Which is more important to you?

[Joe Kakistocracy]

Apologies if this has already been polled.

If you want, post where you place on the spectrum with regards to those issues.  So in my case, I think social issues are more important, and I am in the center to very slight center-left on them.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

Overally economic, but I could never vote for a repressive prude no matter what their economic views. I'd have no problem voting for Al or MissCatholic though for example.

[TheresNoMoney]

Economic issues by far. A country with low poverty and a high quality of life will be very successful and healthy in the long run.

The vast majority of social issues grow out of economic issues anyway. A strong economy with a strong middle class (and decreasing poverty) will often mitigate many social problems.

[Bono]

Economic obviously.

[Democratic Hawk]

Economic

Dave

[KEmperor]

Both are equally important, but the difference is that many social issues are not things that should be political issues.  I view most of them as personal choices.

[Emsworth]

It depends on how we define social issues. If the term includes just school prayer, abortion, the death penalty, etc., then economic issues are by far more important. But if it encompasses fundamental civil liberties, including free speech, the right to bear arms, the right to counsel, and so forth, then social issues are more important.

However, I would agree that social liberty is meaningless without economic liberty, and vice versa.

[??????????]

Economic issues by far. A country with low poverty and a high quality of life will be very successful and healthy in the long run.

The USA is already in this situation.

[TheresNoMoney]

The USA is already in this situation.

I would argue no. The poverty rate is up to 12.7% nationally, the middle class is ever shrinking, people work longer hours than ever before, and the income gap is the widest its been since the pre-Depression years. Add to that 45.8 million people without health insurance and I would argue that the qualify of life is going downhill rapidly.

[Bono]

The USA is already in this situation.

I would argue no. The poverty rate is up to 12.7% nationally, the middle class is ever shrinking, people work longer hours than ever before, and the income gap is the widest its been since the pre-Depression years. Add to that 45.8 million people without health insurance and I would argue that the qualify of life is going downhill rapidly.

first, I would like to point out the problem of moe poor people entering the United States each minute. In fact, illegal immigration is probably the biggest source of povety in the US. Secondly, poverty rates have been worse during the Clinton Yearsand late Bush(democratic congress though):

[TheresNoMoney]

first, I would like to point out the problem of moe poor people entering the United States each minute. In fact, illegal immigration is probably the biggest source of povety in the US.

I agree that illegal immigration is a big problem. I'm still waiting for the federal government to do something about it.

Secondly, poverty rates have been worse during the Clinton Years and late Bush(democratic congress though):

As you can see, poverty went down steadily under Clinton and has consistently been trending upwards under President Bush.

Also, the income gap is currently the largest its been since the pre-Depression era.

[angus]

interesting graph mordac.  according to the census bureau, the poverty rate has been fairly constant, at 13 +/- 2 % over the last forty years.  Of course, there could be many explanations for that.  e.g., native citizens growing poorer with wealthy, or educated and wealth-potential, immigrants moving in and offseting it.  or, native citizens growing richer, with poor immigrants moving in and offsetting it.  etc.  etc.  still, officially, the poverty rate looks constant from the Great Society, through the Carter Malaise, through the Trickle Down period, through the Clinton Boom Years, and so on.  Which is further evidence that what I posted about the private sector, not the government, making the difference in A18's thread about the Depression holds.

However, it is clear that before LBJ the rate was much higher, twice what it is now, which would seem to back up opebo's claims about the benefits of Keynesianism.

I'll have to think more about it.

[Bono]

interesting graph mordac.  according to the census bureau, the poverty rate has been fairly constant, at 13 +/- 2 % over the last forty years.  Of course, there could be many explanations for that.  e.g., native citizens growing poorer with wealthy, or educated and wealth-potential, immigrants moving in and offseting it.  or, native citizens growing richer, with poor immigrants moving in and offsetting it.  etc.  etc.  still, officially, the poverty rate looks constant from the Great Society, through the Carter Malaise, through the Trickle Down period, through the Clinton Boom Years, and so on.  Which is further evidence that what I posted about the private sector, not the government, making the difference in A18's thread about the Depression holds.

However, it is clear that before LBJ the rate was much higher, twice what it is now, which would seem to back up opebo's claims about the benefits of Keynesianism.

I'll have to think more about it.

I'm Bono, clal me that still.
Anyways, the poverty rate hasn't changed dramatically since much of the great society was reverted.
I would tend to think that the decrease on poverty that happened in that era was due to the great improvement on teh situation of blacks that happeend in that era.

[A18]

It is a common but misleading practice to try to determine whether inequality is increasing or decreasing by comparing the incomes of those in the top 20 percent with those in the bottom 20 percent. If our concern is human beings, we need to consider not only those who are in given income brackets each year, but also those who are constantly moving in and out of those brackets from year to year.

