3 out of 4 Americans have no personal financial safety net

[opebo]

I would really like for someone to emerge from the Republican Party that has something substantive to contribute to this problem.

They don't consider this a problem, but rather the goal.  An desperate and thus obedient and cheap-to-exploit working class is precisely their dream, and they have most definitely achieved it.  The GOP is probably the most successful political party in history.

[opebo]

What percentage of Americans had a personal financial safety net 20 years ago?  That is the first question. The second question is whether it is as necessary to have such a net, or as large a one, given a more robust taxpayer financed government social safety net.

What planet do you live on?  Or, do you live in France?  There is NO social safety net in America.  If you are a single man and you lose you job, you get absolutely nothing.

It may even be true vis a vis certain government programs, that there is an incentive to keep your personal wealth down.

My god, you're 30 years out of date and spouting pure Reaganist mythology.

[opebo]

What planet do you live on?  Or, do you live in France?  There is NO social safety net in America.  If you are a single man and you lose you job, you get absolutely nothing.

The US has no social safety net for single men? Really? Come on opebo, you can do better than that.

Torie, it is precisely true that there is no social safety net for adults who have no children.  What do you imagine there is?  Please list precisely those benefits upon which such an unfortunate could survive? 

Even food stamps are only provided to such social pariahs for 3 months out of any three year period (and as we all know, it is not food which is expensive, it is housing and transportation).

[opebo]

Well in addition to food stamps, opebo, we have unemployment insurance and medicaid that come to mind.

Unemployment insurance doesn't cover most poor workers.  (no one I knew ever got unemployment benefits, as the employer simply denied them - as you know if one is 'fired for cause' one gets no benefits, and since a lot of payouts impact negatively on the employer, they simply don't allow anyone to get it).

There is also Section 8 housing, which subsidizes housing costs.

That's only for families, and even they often have a very difficult time getting it (long waits, etc.)

One can make the case that this is all inadequate perhaps, but one cannot make the case that there is no safety net at all.

I think 3 months of food stamps is close enough to zero that we can say 'there is no social safety net for single childless people'.

[opebo]

In the '40s and '50s, intact families were explicitly kept out of public housing because conservatives thought it would encourage "idleness" in the husbands - the man should be out working, therefore a woman with a husband doesn't actually need help.

Thanks IndyTexas for helping to set Torie straight.  One key difference between the 40s and 50s and the present day is that in those days, a 'husband working' meant that the family automatically escaped poverty.   Nowadays a job is typically a poverty trap for most people.

[opebo]

the earned income tax credit

That is a 'good one' (that is, a good subsidy for low-wage exploitative employers), but it does nothing for the unemployed.