that refugees are resilient people. if they weren't resilient, they would not be here. the people who are not resilient to not make it to the shores of this country. every book i write, i write because i want people to do something. in other words, i do not, i value good writing, of course, but that is not what i ask of my writing. i ask of my own writing, what is it good for? what impact is it going to have on the world? i want to write advocacy writing. so, with every book, like "re viving ophelia." i had a strong sense teen age girls were being misunderstood. i wanted to write something that allowed the adults in their lives to help them in a more intelligent and compassionate way. the same way with this book. there is a lot of misinformation about refugees. there is a thorough lack of understanding of the enormous problems they come from and the

animus problems they face in our country. and so, at the end of this book, the main thing i encourage readers to do was become a cultural broker, get involved in your community, work at a literacy center, work through your church. if you see refugee walking down the street carrying a very heavy couch on his back, stop and talk to the person an offer to help them move that couch in a different way. if you see someone confused in a grocery store about how to check out, help them understand how to go through a checkout line. so, there are always people around from other countries in most american cities by now that experiencedfrom an america stepping up and saying, how can i be of help to you? when that happens, the really interesting thing is i don't urge people to do this as some kind of moral duty or oppressive task they should take into their business lives. when people do this, they have

fun. th enjoy ite. they really feel good about b eing able to interact in such an informal and direct way with people whose lives they would never understand otherwise. >> tomorrow, the c-span cities tour heads to north carolina. we'll learn about the literary life of greensboro with authors of books about the women who took part in that city's civil rights sittings in the 1960's, the lawyer who lost the supreme court case plessy versus ferguson and propaganda from world war i. >> with the senate in its august break, we will feature book tv programming weeknights in primetime on c-span 2, starting at 8:00 p.m. for the weekend, here are a few special programs. 22, live fromst jackson, mississippi, for the inaugural mississippi book festival beginning at 11:30 a.m.

with discussions on harper lee, civil rights, and the civil war. on saturday, september 5, we are live from our nation's capital for the 15th annual national book festival. followed on sunday with our live in depth program with former second lady and senior fellow at the american enterprise institute lynn chaney. book tv on c-span 2, television for serious readers. tonight, a discussion from the annual aspen security form on the dangers of isi and how the groups. the is using the internet as a recruitment tool. here is a look. ts business model is encouraging people to commit attacks wherever they are. then whether or not they actually have any other connection with isil, they will claim credit for the attack. how does that reflecting in terms of what we are seeing in the moment? we've seen an increase in the

number of arrests related to the threat. fromve had over 50 arrests criminal prosecutions in about month.t 18 in the beginning, they tended to be foreign terrorist fighters, those who wanted to go overseas to commit mayhem. more recently, we are seeing individuals inside the united who want to conduct terrorist attacks at home and they are being directed and encouraged to do so by terrorist group said social media. i think linked to the fact that it is social media, we're seeing a definite change in the aregraphics of those we arresting. it is younger. so we are seeing now of these ar 30 yearsound 80% are old or younger. of those, about 40% are 21 years old or younger. recent a portion of the

discussion held by the aspen security forum on isis. you can see the entire program tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span. it is book to2, be programming with authors and books on immigration issues. and on c-span 3, american history tv with a look at congressional history, including women in congress and the history of the house ways and means committee. tomorrow on "washington journal," michael warren talks about donald trump and his view on policy issues following last week's debate. young invisibles looks at millennial voters and what is important to them, including student loan debt and health care. after that, political contributor mark perry looks at his recent article on infighting at the pentagon and what is the best way to combat china. plus your phone calls, facebook comments and tweets. "washington journal" live

wednesday at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. this sunday night on "q&a," institute for policy studies fellow and antiwar activists phyllis dennis on u.s. foreign-policy since 9/11. the recent negotiations with iran and the war on terrorism. >> who is isis? all of those questions are important and i address them. i think what is more important because it is something we can do something about is what is the u.s. policy regarding isis? we really go to war against terrorism? are we doing the war wrong or is it wrong to say there should be a war at all? i think those are the questions that are the most important and that will be the most useful. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's "q&a." >> next, a discussion on the federal government's home

