Why I'm a Republican:
I'm conservative but libertarian in that I don't believe in enforcing my morals on others, so in that respect, I am just generally more comfortable around Republicans than Democrats. I was also very much against Bush for his spending/unnecessary war and voted for Obama before going back to my roots and becoming solidly Republican again. But why you may ask...

Republicans are more accepting of social liberalism than Democrats are of fiscal conservatism. When I talk with other Republicans about not wanting to enforce morals on others, they are generally understanding. When I talk with Democrats on fiscal conservatism, the conversation quickly becomes a defense of how I do not, in fact, hate poor people. This may be something I'll be crucified for saying on Reddit, but from 10 years' experience of switching between the parties, it is true.

Even so - why do I still support economic policy over social policy? Honestly, I do see it as more important. Most social policy can be reversed with the flip of a policy switch or one law, it's not usually that complicated to switch -- just needs political will to do so. The longer economic problems go on, though, the further they compound and the problem gets much, much worse and harder to deal with. Do I wish my party supported gay marriage, sensible immigration reform, and good drug policy? Damn straight, but if forced to choose, I will kick that can down the road 4 more years because it will be no more difficult to fix it then than it is now, if anything it will be easier as people become more socially liberal. Working on the problem of debt and entitlements, though, get much harder the longer you wait. What you are seeing in Greece now is the result of kicking the debt problem can down the road. It will only get harder and harder until it becomes too late. And by too late, I mean social security is projected to go bankrupt in the 2030s by government studies, not Republican think tanks. We are already paying more money into it than we are taking in. 15% of the government budget now already also only goes to debt interest payments, and that is with historically low interest rates. When rates go back to normal levels and with the $20 trillion in projected debt by 2016, we will be spending $1 trillion per year on debt interest alone. If avoiding that means having to wait a bit longer for marriage equality, that is a very easy choice to make to me. That is something that will affect us all.

But why support the rich over the poor? I don't, and neither do Republicans. Republicans want a revenue neutral approach to taxes that lowers rates while removing deductions and loopholes that rich people use. Remember that time GE reported no federal income tax? That pissed off all Republicans, too. The goal is to make it fairer to everybody while increasing everybody's take-home pay while at the same time not bankrupting government. Government spending as a percentage of GDP is wht has exploded, not taxes as a percentage of GDP collapsing. The most tax revenue the government actually collected was in 2007 under Bush when times were good. Republicans believe you increase government revenue by increasing economic output, and that has been true. Both Kennedy and Reagan lowered taxes, and with a stronger economy, tax revenue actually increased.

Why focus on spending cuts instead of revenue increases? Fiscal conservatives have heard this a million times -- from Democrats and other Republicans. Just give us this tiny tax increase, and we will get serious about spending, for real this time. Right now government spending accounts for almost 27% of GDP, and the historic average for tax revenue has been 18 - 20% of GDP. Talking point or not, Paul Ryan was right. We have a spending problem, not a tax problem. I could see the GOP backing down on the hard-line tax stance if they finally see real, across-the-board spending cuts, and having tax increases down the road as part of the deal if earlier cuts were part of the terms. But why not to the military? There is a growing voice in the Republican party saying just this same thing. Rand Paul used his convention speaking spot to say this.

Outlook for the future: The conversations have already begun among influential Republicans and among casual conversations between Republicans that social conservatism is dead as a major national issue platform. We are now lying in the bed that was made by Bush for making a big part of his re-election bid about opposition to gay marriage. The GOP recognizes they have to modernize/moderate on gay marriage, immigration, and drug policy or risk losing an entire generation of current young Americans and all hispanics to Democrats. Our survival instincts are kicking in. The GOP nominee in 2016 will be supportive of gay marriage, open to drug reform, supportive of some form of amnesty as part of a larger immigration reform package, and although still personally pro-life, not as much a hard-liner on the issue.

I hope that answers some of your questions.