Here is an answer to the first question.
Your Lie algebra is $\mathfrak{sl(2, \mathbb{R})}$. (Ok, you didn't specify that you are working over $\mathbb{R}$ and in computations that stay strictly within the Lie algebra you might probably even work over $\mathbb{C}$, which is advantageous in many situations, but when we are talking about the exponential map this makes only sense for Lie algebras over $\mathbb{R}$.)
A very concrete definition of the corresponding group $SL(2, \mathbb{R})$ is that of all 2-by-2 matrices over $\mathbb{R}$. The following (providing a 'YES' answer) is true for all groups of matrices of any finite dimension over either $\mathbb{R}$ or $\mathbb{C}$. So that included pretty much every group you ever need: $SL(n, \mathbb{R})$, $SO(p, q)$, $SU(p, q)$ the (three dimensional) Heisenberg group etc. A more abstract version of the argument also applies to wilder groups like $E_8$ and the universal cover of $SL(2, \mathbb{R})$ but I won't discuss these here.
So your group $G$ is sitting inside $GL(n, \mathbb{C})$ for some $n$. Let $A$ be the set of all diagonal matrices in $G$, $N$ be the set of all upper triangular matrices in $G$ with 1's on the diagonal and $\overline{N}$ be the set of all lower triangular matrices with $1$'s on the diagonal. We note that all three of $A$, $N$, $\overline{N}$ are subgroups of $G$.
We write $\mathfrak{a}, \overline{\mathfrak{n}}, \mathfrak{n}$ for their Lie algebras, viewed as subalgebras of $\mathfrak{g}$. Since $\mathfrak{g}$ is a subalgebra of $\mathfrak{gl}(n, \mathbb{C})$ which consists of all $n$-by-$n$-matrices, we find that $\mathfrak{a}$ to consist of the diagonal matrices in $\mathfrak{g}$, $\mathfrak{n}$ of upper triangular matrices with $0$'s on the diagonal and $\overline{\mathfrak{n}}$ of lower triangular matrices with $0$'s on the diagonal.
In your example $K_0$ spans $\mathfrak{a}$, $K_+$ spans $\mathfrak{n}$ and $K_-$ spans $\overline{\mathfrak{n}}$
Now there are three facts that are relevant here:
Every $G$ can be written as a product $bac$ with $b \in \overline{N}$, $a \in A$, $c \in N$. (In numerical mathematics this is called the LDU decomposition)
The exponential map is surjective when viewed as a map from $\mathfrak{a}$ to $A$, also when viewed as a map from $\mathfrak{n}$ to $N$ and also when viewed as map from $\overline{\mathfrak{n}}$ to $\overline{N}$.
This (statement 2) is quite special because the exponential map is in general not surjective when viewed as map form $\mathfrak{g}$ to $G$.
Combining 1) and 2) we get that
Every $g \in G$ can be written as a product $\exp(X_1)\exp(X_2)\exp(X_3)$ with $X_1 \in \overline{\mathfrak{n}}$, $X_2 \in \mathfrak{a}$ and $X_3 \in \mathfrak{n}$.
In the special case that $\overline{\mathfrak{n}}$, $\mathfrak{a}$ and $\mathfrak{n}$ are one-dimensional (as in your example) this means we are done. We get an expression of the form you ask about, not only for elements of the form $\exp(X)$ with $X \in \mathfrak{g}$ but for all elements in the group.
In the higher dimensional case it seems you want something more: you want express the group element as a product of exponentials of scalar multiples of fixed basis elements. In view of the result I highlighted we can get that if we show that:
- Your conjecture is true for the special cases of Lie groups $A$, $N$ and $\overline{N}$.
Now for $A$ this is really really easy because $A$ is commutative ($ab = ba$ for all $a, b \in A$, and subsequently $[X, Y] = 0$ for all $X, Y \in \mathfrak{a}$).
$\mathfrak{n}$ and $\overline{\mathfrak{n}}$ are in general not commutative but they are something which is close enough for our purposes: they are nilpotent matrices. Concretely: the Lie bracket of two upper triangular matrices will have its non-zero entries on a 'higher' diagonal than the ones you started with. Since there are only finitely many diagonals all nested commutators of sufficient length will be zero and hence there are only finitely many terms in the Baker Cambell Hausdorff formula. This can then be used to prove both statements 3) and 2) for $\mathfrak{n}$ and $N$ and a mirror image of the argument works for the lower diagonal matrices of $\overline{\mathfrak{n}}$ and $\overline{N}$.
So what remains is to verify 1) but this is essentially Gaussian elimation and understand why 2) holds for $\mathfrak{a}$ and $A$ but this last thing is competely trivial: the exponential of a diagonal matrix with entries $a_1, \ldots, a_n$ is simply the diagonal matrix with entries $\exp(a_1), \ldots, \exp(a_n)$.
I leave quite some details to you, but let me know if you have any questions!