The Olympics

Okay, listen, I understand that having Obama deal with the Olympics is pretty shady. Supposedly he has ties (I don't have a source for this) to the person that would probably provide the land. Plus, he's from Chicago so it would make sense that this would be a return favor.

By why would you actually be happy that the Olympics won't be coming just because Obama is involved? That doesn't make any sense. Even if some shady guy makes a ton of money from the deal, what about all the small business owners (restaurants, hotels, etc) that would making hundreds of millions of dollars over that brief time? Dude, there's nothing good about the Olympics not coming to the United States from an economical standpoint.

Sorry about the rant, I had to get it off my chest after hearing some people here at work boasting about the Olympics not coming.

 

I just think that Chicago was a bad idea and now it doesn't matter....

Why pick a city that is the definition of corrupt, why not choose a place better able to handle and grow from the Olympics?

 

I'm not on either side, but since many seem to only see one side of it, here's the other:

The Olympics for 2016 would cost Chicago an estimated $5 Billion. The city of Chicago is in debt and would be either borrowing or flat out asking for the federal government (that's also in debt) to cover some or all of the money. It's well documented that hosting countries typically take from 10 to 30 years to pay off the costs of the Olympics meaning, it doesn't come close to generating enough money to offset its costs.

Many opposing it feel if we're going to go into debt more, they'd rather it be to improve other areas such as the Chicago public schools rather than to host the Olympics.

The main reasons I see people knocking Obama is because he was pushing so hard for it when there's debt, war, and healthcare reform to be focusing on. There's also some talk about some companies and groups looking to greatly benefit financially from this through real estate and building contracts prepared to milk the government for a ton of cash for these Olympics.

And finally, to compare which location means the most to the world, many would say because there have never been an Olympics held in South America and they are wanting and able to host, it's a much bigger deal.

 

They could have payed gang members to bust of the knees of the other country's teams. You have to think in terms of home field advantage.

 

This is an example of how right wingers are truly Anti-American. They don't give a crap about this country or it's people. They only care about their fascist party and it's corporate overlords.

 

Wow man, you really hate Brazil and think they shouldn't get their first ever Olympics in South America? Brazilian President Luva Cried he was so happy his country was recognized and accepted to host the Olympics for the first time.

You think it's okay for us to go into debt even more to host the Olympics because it will give some people temp work while padding some corrupt pockets looking for building contracts? Chicago already has a $225 million city deficit.

I understand the pros and cons but it's sad you're so one sided as usual and simply write those off against it as "Anti-American right wingers".

 

It was an odd choice out of all the cities.
Ecomomically would an Olympic game actually bring in cash.
In the UK for instance 2012, I reckon they are spending two dollars for every one they bring in.
Good fun though but I think that the Olympics should be broadened with more activies of a wider appeal.
I mean, your average person plays an Xbox these days not throws the Javelin.
There could be more exciting sports and extreme sports.

 

Chicago would be a bad place for the Olympics and it is a Giant waste of money to host one from a city standpoint.

Rio is a much better place to hold them and now we get to see all about the hot chicks in Rio not the Fat people who live in Chicago

and I grew up near Chicago

 

It had more to do with the infrastructure than "corruption" IMO. Ok, so I am biased living nearby, but the reality is we have the roads, the hotels, the restaurants and tons of outlying areas like Lake Geneva, Kenosha, Racine and Milwaukee to handle the influx of people.

Couple this with the busiest airport on the planet in terms of volume, and it was a winning combo. Centrally located, plenty of room... WIN WIN!!!!

It would have been a real boon for the economy here as well.

Rio hasn't got dick... No offense, but they are going to have to spend some 10-15 BILLION dollars just to get their infrastructure up to date to handle it. There is talk of housing people on cruise ships? Wow. Homicide capital of the world, high crime.. Security is going to be another issue.

Its pretty evident that Chicago would have won if not pushed out intentionally. This was all purely political on several different counts. The largest excuse given (and a valid one) is the lack of the games on the South American Continent.

Make no mistake though, Chicago was pushed out intentionally early to insure that their victory was not eminent.

I think Rio is likely going to go broke as a result. Chicago and the outlying tri-state area would have made money. At the end of the day that's what its really about right?

 

Interesting article with a positive take on the fact that Chicago spend $76 million on their bid to try and host the Olympics: http://cbs2chicago.com/local/olympic.bid.2016.2.1224691.html

(assuming that doesn't count the cost of Obama going out to pitch it)

 

To Obama's credit, going there and pitching the idea is not something I can fault him with. The timing sucks, yeah, but the reality is that the PM of Great Brittan flew out and bucked up for England when they wanted the games. The President of Russia did the same... Historically national leaders typically do make the effort to assist in getting the Olympic bid.

