the president continues to appear unwilling to do what is necessary to confront the group. our first 35 minutes this morning, your thoughts on how far the u.s. should go to defeat

isis. 585-3882 for independents. if you want to make your thoughts known as far as how the u.s. can go about defeating isis or how far the u.s. should go here is how you can do it. facebook.com. you can send us e-mail, too. "usa today," asking about strikes in iraq, specifically towards islamic groups, here is the poll results. the question, do you approve or disapprove of u.s. air strikes against islamic militants in iraq? 54% of respondents saying they approve of the action, 31% saying they disapprove, 15% saying they don't know.

several stories in the paper not only taking a look at the bee heading of james foley but also what's next as far as policy concerning isis in iraq is concerned, and your thoughts welcomed on the lines, (202)585-3881 for republicans. (202) 585-3880 for democrats, and and and for independents. we'll get pe perspective from we house reporter jeff mason. >> i think the president's comments suggested that what he had started in terms of air strikes in iraq against isis or isil will continue. and most likely will increase. i think that that was a signal both to the american people and to the people in iraq and the

organization that the united states doesn't tolerate the type of killing of a u.s. citizen nor the other actions that they're taking against muslims and others in iraq. so i don't think -- i don't think yet anyway that it's just a signal in policy. i think it was a signal that what he started will continue and will probably get even thicker. >> what did you think about the tone of the remarks? >> he tried to sound very rest oh lute, saying united states of america will continue to do what we must do to protect our people, and calling on allies in other countries to help in that fight. host: jeff, stories in the paper also talking about information from the white house, a mission

to recover hostages. for those just catching up to the story could you fill us in on what was said by the white house concerning this mission? >> yes. controversial that they released details about it at all. and what was said is there was a mission as you indicated, earlier this summer, carried out by members of u.s. armed forces who were airlifted or dropped, i should say, into syria, in an effort to find foley and other u.s. citizens who were held captive, and they failed when they showed up at the location because the hostages had been moved. so there was -- there were details released about that yesterday, and the white house then went on later to defend that release, saying the reason those details were given to journalists is base media organizations were planning on

reporting on the raid. host: when it comes to the current situation, there's still a second journalist being held. anything said by the white house about that journalist? >> not to my knowledge, no. it is a longstanding policy not to pay ransom for people, northern citizens who are held. that is not necessarily the policy of many european governments. the u.s. government feels that engaging in something lick that will endanger more americans by encouraging groups to take more hostages. at this point, they're certainly no indication there will be a shift in policy on that. in fact, quite the contrary, both obama and secretary of state john kerry yesterday indicated that the strikes will continue, and it's the very strikes that the group that was responsible for killing foley

said they objected to and that was the reason for the terrible, terrible murder. host: the "wall street journal" reporting 14 strikes taking place yesterday. the state department has asked the pentagon for 300 more military personnel to baghdad to protect the americans working there. has the white house indicated whether they will honor that request? >> no, not -- not specifically, but i think that that's another indication that this mission that i was referring to earlier will continue to increase. and i think it's something that the white house is trying to prepare americans for. they are cognizant of the word mission and mission creep and not wanting to suggest that this mission or this battle by u.s. forces is going to continue to get bigger and bigger. and yet faced with what happened with this american citizen,

it's -- at this point, it looks like they will continue to need more people, like the 300 additional forces. host: has the white house indicating responding to that pressure? >> i think the way they're trying to portray it is about identifying the needs that the iraqis have, and focusing as clear as possible on the protection of u.s. citizens, and baghdad has the u.s. embassy, the original reason for air strikes was not only to help those religious minority on mount sinjar but also to protect the american consulate that was nearby. they will continue to use that as a guiding principle for the forces and for the attacks and air strikes that the u.s.

military takes part in, but clearly it goes way beyond that. and it's -- it's trying, as the president referred to yesterday, to attack the cancer that is this group. host: jeff mason, thank you. >> my pleasure. host: to your calls on how far the u.s. should go to defeat isis, from the president's comments yesterday and papers taking a look at it today. we'll look at some of those. the number is (202) 585-3881 for republicans, (202) 585-3880 for democrats, for independents, and (202) 585-3882. caller: i watch c-span every morning. host: go ahead. caller: i think the president is handling this exactly the way i want him to handle this. he's doing everything he can. they had us try to even get him out in july we found out now.

and i think that he going to have to stop trying to get the republicans to help him do anything, because they're worthless. they -- anybody that works -- votes for republicans, they would rather -- the way they've been talking about him. host: do you think the beheading changes things, as far as dealing with isis? caller: you can't be even thinking about -- thinking about these people. they're crazy, more than crazy. host: here is on our independent line, bob from montana. hello. caller: hi, good morning. i am wondering about, you know, there's a force there and i'm worried about the mission creep. we have been in libya and it seems like what we did was just

withdrew completely and have left turmoil there. and now it seems like we have done the right thing. i think i'm really proud of the president for doing what he has done, and i'm worried about getting without a long drawn interchange in there. every time i look at the tv there's two or 300 more men going over there, it seems like it's over pretty quick. we have to protect those people over there. host: sun times taking a phrase from the president's comments yesterday, we will be relentless, using it for its front page. i should look at that and discussing how far the u.s. should go to defeat isis. here is thomas from new jersey. caller: i'm concerned greatly about what isis has done, not only to religious minorities, christians, and now the bee heading of this journalist, i

think we need to completely wipe out isis, whether that means continuing air strikes or -- i know that we were in war for many years, and i am very young, i'm only 20, but i think that it would be beneficial to us to take out isis because they are a tremendous threat to the entire world. host: so you could accept more of a step up, to what length? are you talking boots on the ground? would you just keep it to air strikes? caller: i would possibly have boots on the ground, but i would continue air strikes, but i also believe president obama needs to have stronger language and just -- and be more willing to confront the isis as a problem, because as reported in a congressional hearing as early as 2013, iraq was asking for help and the obama administration refused. if we had helped sooner maybe this wouldn't be such a big

