Singer and Hardin Views on Poverty

Looking at Singer's view on poverty and charity, I do see where he is coming from but there are also arguments from Hardin that I agree with. Singer tells us that we are morally obliged to give to charity and help out those less fortunate whenever we can. We need to sacrifice something of ours in order to save a life. Yet there is also the question of the limit of sacrifice we should give for a stranger. At what point are we suppose to say that we cannot give anymore. If we continue to give, we ourselves will be ruin and would be needing help from others. So is helping a complete stranger worth ruining your own life for? Would this just continue as someone decides to help you as well? This also brings in some of Hadir's ideas in which he states that if a rich country were to continually help out a poor country, then the richer country, at some point, is taken advantage of by the poorer country; so at what point should the rich country stop helping the poor country? There needs to be a point that we need to think of ourselfves and refrain from helping those less fortunate. Unless we want to be taken advantage of, we need to determine a line in which we tell outselves that we've done enough. Also with Hardir, he talks of how do we determine who to pull up into the lifeboat in the moral sea. With this idea, I agree with Singer in saying that it should be the children. Just as Singer explains, we are able to say, for the most part, that a child is probably not responsible for their own poverty. It is safer to say this about a child rather than an adult, sho could have easily gambled their money away. So looking at both essays, it would seem like the best conclusion is an amalgamation of both ideas. Donate and give to those in need but with a strict line drawn to show when what you give is enough.