So.. Bob Costas seems to have pinkeye... maybe the hotel condition in Sochi weren't exaggerated?
I used to love Bill Costas. Now I think hes just a d**k
Saw him at the airport once... One of the shortest people I have ever seen.
Conditions...
http://www.buzzfeed.com/bennyjohnson/proof-that-sochi-is-a-godforsaken-hellscape-right-now
http://thechive.com/2014/02/06/conditions-at-the-sochi-olympics-are-badhilarious-32-photos/
Trying to care about them, failing. I know I will end up watching more than I intend to, I always do. I just don't look forward with anticipation.
parade of nations is always awesome in my opinion. Feels like the world is actually coming together in peace and all that sappy stuff
Quote from: MUeng on February 06, 2014, 08:39:16 PM
parade of nations is always awesome in my opinion. Feels like the world is actually coming together in peace and all that sappy stuff
In a stadium built by corruption and unpaid labor.
Quote from: esard2011 on February 06, 2014, 07:47:20 PM
I used to love Bill Costas. Now I think hes just a d**k
+1
Quote from: The Sultan of Serenity on February 06, 2014, 08:56:02 PM
In a stadium built by corruption and unpaid labor.
isn't that like 99% of olympic and world cup stadiums?
Quote from: esard2011 on February 06, 2014, 07:47:20 PM
I used to love Bill Costas. Now I think hes just a d**k
The ultimate beta-male.
Quote from: jesmu84 on February 06, 2014, 08:58:47 PM
isn't that like 99% of olympic and world cup stadiums?
Yep.
The IOC and FIFA used to award their events to places that actually an an infrastructure in place, but now they like to put them in places that require an infrastructure to build...South Africa...Rio...Sochi...Qatar...
Makes the graft easier I guess.
Perhaps putting the 2020 Summer Olympics in Tokyo is a step back from that.
Quote from: The Sultan of Serenity on February 06, 2014, 09:07:16 PM
Yep.
The IOC and FIFA used to award their events to places that actually an an infrastructure in place, but now they like to put them in places that require an infrastructure to build...South Africa...Rio...Sochi...Qatar...
Makes the graft easier I guess.
Perhaps putting the 2020 Summer Olympics in Tokyo is a step back from that.
Im still bitter about Chicago losing out to Rio. I was all ready to volunteer for the games.
Quote from: esard2011 on February 06, 2014, 09:34:17 PM
Im still bitter about Chicago losing out to Rio. I was all ready to volunteer for the games.
It really was for the best.
http://abcnews.go.com/news/t/blogEntry?id=22399431&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bing.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3DRussia%2Bshower%26go%3D%26qs%3Dn%26form%3DQBLH%26pq%3Drussia%2Bshower%26sc%3D1-13%26sp%3D-1%26sk%3D%26cvid%3Dfdfd769fc4434d5ea0339236997d44de
In Soviet Russia, mirror looks at you
Quote from: The Sultan of Serenity on February 06, 2014, 09:38:00 PM
It really was for the best.
Yes. Any city/cities that have to build new arena/stadiums/whatever and don't already have the infrastructure drastically suffer financially and economically. Especially in more recent years. Look at Salt Lake City, Vancouver, hell even Beijing. Empty/unused buildings. Money down the drain.
Didn't Romney turn SLC around? They made money unlike most
Quote from: esard2011 on February 06, 2014, 09:34:17 PM
Im still bitter about Chicago losing out to Rio. I was all ready to volunteer for the games.
Depending on how the World Cup goes this summer, you still might see the games.
I've heard nothing but bad things out of Rio/Brazil about stadium construction etc.
Quote from: jesmu84 on February 06, 2014, 10:14:54 PM
Yes. Any city/cities that have to build new arena/stadiums/whatever and don't already have the infrastructure drastically suffer financially and economically. Especially in more recent years. Look at Salt Lake City, Vancouver, hell even Beijing. Empty/unused buildings. Money down the drain.
In Beijing the bird's is now an unused dilapidated stadium. In 2008 it was the marvel of the world at nearly $1 billion. Today it is an eye soar.
How is that a good idea that others want to repeat?
Glad Chicago did not get them.
Quote from: Heisenberg on February 07, 2014, 06:59:56 AM
In Beijing the bird's is now an unused dilapidated stadium. In 2008 it was the marvel of the world at nearly $1 billion. Today it is an eye soar.
How is that a good idea that others want to repeat?
Glad Chicago did not get them.
Keep in mind a large number of the venues in say Chicago already exist as opposed to something like Bejing. Look at 1994 World Cup, US made a ton of money on that and it wasn't nearly as popular a sport as it is now. Chicago actually could have done something with the majority of olympic venues after the fact. Though I do think it's insane how there is an arms race to make everything the latest and greatest and basically a single purpose venue.
