1. I make a very good salary (as a senior software engineer in a very successful company). I work for my money... social programs don't particularly help me; I pay far more in taxes than I receive in services. I support government services not because it benefits me financially, but because it represents the type of society that I want to live in. When old people are dying because the don't have enough money for medicine, it strikes me as wrong.
All spending, whether social, government, private, or business fuels GDP growth. GDP growth, in turn, fuels inflation. Inflation is a tax on saved money. So the bottom line of fiscal liberalism is that spending/investing results in taxation of saved money, which rewards fiscal liberalism to the extent that people/businesses are able to make back the money they spend/invest.
When some people make it and others lose it, however, it causes fiscal conservatism, because people would rather spend/invest less and keep what they have rather than gamble it away. Liberal/socialist governments try to create markets where everyone wins when they invest, but that's not really possible and even if it were, it would mean people would have to always keep working because any money they saved would be gradually lost to inflation.
You will disagree with this, probably, which is fine. But your psychic powers that make you think you understand my motivation are demonstrably wrong.
Don't debate about whether or not I or other people understand your motivation or not. All it does is set you up to claim authority over interpreting your own thoughts. It's like when liberals insist that women should have authority over their own pregnancies because it's happening inside their own bodies.
You have to acknowledge there's more going on with individuals than just what they think or feel at the individual level. There are social dynamics in play.
2. You are dead wrong about religious morality (which is a oxymoron). Religious morality has always maintained a unfair system... where you are born rich or poor, free or slave, with little ability to change your status in life.
Yes, religious morality doesn't allow stealing. Forcing people to remedy inequalities by transferring property amounts to stealing. You can make a case about inequality to pursuade people to help others less fortunate, but you can't force them.
Religion is used to turn off people's minds, they accept the rules from above without question. A religious society leaves little opportunity for people to develop an individual morality. That isn't saying that religious people can't be good. But as the saying goes...
You don't understand religion if you say this.
Good people with religion do good things. Good people without religion do good things. Bad people with religion do bad things, and bad people without religion do bad things. But when good people do bad things... that only happens with religion
Abortion is the main political divide currently, and for some reason there don't seem to be non-religious people who are pro-life/anti-abortion.
3. Your claim that liberals want to reduce the state's ability to control crime is ridiculous. But, most attempts at mind reading are ridiculous.
I assume you didn't notice how much illegal drug used increased since GW Bush was in office. Many drug criminals were pardoned and instead of changing their ways, they went back to engaging in drug activity. Drugs are used as a means of making easy money by the poor, and that is why liberals/socialists favor going easy on drug crime; and because they are fine with rich people indulging in drug use and paying poor people to service their drug habits. They will also allow prostitution, etc. for the same reason, i.e. because they want poor people to have the choice to take money from the rich to be exploited sexually and otherwise. The only time they want to police sexual immorality is when it's non-consensual, because that takes away the power of prostitutes to demand payment or other compensation to satisfy them.