Avoid Debt By Not Paying Social Security

John Aravosis, from AmericaBlog, critiqued the way some republicans think that it’s easy to get rid of the debt. According to republicans there was no terrible consequence if they didn’t raise the debt ceiling. One republican in general, George Will, actually thought that there was enough revenue coming in that is needed to pay the debt. Except it’s all going to certain programs that are consuming a lot of money like social security. George states that “default is a choice” since we could pay off the debt if we reduce/eliminate other expenditures. He believes that we should first pay off the debt and then worry about home problems.

John believes that none of the people receiving social security should get deprived from those benefits. Most of the elderly are depending on social security to have a decent life. And if their benefits are removed to pay off the debt, those people are going to have a miserable life or even worse death. John states “America has ten times the money it needs to pay of its debt. All it has to do is kill off its citizens”.

I agree with John because if it were so easy to pay off the debt we would not be in this situation right now. Also the elderly people receiving social security are only being compensated for all those years that they were working. Plus they are only complaining when it comes to paying back to those people and not when they are paying into the system.

Hands Off Our Cellphones

Los Angeles Times published an article on police searching through people’s phones. Once a person has been placed under arrest, police officers are allowed to confiscate and search the person’s phone. Just like The Times Editorial Board, many people think that officers need a warrant to go through the phone just like they need one to go into your house. They also believe that courts should not take that kind of information into consideration since certain rules were created way before the digital era that we are currently in. There have been two separate cases in which people were convicted for the information found in their phones. David Riley was pulled over just for expired tags, then guns were found when they impounded his car for having a suspended drivers license. As they arrested him, his phone was confiscated and searched to find a video/pictures of him being involved in a shooting. The whole purpose of the searches was to protect the officers from any harmful situations in which the suspect might have a weapon on him. Now with smartphones holding more valuable information about the certain person/suspect it could free or convict them. It could lead to the capture of someone who could be a threat to the lives of citizens but it can also invade the privacy of many innocent people. In my opinion phone searches should only be done when they know for a fact that that person was involved in a crime. If they aren’t sure about a person then they need a warrant to go through that certain person’s phone. No one wants other people to go through their personal information because they were just stopped for a misdemeanor. 
Even though the author of the article does not want police officers going through the cell phones, he contradicts himself and agrees that sometimes it is necessary. At the beginning he starts by stating that times have changed and so have the technology. The new technology that we have now a days contain a lot of personal information that only the owner has the  right to. But then he argues that if the suspect is guilty, he might go and delete information that could implicate him of a crime. The conclusion leaves the reader with an idea that officers are only doing it to place criminals in prison even though it's also invading the privacy of the innocent people.