Besides if your a Keynesian that wasn't wasted money ;)
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on February 07, 2014, 06:44:34 AM
Depending on how the World Cup goes this summer, you still might see the games.
I've heard nothing but bad things out of Rio/Brazil about stadium construction etc.
Nah, even if the world cup is a complete tire fire Chicago wont see it. That was gonna be Mayor Daleys crown jewel. Rahm would never put in for another bid.
57% chance of a terrorist attack. Experts believe once Sochi got the bid terrorist began entering the city to get construction and volunteer jobs at the Olympics. Four suicide bombers are somewhere in the city.
Unfortunately I see absolutely no good coming from these games. Hope everyone comes back safe but I doubt it.
@sochiproblems.
great twitter feed.
Quote from: esard2011 on February 06, 2014, 09:34:17 PM
Im still bitter about Chicago losing out to Rio. I was all ready to volunteer for the games.
Ah yes, the corrupt politicians in Chicago got out corrupted by the the corrupt politicians in Rio.
Quote from: mu03eng on February 07, 2014, 07:32:32 AM
Keep in mind a large number of the venues in say Chicago already exist as opposed to something like Bejing. Look at 1994 World Cup, US made a ton of money on that and it wasn't nearly as popular a sport as it is now. Chicago actually could have done something with the majority of olympic venues after the fact. Though I do think it's insane how there is an arms race to make everything the latest and greatest and basically a single purpose venue.
Besides if your a Keynesian that wasn't wasted money ;)
1994 made so much money because, outside of a few renovations like the Rose Bowl, the US already had infrastructure in place. The WC should be in the US in 2022, but because of graft is going to be held in a country where it is too hot to play in the summer, where no quality stadiums existed when the bid was announced, and one projection is that *thousands* of workers will die.
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/oct/04/world-cup-2022-fifa-sepp-blatter-qatar-worker-deaths
And of course FIFA claims no responsibility. It really is reprehensible.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on February 07, 2014, 07:35:00 AM
57% chance of a terrorist attack.
According to who?
How do you even calculate something like that?
The threats vary in credibility, and the biggest one traces to the group Imarat Kavkaz in Russia, which has publicly said its followers will try to disrupt the games, the official said.
Private protection: The U.S. ski and snowboarding team has hired a private security firm, Global Rescue, to provide protection. It's not clear how much the firm could do in the event of a major incident, when Russian forces will be in charge, but it has been gathering intelligence on the ground and will provide an extra layer of protection as athletes travel around. -- I imagine a task force lead by Liam Neeson and Jack Bauer
Ships for safety: Meanwhile, two U.S. Navy ships have steamed into the Black Sea, where they will be ready to help if any mass evacuation of U.S. citizens is needed. U.S. security officials have also been working with their Russian counterparts on how to keep the Games safe against the backdrop of a regional separatist movement that has used terrorism in the past and has threatened to use it during Sochi's Olympic Games. -- could you imagine?
Quote from: Bleuteaux on February 07, 2014, 09:14:08 AM
According to who?
How do you even calculate something like that?
Exactly,
and I like the accuracy of 57% not 60% or 50%.
Quote from: The Sultan of Serenity on February 07, 2014, 08:56:10 AM
1994 made so much money because, outside of a few renovations like the Rose Bowl, the US already had infrastructure in place. The WC should be in the US in 2022, but because of graft is going to be held in a country where it is too hot to play in the summer, where no quality stadiums existed when the bid was announced, and one projection is that *thousands* of workers will die.
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/oct/04/world-cup-2022-fifa-sepp-blatter-qatar-worker-deaths
And of course FIFA claims no responsibility. It really is reprehensible.
Sepp Blatter is an absolute joke and a repugnant human being. Glad he signed on for a fifth f-ing term. They are turning a blind eye cause, unlike Sochi, the infrastructure will likely be great and beautiful in Qatar when all is said and done cause there is a track record of architectural excellence and success with big budgets in the Middle East, unlike Russia.
Speaking of Russia, how lovely that after this cluster in Sochi, we get to go back in 4 years when they've graciously been awarded a World Cup.
The point about existing infrastructure is a good one. When these massive structures are being created with the sole purpose of hosting the games, its going to be a mess cause there is no backfill plan to utilize most of them. I could be wrong, but I believe London was set up much in the same way that Chicago would be, with existing infrastructure being used for as much as possible, so you'd think there wouldnt be as much trouble moving forward there,
Yes, for instance the London Olympic Stadium is being renovated to be the new home for West Ham United.
The Atlanta Olympics, for all snooty-nosed bullsh*t from IOC that they were "too commercial," actually made money and made great use of the infrastructure that was created. Say what you want about Turner Field being considered obsolete 20 years later, but that isn't really an Olympics issue.
