I concur: it seems like the D3000 is a cheap option to get started in a Nikon DSLR photo system, but if you plan to buy any lenses, it almost always loses out to a higher-end model (ie, the lens motor must be on the lens with the D3000, while many good Nikon-mount lenses assume the body has a motor, so these are incompatible). If you end up using it like a big point-and-shoot, you won't necessarily buy lenses, but then you should get a fixed-lens camera in the first place. The point of buying DSLR is to have the interchangeable lens system.
I would suggest you quit reading reviews, and go to a camera store to hold some bodies. See which one feels best. Try Canon, Sony, Nikon, and Pentax...they all make good intro and prosumer bodies. Don't worry about super-low-light noise statistics or nth degree RAW resolution for now. Your technique will dominate your ability to take good photos. So buy a body that suits you, and gets you into the lens family that you want for the future. As others have noted, if you plan to do photography for a while, the total cost of the photographic system (body + lenses + flash + batteries + accessories) will dwarf the cost of the body, over time. So buy into the system.
On that note, I'd recommend Nikon or a Pentax for a budding photographer because of the availability of good older lenses and excellent, reasonably priced bodies. Canon has excellent stuff, but is expensive, especially for good prime lenses. Sony is behind the other three (Canon/Nikon/Pentax) with respect to lenses, IMO. Pentax is great for artists, hobbyists, and parents to play with excellent prime lenses. Nikon and Canon clearly dominate the fast action/sport and professional spaces.