"I'm socially liberal but fiscally conservative" - What do you think when you hear that?

"I'm an uninformed idiot."
Conservatives are fiscally reckless. Look at every conservative president's deficit spending, and economic crashes. Look at the states most dependent on federal funds.
Even if you had zero morals and voted 100% on fiscal policies, the best choice is very clearly not conservative.
- I link this article every time the discussion comes up:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._economic_performance_by_presidential_party
  The first paragraph is a doozy.
  
  Hence why republicans want to get rid of Wikipedia. For all of its faults they generally do a decent job of going slash and burn on any editors that cannot fully back themselves up or have clear political alegances.
  
  it ain't even edit protected
- Don't confuse "Republican" with "conservative", especially on economic matters. Republicans are historically economically liberal, ie. they are for unregulated markets. A fiscal conservative likes to cut spending, yes, but not to cut revenue.
  
  Not even economically liberal, just irresponsible and corrupt.
- Does the fact that American "conservative" politicians are lying about it make it an invalid position to take?
- Is it guaranteed they're voting conservative when they say that?
- Look, I think there is something to it, but you really have to give details. I'm good with free access to healthcare, good with people marrying whoever they want (over the age of 18), transgender rights, etc.
  All of that. I love it all. But I'd rather not be taxed to hell and have those funds horribly mis managed. I'm okay with taxes but I know there is so much waste with my funds. That's where I'd like improvement. I suppose in some eyes that would make me slightly fiscally conservative.
  
  No, that means you just like a functioning government. That has nothing to do with fiscal conservatism.
  If you were a fiscal conservative, you would be against spending any money on healthcare, let alone giving "free access" to everyone.
- Having grown up in a conservative household in a red state (US), and having thought this as I transitioned away to more liberal stances as I learned more about the world, I have to say: Spot on. I was an uninformed idiot.
  
  The worst idiots are the ones who never admit when they're wrong. Having the backbone to admit an error, change, and and move on speaks volumes.

"I don't hate you because you're a POC, a woman, or queer. I hate you because you're poor."
- “I’m a prick but I also like to smoke weed”

Either "I hate poor people but I love weed" or "I'm lying because my actual views would scare people off".
- I like weed but hate taxes.
  
  Okay... I hate taxes too, but how else do you propose we pay for things like roads?

Conservativism, in all forms, is not a real ideology. It's narcissism. A conservative will redefine conservative values based on their own identity.
So the "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" idiot is lying to themselves about who they are. They want fiscal policies that benefit themselves, and they don't want to be labelled a bigot, but they are fine with bigots in office as long as they get the fiscal policies that benefit themselves.
Ask them what they mean by "fiscal conservative," and they will probably vaguely gesture and say "lower taxes." What they mean is "lower taxes for me." Fiscal conservatives still want to spend government money on programs they like. They want boondoggles in their backyard, earmarks and pork barrel projects, and social safety nets as long as they are the recipient (Medicare, Social Security, Veteran benefits, etc.)
They want to frame it as responsible restraint. Pull funding from programs they don't understand, like scientific research, or don't like, like foreign aid (except of course if strong ties to their home country).
And when they say lower taxes, when pressed, they will describe how their property tax or income tax or capital gains tax or death tax is really bad "for the economy." They want good schools and roads and infrastructure, but they want someone else to pay for it.
Calling themselves conservative gives them license to be as selfish as they want to be without having to admit that they don't actually have any values.
- The hatred of property tax really pisses me off.
  I have a mortgage on the house in which I reside. I have to pay property tax on the house in which I reside. My annual property taxes are less than half the minimum monthly payment for my mortgage. If I can afford my monthly payment I can afford my taxes. If I can't afford my monthly payment the taxes aren't the problem.
  And what do I actually get for that less than half a monthly mortgage payment in annual taxes?
  2 large parks with miles of walking paths, a playground, a basketball and a soccer court, all maintained and within 2 blocks
  maintained roads to my house that are cleaned regularly
  decent schools nearby
  Yes, I recognize I got lucky and am privileged enough to have, not just stable housing, but that which I "own," but that just makes my distaste of the hatred of property taxes all the greater.
  
