The Myth of the Self-Made American: Why Progressives Get No Respect

[The Doctor.]

By Sara Robinson

October 29, 2010 - 1:03pm ET

One of the biggest problems facing the Democrats going into this election is that they're getting absolutely zero respect for everything they've done for the average American over the past two years. Tax cuts, health care reform, financial reform, expanded veterans' benefits, direct funding of student loans -- the list is long, and one that, by rights, should get the Democrats re-elected handily.

The problem is that the average voter has no idea that any of this ever happened. In fact, if you ask most Americans (even a lot of Democrats), they'll tell you that Obama raised their taxes.

This ignorance is on full display at your average Tea Party gathering, which is full of people who will proudly insist that they're entirely self-made. "I did it all myself," they'll snarl, quivering in spittle-flecked outrage. "I didn't get any government handouts. Nobody ever did anything for me -- so why are all my tax dollars going to support those shiftless welfare cheats who aren't willing to work like I did?"

>snip<

Suzanne Mettler, a professor at Cornell, actually documented this effect in a 2008 study. She asked people who'd been the beneficiaries of 19 specific government programs -- including some of the most popular and widespread programs in the country -- whether or not they'd ever used a government social program. Here's what she found:

Worth the trip;
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010104329/myth-self-made-american-why-progressives-get-no-respect

[HughBeaumont]

1. NO millionaire is "self made" -

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/11/07/5075

What Forbes means by "entirely self-made" is that the fortunes were not inherited but derived from business activity. Does this make the Forbes definition of "entirely self-made" reasonable? After all, if someone starts with modest resources, does well in business, and makes a fortune, isn't it fair to attribute that wealth to individual merit? Not really, though Forbes would like us to think so.

To see what's wrong with this idea, it's easiest to start with criteria that ought to disqualify a person from claiming to be "entirely self-made." After we've applied these criteria, we can see who's left in the pool. So, then, let us scratch from the list of the self-made anyone whose accumulation of wealth has been aided by any of the following:

Laws concerning property or contracts, and the public agencies that enforce such laws
Public schools or employees educated in public schools
Employees or customers who rely on public transportation
Roads, bridges, airports, sewers, water treatment plants, harbors, or other utilities built and maintained at public expense
Mail systems built and operated at public expense
Public hospitals and government-licensed physicians
Health and safety regulations created and enforced at public expense
Police and fire protection provided at public expense
Public libraries and parks
Any public amenities that add value to commercial or residential real estate
Government contracts
Government-provided business incentives
Regulatory agencies, such as the Federal Trade Commission or the Securities and Exchange Commission, that sustain trust in the stock market
A government-granted license permitting the exclusive use of a broadcast channel
The Internet
A form of currency legitimated and backed by a stable government
Social welfare programs that keep the poor from rebelling
The U.S. military

If we use these criteria to determine who can legitimately claim to be "entirely self-made," the Forbes number drops dramatically. It's not 270 out of 400. In fact, it's precisely zero.

If not for the legal and political arrangements that we create and maintain as a society -- with contributions from us all, costs to us all, and benefits to us all -- and if not for what we call "the public infrastructure," nobody could accumulate wealth. In short, there can be no private wealth without common wealth.

Yet another reason why TeaHadists are full of shite.

[The Doctor.]

2. It's amazing to me

that so many people can get duped into advocating for those that both despise and drain from them.

[chillspike]

3. I agree

And taking this a bit further, all wealth can be traced back to the earth which gives us it's wealth freely. If someone is lucky enough to find or have access to the ability to harvest that wealth does that really mean they only deserve it and others do not? Are we a group species working for the survival of the whole or not? Even in a pride of lions the lions that did not partake in the hunt are still allowed to partake in the spoils. Yet we want to deny the wealth we have stolen ourselves from the planet to other members of our species. We want to pretend we are a solitary species who only needs its other members for reproducing. But without each other we wouldn't have risen out of the cave. But the capitalists want to take us further back than even the cave. They want to take us back to a time in our evolution where we killed and fought the other for scraps of food, where there was no "us" only "the other". When our evolutionary ancestor was a solitary species with no chance of rising above the other animals because cooperation was impossible.

