When you "photoshop" something, literally or figuratively, you know what result you want. If you adjusted your adaptive optics based on whether the image looked like an extra-solar planet, that would be a problem. If you adjust your adaptive optics to make a laser guide star appear the way you know it actually does look, and as a result you start being able to image extra-solar planets, that's not "photoshopping", it's calibration. The friend in question is wrong.

Since you mentioned Buffet, I assumed you meant what he was arguing for in the op-ed that attached his name to the tax debate in the first place. After a bunch of discussion about the fact that dividends and capital gains are why he pays a lower rate than middle income earners, the actual policy proposal is: "I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains". Buffet is definitively arguing for raising his own taxes, and suggest doing it in a way that would be effective.

The 'millionaire' tax I'm familiar with, that Buffet proposed, is a rule saying those whose income exceeds 1 million dollars must pay taxes at a rate equivalent to that of middle-income earners regardless of the source of that income. i.e. It will affect him, because it specifically closes the loophole you mention; that's the whole point.

"We could tax ever dollar of income made over $1 million and it would not cover the shortfall." What numbers are you using to make that calculation? If you have a good source for what the total income over 1 million is, I'm genuinely curious. Effective tax rates in the highest income bracket are the lowest they have been since WWII. Various people are arguing they should be raised, but nobody I know of has suggested raising them to as high a level as they were at under the renowned socialist Ronald Reagan.

L2 is better and cheaper. Besides, putting a telescope on the moon is no reason to put people there. Astronomers today largely use remotely controlled telescopes on the other side of the earth just to avoid having to work the night shift.

If, in this context, "austerity" means something other than "reduced government spending" or "size of the public sector" means something other than "total government spending", you should provide whatever (weird) definitions you are using.

I gave one: 20 seconds of Googling; they are just the first numbers I found. Not a great citation, but the amount of research I'm willing to do in response to your doing none is limited. Now you've done more, and found numbers that say you were wrong by a factor of 3 instead of 10. Well, OK. Personally, I think total spending is a better measure than employees, so this: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year2011_0.html tells me total spending on Education is more than twice total spending on "Protection", which includes the things you worried were left out and firemen to boot.

I'll concede there are problems that ought to be addresses in both our criminal justice and education systems. Indeed, I have never argued otherwise.

You won't have to hold it long. Certainly good ideas that will improve things should be done even if they don't cost anything. Of course, when your economy is deeply depressed due to shortfall of demand, and particularly when monetary policy is exhausted by the zero lower bound, what you desperately need in the short term is for the government to spend more on something. So solutions to societal problems that do involve spending increases would be particularly welcome, especially temporary increases. Personally, I'd go for infrastructure improvement, (because you can do something useful with temporary increases) and an enhanced social safety net (goes away when the economy recovers, automatically comes back next time). Education wouldn't be temporary, but, in my opinion, good solutions are likely to involve spending increases (the other countries that you point out we are doing worse than tend to spend more). I wouldn't go for criminal justice because I don't think the things that are wrong there need spending to fix.

But frankly, if I wanted to have a serious public policy discussion, I wouldn't pick someone who uses North Korea as an example of what a larger public sector would look like, or who says "low wage jobs are plentiful" about today's economy. Sometimes I just take guilty pleasure in pointing out that other people are saying something inane. But I've got my fix now, so I think we're done. Next time, if you want people to take your ideas seriously, don't start off by saying something stupid. By the time you get to "What I actually meant was this totally different thing."... nobody cares. HTH.

"Yea, I was wrong about the DHS. It's the "third largest cabinet department" behind DOD and Veteran's Affairs."

You were wrong twice in a row about a fact whose relevance I can't imagine.

I'm not being contrary to be contrary, I'm being contrary because there is no point discussing your conclusions because I can't even figure out what they are, but I assume they proceed from your premises, which all appear to be wrong.

"Why would you assume I'm advocating austerity,"
You keep making ridiculous suggestions about a large public sector meaning China or North Korea. I assumed the use of such disingenuous arguments was motivated by a belief that a large public sector was bad. Do you favor a smaller public sector but oppose austerity because you fail to understand they are the same thing?

"Still, it's not really fair to compare them to the entire public school system - you would have to include all the local and state police, sheriffs departments, prisons, rangers, etc. And considering the US has the world's largest prison population and really lousy results from the public schools (compared to other first world countries), I can only guess that the police-state size is likely bigger and better funded."

No! You can do more than guess! You can look it up! I myself had no idea, but based on experience guessed that your guess would be wildly wrong. But I didn't stop there, I did a whole 20 seconds of googling, and: there are roughly 700,000 law enforcement personnel in the US and 7 million teachers. Will this data cause you to reconsider your conclusion that the US is a distopian police state? I'm not holding my breath.