  My problem with property tax is that (in the US) it creates a system by which areas with high property tax revenue (rich areas) recieive more money for schools. This is not bad on its face, but in the long term, it creates systems where poor neighborhoods have bad schools, can't fund improvements, can't attract good teachers, can't attract residents, lose on tax revenue... and it cycles.
  Hawaii has an interesting sysyem by which residents only pay tiny property taxes IF their primary residence is their only livable real estate.

“I don’t hate women and minorities but I don’t see anything wrong with an economy built off of their exploitation.”

"I vote Republican, but I'm self-aware enough to know that I should be embarrassed about it." (In the US)
- Eliminating corruption is not "fiscally conservative," it's just fiscally responsible. Same with taxing the rich.

As someone who said this when they were younger
"Uninformed idiot"
now that I'm older I'm fully liberal since i am more informed.
- But don't you know? YoU'Ll gEt mOrE cOnSeRvAtIvE aS yOu AgE! Biggest fucking lie of my life.
- Same here.

Euro perspective - When I hear fiscally conservative, that means supporting a governmental policy that is frugal with spending and responsible with public assets and finances.
This has several parts, here are some of the most important:
a) Keeping a balanced budget - the government should not be spending more than it is collecting from taxes and income. (A little debt in dire times is fine, but that should be payed off when possible)
b) Responsible management and long term planning - the planning horizon should be counted in decades
c) Focusing on core tasks: national security, infrastructure, healthcare, education etc.
d) Not raising taxes unless strictly necessary, lowering them if it is permissible according to the above.
Socially liberal => supports personal liberties
Now why does government debt even matter? Well, because debt is owed somewhere, and if it becomes large may mean that the government is beholden to other parties for the debt.
- What party runs on the platform of fiscal irresponsibility?
  
  Usually fiscal irresponsibility comes in the form of lavish promises (subsidies, tax cuts, projects etc.) with a jarring absence of an answer to the question "How are we going to finance this?"
- Not raising taxes unless strictly necessary, lowering them if it is permissible according to the above.
  The tax rate is never the issue. If the gov can push through a responsible plan for spending our consolidated resources so it costs less than we'd need to pay separately, then it's a win. Fuckwit conservatives talk a about reducing taxes and conveniently omit how they'll reduce costs to match. Hint: Here, it's always food inspectors and anti-corruption.
  
  The tax rate is never the issue.
  Maybe not where you live, but here (Sweden) where the average worker pays ~60% tax on their earned income the perspective is a bit different :)
  Right now certainly isn't a time to be cutting taxes, but when the gov:t ends up... checks notes... spending 74mSEK on modern art for a rail link that had already overran its budget by 30% - it gets a bit jarring. Meanwhile hospitals across the country are in full cost cutting mode due to the ongoing recession and inflation.

So many people with such brutal takes on it -- helps to quantify who the audience is on lemmy I guess.
Socially liberal fiscally conservative, to me at least, means that the person is in favour of equality in the sense of equality of treatment from the government, but is not in favour of additional big spending projects to try and have equality of opportunity. They're pro-choice, but likely against the government funnelling money into providing abortions for women (so abortions available, but not gov subsidized). They're pro-trans rights in terms of being fine with whoever doing whatever they want with their body/partners of choice, but against government paying for trans-specific gender affirming procedures and parades to highlight those groups. They're in favour of things like universal medicare/dental care, because those programs are shown to be a net benefit fiscally and socially.
In general, they support socially progressive ideas, so long as they're fiscally costed out and beneficial to the public purse. They're against increased government spending / reach, preferring 'small government', with the social components placed more on individuals to fund directly.
- They’re in favour of things like universal medicare/dental care, because those programs are shown to be a net benefit fiscally and socially.
  I've never met someone who was "socially liberal fiscally conservative" who believed this.
  They're usually pro good things, but they don't want to pay for them, so they're not actually pro those things at all.
  "Small government" and "private individuals will handle it" typically means it just won't happen.
  
