Planned Parenthood: Monster or Savior?


Staff Writer

Recently, cries to defund Planned Parenthood (PP) have emerged. It’s been depicted as a monstrous organization, lurking in the shadows of immorality, lying in wait for the arrival of pregnant woman to have their unborn children dismembered and sold.

The misinformation and witch hunt needs to come to an end. There is a lack of knowledge about PP by the general public due to its skewed representation in mass media.

Conservatives and conservative media have been creating a smear campaign against Planned Parenthood as a political tactic.

Republican candidate Jeb Bush was quoted saying “…the next president should defund Planned Parenthood” and “…I’m not sure we need half a billion dollars for women’s health issues…” Despite ongoing debates over women’s rights to autonomy over their own bodies and the morality of abortion, Planned Parenthood is not just a woman’s issue, and should be viewed in the correct context.

So what exactly is Planned Parenthood, and why is it so essential? In essence, it is a non-profit, government-funded health care provider.

Despite what has been portrayed, the sole purpose of Planned Parenthood is surprisingly not abortions. In addition, PP provides STI and STD testing, contraceptives, cancer screenings and the list goes on.

These procedures are not gender based. Women and men alike use these services. To defund Planned Parenthood is to raise the costs of all of these services, affecting millions of people and families whose only option to get proper medical care is through PP.

While some people’s disapproval of abortion sways them to a negative opinion of Planned Parenthood and its government funding, things are not as black and white as they appear.

If the goal is to lessen the number of abortions, everyone should be a PP supporter. A huge portion of what they do is provide sexual health information and easily accessible forms of birth control.

Common sense dictates that being informed, plus contraceptives, equals less unwanted pregnancies. Furthermore, by law, abortions cannot be funded by the government, which means that not one drop of tax payer money goes towards them, and instead are privately funded.

This new wave of disdain for the organization came about through a secretly filmed video posted online by an anti-abortion group depicting PP officials discussing a procedure where tissue from aborted fetuses is taken and used for medical research.

The activists claimed that PP was illegally taking and selling body parts of the aborted fetuses for profit.

When the video came to light, much coverage of the situation painted Planned Parenthood as “sellers of baby parts.” This phrasing is not only inaccurate and damaging, but created purposefully to inspire fear and hate mongering.

In actuality, what is being referred to is the practice of donating the tissue to medical facilities for things like fetal development and stem cell research, which Planned Parenthood stated is only done “with full, appropriate consent from patients and under the highest ethical and legal standards.”

The only money involved in tissue donations is to cover the expense such as transportation.

Defunding Planned Parenthood is a callous idea, that disregards all the people who benefit from the health services. The decision to defund is both impulsive and irrational, stemming from people’s personal views, whereas instead we need to collectively step outside the scope of our own lives and consider another.

Dining Hall Disaster


Staff Writer Salisbury University students may have noticed a few things that have changed about The Commons Dining Hall. Some of these changes include the large TV screens at the entrance and inside The Marketplace, minor food changes and the separation of trash and utensils at the tray return.

These changes are pretty much useless and can be a hindrance to the flow of traffic in Commons. The TV screens seem like a waste of money overall as they don’t provide any real information like the day’s menu or anything about the food. They simply advertise certain food bars that are available to students.

There are so many things that money could have been better spent on, like tables that don’t wobble or trays that don’t have expletives carved into them. There have also been some changes to what food is being served. Hardboiled eggs for instance, which used to be available all day long, are now only available during the breakfast hours. This might be upsetting to the students who used them as a major source of protein.

Some of the recipes have been changed, like the chicken nuggets and some of the pasta dishes, which could be a positive or negative factor depending on the food and personal preference. The worst change of all, though, has to be the separation of trash and utensils at the tray return. As if the tray return didn’t take long enough when all you had to do was slide the tray in, now asking people to put their utensils in a separate container makes the whole seemingly simple task take so much longer.

