obvious Child

A couple logical flaws in that argument.

First, your attack on healthcare can easily be used against insurance.
"Why should my money be force to pay for health care for people I don't know/Hate." That is exactly what occurs in the insurance market. I pay money into a system that is used by others to pay for healthcare, car insurance, life insurance, whatever and I don't know and may hate these people. Furthermore, without knowing the specifics of universal healthcare, it's hard to make a judgment about it. Ask any healthcare provider and they will tell you that they can't make a statement until they know the details.

Second, your attack on taxes is somewhat inaccurate. The AMT was partially designed to prevent super rich from getting away with low taxes. Furthermore, the more you make, the less your marginal tax rate is, at some income levels, you have a lower marginal tax rate then the middle class. The AMT tries to alleviate this. And many of those taxes go towards building stuff. Like roads, bridges, tanks, etc. In America, we have a socialistic system where companies get taxed a small amount and have large capital improvements such as roads, sewers, electrical lines all put in for them by the government. There is a reason why firms generally don't move to areas where taxes are low but the country's government won't put in capital improvements for them unless the labor saving differential is obscene.

Third, fiscal liberal doesn't dictate how one actually spends the money. Only that they spend huge amounts with no practical matter of funding that spending. Bush is a fiscal liberal, a reckless one at that and he's more or less screwed the poor and those on the economic bottom.

Fourth, social conservatives have no problem engaging in liberal tactics of more government to interfere, dictate that generally limit freedoms. Instead of less government, social Cons are for more government and more regulation. In that aspect, they are very liberal.