The following post is in response to an email a relative of mine received after trying to defend a stance she took about being glad that the Olympics are not coming to Chicago. His email contained many topics, all of which I address here.
1.)You mentioned your skepticism of Valerie Jarrett's benefiting from the Olympics, among others. I don’t even have time to digress into Axelrod, Rezko, and the many others. Let me fill you in on a bit of the background of Obama’s current senior adviser. Jarrett was a board member for the Woodlawn Preservation and Investment Cooperation, the Fund for Community Redevelopment and Revitalization, as well as serving as Chief Executive Officer of the Habitat Company. In all three positions she and other Obama financial backers (one of whom, Tony Rezko, is a convicted criminal) participated in managing sub-prime and unfit housing projects (for anyone unaware of the meaning of the term “housing projects”….that means they are either state or federally funded, or both). Go look it up, if you’d like. By the way, a lot of this took place while Obama was a state senator….oh wait…it was HIS DISTRICT. Additionally, Jarrett got Michelle Obama a job way back when. Payback, anyone?I guess what I’d really like to know is how is it that these people managed these properties with government $$ and yet they remain slums. Gee, either the money just got lost….. or…oh shoot….someone (*gasp*) pocketed it. If you’re still not convinced that the properties didn’t get the funding that was due them, have a look: http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/grove.jpg AND http://rightvoices.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/081018-groveparc-0b.jpg
Still not convinced that Jarrett and her cohorts would have benefited from having the Olympics in Chicago? Those properties (still inhabited by many less fortunate families) were set for demolition by order of the city ASAP. Convenient, right? Still not convinced? Valerie Jarrett is (well, I guess now it’s “was”) vice chair of the Chicago Olympics Committee. Hmm. STILL not convinced she’s a crook? Guess who “vetted” Van Jones (the self-proclaimed racist Marxist…those are his words, NOT MINE) for duty in the White House. You guessed it- Valerie Jarrett.
Sources:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2008/nov/obama-advisor-valerie-jarrett-linked-real-estate-scandals
2.) You mentioned the idea of Chicago being somehow more able to avoid budget deficits with the Olympics because of its existing infrastructure and locations for the games, and the influx of people to the city for the games. Let me ask you this: has the Olympics Committee EVER picked a small city devoid of any prior stadiums, or infrastructure for the games? NO! To make your argument plausible, I would have to be making my claims of concern about some small, no-name city that was chosen. The fact that Chicago is a big city with several readily available venues helps, but does NOT defer costs THAT MUCH. After all, every other city that has been chosen is big, full of venues, and readily available to accommodate the throngs. The issue is this: do you really think that a city that is given the privilege to HOST THE WORLD will simply say “Gee, we’ve already got a bunch of buildings, let’s not make any improvements and just have the games in those existing structures.” Nope. I’d really like for you to give me an example of when that has happened. You wouldn’t take out your everyday dishes to serve an important person a meal at your table simply in the name of saving money, would you? Of course not. You will shell out what it takes to put on your best appearance. And there is nothing WRONG with that….every city can improve, especially for such a monumental event. The problem is that our economy (especially Chicago’s) is in NO SHAPE to take on such a load right now. Frankly, Brazil’s isn’t exactly a whole lot better off either.