While you would think that college students would be able to separate their trays and utensils, it’s a task that takes many students an unreasonable amount of time to complete. During the busy breakfast, lunch and dinner times, this has caused huge backups and does not seem to benefit the long lines.

In fact, many students must hate this change because they either take forever to do it, or don’t do it at all, which, in both cases slows down the tray return process substantially. Since half of the diners don’t do it, it makes the whole thing appear pointless since the point is that it’s simpler and quicker behind the scenes of Commons.

It’s so bad that some of the staff might hate it as well. After leaving Commons one day, an employee heard me and my roommates complaining about it, and urged us to fill out a complaint card because they don’t like it either.

This makes one wonder if the F.O.O.D Committee takes any of the input they receive into consideration when formulating the changes they decide to put in place.

Unfortunately, one thing that will never change about Commons is the nearly instant diarrhea it causes its patrons.

Gull Jams: Fetty Wap self-titled album review


Staff Writer

Seven months ago, New Jersey hip-hop artist Fetty Wap graced the world with “Trap Queen,” a stroke of pop genius that peaked at number two on Billboard’s top 100.

This success was followed by three other singles all leading up to his self-titled debut album, which is catchy, but suffers in most other areas.

It is important for listeners to understand that upon listening to this debut album that it is more of a trap influenced pop album then a rap album. It’s not fair for hip-hop fans to compare Wap to the likes of Kendrick Lamar or Lupe Fiasco (who have both released great albums this year).

Wap’s style and sound is much closer to artists like Future: auto-tuned, catchy bangers with little to no lyrical backing.

The first thing to note about this album is its length:  20 tracks with several topping over five minutes.

After a full listen, it is clear that Wap needs more intricate features and instrumentals to release an album that is over an hour long, because half way through listening, Fetty runs out of new things to say.

While the back of the album has some highlights, 13 to 14 solid tracks would have been perfect for it.

Wap, himself, has a ton of personality and rides his beats pretty well. With that being said, it is clear that the instrumentals were cheaply made and lack diversity.

It took me over 10 listens to fully deceive the singles “679” and “Again” because the instrumentals’ drum patterns and song structures are too similar.

Not to say some instrumentals are not satisfying. “Trap Love” has a great, pounding chorus, “I’m Straight” features the most catchy synth melody on the album and the closer “Whateva” incorporates some beautiful piano.

Wap as a rapper/singer is either a genius or a failure, depending on who you talk to. He is often hard to understand at times (like on the tracks “Time” and “I Wonder”) and as described earlier, Wap’s topics run thin quickly.

He talks about his crew the Remy Boys, his girl the Trap Queen, his haters and his money. On top of that, hearing him say “1738,” “YEAH BABY” and “SQUA” gets old really fast.

At the same time, though, Wap has several strengths. His flow on most of the tracks is passable, and his penmanship for catchy hooks is almost at the same level as Drake.

While Wap’s voice is drowned in auto tune on several tracks, he does come through with energy and style which separates him from the likes of Rae Sremmurd and Young Thug.

Also, not having featuring artists besides fellow Remy Boy Monty is a blessing and a curse, because his personality only carries the album so far yet it shows that he has the confidence to release a debut without any stars attached to it.

Wap is a person in hip-hop that is always needed; a rapper with catchy singles that can be played at any club or party. He most certainly succeeds in this, but this doesn’t make his debut an artistic success.

The album could have been much more enjoyable, with a less bloated track listing and a more diverse production. If you’re a fan of his first four singles, then give this album a listen because it is more of the same.

If you hated them, then steer clear of Wap. While the album is fun and silly, the cons slightly outweigh the pros on this one.

The Flyer gives Fetty Wap’s self-titled album a 4/10.

Republicans Polarizing 

By Kobi Azoulay

   The Republican party is dividing, and House Speaker John Boehner’s announcement that he will be resigning from Congress at the end of October is a sign of how deeply divided it is.

   In recent months, Boehner has been critical of his Republican colleagues who try to push their agenda with no chance for success.

