Need groceries? Take out a short-term loan?

[Along Came Jones]

A New York Times article (Consumers Are Financing Their Groceries. What Does It Say About the Economy? [Gifted]) reports that Americans are increasingly using short-term loans to pay not only for groceries but also to pay "recurring monthly bills, such as electricity, heat, internet and streaming services like Hulu."

How do these loans differ from credit card use? Easy or no hard credit checks. The lenders make their primary profit from fees charged to retailers. Borrowers incur interest when they fail to make payments on time.

The concern seems to be two-fold. For individuals and families, especially younger people, the loans encourage taking on burdensome debt. For the national economy they may signal that consumers are financially stressed by the cost of living and that they pose a risk to the financial system as phantom debt piles up.

An interesting tidbit. The "Buy Now, Pay Later" industry leader isn't an American company. Klarna is a Swedish company. The global economy at work.

So, does this phantom debt loom as a potential 2026 midterm election albatross for Republicans?

 

[Hari Seldon]

A New York Times article (Consumers Are Financing Their Groceries. What Does It Say About the Economy? [Gifted]) reports that Americans are increasingly using short-term loans to pay not only for groceries but also to pay "recurring monthly bills, such as electricity, heat, internet and streaming services like Hulu."

How do these loans differ from credit card use? Easy or no hard credit checks. The lenders make their primary profit from fees charged to retailers. Borrowers incur interest when they fail to make payments on time.

The concern seems to be two-fold. For individuals and families, especially younger people, the loans encourage taking on burdensome debt. For the national economy they may signal that consumers are financially stressed by the cost of living and that they pose a risk to the financial system as phantom debt piles up.

An interesting tidbit. The "Buy Now, Pay Later" industry leader isn't an American company. Klarna is a Swedish company. The global economy at work.

So, does this phantom debt loom as a potential 2026 midterm election albatross for Republicans?

I've used Klarna a few times. Paying off travel in a few interest free installments. I only did it because it was interest free.

 

[Scatty Kitty]

A New York Times article (Consumers Are Financing Their Groceries. What Does It Say About the Economy? [Gifted]) reports that Americans are increasingly using short-term loans to pay not only for groceries but also to pay "recurring monthly bills, such as electricity, heat, internet and streaming services like Hulu."

How do these loans differ from credit card use? Easy or no hard credit checks. The lenders make their primary profit from fees charged to retailers. Borrowers incur interest when they fail to make payments on time.

The concern seems to be two-fold. For individuals and families, especially younger people, the loans encourage taking on burdensome debt. For the national economy they may signal that consumers are financially stressed by the cost of living and that they pose a risk to the financial system as phantom debt piles up.

An interesting tidbit. The "Buy Now, Pay Later" industry leader isn't an American company. Klarna is a Swedish company. The global economy at work.

So, does this phantom debt loom as a potential 2026 midterm election albatross for Republicans?

I remember when the 2008 recession was caused by too much debt caused by people's bills becoming unaffordable as more and more people were given loans when they shouldn't have had them. Imagine the same thing now with having to pay interest because you bought groceries. When you make your money preying on the weak and vulnerable, why not keep people weak and vulnerable?

 

[NJBob]

There’s another interesting article in the NYT today:

Economists Question G.O.P. Bill: Why Increase the Deficit in Good Times?​

It raises a very good question.

 

[Along Came Jones]

There’s another interesting article in the NYT today:

Economists Question G.O.P. Bill: Why Increase the Deficit in Good Times?​

It raises a very good question.

Wish you had provided a bit more detail. The headline standing alone causes some confusion, I think.

“I’m extraordinarily concerned about the fiscal implications of this,” said David H. Romer, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley, who has studied the impact of government deficits. “We’re starting from high levels of debt, high levels of deficits, projected growing budgetary pressure from an aging population. And the investors are already jittery about this, so this is not just hypothetical.”

The worry, long expressed by Mr. Romer and other economists, is that investors will eventually balk at lending the government money, or will demand punishingly high interest rates for doing so. That could set off a downward spiral in which rising interest payments add further to the debt, making investors increasingly reluctant to lend and eventually driving up the cost of government borrowing even higher.

 

[madman]

A New York Times article (Consumers Are Financing Their Groceries. What Does It Say About the Economy? [Gifted]) reports that Americans are increasingly using short-term loans to pay not only for groceries but also to pay "recurring monthly bills, such as electricity, heat, internet and streaming services like Hulu."

How do these loans differ from credit card use? Easy or no hard credit checks. The lenders make their primary profit from fees charged to retailers. Borrowers incur interest when they fail to make payments on time.