  For starters, the question wasn't, as far as I know, asking how the ideology / stance fairs in terms of implementation / reality. Like you can give a description of what a communist believes, without having to try and explain Communist Russia / China.
  In terms of medicare/dental care, yes, there are soc lib fisc con people that do believe that. Likely not people in the USA, where everything skews right wing -- their soc lib is more like "I have a black friend! I'm not racist!". In more sane countries, there are a good number of people who fall into that ideological mindset, who do support public utilities/health initiatives -- it's pretty common here in Canada, based on people I've spoken with.
  Like a soc lib fisc con person I know, has previously suggested that we ought to change how roads / cars are handled -- arguing that cities shouldn't have anywhere near as many cars, and that common "paved" roads should be essentially relegated to highways/freeways due to the cost and ecological impact. In their take, city budgets are often bloated by road repair costs due to the over-engineering of what's required for regular residential activity. Using other road materials would dramatically increase sustainability -- and even if it results in more 'maintenance' cost/road tolls for car users who still insist on using cars, that's up to the consumer. I don't know if they were talking nonsense, but that's the sort of thing I sometimes hear people in the soc lib fisc con camp say.

"I don't actively hunt members of marginalized communities with one of my many obnoxiously customized firearms but I still have a weird kink for giving tax cuts to billionaires in exchange for a worsened quality of life because I have a 12 year old's understanding of how the world works."

As someone who has used the term before.
Social liberal: I think you should be able to do whatever you want in your personal life, even if it harms yourself. I'm willing to negotiate with harming consenting adults while recognizing the possibility, even likelihood, of an imbalance of power making it difficult to properly give consent, or for it to be recognized by the public at large, e.g., maybe Amazon workers aren't really okay with peeing in bottles because they don't have enough time or facilities for bathroom breaks, just because they accepted the job. Doing things that harm those you have guardianship over is not acceptable because they are not in a position to give consent.
Fiscal conservative: I want money in the public trust to be spent effectively. This doesn't mean I want less taxes, I'm in fact okay with more. A city near me has 30% of its budget dedicated to police services, yet we have some of the highest violent crime in Canada. The simple fact is, a lot of crime is driven by poverty and lack of opportunity. So why are we paying to catch and jail poor people with no skills who are trying to survive and not paying for skills training, robust childhood education, and at least minimal supports so people don't have to be desperate enough to risk their lives and mine so they can survive? It doesn't make sense and there's no indication it's working. FYI, school meal programs tend to help the local economy to the tune of about $7 for every $1 you spend on them. That sounds terribly fiscally responsible to me...
- 100%. I want to loudly point out that you saying 'jailing poor people not isn't fiscally responsible and doesn't benefit society, the money would be better spent giving people a better shot at success' is a great example of social liberal (make society better) and fiscal conservative (don't spend money on stupid things).
- Nothing about what you describe has even the slightest thing to do with conservatism though, so I don't know why you would describe that as being "fiscal conservative".
  
  Maybe not what it means currently in America. But in general it sounds fiscally conservative to me.
  
  One of the definitions of conservative is cautious or restrained. How is not spending money in a risky way not conservative? How is making choices based on evidence from other experiences not conservative? How is not spending money and letting physical and social structures that are serving you well decay conservative?
- But if we didn't criminalize poor people, how well we justify spending billions on privately owned for profit prisons!?! You didn't think of the stock holders! /s
- By chance are you talking about Surrey BC?
  
  Afraid not.
- I hear a closeted MAGA.
  
  You need to get your hearing checked.

If they're American I would point out that they have no representation for their conservative views because there is no fiscally conservative party in the United States.
- I always just reference this article:
  https://www.investopedia.com/us-debt-by-president-dollar-and-percentage-7371225
  And say the modern Republican party started with Nixon.

"I pay lip service to minorities, but don't want to allocate resources to their needs"

"I don't care about minorities enough to sacrifice anything about my way of living."

"I dont mind the gays, but I keep voting for Fascists because right wing talking points about how Unions make the prices of eggs go up."

“I’m a republican, and I will consistently, and wrongly, vote in what I think are the best interests of my wallet while paying lip service to liberal social ideals. “

I don't like paying taxes to fund public services, but I don't care what consenting adults do in their own bedrooms
- but it's also not a deal breaker if the guy I vote for wants to dehumanize them
  
  Not necessarily. If someone is genuinely socially liberal, they won't like politicians that dehumanize minority groups. They won't necessarily want to pay to protect them, but they'd generally be in favour of laws to protect them, etc.
  I am not fiscally conservative, but I've met people like this. Pro-gay marriage, pro-abortion, probably even pro-churches-paying-taxes.
  But cutting funding to education to lower taxes? Sure. Anti-public transit (unless they're smart and know that public transit can be more efficient). Anti-international spending. Stuff like that.
  But I live in Canada, where we actually do have a "Centre-ish" party that's generally fiscally conservative to an extent, but socially liberal. And our right-wing party isn't quite as big on the dehumanizing aspect. Banning abortion isn't really on the table, and banning gay marriage is generally an unpopular opinion for even the right-wing political leaders.

