Student Loan Forgiveness?
A Brain is a Terrible Thing to Waste?
Have you been to your local colleges lately? I recommend you take a visit even if you don't have young ones planning to go there. Even if you are young and you're not planning to go there. Just go look around and tell everyone what you really saw there. Did you see happy college students with their noses in books or engaged in great sport activities? Or did you see abandoned halls and dorms and classrooms that could house plenty of homeless people? You go look and I'll wait for you to tell me. I know what I saw with my own eyes.
As for my student loan debt, I want to discuss it now. I keep seeing articles online about Biden and Student Loan forgiveness. I've been keeping my eye on that because my student loan is the biggest debt I owe. In 2001 upon my graduation from USF, the loan from Stafford was less than $40,000. That's what it cost me to go to USF for almost three years. I did not live in a dorm. I had a cheap apartment and my own car. I was no richer than any other poor struggling college student, except for the ones who had high paying jobs or rich parents to call for anything.
Stafford (a Federal student loan company) sold my loan to Mohela, another agency. Not sure what year that happened, but today in 2023 my debt for going to USF (my Bachelor's degree is up to $60,000.) They can't garnish from me or harass me because I'm on Social Security income. That helps. I had asked back in 2013 if I could get "forgiven" the debt the way my friend Nick had been forgiven due to his disability. However, the doctor I had at the time would not sign the application form, stating that she thought my mental illness was not the sort that would prevent me from teaching. I was disappointed, yet appreciative that my Social Security money could not be tampered with through garnishing. Garnishing only happens with earned wages.
Much talk is occurring under Biden about Student Loan forgiveness and any of us who still have a loan for college education may be raising our eyebrows with hope. Really? Is it possible? It should be. They bail out corporate losers all the time. They bail out white collar efups all the time. Why can't they help good people who took the right track and got slammed by insane educational price tags? Isn't a mind a terrible thing to waste?
I can understand telling a college grad that "we can't forgive your loan because you earn enough to pay it back with that great career you have." But telling the rest of us who never got to live that dream career or success story, that we owe for a degree that did not prove any financial success, is absolutely awful. I EARNED my degree. I didn't pay my debt for the student loan. But I EARNED my degree. I followed all the rules. I took and passed all the required courses. In fact, I had to take more classes that were forced upon me and my time than any electives that I would have chosen for myself. I have to pay to take the classes you forced on me? I shouldn't have to pay if I passed the course.
Yes, we should be forgiven that debt. At least in my case I say absolutely. I mean, the lawyers wouldn't even allow me to claim bankruptcy on that loan because they said it was backed by the government. Ok, then. So the loan just sits there getting higher and higher. It was the government who made that commercial - "A Mind is a Terrible Thing to Waste." Yeah, it sure is, and My Life is a terrible thing to waste also. My credit score is a terrible thing to waste, also. So PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, spare me anymore hogwash and FORGIVE THE LOAN already. I EARNED MY COLLEGE DEGREE.
About the Creator
Shanon Angermeyer Norman
Gold, Published Poet at allpoetry.com since 2010. USF Grad, Class 2001.
Currently focusing here in VIVA and Challenges having been ECLECTIC in various communities. Upcoming explorations: ART, BOOK CLUB, FILTHY, PHOTOGRAPHY, and HORROR.
Keep reading
More stories from Shanon Angermeyer Norman and writers in The Swamp and other communities.
Teacher Lesson Plan 2: Creativity and Evolution
Reading books and watching documentaries is the typical and classical approach to education in regular school houses or institutions; However, some of the Montessori philosophies and principles can be applied to Secondary Education levels without too much disruption to the "normal" sit down and don't cause chaos idea. Regardless if you are in a classroom with children or pre-teens, or if you're trying to see if Geometry can compete with Instagram or some teenager's raging hormones, you should remember this: Students love learning and enjoy learning when it is FUN. Some of the smartest students in the classroom may not participate or engage in lessons because they either already know the information or it simply doesn't challenge them enough to be interesting or worthy of their attention. FUN defies those factors. When a lesson or activity is FUN, the students don't mind if they already know, and they forget they weren't interested because FUN made it interesting. Not all teachers are FUN. As a matter of fact, most of the teachers I had the pleasure of learning from had a serious lack of humor. I think before I graduated, most of the teachers I learned from had to take a class in "How Not to Be Fun" and they all aced it.
