Replies to comments on "Psychotherapy, classism, and the poor: Conspicuous by their absence" (see record 2005-11834-002). In this article, the current author outlined what psychologists over the past four decades have had to say about the field's neglect of the poor in its research, practice, and theory. Characterizing this exclusion of the poor as a form of classist bias, she shared her experiences of confronting the results of this bias within her own work. In her commentary, Aronson (see record 2006-05893-011) offered some of her own experiences in working with poor clients. As Moyer (see record 2006-05893-012) asserted, nonprofit organizations that make mental health services available to the poor do indeed constitute welcome exceptions to the current author's statements regarding the mostly middle-class purview of psychological practice. Liu's (see record 2006-05893-013) comment illustrated the different and often complementary perspectives that emerge when one considers the same topic from different paradigmatic stances. Although much of the divergence between Liu's views and the current author's seems to be a manifestation of our differing emphases, the current author addresses a few points of frank disagreement, including the use of the word "classism."