That still pales in comparison to the jobs needed to design/build/support, say, all the small boats the middle class would buy if they had, collectively, $200M to spend on them.
Take an average $20,000 boat. That's 10,000 more boats in the hands of middle class. First of all, these are generally pumped out assembly line using relatively unskilled labor. The yacht will be made with skilled labor, extending to highly skilled craftsmen while building the interior. For the Slashdot reference, they are also likely to have expensive satellite-based IT and entertainment systems in them. Also, many people are employed in the secondary yacht marketing and selling business, and the used market for new-price $20,000 boats (now worth maybe $10,000) is places like Craig's List.
Now to the new owners. Not one of those people is going to hire another person to man or maintain his boat. In fact, relatively little will be spent on maintenance, definitely not $2,000 a year (large yachts tend to require 10% of the purchase price per year to maintain). Also, this boat will likely be hauled on a trailer or kept at a local lake and used only locally, so docking fees will not be paid, which employ those who work on the docks.
All you did by shifting the money from a rich guy to the middle class is eliminate jobs for a lot of people.
And yet again the totalitarian view shows through: I know better how to spend YOUR money, and I think I should have the power to dictate that.
The reality is that i havent been paying any higher taxes with Obama in office than I did with Bush.
Bush's tax cuts haven't expired yet, but Obama is working on it.
And since the housing bubble/CDO explosion took place under the last Republican's watch
Yeah, it was nice of the Democrats to set that up so it could blow up under the Republicans. Bush saw this coming in his first term and tried to put tighter controls on Fannie/Freddie, and the market overall. In April 2001 (three months after coming into office) he had his people pleading to Congress for reform.
Barney Frank said no, that Fannie/Freddie was "fundamentally sound financially" and that Bush's effort to avoid a mortgage crisis was "an artificial issue created by the administration. I don't think we are in any remote danger here." Chris Dodd said Bush should "immediately reconsider his ill-advised call for reform."
After the bubble burst, Frank and the rest of the Democrats would take credit for basically implementing the reforms Bush had asked them for before the crash. You're right, it may not be a good idea to have a Republican in charge. The Democrats have no problem playing slash-and-burn politics to the detriment of the country, or even their stated ideals, just to score points.
Another fun one from the Bush administration. Bush nominated the highly qualified judge Miguel Estrada to the D.C. Circuit. It was obvious to all that he was beeing set up for the next US Supreme Court vacancy, which would make him the first Hispanic Justice. Oooh, a Hispanic Justice, you'd think the Democrats would love the idea being all pro-minority and stuff. Uh, no, not when Republicans get the credit. They subjected him to an unprecedented filibuster, creating a constitutional crisis in the process, and after months he gave up.
So when a Democrat gloats "We put the first Hispanic in the Supreme Court" it's only because they first blocked the Republicans from doing it. They will put the nation into a crisis just to get that little checkmark.
you job *most likely* comes from MIDDLE CLASS consumer demand to make stuff that you want to buy.
And who established companies to make stuff to meet those demands? Rich people. Or, rather, people who got rich by establishing those companies.
You don't have to be the pool boy. Joe billionaire just bought a $200 million megayacht. Evil man. Thousands of people were employed to design, build and outfit that yacht. Dozens will be employed directly to run it, and many more will be employed in anciliary services to that yacht (parts, fuel, docking, IT services, etc.) to blow the $20 million a year it will cost to maintain that yacht.
Companies need to be told, in no uncertain terms, that illegal polluting will result in a fine that will more than offset the profits to be gained by doing so.
Note "illegal polluting." That means all the liberal government has to do is define anything as "illegal polluting" in order to implement your authoritarian dream. The concept did make sense for actual pollutants that actually hurt real people now, but that's not what you want. You want them to kowtow to you, bow to your god. Greenpeace was a good example in viciously and unfairly going after Apple in environmental reports purely because Apple refused to play their game (or donate any money) even when Apple had a better environmental record than higher-rated companies.
They exist solely according to a charter granted by the state. It is perfectly acceptable for the state to dictate to them exactly how they will be allowed to exist.
I agree with that, but only the totally naive think the authoritarianism will be felt only by the companies. This is designed to control people, too. Simple example: Want to force people to stop using incandescent bulbs? Force the companies to stop manufacturing or selling them.