problem. host: john, district heights, maryland, democrat's line, hi. caller: it's amazing to me to see how misinformed all these people are. we brought that whole mess over there with president bush. and nothing was done about it. nobody was held accountable for what was done over there. you still there, sir? host: yes, go ahead. caller: nobody was held accountable for the slaughter of those people over there. now, i cannot condone hussein, but when you think back to how stable that area was before we did what we did to him, i mean it's -- now we have isis. if i'm not mistaken, isis was armed by president obama to go against the syrian government. i mean, we american people got to wake up and understand. we cannot be arming people to kill each other and don't be held accountable for what we do when people grow up. i mean, the double standard is

so glaring on how we treat one nation against another nation, one people against another people. i mean, the people stands up and want to take revenge, oh, look what they doing, look how they killing. well look who is doing all the arming. march 10 luther king said it 40 years and it's gotten worse. he said america is the greatest per have aer of violence on the face of the earth. we sell guns to anybody and everybody and when the guns are turned around to kill the very people who we think we want to back we want to blame the people who are doing the killing when it starts with our own federal government. host: senator rubio making comments about the beheading, here is part of his statement. it says isil is not a problem for only the iraqis and syrians to solve. if we do not do more to assist our partners and those moderate

syrians, >> we're asking about how far the u.s. should go to defeat isis, what do you think? caller: basically i think that we have to do whatever is necessary, and whether that be from air strikes to boots, i think the main problem, though, from -- i agree with the previous caller about the things done in our country, it's a religious war, and it's really, really hard to -- okay, let's blame isis. the extremists are going to perpetuate themselves, so, i mean -- host: go ahead. are you there? i think he's dropped off due to the connection. let's go to collins, baltimore,

maryland, republican line. hi. caller: yes. i'm glad you are taking my call. i'm very sorry the president you have now is a coward, and i think this man is not able to defend this country. the problem going on with isis, those groups should not exist at all. now the having babies, killing women, killing christians, and we're -- all we're doing is -- and wasting a lot of gas with a bunch of jets running around doing nothing. obama will not defend his country. he's a muslim. and i tell you this. host: when it comes to isis exactly what should the u.s. be doing, to what extent?

caller: they should put troops in iraq, bomb isis, you see, the fear of armed conflict on our side is unjust because it only took two days for u.s. troops to run iraq. it cost lives. host: flushing, new york, independent line, hi. caller: yes, good morning. we have to go back a decade ago what we were going to iraq to achieve. we went over there to bring democracy. after ten years, there is nothing. now, isis is -- for me, united states went over there to contain isis but there is no reason to go and put our soldiers back and do whatever we try to do. we cannot achieve that goal.

it's all messed up. we have to contain them, sending troops or -- is not going to help. now either we have to side with as said or the warm in syria. if that is the case, why would you send so many years, good time, to fight those people? it is a failure of u.s. policy. we should not get involved, but we -- they are not going to send just to fight america, so stop the hype and we cannot do that. host: a tweet from senator bob corker of tennessee says isis actions are afront to all. our prayers are with the family of james foley. this is a tweet from tolman. if nato can't fight in iraq,

then the u.s. should quit immediately. >> you can follow us on twitter. you can e-mail us, too, journal@c-span.org. let's here from lorenzo in louisiana, democrat's line. caller: i was talking about -- i mean, i don't think the u.s. should be trying to protect a person that goes over there trying to make money, and you know you're in a war zone, and you don't have the protection, and why should we take and risk our well trained soldiers to go over there to try to get these guys out? when the money they make is their own. i had a friend of mine that was

working for -- in support of the u.s. soldiers over there, he got burned alive. and no one has said nothing, ain't heard a word. but i mean for these people that know they going over there on this contracts, unless they working for the government to try to help the people over there then that's different. but if you choose to go and try to make some money in these war countries, i mean you can't even get insurance to go in a war zone. so why should the u.s. -- why should we take and put our young men, our kids to go over there and try to save a person that knows he's over there strictly for the money? host: a column he wrote, did america's policy on ransom contribute to james foley's killing? had these comments, saying the u.s. government refused to negotiate or pay ransom in foley's case or any other american captives including my

own and duck shun by the taliban five years ago. he wrote the column for receiptors. here is al, in georgia, independent line. caller: yes. i just wanted to talk about wesley clark giving a -- speaking at a conference a few years ago, and it's on youtube, where he talked about the united states wanting to do regime change in five mean countries. and this is approximately in

2001. they decided that they was going to do all of these different nations. obama gets into office, and they basically just moburak to step down. they went into libya and tried to go into syria. so a lot of this stuff was planned well ahead of time, and this is just one of the repercussions from when they mess up, you know, basically they went over there and screwed up. host: so what should be done now? caller: excuse me? host: what should be done now? caller: well, i mean, you know, i don't exactly know what you should do now. after you go in there and stir up a bunch of mess and it backfires, or whatever, then you know, who are you to blame except yourself, you know? why don't we stay out of these people's business? host: rene is from oklahoma on our independent line.

good morning. caller: hello. i'm calling because i know a whole lot of people that serve in the military. different branches. and during the al-qaeda crisis and bin laden a lot of people died. some of them i know. i don't get how isis was allowed to come into existence and yet we go and we fight for ten years to get rid of al-qaeda and bin laden? that doesn't make any sense to me. we go after people who are known to be a problem here in this country because they're known to be problems. why wasn't isis stopped before they got to this level? i don't get it. host: so as far as the current day, what should be done now, in your opinion? caller: that's easy.

what should have been done to al-qaeda to start with. blow them off the dam map. host: we'll hear next from david from ohio. hi. caller: i love your program. i lived in washington for a while. i believe that isis is a men esnecessary. i believe we should take them out. we should bomb them into oblivion. we should take their bases out in syria, take them out of iraq, take them out. and we did this a war or two, we terrorized and bombed, and japanese people, and we won that war. and we're going to have to win this war, and if we don't take care of them now with our air forces, and just bomb them and let the kurds and arm them, and take care of these people, we're going to have to do it ourselves

sometime. and i hate to put boots on the ground, and -- but one way or another isis has got to go. that's how i feel about it. host: the bank of america announcing a deal, or nearing a deal with the u.s. government over mortgage securities. headline from "the washington post" this morning, bank of america, $17 billion deal with the u.s. it says, the story by daniel douglas, if you go to the money and investing section of the "wall street journal" this morning, talks about pay for certain people on wall street.

