The Federal Debt 062011

I'll be the first to admit that math was by far never my strongest suit in school.  I still sometimes count on my "fingers" to this day.  On the other hand, I'm pretty sharp when it comes to adding up 1 plus 1 and also subtracting 1 from 2.

Keeping the ideal of extremely simple math in mind, the standing argument on Capitol Hill is that the Republicans won't accept a recently proposed raise of more than 2 trillion dollars to the national debt ceiling without inclusion of significant federal spending cuts on the other side of the denominator to effectively cancel out the difference of the spending increase.  That recently proposed raise to the debt ceiling is said to have been adopted with a sum total of ZERO spending cuts on the opposite side of the math equation, which Republicans oppose.

According to some scholarly information I read awhile back, the concept of ZERO is apparently a very complex distinction to make when it comes to mathematics as a whole.  The scholarly information went on to state that the ancient Mayan civilization had mastered comprehension of the ZERO denominator (or the "delimiter," or whatever it is).

You couldn't prove it by me, though, which just goes to prove how bad I am with math:  As far as I'm concerned, the sum of ZERO is pretty darned simple, as in for instance when 1 minus 1 equals ZERO no matter how you look at it.

So someone please tell me where I'm wrong with this sampling of extremely simple math:

If the government raises the so-called federal debt ceiling by two (2) trillion dollars on the one hand, but on the other hand turns around and CUTS (i.e., also known as SUBTRACTS) two (2) trillion dollars from federal spending programs (e.g., medicare, social security, food stamps, etc.), doesn't the SUBTRACTION of the two (2) trillion dollars effectively CANCEL OUT the difference of the two (2) trillion dollar raise that was given in the first place?

For purposes of illustration, let's use a simpler mathematical sampling that has the same exacting effect as the foregone conclusion:

If I am working in a factory and my boss gives me a $5.00 an hour raise, but then the government turns around and TAXES me an additional $5.00 an hour, isn't that the same as me not getting a $5.00 raise in the first place?  I think so anyway.

So if the government ADDS two (2) trillion dollars to the national debt, but then turns around and SUBTRACTS two (2) trillion dollars from its spending budget, doesn't that mean that the balance of the mathematical equation ends up being - ZERO?  

Does anyone remember the definition of a "Ponzi" scheme?  The simple definition of a Ponzi scheme is when you -- borrow from John to pay Paul, or otherwise Paul doesn't get paid.

Am I missing something here???