The concern seems to be two-fold. For individuals and families, especially younger people, the loans encourage taking on burdensome debt. For the national economy they may signal that consumers are financially stressed by the cost of living and that they pose a risk to the financial system as phantom debt piles up.

An interesting tidbit. The "Buy Now, Pay Later" industry leader isn't an American company. Klarna is a Swedish company. The global economy at work.

So, does this phantom debt loom as a potential 2026 midterm election albatross for Republicans?

Higher grocery prices?? that's just fine as long as Biden is not in office.
Trump will fix those prices on day 1






s/

 

[NJBob]

Wish you had provided a bit more detail. The headline standing alone causes some confusion, I think.

“I’m extraordinarily concerned about the fiscal implications of this,” said David H. Romer, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley, who has studied the impact of government deficits. “We’re starting from high levels of debt, high levels of deficits, projected growing budgetary pressure from an aging population. And the investors are already jittery about this, so this is not just hypothetical.”

The worry, long expressed by Mr. Romer and other economists, is that investors will eventually balk at lending the government money, or will demand punishingly high interest rates for doing so. That could set off a downward spiral in which rising interest payments add further to the debt, making investors increasingly reluctant to lend and eventually driving up the cost of government borrowing even higher.

You’re right, I just thought it was related. It seems that articles can be gifted to the DP community. I should start a stand alone tread.

Let’s see if I can figure out how.

 

[Along Came Jones]

You’re right, I just thought it was related. It seems that articles can be gifted to the DP community. I should start a stand alone tread.

Let’s see if I can figure out how.

I think both articles dovetail nicely. Continue with your insights/thoughts here, if you like.

 

[NJBob]

I think both articles dovetail nicely. Continue with your insights/thoughts here, if you like.

Yeah, it seemed to me that the mismanagement of the economy was the underlying issue for both articles.

 

[NJBob]

Economists Question G.O.P. Bill: Why Increase the Deficit in Good Times?

Huge deficits are already making bond investors nervous. Economists warn that could make it harder to respond to future crises.

www.nytimes.com

If I did this right the article mentioned earlier should be gifted to the DP community above.

 

[NOLA Dude]

A New York Times article (Consumers Are Financing Their Groceries. What Does It Say About the Economy? [Gifted]) reports that Americans are increasingly using short-term loans to pay not only for groceries but also to pay "recurring monthly bills, such as electricity, heat, internet and streaming services like Hulu."

How do these loans differ from credit card use? Easy or no hard credit checks. The lenders make their primary profit from fees charged to retailers. Borrowers incur interest when they fail to make payments on time.

The concern seems to be two-fold. For individuals and families, especially younger people, the loans encourage taking on burdensome debt. For the national economy they may signal that consumers are financially stressed by the cost of living and that they pose a risk to the financial system as phantom debt piles up.

An interesting tidbit. The "Buy Now, Pay Later" industry leader isn't an American company. Klarna is a Swedish company. The global economy at work.

So, does this phantom debt loom as a potential 2026 midterm election albatross for Republicans?

Thanks Joe Biden

 

[NJBob]

Thanks Joe Biden

Let me know when it becomes Trump’s economy.

 

[Trumpetman]

A New York Times article (Consumers Are Financing Their Groceries. What Does It Say About the Economy? [Gifted]) reports that Americans are increasingly using short-term loans to pay not only for groceries but also to pay "recurring monthly bills, such as electricity, heat, internet and streaming services like Hulu."

How do these loans differ from credit card use? Easy or no hard credit checks. The lenders make their primary profit from fees charged to retailers. Borrowers incur interest when they fail to make payments on time.

The concern seems to be two-fold. For individuals and families, especially younger people, the loans encourage taking on burdensome debt. For the national economy they may signal that consumers are financially stressed by the cost of living and that they pose a risk to the financial system as phantom debt piles up.

An interesting tidbit. The "Buy Now, Pay Later" industry leader isn't an American company. Klarna is a Swedish company. The global economy at work.

So, does this phantom debt loom as a potential 2026 midterm election albatross for Republicans?

New York Times is trying to make it about groceries when the entire point is really about this huge and growing unregulated buy now pay later industry. There was even a thread here about it before.

 

[Mycroft]

A New York Times article (Consumers Are Financing Their Groceries. What Does It Say About the Economy? [Gifted]) reports that Americans are increasingly using short-term loans to pay not only for groceries but also to pay "recurring monthly bills, such as electricity, heat, internet and streaming services like Hulu."

How do these loans differ from credit card use? Easy or no hard credit checks. The lenders make their primary profit from fees charged to retailers. Borrowers incur interest when they fail to make payments on time.

