Joe" Providing Jobs - But To Other Countries

1. 83

   Sharlee01posted 4 years ago

   
   Once again, the hypocrisy demonstrated by President Biden and  Democrats that support cuts to our nation’s mineral supply is disturbing.  And with the swipe of a pen, he has done just that. Someone needs to hold this administration accountable for these types of destructive policies.
   
   President Biden has added yet another destructive policy to his ever-increasing list of damaging executive orders. He is now messing with our nation’s domestic sourcing of critical minerals.
   
   According to his EO, Securing America’s Critical Supply Chains, "Critical minerals are an essential part of the defense, high-tech and other products. From rare-earth in our electric motors and generators to the carbon fiber used for airplanes – the United States needs to ensure we are not dependent upon foreign sources or single points of failure in times of national emergency.
   
   In 2019, almost half of the uranium which is needed to power the U.S. nuclear fleet was sourced from foreign nations, including Russia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Chinese-owned mines in Namibia. That same year, our domestic operations minded less than 0.5% of the supply needed in America. This is a serious matter of national security and poses a threat to our nation’s sovereignty.
   
   The president would have you believe his order – shows he is on top of the problem! One would think...
   
   Smoke and Mirrors     ---   However, just ONE DAY before  Biden released his EO, he issued a Statement of Administration Policy in support of a sweeping package of Democrat-led bills that would drastically, harmfully, and permanently BAN MINERAL development on over three million acres of America's land. What was slipped into this bill --- It would withdraw nearly 1 million acres around the Grand Canyon in Arizona from future uranium mining claims,  which protection has been long sought by environmental groups.
   
   This land in Arizona happens to be one of the largest tracts of uranium deposits in the country. Mining is an integral part of local economies in the West, and the Arizona mining industry creates thousands of jobs that contribute greatly to the local and national economy. The wealth of our nation’s domestic uranium and other critical mineral deposits is essential to our national security.   https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-env … SL1N2KW3ET
   
   Nowhere in President Biden’s statement of support were critical minerals mentioned. He made no recognition of the security concerns surrounding the supply of this critical mineral, nor any reference to the many statements in his order to supposedly create more resilient and secure supply chains. His hypocrisy here would be laughable if it weren’t so dangerous to the Nation.
   
   President Biden and a vast majority of congressional Democrats simply fail to recognize the basic fact that his EO leaves our nation’s supply chains severely hampered.
   
   Just More Smoke and Mirrors. --  Once again the president would have you think with his latest order – he’s on top of the problem!
   
   However, just one day before the president released his executive order, he issued a Statement of Administration Policy in support of a sweeping package of Democrat-led bills that would drastically, harmfully, and permanently ban mineral development on over one million acres of land. This land in Arizona happens to be one of the largest tracts of uranium deposits in the country.
   
   Mining is an integral part of local economies in the West, and the Arizona mining industry creates thousands of jobs that contribute greatly to the local and our very national economy. The wealth of our nation’s domestic uranium and other critical mineral deposits is essential to our national security.
   
   Unfortunately for America,  the Biden administration continues to thwart opportunities. Just five days after signing his supply chains EO,  Biden’s administration announced it was rescinding a previously published environmental review for one of the largest potential projects for copper development on the globe.  The Resolution Copper project was set to create nearly 4,000 JOBs and contribute over $60 billion in economic value for the state of Arizona.
   
   Copper is a critical resource for manufacturing needs here in America, including serving as an essential component in medical equipment, clean energy and grid innovation technologies, and mobile devices. The World Bank projects a 200% increase in global copper demand in the next 30 years, demonstrating the need for a robust and resilient domestic supply for U.S. manufacturing competitiveness.
   
   However, IMO Biden once again has set us on a reverse path.  We will become once again less competitive, and more dependent on other countries for minerals. And ultimately head back down the path of sending jobs out of the country.  Oh, those good Ol' days... Yeah
   The US already relies heavily on other countries for minerals. Do we need to further that dependence? Need we gut our ability to mine copper and other minerals that we currently mine?    https://www.usgs.gov/news/risk-and-reli … -resources
   
   Hopefully, this thread is not considered a "yawn" and some will consider what this president is doing while we all sit back and listen to his fluff... Wake up, and take note of what is really going on behind the smoke.  We actually have a fire raging.
   
