he didn't care about the very poor?

It's true, he really didn't. Top Romney adviser Stuart Stevens confirmed that attitude in an op-ed written for the Washington Post.

He actually brags about winning voters in every economic level but those earning less than $50,000:

On Nov. 6, Romney carried the majority of every economic group except those with less than $50,000 a year in household income. That means he carried the majority of middle-class voters. While John McCain lost white voters younger than 30 by 10 points, Romney won those voters by seven points, a 17-point shift. Obama received 4½million fewer voters in 2012 than 2008, and Romney got more votes than McCain.

Barack Obama received 4.5 million more votes than Mitt Romney did. Assuming that Stuart Stevens is correct about his claim of winning all groups earning more than $50,000, what does that say about who the "middle class" is, and who the "very poor" are?

Courtesy of Mother Jones, a graph depicting income levels in the US:

See where that median is? Nowhere near $50,000 per year. The idea that the middle class earns $50,000 or above across this nation is a 1950s myth. Income levels have declined, not risen. So really, what Stuart Stevens meant to say was that he's proud of the fact that he won the rich, white people vote and Republicans should be strutting their stuff instead of being ashamed.

In other words, they don't care about the very poor, which Mitt was honest enough to admit way back in February before they taught him to lie better.