That means the modern-day indulgences to paid to the Church of the Environment, not actual carbon output reduction. A bunch of Al Gore's wealth is in such companies (makes you wonder why he pushes the issue).
But some of the stuff is just good ideas for energy efficiency that anybody should be able to get behind. We'll see how happy the shareholders are.
As far as your statement goes, this is a company doing it voluntarily. The various authoritarian types in NGOs and governments have been talking about FORCING companies to do this, FORCING people to abide by their new rules, and using our taxes to pay other countries to not pollute. There is such a thing as "liberal authoritarian" in the political ideology spectrum, and environmentalists tend to be the most authoritarian.
$1.50 for a liter? That's over $5.67 a gallon. That is only cheap compared to countries with punitive taxes on gasoline that are several multiples of the cost of the gasoline itself.
You probably don't have a problem with this picture
Yep, $400 purse, $200 wallet, $800 in cash and... food stamps. I don't know about you, but this is a serious WTF? moment for me.
No, this is not some crazy statistical outlier. This is commonplace, living large off of funny money. What the hell, it's not yours, blow it like you want, there's plenty more where that came from.
The problem is that money did come from somewhere. It either came out of somebody's pocket now as taxes, or out of somebody's pocket later as current debt. Liberals tend to forget that money has to come from SOMEWHERE.
giving poor people money to support a better lifestyle is not only a more moral system than the "up from your own bootstraps" nonsense, but it makes for vastly better economics
And where did that handout money come from? Oh yeah, nowhere. It was borrowed against our future, heading us further down the road to insolvency where the poor will be even more screwed.
Or have beautiful women sent to your hotel room to have sex with you because your last name is Bush.
You mean Clinton? Oh yeah, they weren't beautiful, he never had very good taste in skanks.
Social spending isn't about "hand outs". It's about basic human decency and equality of opportunity.
Many of them on the handouts are living better than I have without handouts, and they do so at my expense. This is fair? This is decency? How does that guy on food stamps have $5,000 worth of rims on his car and I drive an old minivan? Sorry, I do not accept that. If you're living on my dime, you're not going to go hungry or cold, and you'll have decent clothing. You will not be buying $20 a pound steak, wearing $150 Nikes and running around with rims on your car that are worth more than my whole car.
If it's about handouts, it's bad. If it's about hand-ups, I can accept that. But much of our system is about keeping people on the dole, dependent on government handouts. This is also of course the perfect recipe for totalitarianism. They're already saying the 4th Amendment doesn't apply if you're on some types of government handouts. You suck at the tit, they own you. But that's pretty much the liberal program here.
Aside from that, basic human decency is not to steal. I know, the next Mercedes I see I'll get my gun and rob the driver. Why not? He's rich, he can afford it. If he doesn't have enough on hand I'll throw him in my basement while I rip off his home and office. I'm just personally doing what you promote, only you don't have the balls to do it with your own hands, you prefer badged, jackbooted thugs with submachine guns to do it for you.
That's why we have the term "Goldwater Republican." Goldwater was an economical and governmental libertarian, and trashed the Republican party when the religious right started taking over. His legacy is mostly left in the American Libertarian party and the non-religious, fiscally and governmentally conservative wing of the Republican party.
Also don't forget our liberal base has moved to the left quite a bit and become more radical. John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson were to the right of much of the Democrat base these days. On the foreign policy front, can you imagine how modern Democrats would react to JFK's Cuba policies and actions, or his escalation of the conflict in Vietnam? He sounded like a Republican when speaking of tax rates, "...the soundest way to raise revenue in the long term is to lower rates now."
Do remember that conservatism in America depends in part on our nature as a union of states. Many things are fine at the state level, but conservatives will be against it if done at the federal level because they are not powers delegated to the federal government under the Constitution. So you will see non-religious conservatives who want Roe v. Wade overturned not because they are "pro-life" or "anti-choice," but because they believe the issue should be left up to the states. Romney had an equivalent of the individual mandate portion of Obamacare in MA, and even many conservatives liked the idea, but it cannot be done at the federal level because that power was not delegated to the federal government.
After CALEA, Gore failed to get the Clipper Chip and key escrow passed. He must loving this new one, his vision of total government access to your communication realized.
And they have done a great job in the past 11 years.
When did they catch someone who actually intended to take down a plane? I think I missed that in the news. I did, however, catch countless instances of stupidity, virtual rape, and even a conspiracy to help traffic drugs.