this is highlighting goldman sachs, here is todd, rockville, maryland. how far should the u.s. go to defeat isis? caller: thanks for having me on their show. we need to make sure not to forget, we need to involve the arab community as solutions. secondly, less boots on the ground, more eyes in the air. we have technology called

drones. we need to step up our use of drones. and then thirdly, let's make sure that unlike our first entry into iraq, that there is cost recovery if the u.s. goes in and we go in below. thank you. host: dominique up next from south carolina, independent line. dominique, hello. caller: yes. i think that in this situation we should be able to move ground troops, because we had to sacrifice so many lives throughout this war, and we can't like be able to control every situation, so like the last caller said i think we should use our technology that we have, try to handle the situation, because, i mean,

there is this one bad group. host: we have several hundred people there, request from the state department for 300 more. there are already troops there. what do you think should be done with them? caller: i mean, we should -- we should go -- i think that we should either train other iraqi soldiers who want to see the mill i trant groups can took out due to fact that the u.s. we are -- it's more countries than this, so -- and other people that can help, like do we have to be the only country that comes to the rescue when it's time for war? host: if you're calling go ahead and continue to call. the numbers will be on the screen. this tweet on how far the u.s. should go to defeat isis. he says remember the president was ready to attack isis last september but when he asked congress they said no. the president made several comments on isis yesterday. here is a portion of his

comments from yesterday. >> the united states of america will continue to do what we must do to protect our people. we will be vigilant and we will be relentless. when people harm americans anywhere, we do what's necessary to see that justice is done, and we act against isil, standing alongside others. the people of iraq, who with our support are taking the fight to isil must continue to come together to expel these terrorists from their community. the people of syria whose story jim foley told do not deserve to live under the shadow of a tyrant or terrorist. from governments and peoples across the middle east, there has to be a common effort to extract this cancer so that it does not spread. there has to be a clear

rejection of these kind of ideologies. one thing we can all agree on is a group like isil has no place in the 21st century. host: we'll hear next from tony, fort worth, texas. caller: as much as i hate to think we are going back to iraq with boots on the ground, we are. i'm a soldier and i know war groans when i hear them. it's a shame about the journalist that got killed. we lost almost 5,000 troops the last time, and we're going back again. and i think this time that when we go back, we are going to be over there forever, because as soon as we leave another group is going to spring up for us to keep going back and forth to iraq. so i think instead of the -- as bad as it sounds, that we are going to have troops in that region when we go back, and we are going back, regardless of

what the secretary of state or the president says right now, we are going back with boots, and we're going to be just like we are in germany, just like we are in korea, we're going to be in that region forever. host: tony do you think that we have a responsibility to go back? caller: well, i think we have -- we have a responsibility because we started the mess. we have a responsibility because as bad as that could cause the area, as bad as saddam hussein was, we did not have these kind of problems in that region until we went in and took him out, until we really destabilized libya enough for the people to kill khadfi, so we destabilized this region. and that means that we have destabilized it. the only way we can stabilize it is putt-putts on the ground and keep them there.

make it a normal military rotation, just like germany and korea, and that's very sad. host: that's tony from fort worth, texas, a picture this morning on the front page of the "wall street journal" of eric holder on the streets of ferguson, missouri. african-american leaders interrupted the contrasting -- interpreted the contrasting approaches as a consequence of the limitations of the president's role as commander in chief. mr. obama's remarks have been pay lit i sized, and had the effect of hardening the racial

divide. there is video from eric holder, visiting from ferguson, missouri. we continue our calls for the next 15 minutes or so. taking a look at statements by the president yesterday, specifically dealing with the terror group isis or isil, and asking you in your thoughts on how far united states should go to defeat isis, (202 (202) 585-s for republicans. and for independents, (202) 585-3882. here is william from ft. lauderdale, florida, republican line. hi. caller: good morning. i think we should definitely stay on the offense against these terrorist groups. the group seems pretty well funded and intent on causing worldwide destruction, with the type of weapons in the world today, it's a matter of time probably before they can get ahold of one. and what bothers me is we had a

strong hold in iraq, and we -- six years of this, the problem is we didn't have leadership to build on what we have built, the ground we gained. i think we should have a major u.s. military base somewhere in the middle east and just part of our u.s. policy that -- because like i said, when they beheaded that journalist that gives you an idea, these people aren't stopping and like i said, they're extremely dangerous, they are beheading little children, and killing people because of their religion, and things like that. and like i said, we should maybe get an international force together, maybe britain, france, germany, and egypt maybe, and jordan, and get their commando

forces, and everybody puts a couple thousand commandos in there, the cream of the crop military, the guys that are really trained in circumstances like this, a group of 10,000 over there, and just -- and like i said, i think former commanders, generals, when we pulled out of iraq this was going to happen. we have to remember, too, that hillary clinton and bill clinton both voted for this war. host: we'll leave it there. i just wanted to show you the front page of the bit british newspaper, the guardian.

this is david from florida, good morning, independent line. caller: yes. i was born and raised in washington, d.c., so i read the post every day. this started back with the iran crisis. they didn't want to do anything about that. bush got the idea we should take cue quite back. and these guys got to stop trying to be politically correct and do what's the right thing. and what the right thing is, they don't know what the hell they're doing. they're just coming to dc to make money and leave. they don't want to do their jobs, stay out of my hometown. host: david, what's the right thing then? caller: kill them all. host: john, up next, from lake land, florida, independent line. caller: good morning.

host: good morning. caller: i agree with one of your callers, this is not just a united states problem, it's a world problem. we look at history, that disease, it took, what, four or five years to stamp out the disease when 50 million people died. the world needs troops from all civilized countries to go in there and take care of business. it's like vietnam, you know. can i fire, you know, i'll get back with you, soldier. you couldn't bomb without the president of the united states' approval. that's what's happening in iraq and afghanistan, with our troops. their hands are tied half the time. thank you very much. host: off of twitter, the vice president, weighing in on the be heading, as well, via tweet. saying our hearts go out to the foley family. we all mourn jim's loss.