Yea, if I remember correctly from the Chicago plans they were going to use McCormick place for almost all of the events such as lifting, ping pong and all of those other random little events. They had lake michigan for all of the rowing events. The only things they had to build was an olympic stadium which I believe would have been in Washington Park where they would have downsized it later for more conventional use, an aquatics center which I think was going to be in evanston and an Olympic villiage which was going to be on Northernly Island and later to be sold as regular apartments. Daley plaza was going to be the central hub with TVs and a central meeting place. Plus you have other places like soldier field that could be used.
Problem is, how do you allow countries to host who don't already have infrastructure in place? How does any country in Africa become a host?
Not saying they shouldn't host but...
Quote from: jesmu84 on February 07, 2014, 09:59:46 AM
Problem is, how do you allow countries to host who don't already have infrastructure in place? How does any country in Africa become a host?
Not saying they shouldn't host but...
I'm saying they shouldn't host.
There are all sorts of continental based events (African Cup of Nations, PanAm Games, etc.)...or smaller worldwide events (World University Games, FIFA Youth Cup, etc.)...that those countries are more suitable for hosting. But the Olympics and the World Cup should be reserved for the countries that have the pieces in place.
Quote from: mu03eng on February 07, 2014, 07:32:32 AM
Keep in mind a large number of the venues in say Chicago already exist as opposed to something like Bejing. Look at 1994 World Cup, US made a ton of money on that and it wasn't nearly as popular a sport as it is now. Chicago actually could have done something with the majority of olympic venues after the fact. Though I do think it's insane how there is an arms race to make everything the latest and greatest and basically a single purpose venue.
Besides if your a Keynesian that wasn't wasted money ;)
The Chicago bid called for a 100,000 seat stadium in Hyde Park. That would have been used for the opening/closing ceremonies and Track & Field. Half of billion wasted here. (Sure they tried to say it was "temporary" and would be downsized to 12,000 afterwards for the University of Chicago. The cost to build a permanent or temporary Olympic stadium is the same. Downsizing it adds another $100 million. Besides U of C already has a fairly new Stagg Stadium so they don't really need it.)
The Chicago bid called for a 15,000 seat outdoor tennis stadium at the Waveland Clock Tower. Along with that was 30 more courts with one seating 5,000 and a few other seating well over 1,000. What does Chicago do with a 15,000 seat outdoor tennis stadium? Get a ATP/WTA tour stop? Sure, what does it do with it the other 350 days of the year?
Chicago was going to spend $100 to $300 million building a massive breakfront on the Lake for the rowing events (they wanted the City in the background). Good visual but would you rather they spend that money on the Brown Line?
Chicago was going to spend $100 re-making the Lincoln Park Lagoon into the whitewater rafting venue. Another $50 million on the North Ave beach for Beach Volleyball and the Triathlon. Oh, and $200 million on completely redoing Lake Shore Drive and city streets for the Triathlon and Marathon.
Finally they were going to build the multi-billion Olympic village around the former Micheal Reese Hospital. They were arguing that these could be sold as Condos afterwards to make up for the cost. This is an economically depressed area of Chicago and this was being sold as a renewal project.
See London. They did the same thing with their economically depressed East End and they lost their ass as nothing sold (their a reason its economically depressed, no one wants to live their and forcing a giant condo complex that was the former Olympic village is not going to change this.)
Also lets not forget this is Chicago. In 2008 86 US Olympians won medals. That is your over/under on arrests for bribery and corruption on a Chicago bid. I would have taken the over.
Quote from: Heisenberg on February 07, 2014, 10:51:03 AM
Also lets not forget this is Chicago. In 2008 86 US Olympians won medals. That is your over/under on arrests for bribery and corruption on a Chicago bid. I would have taken the over.
Thats really just unnecessary...You think the IOC is a clean system...please. Chicago far and away had the best plan of any of the 4 cities and yet got tossed because of the idiots at the IOC. Now there is going to be a really interesting 3 weeks in Rio where I will take your over 86 except in violent crimes rather then corruption.
Adding to my list above. If Chicago won the bid, Wrigley and US Cell would have gotten the complete re-modeling for Women's Softball (and a push to reinstate baseball). Soldiers Fields would have gotten $100+ million to bring it to FIFA standards for soccer. So would have ND Stadium as they were also a soccer venue.
UIC pavilion would have been completely rebuilt for gymnastics. McCormick Place would have been completely rebuilt for Boxing/Wrestling/Weight Lifting and shooting.
The West Side would have gotten a massive state of the art Aquatics center. what they would have do with it afterwards I have no idea.
In the meantime we cannot get the potholes filled and are running out of Salt.
So happy Chicago didn't win the bid.
