It's because of his assumption that if you aren't saving a specific amount (some arbitrary amount that made sense to OP), then you're living beyond your means.
Let's see if you agree with the following:
If tomorrow you are fired from your job, and you can't afford to live on your state's unemployment aid for six months (that's not an arbitrary number, most states' unemployment period is 6 months) then you are living above your means.
So basically, yes, my entire family would be homeless if I were to get fired tomorrow. This has caused unimaginable stress on me, being the sole breadwinner of my current predicament. Do I wish it were different? Sure. But for you to base whether or not I'm a "responsible human" on this, speaks volumes about how you walk around in this world.
And yea, I stand by my statement, even though it makes me sound like a dick. How well you are prepared for "when the shit hits the fan" (in the order of most probable to least, so don't think I have a basement full of guns and canned food like a Mormon would. As far as eventualities go, getting fired is the most likely one to happen, and the Apocalypse is pretty low on that list), even if it never does, matters just as much, if not more, than what you do day to day, in my evaluation of what a responsible human is.
You keep on and on about how no one here knows anything about you, and that's irrelevant. Whether someone lives beyond their means or not is not dependent on their personal situation, it's a calculation of "money in, money out". It doesn't matter that all of the things you are spending your money on are obligations, rather than toys. It just means you took on obligations in your life above your means. That's irresponsible.