To a degree, I think that is how it works.  At least SS benefits are based on the amount you've contributed to the system over your life time (that's the whole point of the social security number).  That does seem 'fair' in some sense, and I don't have a strong objection to it, I do tend to think that it might be better to just give everyone over age X, a monthly pay check of Y.  Making it related to your income and/or years works gives people the idea that it's a retirement account, rather than a safety net.  I think social security isn't necessary as a reward for working, per se, but rather as a method of keeping the elderly from being destitute, even if some of them might deserve to be destitute in some people's opinion.  I don't want to see 70 year old homeless people asking for change, even if they haven't worked their whole life.  If you make it to 65, or whatever it is, without having done much work during your life, fine, you beat the system, I guess.  I still don't want to see you out on the street at that age.  I guess I see it as more an issue of basic responsibility to provide for those who make it to that age, rather than rewarding them for what they've done getting there.  It's less a "hey, thanks for all the work you've done, here's some money," and more of a "hey, we don't want to see you on the street and starving, here's some money," thing for me.

Both, really. The current system takes money from the young to pay for the old. As long as you have two or three or four young people to every old person, that works fine, but it's very short-sighted.

On the most basic level, I don't think it's well defined. Is it meant to keep old people from starving? If so, wouldn't it make more sense for it to be paid in food stamps, or in government-run housing, rather than cash payouts? Food stamps 'cost' less because it's the government buying bulk surplus effectively, and it prevents people from using it so much as a 'free money because I'm old' program.

Is it a forced retirement plan? If so, how can any retirement plan work on a 0-year investment plan? If the goal is to force retirement, then we need to actually give the power to invest to the individual, with no maximum, and no setting as to where you put it (such as Bush's suggested redo of the system where you do precisely that).

Regardless, putting the money into the hands of people who can use it for short-term gain without any restrictions, depending on constant, baby-boom levels of child-bearing is GUARANTEED to fail. Even our current system could have worked if we didn't have our elected officials blowing the money every chance they got.



That is true, if you extend the age social security starts paying out until say 75, it significantly reduces the number of children required to support the aging population. Currently you're dividing up the living expenses of each old person among several young, working people. Most people cannot afford the cost of supporting themselves plus one other person, so this cost needs to be chopped up. Even assuming people will work for three times as long as they retire for, having your cost of living increased by 33% is pretty significant. Therefore, we can either reduce social security benefits (or allow them to become defrayed by inflation), push back the age of payback or otherwise limit who gets money, increase the taxes paid to make up the deficit, or increase the number of new people entering the system. When the system was created, as a temporary stop-gap, people didn't live long past retirement and on average were supported by very many working children, so the math was nice. That isn't the case any longer.

How did anyone ever survive prior to the welfare acts? Oh, right... reliance on family and neighbors. Heaven forfend we ever do that again.

Basic human nature has not changed over the past 200 years. We are social animals. I've taken in the homeless and, should it ever come down to it, I suspect that someone would do the same for me. Sometimes those guys clean up nice and you've got yourself a pretty serviceable human being.

So that's housing down.

Medical care is trickier. Do we socialize medicine? I don't think that's the answer. The problem is that you have an altruistic for-profit organization, and if you remove either service suffers, and there are some people that need the services and can't pay.

Got an idea... bare with me:
Make people uncomfortable about their bodies, maybe by calling 80% of America fat. Elective surgeries will become more frequent.

Require, when someone wants elective surgery, that they sign on help someone else.

Some federal funds are used to assist in those areas where it doesn't work all that well (rural and amongst the urban poor).



10-15%

I do think we should raise the SS collection age, but not by too much, since the life expectancy for Americans is 77.8 years, which is only about a 10.8 year difference at the current retirement age of 67.

Why do you think that's short sighted?  You can achieve a surplus of young to old even without population growth (because we each spend more time in the "young" category than the "old" category).


I would largely agree on that.  Though, I might say it's less an issue of it being well-defined, and more an issue of people not realizing how it's defined, but that's not a huge difference.


In my view, yes.  Or, at very least, it should be.  Though I'm using "starving" in the broad sense of "being financially destitute," not just the literal sense of having no food.


