What started the financial crisis in Greece?

July 23, 2015

WRITER

The Greek financial crisis has been one of the most important stories of the summer, but it’s also one of the most complicated. How did they end up in such crippling debt? Why did the European Union offer a deal to Greece that doesn’t offer a way for them to restructure their debt? And how are the people in Greece handling the ongoing problem...and what happens next?

TheBlaze's Dan Andros and Jason Buttrill explained the crisis on Wednesday's Glenn Beck Program:

Below is a rough transcript of this segment:

Dan: Hey, Dan Andros here, head writer for TheBlaze, along with Jason Buttrill, chief researcher here at TheBlaze. Greece is just a big, fat mess, and so we’re just going to go through and try to explain it for you really quick. Basically here’s the situation, Greece defaulted. We all saw that in a news, and they went to go vote on an austerity bailout package, and they voted against it. They wanted to keep their goodies, and they didn’t want anything to do with that, so they voted against it. The Greek PM goes back in and ends up taking a deal, so now everyone’s kind of scratching their heads, they don’t really understand what’s going on. So, we’re going to go through and try to explain it in just a quick couple steps. First step, easy way to understand it, the 2008 subprime crisis.

Jason: 2008 subprime mortgage crisis is basically what kicked off this global financial pandemic. During the subprime mortgage crisis, we had irresponsible lenders and irresponsible borrowers, so basically you had people applying for loans that had no business applying for those loans, but the lenders had no business even issuing those loans in the first place. They were loans that eventually since they had adjustable rates, they were going to continue to go up and up and up, so these people had no chance of ever paying these loans off.

Dan: Right, and they didn’t care. They saw the quick buck, so they didn’t care. They just went for it.

Jason: Exactly, and the lenders saw dollar signs and dollar signs that were going to continue to come and continue to come, and if they didn’t, they would just go bankrupt anyway. Back in 2010, during the first bailout, Greece had a national debt of 130% more than their GDP. Put that into perspective. So, let’s say you are making $2000 a month. Now, what if you had bills that were more than 2000 a month? There’s no way you’d qualify for a loan. No lender in their right mind would grant you a loan, but the EU and the IMF granted those loans to Greece.

Dan: And they had no chance of paying it back.

Jason: They had no chance of paying that back. So, basically Greece was that 2008 loan applicant that wanted something so badly that they didn’t care about what the ramifications were down the line. They figured we’ll get around to it later. The EU were those irresponsible lenders that were willing to make that loan because they knew that there was no chance that person would ever be able to get out of debt.

Dan: So, they signed this debt deal, so what does this thing actually do?

Jason: Basically he went completely reverse on what he asked his people to do. He asked his people to forget the deal, the austerity deals, to begin with and to move forward so he could upend the system so they could eventually leave the euro and leave the European Union altogether. He made this deal that fully gave up controls to their banks, fully gave up control. Now, specifically Germans, but members of the EU, they can make decisions on whether to close banks, whether to grant loans, how to adjust their interest rates, everything. They make all of those calls basically from Berlin.

Dan: So, basically what’s happened here is they’ve lost a choose chunk of sovereignty. Basically Germany is their daddy, and they get to do whatever they want to do to them. So, they know they can’t pay off this debt. They know they can’t pay it off, so all it’s about is control.

Jason: They’ve lost the ability to say how do we run our government? They could actually tell them we don’t like how you use the Parthenon and how you tie that to the government with tourism. We want to own that’s, so actually we’re privatizing that and taking it over. Imagine the Parthenon being owned by a German company from Berlin. That is now completely possible, and the Greeks can’t say a thing about it.

Greece is now on the verge of becoming a straight up occupied country, occupied by the European Union. Talk about never being able to repay this debt, the IMF straight up came out and said that there’s no way the Greeks will ever be able to pay off this debt. They can’t do it. So, if they continue along these current lines, they’ll never be able to pay it off. The only way they said is if they restructure the deal, but they didn’t restructure the deal. That was not a part of this new deal that the Greek Prime Minister agreed to. Restructuring was not in it.

The only way they can do it is if they restructure it, so why would the European Union offer a deal basically that doesn’t give them an out, that doesn’t give them a way to eventually pay off their debt? Just like we said, it’s all about control. It’s all about the EU, German, more specifically, tentacles going further and further into some of these countries, countries that cannot pay off their debts, and now they’re occupied.

Dan: So, how do the people there in Greece feel about it? I think what many here in the states don’t understand is the mentality of the people in Greece. I mean, they just had an election, and the people they voted in, you hear often that it’s austerity and that it’s these right-wingers, but they’re not really right-wingers at all.

Jason: The people of Greece, the way they feel about it is they’re tired of it. Now, again, as we’ve said, they’re just as at fault as the EU is, the people that they’re blaming on this. But they wanted to upend the system, so what did they do? They went and voted in a party, the Syriza Party, that they thought was going to upend that system, that was finally going to say no more, we’re not going to go along with what the EU wants anymore, we’re going to do our own thing. So, they voted in the Syriza Party. Who exactly is the Syriza Party? Who did they give the mandate to do this?

They’re all malice. They’re Marxist-Leninists. They’re communists. They knew they voted in the people that had the ability and had the same mentality that was going to start a revolution, and it’s all about revolution. Since the days of the Soviet Union, that’s always been the goal of this type of government is to start a revolution here, and from there it’s going to spread like wildfire. We’ve actually seen that tinder spreading through the rest of the EU.

Dan: So, now we’ve got a bunch of revolutionaries here in power, and this is like their dream scenario. They’re hoping to get out of there, abandon their debts, and basically hit the restart button.

Jason: And that has huge consequences. If the rest of Europe all of a sudden has a restart button and they can just have all of their debt restructured, what does that say to the lenders? What does that do to basically Germany? What does that say to countries like that? They’re now stuck with all of these unpaid debts.

Now that these countries are considering departing from the EU, will we see a rebirth of nationalism? That’s what the European Union was formed to get away from, but now that that’s all coming down and the dominoes are about to start falling and more and more countries are going to look for that same out that Greece is now about to take, will we see a rebirth of nationalism? Will the old days of Europe, the 1930s era of Europe, will that suddenly become our reality?

Dan: Only time will tell, but as the times get tougher and people’s backs get pushed up against the wall, we’re going to see the answer sooner than later.

Featured Image: The Euro logo is pictured in front of the former headquarter of the European Central Bank (ECB) in Frankfurt am Main, western Germany, on July 20, 2015 as Greece has begun making a 4.2 billion euro ($4.6 billion) payment due to the ECB as well as outstanding sums due to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) according to a ministerial source. The transfer was made possible by a short-term "bridge" loan of 7.16 billion euros granted by the European Union on July 17, 2015. Photo credit should read DANIEL ROLAND/AFP/Getty Images

Silent genocide exposed: Are christians being wiped out in 2025?

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?

Should Starbase become its own city?

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.

Glenn's Show Prep