The Latest: Estimate says tax bill adds $1.46T to deficit

That $1.46T amount is the additional amount of new debt that is expected to be added onto whatever debt we're already incurring with the existing annual deficits. So, that's an additive amount of new debt, not a total amount of new debt.

I see plenty of articles that talks about how much it went up then. And since the President has very little to do with it, (only current year spending). I think the concern is what happens if it keeps growing, how will we pay for it, what won't we get that we need (like infrastructure improvements), and will it really improve the lives of the majority of Americans. According to Congress, this is going to stimulate the economy to such a degree as to pay for itself in 10 years, but tax experts and economists are saying that is unlikely. We will see.

Susan Foster
While there are elderly people who benefit, that is not the limit on the program. My youngest brother has one and he is drawing Social Service Disability. He hasn't had a job for decades due to drug use. My wife's youngest brother and younger sister also had one before they died, same story. It is completely free, they don't pay anything.

MSG (Join to see) - Yes, I know there are people who abuse it. I don't know how they can separate those who do from people who really need it. I guess if it were easy, we would have figured it out by now. If you were the king of the world, how would you do that?

Susan Foster
I would not want to be King.
The problem we have is similar to the 90s. We have gone deeply into debt carving out entitlements for people who can't or won't work for whatever reason. We have made it where it is better for people not to work full time since they would lose benefits such as health coverage, EBT, cash assistance, etc.
I would support assistance for those working full time and have no health coverage or working poor. I just don't like supporting those who can work, but won't.

MSG (Join to see) - I totally agree. If you are able-bodied, I don't think you should get by without working. I just don't think our bureaucratic systems are set up to figure out the difference, which is too bad.

That's how much more deficits will go up, in addition to existing deficits. This should be viewed as an acceleration to the top-end speed, not the overall top-end speed.

First of all, it seems you are blaming Obama, which doesn't make sense. Here are the reasons and I'm paraphrasing from an article on a budget/tax site that's not partisan: "(1) The president has no control over the mandatory budget or its deficit. That includes Social Security and Medicare benefits. These are the two biggest expenses any president has. The mandatory budget estimates what these programs will cost. The acts of Congress that created the programs also mandate the spending. Unless the president can get Congress to remove or change them, he's got to live with that spending. (2) Second, Congress, not the president, the power to control spending. The president’s budget is just a starting point. (3) Each president inherits many of his predecessors' policies. For example, every president suffered from lower revenue. That's a result of President Reagan's and President Bush's tax cuts. Presidents who raise taxes quickly become unpopular. As a result, tax cuts rarely disappear. (4) Some presidents have to deal with catastrophic events. President Obama responded to the worst recession since the Great Depression. President Bush reacted to the 9/11 terrorist attack and Hurricane Katrina. Their required responses came with economic price tags. (This president will likely have hurricane money attached to him). Each year's deficit adds to the debt. But the total amount added to the debt each year is usually more than the deficit..." It's confusing, but that's because the budget lags behind (not like our personal ones where we know what's coming in and can spend until next paycheck).