Well, when the government spends $1 it contributes $1 to GDP (regardless of what it's spent on), but note that whether or not an investment helps the economy of the US expand is an entirely different question to how it impacts the world. Things can be a net negative to the world and expand the economy.
Also note that I intend these as descriptive and not proscriptive statements. I'm not trying to say the government isn't wasteful (though 90-98% waste is an overstatement) or that it's the best way to do things, I'm just trying to illustrate why seemingly ponzi-like systems like national currencies can be economically productive and stable over long periods of time while truly ponzi-like systems rarely have longevity (Herbalife and Amway being exceptions to this rule, in my opinion) because they don't actually produce anything.