You say that defense spending amounts to 20%, I find that statement interesting because I have heard that it is a lot more than that. I have a link that says it is 33%. If it is less this website is spreading a lie:
http://oneminuteforpeace.org/budget 

I don't whom to believe here, you or them, but either way it is a lot of money. My question, to put things into perspective is what per cent goes to the interest, because that is not entirely Obama's fault. He has to take some of the blame, for sure, but most of the budget (at least the way I understand it) is for things beyond his control, like interest (unless their is a way to reduce the interest rate).

Maybe this is a stupid question, but suppose the Republicans were to come out for cutting defense spending, not by cutting programs that they have traditionally supported but by cutting waste? Another option would be to have a temporary freeze on wages for military members. I don't think the lower ranks make much money, but they higher ranks don't need raises. While they don't make good wages they do have a lot of benefits. For me, though the issue is whether we should have gone into Iraq (without an exit strategy) in the first place. The biggest problem with the election of 2012 is not whether Obama deserves to be re-elected (he probably doesn't I doubt that I could ever vote for him), but whether the Republicans can come up with a better candidate than they have had since 1996. If they could find someone like Jack Kemp they might have a chance. I am not saying that Kemp was all that great but he was the least worst they have had in a while. (I know he was the VP candidate of course)  

Edit--- ok, I went back and looked again at that link - you could subtract the 6% for debt, which comes closer to your 20% (=27%), so maybe it is not a question worth discussing. 
2nd edit -- ok maybe I should have done my homework, now I know why your 20% seemed so low, it is because they said that 59% of discretionary spending is military spending. That is what I remembered and why I thought that military spending was so high. They were talking about discretionary spending not the entire budget...
So, I think that they make a good point and that they make a good argument that military spending is too high. We don't need all the weapons we have. I don't see how anybody can justify what we spend on nuclear weapons. We could easily get rid of half of them. But the cost of war is not only in dollars but in lives. One civilian death is one too many, and on that principle alone I am a pacifist.
third edit.. the bottom line for me is that ends don't necessarily justify the means, voting for the lesser of two evils, is, in my thinking part of the same false Machiavellian principle as supporting war as a necessary evil. We need a new paradigm.

Edited 3 times by Andromeda Islands IV Sep 25 10 1:47 PM.