My bad. I should have said "conservatives that say they are social liberals but fiscally conservative". Those people are liberals......period. You can not be socially liberal and conservative on fiscal matters since liberal social issues utilize taxpayers monies. A true conservative believes tax dollars should not be used to advance social engineering, especially liberal engineering.
FWIW - your definition of a social conservative is laughable.
On the contrary, a person can be fiscally conservative and be pro-choice, without expecting the government to actually pay for abortions, pro-SSM and gay rights, without expecting government to pay anything extra to homosexuals, anti-school prayer, which costs the government no money, anti-creationism, which costs the government no extra money, pro-drug legalization/decriminalization, which would likely bring in at least some new revenue to the government and cut down on enforcement of such laws, against the death penalty, which has been reported to cost more overall due to the appeals process involved, and pro-gun laws, which likely do bring in some money from people having to register their guns and/or pay for permits. I know one that almost certainly costs money is being pro-illegal immigration, which would be the only major one I can think of that actually would show a person to be less fiscally responsible for feeling that they should support this socially liberal policy, except for the fact that anti-illegal immigration costs a lot of money too. The two would have to be compared completely to see which is more.
Now, many of the first things that I mentioned actually cost the government money when the conservative position is taken. Take SSM for example. At just the current time, defending DOMA is costing the taxpayers more than $1.5M, since this is just the amount that the House is paying the lawyer to defend DOMA. It does not even take into account how much it costs to actually run the trial, nor any trials before the current one plus those of different cases challenging the same law. Nor how much money over time the government is losing from not allowing same sex couples to be married. Not to mention the vast amount of money that those couples would be spending for weddings if they were allowed to legally marry. The federal budget office did a study that concluded that most likely same sex marriage would not cost the government any net money, and overall, it should actually be a small net fiscal advantage. Being for teaching creationism in schools would mean that schools would be required to teach any belief system's views on how the Earth/man was created. This would cost a lot of money for a long and extremely contradictory class about where we might have come from, despite lack of much evidence at all from those various religious viewpoints on this. Being pro-drug laws, especially those that criminalize drug use and/or simple possession, costs a ton of government money in enforcement and incarceration costs.
Now, almost everyone on any side has issues that they side more with conservatives on and issues that they side more with liberals on, especially social issues, but even some fiscal issues. Overall, it would be better for everyone to stop using those labels at all, but at least as generalizations for what beliefs a person holds. Most people are going to fall somewhere in the middle. Political views are definitely more like a spectrum than either one side or the other.