system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Can a government reasonably run a never-ending deficit?

Got into a bit of a tussle about this but the alleged economist refused to explain, so I’m here because this has genuinely got me thinking.  

Is it genuinely feasible to do this? To just continue running a deficit without worrying about running a surplus at any point (&therefore cuts)? What effects might the level of deficit have on the potential consequences beyond just postponing them?

I understand the soapboxing rules so please do just answer the above question. However, I’d like to state my prior assumptions to see if I was wrong or not, or if there is nuance missed in specific places etc. My assumptions are that a government cannot reasonably expect to run a never-ending deficit (I.e. never plan to or attempt to run a surplus) without dire consequences. I had assumed that there would eventually be problems around paying back debts, including potential debt interest hikes, inflation & interest rate increases, and potentially recession from any defaulting or currency devaluation. However, the more I think about this the more I wonder if it necessarily true.
gpt
Say a road costs $1 million to build, but is expected to generate economic activity worth $5 million in tax revenue over its 30 year lifespan. Take out a 30 year loan, build the road, pay the installments and then do it again when the road has reached the end of its service life and needs to be rebuilt. Do this for many concurrent projects in our city/nation, and there you have an example of "eternal" deficit which will never be a problem \*in principle.\*

Reality is messier than this, of course. People make bad bets, or pursue values other than financial prudence, or the road is destroyed in a war, or or or. You can still run into a situation where growth is too slow and debt is too large. There is no reason failure is guaranteed to happen, though.