Perhaps if he were to cite the latest poverty numbers:

The poverty rate rose to 14.3% in 2009, the highest since 1994, up from 13.2% in 2008, the Census Bureau reported Thursday. Last year there were a record 43.6 million people in poverty. Meanwhile, real median household income in 2009 was $49,777, not statistically different from the prior year. Real median income fell 1.8% for family households, and rose 1.6% for nonfamily households. Also, the number of people with health insurance fell to 253.6 million in 2009 from 255.1 million in 2008, the first year that the number of people with health insurance has decreased since 1987, when the government started collecting comparable data. The number of uninsured rose to 50.7 million from 46.3 million.

and do it in a way that effectively turns the latest GOP talking points on their heads, it might resonate, and would, perhaps, highlight the further point that wealth is just not trickling down.

Insisting that the wealthy get what they want is the equivalent of two people coming to the emergency room: one is bleeding out, and the other has a broken finger.  And there's only one doctor free.  Triage says Bleeding-out guy gets helped, stat.  But, Broken-finger guy says, "you'd better find someone to help me at the same time, or I'm going to make such a fuss Bleeding-out guy will croak before you can save him - so you decide: help us both, or the bleeding guy croaks."  

This is economic triage (leaving aside for the moment that extending the cuts for the middle class isn't going to do much for the economy, either, but at least it won't inflict any more pain on the middle class than they are experiencing now) - Obama needs to make that clear, and the Democratic leadership needs to start kicking a$$ and taking names to get it done.

[Knowing how this works, I do shudder to think what sort of "payment" the recalcitrant Dems will extract for their votes, because it's not in Harry Reid's playbook to simply say, "because we said so, and because we can see to it that you never work in this town again."]

What might help those who really need it most is a payroll tax holiday for those least likely to derive any benefit from extension of the current rates because they already do not pay any tax.

The biggest problem with the labor market right now is that wages are too high. As Washington again turns to government spending as a cure for unemployment, some against-the-grain thinking is in order.

Economics teaches that full employment would be reached if wages adjust downward, to a level that better reflects current circumstances. At lower wages, employers would desire more workers. Labor markets generate persistent unemployment only if wages are sticky, failing to fall as demand declines.

A number of reasons help explain why wages don't and won't drop, beginning with federal and state minimum-wage laws.

Second, because union contracts generally cover multiple years, adjusting wages in response to economic circumstances would require a return to the bargaining table, which rarely happens.

Third, the natural reluctance of workers to accept lower pay is amplified by how their wage helps define their identity. A $60,000-a-year office worker might have an extra-hard time coming to terms with becoming a $40,000-a-year worker.

Finally, workers and jobs might be mismatched, either geographically or occupationally. Workers might be needed in places they don't want to move to, or can't afford to live.

There are ample signs that these obstacles to lower wages are helping drive high unemployment today.

~ tax cuts for the rich won't help the economy
~ tax cuts for the rich amount to a drop in the bucket anyway
~ wages have gone down for the middle class (but not for the rich), they are the ones who need relief
~ costs have gone up for the middle class, they are the ones who need relief

It's really so simple, despite the irrational talking points from the right.

Is his argument that we can't afford 700 billion because we can afford 3.0 trillion but we can't afford 3.7 trillion?

How stupid does he think we are?

And what happened to the multiplier effect?  I thought the stimulus didn't work because it wasn't big enough?

Now I'm supposed to believe that tax cuts work if they cost 3 trillion but they don't work if they cost 3.7 trillion?

Listen to yourselves.  The only argument he is making is that rich people don't deserve tax cuts but everyone else does.  That's it.

If tax cuts work why stop at 3.0 trillion.  Why not go ahead and do 3.7 trillion?  10 trillion?

If they don't work don't do it at all.

There is no other logic to his proposal, economic or otherwise.  Only the most die hard partisan thinks this is going to do any good to fix the economy.  

"IF" it includes huge cuts to federal spending.

I'll make the first cut.