by having value removed from their savings, in addition to having the economy suffer through a banking crisis. All of these things take value from the general public. They are all taxes. The form does not matter, the substance does.
What value(s) have the Iraqi people "lost" due to defaulting on $115 Billion in European and Russian debt?
Just as stocks can go to zero net worth, so too can bonds and various loan notes. Thus, all debt is not always paid; hence, not all debt ends up being a future burden to the debtor(s).
Gross recipts is a function of economic growth which is a function of fiscal policy, in this instance, tax cuts.
Deficit spending can be a good thing or a bad thing but to deny that tax cuts effect deficts is economically unsound thinking.