http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/sports/29olympics.html?hp
The chosen city will be announced Friday.
The chosen city will be announced Friday.
All 4 heads of state will be there, or some approximation of them...Japanese Prime Minister, Brazilian President, and I believe Spain's King Juan Carlos and whatever elected cat they've got.
Going is the right thing for Obama to do, but this one's going to be tough. The consensus seems to have Chicago second behind Rio. I'll be surprised if the IOC doesn't pick Rio.
Chicagoans for Rio?
They have my full sympathy.
Most Londoners now wish that a ‘Londoners for Paris’ lobby had been up and running to expose the downright fraud, dishonesty and sleaze involved in London’s successful bid.
http://www.breitbart.tv/chicagoans-for-rio-not-everyone-in-illinois-wants-the-2016-olympics/
IMHO, this is good news. I cannot stand Obama's policies (or the attitude I sense) but he is loved by the Euros and others. Having a black man stand up there might sway some African nations votes as well.
If he pulls this off, it will be the best thing he has done as president.
Yes, I have a dog in this fight in a lot of ways. Getting the Games in the US would be beneficial!
It's about time we get a president to fight for the Olympic game on our home soil. I don't think people realize how beneficial this could be for our nation's economy and overall status globally. America has been coming off week and unstable across the world, and I am convinced President Obama is actually giving other nations hope as well. I'm no Bush basher, but we are finally regaining our position with our new president. The WORLD needs needs the USA to thrive...
What a bunch of drivel.
The reason the US is coming off as weak (not week) and unstable is BECAUSE of Obama.
Obama just wants the games in Chicago to help his re-election bid.
I hope another country wins the games. Let them deal with the massive cost and headaches. The Olympics are over-hyped and not worth the cost.
If he is going, Chicago already has won.
If he successfully gets Chicago the Olympics, will it tone down the level of bashing he receives on these boards? My vote is no.
How would one determine that Obama got Chicago awarded the Olympics?
Here's how Obama will sell Chicago's Olympic Bid.
1) Claim a phony crisis
2) Make details of the bid secret
3) Stifle debate
4) Demonize dissent. Call those who disagree racists.
5) Make fastastic claims that the Olympics will ACTUALLY save Chicago money.
That's the dumb Un-American way of thinking. Having the Olympics in our nation stimulates growth and jobs. Just look at China's Profits... Plus, they built almost everything from sratch for the games also.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-12/26/content_506610.htm
Even though we hate the idea of a black (sorry, I mean democratic) president in the United states, other nations seem to ignore the fact that he is "democrat." They instead look at him as positive change for a greatly weakened nation (will Bush was exiting). This country was trashed when President Obama took the job. Hurry up and get your shots in before his is credited for restoring it. This is really going to piss people off, but it will happen...
If you think having the Olympic games in Chicago, or any city in America is a bad idea then you are an idiot and simply just hate progress when it's not on a republican's watch...
edumacator wrote:
If he successfully gets Chicago the Olympics, will it tone down the level of bashing he receives on these boards? My vote is no.
HELL NO!
When you hate someone passionately, there is no room for support... That's what's wrong with our country.
Kinda like all those Bush lovers out there.
Dumb and un-American. That describes Obama's socio-economic policies and political philosophy perfectly.
Gotta fit anti-capitalist in there, too, though.
I thought all you Obama-bots were supposed to be SO erudite? All you can come up with is shouting, "RACISTS!", for any arguments against your messiah's policies.
Capitalism creates opportunities; socialism creates dependency. That's your idea of "progress"?
You're the idiot.
grif wrote:
Kinda like all those Bush lovers out there.
Exactly but that doesn't make it right, does it?
No, it does not make it right, but where was all of this compassion for the President and the choices he has to make the last eight years? I think Mr. Obama is probably a very nice man. He obviously loves his wife and is a great father to his children, but I do disagree with him on a number of issues. I disagreed with Mr. Bush on the invasion of Iraq (I still think having the no-fly zone intact was sufficient) but I was disgusted with the "Bush is a Nazi" signs, the Bush gets killed in movies, etc... US politics has always been vigorous, rude, and impolite. Mr. Adams and Mr. Jefferson started down that road a long time ago. What's is sad is that no one listens to anyone anymore.
grif wrote:
Kinda like all those Bush lovers out there.
