I need the following reworded. Please insure me that I will no have the same words. I need the wording to be complete different however it needs to have the same meaning. Make sure each part is at less 250 words no more than 275.

Part 1

I would absolutely say teach the poor how to fish. There is a time and a place for giving somebody who is poor a salmon meal with the fixings, but in isolated instances. Sometimes, when people live in poverty, they don't know how good things can be and how to get to that good place. For many poor people who've turned their life around and become successful, they experienced wealth in some way, such as having a wealthy relative have them over for dinner, and used the drive from that experience to propel them forward. However, giving a poor person the perpetual salmon dinner will never help them. They have no incentive to work to earn their own salmon meal when somebody else buys the salmon and cooks it for them. That is what the welfare system in our country has done today...bought everybody salmon and cooked it, too. I've been as poor as can be (and by poor, I mean living off ramen noodles and water poor), and know that when somebody gives you things, you have no incentive to improve and expect the handouts to continue. 

2. I agree with her completely. As she said, while certain humanitarian aid is needed, most other aid is an insult and will not help the country grow, but only act as a band-aid and provide a means for the government to be lazy and not provide the infrastructure it is responsible for. The U.S. is the same. When policies are good for business, they will help everybody. When policy is more socialist and takes from business to prop up the people, it will hurt everybody.

Part 2

1.  I completely agree that the governments regulations and taxes have everything to do with making a country/state/city more attractive to businesses to invest in that area.  It has everything to do with appearance because every business wants to insure that the market they enter will return more output than the amount of input being put in.  The location of a business can also make or break a business because if it isn't placed in the correct market the business could be a complete fail.
2.  Since I am between the ages of 18 and 28, and unemployment rate in Spain is 50%; I would want to look for a job in Spain.  This would be because when I am looking for a job in an area, I want to have a job in that market that has a lower number of an unemployment rate.  With an unemployment rate, it gives me the idea that there is not much job security for the area and I do not want to be unemployed.  The market in the area that any business is placed can effect who works for that business, and if the market can even begin to hire workers if the unemployment rate is too high.
3a.  According to the information you provided, I would much rather live in Washington since the Federal Tax in Oregon is at 33%!  That is such a high number for a Federal Tax, and living in Washington I would much rather just pay the higher sales tax over the income tax.  I currently live in Florida, where it is the same that we do not have income taxes but pay higher sales taxes.  And my husband and I just moved from South Carolina where the market is the same as Oregon.  As a consumer, I would much rather live in Washington because of the difference in taxes you will be paying.  You will end up losing more money with the increase in Federal Taxes over sales taxes.
3b.  I would place my business in Washington because the sale taxes are much higher and therefore you can sell your products at higher prices without much problem.  This being because the consumers are already use to the high sales taxes, therefore increasing the prices would not remove any of your consumers because consumers are willing to pay whatever the market sets as the price.  And with less of income taxes it would cost less to keep a business running within the state of Washington.
3c.  If I had a very successful business of dietary supplements that we shipped throughout the United States, I would move the business to Washington for the decrease in state taxes or to another state that had the 0% income taxes.  Yet again this would be mean being able to sell more dietary supplements at a higher price without a concern about pricing and therefore increase the output of the company.  It is more difficult to work within a market that has higher income taxes because the government and the market around that business with similar products greatly affect the pricing.  And when the pricing is greatly affected so is the amount of output that the company may or may not see.