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.

Does this add have an advertising component or political bias.

Baned? well no not on the evidence even arjay must admit that.
The NGOs have said it is too controversial and will not play it, but Banned?
Now the west, us too are in debt very badly, but what if we had not borrowed.
Credit, debt, are back bones to capitalism.
Some appear not to understand with out it much we produce would never be made or sold.
I understand, even agree with the fear about debt.
But ,and we must sooner or later, we can suffer to be debt free, many off us do that , I did.
I share the view we need to talk about it but AGIR you quote the very last people in the world to find unbalanced thought from.

Pericles is convinced that this is a hoax.This ad was professionally produced and would have cost a lot to make.Name the TV stations Pericles where it has been aired.

*This ad was professionally produced and would have cost a lot to make.Name the TV stations Pericles where it has been aired.*

Arjay, I'm not sure who would pay huge money to air that commercial,
for time on major stations is not exactly cheap.

But a great marketing ploy of course would be to claim it was
banned and then put it on Utube. It costs nothing at all and
everyone likes to watch banned stuff.

Given that its freely available on utube, clearly it has not
been banned.

Meantime of course Arjay, we have a little problem it seems.

The Paris Hilton of politics, Sarah Palin, saviour of the
rabid right, has trouble knowing the difference between
North and South Korea. Now there is a girl who should
have her finger on the nuclear button!

http://www.news.com.au/world/sarah-palin-says-us-should-stand-by-north-korean-allies/story-e6frfkyi-1225961065827

.

Hoax, Arjay? Absolutely not.

>>Pericles is convinced that this is a hoax.<<

If you go to the CAGW web site, as I did, you will find the press release describing the advertisement, and its background.

http://www.cagw.org/newsroom/releases/2010/cagw-rolls-out-ad-campaign-on.html

I simply questioned your assertion that it had been banned, not whether it was a "hoax".

Sheesh.

And there is still no evidence that it has been banned, except for the constant repetition of the same sentence, everywhere on the web.

Which is always suspicious.

Yep there does seem to be only one source for this story and the source are the people who made the ad.

It does look a little like the "Diamond Rio Christian song ban". The song was reported as being banned because of its overtly Christian message. The song wasn't even released at the time it was "banned"

Why spend so much money and time on an Ad that you know won't make it to air.There is no kudos in screaming victim status since the very media who censored it, will not make it an issue.

By the same token Pericles the Ad "Building What?" by http://ae911truth.org/ was allowed to be aired by Fox.What was the logic behind this capitulation?

Arjay you are probably a good person.
Each of your threads has an element that is of concern at some level to most of us.
But hidden in your sources,in my view,and AGiR, is something I fear true.
This thread is about such.
It uses truth like a rubber band to get points in not truth.
I fear the extremes of the American right, the Christian right.
In my view they could not do more harm if the Taliban had infiltrated them, to American democracy.
The world, even west, is concerned about America.
You should be too.
A REAL push to put Sara Palin in the white house!
She did not understand if north or south Korea was America's Friend.
IF the Taliban any radical Islamists group, wanted to harm America at all levels.
They could do worse than invent people like you get your information from.
Maybe they have.
My regards but forgive my inability to come on board this blindness, I fear one day we will ignore a real conspiracy because we hear henny penny shout every day.

Belly the US Govt is far more frightened of its own people than any terrorist ,China or Russia.This is why they have preventative detention,where you can be detained on the suspicion of crimes you might commit indefinitely,without legal rep or trial.

As you can see on Fox News even they are confronting the reality with Geraldo Rivera saying WTC 7 was very suspicious and the science doesn't add up to the official story being right.

What do you think Belly is the intent of Murdoch in letting "Building What?" air, and now Geraldo is speaking some of the truth?.Is Murdoch having an each way bet or are they setting up Bush, Cheney Rumsfeld etc to take the entire blame,when they were really just the puppets?

*What do you think Belly is the intent of Murdoch in letting "Building What?" air, and now Geraldo is speaking some of the truth?*

Hehe Arjay, Murdoch has people like you, all figured out. Murdoch
has one intention and that is to make money. In the media you do
that with bums on seats, ratings and the advertiser dollars just
pour in.

Murdoch will sell you whatever you want, if it creates ratings.
From the page 3 girl in his papers, to religious programmes,
to the redneck appeal of Fox tv, he suckholes them in by their
10s of millions. It is easy to preach to the true believers!

There are good reasons why Murdoch is the only outsider to enter
the holy grail of US tv and create a hit tv network from nothing.
He is a pragmatic realist, who knows suckers when he sees them
coming. They have earned him billions.

Yabby,Murdoch has a lot more at stake here then just taking a few $ 1000 for a pissy ad from http://ae911truth.org/ He has been active in the supression of scientific evidence in the past along with the rest of the media.I think he is having an each way bet.The truth movement is growing expodentially and they can no longer swim against the tide.

Arjay, Murdoch became famous, by being a publisher of tabloids.
AFAIK, his only attempt at publishing a paper to a standard was
the Australian and he lost money on that for years.

If enough true believers tune in, it will be broadcast, it
makes money. If its just about the claims of a few thousand
fruitloops, the audience appeal might not justify the cost
of broadcasting. That is how the commercial media works.

But tune in to Fox, he will make even more. He's a good
businessman.

What do I think of Murdock.
Let me tell you what I know of him.
You can then make up your mind what I think of him.
His dad had power, prime Ministers stood hat in hand in front of his desk and called him sir.
I do not like that.
He as a lad fought for a man in prison ,took a stand on a moral issue, came down with overly conservative flue, never recovered.
He went to England bought media ,still owns it, broke strikes sacked many, even has reporters tapping the Royals phones.
I do not like that.
Arjay FOX, once a proud name, now? true life long never to budge conservatives cringe at FOX .
FOX is like Hitlers propaganda minister, no true
Uses lies deceit, every dirty trick in the book.
Murdock has no regard for anything other than power and influence.
Just maybe his son who returned to Australia, while like all the family playing in that McDuck money bin in real life will value truth, maybe it seems he is better but who is not?
Comic books relate to Truth more than most things owned by our ex Aussie.

Belly ,you got something right about Murdoch but he is also a pragmatic survivalist who will have an each way bet.Fools like Larry Silverstein will go down since he said he had to "pull" WTC 7 and it wasn't possible to do it in 5 hrs.So he is written his own epitaph. Murdoch is a bit more clever.

It is a good advertisement. It does it's job. Too bad it gets the fundamental workings of the current economic system wrong.

Senexx,you are correct.They have to first of all get rid of the US Federal Res and let Congress issue their money like many past presidents did or wanted to.We need to do likewise.

Next they have to revive their manufacturing sector.