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

URGENT: Supreme Court case could redefine religious liberty

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

The state is effectively silencing professionals who dare speak truths about gender and sexuality, redefining faith-guided speech as illegal.

This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.

The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.

The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.

Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?

One‑sided freedom

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.

Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.

Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?

If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.

Censored belief

I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.

I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.

I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.

And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.

Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.

Faith on trial

In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.

That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The real test

No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.

Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?

If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.

The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck joins Megyn Kelly LIVE — One night ONLY in Fort Worth!

Get ready for sparks to fly. For the first time in years, Glenn will come face-to-face with Megyn Kelly — and this time, he’s the one in the hot seat. On October 25, 2025, at Dickies Arena in Fort Worth, Texas, Glenn joins Megyn on her “Megyn Kelly Live Tour” for a no-holds-barred conversation that promises laughs, surprises, and maybe even a few uncomfortable questions.

What will happen when two of America’s sharpest voices collide under the spotlight? Will Glenn finally reveal the major announcement he’s been teasing on the radio for weeks? You’ll have to be there to find out.

This promises to be more than just an interview — it’s a live showdown packed with wit, honesty, and the kind of energy you can only feel if you are in the room. Tickets are selling fast, so don’t miss your chance to see Glenn like you’ve never seen him before.

Get your tickets NOW at www.MegynKelly.com before they’re gone!

What our response to Israel reveals about us

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

I have been honored to receive the Defender of Israel Award from Prime Minister Netanyahu.

The Jerusalem Post recently named me one of the strongest Christian voices in support of Israel.

And yet, my support is not blind loyalty. It’s not a rubber stamp for any government or policy. I support Israel because I believe it is my duty — first as a Christian, but even if I weren’t a believer, I would still support her as a man of reason, morality, and common sense.

Because faith isn’t required to understand this: Israel’s existence is not just about one nation’s survival — it is about the survival of Western civilization itself.

It is a lone beacon of shared values in the Middle East. It is a bulwark standing against radical Islam — the same evil that seeks to dismantle our own nation from within.

And my support is not rooted in politics. It is rooted in something simpler and older than politics: a people’s moral and historical right to their homeland, and their right to live in peace.

Israel has that right — and the right to defend herself against those who openly, repeatedly vow her destruction.

Let’s make it personal: if someone told me again and again that they wanted to kill me and my entire family — and then acted on that threat — would I not defend myself? Wouldn’t you? If Hamas were Canada, and we were Israel, and they did to us what Hamas has done to them, there wouldn’t be a single building left standing north of our border. That’s not a question of morality.

That’s just the truth. All people — every people — have a God-given right to protect themselves. And Israel is doing exactly that.

My support for Israel’s right to finish the fight against Hamas comes after eighty years of rejected peace offers and failed two-state solutions. Hamas has never hidden its mission — the eradication of Israel. That’s not a political disagreement.

That’s not a land dispute. That is an annihilationist ideology. And while I do not believe this is America’s war to fight, I do believe — with every fiber of my being — that it is Israel’s right, and moral duty, to defend her people.

Criticism of military tactics is fair. That’s not antisemitism. But denying Israel’s right to exist, or excusing — even celebrating — the barbarity of Hamas? That’s something far darker.

We saw it on October 7th — the face of evil itself. Women and children slaughtered. Babies burned alive. Innocent people raped and dragged through the streets. And now, to see our own fellow citizens march in defense of that evil… that is nothing short of a moral collapse.

If the chants in our streets were, “Hamas, return the hostages — Israel, stop the bombing,” we could have a conversation.

But that’s not what we hear.

What we hear is open sympathy for genocidal hatred. And that is a chasm — not just from decency, but from humanity itself. And here lies the danger: that same hatred is taking root here — in Dearborn, in London, in Paris — not as horror, but as heroism. If we are not vigilant, the enemy Israel faces today will be the enemy the free world faces tomorrow.

This isn’t about politics. It’s about truth. It’s about the courage to call evil by its name and to say “Never again” — and mean it.

And you don’t have to open a Bible to understand this. But if you do — if you are a believer — then this issue cuts even deeper. Because the question becomes: what did God promise, and does He keep His word?

He told Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you.” He promised to make Abraham the father of many nations and to give him “the whole land of Canaan.” And though Abraham had other sons, God reaffirmed that promise through Isaac. And then again through Isaac’s son, Jacob — Israel — saying: “The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I give to you and to your descendants after you.”

That’s an everlasting promise.

And from those descendants came a child — born in Bethlehem — who claimed to be the Savior of the world. Jesus never rejected His title as “son of David,” the great King of Israel.

