Small Business

Saturday, October 6, 2012

My Faith, My Vote








I have struggled for months on deciding whom to vote for. I debated my conscience on the issues. I did the pros and cons. Regardless of who wins this election, God is ultimately in control! Yet as a Christian, I am commanded to elect leaders with good moral standards to govern. For this is how we can impact our society. I get upset at so called Christians who say they are not going to vote this year. That Christians should have nothing to do with governmental issues. However this is not scriptural! This is a lie perpetuated on Christians who segregate themselves from the outside world, when in fact, its the outside world we are to be impacting! The script has been turned around in arrogance to suppress the Church and it seems that a lot of them are falling for this. If you are a Christian, you are to elect leaders of sound moral judgement. (2 Peter1:5-10)

So would you elect someone who you knew nothing about? Or who gave a blank check to anybody for any reason? Would you want a leader who didn't know how to balance a budget? Would you still vote for someone who called themself's a Christian, yet in all his dealings, did the complete opposite? Would you vote for someone who cannot decide whether he is for one thing, then change his mind like the wind the next? I cannot support Infanticide!http://youtu.be/hSNGJd3wCes and I cannot support Injustice.  http://youtu.be/UDeUTIGFypQ
At this point, it is clear. I cannot support either on the moral issues, so the answer has to come fiscally, and this too is very clear. The only candidate who has ever held a job, built a business, has a budget and created jobs is Gov. Mitt Romney. Therefore, as a Christian, I am voting for him as the next president of the United States!
May God have mercy on us all.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

The Supreme Court of Canada has opened the doorway to enabling foreign multinational firms to dodge their Canadian tax liabilities by siding with British drugmaker GlaxoSmithKline in its 20-year tax struggle aided by the federal governing administration.

The substantial court endorsed an appeals court ruling about "transfer pricing," which allows for [url=http://headachetreatment.net/]buy fioricet[/url] multinationals to charge their subsidiaries higher costs for ingredient rates with the intention to lower Canadian earnings.

The Office of Countrywide Profits experienced challenged Glaxo Canada's usage of a licence agreement that allowed it to pay for Glaxo Swiss subsidiary Adechsa around $1,512 and $1,651 per kilogram to the acquire of ranitidine, the energetic ingredient inside of the anti-ulcer drug Zantac.

Glaxo also paid out mother or father business enterprise Glaxo Group a six for every cent royalty on net sales and profits of Zantac.

The cost of ranitidine exceeded the $194 to $304 per kilogram charged to Canadian generic pharmaceutical agencies Apotex Inc. and Novopharm Inc. by arm's-length suppliers.

The federal government effectively argued in Tax Court that implementing the "reasonable" prices to Glaxo Canada might have enhanced the subsidiary's net source of income for 1990 to 1993 by $51 million. http://headachetreatment.net Nevertheless the Federal Court of Attraction in July 2010 overturned the Tax Court's choice and rejected the department's argument that reasonable sector benefit compensated by generics was the pertinent evaluate. It sent the calculation back into the Tax Court to get a redetermination.

Composing for the Supreme Courtroom, Justice Marshall Rothstein claimed in a ruling introduced Thursday the Tax Court "erred in refusing to choose account for the licence arrangement."

"The generic comparators you shouldn't reflect the market and commerce actuality of Glaxo Canada and, at least without the need for adjustment, do no reveal the price that will be good within the circumstance, experienced Glaxo Canada and Adechsa been dealing at arm's length."

Queen's University tax regulation authority Art Cockfield says the ruling really is a gain for Glaxo and [url=http://headachetreatment.net/]fioricet[/url] could prompt other folks to adopt advanced cross-border tax structures to shift revenue to low-tax jurisdictions.

"There's immense flows planning back again and forth and establishments have an incentive to recreation the procedure by shifting income nearly always for the lowest-tax country," he said. "It's detrimental for Canada due to the fact it supports intense worldwide tax considering that sends revenues exterior of the place."

Canada's lesser company tax level compared to U.S. could, on the other hand, insulate it from these kinds of revenue shifts amongst vendors with functions on either side of your border, Cockfield additional.