By Shanon Angermeyer NormanExclusive • 3 months ago
First Person Charged Under New Crossing Law: A Turning Point in Border Enforcement
The charging of the first individual under the newly introduced crossing law marks a significant moment in the government’s approach to border control and irregular migration. Designed to deter unauthorized crossings and strengthen enforcement, the new legislation represents a sharper legal response to a problem that has long dominated political debate, public concern, and humanitarian discourse. While officials describe the charge as a necessary step toward restoring control, critics warn it may signal deeper legal and moral challenges ahead. Understanding the New Crossing Law The new crossing law was introduced to address the growing number of people attempting to enter the country through irregular routes, particularly via dangerous sea crossings and unauthorized land entry. Under the legislation, individuals who knowingly enter the country without permission or assist others in doing so can face criminal charges, fines, or imprisonment. Supporters of the law argue that it closes loopholes in previous immigration frameworks that allowed repeat crossings with limited legal consequences. The government insists the law targets organized smuggling networks and discourages perilous journeys that have resulted in injuries, fatalities, and large-scale rescue operations. However, the wording of the law has raised questions about how broadly it can be applied—and who ultimately bears its consequences. The First Charge: What We Know So Far Authorities confirmed that the first person charged under the new crossing law was detained shortly after entering the country through an unauthorized route. Officials allege the individual knowingly violated immigration rules under the provisions set out in the legislation. Details of the case remain limited, but early reports suggest it will serve as a test case for how courts interpret the law. Legal experts expect the proceedings to set important precedents regarding intent, vulnerability, and the distinction between asylum seekers and deliberate lawbreakers. For the government, the charge demonstrates that the law is operational and enforceable. For critics, it raises concerns about whether the legislation risks criminalizing people fleeing war, persecution, or economic collapse. Political Significance and Government Messaging Politically, the timing of the charge is significant. Immigration remains one of the most divisive issues in modern politics, and the government has faced mounting pressure to show tangible action. Officials have framed the charge as evidence that enforcement mechanisms are finally matching political promises. Statements from senior ministers emphasize deterrence, claiming that visible consequences will discourage future unauthorized crossings and reduce pressure on border infrastructure. The government also maintains that safe and legal routes remain available for those genuinely in need of protection. Yet opposition figures argue that symbolism is driving policy, warning that headline-grabbing charges may do little to address the root causes of irregular migration. Human Rights and Legal Concerns Human rights organizations have reacted with alarm to the first charge. Advocacy groups argue that asylum seekers often have no choice but to use irregular routes due to limited legal entry options. Criminalizing their arrival, they say, risks violating international refugee protections. Legal analysts also point out potential conflicts with existing asylum laws, which protect the right to seek refuge regardless of the method of entry. The case may prompt judicial scrutiny over whether the new crossing law aligns with international obligations. There is also concern about selective enforcement. If the law is applied unevenly, critics fear it could disproportionately affect the most vulnerable while leaving organized criminal networks untouched. Public Reaction: Divided Opinions Public response to the charge has been sharply divided. Some citizens welcome stricter enforcement, arguing that border integrity is essential for national security and public trust in the immigration system. Others express discomfort at seeing individuals criminalized for actions driven by desperation rather than malice. Social media reactions reflect this split, with supporters praising decisive action and critics questioning whether punishment alone can solve a complex global issue. What This Means Going Forward The first charge under the new crossing law is likely just the beginning. If courts uphold the prosecution, authorities may pursue further cases, fundamentally reshaping how irregular migration is handled. Conversely, legal challenges could force revisions or clarifications to the legislation. Much will depend on how judges interpret intent, vulnerability, and proportionality. The case may also influence international perceptions of the country’s commitment to human rights and refugee protection. Conclusion The charging of the first individual under the new crossing law represents a pivotal moment in immigration enforcement. While the government views it as a long-awaited assertion of control, critics warn it may deepen humanitarian and legal tensions. As the case unfolds, it will test not only the strength of the law itself but also the balance between border security and compassion. In an era of global displacement and political polarization, how this law is enforced may shape the country’s immigration landscape—and moral standing—for years to come.
By Fiazahmedbrohi 6 days ago in The Swamp
Comments (1)
Dear Shanon - We've 'Cracked a Book' - So Pay-Up as promised ~ You've "Earned" my respect ~ - You are such a fabulous StoryTeller - Jay