Did it help? No.

 

Coming from a man of the Land of Lincoln, all I simply have to say is, "There are more countries out there than the United States, whether you believe it or not." It may be shocking, but it's the truth. Yes, Chicago would have benefited from the Olympics, but can you truthfully say that the city needs the boost the most? What about Rio de Janeiro? The whole continent of South America has never hosted the Olympics beforehand, and Rio could undoubtedly benefit moreso from the Olympics than Chicago would. The Games, at this point in time, should not be used for social advancement but for international establishment, and I think Chicago already has a lot of that already whilst Rio doesn't. I do agree with the OP in the respects of it mattering not whether Obama has connections or not. As long as you deliver, it doesn't matter whatever means you use, and I think we can all surely say that his foreign banking friends would have been more than happy to fund the Olympics had it come to Chicago!

 

The point is, this will not give Rio a "boost". If anything it will drag them down deeper into debt. They have to spend 10s of billions on an infrastructure that does not exist. At that rate they will be paying to host the Olympics, not making money off it. Does South America deserve a games? Sure. But do it somewhere where they are prepared to support it.

 

To get back to the OP:

1. Led by the extremists on the Right, they are so Anti-Dem and so anti-Obama they spend all their energy attacking everything he does, every action in the world, and try and paint Obama as evil incarnate.

It is stupid, IMHO, just as PHP described. These people can't see the forest for the trees on anything. While they may be excessively loud they are a tiny minority....just overly loud...and often they make no sense.

Hey there are a lot of speculation about whether the Olympics are an economic boom or a potential bust. A variety of cities around the world are still paying off their debts from olympic construction, including cities that held Olympics quite a few years back. Its expensive.

OTOH, the millions of visitors during the two weeks of the Olympics creates a volume of expenditures that can't be matched.

It is prestigious while it is going on. No doubt.

One thing nobody above has referenced is how it is quite possible that the cards were stacked against the US entry.

There has been an enormous feud between the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the US Olympic Committee (USOC) for years. Its all about money. Basically most of the IOC is terribly aligned against the USOC...and the debate has only grown over time.

Here are a couple of good references to this key problem: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/olympics/2008-06-04-2814335341_x.htm

To quote from that article:

Just before the vote Sports Illustrated wrote a story on the pro's and con's of the 4 cities competing: http://m.si.com/news/wr/wr/detail/1908682;jsessionid=F68B84B431893CB4A30AEDDE7A88CA6B.cnnsilive10i

The SI story references the above financial dispute plus references how Chicago did not have a guarantee on funds, something which the Olympics requires and is inevitably provided by the national host. (The US is the only nation that funds the Olympics through private funding).

Getting back to PHP's comments; the Dem/Obama haters are simply going to turn this into one hate filled commentary once again attacking Obama....whether or not their comments are totally misdirected. What do they care. They tend to hate Dems/Obama more than they love the US.

Meanwhile, good luck to Rio. It will be the first time for an Olympics in South America. That alone is pretty cool IMHO.

Yeah, Rio doesn't have infrastructure and will need to build like crazy. Maybe they will build needed infrastructure that will benefit the region and its inhabitants for decades to come. That would be valuable. I recall some of the commentary from folks coming back from last year's Olympics in China. Writers returning to the NYC region couldn't help but comment how great China's infrastructure was around Beijing compared to NYC's aging old infrastructure.

 

That would be a good case against Rio de Janeiro, if only it were true. Brazil has the ninth largest economy in world and, even if this may strain its economy somewhat, it would still be better than putting it in Chicago where the Olympics would have received no support from the Federal Government whatsoever. Also, only the favelas feature the locations in the city where there is a nonexistent infrastructure, which is being improved at the moment. Other than that, I don't see how you came up with that idea. Every hosting country had to pay to host the Olympics. People here on Digital Point should know of what that is. It's called an investment, and in such, you inject money into something you believe will be successful in the future to attain the profits for it, in the future. No, Rio, nor any other city, would gain the profits from the Games readily, but all the exposure the city gets during the events would undoubtedly get it many tourists which would therefore increase its economy.

Now, it is true that Japan has a large economy as well and would probably be better to afford the Olympics, but that isn't the question here. The question is what city would truly benefit the most from the Olympics while still being able relatively to afford the games, and Rio just defeats Chicago on these two fronts and Tokyo on its benefiting from the Games, it being that Rio, and South America, needs this the most out of all those candidates, not only for the revenue, but for their pride.