[thinkthenpost]

I understand and appreciate everything you’ve said, particularly the aging, 2% net and such, everyone wants to get the best deal! But as for the rest of you, from the article 34,000 on a 200,000+ paint bill, that’s one hell of a break and if accurate seems to be a recurring theme.

[thinkthenpost]

What a horribly written story, Jose Lambert really ought to pick one vendor or contractor as an example, then track all the events, the timing, and payments, then draw similarities to the treatment of the rest of the companies, and THEN reveal his conclusions!
Probably would have broken up his premise, and killed the story, but when you drop a big allegation, then shotgun facts with no context even Sister Teresa can be portrayed in a bad light.
A year into the campaign though maybe it is time to bring back a classic from the past, the Clintons’ had the bimbo eruption squad, maybe the Trump campaign can start the contractor bad video response team.

[Kellis91789]

The $34K figure is about right for the actual PAINT used on a $200K job. The lien might be by the paint supplier because the painter hasn’t paid them, or the painter took out the lien as collateral to borrow money to buy the paint as others have pointed out. Or it may just be that additional work was done based on a verbal OK, but since it wasn’t in the written contract the billing is disputed — nothing in construction should ever be done without getting the contract amended, but it happens everyday.

The article has none of the details needed to know what is really going on. It is strictly smear tactics.