   “The Bible says beware of false prophets,” Boehner said. “There are people out there, you know, spreading noise about how much can get done. I mean this whole notion that we’re going to shut down the government to get rid of Obamacare in 2013—this plan never had a chance.”

   Despite this, Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz was one of the most vocal congressmen urging a government shutdown in 2013, and this year he tried to again.

   “Now is the time for Congress to act and actually end taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood,” Cruz said.

   As recently as last week, he planned on openly defying his party’s leadership to do everything he could in order to get Planned Parenthood defunded, even if it meant shutting down the government.

   When the Speaker of the House cannot lead his party’s decision making, it reveals the inner turmoil within the party.

   A Quinnipiac poll on shutting down the government over Planned Parenthood funding revealed a divide in the Republican Party, as well. While 56 percent of Republicans opposed the idea, more than a third supported it at 36 percent.

   At first glance, this may seem like a simple difference of opinion. Disagreement is common, even necessary, within political parties. It’s the strongly-worded statements that Republican politicians are using against each other that give the poll more meaning.

   Republican Congressman Peter King said that Boehner’s resignation as some Republicans were attempting to shut down the government was proof that “the crazies have taken over the party.”

   When Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio announced news of Boehner’s resignation at the Values Voter Summit, he was met by a standing ovation.

   You know there is a problem when conservatives get ecstatic over the resignation of the guy who helped cut federal spending projections over the next 10 years by $5 trillion.

   It is obvious that some bad blood is forming among Republicans; they are treating each other the same way they would typically be treating Democrats.

   The divide extends into the Republican Primary.

   Donald Trump, Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina are at the top of an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, garnering a combined 52 percent support. None of the three have held political office and all of them are gaining support from the side of the party that’s getting tired of career politicians, like John Boehner.

   They don’t want to work with Democrats, or even the Republicans who know that compromise is necessary. They want to do everything they can to get their ideas enacted into law no matter the cost.

   That kind of heavy-handedness is the party’s biggest weakness right now.

   In order to further their agenda, Republicans need to work together. They don’t have to have the same opinions, but coordinating their direction is necessary to keep the party organized and together. This civil war within the party only makes them look bad.

   Patty Miller, President of Salisbury’s College Republicans club, agrees that Ted Cruz’s strategy is a bad idea for the party.

   “I don’t think that’s the action that leaders should take,” Miller said. “You have to take in other opinions and compromise.”

   Even though Miller acknowledges that the divide appears to be growing because of far-right hate towards John Boehner and towards Washington in general, she thinks that it’s mostly driven by the media.

   “The media is really trying to pull out the controversial things that they’re saying,” Miller said.

   It’s true that the media tends to play up stories, but that doesn’t change the things that politicians say and do. John Boehner is still resigning due to his differences with the right-wing of the party and Ted Cruz is still trying to build up support for a government shutdown over Planned Parenthood funding.

  Miller does concede that, “With the elections coming up people tend to become nastier.”

   Combine the disagreement among Republicans in Congress with the anti-Washington movement in the 2016 election and you have a Republican Party that appears to be dividing.

   Only time will tell just how deep it will go.

Don’t judge a movie by its review

By Kris Price

Staff Writer

There seems to be a trend lately in people, and even critics, formulating opinions about movies before they even see them. We have seen this a lot this year.

“Pixels” was almost immediately panned solely because of Adam Sandler and his brand of humor. Fantastic Four was being shot down months before it even came out, with people criticizing the casting and directing decisions, and then, similar to Pixels, universally shunned the movie when it came out.

A similar phenomenon is also happening with the upcoming Roland Emmerich film “Stonewall,” based on the Stonewall Inn riots of June 1969, which were a watershed moment in LGBT history.

People across the internet have criticized the movie based on the released two minute trailer, asserting that it does not accurately represent the LGBT community or the people present at the events of the Stonewall riots (ie. supposedly replacing the role of a black transgender woman with a white gay man).

There are also people grumbling about how “Batman v. Superman” looks ‘too dark’ based on the trailer.

I myself am guilty of partaking in this sort of crowd behavior at times.