affordable modification program from "washington journal." this is 50 minutes. now joining us from new york this morning, gretchen morgenson with us to talk about home ownership. you can read the story of slack lifeline for drowning homeowners. gretchen morgenson began with this program that homeowner set up to help these homeowners. what is this program. theou know this was signature program that the obama administration wanted to put in place to help homeowners and it started in 2009. we have a long arc of performance here to evaluate. as you remember in the crisis the banks got huge enormous bailouts and homeowners were really left struggling on their own. so the program as it was called

was designed to really help them and combat the idea that only the banks got the bailout. so what we have been looking at recently is a report from the special inspector general of the charter program. went backr colleagues and analyzed how many banks turned down or what number of borrowers are turned down by the banks for the program and the numbers were startling. host: from your story, here is a quote from christy saying, we are constantly seeing problems with the way servicers are treating homeowners and not following the rules. i don't understand why the hasn't been a stronger policing. what is going on? guest: i don't know if you remember this. crisised the mortgage and from the beginning it was

evident to anyone who looks at the procedures that the banks and the servicers -- the companies that send you your bill every month and take your money that operate the behind-the-scenes administrative aspect of a mortgage -- those banks were woefully unprepared for the folk -- four coat -- foreclosure crisis. and we learned how they were making up documents and creating documents and they were robust side almost automatically to it is not as if it is so totally a surprise because even prior to the program even during the foreclosure crisis and before we saw problems with loan servicers. but the degree to which this is problematic is that this was supposed to help homeowners and a borrowers and it turns out that instead of throwing them a lifeline, they are really throwing on an anchor and it is not that helpful. >> you profiled lucy circle.

what was her experience? guest: she was in vermont. her experience is fairly common. she wanted to try to get a loan modification. she wanted to try to get the terms of her mortgage changed so that she could afford it. she became disabled and could no longer work. she was getting disability insurance and she had enough money to make a mortgage payment that was lower than the one she had previously. sendust got the runaround the documents, resend the documents and it just did not occur as smoothly as the program had been advertised and she actually had to and list the help -- had to enlist the help of a legal aid lawyer. a lot of homeowners have had to do that to fight on their behalf because you cannot do it alone.

it is very difficult to come up against these behemoth organizations that are incredibly incompetent or just doing what they can to try to put off any kind of help to the borrower. as i said in the article you really cannot underestimate the butntial for incompetence as one of the legal aid lawyers told me. there are benefits to the banks if they hold off on giving a modification because the interest accrues. and soeclosure fees rise there is a monetary incentive to put off giving someone a loan modification. i don't know that is what is going on but it is a possibility. many?lucy is one of how who have had this experience? in thethe headline

report, or one of the headlines in this special inspector general report was that 4 million borrowers had been rejected for loan modifications by the banks operating the of anm. that is kind ironic or paradoxical number because that was the number the treasury and administration said would be helped by the program. christy romero estimates that there are roughly 890,000 people currently in modification programs. that is far less than the 4 million at the program had set out to help. host: do the banks lose under this program? guest: the banks make money under the program. it is not a lot of money. income. incremental fee

it is something that they are able to volunteer to do it they don't have to do it. the treasury did not require the banks to do it which was an interesting element because at the time, a lot of these banks were receiving billions of dollars from the taxpayer and yet the treasury did not require them to participate in the program for main street. there were flaws from the beginning. the way the program was set up evident that it is certainly not meeting its goals. host: how do people qualify for this program? says my house is not worth what i paid for it -- guest: there are a lot of rules in the rulebooks for who qualifies for a loan modification under the program.

the best thing that a borrower can do is simply apply and to try to get through the maze of requirements. where ite in a state is considered -- where the -- have to oversee foreclosures, you are in a better position because the courts will monitor how the bank is operating and if you have legal aid help that will really help you try to navigate these shoals. applying for the loan modification and then finding out if you meet the requirements -- there are requirements that your debt to income cannot exceed to get a loan mod. it is a strict set of rules but a lot certainly could get in to the program but it does seem as though they are being held off and stonewalled. host: eric, you are on the air

with gretchen morgenson. caller: good morning. let's go back to the very beginning. all of this started under a republican administration, the deregulation with glass-steagall. with that did was open the floodgates of subsidies and corrupt or grams to these you by at comes to allowing commercial money to be used in investment banking. if you with separate these two they were not have this money to gamble with. what they would have to do then -- they would have to scrutinize these mortgages more in order for them to get any kind of money out of them. it is all on the insurance companies to pay up these mortgages. they don't care if they have to be paid or not. it's glass-steagall and republican's deregulation and that is basically what it goes to.

