I’m sorry I misread what you had said. I was going off of the following statement:
Winnipegger Winnipegger:
I'm saying all the debt would have been gone by 31-March-2009 if the Liberals had been re-elected in 2006
But I see now where you were talking about it being down to the level it was when they entered government. I thought for a minute there you were just one of the biggest optimists this side of Ontario.
I think the debt probably would have been paid a bit more but really were talking about a three year time frame here. Now don’t forget that the debt was paid down the first few years under Harper including one doozey of a payment in 2008. I don’t really think you would have seen any additional payments which would have been sizable enough to have made a significant difference. But I do agree it probably would have been paid down a bit more.
Carbon tax, well I don’t personally believe he would have introduced one either but if you look at the time frame in which we are referring to there was a lot of pressure to implement something. He may not gone all the way on a carbon tax but some form of a cap and trade scheme or something to a lesser effect may have come to be. The reason I don’t think he would have is because oddly enough he and Chretien were fairly supportive of increasing Canada’s oil exports despite the face they presented to the public when it came to issues like Kyoto. That’s why I can’t for the life of me understand the party’s stance on the moratorium for oil tankers off the west coast. It was under Chretien/Martin when the whole idea of increasing oil exports to China via those terminals came to be.
On corporate tax cuts, as you yourself have pointed out Martin was a very big proponent of them. I would agree with you to some degree in saying that I don’t think he would have gone as far as the Conservatives had but I would say he would have at least hit his target of 19% by the time the financial crisis hit. If they had as much money as you say they would have then he would have had no reason not to.
Child care; Martin had committed a measly 500 million to childcare, 1/5 of what the current $100/month costs annually. There are only two ways this would have gone: either that program spending would have increased dramatically or we would have been stuck with some half assed program that didn’t get the job done. On one hand the Liberals say that the current 2.5 billion isn’t enough and then they turn around and say they can do more with 1/5 that amount. $20 a month per child, you’re gonna have to give me some really detailed info on their plan before you convince me that you can do anything meaningful with that amount of money. Hell, you couldn't even impliment a snack program in the existing daycare system for that kind of money.
In my view, you would have to have a pretty sizable amount budgeted to create the day care plan they had envisioned. Personally I think up to a certain point in spending giving money directly is more effective. If you can afford to spend a larger amount then Liberal plan would be more effective but you need to be ready to not only sustain that spending but also increase it as time goes by.
I don’t know, I think you’re painting a pretty rosey picture of what could have been. I don’t disagree with everything your saying out right but it’s a pretty optimistic point of view.
CKA Elite 
