user8595: It seems to be a strong affinity in media for monks to be beggars. There doesn't seem to be anything in Buddhism that effectively correlates to being poor, or even using begging for livelihood.  The Noble Eightfold Path even has occupations in one of the folds, and doesn't recommend too much of a constrain to the point of driving people poor.
Specifically, I would put the book Buddha Boy by Kathe Koja on display, where a Buddhist boy moving into a rather bad neighborhood is picked on at school for his actions, one of which is begging for food during his lunch period.  
In this example, "Buddha Boy" begs for food, however, that doesn't seem like anything I've seen in Buddhist culture. Is this a common misconception, or am I misinformed?

user10304: In Classic Chinese Sutras, the translated word relating to the "offering to the Buddhist monk" is this: 供養, the monk is said to receive 供養 from the "adoring believers": 善信. 供 has the intrinsic value of offering from the lower to the higher, 養 is nurturing, cultivating. It is said that 供養 a Buddhist monk is an act of "cultivating the blessing/blissful/fortune field": 種福田. It hasn't any depriving meaning in it, although the monk purely received without making any "effort to earn". In the practice of old, the food offered to the monk must be the fresh and best, i.e., the offeror has not even eaten himself; the monk will stand at the door or make a sound with his bowl, max. 3 sounds from the bowl if the offeror doesn't response, he will pass. 
I don't understand how it has been translated into "begging". 
Also, the monk is regarded as one renounced the world, thus he is not supposed to put any more effort in creating the worldly values these incl. fortune, he renounced thus not having personal belonging this renderred him "light" and spent all his life in practicing for liberation. And the offering to nourish the monk from the believer is an act of sharing the merit because with this effort and connection, the monk once reached enlightenment he would 1st help to liberate the offeror. 
On the other hand, Buddha when he was on his way to the Great Retreat he passed a country the king enchanted by his charm for Siddhartha was handsome and princely build, he offered half of his kingdom asking Siddhartha to stay with him. We can also understand the emotion we have when seeing a lovely child we would instinctly offer candies, or anything nice just to make the child smile. Thus a true Buddhist monk should receive the offers from the believer in the same way. 
However, it may not be so in worldly practice; esp. today.      

user16398: Shakyamuni Buddha was a beggar and so were his disciples. Most sutras will talk about going to the village, to beg for food.
What they did is translated as "begging", because that's what they did. The original term they used for it doesn't matter - they would go from door to door, asking for food. In English this is called "begging".
Countless Buddhist texts recommend poverty and praise poverty. Sure, many Buddhist sects and representatives became rich and enjoyed opulence, but it is not different from Christianity. Bishops with emerald rings and golden clothes to represent the way of Jesus is a ridiculous assumption. Of course they are phonies and don't relate to Christ at all. In Buddhism, it is not different. A lay person can be a Buddhist, work for money and enjoy material comfort, but if a Buddhist MONK is doing it, it's most likely just an emerald-ring phony.
Buddhist monks do work sometimes - like the Zen monks. Why?
It should be understood that, as Buddhism became popular and favored by the powers of the time, "not working" went from "being a humble beggar who lives in simplicity" to "being a freeloader who enjoys material comfort on somebody else's back, like an aristocrat". So the Zen sect revolted against that and the monks would grow their own food, work the soil, help other with manual labor and so on.
Note the difference between "not running away from strenuous work" and "seeking fame and fortune with some rewarded activity".
I hope I was helpful.

user254: You ask about "strong affinity in media". You don't say what country/language you're asking about, but might it be viewed though a western/christian perspective?
I think of monks as doing "alms rounds" (because that's the English I've read; as proof, the first page of results for this Google search is all Buddhist monks (or at least it does when I use that search)).
The word "Alms" is described in Wikipedia as follows:


Buddhism
Main article: Dāna
  In Buddhism, alms or almsgiving is the respect given by a lay Buddhist to a Buddhist monk, etc.


Christianity
  The giving of alms is an act of charity toward those less fortunate. In the Apostolic age, Christians were taught that giving alms was an expression of love etc.


So the confusion might come from language, e.g. from using a word like "alms", without necessarily always carefully explaining that the word being used doesn't mean what you think it means.

