First and foremost, any and all who insist that failing to extend all the tax cuts amounts to a tax "increase" should be forced to explain why the Republicans who enacted the tax cuts put an expiration date of 2010 into the law in the first place. The resulting efforts would probably be amusing. If nothing else, it would serve as a reminder of the fact that it was the Republicans who wrote and passed the laws by which rates are scheduled to return to late 20th century levels starting next year.
Beyond that:
1. An extension of the tax cuts for the first $250,000 of income would be a tax cut for everyone subject to income tax.
2. Granted, it won't be as big of a tax cut as some would like for those with incomes greater than $250,000. To those who insist that income above a given amount be treated the same as income below that amount, one might reply that such "equality" is inconsistent with the cap on income subject to payroll taxes.
3. Such "equality" is also inconsistent with the very nature of progressive income tax. Granted, there are many who are simply opposed to progressive tax rates. Let's smoke them out, force them to state their true views, and have that debate. I'm quite anxious to learn how people make money without making use of roads, the enforceability of contracts or other public goods.
4. Anyone who argues the stimulative power of tax cuts under Kennedy or Reagan must be forced to explain how top rate tax cuts from 39% to 35% will have anything close to the same impetus on investment of capital and effort as tax cuts from 91% to 70% (JFK), or from 70% to 50% (Reagan). Letting people keep 30% (as opposed to 9%), or 50% (as opposed to 30%) were game-changers. I'm not sure that even Ayn Rand could invent people willing to invest their time and money if they get to keep 65% of their additional income, but not if they get to keep "only" 61%.