To address another one of your concerns, yes, thousands of people are involved with the Olympics. There are numerous athletes, their families, coaches and others who come with them, not to mention the thousands of fans that pack the stadium to watch the games. Sounds like a real moneymaker, right? Wrong. Most Olympic cities actually see a drop in their normal tourism numbers, which, shocker- actually causes a city to LOSE money despite the throngs of Olympic goers:
"For most foreign visitors, attending the Olympics is a proposition that costs thousands of dollars. Demand is just not that great. True, many foreigners and Olympics die-hards will come, but far more of the attendees will be locals taking the chance of a lifetime. And of those who do travel from abroad, many will be what's known as "time-switchers": people who would have come anyway but plan their trip to coincide with the Games. Tourist arrivals usually fall after the Olympic circus leaves town. When Athens hosted in 2004, Greece didn't see visitor numbers recover to their pre-Games level until two years later.” (Post)
3.)Let’s talk economics. First of all, let me say one thing- you got one thing right. Spending money stimulates the economy. Of course it does! Spending money stimulates small business which stimulates big business which stimulates cash flow at the federal level, and so the cycle goes. If it were as simple as that, then all our economic problems would be solved. However, you need to consider cost/benefit before ever arriving to a conclusion about what something of these proportions would do for the economy. The thing is, even if small businesses made a temporary profit, they would see it almost instantly disappear with the following year’s tax hike to help the city out with its deficit. The problem lies with the fact that the cost of the Olympics FAR overreaches any profit associated with the games. This is a simple fact of history. Let me give you a quick rundown of how much the Olympics has cost just a few of its host cities throughout the years, in addition to what I mentioned about the $43 Billion ($28 billion over budget) price tag Beijing took on:
3.)Let’s talk economics. First of all, let me say one thing- you got one thing right. Spending money stimulates the economy. Of course it does! Spending money stimulates small business which stimulates big business which stimulates cash flow at the federal level, and so the cycle goes. If it were as simple as that, then all our economic problems would be solved. However, you need to consider cost/benefit before ever arriving to a conclusion about what something of these proportions would do for the economy. The thing is, even if small businesses made a temporary profit, they would see it almost instantly disappear with the following year’s tax hike to help the city out with its deficit. The problem lies with the fact that the cost of the Olympics FAR overreaches any profit associated with the games. This is a simple fact of history. Let me give you a quick rundown of how much the Olympics has cost just a few of its host cities throughout the years, in addition to what I mentioned about the $43 Billion ($28 billion over budget) price tag Beijing took on:
“Montreal’s 1976 Olympics left the city with $2.7 billion of debt that it finally paid off in 2005.” (Baade)
“The Barcelona Organizing Committee in 1992 broke even, but the public debt incurred rose to $6.1 billion.” (Baade)
“The Sydney Organizing Committee in 2000 also reports breaking even, but the Australian state auditor estimated that the games true long-term cost was $2.2 billion. In part, this was because it is costing $30 million a year to operate the 90,000-seat Olympic Stadium.” (Baade)
“When Athens won the right to host the 2004 games in 1997, its budget was $1.6 billion. The final public cost is estimated to be around $16 billion — 10 times the original budget” (Baade)
“In 2007 the U.K. government announced that the real cost of the Games would be closer to $15 billion than the $4 billion they had initially promised. Olympic accounting is shrouded in mystery, but since Los Angeles in 1984, there have been no cases where the Games can show a net profit.” (Post)
Any other improvements to the cities have been marginal at best, and not without a cost to its citizens. The fact is, studies show that cities that host the Olympics either barely break even or experience negative financial burden. I’m betting that a city like Chicago with the deficit it currently has stood to experience a whole lot of financial burden. I’ve included a study by a man named Robert Baade, a professional researcher and professor of economics at Lake Forest College in Chicago. Yeah…not a conservative university by any stretch of the mind.
"For the 36 cities, Baade found:
Presence (or gain/loss) of a Professional Sports Team
There were 32 cities that gained or lost a professional team during the time period studied.
Of these only two cities showed any significant economic impacts from hosting their teams.
For Indianapolis, the economic impacts were positive.
For Baltimore, the economic impacts were negative.
For the other 30 cities (including Salt Lake), there were no changes in economic activity. Change in the number of stadiums or venues
There were 30 cities that had a change in the number of stadiums and/or arenas.
Of these, 27 (including Salt Lake) showed no changes in economic activity due to the construction or renovation of these venues.
For the remaining three (St. Louis, San Francisco/Oakland, and Washington DC),the economic impacts were negative
Conclusion:
Baade’s findings suggest that for most cities, Salt Lake included, the tangible economic benefits of hosting a professional sports team and/or constructing a new venue are not the highest and best use of public funds. Very little tangible economic activity is generated from them, unlike road construction or other public works."(Baade)
Additionally, what do you do with the Olympic Village facilities that each city constructs (and don’t give me the “oh they’d just use their existing stadiums” line….. as mentioned, do you really think that a city that is given the privilege to HOST THE WORLD will let them play in their basic sports stadiums? Not likely) after the Olympics has come and gone? Oh that’s right….maintain them on the taxpayer’s dime. Maintenance costs for the Athens constructions comes in at around 124 million in 2005 alone. Even if the structures are torn down, that costs massive amounts of money.
