This car appears to be in better shape than mine and three others in town.
Like a lot of others, a new car payment is not possible at my current pay - and lots of people in this corner of the state are in the same boat. Pay parity is 79% of the national average, cost of living 84%. Cash for clunkers is what you can afford each week at the used car lot.
Lots complain that the government should have included older cars. Rather than spend 3 billion dollars so the middle class can have a new car, why not simply require new cars to have a maximum 2.5 liter motor.
Ooohhhh, but the people who donate money won't have any to give to Congress - because the middle class would have continued to drive their 12mpg SUV's and foreign sedans. Can't have that.
Of course, by the time this program is terminated, a few thousand Cherokees will be destroyed, and a lot of recyclable parts ruined - plus more cars manufactured at the expense of more fuel burned for power to make the new parts for new vehicles.
On the issue of using less power in one's lifetime - a total lifetime carbon footprint, so to speak, who uses more resources and energy - a car owner who owns two or three cars in their life, or one who buys one every three to five years for a life usage of 8, 10, 15 cars?
We're subsidizing a short time economic solution to promote a long term increase in expense and resources. Again, if we want to save gas, buy small engined cars.
Obviously that's not the real concern. It's all about votes.