Oh, yes, indeed! Let us invest, using the fantastic negative-$864 billion/month budget surplus that we have been so blessed as to earn amidst this global pandemic.
Put military spending, corporate tax rates, and upper income tax rates back to where they were, and re-allocate that money to productive infrastructure and it'll be fine.
So, yeah, regardless of how you feel about the goal, I don't think it's unfair to say that trillions of dollars in US taxation and spending were chosen primarily for their rhetorical effect. Being able to say "but we can't afford that!" was a top goal in recent tax policy.
Well. I did some basic math. The figures I found online indicate that the 2017 tax cuts reduced total revenues in 2018 from forecasts, by about $275 billion.
The June 2020 deficit was, as noted, $864 billion in a single month. This suggests that the added revenue from restoring taxes to "where they were" would pay for June's deficit over the next ~4 years — well, three and a bit, and you have to account for the revenue drop in a crisis.
This is, of course, on top of the $779 billion deficit in 2018 and the $984 billion deficit in 2019. And, of course, there are multiple months in 2020.
I think the general point stands, unless you're going to raise taxes VERY high or go full "money printer go brr" perhaps?
It's probably fair to say that all this would have a big impact on that deficit.
It's unlikely to cover the 2020 economic-crash monthly deficit, of course... but hard times are the right time to go full deficit-spending to try to prop up the economy. Money printer can, indeed, go brr if it'll slow a collapse. So says mainstream economic theory.
Do you think this proposed investment is being made with conservative, reliable underwriting, such that we can be confident that it will deliver value?
[0] Most likely mass unemployment due to the corona virus.
Yet we are told, no!, do not pay this man, we can't afford it. We cannot get that day back when the sun sets.
Economics has let us down very, very badly.