Why we are screwed

[oly884]

Let me be the first to say congrats to President Obama for his wonderful use of 2 jumbo jets to fly across the Atlantic to pitch Chicago for the 2016 Olympics only to be eliminated in the first round!

Wonderful, WONDERFUL use of our money and his (and this country's) time.

[scottiac]

Let me be the first to say congrats to President Obama for his wonderful use of 2 jumbo jets to fly across the Atlantic to pitch Chicago for the 2016 Olympics only to be eliminated in the first round!

Wonderful, WONDERFUL use of our money and his (and this country's) time.

Just to play devil's advocate here, if he *had* succeeded, it would have meant lots of construction jobs, lots ($$) of income from the Olympics, national prestige, etc. Would *that* have been a good use of money? Not all investments pay off. Doesn't mean it was necessarily bad to try.

[Small_words]

I understand your points about construction jobs but if I remember correctly, the Olympics usually come out as a net negative for income vs. expenditure for the local economy. We have so many schools that are ramshackle and roads that are the same that the money SHOULD be used to fix, not make some snazzy new stadium for a bicycle track or badminton.

[oly884]

Let me be the first to say congrats to President Obama for his wonderful use of 2 jumbo jets to fly across the Atlantic to pitch Chicago for the 2016 Olympics only to be eliminated in the first round!

Wonderful, WONDERFUL use of our money and his (and this country's) time.

Just to play devil's advocate here, if he *had* succeeded, it would have meant lots of construction jobs, lots ($$) of income from the Olympics, national prestige, etc. Would *that* have been a good use of money? Not all investments pay off. Doesn't mean it was necessarily bad to try.

If there would have been a net gain, then sure, but those Olympic games are 5+ years away, so Chicago, and the country, would have to go further in debt before any payback would be seen. It'd be like buying a house when you are already in over your head with the notion that the house will gain in value and you'll make money in 5 to 10 years.

Yes, it would stimulate the local economy, but remember, our national economy is in the dumps right now too. Why not put our nation first instead of one city? As for national prestige, I'm not worried about that, it's been screwed up for the last few decades by both parties, so I don't feel that it'll get better with this administration from what I'm seeing so far.

I understand where you are coming from Scott, but I feel that this move was so wrong (whether we got it or not) because of the issues our nation is facing. We need to start focusing on the problems we have right now (eg health care, 2 wars, unemployment, energy, etc) and worry about the "fun" things later.

[scottiac]

I understand your points about construction jobs but if I remember correctly, the Olympics usually come out as a net negative for income vs. expenditure for the local economy. We have so many schools that are ramshackle and roads that are the same that the money SHOULD be used to fix, not make some snazzy new stadium for a bicycle track or badminton.

Honestly, I can't argue that there are a bazillion things I'd rather see the gov't spend money on (wait, no there isn't... there's almost nothing I want them to spend their money on! ), but landing an Olympics is a highly desirable carrot for many reasons, or every country in the world wouldn't bust their butts to get the nod.

I'm sure the President received a LOT of pressure from the city of Chicago, the state of Illinois, etc. to make the trip, and I'd bet that it isn't a "first" by any stretch of the imagination.

And I somehow suspect, in my dark little hopeful heart, that he probably did some other business on the trip as well.

[oly884]

I understand your points about construction jobs but if I remember correctly, the Olympics usually come out as a net negative for income vs. expenditure for the local economy. We have so many schools that are ramshackle and roads that are the same that the money SHOULD be used to fix, not make some snazzy new stadium for a bicycle track or badminton.

Honestly, I can't argue that there are a bazillion things I'd rather see the gov't spend money on (wait, no there isn't... there's almost nothing I want them to spend their money on! ), but landing an Olympics is a highly desirable carrot for many reasons, or every country in the world wouldn't bust their butts to get the nod.

I'm sure the President received a LOT of pressure from the city of Chicago, the state of Illinois, etc. to make the trip, and I'd bet that it isn't a "first" by any stretch of the imagination.

And I somehow suspect, in my dark little hopeful heart, that he probably did some other business on the trip as well.

Sure, hosting the Olympics is a great thing. We've got the Vancouver Olympics this next winter, and even Seattle is going to be quite busy with it. So, yes, it's a cool thing to have around. But like I said, there are plenty of other things that we need to buckle down and get done before we should try to do any thing like this.

I can respect the decision of people to want to have it, but flying across the Atlantic to pitch Chicago for the bid was something, in my opinion, that was far from the right thing to do.

[scottiac]

Yes, it would stimulate the local economy, but remember, our national economy is in the dumps right now.

I understand where you are coming from Scott, but I feel that this move was so wrong (whether we got it or not) because of the issues our nation is facing. We need to start focusing on the problems we have right now (eg health care, 2 wars, unemployment, energy, etc) and worry about the "fun" things later.

Not to make *too* broad of a statement, "fun" is what stimulates the economy. Big screen tv's that no one needs, giant expensive cars (or, gasp, SUVs) are *fun*, are the mainstay of the economy. Many professional sports teams operate at a significant loss and cost to their "home" cities, yet they are considered a net good, because they are... er... fun.

Personally, I'm even worse of an economic conservative than you are, I suspect. I just understand this behavior, I don't always like it myself, but I understand it at a macro-economic level.

