I can see you agree with me. The difference, however, is that the spending is not only going towards bombs (well at least not in lieu of social spending -- defense has it's ~20% piece too).
We do agree. Social spending could be more effective, there's no question about that. I think it's kind of false to include Social Security in the budget, since Social Security "spending" is really just giving back what we've promised people, and shouldn't really count as government spending since the spending is left to the populace, the government is just distributing the money.
That doesn't really matter. There's no question that the government could be using its budget more effectively. We should without a doubt model our programs on those of other countries that have success with them. Countries like Germany, or the Netherlands. I'm sure you agree with that.
The problem is that isn't what the Tea Party is generally asking for. Rational, centrist Republicans want that, but unfortunately the party has been co-opted by religious radicals who feel that preventing abortion and family planning funding is more important than creating a successful society.
The solution isn't getting rid of government, or changing government so that it matches ones personal Christian ideology - it is creating a better, more effective government. There are many ways to change the US government so that it fosters a more successful, healthy society. Neither way comes from the far-side of ideologies. The US shouldn't become purely Socialist or Communist, just as it shouldn't become a pure free-market. Both sides of the spectrum have their problems, and the only way to solve those problems is by compromising, and accepting the best of both ideologies.
I'll accept that some Republicans have been very reasonable about compromising, and trying to create a more effective government. People like Marco Rubio and Chris Christie I find actually fairly reasonable. I may not agree with all of their policies, but I find them to be rational politicians. They acknowledge that there is a role for government, and that government can be an effective force for positive change.
Now as for the choice between Obama and Romney, I realize that Romney is actually very centrist. He has been forced to take some more radical positions by the base of his party, but overall, I don't think Romney wants to actually do much of what he has been forced to say. I definitely believe that he wants to create a more efficient, streamlined government.
The thing is, Obama is also a centrist. None of Obama's policies have been radical, or anything more than slightly left of center. The choice is between a man who has a history of taking advantage of government to create profits for himself in the private sector, or a man who has been trying to compromise and make government better.
It is an easy choice for me. Obama worked as a community organizer trying to make his community better, while Romney was using the system to make himself richer. I don't think either one is a bad person for their decisions, but it seems clear which I'd rather have as my head of state. I assume you would rather have the opposite, and I can completely respect that.
I understand that you believe Romney will use his experience making corporations turn a profit to reform government and make it more efficient. Keep in mind though that Romney is very pro-establishment.
Romney helped promote protests FOR the Vietnam war. Do you really think that someone like that is going to change government for the better? Doesn't it seem more likely that the most he would do is - at best - preserve the status quo, and - at worst - reinforce the establishment and crony capitalism?