I've been unemployed for the last six months and while I could last longer by using my retirement savings I'm not sure it would be a good decision. I personall

I've been unemployed for the last six months and while I could last longer by using my retirement savings I'm not sure it would be a good decision. I personally would not go into retirement for an asset that is underwater and that is most assuredly going to go underwater further. It is almost universally agreed among economist that have not been cheerleading for the past 5 years that inflation is coming, when it does house prices will decline further. That coupled with the mortgage fraud crisis means that housing recovery is a long way off. Rationally looking at the situation you are below zero, putting your retirement into it, compounds the problem because you are not elevating the sinking asset while you are depleting hard cash. It's the old don't throw good money after bad. I believe in honoring your debts but I also want to be pragmatic We each have to come to grips with what we find acceptable, some things to remember though are that you may have paid into mortgage insurance, to insure the home from a default. Some people see that as a ethical out, after-all if you paid into it you secured the bank from the event, you should be entitled to utilize it. Others find it ethically agreeable that the banks where bailed out with public money, and therefore the public has the right to in-turn ease the burden on themselves, it is the moral hazard argument that people raised in bailing out the banks. That if we did so, it would give people the ethical right to opt out of being the one holding the bag. It is a moral hazard but I do see both sides of the argument. For me personally I believe we are a civilization of people first, I know at this particular time we sometimes don't act like it, but my personal ethics are people are the most important. As such I believe no person should be asked to personally bear the brunt of any socitial issue, if an issue is causing suffering, which I consider financial hardship to be, then I think that we as a society should support them remedying that situation, even if it contributes to the problem. What we can't have is a class of entities like the banks who are able to pass the burden and then citizens, who are then expected to grin and bare it. To do so asks members of our society who have the least resources, to suffer for the common good. Personally I think we are long past the moral arguments of walking away, either by short sale or foreclosure. Asking homeowners to bare the cost of propping up the inflated housing market, when we did not do so with the banks is unethical in my world view. We as Americans seem to hold a double standard on issues like this, where companies are given a free pass, but yet the citizens are held to a code of honor. It leaves the population ripe for exploitation, by creating two distinct sets of rules.