Applied Materials to cut 1,800 jobs; profit falls 45%

vbimport

#1

"Applied Materials Inc. on Wednesday reported a fourth-quarter profit that fell 45% as the semiconductor-and-solar panel equipment maker delivered weaker sales due to broad declines in corporate spending on technology products. The company also said it would slash 1,800 jobs in order to cut its costs over the next year."http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Applied-Materials-cut-1800-jobs/story.aspx?guid=%7B0DEDB95E%2D9525%2D4173%2DB058%2D9C8640EFF441%7D#comments
This must be Obama’s fault…


#2

PIPEMANID
Yeah ,that’s really bad for the people that work
for the company. However I am more of an optimist
that when we get this wall street mess straightened out.
Hopefully they will be able to bounce back. Technology
go’s up and down. If they are inovative they will recover.
ZAP.:(:frowning:


#3

Unlucky, eh?

Don’t we all just love future budget forecasts :slight_smile:


#4

[QUOTE=pipemanid;2156131]This must be Obama’s fault…[/QUOTE]

If we are still in this mess in 2012 then it will be his fault then. He has two years to do something to keep the Dems in control of Congress and four years to do something to save his own skin for reelection. His clock starts ticking in January.


#5

UTR
Now be nice let’s let him have a chance.
zap.:bigsmile::bigsmile:



#6

He has a chance. The public gave him one on November 4th. It starts in January. Mid terms are due in 2010 and final first term grades will be rendered in 2012. If he doesn’t perform well enough then he won’t be back for the second term.


#7

Problem is that he will have to have a lot of help from all of us to fix the problem. The other thing that no one ever talks about, is how some of us, who have all our major items and have a secure income will do better the worse the recession gets. I was hurting when the so call good economy was going because price of gas and most everything else was going up now I am doing great. I am retired do not have to worry about any job. My wife job is in a doctor’s office and she would be one of the last laid off. So for me let the recession get worse. Even my kids jobs are secure. Saying this I do feel for those who it is hurting I just thought I would state that a recession is not always bad for all. Also had we been allowed to go into recession when we should have a couple of times the past eight years instead of lowing interest and handing out money to keep from going into one then we would not be having the real bad one we are going to have now. Little Bush is responsible for that.


#8

Bush has some responsibility but let’s be truthful. He did not do this alone. The basic reason for this current economic mess is that politicians wanted to push home ownership onto those that had no business owning a home. I’ll let you guess who was promoting this hard. It wasn’t just Bush. It was A LOT OF DEMOCRATS TOO!!! The poster boys for this group is Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd. IMO, too many people extrapolate their hate for Bush over his war policies to areas they should be more restrained like the economy. Bush spends no money that isn’t approved by Congress. For the past two years the Democrats have had control of Congress and NOTHING was done by them to stop this current mess. In fact, Barney Frank as late as last summer told people that Freddie and Fannie were good stock buys! The Democrats spent more time trying to hurt Bush the past two years than doing the Country’s business.

As for helping Obama, the most we can do is give him a chance and this was done on November 4th. If helping him means turning this country into more of a socialist society and raising taxes to cover the tab for it, then he will not find much help from me. He has no excuses now since Congress and the White House is Democrat controlled. In four years he won’t be able to blame Bush anymore. What ever good or bad that happens from here on lands squarely on his shoulders, which is as it should be. The one thing I am noticing is he is using a lot of Clinton era retreads and this might turn out to be a big mistake. Much of the 1990’s economic success was due to Reagan’s policies bearing fruit and the Republicans taking control of Congress in 1994. Back then the Republicans had a conservative spine and governed accordingly. Clinton’s first two years was an abysmal failure (remember Hillary’s health care fiasco?) and after 1994 he just rode on the Republican’s platform. Then the Lewinsky affair hit and he spent the rest of his second term in survival mode. Looking back, the best thing that Clinton did was to not do much at all. If Obama is going to rely on Clinton’s old cronies then he might be making a huge mistake. I also wonder if this also shows a lack of confidence on his part by not being able to recognize fresh new talent and bring them on board to provide the real change he promised. Time will tell.


#9

[QUOTE=UTR;2158211]Bush has some responsibility but let’s be truthful. He did not do this alone. [/QUOTE] How many vetoes did George Bush use during the largest growth of government, ever?
11, the least of any president since Warren Harding in 1923.
It took him 6 years to use his first veto. That’s a hell of a lot pork under the bridge. You can say George Bush never saw a spending bill he didn’t like.
GDP adjusted to inflation rate during term in office:
Roosevelt - to 1945 - 110%, 12 years
Truman - to 1953 - 85%, 8 years
Eisenhower - to 1961 - 114%, 8 years - GDP growth 38%
Kennedy/Johnson - to 1969 - 52%, 8 years - GDP growth 47.9%
Nixon/Ford - to 1977 - 4%, 8 years - GDP growth 38%
Carter - to 1981 - 0%, 4 years - GDP growth 6.2%
Reagan - to 1989 - 123%, 8 years - GDP growth 43.2%
Bush I - to 1993 - 54%, 4 years - GDP growth 7.9%
Clinton I - to 2001 - 222% - GDP growth 33.4%
Bush II - to Jan 2008 - 23%, to now -18% - GDP growth 21.8%

