And where did you get your statistics on what and where the poor eat. Just because they are poor doesnt mean they eat crap and just because someone is wealthy doesnt mean they eat healthy. So I suppose that since I make less than the national average means I am unhealthy and "stuffung my face with "cheap food loaded with stuff that can kill".

Dont be ignorant and assume that just because someone is poor they eat unhealthy. I see many more overweight wealthy people that I do poor people.

" I see many more overweight wealthy people that I do poor people."

You seriously need to visit a wal-mart or McD's sometime.

P.S.

Do you stop fat people and ask them how much they are worth? or are you just making assumptions about people based on how they are dressed even though you criticize others for assuming what poor people eat? Hypocrite.

No need to take it personally, Marie...I'm sorry that you're in a tight spot, but lashing out isn't helping things any. As much as I hate to say it, trying to watch what you eat makes you an exception, not the rule.

When you've got $50/month to spend on food, $10 for salad fixings that might last you 4 meals is a lot less attractive than ramen noodles at 25c a pack, crap off McDonald's dollar menu, 89c cans of imitation Spaghetti-os, or if you feel like splurging $2 for TV-dinner style 'family meals' [a handful of genuine imitation mystery meat patties, gravy that's 75% oil, and a tray of mac'n'cheese good for 2 meals, 3 if you eat light].

Plus there's the matter of HFCS...good luck trying to avoid that garbage without halving again or doubling your food budget.

Those three restaurants are not where the wealthier eat, and are not any healthier than McDonald's really. The restaurants I think you are referring to are the ones you find in Zagat's or on Gayot, and generally speaking they will not be chain restaurants. As far as per plate cost, you are looking at $75-150+ per person for the meal.

hahaha Since when is Red Lobster and Olive Garden high end?!?!

"The upper class usually heads out to healthier less advertised establishments (Red Lobster, Olive Garden, Coco's)"

uhhhhhh upper class? less advertised? healthier?
REALLY?

Those upper class restaurants are nothing more than big box microwaves. If I had money, no way in heck you'd find me in places like that!

The upper class usually heads out to healthier less advertised establishments (Red Lobster, Olive Garden, Coco's)

!!!!!!!!!

Personally, I would not take a dump in any of those "restaurants."

cmpstras,

In the U.S. for the first time in recorded history, obesity has become a disease of the poor. Until now poverty and malnutrition/starvation was the usual equation. Why has that changed? As Dandroo4 stated it's the preponderance of fat laden fast food that is only too readily available and affordable to the financially worse off in the U.S.

Support Local Farms - ya know, at first I was thinking the same as you, those arent where "wealthy" people eat...but then, I sort of stepped back and thought...If I was poor, would I consider people who eat at places like that wealthy? Yep, I most definitely would.

Especially when you consider that the top 1% of americans have combined more wealth than 90% of americans.

That stat alone is mind boggling to consider...1 % of the people in this nation have more, combined, than 90% of the people in this nation, combined.

So, really think about that...if someone who's really poor, looks at you or me eating at places like Olive Garden as if WE are the wealthy ones, what exactly does that make the top 1% of people in this nation?

The Oligarchy, thats what it makes them. America, as a democracy was nice, wasnt it? Goodbye Good ol days!

I have to echo here that the words/phrases "healthier, less-advertisted, and upper class" have never crossed my mind when thinking of crapholes like Red Lobster & Olive Garden.

My personal experience (and I fully expect some flaming for this) is that those are what lower income people tend to think of as "fancy" places.

Supporting local farms is what we all should be doing. However, the new Food Act Bill they just passed will effectively finish off the locals and organic farmers. The government intends on controlling all of our food, when we can have it and what goes in it. Of course, Monsanto has their hands in this, with all their GMO s*it that they won't even label properly. That's a FACT. I read most of the Bill (took FOREVER). What's coming down the pike for us all as far as food goes is not good.

I see many more overweight wealthy people that I do poor people.

I hate to tell you campstra but it is an empirical fact that the lower you are on the economic scale the more likely you are to be obese. The USA has the fattest poor people in the world.

