Could not agree more, Jennifer. Despite all the political grand standing, they both push for 85% of the same thing, with different wording.

Yes only two, As a former Ross Perot voter I will never forget how Bill Clinton Thanked me for my vote.

This year we actually see a difference, Big Government with little growth or Small Government with larger growth.

Romney is also worried about the Fed as was evident from the ignored part of the 47% secret tape, which should help make Ron Paul's supporters happy.

apsolutly we need at least 3 parties , and not a division of one all ready party (TEA) it is not a party, our const. and how the rules in Congress and senate are set for, the word 60 , with three 60 would only be attainable when a vote is taken for naming a Post Office etc....... catch my drift............ other countries have multiple parties, that way there is not this 50.1 vs 49.9, riff, we didn't win so I m paying you back, a NO on any thing you attach your name to......... or what ever sulking pay back mentality can dream up.

Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party was denied to be a part of the debates because he does not get 15% of the polls. He isn't even included in the polls. Yeah, we are stuck with these two corrupt parties.

there are three more choices on the ballot

A vote for the Libertarian Party is a vote for the Democrats. It currently splits the Republican ticket but has little impact on the Democrats. A centrist third party which would appeal to some independents who are slightly left or right of center would be nice. Both the Democrats and the Republicans seem to be for certain special interest segments of the population and they do not look out for the rest of us who do fit into their box of preferred citizens.

Romney lied 11 times so who truthfully can say Obama failed?

I agree he won but not by telling the truth. He forcefully lied 11 times. Check the facts. We need a third party. Try Virgil Goode, Jr. he's running

I agree. Last night was actually a debate, not just a question-answering via the moderator.

If that's the case....what happened to Pres Obama without his teleprompter....his spontaneous response....looked like a deer in the headlights.

I think it's what Obama says when he IS prepared that we have to worry about Mitt doesn't have the gaffs tied up with a bow, however; Obama has had plenty. Just check YouTube.

I agree and his flip flop answers. Who was that who said I was for it before I was against it but now I am for it again? Remember that! That is where Romney is or was or is again

You mean the guy who keeps calling trying to scare us White folks into voting for him?
Try the Virgil Goode, Jr. & J. Clymer ticket.

Mark, best you read the article again.. That's not what 17 of 18 thought.

Yes, Mark - what Mumford Chopp (love the name!) said! Why are you shocked? Because it isn't the ubiquitous pro-His-Highness-Obama in the media? Now, that is a shocker!

Well, its already afternoon and even the O camp had admitted defeat, and has said "We will be tougher next time". It was the largest margin of victory in a Presidential debate in almost 30 years according to a CNN poll. The statements/facts/lies have all been analzyed. Bottom Line: Obama got his butt kicked!

Romney vs. Romney? Well, yes, I guess it was because Obama has exactly nothing of note to come back with. OR, perhaps it was the thin air, as Al Gore seriously suggested (although, funny, I don't remember Obama having any problem with the air in Colorado when he accepted the nomination in 2008!)

As a parent of a special needs child, obamacare is devastating to us. · Medical expense contributions to flexible spending accounts (FSAs) will be limited to $2,500 annually. Currently there is no limit on these accounts, which are used to purchase everything from contact lenses to children's braces.. The FSA cap will also negatively impact special-needs children, whose tuition has been covered using FSA funds.

· The threshold for claiming itemized medical expense deductions will be increased to 10 percent of income, from the current 7.5 percent. This will impact clients who have the highest medical bills, including, potentially, those on high-deductible plans.

Our family will be slammed by these little nuggets we had to find out only after the bill was passed. Or should I say shoved down our throats. So much for the Obama administration giving a hoot about people.

I find Kathy's comment interesting - she is worried about sharing her subsidy (tax deductibility of FSA's) with other people. Seems a quite hypocritcial. Why should anything like this be subsidizes - aren't you tired of the government favouring one behavior over the other.

Joe -I'm not sure how you can characterize me as hypocritical. Yes, I use an FSA to put away money from my earned income on a pre-tax basis to pay for my sons medical, therapy and school bills-which are substantial and not covered by our $1100 monthly BCBS high deductible insurance premium. My husband also uses a pretax deferral of his income to fund our retirement. Then perhaps you're proposing that every citizen should pay a10% flat income tax with no deductions for anything. If everyone did that regardless of income-low or high, I could agree with that. That would be true "economic patriotism" with everyone having some skin in the game.

