It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Native Americans to Receive Recovery Act Funds.

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 01:39 PM
This one is a hard one for me to put my head around. On one hand I am happy to see that Native Americans are able to get some help from the federal government after all that we have done to them as a country. However, the other side of me has to take issue with taxpayer money being given to people who by constitutional law are not generally taxed. (No taxation without representation) So I had to do some research to find out the truth to the matter.

Do Indian people pay taxes?

Individual American Indians and Alaska Natives and their businesses pay federal income tax just like every other American. The one exception is when an Indian person receives income directly from a treaty or trust resource such as fish or timber, that income it not federally taxed. States also cannot tax tribal members who live and derive their income on tribal lands.

$90 Million in Recovery Act Funds to Bolster Water Services in Indian Country and Create Jobs

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Service’s (HHS) Indian Health Service (IHS) today announced $90 million in funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 for improved access to vital drinking water and wastewater services in the American Indian and Alaska Native communities. The funds will be invested in ‘shovel ready’ infrastructure projects designed to better protect human and environmental health in Indian Country and to create jobs.

Not to be crass, but aren't Native American tribal lands considered sovereign nations and as such should the stimulus plan (our tax money) be used to create jobs in foreign countries?

$8 Million In Financial Assistance Awards For Native Communities
Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Washington, DC - As part of an effort to highlight the local impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act) investments, Treasury's Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) Fund Director Donna J. Gambrell will travel to Kyle, South Dakota to announce $8 million in financial assistance awards for Native CDFIs committed to serving economically distressed Native American, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian Communities across the nation.

So there you have it, federal "recovery" money being given to people that aren't generally taxed. Is this right for the government to do? Is it our obligation to provide what is pretty much reparations for the crimes this nation committed against these nations?

posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 01:42 PM
Edit: Did I say that outloud?

[edit on 13-8-2009 by Tank2/8]

posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 02:02 PM
reply to post by Tank2/8

Thanks man, that wasn't helpful.

The question, Raymond, is... Is it right for our government to use our taxpayer money to fund native American tribes?

posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 02:09 PM
In principle I agree about not sending our tax money to non-tax payers or foreign land, BUT

Native Americans are an entirely different case than illegal immigrants or other nations. We removed them from fertile and sacred lands, and put them in the worst possible environments! It is almost impossible to survive on the areas that they are left with, and when any resource suddenly presents itself, we take it. Water and Minerals are two prime examples of resources that were seized after becoming important on Reservation land.

The conditions are deplorable. Unemployment is 70% and above. Schools are non-existent.

I would gladly pay double my current taxes to fix the situation on the Indian Reservations! Instead I have to pay my taxes to bankers and special interests!

posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 02:11 PM

What an interesting topic.

My heartstrings get plucked because I am somewhat familiar with the plight of a people that The United States government systematically herded up, marched to camps and forgot about. Should they get some sort of reparations? Maybe so. I'm headed down to Oklahoma this weekend to plop some quarters in the machines of a few of the tribes. (I'm 25% Comanche, but we all get along just fine now)

It seems to me, that though they have their own 'soverignty' they still have to abide by some federal laws.

According to the American Indian Policy Center

American Indian Tribes Possess a "Nation-within-a-Nation" Status

The U.S. Constitution recognizes Indian tribes as distinct governments. It authorizes Congress to regulate commerce with "foreign nations, among the several state, and with the Indian tribes.

While the U.S. government recognizes American Indian Tribes as sovereign nations, the U.S. congress is recognized by the courts as having the right to limit the sovereign powers of tribes. However, Congress must do so in definite terms and not by implication.
What Does This Mean?
- Tribes remain sovereign nations and possess self-government.
- Tribes have a nation-to-nation relationship with the U.S. federal government.
- Only Congres has plenary (overriding) power over Indian affairs.
- State governance is generally not permitted within reservations.

So....this is very interesting to me. Indian nations ARE sovereign, to an extent, Congress maintains the 'power' over 'Indian Affairs.'

So if you ask me, they ( the Federal Government) made some crap up. Claiming that Indian Nations are Sovereign, but retaining power over them. Not real sure how that works, but when you starve a people and herd them into camps, I suppose they get a little more compliant.

I say give them some money. The only reason the Feds 'call' them 'sovereign' is to placate them. It reminds me of locking a teenager in his bedroom for a few years. Dark days back there indeed and the Native Americans are STILL paying for it.

posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 02:11 PM
i can't even get my head around the term "native americans".that term should include everyone born in america. then there should also be
"indigenous" americans. to be" politicaly " correct imo.

posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 02:21 PM
I think it's about time. We give assistance to many foreign countries yet we neglect those at home. Watch this video in order to get just a glimps of what's going on.

posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 02:31 PM

Exactly this is why this issue is hard for me to be for or against. It is after all going to people that we as a country # on quite badly.

But, does this amount to reparations? Are we the taxpayer responsible for the welfare of indigenous peoples? Or does the nation within a nation status mean that we should stand back and let these nations provide for themselves?


So does this amount to wasteful spending? Does it amount to reparations? Is this just what is needed to be done to help people that we as a nation long ago nearly wiped out?

Does this encroach on their sovereignty? Or is it necessary?


# being politically correct.

posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 03:15 PM
Unless we're prepared to spend billions of dollars on social programs to end institutionalized oppression and genuinely right our wrongs, we're going to keep paying reparations.

What we won't do is attempt genocide, fail, take their resources, stick them in camps, and then tell them "okay guys, this capitalism...sink or swim!"

I mean, we might do that in other countries, but certainly not within our own borders.

[edit on 13-8-2009 by theWCH]

posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 12:18 AM
reply to post by theWCH

What we won't do is attempt genocide, fail, take their resources, stick them in camps, and then tell them "okay guys, this capitalism...sink or swim!"


That's the word your missing there.

But if they are to be sovereign nations isn't it wrong for us to give them tax money? Doesn't that make Native Americans more dependent on a government that has all but destroyed their culture?

new topics

top topics


log in