Not anymore, the Republican party flip flopped on that issue declaring “deficits don’t matter” and been wildly reckless with spending for decades.

Fiscal responsibility isn't a right-wing concept at all, but invoking deficit concerns as a dodge for substance on particular issues that they lack popular support on otherwise is a common practice of the American Right (who have an equally common practice of exploding the deficit when in power.)

It has been way more common for Republican administrations and Congress to explode the deficit than when the Dems controlled things.

Consistently, for longer than I've been alive.

This is, basically, what pushed me away from the Republican party (aside from the relatively recent culture war). The Republicans always claimed to be the party of fiscal responsibility (as long as I've been alive, which is longer than most people on HN) but by objective measurable fact have consistently been the party of government bloat and high spending.

I don't like hypocrites.

Seems like it's always easier to sell a tax cut than a spending increase.

Somehow most people seem to assume that they'll be significant beneficiaries of a tax cut, but don't assume the same about a tax increase.

The downside of a tax is immediate and measurable. The alleged benefit is neither and understanding the cost-benefit relation requires more faith than transparency.

If there's any upside to Trump's tariff shenanigans, it's that they have turned a lot of Democrats into passionate free traders.

Are we pretending Clinton democrats were not passionate free traders before?

Not really proof of much. It's more likely that there is a huge increase in people who don't like having their taxes increased by a cadre of billionaires. I doubt support has increased for expanding free trade policies (e.g. the TPP and TTIP treaties Obama tried to complete).

45 was, 47 is closer to President McKinley than any modern politician.

To use actual numbers instead of indicies.

The parent was claiming that say 10 is closed to 2 than any of the 100s are. It is also true that 10 is closer to 9 than 2.

That said, given how much Trump has increased not only government spending but also the deficit he's pretty far _politically_ from Clinton. However, IIRC, the two of them were _physically_ closer on Epstein's island than any current democratic leader.

Why is free trade good? Isn't competition easily attacked via subsidation, for example, if trade is unregulated (why Chinese cars are not bought in EU)?

That's a broad question, and I don’t have time to give a full answer right now — but I recommend checking out some classic talks by economist Milton Friedman on YouTube. He explains tariffs and subsidies really well. For example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tcw3Z3vMqWw