Romney may not be spelling that out for a reason and the reason may be 1) he’s not sure there will ever be any more jobs (peak employment having been passed due to automation and 2) he doesn’t want to scare off any potential voters who have no interest whatsoever in working; which is to say that if he even so much as mentions that there would be fewer people on welfare, the Media will paint him all over with the “Cutting Welfare to balance the budget” sign.
Actually he’s promising to create 12 million new jobs.
I’ve thought other possibilities. I’ve also considered that he’s saving it up for the last debate (unlikely).
I respectfully disagree with your first option. I think that’s a short view. A bit like saying that if we have tractors and combines to automate farms, then we’ll put farmers out of work. I think automation just frees up more people to be more productive.
I think your second point is very valid. I’m hoping he can get around that. There are a number of factors here. One, the diehard welfare recipients aren’t going to vote for him no matter what he says. So he doesn’t have to worry about them.
Then there are the seniors on Social Security. He is not trying to take that away from them and I hope he is making that clear, though there are plenty of people who will try to scare them that he is. Most seniors I know are pro-Romney and they get it. There is a big difference between being retired after a productive career and/or being the homemaker/spouse of a productive person vs. being a lifelong deadbeat.
But I think a big factor here is (and this is just my opinion) that there are MANY people getting handouts who would love to be working and productive and feeling good about themselves. There are many who are discouraged or have given up. They will see new opportunities in a Romney administration and they will rebuild their lives and their bank accounts.