"I'm a dumbass who's too embarrassed to say I vote Republican."
- "My definition of socially liberal is I don't think gay people belong in death camps, per se."
  
  Just hidden away, out of view, in some closet...
  Oh wait...
  Basically: "sToP sHoVinG yOuR gAYnEsS dOwn mY tHrOat!"
  🙄

I will get high with you, and then turn you into the cops when you can't pay rent.

"I'm not gay, but $20 is $20."

I used to say this. And I believed it. It’s a lie people tell themselves because they’re voting for terrible things and don’t want to take credit for half of it.
“I kill the poor but I’m sad about it” gtfo

I prefer to use the term fiscally responsible.
It's fiscally irresponsible to cut taxes for the billionaires and corporations when we have record deficits.
It's fiscally irresponsible to cut the IRS budget when that results in less revenue.
Republican voters have been brainwashed into thinking that Republicans are somehow more responsible with the economy and budget, when history shows that Republicans drive up the deficit with irresponsible tax cuts.
- It's irresponsible to cut taxes and not cut spending.
  Edit: spending more than yu take in creates debt and that is not responsible
  
  Not related. It's not a zero sum game. Spending on certain things can save money and allow for tax cuts, tax cuts can create business growth or income in other ways and allow more spending. Defering tax cuts to a certain time or spending to a certain time can lead to better results, ect ect ect.
  Anyone who thinks it's linked and must be Tax up=Spending up or Tax down=Spending down should probably not even be in charge of their own homes finances. Even children are taught how to save their allowance over time and then spend it, and I had occasion as a child to "borrow" my allowance to purchase a toy that was on sale.
  
  Did you ever hear about investing, which is the act of spending money and getting value back?

They don't want to pay money for social spending they don't realize they benefit from while wearing the costume of an ally.

I'm someone who actually calls myself socially liberal but fiscally conservative, and that's because my primary concern (in the terms of moral foundations theory) is the liberty/oppression axis. In other words, I think leaving people alone is a good thing, and while it's not the only good thing and it needs to be balanced against other concerns, we should still be doing it more than we are now.
Two caveats:
I'm socially liberal because a free society requires tolerating even the people you hate. This is hard, and even many people who consider themselves tolerant because they simply don't hate a particular group aren't (and often don't want to be) tolerant in this sense.
I'm economically conservative because the freedom to act without government interference even in an economic context has great inherent worth (but I'll repeat here that I don't value it to the exclusion of all else) but also because the free market usually does a better job than central planning at making everyone prosperous. I don't care much about wealth inequality - a world in which I have two dollars and you have two million dollars is a better place than a world in which we both have just one dollar.
Edit: in practice I always end up voting for moderate Democrats at the national level, both because I think social issues are generally more important than economic issues and because neither party usually does what I would want regarding economic issues. However, I have more options at the state and local level.
- I’m genuinely curious about the fiscally conservative bit. When I hear that phrase I always assume people mean “I don’t want to pay taxes” but my immediate next question becomes how do you believe societal level infrastructure is constructed and maintained. Things like roads, police, military. I’ve never seen a society with private infrastructure for those things. An immediate second question, assuming you are OK with a small level of taxation to accommodate the costs of the three things listed above would be, what other society level services would fall into the bucket of things that should be paid from taxation vs things that should be privatised. Things like disaster recovery services, judicial services, child welfare services, national security, border protection. I’m going to also assume you object to education and healthcare being a taxation funded expense? What about currently public buildings like libraries? Parks? Town Halls?
  
