I know this thread is a bit old, but I just wanted to jump in and say something about earning an MA: Not all MA programs are created equal. Obviously, funding is part of this, but it is not the only thing to consider.
I'm currently in a partially funded MA program. (After a few years in corporate sales, I was able to cover the unfunded portion with relatively little debt, and this was, personally, worthwhile.) My program is small, and makes pains to establish limited distinction between MA and PhD students in classes and mentorship.
The pros:
I've been able to fine-tune my research interests, which, upon entering the MA program were scattered.
I have developed strong relationships with professors, who can speak to my ability to do graduate level work.
I've written a number of strong seminar papers, which will help me write a deep statement of purpose and provide a writing sample that I am proud of.
I now have conference appearances and teaching experience under my belt, which only strengthens my application.
Having been through the application process once, I have experience researching schools and faculty, writing SOPs and editing writing samples, etc. I know what works, and I can learn from my past mistakes.
The cons:
The issue of funding
If my MA program were exclusively one of those infamous "cash cows," funding the PhD students in the department and seen as nothing else, I would have a different story, and I really don't think those programs are necessarily worth the money. Every MA program is, to some extent, a "cash cow." Humanities departments need money. The question is: do they respect you as a novice scholar, or do they see you as a dollar sign? The former can be a really positive experience. Run from the latter.