This month this advertisement http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOpyggmTmeE was banned in the USA.It tells the truth about an economic reality that we in Australia fail to acknowledge.

Kevin Rudd borrowed $40 billion from China for stimulus here and the RBA increased interest rates to slow inflation.We paid thrice,firstly in the inflation of our money which forced up rates,then in wasteful projects that produced nothing and last in the subsequent debt to China.

The other issue is that of liberty.How can we be free if Govts and Corps censor the truth which will make our Govts address the realities?

This is a form of censorship that is absolutely self-defeating.

If, of course, it is actually true that the advertisement has been "banned". The only reason I question it - because the US at the moment really is dumb enough to do such a thing - is that I haven't been able to track down a reliable source for the information. All there is on the web is a repetition of the same mantra, using exactly the same words:

"A new television ad about the U.S. national debt produced by Citizens Against Government Waste has been deemed "too controversial" by major networks including ABC, A&E and The History Channel and will not be shown on those channels."

It is always suspicious - to me, anyway - when there is no discernible origin for the information. Like the twitterfest around Qantas' engine trouble. The early "reports" told of a crash, and this was retweeted around the globe for an hour, before the truth emerged.

The reality is that if this "commercial" were to be shown on every channel in the US, every hour, every day for a week, it would at least generate some intelligent debate on the topic. Why the American people are afraid to face up to the facts about the problems they face beats me, when all that is needed is a modicum of political courage to tell them that they need to rein in government spending a notch or two.

This week's Economist spells it out.

http://www.economist.com/node/17522328

"the hole left by years of serial tax-cutting and overspending can be plugged: you need to find spending cuts or tax increases equal only to 2% of GDP to stabilise federal debt by 2015"

Unfortunately, with stunts like this, the emphasis will be in the wrong place, and rational argument will once again take a back seat to paranoia.

I'd rather pay thrice than not be able to pay at all.

Arjay the word "oligarchy" gets a fairly good run in your myriad of posts, and with good reason.

The balance of power between those that vote and the few that seek to control and direct the policies of a nation for their economic or ideological gain is on the side of the few.

We as an electorate have the "ear" of the pollies once every three years for five minutes, yet the lobbyist have 365 days a year to proffer their case. Once we have voted all decisions by the government are made on the basis of the representations of the lobby groups and their own political agenda.

The electorate does not exist as a corium for input for today’s politicians, once we have voted the need to placate us has ended as exampled by the Rudd / Gillard governments cover up and lies regarding their plethora of failed and costly projects over the past 4 years.

Arjay I have in the past considered that a nation such as Italy who have had 61 parliaments in 60 years to be rudderless, made up of so many splintered factions that governance is made impossible, but they govern, they survive and the electorate are truly represented as exhibited by the 61 parliaments. The two party system rather than bringing stability to this nation has allowed vested interests to more easily sway the decision makers we elect.

Re the advert, we screwed the second and third world, now they screw us, and it is not pleasant to realize that they will be our masters because of the stripping of our ability to make what we need at home, but that is what our governments have allowed to happen with the dismantling of protectionist legislation that covered our previously fat but now skinny asses.

ARJAY this is the closest you have come to making a believable post for some time.

At LEAST this situation is verifiable! (the figures might not be spot on and the emotion a bit out there, but fundamentally TRUE)

After all.. BECK has been banging on about this kind of thing for years now :) and when BECK says it....you can believe it- hahah poke poke (@ Pericles)

But you don't need to worry about such information being banned in a YOUTUBE ad Arjay...such info and MUCH MORE is available on the Glenn Beck show daily.

He is so hated by the Left and progressives for his unpacking of their heinous anti american anti freedom agenda that Senator Rockafella hinted Fox news should be BANNED. (He did mention a minor left wing sacrificial lamb "MSNBC" which does squat except whine about Beck and Orielly)

You don't need to delve so deeply into your wild conspiracy theories and suppositions from silence Arjay (which lose your credibility)..it's all OUT THERE IN THE FREAKING OPEN...

The question remains, has this ad been banned, or not?

Interestingly, the CAGW web site contains no information that supports the assertion. But it does provide some evidence as to where the rumour may have started.

Here's an excerpt from their explanation of the ad:

"[The ad] is a 2010 homage to a 1986 ad that was produced by W.R. Grace & Co. called “The Deficit Trials.” For those who were able to view it; it was a sensation. However, it was considered so alarming that the major networks refused to run it and CBS News anchor Dan Rather did a story about the controversy."

Hmmmm. I wonder. But wait, there's more.

"The group plans to run the ad on major cable networks throughout the rest of 2010 and into 2011"

So, there you have it. They don't actually have any plans to run it on ABC, or any of the other non-cable broadcasters. So the "too controversial for the ABC" seems to be a mash-up of the old with the new, rather than factual reporting.

This should be where "truth in journalism" triumphs over the anarchy of social networks' rumour mills. But so far, the interwebs only carry the "they're hiding the truth from the American people" angle.

Which, as seems to be emerging, is mostly hot air.