[Nameplate] Mostly Cloudy ~ 81°F  
High: 85°F ~ Low: 60°F
Monday, May 30, 2016

Obama campaign on the trail promoting rescue plan

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Gene Sperling (left) visited Greencastle to discuss Barack Obama and Joe Biden's Small Business Emergency Rescue Plan Tuesday. Seen here talking to business owner Gail Smith, Sperling is a former White House economic advisor. He served during Bill Clinton's second term in office.
Gail Smith, owner of Almost Home in Greencastle, has been a business owner for 18 years.

She has 56 employees and says she cannot afford health care coverage for them. When she applied for a small business loan, the fees were overwhelming.

Smith said it is a struggle to be a small business owner between the lack of health care coverage and all the taxes associated with it.

Gene Sperling, former White House economic advisor, visited Greencastle Tuesday to discuss presidential and vice presidential candidates Barack Obama and Joe Biden's Small Business Emergency Plan. Under this plan, small business owners such as Smith will receive a 50-percent credit for providing healthcare coverage to employees and fees will be eliminated on small business loans. A rebate will be given on payroll taxes and a $3,000 rebate on new payroll taxes.

The purpose of these incentives is to help small businesses create jobs.

"When a small business owner can't keep growth and send their kids to college, it is not good," said Sperling.

Obama's plan is focused on helping the small businesses -- which are suffering because of the current credit crunch -- succeed.

The Obama administration plans to work on increasing access to loans, make interest rates for SBA loans more competitive and simplify the loan approval process. Capital gains taxes on investments made in small and start-up businesses will be eliminated.

Education is also included in Obama's focus. Parents sending their children to college can look for a $4,000 tax credit over four years instead of the $2,000 for two years (HOPE credit).

The plan stated: "With small businesses responsible for more than two-thirds of new job creation, this plan is vital to stemming job losses and turning our economy around."

For more information on Obama's Small Business Emergency Plan, visit www.idems.org

Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on bannergraphic.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

Is this a paid commercial, unpaid commercial, or is a story coming from the other side to provide balance and allow people to make a choice?

-- Posted by vivera on Wed, Oct 22, 2008, at 5:11 AM

Sounds like a good plan..uh.. just don't get to be too successful as a small business owner, because then Obama wants to raise your taxes to "Spread the wealth around" how he sees fit. Spoken like a true Marxist. Ask "Joe the Plumber".

-- Posted by clearwat on Wed, Oct 22, 2008, at 6:09 AM

I would caution all of us to look at the background and character of each candidate, particularly for President, rather than "promises" made.

One person cannot force their plans or promises on the American people. Any change in healthcare or education must come under a vote by the Senate and House.

It is the responsibility of you, the citizen, to make sure your Senate and House Representatives understand your position when it comes to a vote.

Get out and vote - with wisdom!

-- Posted by FireFox on Wed, Oct 22, 2008, at 8:08 AM

Do we really believe that a tax increase on the wealthy will pay for the new world that Obama promises?

Redistibution of wealth is socialistic however you view it.

-- Posted by justasking on Wed, Oct 22, 2008, at 9:07 AM

Why can't people get it. Why tax businesses and hand over a "tax break". Let businesses take care of what they need to take care of -- quit punishing them -- and get the government's huge butt out of the way! We do NOT need socialism in America.

-- Posted by GRNT on Wed, Oct 22, 2008, at 9:41 AM

hope credit!!! anyway you look at it, it's still 1000$ a year. why dont we stop giving free college away to foreign students and let the kids at home go for free!!!!

-- Posted by Harleybrat on Wed, Oct 22, 2008, at 9:43 AM

I agree, everyone should educate themselves on the record of the candidates, not promises they make. Here is a website that gives voting records on nearly all the issues for each candidate, including VP.


-- Posted by MsBehaving on Wed, Oct 22, 2008, at 11:32 AM

I was simply done considering Nobama when he chose NOT to respect the pledge, wouldnt wear the American flag pin on his lapel and his "I'm gonna work my 15 minutes of fame" wife said she is just NOW finally proud to be an American.Looking at his opponents record on serving America,loving America and being "proud"to be an American,well its simple to at least start considering him. As someone closer to Independent voting, I'd go w/the Republican candidate at this point. As far as the issues,Dems seem to always shout what the problem is w/o ANY solution offered. While Nobama does offer SOME solutions,few are feesible,few are realistic,some are socialistic and most require taxation far beyond what he suggests.Factor in his questionable patriotism and I can eliminate him quickly.No strong 3rd party so, while McClains not hugely strong,he IS our best option.

-- Posted by honestyisbestpolicy on Wed, Oct 22, 2008, at 1:19 PM

People wake up!! Do you really want another 4 years of this? Do you really think that Palin could take over as president, which is a real possibility since McCain is elderly? At least Obama has some new ideas, seems to be more for the middle class. The way I look at this is how much more could Obama mess up than the Republicans have for the last 8 years. I would rather take a chance for his changes than to stay in this disaster.

-- Posted by rose4853 on Wed, Oct 22, 2008, at 1:55 PM

Wouldn't a redistribution of wealth help all but a very (and I mean very) few in Putnam County. I can understand why people making over $250K would be upset. . . but why are all of you upset?

