The Repubs say they don't like Keynsian economics. Not sure what they don't like about it, because they seem to favor some very Keynesian ideas when they talk about "job creators" and growth trickling down.
When you cut the taxes of people who supposedly create jobs to encourage them to create more jobs, you're stimulating them, whether they create jobs or not. I believe they mostly just pocket the profits, and don't worry too much about creating jobs (I've got personal experience with this, when I pay very low taxes on windfalls, I don't generally think that any obligations come with the lower taxes, I don't even see it as lower taxes, just low taxes). This theory seems quite Keynesian to me.
But when the stimulus is in the form of paying teachers, cops, sanitation workers, construction crews, etc -- that's socialism! And supposedly discredited because it's Keynesian. But what's the difference? You're just choosing to stimulate different people. Never mind that it's likely to create more jobs because the people you're stimulating can't afford to pocket the profits, they have to spend it because they don't have much of a surplus.
The Repubs, who are I assume educated people themselves, act like the elites they decry, by ignoring their education, and pretending there's a difference between subsidizing the rich and subsidizing the working classes. There are differences, but they're not moral, just pragmatic.