By any rational measure, the TSA is doing more harm than good.
I knew some Saudi guys who were perfectly pious in their own country, but vacationed in Florida to booze it up and hit the titty bars.
I'm sure government is part of their motivation for some, but don't discount the main religious angle. We didn't support the theocracies of Taliban or Iran, yet there they are/were, providing funding and personnel to help kill us. We support Pakistan, and they don't like us because we support relative moderates who keep them from establishing the oppressive Taliban-like regime they want there.
This is jihad, war between the cultures. They consider us decadent infidels who must be stopped, especially since we support that big thorn in their side that they've been trying to destroy for over 50 years -- Israel.
You are correct, representatives are supposed to represent their constituents.
However, to counter the fickle population, we had another house with officials selected by the states. This was supposed to be the body that, not depending on popular support, could take a more level-headed view of things. It was a great balance that the 17th Amendment killed by allowing direct election of senators.
Have you seen the crap people vote for as cool? Do you really want the latest hot YouTube video, cheezburger meme or Twitter trend be the example for our nation's policy? Over and over, "man on the street" interviews show a huge number of people have no real idea what's going on, yet they'll be able to vote to directly to influence policy concerning it.
If we really want to kill ourselves, we can make voting mandatory, so the huge number of people who are uninformed or just plain old don't give a damn push random buttons. Or maybe you're in a bad mood so you vote "Bomb them!" on a war issue. Maybe a gay guy pissed you off yesterday, so you vote "No marriage for them." Why not? You're accountable to nobody for your vote.
And think of the campaign and issue advertising. Now it's once every election cycle. Under a direct democracy we'll be bombarded every day with ads from the political parties, their supporters, and other special interest groups to try to sway the average person's vote on every issue.
Also, don't forget that men can be virgins too. Maybe that's what they're going for, 72 young virgin boys. They certainly are popular for "entertaining" in some Muslim countries.
Some of us are willing to accept that and try to make the world a better place where we. can all enjoy our time on earth.
I can't enjoy my time on Earth if I know somebody's getting over on me.* I would agree to "a better place where we can all have the opportunity to enjoy our time on Earth." Those who want to freeload, or through their own wrongdoing habitually cause society to have to support them, should not be rewarded with more support. I simply don't believe in rewarding bad behavior. It's counterproductive for the society as a whole.
Democrats talk about "fair" all the time, well how fair is it to expect hard-working, tax-paying people (which is only half the working-age population) to pay for an able-bodied person to sit at home, drink, smoke and eat steak on their dime?
* This goes the other way too. Some rich dude bribing the government to get wasteful or unnecessary contracts of my money is just as bad.
You are stressing over minuscule amounts and throwing out pie in the sky solutions.
A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money?
Program reform would be just patches that don't address the source of the problem, because entitlement culture doesn't only come in the form of welfare. What might help is for the liberals to quit telling everybody the government is the solution to all their problems, that instead they are expected to make their own good life. Then afer a couple of generations the entitlement culture will dwindle.
Then keep going, decimating government in size and scope, allowing business to thrive and hire people again, allowing people to start new businesses. The government already admits it's strangling small business with regulations. Then unemployment goes down and those who want jobs can get them.
Incidently, when is the last time you have repaired something, anything.
Blowtorch and hammer to fix a bent lawnmower blade, file to sharpen it. For some reason the old dryer keeps wanting to die, so over the last couple years it's had a new thermal fuse, some new wiring, new heating element, etc. Wood slats in a bed broke, so the saw and some leftover wood from earlier projects took care of that. If I add up that and others, I've saved a huge amount of money over the last year not buying replacements, calling service people or taking the car to the mechanic.
But electronics are annoying, very difficult to fix these days. I almost miss the days when you could take a tube from the TV down to the drug store, put it in a tester, and buy a new one. I still remember the day our tube TV went out with the trash.
No, in-between some fuckers made people hate the US desperately enough to want to run planes into them.
I remember, we made the mistake of not being a Muslim nation, and supporting a certain nation of people to help keep them from being destroyed by the surrounding Muslim nations.
They had already banished Osama long before 9/11. The government there, for all its own Muslim fundamentalism, is actually having quite the time keeping down the militant ones, and has executed many of them.
The wider you make it for a given length, the more power it'll take to hit to top speed, increasing exponentially IIRC.
