I am considering taking what should be considered a remedial math class, though is actually credit bearing at my university, so I can spend more time solving monthly problems/ studying graduate level theory on my own. Would subverting the curriculum, and reducing the problem of acquiring credit hours to a problem solved in or before middle school, be looked down upon by graduate schools? I have always heard that graduate schools only care about your math grades, only care about how much math you have studied.
I assume that you are talking about applying to graduate programs in mathematics, rather than in other disciplines.
To take remedial courses so that you can focus on "graduate level theory" on your own seems like a spectacularly bad idea. Why would a grad school take someone whose transcript shows remedial courses instead of accomplishments in upper-level undergraduate and graduate coursework? It also weakens your overall transcript in the process, since the remedial course will stick out like a sore thumb. Moreover, without some mechanism for documenting the work that you've done on your own, you won't easily be able to convince an admissions committee that you've actually done the work!
If you want to do graduate-level work, just take the graduate-level courses corresponding to what you want to do.
Taking remedial or lower-level classes in your own discipline/major sounds like a recipe for disaster. At best you'll be seen as lazy, at worst your own competence in your chosen discipline will be suspect.
There is a time-honored tradition of taking easier courses outside of your major/discipline in order to gain some more balance in your life and still earn enough credits for graduation. Ask your peers (or advisor) for the names of these courses -- the time-honored fictional one is called "UWB100: Underwater Basketweaving for Beginners."
While these will still be listed on your transcript, at least they won't cast suspicion on your disciplinary competence.