I think you both make salient points. Many Democrats are not happy with being out of work or in fear they will be. They are not happy with the increasing costs of food and fuel, which the media for the most part keeps quiet about. They are not happy about 'comprehensive bills' coming from Congress, that are near impossible to 'know about' until put into force.
Many Conservatives agree with the above being the state of things in our economy and government.
Generally the difference between the two of these partisan 'middles' is how to address the problems.
Is it better to address the issues at the heart of the problems, such as allowing businesses to be as unfettered as they earn and deserve? Punish those that break the rules or punish all for the sins of a few? Is it to place the restrictions on government, that government attempts to put on all other aspects of our union?
Or is it to provide government ever more help to those caught in the economic mess that exists, the so-called safety net? Can the government actually replace each of us earning our own way?
Practically I think both know that neither is going to get a pure response to either, indeed the fact that there is the divide precludes such. So where is the common ground? Politicians that can find and address both are going to fill the void, if they arise. I don't think the answer is going to be found in the names we are all familiar with, no it will take those willing to say they will make changes in the government to loosen their reach, while providing the parameters within legislation that will happen to corruption of the system.
There needs to be protection for the people, while providing a climate that encourages both freedom and the ability to allow the economy to fire on all cylinders. The collusion between government, banks, and Wall Street leading to massive bailouts for the latter two by the first, on the backs of the people and businesses without punishment by any, must never occur again.