This past summer I based most of my movie choices on what was getting the best reviews. That means I did not see “Terminator,” “Fantastic Four” or “Pixels,” as the online reviews for them ranged from mixed to bad.

Does that mean the movies themselves were bad? Not really.

What it means is that the people who reviewed the movies thought they were bad, or based their opinions on others who thought they were bad. This is that same crowd behavior I mentioned, but the thing is critics are susceptible to it as well.

The algorithms that websites like Meta-Critic or Rotten Tomatoes use to calculate the review score of a movie are not flawless either. On Meta-Critic, some reviewers’ opinions count more when calculating a review score than others. What this means is that if one critic whose reviews for whatever reason have a greater weight in a review score calculation than another, hates a movie for what may seem to most people to be a pretty silly reason, then the movie will receive a bad score on Meta-Critic, and people, based on that score, will not see it, continuing the cycle.

With that being said, many complaints people have made about these movies, or movies that are coming up, have legitimate points. People were very turned off by the tone of “Man of Steel,” so it is easy to see why people would not like to see that in its sequel, “Batman v. Superman.”

“Pixels” and Adam Sandler, well that speaks for itself.

But what is the most bothersome is the almost universal panning these movies (“F4,” “Pixels”) almost immediately received.

It seems like people are forgetting how to form individual opinions about things. It is understandable to an extent. You don’t want to waste several hours of your life seeing a bad movie. But not everyone has the same taste in movies.

What would happen if romantic comedies were reviewed by people who primarily enjoyed action movies, or vice versa? You would get skewed reviews that did not really tell you if the movie was good or not.

So when a new movie comes out, try to avoid reviews altogether, and just see it with your friends to enjoy it, and form your own opinion about it.

Surviving Salisbury Introduction

By IMO (In My Opinion)

Hello All! My name is Imo, and from now on I will be right here guiding you through this crazy little thing called college.

Sometimes life is a little rough and you may not know what to do or how to handle a situation. Now you can send me an email and I’ll hash it out for you weekly right here in the Flyer pages or on our online website.

Don’t know what to ask? I am personally knowledgeable in many life matters and will always consult an expert or two if something is beyond my reach. We can talk about anything except drugs because those are illegal.

Why should you trust me? I have been keeping secrets since the 3rd grade and will keep your confidence just the same. Feel free to stay anonymous if that makes you feel more comfortable.

Since I do not have any letters to answer today, let’s start the semester off with some organizational tips. If you guys are like me, you will try to start the semester organized but then life will get in the way and everything spirals out of control. Oh well. We can at least start the semester with the illusion of trying, right?

Tip 1. Buy an agenda book. The school store sells several versions from the basic to the basic white girl (aka Vera Bradley). Different price ranges for different commitment levels to living an organized life.

Tip 2. Take all of your syllabi and transfer major due dates into the calendar feature AND on the individual days. Double reminders are always better. Bonus: Put social functions and obligations in here too. It’s good to know that you have a major paper due the weekend after homecoming so you can kid yourself into thinking you will start early.

Tip 3. Set up or plan on a designated work space. I have a desk with all necessary supplies (including coffee) at my fingertips. If you work better in the library, make yourself a study bag of everything you might need and keep it easily accessible as well as stocked.

Tip 4. Find a social media lock-out buddy. There will be times where you forget about a paper and have 48 hours (I’m being generous) to research and pull together a ten page paper. This person will lock you out of your own twitter, tumbler, and even the SU Flyer app, everything you normally consider important so you can focus. It is a necessary evil.

Tip 5. Be proactive. Start that paper, write that article, do the homework due Thursday on Tuesday night. This is so hard to do when Netflix is calling and there are so many other things you would rather be doing. Believe me, I know. If you can force yourself to do this, you are on your way to becoming a real live functioning adult humanoid.

That is all I have for today. Thank you for reading and I cannot wait to hear from you! Just shoot an email with your questions to

Innocent refugees need our help

By Kobi Azoulay

Staff Writer

A 3-year-old Syrian boy has sparked a global debate.

