What's wrong with this article?
"Financial repression is seen as a strong option for paying down debts accumulated by governments during the pandemic, but it isn’t without its costs and risks." https://www.wsj.com/articles/governments-may-revisit-postwar-playbook-as-they-tackle-huge-debts-11592143233 via @WSJ

Rising debt levels (debt-to-GDP ratios, in particular) naturally lead to questions about implications. To answer these questions, one should not take as given (as author does) that the national debt is "something that needs to be paid down." Better to think of debt as ...

... a form of wholesale money. There's no need to "pay down" money in circulation -- government can just let it circulate (i.e., roll debt over). Btw, I see @R2Rsquared mentioned -- you may want to weigh in.

Rather than "paying down debt," may be better to think of "managing supply of debt" (including currency and reserves) and "managing maturity structure" (composition of debt between reserves, bills, notes, and bonds) to meet fiscal policy objectives ...

... subject to an inflation constraint (inflation ceiling). In the article, author says one way to pay down debt is to create inflation. No. My point is that there's no need to pay down the debt if there's no inflation (or little prospect of exceeding the inflation ceiling).

Understanding this does not give our representatives a green-light to spend irresponsibly. The level and composition of spending is determined by a political process -- fiscal actions will be judged at the ballot box.

To be fair, I think the "we need to pay down the debt" crowd are cynical about our political processes. This cynicism is not without some justification. But the solution here is surely to attack the problem directly and not simply to point to an "unsustainable" debt.