I'm going to present a counter-argument. George Lakoff has suggested that the main difference between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives model their agenda on the image of a stern, punishment-based parental figure, while liberals subscribe to the model of a compassionate, forgiving parent. Now if you start from this categorization, it would seem that the goal of a conservative is to help people by being a tough-love stern figure, while the goal is to help people by acting out of concern for their needs (assuming the needs aren't themselves punishing to others).

There's no in-between.

If I had to label your approach (financial conservative, social liberal), I'd place you in the liberal side, not a mid-ground, moderate camp. If you felt that your financial conservativism hurt people, I would guess you'd abandon that approach.

Milton Friedman (the inspiration for Reagan's supply-side conservativism) in "Neo-Liberalism and its Prospects," states that his agenda allows for government to provide what we would call welfare to citizens who through no fault of their own are not able to survive without government subsidies, but that what we would call "corporate welfare" would be outlawed. Of course as you know, Reagan (and Laffer) took a stand against social welfare and in favor of corporate welfare. That's consistent with Lakoff's categorization. Reagan was not a compassionate conservative--he was a pragmatic conservative.