Singer's Solution to World Poverty

In his essay, Peter Singer raised quite a few interesting and original analogies to the poverty that our world has at hand. The line that struck me the most was a question about two given situations..."In the end, what is the ethical distinction between a Brazilian who sells a homeless child to organ peddlers and an American who already has a TV and upgrades to a better one-knowing that the money could be donated to an organization that would use it to save the lives of kids in need?" Obviously most everyone say that the Brazilian is ethically wrong because a life is being lost due to that decision. But, as Singer investigates the scenario, he reasons that the American has the money and the opportunity to use it but choses not to. The middle-class citizen instead is sitting back enjoying his new television ignoring the needs of others. Because of their decision, even though they're not witnessing it, children across the world die because they lack the money for even a bit of food. This told me that we are all at fault in some way for what's happening around the world. Instead of purchasing my cherry chocolate cellphone, my family could've donated the money. But this point draws us to Singer's other point that addresses the question "Are you therefore obliged to keep giving until you have nothing left? At what point can you stop?" Well, all a person really needs to survive is food/drink, shelter, healthcare, and in this world, education. Does that mean that as long as my family has enough to eat and drink, a shelter to live under, can support eachother financially if we become ill, and keep sending me to school, the rest of our money should go to others? As you can see, this is an impossible thing to ask of the average American citizen. We have all gotten used to checking out myspaces on our laptops and looking for new songs on itunes for our ipod nanos. Peter Singer's solution is an interesting one but in this current world as I see it, it is impossible.