ALARMINGNEWS_1_1.jpg

October 02, 2009

Olympics=welfare

Chicago didn't get the games, even with Obama there, how embarrassing. But other than the fact that I don't like seeing the U.S. get dissed, no matter who is in charge, I definitely am happy with the decision and don't consider it "rooting against America" (as conservatives cheering this decision are being accused of already) to not want the games here.

I see the Olympic Games as a way to help decrepit, antiquated cities build up their infrastructures. It's more embarrassing to imagine that there are places in America, (Chicago!), that would need this type of reconstructing. Having been to Rio, it seems like the natural choice for the games. Super high crime, falling down buildings, straight out of the 1970's. They can use the help, I hope they get it.

Posted by Karol at October 2, 2009 12:10 PM | TrackBack
Technorati Tags:
Comments

Unless anyone can prove otherwise, I'm going to say that I'm pretty certain that host cities pay for hosting the Olympics themselves. Money is usually raised for the endeavor by selling exclusive franchise rights to products ("Kodak-The Official Film of the 2016 Olympics!") or by selling advertising space and such. The rest of the money comes from selling municipal bonds or state financing (read: taxes).

A well run Olympics can mean billions in tourism dollars for a city as well as a higher profile that can pay off in increased tourism in future years (Barcelona is an excellent example). And, of course, the new infrastructure of stadiums and public transportation reaps their own rewards for the residents and tourists. I don't know any city in America (New York included!) that couldn't use more of that.

A badly run Olympics, on the other hand, can be a financial disaster and set a city back a decade or more.

Posted by: Jamie at October 2, 2009 03:24 PM

Very very sad day for Chicago, But Brazil did deserve it, Rio is one of the most beautiful places in the world. If anyone has a chance to go there you should go. my thoughts peace.
Two Voices | Two Guys

Posted by: at October 2, 2009 03:41 PM

I don't like seeing the U.S. get dissed

The IOC has the right to give the games to whomever they see fit, according to their own rules. I think it's a really bad idea to think they should give it to the U.S. just because Obama (or any other president) shows up on their doorstep and asks for it.

This was Obama's fault. I suspect he was angling for some positive press ("O-Lympics!") to deflect attention from the various scandals (Acorn, Van Jones) and failures (health care, election polls) that have been percolating lately.

Posted by: Just Dave at October 3, 2009 12:19 AM

Olympics are corporate welfare. Any infrastructure won't be built based on what actually people want and need, but on politics. If it's done in a free market, then businesses and "organizers" would be putting up their own money, and nobody would be forced into it. The reality, though, is that taxpayers are always implicitly put on the hook for any "cost overruns." They'll share in the debt, but not the profits.

Poor Rio. I hate to say "Better it happen to them than us," but how else can you put it?

Jamie, I've known enough to oppose Olympics since I was 12 years old, when I lived in Salt Lake City during the start of its ill-fated quest. No modern Olympics has ever made a profit, once all costs are taken into account. Check here:MONTREAL, 1976: Debt: >1 billion (globe and mail; abcnews.com)
LAKE PLACID, 1980: Debt: $11 million
CALGARY, 1988: Debt: $910 million
BARCELONA, 1992: Debt: US$1.4 billion
SYDNEY, 2000: Games billed as self-financing by politicians were a $2.3-billion loss (Auditor General New South Wales Report on Sydney (2000) Olympics)
EXPO ’86: Debt: $311 million (paid by provincial lottery)

? True costs for L.A., ATLANTA and SALT LAKE CITY are difficult to obtain, as local and state funds and giveaways of property have been omitted (see US General Accounting Office analysis at www.gao.gov/new.items/gg00183.pdf.

? Officially, Atlanta made US$10 million, but that excludes the US$1 billion taxpayers spent on infrastructure.

? Utah tax revenues post-Olympics have fallen so far short of predictions that the state is facing a US$155 million shortfall, has slashed spending, dipped into emergency funding, and may have to order more employee layoffs. http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,400008943,00.html

? Taxpayers in Atlanta and Barcelona are still paying a surcharge to work off the debt from the Games.That last one may no longer exist, but no matter how long it lasted, it's flatly immoral to make "the people" pay for the bad business decisions of others.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at October 3, 2009 04:28 PM

Ah, the blockquote tag didn't extend to the other paragraphs. The lines beginning with question marks are from the page I cited. "That last one may no longer exist" is the start of my final comment.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at October 4, 2009 04:19 PM

The Olympics are self destructive. With the threat of global warming we cannot afford such flagrant displays of excess and overconsumption. The best way to avoid 300,000 tons of emissions is for people to simply stay at home.

http://selfdestructivebastards.blogspot.com/2009/10/olympics-are-self-destructive.html

Posted by: Canada Guy at October 21, 2009 10:51 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?