He said plainly that He came “for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” And when He returns, Scripture says He will return as “the Lion of the tribe of Judah.” And where do you think He will go? Back to His homeland — Israel.

Tamir Kalifa / Stringer | Getty Images

And what will He find when He gets there? His brothers — or his brothers’ enemies? Will the roads where He once walked be preserved? Or will they lie in rubble, as Gaza does today? If what He finds looks like the aftermath of October 7th, then tell me — what will be my defense as a Christian?

Some Christians argue that God’s promises to Israel have been transferred exclusively to the Church. I don’t believe that. But even if you do, then ask yourself this: if we’ve inherited the promises, do we not also inherit the land? Can we claim the birthright and then, like Esau, treat it as worthless when the world tries to steal it?

So, when terrorists come to slaughter Israelis simply for living in the land promised to Abraham, will we stand by? Or will we step forward — into the line of fire — and say,

“Take me instead”?

Because this is not just about Israel’s right to exist.

It’s about whether we still know the difference between good and evil.

It’s about whether we still have the courage to stand where God stands.

And if we cannot — if we will not — then maybe the question isn’t whether Israel will survive. Maybe the question is whether we will.

When did Americans start cheering for chaos?

MATHIEU LEWIS-ROLLAND / Contributor | Getty Images

Every time we look away from lawlessness, we tell the next mob it can go a little further.

Chicago, Portland, and other American cities are showing us what happens when the rule of law breaks down. These cities have become openly lawless — and that’s not hyperbole.

When a governor declares she doesn’t believe federal agents about a credible threat to their lives, when Chicago orders its police not to assist federal officers, and when cartels print wanted posters offering bounties for the deaths of U.S. immigration agents, you’re looking at a country flirting with anarchy.

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic.

This isn’t a matter of partisan politics. The struggle we’re watching now is not between Democrats and Republicans. It’s between good and evil, right and wrong, self‑government and chaos.

Moral erosion

For generations, Americans have inherited a republic based on law, liberty, and moral responsibility. That legacy is now under assault by extremists who openly seek to collapse the system and replace it with something darker.

Antifa, well‑financed by the left, isn’t an isolated fringe any more than Occupy Wall Street was. As with Occupy, big money and global interests are quietly aligned with “anti‑establishment” radicals. The goal is disruption, not reform.

And they’ve learned how to condition us. Twenty‑five years ago, few Americans would have supported drag shows in elementary schools, biological males in women’s sports, forced vaccinations, or government partnerships with mega‑corporations to decide which businesses live or die. Few would have tolerated cartels threatening federal agents or tolerated mobs doxxing political opponents. Yet today, many shrug — or cheer.

How did we get here? What evidence convinced so many people to reverse themselves on fundamental questions of morality, liberty, and law? Those long laboring to disrupt our republic have sought to condition people to believe that the ends justify the means.

Promoting “tolerance” justifies women losing to biological men in sports. “Compassion” justifies harboring illegal immigrants, even violent criminals. Whatever deluded ideals Antifa espouses is supposed to somehow justify targeting federal agents and overturning the rule of law. Our culture has been conditioned for this moment.

The buck stops with us

That’s why the debate over using troops to restore order in American cities matters so much. I’ve never supported soldiers executing civilian law, and I still don’t. But we need to speak honestly about what the Constitution allows and why. The Posse Comitatus Act sharply limits the use of the military for domestic policing. The Insurrection Act, however, exists for rare emergencies — when federal law truly can’t be enforced by ordinary means and when mobs, cartels, or coordinated violence block the courts.

Even then, the Constitution demands limits: a public proclamation ordering offenders to disperse, transparency about the mission, a narrow scope, temporary duration, and judicial oversight.

Soldiers fight wars. Cops enforce laws. We blur that line at our peril.

But we also cannot allow intimidation of federal officers or tolerate local officials who openly obstruct federal enforcement. Both extremes — lawlessness on one side and militarization on the other — endanger the republic.

The only way out is the Constitution itself. Protect civil liberty. Enforce the rule of law. Demand transparency. Reject the temptation to justify any tactic because “our side” is winning. We’ve already seen how fear after 9/11 led to the Patriot Act and years of surveillance.

KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic. The left cannot be allowed to shut down enforcement, and the right cannot be allowed to abandon constitutional restraint.

The real threat to the republic isn’t just the mobs or the cartels. It’s us — citizens who stop caring about truth and constitutional limits. Anything can be justified when fear takes over. Everything collapses when enough people decide “the ends justify the means.”

We must choose differently. Uphold the rule of law. Guard civil liberties. And remember that the only way to preserve a government of, by, and for the people is to act like the people still want it.