OTOH, that massive reciprocating engine, the turbine, the coal bunkers, and the couple dozen boilers filled most of the ship below the water line. Removing those leaves plenty of room for a handful of very powerful turbines and their fuel.
All in a row, one lower tower to the right, then two slightly higher towers to the left of it, with one really high tower sandwiched between them. Point it East.
Slashdot Mirror
Take an average $20,000 boat. That's 10,000 more boats in the hands of middle class. First of all, these are generally pumped out assembly line using relatively unskilled labor. The yacht will be made with skilled labor, extending to highly skilled craftsmen while building the interior. For the Slashdot reference, they are also likely to have expensive satellite-based IT and entertainment systems in them. Also, many people are employed in the secondary yacht marketing and selling business, and the used market for new-price $20,000 boats (now worth maybe $10,000) is places like Craig's List.
Now to the new owners. Not one of those people is going to hire another person to man or maintain his boat. In fact, relatively little will be spent on maintenance, definitely not $2,000 a year (large yachts tend to require 10% of the purchase price per year to maintain). Also, this boat will likely be hauled on a trailer or kept at a local lake and used only locally, so docking fees will not be paid, which employ those who work on the docks.
All you did by shifting the money from a rich guy to the middle class is eliminate jobs for a lot of people.
And yet again the totalitarian view shows through: I know better how to spend YOUR money, and I think I should have the power to dictate that.
Bush's tax cuts haven't expired yet, but Obama is working on it.
Yeah, it was nice of the Democrats to set that up so it could blow up under the Republicans. Bush saw this coming in his first term and tried to put tighter controls on Fannie/Freddie, and the market overall. In April 2001 (three months after coming into office) he had his people pleading to Congress for reform.
Barney Frank said no, that Fannie/Freddie was "fundamentally sound financially" and that Bush's effort to avoid a mortgage crisis was "an artificial issue created by the administration. I don't think we are in any remote danger here." Chris Dodd said Bush should "immediately reconsider his ill-advised call for reform."
After the bubble burst, Frank and the rest of the Democrats would take credit for basically implementing the reforms Bush had asked them for before the crash. You're right, it may not be a good idea to have a Republican in charge. The Democrats have no problem playing slash-and-burn politics to the detriment of the country, or even their stated ideals, just to score points.
Another fun one from the Bush administration. Bush nominated the highly qualified judge Miguel Estrada to the D.C. Circuit. It was obvious to all that he was beeing set up for the next US Supreme Court vacancy, which would make him the first Hispanic Justice. Oooh, a Hispanic Justice, you'd think the Democrats would love the idea being all pro-minority and stuff. Uh, no, not when Republicans get the credit. They subjected him to an unprecedented filibuster, creating a constitutional crisis in the process, and after months he gave up.
So when a Democrat gloats "We put the first Hispanic in the Supreme Court" it's only because they first blocked the Republicans from doing it. They will put the nation into a crisis just to get that little checkmark.
And who established companies to make stuff to meet those demands? Rich people. Or, rather, people who got rich by establishing those companies.
You don't have to be the pool boy. Joe billionaire just bought a $200 million megayacht. Evil man. Thousands of people were employed to design, build and outfit that yacht. Dozens will be employed directly to run it, and many more will be employed in anciliary services to that yacht (parts, fuel, docking, IT services, etc.) to blow the $20 million a year it will cost to maintain that yacht.
Note "illegal polluting." That means all the liberal government has to do is define anything as "illegal polluting" in order to implement your authoritarian dream. The concept did make sense for actual pollutants that actually hurt real people now, but that's not what you want. You want them to kowtow to you, bow to your god. Greenpeace was a good example in viciously and unfairly going after Apple in environmental reports purely because Apple refused to play their game (or donate any money) even when Apple had a better environmental record than higher-rated companies.
I agree with that, but only the totally naive think the authoritarianism will be felt only by the companies. This is designed to control people, too. Simple example: Want to force people to stop using incandescent bulbs? Force the companies to stop manufacturing or selling them.
That means the modern-day indulgences to paid to the Church of the Environment, not actual carbon output reduction. A bunch of Al Gore's wealth is in such companies (makes you wonder why he pushes the issue).
But some of the stuff is just good ideas for energy efficiency that anybody should be able to get behind. We'll see how happy the shareholders are.