Exactly! That was stupid to me also. Bush was our 2-term president who was easy to make fun of by comedians, but did some good things during his time. This is simply a left vs right fight over ideals. Our economy is not politics. The election is over. Save the bashing for 2012 election if necessary...
It's time to find solutions and unite as a nation. We need to support our leaders until the show they are incompetent of leading and are ultimately replaced.
What? Did you say something?
Get a clue. wrote:
Dumb and un-American. That describes Obama's socio-economic policies and political philosophy perfectly.
Gotta fit anti-capitalist in there, too, though.
I thought all you Obama-bots were supposed to be SO erudite? All you can come up with is shouting, "RACISTS!", for any arguments against your messiah's policies.
Capitalism creates opportunities; socialism creates dependency. That's your idea of "progress"?
You're the idiot.
Why be extremist? How will universal healthcare keep joe the plumber from becoming rich? It will actually make it easier if he actually decides to hire people. Capitalism will continue to strive, just not at the expense of an elderly woman with the flu, or a homeless man with HIV.
Healthcare does not hurt fortune 500 companies, it HELPS THEM! You people are stuck on definitions rather than reality.
Put the Kool-Aid down:
Some excellent reality from today's WSJ:
While many Americans are upset by ObamaCare’s $1 trillion price tag, Congress is contemplating other changes with little analysis or debate. These changes would create a massively unfair form of income redistribution and create incentives for many not to buy health insurance at all.
Let's start with basics: Insurance protects against the risk of something bad happening. When your house is on fire you no longer need protection against risk. You need a fireman and cash to rebuild your home. But suppose the government requires insurers to sell you fire "insurance" while your house is on fire and says you can pay the same premium as people whose houses are not on fire. The result would be that few homeowners would buy insurance until their houses were on fire.
The same could happen under health insurance reform. Here's how: President Obama proposes to require insurers to sell policies to everyone no matter what their health status. By itself this requirement, called "guaranteed issue," would just mean that insurers would charge predictably sick people the extremely high insurance premiums that reflect their future expected costs. But if Congress adds another requirement, called "community rating," insurers' ability to charge higher premiums for higher risks will be sharply limited.
Thus a healthy 25-year-old and a 55-year-old with cancer would pay nearly the same premium for a health policy. Mr. Obama and his allies emphasize the benefits for the 55-year old. But the 25-year-old, who may also have a lower income, would pay significantly more than needed to cover his expected costs.
Like the homeowner who waits until his house is on fire to buy insurance, younger, poorer, healthier workers will rationally choose to avoid paying high premiums now to subsidize insurance for someone else. After all, they can always get a policy if they get sick.
To avoid this outcome, most congressional Democrats and some Republicans would combine guaranteed issue and community rating with the requirement that all workers buy health insurance—that is, an "individual mandate." This solves the incentive problem, and guarantees that both the healthy poor 25-year-old and the sick higher-income 55-year-old have heath insurance.
But the combination of a guaranteed issue, community rating and an individual mandate means that younger, healthier, lower-income earners would be forced to subsidize older, sicker, higher-income earners. And because these subsidies are buried within health-insurance premiums, the massive income redistribution is hidden from public view and not debated.
If Congress goes down this road, health insurance premiums will increase dramatically for the overwhelming majority of people. Even if Congress mandates that everyone have health insurance, many will choose to go without and pay the tax penalty. If you think people are dissatisfied with health care now, wait until they understand that Congress voted to mandate hidden premium increases and lower wages.
There are wiser and more equitable ways to ensure that every American has access to affordable health insurance. Policy experts and state policy makers have experimented with different solutions, including high risk pools and taxpayer-funded vouchers subsidized for those who are both poor and sick. Medicaid, charity care, and uncompensated care provided by hospitals cover some of these costs today.
These solutions are imperfect, but so are the reforms being proposed in Congress. Congress should be explicit about who will pay more under its plans.
Mr. Leavitt, former secretary of Health and Human Services (2005-2009), has served as the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and a governor of Utah (1993-2003). Mr. Hubbard (2005-2007) and Mr. Hennessey (2008) served as directors of the White House National Economic Council.