The only difference between the rich and the poor is that poor people who commit crimes have the decency to limit their misdeeds to a small scale. Rich criminals steal from thousands, millions at a time.

A poor criminal harms a person or a family.

A wealthy corporate executive will not bother to count the bodies of those who died because "it was too expensive" to properly treat manufacturing by-products before discharging them into public air and water supplies.

His friends at the country club will set up PO Boxes in tiny island nations in order to avoid paying the taxes that provide what made his company grow: infrastructure, security, and trained personnel.

They expect the rest of us to pay to clean up their messes (wouldn't want to bite into profits).

And then they send America's jobs to Communist countries where the work is done by slave labor, all so that a mega-retailer can undercut the prices of local entreprenuers.

After the wealthy squandered America's prosperity in the 20s, that prosperity was rebuilt in the 40s and 50s and 60s. It wasn't the rich who made things great that time around. It was the riff-raff and the returning GIs who got good educations, and invented our new world. They went from working poor to middle class to entreprenuer. Meanwhile, those with the burden of inherited wealth stagnated. Industries that didn't adapt rusted away.

Somewhere along the way - in the Reagan years - too many people decided that it was too much work to do the old-fashioned Horatio Alger thing. They looked for shortcuts. Then they built personal fortunes while stomping on the workers, the retirees, the investors: everyone who trusted the rich crooks.

Then there are those who use political connections to accumulate wealth. The list goes back into pre-history, but no one does it like today's Republicans. If you don't know who I mean, then read a newspaper.

In my 60 years I've met and dealt with many politicians, and I can honestly say that 6 of them were honorable in every way. Interestingly, with the exception of Ronald Reagan (who died wealthy), none of them have a pot to piss in. In that bunch there are
2 Republicans (one, RR, deceased)
2 Democrats
2 "Independents"

Wealth is no measure of character or economic worth. If it were, then in your scenario we would spend a lot of time rescuing Kennedys.

If, in your lifeboat case, I had to choose, I'd
- rescue anyone who maintains real American values while earning a living - or getting wealthy
- kicking away the worthless wealthy who are climbing over others to save their own pathetic selves
- drowning 999 politicians out of every thousand

Lest you misunderstand who I am, consider these credentials:
- Worked on Goldwater and Nixon(1968) campaigns
- Always voted Republican until after the 2000 presidential primaries
- Only donated to Republicans until 2000
- Have always supported sound fiscal policy in government, in business, and in my personal life
- Have always supported keeping government small
- Have always believed that we have to get our own house in order before telling other countries how to manage their affairs
- Between my wife and I we have 4 retirement plans (not counting Social Security)
- Have started, owned, and operated several businesses

No, Mr. Boortz... it would be a huge mistake to assume that wealth is good and that poverty is bad. "As you do to the least among your bretheren, you do unto me." Matthew 25:40, quoting a poor guy.

Submitted by Sandy B.