The original poster's least expensive option would be 18-55 IS (better than the non-IS version) and 55-250 IS (better than the non-IS 75-300). These are budget lenses with "entry-level" build quality, but decent optical performance in both.
A more expensive option would be the 17-55/2.8 IS paired with one of the 70-200s. A tele-zoom like the 70-200 will benefit a lot from IS, which still leaves a choice of f4 or f2.8 lenses. The f2.8 IS is big and heavy, not to mention pricey. Try it before you buy it, especially for use on any of the smaller Rebel/xxxD camera bodies. The f4 version feels a lot better balanced on the smaller cameras.
The 17-55 is mid-grade/USM build quality and tops in IQ, but it's an EF-S lens so can't be used on a full frame camera, if you might ever get one (I wouldn't let that stop me from buying an EF-S lens, especially a good one like this that holds it's value if I ever needed to sell it).
The 70-200/4 IS is an L-series lens, top build and image quality, and features a recent generation of IS that's very effective. The f4 versions of this lens don't come with a tripod mounting ring, an accessory you might not need but I'd personally want even though it's $160 additional.
I have to disagree with the statement that the 28-135 isn't a good walk around lens on a crop sensor camera. I think it is and have used it that way... a lot. I paired it first with a 20mm (not really wide enough on 1.6X crop camera) and now with a 12-24/4 Tokina most of the time. But, I'm always surprised how much less I used the wider lens, as opposed to the 28-135 range. I'd have to say that a lot of this comes down to personal preference.
Now, ultimately I upgraded to a 24-70/2.8 for the faster aperture and better dust sealing, but the 28-135 is very capable in terms of image quality. I'd challenge anyone to distinguish 8x10 prints from the 28-135 vs 24-70... The differences between these lenses - besides price - isn't in the images. It comes down to build quality, durability, max aperture and sealing against dust and moisture. The 28-135 is so commonly supplied as a kit lens that it's often possible to pick up lightly or unused ones at bargain prices. In fact I recently bought another one, as a backup for my 24-70.
The 12-24, 24-70 (and/or 28-135) and a 70-200 constitute my zoom lenses. The rest of my kit are prime lenses.
I could go most places, take a lot of types of shots and be pretty happy with just the 12-24 and the 28-135, though.
If you look back a few years, to the good/bad old days of film... most people got a camera with a 50mm lens. Their first additional lens purchase was usually a 70-210 or 80-200 lens. Their second additional purchase, if they went so far, was often a 28mm lens. So they had a kit covering 28mm wide to 210mm telephoto. It was pretty unusual for most consumers to have anything longer or wider than these lenses. In fact, many didn't even have this much of a kit. Yet they managed to make a lot of great photos.
Now if you "do the math" looking at the 12-24 and the 28-135mm lenses with a crop sensor camera, just these two lenses cover a range equal to 19mm to 216mm on a film camera! So, in essence you'd have more kit with just these two lenses than most film shooters ever owned in their lives.
The 18-55 IS and 55-250 IS pair is equal to 29mm to 400mm on a film camera! And the 17-55 IS and 70-200 IS is like having 27mm to 320mm on a film camera!
Want wider? It's easily available with a third lens. Canon offers the 10-22. Tokina offers an 11-16. 12mm (equal to 19mm lens angle of view on film/full frame) is wide enough for me.
By the way, most pro shooters don't go for zooms when they look at lenses longer than 200mm. This may change over time, as tele zooms are getting darned good and still keep improving. But, I think you'll find the majority of pros still turn to the 300/4, 300/2.8, 500/4 etd. prime lenses, which are called "Super Telephotos" for a reason!
p.s. Regarding teleconverters... of the above only the 70-200/4 is practical to put a 1.4X teleconverter on.
The main reason is that with a 1.4X you lose one stop of light. With a 2X, you lose two stops.
Now, Canon cameras cannot auto focus with lens apertures smaller than f5.6, and at f5.6 only with the center AF point (except for the 1-Series models and older EOS-3 film camera, which can still focus at f8, center AF point only) .
So, an f4 lens plus a 1.4X makes the combo an effective f5.6. It will work, but it will be a little slower and your viewfinder will be dimmer. An f4 lens plus a 2X teleconverter makes for an effective f8, auto focus is lost, and manual focusing with a dim viewfinder is difficult.
Your f4.5-5.6 lens will not auto focus at all with either Canon teleconverter, and most third party ones. Some third party teleconverters aren't recognized by the camera, so might still try to auto focus, but will be slow and will hunt a lot.
Besides, I can't think of a zoom lens I'd be willing to put a 2X on... Most just lose way, way too much image quality in the process. Even the 70-200/2.8.
I do use a 1.4X occasionally on my 70-200/2.8. It's okay. But I prefer to shoot with a prime lens instead (some of which will take 1.4X and 2X teleconverters very well).
If 300mm isn't enough reach on your camera, sorry but you are just going to have to walk closer... or get the subject to come closer to you... or buy a 400mm lens (which also won't always be enough reach... so you'll need a 500mm... then a 600mm... then an 800mm ).
We didn't mention the 100-400mm lens above... maybe we should have if you want more than 300mm reach. It's and f4.5-5.6, though, so it's not usable with the teleconverters, either.