Aylan Kurdi, along with his mother and brother, drowned as a ferry taking them across the Mediterranean Sea capsized. Like millions of others, Aylan’s family was trying to immigrate into Europe to escape the horrors of war.

This story is waking people up to the reality of what has been happening for awhile now. There’s been a civil war going on in Syria since 2011 And the Islamic State (also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria or the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) is beheading anyone who doesn’t live by their way of life.

These refugees remind us how connected the world has become.

If not for the current international outcry to help them, their struggle would likely be ignored. For the most part it was until Aylan’s tragic story was heard. Turkey, Serbia, Bulgaria and Hungary have all built fences or walls to keep immigrants out. Hungary even went as far as saying they don’t want these immigrants because they want to “keep Europe Christian.”

That’s just morally wrong. To allow innocent people to die because of their religion seems comparable to genocide. Pope Francis has called on European Catholics to take the opposite approach.

“Facing the tragedy of tens of thousands of refugees — fleeing death by war and famine, and journeying towards the hope of life — the Gospel calls, asking of us to be close to the smallest and forsaken. To give them a concrete hope,” Francis said.

Some countries are taking this moral responsibility to heart. Vice Chancellor of Germany Sigmar Gabriel says that his country is prepared to bring in 500,000 refugees a year. Sweden has allowed about 50,000 asylum seekers so far this year, and has been outspoken in their support.

Their kindness should be an inspiration to the rest of the world, but especially for the United States. Our country was mostly founded by people trying to escape persecution in England, and many refugees are suffering the same fate today.

This pressure from Europe has led President Obama to recently announce a plan to allow at least 10,000 Syrian refugees into the country next year. Some people are surprised that number is so low. Germany is smaller than California, and yet they plan on letting 50 times more refugees into their country. Obama’s plan also begs the question: what are we going to do about all of the other refugees?

Like the ones from Eritrea, who face indefinite military service or likely imprisonment. Or the ones fleeing Afghanistan, who face violence and poor living conditions.

The Syrian refugees dominate the headlines, but we must remember that they’re only a fraction of displaced people. As the richest, most powerful country in the world, it’s the United States responsibility to help as many people who desperately need it as we can.

There is potential danger to taking in a significant amount of people though. ISIS operatives have said that they are smuggling ISIS fighters into Europe among innocent refugees. They claim to have already smuggles 4,000 fighters who are awaiting orders to attack. Whether these claims are legitimate or not, they should be taken seriously. We should allow as many refugees into America as we can, but not before they have undergone an extensive background check.

This process has proven tedious. Many people are forced to wait years before finally being resettled. More jobs must be created in order to speed this process up.

In the meantime, we should make sure these people are safe while staying in refugee camps. These camps are usually overpopulated, disease-ridden and undersupplied so our help would be extremely beneficial.

We all must remember that refugees are people too. They have been pushed into this situation through no fault of their own.

As human-beings living in a society where necessities for life are plentiful, we have an obligation to help those that don’t even have a country to call their own.

A New Era of TV

By Melody Gaus

Staff Writer

When I was a kid growing up in the 1990s and 2,000s, there were a lot of shows on television; “Friends,” “Gilmore Girls,” “Buffy the Vampire Slayer,” “The Fairly Odd Parents” and “7th Heaven.”

While these shows were fine, they were all very limited in diversity, something I feel resulted in my peers and I having little exposure to people different from me.

Fortunately, though, in the past few years cable and network television have been featuring more characters from different races, ethnicities and backgrounds, which have broadened my world view, helping me to see how people from different backgrounds live, and helping others identify with characters in ways they previously could not.

This is the era where everyone can see themselves represented on T.V.

Here are five shows that best represent this trend.

The Wire (HBO): The setting of “The Wire” is not too far from us Sea Gulls, in Baltimore.

At first the show was worked to be a police drama, creator David Simon said. However, Burns said he saw what he perceived to be potential problems with police in Baltimore, and as a result wrote what became “The Wire.”

