In the first place, terms like 'conservative' and 'liberal' are classically political, referring to the divide between those who support the despot and those who wanted to engage in self-rule. That isn't to say that the terms cannot apply to fiscal ideology, but the practical application of these terms points to a false divide. It is also to say that as an economic policy, the classical definition of 'liberal' IS conservative by nature. It is concerned with free markets that are tolerant of regulation and private property in the means of production.
A major plank of the conservative platform is a balanced budget. But this is voiced in terms that imply that liberals are unconcerned with balancing the budget. But consider that the last 'liberal' administration actually balanced the budget, and more, created a budget surplus which would have considerably reduced the national debt, another conservative plank. Contrast these actions with the mythological Perseus of conservatism, Ronald Reagan, who not only ballooned the deficit/debt, but also grew the size of government exponentially.
We could go point by point debunking false distinctions between apparently opposing ideologies, but that would take some time. Let's then look at the one area that defines what is meant when we label ourselves (or each other) 'liberal' or 'conservative.' The question is simple: When the government writes its checks, who is the payee?
A conservative would have you believe that it's the poor. They are lazy and good for nothing and suck resources dry. We need to chuck out the illegals, drug test welfare recipients and for God's sake stop these public employees from receiving their gold-plated Mercedes that good-for-nothing unions negotiated for all those years ago. That is the path to fiscal health.
But they never say anything about closing revenue gaps, like by tax increases. They never say anything about reducing labor arbitrage, like by denying tax incentives to companies that send jobs overseas. They do, however tout tax cuts that clearly benefit the wealthy and say they don't need to be paid for. they will support deregulation of industries that will boost profits, while eviscerating vital protections of resources, human, natural and otherwise. All of this is free money, taxpayer money, that is vacuumed from the pockets of the common folk and put into a trough for the likes of Kochs and Goldman Sachs executives. When bailout money (read tax money) was being shoveled into the pockets of the men who were directly responsible for the Great Recession conservatives shook their fists and stamped their feet over efforts to recoup that money on behalf of the taxpayers. Now those same conservatives are shaking their fists and stamping their feet over taxpayer money being used... wait for it... to pay teachers and correctional officers!
To be fair, anyone protesting in Wisconsin right now will tell you that their fight isn't over money. It's about the right to bargain collectively with the state. The same right, the same fight, in the same state where the 40 hour work week and the concept of overtime were practically born. But I digress.
The point is that the only true ideological difference between the conservative so-called, and the liberal so-called, is who is the beneficiary of taxpayer funding. For my part I would rather my tax dollars go to people who actually need it, AND in whose hands the economy has a chance to actually grow. Would I prefer a better way of weeding out the freeloaders that any subsistence program would entail? Sure. But freeloaders are a far cry from my tax dollars going to benefit millionaires who will employ me only so long as they can't get a better return from someone else, some where else.
