This is why I noted this is a stimulus bill and the economy will not be tanking in the near future. Just like the first time around.
You should check your economics. There are two problems with this theory.
1. Companies holding cash is bad for the economy. Recessions occur when savings exceed investment. Essentially, cash sitting around represents potential but not actual production. More cash = less production = worse economy. That's why monetary policy works the way it does: you cut rates when the economy is doing poorly, in order to make cash less desirable and to get the cash off the sidelines. When the economy is overheating because people are borrowing too much, rates get increased.
2. Tax cuts don't really work as stimulus. That's because any money flowing out of the Treasury as tax cuts has to flow back in as debt. If the problem is that businesses aren't investing (and that's clearly a big problem right now, if the economic numbers are remotely correct), giving them cash isn't going to make them invest more. The problem isn't and hasn't been that they are liquidity constrained; it's that there's not enough demand. So Treasury gives out tax cuts, and the businesses just buy bonds.
All those tax cuts do is replace assets of the United States with debt owed by the United States, to the recipients of the tax cuts. It's a giveaway. When the government spends money in a recession, it is guaranteeing a boost to aggregate demand. Tax cuts don't do that. They add to supply and then hope the supply induces demand. That has never worked out, to my knowledge, in any way that could be considered successful stimulus.
3. You're probably confusing the welfare of stockholders with the welfare of the country. It's true that investors like cash. But why? What's so great about cash? If GM suddenly sells a ton more cars, and it sells most of them on financing, then isn't it making more money even if it's not making as much cash?
The answer is that cash isn't corporate bullshit. Investors are often concerned about excessively non-cash earnings, because there is a fear that a) the earnings are the results of cooking the books or some sort of accounting maneuver that boosts the bottom line without improving the business and/or b) the non-cash earnings will turn out to be illusory, or will be squandered. For instance, in the example of GM there, if it sells a million financed cars, it will report a huge earnings spike. Will they actually collect the money they are owed, or are they soon going to have half a million repo-ed vehicles on a lot somewhere?
But none of those considerations has any relevance to the economy as a whole.
4. The first time around, the big tax cuts didn't stimulate the economy hardly at all, while ballooning the deficit. There was no crash because there was nothing to cause a crash -- the economy was strong in 2016 and the Fed was running extremely accommodative monetary policy. Nobody predicted that Trump was going to cause a recession. People predicted that the 2017 tax cuts would hollow out the treasury with no gain, which happened, and also had many perverse incentives, such as rewarding offshoring of labor (in a provision supposedly about repatriation, lol) which also happened.
ā> 