My post however, was to point out that Obamacare is not the great savior it has been made out to be.

I agree and I checked. He also lied 11 times. It is hard to believe someone who flip flops and then lies about the flip

Pay no attention to FHVoice. He or She is a hired thug from the Obama Campaign trolling Social Media sites trying to spread his propoganda.

Amen --- lets get control of America back ----- remember it is we the people, not you the government!

Did any one else notice last night that everything Obama said about any issue his solution was for more government!

We DO NOT NEED MORE government - we need freedom!

Karen,

Thanks to your husband for his service.

Unfortunately, this is another misleading scare tactic by Romney. The defense cuts he speaks of are actually part of a kind of double suicide pact called “sequestration” that came out of the stalled debt reduction deal last summer.

A BI-PARTISAN deal – as in REPUBLICANS in Congress AGREED to it – was struck to raise the debt ceiling, but ONLY by each side putting on the table deep cuts to their favorite budget items with a “trigger” date that would FORCE BOTH sides to sit down to find cuts elsewhere so that these cuts would NOT be necessary. NEITHER R’s or D’ intend for these cuts to actually occur.

So, first – this is NOT an Obama defense cut but a deal struck between both Houses of Congress and the White House. Second, Republicans AGREED to set this trigger to make everyone sit down and bang out a debt deal. Third, even if they don’t get it done before the trigger, which they WILL, Veteran benefits and care are EXPLICITLY EXEMPT. Repeat: EXEMPT.

Feel free to vote on intentionally misleading statements and “hate”, but I thought you might be interested in what has actually occurred. Good luck to you both.

If your husband is receiving medical care, thank President Obama for vastly increasing the VA budget. Pres. Bush didn't increase funds for our veterans. Remember seeing the pictures of WalterReed hospital and the terrible care our military personnel. Do you remember who was president. Look it up. One of the fist things Obama did as president was to increase the pay of those serving in the war zones. Woman, look at something besides fox. Use your computer, look up information. Maybe you'll want to send our president a thank you card for how is trying to take care of military personnel.

Karen...My father, was in Vietnam, and I know all too well. Please view a quick video:
http://youtu.be/Xl_TD7yppBM I thank your husband for her service (as we all should).
PEACE :)

According to the Constitution, all government expenditures have to be approved by Congress so NO President can just cut what he wants to cut.

Maybe he is but he does not get on National TV and build a case on 11 not ten 11 lies to get his point across. Karen thank your husband for me as well. Maybe you Bobbie are drinking Romney lie- spiked kool aid.

Obama had over 4 minutes more time than Romney did, so I hardly see how Romney could have "monopolized" anything. It was a DEBATE. Attack mode? He defended himself against the repeated misinformation that Obama kept (mis)stating., That's not "attack-mode" - that's debating. "Even though he was prepared" (and Obama was not) - do your own words not give you a clue who is prepared to lead?

I agree and once I checked things out I found he lied 11 times not only that but don't you get dizzy from him being for something that a month ago he was against?

Yes, I stared in astonishment, too. Obama wants to hire 1 million teachers? With what money - oh wait, I know: we can either call Beijing or just print it. Obama is helping the middle class? Please provide names and addresses. Huge gaffes on the international stage? Who bowed to the Saudi princes? Who sent a stupid, unusable gift to Great Britain? Who referred to "Polish Death Camps"? Who was overheard saying that he "couldn't stand Netanyahu"? Who appeared on The View and partied with Beyonce and whats-his-name rather than meet with world leaders, including Netanyahu? The Chinese are laughing at us and lying in wait and Israel is not happy with us, just for two examples. I'm sorry: what was Obama's foreign experience in 2008? No, scratch that: what was ANY of his experience in 2008, other than a short-term senator? Seeing OBAMA like that scares me, just as he has done for going on 4 years.

Obama had no comeback except what sounded like a repeat of his 2008 campaign speech. Talk about arrogant: he thinks all he has to do is show up and make more empty promises and the masses will swoon? I'm giving a pass to people who bought it the first time, but how anyone can buy it again is just unbelievable! How was Romney rude? You're confusing 'rude' with 'insistent'. His positions haven't changed - it's the positions the Democrats contend are his that saw the light of day. No talking heads to spin it. And yes, Romney insisted that Obama quit misrepresenting his positions. He was congenial, he was insistent upon stating and clarifying his positions, and he was prepared. Not something Obama is used to coming up against, since he's given a pass on everything in the media. We HAVE a slick salesman - you bought it, apparently. Let's give a chance to the guy who showed up and was prepared.

