I agree they are useful charts. But if Jom Robinson doesn't want information from that site posted here (and he has told me so, more or less) than I'll respect his wishes.
"I agree they are useful charts."
I understand how you saw it that way, as I did, at first. But then a more critical look for only a few minutes showed me something different. Take a look at this.
In the first chart, behind the following URL address, what is "human resources?" "Human resources" in business and in our common language applies to employee costs (pay, benefits, etc.). I want to see a total of funding for all social programs. What about funds that went to the states? And where are the dollar amounts? We don't want to see a percentage of military spending as compared to what was spent on employee pay packages. We want to see how much funding the government in one term spent on social programs as compared to the term before it. And we'll compensate for inflation, thank you. What if a given president spent more on both social programs and the military in his term, but raised the rate of military spending as compared to all federal employee pay packages?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1169547/posts?page=30#30
The next chart posted,
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1169547/posts?page=45#45
is an even more obvious piece of propaganda trash. Notice that the scale for the military spending side of the chart is in half percentage points while the "HR" [human resources] side is in whole points. And that's not the ugliest part. See that the military percentage side of the chart is in the teens and twenties, while the "HR" side is in the 50s and 60s. That way, the graph lines cross each other. Using proportions in charts that way is one of the most simple and old propaganda tricks with charts.
And the second chart is also a pictorial of the oddball percentage comparison of military spending versus "human resources" spending.