Actually, if you listen carefully to Jindal's comments, he doesnt spend as much time disagreeing with the principles embodied by Romney's comments as he does condemning the fact they were uttered out loud. Basically, what I got from it was more like 7 minutes of "you can't say that stuff and expect to get elected by the folks you just insulted", and 15 seconds of "they are not choosing to be unemployed, they are unemployed because the economy sucks".
Even that 1 brief admission does not actually refute the correlation that Romney was drawing. The fact remains that someone who wants to expand or maintain the social safety net, rather than contract it, offers a more appealing choice to those who are struggling financially. That is true even if you are honestly spending every waking moment doing everything you can to try and find a job, and of course it's true for those who spend their time waving their free Obamaphone in the air on the streetcorner to demonstrate for the news cameras why America is so great.
He never says "Republicans should promise the same sort of safety nets to get elected in 2016", he says "Republicans should stop publicly disparaging those who consume that huge safety net". Not the same thing, which is great, because it means he gets it, so if he ends up on the ticket in 2016, he'll appeal to the ever growing demographic who obviously would rather vote for someone who looks more like them, thus increasing the chance of returning fiscal conservatism to the White House.