[Phil The Cat]

54. Nationalization is the ONLY answer

As long as there is individual and corporate ownership and/or control over the vital resources of the earth, there will be poverty and injustice!

We need FULL NATIONALIZATION NOW for the industrial, agricultural, medical, finance, energy, and real estate sectors!

Señor Chavez should be respected as a hero, a role model, for his efforts at opening the wealth of his nation to its poorest, most humble citizens! But he is castigated - even here, of all places - for his efforts to take care of his people!

If only the President could grow a pair and tell congress to shut up and stay out of the way unless they want to help!

[pipoman]

55. If your theory holds water

there should be no poverty in Venezuela, no? And the USSR should have been a ravishing success. Full nationalization leads to no competition and no advancement of any kind which leads to complacency. There are plenty of places you can go to realize your desire, it ain't happening here...ever..

[Phil The Cat]

56. Venezuela is a work in progress

If they weren't American corporations and other RWers fighting against him, they would be even further ahead! My understanding is, Cuba and Venezuela have some of the hughest rates of literacy and health care availability in the world! But Faux News and the rest of the corporate kleptocracy won't tell you that!

I recommend people look up some of the posts by Judi Lynn, EFerrari, and Peace Patriot to learn what's really going on there! VERY enlightening!

[pipoman]

57. I've read the

apologist posts ad nauseam. What always happens is a piece of propaganda is posted, proven to be fiction, defended by the apologists, battled by those who see, and no minds are changed. When the failure of Chavez's policies come full circle in a couple more decades we will all know I guess. Nationalism has never worked. Can you cite a single example? OTOH what examples can be cited for the highest productivity and overall standard of living? Seems to me more people wish to immigrate from nationalistic societies to more capitalistic societies, no?

[tjwash]

10. Not to mention the public education system that the wealthy always seem to...

...complain about paying into, even though it is our taxes that are spent educating the cops, firemen, doctors, plumbers, electricians, mechanics, the people that make our food, people who plan our cities, people who maintain the roads, design the cars, engineer our appliances, design and fix your computer, install your neighborhood broadband exchange, etc...etc...etc...

There are no truly "self-made" people. They get tremendous benefits from a well-educated populace.

Any of those jobs above require at least some level of high school education, even if they don't require university level degrees.

You or I are inevitably going to pick up the phone to CALL one of the above for assistance, unless you live in a hermit-cabin in the woods. We all pay them for their time. We are not paying them for the cost of the education they have already attained. But, without our taxes to help pay for public education chances are there would be far fewer people qualified in that profession and you would be paying a whole lot more for someone who knew how to repair your busted sewer line.

[melm00se]

17. you can easily insert

"poor" for "rich"

Seriously, the above list is the american "baseline". these items are available to all so everyone has, in theory, the same starting point and available tools.

Some folks become "rich" (or let's say a millionaire) so why is that?

the book The Millionaire Next Door (originally done in 1996) is one of the best surveys of "millionaires" ever done.

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/stanley-millionaire.html

The above link summarizes the details, from the survey, of "rich" folks and contains some very interesting pieces of information.

getting down the nitty gritty: face it: some people are better at accumulating wealth than others. it doesn't make them bad person(s), its just something at which they are good.

The above article appears to go to great lengths to minimize these folks' success and attribute those successes to something other than their abilities/skills/mindset.

[HughBeaumont]

19. Does anyone HAVE to buy your product? Does anyone HAVE to like you?

Does anyone who DOESN'T make money have less of an initial game plan than the one that did?

Does lack of success mean the person simply didn't work as HARD as the person who was successful?

What about start up capital? Economic climate, situation? Markets? Inheritance, quality of schools?

That article does nothing to minimize anyone's success. It's meant to say "You're not exempt from social responsibility just because you think you made this money completely on your own, which you DIDN'T". People like Forbes are the ones minimizing the role public money, resources, taxes, consumers, privilege and just plain-ol' dumb LUCK had in THEIR success.