-- Posted by Bornandraisedinthecastle on Wed, Oct 22, 2008, at 2:18 PM

Those of you supporting Obama should make sure you understand Pelosi and Reid and what they stand for. If you support their agenda, god help us all.

-- Posted by justasking on Wed, Oct 22, 2008, at 3:42 PM

Let's talk about servers only making 2.14 an hour. That's why we can't afford health care. I'm sure Gail pays her employees more, but legally she doesn't have to because they receive tips...which are taxed regardless if they're left of not.

-- Posted by townielove on Wed, Oct 22, 2008, at 3:57 PM

I say distribute the wealth evenly. If this can only be achieved by force, then so be it, Amen.

-- Posted by Harmony Church on Wed, Oct 22, 2008, at 4:42 PM

honetyisthebestpolicy-I bet you save a lot on property taxes, seeing that you live in a cave. Are you kidding, get in to the political process and research, don't be led around on a leash.

-- Posted by idiot on Wed, Oct 22, 2008, at 5:13 PM

Let us all remember that in 2006 the democrats took control of congress. Since then everything including the economy has gone to pot. The president can't make all the decisions alone. Osama wants to change things alright. Change our national security, be a socialist government and God help us all with everything else. Has anyone ever wondered what his symbol stands for and why he doesn't love this country like we do?

-- Posted by magoo55 on Wed, Oct 22, 2008, at 6:50 PM

GRNT, Let business take care of themselves, until it gets into trouble, 810 billion then take from the working middle class and give to big business! How many time can this happen. I agreed with you for years and voted for Bush 2 X,after 8 years of Bush & 4 years of My Man Mitch, they will not be getting my vote until the party sees the working middle class are more then stepping stones to get into office. As our man Ronnie said in 1984,Are you better off today than you were four years ago! If not, vote for the other guy. See you at the polls!

-- Posted by dirtboy7419 on Wed, Oct 22, 2008, at 6:53 PM

NOBAMA he is not even a born American!!!! He does not care about us!!! Only himself and his muslim friends. HE can say what he wants, but produce what he says, 500% doubtful. He only wants your votes. DUH !!! And if people in AMERICA cant see that, we have a major PROBLEM!!!! When he cant put his right hand on his heart for the pledge,I have major issues with that. YOU will not see him do that because he is not American nor does he care about us. ONLY YOUR VOTE. Wake up and smell the fresh air while you still can.

-- Posted by Harleybrat on Wed, Oct 22, 2008, at 8:35 PM

Well for NOW it is still free speech and we can say what we want. We are just stating our opinions just like you.Nobama is how I feel. So send the secret service after me.

-- Posted by Harleybrat on Wed, Oct 22, 2008, at 9:59 PM

God forbid someone base their vote on policy as compared to basing their vote on a lapel pin.

-- Posted by nativeillinoisan on Thu, Oct 23, 2008, at 12:20 AM


Just because someone wasn't born here doesn't mean they can NEVER become an American. Who cares if he wasn't born here? How do you think our country was even FOUNDED? By a bunch of people that came here on a boat.

-- Posted by indtonyc on Thu, Oct 23, 2008, at 7:39 AM

Okay, so the fact is I am completely behind McCain, but do some research before you start spouting off crap about Obama, then you can truly say you know who you're voting for. For starters, he WAS born in the US (Hawaii) and it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. However, indtonyc, to correct you, one CANNOT become President of the United States of America unless they are a natural born citizen. This means being born within the 50 states, US territories or on a military base or during a military assignment, like McCain. So, yes, it would matter if he was not born in one of those places, despite the heartwarming adage that that we became a country by a bunch of people who came here on a boat. Our founding fathers had the foresight to make sure that our leaders were truly grounded here in the US and this was one way of doing so. Schwarzenegger cannot become President no matter how much California loves him or he wants to. It is not too much to ask of the American voter to research independently who our options are, and remember as another mentioned, if Obama is in office, there will be a lack of oversight by the Congress and Senate, since they will all be led by 3 very liberal politicians. That is the scary thought. It would be one thing to have Obama in office if he was being checked by a Republican led Legislative branch, and therefore truly having to negotiate with both sides of the aisle. But as it stands, he will be allowed to immediately pass the Freedom of Choice Act which completely decriminalizes ALL abortion at any date, yes right up to 9 months. Any tax increases or other socialistic plans will be easily passed because there will not even be enough Republicans to filibuster, if the polls are correct. And as for Gail, yes, she does only pay 2.14/hr.

-- Posted by snowboardermom on Thu, Oct 23, 2008, at 9:17 AM

I seem to remember, not so long ago, a lot of you, many republican, were looking for rope and a tall tree to hang the sherrif from. Take a look...


How is this any different than the horrible crimes that Frisbee committed?

I'm not party preferrential, I'm just wondering if Hillary supporters are as insulted by the republicans for thinking they could swing their votes with Palin as much as I am by the dems for thinking that the Republicans screwed up so badly that I would vote for the fodder they've put up for a candidate.

