Romney's statement, “I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs a repair, I’ll fix it.” is so reprehensible on so many levels, whether "out of context" or "in context", it should be repeated when ever his name is mentioned and tattooed backward on his forehead so he will be reminded of it whenever he looks in a mirror.
Beyond the obvious insensitivity of the remark and its underlying callous disregard of fellow Americans, the reference to "a safety net" seems to imply that no one really ever gets hurt by poverty. (And I'm not arguing about the definition of the word poverty.)
"Safety net" "Safety net" "Safety net"
The fact that one would even need a "Safety net" implies that one is in danger, that one's situation is precarious. Having to depend on a "safety net" is not to live with full dignity or with the promise of America.
Do we really want to "own" an America where the poor are both taken for granted and dismissed as irrelevant?
The fact that Romney even acknowledges the need for social programs that comprise the "safety net" - a very anti-Republican admission - undermines his entire political position; while admitting that such social programs might even need fixing, he dismisses the issue as a kind of "non-issue".
No matter what the context, whether "in" or "out" of context, Romney's statements belie his real belief that the poor don't count in his world view. Their plight, their lives, their beliefs, their needs, their wants, their dreams, their families, even their votes are of little or no consequence to him.