  I'm not one of those few completely uncompromising libertarians who don't want public roads - I actually think the government should be doing all the things you list, and I pay my taxes. I do prefer individualistic ways of doing things, but I'm pragmatic and there are many problems for which the collectivist solution is the only practical solution. When I say I'm fiscally conservative, I mean that I think society should be more libertarian than it is now, not that it should be absolutely libertarian.
- How do you feel about anarchism and/or libertarian communism? (just trying to see how much you think that way because of a sympathy for capital or because of a rejection of the state)
  
  As someone who shares the views of the parent comment, I think anarchism is the end-road, utopia progression of these beliefs.
  I think that conservatives are right to be skeptical of big government. Concentrated power always corrupts without fail. Whether that’s big government, big corporations, big religions, that remains true.
  I think some pragmatism is required especially for things such as emergency services and common defense because market forces are kind of like Darwin’s evolution. It selects for the best chance of making the number go up and doesn’t specifically select the best outcome for all participants.
  Bonus Analysis: (own section because my post was getting too long)
  Republicans, in my analysis, however aren’t really that concerned about big government. The Republican Party is a big organization that has been corrupted, they are more concerned about feigning concern to further their own wealth and power. And thus the turn toward fascism.
  We used to have a better standard of living. We used to have less depression. We used to have more membership in civic organizations and churches. Our country used to be far more distributed and decentralized than it is today.
  It’s not surprising to me that all of those factors decreased and hate and division increased while power and wealth has became more and more concentrated the last 30 years.
- It's very interesting, I rarely see someone with whom I absolutely disagree with everything they just said, and whom I think their belief system will actually make all society worse and not better. But to put a clear example. It seems to me that you beliefs on the first caveat, are logically incompatible with the second. Your belief on the second caveat is antagonistic with your stated desires. A lack of government, or low scale of a government, without central planning, with a free market, with low restrictions and tons on inequality, is the prime condition that creates and fosters hate and intolerance. I read your comment and can't help but to interpret it as “I hate poor people, and you should tolerate my hate because I'm very articulate when I express it”.
- How do you define a free market? Why do dollars have value?
- What about a world where we both have $2,000?
  
  Having $2,000 is better than having $2, but in practice I'm usually skeptical that plans to achieve an outcome like that will work out rather than failing and leaving both of us with $1. The manner in which the outcome would be achieved also matters - some of the plans seem to me like proposals to just steal the money and I object to that on moral rather than economic principles.
  (I don't mean to imply that people I disagree with think that stealing is OK, but rather that they and I don't agree on the definition of stealing.)

“Sure the problems are bad, but the causes? The causes are good.”

'I'm conservative and racist and I'm fully aware of that. However, I have enough sense not to say that in polite society... Unless you're cool with it? "

Bellend

That they're a Democrat

They want to virtue signal trivial social issues to avoid admitting they're just plain conservative.

"I'm a liar, pretending to be a libertarian. Fund the police so they can shut down the protests for things I don't like."

That you don't understand how capitalism works.

"I pick the parties on their rhetoric, not their record."
- "Trump is going to pivot any day now!"

"But in practice, I almost certainly vote Republican."

I don't want to be included with the rest of the domestic terrorists in my political party.

Just buncha utter bollocks

I think they're a goddamn idiot. I like it more when people tell me that they don't have enough time to think about this shit and so they don't have an opinion.

This is my father. Like, I'm happy that he doesn't hate me because I'm bi and poly. He's pretty open about how he thinks the Republican party is cruel and shitty.
His problem is that he associates fiscally progressive policies with California's creaking and inefficient bureaucracy. In his career, he spent a lot of time interacting with various CA governmental departments and he grew to loathe them intensely. Whenever I discuss progressive policies with him, he always relates it back to his experiences living and working in California and then just shrugs and says "I hate both parties for different reasons."
It's funny, because like, shit man, I kinda agree with him on a superficial level. California's state and local governments sucks at their jobs in a lot of ways (see the notorious San Francisco public bathroom). I agree that unions (of which there are many in California) can sometimes impede quick and efficient work (although I don't fucking care, I just chill out and am patient with folks and the shit gets done eventually. The process would be more efficient if the company tried to have a more harmonious relationship with the union).
He just doesn't seem to understand that as far as progressive polities go, California is a terrible example. There are plenty of places around the world that that have implemented progressive and socialist policies while still preserving the things he cares about (efficiency and relative frugality), but he's never been to those places. He hasn't engaged with those governments. All he can think of is the "progressive" state that caused him so much anger.
So basically, I think most people like this are fundamentally nice and decent, but they're ignorant and are blind to the underlying dissonance between their social and fiscal philosophies. My dad has never voted for Trump (he wrote in a friend's name which was basically a vote for Trump, but fuck man, it's at least a little better), but I don't believe he'll ever accept that voting according to his fiscal philosophy directly contradicts his social philosophy.
EDIT: apologies if this is rambling or poorly written. I'm sleep deprived and distracted and very stressed, and I probably shouldn't have commented at all.

