Perhaps Krugman would like to redefine debt, because his definition does not seem to match Merriam Webster [0]:
"an amount of money that you owe to a person, bank, company, etc.
the state of owing money to someone or something"
Debt is a wonderful thing. It means you can buy an expensive good like a house or a car now and pay for it later. As opposed to saving for years and then getting the car. However, either way you pay. I fail to see how national debt is any different. Governments want money now, so they go into debt often by selling bonds.
If the debt was acquired during my generation, but the bill comes due during the next generation, then that seems to be pretty close to stealing from the next generation. Today's debt is tomorrow's taxation.
"an amount of money that you owe to a person, bank, company, etc. the state of owing money to someone or something"
Debt is a wonderful thing. It means you can buy an expensive good like a house or a car now and pay for it later. As opposed to saving for years and then getting the car. However, either way you pay. I fail to see how national debt is any different. Governments want money now, so they go into debt often by selling bonds.
If the debt was acquired during my generation, but the bill comes due during the next generation, then that seems to be pretty close to stealing from the next generation. Today's debt is tomorrow's taxation.
[0] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/debt