You do not interpret the second graph correctly. You say it shows a dramatic increase in spending for 2 years. That is correct. But then you say it is followed by a decrese to "levels well below the Bush years." Absolutely incorrect. The levels are much much higher and you can see this in the first graph which shows the levels of spending. The second graph shows the rate of spending, not the levels. You avoid the point most Obama apologists avoid: Spending under Obama has spiked to very high levels, and stayed there, and it's not due to stimulus and its not due to automatic stabilizers.
As far as what would have happened without your Keynesian savior? Look at a timeline. Obama inaugurated January 2009. Stimulus bill signed into law February 17, 2009. Now here is the important part. The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), (www.nber.gov) the official dater of recessions, dates the end of the recession at June 2009. So riddle me this, How is it the stimulus was so powerful that it was able to end the recession 4 months after being signed into law? Yet this is the same stimulus that wasn't big enough, per Krugman and all other big spenders? This tale that we avoided another Great Depression is totally unsubstantiated. The evidence we do have, that is, the recession ended in June 2009, long before any Obama stimulative affect could have been felt, other than a change in expectations, or confidence, is that there was little danger of another Great Depression.