I've felt disturbed by Steve's article since I first read it, and I've been wondering why. Well, I know reason number one -- in Steve's two-category world, I'm a "moocher."
Reason number two hit me this morning -- one way to build yourself up is by running other people down. Steve, can't you come up with a less derogatory term for people who don't earn their income the same way that you choose to?
Why contributor/moocher? What kind of negative energy are you generating by labelling people like this? Actually, I don't like your either/or choice here -- I'm a "contributor" if I earn money in ways you approve of, or a "moocher" if I get money in ways you don't approve of (nice the way the rest of us are lumped in with criminals!)
I prefer to use a strategy you have recommended yourself. If you don't like an either/or choice -- look for a higher level alternative: I choose not to focus on acquiring money. I live frugally (see the book
"Your Money or Your Life" by Joe Dominguez) and don't need to acquire much money.
The world is abundant; obsessing about money means you focus on scarcity. I'm not saying this as well as Christine Kane does in her blog entry
Don’t GET Rich Quick. BE Rich Quick.