See my view on it is I really dont care how much it would have cost, it would have been damn cool. I would have taken a hike in taxes just to be able to see the Olympics in my home city. I think thats what a lot of people forget. Just forget about the costs and planning. It would have been incredible to see what Chicago could have pulled off for the Olympics, and I would have been front and center. In fact, I still wear my "Chicago 2016 Candidate City" bracelet.
Quote from: esard2011 on February 07, 2014, 11:05:02 AM
See my view on it is I really dont care how much it would have cost, it would have been damn cool. I would have taken a hike in taxes just to be able to see the Olympics in my home city. I think thats what a lot of people forget. Just forget about the costs and planning. It would have been incredible to see what Chicago could have pulled off for the Olympics, and I would have been front and center.
My view is that it would have been a complete clusterfuck of people. Traffic would be out of control, not just during the time the olympics would be here, but during the years of planning and construction it would take to make it happen.
Not to mention security concerns. Just look at the crap going on in Sochi. What makes you think there wouldn't be just as big of a threat if they were held in Chicago? I don't want to have to leave my briefcase at home because they won't let me take it on the blue line.... because they truly believe there is a significant threat that someone is about to blow up the blue line... no thanks.
And I don't know how many would agree with your view on not minding a hike in taxes just so we can "watch" the games in our own city. Like Heisenberg said, there is plenty to focus on for the City of Chicago in the next 10 years, the Olympics should be the furthest from that discussion.
Quote from: esard2011 on February 07, 2014, 10:59:13 AM
Thats really just unnecessary...You think the IOC is a clean system...please. Chicago far and away had the best plan of any of the 4 cities and yet got tossed because of the idiots at the IOC. Now there is going to be a really interesting 3 weeks in Rio where I will take your over 86 except in violent crimes rather then corruption.
So you think bringing up graft and corruption if Chicago got a bid was unnecessary? Well this is what happened when because Chicago lost the bid (and it happened about a month after Chicago lost the bid). Imagine how bad it would have been if Chicago won.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/18/us/18chicago.html?_r=0
Police Investigate Suicide of Chicago Schools Chief
The president of the Chicago Board of Education, who had served in a variety of prominent posts here over three decades, was found dead early Monday morning on the banks of the Chicago River, in what the medical examiner ruled a suicide.
The body of the 60-year-old official, Michael W. Scott, was discovered around 3 a.m. near the Merchandise Mart, a historic commercial center and office building downtown.
Mr. Scott died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head, according to the office of the Cook County medical examiner. A handgun was found under or near the body, said Jody Weis, the Chicago police superintendent.
...
He came under scrutiny this year for two local controversies. In August, he told reporters that he had received a subpoena to testify before a federal grand jury investigating whether there had been improper preferential admissions to the city's top public schools.
Around the same time, news accounts concerning his role as a member of the Chicago 2016 Olympic Committee suggested that he had engaged in a conflict of interest by helping a group of ministers develop land near a proposed Olympic site. Later coverage said the committee had concluded that he had realized no financial gain from the project but should have told the committee about his involvement.
----------------------------------------------------
This is Chicago ... a connected Pol that tells "investors" he could use his clout to get prime real estate in Hyde Park that will go up multi-fold when Chicago wins the bid. Chicago does not win the bid and he is found dead floating in the Chicago river of a "self-inflicted gunshot wound."
Are you the world's most naive person or would you like to revise you thought that 86 people arrested for bribery/graft/corruption was low?
Quote from: MarsupialMadness on February 07, 2014, 11:14:48 AM
My view is that it would have been a complete clusterunnatural carnal knowledge of people. Traffic would be out of control, not just during the time the olympics would be here, but during the years of planning and construction it would take to make it happen.
Not to mention security concerns. Just look at the crap going on in Sochi. What makes you think there wouldn't be just as big of a threat if they were held in Chicago? I don't want to have to leave my briefcase at home because they won't let me take it on the blue line.... because they truly believe there is a significant threat that someone is about to blow up the blue line... no thanks.
And I don't know how many would agree with your view on not minding a hike in taxes just so we can "watch" the games in our own city. Like Heisenberg said, there is plenty to focus on for the City of Chicago in the next 10 years, the Olympics should be the furthest from that discussion.
Difference of opinions then. Honestly, I would have given up so much more then money to have the olympics here. I was in high school at the time and organized a "we back the bid" video for our school. Its just one of those things I was really involved in despite the fact I was only a high schooler. Just one of those things that I really felt strongly about.
Quote from: esard2011 on February 07, 2014, 11:19:34 AM
Difference of opinions then. Honestly, I would have given up so much more then money to have the olympics here. I was in high school at the time and organized a "we back the bid" video for our school. Its just one of those things I was really involved in despite the fact I was only a high schooler. Just one of those things that I really felt strongly about.
Why don't you spend $25,000 to go to Rio in 2016 instead? That is what it would have cost each resident of Chicago had we won the bid.