Especially when you consider that the top 1% of americans have combined more wealth than 90% of americans.

Jessica you have your stats way off, the top 20% own about 90% of the wealth in this country. The top 1% own about 35%. This is different than income which is more evenly distributed even though by no means evenly distributed. Moreover, this is to be expected, the more you make the more you can own. Also, I know people who make really good money but they own nothing, they simply waste the majority of what they earn. I know people who make more than me that are nowhere near as wealthy because they invest/save little to nothing and my wife and I are hyper savers/investors. Our wealth has skyrocketed during the downturn because we took advantage of the stock market to pick up good stocks CHEAP and have bought property! We drive 10 year old used cars and live in a modest homes and invest the rest. We don't live extravagantly even though our income would make you green with envy. I also know some people who make little who have a lot of wealth because they inherited it or have invested wisely and lived prudently. Once again, the wealthy are more likely to inherit wealth. And before you get all hissy you need to realize a family making about $100,000 per annum is in the top 20% in this country. You don't have to make a ton of money to be in the top 20%.

Class warfare, don't you just love it.

If you like and eat doughnuts not only are you going to be fat, you must be poor too. Only poor people eat doughnuts hugh? I guess the rich eat pastry's that make them loose weight.

Yep, keep those fires of class envy going. All things may not be equal in life but are certainly equal in death.

Well - it looks like OP has no idea what fine dining is - Red Lobster - Olive Garden - thats just laughable.

Red Lobster, Olive Garden, Applebees, Chilis, etc are all corporate chains with atrocious pre-prepared foods. They serve small servings of cheap food and charge a high price tag - but if anything, they draw a middle-class clientele who choose them more out of convenience and marketing than anything else. Anyone with a couple of tastebuds to rub together knows the best food and best value for your dollar - and best choice to keep the local economy alive - are the locally owned establishments. And the locally owned restaurants run the gamut from low-priced, filling and comforting diner fare to fine dining complete with concierge and valet parking.

The class warfare in this country is absolutely disgusting. It's nothing more than jealous whining and blaming those that make money for one's own laziness and incompetence.

Everyone in this country can become wealthy! The opportunity to start a business and succeed is open to everyone. That's why the people of other nations have flocked here in droves for hundreds of years.

The ONLY person that owes you anything is YOU!

Get to work, work hard and long and stop your disgusting incessent whining!

Okay... really? Is it REALLY surprising that the rich spend more money? What's the point of discussing this?

The upper class usually heads out to healthier less advertised establishments (Red Lobster, Olive Garden, Coco's)

Ewww .. that's not upper class, and not necessarily healthy. Aren't those the kind of places that have "onion blossoms" and hot wings?

The more you make, the more you have to spend!

Yep, it's just more lib/media stoke up the class warfare BS. Those "rich" people ought to quit working so hard; you know, just take it easy and maybe collect one or more of the myriad "gov'mint handouts" available.

"Class warfare" is what the top 2% has waged on the other 98% of us for the last 30 years. You remind me of FOX News ("Fair and Balanced") - just spew the propaganda and act really shocked when someone calls you out for your actions.

Perhaps it is not just hard work and effort that makes you wealthy. Perhaps it is a sociopathic mental illness that makes you hoard wealth at the expense of everyone else.

"Class warfare" is what the top 2% has waged on the other 98% of us for the last 30 years. You remind me of FOX News ("Fair and Balanced") - just spew the propaganda and act really shocked when someone calls you out for your actions.

Did anyone in the top 2% cause you to be a single mom? Being a single mom is a primary trait of a person being in a lower economic status. I doubt anyone in the upper 2% caused your single mom status regardless of how innocent you are in being in the status yourself.

The Fox news rhetoric is just childish....