   Thoughts...
   
   EO --    https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-roo … ly-chains/

   replyreport
   1. 0

      PrettyPantherposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Since I am not knowledgeable in the subject, and you provided zero backup for you dire assertions about the consequences of Biden's polices, my only question is, why should we believe your doomsday analysis?

      replyreport
      1. 83

         Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this

         I did offer a link to add facts to my view. I did offer a link to the EO in question, assuming I would leave that up to the individual to read the EO.  I have read it and used it as a resource to form my opinion.  I will add the link to the EO in question to my OP.
         
         I feel I can back up my opinion with the two resources I used.  One needs to keep in mind we all could derive a different opinion on any given subject.
         
         https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-roo … ly-chains/

         replyreport
         1. 0

            PrettyPantherposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            I did not originally see the link. I must have missed it. Will read it.

            replyreport
            1. 83

               Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this

               This is a sticky thread, and I am sure opinions will differ. Just wanted to make a point that we have lots of news, so some go unnoted. This EO was more covered online than on network news. I almost think some that are for the green new deal will applaud that Biden addressed Federal land being protected.  All in one's opinion or maybe what one feels is a good move on Biden's part. I felt it was controversial, a good topic for back-and-forth discussion.    I am just appreciative that you gave it a look.

               replyreport
         2. 69

            IslandBitesposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            I thought that was Dan Newhouse, Rep. Andy Biggs opinion. I suppose you agree.
            
            Btw, you copy/paste the same part twice. In case you want to edit it.

            replyreport
            1. 83

               Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this

               Yes I picked up on the opinion article  at  ---  https://newsdeal.in/reps-newhouse-biggs … -security/
               
               Yes, I agree with their opinion completely.   I actually as a rule respect their opinions. They do a wonderful job putting the proper light on any given subject.

               replyreport
2. 76

   Valeantposted 4 years ago

   The Biden administration has put the brakes on a controversial land exchange that would have given a sacred Native American site to a multinational mining company by 11 March.
   
   Parts of the handover had been rushed to completion in the waning days of the Trump administration, in an effort to give Resolution Copper control over Arizona’s Oak Flat region before or soon after Trump left office. Oak Flat sits atop one of the largest untapped copper deposits in the world, estimated to be worth more than $1bn.
   
   Now, Biden has pledged to conserve 30% of the lands in the US as part of climate change.  He certainly supported the house action as it would assist his goal.  But according to your own article, the House passed a bill restricting the land use.  Yet, your post says this is Biden's fault.  Seems it's a full-on Democratic cause.
   
   Your hateful disdain to put everything on Biden is getting comical.  I'm waiting for you to go full Trump and accuse him of killing JFK, like Trump did with Cruz's father.

   replyreport
   1. 83

      Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      This is a political forum, I posted a political subject. I think it's obvious I don't care for Biden's policies. And personally feel he is unfit to be president.
      
      However, not sure why you find it disdainful for me to point out I don't approve of one of Biden's EO. I laid out my view in regards to an EO. You joined in and offered an interesting opposite view. This is pretty much how political threads are expected to proceed.  You need not get personal or assume I have hateful disdain for Biden. I was just offering a view on a policy I disagree with.
      
      This thread does not support any form of conspiracy, just an opinion with some facts to back up my opinion. I will toss you a bone  -- I do think it is apparent the users are not interested in threads critiquing  Biden or his job performance.

      replyreport
      1. 76

         Valeantposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         I think I'm on alert after watching four years of Trump attacking the government from within.  Seeing what that led to where citizens were convinced to violently attack our own government.  And you're throwing more kindling on the fire with a constant stream of negative propaganda.  I find it dangerous.

         replyreport
         1. 83

            Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this

            I posted a thread on one of Bidens executive orders. I offered my opinion. I am not sure why you find this adding kindling on a fire. This forum is a political forum. We have a new administration, I certainly feel it appropriate to point out something I disagree with. Perhaps you could offer a  counter-argument; to my view.  or point out what part of my comment you find is propaganda.
            
