Tick, tick. August 2nd is the Debt Limit Armageddon. Or Not.

The same fiscal and political issues that foiled earlier negotiations between Mr. Obama and Mr. Boehner remain. Among both lawmakers and interest groups with influence over them, many Republicans oppose abandoning the party’s no-compromise stand against any new taxes and many Democrats fear a “grand bargain” will undercut their party’s ability in the 2012 campaigns to use Republicans’ support of deep cuts in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security against them.

The emerging agreement would likely rile many Democrats, who already are suggesting that it is more tilted toward Republican priorities than a comprehensive bipartisan plan summarized this week by the so-called Gang of Six senators, three Republicans and three Democrats. Prospects for an Obama-Boehner deal were uncertain as well with House Republicans. While initial reports suggested it would appear to meet Republican demands for less reliance on new revenues than Democrats had insisted on, Republicans could be uneasy about accepting a plan tied to higher future revenues through tax changes.

“The trick on this has always been the tax issue,” one Republican said

He's in as much hot soup with the extremists of the liberal camp as he is with the extremists of the conservative camp.

As efforts to avoid an unprecedented U.S. default entered crunch time Friday, President Obama faced growing tensions with senior congressional Democrats, who are angry at White House concessions to Republicans and at being left out of the talks.

With the clock ticking toward an Aug. 2 deadline to raise the U.S. debt ceiling, Obama and the senior Republican in Congress, House Speaker John Boehner, worked toward a plan that could include up to $3 trillion in spending cuts but might leave tax reform for later, congressional aides said.

Meanwhile, White House spokesman Jay Carney reported little progress from private meetings President Barack Obama held Wednesday with Boehner and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and separately with congressional Democratic leaders.

"There is no deal, we are not close to a deal," Carney said.

"There is no progress to report but we continue to work on getting the most significant deficit reduction package possible because we think it's the right thing for the economy," he said.

Washington (CNN) - Even before the debt talks got underway at the White House Thursday, liberal House Democrats drew a line in the sand, saying there was no way they could support a deal that includes cuts to entitlement programs. They planned to send President Obama a letter telling him to take entitlements off the table in the talks.

"At a time when each millionaire is getting $138,700 dollar tax break a year from the government, there is no reason our seniors and the neediest amongst us need to struggle to pay their hospital bills," said Congressional Progressive Caucus Vice Chair Judy Chu, D-California. "The debt must be addressed, but it should be done in a way that is fair to all. We should not balance the back of this budget on our nation's seniors."

The caucus blamed Republicans for using the debt talks as a way to make cuts to entitlement programs.

"Republicans have used this opportunity in a very cynical and political way, to not just talk about deficit reduction or not just talk about debt ceiling, but to really go after programs that they have historically, historically opposed," said co-chairman of the Progressive Caucus Raul Grijalva, D-Arizona. "And we feel that it is important for us to put up our defense for those programs that the American people have historically, historically depended on and supported."

Members of the caucus told reporters they are willing to discuss entitlement reforms, such as raising the payroll tax cap, but are unwilling to support a deal if it restructures Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid through cuts to benefits.

The Republicans have drawn a line in the sand in the debt negotiations on the issue of taxes, and now the Democrats have drawn their own line and said they will not accept any cuts in Medicare or Social Security:

After a contentious White House meeting with President Obama and other Congressional leaders, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) returned to the Capitol and drew an important red line: Members of her caucus won’t vote for a grand bargain to raise the debt limit and reduce future deficits if the final deal includes cuts to Medicare and Social Security benefits — and that means it probably won’t pass.

“You [asked], ‘could the changes compromise the vote?’” Pelosi said at a Thursday afternoon briefing near the House chamber. “I said yes.”

The first few times I heard House Republicans talk about our budget mess, I worried that they had plunged off the deep end. But as I kept on listening, a buzzer went off in my mind, and I came to understand how much sense the Tea Party caucus makes.

