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.

1SG Dennis Hicks - I agree that we do have a lot of waste with government money. I'm not so sure I'm worried about this one. It started in 1984 as the Lifeline program and didn't provide free phones to consumers but big discounts. I think some cell service providers have added that, depending on the state. Anyway, I agree able-bodied people who work could do with one per family, but can you imagine what it would be like this day and age to not have a phone, especially if you are elderly/cannot drive? How would you even call for help? I think with cell service getting so much cheaper it's been extended to include some internet. It's not directly taxpayer funded, and although any program may be a President's idea (and they take credit for it when people like it), they don't fund it--Congress decides whether to do that, and they don't have to. But there is a lot of waste--I could show you many millions of dollars in programs ongoing that have produced nothing. Just one example: I have a good friend who has consulted for $150/hour for several years for one that has never produced a thing. I think the problem is that no one has the total picture of what our tax dollars are really buying. We see pockets of what we think is waste, but a Congressperson may see it just as money flowing to his/her district.

MSG Joseph Cristofaro - Some may (it's mostly a huge discount) but it's not directly subsidized by taxpayer money, although I think some states provide more than others. It is paid for out of the federal Universal Service Fund (USF) through a fee assessed against telecommunications service providers, who may or may not pass those costs along to their customers. So if your state is providing the difference in the fee and making it free, are you saying you would not approve? And if you don't, what kind of program would you support that would let elderly people who don't drive and cannot afford a phone call for things they need? It's an honest question, and I had not even thought about it until this discussion.

MSG Joseph Cristofaro - 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?

MSG Joseph Cristofaro - 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).