Quote from: esard2011 on February 07, 2014, 11:05:02 AM
See my view on it is I really dont care how much it would have cost, it would have been damn cool. I would have taken a hike in taxes just to be able to see the Olympics in my home city. I think thats what a lot of people forget. Just forget about the costs and planning. It would have been incredible to see what Chicago could have pulled off for the Olympics, and I would have been front and center. In fact, I still wear my "Chicago 2016 Candidate City" bracelet.
Not to be a total dick but how much would a Chicago tax hike really impact you? You are a college student in Milwaukee, no?
As a working, taxpaying resident of Chicago, I, and most of us living here, are relieved we didn't get the bid just to stroke former mayor Daley's ego. I refuse to forget about costs and planning when they would have a major impact on my pocketbook, not to mention my commute. Its not monopoly money anymore once you graduate.
And I am someone who considers myself a liberal and is happy to pay taxes when they are used for the common good and a strong social safety net.
Quote from: Bleuteaux on February 07, 2014, 11:27:36 AM
Not to be a total dick but how much would a Chicago tax hike really impact you? You are a college student in Milwaukee, no?
As a working, taxpaying resident of Chicago, I, and most of us living here, are relieved we didn't get the bid just to stroke former mayor Daley's ego.
Wouldnt have affected me at all but my parents who are both tax paying citizens of Chicago were completely pro-olympics. Consider the fact that they are both CPS teachers there not really a whole lot of money that we can just throw away. I feel like you are all in the minority because all of the people I talked to were VERY Pro-Olympics.
Quote from: esard2011 on February 07, 2014, 11:31:01 AM
Wouldnt have affected me at all but my parents who are both tax paying citizens of Chicago were completely pro-olympics. Consider the fact that they are both CPS teachers there not really a whole lot of money that we can just throw away. I feel like you are all in the minority because all of the people I talked to were VERY Pro-Olympics.
Didn't we address this in another thread?
Quote from: The Sultan of Serenity on February 07, 2014, 11:36:09 AM
Didn't we address this in another thread?
Not to get into that too much but the numbers lie. Trust me.
Quote from: esard2011 on February 07, 2014, 11:31:01 AM
Wouldnt have affected me at all but my parents who are both tax paying citizens of Chicago were completely pro-olympics. Consider the fact that they are both CPS teachers there not really a whole lot of money that we can just throw away. I feel like you are all in the minority because all of the people I talked to were VERY Pro-Olympics.
I don't know many working adults who reside in Chicago that were ever pro-Olympic bid in Chicago. Perhaps we come from a different part of town.
Quote from: The Sultan of Serenity on February 07, 2014, 10:25:11 AM
I'm saying they shouldn't host.
There are all sorts of continental based events (African Cup of Nations, PanAm Games, etc.)...or smaller worldwide events (World University Games, FIFA Youth Cup, etc.)...that those countries are more suitable for hosting. But the Olympics and the World Cup should be reserved for the countries that have the pieces in place.
And they should earn it....gives them something to aspire to. If I want to host the olympics I should have infrastructure in place before even attempting something.
Quote from: esard2011 on February 07, 2014, 11:31:01 AM
Wouldnt have affected me at all but my parents who are both tax paying citizens of Chicago were completely pro-olympics. Consider the fact that they are both CPS teachers there not really a whole lot of money that we can just throw away. I feel like you are all in the minority because all of the people I talked to were VERY Pro-Olympics.
If I was a high schooler, I too would have found it "damn cool" for Chicago to host to Olympics because, as you said, it wouldn't have affected by daily life all that much. That said, I don't know any adults who were even remotely excited about the prospects of Chicago hosting the Olympics.
EDIT: Removed the first part of my post. Don't want to turn this into a teacher debate.
Quote from: esard2011 on February 07, 2014, 11:05:02 AM
See my view on it is I really dont care how much it would have cost, it would have been damn cool. I would have taken a hike in taxes just to be able to see the Olympics in my home city. I think thats what a lot of people forget. Just forget about the costs and planning. It would have been incredible to see what Chicago could have pulled off for the Olympics, and I would have been front and center. In fact, I still wear my "Chicago 2016 Candidate City" bracelet.
That not caring attitude is what has us $17 trillion in debt...and policies that kick the can down the road time and time again.
All too often those that don't care how much it costs are also
not the ones that seem to pay the smallest portion as well. It's easy to ask for goodies when the most of the payment of the goodies is covered by someone else....be it the rich, out of town visitors, people buying cigarettes, etc. Someone is paying
Edit to fix sentence
Quote from: esard2011 on February 07, 2014, 11:37:56 AM
Not to get into that too much but the numbers lie. Trust me.
Hey, no way!!! Bill Gates and I have an average net worth of $33.5 Billion dollars.
I'm rich!!! I'm rich!!!