certainly there was deregulation and that was a central heart of the problem that emerged in 2008. we also had what was considered an innovation and mortgage products that were not regulated closely. the fdic was really the standalone regulator who was trying hard to push back on the innovation the banks for coming up with. these were these crazy mortgages were you only had to pay the interest and not the principal or a mortgage whose payment exploded or ballooned at a certain point in time or the interest rate went up. programse creative that wall street and the banks came up with to try to allow -- they were called affordability products. many that people who may be should not buy as much of a house could afford that house

using these crazy mortgages. regulators were nowhere to be found on that turf. they were not regulating that closely in the fdic tried and was pushed back by the federal reserve. it was really very obvious to a lot of people that they would end up badly. i agree that there was a deregulatory element involved in the crisis and how it came about. host: peter, a republican. good morning. caller: miss mortenson, i read your book "reckless endangerment." it was great. i recommend it to my question is, and i asked this two peter wallace, because i read his rebuttal to the majority in the financial crisis. republicans blame democrats. democrats blame republicans. i believe they are both at fault.

this is my question. bill clinton's administration raise the mandates on subprime mortgages, according to your book. that created the incentive for banks to create these subprime mortgages -- to convert into .ecurities in 2003, president bush went to ,arney frank and chris dodd that he thought there was a problem with fannie and freddie. why didn't president bush reduce the mandate back to 3% in 2003, if he thought there was a problem? peter wallace that question, and he couldn't give answer. i would appreciate if you could enlighten me, why is president bush knew there was a problem, he continued president clinton's policy on the private-public

partnership. thank you. guest: i have not spoken to president bush about this, so i would only be speculating about what was in his mind at the time. i think, honestly, that we were in aposition -- we were moment of time when homeownership was something that everyone believed was a benefit to all levels of society, and the goal of pushing , as bill clinton wanted to do in his partnership in 1995, pushing the levels of homeownership of to 70%. that was the goal. across-the-board goal, republican goal, a democratic goal. it was believed that that kind of homeownership is good for society. it was certainly good for business. the construction industry, the insurance industry, the banking industry.

so much of our economy touches the home building, homeownership business. it was deemed to be a win-win for everyone. if i were to speculate, my best guess would be that in 2003, we .com sort of coming off the com bust of the internet. was a feeling that we didn't want to meddle with this large of a portion of the economy. it got to levels that were really unacceptable, and really could not be sustained. that is when, again, the crisis occurred. clinton, maryland, monroe. good morning to you. caller: how are you today? host: doing well.

to give youuld love my information off-line because i think i'm the perfect case study for everything you are talking about. when you talked about how they work being uncooperative -- hopefully i can get my story out in time. .- it was countrywide they were getting buyout by bank of america, in which case, paperwork got lost. i submitted it to different times to bank of america, in which case, it till didn't get approved. know, whatople don't the banks will do if they will put you on these repayment plans, but you have to sell the repayment plan before they put you on a better repayment plan. what inc. of america lost their class action lawsuit, they had to sell a lot of their bad loans, in which case, i got

transferred and settled up in 34 days flat. what they didn't tell you is the amount that they forgive is considered w-2 income. $116,000 reduction which got tacked onto the w-2, and i owed money. i did my taxes on my own and didn't know i had to fill out a worksheet. this is crazy. there is so much that could work if it were better explained. guest: you did a great job of explaining it right there, i will say that. this is one of the reasons why it is unfortunate that so may homeowners like you don't have in these very tricky, convoluted, complex arrangements. the banks really do have the upper hand here because they are dealing with something they are familiar with, they have done it

before. the woods, andin it is really tricky. as you say, so many different toes to get through -- rules get through the maze and thicket of these regulations. it sounds like you had a good outcome. that is wonderful, i'm glad to hear it. our summary people that did not have a good outcome, and are still waiting, and are still a difficultand in situation. it is interesting. i received an e-mail from a reader who said to me, why don't you get over it, this is so long 7-8 yearshappened ago, let's move on. what i find intriguing is there are so may people who can't move on. for me, i think it is really important that we remind people across the country that there are still a lot of people in trouble with their homes. wehas not gone away, and

