Scholarship Thing

I found a scholarship I am going to write a paper for and I have a good argument, but I cannot find any good cons. I plan to force some friends of mine at work argue against me.

It is about nationalizing the banking system. If anyone has any good "no way!" arguments I would like to hear it.
The government should not tell people how to live there lives and ideally just maintain protection from foreign and domestic violence, but power is power and money has become globalized power.
The government talks about tax breaks and tax refunds but it does little. When the government bails out big business it does not trickle down and the situation is only stable at best but not fixed.
I suggest we cut out the middle work and nationalize the banking system. I DOES give the government more power with the control of money but if done correctly, the people can still say what they want to use it for and when things get tough financially we can actually say "the government" is responsible. The idea of check and balance in politics is that everything is regulated fairly if not slowly in progressing our way of life, but that order cannot be maintained without power. As I mentioned, money is power, but even if some have forgot, the people control the government. When a big business gets in trouble, strikes happen but little can be done because they are free. The government does something then it is on. Maintaining the flow of money in the government, again if done correctly, it will give the government more money to work with capital gains and arguments can be more direct in congress as regulations instead of the associate degree guy in the bank office looking at a useless fico score to stamp "approved" or "disapproved" on a home loan.

Suggestions and arguments are welcome!