I don't like Bush's spending habits (and many conservatives agree with this discontent over Bush).  For example, the Medicare drug benefit was horribly irresponsible, when we can't even pay for the main program (it is projected to go bankrupt in 20 years, which will only be accelerated by the drug benefit).  The military spending and homeland security spending is a necessary evil in the time of war.
 So my point wasn't a simplistic "Go Bush!", it was that many people have more complicated political views that pidgeon-holed conservative vs. liberal.  Please try not to make these things personal.

You'd see that I don't approve of excessive spending.  I don't like Bush's spending habits, especially his domestic ones.  And you forget the main economic point.  THE TAX REVENUE THE FED GOVERNMENT GETS IS MAINLY DUE TO THE HEALTH OF THE ECONOMY.  DURING THE 1980'S REAGAN CUT TAXES AND REVENUE INCREASED.  IT ONLY DID THIS BECAUSE THE ECONOMY WAS EXPANDING.  THE SAME THING HAPPENED TO CLINTON.  THE ONLY REASON WE HAD A SURPLUS TOWARD THE END OF THE 1990'S WAS THE BOOMING ECONOMY.  Once the economy slowed down (which started before Bush took office, by the way), revenue decreased and the largely fictious surplus evaporated, BEFORE ANY OF BUSH's TAX CUTS COULD EVEN TAKE EFFECT. You shouldn't tax your way out of such debt, IMHO, but be more responsible in your spending.
 This is why I originally made the distinction between fiscal conservatives and social ones: I was responding to a simple-minded bashing of Republicans as anti-escorts.  Don't you think many Democrats, at least in public, are against prostitution?  Don't you think some Republicans would favor its decriminalization?  When you pidgeon-hole entire groups you by necessity over-simplify and paint inaccurate portraits.