I've not once tried to separate that spending from the Dems is different than spending from the GOP. The two differences I do make, is deficit spending when in a time of need is a necessary evil (regardless of party). Second difference is one party does NOT pretend to be fiscally conservative. Interestingly though, in the past 40 years that party that is known for spending, actually reduces the deficit. That is a simple statistical fact.

Right or wrong, my observation is that when a party controls Congress they act like their reputation. When they control the Presidency, they act contrary to it. Thus, the worst of all possible worlds is a Republican President with Democrats controlling Congress, and the best is a Democrat President with Republicans controlling Congress.

https://apple.news/AYQxQdvxDShaoqKuQvg-msw

As far as tax cuts leading to additional revenue, under some circumstances it can, and in other situations it doesn't. What can't be debated, however, is that over the last 60 years the US has had a wide variety of tax policies. They have had tax rates with very high top brackets, and tax rates with low top rates. They have had tax policies with big standard deductions and few deductions, and others with small standard deductions and many itemized deductions. Amazingly, almost all roads have led to the exact same result. Year in, and year out, the US collects between 16 and 18% of GDP in Federal taxes. It is interesting to note that they did not fall after the Reagan cuts, and rose steadily for the next fifteen years. They did, however, fall after all the tax cuts since 2000. Here's a chart:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S

Tax collections tend to be higher in bull markets when people are selling stocks at a profit, and lower during economic downturns. It is true that tax receipts were unusually low during most of the last ten years, however. Still, if you know in advance that tax receipts will run about 17%, and you have a federal budget that systematically spends over 20%, do you have a taxing problem or a spending problem?
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYONGDA188S

As far as general tax policy, I have long believed that you should tax what you want less of. If you want people to work less, tax earnings. If you want people to spend less, tax sales. If you want people to drive less, tax gasoline. If you want property to have lower value, tax property. If you want less pollution, tax pollution. If you want less people to smoke, tax cigarettes.

As far as this stimulus bill, I guess it is just the first part, and the total will be $6T. It makes me sick to think of the lobbiests getting rich off this. It's like a bunch of fat pigs feeding at the trough. The US can recover from the coronavirus. The US can recover from the business shutdowns. I just don't see the US recovering from the raping of the economy for $6T. So, yes, my share will be $46,500. I've never gotten a penny from any other stimulus, and I don't expect to this time, either. I guess it's my fault for not paying a lobbiest and standing with my hand out. I'll get by. I cut my pay to $0 so that the money I have can go to employees, and my pay will stay there until it's over. I'll just work harder to make up the difference, I guess, but it totally sucks. I'm just going to turn off the news for a few days. It makes me want to puke.

This morning's NYT includes a 2-page article on how the stimulus bill has wended its way through congress. Insightful to be sure. Also shares a bit of humor: to wit, Mnuchin and Schumur have been spending so much time huddling together that they began calling each other Steven and Chuck.

I will get money from the stimulus, that’s just not where the money should go IMO

I couldn't care less about the social security deferral. I'm not interested in having more loans at all, even at 0%. I can get through this without assistance, with only a little difficulty. However, this bill definitely puts me in a moral quandary. It is pushing me hard to just close permanently.

In normal times, most of my employees get about 32 hours a week at $10-12/hour. That nets them $280-330 a week, after taxes. If I simply close, they will make about 5x as much. They would get about $900 a week in unemployment, with no taxes, plus food stamps, medicaid, housing assistance, energy assistance and more. Essentially they would have spendable income equivalent to someone making about $70-80,000 before taxes. On the other hand, their massive benefits will run out after 39 weeks, and if I close, I will never re-open, and they will have no job to come back to, and will have to fight everyone else for the few jobs remaining.

My employees are aware of this, and were already talking about this Friday. I expect I will get some pressure from at least some of them this week to just close.

If the point of this bill was to keep the economy going, why on earth did they put in such a strong incentive for businesses to just close? A few Senators fought this and called it a "massive drafting error", but were told it was not an error, and that it was completely intentional, and to leave it be.

Do you offer employees healthcare? That should keep them around; less money but cheaper healthcare might win out over more money but full price healthcare.