I don't believe that Reagan spending and Bush II spending are necessarily apples-to-apples.
Reagan's spending at least had some purpose behind it, and that purpose was not liberal in nature. Some have argued here that the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc would have fallen anyway, and may be true, but is really only conjecture on their part. I tend to believe, yes, it would have eventually fallen, but not nearly as fast. Reagan's spending was not without our own pain, but it was also not without purpose or our own gain.
On the other hand, as hard as I used to try, I cannot come to the same conclusion regarding Bush II. Just my opinion, but they grossly misinterpreted the successful portions of Reagan's debt spending, ignored the downsides, and acted like a bunch of irresponsible teenagers with a new credit card.
Another, albeit minor, point is that it is unfair to strictly compare different eras. Some aspects of a wisely run economy will remain true regardless, but each era also has it's own set of nuances that must be included in any hindsight evaluation. Reagan and Bush II were different eras to a great degree, even if the numbers of years separating them weren't that many. In this vein, it would be a mistake to think that today's economic recovery could be strictly modeled after our recovery from the Great Depression.