Are the terms "Socially conservative/liberal" and "fiscally conservative/liberal" meaningless terms?

I agree with you as usual (if I understand you correctly). For example, gay marriage would actually cost the government more money than if gay marriage were not legal. Of course, the cheapest solution would be to have no marriage at all, but then that would be going a little far. I feel the best balance is that marriage should stay between a man and a woman. Right Wing Extremist is certainly someone I usually agree with, but I disagree with his marriage stance.

In my opinion, social issues are crucial to conservatism. For example, abortion on a federal budget means a lot more spending. Now a Libertarian may say that they do not support government funding of abortion, just that it should be legal. All morals aside, it would be very hard to enforce this policy of the government not giving to abortion clinics.

Is this what you're asking, or am I missing the point?

To a point I also would call myself "Socially Liberal".But it's a matter of degrees sometimes,isn't it?

For instance on the Issue of Drug Use,I don't think the Govt really has any place in the issue.Except for things that directly affect public safety(For example laws against impaired driving)

But on Abortion,they do,because an innocent human life is at stake.

And at times I support certain things based on basic fairness,and my understanding of the role of Govt,that others might find a Liberal viewpoint.I support Gay Marriage for instance,because the Govt is the one who made it a function of the State,rather than a Religious institution as it once was.The moment they did that,I feel it should have been available to all couples,even Gay couples(Equal Protection Under The Law)And any opposition to it is almost always 99% a Religious Objection,another area the Govt has no place in.

But I would never say being "Socially Liberal" has to mean a willingness to bankrupt our Nation caring for Loafers,Losers and Leeches with a desire to live off the Taxpayers.A basic safety net for temporary help,or for those who cannot help themselves,sure.But the current handouts by the Billion for those who WILL NOT help themselves,Hell No.

But no one usually fits in any one category,even their own descriptions of themselves are sometimes generalizations.

After all,there are a lot of "Fiscal Conservatives" who would never complain about military spending,no matter how high it went.

RWE

Interesting question, and in a manner of speaking I do believe the terms can be somewhat subjective.

I consider myself fairly socially liberal, however when I say that I mean I do not believe in regulating the personal lives and morals of the citizenry. I also consider myself fiscally conservative in that I don't believe in big government, I do believe in a balanced budget, reduced debt/deficit.

I think the term socially liberal can be interpreted far more ways than the term fiscally conservative, however that is just me.

I am a social liberal because I support:

Abortion

Euthanasia

Gay marriage

Legalized soft drugs

Legalized prostitution

Freedom of religion

I am fiscally conservative because I don’t support:

Welfare (except for the disabled)

Gun control

Government regulation of businesses

Big governments

I do support the military when it is necessary.

We've been playing fast and loose with words for a long time.

Look at all the words we've ruined and can't use the way they were meant to be...

He

She

boy

*****

gay

retard

indian

eskimo

butch

b i t c h

oriental

red neck

I could go on all day but, you get the idea...

We mess with the words so we can hide from some and stifle others.

BTW, if you're interested in what two words YA wiped out, e-mail me.

A libertarian is fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

BTW Bush was not a fiscal conservative - TARP was not fiscally conservative. Obama quadrupled Bush's debt in a year.

Conservative and liberal are both meaningless terms. The only thing that's important is the profits. If the situation becomes unlivable, move to another country!

You don't have to take crap from obsolete governments anymore.

I agree! Bush was a "fiscal conservative" but he racked up the biggest debt this country has ever seen!

I would like to change it to:

Top-down Governors

Bottom-Up Governors

Perhaps we could have red and blue states, those that want to be dominated by their government could move to the top down states, and vice versa. Then everyone could live the way they would like and those who don't want to be taxed into oblivion to pay for the less productive, won't have to pay for them anymore.

"but their social positions means more spending."

I don't understand how allowing gay people to marry, letting bar owners set their own smoking rules, and allowing a woman to make her own decisions concerning her body will increase spending. Socially liberal doesn't mean you want to give everyone welfare and a free college education.