Sources:
http://www.imakenews.com/cppa/e_article000623460.cfm?x=b11,0,whttp://www.cppa.utah.edu/Perspectives/v2i7_Baadeforpub.pdf http://www.lakeforest.edu/about/news/newsevents.asp http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/02/do-olympic-host-cities-ever-win/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp%20dyn/content/article/2009/10/01/AR2009100103891.html
4.)Let’s talk taxes. Guess what- more taxes means less commerce, plain and simple. Let’s start with the basics of higher taxes, in laymen terms. First, you, the consumer, buy less because more of your income goes to pay your increased taxes. In turn, stores sell less, resulting in a net decrease in profits overall. The fact that they are selling less and thus making less money forces them to cut back costs and find a way to bring in more income, which they do in three ways. First, they must lay off workers that they do not absolutely need, resulting in higher unemployment. Secondly they pass the loss on to their producers, who will in turn produce less due to the demand of the goods. (repeat the above cycle seen with stores with the companies/producers) Third, to make any profit (or in some cases, to simply break even) on the remaining goods based on current demand, they must then raise costs to compensate. Some people will still buy the product because they either have the money to do so or they cannot get along without it (i.e. the necessities). Nevertheless, the higher prices result in even lower sales, and the cycle starts slowly over again, furthering harming the economy. Simple studies of economics will show you that raising taxes has NEVER stimulated the economy. To use your own argument, SPENDING stimulates the economy! How can one spend in any significant quantity if more and more of your cash flow goes to higher taxes? Are you aware of the original purpose of our government, and of taxes? Taxes were originally instituted to fund the government’s ability to defend our freedoms, because after all, government was originally instituted in this country to simply protect the citizens and defend their liberties. It was never to collect money and dole it out as they see fit. After all, our Founding Fathers recognized that this system (which was already tried with the Mayflower Compact, and FAILED miserably) was not to redistribute wealth. That, my friend, is the job of a socialist. Government was never to create a welfare state---but I’ve digressed. Back on track---by the way, since Mayor Daley is quoted in the Chicago Times as having said that Chicagoans would NOT shell out more taxes for the games, it is only logical to expect that the money has to come from somewhere. And, as you put it, the country’s citizens should be happy to shell out more money for their fellow city of Chicago to host the games, right? I’m not so sure I’d be happy. And honestly, Daley’s pathetic comment about how the private sector would fund the games is just ludicrous. I’d be game to see where Daley would get the BILLIONS of dollars the Olympics costs from the so-called private sector, unless he’s planning on Bill Gates showing up to write a check. He’s lying anyway, as hundreds of thousands of dollars of tax $$ were already “committed” to the games. INCLUDING FEDERAL DOLLARS. It’s no wonder 84% of Chicagoans didn’t want the games….especially after what happened with the parking meters! Understanding the meter problem, you’d probably understand their general distrust of the mayor’s promises. Oh, and by the way, get a load of this quote from Mr. Daley just one year ago:“Mayor Richard Daley warned Tuesday of a city budget deficit in the hundreds of millions of dollars, calling the looming financial crunch the worst he has seen.”Sure sounds like a city that can afford the Olympics without raising taxes to me. They can’t even afford to take care of what they’ve got.
Sources:
5.)Let’s talk public service responsibility. You mentioned Tony Blair's past personal bid for Olympics. as an example. First of all, Tony Blair isn’t our president, and he didn’t leave his country during a huge economic crisis to make a bid for some sports. On that basis alone it’s a silly comparison. Also, a trip from England to anywhere in Europe is still about like flying from Washington to one of our states. NOT a big deal, but that’s beside the point. I’d like to focus on our own leader for the time being. Let’s start with costs. Do you know how much this little venture cost the taxpayer?
“. . . .approximately $1.2 million to fly Air Force One over to Copenhagen and it will spew over a million pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere, while at the same time he lectures us on carbon emissions. And remember to double that, because the Obamas couldn't travel together.” (Beck)
Frankly, I’d say “go for it” if the president wants to fly across the ocean to make a pitch like this. After all, he is our president and thus represents our country. This being said, I think there is a time and a place for ventures such as these. However, WRONG TIME to do this. What are Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton for? Last time I checked, the offices of Vice President and Secretary of State….or at least someone in a similar capacity…take care of things like this. At a time when this country needs leadership more than anything, our president is off flying a full day roundtrip to talk about the Olympics. (By the way, only 36% of the nation approved of Obama's venture to Denmark.) Interestingly enough, though the president has time to do this, he only had 25 minutes to meet with General McChrystal on the Copenhagen tarmac inside Air Force One to discuss the outcome of the Afghani war, which by the way, we are currently losing. This only after critics swarmed the White House with criticism about McChrystal’s multiple pleas to meet with the president to come up with a strategy. As far as helping his country, he might try listening to his people at home. After all, his approval ratings are at all time lows, despite what mainstream media tries to shove down our throats. Me, I like to stick to reputable non-biased polls: Only 49% of the country approves of his performance. Out of those 49, only 31% STRONGLY approve of his tactics. That means that 18% of those are one the fence in some issues. As to his biggest pet projects, i.e. healthcare, 59% of the nation strongly disapproves of the current path. By the way, I’ve read the bill. I’d say that Obama needs to focus less on what the world thinks of us and MORE on what WE think of him. He has a big enough job to do at home. See, there is a time and a place for things like taking an extra trip to Europe. Frankly, I’d like to know why he sent a representative to the Iranian nuclear talks in Geneva this last week, but felt that the Olympics needed his personal presence. That sounds terribly irresponsible to me.
Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/03/world/asia/03mcchrystal.html http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/01/iran-nuclear-geneva-talks
6.) I’d like to address your claim that we have done some “terrible frickin things over the years.” Really…. Like what? If you’re talking about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars…you’re way off base. That was a response to the Islamic world’s direct attack on American soil on 9/11. Where were you on that day? I was right down the road from a nuclear power plant outside Chicago praying that it wouldn’t be one of the targets. By the way, have you ever read the Qur’an? I have. It is the duty of a fundamental Muslim to do away with (i.e….annihilate) the infidel. WE ARE THE INFIDEL. Is it not our responsibility to try and defend ourselves? If there was some way that said fundamental Muslims could simply live in their own world without encroaching upon the freedoms of others, fine. However, that is not how it works. That isn’t how it worked with the Communists, with the Fascists, with the terrorists, and with the Nazis. Sir, if our country did not take up arms to defend our freedoms, we’d be speaking another language and living without many of the freedoms which we currently enjoy. I have friends from China who cannot access most of the internet because of heavy restrictions their communist government has inflicted upon them. I also have a step-cousin who otherwise may have been drowned in a rice paddy had my uncle and aunt not had a chance to adopt her. Yeah…that pesky little communist one-child law. She was a liability. I have relatives in Mexico who cannot access good medical care because their government decided to take over the medical sector. I have friends in Europe who pay the economic price of their fascist leaders in the past. I have a friend whose country finally became free just a few years after her birth. She enjoys the freedoms she has today because President Reagan ordered Mikhail Gorbachev to TEAR DOWN THAT WALL.The thing is, you cannot live in a bubble and simply hope that no one bothers our country. You have to stave off repressive regimes that threaten our safety, (key word here....THREATEN) plain and simple. By the way, we are the only nation on earth to GIVE THE LAND BACK after a war or conflict. I certainly don’t see any other victorious nation doing anything of the sort. Oh, and Gitmo? Those prisoners certainly had it a whole lot better than the poor guys at Bataan, or Hanoi, or Auschwitz. Slavery enters the equation here as well among the things we have done wrong. Was it wrong? YES. Are we the only nation to have fallen to this problem? NO. Are we one of the few nations to address this problem? YES. As a student of history, I’ve come across many horrible accounts of the conditions in which slaves lived…IN OTHER COUNTRIES, even to this day. Further still, an African American once told me “Yes, slavery was awful and wrong. However, us descendants of those slaves now have the opportunity to live in one of the most prosperous countries in the world; a chance we otherwise probably wouldn’t have.” By the way, it’s too bad Obama’s half brother still lives in squalor in Nigeria, huh? Seems like Obama in all his progressivism would have done something about that by now. Yes, we are far from perfect, but we are also FAR from the horrible nation Obama paints us to be. Frankly, if your country has done something wrong, you address that issue with your own people first and foremost. You don’t go around the world apologizing for our existence.
7.)One last thing I'd like to address, the “shit hole of a recession that mr. bush didn't try to stop” as you put it, did seem to really take off in 2006, though it was years and piles of legislation in the making. Would you like to know what else happened in 2006? The Congress changed hands. Nancy Pelosi became the speaker of the House and Harry Reid the Senate Majority Leader. It was at that time that Congress started pushing the sub-prime housing issue, forcing lenders under pressure of the government to hand out sub-prime (welfare-esque) loans to those who otherwise would have been denied. The result? Thousands of people who would otherwise NOT have received loans got loans for houses with payments they couldn’t afford because of their incomes, resulting in thousands of foreclosures, demolishing the housing market. Oh, and throw in Bush’s “stimulus package,” (which Congress hugely pushed for) which like every other stimulus package, is essentially like taking a bucket of water from one end of a pool and feeding it into the other. Tell me, how it is after several Obama stimulus packages, that we still have staggering unemployment and a falling dollar, if stimulus money (which by the way, people will be taxed on next year….read the Congressional bills) is the answer to everything. How is it that after government takeover of the auto industry, the bank industry, (and soon the health industry) nothing has come of it, unless one wants to count rising problems as something……?
Sources:
Before your next argument, you might want to try and reason with facts. And stop playing "pity poor us, it's all Bush's fault." It's Obama's economy now.