robert from arizona, good morning. republican line. caller: good morning. i think putting band-aids on the situation in iraq isn't going to get it. we're going to have to go back and -- big time and straighten it out. and also we needed you case for the youngsters, for the future, for our youngsters in the future, so we won't be living with this situation in the future. thank you. host: keith up next from michigan. democrat's line. caller: good morning. host: good morning. go ahead. caller: my comment is on isis. i feel it's time for the people of iraq to stand up and fight for their country. this has been going on for years. we have been over there, we can't keep continuing to go into regions and fight and lose our soldiers. like i said, this is not a short-term thing, this has been a long-term thing. these people should stand up,

fight for their country, and you know, stop depending on america. every time we go over there and do that, they have attempted to think that we should come in and save them. and that's not how it should be. host: from bob in oklahoma city, you are next. go ahead. caller: thank you. i believe that the president should get on tv right now and declare war against isis and any islamic fundamentalist that wishes to take over an already established country, institute the draft, and get young minute out of the streets and in there fighting and believing in something, and stop doing business with the people that are funding these people. this is the true face of islam. thank you. host: there is a story in the daily signal, picture of the texas governor, rick perry. and a story about how he's appearing in washington today, not only talking about his events of recent but to talk about immigration at the

heritage foundation in washington, d.c. that event takes place at 11:00 a.m. no indication about whether he'll talk about the recent charges against him. you can watch live today at 11:00 on c-span. it's governor rick perry of texas, talking about the new politics of immigration. john, good morning from louisiana, democrat's line. caller: yes, sir. i am just wondering how many more millions of dollars american people will have to pay for all these wars and stuff. host: keep going, john. caller: i'm trying to figure out, you know, we steady spending money, my money. why don't they go over there and do what they got to do as far as the war and stuff, and take these people out. host: that means to you what, as far as do what they got to do? does that mean boots on the ground? increased air strike? what does that mean? caller: i think they need to do

more air strikes and stuff, and boots on the ground. host: so some troop levels on the ground? caller: some, yes, sir, some, but they need to use them drones and stuff more. host: that's john from louisiana, "the washington post" discussing a recent decision by a judge to release papers when it comes to the justice department's fast and furious program. a name you probably heard of. u.s. district judge amy berman jackson set an october 1s october 1st deadline. pfs h

caller: i just wanted to talk about, you know, we think that we go over to iraq, we -- people are saying we should have left saddam alone, and i don't think that was the right thing. saddam was a tyrant. we went over there to help those people, and create piece over there. and once we cleared the path for them to have peace, that's a process. and the process is breaking down again. and whether we realize it or not, we still going to have to be involved in helping other

peoples around the country, other places, at least fight for peace. united states, when we have much, much is given, winch is given much is needed. you know, you have to do more. you have to help more. and i don't see that. even though i know it comes at a cost, peace does. but we are playing definite role in this world and we should understand that, and stand for that. we're doing the right thing. when you're doing something right it shouldn't be standing for something wrong. people think that because when you're doing right, it's the wrong thing and that's not -- that's not what it is. host: a long time observer and frequent guest on this show, a piece in the la times this morning telling the president, advising the president to be upfront in iraq. here is some of her thoughts this morning.

read more at the web site by the author, robin wright. here is jim, minnesota, republican line. jim from minnesota, hello. caller: hello. host: you're on, go ahead, please. caller: i think we're asking the wrong question. i think we should be asking the question how did we allow isis to become so powerful as they

are in the last couple of years? it's not the fact that we got to do something now it's that we should have done something a long time ago. host: from twitter, weighing in with his thoughts, saying isis is a threat to all, but particularly iran defeating isis will strengthen iran in the middle east. from minnesota also, here is david. go ahead, please. caller: hello? host: david from minnesota, you're on, go an ahead. caller: i just got something to say. the killing -- they're killing kids and families over there, in iraq. and i think it's pretty sad. i think it's pretty sad they're over there killing people in iraq, and obama needs to do something about this. host: keep going david. you're hearing yourself talk. go ahead. caller: it's just not right.

obama needs to put his foot down and go over there and take care of isis so they don't come over to the u.s. and start blowing our stuff up over here. it's pretty sad. they're killing kids, they're killing christian people. host: mary jain from ohio, republican line, hi. caller: i'm glad to get through. i really agree with a lot of the callers. i think we need to get congress back and vote this as a message we got to get our troops back there. we have to create a coalition with all the free countries that are willing to stop this. we voted obama in. he told us what he was going to do. he said he was going to pull our troops out. he didn't say he was going to leave people there. he did exactly what we voted for. now, we don't like it, so now we have to make another decision. we have to get our guys back in there and let them show their

fingers once again. this is a mess. but we goofed, so now we have to correct it. host: correction means what in your mind? caller: we have to get a coalition together, get these -- our congressman back here. our president is not going to do this. he told us what he was going to do, and he did it. now we need somebody to change that and decide again to put our troops back on the ground and form a better coalition for all of the countries around the world, because this -- this has been going on since 1830s they have been exacting wages from people and money. host: you would support boots on the ground and going that route? caller: i think we have to. we don't have any choice. it's not going to happen. we have to find the people and, you know, we need to be able to discern better the problem if we were on the ground. you can't see the problem completely from 30,000 feet in

the air. you got to get down. and that's what we have to do. we made a bad choice. now we have to correct it. host: that's mayor ejain from oh i had oh. she will be the last call on this topic. we'll switch topics, taking a look at poverty in the united states, a new report shows that growing poverty took place in suburban areas of the u.s. we'll discuss that and how it impacts places like ferguson, missouri. later on in the program we continue our look at elements of l bj's great society. we'll look at impact of the clean air act as "washington journal" continues after this.

