Romney: 2002 Winter Olympic Games Were Made Possible By 'Enormous' Federal Spending

[Lakhota]

By Sabrina Siddiqui

Mitt Romney said he would have been unable to host the 2002 Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake City, Utah, had it not been for the "enormous spending and services of the federal government."

The words, uttered by Romney in 2002, are in direct contrast to the presumptive Republican presidential nominee's relentless attacks on President Barack Obama over his "you didn't build that" comments.

Romney and Republicans have spent the last month knocking Obama as government-obsessed and for crediting Washington with the success of small businesses. But by the former Massachusetts governor's own admission, it was only with the government's support that he was able to pull off the Olympics he so often heralds as one of his career's greatest accomplishments.

"Without question, we simply could not host Games in Salt Lake if it were not for the enormous spending and services of the federal government," Romney had said in a 2001 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee during a hearing around cooperation between federal, state, local and private agencies for the Salt Lake City Olympics.

"When I came to the Games two years ago, following the revelations of bid impropriety, there was nothing which caused greater anxiety than whether or not we could count on this critical federal support," he said, before thanking both the Clinton and Bush administrations for being involved with his committee's planning efforts "every step of the way."

According to Romney at the time, former President George W. Bush specifically included Olympic items in the budget he submitted to Congress.

More: Mitt Romney: 2002 Winter Olympic Games Were Made Possible By 'Enormous' Federal Spending

 

[rdean]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpfeAIRYYHk]Romney - Several hundred million $ from govt. for Olympics - YouTube[/ame]

Republicans avoid these threads like the plague. They hate the truth. It totally freaks them out.

 

[oreo]

By Sabrina Siddiqui

Mitt Romney said he would have been unable to host the 2002 Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake City, Utah, had it not been for the "enormous spending and services of the federal government."

The words, uttered by Romney in 2002, are in direct contrast to the presumptive Republican presidential nominee's relentless attacks on President Barack Obama over his "you didn't build that" comments.

Romney and Republicans have spent the last month knocking Obama as government-obsessed and for crediting Washington with the success of small businesses. But by the former Massachusetts governor's own admission, it was only with the government's support that he was able to pull off the Olympics he so often heralds as one of his career's greatest accomplishments.

"Without question, we simply could not host Games in Salt Lake if it were not for the enormous spending and services of the federal government," Romney had said in a 2001 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee during a hearing around cooperation between federal, state, local and private agencies for the Salt Lake City Olympics.

"When I came to the Games two years ago, following the revelations of bid impropriety, there was nothing which caused greater anxiety than whether or not we could count on this critical federal support," he said, before thanking both the Clinton and Bush administrations for being involved with his committee's planning efforts "every step of the way."

According to Romney at the time, former President George W. Bush specifically included Olympic items in the budget he submitted to Congress.

More: Mitt Romney: 2002 Winter Olympic Games Were Made Possible By 'Enormous' Federal Spending

Nice try Lakota--but if you remember right--the year 2002--was right after 9/11/2001--and most of the Federal Government money that was spent was for SECURITY. Other was for permanent roads and infrastructure.

A little Wikipedia never hurt anyone:
Mitt Romney - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Lakhota]

On February 11, 1999, Romney was hired as the president and CEO of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee for the Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games of 2002.

Romney revamped the organization's leadership and policies, reduced budgets, and boosted fundraising, alleviated the concerns of corporate sponsors and recruited many new ones.[134][139] Romney worked to ensure the safety of the Games following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks by coordinating a $300 million security budget.[135] Overall, he oversaw a $1.32 billion budget, 700 employees, and 26,000 volunteers.[136] The federal government provided between approximately $400 million[139][140][141] and $600 million[142][143] of that budget, much of it a result of Romney's having aggressively lobbied Congress and federal agencies.[143][144] It would prove to be a record level of federal funding for the staging of a U.S. Olympics.[141][144] An additional $1.1 billion of indirect federal funding came in the form of highway and transit projects.[145]

Mitt Romney - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The point is that "Romney didn't build that" without lots of help from Uncle Sam!

 

[Stephanie]

trolls are hot and heavy tonight

 

[Trajan]

911 hello

 

[Oddball]

Wow...Vinne Viatlis is a big gubmint republican.

Tell us something that most of us already didn't know.