cannot really move on. i thought that was an interesting comment to come in. or a sectorlevel -- of people who say, let's move on from this. host: gretchen morgenson, some areas of the country have seen homeownership take right back up to prerecession level. are there other areas with the values of homes are still not what they were before the recession? guest: absolutely. there are tremendous losses still in arizona, las vegas -- where the overbuilding was really excessive, and where there were a lot of second homes , a lot of speculation. people were buying houses to flip them, not to live in. in those areas -- florida was a classic case -- you still have a lot of pain and suffering.

even in areas where it didn't really go up, you are really still in a stagnant environment. homeownership, the levels have come down dramatically. for me, i think that is beneficial because it isn't right for everyone to own a home. if you have to make these crazy loans, devise loans that are really toxic and end up being poisonous, to get people into homes, then i think there's something wrong with that picture. host: eric is watching us in georgia, a democrat. you are on the air. caller: good morning to you both. wholeuation with this trying to get a reduction, we -- it wasght after

get a seminar, and they four or five people to go on the stage and say wonderful things like they got their interest got at 2%, and they also loan.ion, and a it just isn't true. i'm with bank of america, and i just want to tell you something. if you two wonderful people for you to, in order get any kind of -- into any type of program to get help, they will tell you that you have to be at least three months behind. host: let's take that point.

gretchen morgenson? guest: this is an aspect of the loan modification process that has been very troubling. what sometimes happens is the bank will take advantage of the fact -- they will tell you to be late, to not pay, and then they will foreclose. i havereally really -- heard many stories of this type of situation. it really is not the right approach to take. that is something that you really ought to question. if that is the remedy that the again, theseng -- are complex issues, a lot of legalities involved. you have to, if you can, try to go to a legal aid organization which provides low cost or no cost legal assistance to help you go through these programs. host: is there supposed to be a federal agency that is your

legal aid, that helps you navigate this with the banks? is there a watchdog? guest: know, there's really not a watchdog. the treasury is supposed to police the program, oversee it because the loan servicers -- the treasury was the kind of conduit for the program, the ones who created the roles. as christie romero, in the report and her interview with me , says she has been disturbed has not been more policing of the problems that anyone who looks at this can see. i was speaking with legal aid workers in new york city who were able to send me legal documents that show me the kind of stonewalling that borrowers have received in new york. the only reason that this came out at all was because, in new york, if you are going

through a foreclosure, you have to have it overseen by the courts. there are a lot of documents in the courts -- something like one third of the court docket is foreclosure cases. there is a legion of these cases that show how borrowers try and try again to send the documents, get them in, they are refuse, turned down, stonewalled. it is very disturbing to see how many cases like this there are. specialcording to the ig's report, 72% of applicants were rejected. what are the reasons why? guest: the banks will say things like the borrower didn't put in the right paperwork, the borrower didn't make the first payment. they essentially blame the borrower. that would probably be true in some cases, maybe even in many cases, but what we know, having investigated the mortgage

servicers from the fact that million, i think ulty011, over there falsi practices, we know there are problems in these organizations. it really does i have mustered to say it is always the borrower's fault. host: jeff and charlotte, north carolina, a republican. you are next. caller: you actually just took the words out of my mouth. i live in charlotte, north carolina, which is bank of america's headquarters. bank of america and other banks are always being vilified as the problem, when in reality, folks should not be getting loans in the first place. the government have a policy that everyone should own a home,

so banks were under pressure to extend credit to folks who should not receive credit and mortgages. i remember a time when you could just declare your income without any verification at all. what happens is folks get a mortgage, they don't pay the mortgage, they get the home foreclosed on, and then it is fault.k's i understand you have financial problems, lose jobs, and everything, it is about accountability, i think. if i couldn't own a home, and before i was in a position to own one, i rented. guest: i know there is plenty of blame to go around. obviously, there were borrowers who were greedy who wanted to flip houses and make a product honestly, the banks were supposed to be the