Quote from: Heisenberg on February 07, 2014, 11:22:18 AM
Why don't you spend $25,000 to go to Rio in 2016 instead? That is what it would have cost each resident of Chicago had we won the bid.
A totally made up number.
Neither you nor I have any idea what the number is. The difference is that I don't reach down between my legs and grab something from there.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 07, 2014, 12:06:06 PM
That not caring attitude is what has us $17 trillion in debt...and policies that kick the can down the road time and time again.
All too often those that don't care how much it costs are also not the ones that seem to pay the smallest portion as well. It's easy to ask for goodies when the most of the payment of the goodies is covered by someone else....be it the rich, out of town visitors, people buying cigarettes, etc. Someone is paying
I'm so glad someone was here to relate this to the national debt. Heaven forbid we discuss a specific proposal without tying it into a gridlocked issue that people get emotional about.
Thinking about the Chicago Olympic proposal and, admittedly, not knowing about the funding plan, I'd be interested to know how cost burden was distributed across the income distribution. My biggest issue with these sorts of projects is that they're funded in most cases with a regressive sales tax. So the people who benefit least from the event end up paying a higher percentage of their income towards the costs.
The Beijing Olympics weren't a great deal if you were the average Chinese worker. It seems pretty callous to ask the economically disadvantaged to pony up for events that they can't afford to attend.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 07, 2014, 12:06:06 PM
That not caring attitude is what has us $17 trillion in debt...and policies that kick the can down the road time and time again.
All too often those that don't care how much it costs are also not the ones that seem to pay the smallest portion as well. It's easy to ask for goodies when the most of the payment of the goodies is covered by someone else....be it the rich, out of town visitors, people buying cigarettes, etc. Someone is paying
Also - anytime someone quotes the debt as a gross number rather than %age of GDP it kills a puppy.
That's not a left vs. right issue; that's a 'has a clue about public finance' vs 'let's be shocking to promote my agenda' issue.
Quote from: brandx on February 07, 2014, 12:25:10 PM
A totally made up number.
Neither you nor I have any idea what the number is. The difference is that I don't reach down between my legs and grab something from there.
You're right, this is a made up number. I was part of Chicago2016 committee (along with hundreds of others). No funding numbers were ever brought up up this was the number widely assumed.
The estimate for the cost was $20 to $25 billion (which we knows means at least $40 billion). The $25,000 was a total of taxes (sales, property, income, fees and others) over the subsequent 15 years.
And for the record, I was one of many on these committees that thought it would not work and was glad it failed.
Quote from: Heisenberg on February 07, 2014, 12:38:45 PM
You're right, this is a made up number. I was part of Chicago2016 committee (along with hundreds of others). No funding numbers were ever brought up up this was the number widely assumed.
The estimate for the cost was $20 to $25 billion (which we knows means at least $40 billion). The $25,000 was a total of taxes (sales, property, income, fees and others) over the subsequent 15 years.
And for the record, I was one of many on these committees that thought it would not work and was glad it failed.
My point was that you were looking at
one thing and saying it was everything.
I'm sure your estimate took labor costs into account. I wonder if it took into account the amount of those labor costs that would be funneled right back into the Chicago economy. Along with many other costs that are recouped along the way. Or was it just the costs and expenses divided by number of people?
What was the process to get to $25,000? What expenses and what offsets?
Quote from: akmarq on February 07, 2014, 12:34:21 PM
Also - anytime someone quotes the debt as a gross number rather than %age of GDP it kills a puppy.
That's not a left vs. right issue; that's a 'has a clue about public finance' vs 'let's be shocking to promote my agenda' issue.
+1
Quote from: brandx on February 07, 2014, 12:57:48 PM
My point was that you were looking at one thing and saying it was everything.
I'm sure your estimate took labor costs into account. I wonder if it took into account the amount of those labor costs that would be funneled right back into the Chicago economy. Along with many other costs that are recouped along the way. Or was it just the costs and expenses divided by number of people?
What was the process to get to $25,000? What expenses and what offsets?
Never got that far as we lost the bid. That was a working estimate. Had Chicago won the bid, they would have had seven years to sort it out.
Trust me up until literally the days before the bid was due, they were making up numbers and changing stuff radically.
It was about winning the bid, not making the numbers work.
Quote from: Heisenberg on February 07, 2014, 01:56:59 PM
Never got that far as we lost the bid. That was a working estimate. Had Chicago won the bid, they would have had seven years to sort it out.
Trust me up until literally the days before the bid was due, they were making up numbers and changing stuff radically.
It was about winning the bid, not making the numbers work.
I think that is pretty much always the way it works.
If Chicago had been awarded the Olympic Games, I'm pretty certain the corruption and dismal conditions in Sochi wouldn't even be newsworthy right now.
Chicks who "hate sports" love watching the winter Olympics.
No thanks.