The show tackles many themes including poverty, the drug trade and Baltimore’s school system.

“The Wire” is also known for using Baltimore locals, many of whom are African-American, in contrast to big-name stars. This results in a greater authenticity and feels less forced.

Fresh off the Boat (ABC): “Fresh Off the Boat” is one of the first comedies to have Asian-Americans as its main characters.

“Fresh Off the Boat” (or “FOTB,” for short) is based off of the experiences of a man named Eddie Huang when he was 11 years old. At the time, Huang’s father owned a steakhouse in the U.S. and expected to get rich.

The show is told from Eddie’s point of view and so negates many stereotypes about Asians, as Eddie breaks out of the role his Chinese mother expects of him. Eddie likes rap music, doesn’t want to study and doesn’t follow Chinese tradition.

The “Rotten Tomatoes” website praised “FOTB” for its humor and ability to transcend stereotypes.

Empire (FOX): “Empire” is about the African American Lyon family, who founded Empire Entertainment, a hip-hop company.

At the beginning of season one, Luscious Lyon (Terrence Howard) learns he has ALS and struggles with coming to terms with his disease.

The family struggles with many issues and dramas, as well, among their relationships with each other, so the show shouldn’t get boring.

Besides race, the show addresses diversity along the lines of disability, sexual orientation and mental illness.

I have put Empire on my list of shows to watch because of the number of people who become wrapped up in drama and completed relationships, which I prefer not to have in my real life (but keeps television interesting).

Black-ish (ABC): “Black-ish” is about Andre Johnson Sr., a well-off black man who wants to pass on his “black pride” to his children. Johnson’s kids are very indifferent to their father’s enthusiastic views, though, wanting to be treated the same as their white friends.

The show confronts many interesting and thought-provoking questions such as: What does race really mean? and is it possible for one to fit in, while holding on to their sense of pride in their ethnic identity?

Like “FOTB,” “Black-ish” uses humor to challenge racial stereotypes and prove that we’re all one and the same.

Orange Is the New Black (Netflix): Taylor Schilling plays main character Piper Chapman, a privileged white woman who is engaged to a white man similar in status.

When Chapman’s ex girlfriend, Alex, names her among a drug ring that Piper was associated with in her youth, Piper is sent to jail. There she is introduced to people she never would have thought she would interact with.

This show is unique because it is not only directed by a woman and about women, but also because the actresses come in many shapes and sizes that do not conform to the typical Hollywood model who is a size 2.

It also provides a space for people who were seldom ever represented on television or in society before, such as transgender people, to feel they have visibility. People in real life who have similar characteristics now have the ability to look at television (or the Internet, or an iPad), and say “look, that person is like me.”

Vote for and Idea, not a Man

By Samuel Stevens

Staff Writer

The ruling class has consistently propped up candidates from two parties which function much the same.

Voters are lured into a false dialectic of Democrat and Republican. With the Bush and most of the Obama administration behind us, we can make some comparisons.

Both started foreign interventions with no clear goal, resulting in a number of unintended consequences. Both consistently propped up banks and the ‘one percent’ while doing little to address the off shoring of American labor.

There are some differences of course.

The current administration took a departure from a decade of neoconservative foreign policy by trying to reach out to Iran, to the ire of Israel. Only time will tell us if this is in the strategic interests of the nation.

The country is in the last 500 days of the current administration and the Presidential primaries are heating up.

Two candidates, real-estate mogul Donald Trump and Sen. Bernie Sanders, an unabashed Socialist, are shaking up what would be an otherwise bland, substance-free election between the arms of the false dialectic.

What we need to do as young, informed voters is examine the outsider candidates on two levels. I discount the mainstream, moderate candidates because America and the world require radical solutions rather than a continuation of the same neoconservative, welfare-warfare state that has defined the U.S. for the better part of two decades.

First, we need to look at what the candidates themselves say. I have little faith that either Trump or Sanders would be able to change the country much, given the power of the bureaucracy and interest groups.

