Before I try to address your points, a few comments.
In a discussion on this topic the evidence on the most of the points are effectively subjective and therefore impossible to definitively prove. The circumstances surrounding historical precedents vary widely and therefore must be used carefully. This said, I will at least try to expand on my previous post with some further detail.
I will base much of my evidence on London 2012 because (1) I lived there for 8 years preceding the games and I have a decent understanding of much of the dynamics (2) there is decent research on many relevant issues as the UK government is very transparent and responsive (3) it was a relatively inexpensive games and might show the way in which it could be done in Boston.
1. Size relative to the infrastructure required. Boston does not need a giant aquatics center, velodrome, stadium etc. Nor the ability to deal with the extra staff and competitors specifically in the locations required.
2. What do you mean by profits and broke even? Are you saying the accounting for the sponsoring entities which paid only for the operating costs of the events? If so, then this is both irrelevant and misleading.
From an economic view, there are dozens of academic studies that say there are virtually no net economic impacts for games during the last 30 years. And even this tentative conclusion requires many highly uncertain assumptions.
To start us off:
Here's a decent primer on the economics of the Olympics:
http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~rosenl/sports Folder/Economic Impact of Olympics PWC.pdf
And here's a decent example of an economic case study of Sydney:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13683500208667904#.Uplhwxa-7_c
3. Not sure what you mean. But the most important point is that unlike London where the entire budget and concept of the Olympics was led by the national government, here it is clear that the majority of non-security spending will be born by the city and largely the state. And whatever economic benefits will accrue serious and longterm incremental debt at the state level.
4. I agree and am very supportive of public investment in infrastructure and transportation. However, infrastructure needs to be focused and well suited to the specific needs of the area. This is precisely why the Olympics yield such a poor return on investment. Olympics infrastructure is designed around the 5 weeks of events and not the real needs of the community. If we need infrastructure, like an extended Blue line, then we should identify the need, design a suitable solution to that need, and finance it with public support. We will achieve much higher returns for this infrastructure spending in this way.
5. Take London as a template, say $18b to $25b expenditure for 5 weeks. How is it possible for this not to be considered exorbitant?
6. During the run up to the Olympics (again see London), there is constant attention devoted to the Olympics budget, venue siting, construction, legacy, equity, cost overruns, problems, role of sponsorship, environmental impact etc. etc. Very little of this debate is relevant for the city / region beyond the olympics.
Such as? Public infrastructure investment, crime, development, promoting economic growth, education, healthcare (for example: Blue line extension, urban ring, financing public transport, rising sea levels, promoting economic growth).
I'm really not sure what you mean. Are you saying there is no need for public policy discussion in the state of Mass? We don't currently have anything to discuss?
The bottom line is that the Olympics is an expensive and unnecessary party for the local host and that its legacy is hardly sufficient reward for the very real expense incurred. In addition to these general points, the specifics in the US and for Mass make even less sense because of the financing structure and other points outlined above. I am not predicting doom and gloom if we hosted but simply that it is an unnecessary expense and distraction and the false hope of the posters in this thread that it will magically finance all of their pet infrastructure projects is a dangerous delusion.
