Bernie Sanders is in with the enemy, some old allies say
By David A. Fahrenthold July 25 at 3:57 PM
BURLINGTON, Vt. — It was one of the first political events Bernie Sanders ever went to in Vermont: a 1971 discussion by a small group of left-wingers, the Liberty Union Party.
These people were not winners, in the electoral sense. The closest they had come to winning a statewide race, at that point, was losing by 56 points. So someone in the audience asked: Why don’t you become Democrats? Why not sacrifice third-party purity for a chance at actual power?
-snip-
“He felt strongly that you worked outside the Democratic Party,” said Jim Rader, a longtime friend who took Sanders to the meeting. “He felt there were too many compromises that had to be made, too many compromises of political principles.”
Last week, 44 years later, a group of socialists gathered in a Vermont library to have a strikingly similar debate. This time, they were deciding whether they could support Bernie Sanders himself.
-snip-
“When Sanders decided to run as a Democrat,” that was the last straw, said Jim Ramey at the meeting of the International Socialist Organization’s Burlington branch. “People on the left should not support him.”
more
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bernie-sanders-says-hes-a-socialist-his-old-socialist-buddies-say-not-so-much/2015/07/25/a3948256-3145-11e5-97ae-30a30cca95d7_story.html?hpid=z1
= new reply since forum marked as read
I guess we lefties should support the right instead. 
When the going gets weird...
I thought. Ooh this ought to be good.
A little disappointed, keep trying though.
That's rich coming from you.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=476378
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Nasty personal attack
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Jul 27, 2015, 12:35 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: There's no personal attack there.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: If rewording a famous biblical quote about motes and beams is a "nasty personal attack," all I can do is use another famous biblical quote: Jesus wept.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's an odd thing to say, but not hide worthy.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Thanks, Violet.
Hypocrisy also makes the baby Jesus cry.
And revenge alerts give him a nasty rash.
Unfortunately for them the rest of us remember it very well.
Talk about minefields, I saw someone claim that referring to Hillary as a "gal" was sexist today.
They played the 'if you don't support Hillary it's because you're sexist' card in 2008 too.
That's not working out so well this time around since the majority of women polled on DU support Bernie.
But you gotta give them props for trying!
Amazing. 
I didn't even vote in the 2008 primary, since I was fine with either Obama or Hillary and was ABB (Anybody But Bush), and was totally fine with either of them, but that didn't stop you from insisting I was some member of some Bad Society of 2008 just because I don't slam her like you do.
I can see why you have such problems with Hillary supporters since you misrepresent everything they say. 
about except what I saw on T.V., so your little PUMA ditty looks like YOU are regurgitating.
Bernie is obviously the one who can't be reproached, because people like you slam Clinton constantly around here. CONSTANTLY. But God Forbid someone sees Bernie on a MTP clip from fucking YESTERDAY and starts a thread about it with valid interpretations, and here come the Bernie coddlers -- bringing up 2008!!.
Seriously, you have to laugh at someone bringing up 2008 Clinton message board vendettas on CURRENT issues about Bernie's campaign, as if THEY aren't the ones redirecting. Hlarious.
U betcha.
Now I see how lame the 2008 Clinton message board vendettas really are. I should have known how shallow it all was. Does this mean you'll now copy everything I post in the 2022 primaries -- some 7 years from now.
So were you here in 2008? You never answered....
Don't post information....just post propaganda!!!
And make sure it's propaganda that the majority likes--because the minority doesn't count and their views don't matter!
Heavy 
for the irony-impaired.
X 10!
If he's "aiming for the President's massive coalition.." he's doing a piss poor job.
meta ?@metaquest
@BernieSanders I don't call 16M now insured "modest." Do the math. And recall how difficult it was to pass ACA.
9:25 AM - 22 Jul 2015
53 53 Retweets 22 22 favorites
Donna NoShock ?@NoShock
@BernieSanders & Exactly how will an Independent for Vermont get this our Republican & Democratic Congress to pass such a bill?
9:06 AM - 22 Jul 2015
Donna NoShock ?@NoShock
@BernieSanders But Your Own State Couldn't Do It! Costs derail Vermont’s dream of a single-payer health plan https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2015/01/25/costs-derail-vermont-single-payer-health-plan/VTAEZFGpWvTen0QFahW0pO/story.html …
9:40 AM - 22 Jul 2015
The Boston Globe
Costs derail Vermont’s single-payer health plan - The Boston Globe
Reality hit last month when a financial report that showed the cost of single-payer program would nearly double the size of the state’s budget in the first year alone and require large tax increases.
http://theobamadiary.com/2015/07/22/chat-away-631/
The poutrage around here is Hillarious.