I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to such a change.  It would be hard to get pushed through, I think, precisely because so many people view it as a retirement plan, rather than a safety net, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be a change for the better, or that it's not something that should be on the table.  The housing aspect is a bit trickier, as I think most would prefer a system that helps retired people keep whatever home they have to one that moves them elsewhere (especially if the cost of each of those options is more or less the same), but the basic principle you're suggesting (payment in benefits instead of just cash) I think is fine.


In my opinion it should not be viewed this way.  One could argue that there should be a forced retirement plan, but even in that case, I think it should be separate from the social security safety net.  I'd probably not support a forced retirement plan, for what that's worth.


Okay, so it sounds like the critical flaw, in your view, is that congress can 'borrow' from the SS trust, since you don't trust them to pay it back (or perhaps not be able to pay it back)?


But 33% assumes the system gives out the same amount of money to retired people as the working people are earning themselves, which I don't think is necessary for a safety net system.  Still, I do see your point, that it's not an easy price to pay.  Can we agree, though, that there is some price at which it becomes worth it?


Like I said, I'm not opposed to changing the details of the system.  Pushing back the retirement age isn't the best option, in my opinion, but leaving it as an option on the table is fine by me, though.  How 'not nice' do you consider the math to be at this point?  I've heard a lot of vastly different views on this.  I've heard people who say the system will be broke in 15 years, and others who say that it's fine for at least the next 70 years (though that's based on the assumption that congress will actually pay back the money it's borrowed from the trust), and others that say there will be a shortfall soon, but that offsetting it would require a tax increase smaller than tax increase set to come when Bush's tax break for the top 10% ends.  So, to be honest, I'm not entirely sure just how dire the situation for social security.  I'm also not sure how much is a perpetual problem, and how much is a temporary (though long in duration) problem due to the baby boomers being an unusually large generation.  Everyone seems to agree that right now SS takes in more money than it gives out, but that "soon" that's going to change ("soon" seeming to mean something between 5 years and 25).  Then there's the time when it can eat up the "reserves" it's built up over the years (which congress has borrowed, spent, and has said it will pay back), which will last for some number of years, and then after that it actually starts going into debt.  At some point the boomers will be gone, and we won't be quite as top-heavy age wise, which will reduce the problem somewhat (though, to what extent I'm not sure).  Some people seem to view it as an entirely lost cause, with absolutely no hope of being fixed, while others seem to think it just needs some adjustments.  Am I right that you're closer the former camp?  For me, I guess, the basic idea seems sound, so while adjustments to the current system may well be necessary, it doesn't seem like it should be entirely impossible to make it work in some form.

Because it assumes we will always have enough young people making enough money to support our old people while maintaining an acceptable tax rate. Looking at the social security bubble expected in a few years, that's clearly not the case. You can fool with it a little, adjusting the age or payout up and down, but there's a limit to how far that goes, and ultimately, it degrades the ability of the act to achieve its designed ends.



Then why is it paying out to middle-class people with good retirement funds? And why is it paid in cash instead of useful things that reduce abuse of the system? The fact that my father, who certainly is not in dire straights, expects in a few years to get checks of 'free money' (free only insofar that he already paid it, except now administrative fees and interest on loans has chopped down its value to a fraction of what it had been initially) would seem to defeat the argument that it's meant to keep him from being financially destitute.




I think that is A critical flaw, perhaps the greatest one. If I took all my SS money and put it in an FDIC-insured bank account, I would have more of a safety net, even at interest rates barely above inflation, than I get entrusting it to the government who uses it as leverage on massive loans. First American Bank gives me a 5% interest rate, the US Gov't seems to give it a -10% interest rate.



I think there are merits to the system, and if it were free, or near-free, I wouldn't complain. The problem is that the system was designed wrong from the ground up, and has gotten worse with age.



When I was struggling to feed my child and wife and working off school debts, social security was one of the single greatest costs I had to shoulder (my rent was something like $500/mo., food was much less). My wife now runs an at-home business, and her SS (percentage wise) is double mine. And unfortunately, this was when the boomers were paying in most of the money into the system. The boomers are retiring, with an empty pot waiting for them. I am hoping very eagerly they axe the system soon. I don't mind telling that money goodbye, seeing the budget estimates for 2012 and 2020, I don't think we can survive any other way. It's projected to be something like four times our defense budget. Can you imagine that? It's insane.



Funny enough, perhaps the single greatest cure is illegal immigration. Illegal immigrants are still required to pay into the system, and oftentimes do, but don't get a payout. They're also one of the single largest sources of new young workers available.