Why would we impose “job-crushing taxes” on wealthy Americans just to pay for luxuries like federal prisons? Why end the “carried interest” tax loophole for financiers, just to pay for unemployment benefits — especially when those same selfless tycoons are buying yachts and thus creating jobs for all the rest of us?

Hmmm. The truth is that House Republicans don’t actually go far enough. They should follow the logic of their more visionary members with steps like these:

BONUSES FOR BILLIONAIRES Republicans won’t extend unemployment benefits, even in the worst downturn in 70 years, because that makes people lazy about finding jobs. They’re right: We should be creating incentives for Americans to rise up the food chain by sending hefty checks to every new billionaire. This could be paid for with a tax surcharge on regular working folks. It’s the least we can do.

Likewise, the government should take sterner measures against the persistent jobless. Don’t just let their unemployment benefits expire. Take their homes!

Oh, never mind! Silly me! The banks are already doing that.

LET JOBS TRICKLE DOWN Leftist pundits say that House Republicans don’t have a jobs plan. That’s unfair! Granted, the Republican-sponsored Cut, Cap and Balance Act would eliminate 700,000 jobs in just its first year, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, but those analysts are no doubt liberals. America’s richest 400 people own more wealth than the bottom 150 million Americans, and the affluent would feel renewed confidence if the Republican plan passed. We’d see a hiring bonanza. Each of those wealthy people might hire an extra pool attendant. That’s 400 jobs right there!

Cut, Cap and Balance would go even further than the Ryan budget plan in starving the beast of government. Sure, that’ll mean cuts in Social Security, Medicare and other programs, but so what? Who needs food safety? How do we know we really need air traffic control unless we try a day without it?

ROOT OUT SOCIALISM Republicans have been working to end Medicare as we know it but need to examine other reckless entitlements, such as our socialized education system, in which public schools fritter resources on classes like economics and foreign languages. As a former Texas governor, Miriam “Ma” Ferguson, is said to have declared when she opposed the teaching of foreign languages: “If English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it’s good enough for us.”

For that matter, who needs socialized police and fire services? We could slash job-crushing taxes at the local level and simply let the free market take over:

“9-1-1, may I help you?” “Yes, help! My house is burning down!” “Very good, sir. I can offer you one fire engine for $5,995, or two for just $10,000.” “Help! My family’s inside. Send three fire engines! Just hurry!” “Yes, sir. Let me just run your credit card first. And if you require the fire trucks immediately, there’s a 50 percent ‘rush’ surcharge.”

HILL OUT ABOUT THE DEBT CEILING House Republicans like Michele Bachmann are right: If the debt ceiling isn’t raised, some solution will turn up. As Representative Austin Scott, a Republican from Georgia, observes: “In the end, the sun is going to come up tomorrow.”

We got through the Great Depression, didn’t we? It looked pretty hopeless in 1929, but in just a dozen years World War II bailed us out with an economic stimulus. Something like that’ll come along for us, too. Ya gotta have faith.

CONSIDER ASSET SALES While Democrats are harrumphing about “default,” Republicans have sagely noted that there are alternatives in front of our noses. For example, why raise taxes on hard-pressed managers of hedge funds when the government can sell assets?

Fort Knox alone has 4,600 tons of gold, which I figure is worth around $235 billion. That’s enough to pay our military budget for four months! And selling Yosemite, Yellowstone and the Grand Canyon would buy us time as well.

RENT OUT CONGRESS If the debt ceiling isn’t raised, we could also auction members of Congress for day jobs: Are you a financier who wants someone to flip burgers (steaks?) at your child’s birthday party? Why, here’s Eric Cantor! Many members of Congress already work on behalf of tycoons, and this way the revenue would flow to the Treasury.

Finally, if we risk default, let’s rent out the Capitol for weddings to raise money for the public good. Wouldn’t it be nice to see something positive emerge from the House?