[DailyGrind51]

45. His parents were 100% involved in making him, physically, at least!

[Greyhound]

4. K&R. I'm surrounded by these morans here, and their entire self-image is centered

around this myth. That makes it impossible (IME) to talk with them about this topic.
:kick: & R

[kctim]

5. Progressives get no respect on this

because they absolutely refuse to respect the fact that it is about freedom of choice, not what a program is or who it helps. Instead of a partisan attempt to make opposing views look stupid, Ms. Mettler would be better off studying why millions of Americans would opt-out of govt mandated programs if given a choice.

[The Doctor.]

6. "Millions of Americans would opt-out of govt mandated programs if given a choice"?

Which Americans?

Which programs?

[jancantor]

9. I'd opt out of Social Security

but I don't propose dismantling it. I (due to my union, etc.) have an excellent retirement plan, pay for disability insurance in the event I am injured, and can take full retirement at 55. Personally, I would far rather use the money I am forced to put into SS into my own self-managed plan. However, I think eliminating SS for all would be a disaster. I have friends who don't have to pay into SS and I have to admit I'm jealous :)

However, I benefit greatly from many govt. programs, such as the Mortgage Interest deduction, etc.

[The Doctor.]

11. So it would not be out of self-interest.

Try selling that to the teabaggers.

[jancantor]

13. Not sure I'd want to

It would just frustrate me. The fact that *I* grossly dislike social security, and would love to be able to opt out of it doesn't mean I would want to dismantle it. Fwiw, I HATE the meme about "voting against their interests". I am not about to vote my interests. I vote my principles. Those are sometimes the same, and sometimes very different.

[Ikonoklast]

41. What about your dependents?

If you got hit by a bus tomorrow, would they have enough money to live on?

Social Security also keeps widows and dependent children from the poorhouse.

Opting out would be a really bad deal for them.

[jancantor]

48. Again, not true

Again , I am talking about me. I have ample disability insurance, life insurance, etc. And a sufficient investment buffer account etc. that if I got hit by a bus and killed they would be SET financially. If injured, ditto.

Again, for the severalth :) time... I believe in Social Security. In no way, shape or form would I advocate disabling it. Otoh, if I had the option of opting out (as I once did) I would jump on that in a heartbeat.

It is not true that opting out would be a really bad deal for them. As I have explained. I don't vote my best interests. I vote my principles. I believe in SS, thus I would vote to keep it strong, and vote against those that wish to dismantle it. However, it does not follow that that benefits ME. It's the difference between voting my interests and my principles.

[kctim]

21. Ah

so you believe in Social Security as it was intended, a safety-net, not the retirement plan it has morphed into.

[jancantor]

29. Well, as a retirement plan

it lacks... um... a lot.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

27. Unless you're pretty well off, putting your entire retirement in the hands of Wall Street

is just plain stupid.

Social Security was instituted because vast numbers of elderly were unable to save or invest for their old age or lost everything when the stock market crashed.

Besides, the way you write indicates that you don't actually know how SS works. There is no pot of money set aside for you. You are paying for current retirees. It's only that your lifetime income determines your benefits, but there is no direct money pipeline from your current income to your future SS benefits.

[jancantor]

30. I don't put it in the hands of "wall street"

I put it in a # of investments, INCLUDING common stock, and I can take the slings and arrows of market crashes. Heck, gold certainly didn't crash and I had been accumulating that since 1994.

The point is I would rather have that money to invest myself.

Some of my friends do because where they work, they don't have to put in. I used to work where I didn't have to put in. I am well aware SS is not a "lockbox" so to speak. I never said otherwise. Not sure why you are assuming I think this.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

35. Because you talk about "investing" your SS deductions

For low-wage workers, this would be a lousy deal, even under Bush's partial privatization scheme.

In Chile, it has been a disaster.

[jancantor]

36. That makes no sense to me

That *I* would rather invest that 9% vs. paying into SS doesn't imply that I think the govt. invests it. Furthermore, I never advocated dismantling or privatization. I said I was against that. I said for ME, I would prefer not to pay in. In my previous employment, I didn't have to. That was preferable to me.

[kctim]

20. Every American who wants a choice in the matter

and every program they are forced to support. Social Security being the big one.