Quote from: Benny B on February 07, 2014, 02:45:05 PM
If Chicago had been awarded the Olympic Games, I'm pretty certain the corruption and dismal conditions in Sochi wouldn't even be newsworthy right now.
Doubtful, Chicago woulda had some nice facilities.
Quote from: esard2011 on February 07, 2014, 02:58:04 PM
Doubtful, Chicago woulda had some nice facilities.
Yet they would have had so much graft that the entire world have nodded in agreement when Putin condemns the corruption of the Chicago games.
Quote from: Benny B on February 07, 2014, 03:16:44 PM
Yet they would have had so much graft that the entire world have nodded in agreement when Putin condemns the corruption of the Chicago games.
+1
The games are not nothing but a giant public works project (but in useless projects after the games are done). No different from the O'Hare expansion project. Bribery, corruption, ghost payrolling are all part of the normal affairs of such a project. The Olympics are no different.
Again, see my post above about Michael Scott
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=41878.msg565607#msg565607
Helped "investors" buy property to make a killing when Chicago won the games and drove up the value of these properties. Instead Chicago lost the bid and his investors were hosed. A month later he's found floating in the Chicago river with a bullet in his head ... a "Chicago Suicide."
That's what happened when they lost. Imagine the grab-fest if they won!
You all seriously only see the worst in the world...No positivity, kinda like the general theme of this board.
Chicago is a very corrupt city as far as American cities go. But if you think it has anything on other countries, especially the modern Wild West like Russia, you are absolutely insane. In Russia the media wouldn't have even reported Michael Scott cause the powers that be wouldn't have allowed it. If it was a "Chicago Suicide" in Russia, he would have just vanished. As far as facilities, you could have an Olympics worth of reporters and media descend on Chicago tomorrow and not be as ill equipped as those places popping up online. Putin makes Daley look like Abraham Lincoln.
Quote from: akmarq on February 07, 2014, 12:34:21 PM
Also - anytime someone quotes the debt as a gross number rather than %age of GDP it kills a puppy.
That's not a left vs. right issue; that's a 'has a clue about public finance' vs 'let's be shocking to promote my agenda' issue.
OK, I'm happy to do that.
Our debt to GDP in 2012 was 101.60. Staggering.
In 2006, it was 63.3.
The only time it was higher than it is now, was 1946 just after World War II.
Not sure what "agenda" I'm pushing, because those are just the facts. Straight from the United States Treasury Department http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/current
The bigger point is that whether it is a SPECIFIC project(s) or a multitude of them, we keep spending (not caring what it costs) and kicking the can down the road. And that % to GDP climbs and climbs and climbs, until we are upside down like we are today. Pay as you go? LOL. Just push it off to the next generation or two....after all...."who cares what it costs"
Quote from: esard2011 on February 07, 2014, 04:32:12 PM
You all seriously only see the worst in the world...No positivity, kinda like the general theme of this board.
Plenty of positivity can be seen, but there is a difference between seeing the worst in the world and just seeing reality and the ramifications of those decisions. As I've often said, in my next life I hope to come back as a person who just wants to be that guy that advocates for everything and even better, doesn't have to pay a red cent for it. That would be a wonderful experience....it's easy to be on that side of the fence.
Similarly, as a Bay Area resident, we lack the space and infrastructure to host the Olympics.
Sure, we have the vistas, destinations, etc.
But the pure gridlock, trickle down stress, constant Olympic banter, not to mention always being a possible high-value terrorist target...
I don't think it's worth the headache.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 07, 2014, 06:38:25 PM
OK, I'm happy to do that.
Our debt to GDP in 2012 was 101.60. Staggering.
In 2006, it was 63.3.
Not sure what "agenda" I'm pushing,
Starting in '46, the percentage went down every year under Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, and Carter. It went up every year under Reagan, Bush, down again under Clinton and up under Bush.
So we know your agenda - what we don't get is your point.
It's gotta be either that you want Hillary in '16 or everything is BO's fault ?-(
Those commies can belt out a tune.
Quote from: brandx on February 07, 2014, 07:00:15 PM
Starting in '46, the percentage went down every year under Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, and Carter. It went up every year under Reagan, Bush, down again under Clinton and up under Bush.
So we know your agenda - what we don't get is your point.
It's gotta be either that you want Hillary in '16 or everything is BO's fault ?-(
SMH
It's one thing to have it go up, it's another thing to have it go off the rails. The point is pretty clear. We spend money we don't have especially with attitudes like, "who cares what it costs". That was the point.
Last I checked, it was Congress who controlled the purse strings...so though you might think you know my agenda, the example you gave to somehow explain it clearly shows you don't. Congress spends the money, not the POTUS. Believe me, I blame the whole lot of them.
