> "Hey, it's an emergency, pull out your wish list for the past four decades."

All the proposals listed in the article makes total sense in the context of this crisis. Sick time for people to quarantine, food assistance for the people whose incomes will drop due to the fast approaching recession and isolation measures, all totally on-topic.

The US has long-understood systematic problems that will contribute to making this crisis worse. If you want to mitigate the crisis, you'll want to fix those issues that you can.

"Hey, it's an emergency of exactly the kind we've been trying to prevent. Let's suggest the things we've been suggesting to prevent exactly this kind of emergency."

One side is definitely doing that. The Democratic proposals seem to largely revolve around ensuring food/medical access. Meanwhile...

https://twitter.com/elwasson/status/1238133144173281280

> A key sticking point in the talks appears to be GOP demands to include Hyde amendment language in the bill to prevent federal funds from being used for abortion.

Republicans are mostly just proposing their solution for everything, tax cuts. So it's the same debate we always have, tax cuts vs direct assistance.

You could also rephrase it as stuff that will not do anything to stop the spread of the virus (tax cuts) vs stuff that is recommended by health experts to mitigate the spread of the virus by idneitifying the afflicted and incentivising them to not make decisions that will impact society negatively.

Is it even a debate anymore? The last 40 years of history have shown that tax cuts only benefit the wealthy.