Yes, as a matter of fact, they did. There are many men who abandon there families. And when they come from wealthy ones, as mine did, they seem to know all the tricks to avoid paying a cent. My ex father in law was a friend of Clinton's and used to take a private jet to Vegas. But because I would no longer put up with his son's abuse we got nothing. We were even homeless for awhile. People will make fun of me for saying this, but I don't care: it was my faith as a Christian that got me through those times. Three kids, a physically disabled son, my parents had passed, homeless......I could write a book. When we were homeless I was sexually assaulted and suffered terribly from post traumatic stress disorder for years. In the midst of all this miracles occured. And we ate whatever we were given or could afford. A sack of potatoes fed us for several days, there was NO budget for salad, fresh fruits and vegetables....that kind of stuff was rare treats to us. I am very overweight, I hardly eat, and I suffer from thyroid problems, and even with my medication I am still huge. It may have been those years living off of nothing but carbs....(?) I don't know. I own my own place now and I go to the gym.

Oh and I have a college degree and was a public school teacher before that happened. Yes, there are people in the top 2% who are cold hearted, ruthless, and uncaring......are you really surprised? People who turn their back on their own flesh and blood, their precious children.

Paul, yes, actually you ARE...granted, not as wealthy as the top 1% that has more wealth combined than 90% of americans combined...but, when compared to the poorest amongst us, you are indeed "wealthy".

The question is, why do you think class warfare is happening? Couldnt be the fact that since Reagan, the wealthier have gotten immensly more wealthy, while everyone else has gotten immensly more poor?

Add to that, the fact that the wealthy arent creating jobs with their wealth, no, they are doing high stakes gambling for quicker, higher profits...well, you can see why many of us are sick and tired of the fleecing of average americans.

And this fleecing is happening in our tax policy, prior to reagan, tax rates were upwards of 70% on the top tier...CEO's made on average 30x as much as their lowest paid employee, now, that is more like 200-1000x as much (im not exaggerating).

I dont grasp this defense of the super wealthy which are destroying this nation, as if someday, YOU are going to be one of them? Ha...you're going to be one of the poor begging in the street, ya know, the ones who arent willing to just pull themselves up by the bootstraps and go get a real job.

I guess, when that happens to you...then perhaps you wont harbor the same delusions about where your loyalities SHOULD have lied. The working people, not the fleecers.

Edited to add: how well does an economy really work, when 1% of the population has more wealth than 90%? And we know damn well they arent spending that money. Companies hire based on demand for their product...well guess what, there's no demand when 90% of the people dont have the means to purchase because 1% of the population is sitting on it. Thats reality...not some liberal ranting. You take money out of an economy, and it fails, period. 99% of us are literally operating on 10% of our nations money...how well do you think thats going to pan out?

Wow that was 6-7 paragraphs of non-sense, over a stupid food study!

You asked why is class warfare happening? In my view it's because people are jealous and they don't think it's fair that somebody else has all the wealth. Maybe the question you should ask yourself is "Since when has anyone ever been entitled to anything simply by being alive...?" I know that sounds cruel, but think of what your saying!

@ Lance - Jealousy has nothing to do with the fact that we just got robbed by the banks and auto companies, and these people that we're supposedly jealous of are the ones that ran companies into the ground, then went crying to the feds to save their asses. They still have multimillion dollar salaries when they've proven themselves unable to lead their way out of a paper sack. Let me ask you, 'Since when has anyone ever been entitled to make millions by screwing up their jobs and screwing over millions of Americans?' Class warfare has been initiated by the wealthy. I know that sounds cruel, but you sound like a complete idiot when you blame it on jealousy.

Mr. Uppercut, you just got a body blow.

The ENTIRE increase in GDP and productivity from 2000 to 2010 went to the top 1% of income levels in this country. Do you think they earned that?

Jessica, the wealthy have gotten so wealthy almost exclusively because of the market boom that has been ongoing since the 80's. After the crash of 1929 it took the stock market until the early 70's to double. Since the 80 it quadrupled and even the most recent downturn left it tripled.

But in case you are wondering. The poor are also immensely better off today. For example, more own cars, TVs and other signs of wealth than in the past. Just because the disparity has grown doesn't mean the poor are worse off. The rise in productivity have left todays poor immensely better off materially than they have been at any time in the past. Heck, I drive by public housing every day and see newer cars than I own and even families with multiple crs. They're not exactly just "getting by".

