Well, in Grampy's world, a person making under 5 million is middle class.  Therefore, it only follows that companies like Hewlett Packard or Starbucks would be considered "Small Business".

Really? Where is that figure on McCain's web site or any record of what he's said or written...

Well, I can't find it. If it doesn't exist, perhaps you've just promoted a falsehood..interesting that you participate on a web site that purports to fight against such things.

Nerz is referring to a comment McCain made to a question about what he considers the definition of rich is.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/18/mccain-definition-rich-graph/

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/17/mccain-defines-rich/

Here

Here

Here

Or 360,000 other links that are the result of a Google search for the words "mccain middle class under 5 million".

You're either trying to start trouble or hopelessly clueless. This has been all over the media since McCain's TV appearance with Rev. Warren.

Dex,

He made the 5 million remark at Saddleback in a joking way, but then never defined "rich."  He said that he considered 5 million in income as rich, but never defined middle class:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mP-0pedQeGw

I agree it was a joke.  But of course "Bomb-bomb-Iran" was also a joke according to McCain.

Exactly, and he never answered the question as to what he thought "rich" was.

I am sitting up straight waiting in rapt attention for your next brilliant, scathing post!  By the way, if you REALLY think McCain is grounded in reality, please provide 5 or 6 examples so I may consider trying to vote for him twice!  I personally think McCain transcends us mere mortals, and that is why it is hard to understand where he is coming from- he's.., he's an etheral being sent to deliver peace and harmony to everyone (as long as you're not poor, middle eastern, russian, women, blacks, hispanics, democratic or eco-friendly!  Hell, that only makes up .0000001% of the population, right?)

A falsehood?  Moi?  A rhetorical exaggeration, maybe.... a partisan cheap shot, perhaps.... an unsubstantiated gratuitous assertion, frequently....but a falsehood?  Why, I wouldn't dream of it.

In any case, it's just as grounded in reality as Palindrone Twit's assertion that Obama has been "palling around with terrorists".

Harrrumph.

Another pretty good report by mmfa...maybe Foser has been invited to the staff meetings...and they're actually listening to his advice.

One thing omitted from the analysis is Obama's definition of "small business"...and I didn't find it in the link provided...it would be helpful.

The SBA has arrived at a standard definition, and you'd probably be safe in assuming that's the standard that Obama uses.

Thanks neon...and there is some interesting stuff in your link.

Did you know that if you mfg. ammo with less than 1500 employees you're a small business...or...if you make metal cans with less than 1000 you're a small business...or...if you wholesale candy with more than 100 employees you're a large business.

If you make motion pictures or videos you can generate up to $29 1/2 million and be a small business.

It's an interesting link...thanks again.

I get the impression that the SBA judges a "small" business purely by relation to other businesses in the same industry.  From a non-business-person's standpoint, it seems overly complicated and intricate.  From a political standpoint, it's ideal.  Lots and lots of nooks and crannies into which a cunning and greedy politician can stuff political favors...

Man oh man...you said that right...That's what happens when the fed govt. gets involved.

A couple more doozies...If you deal in financing international trade...under $175MM makes you a small business.

If you raise sugar beets or cattle...don't go over $750k or you're a large business.

One thing omitted from the analysis is Obama's definition of "small business"...and I didn't find it in the link provided...it would be helpful.

In the US, companies with less than 100 employees are considered "small businesses", so I figure that must be the definition Barack Obama is using.  The following information is from his web site:

FACT #4: Obama Would Lower Taxes For the Vast Majority of Small Businesses. The Suggestion that Obama Would Raise Taxes on 23 Million Small Businesses is Patently False. Because the Obama plan preserves existing tax rates for families making less than $250,000 a year, nearly 99% of small business owners won’t see any tax increase under the Obama plan. Instead, these small firms and business owners are likely to get a tax cut under the Obama plan, which eliminates capital gains taxes for small businesses, provides a new 50% tax credit for healthcare, and helps lower health care costs to make small businesses competitive. The McCain campaign’s tired attack on small business taxes has been thoroughly repudiated: Factcheck.org called it “preposterous”; Politico called it “off-base”; the Atlantic called it a “lie”.

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes/Tax_Plan_Facts_FINAL.pdf

Since Obama answered this lie in the debate it's very irresponsible of the Tribune to report only McCain's side of the argument.

I agree.  In fact, I've levied a fine of $100k on the Tribune for this.

(and by 'fine', I mean that I would have given them $100k, but I'm not going to now that they've published this article)

So they're being punished by giving up $100k of revenue from the annual $100k donation which was promised but temporarily suspended for the previous few years anyway but due to be reinstated next year however is now being retracted resulting in a deficit-side entry on their books for the upcoming year and creating a plummeting stock price requiring the need for a bailout for shareholders.

I get it.

McComplain sounded like a little kid who didn't get his candy bar.