Mitt outsourced 2002 Olympic Uniforms

So, a whole page of the usual snark: "Michelle's fault"; deflection about taxpayer participation; snarky deflection about the Burma dictatorship--and geography... Interesting that the usual gang has nothing to contribute about the fact that the Outsourcer not only played games with cheating American companies out of jobs on the making of the uniforms, and now we're finding out that he manipulated a contract to throw ALL of the office-supply business for the Olympics that year to....(are you ready?)....Staples....

Vulture-capitalist puke.

None in the US can sew, duh, at least Chinese have skills.

Empty b.s. Unless, of course, you have a source for your snark?

Democracy4Sale wrote: So, a whole page of the usual snark: "Michelle's fault"; deflection about taxpayer participation; snarky deflection about the Burma dictatorship--and geography... Interesting that the usual gang has nothing to contribute about the fact that the Outsourcer not only played games with cheating American companies out of jobs on the making of the uniforms, and now we're finding out that he manipulated a contract to throw ALL of the office-supply business for the Olympics that year to....(are you ready?)....Staples....

Vulture-capitalist puke.

Outsourcing... it's horrible...

Not long ago, Apple boasted that its products were made in America. Today, few are. Almost all of the 70 million iPhones, 30 million iPads and 59 million other products Apple sold last year were manufactured overseas….

“Apple’s an example of why it’s so hard to create middle-class jobs in the U.S. now,” said Jared Bernstein, who until last year was an economic adviser to the White House.

“If it’s the pinnacle of capitalism, we should be worried.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/busin ... wanted=all

Outsourcing... it's incorrigible

“G.E. became the first U.S. company to outsource software work to India.” Obama also has close ties to GE’s CEO, Jeffrey Immelt, who was appointed as chairman of his outside panel of economic advisers last year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/29/world ... ter29.html

Outsourcing... it's horrendous...

“The technology giant (IBM) has been steadily building its work force in India and other locations while reducing the number of workers based in the U.S. Foreign workers accounted for 71% of Big Blue’s nearly 400,000 employees at the start of the year, up from about 65% in 2006.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123799610031239341.html

It's Obamourous...

But Obama’s own portfolio shows a willingness to invest in American corporations that have shifted employment overseas.

In his most recent financial disclosure from 2011, Obama and his wife reported having between $200,000 and $450,000 in the Vanguard 500 Index Fund, which invests in the largest U.S. corporations. According to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, as of Sept. 30, 2011, the fund’s biggest holding was 8,272,039 shares of Apple Inc., then valued at $3.2 billion.

The mutual fund that the Obamas have invested in also held 94,582,281 million shares of General Electric, valued at $1.4 billion, as of the SEC filing.

The Obamas’ fund listed 10,655,961 shares of International Business Machines, valued at $1.9 billion.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/ ... _final.htm

http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-has ... le/2502361

"You who is without sin among you, let her throw the first stone."

Yeah, like these folks can sew so much better than Americans:

"BURMA IN '02: Slave Labor... Victims Beaten, Raped, Unpaid.. Highest Number Of Child Soldiers"

[sarcasm]Yeah, I'd put my money on them being better at sewing than American workers any day... [/sarcasm off]

Something the Dog Said wrote: Actually in 2002, the largest source of "donations" came from the US taxpayers. Mitt convinced congress to give the largest amount of funding for an olympics in history, at least $1.3 billion. http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa092400b.htm

This was more than double the amount spent on any other olympics.

Your link doesn't even mention Romney, but it does mention that President Clinton formed a task force to direct federal dollars for the Olympics. But, of course, Romney was also involved in getting federal dollars.

The $1.3 billion you mention is in raw dollars, and since it was the most recent US Olympics it's not surprising the cost would be the highest. It's the same point made about the Affordable Care Act being the biggest tax increase since 1968 if you use raw dollars.

If you instead look at the percentage of federal dollars vs the total direct cost of the Olympics, the federal government contributed 50% of the cost for the previous 1980 winter games in Lake Placid, NY vs. just 18% for Romney's games in Salt Lake City.

In a web video, the Democratic National Committee slams Romney for heading up “the most expensive games in U.S. history” that “got more taxpayer dollars than any previous Olympics.” The DNC put the cost to federal taxpayers at $1.3 billion. Well, yes and no. Most of that figure was for highways, transit systems and other capital improvements that federal and state officials assert eventually would have flowed to Salt Lake City regardless of the games, but was accelerated to accommodate them. The DNC’s figures include both direct and indirect costs of the Salt Lake City Games, but compare that with only the direct costs of the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics.