I agree 100%. He is too slick for me with his flip flopping and lies and arrogance and disrespect for the moderator.

Yup, that's precisely it. What crashed the economy was the housing market, and who started that? Christopher Dodd and Barney Frank, that's who. Bankds were FORCED by the Dems to give mortgages to people who had absolutely no business getting one. George Bush warned about the implications of this repeatedly - check it out. The banks and morgage companies, of course, then took the thing to a whole new level, setting up financial concoctions that even they didn't understand. But how was that Bush's policy? It's another example of the government interfering in private enterprise - that's what started it and sent it off the cliff. Obama has had 4 years, and has only made things worse. He has increased our debt 87% in 3+ years - more than all 41 previous presidents combined. We are now on the brink of bankruptcy. He hasn't fixed anything so far - why would anyone want to give him another shot at it?

LOL, Vivi... you make me laugh. You also make me cringe.

As long as Republicans keep thinking "government interfering in private enterprise" is what caused the economic meltdown this country will continue to rot until it completely crumbles. Do you people truly not understand the point of Wall Street regulations?

here's the Republican strategy: Call Obama a Muslim; Then claim Obama was born over seas; Then call Obama a Socialist; Then say he is destroying Christian values; Then point out the debt for George Bushes wars and blame it on Obama; Then say Obama is taking too much credit for Killing Bin Laden; Then make the Socialist claim a bunch more times while hoping people don't bother to look up socialism on wikipedia. THEN REPEAT AGAIN UNTIL EVERYONE IS BRAINWASHED.

By the way, my understanding is that Mormons are most definitely not Christians. America is considerably older than Romney's religion. That is scary. What's next? A Scientologist President?

Vivi yes he was prepared .........to lie not to tell us the truth on anything. He is the one that scares me and I agree with Ray

Ahhh, one of the big spin jobs. Romney said that he would let the car companies go into bankruptcy - which is what they did. The difference is that they are now indebted to the federal government and the American people. WE hold the notes. In addition, they have been forced into "green energy", and GM is losing huge money on every single Volt they build. They wouldn't have had to kowtow to Obama et al if they had gone through a private bankruptcy. Ingrates? Should I be thankful he's destroying this country?

Actually, Ray, GW Bush saved the auto industry in December 2008 by giving GM and Chrysler $17.4 billion in TARP funds -- Bush did that, not congress. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_2008%E2%80%932010_automotive_industry_crisis_on_the_United_States#Bush_approves_bailout

Then Obama came along and helped GM and Chrysler into bankruptcy court.

Exactly.

With Obama, I think you'd better amend that statement to "Capitalism is over". Obama has stoked the fires of class warfare to an inferno. We are supposed to hate Romney because he's rich, which is what the largest percentage of people who WORK in this country aspire to. It's also completely hypocritical because most of the "big" liberals like Kerry and Pelosi and Reid are in the super-rich category, too - apparently their wealth is OK, though, because they are liberals. The 50% of people in this country who pay no taxes have the other 50% - working people - to support them. It's only a matter of time until our economy collapses because, as the quote goes "Socialism doesn't work because it's only a matter of time until you run out of someone else's money". I hope you'll remember this if Obama gets another term and the whole country is ushered in a big way into stagflation.

You're right vivi. Why should we expect the rich to at least pay the same tax rate we do? They need that money to eat and take care of their family. I mean he made $21.6 million in 2010, that should have covered his food, mortgage, and utilities.

We're not supposed to hate the rich, but we are supposed to remind them who made them that way. How do you think the rich make their money? They rely on those of us who will pay for the products or services, or products / services of the companies they own stock in. They also rely on the national infrastructure (more than the average citizen) to facilitate their businesses. They need the interstate highways, airports, and local communities capable of supporting thriving populations in order to continue to run their businesses. I don't care if you are liberal or conservative, if you make millions of dollars a year, you have a responsiblity to pay some of that back into your country.