"I'm going to say I'm late for something to get out of this conversation."

Well this is what I think since I often fall into that kind of thinking and kind of reflected on how I recently voted on a proposition.
It was increase to the sales tax to make the area "safer and vibrant" and touted as a major way in this prop was providing help for affordable housing. My brain went immediately jumped to the more progressive leaning side and went, I'd love to help those who can't afford housing and yeah, I don't mind paying a bit more tax even though I don't particularly like the whole more regressive taxation kind of thing but overall it would be a great thing. Then I looked at the break down and saw that only 17 percent of the funding would actually go toward affordable housing.
That's where the more fiscally conservative part went, huh, well that doesn't pass the sniff test if you're making this about affordable housing and making things "safer" for them and the community dafuq is it only 17 percent of the budget there? Well digging in, 45 percent of this would have gone to cops and first responders, heavy emphasis on cops with articles going on about how the cops were looking forward to buying a helicopter. That fiscally conservative part of me went, yeah, that's wasting my god damn tax money then.
At that point my NWA part of the brain went, you assholes want to hire more cops with no change in hiring standards where we already have a problem with way too many racists ass police, give them cars, helicopters, more tasers and guns, and body cameras that we don't have access to the footage and no consequences if these assholes turn them off during an their encounters with the public? ACAB you bunch of tone deaf jackasses and Fuck the Police.
Needless to say, I did not vote for that increase in taxes.
- Now if only people realized that the fiscal conservatism you just described is anathema to actual conservative politics (in the US at least). Yet people who claim to be "fiscal conservatives" will vote R every time because the two words are the same so it must be true.

Every discussion I've had with someone who said this has led me to expect ignorance. I think its something people who don't know much like to say because they think it sounds good.

Isn't this kind of a roundabout way of saying "I'm a libertarian that isn't into wearing tinfoil hats?"

"I believe good things but don't want to actually sacrifice anything or be responsible for any of my actions that my prevent good things from happening"

“i vote MAGA, but im too much of a wuss to admit it out loud.”

“I like to have my cake and eat it too”.

I used to think this, because I was against government waste. But I also supported welfare programs, so I was just using the wrong terms for my ideas.

"I don't understand what those words mean and I'm taking the coward's way out of this conversation."

Someone who is a conservative who has a gay friend or a gay kid that they love and accept.
- Barely even that. Someone who likes marijuana is more likely.
  
  I'll agree with this too.

"I'm a dumb cunt"

"You've been duped". Because people like this never acknowledge the amount of corporate welfare going on in America, if you want to be fiscally conservative, stop paying for profit companies from government coffers. Don't go after food stamps, that is just veiled prejudice

I assume they vote liberal or are uncomfortable being seen as the hateful sack of shit they are.
If we're talking America the parties align like this:
Democrat: Socially moderate, fiscally conservative
Republican: Socially regressive, fiscally liberal
- Republican: Socially regressive, fiscally liberal
  Are massive tax cuts really considered fiscally liberal? The vast majority of the deficits that Republicans cause are due to tax cuts choking government funding.
  
  I mean yeah probably. I mean when I think of defining liberal economics I think of what would Adolphe Thiers say. So yeah I think he'd be okay with handouts to his rich friends. Enriching the bankers and fucking over the working class.

"I'm not a fan of murdering women, people of color, and LGBT people, but I still believe that Trickle Down Economics work! Long Live Capitalism!"
Or maybe it's Arnold Schwarzenegger who still want to pretend the repepublican party still exists and play RINO. Like... Dude just leave already, its a nazi party. 🤦‍♂️ (Maybe he's doing a deep-cover Terminator Infiltration? 🤔)

"I'm discriminating towards poor people".
- “Fuck the poor but I do like to smoke weed”

"Socially liberal" right up until the point that we start talking about worker's rights, the dignity of poor people, and the exploitation of cheap slave labor on the other side of the world