The boomers are expected to be the longest-living generation ever in the US, and they've begun retiring last year. What makes it tough though is that people aren't reproducing like they should (damn slackers). Only recently have birth levels been up, and they're expected to drop again if the recession lasts much longer.




I think it could be fixed, but it won't be, so it's better just to kill it. If I believed congresspeople could see beyond the next term, and groups like the AARP could accept that sometimes they have to take cuts so their children can survive and prosper, I'd have a little more faith in it, but I don't see that being the case.

But in the case of 4+ children per Baby Boomer, wouldn't that compound the problem?

If people have tons of children in order to sustain the Socially Secured, it's only going to make the problem four or more times bigger when those children become Socially Secured.

The fact that the birth rates are low may hurt us right now, but it's going to make the sustainability of the SS program in the future much easier. (assuming it survives the Baby Boomers)

No, because birth rates are percentages of the last generation. So if boomers' parents had a 500% birth rate, those parents are in a good place with SS. If the boomers have only a 20)% birth rate, their spot isn't so secure, and if those kids have only a 100% birth rate, they are even worse off.

In short, invest in your future, either by popping out lots of kids, or socking money away.

But is it the current version of SS that you feel not viable, or is it the idea of the working people keeping the retired from starving that you feel is "short sighted?"  I don't mean to keep asking the same thing, I'm just trying to get a handle on if you'd really prefer no system at all, or a fixed version of what we've got?


Probably because people value "fairness," and don't like to support things that benefit others and not themselves.  Personally, I don't have an objection to changing it so that only people who need it get it, or making it so that your benefits are based more on your needs than the amount you've paid in.  I think most people would have a problem with that sort of thing, but again, I'm not saying that's a reason to take the option off the table, or anything like that.  Just giving it as a reason for why it is the way it is, not saying that it's necessarily a good thing that it is the way it is.


To be honest, I'd much rather my tax money go to pay for social programs than the military.  Yes, it is a big cost, but it's one for which at least I support the goal its being spent to achieve.  But it seems like you're in the "it can't be fixed so better to get rid of it completely" point of view, and I'm more in the "let's fix it" camp.


The population is still growing, though.  Like I said, it seems like a program can be put in place that doesn't require continuous population growth, so long as we work significantly more years than we spend retired on average.


But won't these same people you don't feel are willing to fix it also stand in the way to killing it?  If you're just saying you think that's the easier option, not the preferable one, that's fair enough, I guess, though I'm not sure that I think it's actually the easier option.

I am amiamble to a social-welfare program meant to keep people from starving. I do think it would be best implemented at the state level, not at the federal, however. It's not the federal government's job to provide this service, it is outside of their charter.

Regardless as to the level, the current program is definitely broken. It's open to thievery, it gains no interest over time, it's not guaranteed, and, for a needs-based program, it covers an awful lot of people without need.




I'm not arguing that. Our defense budget is already far too bloated. Simply saying, take the ridiculous bloat and multiply it by four. I don't think I could shoulder that amount of tax responsibility, and I don't think it's fair to put it on my children in the form of government deficits.



True, but costs are defined by rates of growth. It doesn't just have to be positive, it has to be very positive, in order to make up the shortfall. It also, again, depends on politicians not being politicians, which seems like a silly idea (again, the reason I liked Bush's retirement plan is because it took the hands out of irresponsible politicians, and put it in the hands of less-irresponsible bankers).



They'll stand in the way either way, so in that regard we can't win. But there are a lot more people who would like to see that $200 or whatnot charge disappear off their paychecks than there are people who are seriously expecting to get rewarded by it in 40 years. Plus, frankly, if the other side is unwilling to compromise, neither am I. The retirees and AARP are simply going to have to give ground, or they will kill the country in debt. I'm sorry that the people they voted into office spent their money, but that isn't a problem they should be handing off.

Retirement isn't a big issue that what children are for. My parents raised four children and when the time comes and they need help we are the ones that should provide for them not the state. Aided by savings and other funds they have in their name. Thats the way it used to be and the states and charity often provided for seniors with no such safety net.

Remember that scene in the Grapes of Wrath film where the man was going tractor over that one family and they asked the man why. He had a wife, and children and his wifes mother to take care of and they had to eat. (roughly stated from the scene) Funny they had such a good idea and the government decided to interfere.

