Robert Skidelsky suggest so in a recent essay "Down with Debt Weight".
I personally think a lot of deficits and debt talk among economists and the public confuses a variety of things --- trade deficits and budget deficits; private debt and public debt; economic principles and political expediency, etc. Budget deficits matter, trade deficits don't; private debt is fundamentally a different issue than public debt; and economic principles should never yield to political expediency, and our job as economic educators within a democratic polity is to communicate clearly those economic principles so that they form the constraint within which politicians pursue what is expedient.
Repudiation of public debt is actually a possible solution, but forgiveness of private debt would create incentives in the economic game between debtors and creditors that I would view as potentially market destroying, and certainly market distorting. What would be the long-term consequences of debt forgiveness within the current context? Is that debt forgiveness option less costly than the policy path chosen to date? (that is sort of the argument Vernon Smith suggested early on) What is the most politically expedient path within the constraints of economic principles?