Mister Poll: Long term Return on Educational Investment

One of the major problems of investing in education on the federal level is that Presidents are only in office eight years but it takes about nine to twenty years to see the benefits of education influence the economy.

If a President heavily invested in Education, that means that he would have to under invest in other things like national defense, pensions, healthcare, intelligence security, and road building or maintenance. The outcome is that national defense cuts may show a negative outcome in only a year or two if their is a militant issue with the US, cutting pensions or healthcare would jeopardize the health of the elderly in just a few months, cutting national security may allow a disaster on the homeland in less than a year, cutting funding to road building or repair would cause headaches, havoc, and discontent in just a few months. BUT ... cutting education funding would not show a real outcome for ten to twenty years. BECAUSE ... the decrease in educational standards now would not show up, until the less than fully educated try to get jobs in about ten to twenty years, depending at what point they are at in the educational process. SO ... it seems that the President may fix now, to get re-elected, what will influence people the most now, and ignore the non-voters, those children who are not allowed to vote. And within his time, he will never be blamed for an undereducated workforce because they will not be an undereducated workforce for at least ten years. what should the remedy be ....

Create a mandatory yearly percentage increase in education funding to keep pace with inflation and the growing population.

Let the people in congress decide each year what should be done, but don't create a national increasing percentage

Not sure

This problem with the long-term essence of education vs the short term duration of a President does jeopardize the educational standard of the US

TRUE

FALSE

NOT SURE

The reason that we seem to be so far behind in an educational way is because educational cuts do not show an immediate outcome while the President is in office. The President will be long gone when we start to see the negative effects of underfunding of education.

TRUE

FALSE

NOT SURE

Our forefathers created short terms for the President to ensure that the nation would not be too dominated by a single mentality, yet this short term perspective seems to make long term concerns in consequential to Presidential accountability because by the time long term issue begin to show their negative effects, the president is no longer in office.

Yes it seems that the forefathers did look at this concern and this seems to be why long term effects like education and environment seem to be back seat issues

No the President is substantial accountable while in office. Just the idea that he is underfunding long term concerns has a considerable effect on the way people vote for him.

Not sure

When I vote for a President I put

Short Term issues as more important than long term issues

Long term issues as more important than short term issues

them equally important

Not sure

If a fictious President(not the current one) increased funding for the poor trememdously, but cut environment protection funding and educational funding, how would you vote.

I'd support more funding for the poor, which will show positive effects now

I'd would not support increased funding for the poor, because we still need to pay attention to the environment and education

Not sure

If you were President and you had a ten billion dollar surplus, how would you spend it.

10 billion to national defense

10 billion to support for the poor

5 billion for environment and 5 billion for education

10 billion for the environment

10 billion for education

Other

None, I'd save it

This poll was created on 2007-01-20 04:01:39 by PoliticoMind