[The2ndWheel]

24. A society of 300+ million people with a choice to opt-out of something

wouldn't be a society of 300+ million people for very long. Which only leads to a long list of other questions.

[DirkGently]

7. Great find. The "self-made American" is a pernicious myth. Thank Ayn Rand.

As Stinky points out, our most core survival strategy as humans is cooperation. Without it, be hardscrabble hermits at best; predator-food at worst. And yet we have masses of Americans shrieking that they owe no cooperation to anyone, no assistance, no benefit. Ayn Rand borrowed money from relatives when she was a broke, failed screenwriter, then reportedly blew them off when her books on the virtues of the soulless "individual" hit it big.

At the end of the day, we're arguing with people who are engaged in nothing more than finding newly worded ways to rationalize not holding up their end of the Social Contract. "Don't tax me!" But build me roads and infrastructure. "Keep the government off my back!" So I can revel in my FDIC-insured bank accounts and collect my Social Security.

It's a circuitous and infantile fallacy, and it's a zombie we need to keep shooting in the head, every time it raises its stinking corpse from the ground and staggers, shrieking, in our general direction.

Thanks for posting this.

[The Doctor.]

12. Thanks for being the Holistic Detective you are.

I could not have distilled it better... without alcohol... and some jazz.

[DirkGently]

50. Thanks, Doc. 8)

[kctim]

22. Weak opinion

Why must you intentionally leave out the rights of the individual when speaking of cooperation? Don't you think they are kind of important, seeing how they are one the core building blocks of our Constitution?

If you would listen to those masses of Americans, you would understand that they do not believe they owe no cooperation to anyone, no assistance or no benefit and you would find that you're biggest objection with their beliefs is simply that they do not believe that YOU or government are the ones who get to define this "Social Contract."

IF you actually spoke with them, at the end of the day you would see that you are arguing with people who place individual rights above a "Social Contract" defined by others. You would understand that it is not a hypocritical view of 'keeping govt off my back, but give me govt handouts,' but view of 'give me a choice,' instead.

Respecting differing values and beliefs is the ONLY way we can work together. It is the ONLY way we can get effective solutions from our side, and the ONLY way to get it from their side.
It is the ONLY way we can go forward as a country and it is the only thing we have left to try. Zombie shooting sure hasn't helped.

[BeFree]

26. heh

We have one choice: either kiss the hand that feeds you or be damned.

There is no way in hell that we should respect 'differing values and beliefs' like slavery, anti-choice, limits on sexuality, and all the other beliefs and differing values that take individual choices away from individuals.

[DirkGently]

28. It's not a zero-sum proposition, and it's not human "individuals" these people are yarking about.

We're not talking about a dichotomy between the destruction of individualism and societal cooperation here. We are not talking about an honest argument centered around balancing interests. What we're talking about is an intellectually dishonest rationale for the rich to justify continuing to accumulate power while dismissing the societal obligations that allowed them to become wealthy in the first place. As though no business titan attended public school, or benefitted from environmental regulation or government-funded infrastructure.

The problem as presented in the OP is the fallacious notion that all anyone is obligated to do to live in society is make money for themselves in some kind of responsibility-free vaccuum. That "geniuses" owe nothing to anyone but the presence of their greatness, which they will haughtily take away if not shown the proper deference. Which is a bunch of nonsense rationalized by people (or corporations) who simply think they have already gleaned all they need to from the Social Contract, and now are grumpy that others are benefitting more than they. It's not about "balance" between individual rights and societal obligations, because as it stands, wealthy individuals have greater wealth and power now that at any time since the robber baron days of the 1920s.

So Howard Roark can bite my ass. Try making it as an architect with no one to mine gravel and mix concrete and no roads to drive in on and no clean water for the drinking fountains, Howie. ;)

That's all I think the OP was getting at. It doesn't require any counterbalancing or leavening, because the nutty contingent in America at the moment are not overzealous "collectivists," are they? Is the "individual" being oppressed by the cruel bootheel of, for example, the Environmental Protection Agency or the Department of Education, as the Sharron Angles and Rand Paul's of our world childishly suggest? Yet that's precisely the flavor of "individualism" these people are yapping about.

