The next time someone talks about "tax and spend Democrats" anywhere where you can respond, ask them whether that is worse than the "borrow and loot Republicans."
Even back before 1980, the debt ratio (national debt as a fraction of GNP) fell more slowly under Republican than Democratic administrations and the debt in actual dollars grew more rapidly. After 1980, the debt ratio soared under Republicans -- and only under Republicans.
As for looting, the present contest is between Congressional Republicans and the administration as to how many can steal how much. (Although there are other competitors in Ohio and Kentucky.)
Not all the scandals of GOP administrations deal with money, admittedly. This White House employs people who were convicted and pardoned for involvement in two previous White-House scandals, neither of which could -- strictly speaking -- be called "looting."
If you want to go back in history,you have the Iran-Contra scandal, Watergate, Teapot Dome, and even Credit Mobilier.
Bush, before being elected president, was involved in an insider-trading scandal. He sold stock in a company just before the audit committee of its board released a report that caused its stock price to dive. Bush claimed that the sale was totally coincidental; he didn't even know that the report was going to come out. As an outside director, he was on the audit committee. So which are we supposed to believe -- that he sold the stock on inside information or that he cashed his (remarkably high) salary checks for being a director without doing any work?