Didn't his remarks about the "very poor" simply mean that the "very poor" have certain safety nets in place, and so they get along, not the way you or I would like to, but get along, whereas those a little bit higher, theoretically, in the economic chain work a lot, but have to pay for a lot of what the poor or very poor get for free.

Not that I want to change places with any of them. While it wasn't brilliant campaigning, I really didn't think the statement, taken in the context given, was a particularly bad one, and I could not conclude from that statement that Romney doesn't think much or care about the poor.

I reiterate what I've said before: one of the main problems with the world, and specifically the US, is that too many people get "stuff" in excess of what they deserve. From the highest paid CEO to the very poor. Certainly not all of them, and certainly not most of them, but enough of them such that the situation is "very poor!" And, mainly in the poor section of the spectrum, the more there are that get more than they ought to get (defined whatever way you like), the more that are tempted to join them, some of whom could be economically productive if "forced," "incetivized" "scared sh!tless," or otherwise into it.

Many of us are fortunate enough not to be have been in similar circumstances, and others that have been, have been resourceful enough to get out.