Among individuals who were in the bottom 20 percent in 1975, 98 percent had higher real incomes by 1991 and two-thirds had higher real incomes than the average American had back in 1975.

It would be wise to divide people into separate age brackets for making useful comparisons.

It should also be noted that if everyone's income doubled in real terms, the 'income gap' would also double.

[Bono]

first, I would like to point out the problem of moe poor people entering the United States each minute. In fact, illegal immigration is probably the biggest source of povety in the US.

I agree that illegal immigration is a big problem. I'm still waiting for the federal government to do something about it.

Secondly, poverty rates have been worse during the Clinton Years and late Bush(democratic congress though):

As you can see, poverty went down steadily under Clinton and has consistently been trending upwards under President Bush.

Also, the income gap is currently the largest its been since the pre-Depression era.

It started picking up again on the last years of the Clinton administration, which just goes to show the business cycle doesn't worry about politics.
And as for income gap, that's irrelevant, since if rich people are 50% more rich, and poor people are 25% more rich, they both are better off.

EDIT:
Anyways, as angus pointed out, clinton ahd a lot of merit in dismantling the Great Society jointly with the republican congress(which has most of the merit), while Bush has practically expanded the welfare state.

[TheresNoMoney]

Perhaps a better statistic is the fact that real median incomes haven't gone up since 2000:

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/002484.html

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/005647.html

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:8akb4IsUXpUJ:www.cbpp.org/9-26-03pov-fact.pdf+median+incomes+down+2002&hl=en

http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/income01/prs02asc.html

And I don't think that even takes into account the record health insurance and gas prices.

[Bono]

ah, sh**t.  if the portugal avatar didn't give it away, the Republican Party Anarchist Outreach Coordinator picture should have.  Sorry about that.

hmmmm, be careful.  it was Clinton, and not Bush the Younger, who dismantled the Great Society.  But then I guess that's your point.  and under clinton it even fell a bit, not rising at all till the Clinton Recession of Late 2000 hit.  Okay, good point.

as an aside, Welfare To Work makes Clinton look good.  And it makes "the right" look good.  Not that they're fundamentally different, but it's unusual to present it that way.

I voted for option 2 by the way.  But it's probably a bit more complex.  I like candidates who say all the right things economically (e.g., Clinton), but I also get pretty offended when they start to act like morons (Gore), or bigots (Davis), or revisionist historians (Kerry), sometimes so offended that I vote for the Other Guy.

Contract with America baby.

[nclib]

Social issues, though both are important.

[jokerman]

Economic Issues

[MaC]

Economic.

Social issues really don't affect much. 
1. I'm not gay, and I don't plan on being gay, so the whole marriage issue doesn't concern me.
2.I'm not a woman, and I don't plan on getting pregnant, so abortion doesn't concern me.
3.Drugs I don't do, and don't plan on doing, so I really don't have to worry about what penalties I would face if I were caught with an ounce of pot or whatever,..

The only real thing that bugs me is the intrusions that government would take in effort to prevent terrorism.  I think often times, they play terrorism as an excuse when they just want to monitor me and what I do.  However, to the best of my knowledge this hasn't happened to me so far. 
Gun control would be the only really signifigant social issue, but all is good so far in that nothing's been taken away from me so far.

As far as economic, I have a huge portion of my hard-earned money taken away from me for government to waste.  I'm also concerned with getting a 'real' job when I graduate college.  It's really a shame how much control the government has over the economy.  I'm fed up with:
1. redistributive wealth efforts
2. social programs that hurt society more than they help the poor.
3. Wasteful spending, pork barrel sh**t-like the $250 mil project to connect mainland Alaska to a tiny island with 50 people-thanks to Ted Stevens
4.high taxes
5.regulations
6.stupid, wasteful agencies, such as the EPA and FDA

[ian]

Social by a lot.  Economic issues actually matter very, very little to me.

[Frodo]

Economics by far -while I am moderately liberal on such social hot-button issues like gay marriage and abortion, I do believe however that they should be left primarily to the states to decide for themselves, either through the legislature and/or referendum.  And bottom-line, they simply don't affect me as directly as economic issues like education, taxes, Social Security, health care, energy, and the environment.

[Keystone Phil]

Lean social issues but both are important to me.

[Giant Saguaro]

Both equally important.

[opebo]

Economic issues by far. A country with low poverty and a high quality of life will be very successful and healthy in the long run.

The USA is already in this situation.

No, it isn't.  Many European countries are, however.

I of course care far more about social issues than economic.