>> i always knew there was a risk in the bohemian national, and i decided to take it because whether an illusion or not, i don't think it is. it helped my concentration. it stopped me being bored, stopped other people being boring, to some extent. it would keep me awake, make the evening go on longer, to prolong the conversation, to enhance the moment. if i was asked would i do it again, the answer is probably yes, i would have quit earlier possibly, hoping to get away with the whole thing. easy for me to say, of course. sounds irresponsible. if i say yeah i would do it again to you, but the truth is it would be hypocritical of me to say no, i would never chance the stuff if i had known,

because i did know. everyone knows. one of the problems is when you do that, you try to control everything, then you create opposition and disoh dense everywhere. if you tell all artists they have to paint the same way, and one artist says i want to paint another way you made him into a -- if we want to talk about it and the populace agrees it's something that we should subsidize put it on the balance sheet and make it clear and make it evident and make everybody aware of how much it's costing. when you deliver it through these third party enterprises, fannie mae and freddie mac, when

you deliver the isn'tcy did i through a public company with private shareholders and executives who can extract a lot of that subsidy for themselves, that is not a very good way of subsidizing home ownership. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us from the brookings institution, elizabeth kneebone. good morning. guest: good morning. host: you took a recent look at poverty. what kind of drove this report? why did you look into it? guest: for the past several years at brookings we have been studying the shifting policy in the u.s. within our 100 largest metro

areas, we seen a real pivotal shift in where poverty is located, for the first time in 2000 we passed a tipping point where there are more poor living in suburbs in these regions. the latest report was a deeper look at that. what's happening at the neighborhood level, and in that report the numbers show not only is poverty becoming more regional, becoming more suburban, it's becoming more concentrated. once again there are more poor people living in high poverty or distressed neighborhoods than at the beginning of the decade and more of those anybody or hoods are emerging in communities that have not been home to such high levels of poverty. host: why suburban regions? why is it happening there? guest: a number of reasons have worked together to drive this increase in policy in recent years. you have shifts in these regions in terms of where populations

were. you have shifts in housing market, where affordable housing is located, can help shape these trends. it may be housing stock in suburbs aged into affordability. maybe it once affordable at one time but has become more attainable. in some region there are housing price pressures that are causing people to look for more affordable options. we have the impact of the housing crisis, about three quarters of the sub prime loaned happened in the suburbs. and about three quarters of foreclosures have happened in those communities. and then you have the economic impact, as well. we see recent jobs shifting towards suburbs over time, some of the most -- retail, construction, lower paying occupations, and also ones that were hit hard in the most recent rescission. host: so is poverty different in

the suburban level rather than the urban area? how do people adjust and adapt with it? guest: it can be really diverse range of experiences, because suburbs themselves we tend to think about them as one kind of place bul they are a diverse mix of communities. in some places, suburban poverty is more hidden. it can be difficult for local leaders, for community members to understand the level of need that these places are experiencing today because it's not as visible. a lot of these communities they haven't built up the same sort of infrastructure and services, support, that cities have built up over decades. with this rapid growth, it can create a lot of additional challenges for low-income people who may not have access to emergency services or safety net supports that they need, things like public transportation and ways to get to jobs and services

elsewhere in the region. host: as far as the areas affected are there certain areas of the country that were more affected than others? guest: what has been so striking is almost every metropolitan area saw population growth. a lot of different kinds of suburbs. we have older places struggling with poverty for longer have higher concentrations of poverty, as well. it's really been a widespread and widely shared challenge and growing in recent years. host: the impact of growth of poverty in urban areas. if you want to ask a question, maybe you can relate experiences that you have been involved with. here is your chance to do so. (202) 585-3881 for republicans.

(202) 585-3880 for democrats. (202) 585-3882 for independence. you can send us tweets at journal.org. people in those distressed neighborhoods growing. the nation's 100 largest metro areas, some of 70% of all distressed locations growing by 21%. talk about that last element. if we're seeing the growth of poverty in the suburban areas, what about elsewhere, what are we seeing? guest: that's the thing, the growth of poverty has touched all kinds of places, suburban communities, rural communities, suburbs became growth to the fast eest growth. this is something that is typically been seen as an urban thing, and it's true the majority of distressed neighborhoods have been in cities and continue to be in cities.

we're seeing this emerging of concentrated poverty beyond urban cores, in new places that have less experience with those challenges, especially in urban communities. the number of suburban poor living in distressed communities is 40% or higher, that population grew by 139% in the span of a decade, very rapid increase. when we look to the 20% threshold of poverty, which is where we start to see the challenges of concentrated poverty eemergency, we saw a doubling of the suburban poor population. host: again, for our guests, questions welcome. my apologies, the lines are different. you posted a recent column, taking a look at ferguson missouri, and issues with suburban policy. talk about that, and what did

you find? guest: looking at ferguson, in many ways it's very typical of the types of trends we've been seeing nationally. if anything, it's the trends are more pronounced within ferguson than we seen on the national average. between 2000 and 2008, i'm sorry, between 2000 and 2012 period, over the span of a decade, the poor population in ferguson doubled. that concentration of poverty i was talking about also became more pronounced in the region. in fact, in 2000, the neighborhood within ferguson none of those met that 20% threshold that we were talking about. by the end of the decade, almost every neighborhood was at the 20% level or above. so very rapid economic shifts within a very short amount of time. host: do you see any correlation between those situations economically and what you see as far as on the streets of ferguson? i know it deals with specific case of mike brown, but are they underlying issues when it comes to economics?

guest: i think there are challenges we see that we've also -- my colleague have seen in communities across the country that are experiencing this rapid type of shift, which is the community has changed a great deal, in a short amount of time. but those changes haven't been reflected in the leadership structure of the community. the elected officials, the police force don't really reflect the rapid shift. and i think that's something that a lot of communities around the country are experiencing, and cannot always, but it can create tensions in terms of dealing with the challenges that are emerging in these communities. host: to your calls, taking a look at the impact of the growth of poverty in suburban areas. democrats line, you're up first. you're on with elizabeth kneebone of brookings institution. caller: good morning. the poverty situation,

especially with the senior citizens, i think the senior citizens are charged way too much for rent and i feel like the ferguson situation, i think what's going on, it's a different subject, but what's going on in iraq -- host: let's keep to your initial comments of social security issues and things like that. elizabeth kneebone. guest: i think the issue of the aging population is a very important piece of this puzzle. because it's not as we see, that's something that happened across age groups. so there are growing share of the elderly poor living in suburban communities that now these places are struggling with issues about how to help people age in place where they don't necessarily have infrastructure like public transit, the safety net services and support for an