As far as the 50% of the people who pay no INCOME taxes, that includes many working people. Many of those people pay sales taxes, payroll taxes, and property taxes, but might be able to deduct enough to not pay any income taxes (via charitable donations, major home improvements, or other related investements). The other part of that 50% are the seniors who don't have income to tax and our veterans & servicemen. Why do you assume that this "50%" is living off the rest of us?

"I really don't care who won the debate". Of course: why go with information when you can go with blind allegiance?

Vivi, pot, kettle,black.

Better check your liberal friends at FactCheck ---- and see how many lies BO told on Wednesday evening ---- and how many he has told during his 3.75 years as president. America cannot stand four more years of the Liar in Chief ----- time to send him packing and soon!

Mr. Postman Sharp, you have very clear preception of the facts. I totally agree!

You're right - why bother? There is nothing extreme about what I've written - I guess it's only extreme if you don't want to look at the entire picture. I'm glad someone is LOL because I think this is one of the most serious issues we have. I guess I was mistaken in thinking this was a forum in which to look at both sides. Apparently not. Nothing to look at here, folks. Go back to your own little worlds.

Duke, the unemployment number you cite is a misleading in this instance. In reality, unemployment probably went up very slightly or stayed the same. I don't want to go into the whole explanation of it, but it comes down to the methodology of not counting discouraged workers. The magnitude of the headline "drop" was thanks to 48% upside revision to the previously released numbers. A 48% upside revision, while not unheard of, is fortuitous to the point of suspicious. Thus I, like the rest of the street, think it is a bunch of crap. Suspicions aside, the U-6 number was flat at 14.7%. I suggest you look up the methodology used in the U-6 number and see for yourself why we believe it is a better indicator.

There's your economics lesson for the day! I bet it was exciting.

Wow, Dave Manuel.com!?!

You are pulling out all the stops.

Oft repeated lies and distortions.
- President Obama never "apologized". You are repeating a lie. Period.
- Bush was irresponsible for starting the Iraq War and not budgeting for it, all the while crippling our forces in Afghanistan on the hunt for OBL. As a result, coalition forces had to retake territory previously under control. By this logic, all the deaths in Afghanistan are on Bush's hands. He should have finished that war before acting on his vendetta against the Husseins.
- BTW, your savior Rockin' Romney didn't think the military nor those fighting in our name right now were important enough to mention in his acceptance speech.
- Gas prices are not set by the President. Give that one a rest.
- National Debt statistics? Reagan increased it by 188.6%. Next highest? GW Bush increased it by 89%. And one of the reasons was Bush's unwise tax cuts - he knew we had a large national debt, but when he got in, his Robespieere told us "deficits don't matter". Al Gore wanted to pay down the debt. Bush didn't care.

Accomplishments? There are too many to list here. Just check out http://goo.gl/tEuyd for the list, along with supporting documentation.

So, yes, Obama/Biden 2012 - because candidates should not be rewarded for presenting themselves as unstable as an Etch-a-Sketch.

Quote " So there obviously was a cost savings because of Bush's policy." Did I just read that? Holy jumping facts. The cost saving would have been there if he never went to war in the first place.Good Grief.

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - Obamacare - benefits already being experienced here in 2012:

- If you had a lifetime limit (and about 60% of employer-based plans did), it’s been lifted.

- If you have a child under the age of 26, they can stay on your plan.

- Insurance companies will no longer be able to charge women more than men for the exact same coverage.

- :54 million Americans gained have access to better PREVENTATIVE SERVICES, free of charge.

- If you get sick, your insurance company can’t drop your coverage, and if they deny you a treatment, the law makes sure you have a chance to appeal.

- Insurance companies have already sent rebates to customers because the company spent over 20% of its revenue in administrative costs.

- The Affordable Care Act cuts the deficit by over $100 billion during the first 10 years, it cuts the deficit by another $1 trillion In the following decade, and will do so despite the lies told by the Romney/Ryan/ and other Republicans. Romney's economic plan would grow the deficit by as much as $5 trillion by giving tax cuts that favor millionaires and billionaires while taking away health care benefits that people rely upon.

P.S.: The 47% of Americans you deride include soldiers in combat, among other hard working people, and they do pay taxes.