What is wrong with you folks who raided children to expect them to help you, you helped them grow up and hopefully be productive. They should be tapped before any government funds in my opinion and if support must be forced then do so.

I never saw Grapes of Wrath, so maybe I'm confusing what you said; you're criticizing the government...for stopping people from running families over with tractors because they're hungry?  I'm going to assume I'm reading it the wrong way, but how I read it was some guy killing neighbors and eating their dead bodies O_o.

Fair enough.  Which would you consider a bigger problem:  the service not being available to people who actually need/"deserve" to get it, or it being provided at the wrong level?


I guess I'd say all those thing, with the possible exception of it not being guaranteed, are true, but wouldn't necessarily agree that means's the systems broken.  I can handle people getting stuff they probably shouldn't get.  It's unfortunately, but I don't see it as nearly as big as a flaw as being who should get it not being able to would be.  Collecting no interest isn't a huge problem for me.  It's sub-optimal, sure, but I wouldn't say that means it's broken.  As for guaranteed, I'd argue it is guaranteed in the sense that anything is guaranteed.  I agree that the people who've guaranteed it might go back on their word and not cough up, but I think that's also true of any thing that involves someone handing over money at a future date.  In short, yeah, it has a number of flaws, no argument there, but I don't see those flaws as bad as the very large flaw of letting old people starve if we do away with the system.


That's fair.  How much tax responsibility do you feel you could shoulder?  What would you feel would be fair to put on your children in terms of tax burden?


Are you sure?  Social security is one of the more popular programs of the federal government, I had thought?  Bush couldn't get it changed when he had a republican congress, in large part because there was a large public backlash to the idea.  It may be that it's popular, but people don't seriously expect to get any money out of it, but I tend to doubt that.

Heh.  A rather self-service view on children, but fair enough, I guess.


Yes, and many old people starved (again, in the broad sense of being financially destitute).  The reason that social security came into being was because there was no safety net provided by the states, and the children and charities weren't keeping the elderly provided for.  As I said before, SS doesn't stop children from providing for their parents.  If you've got kids to support you, that's great for you.  But not everyone does, and not all of those who have kids have kids that can or will support them.  I don't want those people to starve.  I don't want to look at 80 year old lady in the face and say "well, I'm sorry you have to sleep on the street, but you simply should have had more kids.  I mean, that's what kids are for, afterall!  What were you thinking, anyway?"  I have no problem with children helping their parents, and certainly intend to help provided for mine when they're older (though, fortunately, they've planned well and will likely be able to provide for themselves for quite a long time).  I am certainly not advocating that children shouldn't help their parents.  I'm simply saying that we shouldn't let old people starve simply because their kids are either non-existent or incapable of helping.


Isn't SS more or less forcing the "kids" to pay for the "parents?"  Isn't it just enforcing the very idea that you're espousing, of the young paying for the old, before tapping government funds (remember, SS is a separate set of money from the rest of government spending)?  It loses the "you each pay for your own parents," but it seems close enough to me to what you're saying that I'm somewhat confused by why you'd be so opposed to it?

I saw this
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04...itics/21cabinet.html
in the news today, and it reminded me of when we were talking about this:



Is looking for ways to save $100 million in a $3.6 trillion budget showing respect for 'our' money, or is it a pointless gesture that does nothing to affect our taxes?  Is this a good thing for the president and his cabinet to be spending their time on, or should they be worried about bigger things?

I have to admit, looking for savings that amount to less than one part in ten thousand of the budget seems to me like a poor use of time/effort for people charged with running the country.

re: Obama - I think it's a strong gesture. It doesn't change much on its own, but at least it shows some level of commitment, and is hopefully just the first step in that direction.



I don't know that that's really an easy question to answer, because it's addressing two different issues which are difficult to compare. Not sure why it's relevant either, because there's no reason this has to operate at the federal rather than state level.



I was referring to politicians stealing from it, not private individuals. If 10% of SS goes to individuals who don't need it, the system can work. If 100% goes to political pet projects, the system cannot hope to survive.




It means the system is actually COUNTER-productive. If we made a government-sponsored bank account and put the money in there, it would be more effective. It's stupid. It may not kill the system, but it's like installing a boat anchor on a car. Seriously, that just has to go. There's no reason for it, it's poor stewardship of our money, and therefore it's unethical.



