One of the biggest misnomers in the current fiscal stimulus debate concerns the United States' ability to service its budget deficit and national debt (pdf).

Provided the fiscal stimulus package is passed, the national debt ceiling will increase to $12.1 trillion from the current $11.3 trillion.

Deficit approaching intolerable levels?

Economic conservatives, market absolutists, and the like argue that the annual budget deficit and national debt are approaching intolerable levels. In truth, what they're arguing against is a needed government intervention and New Deal-type spending required to jump-start the U.S. economy -- even if it means the economy will plunge into a deeper recession without the stimulus. It seems some economic conservatives would rather see the nation's economy suffer, than to violate one their flawed economic theories.

New York Times (NYSE: NYT) Columnist David Brooks draws attention to a U.S. economic discussion and reality that's been all-but-sidelined in the past three decades, particularly among younger investors and others who believe that history began in 1981. Namely, that there's been a distinct cyclicality to the nation's economic / public policy history.

Is a new progressive era ahead?

That may come as a surprise to market absolutists and others who see economic history and their view of economic progress as a straight line towards privatization. In fact, periods of economic conservatism and liberalism -- the latter also known as progressive reform -- have cycled for much of the nation's history.

For Brooks, those economic blinders help explain both the market absolutists' befuddlement at the financial crisis around them and their inability to adapt to the electoral demands brought on by the crisis. Market absolutists are in a straightjacket of a party that is ailing and part of a conservatism that is behind the times, he says.

On the cycle's timing, economist David H. Wang argues that the old era ends and the new era begins not when social pressures build from the bottom-up, but when institutions -- like investment banks, mortgage lenders and credit default swap issuers -- fail from the top-down.

The perceptive and common sense-rooted Ben Stein, in a business column in The New York Times, has weighed-in on the credit crisis, and for market absolutists, it's an argument they probably don't want to hear.

Stein, like many of us, has pondered how the massively well-paid men and women of Wall Street could create such a catastrophe. How did some of the smartest, talented executives, Stein ruminates, generate such immense losses that "they made banks clam up on lending -- at great risk to the economy?"

Compelling questions

Stein asks: Where were the fail-safe devices? The government watchdogs? The ratings agencies? A speech by Greenlight Capital hedge fund manager David Einhorn at a Grant's Interest Rate Observer event, provided the answers -- the unfortunate truths of the recent housing/credit boom -- which Stein summarized: