To an extent... yes.... actually... no... NO! actually, I'd use the word "ignorant" -- some very smart people can do some very ignorant things! The old "you had to go to college to say something that stupid" joke.
Or as the old saying goes, "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence."
Usually it's not their fault, they've been misled, are misinformed, or again never learned to use HTML and CSS properly in the first place. See all the jQuery nutters who use it to do CSS' job... or that use it to piss away accessibility to do things HTML can do without scripting. (see this ALL the damned time with what should simply be type="radio")
... and again, I say this because I can write as little or even less code of my own without the framework, and typically in less time too! I do not find them to save time, result in writing less code, and in many cases they defeat the entire purpose of even using HTML/CSS in the first place as most always they rely on presentational use of classes.
HTML and CSS aren't hard if you take the time to understand semantics, separation of presentation from content, progressive enhancement and accessibility norms -- people just MAKE it hard by failing to grasp those, failing to fully learn the underlying language, and diving for fat bloated crap that serves no legitimate purpose.
Bootcrap and jQueery topping the list of bad bloated garbage that just makes sites harder to build, harder to maintain, and harder for visitors to use -- and yet for some jacktarded reason those are the very things people seem to have deluded themselves into believing about them! Seriously, what's in the kool-aid? Jquery in particular, it's adherents and apologists sound like they're planning to move to northwestern Guyana.
I fail to see any advantage to them. They make MORE work, not less. They make less accessible sites... and in Bootstrap's case most sites built with it are such inaccessible wrecks filled with design concepts that have no damned business on websites in the first place, I'm a bit shocked they have anything more than bounce traffic! As a visitor to websites, I bounce off a LOT of sites for those very reasons these days!
The CLOSEST I come to a framework would be this starting HTML:
and this starting CSS:
... and that's ALL I've ever needed. Pretty much stock starting XHTML 1.0 STRICT, a simple smallish reset, and the base setup for the elastic semi-fluid bits... and I don't add that starting CSS until AFTER I have completed the semantic markup of the content.
Much of that is because of the development approach I advocate. Start with what's actually importnat -- THE CONTENT (or a reasonable facsimile of future content), add semantic markup to it, and then the content and semantic markup dictate the layout, NOT the other way around. It's why I consider screwing around drawing goofy pictures in Photoshop and calling it a "design" to be a waste of time at best, an outright scam at worst.
Seriously, if you're starting out with several hundred k of scripting and CSS before you even start working on the markup, you're doing it ALL WRONG! Probably resulting in 10k or more for every 1K of plaintext that seems to be the hallmark of sleazing together off the shelf solutions any-old-way.
It's also why my advice to 90%+ of the people out there who have been duped into using garbage like frameworks, transitional markup, and other broken, bloated buggy ways of thinking is to pitch it in the trash and start over from scratch. I have YET to see ANY of these technologies used in a manner that was worth a flying purple fish. They universally reek of "I can haz HTMLz", "Use jQuery" and "accessibility, what's that?"
That last part being a major problem which is why a lot of the crap people put on websites in terms of layout, design and 'fancy bits', I'd never put on a website in the first place.