The White House also denied that any agreement was imminent. Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, said: “There is no deal. We are not close to a deal.”

The same issues that foiled earlier negotiations between Mr. Obama and Mr. Boehner remain. Many Republicans oppose abandoning the party’s no-compromise stand against any new taxes, while many Democrats fear a “grand bargain” will undercut their party’s ability in the 2012 campaigns to use Republicans’ support of deep cuts in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security against them.

Here are a few thoughts on our government and politics as we head into the end game on debt talks…

1. John Boehner is in a lose-lose situation here. Either he rolls the very people who put the GOP in the majority –- and therefore put the gavel in his hands –- or he allows the global economy to tank, and have it be blamed on Republicans. Roll or be rolled, would be one way to look at it.

Now he’s taking meetings with Nancy Pelosi, after golfing with President Obama, a known Democrat, and making behind-the-scenes "grand bargains" with same -- thereby arousing the suspicions of...

2. The True Believer caucus, which is once again about to drive the wagon train off the cliff. They exist on both sides of the aisle, and their influence waxes and wanes with the times. As we know, this year’s GOP version is particularly suspicious of anyone and everyone -- including fellow Republicans -- who want anything less than a complete reordering of the governing paradigm. The resulting myopia often exaggerates the strength of one’s political position and leads to political debacles.

3. The principals in this drama are playing to two distinctly different political audiences, and therefore have two different, sometimes conflicting motivations that are contributing to the impasse. The president wants to appeal to 2012 independent, persuadable voters. I know this is obvious, but witness the willingness to put entitlements on the table and enrage his own party’s True Believers. It’s a broad, national audience. He can ride the high horse of compromise, and, according to our poll, it’s a winning entry. And as in any negotiation between Congress and the White House, the president always has the option to “take it to the American people,” as he told House Majority Leader Eric Cantor. He appears in the briefing room and frames the debate, lays down the predicate. True Believers never get that. Their insularity means they spend all their time talking to each other and view anyone outside the group as an apostate.

Speaker Boehner, on the other hand, is playing to that very True Believer constituency. It’s not a nationwide electorate of millions; it's 240 Republicans in the House who voted to make him speaker -- most of whom in turn represent, broadly speaking, 700,000 mostly center-to-conservative voters. Boehner has much less latitude than does the president. His only option other than a hard line is to essentially defy his base. But while that is exactly how the president wants to be perceived heading into 2012, it’s a leap into the abyss for the speaker.

4. Finally, isn’t it ironic that those who cast themselves as the stoutest defenders of the Constitution and who promote the genius of the Founding Fathers are the same ones who can’t accept that there is a Senate controlled by duly elected members of the other party, not to mention a House minority that opposes them? The Founders understood the political imperative and expressly designed a Congress that takes it all into account. To say that the opposition should roll over because Americans spoke clearly in the last election doesn’t reckon for the fact that the Founders staggered elections for a purpose, and that voters have sent a Democrat to the White House and to the majority in the Senate in previous elections.

I would support those things too.

I think it's extreme for either party to draw a line in the sand and state, as both parties have done re their respective lines, that their vote of the debt ceiling limit is tied to what is put on the table for consideration.

I also think it's extreme to take the position that the line has been drawn in order to use the vote of the opposing party as a political tool in the next election.

You might want to call the media extreme, then; because it's them that are making such judgments, not the Dems in office.

I think it's fair for the Dems to say that votes to cut Medicare and SS WILL harm them in the next election; that's not extreme in the slightest. It's true. Just as tax raises WILL harm Republicans in the next election.

As to Dems and Reps being damaged in the next election... damaged by whom? Others within their own party putting up challenges at the primary level? A majority of the dems are going to vote for a dem candidate and a majoriity of the Reps are going to vote for a Rep candidate in any general election.

If you're talking about being hurt by the swing voters then read the fricken polls on what they want... reduced spending and reasonable modifications to the entitlement programs.