Why I don't buy the idea of "fiscally conservative but socially liberal" claim

Many people, even my own mom, claim to be "fiscally conservative but socially liberal", where they believe in small government and low taxes on the rich, but also want things like gay marriage, the ability to be pro-choice, and the dissection of racism from government institutions. Here is why this claim does not make sense to me:

1. You're looking at the government too broadly. Sure, it sounds good to be "fiscally conservative but socially liberal". It means that you appeal to both sides! It will get you in the clear with liberals because you claim to care about the issues of those less fortunate than you. It will appeal to conservatives because you believe that your money shouldn't be widely redistributed. But here's the thing: Saying that you are fiscally conservative but socially liberal is essentially saying that while you want to look out for other people, your own personal profit and safety is more important. This contradicts the idea that you are fully looking out for others. It sounds good to be in the middle, but when it comes down to specific policies, conservative funding does not support the idea of equality for all.

2. Conservative taxing directs money away from communities that need it most. Things like abortion, lack of education and hunger affect people of all economic ranges. Trickle down economics continually fails to work, and it essentially puts all the weight of economic redistribution on those who already have everything they need and are less likely to give away their wealth. Conservative taxation aims to make a small government and to take money away from government programs. When you take money away from government programs that provide abortion services, food stamps, housing and other essentials to those with less money, you are taking away opportunities for the poor to participate in the "liberal ideals" that you claim to believe in. If you believe in opportunity for abortion, it should be for all women, not just for those rich enough to afford it. If you believe in equal access to education, it should be for all students. Claiming to believe in equal access means helping disadvantaged people level the playing field. You can't do that if you are taking away their government programs. 

3. In line with the last argument, you cannot talk about social inequality without bringing up the issue of monetary inequality. You can't have a full conversation about police brutality until you talk about racism. Uneven access to education makes it way more difficult for people in disadvantaged minority neighborhoods to achieve the same success as those in rich neighborhoods. In the past, redlining forced minorities into these disadvantaged neighborhoods, and lack of leveling the educational playing field has kept these neighborhoods disadvantaged because there are not enough opportunities for people there to achieve the education needed to be economically successful. You can't talk about racism without talking about uneven access to education. So, when you say something like "i'm against police brutality" you need to understand that by not redistributing your funds to help disadvantaged neighborhoods, you are not helping to solve the problem of police brutality. If you aren't looking at how money affects social inequality, you aren't looking at the entire picture.

4. When you vote for a candidate, you vote for all of their policies. If you are putting a Conservative candidate's fiscal policies on the top of your priority list, you are also putting their conservative social ideals first. If you don't believe in practices like electroconvulsive conversion therapy, punishment for abortion or destroying the environment, why are you voting for a candidate who will make that happen?