[LonelyCon]

"Would we rather pay out millions in welfare to dolts, than save the life of this young pioneer?"

Is that really the choice we have to make? If we don't pay to rescue people who choose to take extraordinary risks for their own egos, we must instead pay that money to welfare recipients? How about we pay neither, my taxes get lowered, and I spend the money I earn the way I want to instead of the government forcing me to subsidize someone else's around-the-world cruise or free cheese.

[jerry557]

When a teenager gets into a car accident, do we ask for a form of payment before firefighters pull them out of a burning car?

You guys are all starting to sound like liberals. You putting money before human life. If public funds have a purpose at all, it’s for search, rescue, defense, and emergency services.

You want to cry about wasting taxpayers money, there are plenty of other places to cry about that. PLENTY! Instead you whine about rescue money for a stranded teenager in the middle of the ocean?

[codder too]

First, I don't call this young womans voyage an ego trip, but I do think many on welfare are filled with false 'self esteem'.

You are right in stating that perhaps governments role is to not provide coverage for either. IF they gave your tax dollars back to you would you be willing to "rescue" either with some of your dollars?

Good to hear that the Aussies are humanitarians.....