prudent person in the room. there is the lender. they were supposed to be load be about the repaid. if you are creating worlds that will explode in their interest rate, and they ask you to only pay the interest and not the principle, to only put people in the home, and you are profiting from those loads, then i think the banks need to take responsibility for those actions. the fact of the matter is that the banks could have checked whether borrowers' income was factual, as represented, but they never did check. whenever you take out a mortgage, you have to sign a document saying the bank can go to the irs and check the income. they didn't check. they didn't want to know a lot of these things. .he fees were too rich they shovel the loans off to

investors, and they didn't have any skin in the game. all they worried about was generating the mortgage, shoveling them off to someone else, and that person had to sustain the losses when the loans did they get paid. i think there is blame to go around, i agree with that, by think the person in the room that was supposed to be responsible was the banker. they really fell down on the job in the they had no skin game, they couldn't care less if the loan didn't get repaid. host: massachusetts, sandra, an independent. caller: good morning. i have wells fargo, who i have asked to turn around and make the payment for a different part of the month because the income had changed at the month. during the month, we needed it moved over, so we wouldn't have extra money added on because we wanted the payment to be moved orr, like until the 30th,

29th, of the month because of the way our payments had changed. they did not go along with us. we asked for the other thing. $450turned around and took saying, no, we didn't qualify at the time because the house wasn't up to the money they wanted. then, we went to another bank. the other bank turned around and could dobe we something. next thing i know, they had a reason why they couldn't do it, but yet they took $200. now, we are in fannie and y.eddie mad they accepted us, but i took it to the bank to see if there were hidden things. yes, $600, and that was to

rewrite the loan. the guy told me afterwards -- after i ripped up the papers, he called and said, what was wrong? $6,000, i haven't got that money. he said, that was going to be written into the loan. where is the truth? why is all this money going out? are at 6%.e -- we we are struggling, and we are senior citizens. three of us in one house right now. our incomes total $27,000-$30,000. they wouldn't change the loan at all. we have top credit. host: gretchen morgenson? guest: sandra, i would urge you aido you have a legal society or some sort of pro bono legal assistance program in your area?

i would urge you to go to someone there who could help you. not -- gorepeat, do to one of these companies that claims to help you, and are really a for-profit company that are often scamming homeowners and borrowers. my recommendation would be to get an expert to help you. there might be a possibility that you get a loan modification without paying all of these fees. your point about the fees is very well taken. that is what the banking business does nowadays. in the old days, you had a banker on the corner, they would give you a loan, they believed in you, it was a face-to-face transaction, and they expected you to pay the loan off. banks do ill the day give the fees to someone else. the banks giving you the loans

only have the fees at heart. that is why the fee system has really gone a little bit out of control. that is how they make their money. they don't make money on interest anymore. that goes to someone else. that also influences the whole idea of making loans that the bankers knew people couldn't repay, and they didn't care because the investor, or fannie mae, would be the one to take the loss when the bar would defaulted. host: tell us about these fees. how many fees? what are they charging? guest: oh my gosh. probably foray legal assistance for the bank, the bank's lawyer, if you are in foreclosure, there are these drive-by appraisals. sometimes they joined by every day to make sure there is someone living in the house. maintenance.

they will charge you to mow the lawn, keep the property up. there are just a tremendous number of bogus fees associated with foreclosure. host: what about just simply going to try and get a mortgage these days, or refinancing? are banks making money from the fee system as well? guest: definitely. know, the application fee. there are all kinds of -- what you do when you get mortgages you ask for a good-faith estimate. the good faith estimate will tell you all the costs associated with getting a mortgage. there are a lot of them. host: lida in connecticut. caller: it's linda. host: good morning. caller: you are one of the reasons i read "the new york times," you are my favorite columnist.