aging and low income population. there are a lot of challenges around how to provide more affordable housing options. that's a growing challenge in a lot of places

guest there is a great overlap where we've seen suburban poverty overall so places hit hard by the recession in particular, because this trend accelerated following the downturn so there's a lot of overlap with regional economic trends. host: taray from maryland. go ahead, please. caller: i just want to say i'm excited by studying the demographic shifts. one thing i'm not sure the naturalist took into consideration is that they are pressured in urban centers where low-income and working class people are being forcibly dislocated or forcibly relocated out into the periphery of urban centers or into the suburbs. and the interest is to really

bring suburban folks back because of disposable income. i think, one, you might see this democratic shift because of -- demographic shift because of that factor. and i think poverty has been concentrated a long time so certainly it might be a new phenomenon to have poverty concentrated in suburban locales but, you know, the important thing is to look at what are the underpinnings of concentrated poverty. why is it sort of persistent, right, no matter where it moves. where it moves is interesting. the thing about ferguson, and i'm a former police officer as well and academic in anthropology. but the thing about ferguson is we're going to experience a sort of increased exponential increase of incidents like what happened in ferguson because you have these police forces in these suburbanlike bedroom communities that are having

these locations and aren't prepared to deal with that on top of the fact there is the long-term racism that's been sort of unmitigated and just continues. host: before you leave, and we'll talk about your points, hat's the situation in hyattsville, maryland? can you see something like that happening there? >> i used to live in landover, maryland, but the metropolitan d.c. area is going through the same sort of shift so what you have is a lot of working class and low-income people being forced to be removed from washington, d.c. proper, and they're coming out into the suburbs. there is in fact -- well, there's no evidence of an increase in crime. but the perception is that hese areas are now being inundated with people with

criminal behaviors. that's not me tembings d out in evidence but it is there and the stereotypes we have. guest: a lot of good points there that i'll speak to in the order they were raised. one, the housing market shifts that may be contributing to these trends, particularly in certain markets like the washington, d.c. area, the san rancisco bay area, new york, boston, where we've even housing price pressures increasing and the shortage of affordable housing. that definitely factors into these trends as low income and moderate income residents are looking for affordable places to live and may have to look further out into the region. while the piece of the puzzle, the magnitude of these trends, the large pace of growth we've seen and shifts that we've seen says that there's more to the story than just that. that there are a lot of larger factors woven together to help

explain these increases in poverty. and i think that's absolutely right. the d.c. area is also very typical of the trends we've seen nationally in terms of the growth of poverty in the suburbs. in terms of the persistence of concentrated poverty, i think actually did we make progress against concentrated poverty. we saw the number of distressed neighborhoods decline, the number of poor living in such neighborhoods fell, so there really was progress. but that happened in an era there was a tight labor market, an economy that was booming and actually reached down the economic ladder. and we also had targeted policies in place to try to deconcentrate poverty. so counteracting decades of other policies that helped to concentrate poverty, for instance, in public housing that was very concentrated in high poverty neighborhoods so the introduction of housing

choice vouchers and other policies to try and deconcentrate poverty, and those things together with the tight economy really helped to make progress against those trends. the thing is as soon as we entered the 2000's, we entered recession and quickly lost progress so when you look over the length of the decade after two recessions to two uneven recoveries that did not reach down the economic ladder, we erased a lot of the progress we made in the 1990's. host: in new york, craig is up next. hello. >> hi, how are you doing? the thing i don't understand is to relocate people, i don't understand what good that does. i've seen many, many relocations over the years. i used to have a place in florida, you know, i've lived up here for many, many years. it just seems that you're moving the problem to somewhere else. it's not helping the people.

it seems to me if you take a place like the bronx and totally tear it down and make nice apartments for these people, you give people and they have their own businesses and they are predominantly black for the police force, if you did that and you gave themselves the sense of pride and you made schools and you geared those schools to the problems that these children are having and giving them a better education and focusing in on what they really need, wouldn't that be a better suggestion and a better use of the money where people -- where they would actually move up and do better? instead of taking one place over here, where you're putting it into another area but you're not solving the problem for these people. host: craig, thanks.

guest: first off, i think it's important when we talk about these trends, it often is easy to talk about people who are moving in or moving out, the fact this is about movement. and again, that is a piece of the puzzle. we have seen those dynamics at play. but there is also a larger story here about a downward economic mobility, that there are a number of people because of the impact of two recessions and structural changes in the economy that has seen the rapid growth of lower paying jobs, jobs that even if you're working full time wouldn't get a family above the poverty line. those also -- those dynamics also are at play which mean a lot of people have become poorer in place so the rise of suburban poverty is not just about low income people relocating to these communities but about long-term residents becoming poorer over time which raises challenges about how you meet the level of need that places are seeing that have not

typically dealt with these challenges. to the caller's point about the need to have more integrated and better targeted services in terms of making sure low-income neighborhoods and populations have access to quality education, to good jobs, to safe housing, all of those are very important pieces in neighborhoods and communities where we've seen more innovative and effective responses to these trends, it really has been about linking together those types of strategies to improve opportunities for people to become more economically stable and self-sufficient over time. host: the number to call to discuss the impact of suburban -3880. , 202-5853 off twitter, she says if children are born into poverty, there is a little chance of them getting out. is that the case? >> we have seen research at

harvard and others that have shown that we're not as economically mobile and socially mobile a society as i think we tend to perceive ourselves. host: which means what? guest: the ability if you're born in a poor family to get in the top part of the income distribution, that your chances aren't as good as parts of other western countries or the developed world. there is an issue. it comes back to where you were born and raised, that place really does matter in determining how mobile you are over time. socially and economically. that's also why there's a real concern about the growth of concentrated poverty because research has shown the more segregated regions are by income and race, the less mobile residents are, and not even just of poor neighborhoods, anyone in that region shows a lower level of mobility over time. these are not just challenges facing the low-income people in

the communities affected by them but the broader regions they live and are located. host: east chicago, indiana is where rosa is. hi. caller: hi. wanted to ask her about how she felt maybe technological changes, impacts to the economy, more international -- host: rosa, go ahead, keep going. caller: ask her about how the market has changed now and how it affects our economy here. guest: that's a great question and really an important piece of the instruction are the structural changes we've seen with globalization and the rise of technology that we've seen sort of a decline in the number of middle-wage jobs we have especially with the decline of manufacturing and a shift towards more service-sector, lower-paying occupations that even in the recovery as we look now, we're adding jobs, it's

