Theory behind deficits as used by Reagan:
government programs are hard to eliminate. Every benefit relates to a specific group of people with whom it is popular. At the same time, cost is dispersed. It is just $2 for every citizen. So, every program has a voter block that will defend it, and fighting to close these programs one by one is hard.
Instead, you reduce the total amount of money available to the government. Here people see substantial savings and support it. This leads to immediate deficits but eventually forces government to live within the means. This is like instead of convincing your teenager that ice cream is bad for him, you simply reduce the allowance if money is not spent well.
So, your real disagreement with Republicans is not “deficits” but whether we need more or less government involved in economy. Obviously, the right place is somewhere in the middle – we don’t want people without charity help, and we don’t want to live in Communist China. As to American reality, I think there is this place of compromise by having multiple layers of government and private charities. Each state, city, community is capable of doing a lot of things on their own. Then, people can choose where to live. I understand people who want to have political decisions different from my own, whether to the left or right. What I don’t understand when people want to restrict themselves and others from having peaceful choices. Especially those who had hasdei Hashem to escape totalitarian world. Another Hungarian, von Neumann, who witnessed (a little) both Nazi and Commie powers, became very committed helping US Army rather than participating in world socialists dreams as many educated people of his generation did.