If disaster struck, who do you save the rich or the poor?

So I am watching Titanic, and it made me think about the idea that somehow rich peoples lives were more of value than the poor. Republican politicians and libertarian politicians sickingly actually believe this to be true.

God help us.

Why do you think I consider conservatives to be modern day Pharisees? They are greedy.

But to answer the question, I would say its best to save the poor. One person said you just save as many souls as you can save, with no bias to race, gender, age, finances and etc.

Hurricane Katrina showed us that we still value lives based on race and finances as the blacks who were the poorest were not being rescued on time.

In my opinion though, I would rather save a poor person who was generous, than a greedy rich person.

If the world were to end and only a few would live, I would rather the survivors be those who have everyday working skills rather than rich people who don't know how to work like the poor do.

One conservative in an article said that poor peoples lives were expendable, doling out the usual misconceptions about what it means to be poor. He pretty much said there was no value to their lives.

Now if a conservative Christian actually believes this kind of garbage he spouted, you have officially proven that you do not believe in God nor actually live by God.

You see, if they had it their way, and the poor were all gone, that would make the rich the new poor class. You need a poor class to create a rich class. If the poor didn't exist, who would do your work for you?

Rich people are not America, they do not run America. They need and depend on poor people to keep them rich.