This article is worth the read.

Cute article...but rather dishonest, so lets say the 2009 was all Bush...so 2009 was up 17.9% from 2008...that means 2010 is up 16.1% from 2008 and 2011 is up 20.4% from 2008 and 2012 is up 21.1% from 2008...and so on...spending is out of control by both parties but to say Obama isn't increasing government spending and is the most "thrifty" is just silliness

Interesting, but remember that the graph shows how much spending increased from the previous term. So think of it like this, however much bush spent, Obama spent 1.4% more than bush spent. The real problem started when the government had no way to pay for the increased spending, and when it stopped making budgets. When Bush 1 was elected, he promised "no new taxes." As you can see, he spent more than Regan, but he had to raise taxes to pay for it. That played a large part of why he did not get re-elected. Next, Clinton increased spending from Bush 1, but to pay for that he had the help of good economic times, with the rise of tech companies, as well as down sizing the military. Then Bush 2 increased spending mostly on two wars, but at the same time, he cut taxes. That is when the national debt really started to take off. So far, with Obama, spending has continued to increase, however the economy has not been good and tax revenue has not increased. Personally, I believe the only way to start to fix the problem is to cut spending, (and by that, the graph I imagine would show a bar going backwards) as well as increasing taxes. Doing one or the other is not enough to pay down the national debt.

Its hard to show much growth when you start the first year with a trillion dollar stimulus. Show actual spending in 2011 dollars, and you will see a much different story. Also, and more importantly, you should include GDP growth. In Reagan's case, he did in fact raise the spending, but as a percentage of GDP he did not. All of us that lived through the eighty's looking back now would wish we had the growth it had.