The Singer Solution - Not Realistic

Poverty is still one of the biggest issues in the world today. Thousands of people die from starvation each day and millions of people are hungry. Peter Singer addresses this issue in his New York Times article, The Singer Solution to World Poverty. He states that the successful individuals should donate money to overseas aid organizations to help the poor. However, his proposition lays on a controversial topic that questions people's morals and their own rights. Personally, I think Singer's proposal seems unrealistic, but I also believe people should be more educated of these issues that our happening in our world. 

Singer states that simple solution to helping the poor is that whatever money you spend on unnecessary merchandise should be given away. Instead of upgrading our TV, we could use that money to save the lives of kids in need. Singer raises the concern that there are children dying around the world because they lack money while we spend money on things that we desire. Consequently the moral question is raised: shouldn’t the affluent ones make an effort to make a difference?

Americans believe that since they have worked for their money and paid high taxes to live in this country that they should have the right to do whatever they want to do with their own money. 
In addition, they argue that the economy is dependent on their expenses. If Americans don’t spend money on expenses, businesses and factories will be closed. Then, the unemployment rate will rise. Therefore, Singer’s idea seems unrealistic. 

Even though Singer’s solution does not seem ideal, he did raise the concern of the poor. We should  all donate money. However, not too much that it would cause a drastic change in our economy, but just enough that can make a difference to those in need. Additionally, the people should not be the only ones helping. The government possesses much more global control and should make an effort to save the millions of hungry lives.