On the one hand, lore says that Reagan Administration is the paradigm of how a lack of economic intervention by the state is able to improve the economical condition.
On the other hand, according to this article (Reagan Was a Keynesian) by Nobel Prize Paul Krugman, one of the greatest advocate of Keynesianism nowadays, the economic intervention by all-levels state (federal, state, local), the public spending, and all-level public debt raised in the US. Whereas this view-point may be well-known by many readers of this question long before Krugman wrote that article a couple of years ago, it was new to me.
I remember taking a look at several graphs on the Internet that seemed to confirm that view (an increase in public spending and debt). In addition, Reaganomics entry in Wikipedia says:
Spending during Reagan's two terms (FY 1981–88) averaged 22.4% GDP, well above the 20.6% GDP average from 1971 to 2009. In addition, the public debt rose from 26% GDP in 1980 to 41% GDP by 1988. In dollar terms, the public debt rose from $712 billion in 1980 to $2.052 trillion in 1988, a roughly three-fold increase.
which apparently confirms again that Reagan Administration achievements were due to Keynesian measures.
However, as a non-expert at all in the US politic, I would like to ask: how accurate is Krugman's picture of Reagan Administration economical policy? Did Reagan use public spending to make GDP grow? (Regardless of whether the public spending was social or not or whether was for the poorest or the richest).
N. B.: I am interested in the political aspects of this subject rather than in the historical or purely economic facets of this matter. Please, see and participate in this meta question before closing this question.
Note (2014/07/29): After reading some comments, I would like to clarify that I am asking whether or not the rise of the GDP was (in part) due to the big public spending.