It doesn't matter, they're both feeding from the same corporate troughs. Very little, except a few domestic issues, is going to change. If you're a multimillionaire, you should vote for McSame, if you're job hunting, on the verge of destitution, vote for Barack Hussein Obama. Neither are going to address the real issues that are plaguing our country, but one will protect your assets and the other will provide for you if you have none.

-- Posted by westforty on Thu, Oct 23, 2008, at 10:20 AM

...oh, and as far as having to be born here to run for president, the only person I can think of that I would vote for, instead of against a lesser evil, would be Schwarzenegger...

-- Posted by westforty on Thu, Oct 23, 2008, at 10:29 AM

clearwat: Are you one of these "Joe the Plumbers," who is foolishly arguing against a tax cut for yourself in favor of one for your boss? Keep hanging on to that fantasy of the "American Dream," and keep voting for the people who put money into the pockets of the wealthy...maybe some of it will "trickle-down" your way. I doubt it, but maybe...some day.

Since you're an expert on Karl Marx, name me one country in history that has ever operated as Marx envisioned--one truly communist country. That's right, you can't, b/c it's never existed. The politics of fear; invoking scary words like "socialism," "communism" and "Karl Marx;" is used to peddle the tactics of the ignorant and disingenuous. They only work on those who are too lazy to seek out relevant information, but rather rely on soundbites from FOX Noise, Rush Limbaugh, or chain emails. The same visitors on this board who claim Obama is unamerican b/c he doesn't wear a lapel pin.

Obama is talking about restoring solvency to most of the systems we already have in place--medicare, social security--and diverting money being spent on useless programs like abstinence-only sex education to more useful endeavors. Rather than subsidies to oil companies, let's beef up our quality of education and healthcare. You know, those "social" programs that are actually critical to the fabric of our society--not banning gay marriage.

Honestyisthebestpolicy and Harleybrat: I know you prefer to vote republican because it's easier than thinking, but don't try to debate in serious forums. You clearly have no grasp of the real issues involved in this campaign.

magoo and others: You really believe that the democrats, who realistically only hold a majority in one chamber, the House, and don't even hold a supermajority, are to blame for the current economic crisis? Let us not forget, Bush first exercised his veto power 6 years into his term when the democrats took power. The Senate is tied 49-49, with two independents that caucus w/ democrats, but one of those supports McCain. Please explain how you figure democrats are responsible when republicans rubber-stamped George W. Bush's initiatives for 6 years.

There are clear differences between McCain and Obama. With respect to economic policy, John McCain offers expertise on par with George W. Bush. For those of you who swear disproportionate tax-cuts toward the wealthy create jobs and grow the economy, I challenge you to look around. "Trickle-down" theory is only a theory, not an economic policy. It has proven to reduce government revenues over time, not increase them as supply-siders argue. The corresponding cuts in government spending have never occurred, resulting in deficits over the short and long-term. We have borrowed money on the backs of future taxpayers, our kids, and run up massive deficits, which can only be paid for through tax increases or cuts in programs like medicare, social security and national defense.

How can you argue on one hand that our fiscal situation is so critical that a spending freeze is required, but then argue on the other that the answer is a tax cut. Simple logic informs us that to counter deficits, you need to increase revenues.

Contrary to supply-siders who would tell you that revenues decrease with tax increases, one need only look at very recent history during the Clinton years when both Bush Sr. who promised "no new taxes," was forced to raise taxes to restore fiscal integrity and balance after the first wave of tax cuts during the Reagan years. Clinton raised taxes again, and revenues increased during his presidency. The budget was balanced and George W. Bush was handed a surplus, which he wiped away overnight with his tax cuts for the wealthy. The rest as you can see is history. Look at it, study it, and tell me how you come to the conclusion that tax cuts for the wealthy have ever balanced the budget.

I anxiously await your response.

-- Posted by WiseChic on Thu, Oct 23, 2008, at 10:45 PM


Looks like you are not to wise.

-- Posted by Harleybrat on Sat, Oct 25, 2008, at 9:10 AM

Not even one attempt to refute a point? I expected much better...

-- Posted by WiseChic on Mon, Oct 27, 2008, at 11:57 PM

For a laugh...check out on youtube "howard stern obama", and listen to some folks that were interviewed. Seems that some of his supporters have no clue what the issues are...and who his VP running mate is! Yet they swear by Obama. Is this a "race" race or not?!!

-- Posted by ExHoosier on Wed, Oct 29, 2008, at 5:27 PM

From HarleyBrat... "Looks like you are not to wise."

Looks like you need to take the to, two, and too quiz. GEEZ people.

-- Posted by MsBehaving on Thu, Oct 30, 2008, at 9:48 AM

exhoosier: Indeed, the completely uninformed voter exists...on both sides! Some black people will vote for Obama b/c he's black; some white people will vote for McCain b/c he's white; some women will vote for McCain/Palin b/c the veep is a woman, etc.

It's not a testament of either of the candidates personally, but rather a testament to the fact that many Americans take zero genuine interest in politics and likely don't understand the real weight of the decisions they make. They are ignorant to many of the facts.

-- Posted by WiseChic on Thu, Oct 30, 2008, at 11:37 AM

Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: