This sort of argument by idiocy is tiring, but oh-so-common....

To read economic and political commentary with any kind of frequency is to be bombarded daily - and hourly for that matter - with breathy articles about a United States groaning under deficits that surely signal bankruptcy, Social Security checks that eventually won't clear, and of course a looming financial crisis. A recent New York Times column by noted deficit scold David Stockman naturally referenced America's "desperate" financial situation.

Much of this commentary is well written, it's certainly popular, but it's also total nonsense.

Really?  What's driving that commentary?  Let's examine your article and see if we can find the gist of your claim - and then see whether it makes sense!

To understand why they should, it has to be remembered that large as the Treasury's debts are, basic economic models whereby the U.S. economy grows in the 3% range show that over time the debt could be paid off with ease.

Except that, when adjusted for new debt issuance, the compounded growth rate since 1983 is -3.96%.  Yes, annually.  Incidentally, from 1953-83 it was 5.30%.  Yes, annually, and yes, positive.

What happened?  Idiocy happened.  The bone-smoking by people like you happened.  The premise that we could "Grow" the economy by borrowing to consume, and that we could relabel various parts of "consumption" as "investment" as a means of hiding what we were doing - in particular,as regards residential construction (that is, houses.)

But changing the label on a box of dog turds to "Chocolates" does not make them chocolates.  It just makes the person who does it a liar and a fraud. 

Indeed, the true crisis at present is all the government spending which signifies capital waste and destruction, and what that tells us about the myriad Microsofts, Googles and Intels that never saw the light of day thanks to our federal government consuming so much limited capital. Similarly the crisis is an individual one when we consider the millions of Americans who might be doing things that are actually stimulative to the economy and to their self esteem were they not working for the government.

Uh, oops.

You know, the "America is bankrupt" claim (which is true, incidentally), is predicated not on private activity but on government.  Governments at the State level, which have promised $1.26 trillion (at present) more than they can deliver and Federal "benefits" that total somewhere around $100 trillion (there's a quibbling of $20 trillion or so, plus or minus - at that level does it matter?) in "retiree" benefits that it can't fund either.

More-immediately, the problem lies here:

That's a real $1,700 billion last year that was spent into the economy, directly lifting GDP by some 12%.  But the government didn't have the money; it didn't tax it from people, it borrowed it from nowhere with the complicity and involvement of The Fed.

Would that "nice orderly and liquid" Treasury market look as good as it does absent The Fed?  You don't know and neither do I.  But this much I do know - you can't argue that a market that is being heavily interfered with is "all ok" when the interference is still occurring.  You have to stop the interference and then see exactly how "well-behaved" that market is - or remains.

Nonetheless were the government to "get out of the way" the long-term benefits would be real.  I'd much prefer that people work producing things in the private sector such as at Google or Microsoft rather than warming a desk at DHS or Health and Human Services. 

But one point we cannot deny as it is a basic mathematical fact: If the government stops its deficit spending and "gets out of the way", GDP will fall by the exact amount it ceases to borrow in excess of taxation until and unless that private-sector growth occurs.

It is, in fact, the intentional refusal to recognize that the economy was grossly overheated in 2007 that has led us to this cliff.  It is idiotic refusals to admit to the basics of arithmetic that, if pursued, will drive us off it.