Single Mom, Jessica, et al.,

Once again Single Mom I must call you out, you choose to offer up not much more than rhetorical rants and bombasting bloviations. Your assertion that the entire delta in GDP between 2000 and 2010 was solely the provenance of only the top 1% of the earning population is patently untrue. The U.S. GDP in 2000 was just under 10 trillion dollars and the U.S. GDP in 2010 is expected to be between 14.5 and 15 trillion dollars. The top 1% of the earning population in the US did not pocket up to 5 trillion dollars a year in the past 10 years alone.

While there is a corollary between income and wealth it is not as casual a relationship as you would lead your readers to believe. A better measure would be assets.

Total booked wealth in American, as defined by all assets – liabilities, is estimated to be between 65 trillion and 80 trillion dollars. The wealthiest 25% is said to own $50-55 trillion or approximately 2/3 – 3/4 of the calculated net assets. With the middle 50% is said to control approximately 22% of booked assets leaving the bottom quartile (25%) possesses the remaining assets.

Included within that top 25% are the super-rich and large institutions, pension funds, sovereign funds and the like. The 10 largest Sovereign funds alone control over 3 trillion in US assets and just the 7 largest private pension funds control more than $1.78 trillion in assets; the aggregate value of all the Ivy-League endowment funds alone tops $100 billion, currently more than twice the wealth of any of the wealthiest men in the world.

The beneficiaries of these funds are mostly the proletariat that you seem to want to champion so desperately; unless of course, you are asserting that California public employees, NY State teachers, NYC municipal workers and the rank and file factory workers at GM(all stake holders of these pension funds) and scholarship students are part and parcel of that elite class of wealth you seem to be railing against.

By comparison the aggregated value of the 400 richest persons/families in the US total approx $1.56 trillion, much of which is theoretical and on paper only as opposed to the mostly public and or tangible assets held by the institutions. While the $1.56 trillion is indeed a tremendous amount of wealth on its own, it is merely pennies to the dollar based on the total sum of the total wealth of the nation.

who do you think keeps the restaurants alive

This is a no-brainer, old people. As a demographic the over 50 crowd eat the bulk of restaurant meals. I know near retirees and retirees that don't eat at home even once a week.

you forgot, and then become villified.

Pablo - villified is the wrong word. I dont villify wealthy people, I find them in general to be morally decayed people. Not because they've amassed so much wealth, but usually, because of how they have done it...and what they have then done with their wealth.

Take for example my aunt & uncle, My Aunt was raised in inner city chicago, was working poor and paid her way through college, she worked really hard and rose through the ranks of TV - finally working for Charter Cable as the VP of the midwest region. She was making probably close to a million a year...when all was said and done. She unfortunately passed away in 2009 from cancer, but...I recall her saying at one point when they gave her a bonus because of the hard work her employees did "why are they doing this, I didnt do anything beyond my job to earn it".

It was, in some sense, a faux "oh wow, this makes no sense" plea...but in reality, she didnt turn it down...or better, pass it out to her employees who really got the work done to make her look so good. Nope, goes in her bank account, doing what?

I'll tell you what it did there, her husband then invested a great deal on wall street, earning great profits - that was his job. Gambler.

They werent creating any jobs with their extra wealth after Reagan, Bush and Bush consecutively slashed their tax rates so that they could essentially become high stakes gamblers.

And in the process, they raised one the most spoiled rotten children I have met in a long time (my boss' daughter excluded).

Not much their to envy, plenty to villify.

My Aunt was undoubtedly an amazingly hard worker, and I would never say she didnt deserve to rise through the ranks and earn a great living.

But 1 million dollars a year to oversee 3-4 states worth of cable customers, really? And you wonder why your cable bill is so high, they have to keep handing bonsues over to each for "how hard they work!"

Which reminds me of the memo that went out at my previous employer after I was laid off so they could offshore my job to the Phillipines...the CEO gave himself an $800,000 bonus at the end of the year for all his "hard work" at slashing jobs and finding cheaper work...not because the company was struggling and needed to do it...nope, the top guys just needed so much more money because...ya know, they worked sooooooooooo hard for it.