Wise up - the Romney Ride leads to Ruin for many, while the plutocrats tighten their control of our country. Obama/Biden 2012

http://www.regence.com/transparency/regence-and-reform/what-drives-up-health-care-costs.jsp

Lee... great link that explains why Americans spend 2.5 trillion per year on health care... the highest in the world! Lee P.S. 1/3 is a waste of money.

This October, Lee is apparently planning on attending Halloween Parties as Mr. Scrooge.

"I provide $14,000 per year of healthcare premiums for each of my employees. That is a free will contribution. I am lucky to still do that, many other companies can't afford to pay healthcare at all."

Lee, give us a break: you include a contribution to healthcare premiums in the compensation you give to your employees. You do it to attract the quality of worker you wish to have and keep. If you decide to play Scrooge and keep that money for yourself, you have a right to do so at any time.

"you keep mentioning 'free of charge'. Nothing is 'free'"

I wrote "54 million Americans gained have access to better PREVENTATIVE SERVICES, free of charge." Most would understand the "free" was "out of pocket co-pay". Designating access to better preventive services would also mean other services may have an out of pocket component. Nit, nit, nit.

As far as the other points made in my post, where I enumerated benefits already in place in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, BENEFITS JMB LIED ABOUT, you have no rebuttal.

Wise up - the Romney Ride leads to Ruin for many, while the plutocrats tighten their control of our country (see http://goo.gl/EoT0j) . And for heaven's sake, get a better accountant so you can stop whining about corporate tax rates. Obama/Biden 2012

JMB joins the ranks of Slippery Right Wingers: whining about what he thinks is the way the response (to Lee's post, not his - my mistake) was constructed. At no time did he or Lee actually prove anything inaccurate or wrong in my post.

Of course, JMB is ready with new slurs.

With respect to Gitmo, read "Barack Obama abandons Guantánamo closure plan after Congress veto" at http://goo.gl/qLWve - and admit that the President was prevented from closing the base by Congress.

So what if "the Arab Spring turned into Muslim Brotherhood fall"? The Arab Spring held forth the opportunity of democratizing more of the countries in the region. That means the people there get to form their governments. Are you really suggesting President Obama was to dictate or otherwise control those democracies? Clearly you are no foreign policy maven.

Ironically, JMB proved Lee's post wrong, writing "I did get a $30.00 rebate on healthcare". Evidently there are some features of the PPACA that are already in place, unlike what Lee claimed.

For those who think about and recognize the damage Republican obstructionism has done, just as documented in 'It's Even Worse Than It Looks' (http://goo.gl/2cUWE), vote the Democrats in, starting with Obama/Biden 2012.

Hey Duke boy, the last thing people want is for healthcare to be worse than the DMV, and that's what will happen with the government taking it over.

Keith - apparently you've never had to deal with the bureaucracy of the private insurance world. I've spent countless not very enjoyable hours over the years fighting/dealing with them.

Neither Romneycare nor Obamacare is a "government takeover". And they are both nearly identical to Republican legislation from 1993- including the individual mandate - later called "free rider surcharge penalty" in Romneycare 2006.

Lee, the point was that you included medical insurance coverage as part of a plan to attract and keep good employees. And this "one person diverting" costing you $100,000 is unbelievable. So is your quotation of the price for "the plan from the govt". For people interested: http://www.healthcare.gov

President Obama-He won't say how he fixed the economy....oops, that right..He didn't.

Lee, which link would not work for you?

As for your declaration: "Only one person has to divert, and I get penalized, in my case, $100,000. With Obamacare, I pay an additional $318,000."

Try getting a better understanding using the flowchart here: http://healthreform.kff.org/the-basics/employer-penalty-flowchart.aspx

Using the chart, if a company with 50 or more employees provides no insurance to its employees, the company pays a fine of $2000 X (total employees - 30). In your example, a company of 54 would pay $2,000 x (54-30) = $48,000.

If a company provides insurance that is "inadequate"

[substandard (pays less than 60% of covered health care expenses)
or
too costly (employees have to pay more than 9.5% of family income)],

the penalty is $3,000 / each employee who buys coverage from an exchange. However, the max penalty is capped at $2,000 X (total employees - 30).

Worse case - if you provided "inadequate" medical insurance and all 54 employees bought from an exchange, the penalty would be capped at $2,000 X (54-30) or $48,000.

If only one of your employees bought from the exchange and the insurance you provided was "inadequate", your penalty would be $3,000.