[QUOTE=UTR;2158211]The basic reason for this current economic mess is that politicians wanted to push home ownership onto those that had no business owning a home. I’ll let you guess who was promoting this hard. It wasn’t just Bush. It was A LOT OF DEMOCRATS TOO!!! The poster boys for this group is Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd. [/QUOTE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkAtUq0OJ68
He said that Freddie/Fannie is the solution, now he is saying Freddie/Fannie is the problem…[QUOTE=UTR;2158211]IMO, too many people extrapolate their hate for Bush over his war policies to areas they should be more restrained like the economy. Bush spends no money that isn’t approved by Congress. For the past two years the Democrats have had control of Congress and NOTHING was done by them to stop this current mess. In fact, Barney Frank as late as last summer told people that Freddie and Fannie were good stock buys! The Democrats spent more time trying to hurt Bush the past two years than doing the Country’s business.[/QUOTE]Dubya is Commander In Chief in a "declared’ war…One of the basic tenets of the military is you can delegate authority but you can’t delegate responsibility…

[QUOTE=UTR;2158211]As for helping Obama, the most we can do is give him a chance and this was done on November 4th. If helping him means turning this country into more of a socialist society and raising taxes to cover the tab for it, then he will not find much help from me. He has no excuses now since Congress and the White House is Democrat controlled. In four years he won’t be able to blame Bush anymore. What ever good or bad that happens from here on lands squarely on his shoulders, which is as it should be. The one thing I am noticing is he is using a lot of Clinton era retreads and this might turn out to be a big mistake. Much of the 1990’s economic success was due to Reagan’s policies bearing fruit and the Republicans taking control of Congress in 1994. Back then the Republicans had a conservative spine and governed accordingly. Clinton’s first two years was an abysmal failure (remember Hillary’s health care fiasco?) and after 1994 he just rode on the Republican’s platform. Then the Lewinsky affair hit and he spent the rest of his second term in survival mode. Looking back, the best thing that Clinton did was to not do much at all. If Obama is going to rely on Clinton’s old cronies then he might be making a huge mistake. I also wonder if this also shows a lack of confidence on his part by not being able to recognize fresh new talent and bring them on board to provide the real change he promised. Time will tell.[/QUOTE]Ronnie Raygun also pushed the philosophy that deficits didn’t matter via Alan Greenspan…That hasn’t worked out too well has it…


#10

pipemanid, it looks like you are running MoveOn.org’s latest brain OS. :wink: Trying to defend the Democrats on this stuff is just as hard as trying to defend President Bush. Overall, they are BOTH responsible in equal parts for our problems. So far I see nothing from Obama, including his words, to indicate he will be any different. I hope he proves me wrong.


#11

[QUOTE=UTR;2158336]pipemanid, it looks like you are running MoveOn.org’s latest brain OS. :wink: Trying to defend the Democrats on this stuff is just as hard as trying to defend President Bush. Overall, they are BOTH responsible in equal parts for our problems. So far I see nothing from Obama, including his words, to indicate he will be any different. I hope he proves me wrong.[/QUOTE]

I don’t subscribe to any organization’s point of view…Not a follower…
My positions are based on MY OBSERVATIONS and nothing else…
I refuse to defend the indefensible, and that’s exactly what is going on now…
The bailout is an unmitigated disaster and ALL Parties are responsible…


#12

The blame is all but it was little bush who man controlled interest rates and who gave out rebates checks to keep us from going into recession sooner but congress went along with it. When Reagan was president I can remember buying a house and paying 11 percent. The problem I was stating was that had Bush let us go into the recession we would have corrected some of the over spending and would not have been in the place we are now. I hope we have learned a lesson this time that recession are needed every few years to keep everything in check. The old saying (you have to pay the piper) should have another line which is the sooner the better.


#13

No president controls interest rates directly. It is the Federal Reserve Board. I work in the housing market and I saw this coming years ago. We were drowning in 2005 and nobody gave a $hit. Everyone but my crowd thought the housing market could tank and the rest of the economy would hum along just fine. The policies of the Fed, Congress and the Executive Branch caused housing prices to rise at a rate that was just not sustainable. Then throw in short term loans that relied on ever increasing house values at the end of their term, and it didn’t take a rocket scientist to see what was coming. The same thing happened in the early 1990’s to a lesser extent. The rest of the country is coming down to the pits where the housing industry has been for the past three years. At least we have some company now and maybe it will make somebody pay attention to current events.