As far as your statement goes, this is a company doing it voluntarily. The various authoritarian types in NGOs and governments have been talking about FORCING companies to do this, FORCING people to abide by their new rules, and using our taxes to pay other countries to not pollute. There is such a thing as "liberal authoritarian" in the political ideology spectrum, and environmentalists tend to be the most authoritarian.
$1.50 for a liter? That's over $5.67 a gallon. That is only cheap compared to countries with punitive taxes on gasoline that are several multiples of the cost of the gasoline itself.
You probably don't have a problem with this picture
Yep, $400 purse, $200 wallet, $800 in cash and ... food stamps. I don't know about you, but this is a serious WTF? moment for me.
No, this is not some crazy statistical outlier. This is commonplace, living large off of funny money. What the hell, it's not yours, blow it like you want, there's plenty more where that came from.
The problem is that money did come from somewhere. It either came out of somebody's pocket now as taxes, or out of somebody's pocket later as current debt. Liberals tend to forget that money has to come from SOMEWHERE.
And where did that handout money come from? Oh yeah, nowhere. It was borrowed against our future, heading us further down the road to insolvency where the poor will be even more screwed.
You mean Clinton? Oh yeah, they weren't beautiful, he never had very good taste in skanks.
Many of them on the handouts are living better than I have without handouts, and they do so at my expense. This is fair? This is decency? How does that guy on food stamps have $5,000 worth of rims on his car and I drive an old minivan? Sorry, I do not accept that. If you're living on my dime, you're not going to go hungry or cold, and you'll have decent clothing. You will not be buying $20 a pound steak, wearing $150 Nikes and running around with rims on your car that are worth more than my whole car.
If it's about handouts, it's bad. If it's about hand-ups, I can accept that. But much of our system is about keeping people on the dole, dependent on government handouts. This is also of course the perfect recipe for totalitarianism. They're already saying the 4th Amendment doesn't apply if you're on some types of government handouts. You suck at the tit, they own you. But that's pretty much the liberal program here.
Aside from that, basic human decency is not to steal. I know, the next Mercedes I see I'll get my gun and rob the driver. Why not? He's rich, he can afford it. If he doesn't have enough on hand I'll throw him in my basement while I rip off his home and office. I'm just personally doing what you promote, only you don't have the balls to do it with your own hands, you prefer badged, jackbooted thugs with submachine guns to do it for you.
That's why we have the term "Goldwater Republican." Goldwater was an economical and governmental libertarian, and trashed the Republican party when the religious right started taking over. His legacy is mostly left in the American Libertarian party and the non-religious, fiscally and governmentally conservative wing of the Republican party.
Also don't forget our liberal base has moved to the left quite a bit and become more radical. John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson were to the right of much of the Democrat base these days. On the foreign policy front, can you imagine how modern Democrats would react to JFK's Cuba policies and actions, or his escalation of the conflict in Vietnam? He sounded like a Republican when speaking of tax rates, "...the soundest way to raise revenue in the long term is to lower rates now."
Do remember that conservatism in America depends in part on our nature as a union of states. Many things are fine at the state level, but conservatives will be against it if done at the federal level because they are not powers delegated to the federal government under the Constitution.
So you will see non-religious conservatives who want Roe v. Wade overturned not because they are "pro-life" or "anti-choice," but because they believe the issue should be left up to the states. Romney had an equivalent of the individual mandate portion of Obamacare in MA, and even many conservatives liked the idea, but it cannot be done at the federal level because that power was not delegated to the federal government.
After CALEA, Gore failed to get the Clipper Chip and key escrow passed. He must loving this new one, his vision of total government access to your communication realized.
Murder: Get X years, life in prison, or death penalty
Attempted murder: Get X/2 years
Why are we rewarding people for failure?
Deaths per mile traveled in cars is vastly higher than that of airplanes.
Fewer people are flying because many don't want they or their kids to experience a TSA sexual assault (a.k.a. security screening).
Many of those people will take cars instead.
Conclusion: The TSA's procedures have killed people.
When did they catch someone who actually intended to take down a plane? I think I missed that in the news. I did, however, catch countless instances of stupidity, virtual rape, and even a conspiracy to help traffic drugs.
By any rational measure, the TSA is doing more harm than good.
I knew some Saudi guys who were perfectly pious in their own country, but vacationed in Florida to booze it up and hit the titty bars.