Either could come up with short-term changes, perhaps, if they followed through on any of their promises.

More importantly though, is what do Trump and Sanders represent?

Both appear to oppose the establishment. Sanders represents earnest Progressivism, whereas Trump acts as the ‘right wing’ candidate (it would require another article entirely to explain why Trump is not very far right nationalist/paleoconservative at all, but I digress).

Your vote does not amount to much in the short term, but it does shift the public dialogue.

Both candidates strike a chord with different segments of the country. Trump and Sanders should not be thought of the solution to the country’s problems.

They need to be examined metapolitically. Which vision should we go to the polls to vote for? Sanders’ economic populism and antagonism to free trade is appealing, but his otherwise Marxist rhetoric is trite.

Trump, too, opposes globalization and his business acumen is impressive. However, his views have hardly remained consistent; Trump is a capitalist and likely sees the American conservative movement as a market that wants a product (his rhetoric) he is all too happy provide.

As stated before though, this election is not about the candidate. It is about what the candidates represent.

We are the future of the country and must decide which direction it takes.

We can pick one of the conventional candidates and slip deeper into the welfare-warfare state. We can select Sanders and embrace a multicultural, Socialist outlook. We can select Trump and adopt a quasi-nationalist, economically populist vision.

Remember that when you go to the polls, either during the primaries or next November, you are not voting for a person who will solve all of America’s problems.

On the contrary, even the outsider candidates are not perfect. Voting for a politician is merely a high percent solution, not an answer.

Want free college? Vote for Sanders

By Kobi Azoulay

Staff Writer

Remember when everyone wanted to grow up? With all the free time in the world, we dreamed of the day when we could ride the adult rides, stay out past curfew, drive ourselves around and be just like our parents.

Fast forward to today and we all want to take that wish back. We reminisce about the days when we did not have to worry about going into debt in order to pay for a college education that we need to find a well-paying job.

We do not need a time machine to solve this problem.

One presidential candidate is demanding we change this process. He wants everyone, regardless of how much money they have, to be able to get a college education without taking on an enormous amount of debt.

That man is Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VM).

To some people, his idea seems impossible. How could we possibly afford to pay for every qualified American to receive a college education?

Our country is already trillions of dollars in debt, where is the money going to come from?

Sanders has a very straightforward answer to this question: let’s tax Wall Street.

The idea of raising taxes seems to scare people. Many people would be turned off to this idea before even learning the details.

Once you hear the details though, this idea seems like a no-brainer.

His proposed “Robin Hood Tax” would only tax trading stocks by 0.5 percent, bonds by 0.1 percent and derivatives by 0.005 percent.

Right now, the millionaires that work on Wall Street pay absolutely no money in taxes to make their fortune, while middle class Americans pay more than 25 percent taxes on their income.

This small tax could have huge benefits. Congress’s Joint Tax Committee estimates it could raise $352 billion dollars over a 10 year period. Total tuition at all public colleges and universities is about $70 billion a year, so this tax would raise more than enough money.

The benefits of this plan would be monumental. People would not have to gamble taking on debt in hopes of getting a good job. Everyone would have the same opportunity to go to college, regardless of how much money they have.

We would have a smarter country, making us more competitive with the rest of the world.

Germany, France and Sweden are also just a few well-known countries that already offer tuition-free college. If they can do it, why can’t the United States?

Instead of saving up for tuition or paying back student loan debt, people could be putting their money back into the economy. This would be a win-win for American citizens, as well as the American economy.

The only real losers are the speculators on Wall Street, but how much are they really losing? If these taxes of less than one percent can make $352 billion dollars in 10 years, can you imagine how much the speculators are still making?

They will do anything to keep getting richer. Sanders talks about how they hire lobbyists to convince politicians not to raise their taxes. They donate millions of dollars to candidates that will allow them to keep getting richer.

Sanders is opening people’s eyes.

The money for free college, and even healthcare exists, it is the small fraction of greedy people in this country that are keeping it from us.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.