Mitt, Noooo!

"I'm not concerned about the very poor." You just can't SAY that! And it doesn't help to try to balance it off by saying you're "not concerned about the very rich either." Don't you realize you just fed red meat to your opponents. Maybe you thought you were in the clear because you seem to have weathered the storm you created by saying you liked to fire people. Diplomatically speaking, you could have said that you think people who are not doing their jobs do not deserve your business. You didn't have to reveal that you enjoyed firing them; you could have stuck with saying it was out of necessity as they weren't able to do the job. You didn't have to say that you were not concerned about the very poor. The segment of our society that comprises the very poor is a negative, costly, shamefully frustrating national problem of epic proportions, needing much time and energy to try to eradicate the causes that create a caste system of abject poverty, where individuals must rely on social programs and charity for their existence. You could have stated the truth that the very poor do have resources that the working poor do not have, and that you wanted at this time to prioritize assistance for the "working poor." But then you would have to venture into the territory where the working poor are worse off than the "very poor," and since many of the working poor would name lack of health care as a primary concern, you would be venturing onto the subject of the dread Obamacare. Of course, the very poor are not voters, and it's open season right now on people who receive social services, or "welfare," except of course for notable exceptions like Social Security, tax writeoffs, etc. So now you will have multiple media opportunities to explain what you really meant. Anyone can misspeak, though preference should dictate that politicians, representing others, should be able to choose their words more carefully. So your statement about not being concerned about the very poor because they have a safety net, is either a thoughtless foolish blunder, or else, if you're as smart as is rumored, your statement is a deliberate pandering to those in our country who are fed up with what they perceive as parasitic welfare recipients. Which is it, Mitt? Please clarify.