everything. That's the way it is in the House. The Senate was suppose to be a brake on the House. That said, I think that 60 is too high, but the real problem is that the Republicans are unwilling to work with Democrats in finding the type of compromises that used to get 60 or even more votes. It really is not Democrats forcing party loyalty and putting up highly ideological bills.
In 2009, we briefly - for about 4 months - had a super majority, the Presidency and the House. From the Republican point of view, this led to us passing highly partisan bills that Republicans had no say in. This was not true - as witness the fact that the Senate lost about 3 months with the committee of 6 working to get a bill that could have Republican support.
Eliminating the filibuster - which the Republicans terrified Democrats with in 2005, when we did not have the Presidency, the Senate, or the House would benefit the Republicans more than us. The reason is that we want to build government programs, which is very hard and takes a huge amount of effort to get something that enough people want. They want to repeal Democratic programs - which is conceptually easy - just schedule a vote. (If they have the Presidency, the House and the Senate - and there is no filibuster, which they can enact, how long does the ACA last? After all McConnell was recently honest in saying they really were less interested in replacing it.
Then consider that they will cut taxes - while arguing the deficit needs to be cut and the military needs more money. Result - serious shredding of the already weak safety net. The filibuster is the only real tool the minority has. Hard as it is when we are in power, maybe it SHOULD take at least 60% of the Senate to make major policy change. (Maybe they could find a way to prohib its use on routine - always going to pass votes where it is used just to obstruct.)
= new reply since forum marked as read