i appreciate your work deeply. incomeand and i suffered loss, and we have top credit, and always been our bills. at the time, we were with countrywide. countrywide put us in a section of their company called "full spectrum," of course, it was bought out by bank of america. nextour mortgage club -- thing i know, our mortgage check didn't clear. i panicked. i called my congresswoman who put her legal department on it immediately. the four closure proceedings from being filed in the state of connecticut. checks,e me cancel both go and get a bank check, and send it to bank of america

immediately. they also found that we had been thatharged $1300 in fees they put a halt to, so we didn't have to pay that. they got us our refund. we were so fortunate that i picked up the phone and called my congresswoman, who puts her legal person on it. to the gentleman who called earlier with a sarcastic , and his income tax problem, tell him to call the lady that c-span has on tv all the time, the irs tax advocate. host: nina olson? caller: yes. call the irs tax advocate. he will set up a plan for him on

how to repay it. it will be done smoothly. people that c-span puts on ank you deeply.ou deepl tell them to call the congresspeople. they have aids that can help them. your congressional representative can move mountains for you. host: we will leave it there. gretchen morgenson? guest: and sounds like you had a great outcome. i'm very happy to hear it. thank you for being able reader , that's wonderful. i would agree to you as far as reaching out to congress person. i think that is a way to get some help. congresspeople to have legal aides to help their constituents. i'm so glad you got a great

result from your reaching out. again, your experience is so when youat i think have people who get rid of those problems, get rid of the $1300 in fees, it is really a wonderful story to hear. i hear so many of the opposite. host: barbara, washington, d.c., a democrat. caller: good morning. host: go ahead with your question or comment. caller: i have a question. i was looking at getting a reverse mortgage on my house. i was wondering how that lines with a program -- guest: you can't do a reverse mortgage in hand, i am not the expert, but i don't think you can. if you need a loan modification, you should not be talking about

a reverse mortgage. if you are thinking of doing a reverse mortgage, i would urge you to make sure you understand all of the fees associated with that mortgage. they do have to provide that information. make sure you are comfortable, if you go forward with it, that you are comfortable with the fees you will be paying to put that mortgage onto your property. host: we will go next to louisiana, john, a republican. true story, 1981, i moved down to louisiana thanks to the u.s. air force. i owned a house in indiana, which has been vacant for two years. i took two mortgages. and my wife,s, me working two jobs, we finally got out of debt. i asked for no help from anybody because the way i see it, if you

cannot afford it, don't buy it. person in thee room is the person signing for the loan. nobody put a gun to their head and made them sign a document. responsibility and accountability are big words "me,"ave been replaced by and "now. all goes back to jimmy carter and the pie-in-the-sky idea that everybody should own a home. that is a pipe dream. there are people who don't own homes. they are called something -- renters. host: gretchen morgenson? guest: i agree. there are people who should not take on the admin's responsibility of a mortgage. i'm certainly for accountability. i'm for responsibility and all people, whether it is the borrower, the banker, the investor. all across the board, people

should take responsibility for their actions. i think there are a lot of borrowers who did understand what they were taking on. yes, they did not have a gun to their head to take on the mortgage, but as you remember, going on.mania house prices could never go down. in addition to the borrower being responsible, the bank should be responsible, and the regulators should be responsible for making sure the bank was responsible. i do not think we are operating in a country where only the borrower has a responsibility. i think that responsibility should be shared by all parties in the room. people whoat the really want in the situation, which are both the banker and the regulators, and the bar was lost.- borrowers when you have a foreclosure, your credit is ruined. you have no ability -- if you go bankrupt, that lasts on your

record for years. the borrower takes the hit. from the got help government, and the regulators actually got promoted and more power with dodd frank. something is wrong with that picture when the only person who took the hit was the borrower. host: let's hear from rate in massachusetts, independent c aller. caller: calling in reference to ahead wells fargo when i first bought this house in 2000. at that time, i had good credit, but it was the first time i ever applied for a loan. .t was my family's home my mother and father passed away, and i bought it from my brothers and sisters. they gave it to me at 12%. i kept it for two years, and then i went to a credit union,

and right now, i dropped it down to a 15 year at 3.25% fixed. i take on the with my taxes and everything else, a total of $710. say andlady would go to credit union in massachusetts, they would help her out. iswells fargo, all they do review off. i really hope she does. host: all right, ray. we will move on to paul in missouri, a democrat. caller: the only question i have are sallie mae and stillddie mac considering reductions for loans? guest: i'm not sure. for years, they were not considering them because they were subject to a bell out in

2008, and it was felt that they should not reduce the principal owed on mortgages because that would be a burden, that would create losses for franny and fannie and freddie. that may be changing because the companies have become very popular again, starting in 2012. host: chris in brooklyn, a republican. caller: thanks for taking my call. i agree with the caller from louisiana. gretchen morgenson said the people in the room should have taken the hit. my taxesg charged on so that people can stay in a house they can't afford and so the banks can be bailed out, i don't agree with the at all. this is a free market economy.