In fact, though, it's not real, human "individual" Tea Baggers or claimed Libertarians are working for, in the sense I assume you are talking about at all. When they say, "individual rights," they mean, "the rights of corporations to be TREATED like individuals." To vote in our elections. To decide how clean our food and water really "need" to be. How "likely" a nuclear meltdown or oceanic oil spill is, and therefore what safety measures "we" all need. They mean "right" of the wealthy to do what they want because, as Paul said recently, "anything that hurts a rich person hurts all of us."

Right.

That's the fallacy we need to keep shooting in the head.

Edited for the grammars.

[kctim]

39. Wrong

The only fallacy is trying to claim those individuals don't care about others, are in it for the 'evil' corporations or for the wealthy. They place the 'societal obligations' that are forced on them by others way ahead of the 'societal obligations' placed on the rich. That is why they will grumble when government tries to dictate how private business is ran, but they VOTE when government tries to dictate how their life is ran.

When they say individual rights, they mean their rights. They fear govt the way most here fear the 'evil' corps. and the fact that govt is the ONLY entity who can force them to do something against their will, is a big reason why the right even exists.

Shooting stereotypes of your own making in the head does nothing.

[DirkGently]

42. Big Business masquerading as populist fear of "Big Government" is not a stereotype. It's reality.

I think we're talking past each other here. I've no doubt there are intellectually honest concerns out there. Point is, the talk we actually hear in the political arena is this Ayn Randian hoohah about "self-made" Americans being made to shoulder the load for the shiftless, how taxation is "theft," how Big Government is unfairly stifling the Titans of Industry, etc.

None of that is happening.

What we have going on RIGHT NOW is a society in which corporate and wealthy interests absolutely DO force people to do things. Take a look at the health insurance industry if you don't take my meaning. Do most people have a "choice" as to whether to participate or not, or are most people forced to accept whatever coverage their employer offers, at whatever cost it's offered? How in the world can someone honestly pretend that we'd be in MORE danger with a healthcare system established by the people for the common good that we are with a a "private business model" where the sole, declared motivation is to provide as little care as possible at the highest possible cost? We're supposed to believe that the "government" WE elect is the power to fear in this situation?

The same goes for the "socialist redistribution of wealth" cart of baloney. We're currently shoveling our tax dollars out the door not to feed or educate the masses, or to build infrastructure, but to pay giant defense contractors for two (and a half, if you think about Pakistan) wars which increasingly appear to have zero to do with the "common defense," and everything to do with feeding military contractors and keeping the Middle East and Afghanistan wide open for business.

It's not a "stereotype" to point out that Sharron Angle and Rand Paul are utterly, unsalveageably wrong when they suggest, respectively, that we dismantle the EPA, or that private businesses should be able to discriminate on the basis of race. That's the kind of cartoon-character argument that's ACTUALLY BEING MADE. And it's being made more often, by more people, because that kind of ridiculous, selfish, fallacious rhetoric is not challenged hard enough, or often enough, so the knuckleheads just keep going further afield.

When these guys say they're against "Big Government," what they really mean is that they're against government working for the common good. Watch Rand Paul fold like a cafeteria chair on his anti-war stance, once the GOP gets its warm paws around him. Subsidies for oil companies and trillion-dollar wars aren't Big Government to these people -- that's just the rich claiming their due from the rest of us. What they're actually after is a reverse welfare state where the rest of us send our resources trickling UP.

None of that's to say people like yourself don't have honest, deeply held concerns. But you don't hear moderation from the "Anti Government" brigade. You don't hear reasonable interpretations of the Constitution. You hear, "Well I don't know if the Civil Rights Act was a reasonable restraint on private business."

That's not a stereotype. That's the actual kind of clown the Self Made American myth has elected to the U.S. Congress.

What's going to be interesting is if any of these real-life "stereotypes" actually get to implement any of their anti-government-that-helps-anyone fantasies in the real world. Bush got away with gutting the EPA and stacking it with oil company executives, but try eliminating it outright and see what the "populace" thinks of that, when their drinking water starts burning holes in the carpet. Or get rid of the FDA and see how long it takes for the the E Coli-festered hordes to come calling.