Social security was said to be a temporary measure when it was established. I've not seen anything said saying it'll be a permanent fixture. Would you give me $20 if I said I may or may not ever pay it back?




I perhaps could have gone 5 or 10% more than I did, but that's also because I had no medical emergencies and cut a lot of corners - and that's for everything, state, local and federal tax, so it's not a cut they can monopolize on. In four years, never buying a TV, never getting cable and eating out maybe twice a year, we managed to save up about $5,000. If they raise taxes, the downside is it significantly increases the risk that *I* will starve, and unlike the old people, I haven't had an opportunity to save up against it.



I'm not concerned abotu their suffering a tax burden as much as a deficit. The current deficit is ridiculous, and unacceptable. The deficit should not be so high that they can't pay it back in 10 years with a reasonable tax rate, and it shouldn't be for things they don't benefit by.



It is popular, and it's pretty divisive. The boomers want it, and old people want it, and unfortunately, both have higher voting rates than younger generations. Most people I've talked with 40 or younger don't think it'll be there and don't want it. Certainly that shock of the first paycheck with 15% gone just to SS is a painful experience for all of us.

In reply to Tycho (msg #112):

And whose fault was the no state safety net, the voters in those states. I would always prefer no government interference and let charity help or at least if it must happen local governments run such programs. And that be there to fill gaps not take over for children. Must I remind you SS had a simple premise to supplement other sources of income and savings elderly people and fewer people lived to reach their 60's to get it at the time.

As for children there is for me a huge difference in my having a parent live with me and caring for them, and the government picking my pocket to give this benefit to strangers. The first is a moral and should be a legal duty if need be that is pass alaw demanding parental support of each child, just like supoort for custodial and non-custodial parents. But I never said not to care for those with no children I could see a needs based program run at the county and state level to do that. I would rather give to a local aid society however and help elderly that need it with direct aid and support when I can make the choice to help or not.

Might I pose an arguement if the Great Depression never happened would elderly have had proper support I see little evidence to the contrary. Elderly citizens in good times and even recessions somewhow managed to get support. It took the gravest of economic events to break that. I see no reason to have started a government social program like SS when short term care for special needs would have been enough.

I'm not particularly worried about fault.  If I see a starving woman in the streets, and say
"well, it's your own fault for not getting enough votes to support this program that would help you!" I'm being inhumane, in my opinion.  You seem much more worried about fault, whereas I'm more concerned about our moral obligation to help those who can't help themselves.  Your view seems to be one designed to makes sure you don't help anyone who you don't have to, mine is more concerned with making sure no one goes without help.  You're looking for reasons to avoid helping, I'm looking to get more people to help so that each person that's helping has to give up less to do it.  Seems like a pretty stark difference in world views to me.


And I would always prefer that we don't let people starve, that we don't force people to live on the street, when they have no realistic chance of improving their situation.  I'm not particularly fussed what level the protection comes from, just as long as it's there.  You seem most concerned about not having to help anyone you don't know.


Is there?  Do strangers not deserve to be helped simply because you don't know them?  Is someone who's children died at an early age deserve less help than one who's didn't?  Is someone who's parents die before they retire less obligated to contribute something to help others?  Again, your concern seems to be about you not having to pay for helping people you don't know, whereas mine is making sure nobody goes without help, regardless of whether or not you, or I know them.


Perhaps, but seeing as how the great depression did happen, I don't see how it's particularly relevant.  It's sort of like saying "well, if I had never punched you in the nose, you wouldn't be in pain right now.  So why should I do anything to make you feel better?"  Whether or not things would be different if we went back and changed the past, the fact is that some elderly people aren't supported by anyone, and can't support themselves.  I don't want them to starve.

I have no problem helping at the local and state level. I lived in Milwaukee for much of my early life and they had a public medical facility that took everyone. Paid with tax dollars locally on property owners and from state funds, I'm sure the Federal Government as well. One could get care free if destitute and I didn't mind that at all becuase everyone paid into it locally. I also worked at and donated funds to a homeless shelter project privately that helped people so didn't mind doing that either on my own. What matters is the government doing so with a light hand and as needed when the others that should be there can't.