boys and girls, take your head. that is what it comes down to. if you can afford it, you can't afford it. i can't get on the property ladder because it is all tightened up by people looking at houses that they can't afford. host: what do you mean you can't get on the property ladder? we won't find out. chris is in with us. what is going on now in the housing market because of what happened? guest: first of all, i would like to respond to his comment that borrowers should take the hit. he made an excellent point, banks got bailed out, they didn't take the hit. their shareholders took the hit. 'su hardly saw a bank top management being removed because of poor management. borrowers should take the hit, i agree, but the banks did not take that hit. what he says his taxes are going examineeally ought to

the fact that the bailout money that went to the banks was something that allowed them not to take the hit. i think that is a disparity there that really he should examine. as far as what is happening in the market right now, there are pockets of very hot markets -- new york city, probably washington, d.c. still is, i think, a sense that the market has not recovered. it is very difficult to get a mortgage to this day. you have to have perfect credit, score, and no s blemishes on your record. it is very difficult for people to borrow and renegotiate their loans. i think that is having a stagnating impact on wife'de swaths of the housing market. host: rose, pennsylvania, a republican. you are on the air.

caller: yes. a victim of predatory lending. $50,000,ed a house for , and my house is now with $26,000. i'm going through a lot with this house. i don't know really what to do with it. i tried getting a loan idification, but i was told just need to try to get out of the loan. time doesn't permit me to go into all the details that i could tell you, but what do you suggest i need to do? thank you, and i will take my answer over the phone. host: thank you, rose. like, unlessnds

i'm wrong about the description, the house has gone up in value, which means a very good thing for this person. she should maybe try to sell the house and capitalize on it and take a profit. if i'm not understanding that correctly, and it has gone down in value or stagnant and she needs a loan modification, again, i would urge her to try and find legal assistance to help her maneuver the process because it is a very complex process. host: i will get in nancy hear from maryland. caller: good morning. anust wanted to share experience, similar to one of your other callers in maryland, affordableme modification program. i was part of a predatory lending with countrywide, when countrywide went down, my loan was sold to bank of america.

i went through the modification program. i had similar experiences -- and i was not behind, but i was having financial difficulties. each time i would do that, my papers would get lost, they said they never received them. i did a about three times. this was over a year. finally someone told me to call fannie mae because my house is a fannie mae house. i went straight to fannie mae, no problem. i didn't have to deal with bank of america again. i got my loan modification in a short time. excellent.'s very happy to hear that. that something great approach, honestly, to go directly to fannie mae, and then you circumvent all the nightmare that people are going through when they tried to deal with the banks. host: we will have to leave it

there. gretchen morgenson, we always appreciate your time talking to our viewers on this issue and other financial issues. gretchen morgenson, you can follow her on twitter, also go to an guest: have a good day. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] announcer: looking at student loan debt and health care, and after that, the political contributor looks at his recent article on infighting at the pentagon and what is the best t china pre-plus, your facebook comments and tweets. washington journal at 7:00 am eastern on c-span.

announcer: on q&a, antiwar .ctivist the war on terrorism. >> who is isis? what are their origins? why are they so violent? all of this questions are important, and i address them in the book, but more important, because it is something we can do something about, what is u.s. policy against isis? why is it not working? are we doing the war wrong, or should there be a war against terrorism at all is to mark i think those would be the most useful. announcer: sunday night on c-span's "q&a." senate in its august break, we will feature book tv at primeng weeknights

time starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern, and here are a few special programs. saturday, august 22, we are live from jackson, mississippi, for the inaugural mississippi book festival beginning at 11:30 and yet easter, with conversations on harper lee, civil rights, and the civil war. then, we are live from the nation's capital for the book festival, followed on sunday with our live, in-depth program with a senior fellow from the american enterprise institute. book tv on c-span2, television for serious readers. announcer: congress is on recess, and all this week, we will bring you primetime programming looking at key issues. tonight, a panel from the aston security forum, starting with a discussion on national security threats, and then a look at the special ops and the intelligence community.