Can the voting US public really make a difference to foreign policy with the UAE\Saudi Arabia?
There's a grey area that's worthy of discussion, but we the voting public and as voters for democratically elected governments have cracked the shits with governments and international businesses for much less than what Saudi Arabia have done as a hostile, extremist sovereign third party has achieved. The only difference with Saudia Arabia is the ridiculous amount of financial influence they hold and this blurs borders on the cost/value of morality.
Most companies are beholden to their share holders to make a profit, but at which point do write a line in the sand and say, we no longer allow money to grey the lines on what we consider morale and immoral?
Also consider the US voting public are losing their shit about a wall at time of writing. That's a fairly black and white concern when you consider the implications and rather obvious cost benefit (slim to none). The border wall is potentially the biggest white elephant that's gone to US policy in recent times. It's not going to work. And it's going to be incredibly expensive if it is built. Yet... a strong portion of the public still want it built. And it will be at the expense of schools, public health, infrastructure, disaster relief.
Now consider.... you think the US voting public have the collective nous to make an international impact on US foreign policy with an extremist, wealthy 'ally' like UAE\Saudi Arabia? Sincerely?
I don't have the same faith in the public hive mind as you. But... I don't have another option that can help besides publicly discussing the point as we are. For all the benefits of how much better life is for those living right now vs prior generations. We do an exceptional job at shitting in our own beds over and over again.
Edit: structure and a few words.
A more effective and simple solution is mandatory eVerify. What is the cost of illegal immigration? For example there's no study on the cost of deportations. There's about ~180k people deported annually? https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/05/crossing-attempts-at-us-sout...
The expense of schools has to do with the ever ballooning amount of administers, not teachers. Spending on admin increased and decreased for teachers. As of 2016 more than half of those involved in education are not teachers. Furthermore few countries outspend the US per pupil. In several states education is paid for via bonds and not out of the general fund. The country doesn't have a tax collection problem, it's got a spending problem. As long as people can vote to spend other peoples money, they will.
Yes, money buys influence. But that only goes so far in the face of widespread hostility. The "they took money from XXX" negative argument does really work if everyone hates XXX.
You are drinking up propaganda if you believe this to be true in the slightest. The US extremely rarely has a balanced budget and there is always room for politicians to take on more debt for their projects.
The entire position of AOC at this point is to give up the facade of government brining in revenue to pay for any proposals. All questions about payment are answered with whataboutism pointing at a different unfunded liability.
Neither party cares about balanced budgets. The wall, tax cuts, the green new deal, whatever do not take away funding from other programs because the federal government no longer fundamentally operates that way.
Funding is only cut for political gamesmanship at this point.