I for example would have elderly support laws just like we do with minor children in custody cases, any child housing and caring for the parent gets the benefit and all other children must pay money to help the parent live. This if done at the state level would be fine with me. Then if there was no such support or the government needed to assist they could do so at the local or state levels minimally to plug the gaps. Have state run elderly housing complexes or nursing homes or even financial aid as decide at that more local levels of government.

As for Social Security why not just make it needs based and be honest about it its welfare. People earning say $30k a year a person or $50k per couple would just not get any if they had savings and pensions to cover them. And the people without children supporting them could get help and likely be comfortable. So the number of people accessing the system would likely be a low number.

That's fine by me too, just so long as long as it's at some level.


That's fine by me too.  I think the reason we don't have that (and I stress that I'm not saying I agree with the reason) is that people prefer to see it as a "I put X in, so I want to get Y out!" thing.  They don't want to think of it as welfare.  Too many people are concerned with what they get out of it, rather than it's real purpose, in my opinion.

Here's something interesting that I've learned from my Economics textbook that I thought might be something to post here.

In percentiles of population ordered by income, (2006)

The Bottom Percentile collects 3.4% of all Income
The Top Percentile collects 50.5% of all Income
--- The Top Percentile pays the highest income tax rate --

Corporations make up 20% of all businesses, and produce 84% of Domestic Output
Partnerships make up 8% of all businesses, and produce 11% of Domestic Output
Sole Proprietorships make up 72% of all businesses, and produces 5% of Domestic Output.
--- Corporations in America fall under double-taxation rules --

The primary source of funding for Municipalities is Property Tax, the largest expenditure of which is on Education.
Primary source of funding for States is Sales tax, largest expenditure is also on Education.
Primary source of funding for Federal is Income tax, and the largest expenditure is on transfer payments (GI Bill, Medicare, Welfare, etc)
________________________________________________

On observation, the taxing strategy for funding the country appears to be "More Taxes where there's more money".

Sales Tax
If you spend more, you give more. The primary use of these funds being towards things that the majority benefits from equally, Sales Tax is a Flat Tax.

Income Tax
If you earn more, you give more. The primary use of these funds is towards transfer payments, the purpose of which is to lessen inequalities of income.  As such, a Progressive tax is applied.

Property Tax
If you own more, you give more.  For much the same reasons as Sales Tax, Property Tax is a flat tax.
____________________________________

Unrelated but Interesting

At the cost of eighty dollars a barrel, we can turn discarded animal bits, refuse, and sewer water into oil.

This part is not so surprising. My wife runs a sole proprietorship. We've made it clear, if her business breaks a certain threshold of productivity, there are very good legal reasons to invest in incorporating. Incorporation is a form of protection. It costs more, but if you're producing more, it basically becomes a requirement. In general I hope all sole proprietors are wise enough (or have a good enough accountant) to incorporate once their productivity (and therefore legal liability) passes certain thresholds.




Not *precisely* true (yet) for several reasons. People have tried to make plants to do precisely this. But the calculations generally assume a 0 value for this waste (which isn't true) and proper sorting of most refuse (which isn't true).

However, my plan for 2010 is to start a biodiesel generator in my garage. From my research, I'll be getting a gallon of diesel for about $.50-$1. This makes my diesel truck comparable in fuel costs to the best Toyota Prius - with a lower vehicle cost, more space and more engine power. (The downside is the risk of a terrible fire burning down my house and destroying all of my possessions.)

Though on further reflection, I'm actually going to have to revise what I said about Sales tax after asking my Economics professor about it.

Sales tax would be regressive because the higher the income you make, the larger amount is usually saved.  So people making more will have more money left over to save than people who are living at subsistence levels, and thus will pay less taxes.



I suppose that's true, but perhaps they can kill birds with both stones by paying people a small amount to sort their garbage properly (at the moment there's no real incentive other than good vibes).

I'm not sure if this method of oil production would acquire economies of scale, but I'm guessing it should.



Not sure where you live, but perhaps a free-standing garage would be best.  And -once again, just making assumptions- it would save money on garbage disposal fees, eh?

I do have a free-standing garage. And I can't use general garbage. It would take too much processing. I can only use waste vegetable and animal oils (which otherwise require special disposal).

Sounds pretty awesome, though if my book is correct about the turkey parts-to-Oil ratio, a gallon of gas is going to require about 51 pounds of lawn clippings. (half a ton of whatever per barrel of oil, and 19.6 gallons of gasoline after refinement)