            That would be expected. But to call this thread propaganda --- that is ridiculous.  Biden is in my view fair game, especially in regard to his EO's.  I  agree much of what I have posted on this Political forum in regard to Biden is negative.  I  find nothing positive about any of his policies thus far.   
            
            I tell it as I see it. And intend to continue to present my views here on Hp's.
            
            I assume the Moderator will make me aware if my threads are inappropriate.

            replyreport
            1. 76

               Valeantposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               Again, I love how your original post leaves out one critical element - the negative side of allowing mining in a place like the Grand Canyon. 
               
               The Grand Canyon has been protected since 2012, when then-Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar issued a 20-year moratorium on new mining claims. The moratorium did not affect permits for existing mines in the region, which includes 1 million acres outside the park boundaries but still within the Grand Canyon watershed.
               
               Supporters of the bill fear that new uranium mining in the region would contaminate the Grand Canyon or seeps and natural water springs in the area, in part because of the unusual geology of the region. 
               
               “Because of this highly complex, highly fractured geology in the region to the north and to the south of the Grand Canyon… the idea of mining uranium is really risky,” said Amber Reimondo, energy director for the Grand Canyon Trust. “You’re cutting through a lot of … layers and a lot of aquifers.”
               
               “The Havasupai Tribe has opposed a nearby uranium mine, the Pinyon Plain Mine (formerly Canyon Mine), for years,” Havasupai Tribal Chairwoman Evangeline Kissoon said in a prepared statement released by Grijalva’s office.
               
               “The contamination from the mine has caused millions of gallons of precious water to be rendered unusable and wasted, and the mine has potential to contaminate the Redwall-Muav aquifer,” her statement said.
               
               Not only does uranium mining pollute water, it also removes water from naturally occurring seeps or springs which species depend on for survival. Removing water sources for plants and animals is devastating, and has long-term impacts on the entire environment. Moreover, not only does uranium mining affect local plants and animals, but scientists are also concerned for the toxicity levels in the Colorado River, which supplies water for seven states.
               
               Did we learn nothing from Flint, Michigan that water is kind of an important resource?  Or do you not care at all about the tribes this could affect and the environmental damage this kind of mining clearly causes?
               
               Your argument only examined one side, while completely neglecting the damage and risks it poses.  It could have used a more thorough look before damning the Democrats and Biden, that's for sure.
               
               Your willingness to overlook the crisis it would cause to actual humans who live in the area is another example of the dangers of the policies you promote here.

               replyreport
               1. 83

                  Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  The Grand Canyon is protected ---- The bill, S-3127 “The Grand Canyon Centennial Protection Act,” permanently ban new mining claims on about 1 million acres of national forest and other public lands surrounding Grand Canyon National Park
                  
                  The president hoped you would only see this -- "According to his EO, Securing America’s Critical Supply Chains, "Critical minerals are an essential part of the defense, high-tech and other products. From rare-earth in our electric motors and generators to the carbon fiber used for airplanes – the United States needs to ensure we are not dependent upon foreign sources or single points of failure in times of national emergency."
                  
                  Sound great but then one only needs to see what Biden did days before he signed that glowing EO...  There was this. "Smoke and Mirrors     ---   However, just ONE DAY before  Biden released his EO, he issued a Statement of Administration Policy in support of a sweeping package of Democrat-led bills that would drastically, harmfully, and permanently BAN MINERAL development on over three million acres of America's land. What was slipped into this bill --- It would withdraw nearly 1 million acres around the Grand Canyon in Arizona from future uranium mining claims,  which protection has been long sought by environmental groups."
                  
                  This land in Arizona happens to be one of the largest tracts of uranium deposits in the country. Mining is an integral part of local economies in the West, and the Arizona mining industry creates thousands of jobs that contribute greatly to the local and national economy. The wealth of our nation’s domestic uranium and other critical mineral deposits is essential to our national security.
                  
                  Biden snaked around to fool the people. A discussing move.
                  
                  WE have some of the strictest regulations in the world on mining minerals. We actually mine a very small percent of minerals here in America. What Biden was seeking to do is kiss the asses of the left. It cost jobs. And he could care less about that.
                  
