I think social issues and fiscal issues are too intertwined for someone to be "Fiscally conservative but socially liberal". Like, I think that caring for the poor or socially disadvantaged, environmental stewardship, environmental justice and the like are "social issues". I don't really see how the "liberal" side of these social issues can be achieved without taxes and regulation of corporations. There's much more to social liberalism than "Equal rights for gays and women. Yay!" Basically, I'm not sure I agree with your definition of "socially liberal". >_> *isahippy*
In the USA i would be regarded as fiscally and socially liberal/progressive. In australia i think i am socially liberal/progressive, and fiscally centrist.
Fiscally I am libertarian-ish. I add an "ish" because I realise that it's sheer dogma to try to cut off the left hand at the right hand's expense. Smaller government and an innovative public entrepreneurial spirit should always be tantamount to the health of our republic, but some limits on exhorbitant excess (like the repealed Steagall-Glass Act) were essential to maintaining some sort of economic order, and the ability of the middle class entrepreneur to challenge the accumulated wealth of inherited aristocracy. If you want to know what type of libertarianism then I adhere to, look up "David Brin, blogpost" on Google...
I've found myself becoming more fiscally moderate, though I think I'd still identify as being liberal/liberal.
