Cornelius,
Firstly, I thank you for refraining from using cliches (KBeta!) to define the terms "liberal" and "conservative," and primarily i agree with your definition (as they are used in our age). Secondly, I agree, Churchill was not using the terms conservative and liberal as we use them in this day and age; however, when the correct definitions of the terms are used, i believe there is an entertaining truth to his quote. Modern liberals have pirated the name "Liberal". Liberalism, in western civilization since the late 17th century, has meant: "One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state." -- American Heritage Dictionary, Fourth Edition. Similarly, the classical liberal has promulgated the abolition of the Church-State infusion, the advancement of the free market (on moral and practical grounds), and the primacy of private property (among other things). I am a classical liberal, an individualist, a libertarian. With that said, I, personally, view "conservatives" and modern liberals as philosophical brothers fighting over who should be the next bully.
P.S. "Government should indeed be used to apply our common resources for the good of all." What, exactly, is the "good of [the] all"? If the all are nothing more than a bunch of individuals, is it not inevitable that some will be favored over others? How are resources "common"? If you are a proponent of private property, how can you consider resources commonly owned by the "whole"? Your statement screams statism and, at the very least, crude utilitarianism! Avowed communists would agree with your ends, though, only disagree on the means in which it is to be obtained. That one statement, seemingly, contradicts your purported "economic conservatism".