                  Nowhere in President Biden’s statement of support were critical minerals mentioned. He made no recognition of the security concerns surrounding the supply of this critical mineral, nor any reference to the many statements in his order to supposedly create more resilient and secure supply chains. His hypocrisy here would be laughable if it weren’t so dangerous to the Nation.

                  replyreport
                  1. 76

                     Valeantposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                     Way to completely ignore all the environmental dangers, just like the majority of the right does.  You can't even acknowledge the harm that mining has already done, let alone the risks to the water supply that expanding that would cause. You're in complete denial just to spew your hatred towards Biden.
                     
                     But another nice job of Trumping a post by repeating the same things you've already written while denying actual dangers that have already been shown to have occurred.
                     
                     https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion … 087095001/

                     replyreport
                     1. 83

                        Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this

                        Not sure if you got the context of the thread. It was about Joe's propensity to lightly do away with jobs. As well as being sneaky... LOL
                        
                        As I said we have very stringent regulations for mining minerals. As well as pointing out the Grand Canyon is well protected.
                        
                        You're blanketing the problem of pollution without weighing or looking at the problem as to what are the best solutions.  We buy I believe it about 92% of minerals from other nations. Some of the very nations that are in the Pair Climate accord., and not keeping their word to reduce emissions.
                        
                        Natural uranium is critical in the production of electricity through nuclear power. --- Uranium is a proven power source that affordably provides large amounts of primarily domestic energy WITHOUT  atmospheric emissions, nuclear energy is a logical choice for a nation that is struggling to reconcile its energy policy with its economic, environmental, and security objectives.  Like other large power generators, nuclear power plants need fuel. In the U.S., that fuel is uranium. As nuclear power expands, it will be critical that uranium resources are accessible when mining can be done in a safe and economical way.
                        
                        I feel it is very important we mine uranium under good regulations. Please don't blanket my opinion into all areas of mining. I am against coal mining. Blanketing is a very simple way to dispute an opinion, but it does not do a subject justice.

                        replyreport
                        1. 76

                           Valeantposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                           I understand the thread perfectly.  You want to attack Biden, again, while ignoring his goals to combat climate change as you blindly ignore the negative effects mining has on critical water sources.
                           
                           We get most of our uranium supply from Canada and Australia.  Hardly two major polluters as you tried to imply.  And not exactly threats to our security.
                           
                           And the Trump Administration's EPA was willing to give up the rights to determine the regulations, deferring to the companies doing the mining.  It's not blanketing to note what uranium mining does to water sources.  It's fact.
                           
                           https://www.nrdcactionfund.org/trumps-e … ing-water/

                           replyreport
                           1. 83

                              Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this

                              I am not attacking anyone. Just putting out an opinion. Yes, it opposes yours in regard to your thoughts on climate control. My position is that we could rely on stringent regulations to ensure we protect the land we would choose to mine on. AS I said I am aware of the fat we import 90 percent of our needed minerals. And it is a well-known fact Canada, and Australia has stringent mining regulations. Not sure why you don't see an analogy to that point. We could be using the same stringent regulations while becoming less dependent on other nations for fuel. And keeping good jobs in America.
                              
                              I am at this point not relying on Trump's thoughts regulations. We have a new president, and he certainly could initiate good climate-safe regulations. Instead, we stagnate, he blankets a solution that makes little sense to me.
                              
                              I see where you're coming from. I see it as a common-sense stance. But consider, perhaps my view makes sense too, just in another respect.
                              
                              We are a nation of people that invent, that provide solutions. Could we not seek solutions, and regulations to mine minerals safely as many other countries have accomplished? Good article...Lot's of viable points. I appreciate your opinion on this subject. Refreshing
                              
                              .

                              replyreport
3. 0

   erikmamaposted 4 years ago

   You have a very biased opinion not based on any fact. I wish these posts did not show on my page.

   replyreport
   1. 83

      Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I certainly have an opinion, and the right to offer it on a Hp political forum. It's biased in your view due to not agreeing with your own opinion on the subject.
      
      I certainly added facts that brought me to my opinion. Perhaps you just don't accept the facts I presented. However, that does not work to make them less true IMO.
      
      I have no idea what you refer to when you state my thread showed up on your page?

      replyreport