A couple of them have been following me around for weeks.
Wait til they start alerting on your posts.
I see they keep circling this anti-Sanders thread like vultures because other threads are getting too much attention.
"Sanders abandoned by socialists" = SQUIRREL!!!
Here I thought they were both politicians.
Here I thought he was a politician.
SC.. and it could have gone the other way. 
Obamacare
Yet another reason to vote for the progressive from Vermont.
The torch and pitchfork crowd in GD P is really getting desperate.
I think skinner is going to add it to the list of smilies on DU.
I like this one too (for when they're upset about positive Bernie threads and run around all confused and upset):
Wow, just wow! That is like soooooooooo sexist.
Still rofling my ass off over that.
Last edited Mon Jul 27, 2015, 09:58 PM - Edit history (1)
The Nordic model (or Nordic capitalism[1] or Nordic social democracy)[2][3] refers to the economic and social models of the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway, Iceland, Greenland, Faroe Islands and Sweden), which involves the combination of a free market economy with a welfare state.[4]
Although there are significant differences among the Nordic countries, they all share some common traits. These include support for a "universalist" welfare state (relative to other developed countries) which is aimed specifically at enhancing individual autonomy, promoting social mobility and ensuring the universal provision of basic human rights, as well as for stabilizing the economy, alongside a commitment to free trade. The Nordic model is distinguished from other types of welfare states by its emphasis on maximizing labor force participation, promoting gender equality, egalitarian and extensive benefit levels, the large magnitude of income redistribution, and liberal use of expansionary fiscal policy.[5]
The Nordic model is described as a system of competitive capitalism combined with a large public sector (roughly 30% of the work force).[6] In 2013, The Economist described its countries as "stout free-traders who resist the temptation to intervene even to protect iconic companies" while also looking for ways to temper capitalism’s harsher effects, and declared that the Nordic countries "are probably the best-governed in the world."[6][7] The Nordic combination of extensive public provision of welfare and a culture of individualism has been described by Lars Trägårdh, of Ersta Sköndal University College, as "statist individualism."[6] Some economists have referred to the Nordic economic model as a form of "cuddly" capitalism, with low levels of inequality, generous welfare states and reduced concentration of top incomes, and contrast it with the more "cut-throat" capitalism of the United States, which has high levels of inequality and a larger concentration of top incomes.[8][9]
The Nordic model, however, is not a single identical set of policies and rules in every country; each of the Nordic countries has its own economic and social models, sometimes with large differences from its neighbors.[10] While Sweden's neoliberal reforms[11][12] have reduced the role of the public sector over the last decades, and saw the fastest growth in inequality of any OECD economy,[13] Sweden's income inequality still remains lower than most other countries'.[14]
"The Nordic Model - Embracing globalization and sharing risks" characterizes the system as follows:[15]
* An elaborate social safety net in addition to public services such as free education and universal healthcare.[15]
* Strong property rights, contract enforcement, and overall ease of doing business.[16]
* Public pension plans.[15]
* Low barriers to free trade.[17] This is combined with collective risk sharing (social programs, labour market institutions) which has provided a form of protection against the risks associated with economic openness.[15]
* Little product market regulation. Nordic countries rank very high in product market freedom according to OECD rankings.[15]
* Low levels of corruption.[15] In Transparency International's 2014 Corruption Perceptions Index all five Nordic countries were ranked among the 12 least corrupt of 176 evaluated countries, and Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Norway all ranked within top 5.[18]
* High percentage of workers belonging to a labour union. In 2010, labour union density was 69.9% in Finland, 68.3% in Sweden, and 54.8% in Norway. In comparison, labour union density was 12.9% in Mexico and 11.3% in the United States.[19] The lower union density in Norway is mainly explained by the absence of a Ghent system since 1938. In contrast, Denmark, Finland and Sweden all have union-run unemployment funds.[20]
* A partnership between employers, trade unions and the government, whereby these social partners negotiate the terms to regulating the workplace among themselves, rather than the terms being imposed by law.[21] Sweden has decentralised wage co-ordination, while Finland is ranked the least flexible.[15] The changing economic conditions have given rise to fear among workers as well as resistance by trade unions in regards to reforms.[15] At the same time, reforms and favourable economic development seem to have reduced unemployment, which has traditionally been higher. Denmark's Social Democrats managed to push through reforms in 1994 and 1996 (see flexicurity).
