Ah... A nice example of how to mislead with numbers. Let's break this down a bit:
The good (note that the linked article points all of these things out):
*All presidential terms taken into account (so that Reagan, Clinton and Bush#2 aren't judged differently from Bush#1 and Obama).
*Assigns the border years to the previous president. The 2009 budget, for example, was passed by Bush#2.
*Separates out Obama's 2009 stimulus from Bush#2's 2009 budget.
The bad (note that the linked article does not point out any of these):
*"Resets" the growth at the start of each presidential term. There's a big difference between starting at 15% of GDP and 23% of GDP.
*These numbers look unadjusted for inflation (someone confirm or deny?) Inflation was high under Reagan, which means amplified percentage increases in federal spending.
*Ignores the folks who actually pass the budget: congress.
The items in the bad list make this a terribly misleading graph.
Not to mention, the debt has actually increased substantially under Obama. So, the spending is only looking at one piece of the puzzle. Granted, it's an important piece, but it is just that, a piece not the whole puzzle.
Now you're changing the subject. The article didn't mention debt at all, and I didn't see anyone else do so. In fact, the article was very clear that it was about spending and not about debt.
