So you change the meaning of what the guy was saying from "We don't need to worry about this group because we're already taking care of them" to "we don't care about this group". And you think that's just being "incomplete"?
Well, your "accurate" quote should at least be accurate.
Are you kidding me?
He did say "I don't care about the very poor, because...." and I forget the exact wording, but because there's a safety net for them already, was the import.
No. The media has repeated the claim that "Romney said he didn't care about the very poor" over and over, so now you think that's what he said. What he actually said was: "I'm not concerned
about the very poor. We have a safety net there if it needs repair I'll fix it.".
What's so astounding is that you quoted me talking about this change of words, then repeated exactly the incorrect words that I said were being used. He did not *ever* say that he didn't care about the poor. You repeat those words because those are the words you keep hearing from the media sources you're reading/watching/hearing. That's my point though. You're reacting to their false quotes, and *not* to the words he actually said. So much so that when I paraphrased him by using the phrase "don't need to worry" you attempted to correct me and insisted that he actually said "I don't care".
He didn't. He said he was not concerned about the very poor. Which, I would hope you realize is pretty synonymous with "not worried". It's not even remotely close to not caring though.
Now, consider the fact that the safety net is there because the very poor need it, which means they are not okay by definition. That's some tone deaf phrasing, right there, even if you understand what he meant.
Huh? He's talking about what actions need to be taken, not whether some group is "okay". We're already taking action to help the very poor. That's the safety net he spoke of. Did you actually read the full quote or watch the full clip?
And I agree with his message, which is that getting the middle class back into the game is the more urgent task at the moment, setting aside the fact that this includes finding a way to bring the newly poor back into the middle class. It was still an insensitive and jarring statement, and it came across as clueless and elitist.
It appears insensitive and jarring only because every liberal in the media jumped on a false retelling of what he said, and repeated it over and over so as to make people think it was insensitive and jarring. If you read or heard only what he actually said without the modifications added on by so-called journalists, you would not think it was insensitive at all.
I'll ask again: If what he actually said was so bad, why change the words?