user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
I think that one income would be better for the kid until he/she is old enough to stay home alone so both parents can work. The kid will be at school for most of the day anyway so just find someone you can trust to watch the kid for a few hours a day and you'll be set. With to incomes I would think you could afford to find a decent baby sitter. My cousin and her husband are bringing in 2 incomes of only like 18 dollars an hour each but are living real comfortably.
I was so tempted to make love to one of the jets in their nice swimming pool.
In the San Francisco bay area you must have two incomes or you'll be doomed to be a renter and a broke renter at that for the rest of your life.
You could not have kids until you have the means to support them. That'd be nice.
I have the best of both worlds. Two incomes, but we work different days so there is always someone at home.
And someone not at home, Beelzebubba, hehe. Not that I go to your house when you are at work. I NEVER did that, OKAY!
we only had one income, , it was so great to come home from school and my mom would always be there. I know two income is necessary in most families these days, but if anyway possible I think a parent should be at home, there is nothing worse than coming home to an empty house.
One income is better if you can afford it, a parent should always be home for the kids. My wife and I worked opposite shifts for years and so far the kids have turned out great.
by ABC on Tue Mar 01, 05 1:36pm
[+]
|
|