Why are people going to be shocked when the poor and oppressed (which, give it time, will become most all of us) finally rise up and burn this nation to the ground and take all those "hard working wealthy" people down with them?

Yes, it's one thing to be handsomely rewarded for hard work and a skill set, it's quite another to make the outrageous amounts some people make. I believe it free enterprise and believe it's OK (even a good thing) for people to get rich but we headed the way of 3rd world countries were only the already rich will be able to prosper.

no ---- lower class families are averaging twice as many children as the higher classes. ---- in fact, that is one of the more serious problems we face in this country ---- the supporting classes are not growing as fast as the classes who need support.

and the answer to that is not for the upper classes to have more children.

abc, it's inverse. The poorer you are, the more kids you'll have. It's a phenomenom that is so stupid in logic. But hey, minorities seem to like it a lot, like a cultural thing to have so many kids.

It's not a culture thing - it's a money thing. Less money to spend on birth control and no money to spend on entertainment. If you can't afford to go to the movies and don't want to spend another mindless night watching television your choices are limited - and sex with a partner is usually free

Less money to spend on birth control

Good grief - a condom is like $1. BC pills can be gotten at a family planning clinic for around $20/month. How much does it take to feed, clothe, and house a kid? Maybe the reason some poor women tend to have kids they can't afford is because they're stupid to anticipate the consequences of 'entertainment sex'.

The amount of fat on someone's bones isn't the end-all-be-all of it. As someone said above, that may have to do with the calorie levels of low-cost food, especially once you start factoring in calories by volume, and doubly so once you cross the HFCS/Real Sugar line.

Fact of the matter is, 'King Corn', the push for genuine imitation food-type products [like American Cheese, which is solidified oil], and the rise of dollar-menu fast food has made the overconsumption of sugars [as HFCS doesn't trigger the 'full' reflex the way real sugar does] and greasy, fatty, low-grade meats [which are sometimes themselves half corn meal] that aren't fit for human consumption more affordable than food worth eating; obesity is the result.

Having spent some time on the bottom rung of society, someone that's poor doesn't think 'I should really get this food, it's so much healthier, even though it'll double my food budget', they think 'I have $X to eat for the month, that means $y per meal. Bah. Ramen noodles and dollar menu, here I come...'

A $1 Mcdonald's double cheeseburger has somewhere in the realm of half a day's calories, and by volume alone a typical adult will need two to feel 'full' for a single meal...whereas someone with plenty of money can afford fresh food with actual nutritional value, a lower calorie-per-meal ratio, and likely isn't working themselves to the bone in order to keep a roof over their heads, having enough time left over to have an active lifestyle as a result.

But hey, if you want to make sweeping generalizations based on some superiority complex, that's you're prerogative.

Making matters worse, nutritional food usually isn't filling...this leads people getting crappier foods in order to not feel like they're going hungry, rather than healthier [and more expensive] foods.

Rice is a good example. Not terrible for you, inexpensive, but so insubstantial that you're hungry again shortly afterward.

Potatoes - cheap, healthy and filling. Whole wheat bread and tuna - cheap, healthy and filling. Apples, banana, pears - cheap healthy and filling. Oatmeal - cheap, healthy and filling. I could go on but I wont.

Anything with fiber is filling.

But for meals, McDonald's is quick and easy gratification.

$3 - I get a double cheeseburger, fries and orange drink.

$3 - I get a bunch of bananas & apples, maybe a pear.

Which is the meal?

Potatoes take a while to bake. French Fries come in a clever sleeve.

Many poor people also tend to be under-educated regarding the benefits of healthier eating, much less how to prepare the food. I know middle class kids who have trouble making mac and cheese!

It's easier to eat crappy food that I don't have to actually prepare and is full of preservatives and high fructose corn syrup!!

How does it change the numbers... at all?

It changes the numbers because those are entitlement programs by which people get food for FREE or at the very least subsidized. Therefore, they don't have to PAY out of pocket for that food. So while they may have spent $3500 on food out of pocket, they may have received an additional free or subsidized food benefit of another $1000. Making the total value of their food $4500. Adjusting upwards towards the value of all that rich people food. Changes the numbers a bit.