The concern seems to be two-fold. For individuals and families, especially younger people, the loans encourage taking on burdensome debt. For the national economy they may signal that consumers are financially stressed by the cost of living and that they pose a risk to the financial system as phantom debt piles up.

An interesting tidbit. The "Buy Now, Pay Later" industry leader isn't an American company. Klarna is a Swedish company. The global economy at work.

So, does this phantom debt loom as a potential 2026 midterm election albatross for Republicans?

Stop spending $40 for a McDonalds order and you can probably afford to pay cash for your groceries.

 

[ttwtt78640]

A New York Times article (Consumers Are Financing Their Groceries. What Does It Say About the Economy? [Gifted]) reports that Americans are increasingly using short-term loans to pay not only for groceries but also to pay "recurring monthly bills, such as electricity, heat, internet and streaming services like Hulu."

How do these loans differ from credit card use? Easy or no hard credit checks. The lenders make their primary profit from fees charged to retailers. Borrowers incur interest when they fail to make payments on time.

The concern seems to be two-fold. For individuals and families, especially younger people, the loans encourage taking on burdensome debt. For the national economy they may signal that consumers are financially stressed by the cost of living and that they pose a risk to the financial system as phantom debt piles up.

An interesting tidbit. The "Buy Now, Pay Later" industry leader isn't an American company. Klarna is a Swedish company. The global economy at work.

So, does this phantom debt loom as a potential 2026 midterm election albatross for Republicans?

Why, exactly, do you see this as a partisan (let’s blame the republicants) issue? From your link, it seems to have ballooned during the Biden administration:

Buy now, pay later financing, a cousin to once-popular layaway programs, gained momentum during the pandemic when online shopping surged. In 2019, consumers in the United States bought about $2 billion worth of goods and services using pay-later loans. By 2023, that amount ballooned to more than $116.3 billion, according to CapitalOne Shopping Research. But that is still a small fraction of the $1.18 trillion that consumers bought with credit cards in 2025, according to the latest consumer debt data from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

 

[Along Came Jones]

Why, exactly, do you see this as a partisan (let’s blame the republicants) issue? From your link, it seems to have ballooned during the Biden administration:

Simple. Trump was elected primarily on his promise to "fix" the economy. To make America affordable again. Republicans control all three branches of government. Unless they somehow manage to make living between paychecks comfortable or make sufficient headway to convince the electorate they're turning the country in the right direction, James Carvelle's words will likely haunt them come election day, "It's the economy, stupid."

 

[Fletch]

Simple. Trump was elected primarily on his promise to "fix" the economy. To make America affordable again. Republicans control all three branches of government. Unless they somehow manage to make living between paychecks comfortable or make sufficient headway to convince the electorate they're turning the country in the right direction, James Carvelle's words will likely haunt them come election day, "It's the economy, stupid."

And he is trying to do just that. He is trying to open foreign markets to American goods, entice companies to manufacture here, cutting taxes, reducing regulations and shrink government. The left, of course, hope he fails but that doesnt assure that they will regain power since what they offer is absolutely nothing.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Simple. Trump was elected primarily on his promise to "fix" the economy. To make America affordable again. Republicans control all three branches of government. Unless they somehow manage to make living between paychecks comfortable or make sufficient headway to convince the electorate they're turning the country in the right direction, James Carvelle's words will likely haunt them come election day, "It's the economy, stupid."

It appears that their “fix” is being ruled taboo by a few federal judges, making your “control all three branches” a bit suspect.

BTW, to “control” the Senate requires a (filibuster proof) supermajority.

 

[Along Came Jones]

And he is trying to do just that. He is trying to open foreign markets to American goods, entice companies to manufacture here, cutting taxes, reducing regulations and shrink government. The left, of course, hope he fails but that doesnt assure that they will regain power since what they offer is absolutely nothing.

Democrats do have a brand problem, no doubt. If you have not read these or other reports on Sunday's CNN/SSRS poll informative. Two pastes:

. . . it’s also pretty clear that Democrats have failed to make themselves into a viable and attractive alternative to the party in power.

The new CNN poll also asked which party people viewed as the “party that can get things done.” Republicans led on this by a nearly 2-to-1 margin, 36% to 19%. Only 49% of Democrats and 11% of independents picked the Democratic Party as the more formidable one. -- 2 key findings on Democrats’ brand problem from the new CNN poll, Aaron Blake, CNN, 6/2/2023

While neither political party is viewed as especially strong or effective, skepticism weighs particularly heavily on the Democratic Party. Americans are far more likely to see Republicans than Democrats as the party with strong leaders: 40% say this descriptor applies more to the GOP, with just 16% saying it applies to the Democrats. They’re also more likely to call Republicans the party that can get things done by 36% to 19%, and the party of change, by 32% to 25%. -- CNN Poll: A record share of Americans want the government to get more done. Few trust either party to do it, Ariel Edwards-Levy, CNN, 6/1/2025

The question for voters may well come down to "Am I better off on 3 November than I was two years earlier?" And, if the answer is no, will Democrats provide the necessary relief? The clock is ticking for both parties.