* Sweden at 56.6% of GDP, Denmark at 51.7%, and Finland at 48.6% reflects very high public spending.[17] One key reason for public spending is the large number of public employees. These employees work in various fields including education, healthcare, and for the government itself. They often have lifelong job security and make up around a third of the workforce (more than 38% in Denmark). Public spending in social transfers such as unemployment benefits and early-retirement programmes is high. In 2001, the wage-based unemployment benefits were around 90% of wage in Denmark and 80% in Sweden, compared to 75% in the Netherlands and 60% in Germany. The unemployed were also able to receive benefits several years before reductions, compared to quick benefit reduction in other countries.
* Public expenditure for health and education is significantly higher in Denmark, Sweden, and Norway in comparison to the OECD average.[22]
* Overall tax burdens (as a percentage of GDP) are among the world's highest; Sweden (51.1%), Denmark (46% in 2011),[23] and Finland (43.3%), compared to non-Nordic countries like Germany (34.7%), Canada (33.5%), and Ireland (30.5%).
* The United Nations World Happiness Report 2013 shows that the happiest nations are concentrated in Northern Europe. The Nordics ranked highest on the metrics of real GDP per capita, healthy life expectancy, having someone to count on, perceived freedom to make life choices, generosity and freedom from corruption.[24]
* The Nordic countries received the highest ranking for protecting workers rights on the International Trade Union Confederation's 2014 Global Rights Index, with Denmark being the only nation to receive a perfect score.[25]
The Nordic welfare model refers to the welfare policies of the Nordic countries, which also tie into their labor market policies.
While there are differences among different Nordic countries, they all share a broad commitment to social cohesion, a universal nature of welfare provision in order to safeguard individualism by providing protection for vulnerable individuals and groups in society, and maximizing public participation in social decision-making. It is characterized by flexibility and openness to innovation in the provision of welfare. The Nordic welfare systems are mainly funded through taxation.[26]
Despite the common values, the Nordic countries take different approaches to the practical administration of the welfare state. Denmark features a high degree of private sector provision of public services and welfare, alongside an assimilation immigration policy. Iceland's welfare model is based on a "welfare-to-work" (see: workfare) model, while part of Finland's welfare state includes the voluntary sector playing a significant role in providing care for the elderly. Norway relies most extensively on public provision of welfare...[26]
Jerry Mander has likened the Nordic model to a kind of "hybrid" economics which features a blend of capitalist and socialist visions.[31] According to sociologist Lane Kenworthy, in the context of the Nordic model, "social democracy" refers to a set of policies intended to improve capitalism as opposed to a system to replace capitalism.[32] Kenworthy advocates for the U.S. to make a gradual transition to an economic system similar to those of the Nordic countries.[33] United States Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), a self-described democratic socialist, has been a strong proponent of the Nordic system.[34][35][36] Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has noted that there is higher social mobility in the Scandinavian countries than in the United States, and argues that Scandinavia is now the land of opportunity that the United States once was.[37]
According to Naomi Klein, former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev sought to move the USSR in a similar direction to the Nordic system, combining free markets with a social safety net — but still retaining public ownership of key sectors — ingredients that he believed would transform the USSR into "a socialist beacon for all mankind."[38][39]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model
Gorbachev's plan apparently did not get a chance as It appears Russia is in the hands of an oligarchy. That is the default whenever governments collapse, sadly. His plan sounded like a good transition model.
Of the five Nordic countries, Norway, Denmark and Iceland are NATO members. Sweden and Finland are not. Bernie mentioned NATO in his support for F-35 and drone production in Vermont which he says are important for fighting ISIS. These are good paying MIC jobs and a source of prosperity for those who get those jobs. Typical state politics used by both parties.
The moral question remains to be answered. We don't seem to be able to have a hard nosed discussion of such at DU without devolving into namecalling, but I think we need to seek more honesty on this subject.
He's a conventional politican, and it's apparent the socialists do have a bone to pick with him. But they have little success in the USA in getting what they want.
The World Socialist Web Site hates Bernie, with several articles calling him anti-union/ worker, anti-immigrant, deceptive and imperialist. They also don't like his strong support for military aid to Israel in light of the plight of Gazans which they have termed racist.
I don't agree with what they say, but then I'm a Democrat and they'd say the same about us.
You can't please everybody!