user9992: This is tradition of past Buddhas how to live on laypeople donation, the future Buddhas will follow this pure path, less effort on living. Because it is not appropriate Buddha will plough his own farm, it is not appropriate Buddha will do trade to get money to buy meals and snacks, it is not appropriate Buddha to deceit people and earn money, it is not appropriate Buddha will do any profession/occupation to earn money. 
In Noble Eightfold Path, Right Livelihood is 
1) begging for meals from laypeople either by walking along the street, stopping in front of each houses sequentially for alms (not money, just something to eat) or going to particular laypeople house where the donor specifically ask the monk to come and have lunch at their premises, 
2) just wearing robe only either donated by laypeople or picking up cloth from death bodies in cemetery/graveyard (in ancient India death bodies are buried in ground and before undertaker to do so, the death bodies are wrapped with new or low quality cloth and people do not like to wear that cloth at all; in Sutta Gautama Buddha wore this kind of cloth after it was washed and tanned properly [need citation here]), 
3) only live under shelter/accommodation donated by laypeople or live under the tree if none available, 
4) ask laypeople for medicine to donate only if the monk suffers illness. 
This makes Buddhist monks simple, less effort and care for living because monk should dedicate only learning Pitaka and meditation. Beggar is not inappropriate word for monks and Buddha but it contains a sense of detesting which Buddhist laypeople usually do not use to call. 
"Buddhism driving people poor" is badly associated view of the above Noble Onefold Path to Buddhist laypeople. It is wrong conclusion drawn by western people who cannot differentiate Buddhist laypeople lives and monk lives. It is unrelated collective assumption on livelihood by westerners who do not understand the correlation between monks and Buddhist laypeople. In Buddhist countries, the monks and laypeople relation is like a pond with bank(high ground around the water to conserve it). Monks are like the pond and laypeople are bank. To keep monk life to survive laypeople needs to donate/offer, otherwise there is no monk at all. So Buddhism laypeople earn money for living theirselves as well as donation/offering to monks. So In Buddhism communities laypeople has to try more for earning. In Pitaka sutras, Buddha encouraged laypeople to earn money (discourses about earning more by mindfulness/awareness) and make rich as long as laypeople do not do Wrong Livelihood for earning. 
Wrong Livelihood 

Trade of arm and weapons
Trade of poison
Human trafficking 
Trade of alcohol, wine and other narcotic drugs or drug that make harm to people consciousness 

So it is false assertion that Buddhism correlates to being poor. Buddha's teachings make monks to live simple and effortless live at the same time laypeople to earn righteous money by Right Livelihood and support monks. It is much more humane than "earn and consume self" idea. It required less self-centered and broad-minded. Even Buddhism Economics cannot agree the idea of "Being poor and being Buddhist". 

user151: The monks are trained to be humble to lessen the stranglehold of ego and the defilments. When the Buddha addresses the monks in the suttas he calls them "Bhikkus" in Pali that means "Beggars" in English. This Isn't derogatory, it's a teaching.

8595: <p>It seems to be a strong affinity in media for monks to be beggars. There doesn't seem to be anything in Buddhism that effectively correlates to being poor, or even using begging for livelihood.  The Noble Eightfold Path even has occupations in one of the folds, and doesn't recommend too much of a constrain to the point of driving people poor.</p>

<p>Specifically, I would put the book <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/302995.Buddha_Boy" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Buddha Boy</a> by Kathe Koja on display, where a Buddhist boy moving into a rather bad neighborhood is picked on at school for his actions, one of which is begging for food during his lunch period.  </p>

<p>In this example, "Buddha Boy" begs for food, however, that doesn't seem like anything I've seen in Buddhist culture. Is this a common misconception, or am I misinformed?</p>
 10304: <p>In Classic Chinese Sutras, the translated word relating to the "offering to the Buddhist monk" is this: 供養, the monk is said to receive 供養 from the "adoring believers": 善信. 供 has the intrinsic value of offering from the lower to the higher, 養 is nurturing, cultivating. It is said that 供養 a Buddhist monk is an act of "cultivating the blessing/blissful/fortune field": 種福田. It hasn't any depriving meaning in it, although the monk purely received without making any "effort to earn". In the practice of old, the food offered to the monk must be the fresh and best, i.e., the offeror has not even eaten himself; the monk will stand at the door or make a sound with his bowl, max. 3 sounds from the bowl if the offeror doesn't response, he will pass. </p>

<p>I don't understand how it has been translated into "begging". </p>

<p>Also, the monk is regarded as one renounced the world, thus he is not supposed to put any more effort in creating the worldly values these incl. fortune, he renounced thus not having personal belonging this renderred him "light" and spent all his life in practicing for liberation. And the offering to nourish the monk from the believer is an act of sharing the merit because with this effort and connection, the monk once reached enlightenment he would 1st help to liberate the offeror. </p>

<p>On the other hand, Buddha when he was on his way to the Great Retreat he passed a country the king enchanted by his charm for Siddhartha was handsome and princely build, he offered half of his kingdom asking Siddhartha to stay with him. We can also understand the emotion we have when seeing a lovely child we would instinctly offer candies, or anything nice just to make the child smile. Thus a true Buddhist monk should receive the offers from the believer in the same way. </p>

<p>However, it may not be so in worldly practice; esp. today.      </p>
 16398: <p>Shakyamuni Buddha was a beggar and so were his disciples. Most sutras will talk about going to the village, to beg for food.</p>

<p>What they did is translated as "begging", because that's what they did. The original term they used for it doesn't matter - they would go from door to door, asking for food. In English this is called "begging".</p>

<p>Countless Buddhist texts recommend poverty and praise poverty. Sure, many Buddhist sects and representatives became rich and enjoyed opulence, but it is not different from Christianity. Bishops with emerald rings and golden clothes to represent the way of Jesus is a ridiculous assumption. Of course they are phonies and don't relate to Christ at all. In Buddhism, it is not different. A lay person can be a Buddhist, work for money and enjoy material comfort, but if a Buddhist MONK is doing it, it's most likely just an emerald-ring phony.</p>

<p>Buddhist monks do work sometimes - like the Zen monks. Why?</p>

<p>It should be understood that, as Buddhism became popular and favored by the powers of the time, "not working" went from "being a humble beggar who lives in simplicity" to "being a freeloader who enjoys material comfort on somebody else's back, like an aristocrat". So the Zen sect revolted against that and the monks would grow their own food, work the soil, help other with manual labor and so on.</p>

<p>Note the difference between "not running away from strenuous work" and "seeking fame and fortune with some rewarded activity".</p>

<p>I hope I was helpful.</p>
 254: <p>You ask about "strong affinity in media". You don't say what country/language you're asking about, but might it be viewed though a western/christian perspective?</p>

<p>I think of monks as doing "alms rounds" (because that's the English I've read; as proof, the first page of results for <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=alms%20round" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this Google search</a> is all Buddhist monks (or at least it does when I use that search)).</p>

<p>The word "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alms" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Alms</a>" is described in Wikipedia as follows:</p>

<ul>
<li><blockquote>
  <p><strong>Buddhism</strong><br>
  <em>Main article: Dāna</em><br>
  In Buddhism, alms or almsgiving is the respect given by a lay Buddhist to a Buddhist monk, etc.</p>
</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>
  <p><strong>Christianity</strong><br>
  The giving of alms is an act of charity toward those less fortunate. In the Apostolic age, Christians were taught that giving alms was an expression of love etc.</p>
</blockquote></li>
</ul>

<p>So the confusion might come from language, e.g. from using a word like "alms", without necessarily always carefully explaining that the word being used doesn't mean what you think it means.</p>
 9992: <p>This is tradition of past Buddhas how to live on laypeople donation, the future Buddhas will follow this pure path, less effort on living. Because it is not appropriate Buddha will plough his own farm, it is not appropriate Buddha will do trade to get money to buy meals and snacks, it is not appropriate Buddha to deceit people and earn money, it is not appropriate Buddha will do any profession/occupation to earn money. </p>

<p>In Noble Eightfold Path, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_Eightfold_Path#Right_livelihood" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Right Livelihood</a> is </p>

<p>1) begging for meals from laypeople either by walking along the street, stopping in front of each houses sequentially for alms (not money, <strong>just something to eat</strong>) or going to particular laypeople house where the donor specifically ask the monk to come and have lunch at their premises, </p>

<p>2) just wearing robe <strong>only</strong> either donated by laypeople or picking up cloth from death bodies in cemetery/graveyard (in ancient India death bodies are buried in ground and before undertaker to do so, the death bodies are wrapped with new or low quality cloth and people do not like to wear that cloth at all; in Sutta Gautama Buddha wore this kind of cloth after it was washed and tanned properly [need citation here]), </p>

<p>3) <strong>only</strong> live under shelter/accommodation donated by laypeople or live under the tree if none available, </p>

<p>4) <strong>ask</strong> laypeople for medicine to donate only if the monk suffers illness. </p>

<p>This makes Buddhist monks simple, less effort and care for living because monk should dedicate only learning Pitaka and meditation. Beggar is not inappropriate word for monks and Buddha but it contains a sense of detesting which Buddhist laypeople usually do not use to call. </p>

<p>"Buddhism driving people poor" is badly associated view of the above Noble Onefold Path to Buddhist laypeople. It is wrong conclusion drawn by western people who cannot differentiate Buddhist laypeople lives and monk lives. It is unrelated collective assumption on livelihood by westerners who do not understand the correlation between monks and Buddhist laypeople. In Buddhist countries, the monks and laypeople relation is like a pond with bank(high ground around the water to conserve it). Monks are like the pond and laypeople are bank. To keep monk life to survive laypeople needs to donate/offer, otherwise there is no monk at all. So Buddhism laypeople earn money for living theirselves as well as donation/offering to monks. So In Buddhism communities laypeople has to try more for earning. In Pitaka sutras, Buddha encouraged laypeople to earn money (discourses about earning more by mindfulness/awareness) and make rich as long as laypeople do not do Wrong Livelihood for earning. </p>

<p>Wrong Livelihood </p>

<ol>
<li>Trade of arm and weapons</li>
<li>Trade of poison</li>
<li>Human trafficking </li>
<li>Trade of alcohol, wine and other narcotic drugs or drug that make harm to people consciousness </li>
</ol>

<p>So it is false assertion that Buddhism correlates to being poor. Buddha's teachings make monks to live simple and effortless live at the same time laypeople to earn righteous money by Right Livelihood and support monks. It is much more humane than "earn and consume self" idea. It required less self-centered and broad-minded. Even <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_economics" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Buddhism Economics</a> cannot agree the idea of "Being poor and being Buddhist". </p>
 151: <p>The monks are trained to be humble to lessen the stranglehold of ego and the defilments. When the Buddha addresses the monks in the suttas he calls them "Bhikkus" in Pali that means "Beggars" in English. This Isn't derogatory, it's a teaching.</p>