(http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/5259807269beddc60cd28eee-960/screen%20shot%202013-10-12%20at%209.28.00%20am.png)
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 07, 2014, 06:44:01 PM
Plenty of positivity can be seen, but there is a difference between seeing the worst in the world and just seeing reality and the ramifications of those decisions. As I've often said, in my next life I hope to come back as a person who just wants to be that guy that advocates for everything and even better, doesn't have to pay a red cent for it. That would be a wonderful experience....it's easy to be on that side of the fence.
You'll get your chance to be the "say yes" guy in this life, Chico. It's called being a grandparent. Kill two birds with one stone - indulge those little ones at every turn and spend as much of your kids inheritance on them as you can.
All kidding aside, of course you're both right. When esard says he wants the Olympics in Chicago because it would be cool, he right - would be cool. But as you say, sometimes the adult has to tell the kid that not all cool things are affordable. "You can't always get what you want..."
Quote from: JWags85 on February 07, 2014, 05:30:01 PM
Chicago is a very corrupt city as far as American cities go. But if you think it has anything on other countries, especially the modern Wild West like Russia, you are absolutely insane. In Russia the media wouldn't have even reported Michael Scott cause the powers that be wouldn't have allowed it. If it was a "Chicago Suicide" in Russia, he would have just vanished. As far as facilities, you could have an Olympics worth of reporters and media descend on Chicago tomorrow and not be as ill equipped as those places popping up online. Putin makes Daley look like Abraham Lincoln.
So that's out silver lining ... Hey were not Russia!
I feel better now
Quote from: Lennys Tap on February 07, 2014, 08:51:57 PM
You'll get your chance to be the "say yes" guy in this life, Chico. It's called being a grandparent. Kill two birds with one stone - indulge those little ones at every turn and spend as much of your kids inheritance on them as you can.
All kidding aside, of course you're both right. When esard says he wants the Olympics in Chicago because it would be cool, he right - would be cool. But as you say, sometimes the adult has to tell the kid that not all cool things are affordable. "You can't always get what you want..."
If I live long enough, I hope to enjoy that experience. Unfortunately our kids grandparents are all gone except my mom, and she's a bit limited on the spoiling for other reasons. I gladly look forward to it someday.
I have no doubt that all the shiny buildings and venues would be very cool for Chicago. Pols know that it's a way to get stuff built with a "legitimate" reason behind it. You can write the speeches today...."this infrastructure will not only serve the world's athletes but will be here for generations of Chicagoans to enjoy long after the games have made this city great again." Holy #$$#. It's funny how generations turn to a handful of years, but the debt service certainly is generational.
But as you probably know better than most, the piper always gets paid. Always. There is always a ramification and a consequence. If people can accept the consequences, then fine. That's really all I ever ask in those situations. Define the ramifications, truly share them for all, test their resolve and make a decision. It is when those ramifications are hidden (often), or sugarcoated as to understate the impact that leads to poor decisions and all kinds of fun issues to clean up down the road.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 07, 2014, 09:08:51 PM
But as you probably know better than most, the piper always gets paid. Always. There is always a ramification and a consequence. If people can accept the consequences, then fine. That's really all I ever ask in those situations. Define the ramifications, truly share them for all, test their resolve and make a decision. It is when those ramifications are hidden (often), or sugarcoated as to understate the impact that leads to poor decisions and all kinds of fun issues to clean up down the road.
But as you well know, the people selling the blue sky do everything in their power to hide the real cost until their customer is addicted - and no matter how many times it happens, there's no shortage of people who believe that THIS TIME it will be different. Sometimes I'm even one of them.
Daley made peace with the trade unions early in the process with generous, long-term collective bargaining agreements to show the IOC there would be no labor disruptions. We didn't win the bid, but got stuck with the tab for those union contracts anyway just as the economy tanked. That's a little costly legacy of Chicago's bid we weren't able to avoid.
Four pages into the "Sochi Olympics" thread, and three of them are about Chicago.
Welcome to MUScoop.
Quote from: GooooMarquette on February 08, 2014, 08:44:20 AM
Four pages into the "Sochi Olympics" thread, and three of them are about Chicago.
Welcome to MUScoop.
Going off on tangents - it's what we do.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on February 08, 2014, 08:48:03 AM
Going off on tangents - it's what we do.
Mods, I know you guys have been ad free since the beginning, but "MUScoop, presented by the makers of Ritalin" might not be the worst way to go.
Quote from: Spaniel with a Short Tail on February 07, 2014, 10:38:49 PM
Daley made peace with the trade unions early in the process with generous, long-term collective bargaining agreements to show the IOC there would be no labor disruptions. We didn't win the bid, but got stuck with the tab for those union contracts anyway just as the economy tanked. That's a little costly legacy of Chicago's bid we weren't able to avoid.
There's always ramifications in every decision like this, problem is too many people are naive and don't realize what they are.