WASHINGTON -- Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said Wednesday that President Barack Obama’s administration is “absolutely” willing to go off the so-called fiscal cliff if Republicans refuse to increase taxes on the nation’s top earners.

During an interview with CNBC, Geithner was asked if the White House was willing to dive off the cliff if Republicans don’t accept a deal that raises tax rates for those making more than $250,000.

“Oh, absolutely," he responded. "Again, there's no prospect in an agreement that doesn't involve the rates going up on the top 2 percent of the wealthiest."

Geithner’s comments offer the strongest indication that Obama would accept the automatic spending cuts and tax rate increases that kick in if an agreement is not reached before the Dec. 31 deadline.

“What we’re trying to do is put in place a comprehensive, balanced set of fiscal reforms that put us back on the path of living within our means and create room for investing to make the economy stronger, make sure we're protecting Medicare for future generations, and forcing the government to use the taxpayers' resources more wisely,” Geithner said, when pressed to explain why standing firm on tax rates increasing for the top 2 percent would be worth going over the cliff.

“In that context, you have to have a significant amount of revenues. We don't see a way of doing it that makes any sense or has any political viability without rates going up as part of that deal,” Geithner said. “Again, the size of the problem in some sense is so large it can't be solved without rates going up. I think there's a broad recognition of that reality now.”

Geithner has previously used similar language, most recently during an appearance on NBC's "Meet The Press."

UHHHMMMMM, yes, it applies here.

Barry wouldn't jump off a cliff.

He and most all the other politicians would throw the tax payer off the cliff.

Business as usual I see

IF your household is in serious debt, you have to cut back on expenses or increase your income or both

simple math really,


in this case, if our household is going to ask the least of us to sacrifice (cut out resources for the least of us), it should also ask those who are doing the best to sacrifice (increase revenue from those doing the best)

seems fair, but , Im only doing math

whats so crasy is that I believe most the top earners would have no problem with such a sacrifice

well, except maybe those who are in position to actually enforce it,