"Which is the point I was making - the low-wage jobs are coming back (there are actually new jobs to be had)"

That's a different point, also wrong. We have added low-wage jobs, but generally not as fast as we have added workers seeking them. Unemployment remains high, and highest among low-skilled workers. Number of applicants per job opening is also highest at the low end. This recession has been and is hardest on the less skilled. The total number of jobs at the very lowest end may have gone up more than at the higher ends relative to the previous number of jobs, but if the number of looking workers is still higher, "There are actually new jobs to be had" is misleading at best. If you are looking for a job, you're more likely to get one if you are a higher skilled worker.

  If that is the point you were making, you said the exact opposite. Maybe you misspoke when you said "Low-wage and just above (service and labor jobs) are plentiful", but in that case you probably shouldn't keep arguing with people who point out you are wrong. And when your misstatement results in something so obviously ridiculous, you probably shouldn't get offended when people question your intelligence.

Wikipedia? Probably an okay starting point..."

Which is why I checked the citation: A joint report by The Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal. Are you going to suggest they are socialist shills pushing a big government agenda by falsifying easily checked data?

" 'So I might try to figure out what measure of "largest" you were using'
Should have said "government organization"."

  By employment, the second largest government organization is the Postal Service. Do you ever look things up? I'm not sure how this is relevant in any case. The public sector in this country employs vastly more schoolteachers than DHS goons, the fact that one is organized as a single group and the other split between myriad districts doesn't strike me as supporting any particular point you were making.

I could point out that the lesson of Europe is that austerity makes things worse, or argue with your premise that social entitlements were their problem, but frankly, you're not making it worth my while. You'll just say you meant something different and throw out more made up, easily disprovable stuff to support your new tangent.

"Yes, there are countries with proportionally larger public sectors, probably none other than China with one actually as large."

None other than China? Canada, Austrailia, Israel, Brazil, and pretty much the entirety of Europe, just to name the ones that seem like obviously better comparisons to the US than North Korea and China. If you need someone to lay out what they "prove": Many of these countries are not considered hellish distopias, so your apparent contention that a large public sector is a terrible thing does not appear to fit the evidence.

The list of countries with smaller public sectors than the US includes mostly third world countries as well as (irony alert): China. To be fair, I would have guessed China's public sector was bigger than ours too. On the other hand, I didn't guess; I looked it up.

"the DHS is now the largest organization in the US outside the Defense Department"

The Defense department is the largest employer in the US, but second is Walmart and third is McDonalds. I've only memorized the top three, and DHS is no doubt big. So I might try to figure out what measure of "largest" you were using, if I had any suspicion you weren't just making stuff up to fit you conclusion like every other "fact" you've thrown out.

"What I meant was that there have been proportionally fewer job losses in that sector than in the better-paying skilled jobs."

What you said was entirely different, and wrong. What you are saying now is misleading at best, and to the best of my knowledge, also wrong.

From the page you helpfully linked below:

"The overall unemployment rate is 8.8%, but the rate remains especially high for those with limited education, Hispanics (11.9%), Blacks (15.5%), teenagers (24.5%), those aged 20-24 (15.0%), veterans who’ve served since 2001 (10.9%), and persons with a disability (15.6%)."

Do those sound like categories that correlate with higher paid jobs? Unemployment in this recession has disproportionately hit those at the bottom. The unemployment rate for those with a college degree is significantly less than for those without.

"Low-wage and just above (service and labor jobs) are plentiful" is just ridiculously contrary to the facts.

That sentence isn't on the page it links to.

I haven't called you any names, nor am I a socialist. I'm not sure what you're looking for proof of. That you are wrong about whether North Korea is a useful example here? North Korea is not a useful example here. It's an idiotic one. Nobody is going to try to prove that to you; because you already know it, you're just being intentionally obtuse.

"Dividends are taxed twice--once when the company (which you own) is paying taxes on earnings, and again when you receive their earnings."

The company is taxed once, and the individual is taxed once. They are not the same. If you don't like it, don't form a corporation, form a partnership. Then you and the company are one, and you get taxed once.

"Two people have claimed that, and called me an "idiot" (yes, you did), claim that I'm wrong, and that there's proof!! and yet... nothing."

In considering the effects of public sector size (or anything) on a society, it is most useful to look at countries that are as similar to the US as possible in other respects. North Korea is about as different from the US as possible in about as many ways as possible. It is among the least useful examples you could possibly pick.

If you cannot grasp this, it does not prove you're an idiot, just that you argue like one.