That feels like a super bold claim that needs a lot of justification. Sorry I won’t just go with the hokey household metaphor.
you can pay someone to dig ditches for no reason. then pay to fill them back. both count as legit GDP growth, even if the value of either action is $0
If a government takes out a loan to build a $100 million bridge, is that bridge any different from a $100 million bridge that was funded by taking money out of the coffers?
Medicare and social security aren't bad things, but funding them with debt is pure consumption rather than a long term investment in US growth and productivity.
These two are often lumped together, though are quite different. SS deficit can be fixed with slight increase of retirement age and slight payout reduction and slight contribution increase. Medical spend is completely broken and unfixable without going after the medical cartels.
More to the point though, if you spend $20k keeping grandma alive, is she any less alive because that $20k was loaned versus pulled out of her mattress?
GDP is not a measure of how optimally money is being spent, it's just a measure of how much economic activity is going on.
In that case, the $1.7 Trillion deficit is 6.1% of GDP, so actually a half-percent lower than your calculations.
The US deficit spending this year is 6.6% of GDP. Last year the deficit spending of $1.4 Trillion was 5.5% of GDP. In other words, if there were no growth except that caused by government deficit spending, and that government spending was a wash - $1 of government spending for $1 of economic growth - you'd expect an annualized GDP growth of 1.1%.
Further, GDP growth fueled by deficit spending is still legit GDP growth, the same way that taking out a loan to remodel your home still creates a legitimate growth in your home's value. That remodeling may not have been the optimal investment, it might not even be a profitable investment, but it still is an investment.