I'm sure government is part of their motivation for some, but don't discount the main religious angle. We didn't support the theocracies of Taliban or Iran, yet there they are/were, providing funding and personnel to help kill us. We support Pakistan, and they don't like us because we support relative moderates who keep them from establishing the oppressive Taliban-like regime they want there.
This is jihad, war between the cultures. They consider us decadent infidels who must be stopped, especially since we support that big thorn in their side that they've been trying to destroy for over 50 years -- Israel.
You are correct, representatives are supposed to represent their constituents.
However, to counter the fickle population, we had another house with officials selected by the states. This was supposed to be the body that, not depending on popular support, could take a more level-headed view of things. It was a great balance that the 17th Amendment killed by allowing direct election of senators.
Have you seen the crap people vote for as cool? Do you really want the latest hot YouTube video, cheezburger meme or Twitter trend be the example for our nation's policy? Over and over, "man on the street" interviews show a huge number of people have no real idea what's going on, yet they'll be able to vote to directly to influence policy concerning it.
If we really want to kill ourselves, we can make voting mandatory, so the huge number of people who are uninformed or just plain old don't give a damn push random buttons. Or maybe you're in a bad mood so you vote "Bomb them!" on a war issue. Maybe a gay guy pissed you off yesterday, so you vote "No marriage for them." Why not? You're accountable to nobody for your vote.
And think of the campaign and issue advertising. Now it's once every election cycle. Under a direct democracy we'll be bombarded every day with ads from the political parties, their supporters, and other special interest groups to try to sway the average person's vote on every issue.
Only we can't figure out a good excuse to shoot, bomb or jail poor people.
Also, don't forget that men can be virgins too. Maybe that's what they're going for, 72 young virgin boys. They certainly are popular for "entertaining" in some Muslim countries.
Didn't some of the 9/11 folks hit a strip club before meeting their 72 virgins?
I can't enjoy my time on Earth if I know somebody's getting over on me.* I would agree to "a better place where we can all have the opportunity to enjoy our time on Earth." Those who want to freeload, or through their own wrongdoing habitually cause society to have to support them, should not be rewarded with more support. I simply don't believe in rewarding bad behavior. It's counterproductive for the society as a whole.
Democrats talk about "fair" all the time, well how fair is it to expect hard-working, tax-paying people (which is only half the working-age population) to pay for an able-bodied person to sit at home, drink, smoke and eat steak on their dime?
* This goes the other way too. Some rich dude bribing the government to get wasteful or unnecessary contracts of my money is just as bad.
A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money?
Program reform would be just patches that don't address the source of the problem, because entitlement culture doesn't only come in the form of welfare. What might help is for the liberals to quit telling everybody the government is the solution to all their problems, that instead they are expected to make their own good life. Then afer a couple of generations the entitlement culture will dwindle.
Then keep going, decimating government in size and scope, allowing business to thrive and hire people again, allowing people to start new businesses. The government already admits it's strangling small business with regulations. Then unemployment goes down and those who want jobs can get them.
Blowtorch and hammer to fix a bent lawnmower blade, file to sharpen it. For some reason the old dryer keeps wanting to die, so over the last couple years it's had a new thermal fuse, some new wiring, new heating element, etc. Wood slats in a bed broke, so the saw and some leftover wood from earlier projects took care of that. If I add up that and others, I've saved a huge amount of money over the last year not buying replacements, calling service people or taking the car to the mechanic.
But electronics are annoying, very difficult to fix these days. I almost miss the days when you could take a tube from the TV down to the drug store, put it in a tester, and buy a new one. I still remember the day our tube TV went out with the trash.
I remember, we made the mistake of not being a Muslim nation, and supporting a certain nation of people to help keep them from being destroyed by the surrounding Muslim nations.
They had already banished Osama long before 9/11. The government there, for all its own Muslim fundamentalism, is actually having quite the time keeping down the militant ones, and has executed many of them.
The wider you make it for a given length, the more power it'll take to hit to top speed, increasing exponentially IIRC.
OTOH, that massive reciprocating engine, the turbine, the coal bunkers, and the couple dozen boilers filled most of the ship below the water line. Removing those leaves plenty of room for a handful of very powerful turbines and their fuel.
We built the world's tallest building, in twin-tower format no less. It stood there for decades.
Then some fuckers ran planes into them.
All in a row, one lower tower to the right, then two slightly higher towers to the left of it, with one really high tower sandwiched between them. Point it East.