Good luck with that Angry Changey thing, Tea Party.


editted for speling.

[The Doctor.]

53. Unfortunately, what you and they seem to miss, is that the Govt that can 'force' them

is the pistol in the hands of the corporations.

[laughingliberal]

8. Great aritcle. Now, who's gonna tell them? nt

[clyrc]

14. This can't be said enough

And I probably feel so strongly about it because I'm a stay at home mom homeschooling my daughters. Yes, I rely on my husband for money, although if I had a dime for every time someone insinuated that I'm a freeloader, I'd be able to make a lot of money for the family. I can see, firsthand, the odd way people don't count "help." I had a little help seeing that when I read Barbara Ehrenreich's book "Global Woman" in preparation to move to the UAE several years ago. I wish more people would realize how they've been helped, and realize how important that is to society in general.

[old mark]

15. Most of the people I knew with money or who were business owners

inherited it in one way or another.
I have never met ONE really successful business man who was completely "self made"...
I do know several who have/had marginal businesses that barely gave them a living, but not one who was very successful.

mark

[quaker bill]

16. One cannot do comerce at scale

and avoid government assistance. Once you hire your first publicly educated employee, as a business person, you become the beneficiary of government largesse. Now, if you had to reimburse the government for the years of taxpayer funded training upon hiring, then you might come closer to being self-made.

It is virtually impossible to avoid benefitting from government programs and do business in this society at the same time. Even the most marginal sole proprietor business benefits from enforceable contracts and a relatively stable currency,

[quaker bill]

18. A myth I would love to see outed

is the pabulum spread about small businesses "creating" the most jobs. Folks on the right go on and on about this.

If it were true as an absolute, sooner or later we would all end up working for small business. We haven't and aren't about to. My guess is that over the last 100 years, small business employment is actually a reduced portion of the workforce due to the rise of large corporations and the increasing dominance of large corporations as an economic force.

It is likely that small business does hire alot of people, but I think what goes unspoken is that it lays off nearly as many as it hires. A truism that has never been statistically refuted is that 80 percent of small business start ups fail within the first 5 years, laying everyone off in the process. There is a difference between "churning the market" and actual productivity.

Hiring lots of people and laying them off at roughly the same rate is not a sector "creating jobs". It can only be seen that way if one views only one half of the equation. My guess is that small business is also the largest source of unemployment claims.

[rgbecker]

37. Really good point!!!

Amazing how hard it is to find good data on any of this small business as job creator crap.

[DirkGently]

43. Rachel Maddow had a piece about how we define "small business." When the Republicans use that term,

they mean wealthy individuals with a corporate shell. Or a division of a mega-corp. Actual Mom-and-Pop businesses do, I think, provide significant jobs. But we keep giving tax breaks to everyone else instead.

[quaker bill]

52. The point is that mom and pops

are decidedly not a growth sector of the economy. They do provide jobs but this sector of the employment pie has not grown relative to the rest, if anything it is a bit smaller share of the economy than it used to be. As these businesses open and close, jobs are created and lost. In that small businesses are inherently less stable, they do alot of this, which may make it seem that alot of jobs are created. However as this sector is not growing relative to the rest of the economy, its greater hiring rate must be matched by a greater layoff rate, if not, over time it would come to increasingly dominate the economy, which it doesn't.

Of course the republicans mean something other than what they seem to be saying. This is nearly always correct.

[ljm2002]

23. Reminds me of "Joe the Plumber"...

...who never got a helping hand. Well, there was that little detail of his having received welfare and food stamps, but by gum he EARNED 'em!!! Not like those other freeloaders!!!

[amborin]

25. Gramsci spoke to this; the Horatio Alger myth is particularly pervasive

[Dappleganger]

31. Just who gave them their bootstraps?

I am sick and tired of hearing the "I picked myself up by my bootstraps and started a business."

Bullshit--you benefited from someone else's bootstraps yet you don't want to admit it.

