> argument that starts "What conservatives are proposing is to privatize the upside of the economy while socializing the downside."? The thing is, that's not a

> argument that starts "What conservatives are proposing is to privatize the upside of the economy while socializing the downside."? The thing is, that's not an argument at all. At best, it's demagoguery hiding behind weasel words. The role of the state is to compensate the lack of economic incentives to provide the public with some goods and services in order to ensure that the people has adequate access to them. The key factor is, obviously, that the role of the state is to bridge the economic gap. Not to profit from a service, but to ensure that a service is provided in spite of not being profitable. And it is this way by design, isn't it? After all, who in their right mind would argue that the state should turn a profit on selling goods and services back to its own tax payers?