Meanwhile, the government spending is often in non-productive sectors of the economy, such as increasing government jobs at all levels of government, which going forward add an additional spending burden on the economy.
Very little of the investment is even in areas targeted at building jobs. Hiring a bunch of people to build a bridge or highway does not create permanent jobs, and the positive impact of that highway or bridge is spread over many years, while the job hit from the spending starts immediately. Most government "innovation" efforts are misguided, poorly allocated or poorly managed, and rarely produce any substantive industry creation or economic growth. This is to be expected since politicians do not understand business very well, and have an incentive to feather their own nests or build their own political empires & burocratic fiefdoms. Thus the incentive is towards having more cushy government jobs to hand out as favors, and more employees under them... not to produce anything beneficial to society or the economy.
Further, it is not in government interest, really, to have a robust economy, because it is the damage done to the economy-- by government-- that lets government rationalize the power grab to have more control over the economy. Thus government "profits" by doing damage to the economy. The 2008 collapse is the result of government policies- clintons "you must loan to people who can't repay the loans" housing problem, the moral hazard of fannie mae and freddie mac, and bushs "we're gonna set interest rates below inflation"... stoked by constant economic pronouncements from everyone from the president to the fed chairman to Paul Krugman that there was no housing bubble and that if there was it would be good for the economy (the latter a position krugman took in one of his articles.)