 

[Along Came Jones]

It appears that their “fix” is being ruled taboo by a few federal judges, making your “control all three branches” a bit suspect.

BTW, to “control” the Senate requires a (filibuster proof) supermajority.

The federal appellant courts exist to correct overreaching mistakes by district court judges. If the judges' rulings are upheld, then the Trump administration overreached. They knew that from before the administration took office.

"Total" control may require a supermajority party composed of a single mind without internal disagreement or dispute. Ever seen one? A resolution to change the filibuster rule can only be made at the beginning of a Congressional session and procedurally has almost a zero chance of passing.

With respect to consideration of spending, revenue, debt, and deficit levels, the filibuster is sidestepped via the reconciliation process. (1974 Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act) Republicans, if they can summon a simple majority of like-minded Senators, can pass the bill they want. That is what is happening now, and the effect will resonate at the polls next November.

 

[Rumblefish]

New York Times is trying to make it about groceries when the entire point is really about this huge and growing unregulated buy now pay later industry. There was even a thread here about it before.

If only there was a federal consumer debt agency that could put some reins or guardrails on.....oh, wait, Trump killed that agency.

 

[Rumblefish]

It appears that their “fix” is being ruled taboo by a few federal judges, making your “control all three branches” a bit suspect.

BTW, to “control” the Senate requires a (filibuster proof) supermajority.

Ah, that pesky Constitution what with its checks and balances......

 

[Trumpetman]

If only there was a federal consumer debt agency that could put some reins or guardrails on.....oh, wait, Trump killed that agency.

One doesn't need to regulate it.

One also doesn't need to draw conclusions from the use of it.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The federal appellant courts exist to correct overreaching mistakes by district court judges. If the judges' rulings are upheld, then the Trump administration overreached. They knew that from before the administration took office.

"Total" control may require a supermajority party composed of a single mind without internal disagreement or dispute. Ever seen one? A resolution to change the filibuster rule can only be made at the beginning of a Congressional session and procedurally has almost a zero chance of passing.

With respect to consideration of spending, revenue, debt, and deficit levels, the filibuster is sidestepped via the reconciliation process. (1974 Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act) Republicans, if they can summon a simple majority of like-minded Senators, can pass the bill they want. That is what is happening now, and the effect will resonate at the polls next November.

The reconciliation ‘rule’ apparently has some strange limitations. It seems that (DHS and DoD?) discretionary spending can be increased via reconciliation, but (other?) discretionary spending can’t be decreased.

Reconciliation and discretionary spending are distinct aspects of the federal budget process. Reconciliation is a legislative procedure used to pass bills that affect mandatory spending, revenue, or the debt limit, and requires only a simple majority in the Senate. Discretionary spending, on the other hand, is managed through the annual appropriations process, and is not subject to reconciliation.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/introduction-to-budget-reconciliation

 

[Along Came Jones]

The reconciliation ‘rule’ apparently has some strange limitations. It seems that (DHS and DoD?) discretionary spending can be increased via reconciliation, but (other?) discretionary spending can’t be decreased.

Reconciliation and discretionary spending are distinct aspects of the federal budget process. Reconciliation is a legislative procedure used to pass bills that affect mandatory spending, revenue, or the debt limit, and requires only a simple majority in the Senate. Discretionary spending, on the other hand, is managed through the annual appropriations process, and is not subject to reconciliation.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/introduction-to-budget-reconciliation

That is an excellent reference article. Worth rereading a few more times. While your comment seems to me to be mostly correct, you may have missed this:

While nothing in the Budget Act or other rules prohibits providing new funding or rescinding existing funding for discretionary programs through reconciliation, the various restrictions on reconciliation (discussed more below) probably make the process impractical as a means of enacting annual appropriations.

And with regards to budget rules other than the Byrd Rule:

Various mechanisms are available, however, to modify or limit the application of some budget rules to reconciliation measures. For instance, a budget resolution will typically accommodate the reconciliation measures it triggers, either by setting its levels to match the intended legislation or, if the reconciliation instructions are open-ended, by allowing the Budget Committee chair to adjust the levels in the budget resolution to accommodate a reconciliation bill that is otherwise in compliance.

Very quickly I come to pay due appreciation to the role of the Senate parliamentarian.