[oly884]

Yes, it would stimulate the local economy, but remember, our national economy is in the dumps right now.

I understand where you are coming from Scott, but I feel that this move was so wrong (whether we got it or not) because of the issues our nation is facing. We need to start focusing on the problems we have right now (eg health care, 2 wars, unemployment, energy, etc) and worry about the "fun" things later.

Not to make *too* broad of a statement, "fun" is what stimulates the economy. Big screen tv's that no one needs, giant expensive cars (or, gasp, SUVs) are *fun*, are the mainstay of the economy. Many professional sports teams operate at a significant loss and cost to their "home" cities, yet they are considered a net good, because they are... er... fun.

Personally, I'm even worse of an economic conservative than you are, I suspect. I just understand this behavior, I don't always like it myself, but I understand it at a macro-economic level.

Sounds like we agree on the economy to an extent.

While I agree that "fun" things stimulate the economy, I think that the notion that we have to have these "fun" things was one of the leading causes to what happened to our economy. Instead of being responsible about money, we go out and spend spend spend (remember GW after 9/11? That was, in my opinion, stupid). Sure, we need to stimulate our economy, get people to spend money, but we need to spend money intelligently.

To make a culture that is sustainable (and I mean the actual definition), we have to do our best to stay out of massive debt. Just like you or me, having some debt is a good thing, but when either of us go very very far into debt, with no real easy way out, continuing to spend money isn't a responsible thing to do.

I've been in debt before, sometimes more than I would have liked. What I did though, was stop spending money on anything but what is needed, buckle down, and pay off the debt, or at least get it back to a manageable level. Getting completely out of debt has its merits, but also keeping it at a manageable level has merits as well.

This country is far from "in check" with their debt, and I just feel that flying 2 jets across the Atlantic, whether we got it or not, was irresponsible. Just my 2 cents.

[calrockx]

If you were against Chicago getting the games, you're short-sighted and not seeing the big picture.
Those games would have brought investment and jobs to the host country. That's actually a good thing. Other candidate countries sent their leaders, I'm glad Obama rooted for the US. If hehadn't gone, he's have gotten crap for that too. It's a bummer we didn't get it, but I understand why Rio was chosen.

There are bigger concerns? Obama has been dealing with the economy and health care every day, it's obvious they're priorities (Hey GOP, where's your health care plan?) The president should be able to deal with more than one issue at a time.

The right jeers when Obama takes a day to go bring the Olympics to the States, I don't get that. Where was the outrage when Bush took nearly 500 days of Texas vacation time during his two terms? The problems weren't as big then? No, the problems were just in formation and worsening, to be dumped on Obama. It's gonna take while to clean up the mess the last administration gave us.

Speaking of Bush, what did he think about the Chicago 2016 games?
"They say that the Olympics will come to Chicago if we're fortunate enough to be selected, but really it's coming to America, and I can't think of a better city to represent the United States than Chicago. This country supports your bid, strongly." Bush said.

Then the right cheers when Chicago didn't get the games. Just cause it's an easy political jab. So pathetic.

"A year ago, a conservative Republican president told Chicago, "This country supports your bid, strongly." That was then, before the right decided their hatred for the president's hometown was more important than anything else.

Remember, in 2005, when New York was eliminated as a host city for the 2012 Olympics, and liberals everywhere giggled like children and mocked the Bush administration?

Oh wait, that didn't happen."

The president can handle more than one issue at a time.

[oly884]

You speak about the right as if I'm "ok" about Bush taking 500 days off. And once again, it's all coming back to "the previous administration" When will you hold the current president accountable for what is going on? As for the "mess the last administration left", what about the mess this administration is creating? Bailing out businesses that should never have been bailed out? Spending ungodly amounts of money? Devaluing our dollar? Not dealing with the wars (and that's either packing up and going home ASAP, or finishing the fight)? Did the last administration help create these problems? Sure they did, but Obama isn't making things better, and I feel they are making them worse.

If the games came here, it would create jobs for the host city, not the nation. I highly doubt many people outside of Chicago would have been employed for the 2016 games. Let's not forget the kinds of jobs created... Construction jobs, maybe some marketing jobs? How long would those last?

There's a big difference between creating careers and creating jobs. My friend is a tile worker, he gets "jobs". He can get one tomorrow, but it will end in a certain amount of time, and he'll have to find another "job". Sure, it'd spark up the economy of Chicago, Illinois, and some surrounding states for a while, but those jobs will end.

Screw the GOP, they've screwed us just as much as Obama and the rest of the dems. Their lack of any decent plan is making them look like idiots, you can't criticize Obama's health care plan when you don't have any decent ideas yourself.

Your response is exactly why I posted the bit about sticking to your principles. The right is just as guilty as the left of the hypocrisy. Both parties do it, and their supporters do it too. I'm tired of it. If we don't hold ALL of our politicians accountable to the same standards, then we're forever going to be in a bitching match and one day we're going to wonder what the hell happened.

There's plenty that needs to be focused on in our own country, sure the president may be able to multitask, I can too, but if I've got a lot of other things going on back home, I'm going to focus on those first, and if I miss an opportunity, so be it.