The $1.3 billion figure cited in the DNC ad comes from a September 2000 GAO analysis of Olympic spending, undertaken at the request of Rep. John Dingell and Sen. John McCain. It included about $1.1 billion in indirect funding for the 2002 games, including such things as highways, transit systems and other capital improvements.

Also, a significant portion of federal dollars for the Olympics go towards security, which has gone up since 9/11.

And back to the topic, I don't see anywhere that federal tax dollars went to purchasing uniforms.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/02/slaloming-through-olympic-facts/

There is an advantage for Lady Jazzer having me on IGNORE. She can keep making a fool of herself while I'm scoring points against her lying, stupid rants.

Twin,
Don't you realize with Dems it is all about what we say instead of what we do? Campaign finance reform? Needs to change, but until it does, I am going to do just the same as Mitt.

Outsourcing is evil! But I am not going to do anything about it, even when I had a majority in Congress and the Senate.
Bring back the Clinton tax hikes, the wealth create no jobs, trickle down doesn't work, but when given the ability to bring back the Clinton tax hikes, Barack doesn't.

pineinthegrass wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: Actually in 2002, the largest source of "donations" came from the US taxpayers. Mitt convinced congress to give the largest amount of funding for an olympics in history, at least $1.3 billion. http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa092400b.htm

This was more than double the amount spent on any other olympics.

Your link doesn't even mention Romney, but it does mention that President Clinton formed a task force to direct federal dollars for the Olympics. But, of course, Romney was also involved in getting federal dollars.

The $1.3 billion you mention is in raw dollars, and since it was the most recent US Olympics it's not surprising the cost would be the highest. It's the same point made about the Affordable Care Act being the biggest tax increase since 1968 if you use raw dollars.

If you instead look at the percentage of federal dollars vs the total direct cost of the Olympics, the federal government contributed 50% of the cost for the previous 1980 winter games in Lake Placid, NY vs. just 18% for Romney's games in Salt Lake City.

In a web video, the Democratic National Committee slams Romney for heading up “the most expensive games in U.S. history” that “got more taxpayer dollars than any previous Olympics.” The DNC put the cost to federal taxpayers at $1.3 billion. Well, yes and no. Most of that figure was for highways, transit systems and other capital improvements that federal and state officials assert eventually would have flowed to Salt Lake City regardless of the games, but was accelerated to accommodate them. The DNC’s figures include both direct and indirect costs of the Salt Lake City Games, but compare that with only the direct costs of the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics.

The $1.3 billion figure cited in the DNC ad comes from a September 2000 GAO analysis of Olympic spending, undertaken at the request of Rep. John Dingell and Sen. John McCain. It included about $1.1 billion in indirect funding for the 2002 games, including such things as highways, transit systems and other capital improvements.

Also, a significant portion of federal dollars for the Olympics go towards security, which has gone up since 9/11.

And back to the topic, I don't see anywhere that federal tax dollars went to purchasing uniforms.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/02/slaloming-through-olympic-facts/

So it is ok to spend much more taxpayer dollars as long as it is a lower percentage of the total cost. Since the 2002 Olympics were by far and away more expensive than the Lake Placid Olympics, it is ok that the taxpayers paid more than twice as much since it was a lower percent of the overall increased cost? Let's stick with what came out of the taxpayer's pockets. And of course Romney bragged repeatedly about his ability to get federal funding.

Where did the funding for the uniforms come from?

Something the Dog Said wrote: So it is ok to spend much more taxpayer dollars as long as it is a lower percentage of the total cost. Since the 2002 Olympics were by far and away more expensive than the Lake Placid Olympics, it is ok that the taxpayers paid more than twice as much since it was a lower percent of the overall increased cost? Let's stick with what came out of the taxpayer's pockets. And of course Romney bragged repeatedly about his ability to get federal funding.

Where did the funding for the uniforms come from?

Here are the problems with the $1.3 billion number. First, that is total cost and in Democratic ads they've been comparing it to the direct cost of other Olympics which is misleading to say the least. The direct cost of the Salt Lake Olympics was $342 million. To accurately compare that to the 1980 Olympics the most accurate way would be to adjust for inflation and then probably for GDP as well. But I don't have those numbers. So I used the numbers provided in the factcheck.org link where they adjusted to the total cost. That too, is better than comparing just raw dollars over a 22 year period because that ratio should be pretty constant regardless of inflation.

But once again, if you want to keep using raw dollars (not that is what I'd use), then it would be legit to say the ACA is the biggest tax increase since 1968 as mentioned in another thread.

So far as the funding for the uniforms in the 2002 Olympics goes, I don't know and I never brought up the subject. I just see no evidence that it came from tax payers based on reading the links in this thread.