clear we need to think beyond the number of jobs and actually what kind of jobs we're creating because we've seen a rapid pace of growth in jobs that pay low wages even if someone is working full time, wouldn't necessarily be enough to get them above the poverty line. that means even as we go in economic recovery that we won't necessarily see improvement in these trends if we aren't creating economic opportunities that can reach down the ladder and allow people to pass out of poverty. host: we showed areas of the country dealing with suburban policy, are there areas that have improved their situation where people are becoming -- at least the numbers of poverty are decreasing? guest: so the impact of the recession really erased a lot of the progress. some regions were able in the early 2000's to make progress against poverty. but by and large, almost every area of the story is one of growing poverty. again, because of the recovery we've seen since the great recession has been so uneven and hasn't really reached down to the lower income residents

in this country, we've yet to see real progress against poverty since the recession, sort of stuck at post recession highs. so as the recovery continues, we'll eventually begin to see some improvements but it's been a very slow process for regions so far. host: bud is up next for indiana. make sure your tv is turned down, by the way, if you haven't. caller: my question for you, elizabeth, have you ever lived in poverty? until you've lived in poverty, you really don't know what poverty is. poverty is increasing in this country every year. do you know how many children every morning come to school without a breakfast? every morning there's thousands of children coming to school without a breakfast. now, that's poverty. and they're not getting a breakfast, either the families can't afford the food or other reasons, i don't know.

but to me, you have to live in poverty to know what poverty is. and that's all i have to say. host: bud, before you go, has poverty been in your family or in your experience? caller: no, i've been really lucky. i am on a limited income, but i watch very carefully what i spend. and it seems like every year, every year the cost of living and everything goes up. every year. and it takes more and more of my income to live. and eventually i'll probably be down there in the poverty level. and i am in poverty level, i only make $22,000 a year. that's what i live off of. can you do that, elizabeth? guest: you're making a really good point about the impact that growing poverty has had, particularly on school-aged children and school populations. that's something we've seen not

only in cities but suburban communities where the growth of children on free and reduced price lunch has been rapidly increasing in recent years and we find schools often grappling and struggling with that new reality particularly because there's limited safety nets and services in those communities so the school is often having to step up and they're on the front line of trying to provide these wrap-around supports like feeding children breakfast and lunch, providing things like food pantries, clothing banks, even bringing in medical and dental services so they can address the basic and primary needs of these children before they can even get to their educational goals for these children and their families. and again, that's a really difficult contact for these schools because the budgets haven't kept pace and are using limited resources to stretch and create these wrap-around opportunities to address the growing poverty in their community. host: he brings up a good point, what defines poverty in the u.s.? guest: the federal poverty line

in 2012 was roughly $23,500 for a family of four. so it is something that adjusts based on your family size. but it does not adjust based on cost of living across different regions so it's the same measure nationally. host: you're saying people in those suburban levels are living at that level of income? guest: that's right. in fact, when we look across urban and suburban communities, a similar share is living below half the poverty line so more than 40% of the poor in both cities and suburbs are living below half that level. host: is there a point where elements that, because people are living in poverty, they did it because maybe they bought a house that was too big or lost their job and there was contributing factors and especially during the housing crisis and things like that, how does that factor in people's situations? guest: in recent years as we've seen people slip in poverty maybe for the first time, the stories you hear often about major setback that set

them tumbling, whether it was massive medical bills they weren't able to go back to work they were working before, they lost their house, house was under water after the foreclosure crisis. so often they may have been making it before even just a few years ago but that one crisis was all it took to then send them below the poverty line. host: our guest, elizabeth kneebone from the brookings institution. how are you doing this morning, mike? caller: i think what is happening is the effect of neoconconservatives and whenever you have a country with deregulations and no tariffs and embraces open markets, what it does is causes -- well, alexander hamilton was thoroughly against such ideas and this country thrived for 200 years and after world war i to ronald reagan, we had the

strongest middle class on the history of the planet and the top 1% paid 90% of the tax burden in this country and we've got other problems like nafta which opened up the gateway for every corporation and contractors to hire cheaper labor from across the border and put americans out of work. i myself am a journeyman carpenter and build houses all over california. i built probably 1,000 houses almost in just the santa cruz area and hollister and the central coast area in california. i used to make anywhere from $50,000 to $60,000 a year. and you know, i've been out of work for almost 10 years now. the same guy that is doing my job right now is making minimum wage and he doesn't know english and is being exploited by the top americans, even 1%, even steven ranch company in california, the union is gone,

and their total employment there is all illegal aliens. host: thanks, caller. guest: i think there definitely are mechanisms and levers the federal government can pull to address these issues and that are becoming increasingly important as we look at the shifts that have been happening in the economy, the impact of the recession, the growth of low-wage work and that there are the types of policies that the federal government is actually in a good place and role to play. so in things like tax policy, we know things like the earned income tax credit make a big difference in hoping to boost the pay of low income workers and has a measurable effect in alleviating poverty. there are proposals on the hill right now to increase the eitc particularly for workers without children who really get a very small benefit at this point and it's not playing the same sort of anti-poverty effect it could or has played for families with children.

