Sandy was not a "superstorm." Although vast in size, when it hit land, it was a "post sub-tropical depression," had less than hurricane-force winds, and relatively little rain. What made it so damaging was that the storm had a record-setting low barometric pressure and it came ashore exactly at high tide. These factors caused an extremely high storm surge, causing almost all of the damage directly attributable to the storm (i.e., not including damage such as fires that were secondary to the storm).
Sandy's course was also unusual in that it was directed towards shore by a high pressure zone in the Atlantic, and inshore it joined another storm system, contributing to heavy precipitation inland (not on the shore where most of the damage was caused by the storm surge).
Global warming? Hardly. Global warming actually predicts storms of lower intensity, because there is less difference in temperatures between lower and higher latitudes (global warming predicts a higher increase in temperatures at higher latitudes than at lower latitudes). It is the temperature difference that promotes storm formation. Energy in lower latitudes disperses into areas of lower energy at higher latitudes. This conveyor effect is lessened when temps are homogenized.
"Superstorm Sandy" is just hype promoted by global warming extremists. I suggest reading "Climate of Extremes" by two scientists (one a climatologist the other an environmental scientist) who believe in anthropogenic global warming, but who also believe that its effects have been greatly exagerated for political and monetary (grant money) purposes.
"Anonymous accounts are bundled together and sold as a whole. Before purchasing debt, there is only limited information as to whose debt we are buying. These peculiarities are part of the scandal that we are trying to highlight."
So, in a nutshell, specific debts cannot be targeted. Instead, "distressed" (defaulting, about to default, high risk of default) debts are bought in bundles (which is the usual manner shadow buyers purchase them in, then press debtors to pay up) and forgiven across the board. The net result will be that you may have some "less" needy folks having debt forgiven along with "more" needy folks. In my opinion, though, it's better to help less needy along WITH more needy than to help no one. Hope that answer helps! :)
Perhaps there is a selection process. RJ? Is there a way to let potential recipients contact you? do you have a link? thank you so much in advance for providing this.
If you want to limit special interest money in our campaigns, then trust people to make their own choices. It's better to have people rely on their own personal judgement, than to preempt it with government regulations that prompt special interests to get involved.
Pages