Nor would that be prudent fiscal policy in any growth scenario.
Interest compounds over time. Money borrowed and not repayed will need to be reborrowed indefinitely, with more money needing to be borrowed to pay for the compounding interest.
If, for example, 100 billion dollars is borrowed for 50 years at a modest average interest rate of 2.5% and never repayed, you will owe 350 billion in total at the end of the 50 years. After 100 years the total jumps to 12.1 billion, after 200 years it jumps to 147 billion and the interest keeps snowballing. You don't ever have to pay back that 100 billion dollars as long as you keep reborrowing the same amount, but you do have to pay the interest on it. You can keep borrowing to pay the interest, but that will snowball too.
So what needs to be assessed is if the extra money paid in interest on the initial investment is a good investment over the longterm. Is the GDP created from all costs worth more than the actual costs of the investment. Or would it be a better investment longterm to pay for government spending with taxes as we go, or repay borrowing before a certain timeframe to avoid too much compounding? I've personally never heard anyone EVER, government or otherwise, make a specific argument about this either way using real numbers and real projections. Maybe they have, but i haven't seen it, and none of us have made the case either, it's all guesswork. Let's see the data.