[ceile]

32. K&R

[hfojvt]

33. that article seems pretty silly

The home mortgage interest deduction is a social program? Veteran's benefits are social programs?

and this

"Sixty percent of people who get home mortgage interest deductions (one of the most important and lucrative middle-class subsidies going) don't see this as a form of government help to their households, even though many of them wouldn't be homeowners at all without it."

is just ludicrous. Almost nobody needs that deduction to help them buy a house. It is just a little reward for people with expensive houses.

[rgbecker]

38. Either you forgot your sarcasm thingy or you need a math tudor.

If you are earning a 30-80 thousand dollar annual income and pay a marginal income tax rate of 25%, your $4000.00 monthly mortgage payment to the bank nets you $1000 per month in tax savings....an amount someone has to make up to keep those bombs falling. That bank wouldn't even consider giving you that loan if your income wasn't 3.5 times that $4000/mo payment. I believe most home buyers are buying houses which cost enough to rely on the deduction to justify the loan. If that isn't socialism, I don't know what is.

[hfojvt]

40. I think I would prefer a Hohenzollern

maybe even a Plantagenet.

You think somebody making $30 - 80,000 is making a $4,000 a month house payment? My math tells me that $48,000 a year is kinda hard to pay even on an $80,000 a year salary.

A couple more points would be
1. Only the interest is deductible. The payment is likely to include taxes, insurance and principle
a. actually taxes are deductible as well, but that is a separate deduction. The topic at hand is the mortgage interest deduction

2. a married couple with two kids and an income of about $45,000 is already paying almost nothing in income taxes even without itemizing their deductions

3. Ergo, lower income households get no benefit from this deduction

4. Higher income households can likely still afford a house even without the deduction

5. the deduction comes about when you itemize deductions. The standard deduction for a couple is $10,700, so a person can easily pay $5,000 a year in mortgage interest and get no benefit from it. You need another $5,700 in itemized deductions before it even saves you a dime.

6. What is this obseesion I have with numbered lists? I feel like I am being un-necessarily harsh and am likely to just make you mad. What I am trying to say is that there are lots of things wrong with your post. I also feel that there are lots of things wrong with the article. But I don't feel like taking the time to start over at this point. I do apologize for the tone. Perhaps i happens when you tell a guy with a BA in math that he needs a tutor. Them's fighting woids.

[DirkGently]

44. Do you agree with the larger point, that no one "makes it" without relying on social benefits?

[hfojvt]

47. not sure if that is the right way to frame it

and it certainly does not help the framing if one makes up government benefits and claim that they too, are hand-outs.

[DirkGently]

49. I think the point is that government benefits are many and widespread, and not "hand-outs" at all.

[RadicalTexan]

34. K&R

Ain't THAT the truth.

[robertpaulsen]

46. Highlighting these retorts to the self-made claim.

The magnitude of the self-delusion is gobstopping. Did Mr. Self-Made Man grow up in a VA or FHA-funded house? Attend a public school or college? Go to school on the GI Bill, Pell Grants, or student loans? Does he claim a mortgage interest tax deduction every year? Does he support his retired parents out of pocket, or does Social Security do it for him? Does his employer get government contracts or subsidies that make his paycheck possible? Does his business depend on a sound currency, enforceable contracts, or reliable transportation systems?

It's like his rich Uncle Sam, the benefactor whose generous bequests paid his way into the middle class, has been written totally out of his entire life story. Forget gratitude; these social contract deniers insist loudly that none of that ever happened. At all. They pay taxes; but they've never seen a cent returned to them for anything. And they write their "self-made" myths accordingly.

Unfortunately, this is just a symptom of a much larger problem, one that progressives need to resolve if we are to prevail in the future. The bizarre fact is that most Americans who've made it into the middle class got there with the help of seriously life-changing government investments and subsidies -- and yet, ironically, if you ask them if they've ever used a government program in their lives, they're very likely to tell you: Nope. Never. I did it all on my own.

[Mimosa]

51. Cool and quite accurate, Robert Paulsen. n/t

[Overseas]

58. K&R ! Great article. /nt