so that sort of federal tax policy is an area where the federal government can step in and actually help ameliorate these trends and we've seen the growth of minimum wage discussions and campaigns across cities and states that are trying to grapple with these issues within their communities and the federal government could play a role in that debate as well, actually helping across the nation to raise that level and increase the take-home pay. host: we talked about ferguson, missouri and your research produced a map of the area in light of others in st. louis county, what are we looking at from that map, the information, what does it tell us? guest: that's showing the poverty in st. louis county and the concentrations of poverty in higher poverty neighborhoods. so again, within ferguson, these are census track level data, and we know that in 2000, within ferguson's borders, the

census track had poverty rates between 4% and 16%. a decade later, every neighborhood within ferguson had double-digit poverty rates. the lowest was 13%. the rest of the communities or rest of the neighborhoods within that community ranged from 20% to 30% poverty rates. again, it's showing within ferguson and other parts of st. louis county, they're really grappling with these trends. host: the map shows us one thing. let's get a perspective from jeffrey smith, a former missouri state senator and also teaches urban policy at the new school, professor smith, good morning. guest: good morning. thanks for having me. we saw the map and know the locations but talk about ferguson and surrounding areas and for people who especially don't live there, talk about specific areas of that area that might be interesting to note as far as ferguson and other areas surrounding it, their economic picture and situation. guest: ok. o ferguson is in sort of north

central st. louis county, north county as a whole has experienced sweeping demographic change over the course of the last 20 years. many of the listeners probably seen statistics showing ferguson's change, about 20 years ago it was about 3/4 white and now it's nearly 70% ack and that change is not atypical throughout north st. louis county. there's been a foreclosure epidemic in north county. a lot of the suburbs just to the south and east, particularly to the east of ferguson has really, really struggled over the last couple decades. it's an area ferguson proper doesn't look like most of what eople have seen. and it doesn't give a picture. most of ferguson is a single family, working class, sort of

trapped homes, suburban style ranch houses, three bed, two bath, just sort of regular looking houses. there's a very affluent part of ferguson which is leafy, kind of turn of the century mansions. but the part we've been looking at is one of the proper parts of ferguson. i would say ferguson itself is a microcosm of suburban st. louis because it's got a little bit of everything in it. host: as far as the economic picture, what events led up to the current economic picture? guest: first of all, you've had the defamation of the auto manufacturing sector. st. a lot of people know louis was the second leading manufacturing center in the country to detroit and have lost a ton of jobs in that sector. and a lot of the jobs were just north of ferguson in a town

called hazelwood, so that's really hurt the ferguson area a lot. and they also lost a lot of corporate headquarters in the last couple decades and that obviously hasn't helped and ferguson is also right next door to the airport. the airport is another institution that's really struggled. t.w.a., you know, went into bankruptcy and then ended up getting bought by american and used to have a hub in st. louis. but then with the absorbs -- absorption into american, it's not as central. st. louis isn't as central a player in the airline business. southwest, fortunately, has grown but the airport just in general hasn't done what people hoped it would do. they built an extra runway, and this is kind of an interesting story, and it's part of the noise mitigation, they emptied out a town called kenlock which

is adjacent to the airport and many of those kenlock residents were poor and ended up moving to ferguson, and there have been public policies that have affected movements, population movements into ferguson that produced some of the economic conditions and frustration we've witnessed the last couple weeks. host: our guest here was talking about mobility, the ability to move other places for better opportunity. what's the situation there in ferguson as far as mobility is concerned and the ability to do so? >> well, in terms of moving, a lot of the movement in and out of ferguson, i'm not sure you would call it voluntary because, as i said, foreclosures have been pervasive in that part of north county and in adjacent towns in north county. a lot of people have been moving involuntarily. there has been some new economic development in the a a, express cripts which is

pharmacy benefits management firm has created thousands of jobs in a headquarter adjacent to ferguson, so there have been some economic opportunities. you know, people shouldn't paint the picture this is a destitute area. but for the most part, as i said, struggling, working class folks and a lot of stability in the middle class and affluent parts of ferguson and a lot of instability in the poorest parts that we've seen and heard about. host: as far as the jobs are concerned, what are the job opportunities like and the salaries people are making? guest: at expressscripts, it's pretty good. the world headquarters is there and there are jobs particularly for people with science backgrounds that are good, solid, family supporting jobs. unfortunately, i don't think most of those people taking those jobs are moving to

ferguson. it's an area where the white population is much older, because of the demographic change there, there aren't many young white families moving into ferguson -- and that helps explain the power differentials as well, because if you're under 18 years old, you can't vote and the youth population in ferguson is mostly black. also, if you're 18-30, you're less likely to vote than people over 55. and so when people look at these demographic numbers and say oh, ferguson is 67% black, why are there no black people on the city council? one reason why is because just voting turnout trends around the country, you know, suggest that older people much more likely to turn out and since the white population of ferguson is so much older than the black population, that helps explain some of what -- some of this power disparate. host: if trends continue as you

see them, professor smith, what's the future of ferguson? guest: i hate to say this, and you know, it's been interesting to watch over the last couple days as this i love ferguson movement has kind of hit the more affluent and generally whiter parts of town, people putting up yard signs sort of suggesting they're not going anywhere, but my gut is that this will -- this episode will only accelerate the trend of white flight out of ferguson to suburbs mostly west of ferguson like bridgeton and the adjacent county, st. charles county. so my -- yeah, my gut is that the 2020 census, we'll probably see another significant increase in the black population relative to the white population in ferguson. but that's just based on, you know, on both past trends and the unfortunate reality that a

lot of white people in st. louis are watching this saying oh, my gosh, i don't want to be anywhere near this. host: professor jeffrey smith at the new school and also a former missouri state senator and wrote a couple pieces on ferguson and what's been going on there. professor smith, thanks for your time. guest: thanks very much for having me on. host: elizabeth kneebone, anything from his comments that struck you? guest: sort of the last point he was talking about, about the continued white flight. that's something we're seeing in older regions as well, something that we originally saw in the urban areas but the suburbs further out, land use patterns and zoning make a difference in shaping trends and as new housing keeps being built further out and opening up opportunities for higher come residents to move out you may see this region of concentrated pockets of people of color, poverty, sort of re-creating some of the challenges we've seen in cities

in these entering suburbs. there are policy and zoning and land use mechanisms you could put in place to try and encourage the creation of more mixed income, stable communities so we don't see the sort of tipping and increase entrenched poverty. host: talk about the impact of suburban policy, looking at ferguson but we appreciate your calls as well, 202-585-3880. for those in the eastern and central time zones 585-3881 and in the mountain and pacific time zones, we appreciate you holding on, especially gary, connorsville, illinois, thanks for holding on. good morning. caller: i just want to point something out here that's real important. i think it gets overlooked quite a bit. and the fact that a lot of people aren't born with the same intellectual skill set, like when i was in school, those guys are barely cracking books and bringing straight a's