"What's wrong with flying in a plane before it's passed inspection?"

Yeah, and the result of that, the slashed spending, and his war on the central bank was one of the worst US recessions up till that point. Governments are not household, and don't follow the same simplistic debt=bad frame.

And that crazy people with conspiracy theories don't tend to also have terrible grammar?

Yup, that's part of the "bring limbs closer into the center like a figure skater" advice. The head and core form the center of mass when tucked together, and whipping the arms back then pulling in as you whip the legs and jacknife them in towards the core adds extra rotation to that center of mass. When the head is thrown back away from the core and the limbs drag, there's no center and no added rotation.

The head is one of the heaviest parts of the body, so it's definitely worth pointing out, thanks.

You have to flip both your arms and legs backwards during the jump. You see the pros pinwheel their arms and jackknife their legs, each of which adds the force of that extra muscle movement and the mass of the limbs to the rotation and speeds it up. You also tuck them at the same time, which speeds rotation in the way that figure skaters doing a stationary spin do. This girl just left her limbs where they were when she jumped, so instead of their mass adding to the spin and moving the mass inward like a spinning figure skater, her core mass was essentially "dragging" the limbs, which slowed her overall rotation down.

I'm not saying they're the only ones who benefit from it. I'm saying that they assume government support does not apply to them, and default to the frame of "welfare bad".

Also, you just linked one agency and one part of a report explicitly looking at first-time and minority home buyers. The study in this post looked at multiple countries, and programs not limited to first-time and minority home buyers.

>Calling it welfare is just trying to create resentment .

It's the opposite. It's trying to break through to the privileged elite who think they "do it all on their own through merit", as opposed to the poor who "get handouts because they don't work hard enough".

Pointing out that people with means get tax incentives (aka tax expenditures), which is akin to welfare expenditures, helps make them realize that they took get support (just less visible), and that it's not a value judgment of who is better or who works harder. It is a tradeoff of how we apply public funds. Then, you can unemotionally evaluate whether the net social benefit of home ownership outweighs the net benefit of reducing hunger, etc as we apply our limited resources as a society.

As long as those tax expenditures are not part of our conversation, natural biases will draw focus to regular expenditures and will distort the overall cost benefit evaluation. And the people who react with resentment are exactly the people we need to educate.