Corrolary:

The nationalizers also implicitly assume by omitting any discussion that their solution somehow won't cost the taxpayers

Folks there is no free lunch...Say what you will of the Geithner Plan and I am all for nationalizing the banks and wiping out their shareholders, bondholders and incompetent managers, but at least I am honest enough to concede that this will cost far more than the Geithner Plan

Pearlstein gets it:

As for the nationalization mantra, it's hard to see what that would accomplish. If the government were to take them over and assure depositors and creditors they would be repaid in full -- which is what you need to do to avoid a collapse of the financial system -- then there is little effective difference from a plan designed to rid banks of their bad assets. Nationalization doesn't make the bad loans go away -- it simply moves them from the banks to the government, with the government on the hook for any additional losses. For the worst banks, that may turn out to be necessary, as it was in the case of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG and Citigroup, all of which have been effectively taken over by the government. But wholesale nationalization would likely require a bigger outlay of taxpayer funds, at least initially, while putting the government in the uncomfortable position of managing large and complex businesses with 535 members of Congress suddenly sitting on their boards of directors.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/23/AR2009032302800.html?nav=igoogle