 

[Avorysuds]

What's the point of this thread? To show that Mitt is a progressive liberal and then watch the OP attack him in every other thread they spam the boards with?

I don't get it, you liberals should love the guy. Mitt supported Obama's wars, Obamacare, the Stimulus, the NDAA and TARP. Oh that’s right Mitt has an R next to his name, so you hate him.

I get the whole “Mitt’s a big spender, pushed for Government HC, spent tons of cash, took money from the feds so he didn’t have to raise taxes so all you conservatives should hate him!” But fact is most conservatives don’t like Mitt, fact is Mitt should be beating Obama in every poll but he’s not because the conservative base does not trust him. So why play that card?

 

[CaféAuLait]

By Sabrina Siddiqui

Mitt Romney said he would have been unable to host the 2002 Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake City, Utah, had it not been for the "enormous spending and services of the federal government."

The words, uttered by Romney in 2002, are in direct contrast to the presumptive Republican presidential nominee's relentless attacks on President Barack Obama over his "you didn't build that" comments.

Romney and Republicans have spent the last month knocking Obama as government-obsessed and for crediting Washington with the success of small businesses. But by the former Massachusetts governor's own admission, it was only with the government's support that he was able to pull off the Olympics he so often heralds as one of his career's greatest accomplishments.

"Without question, we simply could not host Games in Salt Lake if it were not for the enormous spending and services of the federal government," Romney had said in a 2001 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee during a hearing around cooperation between federal, state, local and private agencies for the Salt Lake City Olympics.

"When I came to the Games two years ago, following the revelations of bid impropriety, there was nothing which caused greater anxiety than whether or not we could count on this critical federal support," he said, before thanking both the Clinton and Bush administrations for being involved with his committee's planning efforts "every step of the way."

According to Romney at the time, former President George W. Bush specifically included Olympic items in the budget he submitted to Congress.

More: Mitt Romney: 2002 Winter Olympic Games Were Made Possible By 'Enormous' Federal Spending

Not much considering the government contributed 50 percent of the cost ( nearly 1 billion dollars) of the Lake Placid games and 609 million for the Alanta games...Did you care then?

What is this the tenth thread on this same subject?

FactCheck.org : Slaloming Through Olympic Facts

 

[candycorn]

What's the point of this thread? To show that Mitt is a progressive liberal and then watch the OP attack him in every other thread they spam the boards with?

I don't get it, you liberals should love the guy. Mitt supported Obama's wars, Obamacare, the Stimulus, the NDAA and TARP. Oh that’s right Mitt has an R next to his name, so you hate him.

I get the whole “Mitt’s a big spender, pushed for Government HC, spent tons of cash, took money from the feds so he didn’t have to raise taxes so all you conservatives should hate him!” But fact is most conservatives don’t like Mitt, fact is Mitt should be beating Obama in every poll but he’s not because the conservative base does not trust him. So why play that card?

That was a good post and I think you make a good point.

The two are more alike than they are different. It's comical to see this type of vitriol spent over two different flavors of fiscal vanilla. One may cut future spending by $300 Billion while the other may cut it by $350 Billion and it will be called a "budget cut when the amount spent will be several degrees higher.

This is why I have urged all here to vote your values. There is little a president can do on his or her own to effect much change in fiscal policy. The Congress is stuck in political never-never land (we're about to go off a cliff supposedly and they're on vacation) where politics rule so whatever party the President happens to be from will be thwarted by the other side.

As I have said numerous times; the man who is president over the next 4 years will have three supreme court justices turn 80. It is possible that the next 4 years will see three justices replaced and this will set the tone of the court for a next generation. Obama has appointed Sotomayor and Kagan. And one can argue that those appointments made by Obama were two of his easier battles with the congress. Meaning that a determined President will get the nominees he wants. Especially one in a second term with no need to store political capital.

I'm sure conservatives would chaff at the prospect that he may get to stack three more justices--one in the seat currently held by Scalia. But he might.

 

[Lakhota]

We already have a center-right "liberal" president, so it doesn't hurt to remind Cons that Romney really isn't a Con.

 

[Stephanie]

We already have a center-right "liberal" president, so it doesn't hurt to remind Cons that Romney really isn't a Con.

oh man, I'm busting a gut.I'm sure you just changed a bunch of peoples minds to vote for the dear leader now..