C-130 capability provides for in theater deployment over obstacles (mountains, large rivers, etc) or to suprise an enemy that thinks there is only one AoA. Similar to the AirCav concept but with armored combat capability. It is not there for strategic deployment, that is for the C-17 and C-5 (just like tanks). Motorized formations is a combat enabler for the infantry.

The M1approach could be very effective if the Army would accept an active protection system that only defeated RPG and ATGM, instead of waiting for a system that also defeated kinetic threats. There are several developed APS products that have been shown to be very effective against the Chem Warhead threat, but the Army won't buy them. Israel industry has at least two mature systems and the Russians may have more than one. I also understand that SAAB is demonstrating one in South Africa.

Does anybody check the data that these kinds of "factual" reports spew out? There is no way that 50% of children in America will be on food stamps at some point in time during this economic down-turn. I know there is 10%+ unemployment or maybe even 20% under employment, but that leaves 80-90% of working age adults employed. That would mean that at least 30% of them are earning at or below the poverty level. Common sense tells you that those figures don't add up.

 IntenseDebate Notification <DIV>The bigger question is; does the Constitution give Congress the power to 1) regulate healthcare access, and 2) force citizens to purchase medical insurance? I can't find anything that even mentions healthcare as a right and almost every amendment in the Bill of Rights begins with "Congress shall not". The only way to lower medical costs and increase access is to get government out of it.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">

 IntenseDebate Notification <DIV>I don't know what business you are in, but I would be fired if my margins were as small as those of the big insurance companies. I saw a WSJ story that showed their profitablilty ranging from 2-6%. If that is excessive in anyone's mind then they are crazy. What drives policy costs up is not related to profit, it is more dependent on the peripheral cost of the system, i.e. processing, fed/state/local mandates, escalating malpractice insurance, etc. This bill doesn't address any of those things and is , IMHO, unconstitutional. There is no Constitutional authority for the Federal Government to regulate or mandate healthcare.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">

People's lives are their responsibility, not the governments. I am not responsible for your bad decisions and you should not be reponsible for mine. Corporate success (profits) are what pay your salary. You may hate profits so much you are willing to work for free, but I doubt it.

The wonderful Cash 4 Clunkers, run by our governement, cost the tax payer $24,000 for each vehicle, to provide a $4,000 credit to the buyer. If that is any indication of how they will manage the healthcare program, we might as well all sign over our paychecks to them now. What voter in their right mind would support this insanity? Oh , I know, the 40% of the voters that don't pay any income tax. At some point businesses and those that are the engine of our economy will either lead a revolt or just quit and close up shop.