I've seen the latter examples, but am skeptical of them as evidence. They seem to be people who do have safety nets, from middle-class or upper-middle-class families, doing it as a sort of game so they can blog about it, with a bail-out option available at any time.

The U.S. social programs do seem particularly poorly managed compared to most first-world countries, especially because they aren't integrated or at all set up for rapid but temporary assistance.

Here in Denmark (I'm American, but moved), the social programs are much more responsive on both ends: they are fast to get into, and intended to provide a path out. A social worker can get you into a rented apartment paid for by a housing-assistance program this week, possibly even on the same day—not next year—so you're instantly off the streets, with a regular mailing address. Together with that, you'll also have job-placement assistance, internship opportunities, and generally a support network intended to get you paying your own rent in short order. So the assistance is fast but intended to be temporary, and generally works well for most people who temporarily find themselves in dire straits. The main exceptions are people with psychiatric problems or drug addictions, who are treated separately.