It’s an interesting question without an easy answer.
People tend not to think about “government debt” the way they think about “private debt”, namely, their own debt. Partly that’s because we tend to understand our own debt, as a rule. We know why we have it, whether it’s “good debt” spent on capital investments (and expenses) such as a home or a college education, that we even can pay down, or whether it’s “bad debt” spent on material items of little or no real import to our lives, but “because we want it”.
Usually when we see debt increasing (or income decreasing) in our own lives we attempt to take corrective actions if it’s possible, because few people want the shame and humiliation, much less the loss of lifestyle, that is often associated with bankruptcy and “being broke”. And in general we can see those things happening pretty clearly, so we usually know what steps have to be taken, whether decreasing unnecessary expenses quickly, taking on a second job, having more family members work outside the home, etc.
Government debt, besides being harder to get a handle on, is also highly politicized. And even though many in government don’t even know how much the total debt is or where it originates very well, or control it in any meaningful way, it’s also very unusual for governments to actually default on payments to the point where reasonable and honest judges of credit would say, “You’re busted and broke.” Part of the reason for that is that, aside from the personal pain and humiliation that government leaders would feel from such an event, the effect on “the world financial system” is also catastrophic. So “reasonable and honest” judges of credit are not invited to assess the credit-worthiness of specific governments.
For this reason many who are very scrupulous with their own finances will give “government” a lot more leeway in the handling of its own finance. This also has to do with what the government seems to be doing with the money, with “our” money. To the extent that money is being spent on social programs that seem to “benefit everyone” (regardless of efficacy of programs in general, or strict accountability of every dollar spent), then people who vote that way will tend to overlook “excessive” spending in those programs as being “better than the alternative”. Likewise, people who favor “strong national defense” (or who work for defense contractors or supply products to them), will overlook a lot of dirty laundry in that pile, too.
When, on top of the politicization of the debts that we build up through government, we hide some debts due to accounting tricks and complex rules that most people simply don’t even pay attention to, much less understand, it’s easy for debt to grow (such as in federal and state pension plans and pension plan guarantees), in ways that the public only vaguely comprehends. This is on top of the fact that numbers in “billions” and “trillions” are barely understood even conceptually by most taxpayers and other citizens.
Finally, because most governments don’t want to see defaults by most other governments, debt becomes cross-linked among many countries and institutions. We don’t want any one country to go into default, because that risks all countries and most large banks suffering – and potentially defaulting – as a result. And when countries and banks default, it hurts all of us.
So we do what we can to avoid default, paper over problems and pretend that they don’t exist, inflate our way out of problems when we can (paying off old debts incurred with “real money” with currency that is worth less and less as time goes on) and continue to extend credit to governments in the hope that the problems du jour will go away. And sometimes they do.
To answer your question – finally – if debt is monitored, controlled and managed prudently and if reasonable and conservative economic projections about future growth and revenues can reassure lenders that this is so, then it is possible for governments to allow debt to fluctuate within pretty wide ranges (which would not be allowable to most private citizens without political influence or other “special considerations”). So it should not usually be necessary for government to make “drastic cuts” in most worthwhile programs.
But this hasn’t been happening much around the world lately. Economic slowdown has occurred, growth and revenue forecasts are suspect, so revenue is also problematic, and the debt continues to increase. That can go on indefinitely, but not forever. The question is, when does “indefinitely” turn into “no longer”? The closer we get to some nebulous “no longer” point, the more drastic must be the cuts in spending, because the money isn’t there any longer and creditors no longer believe that their loans will be paid off in any meaningful way.