If the insurance you provided was "adequate", there would be NO penalty to you no matter how many employees bought from the exchange.

Bottom line, calm down - you need to stop using Romney math - and get a better accountant.

A couple of Romney lies:

1. Romney says health insurance premiums have gone up $2,500 under Obama. The actual increase has been $1,700, most of which was absorbed by employers and only a small part of which is attributable to the health care law.

2. Romney claimed "all of the increase in natural gas and oil has happened on private land...Your Administration has cut the numbers of permit and licenses in half.” Actually, data from the Bureau of Land Management shows that “the number of drilling permits on federal lands approved during the fiscal years President Obama has been in office has decreased somewhere between 20% and 37% compared to the years before he became president - 50%.”

More importantly, here are the facts about American energy production.
• Oil production hit an 8-year high in 2011.
• Natural gas production was at an all-time high in 2011.
• Drilling activity reached its highest level under Obama than at any point since Reagan.
• The oil and gas industry had conducted production or exploration activities on just 56% of public lands leased in the U.S. In fact, the oil and gas industry is sitting on more than 20 million acres of idle lands already leased for development.
• As of January 25, 2012, the oil and gas industry had 6,500 unused drilling permits for federal lands. Renewable energy such as wind and solar power has nearly doubled since 2008.

Romney's lies are just politico speak? This is the kind of low bar we usually see from people with Obama Derangement Syndrome: they'd vote for Generalissimo Francisco Franco before they'd see President Obama get re-elected.

And yes, Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead.

And this is a hoot: "We need some compromise in govt, Obama does not know what that word means. Romney does, he proved it in PA, time to do it nationally."

Ok,
#1 - Romney was governor in MA, not PA.
#2 - GOP leaders conspired on January 20, 2009 to do anything and everything they could to make the administration of President Obama, just inaugurated, a failure.
#3 - This is the definition of "compromise" in GOP land - "Tea Party Senate Candidate Says Compromise Means Democrats Agree With Republicans" http://goo.gl/gSx4L
#4 - Romney "bipartisan" in MA? Hogwash. Romney’s health care plan was enacted with the help of a Democratic legislature. But in general, the body was “frustrated” with Romney “because he wanted to govern like a ‘CEO’ and ‘didn’t pay heed to the legislature and they resented that,’” according to the Massachusetts Taxpayer Foundation’s Michael Widmer.

Watch Romney. You see that aristocratic "I'm above you all" attitude on full display - a guy thinking being in the executive office meant you could rule like a CEO. He has a record of autocratic rule, not bipartisanship. Check out http://goo.gl/tBULW

Reject the lying, aristocratic debater: Obama/Biden 2012.

I heartily agree with you with many of your premises. Personally I believe Obama is an "Islamophile" who projects his beliefs that his "frriends" are collectively tolerant and rational despite the obvious history of the mideast, Pakistan, and Afghanistan etc. where there are unfortunately a large number of Muslims (more than just a fraction) frozen in a former time of tribal and religious conflict united only with the intolerance for non-believers including rival Muslim sects as well as "infidels"- the historically pejoritive term for those foreign religions.
George Bush similarly influenced by this family's historic oil association with the Saudi's and other emirates had the audacity to believe that we could "liberate" another country by bombing them without an invitation. Has anyone noticed that the rebel opposition has not asked us for anything despite a carnage of civilians that does not seem to irk surrounding Muslim countries as much as Israel. Its time to call a spade a spade and the only way to settle a religious conflict is for religious leaders to sit down and talk, not nations and generals.
I am afraid that Romney would only emulate George W if he is elected with the collective support of former Bush birds (of a similar feather) am I not correct? What is the definition of insanity again? As Oliver Hardy would say about our choice of lesser evils; "another fine mess....."

Stop lying: "Vietnam was started by President Lyndon Johnson". Actually, our involvement in Vietnam started under Eisenhower.

FHVoice, our involvement in Vietnam may have started under Eisenhower and continued under Kennedy, but Master Chief is correct, it wasn't until the Tonkin Gulf Resolution under Johnson that the use of conventional troops were authorized for use and the rapid escalation of the conflict into a war, which resulted in the deaths of over 50,000 American service members. So, until Johnson, our involvement in Vietnam was limited and did not amount to a full fledged war with U.S. involvement.